The womb is the real weapon of mass detruction as it has been throughout history.
Posted on 09/15/2005 9:28:57 AM PDT by qam1
Oh please, what utter crappola.
QFT.
I'll say it if Qam won't. The vast majority of childless 30 something and 40 something individuals I meet are bigger children than my children. And by children I don't mean charmingly playful or youthful. I mean self-centered prima-donnas with little or no maturity.
There are no illegitmate children. The very concept is ugly at its core.
At least here in the US there are two factor at work. Firstly tax policies still don't greatly favor having kids as much as they should. And secondly, the fear of how to deal with the indoctrination in the government schools puts a damper on procreation. If it was more financially appealling to have kids, and if the school situation was not so depressing, I think more people would be having kids.
I have said nothing at all different.
Women, standing the most to gain, initiate divorces at a rate far higher than men and they are granted custody in the overwhelming majority of cases.
I had the most to lose when I initiated divorce proceedings against my ex-husband, with no children of my own involved - yet I was going to be expected to pay my share of child support for his child from a previous marriage because the formula that calculated the amount he paid included my income.
Nothing California does surprises me any longer, so trying to equate the female rape victim paying the support to the assinine idea a male rape victim should do so is as ludicrous as the statute itself.
Drastically cutting Social Security benefits for the childless would be a good start.
Okay. I thought people today had children because they wanted them and wanted to experience the joy of raising them and loving them for the rest of their lives, much much moreso than having them fill a slot in anyone's retirement plans.
Anyhow, what I was trying to say is even if you have children it's not guaranteed they'll be taking care of you--lots of things can prevent that from happening.
Remember also that even if it comes about, your children & grandchildren will be so overtaxed by SS/Medicare/whatever gubmint welfare system that it'll be even harder for them to support you.
I have a better idea.
Let's grandfather out SS entirely.
BTW, using the federal gubmint to punish people for choosing to not have children is NOT conservative at all.
That bears repeating again.
Wow, you actually have it in for people who have children.
The womb is the real weapon of mass detruction as it has been throughout history.
Not a practical reality. It's hard enough to live with the person you're sleeping with. Take away that intimacy, and living with roomates or family becomes more of a hassle than it is worth for the average adult.
In another country, at another time, perhaps. The current reality is that eliminating Social Security is not politically feasible, so we might at least recognize the fact that parents contribute more, by raising future taxpayers.
Nope..
Quote "It just stands to reason that the bond of religion is protective of marriage, and I believe it is." But Mr. Barna's numbers appear to say something otherwise about some of the country's most fervent Christians. His letter addressed those Christians' most common defenses, point by point, and the cross-tabulations of his study responded to many of the scholarly objections. He rejected the idea that large numbers of divorced Christians left their marriages before they converted. He also found no reason in his 3,854-person national survey to believe that large numbers of Christian marriages broke up because the Christian partner was "unequally yoked" with a non-Christian.
He doesn't buy that Christians divorced more often because they married their romantic partners rather than merely living with them. He doesn't have co-habitation data, but, Mr. Barna said, "of more than 70 other moral behaviors we study, when we compare Christians to non-Christians we rarely find substantial differences and we have no reason to believe co-habitation would veer from that pattern."
And, as with most of these types of surveys, it doesn't attempt to separate out those who are committed to their Faith from the RINO (religion in name only) types.
I'm hearing bagpipes
but no, in all Barna surveys (Barna is an Evangelical Christian polling group BTW)the pollster first determines the religiousness of the person they are polling by asking specific questions
No. Rome became Christian, it was not replaced by Christians. Christian Rome fell to the barbarians.
Actually, physiologically speaking, your sperm is the most robust and healthiest between 16 and 20, so it's no different for men.
BRAVO.
I was wondering when the anti-public school comments were going to begin.....but I wanted to see if you responded before I commented upon that.
You have every right to take pride in what you are doing for yourself, your children, and your mother. You remind me of my sister-in-law, a woman I greatly admire for how she handled the adversity of life.
Her 2 daughters are now in their 20s and so on track as to be amazing to me.
Keep up the good work.
How is it, then, that children today are more unhappy (e.g., suicidal) than ever before? After all, we're much more open to "alternative family structure," much more non-judgmental, and yet children are less happy than in more traditional times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.