Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2009 You're right lug, obviously they wanted to get married........that's probably why.....they didn't. 4/10 women are engaged to be married 2.3 times in their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Your mother sounds like a person I would like, certainly respect. However, in the course of this discussion, the situation is different. You were not born out of wedlock. Tragic circumstance made her a widow. That was different then a woman deciding to have a child/children without a husband on the premises.But how does that strengthen your argument?Are you suggesting that women who choose to be single mothers are more likely to need gov't assistance than those who have their husbands taken from them? What are you trying to say, man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Les_Izzmor Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 RECALIBRATION: More babies=more workers=lower wages=higher profits More workers=more money for Social Security. Especially in 20 some years when I'll need it. Keep those little {censored}ers coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 4/10 women are engaged to be married 2.3 times in their life.1/20 women are pregnant and engaged to fathers whose MySpace pages say they're single and don't want kids ("no way"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Teletypist Posted March 18, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 More workers=more money for Social Security. Especially in 20 some years when I'll need it. Keep those little {censored}ers coming. You GET it!I've forwarded your link to the Obama people.Good Luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Anyone else notice that this article says that abortions are down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 You're right lug, obviously they wanted to get married........that's probably why.....they didn't. As for them actually saying it was being forced on them....I give it 6 months before Levi let's the cat out of the bag. His 15 minutes are up for now, and I bet he'll want another. so.....no source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Teletypist Posted March 18, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 But how does that strengthen your argument? Are you suggesting that women who choose to be single mothers are more likely to need gov't assistance than those who have their husbands taken from them? What are you trying to say, man? UH?Yes?Just wondering, any recent news event that caught your eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kaiser_sosea Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 No, you read that wrong. Mostly, I expect parents to instill some common sense into their children's upbringing. The yuppie generation pretty much passed that option by, just way to much responsibility while they were hunting down a cheap high. And PLEASE don't try to tell us that raising a child on your own is so much better then doing it in a stable family environment. That would just be stupid. I guess the point i am trying to make in so many words, that you don't seem to be picking up, is that just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean there aren't two ready and willing parents there to rear said child. It seems you are assuming, or at least what you have been saying is that children who are born out of wedlock are born to mothers suckling @ the gov't tit with no Father figure and this is just not the case. It happens but it is not the norm, so I'm asking what specifically bothers you about unwed mothers bearing children? If it is just the unwed mothers that rely on social services then I get it but that makes the stats you quoted off because they included ALL children born out of wedlock. Now if you have a problem with all unwed mothers regardless of their personal circumstances that seems silly and frankly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kaiser_sosea Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Anyone else notice that this article says that abortions are down. I did read that and thought it something very positive in the article, too bad the OP is intent on painting ALL unwed mothers with a negative brush.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 so.....no source? Other than them, you know....not getting married and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2009 so.....no source? I'm waiting, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 18, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2009 Other than them, you know.... not getting married and all. Lots of young people think about getting married and don;t go through with it. Still no proof that Mom and Dad and the dear old Party of Family Values put them up to it temporarily to look good for the campaign season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Teletypist Posted March 18, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 I guess the point i am trying to make in so many words, that you don't seem to be picking up, is that just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean there aren't two ready and willing parents there to rear said child. It seems you are assuming, or at least what you have been saying is that children who are born out of wedlock are born to mothers suckling @ the gov't tit with no Father figure and this is just not the case. It happens but it is not the norm, so I'm asking what specifically bothers you about unwed mothers bearing children? If it is just the unwed mothers that rely on social services then I get it but that makes the stats you quoted off because they included ALL children born out of wedlock. Now if you have a problem with all unwed mothers regardless of their personal circumstances that seems silly and frankly stupid. Actually: yes, there will be one parent.Actually: by the numbers, yes.Yes, that would be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kaiser_sosea Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 "Actually: yes, there will be one parent." Actually: read again, there will likely be TWO parents, because someone is UNWED does not mean there will only be ONE parent. You seem to be completely dismissing the fact that many people raise their children without (shock) being married. Peace, love and sunshine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Renfield Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Says the single guy with no dependents, who therefore has far less frame of reference and therefore relevancy in a discussion of this nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Lots of young people think about getting married and don;t go through with it. Still no proof that Mom and Dad and the dear old Party of Family Values put them up to it temporarily to look good for the campaign season. Proof, no. Just evidence. Even once he comes out and tells the world, it will get denied, and there still won't be "proof". Just more evidence. :phil: Can you prove it wasn't forced on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Renfield Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 And PLEASE don't try to tell us that raising a child on your own is so much better then doing it in a stable family environment. Which is worse? Raising a child in an unhealthly home environment where the Father is around, or singly raising one where he isn't? What about 2 lesbians raising a child in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rippin' Robin Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Since when is "unwed" the same as "single, no-income, low socio-economic status"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 What about 2 lesbians raising a child in a state that doesn't allow same sex marriages?Ah, but two gay men on the other hand, they'll get a double dose of male rolemodel and be extra good citizens. You're gonna make his head explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soul-x Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Since when is "unwed" the same as "single, no-income, low socio-economic status"? Since Teletypist took charge at the National Vital Statistics Report. In fact, there are now two categories in the survey: "Wed" and "Welfare Queen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hearafter Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 4 out of 10 Babies born to unwed mothersuse Pepsodent! The one-two punch of Flem's avatar and this statement cracked me up!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Renfield Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Since when is "unwed" the same as "single, no-income, low socio-economic status"? Since teletypist has long lost any point he tried to make and is desperately grasping at straws trying to keep his rightness in the topic. I odn't think anybody is buying it one bit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Teletypist Posted March 18, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Actually: read again, there will likely be TWO parents, because someone is UNWED does not mean there will only be ONE parent. You seem to be completely dismissing the fact that many people raise their children without (shock) being married.Peace, love and sunshine. This is the kind of right-wing crap I really hate. Of course there are two parents. Kinda hard to produce a child with just one. Yes, many people raise a child by themselves. A thousand is many. Ten thousand is very many. A hundred thousand will fill a stadium. What about the other millions? Which world are you living in? I look around me, and the lines at the (free) clinic, and my schools - and all I can say is what dream world are you in? Reproductive responsibility isn't an option only for the paying members of our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Lots of young people think about getting married and don;t go through with it. Still no proof that Mom and Dad and the dear old Party of Family Values put them up to it temporarily to look good for the campaign season. It wasn't done to make them look good, it was done so they wouldn't look bad.Ay, I have no proof. Just 2 eyes, a brain, and some common sense. But hey, Bristol gets pregnant, the father's myspace page says he doesn't want kids (and he's single), her mother joins the Republican ticket, they get engaged (to be married at some unspecified date after high school), the father joins the family at the convention (a day late), then after the election, the engagement is off.I guess it's plausable that the father's heart was in it. It's plausable that OJ didn't kill anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.