40% of babies born to unmarried women !!!

[severus68]

Excuse me? Why is no one arguing against that? “Redefining the family” so that people born “outside” of one don’t feel left out.

I know this poster has been banned, but if it is who I think it is she’ll be back, so I’ll make this clear: I don’t need to “redefine” family to be a part of one. I have a mom, brother, SIL, nieces, and before she died a grandmother. I also have a friend that might as well be my mom’s child, a fiance, and wonderful soon to be in laws. And many “illegitimate” children have the same.

I think a few other people on this site should take note of that too.

I am ignoring him/her. Not worth my time and energy.

 

[severus68]

Just to be clear: the Church does not use that word, as it applies to this discussion.

That Catholics may, well, is a different animal.

I know that, thanks. However, the more vocal and strident some are, the more they say seem to some to be what the Church says.

 

[severus68]

Thankyou BlueEyedLady!!
And to the other “David Thornes” out there, I hope you understand that your harsh sentiments twords babies that God planned (not us) still remain a contributing factor to the abortion crisis here in America. Bravo David Thorne:thumbsup: I hope you’re proud of yourself. As a wise person once said “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

Well said and great quote.

 

[PRmerger]

I know that, thanks. However, the more vocal and strident some are, the more they say seem to some to be what the Church says.

I don’t understand what you’re saying.

The more vocal and strident someone becomes, the more it appears to be consonant with Church teaching, when it’s actually not? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[severus68]

I don’t understand what you’re saying.

The more vocal and strident someone becomes, the more it appears to be consonant with Church teaching, when it’s actually not? Is that what you’re saying?

More like, the more some people believe what they say.

 

[Sam_777]

Are they still doing “virgin tests” on the women in Saudi Arabia?

:dts:A diversion from the main topic!, go open a thread in the Non-Catholic Religions for that.

I notice that people who make mistakes (that they are aware of), they become hyper-aware of what people think of them, even if their perceptions are wrong. They are realizing the consequences of their actions most likely.

The last part of your post is at best a crude personal attack. :tsktsk:

Thanks David…

 

[PRmerger]

More like, the more some people believe what they say.

Ah, yes. True, that.

 

[LightBound]

:dts:A diversion from the main topic!, go open a thread in the Non-Catholic Religions for that.

Thanks David…

You are aware that “David Thorne” was banned?

 

[LightBound]

Thankyou BlueEyedLady!!
And to the other “David Thornes” out there, I hope you understand that your harsh sentiments twords babies that God planned (not us) still remain a contributing factor to the abortion crisis here in America. Bravo David Thorne:thumbsup: I hope you’re proud of yourself. As a wise person once said “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

 

[LightBound]

Excuse me? Why is no one arguing against that? “Redefining the family” so that people born “outside” of one don’t feel left out.

I know this poster has been banned, but if it is who I think it is she’ll be back, so I’ll make this clear: I don’t need to “redefine” family to be a part of one. I have a mom, brother, SIL, nieces, and before she died a grandmother. I also have a friend that might as well be my mom’s child, a fiance, and wonderful soon to be in laws. And many “illegitimate” children have the same.

I think a few other people on this site should take note of that too.

 

[Lightsway]

Well I missed a lot and I’m guessing somethings were deleted too, since someone got banned. Anyways, I know people are thinking I am cruel and heartless and my thoughts have been called vile. Thank you for those christian compliments, but maybe I see more long term than many of you. You have made it clear that you support a social and political state that aid people to have children irresponsibly, and tax those who are responsible which takes away from there ability to have children. What do you think is going to happen. Culture, though not absolute in its transmission, often proceed from parents to child. There are studies that support this especially in this case. The culture of irresponsibility will just keep growing like it has been, and your “loving” response will again be more “love without consequence that discourages birth” and more children will have have a "defect of birth, or be disadvantaged, Familiarly challenged, Patriacharly challenged, Matriarcharly gifted, whatever politically correct word you want me to use as to not hurt your feelings with a perfectly good descriptor of its existence. Its not like I used a much worse descriptor that one of the greatest English Kings had, which I to would find offensive. Yet I digress. The results of this is a society that can not support itself because the makers in the world are taxed to extinction, which than results in austerity measures, that cause riots and violence which is all they people can do because they do not know how to take care of themselves and no jobs. (Greece) You will also have animosity grow in fractions that still have a working class, no, not just me but entire sections of a country talking about succeeding like a province in Spain currently. The other people cant have that because think of the poor starving children, so here comes war to bring that provinces monies back to those who deserve it. Chaos, wars and eventually a large loss of life. These actions will also weaken the county’s defense and know that barbarians are always knocking on the gate.

I hope this makes it clear.  I do not hate single mothers and their offspring, I just do not think they should be celebrated as some wonderful advent in human civilization, that the families support structure should not be necessary and that the break down of the family means nothing because we can take money from other people.   A carrot is not working forty years we have been increasing the number of carrots .  Eventually we will have no one to plant carrots and harvest them just those that deserve them.

Also if I was believer I do think that I am sinning by helping them with support, not just because of the damage they are doing to the future. I am interfering with their dignity as human beings to function and to create items of real value on their own. I would be insulting them treating them like an animal that cant take care of itself whose one purpose is to breed.

 

[Sarcelle]

We as a society just need to be reminded of the basics, and I find myself telling my son this every time he asks me for a baby brother or sister. “First comes Love, then comes Marriage, then comes baby in the baby carriage.” 40% of unmarried women either forgot that, or got it backwards.

I thought that the title of this thread is that 40% of all babies born were born to single women. This does not mean that 40% of single women have babies. One does not imply the other.

 

[Sarcelle]

By the way does the term single mean never married or married but later divorced? Does this mean that the 40% of babies were born to women who were never married or were married but later divorced?

 

[4Squarebaby]

By the way does the term single mean never married or married but later divorced? Does this mean that the 40% of babies were born to women who were never married or were married but later divorced?

It means the mother was not married when she gave birth, I am guessing the numbers are too low to account for mothers married to someone besides the father at the time of the birth but I can never find information on the methodology used. For example I have a niece who got into a shotgun wedding before her first son thus not single, the father pulled out before he was born and with no divorce she is still married but has a daughter with her boyfriend. On the books she is not single but she is not married to the second father… And there are other anomalies which is in the margin of error like false reports of marriage as in the case of my father in law’s "legitimate’ on the books, illegitimate children. Unless the state was to go after him for bigamy instead of forging government certificates

 

[severus68]

I thought that the title of this thread is that 40% of all babies born were born to single women. This does not mean that 40% of single women have babies. One does not imply the other.

Didn’t spot that. Even that 40% as a global figure is rubbish.

 

[silicasandra]

Well I missed a lot and I’m guessing somethings were deleted too, since someone got banned. Anyways, I know people are thinking I am cruel and heartless and my thoughts have been called vile. Thank you for those christian compliments, but maybe I see more long term than many of you. You have made it clear that you support a social and political state that aid people to have children irresponsibly, and tax those who are responsible which takes away from there ability to have children. ** What do you think is going to happen. Culture, though not absolute in its transmission, often proceed from parents to child. There are studies that support this especially in this case. The culture of irresponsibility will just keep growing like it has been, and your “loving” response will again be more “love without consequence that discourages birth” and more children will have have a "defect of birth, or be disadvantaged, Familiarly challenged, Patriacharly challenged, Matriarcharly gifted, whatever politically correct word you want me to use as to not hurt your feelings with a perfectly good descriptor of its existence. Its not like I used a much worse descriptor that one of the greatest English Kings had, which I to would find offensive. Yet I digress. The results of this is a society that can not support itself because the makers in the world are taxed to extinction**, which than results in austerity measures, that cause riots and violence which is all they people can do because they do not know how to take care of themselves and no jobs. (Greece) You will also have animosity grow in fractions that still have a working class, no, not just me but entire sections of a country talking about succeeding like a province in Spain currently. The other people cant have that because think of the poor starving children, so here comes war to bring that provinces monies back to those who deserve it. Chaos, wars and eventually a large loss of life. These actions will also weaken the county’s defense and know that barbarians are always knocking on the gate.

I hope this makes it clear.  I do not hate single mothers and their offspring, I just do not think they should be celebrated as some wonderful advent in human civilization, that the families support structure should not be necessary and that the break down of the family means nothing because we can take money from other people.   A carrot is not working forty years we have been increasing the number of carrots .  Eventually we will have no one to plant carrots and harvest them just those that deserve them.

Also if I was believer I do think that I am sinning by helping them with support, not just because of the damage they are doing to the future. ** I am interfering with their dignity as human beings to function and to create items of real value on their own.** I would be insulting them treating them like an animal that cant take care of itself whose one purpose is to breed.

I asked you to clarify if you meant “support” through taxation or no, which you neglected to do. I have no problem with your distaste for tax-funded social programs, if that’s the only thing you’re talking about.

The problem seems to be that you are conflating private charity, and giving out of the goodness of our own hearts, with mandated handouts by the government, which I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on this thread call for or insist is the standard by which we should aid all single mothers.

If, however, you are truly saying we should not offer any assistance at all to those in need (which, as far as I can tell, is not only my perception but the perception of many others who have read your posts), then your position is unChristian. Simple as that. Jesus did not tell the disciples, “And thou shalt say to the poor, ‘Suck it up, losers’ and refuse them any assistance.” Aiding the poor is actually a recognition of their human dignity, regardless of the circumstances that led to their poverty. We may disagree on the best method to assist single mothers who are struggling, but I don’t think it is possible to maintain that not helping at all, whatsoever, in any circumstance, is a valid Christian approach.

Then again, you claim in this post that not only you are no longer Catholic but not a “believer,” so if you take an atheistic “survival of the fittest” approach to everything…well, fine. I just hope for your sake that you always have the benefit of being one of the “fittest.”

 

[severus68]

I asked you to clarify if you meant “support” through taxation or no, which you neglected to do. I have no problem with your distaste for tax-funded social programs, if that’s the only thing you’re talking about.

The problem seems to be that you are conflating private charity, and giving out of the goodness of our own hearts, with mandated handouts by the government, which I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on this thread call for or insist is the standard by which we should aid all single mothers.

If, however, you are truly saying we should not offer any assistance at all to those in need (which, as far as I can tell, is not only my perception but the perception of many others who have read your posts), then your position is unChristian. Simple as that. Jesus did not tell the disciples, “And thou shalt say to the poor, ‘Suck it up, losers’ and refuse them any assistance.” Aiding the poor is actually a recognition of their human dignity, regardless of the circumstances that led to their poverty. We may disagree on the best method to assist single mothers who are struggling, but I don’t think it is possible to maintain that not helping at all, whatsoever, in any circumstance, is a valid Christian approach.

Then again, you claim in this post that not only you are no longer Catholic but not a “believer,” so if you take an atheistic “survival of the fittest” approach to everything…well, fine. I just hope for your sake that you always have the benefit of being one of the “fittest.”

While I think this is a good post, I have to say that not all atheists believe in the survival of the fiittest.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

While I think this is a good post, I have to say that not all atheists believe in the survival of the fiittest.

Definitely not.

I’m an atheist and I believe very strongly in giving to those less fortunate. Most atheists I know do.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Didn’t spot that. Even that 40% as a global figure is rubbish.

If wiki is to be believed then the rate runs near from 50 to 75% in Latin America. From the 20s to the 40s in the “first world” of Europe and North America. But a low of 5% in China and less then 2 in Japan would keep the overall number down. What ever that number is an easy google search is not producing it.

 

[Lightsway]

I asked you to clarify if you meant “support” through taxation or no, which you neglected to do. I have no problem with your distaste for tax-funded social programs, if that’s the only thing you’re talking about.

The problem seems to be that you are conflating private charity, and giving out of the goodness of our own hearts, with mandated handouts by the government, which I don’t think I’ve seen anyone on this thread call for or insist is the standard by which we should aid all single mothers.

If, however, you are truly saying we should not offer any assistance at all to those in need (which, as far as I can tell, is not only my perception but the perception of many others who have read your posts), then your position is unChristian. Simple as that. Jesus did not tell the disciples, “And thou shalt say to the poor, ‘Suck it up, losers’ and refuse them any assistance.” Aiding the poor is actually a recognition of their human dignity, regardless of the circumstances that led to their poverty. We may disagree on the best method to assist single mothers who are struggling, but I don’t think it is possible to maintain that not helping at all, whatsoever, in any circumstance, is a valid Christian approach.

Then again, you claim in this post that not only you are no longer Catholic but not a “believer,” so if you take an atheistic “survival of the fittest” approach to everything…well, fine. I just hope for your sake that you always have the benefit of being one of the “fittest.”

I have always said and stressed irresponsible behavior, not every single mother. I even stated if they can afford it, it does not bother me. Also I’m not sure you are aware of this, but last time I checked, to have a baby it usually follows sex. Now, I admit I could be wrong these things change all the time. Seriously though, it should not be a surprise when someone gets pregnant, unless you are gay. I will say it again though just in case its not clear I do not think it is right to subsidize irresponsible behavior. Also to keep the child when you know you can not afford is irresponsible and downright selfish.

I have always stated taxation in the past, not private donations.  I do believe in** private **support of those who get into situations that are not expected or because of duty.   Veterans or Police widows, and the physically or mentally challenged/disabled for instance but I do not believe it is moral to support healthy high functioning individuals in there mistakes.  I have a good friend, that is severely physically disabled and is often in pain. I realize the world is not fair but here is woman who would love to work but cant, she has tried and tried to support herself going to school, trying to get a job but she is wheelchair bound, cannot speak normally and it takes her a long time to type.  Yet what is clear from your view point, you think she is on the same level as a person that had all the opportunities and then threw them away on a night of passion.  It does make me made on more than one level.    I'm sorry  I will not give money to a drug addict, and I feel the same way about a single mother.  If it did not go against my libertarian streak so much I would do what the Catholic related organizations use to indirectly support, which they are getting trouble for now, the removal of children from single teenage mothers.  It could be seen as cruel but probably was the best for all parties involved.

Also if you are using terms evolutionary terms like fittest. Please know what they mean. Fitness has to do with the number offspring you produce. Direct Fitness has to do with number of offspring I have. I do not have any offspring so my direct fitness is zero as of now. So I am not even fit. As for indirect fitness which is the reason for altruism by the way, any evolutionary biologist would tell you that, I do not know. I employ mothers and fathers and indirectly support them. Maintaining the genes and aspects that I would like see continue to the next generation. Those single mothers in fact have a higher fitness than me. So please if you are going to make an attack at least know the terms you are trying to use or you will have egg on your face.