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.
Actually you seem to have a disconnect. I have seen these things in person, the one female was my cousin, she caused a lot of pain in our family. She caused the death of one of her twins thanks to drinking and drugs while preggo. That poor child underwent 3 surgeries in 1 month and died. Both twins were born addicted only one survives and he is not fully right, like part of him is missing. Oh this was her 2nd pregnancy while receiving state benefits.
You have no clue as to what I have personally seen. So do not dismiss the stories as you have no clue and just would like to excuse the bad behaviour of a growing group.
Sounds like you are a person that has been fully brainwashed by feminist groups that feel the female is always right. Or are one of the females that has done this to a man and given them no choice. Sorry to hear that.
Live your life as you wish. I do wish you the best as well as health and happiness as you see fit.
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 post, not the OP (which is the post I quoted) said anything about federal money. This discussion is about child benefits, not about state verses fed. Once everyone agrees on whether we should care for our children, or punish them for their slack parents actions, THEN we can discuss how it's funded.
Try to pay attention, and stay on topic. or at least try to read the posts you're responding to.
Women really are damned it they do, damned if they don't in this .. uh .. argument. Women can't have too many kids, by God ... but conservatives don't want women to have inexpensive, easily accessible birth control, or, even under the most extreme circumstance, a safe abortion. Women should be married, but when the marriage dissolves men aren't held accountable for supporting their children. Women should stay home to take care of their kids, but they shouldn't get income assistance. Women should work to support their kids, but they shouldn't get child care assistance when they find a job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
My position has always been "it is the women who can and should control the situation!" Just say no unless you are confident you have a marriage relationship in which you have the confidence
It's so easy to control whether or not your spouse dies.
It's so easy to control whether or not your spouse comes home one day and says "I don't want to be married anymore" and/or leaves you for next year's model.
It's so easy to control whether or not your spouse drinks, shoots up, or gambles the family income away.
It's so easy to control whether or not your spouse is abusive.
What planet are you people living on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel
I don't want them to have a tougher time than they already would by taking away funding that could support them directly to have a better chance in life (through educational enrichment, extracurricular interests, better nutrition, etc.). An investment in helping a child succeed is a much better investment than an investment in the incarceration/prison system, which is much more out of hand than spending on education in the US.
No matter how much sense this makes, no matter how much it's been proven in practice, people still don't get that it's cheaper to educate a child than to incarcerate him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
Are you saying some relationships fall a part because people can be ugly?
Are you really that naive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
Some of the most beautiful people I know are not attractive to the human eye's first sight. They are beautiful inside as a terrific human being. Surface looks are just a shallow and first attraction. An intelligent person will see the beauty of the real person within.
That's lovely, but you are aware that one person cannot force another person to "see the beauty of the real person"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih2puo
Her body her choice" stop blaming men or society because you can't afford the kid you CHOOSE to give birth to.
Women's rights and all that equality bull****.
Hey, Rip Van Winkle, wake up! It's 2015, not 1915.
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?
Awww. A family value conservative. So, in addition to "small government"; I assume you are also against employers paying for women's birth control AND abortion?
Women and children just can't win with you can they?
You must really hate children. Bec ause, after all, it's their fault if they are born to a single parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by springazure
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?
They don't. OP just wants to punish the women and children. Typical conservative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
My position has always been "it is the women who can and should control the situation!" Just say no unless you are confident you have a marriage relationship in which you have the confidence in the father. If one makes a mistake, do not stay in that situation...get out! But help should come from State level, not Federal.
I hear all this "abusive" stuff. Dammit...don't get involved with some male who abuses. They always show their colors if you take a good look. Yes, once in a while one falls through the cracks, but it is the States that should address such situations.
I realize at this time there is a mess out there as far as morality, responsibility, and all the rest. But, IMHO, bottom line is to get the Federal government totally out of the picture and leave the answers to the States if the individuals cannot take responsibility for themselves.
I have seen so many men's lives totally ruined by "punish the men" laws and attitudes. There are better ways.
Damn. What about the man wearing a condom?
So I see you are ALL about the women taking ALL the responsibility and bearing ALL the childcare burden but we wouldn't DARE want to ruin the men's lives but asking for any small financial or personal contribution.
Do you hate women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou
We need to punish both. First, make welfare like unemployment where there is a limit and people have to take anything. In the case of single parents, after a second child born on welfare you are sterilized. This goes to both parents. We also need to stop glamorizing having kids without being married. It's a sin to have multiple kids with multiple people and instead of accepting it, not allow it. In the case of baby daddies, castrate them and put them to work.
Another small-government convervative. Let's see - mandatory sterilization and castration.
Yep, compassionate conservative. Let me guess - you are also against abortion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Unicorn
Actually you seem to have a disconnect. I have seen these things in person, the one female was my cousin, she caused a lot of pain in our family. She caused the death of one of her twins thanks to drinking and drugs while preggo. That poor child underwent 3 surgeries in 1 month and died. Both twins were born addicted only one survives and he is not fully right, like part of him is missing. Oh this was her 2nd pregnancy while receiving state benefits.
You have no clue as to what I have personally seen. So do not dismiss the stories as you have no clue and just would like to excuse the bad behaviour of a growing group.
Sounds like you are a person that has been fully brainwashed by feminist groups that feel the female is always right. Or are one of the females that has done this to a man and given them no choice. Sorry to hear that.
Live your life as you wish. I do wish you the best as well as health and happiness as you see fit.
We all have stories and experiences. You just can't necessarily extrapolate that to the rest of the ENTIRE WORLD.
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?
Here's a thought: If you feel you must dictate how other people lead their lives, perhaps find another enforcement mechanism than one that leverages whether kids - who have no say in the matter - have enough to eat?
I have a few other thoughts on the character of those who'd suggest something like this, but they're probably against the TOS. The Scarlet Letter was a warning, not a how-to, mmkay?
I think the Federal Government should stay completely out of this issue. This is a States' Rights issue. Each State should deal with the issue as that State's population decides.
IMHO, a huge mistake was made when the Feds' law was passed to give unwed mothers with dependent children welfare and all the free government-paid medical, etc. No one else should be into "forced responsibility" for another person(s) children. I watched the huge jump in numbers of young girls getting pregnant with absolutely no shame, keep those offspring with the "so what, I will get $'s from the government" attitude and we saw "children having children" who where way to young and not capable of raising "children." In addition, in the past pregnant girls were removed from public schools so as not to expose the rest of the students to this (usually very quietly), placed in homes with family or for unwed mothers and the baby was either raised by family or easily placed for adoption in a good home. But when this Federal program came into being it was as though government approved of young girls behaving so irresponsibly and the results have been devastating. That mentality and problem exploded and a huge percentage of those poor kids grew up without a chance in life. So, get rid of this very bad Federal program and let each State handle this problem as is best for that State.
What? Pregnant girls were never 'put in homes' What the heck are you talking about? I grew up in the 60's when abortion was illegal and plenty of girls got pregnant. In 1963 the High School I went to started allowing pregnant girls to attend school. Wealthy girls went away for a 'medical procedure' and came back 2 days later miraculously un-pregnant. Poor girls frequently kept their baby and raised it in her parents home. In other cases the young couple would get married, a few girls went to homes for unwed mothers but that was like 1 out of 20. You have no idea how many girls I went to high school with were pregnant or had a baby by the time they graduated, and this was no 'ghetto' it was an upper middle class area of Northern California.
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.
