well teen pregnancy is going down and being opposed to abortion doesnt mean it isnt readily available and legal,, but

I think its deeper than that, the media and greed have done alot of their own part. Teen pregnancy was NOWHERE NEAR As rampant in my parents or their parents time and that was well before SEX education in schools. But then, the kids weren't exposed to sex and sexual imagery EVERYWHERE they looked, and people were actually stigmatized and had negative consequences to certain sexual irresponsibility.

a Man would have been ashamed to just leave his kids. An older man would have been ashamed to be courting high schoolers. A female would have been encouraged to have some sense of commitment to whomever she was going to engage sexually with. Teens would actually respect the elders and there were traditions in place that encouraged them to respect the family of that girl they were taking out. Their own families expected more of them.

Now we just toss all caution to the wind and say its 'natural' and therefore go at it. Its everywhere they look, its how we define ourselves and unfortunately its how they learn to define themselves now feeling like they have to 'define' their sexuality before they have even finished puberty.

All this mess works together, we can blame any part of it, or we can look at what has worked for us BEFORE and learn from it.

one good thing about Texas then,,,

Of course it's not just black folks who have bastard baby after unknown daddy bastard baby, but the entitlement attitude is still the same.

And who really should get the overall blame?

When the welfare state was originally created some decades back the locals actually advertised in their community newspapers who could and how to receive government assistance.

So... they gathered everyone who was interested and taught each one case by case how to play...

Without enough jobs to go around to keep money flowing through the economy producing a market of uneducated and dependent individuals became the norm and acceptable thing to do.

Of course when uneducated children grow up and there's still no employment or a way out of their lives of poverty they might turn to dealing drugs, prostitution, and other criminal activity just to survive or make a living, only to go to prison if and when they get busted.

Another source of tax funded revenue, prisons....

My point is... instead of the upper and middle classes always blaming the poor and uneducated for their plight and lifelong ignorance etc.... it would behoove everyone to understand who the real culprits are who created and still encourage these types of tax funded lifestyles...

It's all about cash flow... and the more ignorant people are the easier it is to control them, and to ensure they live in poverty with only the most motivated able to reach up and out if they are allowed too that is. JMO.

Ok let's look at it this way. If a woman wants and abortion and the man doesn't can he stop her? If a woman doesn't want an abortion and the man does can he make her? The answer to these questions shows that while both parties are responsible, one should be taking more of the responsibility than the other.

no, both SHOULD be taking responsibility


Im no fan of abortion or abortion laws for that same reason,, the time to have CHOICE about raising a baby is before one MAKES a baby,,,whatever their gender,,,

You can say the same thing about the woman, but who gets to make the decision after the fact?

unfortunately, because of the biology, the woman has more say for NINE MONTHS

but before and after, both are equally inexcused from their responsiblity,,,

Except that the fact of if there is or isn't an after is determined in those 9 months. If biology dictates she has more say, then biology dictates she has more responsibility. Sorry but you can't pick and chose just the parts that are convenient.

I wouldn't even say its just biology. We could technically pass a law that states if the male doesn't want an abortion then the woman isnt allowed to have one.

incorrect, biology dictates she has more say because it dictates she has more RESPONSIBILITY,, in that nine months she is the only one that takes care of or can take care of that life so it is under her complete discretion

unlike before the life is created, or once the child is born,,,

agree to disagree, and my legal point? Making it illegal to terminate if the male partner doesn't want it?

what COULD be done is for other options

the child is both parents child

if the father doesnt want it and the mom does, there should be a legal disclaimer releasing them from all rights to the child during the pregnancy,, so she can keep it with no legal obligation for him

if the father wants the baby and the mom doesnt, there should be a legal disclaimer releasing the mom from all rights to the child and a binding contract for the father accepting that he is fully responsible for the child once it is born


if either wants the child, abortion should be off the table,,but there should be a LEGALLY binding contract that whomever wants the child agrees to full responsibility,,,,

So we reduce child birth and bringing new life into the world to a discussion of ownership, a property battle..... rather than the miracle most consider it to be, and many who are unable to create, who can afford to raise and love, would sacrifice all for just the ability of a chance to.

I remember a story of a wise King named Solomon who held such a court over a child.....

I watched all 3 I helped create being born, held those little miracles in my arms moments after their first breaths of life....

Morality is lost when new life becomes a matter of dollars.....not sense

yes it does take two to tango so between the two children must be cared for financially, physically, emotionally, etc. One of the biggest problems (in my opinion) with our society is that we have daycare centers raising our kids. But that aside, if a single mom is working the state is still gonna help foot the daycare bill unless dad is providing for them also. at least the moms are there. (I do not mean the deadbeat moms that willing is all fired up about, but moms who are raising kids w/out support from the fathers). Fathers who walk away are the larger of the problem. At least the moms /w the kids are there and can participate in training and counseling.

none of this addresses the issue of quality daycare being the exception rather than the norm, that kids spend too much time in daycare (sometimes 10-13 hours per day - most of us do not even work that long), that the state generally does not do a great job of raising kids/institutions are not good places. that is why the state makes every effort to keep families together before children are removed (another controversy because some kids have been left in bad situations)

Let me ask you this....mom & kids live next door...dad is a deadbeat. so she is either on welfare or working poor with kids in (probably substandard) daycare for 10-13 hrs a day. Would you rather pay taxes to sustain that and let this mom raise her kids, or take one of her children into your home to raise?

If a man tries to tap a woman who says,"No tail without a raincoat.", that's rape.

A man cannot rape a willing woman.

Responsible women use and insist on protection.

Hoodrats know the state will pay.

life has to survive, for that dollars are necessary and miracles need caretakers

Id rather those who create and WANT their children not be shut out because they are the wrong gender, and Id rather those who create children they claim to want be held responsible for the ups and downs of raising that child

in an IDEAL world , we would make parents be parents, BOTH parents, but in this world too many get a pass to shun it off and walk away or terminate life,,,

and what do responsible men do?

why arent they 'insisting' on protection, after all, the pill doesnt protect from disease

most children aren't born from RAPE,, so what is your point?

Thanks to entitlement programs paying more benefits (still below poverty levels) than the lame a$$ jobs and industry our crony capitalist govt hasn't outsourced (or regulated to the extreme) to countries that hate us with cheaper labor and tax rates.... creating the problem

From what's left:

The IRS wants a lions share for entitlements, foreign aid, govt wages

The unions want a chunk for the "right to work"

Obozocare (the largest tax in history) wants not only mandatory subscriptions to private insurance companies, but higher premiums, added costs, rising pharma and medical appliance prices, and escalating future fees

Then add childcare, housing, food, fuel, and clothing costs.....

What's left for us? education

for two people, I received 347 in a 'cash' card and another 300 odd for food per month,,,,I had to work 120 hours per month where others were paid for their work by that employer, my pay was the 'welfare' that people believe comes 'free'

that broke down to right around 5.83 per hour . nevadas minimum wage is 7.25 per hour. the employer got their labor FREE, but I got paid the same as anyone else there performing that labor (less than actually) , it just came from a different source,,,,

You have just described crony capitalism and corporate welfare!

The taxpayer pays the govt, who bails out the corporations, to allow those corporations to make a larger profit, selling their goods to the very people who labor to create them

Of course the corporations also receive tax breaks, but it is still cheaper to outsource the majority of that labor after receiving their bailout and tax break, so the people are left with only the meat left on the bone after the unions, corps and govt have fed on the major portion