Is it fair to the child? (1 Viewer)

[Jerry]

Biased poll....I'm voting the obviously wrong answer just to be an azz.

 

[Stinger]

Maybe I am not understanding your position Stinger:

I think it has been pretty clear, I think you may be trying to find some tangent to go off on.

What do you have to say about the writer of the article and the fact that there are many more like her out there coming of age?

So then, are you saying that there are situations where a single person choosing to have a child would not be considered selfish? Or would you find it to be selfish in every instance?

I can't think of a situation beyond something extraordinary. I have specifically stated single women who purposely create a child without a father to be there. Who consciously and actively deny that child a father.

And are you saying that Heterosexual couples don't have children to further their desires?

Heterosexual couples by default have nothing to do with this and nowhere did I deny that adults have desires for children. The question is do you have a right to deny someone else such a basic right as a father just to satisfy your desire?

I know a lot of heterosexual couples........

By golly so do I, in fact I am part of one. And that has nothing to do with this.

It also seems to me that in most instances the desire to have a child is the same in dual-parent and single parent situations,

So what? I whether you satisfy that desire by denying your child a Dad or in the more rare case a mother and do so on purpose for you own selfish reasons.

they really want to have a child and believe that they would make a good parent....

But they can't be both a mother and a father.

Are you really saying that one person is selfish because of this desire but the other ones are altruistic? Are you really saying that one person is selfish because of this desire but the other ones are altruistic?

Are you really saying that it is OK to satisfy you own selfish desires even if it denies someone else a basic right, a basic component of their growing up? Just to make yourself happy?

 

[Stinger]

Biased poll....I'm voting the obviously wrong answer just to be an azz.

What's based about it?

 

[disneydude]

The problem with your reasoning Stinger is that it is circular and is based on assumptions that are not true.
By your reasoning it is selfish and wrong for a single person to choose to be a parent and it is ok for a heterosexual couple to have children even if they don't really want them because its the "thing to do". You would call a loving and capable parent selfish and would admire the heterosexual couple who show little interest in rearing a child simply because they are straight and they are two people.
You imply that it is better for a child to be raised in a loveless and/or abusive home with two heterosexual parents than for the child to be raised in a loving environment with a single mother (or father).
I know that you will deny that this is what you are saying....but it is exactly what you are implying.
The fallacy with your position which is the position of most right-wingers is that two straight parents does not equate with the perfect model to raise a family. You are quick to condemn single parents, gay parents as not meeting your standards of a "family"...and you then rely on propoganda unsubstantiated by proof to make assertions that it is harmful to the child or that the person is selfish.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and thats what debate is about...but you will never be able to make a credible argument to back your talking points because studies have shown time and again that a child flourishes best in an environment that is loving and supportive regardless of whether it is a dual or single parent household and regardless of whether the parent(s) is/are gay or straight. I have yet to see a credible study to the contrary.

 

[1069]

The problem with your reasoning Stinger is that it is circular and is based on assumptions that are not true.
By your reasoning it is selfish and wrong for a single person to choose to be a parent and it is ok for a heterosexual couple to have children even if they don't really want them because its the "thing to do". You would call a loving and capable parent selfish and would admire the heterosexual couple who show little interest in rearing a child simply because they are straight and they are two people.

Yep. Ol' Stinger's a slave to the status quo, alright.

 

[Kandahar]

Heterosexual couples by default have nothing to do with this and nowhere did I deny that adults have desires for children. The question is do you have a right to deny someone else such a basic right as a father just to satisfy your desire?

Since when did having a father become a "basic right"? Since when was it even necessary for success in life?

You're so sure that it's harmful to have one parent, or to have two parents of the same sex. Show us the psychological study that has reached this conclusion, or stop assuming that everyone agrees with the premise of your argument.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Actually the logical fallacy exhibited in the poll questions is a Complex Question fallacy. It assumes an unsubstatiated biased position. The question 'how often do you beat your wife' is a perfect example of this. It assumes that you beat your wife without substantiation and the 'how often' part is biased with the unsubstantiated supposition in mind. The OP, here, seems to ask the question 'is it fair to the child, that an adult's selfishness creates an undesirable family construct?' This assumes that the adult's choice is selfish and that the family construct is undesirable. All creating an unsubstantiated, biased position.

From the article, the girl seems to be suffering from what many in her position do: angry feelings related to feelings of abandonment and loss. Not so unusual for someone in her situation. This happens to kids who are adopted, lose a parent through death, divorce, etc... The assumption that one type of family situation is universally better is not only unsubstantiated, but refuted. In threads on gay parenting, I have posted many links to research that shows that there is no universal family situation that always is better.

Ultimately, what is fair for the child, is to live in a loving, caring household where that child can thrive and grow to a happy adult.

 

[Stinger]

The problem with your reasoning Stinger is that it is circular and is based on assumptions that are not true.

Not it is quite linear and nothing as you attempted to paint.

I know that you will deny that this is what you are saying....but it is exactly what you are implying.

No it is what YOU are saying I am saying and you don't speak for me and there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you if you are going to speak on my behalf.

The fallacy with your position ..................

The fallacy of your position is that mothers and fathers are unnecessary. How absurd.

 

[Stinger]

Since when did having a father become a "basic right"?

Since nature designed us that way. Read the article, she makes quite a case for it.

 

[Jerry]

What's based about it?

IMO your poll assumes that all hetero. couples are going to be involved in their children, and it assumes that no homo. couple would be.

Certainly an involved homo. couple would provide more benefits to a child than an uninvolved hetero. couple.

I guess I just would have liked that to have been made clear.

 

[Felicity]

Why are people so afraid to admit there is an "ideal" situation? Are they so insecure as to believe their personal worth is undermined by the admission that what they have had, or have created, is less than "ideal?" The one's that need to grow up are the ones denying REALITY. It is just FACT that some situations offer the best, and most healthy environments.
Stop justifying mediocrity to sooth your own feelings of inadequacy.

 

[Kandahar]

Since nature designed us that way.

Nature designed us without clothes too. Is it a basic right for me to walk butt-naked through main street?

Read the article, she makes quite a case for it.

No she doesn't. She just whines. She offers NO substantiation for her claim at all.


I notice that you ignored my repeated requests for some sort of data that proves it's better to have two parents of opposite genders. Does your intellectual dishonesty know no limits?

 

[Kandahar]

Why are people so afraid to admit there is an "ideal" situation? Are they so insecure as to believe their personal worth is undermined by the admission that what they have had, or have created, is less than "ideal?" The one's that need to grow up are the ones denying REALITY. It is just FACT that some situations offer the best, and most healthy environments.
Stop justifying mediocrity to sooth your own feelings of inadequacy.

OK, then show us the psychological study that indicates two parents of opposite genders are the ideal situation.

 

[Stinger]

IMO your poll assumes that all hetero. couples are going to be involved in their children, and it assumes that no homo. couple would be.

My poll assumes nothing, it says what it says and is what it is. You are simply trying to find someway, any way to be able to disagree with the obvious.

Certainly an involved homo. couple would provide more benefits to a child than an uninvolved hetero. couple.

Note how you have to denigrate the heterosexual couple in order to make your point.

 

[Stinger]

OK, then show us the psychological study that indicates two parents of opposite genders are the ideal situation.

Show me the one that says two parents of the same is better. Show me the one that says fathers are unnecessary. Show me the one the discounts what the author of the cite expressed in her essay. Are you saying she is a liar?

 

[Stinger]

Nature designed us without clothes too. Is it a basic right for me to walk butt-naked through main street?

That's really the best you have?

No she doesn't. She just whines. She offers NO substantiation for her claim at all.

You claim she is a liar?

I notice that you ignored my repeated requests for some sort of data that proves it's better to have two parents of opposite genders. Does your intellectual dishonesty know no limits?

Post one that says two parents of the same sex is better.

Post a study that proves fathers are not important in the lives of children. Then post one that says mothers aren't important.

I don't need a study I cite reality. Unless you are going to claim the woman is lying.

 

[Kandahar]

Show me the one that says two parents of the same is better. Show me the one that says fathers are unnecessary.

YOU are the one making the claim that two parents of opposite genders is the ideal solution. YOU are the one self-righteously condemning all other families as selfish. The burden of proof is on YOU. Furthermore, you KNOW that the burden of proof is on you, which makes your attempt to shift the burden just another exercise in your intellectual dishonesty.

Show me the one the discounts what the author of the cite expressed in her essay. Are you saying she is a liar?

I'm saying she's a whiny bitch that relies entirely on anecdotal evidence rather than hard data. She's obviously doing just fine; she's putting herself through college despite being raised on a low income, and she's writing for the Washington Post at age 18.

 

[Stinger]

YOU are the one making the claim that two parents of opposite genders is the ideal solution. YOU are the one self-righteously condemning all other families as selfish. The burden of proof is on YOU. Furthermore, you KNOW that the burden of proof is on you, which makes your attempt to shift the burden just another exercise in your intellectual dishonesty.

I said that a single mother having a child purposely denying that child a father is selfish. I gave you a cite from someone who has actually lived it. Now unless you can prove she is lying what she said stands. YOU said mothers and fathers are not important. Prove it. Post a study the defies all of human history, that we have been wrong all along that mothers and fathers are not important. The little girls don't need dads and boys don't need mothers. That you even need a study to convince you otherwise is absurd.

Here just to prove the point that I can post such studies:

"Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet
Family and Consumer Sciences
Campbell Hall 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Father's Role
HYG-5212-96

The father's role in families is an important one, and contributes both to the growth and development of the father and his children. Fathers have the opportunity to rethink their own father-child relationship, put that into a mature perspective, and parent their own children in a way that contributes positively to the children's growth and development. A father's influence continues across the generations.

For years researchers have concentrated on the mother's role in the family. However, within the last ten years, an increasing amount of research has been conducted on the father's role. As a result of this research, investigators have concluded that the father's role is an important one that has a profound influence on the social, emotional, and intellectual development of the children. Thus, the mother and father interact with the child in unique and different ways. These roles are not equal or interchangeable, but each make their own contribution to child development. Caring for and being involved with the family is important for both mother and father."

Father's Role, HYG-5212-96

Your turn. Post a study that says mothers and fathers are not important.

I'm saying she's a whiny bitch that relies entirely on anecdotal evidence rather than hard data.

Like I said your compassion is underwhelming. You response to the obvious emotional trials she has been put through is ................suck it up bitch.

 

[jallman]

If I had to make a guess as to this woman's general attitude about life, I would say that it is very poor. She strikes me, in both rhetoric and content, as the type of person who would be bitching about something else/anything else if she didn't have this to harp on all the time.

Further, I don't see how this woman's bitchfest (and that's all it was being that I saw no real data to back up her claims) even begins to relate to "lesbian couples and unwed starlets having babies. The opening post was a BS attempt at forcing a relationship between a whiny, self absorbed pessimist and an anti-gay parenting agenda.

 

[Kandahar]

I said that a single mother having a child purposely denying that child a father is selfish.

...which implicitly assumes that not having a father is somehow inferior to having a father.

I gave you a cite from someone who has actually lived it. Now unless you can prove she is lying what she said stands.

That's ridiculous. One person's sob story is NOT evidence of anything (especially when she's obviously doing fine). You know that perfectly well.

YOU said mothers and fathers are not important. Prove it.

No, I said there is no evidence that having two parents of opposite genders is superior to all other family arrangements. There is a big difference.

Post a study the defies all of human history, that we have been wrong all along that mothers and fathers are not important. The little girls don't need dads and boys don't need mothers. That you even need a study to convince you otherwise is absurd.

Once again the burden of proof is on YOU. I don't need to do a damn thing except refute the idiotic claims you make.

Here just to prove the point that I can post such studies:

"Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet
Family and Consumer Sciences
Campbell Hall 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Father's Role
HYG-5212-96

The father's role in families is an important one, and contributes both to the growth and development of the father and his children. Fathers have the opportunity to rethink their own father-child relationship, put that into a mature perspective, and parent their own children in a way that contributes positively to the children's growth and development. A father's influence continues across the generations.

For years researchers have concentrated on the mother's role in the family. However, within the last ten years, an increasing amount of research has been conducted on the father's role. As a result of this research, investigators have concluded that the father's role is an important one that has a profound influence on the social, emotional, and intellectual development of the children. Thus, the mother and father interact with the child in unique and different ways. These roles are not equal or interchangeable, but each make their own contribution to child development. Caring for and being involved with the family is important for both mother and father."

Father's Role, HYG-5212-96

Your turn. Post a study that says mothers and fathers are not important.

Let's just address a few of the claims listed here, because apparently the person who conducted it doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation either. See below:

One researcher concludes that fathers who are more involved in infant caregiving have infants with greater cognitive development at one year of age than fathers who are less involved in infant caregiving.

Smart parents have smart kids. This does not prove any causal relationship with how the child is actually raised.

Those fathers who were more affectionate and spent time with their children contributed positively to the self-esteem of their children.

Happy parents have happy kids. This does not prove any causal relationship with how the child is actually raised.

Researchers report that fathers who value education have children who do better in school than those fathers who do not value education.

Smart parents have smart kids. This does not prove any causal relationship with how the child is actually raised.

Etc, etc.

Like I said your compassion is underwhelming. You response to the obvious emotional trials she has been put through is ................suck it up bitch.

Boo-hoo. She's doing fine. If you don't feel I'm sympathetic enough, well, that's just the way it is. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[Stinger]

If I had to make a guess as to this woman's general attitude about life, I would say that it is very poor.

If I had to guess I would say that you and others here have nothing to offset what she said other than to attack her. That anyone would doubt the emotional trauma she has gone through merely so they can maintain their position about gay marriage is amazing.

How about heterosexual women who don't marry but want a child anyway just to satisfy themselves so they do as this mother did, leave the homosexual couple out for now. What about women who purposely create a child without a father. And read the cite I posted to Kandahar about the importance of fathers. Do you think that is something to celebrate. Is the kid lucky to be born to a single parent and never have a Dad?

 

[Kandahar]

If I had to guess I would say that you and others here have nothing to offset what she said other than to attack her. That anyone would doubt the emotional trauma she has gone through merely so they can maintain their position about gay marriage is amazing.

Who the hell CARES what she's gone through? Your repeated attempts to draw a broad conclusion about family arrangements from one person's story are absolutely ridiculous, and you know that perfectly well.

Furthermore, I'd hardly call her life a tragedy. She's putting herself through college despite coming from a low-income background, and she's writing for the Washington Post at age 18.

Is the kid lucky to be born to a single parent and never have a Dad?

Ya, the kid is lucky to be born at all. If she has a problem with it, she can off herself.

 

[jallman]

If I had to guess I would say that you and others here have nothing to offset what she said other than to attack her. That anyone would doubt the emotional trauma she has gone through merely so they can maintain their position about gay marriage is amazing.

Well, I don't have to guess that your agenda is to condemn gay marriage any way you can. This thread, the forced relationship, and you are so transparent it leaves nothing to question.

How about heterosexual women who don't marry but want a child anyway just to satisfy themselves so they do as this mother did, leave the homosexual couple out for now. What about women who purposely create a child without a father. And read the cite I posted to Kandahar about the importance of fathers. Do you think that is something to celebrate. Is the kid lucky to be born to a single parent and never have a Dad?

I believe life is something to celebrate no matter what the circumstances are. I don't need to politicize the life of every individual the breaks the nuclear family mold in an effort to make my feelings about a topic known. In any event, marriage and parenthood have little to do with each other until such a time as a married couple decide to be parents.

You're proving nothing here except that you have a problem with gay marriage. That's fine, but did you have to hold up a human shield to make your point?

 

[Stinger]

...which implicitly assumes that not having a father is somehow inferior to having a father.

All things being equal............you disagree with that statement. Or are you going to try and qualify it with one of those "Well what if the father is a rapist" nonsense?

That's ridiculous. One person's sob story is NOT evidence of anything (especially when she's obviously doing fine). You know that perfectly well.

Did you read the part when she mentioned the music kids listen to today and how much is filled with anger about such things? That you dismiss it out of hand is a sign of your desperation.

No, I said there is no evidence that having two parents of opposite genders is superior to all other family arrangements. There is a big difference.

Which implicitly implies that two parents of the same sex is superior. Which is it?

Once again the burden of proof is on YOU. I don't need to do a damn thing except refute the idiotic claims you make.

I gave the first hand account and the cite. YOUR TURN.

Let's just address a few of the claims listed here

No need to, you asked if there were any studies showing that fathers were important I cite them. They exist.

More

Charles A. Smith
Extension Specialist
Human Development
Cooperative Extension Service
Kansas State University

What the Research Shows

Research on father-child involvement demonstrates that [6]:

(1) Fathers are significant for children;

(2) Fathers are sensitive to children;

(3) Fathers play with children differently than mothers do.

NNCC Father's Care

Boo-hoo. She's doing fine. If you don't feel I'm sympathetic enough, well, that's just the way it is. Doesn't mean I'm wrong

Again your compassion is underwhelming. "Get over it bitch, your mothers feelings were more important than you having a Daddy."

 

[disneydude]

YOU are the one making the claim that two parents of opposite genders is the ideal solution. YOU are the one self-righteously condemning all other families as selfish. The burden of proof is on YOU. Furthermore, you KNOW that the burden of proof is on you, which makes your attempt to shift the burden just another exercise in your intellectual dishonesty.

Thank you.....This post is nothing more than another of Stinger's self-righteous diatribes unsupported by any data. The opinion piece that he points us to is nothing more than one woman's story and yet he cites it as proof and implies that it speaks for all individuals in that situation.
This woman's complaint is nothing more than any other person complaining about their situation in life (i.e., why was I born poor, why was I born short, why was I born with......).

Like I said before, I have little if any sympathy for a woman who was born into a loving home with a mother who struggled and sacrificed to provide the best life for her she could.
I call that courageous and admirable. Stinger calls it selfish.
At the same time....Stinger argues that anytime a single person or same sex couple choose to have children they are just selfish.....while the same decision made by a heterosexual couple is not.

Stinger.... the people who are truly selfish are people like you who believe that the only people who are entitled to families are people who meet only your limited idea of what a family is......that is selfish.

yet again...another example of people who condemn their own faults in others.