Why the Choice to Be Childless is Bad for America

[anotherlife]

What do you think about childree movement?

"
Sitting around a table at a hookah bar in New York’s East Village with three women and a gay man, all of them in their 20s and 30s and all resolved to remain childless, a few things quickly became clear: First, for many younger Americans and especially those in cities, having children is no longer an obvious or inevitable choice. Second, many of those opting for childlessness have legitimate, if perhaps selfish, reasons for their decision.

I like seeing people with their children, because they have their special bond, and that’s really sweet, but it’s not something I look at for myself,” says Tiffany Jordan, a lively 30-year-old freelance wardrobe stylist who lives in Queens in a rent-stabilized apartment and dates a man who “practically lives there.

Jordan and her friends are part of a rising tide. Postfamilial America is in ascendancy as the fertility rate among women has plummeted, since the 2008 economic crisis and the Great Recession that followed, to its lowest level since reliable numbers were first kept in 1920. That downturn has put the U.S. fertility rate increasingly in line with those in other developed economies—suggesting that even if the economy rebounds, the birthrate may not. For many individual women considering their own lives and careers, children have become a choice, rather than an inevitable milestone—and one that comes with more costs than benefits.

“I don’t know if that’s selfish,” says Jordan, the daughter of an Ecuadoran and an Ohioan who grew up in the South Bronx, explaining her reasons for a decision increasingly common among women across the developed world, where more than half of the world’s population is now reproducing at below the replacement rate. “I feel like my life is not stable enough, and I don’t think I necessarily want it to be ... Kids, they change your entire life. That’s the name of the game. And that’s not something I’m interested in doing.”

The global causes of postfamilialism are diverse, and many, on their own, are socially favorable or at least benign. The rush of people worldwide into cities, for example, has ushered in prosperity for hundreds of millions, allowing families to be both smaller and more prosperous. Improvements in contraception and increased access to it have given women far greater control of their reproductive options, which has coincided with a decline in religion in most advanced countries. With women’s rights largely secured in the First World and their seats in the classroom, the statehouse, and the boardroom no longer tokens or novelties, children have ceased being an economic or cultural necessity for many or an eventual outcome of sex"

Source

This is very interesting. I think it is a good idea not to have children in the 21st century. For starters, they are not likely to find a job when grown up. Then before growing up, the father is not likely to be able to enjoy time with them, because national statistics show that women on average initiate divorce ~ 2 years into a marriage, then move. Jobless society usually demands long moves to any new job, so families under the pressure of needing two earners can't survive.

 

[anotherlife]

No one has the obligation to have a child.

My wife and I are childless by choice. And quite frankly it's none of your ******* business if we are

You are afraid of other people's judgement upon you. It would be interesting to find out why other people bully people who don't want children.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one has the obligation to have a child.

My wife and I are childless by choice. And quite frankly it's none of your ******* business if we are

You are afraid of other people's judgement upon you. It would be interesting to find out why other people bully people who don't want children.

I really don't give a shit what other people think of me.


As far as the judgement thing I don't call it bullying , st's because people who choose to be childless are choosing to do something outside traditional behavior and the people who pass judgement can't understand that or they wish they had the balls to take control of their own lives.

I never understood it but it's what people do

 

[MisterBeale]

What do you think about childree movement?

"
Sitting around a table at a hookah bar in New York’s East Village with three women and a gay man, all of them in their 20s and 30s and all resolved to remain childless, a few things quickly became clear: First, for many younger Americans and especially those in cities, having children is no longer an obvious or inevitable choice. Second, many of those opting for childlessness have legitimate, if perhaps selfish, reasons for their decision.

I like seeing people with their children, because they have their special bond, and that’s really sweet, but it’s not something I look at for myself,” says Tiffany Jordan, a lively 30-year-old freelance wardrobe stylist who lives in Queens in a rent-stabilized apartment and dates a man who “practically lives there.

Jordan and her friends are part of a rising tide. Postfamilial America is in ascendancy as the fertility rate among women has plummeted, since the 2008 economic crisis and the Great Recession that followed, to its lowest level since reliable numbers were first kept in 1920. That downturn has put the U.S. fertility rate increasingly in line with those in other developed economies—suggesting that even if the economy rebounds, the birthrate may not. For many individual women considering their own lives and careers, children have become a choice, rather than an inevitable milestone—and one that comes with more costs than benefits.

“I don’t know if that’s selfish,” says Jordan, the daughter of an Ecuadoran and an Ohioan who grew up in the South Bronx, explaining her reasons for a decision increasingly common among women across the developed world, where more than half of the world’s population is now reproducing at below the replacement rate. “I feel like my life is not stable enough, and I don’t think I necessarily want it to be ... Kids, they change your entire life. That’s the name of the game. And that’s not something I’m interested in doing.”

The global causes of postfamilialism are diverse, and many, on their own, are socially favorable or at least benign. The rush of people worldwide into cities, for example, has ushered in prosperity for hundreds of millions, allowing families to be both smaller and more prosperous. Improvements in contraception and increased access to it have given women far greater control of their reproductive options, which has coincided with a decline in religion in most advanced countries. With women’s rights largely secured in the First World and their seats in the classroom, the statehouse, and the boardroom no longer tokens or novelties, children have ceased being an economic or cultural necessity for many or an eventual outcome of sex"

Source

This is very interesting. I think it is a good idea not to have children in the 21st century. For starters, they are not likely to find a job when grown up. Then before growing up, the father is not likely to be able to enjoy time with them, because national statistics show that women on average initiate divorce ~ 2 years into a marriage, then move. Jobless society usually demands long moves to any new job, so families under the pressure of needing two earners can't survive.

I think that the parent who initiates divorcee doesn't give a shit about the kids, and therefor should not have any rights to the children, beyond what ever rights the custodial parent give to them.

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

 

[MisterBeale]

What do you think about childree movement?

"
Sitting around a table at a hookah bar in New York’s East Village with three women and a gay man, all of them in their 20s and 30s and all resolved to remain childless, a few things quickly became clear: First, for many younger Americans and especially those in cities, having children is no longer an obvious or inevitable choice. Second, many of those opting for childlessness have legitimate, if perhaps selfish, reasons for their decision.

I like seeing people with their children, because they have their special bond, and that’s really sweet, but it’s not something I look at for myself,” says Tiffany Jordan, a lively 30-year-old freelance wardrobe stylist who lives in Queens in a rent-stabilized apartment and dates a man who “practically lives there.

Jordan and her friends are part of a rising tide. Postfamilial America is in ascendancy as the fertility rate among women has plummeted, since the 2008 economic crisis and the Great Recession that followed, to its lowest level since reliable numbers were first kept in 1920. That downturn has put the U.S. fertility rate increasingly in line with those in other developed economies—suggesting that even if the economy rebounds, the birthrate may not. For many individual women considering their own lives and careers, children have become a choice, rather than an inevitable milestone—and one that comes with more costs than benefits.

“I don’t know if that’s selfish,” says Jordan, the daughter of an Ecuadoran and an Ohioan who grew up in the South Bronx, explaining her reasons for a decision increasingly common among women across the developed world, where more than half of the world’s population is now reproducing at below the replacement rate. “I feel like my life is not stable enough, and I don’t think I necessarily want it to be ... Kids, they change your entire life. That’s the name of the game. And that’s not something I’m interested in doing.”

The global causes of postfamilialism are diverse, and many, on their own, are socially favorable or at least benign. The rush of people worldwide into cities, for example, has ushered in prosperity for hundreds of millions, allowing families to be both smaller and more prosperous. Improvements in contraception and increased access to it have given women far greater control of their reproductive options, which has coincided with a decline in religion in most advanced countries. With women’s rights largely secured in the First World and their seats in the classroom, the statehouse, and the boardroom no longer tokens or novelties, children have ceased being an economic or cultural necessity for many or an eventual outcome of sex"

Source

Basically, what I take away from this is, anyone that does not have any children, is free to do so.

Anyone that wants to have children, is also free to do so.

However, if we are to maintain old age social insurance programs, that require younger workers to contribute to pay into them, one of two things needs to happen, folks need to contribute to the overall growth rate, or we need to encourage immigration.

Anyone who has studied the fall of the Roman Empire will tell you this.


Overall, I think the best solution to this would be to either do away with old age social security, or, if people do not have children, take away their government guaranteed social security.

Before the government guaranteed old age social security, having children was one way a person guaranteed they would be taken care of in their old age. Now it seems, from this analysis, really nothing has changed, this just applies to the whole nation. If a person expects that government or society to take care of them in their old age, they need to contribute to society by having children, that is all there is to this.

If a person does not wish to have children, then they need to set up a separate IRA, and not expect to draw on government old age services, or at least this is what the article would have us logically come to as a final conclusion.

If they wish not to have children then by your logic they should not pay taxes to send other people's children to school or pay for those on welfare.

Not my logic, read the article. It had more to do with old age insurance, it said nothing about education.

Why should those that don't have children need to pay for their welfare and education when they retire they get nothing. Pretty screwy to me.

I won't disagree with you, but the article didn't really address that.

I don't support government compulsory education, so I can't really comment on that issue.

 

[anotherlife]

What do you think about childree movement?

"
Sitting around a table at a hookah bar in New York’s East Village with three women and a gay man, all of them in their 20s and 30s and all resolved to remain childless, a few things quickly became clear: First, for many younger Americans and especially those in cities, having children is no longer an obvious or inevitable choice. Second, many of those opting for childlessness have legitimate, if perhaps selfish, reasons for their decision.

I like seeing people with their children, because they have their special bond, and that’s really sweet, but it’s not something I look at for myself,” says Tiffany Jordan, a lively 30-year-old freelance wardrobe stylist who lives in Queens in a rent-stabilized apartment and dates a man who “practically lives there.

Jordan and her friends are part of a rising tide. Postfamilial America is in ascendancy as the fertility rate among women has plummeted, since the 2008 economic crisis and the Great Recession that followed, to its lowest level since reliable numbers were first kept in 1920. That downturn has put the U.S. fertility rate increasingly in line with those in other developed economies—suggesting that even if the economy rebounds, the birthrate may not. For many individual women considering their own lives and careers, children have become a choice, rather than an inevitable milestone—and one that comes with more costs than benefits.

“I don’t know if that’s selfish,” says Jordan, the daughter of an Ecuadoran and an Ohioan who grew up in the South Bronx, explaining her reasons for a decision increasingly common among women across the developed world, where more than half of the world’s population is now reproducing at below the replacement rate. “I feel like my life is not stable enough, and I don’t think I necessarily want it to be ... Kids, they change your entire life. That’s the name of the game. And that’s not something I’m interested in doing.”

The global causes of postfamilialism are diverse, and many, on their own, are socially favorable or at least benign. The rush of people worldwide into cities, for example, has ushered in prosperity for hundreds of millions, allowing families to be both smaller and more prosperous. Improvements in contraception and increased access to it have given women far greater control of their reproductive options, which has coincided with a decline in religion in most advanced countries. With women’s rights largely secured in the First World and their seats in the classroom, the statehouse, and the boardroom no longer tokens or novelties, children have ceased being an economic or cultural necessity for many or an eventual outcome of sex"

Source

This is very interesting. I think it is a good idea not to have children in the 21st century. For starters, they are not likely to find a job when grown up. Then before growing up, the father is not likely to be able to enjoy time with them, because national statistics show that women on average initiate divorce ~ 2 years into a marriage, then move. Jobless society usually demands long moves to any new job, so families under the pressure of needing two earners can't survive.

I think that the parent who initiates divorcee doesn't give a shit about the kids, and therefor should not have any rights to the children, beyond what ever rights the custodial parent give to them.

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Yes, what is lawful, and what is just, seem pretty different again. I don't see this change, considering that there are plenty of special interest groups, that will fight effectively in Washington, and in European capitals, to keep women having it both ways in the marriage and parenting scene.

 

[anotherlife]

Statistically, in a western country, there are three popular reasons for pregnancies and child birth.
1. Many women feel less worthy of the woman card if they have no children.
2. Many women live in poverty as single individuals, and pregnancy opens up a government cash flow guarantee for them.
3. Many women give themselves into emotional hypes, never thinking about the cost of it in hard work, because the law guarantees them bailout always.
In congress the buzzword "male domination" carries a good hit card power.

 

[Unkotare]

Statistically, in a western country, there are three popular reasons for pregnancies and child birth.
1. Many women feel less worthy of the woman card if they have no children.
2. Many women live in poverty as single individuals, and pregnancy opens up a government cash flow guarantee for them.
3. Many women give themselves into emotional hypes, never thinking about the cost of it in hard work, because the law guarantees them bailout always.
In congress the buzzword "male domination" carries a good hit card power.

"Statistically"? Where are these statistics? 'Pulled out of your ass' is not a statistic, champ.

 

[Unkotare]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

 

[MisterBeale]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child and instills the moral and ethical value that family is worthless. Instead, let the parent that has respect for the sacredness of the family raise the child.

If this happens, the rate of divorce, and the respect and sacredness with which people hold the institution of the family vis-à-vis the worth of an individual's happiness will come back into balance. Nothing is more important than how we raise an as yet undeveloped human mind.

Yet, some of these juvenile adults that aren't completely happy and decide to have children somehow think their own happiness is more important? Bullshit.

 

[ChrisL]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child and instills the moral and ethical value that family is worthless. Instead, let the parent that has respect for the sacredness of the family raise the child.

If this happens, the rate of divorce, and the respect and sacredness with which people hold the institution of the family vis-à-vis the worth of an individual's happiness will come back into balance. Nothing is more important than how we raise an as yet undeveloped human mind.

Yet, some of these juvenile adults that aren't completely happy and decide to have children somehow think their own happiness is more important? Bullshit.

I used to babysit for a guy who had custody of all four of his kids because his wife ran off on them with some guy she met online. All of them girls too. Can you believe that nut? Another boy I babysat for, same situation except his mother was an unstable druggy. Poor kids.

However, I don't agree that the father should automatically get custody. That depends entirely upon the situation. Maybe he abused his wife or something. Maybe he was a drunk or a druggy.

 

[Unkotare]

.... I think it is a good idea not to have children in the 21st century. ....

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Unkotare]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child ....

You're not thinking.

 

[MisterBeale]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child ....

You're not thinking.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as those like Chris mentioned, my philosophy is sound. If you don't think so, you should offer up a counter other than sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "no. . no.. . no"

 

[MisterBeale]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child and instills the moral and ethical value that family is worthless. Instead, let the parent that has respect for the sacredness of the family raise the child.

If this happens, the rate of divorce, and the respect and sacredness with which people hold the institution of the family vis-à-vis the worth of an individual's happiness will come back into balance. Nothing is more important than how we raise an as yet undeveloped human mind.

Yet, some of these juvenile adults that aren't completely happy and decide to have children somehow think their own happiness is more important? Bullshit.

I used to babysit for a guy who had custody of all four of his kids because his wife ran off on them with some guy she met online. All of them girls too. Can you believe that nut? Another boy I babysat for, same situation except his mother was an unstable druggy. Poor kids.

However, I don't agree that the father should automatically get custody. That depends entirely upon the situation. Maybe he abused his wife or something. Maybe he was a drunk or a druggy.

Well, naturally, extenuating circumstances like addiction, or abuse not with standing.

However, even in these instances, don't you think the wife and mother should at least first make one attempt to get into therepy/counseling with the father to save the family unit? Every individual only gets one shot in life, only one mother, one father, and one childhood. Don't you think people just give up too easy today? Doesn't everyone just want to have instant gratification and instant easy life?

For instance, is it alright of the mother to just leave if the father gets a debilitating and slowly progressing disease that will make it so she can not be upwardly mobile? Our society values wealth and material items.

If after they marry and have one child, the father gets something like MS, is that now grounds for divorce? What about a severe anxiety or depressive disorder? Those can be the underlying cause to that substance abuse you were talking about. It then becomes very easy for the other parent to just cheat, and then walk out, doesn't it? Is that self centered behavior good for the future self-esteem, and identity of the children, or would it be better to see the one parent help the other though such a time of hardship? What usually happens?

Does the child see the mother and father giving each other unconditional love, no matter what problems arise in the relationship, or do folks bail at the first sign of problems?

 

[Unkotare]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child ....

You're not thinking.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as those like Chris mentioned, my philosophy is sound. ....

That's not a philosophy, not sound, and not logical.



You are trying to equate "initiating divorce proceedings" and "fault." Doesn't work that way.

 

[ChrisL]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child and instills the moral and ethical value that family is worthless. Instead, let the parent that has respect for the sacredness of the family raise the child.

If this happens, the rate of divorce, and the respect and sacredness with which people hold the institution of the family vis-à-vis the worth of an individual's happiness will come back into balance. Nothing is more important than how we raise an as yet undeveloped human mind.

Yet, some of these juvenile adults that aren't completely happy and decide to have children somehow think their own happiness is more important? Bullshit.

I used to babysit for a guy who had custody of all four of his kids because his wife ran off on them with some guy she met online. All of them girls too. Can you believe that nut? Another boy I babysat for, same situation except his mother was an unstable druggy. Poor kids.

However, I don't agree that the father should automatically get custody. That depends entirely upon the situation. Maybe he abused his wife or something. Maybe he was a drunk or a druggy.

Well, naturally, extenuating circumstances like addiction, or abuse not with standing.

However, even in these instances, don't you think the wife and mother should at least first make one attempt to get into therepy/counseling with the father to save the family unit? Every individual only gets one shot in life, only one mother, one father, and one childhood. Don't you think people just give up too easy today? Doesn't everyone just want to have instant gratification and instant easy life?

For instance, is it alright of the mother to just leave if the father gets a debilitating and slowly progressing disease that will make it so she can not be upwardly mobile? Our society values wealth and material items.

If after they marry and have one child, the father gets something like MS, is that now grounds for divorce? What about a severe anxiety or depressive disorder? Those can be the underlying cause to that substance abuse you were talking about. It then becomes very easy for the other parent to just cheat, and then walk out, doesn't it? Is that self centered behavior good for the future self-esteem, and identity of the children, or would it be better to see the one parent help the other though such a time of hardship? What usually happens?

Does the child see the mother and father giving each other unconditional love, no matter what problems arise in the relationship, or do folks bail at the first sign of problems?

That depends on the people involved. This is not an ideal world and people are far from being perfect.

 

[MisterBeale]

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child ....

You're not thinking.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as those like Chris mentioned, my philosophy is sound. ....

That's not a philosophy, not sound, and not logical.



You are trying to equate "initiating divorce proceedings" and "fault." Doesn't work that way.

...

If the women initiates divorce proceedings, the father automatically should get custody.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child and instills the moral and ethical value that family is worthless. Instead, let the parent that has respect for the sacredness of the family raise the child.

If this happens, the rate of divorce, and the respect and sacredness with which people hold the institution of the family vis-à-vis the worth of an individual's happiness will come back into balance. Nothing is more important than how we raise an as yet undeveloped human mind.

Yet, some of these juvenile adults that aren't completely happy and decide to have children somehow think their own happiness is more important? Bullshit.

I used to babysit for a guy who had custody of all four of his kids because his wife ran off on them with some guy she met online. All of them girls too. Can you believe that nut? Another boy I babysat for, same situation except his mother was an unstable druggy. Poor kids.

However, I don't agree that the father should automatically get custody. That depends entirely upon the situation. Maybe he abused his wife or something. Maybe he was a drunk or a druggy.

Well, naturally, extenuating circumstances like addiction, or abuse not with standing.

However, even in these instances, don't you think the wife and mother should at least first make one attempt to get into therepy/counseling with the father to save the family unit? Every individual only gets one shot in life, only one mother, one father, and one childhood. Don't you think people just give up too easy today? Doesn't everyone just want to have instant gratification and instant easy life?

For instance, is it alright of the mother to just leave if the father gets a debilitating and slowly progressing disease that will make it so she can not be upwardly mobile? Our society values wealth and material items.

If after they marry and have one child, the father gets something like MS, is that now grounds for divorce? What about a severe anxiety or depressive disorder? Those can be the underlying cause to that substance abuse you were talking about. It then becomes very easy for the other parent to just cheat, and then walk out, doesn't it? Is that self centered behavior good for the future self-esteem, and identity of the children, or would it be better to see the one parent help the other though such a time of hardship? What usually happens?

Does the child see the mother and father giving each other unconditional love, no matter what problems arise in the relationship, or do folks bail at the first sign of problems?

That depends on the people involved. This is not an ideal world and people are far from being perfect.

I know it doesn't work that way, I know western society has not constructed the ideal, it is focused on the individual, not the family and society. I was just telling you how it is supposed to work if you want a healthy society instead of a sick one.

 

[ChrisL]

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child ....

You're not thinking.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as those like Chris mentioned, my philosophy is sound. ....

That's not a philosophy, not sound, and not logical.



You are trying to equate "initiating divorce proceedings" and "fault." Doesn't work that way.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child and instills the moral and ethical value that family is worthless. Instead, let the parent that has respect for the sacredness of the family raise the child.

If this happens, the rate of divorce, and the respect and sacredness with which people hold the institution of the family vis-à-vis the worth of an individual's happiness will come back into balance. Nothing is more important than how we raise an as yet undeveloped human mind.

Yet, some of these juvenile adults that aren't completely happy and decide to have children somehow think their own happiness is more important? Bullshit.

I used to babysit for a guy who had custody of all four of his kids because his wife ran off on them with some guy she met online. All of them girls too. Can you believe that nut? Another boy I babysat for, same situation except his mother was an unstable druggy. Poor kids.

However, I don't agree that the father should automatically get custody. That depends entirely upon the situation. Maybe he abused his wife or something. Maybe he was a drunk or a druggy.

Well, naturally, extenuating circumstances like addiction, or abuse not with standing.

However, even in these instances, don't you think the wife and mother should at least first make one attempt to get into therepy/counseling with the father to save the family unit? Every individual only gets one shot in life, only one mother, one father, and one childhood. Don't you think people just give up too easy today? Doesn't everyone just want to have instant gratification and instant easy life?

For instance, is it alright of the mother to just leave if the father gets a debilitating and slowly progressing disease that will make it so she can not be upwardly mobile? Our society values wealth and material items.

If after they marry and have one child, the father gets something like MS, is that now grounds for divorce? What about a severe anxiety or depressive disorder? Those can be the underlying cause to that substance abuse you were talking about. It then becomes very easy for the other parent to just cheat, and then walk out, doesn't it? Is that self centered behavior good for the future self-esteem, and identity of the children, or would it be better to see the one parent help the other though such a time of hardship? What usually happens?

Does the child see the mother and father giving each other unconditional love, no matter what problems arise in the relationship, or do folks bail at the first sign of problems?

That depends on the people involved. This is not an ideal world and people are far from being perfect.

I know it doesn't work that way, I know western society has not constructed the ideal, it is focused on the individual, not the family and society. I was just telling you how it is supposed to work if you want a healthy society instead of a sick one.

A sick society is one that would force people who don't like one another to be together. If the parents aren't happy, then the children aren't happy either. Sometimes divorce IS the best solution.

 

[Unkotare]

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child ....

You're not thinking.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as those like Chris mentioned, my philosophy is sound. ....

That's not a philosophy, not sound, and not logical.



You are trying to equate "initiating divorce proceedings" and "fault." Doesn't work that way.

Does that really make sense to you?

If he wants the child? And if there is a dispute over who should have custody? Absolutely.

The party that is at fault for the break down of the family SHOULD NOT be the one that raises the child and instills the moral and ethical value that family is worthless. Instead, let the parent that has respect for the sacredness of the family raise the child.

If this happens, the rate of divorce, and the respect and sacredness with which people hold the institution of the family vis-à-vis the worth of an individual's happiness will come back into balance. Nothing is more important than how we raise an as yet undeveloped human mind.

Yet, some of these juvenile adults that aren't completely happy and decide to have children somehow think their own happiness is more important? Bullshit.

I used to babysit for a guy who had custody of all four of his kids because his wife ran off on them with some guy she met online. All of them girls too. Can you believe that nut? Another boy I babysat for, same situation except his mother was an unstable druggy. Poor kids.

However, I don't agree that the father should automatically get custody. That depends entirely upon the situation. Maybe he abused his wife or something. Maybe he was a drunk or a druggy.

Well, naturally, extenuating circumstances like addiction, or abuse not with standing.

However, even in these instances, don't you think the wife and mother should at least first make one attempt to get into therepy/counseling with the father to save the family unit? Every individual only gets one shot in life, only one mother, one father, and one childhood. Don't you think people just give up too easy today? Doesn't everyone just want to have instant gratification and instant easy life?

For instance, is it alright of the mother to just leave if the father gets a debilitating and slowly progressing disease that will make it so she can not be upwardly mobile? Our society values wealth and material items.

If after they marry and have one child, the father gets something like MS, is that now grounds for divorce? What about a severe anxiety or depressive disorder? Those can be the underlying cause to that substance abuse you were talking about. It then becomes very easy for the other parent to just cheat, and then walk out, doesn't it? Is that self centered behavior good for the future self-esteem, and identity of the children, or would it be better to see the one parent help the other though such a time of hardship? What usually happens?

Does the child see the mother and father giving each other unconditional love, no matter what problems arise in the relationship, or do folks bail at the first sign of problems?

That depends on the people involved. This is not an ideal world and people are far from being perfect.

I know it doesn't work that way, I know western society has not constructed the ideal, it is focused on the individual, not the family and society. I was just telling you how it is supposed to work if you want a healthy society instead of a sick one.

No, You weren't .