| Children before marriage | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 8 2018, 08:30 AM (156 Views) | |
| Bry89 | Jun 8 2018, 08:30 AM Post #1 |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| JMD | Jun 8 2018, 09:05 AM Post #2 |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 8 2018, 09:12 AM Post #3 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | Jun 8 2018, 09:27 AM Post #4 |
|
Administrator
|
Nothing wrong with having children before marriage. |
![]() |
|
| Bry89 | Jun 8 2018, 09:41 AM Post #5 |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | Jun 8 2018, 09:50 AM Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
If the caretakers know what they’re doing it should be okay. And who are we to stop them from having children? |
![]() |
|
| Bry89 | Jun 8 2018, 10:58 AM Post #7 |
|
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. | |
![]() |
|
| Pliosaurus | Jun 8 2018, 01:15 PM Post #8 |
|
It's up to the people |
![]() |
|
| Kyng | Jun 8 2018, 01:19 PM Post #9 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Ngc1514 | Jun 8 2018, 01:22 PM Post #10 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 8 2018, 03:06 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Which raises the question if the act itself is immoral or rather the acts it tends to correlate with. |
![]() |
|
| earthling | Jun 10 2018, 07:31 AM Post #12 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Ngc1514 | Jun 10 2018, 09:26 AM Post #13 |
|
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. 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.
|
![]() |
|
| earthling | Jun 10 2018, 11:00 AM Post #14 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Ngc1514 | Jun 10 2018, 12:28 PM Post #15 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| earthling | Jun 10 2018, 02:19 PM Post #16 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 11 2018, 11:54 AM Post #17 |
![]()
|
I was not making any moral judgements. I was pointing out what I perceived to be flaws in a certain argument. It is possible for two people to raise a kid without being married. 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.
|
![]() |
|
| Ngc1514 | Jun 11 2018, 04:33 PM Post #18 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 12 2018, 01:08 AM Post #19 |
![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Ngc1514 | Jun 13 2018, 05:27 AM Post #20 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 13 2018, 09:03 AM Post #21 |
![]()
|
So, you are trying to disprove my data by complaining about tax cuts I did not even defend? |
![]() |
|
| Ngc1514 | Jun 13 2018, 04:32 PM Post #22 |
|
Not at all. I am attempting to explain your data to a way that makes sense to me. |
![]() |
|
| earthling | Jun 14 2018, 04:17 AM Post #23 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 14 2018, 07:38 AM Post #24 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| earthling | Jun 14 2018, 11:29 AM Post #25 |
|
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:
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 14 2018, 11:47 AM Post #26 |
![]()
|
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:
|
![]() |
|
| earthling | Jun 14 2018, 01:50 PM Post #27 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Political Discussion · Next Topic » |








4:48 PM Jul 10