wedlock…
such as gay lesbian couples having or adopting children?
such as women abandoned or murdered when the bio. fathers they learn of their pregancies?
How about professional women who do not want a husband but want a child…
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry – thus they could have children inside of wedlock. Easy one that.
Roe v Wade gives women the right to opt out of parenthood, we need to give men the right to opt out of parenthood. If he doesn’t want children and makes that known, he shouldn’t be on the hook when his genes get hijacked.
As for professional women – a single parent is a single parent. Children are, generally speaking, more well rounded when raised by mother and father.
I’m not saying people can’t have children out of wedlock, we just need to make it undesireable. For instance, how many women would have children by men who don’t want children if the man didn’t have to pay child support? I don’t know the answer to that, but a good guess is fewer. Now for those that scream “Child support is necessary!” I say it should be paid only if he wanted the child. This means women will have to be as careful about choosing their men as men are about choosing their women. They’ll have to talk. They’ll have to take precautions.
I don’t know yet what I believe should happen in cases of divorce, except that joint-custody should be standard with no alimony and no child support in those cases. Because if the man has the child half the time, and the woman has the child half the time, why should anyone pay support?
It’s all about making people resonsible for their decisions.
I like where you’re going, lastbat… but good luck getting there.
Unfortunately, for ages and ages a huge number of people have failed to make good choices when it comes to sexual partners. Beyond that, they don’t make good choices when it comes to protection either.
You would think having a child as a teen or without financial means is already an extremely undesireable situation. But apparently it’s still not undesireable enough to keep people from producing kids.
Other than eliminating child support (that so many single/divorced parents don’t receive anyway) what else do you think would be effective against the problem?
We can’t exactly go in people’s homes and say “don’t sleep with that person because you’re not married and you might accidentally get knocked up”. I’m sure you’re not proposing that as a solution… but just sayin… what more can be done?
On the extremes (which some days I support) there are several ideas.
Put contraceptives in municipal water supplies. This has the downside of not being chemically feasible as there are too many potential reactions. It would also be bypassed by the rich who could afford their own water source.
License parenting. We force people to ask the government for permission to marry, why not to have kids? The upside is you can fine people and put them in jail for breaking the law. The downside is it’s more government intervention in my life and I’m trying to minimize that intervention.
Government raised children. Have whatever kids you want, but you won’t be raising them. They will go to a government facility and you will probably never see them again. Up side is you don’t have to worry about single parents anymore. The down side is the same as above – plus a million other things.
Ultimately we need to exert societal pressure. Men should stop dating single mothers and women should stop dating single fathers. These people (in most cases) have already shown they make poor judgement calls.
I do support sterilization efforts. We as a society need to support sterilization. This could mean somebody setting up a foundation to provide free tubal ligation and vasectomies to people, or it could mean local governments providing sterilization at clinics.
Mandate DNA testing for every live birth. I heard a statistic from Marc Rudov (I haven’t verified it yet) that more than 20% of all births to wedded couples are not the husband’s child. He should know that and not be on the hook for any support legally. If he wants to support the child, fine, but he shouldn’t be required to.
The problem with making single-parenthood undesireable is that it affects the children. They are caught in the mess their parents created. American society must have an honest and open discussion about this and realize that to reverse our current trend we need to push for true equality among the sexes (which we don’t have in the least) and that reversing this trend will mean taking away benefits that currently help some children, but by doing so will discourage others from putting children in their place.
I agree we have taken a detour, but I do take issue with you calling the sister a money grubbing @#$@@!. She may be for all I know, but then again she might not. I do agree the amount of money is pretty ridiculous, but I am more concerned with what she does if she wins. You also have to think about why she is suing and whom she is suing. If NBC is to take notice and get hit where it hurts, the amount of money should be quite a bit (since they are a large company and a few million is chump change to them). The end result, from what I have read, is to keep Dateline from sticking their noses into police investigations and get back to journalism, not sentastionalism that can endanger lives. I don’t condone what Conradt did, but I also don’t condone the actions of Dateline and Chris Hansen. Unfortunately, in this day the only way to stop a big company from doing things like this is to hit them where it hurts: the wallet and in the media. I think this lawsuit does both, and until we see what she does with the money (if she wins that is) we can’t truly know her means. It is pretty easy to demonize her (even easier to demonize him!) but it is much harder to put yourself in her shoes and see things from her perspective. Hopefully she will put the money towards rehabilitation of child sex offenders, or fund rehabilitation for the children since they are harmed so much by this. I only hope in the process she doesn’t keep the money and I wish some lawyer didn’t have to get rich.
Conversations do that sometimes. It’s just the way discussions go.
Personally, I would get very bored with life if I were only allowed to discuss one topic at a time with people. Who wants to live in a box like that?
If I’ve violated some sort of “off topic” rule here, I’m sorry. I guess I’m not one of those people who has a problem with talking about a variety of subjects at one time. My bad.
KLS, there are no rules about these posts except the common rules of decent behaviour as far as I know. No need to apologise to me I was attempting to inject a bit of levity into the thread and making a “sideways” comment about the turns it has taken.
Dustin, I live near Terrell and know the family. I know her and I know her motivations, they are the same now they have been all her life. MONEY. I know that of which I speak. I will reinerate, I don’t see where sueing NBC will teach the police and the jude any lesson about keeping the law under THEIR control instead of allowing money and other influences to coerce them into violating a person’s rights or due process of the law.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
could you please enter the race for presidency so i can finally decide whom i am going to vote for. i agree with everything you said. well done.
What do the last several posts have to do with the money hungry *itch trying to capitalize on her brother’s perversion and ultimately cowardly demise?
wedlock…
such as gay lesbian couples having or adopting children?
such as women abandoned or murdered when the bio. fathers they learn of their pregancies?
How about professional women who do not want a husband but want a child…
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry – thus they could have children inside of wedlock. Easy one that.
Roe v Wade gives women the right to opt out of parenthood, we need to give men the right to opt out of parenthood. If he doesn’t want children and makes that known, he shouldn’t be on the hook when his genes get hijacked.
As for professional women – a single parent is a single parent. Children are, generally speaking, more well rounded when raised by mother and father.
I’m not saying people can’t have children out of wedlock, we just need to make it undesireable. For instance, how many women would have children by men who don’t want children if the man didn’t have to pay child support? I don’t know the answer to that, but a good guess is fewer. Now for those that scream “Child support is necessary!” I say it should be paid only if he wanted the child. This means women will have to be as careful about choosing their men as men are about choosing their women. They’ll have to talk. They’ll have to take precautions.
I don’t know yet what I believe should happen in cases of divorce, except that joint-custody should be standard with no alimony and no child support in those cases. Because if the man has the child half the time, and the woman has the child half the time, why should anyone pay support?
It’s all about making people resonsible for their decisions.
Just when you thought the thread was dead, lastbat bring up the “a” word. Here we go…. :) Just messing with you.
I like where you’re going, lastbat… but good luck getting there.
Unfortunately, for ages and ages a huge number of people have failed to make good choices when it comes to sexual partners. Beyond that, they don’t make good choices when it comes to protection either.
You would think having a child as a teen or without financial means is already an extremely undesireable situation. But apparently it’s still not undesireable enough to keep people from producing kids.
Other than eliminating child support (that so many single/divorced parents don’t receive anyway) what else do you think would be effective against the problem?
We can’t exactly go in people’s homes and say “don’t sleep with that person because you’re not married and you might accidentally get knocked up”. I’m sure you’re not proposing that as a solution… but just sayin… what more can be done?
On the extremes (which some days I support) there are several ideas.
Put contraceptives in municipal water supplies. This has the downside of not being chemically feasible as there are too many potential reactions. It would also be bypassed by the rich who could afford their own water source.
License parenting. We force people to ask the government for permission to marry, why not to have kids? The upside is you can fine people and put them in jail for breaking the law. The downside is it’s more government intervention in my life and I’m trying to minimize that intervention.
Government raised children. Have whatever kids you want, but you won’t be raising them. They will go to a government facility and you will probably never see them again. Up side is you don’t have to worry about single parents anymore. The down side is the same as above – plus a million other things.
Ultimately we need to exert societal pressure. Men should stop dating single mothers and women should stop dating single fathers. These people (in most cases) have already shown they make poor judgement calls.
I do support sterilization efforts. We as a society need to support sterilization. This could mean somebody setting up a foundation to provide free tubal ligation and vasectomies to people, or it could mean local governments providing sterilization at clinics.
Mandate DNA testing for every live birth. I heard a statistic from Marc Rudov (I haven’t verified it yet) that more than 20% of all births to wedded couples are not the husband’s child. He should know that and not be on the hook for any support legally. If he wants to support the child, fine, but he shouldn’t be required to.
The problem with making single-parenthood undesireable is that it affects the children. They are caught in the mess their parents created. American society must have an honest and open discussion about this and realize that to reverse our current trend we need to push for true equality among the sexes (which we don’t have in the least) and that reversing this trend will mean taking away benefits that currently help some children, but by doing so will discourage others from putting children in their place.
This post has gone on way too long. I apologize.
I agree we have taken a detour, but I do take issue with you calling the sister a money grubbing @#$@@!. She may be for all I know, but then again she might not. I do agree the amount of money is pretty ridiculous, but I am more concerned with what she does if she wins. You also have to think about why she is suing and whom she is suing. If NBC is to take notice and get hit where it hurts, the amount of money should be quite a bit (since they are a large company and a few million is chump change to them). The end result, from what I have read, is to keep Dateline from sticking their noses into police investigations and get back to journalism, not sentastionalism that can endanger lives. I don’t condone what Conradt did, but I also don’t condone the actions of Dateline and Chris Hansen. Unfortunately, in this day the only way to stop a big company from doing things like this is to hit them where it hurts: the wallet and in the media. I think this lawsuit does both, and until we see what she does with the money (if she wins that is) we can’t truly know her means. It is pretty easy to demonize her (even easier to demonize him!) but it is much harder to put yourself in her shoes and see things from her perspective. Hopefully she will put the money towards rehabilitation of child sex offenders, or fund rehabilitation for the children since they are harmed so much by this. I only hope in the process she doesn’t keep the money and I wish some lawyer didn’t have to get rich.
Conversations do that sometimes. It’s just the way discussions go.
Personally, I would get very bored with life if I were only allowed to discuss one topic at a time with people. Who wants to live in a box like that?
If I’ve violated some sort of “off topic” rule here, I’m sorry. I guess I’m not one of those people who has a problem with talking about a variety of subjects at one time. My bad.
KLS, there are no rules about these posts except the common rules of decent behaviour as far as I know. No need to apologise to me I was attempting to inject a bit of levity into the thread and making a “sideways” comment about the turns it has taken.
Dustin, I live near Terrell and know the family. I know her and I know her motivations, they are the same now they have been all her life. MONEY. I know that of which I speak. I will reinerate, I don’t see where sueing NBC will teach the police and the jude any lesson about keeping the law under THEIR control instead of allowing money and other influences to coerce them into violating a person’s rights or due process of the law.