Posted on 05/21/2006 11:55:33 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
It sounded like the name of an album. I didn't realize it was a book about me.
And you think any woman with a job and a need to dominate another individual deserves to be honored as a "mother" without criticism from any quarter?
Unfortunately for your argument, I said none of those things. What I said was:
The children of these financially self-sufficient, educated, employed single-mothers-by-choice, will do just as well as the children of widows. Of which there will unfortunately be quite a lot in this coming generation, due to the large number of young men being killed in the war.
Saying there will be "a large number" of widows, is not making any assertion about a "large impact on demographics". There were "a large number" of people killed by the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but 3000 deaths have no significant demographic impact on this nation of nearly 300 million. Due to the war, there will be a lot more young widows in this generation than in the previous one, period.
I also said nothing about the war deaths "reducing the number of marriageable males" -- and since I was discussing war widows with children, those particular deceased men and their widows obviously already HAD married.
I do not think women need any "excuse" to have children on their own, nor did I say so. Nor do I think, nor did I say, that the number of men killed in the war and/or a numerical shortage of men was the CAUSE of women choosing to have children on their own. My ONLY reference to men killed in the war, was that they are leaving a large number of widows raising children on their own -- and that historical evidence suggests that those children will do just fine, despite being raised without fathers.
The point of my post (which you seem to have missed entirely, while you were busy imagining it said all sorts of things which it didn't) was that children raised by their mothers alone do just fine, if those mothers were responsible, loving women to begin with. As long as the mother is financially self-sufficient by one means or another (including veterans' survivor benefits), has at least completed high school, and is emotionally mature and stable, it makes no difference to the child whether the father got killed while the mother was 3 months pregnant with the child, or if the father was an anonymous sperm donor who the mother never expected to have involved in raising the child. If the mother is a welfare dependent, substance-abusing, irresponsible, illiterate mess to begin with, as are most of the single mothers in this country (but NONE of these single mothers using sperm donors fall into that category), there would be no benefit to the child if she married and stayed married to the child's welfare dependent, substance-abusing, irresponsible, illiterate mess of a biological father. The grim statistics regarding children of "single mothers" in this country are overwhelmingly driven by that latter group, which is very large (to a demographically significant degree!). The college-educated, financially secure, emotionally stable women, who are the great majority of the women who choose to become single mothers via sperm donors, have virtually nothing in common with the dysfunctional hordes of teenage welfare mothers, either before or after having children, and the lives of the two groups' children will have virtually nothing in common either.
And where did anyone say anything about domination? Sheesh. You have deep issues.
It just sounded like a "blues" album.
Yeah, it does. But he's an excellent writer. Also, the movie has an incredible cast.
You responded to my post; not the other way round. If you don't want your "business" discussed, what are you on a discussion forum for...to dispense your pearls and have us all marvel at your insight?
Are you actually defending women who voluntarily become single mothers?
The "she" is the daughter of the sperm donor, not the grown woman who received the sperm donation. The daughter believes she hasn't missed anything by being raised by a single mom. Which is sad, as well, but doesn't relate to your point.
Are you actually defending women who voluntarily become single mothers?
I would defend their right to do so, it being a free country and all.
Go pound...if you can make loaded assertions, so can I. You want to discuss things like a rational adult, I'm all for it. But if you think you're going to play a one sided "knock the chip off" game, you've got another thing coming.
Aw, did you get your feelings hurt? You refuse to answer a simple question and call it a game. Who is the rational adult here?
"Free Country" does not mean free from criticism, or did this suddenly become a democrat board?
For brevity~~~~~~~~~
WHAT YOU SAID.
Don't flatter yourself. Don't you know the impact of criticism is proportional to regard one has for the opinion of the critic?
I saw no serious question in your post. Care to rephrase it?
"Free Country" does not mean free from criticism, or did this suddenly become a democrat board?
Heavens to betsy no...However, I would argue that moral absolutism is more of a liberal trait than a conservative one. It's always been my understanding that conservatives stood for self reliance and with self reliance comes self-determination etc. etc. So, you pretty much get to live your life as you best see fit.
Go back and reread it. It was succinct enough.
Oh, is this the "simple" question ;-D
Well the question might be simple, but the sentence is a trainwreck...
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.