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.
How can a man ejaculate in a woman if she doesn't allow it? Maybe a woman should only allow it if there is a ring on the finger. A woman holds the power when it comes to sex and procreation.
Besides stealthing and rape, there are people that practice withdrawl until the man one-day decides to not. Often times Plan B will fail for several factors, weight being one.
Having a ring on her finger doesn't prevent single-motherhood, divorce happens.
A woman does hold the power when it comes to sex and procreation - but sh*t happens and I'm not here to judge (unless it becomes repetitive).
I think this is actually awesome! Discontinue taxpayer expenses for people who decide to have kids they can't raise, and leave the matter to private charities. Those who wish to support this kind of stuff are perfectly welcome to do so, but the government should not be supporting it.
Contraception cannot be ethically enforced, fair enough. But then paying for somebody else's product of conception cannot be ethically enforced either.
Imagine if this was implemented in the 70's - a lot of members in this forum wouldn't be here or in foster care (often suffering from some trauma).
I think the funds could of been disbursed better (rather than giving cash) - because in reality even with $1,000 most of their issues will remain. A lot of single Moms in poverty barely have a high school diploma. It would make sense to create programs (with childcare included) that provides a path to obtain a GED, enrolling in college and/or learn a trade.
We also can't ignore the fact that these "MEN" are procreating with women and then abandoning their responsibilities, essentially doing the same thing their fathers did to them. Should we sterilize men who do the above? Breaking the cycle?
20% of those who will receiving the funds are undocumented. The restrictions you voiced would backfire. There's immigrants willing to have their child taken away, essentially to become an American citizen in order to have a better life. We would see record numbers.
I hate deadbeat dads. They're an absolute disgrace. But there are 2 sides to the coin. Yes there are people in long term relationships/marriages that don't work, the husband dies etc that end up single moms in. But in a lot (not all to be certain) of those cases the father is in fact still involved provided they are still alive. However a ton of single moms end up that way by having kids with complete deadbeats they barely know, or that anyone with a brain would know isn't father material. Does it excuse the dead beat men? Absolutely not. But it doesn't excuse the women either. If you don't have kids with men you barely know or men who are clearly scum you're far less likely to end up with a dead beat dad for your children. And these women with multiple kids by multiple deadbeats they barely knew are just as bad as the dead beat dads themselves. And then to top it off they want to play the "poor me" routine. I feel bad for the kids not for them.
The topic may certainly be discussed, but I think Seventhfloor was simply pointing out that it's a private organization so at the end of the day, if that statement is true, it is not the government "helping" those people. Without that clarification, comments will mainly be about how it's another governmental handout.
If Apple decides that they want to help single parents by providing them cash, is it really the same discussion as the Federal government or NYS doing so?
Exactly...
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I hate deadbeat dads. They're an absolute disgrace. But there are 2 sides to the coin. Yes there are people in long term relationships/marriages that don't work, the husband dies etc that end up single moms in. But in a lot (not all to be certain) of those cases the father is in fact still involved provided they are still alive. However a ton of single moms end up that way by having kids with complete deadbeats they barely know, or that anyone with a brain would know isn't father material. Does it excuse the dead beat men? Absolutely not. But it doesn't excuse the women either. If you don't have kids with men you barely know or men who are clearly scum you're far less likely to end up with a dead beat dad for your children. And these women with multiple kids by multiple deadbeats they barely knew are just as bad as the dead beat dads themselves. And then to top it off they want to play the "poor me" routine. I feel bad for the kids not for them.
Now, how involved are we talking for the mother to still need government/private funded programs?
The highlighted portion of your comment, I did previously express the same - a few comments up.
I absolutely agree and I would never make excuses for that demographic of women - however I just loathe the fact that people often ignore and don't want to address the "dead beat father" issues that's been happening for generations.
No its not the government directly, it is private entities who “donate” large amounts of money to this fund so that they don't have to pay it in Taxes. Taxes that we the people should benefit from.
Instead they take that Tax money and behind the scenes give it away to women who don't know how to NOT get pregnant.
So no its not directly government funded, its INDIRECTLY GOVERNMENT FUNDED.
No its not the government directly, it is private entities who “donate” large amounts of money to this fund so that they don't have to pay it in Taxes. Taxes that we the people should benefit from.
Instead they take that Tax money and behind the scenes give it away to women who don't know how to NOT get pregnant.
So no its not directly government funded, its INDIRECTLY GOVERNMENT FUNDED.
My mistake.
So your problem lies with our tax system then?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I suppose the problem with sterilizing Men is we'd have the same human rights debates that were had when poor Women we're being sterilized against their will back in the day.
Our options are limited, and unfortunately there's no reliable birth control for Men aside abstinence and condoms. In terms of a reversible vasectomy more research funding is required but that poses ethical concerns as well.
We are caught in between a rock and a hard place. I think the only reliable control end point which dis-incentivizes poor family planning is to take the children away. When the poor Women don't have kids to keep them company they will start being more careful with the Men they let enter them intimately.
I can walk around all day preaching to Men but if there's even one Woman willing to open the door, all of my advice goes out the window. Men are the gate keepers of marriage and Women are the gatekeepers of sex.
Is it a coincidence that perhaps the crime rates went down in the 90s because in the 70s they took kids from poor mothers more often? 20 years is when you'd see the positive or negative impact of a policy towards poor parents.
I suppose the problem with sterilizing Men is we'd have the same human rights debates that were had when poor Women we're being sterilized against their will back in the day.
Our options are limited, and unfortunately there's no reliable birth control for Men aside abstinence and condoms. In terms of a reversible vasectomy more research funding is required but that poses ethical concerns as well.
We are caught in between a rock and a hard place. I think the only reliable control end point which dis-incentivizes poor family planning is to take the children away. When the poor Women don't have kids to keep them company they will start being more careful with the Men they let enter them intimately.
I can walk around all day preaching to Men but if there's even one Woman willing to open the door, all of my advice goes out the window. Men are the gate keepers of marriage and Women are the gatekeepers of sex.
Is it a coincidence that perhaps the crime rates went down in the 90s because in the 70s they took kids from poor mothers more often? 20 years is when you'd see the positive or negative impact of a policy towards poor parents.
I was born in the late 80’s and lived a sheltered life - so this is the first I’m hearing about this. In the 70’s in NYC they took kids from poor mothers? Was it based on being poor or being poor and unable to provide for their basic needs, etc?.
Let's be honest. When it comes to sex, women have all the power. Men will **** anything that moves.
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.
20 years is when you'd see the positive or negative impact of a policy towards poor parents.
