|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 5, 2011 16:02:47 GMT -5
But not as cheap as a trip to the local singles bar....*rimshot* Dunno, though, those drinks can get pricey, and I know I'd have to get drunk to bang some of those men. Yeah, but how desperate are you to have a bowling ball shoved out of your lady parts? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 16:03:40 GMT -5
Then did I claim to mean? Please enlighten me. And what is it with you and "strawmen"? The word isn't shorthand for "saying something I don't agree with." It's not even shorthand for a "weak argument."
Well then call me old fashioned then.
I understand that those people too may have the desire to have their own biological children. But I think that acting on this desire is not in the best interest in the child they will bare. A child deserves two parents and if you intentionally bring a child into this world as a single parent you are putting your personal childbearing desires ahead of what is best for the child. It isn't so bad when a homosexual couple uses artificial insemination, but then again you risk creating the dichotomy that one parent is the "real" parent and the other is a "fake" one. Whereas if a homosexual (or infertile) couple adopt a child together, their parentage is equalized. And it also keeps the world population a little lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 5, 2011 16:04:15 GMT -5
Cestle, the word you're looking for is BEAR. B-E-A-R. To "bare" children means to strip off their clothes. I just assumed that's what he wanted. Better, why does it only matter for insemination, not adoption? |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 5, 2011 16:16:29 GMT -5
cestlefun17 - First, adoption isn't exactly a swift or easy process (it can't be). Second, the maternal reproductive instinct is more "have a baby of my own" than "obtain a walking, talking child". Third, how all the fuck does "single parent" automatically translate irresponsible and uncontrolled? And what's this "it is only responsible if there is a mother and a father" bullshit? My mom died in 2003, I was 13 and my sister was 10. We're 21 and 18 now, respectively. We both graduated from high school with good grades. We're both in college. Neither of us drink, haven't so much as touched drugs, and we get good grades. Our dad even went into semi-retirement a few years back just so he could devote more time to being a good dad (something he was already winning at to begin with). Compare that to my cousins (whom I love and respect, but whose life choices I have frequently disagreed with). The eldest (25) had to drop out of community college because she got pregnant at 19 by a boyfriend who ran away (and might not actually be the boy's father). The younger one, almost 23, works full time as a movie theater projectionist after quitting community college, has no steady girlfriend, moved out of his parents' house less than a year ago, has bad teeth, drinks a lot, and is generally on track to being the unmarried uncle who is cool when you're little but kind of sad when you're an adult. Their parents have an intact marriage, take church seriously but not fundy seriously, afford a good living, etc. Generally the "ideal" parents. So fuck you with your "Mother + Father = The Only Responsible Way" bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 16:16:50 GMT -5
Whoops. Thank you. I prefer it when people correct my spelling and grammar.
My issue is mainly with people who willfully put themselves into a position of being a single parent through insemination. Obviously a child who is already born and in foster care or an orphanage deserves at least one parent as opposed to no parents. With homosexual couples, I personally just cannot understand why they would want to have only one person in the couple be a biological parent. Making children isn't something they can do together, but adopting children is. With insemination the child is going to be more one parent's than the other's. To say otherwise would be to say that human beings can put a biological tie to one parent, and a legal tie to the other, and make them both equal.
As I fully support parents who wish to adopt, I don't disagree with that. However, for the purposes of genetic health and ethical reasons, I think your child has a right to know who his or her biological father (or at least on turning 18).
I'm not saying that single parents are irresponsible. I'm saying that purposely making yourself a single parent is irresponsible. You're putting your desire to have children above the best needs of the child you'll be having.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 5, 2011 16:17:38 GMT -5
Then did I claim to mean? Please enlighten me. You really can't look up the last thing you said prior? The one where you said rephrased yourself in a way that left out the condemnation of women who choose insemination? You keep making them. How fortunate, then, that I am not using it as either. You keep trying to argue against distorted versions of my argument. That is, in fact, what a strawman is. "bigoted" is more the word. But again, this comes back to "how dare you have different values than me?" Which is, of course, what prompted you to ask what my problem was. Condemning the choices of others (and selectively) as irresponsible is very "family values as an excuse to hate on group X." It's also very Fox News. But then, they love their strawmen, too. I'd say it was better to be born into a loving single-parent "family" than to be born into a family that wasn't prepared for me. A lot of people in relationships bring kids into the world for the wrong reasons, or are not prepared to handle them. You're again, only condemning single people for this. It's not really about responsibility, it's about a different lifestyle you disapprove of. Which only really matters if you treat them that way. The parentage is equal. They're both "not real" parents. That condemnation should operate both ways, not just one, if you're going to apply it. Meanwhile, heterosexual couple adopting keep the parentage equal and population low. Again, why the double standard? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 16:28:15 GMT -5
Then please outline for me what your argument is and what my distorted version of it is.
It is not bigoted to question someone's lifestyle choices. Judgmental, yes, but not bigoted.
Yes, I do condemn these choices but on the same token I'm not saying I want my worldview to be made into law. I do not personally consider a single woman or man artificially bearing a child with an anonymous stranger to be a responsible method for bringing additional people into this world.
Not if one of them is inseminated. If one of them is inseminated then one is a biological parent and the other a legal parent. I'm saying I personally see it preferable for both to adopt the child together, since childbearing is something a couple should do together.
In both cases, I'm saying I see it preferable for the child to be either raised by both biological parents or by adopted parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 5, 2011 16:28:53 GMT -5
I personally just cannot understand why they would want to have only one person in the couple be a biological parent. Making children isn't something they can do together, but adopting children is. With insemination the child is going to be more one parent's than the other's. And this is where I lost all sympathy for the argument. For one thing, being a parent is far more than blood. For another, I would argue that the other partner would be MORE interested in raising the child of his partner simply because that child is his partner's child. You love the person, so you love their child. But believe me, homosexual couples would be very much willing to adopt if only they were allowed to. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 5, 2011 16:32:05 GMT -5
I'm not saying that single parents are irresponsible. I'm saying that purposely making yourself a single parent is irresponsible. You're putting your desire to have children above the best needs of the child you'll be having. Pop quiz, rank the parents from most observant of best needs to least (I want to see where your head is at): 1) Male and Female who are doing OK financially, but not terribly well, who get accidentally (but not catastrophically so) pregnant. 2) Professional Single Female, who makes good money, who comes to the reasoned decision that she in a place in her life where she can have a child and scale back her work hours while still living comfortably and therefore chooses IVF treatments. 3) Male and Female who decide, despite not being sure they can take on the financial hardship, to have a kid because they want a baby. 4) The proverbial unwed teenage mother who decides to carry the baby to term and keep the child without any real idea of how they'll provide for it (I've know at least 7girls like this). 5) Lesbian couple who undergo IVF treatments because they have decided they are financially stable enough to support a child. I leave out "Male and Female who plan their child and are capable of living comfortably" because, fuck me, that's the standard. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 16:34:09 GMT -5
I can see this. It also would depend on the emotional maturity of the couple. Like I said, one parent has a biological tie and the other parent will have a legal tie. Can the parents, and also the children, have these two ties side by side and consider them equal? It is hard to pretend biology doesn't exist.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but again: why bring another child into this world with our growing population? If it's not responsible childbearing, it's at least unnecessary. This extends to heterosexual couples as well, who, if they do have biological children, should not have more than two to replace themselves. Again, this is my personal worldview.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 5, 2011 16:39:46 GMT -5
[I can see this. It also would depend on the emotional maturity of the couple. Like I said, one parent has a biological tie and the other parent will have a legal tie. Can the parents, and also the children, have these two ties side by side and consider them equal? It is hard to pretend biology doesn't exist. Oh fuck that noise. None of my cousin and her husband's kids are more than half siblings, and one isn't even biologically related to either parent (not so much "adopted" as "rescued from abusive mom by step-dad and his new wife"). Genetics do matter, but not more than being a good fucking parent. Genetics isn't even equal to quality parenting in terms of mattering to the kid. Not even 60/40. Love matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 5, 2011 16:39:47 GMT -5
I can see this. It also would depend on the emotional maturity of the couple. Like I said, one parent has a biological tie and the other parent will have a legal tie. Can the parents, and also the children, have these two ties side by side and consider them equal? It is hard to pretend biology doesn't exist. It is, in fact, very easy to pretend that biology doesn't exist. I don't treat my father like a parent because he hasn't acted like it. It is only the barest of respect that I give him to continue calling him "father", and the only reason I do anything he says is because it keeps the peace in the house. Beyond that, no, he's not a father, and I don't consider him one outside of biology. Because adoption is complicated, making a child is not. I know what you're saying here, and really, I agree with this part of it, but the way you've presented your argument and seemingly targetted specifically single parents and homosexual couples makes me want to bite you. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Sept 5, 2011 16:40:58 GMT -5
I can see this. It also would depend on the emotional maturity of the couple. Like I said, one parent has a biological tie and the other parent will have a legal tie. Can the parents, and also the children, have these two ties side by side and consider them equal? It is hard to pretend biology doesn't exist. I'm not saying it's impossible, but again: why bring another child into this world with our growing population? If it's not responsible childbearing, it's at least unnecessary. This extends to heterosexual couples as well, who, if they do have biological children, should not have more than two to replace themselves. Again, this is my personal worldview. The your worldview is unnatural and goes against every instinct in our bodies. I'm not going to try and say it's wrong. But it is unnatural. Human beings are nothing but horny little monkeys. We fuck and fuck, popping out children until environmental pressure caps our population, just like every other species on planet earth. To do otherwise is to fight every impulse evolution has spent billions of years hard-wiring into us. Resisting that urge is not easy, even if at some point it will be necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 5, 2011 16:43:31 GMT -5
I can see this. It also would depend on the emotional maturity of the couple. Like I said, one parent has a biological tie and the other parent will have a legal tie. Can the parents, and also the children, have these two ties side by side and consider them equal? It is hard to pretend biology doesn't exist. I'm not saying it's impossible, but again: why bring another child into this world with our growing population? If it's not responsible childbearing, it's at least unnecessary. This extends to heterosexual couples as well, who, if they do have biological children, should not have more than two to replace themselves. Again, this is my personal worldview. The your worldview is unnatural and goes against every instinct in our bodies. I'm not going to try and say it's wrong. But it is unnatural. Human beings are nothing but horny little monkeys. We fuck and fuck, popping out children until environmental pressure caps our population, just like every other species on planet earth. To do otherwise is to fight every impulse evolution has spent billions of years hard-wiring into us. Resisting that urge is not easy, even if at some point it will be necessary. Well, we could end up going the way of the pandas - somehow evolving OUT of our instinct to breed and eventually going extinct*. *Fun fact, if I type two words that sound similar, I will typo the second word to be exactly like the first. My brain is confusing. In retrospect, I should probably say "becoming endangered" instead of "going extinct" because we humans are doing our damndest to make sure that the pandas don't go extinct, even if it seems like we're fighting a losing battle sometimes. That being said, if we lose our desire to breed, we'd probably just replace it with a duty to breed. We humans are crafty like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 5, 2011 16:44:38 GMT -5
Why does every thread on here have to end up in a big argument?
Cant we all just get along?
|
|
