| Author |
Message |
    
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10109
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 12:18 pm: | 
|
Do you think ex-wives should get more childsupport dough than babymommas?
I do. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 7070
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 03:52 pm: |
|
It depends.
If the babymama just had the baby, then of course she should just get child support.
If the babymamma lived with the babydaddy she should get some dough based on common law spousal principles.
If the mother was a wife, of course she is entitled to a spousal share of the estate, which a mere babymamma woudln't.
But that is me being rational.
I think anybody dumb enough to get caught up in that should get soaked for every dime the woman can get. His game ain't tight and he got to pay.
Get this--unless the woman is on relief/welfare, the authorities need never know anything about the situation if the Daddy has stepped up to the plate and is already providing.
The only time the women take it to court is if the guy ain't taking care of bizwax--or has moved on to another woman. |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 7368
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 05:09 pm: |
|
Jeez, are poor OOW children 3/5 of a human or something?
Of course not. They ought to be rewarded the same and given the same support, not treated differently just because their mothers chose not to meet society's sexist, racist, middle-classist standards.
Black men shouldn't be bashed or mistreated for being Black and powerless and poor, and neither should Black children who are born to women society abhor. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 7076
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 10:33 am: |
|
Jeez, are poor OOW children 3/5 of a human or something?
(Nobody has said that. He was asking if the babymama should get as much as the ex wife.
In other words, should the baby mama get half his real and personal property, stocks bonds, life insurance and alimony
I say if she has not performed the duties/services of a wife, she should not get paid. |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 7373
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 02:20 pm: |
|
Not exactly sure it's what he meant but it couldn't be clearer that "childsupport dough" is what he said.
Alimony is different; the babymomma most likely can't get alimony since obviously they never tied the knot.
As for life insurance and personal property, ect, ect, I say divvy it up evenly among every last one of the surviving children, regardless of ex-wife status. |
Ferociouskitty
Veteran Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 291
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 04:17 pm: |
|
Tonya, thanks for clarifying. Child support is not based on marital status. In most states, it's based exclusively or almost exclusively on custody (how frequently the children are with each parent, which parent has primary custody) and on parental incomes. Some states factor in stuff like who pays for health insurance and child care cost into the child support calculation. But basically, it's a straight formula.
Alimony is a separate animal. I believe a baby mama could go for palimony, but I'm not familiar with that at all. Here are some popular palimony cases:
* In 1982, famous pianist Liberace was sued for US$113 million in palimony by his partner Scott Thorson. Though most of Thorson's claim was dismissed, he received a US$95,000 settlement.
* Following the death of Rock Hudson in 1985, his partner, Marc Christian, filed a palimony lawsuit against his estate and won.
* Judy Nelson filed a palimony suit against women's tennis star Martina Navratilova after their breakup in 1991.
* In 1996, Van Cliburn was sued by former partner, Thomas Zaremba, for a share of his income and assets following a 17-year relationship ending in 1994. Zaremba's palimony case was dismissed for lack of written agreement, along with claims for emotion distress and that Cliburn subjected him to the fear of AIDS through Cliburn's alleged unprotected liaisons with third parties.[3][4]
* Gay Canadian figure skater, Brian Orser, was sued by a former lover in 1998, outing the star in the process.
* In 2004, comedian Bill Maher was sued for US$9 million by his ex-girlfriend, Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". On May 2, 2005, a California Superior Court judge dismissed the case. |
Carey
Veteran Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 872
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 05:30 pm: |
|
Hello All
If I may continue with the palimony, alimony theme, there are other misunderstood "facts" about shared living.
I heard someone mention Common Law marriages. There are presently only 6 states that will even address the issue or that recognize that term. The guidelines are very strict and they may surprise many.
I know that Iowa is one of the state that will hear a claim and Illinios is not.
Yes, the two individuals that are at the center of the issue must have been cohabitating. But that only DOES NOT constitute A Common Law Marriage.
The next requirement is shared legal matters like Taxes and tax returns. Other such items are shared bank accounts, wills and shared parental duties. Obviously things that would be shared in a traditional marriage.
A big stumbling block is the last one. Remember all the above requirements must be present in order for the union to be declared a common law "marriage".
The two parties or at least the one making the claim has to prove that there was an intent to get married. Not a desire, an intent shared by both. Examples can be wedding plans, annoucements of their plans or shared thoughts with family and friends. This can be sticky because the "plans" do not have to time specific.
The above requirements appears to included because one could assume that the two parties never wanted to be constricted by marrige and therefore should not reap the rewards of it.
The door doesn't always swing both ways.
In our culture it might be said like this.
"Don't come up in here with that mess. You wasn't talking that shit when you had 10 toes up and 10 toes down, 2 naked bootys going round and round, skin touchin' skin, goin' in out out. So shut yo mouth and get yo black ass OUT".
Carey
Carey |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10113
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Yes. I believe children made in marriage are entitled to more than those made via those made via fuckbuddying and post-clubbing motel skeezefests. All of our social science assert that children made and raised in marriage do better and become more productive contributors to our society. And our law and social policy should reflect that. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 7084
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 6 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 01:46 pm: |
|
Yes. I believe children made in marriage are entitled to more than those made via those made via fuckbuddying and post-clubbing motel skeezefests. All of our social science assert that children made and raised in marriage do better and become more productive contributors to our society. And our law and social policy should reflect t
(That is nonsense. What about Jesus? Winston Churchill? Jesse Jackson?
As stated above, the amount of child support is not based on the marital status of mother and father but on need and ability to pay.
You are a mean and heartless prick. That child hasn't done a damn thing wrong but get born. The asshole who didn't see fit to wear a condom while he was screwing is the one who is too stupid to deserve some money.) |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 7086
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - 01:52 pm: |
|
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/9842
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, ABoMination! |
Moonsigns
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 2060
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 05:49 pm: |
|
An ex-wife should always get more money than a 'babysmommas'. Always.
Having a man's baby and having to financially provide for the child, is one thing, but it's a whole bunch of other things to commit your life to a man, manage is home, wash his clothes, cook his food, raise your own biological children (fathered by him, of course), & have sex with him (whenever).
More work (and a lot of fun, too) ;-) = more money. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 3032
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 06:42 pm: |
|
"Child support" is just that--support for the child. The legal status of the child's parents should be neither here nor there.
Having said that, I do think it is time for the definition of "support" to be expanded past a strict financial, dollars and cents one. For example, various activities related to child rearing--direct child care, accompanying children to and from school and other things, washing children's clothes, etc--could be costed out and non-custodial parents should be given "credits" for assisting with these when their financial situation does not allow for actual money.
Also, I think there should be ways to better quantify the kind of occasional help that may not meet the strict financial support requirements. This kind of thing can still be right on time for the mother and child, and keeps the father involved in parenting.
Many, many fathers are already doing these things, but formally recognizing it may go a long way in helping to smooth co-parenting in situations where folks are not together as a couple. |
Carey
Veteran Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 885
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 09:59 pm: |
|
Wow!
I had to go back and look at the orignal question. I didn't know if we were talking about pricks or child support.
It appears many have tried to rope this back in.
It looks as if some have made terrible assumptions. I think Yvette called it in. Just because someone "was" married, does NOT mean they are entitled to MORE support. Look, a wife could have been a WIFE for less time than that of a babies momma that was actually doing wife THANGS. So I think it all goes back to need. The need of the CHILD. Yuckbuddy, duckbuddy, f**kbuddy, highhells buddies *wink*, it makes no difference. |
Ferociouskitty
Veteran Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 309
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Many, many fathers are already doing these things, but formally recognizing it may go a long way in helping to smooth co-parenting in situations where folks are not together as a couple.
Yvette, if you have any resources/articles that address this (or if you are interested in briefly writing something about it...I know, in all your SPARE time), please send them my way. I could use them in a new, related project I'm working on. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 3039
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 03:38 pm: |
|
FK, I'll email ya.  |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10115
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 04:37 pm: |
|
Chris,
I would call you a b*stard but I'd be insulting all of the b*stards in the world.
Yvettep,
Are you proposing some sort of "credits" be earned and exchanged IN LIEU of monetary child support? If so, I'd LOVE to witness you try to slick THAT one by a group of babymommas and your state child support enforcement foks.
Moonsigns,
I would agree with you but I'm afraid of possibly starting a race riot up in hur...up in hur. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 3043
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 04:50 pm: |
|
ABM, again, I think what I am wanting more courts to explore is formalizing what many couples are already doing. A non-resident dad, for instance, will say: Look, I can't give you what the court says I have to. But later this month I'm gonna be working a double shift at just about the time when X is due. So I'll pay that. And in the meantime I'll pick the baby up from your momma's and bring her to the babysitter so you can go on that job interview...
Not sure how it would look in practice, but child "support" can and should be expanded to include all forms of support that children need, not just financial, IMO. I have a much more charitable view of "groups of babymommas" than you do, I guess, because I think many would welcome these kinds of arrangements. And I think that because I know that many of them already do.
Courts and enforcement offices would also, I think, welcome such changes--especially if it could get all these backlogged cases off the dockets or whatever. Right now what courts have been looking into is, for example, increasing state subsidies to make up for the child support portion not being paid by non-residential parents. I think most government folks would love to not have to do any more of that!
I can't remember who said it, but I think t is true: Something like, many low-income men are not dead beat dads, just dead broke. Research has supported that the child support burden on lower income men is greater than the burden on higher income men. But I think I recall that research also show that generally women and children are more financially burdened than non-custodial fathers. Clearly something has to give, at least if we are serious about helping kids. Punitive measures that treat children differently depending on the marital status of their parents is not, IMO, the way to go. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 12395
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 06:32 pm: |
|
Moonsigns' theory doesn't hold up because whatever a wife was doing to keep her man happy in exchange for him providing her with a roof over her head and food on her table and clothes for her body, once he splits, she's not doing it anymore and is therefore not earning his support.
A baby's momma, however, may have been providing the same amount of TLC to a man but not enjoying the luxury of his taking care of her.
In all fairness a man's kids should all be entitled to the same amount of "support". |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 3255
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 - 11:31 am: |
|
”I believe children made in marriage are entitled to more than those made via those made via fuckbuddying and post-clubbing motel skeezefests.”
I can’t support you on this one bro. I cannot see the logic of punishing a child for the irresponsible indiscretions and behavior of the parents. I don’t believe in ordinal ranking of children based on the legal bindings (marriage) of the parents. It’s morally and totally unfair to the child.
”All of our social science assert that children made and raised in marriage do better and become more productive contributors to our society.”
This is true. But regardless, not every child born out of wedlock ends up as a crack head or gang banger just as all children who came from two parent (married) homes live crime and pathological free lives. Two friends I grew up with came from unwed mothers. One went to Princeton and ended up with a PHD in nuclear physics from Cornell. The other ended up getting a Masters Degree in electrical engineering (graduated with honors with a BS in EE!). Extreme cases, yes, but why should they have been treated differently than my friends who came from parents who were married?
”And our law and social policy should reflect that.”
No. I don’t think so.
”In all fairness a man's kids should all be entitled to the same amount of "support".”
I agree. It should be based on the needs of the child not the marital status of the parents. I completely understand and I share bro ABM’s revulsion at the reckless and shameless irresponsible-fhuck-buddy-baby-mama-drama-culture that has trumped traditional marriage in black America. But I cannot see the logic in punishing the child by creating a tier classification of support that is based on marriage of the parents and not the needs of the child.
”That child hasn't done a damn thing wrong but get born. The asshole who didn't see fit to wear a condom while he was screwing is the one who is too stupid to deserve some money.”
Uhhhhhh…..I think ya have a very good point there. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10118
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2008 - 01:29 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
You appear to be operating under the delusion that the babymommas, law, courts and social services foks give a dayam about fathers when ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about how the system really works know that that is so NOT the case.
Fathers are considered to the villain & antagonist and are treated as such. The system WANTS all the backlogs you refer to. Because it DEPENDS on vilifying fathers to justifies why so many foks in the system have jobs and contracts to begin with.
So, respectfully, I don't think there is anyway on the HOT side of Hell your recommendation would ever fly. And it has NOTHING to do with its voracity, fairness, etc. Hell, if anything, your recommendation makes too MUCH sense and is too dayam fair for it to EVER to manifest. |
Troy
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 08:21 am: |
|
Do you think ex-wives should get more childsupport dough than babymommas?
No.
It seems to me that with the majority of our kids living in single parent households and being born out of wedlock that the courts would be overrun with child support cases -- were each one brought to court. I guess people are making due, on their own, for the most part.
...and in this environment I'd image there are plenty of couples -- even married ones where one parent is contributing less than they would be obligated to under under court ordered child support.
So much of what goes into raising a child has little to do with money. Sure you need money, but that is only part of it. Too bad a court can't order love, time, or commitment to a child.
So often claims for child support are just a money grab by golddigging or vindictive women.
It would be nice to think all the child support money went to support the child...
I wonder what would happen if there were no child support laws.
Do you think we would have more more kids born outside of committed relationships or less? |
Moonsigns
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 2061
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 10:24 am: |
|
I know (almost) everyone will disagree with me, but I think granting more child-support to an ex-wife rather than a "babymomma" sends a strong message that people shouldn't be creating babies they cannot properly care for (in every respect) outside of committed marriages. However, too many people want all the benefits of marriage, but act foul as shyt when they're - and their out-of-wedlock children - reap the mess of what was started as "fun". Sex is absolutely fabulous, but it's also a responsibility....especially with the clear understanding 'the act' has the potential to create a human life. And I don't think it's a stretch to expect grown adults to behave in a manner that reflects self-respect, maturity, and self-control regarding their sexual practices.
Because I think it's a shame that children have to suffer for the blatant irresponsibility of their parents (financially and emotionally), this madness needs to stop somewhere, as our society is surely bearing the obvious negative repercussions of fostering a culture that lacks sexual/relational discretion....across the board. So, in my opinion, honoring a system that is proven to be the best enviornment for the average child to be raised, within a healthy marriage, needs to be given all the benefits and not the other way around. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10121
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 11:10 am: |
|
Troy,
I think courts SHOULD mandate parents make certain expressions and gestures of love and care. Non-custodial fathers SHOULD be forced to attend doctor/hospital visits, parent-teacher conferences, etc. Hell, if you can lock a father up for not paying $1,000 child support, why not do the same for his refusing to attend PTA meetings and soccer games? Because as father BOTH know that THAT stuff is often worth a lot MORE to the wellbeing of children than cash.
I believe if there were no child support enforcements, MANY women (though not necessarily the dumb ones) would think triple overtime about allowing herself to become a babymomma.
Use of birth control and abortions would SKYROCKET.
And, maybe, there might be an increase in MARRIAGES amongst Black foks. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10122
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 11:19 am: |
|
Moonsigns,
I catagorically AGREE with: "I think granting more child-support to an ex-wife rather than a "babymomma" sends a strong message that people shouldn't be creating babies they cannot properly care for (in every respect) outside of committed marriages. However, too many people want all the benefits of marriage, but act foul as shyt when they're - and their out-of-wedlock children - reap the mess of what was started as "fun"."
And I'll add I think it's ridiculous to declare that OOW children should receive the same as in-wedlock children when we ALL know it's the MOTHERS of the children who are free to SPEND the money however they see fit to. So by equating the OOW children and in-wedlock children you are, regardless of your intentions, effectively equating ex-wives with babymommas. And that's something we should STOP doing.
A marriage, a wife, is something special and unique for man to pursue and have. What comes of that union should be treated similarly.
And I think it says A LOT about us Black people think of each other, ourselves and children (especially our BOYS/MEN who are being WRECKED by our silly glorification of Black matriarchy) that we're at 70% illegimacy. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 12399
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 11:29 am: |
|
What you are saying in essence, Moonsigns, is that if your parents f u c k up and you are born out of wedlock, then you are "s h i t-out-of-luck".
Now, you are perfectly free to be of this opinion, but to try and pass this attitude off as anything other than self rightousness is a joke. It's like me saying that every pregnant single female should be required to have an abortion.
And it's not as if marriage makes all people discreet and moral, or that all children born within wedlock turn out fine. |
Moonsigns
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 02:21 pm: |
|
Cynique,
I don't consider two adults consenting to sex, knowing what can happen, as just "f u c k ing" up. It's just sheer sexual recklessness, especially if there is no moral, physical or financial support to raise the child. And it's unhealthy to continue to make excuses for people who are irresponsible and visionless. And, yes, because a child who is born to a single parent doesn't get the support they really need, chances are, by their parents choice, they generally are "s h i t-out-of-luck", because statistics prove these children follow the model of their parents. Are there rare exceptions to this rule? Certainly. However, far and few.
I never suggested that marriage makes "all" people discreet and moral, but it's quite interesting - and no coincidence - that since the value placed on marriage and family/family life have declined significantly within our culture over recent decades, our society is surely showing signs of horrific decay. It's undebatable.
And as far as I'm concerned, to suggest that adult males and females practice anything other than discretion when it comes to their sexual practices, is the foundation for self-destruction. Setting a high standard for personal, sexual conduct is not about self-righteousness, it's about self-respect.
btw, I'm absolutely pro-choice. And if I had it my way, the government would be responsible for providing all women (starting at menstration) with free, high-quality reproductive health-care. And I think it's no conincidence that this isn't a part of our health care system, as I think it's a form of keeping people, mainly the poor, oppressed. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 12401
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 04:01 pm: |
|
You are imposing your ethics on other people. Moonie. With black women it's not about devaluing marriage, it's about the shortage of available men to wed. And the problem is not about consenting adults indulging in casual sex. If single healthy young women don't feel the need to embrace celibacy, that's their business. If they enjoy sex and indulge their appetite for it, then the old arguments that attribute this behavior to having low self esteem or no self respect are out of date. I would, however, agree that it is irresponsible to not practice birth control.
The problem that really needs to be addressed is babies having babies. But these young girls aren't overly concerned with getting suppport from their babies' daddies because the welfare system takes up the slack. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10124
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 04:08 pm: |
|
Moonsigns,
I agree with EVERYTHING you said until you got to the very LAST paragraph. Because it is NOT a lack of government support that causes foks to recklessly conceive and procreate. It's willful ignorance, it's their being "visionless" and their NOT being made to bear the full brunt of the effect of their mistakes (because of all the government programs and social engineering) that enables their continuing to do what they're doing. |
Moonsigns
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 07-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 04:59 pm: |
|
I'm not imposing my ethics, Cynique. I'm simply sharing my opinion.
I don't believe that black women, as a whole, devalue marriage; however, a lot of Americans do. And black women - just like every other "race" of women - on some level, fit in there with everyone else. The issue as to why SOME black women don't wed, though relevant, is an entirely different (major) issue, and multi-dimensional. However, if we are to elaborate regarding some of the reasons as to why, I would include single parents (especially women) not having the support of raising an OOW child, regardless of the gender of the child.
This issue is not about single, healthy young women exploring, and enjoying, their sexuality - the keyword being healthy. Women who have self-respect will protect their health, finances, and have enough vision to not create children unless they have a solid marriage commitment. Or, in some unique cases, have a partner who is committed to the process of raising a child despite a possible relational split down the road.
But, this discussion isn't about those types of unique individuals. This is about the average, "fun" phucking folks who think with their vaginas and dycks before they'll think about the potential of the life they could create. And once the issue of adults who are sexually irresponsible is addressed, I think the issue of "babies having babies" might be better handled, as usually, these unfortunate teens are a byproduct of their environment (usually single parent homes) and sex-sells culture(s). The "babies having babies" are generally only modeling what they've seen. |
Moonsigns
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 05:02 pm: |
|
Abm,
I think there are many pieces to the "puzzle", and from what I've experienced in the health field, the government could definitely do more to ensure better quality of service(s) for all women regarding reproductive health. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 12402
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 06:22 pm: |
|
The "issue" is whether or not children should be punished for the sins of their parents, Moonsigns. You cloak your rationale in a lot of moralizing about promiscuity. This is a complicated dilemma but nothing can justify an innocent child being victimized for something over which he had no control. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10127
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 - 10:00 am: |
|
Moonsigns,
Perhaps. But every year BILLIONS of dollars in available government/NFP/charitable social goods/services go UNUSED by foks who are most eligible for and in need of such.
Again, I declare that ignorance, borne largely from the lack of will and incentive (both positive and punitive) to know and do better, is amongst the BIGGEST of problems here. |
Moonsigns
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 2065
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 06:13 pm: |
|
Cynique,
All children deserve child support, and support that goes beyond a monthly check. And just as they deserve to be honored, so does marriage. If our culture is to ever have any sense of wholeness again, it will start with the rebirth of solid family units. There's no other way. That is why marriage, in my opinion, should always have more benefits, including financial, if any given marriage is to split. Wives, in every way, do more work than "babymommas".
And again, suggesting grown adults take responsiblity for their sexual behavior has nothing to do with morality, but everything to do with self-respect....and respect for the potential life they could create. Differed sexual responsibility has, and is, taking a huge toll on our society. |
Moonsigns
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Moonsigns
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 07-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 06:14 pm: |
|
Abm,
For the most part, I think it's clear we pretty much agree on this issue. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 12418
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 07:43 pm: |
|
Well, we can get into a semantic bind when it comes to morality and self respect being mutually exclusive, Moonie. Plus, the family unit has been re-defined. There are different configurations of what constitutes a family nowadays. A stable environment is what a child needs to thrive and marriage does not necessarily provide this. The best we can hope for is that both single and married parents endeavor to provide the best for their children. |
|
Email This Page