Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:56 PM.
In a free society (such as ours, sort of) people are free to marry, divorce and procreate without interference from the government.
Thing is, there are a lot of people having kids that have no business having kids. Kids need two parent involvement and the best way to be involved is living under the same roof as your children. I don't and it bothers me everyday. I am involved with my children, I see them, i counsel them, I meet their teachers, I take care of them but it still falls short of what it ideally should be. As far as kids of divorced parents go, I think my kids are luckier than most who have absent fathers, parents who use the kids to fight their battles or denigrate the other parent to the children. But like I said, it still falls short what I am doing.
Likely most people would be ok with the way I have conducted myself as a divorced father. But kids have it rough today.
My wife is a kindergarten teacher and she sees first hand the effects of not just divorce but the effects of kids growing up in a home where there is drugs, alcohol abuse, abuse, loose morality, you name it. The little buggers talk at that age.
The school system has to take all kids no matter the problem. More and more learning disabled kids are enrolling each year. I am not just talking about ADD or ADHD here either but extreme cases of problem children.
Last year she had a student who had Prader-Willys syndrome. That is a condition whereby the child's brain does not sense fullness in the stomach so they always want to eat. Other symptoms are mild re ation, sleeping and tantrums. This child was one of the lucky ones because he came from a two parent family that loved him very much and came to school often fighting the district for their son. They fed him only low calorie foods because he would become morbidly obese otherwise.
The loser is really the taxpayers. Because of his special needs, the school district had to hire a full time assistant to work in my wife's classroom and be with this kid all the time.
His condition was no fault of his parents, it was just an unfortunate luck of the draw situation.
On the other hand, there are numerous kids who have problems because they are from a mother who was using drugs while she was pregnant. Or they come from single family homes from women who are completely overwhelmed and don't know how to raise a child (or are being raised by grandparents). Sometimes the mother has remarried and the step father is not the best guy and doesn't care about the kids. Some of the kids have parents in jail.
It is unfortunate that these parents can't be made to understand how big of a deal it is when an unplanned pregnancy happens. I wish there was a way to "compel" some of these folks to use birth control. I don't know how you can do that in a system such as ours.
I know this is off subject regarding no fault divorce but the thread looks like it got sidelined talking about the children anyway.
^^ not terribly coherent, sorry.
We should have them all sterilized. Three generations of imbeciles is enough!
________
WEB SHOWS
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 06:57 PM.
Some say bad parenting, but I say...
You don't have to be blood linked to a child to be forced to pay child support. Living with the child and his family for a certain period is long enough. Don't you guys ever hear of daytime talk shows? THey always cover this dilemna. The Law is screwed up to where the Father has no rights or priveleges when it comes to custody laws. All the custody laws are biased towards women and the so called "sake of the children".
I don't take this forum seriously. I like to diss a lot and act a fool just for giggles. But marriage is a serious topic, atleast to me.
I saw some random poster laugh at my suggestion that "shacking up" as having has no commitment to it. If you consider splitting bills, waking up together, sharing the same soap, and smelling each other's equal to a true commitment like marriage, then your delusional. Not saying that one isn't committed unless their married. But what i'm saying is that marriage comes with more responsibility, more commitment to comprimise since more is a stake, and children. Like it or not. Children are important. THis is no infomercial. Once you have children in a marriage, there is even greater responsibility on behalf of both parties to make it work. I don't care if I get called an ultraconservative. People who just view marriage as a onesided outcome are not fit to be.
.. there are even liberals like Gloria Alred who say the same thing when it comes to children in a marriage. It's not a red state/blue state issue.
If shacking up is truly committmet, why is it that you have the token case of one party only sticking around because of the benifet the other provides instead of true love.
There is that saying that one truly never gets to know someone totally. When you give one person a deal with no commitment on each behalf to stick around, "shacking", you run the risk of that person using you. Many a times the one party just stuck with the other because it benefitted them financially and emotionally. YOu then get the classic case of a man leaving his woman of 8yrs with two kids cuz he "finally" realized he wasn't in love. And you wonder sometimes... one also wonders why we have 45 yr old bachelors still looking for that "special someone".
Nothing in life comes w/o consequences. Believing that shacking up has less consequences than marriage is foolish. It's not morality in so much that it is common sense.
If you get offended. So be it. It's just a forum. Grow balls!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
