Out of wedlock births hit new high in US

2456789

Comments

  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Maybe if we stop calling them nly single moms then the crappy dads would start to actually think they have responsibility for their child.

    I think it's part of the problem...we have chosen to give the women 100% of the rights in regards to fetus and custody of babies in many cases...we have CHOSEN to take men out of the equation...

    No wonder so many jerks run away...

    Don;t think I'm excusing it, I just think we need to do a complete shift.

    im ok with a complete shift, but the only shift i ever see your side talking about it sticking it to the mom even harder.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    soulsinging wrote:
    it's not bullshit cos in most cases the "dad" skips town and leaves the mom high and dry and completely on her own.

    Maybe so, but in my brother's case it was exactly the opposite... He's raised his daughter for 8 years on his own. I have experience with this and I still think it's pathetic. I love him and respect him for the sacrifices he's made, but he CHOSE to make those sacrifices when he chose to have sex. And I still wish for the child's sake that she had the 2 stable, MARRIED parents.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,962
    dunkman1974 wrote:
    most marriages are probably more damaging to a kid these days anyway as when parents fight and argue then they do it front of the kids... its hard to argue with yourself in front of your kids... also most people in marriages probably try and make it "work" when it becomes dysfunctional...


    high and fucking mighty attitudes suck...

    Including your high and mighty attitude...

    Most marriages are probably more damaging...you have to be kidding me!!! If you stop and think for a second you will see just how stupid that sounds...guess what? People that aren't married can have fights with their sig other or boyfriend/girlfriend of the year/month/week/day too!!!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    surferdude wrote:
    That's so much bullshit. Stop pretending you're in class and you have to defend a ridiculous proposition.

    The only disgusting thing about this birth rate is the number of women who purposefully have children without a partner. That shows such narcisim it's outrageous.

    i know you've had some hard knocks here and get emotional on this topic. i do the same when people say addicts are just weak. you got shafted and im sorry for that. but the fact is, by sheer staggering weight of numbers, men in america dont own up for their kids. ive been in jail. everyone was either in for drunkenness or not paying child support. the latter guys didnt seem to care, had the money, and simply didnt feel like they had any obligation to the kid.

    turning your argument on its head... women cant have a kid without a partner. maybe the men should stop sticking their dicks in women if they dont want a child.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,962
    soulsinging wrote:
    im ok with a complete shift, but the only shift i ever see your side talking about it sticking it to the mom even harder.

    My side?

    I'm am pro-sticking it to the mom even harder though. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    dunkman1974 wrote:
    its even more pathetic that morally high and mighty people like yourself view these people as pathetic!!

    there are lots more problems in the world today that need looked at other than scurrilous viewpoints of people on here...

    do you know that these 4 in 10 people arent living in a perfectly stable relationship but maybe arent married?

    most marriages are probably more damaging to a kid these days anyway as when parents fight and argue then they do it front of the kids... its hard to argue with yourself in front of your kids... also most people in marriages probably try and make it "work" when it becomes dysfunctional...


    high and fucking mighty attitudes suck...


    p.s. what if the parents were of same sex, but were married? what would be your moralistic stand on that scenario!?

    Hello Mr. Pot.

    As said, this particular data doesn't specifically imply they are not living together, but we all know there is plenty of data out there that shows that it's true.

    I have a lot of firsthand experience on this topic and from that my opinion is that it is much better for the children to have two loving parents living in the same home as a family unit than otherwise. It's pathetic in my eyes because these people are letting their lust and failure to prepare get in the way of providing the best possible scenario for their children. In my eyes that's extremely selfish and uncaring and that's why I think it's pathetic.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Including your high and mighty attitude...

    Most marriages are probably more damaging...you have to be kidding me!!! If you stop and think for a second you will see just how stupid that sounds...guess what? People that aren't married can have fights with their sig other or boyfriend/girlfriend of the year/month/week/day too!!!!!

    my high and mighty attitude is to let people live as they wish to live and dont fucking involve me church nonsense about being out of wedlock... fuck me.. is this colonnial Williamsburg.. are we going out witch-hunting later?


    ok.. the marriage thing was meant more in sarcasm but i see it didnt work... i'm just saying that i know people who have been single parents and their kids are beautiful human beings... i also know people who have been in marriages that are shit and they argued all the time and their kids are little fuckers...

    dont tar all people with the same brush basically... but one thing i'm not doing is saying that people who have children out of wedlock is pathetic!!! that statement is just moronic and downright archaic
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    dunkman1974 wrote:
    my high and mighty attitude is to let people live as they wish to live and dont fucking involve me church nonsense about being out of wedlock...

    You don't seem to be very open to letting me live thinking that this is pathetic.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    cornnifer wrote:
    It does, however, demonstrate a level of commitment that doesn't NORMALLY exist within the context of a "shacking up" situation.

    Not necessarily... just have to look at divorce rates! What kind of level of commitment is it when you get married and then divorced 6 months, a year or two later? 'Shaking up' is not a commitment - that's just sharing the rent. Couples who have thought things through will have the same level of commitment, whether married or not... Speaking of being married... which ceremony is to be recognised? Not all marriage ceremonies (and therefore public commitments) are recognised.. so what do you do??

    And from the point of view... a child born 'out of wedlock', for statistical purposes, is considered born to 'single' mothers, as you know who the mother is.... Obviously, this changes when the birth is registered and you have both parents names but by then, statistics have already counted the child!
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    know1 wrote:
    Hello Mr. Pot.


    Pol? Cambodia isn't near Scotland...


    American Geography... the best oxymoron there is
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    soulsinging wrote:
    i know you've had some hard knocks here and get emotional on this topic. i do the same when people say addicts are just weak. you got shafted and im sorry for that. but the fact is, by sheer staggering weight of numbers, men in america dont own up for their kids. ive been in jail. everyone was either in for drunkenness or not paying child support. the latter guys didnt seem to care, had the money, and simply didnt feel like they had any obligation to the kid.

    turning your argument on its head... women cant have a kid without a partner. maybe the men should stop sticking their dicks in women if they dont want a child.
    I have to admit that most of my experience is with divorced fathers who want more access and custody. They continually go to court to be more involved, the exact opposite of what you describe.

    As to your second point maybe women should give custody of the child over to the father at birth. Have a birth certificate law where a mother has to name the father on the birth certificate, if sh'es not sure dan testing is done. Then at birth custody of the child is handed over.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    dunkman1974 wrote:
    Pol? Cambodia isn't near Scotland...


    American Geography... the best oxymoron there is

    I was saying that you are the Pot calling me (the kettle) black.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,296
    You are a fool if you do not think it is better to raise a child in a two-parent household than a one parent household. Marriage used to be a good guarantee of a two-parent household, but now over 50% of the time the marraige is a sham and ends in divorce. So, maybe 30 years ago it would be pathetic that so many single women are having babies, but today, it doesn't really matter because more often than not the relationship would just end in divorce.

    I don't want to pay for a single mother's childcare though. So if you don't have the means to care for the child with your own funds, don't have one. You have a choice...
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    know1 wrote:
    In my eyes that's extremely selfish and uncaring and that's why I think it's pathetic.

    i think its selfish and uncaring that under the laws of your religion a murdering rapist can go to heaven but his victim wont.

    thats more pathetic than a 20-something woman having a child out of wedlock...


    obviously i dont want to detract the thread... but my point is there a lot more pathetic things to get your knickers in a twist over
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    cincybearcat wrote:
    My side?

    I'm am pro-sticking it to the mom even harder though. ;)

    the "people need to be more responsible about sex" side. 9 times outta 10, this side is actually saying by the policies they suggest "women need to stop being so slutty and thinking they're allowed to enjoy sex like men do."
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    know1 wrote:
    I was saying that you are the Pot calling me (the kettle) black.


    i know this... do you ever make a joke?
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    dunkman1974 wrote:
    i think its selfish and uncaring that under the laws of your religion a murdering rapist can go to heaven but his victim wont.

    thats more pathetic than a 20-something woman having a child out of wedlock...


    obviously i dont want to detract the thread... but my point is there a lot more pathetic things to get your knickers in a twist over

    It's pathetic to show compassion? The victim can go to heaven as well, but it is their choice.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    surferdude wrote:
    I have to admit that most of my experience is with divorced fathers who want more access and custody. They continually go to court to be more involved, the exact opposite of what you describe.

    As to your second point maybe women should give custody of the child over to the father at birth. Have a birth certificate law where a mother has to name the father on the birth certificate, if sh'es not sure dan testing is done. Then at birth custody of the child is handed over.

    im ok with that. it's a sticky issue. but as i said, my problem is that the people i see advocating responsibility only have plans for forcing women to be accountable and dont seem to give a damn one way or the other what the men do.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    soulsinging wrote:
    the "people need to be more responsible about sex" side. 9 times outta 10, this side is actually saying by the policies they suggest "women need to stop being so slutty and thinking they're allowed to enjoy sex like men do."

    For me it's about the men and women. I hold both equally responsible.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Staceb10
    Staceb10 Posts: 675
    soulsinging wrote:
    the latter guys didnt seem to care, had the money, and simply didnt feel like they had any obligation to the kid.

    maybe the men should stop sticking their dicks in women if they dont want a child.


    Wait a second.. that's such a double standard.. Should the men be obligated to pay for a child they didn't want to have in the first place? What if the man wants the child and the woman has an abortion? What if the woman decides to have the kid and he wants her to have an abortion?


    Maybe women should stop spreading their legs for men if they don't want a child.

Categories