Political Crossfire Forums

indieinmich · Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Posts: 539 Location: michigan

C-sections are between a women and her doctor.

Out of wed lock does not mean single parent welfare child.Nor does it signal some sort of societal moral decline.Last I knew a government seal of approval on a marriage wasnt a guarantee of a happy, healthy, stable, and loving home.Whether or not one is married has (at least in my mind) little to do with their morality or what kind of parent they will be.

Marriage is for some.I have 4 sisters.3 of us are old enough to be married.We are all in long term relationships.I have personally been married 5 years this coming Feb..8 years total.4 kids all together.3 mine from a previous relationship in which I was not married.The 4th is my husbands but was also had before our marriage. Sister B is in a four year relationship,not married,no intentions of marrying,and they have one child together.She refers to him as her "life partner".He reciprocates the sentiment but hates her choice of terminology.Sister C is also in a 4 year relationship.Married for 2.No kids yet.

My two best friends.The first married 14 years to the same man.Their household is a mess.Their kid are out of control.They are both miserable.The other has 2 kids from a previous marriage,is in a 8 year relationship now,not married,have considered it,just had there first child together,couldnt be happier.

The reason I put all the boring examples out there is because I am trying to point out what a crap shoot it is,and how little a marriage license has to do with it.

The best thing that we as society can do is, embrace family in whatever form they may come.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Federali wrote: I wish these Liberals would divide the stats by race.

Fact of the matter is, most of the out-of-wedlock births are most common among Blacks and Hispanics. This also destroys the myth of so called "Hispanic family value". An oxymoron if there ever was one.

Have a link handy?

Do we really need to offer benefits to someone just because they are married or unioned?

Tono · Joined: 23 Jan 2005 Posts: 11742 Location: Mounted

Government entitlements are a great incentive not to marry prior to having a child.

Somebloke · Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 2553 Location: London

It always struck me as odd that women seem to treat C-sections with a Mc-procedure mentality.

They gut a hole in the woman's stomach large enough to fit a baby out. Then remove the baby and the uterus. Then stitch them back up.

That sounds a hell of a lot more traumatic to me than natural birth.

Falconer · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:

That's actually lower than I thought it was.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Ameriman wrote: How does out of wedlock births mean social growth? Don't you think a healthy two-parent home is the best environment for a child?

No, there are MANY variables involved in creating a good environment for raising a child. In effect, if a single mother/father is a high income earner with education, I would say, chances are the child will be raised in a good environment. Preversely, when a child is raised by two parents on welfare, that will negatively influence the child's development in many ways.

Overall, two parents could provide a good environment, but that is not a good measure of a good environment for raising children in and by itself.

If a single parent has a high income with good education, you're probably right. However, that's rarely the case. Children in single parent families are much more likely to live in poverty than are children in two parent families. It's just common sense that a rise in single parent families is bad for a society. In general, a society having a preponderance of single parents is going to fail. Parenting is a hard enough job with two parents, where one backs up the other.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

The Russian wrote: I believe in Germany theres actualy a tax incentive to stay unmarried but co-habitate with a kid. Not that they meant to do it, or maybe they did, but a full fam gets taxed heavier than two cohabitants.

Wish it was the same way in the US... somehow I feel the push of marriage is a religious agenda more than familial security.

It is the same way in the U.S. Taxwise you do a lot better as a single and a head of household (meaning a single with dependents), than you do as a married couple with kids. It's about a $2k difference at an income level of around $30k apiece. I have German friends in America (green card holders) that have two kids together and aren't married for that reason.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Somebloke wrote: It always struck me as odd that women seem to treat C-sections with a Mc-procedure mentality.

They gut a hole in the woman's stomach large enough to fit a baby out. Then remove the baby and the uterus. Then stitch them back up.

That sounds a hell of a lot more traumatic to me than natural birth.

It's not as bad as it sounds. The recovery process is different, but not much more traumatic. Regardless, a woman isn't able to do much work besides carrying for a baby for a couple of weeks. My wife has had 2 c-sections (medically necessary, due to the size of my boys (one just under 10 lbs, the other 10 1/2 lbs). The incision is only about 6 inches long.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Ek0nomik wrote: Federali wrote: I wish these Liberals would divide the stats by race.

Fact of the matter is, most of the out-of-wedlock births are most common among Blacks and Hispanics. This also destroys the myth of so called "Hispanic family value". An oxymoron if there ever was one.

Have a link handy?

Do we really need to offer benefits to someone just because they are married or unioned?

Actually, it's the other way around. Married people get less benefits (and higher taxes) than do unmarried people.

homerjay_s · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 5399 Location: unknown

perdidochas wrote: Somebloke wrote: It always struck me as odd that women seem to treat C-sections with a Mc-procedure mentality.

They gut a hole in the woman's stomach large enough to fit a baby out. Then remove the baby and the uterus. Then stitch them back up.

That sounds a hell of a lot more traumatic to me than natural birth.

It's not as bad as it sounds. The recovery process is different, but not much more traumatic. Regardless, a woman isn't able to do much work besides carrying for a baby for a couple of weeks. My wife has had 2 c-sections (medically necessary, due to the size of my boys (one just under 10 lbs, the other 10 1/2 lbs). The incision is only about 6 inches long.

I witnessed three natural births prior to the fourth which was a C-section, also medically necessary because of the baby's size (11lbs, he's now 2 1/2 and weighs about 55lbs and talks and looks more like a four year old). The incision seemed a little more than six inches to me.

My wife would have preferred natural birth.