Has the time come to outlaw having bastard children and no-fault divorce

[zsdersw]

I have said that men should not be forced to support independent women. Treating women as equals is exactly the opposite of saying that women cannot be successful on their own. If any things it is liberals who continually push for more programs to protect/help women that think women are incapable of being equal to men.

Yet it is you who wants to make laws that force women to either get/be married or not have a child, thinking that single women are incapable of properly raising/providing for a child.

I have said that children should have 2 married parents. Where did I say women should not be allowed to work?

Do you think women should be allowed to work a job other than that of being a mother and/or housewife? If "yes", why?

I have said that women entering the workforce(and increasing the workforce participation rate) drives down wages and increases unemployment. This is simple Economics 101. Whether or not one thinks women should be in the workforce is irrelevant to affects them entering the workforce has on the economy.

Your premise is 100% false, and you have provided no data to support it. Unemployment and wages have fluctuated for many reasons, none of which are the participation of women in the workforce.

 

[nehalem256]

Would you call taxes slavery? Child support is nothing more then society requiring you to pay for your portion of the cost of having brought a child into the world. Someone must pay it, and society has decided to split the cost between the parents. Sounds fair to me.

The man did not bring the child into the world. The woman did. Her body, her choice, her responsibility.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. They are the MEN's children too. Child support is not about the mother, it is about a child that society needs someone to support. Men need healthcare too, as they need police services, and by your claim they need them 2/3's more often then women.

Please point out what special laws exist to protect men from domestic violence(think VAWA), or to make men subsidize women's health care (think ACA banning gender ratings).

Society (or at least liberals) have decided having a child is entirely up to the woman. Her body, her choice, her responsibility. It seems pretty simple.

 

[nehalem256]

Yet it is you who wants to make laws that force women to either get/be married or not have a child, thinking that single women are incapable of properly raising/providing for a child.

I think men should have to get/be married to have a child too.

Do you think women should be allowed to work a job other than that of being a mother and/or housewife? If "yes", why?

Yes she should be allowed. For some women this is the best choice, although data suggests that a majority of women would prefer to be housewives.

Your premise is 100% false, and you have provided no data to support it. Unemployment and wages have fluctuated for many reasons, none of which are the participation of women in the workforce.

Have you missed liberals complaining about wages falling since the early 1970s. While they like to blame this on Reagonomics, it much closer follow the rise of the workforce participation rate caused by women entering the workforce.

 

[zsdersw]

I think men should have to get/be married to have a child too.

Neither should have to get/be married to have a child. The government has no right to dictate this decision.

Yes she should be allowed. For some women this is the best choice, although data suggests that a majority of women would prefer to be housewives.

I think you're lying, to avoid looking like a misogynist.

Have you missed liberals complaining about wages falling since the early 1970s. While they like to blame this on Reagonomics, it much closer follow the rise of the workforce participation rate caused by women entering the workforce.

Umm, no... it's due to globalization.

 

[actuarial]

So your argument is that women are stupid therefore we should allow them to be single mothers.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense

Real response:
How is it that the only people who can be stupid in the scenario is women? If premarital sex risked jail time, would men also not be stupid for engaging in it?

In addition, based on the argument in the post you quoted, do you believe that anyone who feels abortion is murder is 'stupid'?

Finally, all you've done is once again incorrectly reframe an argument. I have various reasons for why we shouldn't be outlawing 'bastard children' and 'no-fault divorce' and none of them have to do with people being stupid. Pointing out specific reasons why your solution to the problem doesn't improve the thing you're trying to fix doesn't mean that it's the entirety of my argument against what you're proposing.

The response your post deserves:
So your argument is that woman are smart so they aren't capable of determining when they should have children?

 

[nehalem256]

Neither should have to get/be married to have a child. The government has no right to dictate this decision.

It seems clear that having 2 parents is vastly better for children. If you care about children then the government has every right to dictate that decision.

I guess the difference between us is I have no problem restricting the freedom of adults to prevent children from starving, being abused, and being sexually assaulted.

There is simply no reason to choose to be a single parent other than selfishness.

I think you're lying, to avoid looking like a misogynist.

Why? For some, although a minority of women, it is the best choice for them. It seems silly to force a square peg in a round hole doesn't it?

Why would any man want to be married to a woman that he had to force to be housewife?

 

[nehalem256]

Real response:
How is it that the only people who can be stupid in the scenario is women? If premarital sex risked jail time, would men also not be stupid for engaging in it?

I never proposed outlawing premarital sex. I proposed outlawing having bastard children.

In addition, based on the argument in the post you quoted, do you believe that anyone who feels abortion is murder is 'stupid'?

No. They are only stupid if they engage in behavior that is inconsistent with that view.

The response your post deserves:
So your argument is that woman are smart so they aren't capable of determining when they should have children?

I assume you mean "aren't smart so they aren't capable of determining when they should have children?"

Well considering that 53% of mothers need the federal government to help feed their infant...

You do the math.

 

[zsdersw]

It seems clear that having 2 parents is vastly better for children. If you care about children then the government has every right to dictate that decision.

I guess the difference between us is I have no problem restricting the freedom of adults to prevent children from starving, being abused, and being sexually assaulted.

It is not at all clear that having 2 parents, especially ones who are married (as you insist is necessary), is required for children to not starve and to avoid being abused or sexually assaulted.

The solution to child poverty and abuse/sexual abuse doesn't need and shouldn't involve more government and laws.

There is simply no reason to choose to be a single parent other than selfishness.

You don't get to decide that for others.

Why? For some, although a minority of women, it is the best choice for them. It seems silly to force a square peg in a round hole doesn't it?

Why would any man want to be married to a woman that he had to force to be housewife?

I don't know why you think the way you think, but everything you've said about women on this forum says you're someone who thinks women belong in the kitchen or laundry room, and in a separate bed at night next to a husband; you think Leave it to Beaver should be how things were and should remain.

 

[Phanuel]

It appears that his goal is to marginalize all women who refuse to conform to being slaves. I'd say women who seek their rights and independence aren't something he wants to reproduce.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The man did not bring the child into the world. The woman did. Her body, her choice, her responsibility.

They both participated in that, she merely had one more choice then him.

Please point out what special laws exist to protect men from domestic violence(think VAWA), or to make men subsidize women's health care (think ACA banning gender ratings).

The VAWA is wrong, there is no doubt about that, it should never have been gender based (and the one currently being discussed is weirder still). It was pure politics, damn near vote buying. The ACA on the other hand is a much more complex issue, and has a lot to do with healthcare reform in general. It also affects married and/or non-reproducing women just as equally. I'm not sure we can tie any of it to single parenthood enough to have a discussion about it.

Society (or at least liberals) have decided having a child is entirely up to the woman. Her body, her choice, her responsibility. It seems pretty simple.

Where there is a man paying child support, there is a man partially responsible for that child needing support. The law cares not one bit on who made what choices that lead to that child being here, only that there is a child here and it needs support, and there is two people we can point at to support it. That seems pretty simple to me.

 

[nehalem256]

They both participated in that, she merely had one more choice then him.

Sounds like pro-lifers are pro-choice then as well. They just believe she has one less choice than pro-choicers.

Where there is a man paying child support, there is a man partially responsible for that child needing support. The law cares not one bit on who made what choices that lead to that child being here, only that there is a child here and it needs support, and there is two people we can point at to support it. That seems pretty simple to me.

You mean you can find an excuse to make a man a slave to a woman's reproductive choices.

After the man makes a gift of his seed to a woman it is not his fault what she does with it.

If you buy someone a gun as a gift and they use it to commit a crime should you be held responsible as well?

 

[nehalem256]

It is not at all clear that having 2 parents, especially ones who are married (as you insist is necessary), is required for children to not starve and to avoid being abused or sexually assaulted.

If you look at the evidence it is pretty clear it is enormously better for children to have both parents.

Marriage is how societies have worked to make this happen for centuries.

The solution to child poverty and abuse/sexual abuse doesn't need and shouldn't involve more government and laws.

Yeah. I will go out on a limb and say that is the only realistic way to solve it.

You don't get to decide that for others.

Society makes laws to protect children all the time. And note that you didnt even dispute the idea that the only reason to choose to be a single parent is selfishness.

I don't know why you think the way you think, but everything you've said about women on this forum says you're someone who thinks women belong in the kitchen or laundry room, and in a separate bed at night next to a husband; you think Leave it to Beaver should be how things were and should remain.

Have you missed the countless times where I have said then independent women should actually be independent from men?

Why would I even say this if I thought there shouldn't be independent women?

 

[zsdersw]

If you look at the evidence it is pretty clear it is enormously better for children to have both parents.

The evidence doesn't prove that at all. It is not required that the child have 2 parents in its life or that those parents be married.

Marriage is how societies have worked to make this happen for centuries.

No, marriage has historically been about the allocation of property (which included women). It was only recently about children and making supposedly ideal situations.

Yeah. I will go out on a limb and say that is the only realistic way to solve it.

Then you're wrong, 100%. The only way to eliminate social problems is to remove government incentives and coddling. Government shouldn't make choices for you, but it also shouldn't help you if you made a choice that ends up putting you in a bad situation.

Society makes laws to protect children all the time. And note that you didnt even dispute the idea that the only reason to choose to be a single parent is selfishness.

I said you don't get to decide that for others, meaning that you, specifically, don't get to decide what the reasons for being a single parent are.

Yes, society does make laws all the time. That doesn't mean those laws are right or that they're effective.

Have you missed the countless times where I have said then independent women should actually be independent from men?

Why would I even say this if I thought there shouldn't be independent women?

You say a lot of things, but it doesn't change the fact that you're really, deep down, a misogynist and belong in a different time, not 2012.

 

[nehalem256]

No, marriage has historically been about the allocation of property (which included women). It was only recently about children and making supposedly ideal situations.

And why were women considered valuable "property"?

Then you're wrong, 100%. The only way to eliminate social problems is to remove government incentives and coddling. Government shouldn't make choices for you, but it also shouldn't help you if you made a choice that ends up putting you in a bad situation.

So the end result of my plan and presumably your is the same.

The only difference is that in yours children starve to death.

I said you don't get to decide that for others, meaning that you, specifically, don't get to decide what the reasons for being a single parent are.

So again you don't both refuting that any reason to choose to be a single parent is selfish.

You say a lot of things, but it doesn't change the fact that you're really, deep down, a misogynist and belong in a different time, not 2012.

So I say a lot of things that aren't misogynistic, but somehow you know deep down I am one...

 

[zsdersw]

And why were women considered valuable "property"?

I don't know that they were considered "valuable", they were merely property. Even if I assume what you're saying is true (and assume where you're going with it), they wouldn't have considered women valuable because they thought that a 2-parent marriage was required to properly raise children. They just wanted the children, and didn't much care how the children turned out.

So the end result of my plan and presumably your is the same.

The only difference is that in yours children starve to death.

The difference is that society adapts on its own by making better choices inspired not by an act of government or a law but by their own humanity and sense of self-preservation.

Some children will starve, but less than are starving now. Charity can pick up whatever slack is left.

So again you don't both refuting that any reason to choose to be a single parent is selfish.

I'm saying that your opinion is wrong, because you don't get to decide what the reasons for single parenthood are.

So I say a lot of things that aren't misogynistic, but somehow you know deep down I am one...

You say a lot of things that are.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't know that they were considered "valuable", they were merely property. Even if I assume what you're saying is true (and assume where you're going with it), they wouldn't have considered women valuable because they knew that a 2-parent marriage was required to properly raise children.

Society organized itself in away that led to success. This included having 2 parents to raise children.

The difference is that society adapts on its own by making better choices inspired not by an act of government or a law but by their own humanity and sense of self-preservation.

It seems to me more like society has been evolving to embrace out animal instincts and selfishness.

Some children will starve, but less than are starving now. Charity can pick up whatever slack is left.

I don't know any children in the US that are literally starving now, because the government provides bailouts to feed them. So remove government bailouts and more children will starve

I'm saying that your opinion is wrong, because you don't get to decide what the reasons for single parenthood are.

I would think it would be more effective to give a non-selfish reason for being a single parent.

You say a lot of things that are.

You say that, but yet you were reduced to making up things that are in direct contradiction of what I have said to demonstrate that

 

[Incorruptible]

Bastard children are a problem because with single mothers many of them go on welfare which costs the taxpayer more money that is wasted. As well they are much more likely to be involved in crime.

Also the black family has been totally destroyed where there are many single mothers and they go on welfare so there is no need to worry about the father because the government takes that role

 

[zsdersw]

Society organized itself in away that led to success. This included having 2 parents to raise children.

Society also organized itself into slavery at times in various places around the world. Doesn't mean it is necessarily the best or only way forward.

It seems to me more like society has been evolving to embrace out animal instincts and selfishness.

A product of having one of the highest standards of living in the world, but not a sign that some massive new government action is necessary.

I don't know any children in the US that are literally starving now, because the government provides bailouts to feed them. So remove government bailouts and more children will starve

Charity. Part of why charities can't do more is that money is drained by the government via taxes.

I would think it would be more effective to give a non-selfish reason for being a single parent.

Here are a few:

- Not interested in finding a partner
- Financially well-off
- Not able to find a good partner

You say that, but yet you were reduced to making up things that are in direct contradiction of what I have said to demonstrate that

What you've said in this thread to disprove the notion that you're a misogynist is dwarfed by everything you've said in other threads.

 

[Fern]

Does anybody else ever consider the possibility that there may not be more instances of child abuse now than 100 yrs ago (or whenever)? Does anybody else think it may just be that it's more often reported or better tracked now than it was in the past?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Does anybody else ever consider the possibility that there may not be more instances of child abuse now than 100 yrs ago (or whenever)? Does anybody else think it may just be that it's more often reported or better tracked now than it was in the past?

Fern

Yes, I am sure there is something to that. Also the definition has been changed pretty hugely.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sounds like pro-lifers are pro-choice then as well. They just believe she has one less choice than pro-choicers.

Pro-life and Pro-Choice are labels attached to political movements arguing about the morality and legality of that specific choice, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Which is, if there is a child there then it needs supporting.

You mean you can find an excuse to make a man a slave to a woman's reproductive choices.

Back to asking if taxation is slavery. Society cares not at all who made what choices, only that there is a child that needs to be supported.

If you buy someone a gun as a gift and they use it to commit a crime should you be held responsible as well?

If I was holding that gun when it went off, I sure think everyone would agree that I was responsible as well, no matter who wanted to rob the store, even if my friend decided to throw the money back afterwards.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yes, I am sure there is something to that. Also the definition has been changed pretty hugely.

Yeah, the changing definition of child abuse probably plays a massive role in the rise in cases of child abuse. 100 years ago, it was not only socially acceptable to hit your children, corporal punishment was regularly used in schools. Hitting a child simply wasn't viewed as abuse, whereas today it is. Are there actually more children being beaten today than 100 years ago? Probably not.

 

[nehalem256]

Here are a few:

- Not interested in finding a partner
- Financially well-off
- Not able to find a good partner

And which of those is not selfish?

- Not interested in finding a partner

I am too lazy to find a partner so therefore I will deny my child a mother/father

- Financially well-off

I am rich and have all of the material possessions I want so now I will acquire a child to add to my collection of wealth

- Not able to find a good partner

I am lonely, so I will have a child.

 

[nehalem256]

Back to asking if taxation is slavery.

We were discussing child support.

If being forced to support someone else isn't slavery. Then what is?

Society cares not at all who made what choices, only that there is a child that needs to be supported.

If it valued fairness it would care. Of course everything goes out the window when it comes to telling women that there choices might be wrong.

 

[jackstar7]

And which of those is not selfish?

- Not interested in finding a partner

I am too lazy to find a partner so therefore I will deny my child a mother/father

- Financially well-off

I am rich and have all of the material possessions I want so now I will acquire a child to add to my collection of wealth

- Not able to find a good partner

I am lonely, so I will have a child.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1n5CQe1krI