will you vote in 2012 General Election?

Of course what a dumb question. It is a must for any thinking American.

I don't want the next president to appoint another Conservative to the Supreme Court.

The already conservative court gave us a "legislating from the bench" decision called

C i t i z e n s - U n i t e d

great Corporations can spend any amount of money anonymously to influence our elections. That's just plain nuts. I hate all those negative attack advertisements despite the great graphics.

Hell yes I will vote.

I'm voting.

Obama/Biden.

I am betting on the Obama team to win. I have yet to see a strong leader that could rise up to challenge Obama. Until that happens I see "fluff" challenging Obama.

Probably not. California isn't a swing state, so its kind of pointless. Plus last time I voted, my Congressmen started sending me junk mail about every week. It got pretty annoying.

The Republican 'challengers' offer nothing but worn-out rhetoric.

Obama is the President of the United States of America.

Obama has offered much that would have improved this country only to have the 'Just Say No' Tea Party-Lead Republicans stop it. It is far past the time we 'Just Said No' to the Teapublicans whose only interest is to dismantle our government.

I will vote a straight Democratic Ticket

Hetep and Respect C F Jackson, voting straight Democratic line. The President will be reelected and we will give him a pro-JOBS,SS ACA bullet proof congress.

Have you seen the non-sense the Repubs are running. If I were a Rebub and these folks are the best my party had to offer, I would resign from such a party.

Elect NO Republican for 100 years, starting in 2012

if it is ROMNEY then we'll have to listen.

I'm not in a "swing state", either, but I'll be damned if I let the efforts of those who have fought for our right to vote go to waste.

I'll be voting Obama, of course. I actually want the middle class to have a future other than scrubbing toilets for the ultra wealthy.

Yes!

Bill: Mark it return to sender, bet it only takes 5-6 times and they will get the message when they have to pay postage twice on each piece! Worked for me!

yes willl vote in NC, to the comment who ever the teapublicons pick its a landslide over Obama...ha ha ha if they do which is doubtful, it will be close, maybe even mirroring 2000 when the Democrat (i.e obama) actually wins more votes, but the republican steal the electoral college

I would vote the straight Democratic ticket, except that in my state (IL), the GOP held a majority back in the 90's and voted to take the option off the ballot. They did so because the Democrats got more straight-party votes; so now, because of the GOP, I get to waste time marking not only Obama, but every Democrat on the ballot. From the GOP? We should expect it...

yes- straight ticket voter do not have to think- so most are democrats. whether you think you should or not- the down ticket is important and everyone should vote.

Well, I know the basic view of each party: Republicans are for business and the wealthy, and Democrats tend to think of everyone, not just business and the wealthy. What more is there to think about when it comes to selecting the best candidate?? Are you going to say the Republicans in our General Assembly would have voted to end the option, if they'd received the most votes?

Hetep and Respect doctorsteph, you sound like a party line Republican to me. You also seem to have all the wrong vine friends like the creeper, lol. What does your name mean and is it anything like the creeper?

yes- straight ticket voter do not have to think- so most are democrats.

I beg your pardon, I think very well thank you.

I think I know my top Issues and vote for the TeamAmerica that will deliver them.

Top 3 Issues

1. JOBS, SS Lock Box, Win the future

2. ACA 2.0 (Single Payer)

3. End Bush Wars

Name one Republican who supports all my issues, never mind that is to hard. Name on Republican JOBS bill passed by the do nothing teabag extremest congress and presented to our President for his signature.

This is not digg, so I expect a Get Smarter Here link to the Republican bill if you say there is one. +;-)

What are your Top 3 Issues?

I am choosing Obama/Biden!

Me too!

Nope. Waste of time.

I will vote but hope there is a better alternative to what either party offers. Given obama and ANY of the offal the gotp spews forth, It will have to be obama but that choice is very unappetising!

hetep- Aunk- long time no hear. I agree with your priorities- though I doubt our solutions would jive. All of the above- plus some reform of our outdated immigration policies- need some very specific attention. You may not agree, but we have to start making poor choices hurt! That includes wallstreet crooks, and people having children out of wedlock. Personally, I am for ZPG which will decrease problems with almost everything.

I have never voted straight ticket in my life, but I certainly won't vote for Obama.

How would you make the choice of having children out of wedlock "hurt"? Why is that on your radar?

We have a mountain of data about how much kids need fathers, and marriage is the only sure way to make sure those fathers will stay involved. Basically the government should do more to support this institution instead of the absurdity of trying to be "morally neutral" because that ignores the facts. There should be a carrot stick approach--you should actually get MORE help, not less, if you marry the father of your children. Adoption should be strongly encouraged and rewarded for single moms. Originally, the social safety net was reserved for the "deserving poor" such as widows and women who had been abandoned, not those who make selfish choices.

Oom, knock it off, you aren't the I was talking to, nor did you answer the question I asked. I asked how dr Steph would advocate making it hurt.

Adoption should be strongly encouraged and rewarded for single moms.

Why? Why is it better in your opinion for a child to be removed from BOTH biological parents and placed in the arms of strangers? I think adoption is a great option for women who choose to do that, but even YOU on another thread thought that the father should have NO say in that option.

You have such an odd view of things that I just can't even relate. It isn't always in the best interest of the woman or child to marry the father. Often it isn't an option. Some people choose to be single single parents and visit sperm banks so that they can have children without marriage.

Not all single moms need assistance, so I'm not talking about welfare moms.

I want to know why that choice should hurt.

and marriage is the only sure way to make sure those fathers will stay involved.

That is utter nonsense.

Adoption should be strongly encouraged and rewarded for single moms.

I thought you said single motherhood was an evil lifestyle?

I will crawl 1000 mile if need be and vote from all democrats, even for mosquito control. When you get those ballot previews in the mail, google the names that don't have a D or an R listed and try to find out. Make sure that no republicans are given even an entry level job into government. They are selling us out, why hire more ?

For the record (if you didn't figure it out already) it is my honor to vote for President Obama again!

Anything is better than the corrupt political machine we currently have in the oval office.

Just out of curiosity, what did oomyaq and docsteph think about Bristol Palin? I've heard countless conservatives lauding her for having the baby, the same people were calling other young girls pinheads and such (AND blaming parents).

Oh, and I will be voting for Obama. I will NOT vote for any republican until they get off the crazy train.

Hetep and Respect SH-2000, good advise

Make sure that no republicans are given even an entry level job into government. They are selling us out, why hire more ?

Yes we must purge this dead corps from every aspect of our government.

Selling us out China, India and Corporations is unacceptable.

Amen!

I will vote... and will vote for Obama, as the alternative will likely prohibit begging for loose change and telling me I can't hope for a job.. I need to wish for it...

I'm voting for Hillary because I still think Obama is going to pull an LBJ and decline to run for re-election in 2012.

I'd vote for Hillary, too! I'd also vote for Colin Powell. And if Jesse Ventura ever ran AND cleaned up his act so he looked a bit more presidential, I'd consider him, too.

He's got this amazing way of calling out politicians on dumb decisions.

Regardless of who runs, though, I will vote.

H&R DocS good to here from you too, I think, lol

hetep- Aunk- long time no hear.

Check

I agree with your priorities- though I doubt our solutions would jive.

What are your solutions?

All of the above- plus some reform of our outdated immigration policies- need some very specific attention.

I agree immigration reform need to get done in our President's next four years.

You may not agree, but we have to start making poor choices hurt! That includes wallstreet crooks,

I agree the banksters and those who brought us Bush and the forty thieves that let the banksters loose receive justice.

and people having children out of wedlock. Personally,

Please clarify. Speaking of making poor choices pay an unfortunate young lady who has a child without the benefit of natural family support has already paid in the unbalancing of Ma'at.

What we need on TeamAmerica is to understand how to restore the moral and practical understandings so our young people, who are our responsibility, understand the risk benefits of their actions to minimize this and maximize Ma'at going forward.

Second we have to plan on bring the young woman and her child on to TeamAmerica so they can help us win the future.

I am for ZPG which will decrease problems with almost everything.

If you mean Zero Population Growth as in how the Republican Bucanan lays it out. I read Bucanan's book the Death of the West. He put forth a lot of statistics by nation and he is correct Caucasians in most places are already at or below ZPG. He also points out that substantial melanin producing people and the Asians are not at ZPG.

He then goes on to point out that Caucasians are already minorities in the world's 6 billion people and they will become minorities in their own countries if they do not take drastic action to correct the imbalance. He predicts that European Americans will become minorities in American in 2050.

Some say when you see a Republican with no health insurance voting against their own self interest (ACA) it is because they have been infected this Bucanan fear and worry.

When you tie immigration reform and ZPA togather as you have here it causes one to wonder what your reasoning and agenda is?

I have never voted straight ticket in my life, but I certainly won't vote for Obama.

Why?

He then goes on to point out that Caucasians are already minorities in the world's 6 billion people and they will become minorities in their own countries if they do not take drastic action to correct the imbalance. He predicts that European Americans will become minorities in American in 2050.

And why is that a negative? You "Caucasians" are afraid that you would receive the same treatment that you gave other groups of people when you become minorities?

You have such an odd view of things that I just can't even relate

Really? Because it's how everybody on the planet thought until the late 1960s. Ask your grandmother. Look at all the terrible social problems we've had since then. (And please don't give me the illogical malarky about how I must also favor lynchings, etc. Some things obviously got better, but others got worse.

I thought you said single motherhood was an evil lifestyle?

If you give up your child for adoption to a two parent family, then you are not a single mother in the normal sense of the word. You are a kind, generous, smart woman who did the right thing for you AND your child. Are you aware that they do have open adoptions so you don't lose touch with the child?

That sperm bank thing for single women is actually illegal in several European countries that you would probably call progressive, because the rights of children should come first.

Yes I am

Obama/Biden 2012!

Andrew Cuomo/Susan Rice 2016 ! I hope!!!!

I will when I find some one worth voting for. So far that is no one.

Hetep and Respect MJL-3 I like that 2019 ticket.

Elect NO Republican for 100 years, starting in 2012!

Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)........Elect NO Republican for 100 years, starting in 2012!

Greetings Aunk.....I will do my level best to make the above statement a reality...

Aunk

Make it 200 years

Hetep and Respect The Dire Disciple, you have a sense of hummer and there is something to be said for that.

Go ahead, it's not copy-righted or anything.

Sorry, it was already taken by the Republican Goldwater's hand picked President. The good news is, the original one and Republican one did not last the full 1000 years. +[;-)

On a more edifying note maybe you can help me out why do Republicans have names Dire and Grim Creeper and RatPoison? is there something I am missing in the Republican ideology about this.

I looked at your avatar in your column for the love of God, what does that mean?

the ONLY 2 "reasonable" RETHUGs can't be elected (they are mormon The "other candidates" are a motley crew of F U C K I N G IDIOTS starting with supposed Idiot #1 PERRY and getting WORSE (as in STUPIDER) from there. I'm having difficulties choosing the DUMBEST of the batch - right now it's a TIE between Gingrinch, Brakeman and Insanerectum.;

The one not running that I WOULD consider voting FOR is POWELL

You may not agree, but we have to start making poor choices hurt! That includes wallstreet crooks, and people having children out of wedlock.

So much for the GOP sanctity of fetuses, huh, doc...

Really? Because it's how everybody on the planet thought until the late 1960s. Ask your grandmother.

Wrong it is not how everybody on the planet thought until the late 1960's. I have spoken to my grandmother as we are quite close. Contrary to your beliefs she did not and does not think that way.

If you give up your child for adoption to a two parent family, then you are not a single mother in the normal sense of the word. You are a kind, generous, smart woman who did the right thing for you AND your child.

Really? I kept and raised my child and she feels that I did the right thing by keeping her. So I'd have to say that I'm a kind, generous, smart woman who did the right thing for me and my child. Why should my choice hurt? Specifically how should it hurt that wouldn't have also caused her to suffer more for the fact her father chose to have no part in her life?

That sperm bank thing for single women is actually illegal in several European countries that you would probably call progressive, because the rights of children should come first.

Well it isn't illegal here, so again if a woman or man for that matter decides to become a single parent...why should government enact policies that would inflict pain for that choice?

Life is messy...there will always be kids raised in all kinds of different family structures. Why do you want the single parent family to hurt? It's a simple question. I notice that Dr. Steph has not been around to respond.

H&R TDD, thanks for your response

I've yet to meet "rat-poison". And I have no idea what my avatar means.

;~)

U have a good sense of humor, I can roll with that.

fiery- the incredibly small fraction of people who are single parents by intention and have the resources to back that decision- I don't think its a poor choice. Not taking advantage of our education system, expecting taxpayers to support your poor choices, expecting teachers to parent your children, expecting that someone will always prop you up. That is what I was speaking of, but I suspect you knew that.

I still don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that if a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep her child that there shouldn't be resources available to give her a hand in getting on her feet alowing her to keep the child? No Wic, prenatal care via Medicaid, no foodstamps or housing assistance either? Even if she was a tax payer prior to becoming pregnant? Am I correct in understanding that you do not want to continue these programs?

Do you also think that there shouldn't be an option for her to have an abortion? Are you advocating that the only opton available to a woman in that situation be adoption?

I'm glad I live in a country that does these things and gives women these options.

Absolutely not. I believe that all birth control should be free to all, as should be sterilization on demand. If someone should have one accident and needs support or assistance, I am more than happy to continue all the programs you mention. I am not in favor of people who live ridiculously callow lives wherein their only contribution to their child is biologic. Children are a fulltime commitment, and if you don't want to give that, if you want to continue to have unprotected sex so that taxpayers can pay for your prenatal care and medicaid for child after child, and you expect teachers to both teach and parent your child etc- then yes I am opposed

The misogynist OB/GYN refuses to contemplate female sterilization before 30 if one has no children. After 2 children you must be 25. I care for women who have 6 children by 25. There was a program in Chicago that paid drug addicts to take birth control, paid them more to get the depo shot, and even more for sterilization- and paid for the operation. Was wildly successful, and took a huge stressor from people trying to get their life together. Any woman who has a child before 21 is single and uses government resources to do so has a 70% probability of still being on government assistance at age 30. It simply ruins their lives, and the children are doomed. I think that bringing children into the world that one cannot provide for, parent or teach is child abuse. I think these families having 18 children- even if they do bear the costs of having those children- are committing child abuse. And don't get me started on Octo abuser.

Why do you want the single parent family to hurt? It's a simple question

Because bad behavior that is rewarded simply becomes more prevalent, which causes a lot more human suffering in the long run. I'm glad you were in a position to do well by your daughter, but statistically there is no doubt whatsoever that this lifestyle is harmful to children, or certainly not as good. I could go on and on with links, etc., but you would just find some way to explain them away. But come on, you really know better. Women having children out of wedlock has been condemned in every culture in the world. I live in the inner city. What makes a slum a slum? For the most part, the absence of fathers. This isn't a moral or religious issue, it's a reality issue. How can one woman who is already desperately poor manage to raise a child on her own? And why should she be encouraged or helped to keep it when there are married couples standing in line waiting to adopt? Even middle class women are at a huge disadvantage trying to raise a child on their own. Remember, I'm speaking from the POV of a woman who did have an out of wedlock child while unemployed and very poor.

Just one question. Suppose you had had a daugher instead of a son like I did? Suppose you had tried to raise him on his own. Aside from all the obvious problems with the lack of a male role model, what message would you be sending him? You would be teaching him by example that men aren't necessary, that they have no role in the family. Not so great for his self esteem, let alone his character. How responsible would he feel when he gets a girl pregnant 20 years down the road? Believe me, you would probably feel more like I do if you had a son instead of a daughter. At least I can tell my own 20 year old son that he'd better be very careful because if someone gets pregnant, he will have to take responsibility like his own father did.

drsteph, I can agree with everything you said. I've no problem with your pov and thank you for clearing it up.

Oom,

How can one woman who is already desperately poor manage to raise a child on her own? And why should she be encouraged or helped to keep it when there are married couples standing in line waiting to adopt?

Because it is her child and maybe she doesn't think adoption is the right thing to do. She has a right to keep it if that is the route she chooses to go. You continue to amaze me with you selective reasoning. I completely disagree with you...on almost every thing.

Suppose you had had a daugher instead of a son like I did? Suppose you had tried to raise him on his own.

Um I did have a daughter, not a son. I raised her on my own. My sister is raising a son on her own.

Aside from all the obvious problems with the lack of a male role model, what message would you be sending him?

He has male role models...he has two uncles and a grandfather.

You would be teaching him by example that men aren't necessary, that they have no role in the family.

If men choose to walk out on their children, they choose to become unnecessary. There are other male role models available. A father is a good thing, but they don't always stick around.

Not so great for his self esteem, let alone his character. How responsible would he feel when he gets a girl pregnant 20 years down the road?

If he listens to the adults in his life the chances of that happening are quite slim. My daughter married before she had a child.

Believe me, you would probably feel more like I do if you had a son instead of a daughter. At least I can tell my own 20 year old son that he'd better be very careful because if someone gets pregnant, he will have to take responsibility like his own father did.

You might think you can make him marry a girl if he gets her pregnant...that doesn't mean she will want to marry him.

perhaps I am getting moderate in my old age. it is true that the meta message has been for some time that men are not necessary. i basically went to med school to show my doctor boyfriend that he couldn't push me around. there must be a way to be ourselves without diminishing others. i really believe that we have to make unintended pregnancy rare! not just out of wedlock, not single parenthood- unintentional pregnancy! make birthcontrol free, easy to secure and make parental permission for same moot.

As a doctor I'm sure you're aware that birth control is not 100% effective, especially as actually used in the real world. I frankly don't think unintentional pregnancy within marriage is in the same category. My in-laws are both physicians, and my mil told me that all five of her children were unplanned. But so what, they could easily afford them.

It's just a little more complicated than birth control, in other words.

Fieryone,

Please stop pretending that I'm from Neptune or something, or that my views are especially unusual. They are merely old fashioned. People like Dr. Laura, Maggie Gallagher and others have made a good living expressing the same views, which really were nearly universal all over the world until the 1960s. There is a reason we have terms like "bastard", sad to say.

Yes, I realize a woman might not want the man to stick around, but that's precisely my point. IMHO, women are at least as much to blame as men for the breakdown of the family. More, actually, because nearly 75% of no fault divorces are filed by the woman. In the vast majority of cases, there is no abuse, addiction, or adultery. In fact, sociologists claim the majority of divorces today involve "low conflict couples". They weren't even fighting, someone just got bored! (This would have been unthinkable in my day if children were involved.) A father can still show responsibility even if the "baby mama" won't marry him, though. He does this not only by paying support, but by seeing his child regularly, if necessary going to court in order to ensure his right to do so.

Unfortunately, the system is currently so stacked against men that a woman can easily prevent visitation by simply lying, aka "perjury". What I can't understand is WHY any woman would do so, unless the man is genuinely a danger to the child. Way too many women do this merely out of spite. Google "fathers rights movement" if you don't believe me. My husband and I have been separated a few times, but I moved heaven and earth so he could see the boys as often as possible, even if just for a few hours in the evening before he went to his night shift job. This gave me a break, too.

I've been told by many women that they regret their divorces because they had no idea how hard it really would be to raise a child alone. They didn't have to tell ME that.

Oom, you keep saying that people all had a universal view up till the 60's. I'm telling you that you are completly off base with that. Infact anytime someone says "all people thought this way" I know they are drastically overstating their position. My grand parents and great grandparents had a much different view than what you are saying.

I think that anytime someone advocates for allowing the goverment to tell you when/who you can marry and when/how you can divorce you are advocating a much BIGGER government than those of us on the left who advocate for social safety nets. I want no part in a government that can dictate how one defines a family. That is not the governments role.

You keep bringing up your husband...but again on another seed you were complaining that the father of one of your children wouldn't allow you to place that child up for adoption. If you are so concerned about a fathers' parental rights (as I am) then why do you think the father should not have a say in his childs eligiblity for adoption?

My daughters father and I ended our relationship before I even knew I was pregnant with his child, so marrying him certainly wasn't in the realm of possible options since we had already determined we didn't work as a couple. I never denied him visitation even though he didn't pay child support at all. He opted to stay out of her life until it was convenient for him. And recently he came to visit her, but it was just a cover so he could cheat on his wife. He was here for 4 days and spent 4 hours with his daughter. The rest of the time he was with another woman. His wife thought he was here to see his daughter.

He is has a very bad character where he uses everyone he can and he is a chronic liar. He has played some major head games with my daughter and her half sister (whom we just found this year). He istruly a piece of @!$%# and has not and will not ever change.

unintentional pregnancy within a marriage generally strains and even breaks a marriage. often those children are mistreated or at least not loved and supported as they should be. no- nothing is 100%. i am not suggesting that my ideas apply to any one person, but the statistics are undeniable.

doctorsteph, do you have ANY evidence to back that up? Any links to these "undeniable statistics"? Planned children get abused too. In fact they are at least as likely to be abused as unplanned children--I've seen studies showing they are even more likely to abused. The dreams of a woman who wants to have a baby can be quite different from the reality, and this can be a frustrating situation. Not to mention the fact that a lot of women plan babies for utterly stupid reasons, such as attempting to hold a shaky marriage together.

Luckily the exact opposite can also happen. Before I had my son, I was absolutely positive I didn't want children. My own mother had presented motherhood as sheer drudgery, so I was utterly amazed when necessity taught me that babies are in reality a joy and that it is actually possible to love them, not merely put up with them. Of course it helped that we lived with another couple at the time who also had a newborn. That woman was incredibly supportive of me, not just emotionally but in the sense of teaching me everything that my own mother had not. Honestly, the human race wouldn't have survived if there was nothing appealing about babies or if we totally lacked the instinct to care of them. A cavewoman didn't plan her children, but she must have taken care of them anyway or none of us would be here today.

Surely if you are a doctor you are aware of the real causes of child abuse--severe stress, mental illness, substance abuse, poverty, lack of emotional support or help of the practical sort, being a single parent, (sorry, but it's common knowledge to CPS), and above all, having been a victim of abuse yourself. Note that none of these things has even a remote relationship to whether or not you were planned.

My grand parents and great grandparents had a much different view than what you are saying.

Of course you don't have to tell me, but it would be interesting to know just what culture you come from, because I never heard of people who thought out of wedlock childbearing is desirable. Why do you suppose they used to have homes for unwed mothers?

If you are so concerned about a fathers' parental rights (as I am) then why do you think the father should not have a say in his childs eligiblity for adoption?

When did I ever say I am concerned about a father's parental rights? I care only about the child's right to a father, which is a VERY different thing. Even you don't really believe that ALL fathers should have rights over their children, a rapist, for instance. Okay, if a rapist doesn't have rights, what about a drunk one night stand? Where do you draw the line? Personally, I would draw it at marriage, or at least a living together relationship that would be akin to a common law marrige in some states.

I am sorry to hear about your problems with your daughter's dad. But if I were in a sitation like yours, I would have wanted at least the OPTION of adoption without having to grovel before some total jerk who doesn't really want the child, but who was punishing me out of spite or misogyny or sheer power. Think of all those horrific cases like Baby Richard, you know, the ones where a father shows up from nowhere and demands the child back after two years when the child has already bonded with the adoptive parents. They happened because a desperate woman was forced to lie to the adoption agency.

the studies you cite are for in vitro and fertility treatment babies. this probably relates to hyper idealization of parenthood and what a baby can deliver. if you wish to compare to that segment then i suppose you would be correct in saying they may be more likely to be abused. please know there is a great difference between unplanned and unintented. perhaps most children are unplanned- there is no planning TO become pregnant. there is usually only a plan not to stop preventing pregnancy.

the child abuse issue is that children are straddled with all manner of responsibility that they should have and cannot fulfill. children will not save a marriage, will not keep a relationship together, will not make you a better person etc. you may become a better person, you may find you love motherhood after all, you may even find a stronger and better relationship. all of these are coincident to the birth of a child, the child is not responsible for them. unfortunately the childish people who have children for these reasons are uniformly disappointed and take it out on a child. if you are stressed out, disappointed and challenged before you have a child it will only get worse.

of wedlock childbearing is desirable.

I never said it was desirable...I said it was a fact and for some women an option they seek out when they can't find the right man.

Why do you suppose they used to have homes for unwed mothers?

Because of the pervasive puritanical religious who where "ashamed" of their daughters sexuality and evidence there of. What culture am I from? I'm an American and my ancestors are largely from Scotland and some French also. My family history is very much traditional being some of the original settlers in Montana and Idaho. I can trace members back to the late 1700's in this area.

My grandmother got pregnant out of wedlock...and she wasn't sent to a home for unwed mothers even back then. Her family supported her and when my mother was 2 she met and married the man I grew up knowing as Grandpa. They had 6 children together and he raised my mom as his own, they were married 48 years when he passed away. They are wonderful and giving people...not judgmental puritans.

Adoption was never an option for me. I could not give my child to complete strangers never knowing if they would be good parents. If a man wants to raise his children he should be given the option to do so unless he is unfit, but that is no different than my opinon on mothers.

Think of all those horrific cases like Baby Richard, you know, the ones where a father shows up from nowhere and demands the child back after two years when the child has already bonded with the adoptive parents. They happened because a desperate woman was forced to lie to the adoption agency.

I don't believe an adoption agency forces a woman to lie (that's a choice she made because on her own). If she doesn't have the fathers concent to place a child for adoption she should attempt to do so prior to turning over the child. It is sad when a child is used as some sort of pawn. Yes it was heart breaking for those adoptive parents, but the biological parent has rights.

the studies you cite are for in vitro and fertility treatment babies

That is incorrect. There may be other studies such as you describe, but that is not what I'm talking about. Not that it should make much difference how the child was conceived. There is no evidence, none, tying child abuse to whether or not the child was planned, or even WHY the child was planned. Once again, the people who are most likely to abuse children are (above all) people who were abused themselves, mentally ill and/or addicted parents, and single mothers and their boyfriends. Most abuse cases don't involve newborns anyway. Years after the child is born, nobody is going to care whther he or she was planned. The parent is actually reacting to the stresses in her life at the time of the abuse.

the biological parent has rights

Including, I suppose, a rapist, since after all he too is a biological parent, right?

Frankly, equating a father and a mother is ridiculous. He may have done nothing but slept with her one time, she carries the child for nine months. How logical is it that a husband of many years cannot stop his wife from aborting his child, but a one night stand can prevent an adoption? Sorry, but that's just plain twisted.

Do you deliberatly ignore words in my posts? I said specifically if the father is fit..a rapist most certainly isn't fit.

There is also a huge difference between an infant being placed for adoption and a fetus being aborted. A father doesn't have to be told about the fetus, nor would he have any way to prevent the woman from aborting it is her body. If she keeps the pregnancy she can decide to give the child up, but he has a right at that point to step in and take custody if he can prove he's fit. You want to demand he sign away his parental rights so that the woman can give the child to complete strangers. To me that is twisted.

Why waste your time fireryone?

Don't you understand that this is likely to encourage more abortion, or is that of any concern to you whatsoever? Should prolife women be forced to have unwanted abortions lest something like this happen to them? A woman who gets pregant as the result of an unfortunate drunken one night stand but then realizes she cannot bear to murder the baby should not be a slave to the jerk she slept with just because she wants a competent two parent family to raise it. I guess she could always tell the adoption agency she has no idea who the father is, which might even be true in that case. I'm not sure how hard they look for the father. But really, when the father never had any actual relationship with the mother I don't see why he is entitled to rights. Frankly, this is why women lie to the agencies.

I still don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that if a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep her child that there shouldn't be resources available to give her a hand in getting on her feet alowing her to keep the child? No Wic, prenatal care via Medicaid, no foodstamps or housing assistance either? Even if she was a tax payer prior to becoming pregnant? Am I correct in understanding that you do not want to continue these programs?

I never said anything remotely like that. Just today I was at the welfare office applying for Medicaid for my schizophrenic son--he requires special services that no private insurance company would be willing to pay for, so his doctor insisted I do that. In my state at least, this form of Medicaid isn't means tested. WIC and pregnancy related Medicaid obviously pay for themselves by preventing all the lifelong problems that potentially result from malnutrition. A woman this poor would probably be on Medicaid anyway, pregnant or not. The destitute are entitled to food stamps and housing assistance whether they have a child or not. Nevertheless, I think most people would be in favor of strongly encouraging a single mom under these circumstances to consider adoption because it's generally best for everyone concerned, including the mom. I am not saying I know how to do this, but I think there must be a way. As Bill Clinton said in a different context, we need to change the culture.

Why waste your time fireryone?

Excellent question Lola. You are right...it is a waste of time.

Excellent question Lola. You are right...it is a waste of time.

We've both been to this manic rodeo before.

Ah middle school politics. If you don't like 'em, ostracize 'em. Charming.

naughty, you can stay and play all you want. Some of us walked away from this gamer long ago.

In other words, you have no valid argument so an ad hominem one is all you've got. There is no doubt whatsoever that fatherless children are at increased risk of virtually every bad outcome including going to prison, even when you correct for family income. But go on, feel free to ignore facts because they are politically incorrect.