|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 5, 2011 16:45:59 GMT -5
Why does every thread on here have to end up in a big argument? Cant we all just get along? No, we can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 5, 2011 16:46:11 GMT -5
Why does every thread on here have to end up in a big argument? Cant we all just get along? Fuck you, you dirty hippy beatnik. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 16:46:34 GMT -5
I would rank them as:
#1 (the child would have two biological parents who presumably have enough money to raise a child responsibly. It doesn't mean the child will get the latest video game consoles or designer clothes, but his parents will be able to comfortably provide for him)
#5 (it seems needless that a lesbian couple would bring another human being into the world and add to the population, but they are the most financially secure. The child will have to reckon with the fact that only one of his parents is actually related to him, and he may never know his other biological parent)
#2, the parent can provide for the child, but like lesbian couple, the child may have issues with the fact that he will never meet his other parent. Hopefully, when the child is school-aged his school schedule and his mother's work schedule are similar, so he doesn't have to raise himself.
#3 They are putting their own desires ahead of what their child will need. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. At least there's some chance they'll be able to provide.
#4. Again, if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
=======
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.
=====
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 5, 2011 16:49:02 GMT -5
Needless to you. A love of pussy doesn't mean you lack a maternal instinct, and when you adopt you are highly unlikely to get a baby. Adoption can be wonderful but it is not the same as having a kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Sept 5, 2011 16:49:13 GMT -5
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? I don't care how riddled with mommy hormones I would be (and I've been riddled with them quite a bit lately) I would STILL have to get totally blasted to bang some of those men. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Sept 5, 2011 16:50:01 GMT -5
That'd be weird if any one of the kids is asked at anytime if they have any siblings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Sept 5, 2011 16:52:28 GMT -5
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. Well, as a species, that's one advantage of being so smart--we can understand that our species is dying and replace instinct with sheer survivalism. Honestly, I think we should just let the pandas die off. The world probably spends more money trying to save a species of bear that have forgotten how to fuck than we do looking after the underprivileged of our own species. And the only reason we try so hard is because they're cute. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 16:55:02 GMT -5
I'm talking about good, responsible parents. Is it preferable to have two good, responsible parents who are both biologically related to you, to have one who is biologically related and the other is not, or to have both be adoptive parents. I personally would rank them as: both biological, both adoptive (in a close second), then 1 biological/1 adopted.
If you are really motivated to be a parent, it shouldn't be asking too much to put in the extra effort. If you want to take the easy way out in making them, what does that say about your motivation to be a parent?
Which is why I'm saying people should always strive to practice responsible sex and responsible procreation.
I don't mean to target homosexual parents. The same goes for heterosexual parents: if one of them can't produce children biologically, then they should adopt together. Also, I'm not talking about a single parent who had a child with a spouse, the spouse turned out to be abusive/alcoholic/whatever would require the parent to get full custody of the child (or if the spouse died). I'm talking about people who intentionally strive to make themselves single parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Sept 5, 2011 16:58:08 GMT -5
If you are really motivated to be a parent, it shouldn't be asking too much to put in the extra effort. If you want to take the easy way out in making them, what does that say about your motivation to be a parent? It's not just effort. It's also cost. Do you have any idea how much cost goes into adopting a child? It's so expensive that in many cases, even people who want to can't afford to. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 5, 2011 17:00:22 GMT -5
Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? Presumably more than the cost of an adoption. In any event, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with lowering adoption costs. That's something I'd agree to and it seems to be a better method of fixing the problem than channeling people into making more babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 5, 2011 17:04:36 GMT -5
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. Well, as a species, that's one advantage of being so smart--we can understand that our species is dying and replace instinct with sheer survivalism. Honestly, I think we should just let the pandas die off. The world probably spends more money trying to save a species of bear that have forgotten how to fuck than we do looking after the underprivileged of our own species. And the only reason we try so hard is because they're cute. Pandas totally know how to fuck, the reason they don't is because the males and females naturally live in different territories and venture into the other's during sex season. We've kind of made this impossible so their fucking instincts no longer work. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 5, 2011 17:05:47 GMT -5
Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? Spending $20k in a month is totally like spending $20k in a year. Wait, why am I responding to you again? |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 5, 2011 17:15:46 GMT -5
Why does every thread on here have to end up in a big argument? Cant we all just get along? Fuck you, you dirty hippy beatnik. Okay, what time? |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 5, 2011 17:28:28 GMT -5
Shit, someone's been REALLY busy...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 5, 2011 17:32:24 GMT -5
Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? Presumably more than the cost of an adoption. That is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I've seen someone say in a while. The cost of raising a child is, at a minimum, spread out over 18 years. With adoption, you have a massive cost right at the front followed by the cost of raising the child over the rest of their lifetime. It is the difference between being able to afford a $20 a month payment for twenty years or a $5000 payment right this minute. |
|
