Depressing Statistics On Fatherless Children/ Broken Homes

[lostone]

I was one of these kids... If not for my strong mother I could have easily been on the bad side of these statistics...

So sad : http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

[Rambler]

The problem is only going to get worse (if that is even possible). There is absolutely no stigma attached to unwed mothers or to deadbeat dads in modern society. They are told that what they are doing could even be the best thing for the children (usually by other unwed mothers or deadbeat dads). After about 50 years of this type of behavior we can see the devastating results but we are still told by Liberals that all of this is acceptable behavior and society is just "evolving".

What a crock of crap.

[lostone]

The problem is only going to get worse (if that is even possible). There is absolutely no stigma attached to unwed mothers or to deadbeat dads in modern society. They are told that what they are doing could even be the best thing for the children (usually by other unwed mothers or deadbeat dads). After about 50 years of this type of behavior we can see the devastating results but we are still told by Liberals that all of this is acceptable behavior and society is just "evolving".

What a crock of crap.

I was with you till the labels started getting used. I don't think anyone thinks that. Deadbeat dads and moms span both parties. Environment breeds it, which is social economics and no one really wants to hear or solve those problems.

[Rambler]

I was with you till the labels started getting used. I don't think anyone thinks that. Deadbeat dads and moms span both parties. Environment breeds it, which is social economics and no one really wants to hear or solve those problems.

Just let a politician even hint in public about doing something to curb single parenthood and they are labeled as some kind of neanderthal living in the past. Look at what they did to Rick Santorum. Let Mitt Romney bring up social issues such as unwed mothers and single parenthood in the fall election and Liberals will wrap those issues around his neck like hangmans noose. Sure those issues span families on both sides of the political aisle, but if we played word association and the answer was either " Republican" or "Democrat" and I said "Family values", what would your answer be?

[lostone]

Just let a politician even hint in public about doing something to curb single parenthood and they are labeled as some kind of neanderthal living in the past. Look at what they did to Rick Santorum. Let Mitt Romney bring up social issues such as unwed mothers and single parenthood in the fall election and Liberals will wrap those issues around his neck like hangmans noose. Sure those issues span families on both sides of the political aisle, but if we played word association and the answer was either " Republican" or "Democrat" and I said "Family values", what would your answer be?

yeah we have a value problem in America and it deals mostly with only caring about oneself and not the community as a whole. No one really wants to solve the social economic reason why this takes place... We will really just bubble ourselves and gate ourselves in and hope it goes away.

[JayOzOne]

Just let a politician even hint in public about doing something to curb single parenthood and they are labeled as some kind of neanderthal living in the past. Look at what they did to Rick Santorum. Let Mitt Romney bring up social issues such as unwed mothers and single parenthood in the fall election and Liberals will wrap those issues around his neck like hangmans noose. Sure those issues span families on both sides of the political aisle, but if we played word association and the answer was either " Republican" or "Democrat" and I said "Family values", what would your answer be?

[Rambler]

yeah we have a value problem in America and it deals mostly with only caring about oneself and not the community as a whole. No one really wants to solve the social economic reason why this takes place... We will really just bubble ourselves and gate ourselves in and hope it goes away.

You are more conservative than you are willing to admit. That doesn`t mean you are a Republican but I am willing to bet that you are in agreement with Republicans on some issues. Maybe those issues will one day mean more to you than the issues you are in disagreement with them.

[Rambler]

You can probably find more examples than that one if you want. Republicans are far short of holding the moral high ground on social issues, but it cannot be debated that the Republican Party as a whole tries to form a platform that encourages a 2 parent family.

[JayOzOne]

You can probably find more examples than that one if you want. Republicans are far short of holding the moral high ground on social issues, but it cannot be debated that the Republican Party as a whole tries to form a platform that encourages a 2 parent family.

Man, I'm busting your chops. But, now that Mittens is your nominee, we should see a lot more mentions for 5 parent families on the GOP platform. Four moms and a pop beat a welfare mom and deadbeat dad by a lot.

[lostone]

You are more conservative than you are willing to admit. That doesn`t mean you are a Republican but I am willing to bet that you are in agreement with Republicans on some issues. Maybe those issues will one day mean more to you than the issues you are in disagreement with them.

I am either a liberal republican or a conservative democrat depending on the day. I share more with the republican party now than any other time in my life. The problem is that I also have seen the struggle of those who are less fortunate than myself and I just cannot ignore their plight to advance my own interests. I hate welfare, but I know why people are perpetually stuck in situations that keep them there. I care about more than myself and right now (maybe this is the media propaganda ), I feel the republican party wants to make life worse for those we keep boxed away.

[JayOzOne]

I am either a liberal republican or a conservative democrat depending on the day. I share more with the republican party now than any other time in my life. The problem is that I also have seen the struggle of those who are less fortunate than myself and I just cannot ignore their plight to advance my own interests. I hate welfare, but I know why people are perpetually stuck in situations that keep them there. I care about more than myself and right now (maybe this is the media propaganda ), I feel the republican party wants to make life worse for those we keep boxed away.

My problem with labels is that I am more fiscally conservative but more socially liberal/progressive. Who will represent me now that you have to you have to be 100% socially/fiscally conservative or liberal in Washington? That's why a viable third party is needed but will never come into fruition.

[cnasty]

My problem with labels is that I am more fiscally conservative but more socially liberal/progressive. Who will represent me now that you have to you have to be 100% socially/fiscally conservative or liberal in Washington? That's why a viable third party is needed but will never come into fruition.

Well, according to Rush, if you're not fully with them (Repubs), then you are the enemy. So I guess that automatically makes you a Dem (sorry they're the socialists). It's likely that you won't have a candidate that you will be able to identify with. Personally, I've become completely cynical and hate them all. They all lie, they all give the illusion that you have two choices and they all do their best to manipulate you. Ugh, I better stop. I hate politicians and could go on forever.

[cnasty]

.

Edited April 15, 2012 by cnasty

[Forever Julian]

I think women should exercise REALLY careful judgement with whose kid they choose to have.

I use to really hate absentee fathers, then I realized that reproduction laws in America are not equal.

EX:

I could meet a woman, and have sex with her that one night when we both agree its a one night fling. She could get pregnant, have a baby, and put me on child support for the rest of my life in a situation where I have no say in.

Personally this situation above wouldnt be so bad IF she couldnt also just abort a child I might want whenever she wanted to either....thats not equal footing.

I dont thing its a healthy for anybody to try to force a guy into a life of a child he never wanted, with a woman he never intended to be with.

[Rambler]

I think women should exercise REALLY careful judgement with whose kid they choose to have.

I use to really hate absentee fathers, then I realized that reproduction laws in America are not equal.

EX:

I could meet a woman, and have sex with her that one night when we both agree its a one night fling. She could get pregnant, have a baby, and put me on child support for the rest of my life in a situation where I have no say in.

Personally this situation above wouldnt be so bad IF she couldnt also just abort a child I might want whenever she wanted to either....thats not equal footing.

I dont thing its a healthy for anybody to try to force a guy into a life of a child he never wanted, with a woman he never intended to be with.

There is no perfect answer Jules, but if there is little fear associated with behavior that could have catastrophic results, whats the incentive to not engage in risky behavior? Public humiliation has always served as the best incentive to do right and we have completely lost that tool. If you were to let deadbeat dads off the hook just think of how many guys out there would have 8 kids by 8 different women and who would pick up the tab for those kids?

[Forever Julian]

There is no perfect answer Jules, but if there is little fear associated with behavior that could have catastrophic results, whats the incentive to not engage in risky behavior? Public humiliation has always served as the best incentive to do right and we have completely lost that tool. If you were to let deadbeat dads off the hook just think of how many guys out there would have 8 kids by 8 different women and who would pick up the tab for those kids?

There is plenty incentive today in the form of STDs and STIs.

I also dont think not potentially harming a kid more by forcing a guy who wants nothing to do with him in his life is not letting the man off the hook. Being a father should be a privilege, not a right. You dont want your child? Then fuk off.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Forever Julian

[Rambler]

There is plenty incentive today in the form of STDs and STIs.

I also dont think not potentially harming a kid more by forcing a guy who wants nothing to do with him in his life is not letting the man off the hook. Being a father should be a privilege, not a right. You dont want your child? Then fuk off.

You know as well as I do that the problem is much more complicated than that. Its too easy to walk away from a woman and your kid(s) these days without making a serious commitment to make things work. If you dont want to spend the next 18 years forking over child support to a woman you cant stand or a kid you dont want to know either keep it in your pants or wrap it up. Run through either one of those stops signs and I got no sympathy for you, its time to pay up.

[Forever Julian]

You know as well as I do that the problem is much more complicated than that. Its too easy to walk away from a woman and your kid(s) these days without making a serious commitment to make things work. If you dont want to spend the next 18 years forking over child support to a woman you cant stand or a kid you dont want to know either keep it in your pants or wrap it up. Run through either one of those stops signs and I got no sympathy for you, its time to pay up.

Thats where the womans responsibility comes in.

She controls reproduction rights. If the guy is a lame who is starting to flake, then it is HER responsibility to terminate that pregnancy right then and there.

[JDaveG]

Thats where the womans responsibility comes in.

She controls reproduction rights. If the guy is a lame who is starting to flake, then it is HER responsibility to terminate that pregnancy right then and there.

I was sort of with you initially, but this is just crazy.

The fact is there is a one-sided nature to reproductive laws in this country, but at the end of the day you would punish the child to avoid benefiting the mother so the man can have unfettered sexual contact with no consequence. That's not evening the playing field. That's just putting the onus on the woman. In other words, it subjugates her to the whim of the man.

It's ironic that people who are pro choice view abortion as a liberating right and yet you have made it essentially a tool of enslavement. Either raise the child yourself (so the man gets off the hook) or kill it (ditto). What if she wants to keep the child -- why should the man bear no responsibility and she bear all the responsibility? More to the point, why should the child be killed to suit the man's whims?

[Rambler]

I was sort of with you initially, but this is just crazy.

The fact is there is a one-sided nature to reproductive laws in this country, but at the end of the day you would punish the child to avoid benefiting the mother so the man can have unfettered sexual contact with no consequence. That's not evening the playing field. That's just putting the onus on the woman. In other words, it subjugates her to the whim of the man.

It's ironic that people who are pro choice view abortion as a liberating right and yet you have made it essentially a tool of enslavement. Either raise the child yourself (so the man gets off the hook) or kill it (ditto). What if she wants to keep the child -- why should the man bear no responsibility and she bear all the responsibility? More to the point, why should the child be killed to suit the man's whims?

Thats what I meant to say.

[Forever Julian]

I was sort of with you initially, but this is just crazy.

The fact is there is a one-sided nature to reproductive laws in this country, but at the end of the day you would punish the child to avoid benefiting the mother so the man can have unfettered sexual contact with no consequence. That's not evening the playing field. That's just putting the onus on the woman. In other words, it subjugates her to the whim of the man.

It's ironic that people who are pro choice view abortion as a liberating right and yet you have made it essentially a tool of enslavement. Either raise the child yourself (so the man gets off the hook) or kill it (ditto). What if she wants to keep the child -- why should the man bear no responsibility and she bear all the responsibility? More to the point, why should the child be killed to suit the man's whims?

If she wants to keep the child and the man doesnt why should he be forced to be on the hook? That point is just a one-sided as mine.

She has the majority of the responsibility because in the end it is ultimately HER decision if the child is born or not.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Forever Julian

[JDaveG]

If she wants to keep the child and the man doesnt why should he be forced to be on the hook? That point is just a one-sided as mine.

She has the majority of the responsibility because in the end it is ultimately HER decision if the child is born or not.

So fix the latter problem instead of making the child pay for it.

[Forever Julian]

So fix the latter problem instead of making the child pay for it.

The child is going to pay regardless.....Sadly the world will never be fair.

Either they grow up knowing they are nothing more than an intrusive government forced inconvenience to their father, or it never happens.

[JDaveG]

The child is going to pay regardless.....Sadly the world will never be fair.

Either they grow up knowing they are nothing more than an intrusive government forced inconvenience to their father, or it never happens.

Yes, I'd hate for the father to be inconvenienced when we can just kill children and financially enslave mothers instead.

Two people in your scenario had a choice before copulation. Your solution is to make only one of them live with the consequences of that choice. Either (in the best case) the mother or (in the worst case) the child. But never the father. Why is that?

[Forever Julian]

Yes, I'd hate for the father to be inconvenienced when we can just kill children and financially enslave mothers instead.

Two people in your scenario had a choice before copulation. Your solution is to make only one of them live with the consequences of that choice. Either (in the best case) the mother or (in the worst case) the child. But never the father. Why is that?

This is being ingenious. With modern medicine and precautionary measures like condoms it is a lie to say the act of sex is being used just to create a kid in a vast majority of the cases.

It is HER body. She can say she does not want the kid and kill it without ANY say from the father. If we can not give the man a say in the life being brought into this world, then we should not keep him on the hook when he does not want(nor intended) to be a part of it. You can not give her complete reproductive powers, and then try to hold both accountable on the same level. It makes no sense like that.