To: GOPsterinMA
Bristol has a family/network to help her and the kid out. This doesn't have diddly to do with labor.
If Johnston’s doper mother is an indication of his side of the equation, they’re both better of without him.
Looks like living in Massachusetts has had its deleterious effects. The reality is that, while there are exceptions, children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them.
42 posted on
03/11/2009 8:05:17 PM PDT by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
To: Carry_Okie
“The reality is that, while there are exceptions, children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them.”
Are you for real? Are you serious? Wow.
A dog, let alone a person is better off without abusive parental units.
Oh, and where I live has nothing to do with it. Having eyes and ears does.
50 posted on
03/11/2009 8:16:18 PM PDT by
GOPsterinMA
("The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.")
To: Carry_Okie
...children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them. After reading "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce", I can't think of single reason I would leave my husband.
73 posted on
03/11/2009 8:36:41 PM PDT by
littlehouse36
(Obamanomics: Chains you can believe in.)
To: Carry_Okie
The reality is that, while there are exceptions, children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them. What??? Where do I start... My father beat the hell outta me, my mom and my sibs. We left him. Had we stayed, someone would have died, perhaps many. But as long as you think we would have been better off with an abusive father than none at all...
83 posted on
03/11/2009 8:54:48 PM PDT by
rintense
(Go Israel!)
To: Carry_Okie
“The reality is that, while there are exceptions, children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them.”
I would like to see the statistics on this statement. Link or source would be helpful. I have never read or seen any documentation of what you have just stated....just the opposite.
To: Carry_Okie
The reality is that, while there are exceptions, children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them. All abusive fathers, without exception, should lose custody of their children forever. In addition, you seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Get some help.
110 posted on
03/11/2009 10:24:48 PM PDT by
Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
To: Carry_Okie
The reality is that, while there are exceptions, children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them. You been taking crazy pills?
153 posted on
03/12/2009 5:57:28 AM PDT by
GraniteStateConservative
(...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
To: Carry_Okie
"The reality is that, while there are exceptions, children are better off even with abusive fathers than without them."
You obviously haven't been abused.
172 posted on
03/12/2009 3:00:27 PM PDT by
Shugee
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson