• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are there single fathers, who never married, with children in the West?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
If the Being has commanded to do a thing or not to do a thing, and gives reasonable arguments by which one is convinced heart and soul, one should listen to such a Being. It would be harmful for the humanity if one does not lend one's ear to such a Being and does not support Him.
If morality is to be tossed aside for the sake of pleasing a deity, morality isn't worth anything.

If one is doing self-defence and the other person get killed occidentally, every same person will understand the situation.
I agree with you.
Not in Florida. Defending yourself without even killing the jerk can land you in prison.

What I am saying is that God is fact. I do not have to show that to you or anyone to make it fact. I have a clock in my room. That is fact. None of you know it, see it, or ever will. It is still fact. It is fact because it is true. It is fact because it is known. You think that it must be able to be proved to others then? And that I assume is because you are thinking with a materialistic mind, which will limit you immediately. But if your question is show me God, then one day you will see him. But that is up to him, not me. But it is still fact. We know that through the spirit of his son that he freely gives us.
Ah, but you can't prove the clock is correct, at least not without a LOT of work. We can prove clocks exist even if we can't see your clock. What about God? I'm a theist, btw, but this is poor logic. You know about a "son" through people who claimed He was such. You didn't meet Jesus. Most of the people even writing about him didn't meet him.

Even Paul shows that.
Didn't Paul once advise a church to get rid of a person because of their accusations, without proof of any wrongdoing?

So I can say something exists here now with me. I know it is fact. I do not have to prove it to you for it to be fact.
So, because Troy factually existed, the tales of the Trojan War proves the Greek pantheon exists?

How does a man even prove he is the father?

"I dated that woman, the child is mine". LOL
Maury. :)

How much does DNA testing cost? And how does a man get a sample from the child? A lawyer, maybe. How much does that cost?
Feel sorry for that one poor dude who wasn't the father of his own child, but the brother that had been absorbed into his DNA... :)

What do you call God's prophet sicking two bears on a slew of children?
Just doing the bear necessities...
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Observable fact is materialism.
I have given an example that I will give again: i can write something on a piece of paper, and then destroy the paper. No one knows what was on it but me. That is fact. It is not any less fact because I cannot show it to you. It is fact because I know. You may call it opinion yourself as there is little else you can do. You see it from your own point of view. But it lessens it not... it is still fact.
It is still a fact we can find traces, even just the ashes, of the paper.

How do you know he could have prevented his death?
Well, since there are no other dead person stories where he prevents it, we can at least say Jesus could theoretically return John to life, since that talent WAS mentioned.

The point is, I know, and therefore it is fact: but I can't prove it to you, AND that is the very thing that your case rests on. I know what was on the note. Yes or no?
When a man says some black teenager beat him to a pulp and no one was around, we were to take his word for it, despite the FACT that such a beating would have FACTUAL medical injuries provable to everyone who assessed him. And guess what? Based on FACT, he was lying. He wanted us to believe in him because there was no one to call him a liar, but his claims defeated him even though the law was stupid enough to believe him.

I mean, there's this little thing called forensics, a systematic assessment of the environment, etc, to determine what really happened. Or are you of the opinion that we cannot know what we did not personally witness at all? If that is the case, since hardly anyone called an author in the bible was actually there for a good majority of the anthologies, why should we believe them since they weren't there?

Not many people choose to marry an abuser. They get tricked into the marriage. Therefore, I think God would call separation from such a person an annulment. You did not marry the man who would abuse you! So by God you may remarry.....but be more careful next time. :)
For nearly all my life, I figured my mom for this: an ignorant woman who was tricked by my abusive father. Turns out, we learned recently that he had specifically told her he could never love her and that he liked to hurt animals as a kid, etc. So, "tricked" wasn't what happened. She CHOSE this ***. I cried for hours with that revelation. I suspect she's a masochist and he's a sadist and while they didn't do the leather and other kink, it was a given that violence was chosen. Because my mother was raised Southern Baptist, her cognitive dissonance won't let her accept she needed his aggression, so ....

Also, it gets more complicated because my mom was diagnosed after the divorce (TN mandated counseling at the time) with borderline personality disorder. The shrink was on my father's side and most definitely would say whatever my father told him to say, but reviewing the symptoms ... yeah, she has it. Still, better to be living with crazy than evil, right?

Brought about through feminism destroying the family and men seeing their true value in the eyes of women. Interestingly it seems, men have feelings too.
When men were allowed to kill women and children, even their own, before feminism was invented, was it still our fault the man couldn't be a man?

Why more women suffer compared to the men in West?:
Nearly 3 in 10 women (29%) and 1 in 10 men (10%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their functioning.[ii]
Nearly, 15% of women (14.8%) and 4% of men have been injured as a result of IPV that included rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[iii]
1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) aged 18 and older in the United States have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[iv]
More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[vi]
Females ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 generally experienced the highest rates of intimate partner violence.[viii]
From 1994 to 2010, about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female.[ix]
Most female victims of intimate partner violence were previously victimized by the same offender, including 77% of females ages 18 to 24, 76% of females ages 25 to 34, and 81% of females ages 35 to 49.[x]
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
Why more women suffer compared to the men in West?
It is neither equality nor equitability.
Regards
We must also acknowledge, though, that due to the West's insistence on manly manhood, men are less likely to admit they got beat up by women.

Then, why should not men start taking adopting birth control remeasure instead of the women, if later on they cannot support the mother and the child? Why should such men have sex with women?
Yeah! Why would I be demonized for taking birth control (no sexual reasons, just have painful periods) and yet I see constant commercials demanding men pick up little blue boing boing pills?

Feminist stated that they went out to destroy the family. That is their boast. Why? Because the man is the power in the family. Destroy the family, the woman is free. To do that however, she needs the vote. Then she has a job. Then she can leave. Feminism destroys the family. Period. That does not negate however, that men were not doing that good a job of valuingthem in the first place, considering they obviously had tendancies to greed
Wow. Not, "maybe men should rethink their hardcore and baseless patiarchy", but "let's blame women". Combine this with your callousness regarding abuse ...

They would both be victims though
Yes, my father often told us we were the cause of his fits of temper. Even now, he wants US to apologize for HIS abuse and cheating. As a narcissistic sociopath, he is the victim any time he does not get his way, and when he does not get his way, he slams you against the wall or stalks you or ...

When did I say I was on higher ground?
Aren't you the one who says he knows the Son or whatever and that it is a fact?


Why tough to prosecute? In stead of giving check to the fraudulent women, the governments could make laws and provide lawyers to the victims and save money getting fleeced by such deceiving persons. Proper legislations could always be made.
Regards
Well, we as kids had all the red flags of being abused by our parents, but did anyone help us? No. My father was a "good ol' boy", it's the woman's fault anyway (probably wanted "rights" or some crap like that), and Mom was obviously teaching us to hate poor, poor Daddy. I can never forgive the state of Tennessee for never coming to our rescue. If the country cared about children, we wouldn't ignore abuse or underfund social services or whatever else would be needed to fix the problem. We have news stories in this country where parents STILL claim religious exemptions for clear situations of abuse, from forbidding education to starvation to death. They SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that God told them this was okay.

We are arguing on the internet. Abuse?
This explains a lot of fundamentalism's issues with debates in general.

So we have an ungodly society and a family unit that doesn't function.... where then are the grandparents? Grandmothers used to hlep.
My paternal grandparents took Daddy's side, naturally. My maternal grandparents would let us stay at their house. Closer to the death of my maternal grandfather, he told us he didn't remember our lives being that bad. That stunned us, since we would come to their house, sometimes at night, fleeing the situation between our parents....

I hate this. I think the father should have the same rights - if that's the right word for it.
I mean, if a woman can decide to abort her child despite the father wanting to keep it, then why can't a man walk away from all responsibility for that child if the mother decides to keep it?
Or if we're going to say the father must take responsibility for the child, then he should be able to prevent the mother from getting an abortion and he should get full custody of that child.
This would be a lot easier to work out when men can get pregnant. Until then, the onus is on the woman to bring the kid into the world. As soon as men invent artificial wombs, by all means, let them have equal say.

As I said though, it really isn't all that pervasive. Most men in this country do not make such exorbitant amounts. One would have to look for and manipulate wealthier men to come out on top of the financial equation. The average for child support in this country is about $5000 per year. One simply cannot live on that. Deduct food, clothing childcare and/or school, medical, dental, and the numerous other little things that you just put into the child and there isn't a whole lot left. Certainly not enough to benefit from by having a child. The ones that could make out well are the rare minority. Thus, like I said, not a pervasive problem.
My mother got 750 for two kids per month. I taught fourth grade getting my masters' in education, and I spent WAY more than that on just school supplies for my impoverished students.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
DNA
Regards
No, I believe he was asking how do you prove a woman was being deceitful? A man could just claim she led him on. He would have to prove that she manipulated him into having a child just to get money from him. Would be hard to do. Not only is it "he said, she said" but it would be put to him that if he didn't want to chance getting her pregnant he should have either taken protection into his own hands or just not have sex with her. Pregnancy is a known side effect to sex. There are BC methods that are highly reliable but there is always a failure rate. If a man absolutely, positively, does not want to take any chance of having a baby with a woman...don't have sex with her. Unless he is raped he had just as much responsibility in getting the woman pregnant as she did. It's beyond time for many men to understand this fact.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I didn't say I didn't have enough money. I was lucky that I made a good enough income myself back then (in military) that his $50 didn't mean too very much to me. As for grandparents I lived many states away at the time. So do many others. And with many older people they are on fixed incomes themselves so cannot help financially. I shouldn't have to explain all this really. It still has nothing to do with the assertion that women get pregnant to milk child support money.
You didn't have to explain it all. The comment was on the fact that families are breaking up, your testimony to that says it all (parents look after children and not grandparents ) as if they can't help.
The cost of bringing up children would not be as high if relationships did not break up and Gparent helped.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
We have repeatedly addressed your broadbrushing. Repeatedly tried to get you on topic. That you say you can't see this only proves you truly are not paying attention.
That you say that shows you are not listening or have fallen asleep at some point; I might say that your dishonest, but I won't.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I think you assumed only you can see the other side of the coin. Like I said, it is obvious so to post the obvious means to me it is the more important side according to you. In this discussion, it is the less important side.





An argument can be considered abusive only when insults start flying. Yelling is not abusive. Yelling is a physical mechanism that for some people can't be controlled.
If it is obvious, then why don't I hear you agreeing with me? Why do I hear you agreeing with them?
Yelling is abusive, is abuse. What planet are you from?
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Well, so can the women, can't they? So I guess the women are being taken advantage of. They made the choice to have unprotected sex. Deal with the consequences.

For the record, my first child was out of wedlock. I never asked for child support. I took care of her myself the first 2 1/2 years. Then I got married and my husband took care of her for the next 2 1/2 years. Then her father came into her life. I still never asked for child support. He was there when he was there, and not when he wasn't. He helped when he helped and not when he didn't. And life went on.
Did you mean "aren't" being taken advantage of?
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I disagree. If I only had one child, my husband would have to pay over $1,000 a month.
The women who make "careers" out of this know which men to look for.
I have someone in my family who got 30,000 a year in child support from 2 different men for 3 children.
I have heard of women that do this, and it is pretty disgusting really isn't it. I suppose I might add that the man should be more mature in his datingand then he wouldn't be taken advantage of.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
You claim the reason women have that power is because of feminism.
Seeing as women have had that power BEFORE feminism and BEFORE RvW, your insistence that feminism is the reason they have that power just does not hold any water.

Now if you want to dodge the discussion by falsely accusing me of strawman, so be it.
It is your credibility, not mine.
Do you have to have the title feminism for it to actually exist? I don't think so.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member

Which part?

I'm willing to stand by everything I said in my post.
Tom
Good morning Tom. I was saying, in response to your remark, that while it is true that the courts often favor the mother, that is not always the case. I wrote about my experiences in response to Coco...something like that. That was all I was saying.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I disagree. The father (assuming the man decides to stick around) doesn't have to bear the same level of responsibility or physical risk during a pregnancy as the woman. It's not their bodies which have to nurture the foetus (and later the baby) and help it to grow.



But that's precisely what happens already. Men walk away leaving the woman all the responsibility and only her resources to raise the child while trying to work and afford a decent life for it. Such things like paying alimony are not just to stop the irresponsible man, they're also to secure the child's future. These laws were brought in because, for centuries, men would rut women they weren't married to and sire ********. The annoying thing about ******** was that recognising them could seriously mess up things like inheritance, and caring for them and the mother can complicate marriages, one's position at court, in business negotiations or in power plays. Also, caring for the child and mother (who might be nothing more than a prostitute the bloke took a tumble with) would add extra financial pressure with practically no return (******** back then had no legal rights). Laws requiring the father to pay for the upkeep was the legal way of righting the wrongs of a father abandoning a mother and their child for one reason or another and leaving them to fend for themselves.

Watch the first two seasons of the TV series Game of Thrones for a rough idea about how ******* children (particularly those of nobility) would have been treated in older societies.
agree.
No. No. No. Women do not lose or forsake their bodily autonomy when they become pregnant and they are not property or chattels for men to control as they please. Pregnant women are not walking incubators with no rights or sense of self. They're human beings with needs. This is the 21st Century, not the 1st.

Edit: I love how that one instance of '********' was censored but the others weren't. o_O
Disagree
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Except when God specifically tells people to do it?
You are judging God? Do you even know who he is?
Do you eat, drink, take antibiotics, etc? Everything single thing you do kills SOMETHING.
that is just nonsense.
Before Cain killed Abel, no one mentions that killing is wrong. As he acted prior to the rule being given, did he sin?
yes, as sin is an error.
How did people talk to God prior to the writing of the scriptures?
Does that matter? He talks to us primarily (at first) through scripture. After that it is intuitive. Does that answer your question, or were you not listening
Comas and levels of consciousness have measurable meanings. We nurses know how to use them.
How do you prove to the person in question I meant.
Thankyou for some shallow comments.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
MY post doesn't paint women to be any way. My post was the other side. I was replying to the comment that men take advantage of women.
IMO, it did show women to be manipulative and more, and while I agree that there are women like that, I also wanted to point out that there are men who are just as bad.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
I hate this. I think the father should have the same rights - if that's the right word for it.
I mean, if a woman can decide to abort her child despite the father wanting to keep it, then why can't a man walk away from all responsibility for that child if the mother decides to keep it?
Or if we're going to say the father must take responsibility for the child, then he should be able to prevent the mother from getting an abortion and he should get full custody of that child.
No way. If that were the case, men would have power over women and women would be forced, for roughly 10 months, to be a human incubator AGAINST HER WILL. Your scenario makes women in to lesser humans than men are. Are you actually saying that women are or should be, subjective to men?
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Ah, but you can't prove the clock is correct, at least not without a LOT of work. We can prove clocks exist even if we can't see your clock. What about God? I'm a theist, btw, but this is poor logic. You know about a "son" through people who claimed He was such. You didn't meet Jesus. Most of the people even writing about him didn't meet him.
If you will insist on mixing comments from different people, it is very difficult to reply to yours.
What on earth does it matter if the clock is correct or not?
What does it matter whether clocks exist elsewhere or not?
I can write something on paper and then destroy it; I know I did and I would know what I wrote; no one else would; so it might well be opinion to them, but to be and to truth, it would be fact. So therefore it is good logic.

I know about a son, "the" son, because of his Spirit. Those writing of him met him. If you are baptised into his death and therefore subsequent life, you have met him. Or are you still thinking that he is flesh?
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
It is still a fact we can find traces, even just the ashes, of the paper.


Well, since there are no other dead person stories where he prevents it, we can at least say Jesus could theoretically return John to life, since that talent WAS mentioned.


When a man says some black teenager beat him to a pulp and no one was around, we were to take his word for it, despite the FACT that such a beating would have FACTUAL medical injuries provable to everyone who assessed him. And guess what? Based on FACT, he was lying. He wanted us to believe in him because there was no one to call him a liar, but his claims defeated him even though the law was stupid enough to believe him.

I mean, there's this little thing called forensics, a systematic assessment of the environment, etc, to determine what really happened. Or are you of the opinion that we cannot know what we did not personally witness at all? If that is the case, since hardly anyone called an author in the bible was actually there for a good majority of the anthologies, why should we believe them since they weren't there?


For nearly all my life, I figured my mom for this: an ignorant woman who was tricked by my abusive father. Turns out, we learned recently that he had specifically told her he could never love her and that he liked to hurt animals as a kid, etc. So, "tricked" wasn't what happened. She CHOSE this ***. I cried for hours with that revelation. I suspect she's a masochist and he's a sadist and while they didn't do the leather and other kink, it was a given that violence was chosen. Because my mother was raised Southern Baptist, her cognitive dissonance won't let her accept she needed his aggression, so ....

Also, it gets more complicated because my mom was diagnosed after the divorce (TN mandated counseling at the time) with borderline personality disorder. The shrink was on my father's side and most definitely would say whatever my father told him to say, but reviewing the symptoms ... yeah, she has it. Still, better to be living with crazy than evil, right?


When men were allowed to kill women and children, even their own, before feminism was invented, was it still our fault the man couldn't be a man?


We must also acknowledge, though, that due to the West's insistence on manly manhood, men are less likely to admit they got beat up by women.


Yeah! Why would I be demonized for taking birth control (no sexual reasons, just have painful periods) and yet I see constant commercials demanding men pick up little blue boing boing pills?


Wow. Not, "maybe men should rethink their hardcore and baseless patiarchy", but "let's blame women". Combine this with your callousness regarding abuse ...


Yes, my father often told us we were the cause of his fits of temper. Even now, he wants US to apologize for HIS abuse and cheating. As a narcissistic sociopath, he is the victim any time he does not get his way, and when he does not get his way, he slams you against the wall or stalks you or ...


Aren't you the one who says he knows the Son or whatever and that it is a fact?



Well, we as kids had all the red flags of being abused by our parents, but did anyone help us? No. My father was a "good ol' boy", it's the woman's fault anyway (probably wanted "rights" or some crap like that), and Mom was obviously teaching us to hate poor, poor Daddy. I can never forgive the state of Tennessee for never coming to our rescue. If the country cared about children, we wouldn't ignore abuse or underfund social services or whatever else would be needed to fix the problem. We have news stories in this country where parents STILL claim religious exemptions for clear situations of abuse, from forbidding education to starvation to death. They SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that God told them this was okay.


This explains a lot of fundamentalism's issues with debates in general.


My paternal grandparents took Daddy's side, naturally. My maternal grandparents would let us stay at their house. Closer to the death of my maternal grandfather, he told us he didn't remember our lives being that bad. That stunned us, since we would come to their house, sometimes at night, fleeing the situation between our parents....


This would be a lot easier to work out when men can get pregnant. Until then, the onus is on the woman to bring the kid into the world. As soon as men invent artificial wombs, by all means, let them have equal say.


My mother got 750 for two kids per month. I taught fourth grade getting my masters' in education, and I spent WAY more than that on just school supplies for my impoverished students.
HOW IN HECK IS ANYONE SUPPOSED TO REPLY TO THAT? Picking through different comments! I haven't even bothered to read it.
If you want a reply, separate the quotes to individuals. And I think they were typed about a week ago.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Mr. Evans, I would very much appreciate it if you would show some, or at least a modicum of, respect to me as I don't respond to "woman" EVER. And if you wish to know what back pedaling is, look it up.
Why? Don't you like being a woman? I have no problems with them myself. So no answer then, Madam. Tis you, after all, that is calling me "Mr Evans" which I am sure is not out of respect.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
No way. If that were the case, men would have power over women and women would be forced, for roughly 10 months, to be a human incubator AGAINST HER WILL. Your scenario makes women in to lesser humans than men are. Are you actually saying that women are or should be, subjective to men?
I thought you would be all for equality. This is where the double standards come in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top