Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if through no fault of your own, people just consider you unattractive (perhaps childbirth ruined your figure) and no one is interested in you?
Are you going to punish people because they can't make anyone marry them?
How do you make someone marry you?
And why would you make a law that would favor the attractive over the unattractive?
Did you ever consider other people lack the advantages that some people have before you propose laws?
I am not really sure what any of what you just said has anything to do with single parenting. Are you saying some relationships fall a part because people can be ugly?
When do the Men get punished? Afterall... they sewd their seed? Right? Why is it always the women and children?
When do the MEN get PUNISHED?
So, what if the wife/girlfriend cheates or cheated on the husband/boyfriend at anytime after the child is born? Should he still stay in that relationship? And if he leaves, should he then be PUNISHED?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
Some of you may have read this thread here where I talked about what I think of single parenting and why it's wrong. Since I summed things up there pretty well I am not going to write it all over again:
The general agreement on that thread was that people agreed with me that single parenting wasn't good but that making it illegal was going too far. Ok, but then I wonder if perhaps this issue could be solved at least in part with another less radical solution: Just abolish child benefits for single parents only.
I don't want to abolish all child benefit because as a conservative I believe in family values and also don't want to punish parents in the event they don't have much money. However, if we made it so that only people who are either married or at least a registered couple could get child benefits, then perhaps people would think twice before deciding to allow another individual to become their child's mother/father.
To insure fairness, if this were done the limitation would only apply to future parents and not parents who are getting benefits already.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Well, for one example, by your (il)logic, a mother widowed when her soldier husband is killed in one of our seemingly endless, unnecessary wars of choice is WRONG!
So no, I couldn't possibly disagree with you any more than I already do.
BTW, WHY would you punish a child who has no control over the number of parents they're being raised by?
Some of you may have read this thread here where I talked about what I think of single parenting and why it's wrong. Since I summed things up there pretty well I am not going to write it all over again:
The general agreement on that thread was that people agreed with me that single parenting wasn't good but that making it illegal was going too far. Ok, but then I wonder if perhaps this issue could be solved at least in part with another less radical solution: Just abolish child benefits for single parents only.
I don't want to abolish all child benefit because as a conservative I believe in family values and also don't want to punish parents in the event they don't have much money. However, if we made it so that only people who are either married or at least a registered couple could get child benefits, then perhaps people would think twice before deciding to allow another individual to become their child's mother/father.
To insure fairness, if this were done the limitation would only apply to future parents and not parents who are getting benefits already.
Thoughts?
What a bunch of rubbish. Your proposing to base a law on the flawed idea that married couples are always more likely to do a better job raising a child than single parents. Statistically, that is probably true, but statistics look at averages. I see MANY married couples that are horrible parents, and I see many single moms and dads who are dedicated parents and raise wonderful kids.
So, according to your post: Two men who are drug users, convicted felons, and unemployed should get government support to raise a child, but a woman who was in a traditional marriage, quit her job to raise her family, but was then widowed by her dedicated husband who lost his life serving our country in the military should be left to fend for herself. This is the problem I have with "conservative values".
(Disclaimer: I am for same sex marriage, and was not trying to make it sound like a bad thing in my comparison. Just trying to use an extreme case of how this idiotic plan from OP does not serve conservative values, or any other good purpose whatsoever. Really REALLY bad idea.)
If there were some way to support the children themselves, while bypassing the financial "reward" given to the parent, I'd be all for that. But it's much easier (and lazier) to administer a public policy that just writes a blank check to the biological parents (I emphasize "biological" more than "parent"), which may or may not actually go to the benefit of the child (or may be spent on booze, piercings, tattoos, subwoofers for the car, etc.).
My solution is that these kids should be adopted by families that 1) want children but cannot have them or for whatever other valid reasons and 2) can provide them with a home, clothes, food and education and all the rest that comes from a good family.
Again, those that fall through the cracks and cannot be adopted, then it is each State's responsibility to handle the situation WITHOUT Federal $'s. I'd be willing to bet that if States had to be responsible for making and handling their own policies in this matter, some really great solutions would come about. $'s being given to an irresponsible parent(s) is a waste of $'s no matter where they come from. Give-away programs do not address or solve the problem. That's just politicians buying votes. Unless the root cause is addressed and resolved we have a mess on our hands. I say "we" meaning the voting citizens who vote for the idiots that foolishly think $'s solve everything.
So, what if the wife/girlfriend cheates or cheated on the husband/boyfriend at anytime after the child is born? Should he still stay in that relationship? And if he leaves, should he then be PUNISHED?
Don't think I would leave a child to be raised by such an immoral parent. Many other arrangements can be made, other than taking free $'s from taxpayers.
What a bunch of rubbish. Your proposing to base a law on the flawed idea that married couples are always more likely to do a better job raising a child than single parents. Statistically, that is probably true, but statistics look at averages. I see MANY married couples that are horrible parents, and I see many single moms and dads who are dedicated parents and raise wonderful kids.
So, according to your post: Two men who are drug users, convicted felons, and unemployed should get government support to raise a child, but a woman who was in a traditional marriage, quit her job to raise her family, but was then widowed by her dedicated husband who lost his life serving our country in the military should be left to fend for herself. This is the problem I have with "conservative values".
(Disclaimer: I am for same sex marriage, and was not trying to make it sound like a bad thing in my comparison. Just trying to use an extreme case of how this idiotic plan from OP does not serve conservative values, or any other good purpose whatsoever. Really REALLY bad idea.)
What is it that you don't seem to get about NO Federal intervention of any kind in this area. Let each State take care of their own policies in this area WITHOUT Federal $'s or intervention! This is not a Constitutional area granted to the Feds. It is a States' Rights issue.
My solution is that these kids should be adopted by families that 1) want children but cannot have them or for whatever other valid reasons and 2) can provide them with a home, clothes, food and education and all the rest that comes from a good family.
Again, those that fall through the cracks and cannot be adopted, then it is each State's responsibility to handle the situation WITHOUT Federal $'s. I'd be willing to bet that if States had to be responsible for making and handling their own policies in this matter, some really great solutions would come about. $'s being given to an irresponsible parent(s) is a waste of $'s no matter where they come from. Give-away programs do not address or solve the problem. That's just politicians buying votes. Unless the root cause is addressed and resolved we have a mess on our hands. I say "we" meaning the voting citizens who vote for the idiots that foolishly think $'s solve everything.
Are you aware that thousands of kids are already stuck in the foster care system waiting for homes that aren't available? Where are you going to find all these perfect, two parent families when they are already in short supply? Or are you suggesting every single woman who is pregnant should be forced to get an abortion if a two parent family ready to adopt can't be located by the end of her first trimester?
Most states already have good sunset programs in place to help get welfare mothers into the working world in 2 or 3 years, even proving job training....that's addressing some of root issues. Federal money or state money, I don't get why you've got your panties in a wad over where the money for these kinds of programs. Either way, you tax dollars will support them.
Whoa.... we keep talking about the woman's choice, what about the man's choice? What about the men who are honest from the get go that they don't want kids, then the woman does everything to cuckold them? Maybe it's time that it's not the woman's version is the only truth..... there is 2 sides to every story, and the truth is usually in the middle.
What about the women that get prego in the first 30 days of being with someone? Disappear then show up 2 years later.....
What about the family member that flat out states she doesn't like working so instead she's going to get pregnant instead? Yup got one of those! Now prego with #2..... Those men didn't know she was LYING about birth control..... the last one she told she had been "fixed" and then suprise!
I was a single mom after my fiance of a year jumped ship, I did not apply for a single program. I did it with help of my family. I did it by working since "daddy" couldn't hold a job and 25 a month doesn't cover ****!
Great for you; want a cookie? Birth control is both peoples responsibility, not just the woman's. Regardless if she was on it, lied, or just went without it's his responsibility to use his own protection. If you don't slap a rain coat on then no one is cuckolding anyone. If a "Man" doesn't want kids then he needs to protect himself. Otherwise one can have little sympathy for him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
