Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Why is the first step to try to ensure kids are growing up in two parent families and not to figure out what specially about having two parents gives kids better outcomes and try to replicate that for kids who ended up in families with non ideal parental structures? That seems more realistic to me because you can hope for stable two parent families all you want but people are going to people and I feel like forcing parents to stay married to cheating a-holes and abusers “for the kids” and abolishing the prison system so that incarcerated absent parents can be present in their children’s lives are both going to be nonstarters politically just to offer a couple examples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

What data?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Well I guess that's not what the data shows here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

What? Did you just pull that out of your ass or are you projecting about the men in your life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

No because it’s 90% of a lot and 100% of less. Plus there is no man child to care for and ego stroke which is a ton of time suck for married women.

It’s all around easier for women when men are not in the picture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

This is common sense PP but all the pushback responses you've gotten show the magnitude of the challenge.

+2

It is not common sense to enforce/incentivize marriage for child security/outcomes. Its indirect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

It doesn't have to be equitable. Even if the division of labor was 10% to 90% it's better than 1 person bearing 100% of the burden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

This is common sense PP but all the pushback responses you've gotten show the magnitude of the challenge.

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

This is common sense PP but all the pushback responses you've gotten show the magnitude of the challenge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

That is true - but it's more likely

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the moral of the story here?
We have immoral men who do not live with the mother of their offspring, or are the mothers bad
Now someone even suggested women should breed for Charity because every adoptee gets guaranteed 2 parent home that will never experience divorce, parental unemployment, disability or end up on welfare

The first step is for society to universally acknowledge the evidence that there are some circumstances that lead to more favorable outcomes statistically. (This doesn’t mean you don’t personally know of exceptions to the ideal. There are, of course, evil people who do evil things in two-parent families and there are exceptionally-successful good people in single parent families…that’s not the point)
The point is that striving to create two-parent families is the best outcome on average for most circumstances and results in positive outcomes for the financial, academic, and socio-emotional well being of the child.
Acceptance and support for families who do not operate in this model for whatever reason is also important for society. But it does society a disservice when we pretend all outcomes for any circumstance are equally desired. It’s okay to have a standard and ideal outcome, figure out the most likely way to achieve that, and promote that as a value.

Or is the point that striving to create better societal supports for single moms the point? As a society we're moving away from marriage as the ideal, and for many good reasons. How do we keep up with changes in a way that prepare the next generation to succeed? After all, they're tomorrow's leaders.

Whatever the government does - it can't compensate for not having two parents in terms of possibility of having two earners and possibility of splitting the labor of raising kids.

Two parents in the home does not guarantee two incomes or equitable division of labor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Um, they’re all humans, obviously. I didn’t say anything about capital punishment, burning people at the stake, if my religion. I just pointed out that of course a zygote/embryo/fetus is human (even if you don’t think it counts as a person). It’s certainly not a fish or a cat or a cactus.