NYT Article on "Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

Stop.

So gross.

You don't even know what schizophrenia is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

. . . some of us do recognize what is beneficial for society and that is: to get married before having sex. Then, any subsequent babies will be raised in a two-parent household, which yields statistically stronger outcomes for all children across all metrics.
But, since this viewpoint has been dismissed long ago as antiquated and unrealistic, despite its societal benefits, we reap what we sow.

Well put. And generally the gist of the NYT article.

Question is: why is there such resistance to the acceptance of this simple fact?

Where is this resistance coming from?

Who is pushing alternative narratives, and most importantly,

Why?

It's not the "gist." You can have two parent households and rearing without a marriage. I know people doing it and doing it successfully. XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

I will assume you understand that anecdotal evidence is different from statistical evidence.
But in case others do not understand this…here is how that works:
If your “lived experience” or “observed anecdotes” fall outside of a statistical norm, that is called an outlier. And when that happens, it doesn’t mean that what you’re observed or experienced isn’t valid or true. It just means that it is not the case for MOST circumstances or in enough circumstances to move the needle on the statistical result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rape thing is rhetorical but effective.

A person who doesn't support abortion for rape is a monster. Forcing a woman to incubate her rapist's baby is unthinkably cruel.

A person who does support such an abortion is a hypocrite. If abortion is murder, it doesn't matter how God's little unborn angel was conceived.

The point is—those who are pro-life do view the killing of an unborn child as murder.
AND they also view rape as horrific.

But they would someone who views abortion as murder suddenly not see it that way when it is presented as a solution to a tragic circumstance?? It’s still murder to them.

And that is why pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates will never see eye to eye on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society already ioverwhelmingly favors two-parent families in literally everything. That’s why it’s so hard to be a single parent, duh.

If its so hard, why is there a rise in single parenthood? Seems like you agree with tge author that this isn’t a good thing.

NP. There's not really a rise in single parenting. The percentage of kids in single parent households has been stable since the '90s.

But much higher than the 70s. Is this good or bad?

Kids born in the 70s were so neglected they were practically feral.

Do you always try to argue without facts?

I lived through it and she’s not wrong.

Yeah, me too. In a neighborhood full of 70s kids and most of our mothers didn't work and we certainly not feral.

Haha, in my neighborhood the mothers often didn't work, but they sure as hell weren't monitoring the kids. "Get out of the house and don't come back until the sun goes down" was a thing in our neighborhood.

And kids were happier, more independent, less prone to depression and suicide than kids today who are hanging out with TikTok after school killing themselves attempting the next challenge. Why are kids so depressed and miserable now?

Kurt "Voice of a Generation" Cobain would like a word.

Oops! Should PP have clarified that they were referring to those kids who were not strong out on drugs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rape thing is rhetorical but effective.

A person who doesn't support abortion for rape is a monster. Forcing a woman to incubate her rapist's baby is unthinkably cruel.

A person who does support such an abortion is a hypocrite. If abortion is murder, it doesn't matter how God's little unborn angel was conceived.

Abortion is killing (that is literally the point), not murder. IMO a fetus doesn’t have personhood, and personhood is required for murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rape thing is rhetorical but effective.

A person who doesn't support abortion for rape is a monster. Forcing a woman to incubate her rapist's baby is unthinkably cruel.

A person who does support such an abortion is a hypocrite. If abortion is murder, it doesn't matter how God's little unborn angel was conceived.

Abortion is killing (that is literally the point), not murder. IMO a fetus doesn’t have personhood, and personhood is required for murder.

I agree. But the people who want to limit a woman's reproductive rights have to do it under the rhetoric of abortion being murder. Any nuance on this point, and they are cooked.

And, by and large, opposition to abortion is a political ploy -- not some kind of a foundational truth. For non-Catholics, opposition to abortion is a more recent development than the Happy Meal. Catholics have opposed abortion for a couple hundred years. (Early on, I think they were o.k. with it prior to "the quickening" which is decently well correlated with the first trimester.) Protestants didn't discover that abortion was murder until sometime in the early 70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rape thing is rhetorical but effective.

A person who doesn't support abortion for rape is a monster. Forcing a woman to incubate her rapist's baby is unthinkably cruel.

A person who does support such an abortion is a hypocrite. If abortion is murder, it doesn't matter how God's little unborn angel was conceived.

Abortion is killing (that is literally the point), not murder. IMO a fetus doesn’t have personhood, and personhood is required for murder.

I agree. But the people who want to limit a woman's reproductive rights have to do it under the rhetoric of abortion being murder. Any nuance on this point, and they are cooked.

And, by and large, opposition to abortion is a political ploy -- not some kind of a foundational truth. For non-Catholics, opposition to abortion is a more recent development than the Happy Meal. Catholics have opposed abortion for a couple hundred years. (Early on, I think they were o.k. with it prior to "the quickening" which is decently well correlated with the first trimester.) Protestants didn't discover that abortion was murder until sometime in the early 70s.

First off the early 70s is most or all of our lives for most people on DCUM so not sure what the point is on that.

Second, abortion wasn’t legal prior to that, so there wasn’t really a point to Protestants taking a widespread stance on it other than the general moral view of “don’t do illegal things.”

And third, due to social mores, there were far fewer women having babies out of wedlock for several reasons that resulted in far fewer abortions. A—no birth control pill meant chances of getting pregnant when having sex was far greater…so more people waited to have sex until after they were married because there was a stigma attached to being an unwed mother such that if you got pregnant you got married.
B—people got married much younger bc whi wants to wait that long for sex, and then if you got pregnant the odds of wanting to abort the baby in the first place was nearly non existent.

Just a different time.

But pretty sure Protestants, like Catholics, were never waiving that pro-abortion flag even pre-1970….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

. . . some of us do recognize what is beneficial for society and that is: to get married before having sex. Then, any subsequent babies will be raised in a two-parent household, which yields statistically stronger outcomes for all children across all metrics.
But, since this viewpoint has been dismissed long ago as antiquated and unrealistic, despite its societal benefits, we reap what we sow.

Well put. And generally the gist of the NYT article.

Question is: why is there such resistance to the acceptance of this simple fact?

Where is this resistance coming from?

Who is pushing alternative narratives, and most importantly,

Why?

It’s not well put.

1. It was an opinion piece not an article.
2. The fact is children raised in a single parent family do just as well as 2 parent family if there are resources.
3. ”resistance “ comes from people saying “facts” when it’s an opinion and pointing out the actual facts and statistics that show the opinion is nit based in facts.

Fact: kids are better off raised by a single mom than a 2 parent home if they single mom is stable and has resources and the 2 parent family is unhappily married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:90+% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus aren't human at that point unless you have some superstitious belief in a "soul." And, even if you do, that's no basis for a law, applicable to the superstitious and the rational alike, restricting reproductive freedom and forcing a woman to use her body to bring the fetus to term.

Fetus don’t have souls even Catholics believe that which is why miscarriages are not buried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But let's continue to act like abortion services is about evil slutty women... Our society makes no sense. Two parent households are better, but we're going to force you have this baby and become a single mother (leaving the father off the hook entirely as we continue to deride single mothers as the problem) and then we're going to shame you for it by conducting a study that says you've done parenthood all wrong, when you may not have wanted to do it at all.

In other words Americans are hypocritical schizophrenics who have no idea what they want, what they value, or how to better their lives. Which, in turn, makes them very susceptible to all sorts of con men/women.

News at 11.

. . . some of us do recognize what is beneficial for society and that is: to get married before having sex. Then, any subsequent babies will be raised in a two-parent household, which yields statistically stronger outcomes for all children across all metrics.
But, since this viewpoint has been dismissed long ago as antiquated and unrealistic, despite its societal benefits, we reap what we sow.

Well put. And generally the gist of the NYT article.

Question is: why is there such resistance to the acceptance of this simple fact?

Where is this resistance coming from?

Who is pushing alternative narratives, and most importantly,

Why?

It's not the "gist." You can have two parent households and rearing without a marriage. I know people doing it and doing it successfully. XThe point is, that is not the norm. And the pre-marital sex angle is not really the point.

I will assume you understand that anecdotal evidence is different from statistical evidence.
But in case others do not understand this…here is how that works:
If your “lived experience” or “observed anecdotes” fall outside of a statistical norm, that is called an outlier. And when that happens, it doesn’t mean that what you’re observed or experienced isn’t valid or true. It just means that it is not the case for MOST circumstances or in enough circumstances to move the needle on the statistical result.

Well the statistics say kids are just as happy and successful in single parent homes as 2 parent homes if they have resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:90+% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus aren't human at that point unless you have some superstitious belief in a "soul." And, even if you do, that's no basis for a law, applicable to the superstitious and the rational alike, restricting reproductive freedom and forcing a woman to use her body to bring the fetus to term.

Aren’t human? What species, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rape thing is rhetorical but effective.

A person who doesn't support abortion for rape is a monster. Forcing a woman to incubate her rapist's baby is unthinkably cruel.

A person who does support such an abortion is a hypocrite. If abortion is murder, it doesn't matter how God's little unborn angel was conceived.

Abortion is killing (that is literally the point), not murder. IMO a fetus doesn’t have personhood, and personhood is required for murder.

No abortion is no more killing than liposuction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:90+% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus aren't human at that point unless you have some superstitious belief in a "soul." And, even if you do, that's no basis for a law, applicable to the superstitious and the rational alike, restricting reproductive freedom and forcing a woman to use her body to bring the fetus to term.

Aren’t human? What species, then?

It’s tissues, lust like the fat you liposuction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rape thing is rhetorical but effective.

A person who doesn't support abortion for rape is a monster. Forcing a woman to incubate her rapist's baby is unthinkably cruel.

A person who does support such an abortion is a hypocrite. If abortion is murder, it doesn't matter how God's little unborn angel was conceived.

The point is—those who are pro-life do view the killing of an unborn child as murder.
AND they also view rape as horrific.

But they would someone who views abortion as murder suddenly not see it that way when it is presented as a solution to a tragic circumstance?? It’s still murder to them.

And that is why pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates will never see eye to eye on this.

No, this is a lie. The same people who call themselves “pro life” have been very accepting of rape in their religious ranks. If they’re not blaming the victims, they are seizing on the opportunity to harvest a free baby for their barren faithful as some sort of “gift” from God.

Pro life view women as breed stock, not worthy of bodily autonomy. And you are correct that pro choice advocates will never see eye to eye with people who don’t view women as human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:90+% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. The zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus aren't human at that point unless you have some superstitious belief in a "soul." And, even if you do, that's no basis for a law, applicable to the superstitious and the rational alike, restricting reproductive freedom and forcing a woman to use her body to bring the fetus to term.

Aren’t human? What species, then?

The same species of creature that “pro life” people have been fine with executing for all manner of slights and sins since ancient times. What kind of creature did the Catholic Church burn at the stake? Or the Protestant majorities here execute for stealing a piece of bread? What kind of creature did Godly men enslave and then fight for the right to keep doing it?