Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Children before marriage
Topic Started: Jun 8 2018, 08:30 AM (156 Views)
Bry89
Member Avatar

This can relate to the hot debate of pre-marital sex. Some people have a problem with children being born to this world out of wedlock but some feel that it's nothing, even in this day and age. As of myself who does feel conservative the best of times, I strongly think couples should marry before they think about starting a family. Even my parents had the courage to do it and I made myself known five years after they tied the knot. I should also state that those that have children outside marriage are believed to be "living off the state", as what Judith Sheindlin[1] had said many times and openly hates people that do such a thing.

So, what are all your thoughts on the issue? And, are you willing to state that you were born out of wedlock too?
[1] I'm meaning Judge Judy by the way
Fight, in this world of aggression.
Fight, in this world of deceit.
Fight, in this war of oppression.
Fight, let the killing proceed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JMD
Member Avatar

I agree with you, it makes a lot of sense that a couple should be married first before having children.
Everyone is a genius at one thing and an idiot at another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

So, is the social stigma on the children your main case? It keeps falling and even today, I would like to see evidence of it being high to the point of being unbearable.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jun 8 2018, 09:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
Nothing wrong with having children before marriage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bry89
Member Avatar

Then how do you feel about the trailer trash having them, even the ones that probably weren't taught the morals when they were children?
Fight, in this world of aggression.
Fight, in this world of deceit.
Fight, in this war of oppression.
Fight, let the killing proceed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
If the caretakers know what they’re doing it should be okay. And who are we to stop them from having children?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bry89
Member Avatar

And if they don't, there's always CPS.
Fight, in this world of aggression.
Fight, in this world of deceit.
Fight, in this war of oppression.
Fight, let the killing proceed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pliosaurus

It's up to the people
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyng
Member Avatar

I certainly don't think we should stop people from having children out of wedlock. (I mean, how the heck would we even enforce it? Forced abortions for those who disobey? I'm pretty sure that would be completely unacceptable to anyone socially conservative enough to want "children in marriage only" to begin with!)

But, yeah, I don't think it should be culturally encouraged. I know one of my school friends has a daughter but no longer has a girlfriend: that can't be good for any of the people involved.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ngc1514

40% of US babies were born out of wedlock in 2014 compared to about 7% in 1964. The numbers are highest in many of the European areas where religion is becoming a passing fad and the standard of living is high. It's an interesting trend.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

Kyng
Jun 8 2018, 01:19 PM
But, yeah, I don't think it should be culturally encouraged. I know one of my school friends has a daughter but no longer has a girlfriend: that can't be good for any of the people involved.
Which raises the question if the act itself is immoral or rather the acts it tends to correlate with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
earthling

Raising kids is a two-adult job. Someone has to watch, teach, and love the kids virtually full-time, and someone else has to work to provide for the family. There are various ways of sharing or splitting or trading off those duties, but both are necessary. One person can't do both, and if you don't have both, everyone suffers.

One of the most common causes of poverty in the United States is the unwed mother. If she works, she's not available to love and guide and teach her children; if she doesn't, she won't have the ability to provide for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ngc1514

Jinfengopteryx
Jun 8 2018, 03:06 PM
Kyng
Jun 8 2018, 01:19 PM
But, yeah, I don't think it should be culturally encouraged. I know one of my school friends has a daughter but no longer has a girlfriend: that can't be good for any of the people involved.
Which raises the question if the act itself is immoral or rather the acts it tends to correlate with.
Immoral by what standards? You first have to define the source of your morality before you can start making moral judgements. And then you need to demonstrate that your source is more authoritative than the other guy's source.

This is why we have moved from moral codes based on imaginary gods to commonly accepted laws. Asking if something is against the law is simply answered. Asking if something is moral does not have a yes or no answer. There is no absolute morality.

earthling
Jun 10 2018, 07:31 AM
Raising kids is a two-adult job. Someone has to watch, teach, and love the kids virtually full-time, and someone else has to work to provide for the family. There are various ways of sharing or splitting or trading off those duties, but both are necessary. One person can't do both, and if you don't have both, everyone suffers.

One of the most common causes of poverty in the United States is the unwed mother. If she works, she's not available to love and guide and teach her children; if she doesn't, she won't have the ability to provide for them.
Generalities are, in general, wrong. After a couple bad marriages, my wife raised two daughters, went to medical school, took her residency and had a medical career as a pediatrician. I came into her life when her youngest was 9 and the oldest 16. She was doing just fine when I met her, but I did help with much of the child rearing for the 9 year old. The oldest didn't see any need for me, but we developed a relationship. Did she need me? This is the girl who got a full free ride to Vanderbilt, was given an NSA grant to do her masters degree at the Universitie of Montpelier in France and had another NSA grant for her PhD at Duke.

I think her mother did just fine for the years she raised them as a single parent.

Was it easy? The wife would be the first to admit that it was not, but it CAN be done if one is willing to do the work.
Edited by Ngc1514, Jun 10 2018, 09:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
earthling

Ngc1514
Jun 10 2018, 09:26 AM
earthling
Jun 10 2018, 07:31 AM
Raising kids is a two-adult job. Someone has to watch, teach, and love the kids virtually full-time, and someone else has to work to provide for the family. There are various ways of sharing or splitting or trading off those duties, but both are necessary. One person can't do both, and if you don't have both, everyone suffers.

One of the most common causes of poverty in the United States is the unwed mother. If she works, she's not available to love and guide and teach her children; if she doesn't, she won't have the ability to provide for them.
Generalities are, in general, wrong. After a couple bad marriages, my wife raised two daughters, went to medical school, took her residency and had a medical career as a pediatrician. I came into her life when her youngest was 9 and the oldest 16. She was doing just fine when I met her, but I did help with much of the child rearing for the 9 year old. The oldest didn't see any need for me, but we developed a relationship. Did she need me? This is the girl who got a full free ride to Vanderbilt, was given an NSA grant to do her masters degree at the Universitie of Montpelier in France and had another NSA grant for her PhD at Duke.

I think her mother did just fine for the years she raised them as a single parent.

Was it easy? The wife would be the first to admit that it was not, but it CAN be done if one is willing to do the work.
Are you suggesting that most single moms become pediatricians and their children get full scholarships to Vanderbilt, Montpelier, then Duke? Because I'd think, to put it gently, that that's more the exception than the rule.

In the United States the statistics are very clear that single parents are far more likely to be poor than married parents, and their children, even more so.

Rather than looking at non-poor people and declaring it's possible for a single parent to raise kids without being poor, it makes more sense to look at the people who are poor, and diagnose what got them there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ngc1514

earthling
Jun 10 2018, 11:00 AM
Are you suggesting that most single moms become pediatricians and their children get full scholarships to Vanderbilt, Montpelier, then Duke? Because I'd think, to put it gently, that that's more the exception than the rule.

In the United States the statistics are very clear that single parents are far more likely to be poor than married parents, and their children, even more so.

Rather than looking at non-poor people and declaring it's possible for a single parent to raise kids without being poor, it makes more sense to look at the people who are poor, and diagnose what got them there.
Of course not. She had a few things working for her including being smart enough to graduate from high school, got to a state university where tuition was low enough so she could pay her own way and put herself through medical school.

What’s the old saying about life being tough, but it’s tougher if you’re stupid.

If you drop out of high school,and never learn enough to become self-supporting... you will be poor with or without kids. I know married people who are poor with and without kids. Some never finished high school, some graduated college but with an absolutely useless degree. And a few just ran into problems that were beyond their control. But the latter are a definite minority.

Actions have consequences and it is not just getting pregnant that dooms many to a life of poverty, but a maelstrom of bad choices over a period of time.

We have a woman who cleans our house who was in the no education and unwed mom category. She’s a nice lady, but not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. We chat about how she got along and her story was the classic tale. But, one day, she saw an ad for another woman doing house cleaning and she thought she’d put an ad on Facebook to see if she could get a few jobs. She did and she learned how to do it quickly and efficiently until, now, she can do 3-4 houses a day. While she’ll never be wealthy, she says that with those jobs and a couple new construction cleaning contracts she has with local builders, she’s now grossing close to $100k a year.

Poverty, like most everything else in life, is a choice. I am not one of those “think and grow rich” people, but you can think, work and move out of poverty no matter what your circumstances. If you want to. I suspect most do not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
earthling

Ngc1514
Jun 10 2018, 12:28 PM
earthling
Jun 10 2018, 11:00 AM
Are you suggesting that most single moms become pediatricians and their children get full scholarships to Vanderbilt, Montpelier, then Duke? Because I'd think, to put it gently, that that's more the exception than the rule.

In the United States the statistics are very clear that single parents are far more likely to be poor than married parents, and their children, even more so.

Rather than looking at non-poor people and declaring it's possible for a single parent to raise kids without being poor, it makes more sense to look at the people who are poor, and diagnose what got them there.
Of course not. She had a few things working for her including being smart enough to graduate from high school, got to a state university where tuition was low enough so she could pay her own way and put herself through medical school.

What’s the old saying about life being tough, but it’s tougher if you’re stupid.

If you drop out of high school,and never learn enough to become self-supporting... you will be poor with or without kids. I know married people who are poor with and without kids. Some never finished high school, some graduated college but with an absolutely useless degree. And a few just ran into problems that were beyond their control. But the latter are a definite minority.

Actions have consequences and it is not just getting pregnant that dooms many to a life of poverty, but a maelstrom of bad choices over a period of time.

We have a woman who cleans our house who was in the no education and unwed mom category. She’s a nice lady, but not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. We chat about how she got along and her story was the classic tale. But, one day, she saw an ad for another woman doing house cleaning and she thought she’d put an ad on Facebook to see if she could get a few jobs. She did and she learned how to do it quickly and efficiently until, now, she can do 3-4 houses a day. While she’ll never be wealthy, she says that with those jobs and a couple new construction cleaning contracts she has with local builders, she’s now grossing close to $100k a year.

Poverty, like most everything else in life, is a choice. I am not one of those “think and grow rich” people, but you can think, work and move out of poverty no matter what your circumstances. If you want to. I suspect most do not.
I agree with that--poverty in the United States is, for most people, a choice. Necessarily, paying people money for making those choices encourages new people to make those bad choices.

And you illustrate beautifully why it's so important that we let people alone to start businesses, and do not discourage them with reams of paperwork and permissions--they'd have blocked your unsophisticated cleaning lady's easiest exit from poverty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

Ngc1514
Jun 10 2018, 09:26 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 8 2018, 03:06 PM
Kyng
Jun 8 2018, 01:19 PM
But, yeah, I don't think it should be culturally encouraged. I know one of my school friends has a daughter but no longer has a girlfriend: that can't be good for any of the people involved.
Which raises the question if the act itself is immoral or rather the acts it tends to correlate with.
Immoral by what standards? You first have to define the source of your morality before you can start making moral judgements. And then you need to demonstrate that your source is more authoritative than the other guy's source.

This is why we have moved from moral codes based on imaginary gods to commonly accepted laws. Asking if something is against the law is simply answered. Asking if something is moral does not have a yes or no answer. There is no absolute morality.
I was not making any moral judgements. I was pointing out what I perceived to be flaws in a certain argument.

earthling
Jun 10 2018, 07:31 AM
Raising kids is a two-adult job. Someone has to watch, teach, and love the kids virtually full-time, and someone else has to work to provide for the family. There are various ways of sharing or splitting or trading off those duties, but both are necessary. One person can't do both, and if you don't have both, everyone suffers.

One of the most common causes of poverty in the United States is the unwed mother. If she works, she's not available to love and guide and teach her children; if she doesn't, she won't have the ability to provide for them.
It is possible for two people to raise a kid without being married.
earthling
Jun 10 2018, 02:19 PM
I agree with that--poverty in the United States is, for most people, a choice.
If this was the case, we would expect to find no significant correlation between the income of parents and their children. We do.

Compared to other OECD countries, the US' earnings mobility (i.e. the children's independence from the parent's income) is bad.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jun 11 2018, 12:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ngc1514

Jinfeng - why would you not expect to find correlation between parental and childrens’ income? Many, if not most, of our choices, from religion, politics, interests in life, favorite sports teams and other things are reflected in the parental attitudes and beliefs that are passed down to children. These factors go into the option, consciously or not, to choose poverty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

Ngc1514
Jun 11 2018, 04:33 PM
Jinfeng - why would you not expect to find correlation between parental and childrens’ income? Many, if not most, of our choices, from religion, politics, interests in life, favorite sports teams and other things are reflected in the parental attitudes and beliefs that are passed down to children. These factors go into the option, consciously or not, to choose poverty.
Fair enough, the correlation in and of itself is not evidence for my position. However, my first article had a discussion of the causes of the correlation. One of them was the inability of poor families to afford good education which does not sound like a free choice.

Also, how about the OECD article I've linked? Cultural and genetic factors that explain the correlation between parent and child performance should be constant accross countries, so why do the US perform so much worse than most of the world when it comes to earnings mobility?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ngc1514

Jinfeng - see the discussion questioning whether taxes are theft. No, poor families can not afford to send children to private schools, but, when the education taxes are cut, what are you going to end up with?

Wife’s oldest daughter has a bumper sticker:

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

We are learning that yes, ignorance is expensive. And those expenses continue for the lifetime of the uneducated that are passed on over generational time lines as the value of a basic education becomes a political issue for the tax cutters.

It’s not going to get better.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

So, you are trying to disprove my data by complaining about tax cuts I did not even defend?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ngc1514

Jinfengopteryx
Jun 13 2018, 09:03 AM
So, you are trying to disprove my data by complaining about tax cuts I did not even defend?
Not at all. I am attempting to explain your data to a way that makes sense to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
earthling

Jinfengopteryx
Jun 11 2018, 11:54 AM
earthling
Jun 10 2018, 02:19 PM
I agree with that--poverty in the United States is, for most people, a choice.
If this was the case, we would expect to find no significant correlation between the income of parents and their children. We do.
Absurd! Why would we expect children not to make choices similar to their parents'? To say otherwise is to deny that parents are role models who teach their children by example. Isn't that the main point of parenting?

Your author admits up front that poor kids are:

• Are more likely to drop out of high school, and those who do graduate are less likely to enroll in or graduate college;
• Are more likely to have children at a young age; and
• Are more likely to be poor themselves when they are adults.

In her very next paragraph, your author breezes past that fact and on to a painful and confused attempt to concoct another explanation. Especially telling is the author's passive voice, describing poor kids as "more likely to drop out of high school" and "more likely to have children at a young age," as if those things are accidents falling on unfortunate victims. Those aren't accidents. Those are choices with dramatic economic consequences.

For the most obvious, mechanical and economic reasons, most people who are poor in the United States are poor because they've chosen to drop out of school, have children without getting married, and so forth. I already explained why, obviously, a single person cannot easily raise and care for children at the same time, having to struggle to do something two people can do much better and more comfortably.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

While I've already admitted (see post 19) that this fact is in and of itself not a good argument in favour of my position, the fact that this correlation is stronger in the US than in other places of the world (where cultural factors like your point about role models) is telling.

Also, what evidence do you have that your interpretation of the data is the best one? I see nothing, but mere assertions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
earthling

Jinfengopteryx
Jun 14 2018, 07:38 AM
While I've already admitted (see post 19) that this fact is in and of itself not a good argument in favour of my position, the fact that this correlation is stronger in the US than in other places of the world (where cultural factors like your point about role models) is telling.

Also, what evidence do you have that your interpretation of the data is the best one? I see nothing, but mere assertions.
I thought I was posting mostly obvious logic that a thinking individual would consider, and reach my same conclusion--two people can earn more than one. Two people can share the effort of raising children, and do it more easily than one can. And if one person tries, they have to either sacrifice earning money, or sacrifice spending time teaching and raising good children.

You are correct that I have been posting conclusions without supporting them. But they are the conclusions reached by many groups of widely-differing political perspectives And after studying these issues, they largely agree.

Here's how a progressive think-tank expresses it:
Quote:
 
Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: (1) at least finish high school, (2) get a full-time job and (3) wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.

Consider an example. Today, more than 40 percent of American children, including more than 70 percent of black children and 50 percent of Hispanic children, are born outside marriage. This unprecedented rate of nonmarital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of children will spend part of their childhood—and for a considerable number of these all of their childhood — in a single-parent family. As hard as single parents try to give their children a healthy home environment, children in female-headed families are four or more times as likely as children from married-couple families to live in poverty.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

earthling
Jun 14 2018, 11:29 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 14 2018, 07:38 AM
While I've already admitted (see post 19) that this fact is in and of itself not a good argument in favour of my position, the fact that this correlation is stronger in the US than in other places of the world (where cultural factors like your point about role models) is telling.

Also, what evidence do you have that your interpretation of the data is the best one? I see nothing, but mere assertions.
I thought I was posting mostly obvious logic that a thinking individual would consider, and reach my same conclusion--two people can earn more than one. Two people can share the effort of raising children, and do it more easily than one can. And if one person tries, they have to either sacrifice earning money, or sacrifice spending time teaching and raising good children.

You are correct that I have been posting conclusions without supporting them. But they are the conclusions reached by many groups of widely-differing political perspectives And after studying these issues, they largely agree.

Here's how a progressive think-tank expresses it:
Quote:
 
Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: (1) at least finish high school, (2) get a full-time job and (3) wait until age 21 to get married and have children.

Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class.

Consider an example. Today, more than 40 percent of American children, including more than 70 percent of black children and 50 percent of Hispanic children, are born outside marriage. This unprecedented rate of nonmarital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of children will spend part of their childhood—and for a considerable number of these all of their childhood — in a single-parent family. As hard as single parents try to give their children a healthy home environment, children in female-headed families are four or more times as likely as children from married-couple families to live in poverty.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/


This is not the claim I wanted you to support. I was asking for evidence for your monocausal, cultural explanation of the correlation between the poverty of children and their parents. I know that growing up with a single parent sucks. I also know that it tends to correlate with being born outside of marriage. I even addressed that point above:
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 8 2018, 03:06 PM
Kyng
Jun 8 2018, 01:19 PM
But, yeah, I don't think it should be culturally encouraged. I know one of my school friends has a daughter but no longer has a girlfriend: that can't be good for any of the people involved.
Which raises the question if the act itself is immoral or rather the acts it tends to correlate with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
earthling

Jinfengopteryx
Jun 14 2018, 11:47 AM
This is not the claim I wanted you to support. I was asking for evidence for your monocausal, cultural explanation of the correlation between the poverty of children and their parents.
I think I merely explained how American poverty is mostly the result of making poor choices, and then suggested that children learn from their parents. Is that what you mean by "monocausal, cultural explanation"?

As far as "the correlation between the poverty of children and their parents," it seems obvious that poor people's children are automatically poor, right? After all, children don't usually have jobs or income of their own. They're children. So, if your parent (or parents) are poor, you are too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Political Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Replied