Children should be born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.02.2021 12:37AM

Assuming the premise that people should have children (a debatable topic), research shows that children born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents have the best chance to live what most people consider a good life.

Children born out of wedlock are more likely to have teen parents

Not all teenage parents are bad, but on average, they will be worse than adult parents.

Giving birth to children as a teen is a significant contributor to dropping out in high school: "Only about 50% of teen mother receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, whereas approximately 90% of women who do not give birth during adolescence graduate from high school" About Teen Pregnancy | CDC . By the age 30, these mothers have only a 1.5 chance of earning a college degree Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help . From this, children are going to be worse off because their mothers are more likely to be less educated, thus having increased difficulty in understanding adult documents and finding a well-paying job. This undereducation is also likely to extend to the child, wherein "the children of teenage mothers are more likely to have lower school achievement and to drop out of high school".

Health problems can extend from a number of reasons, ranging from an inability to eat well due to poverty, to receiving poor health advice from relatively uneducated parents. Moreover, "the children of teenage mothers are more likely to have more health problems" About Teen Pregnancy | CDC .

Economically, due to welfare and support systems, 80% of unmarried teen mothers are on welfare Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help . We can see the very costly effect of this teenage welfare usage: "between 1991 and 2015, the teen birth rate dropped 64%, which results in $4.4 billion in public savings in 2015 alone" About Teen Pregnancy | CDC . In 2010 specifically, $9.4 billion tax dollars (federal budget) were spent on teen pregnancy and childbirth Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help . Teens not having children helps save the economy money.

Children from teenage parents are also more likely to spend time in jail Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help .

In promoting children to be born into wedlock, we are inadvertently lowering the chance of the parents being teenaged and all the negative outcomes associated with that.

Children born out of wedlock are less likely to live with both biological parents growing up

Absence of a father in a child's life leads to a miserable host of negative outcomes. Inversely, the presence of a biological father prevents these negative outcomes Statistics | The Fatherless Generation (wordpress.com) :

- 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average

- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average

- 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average

- 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average

- Children with fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school

- Children with fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school

- Children with fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school and enjoy school by engaging in extracurricular activities

- 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average

- Children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households

- Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households

- 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average

- 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average

The list goes on. Check the source if you're interested. It's super clear that having a biological father in a child's life is a positive thing.

On another note, the Cinderella Effect is a phenomenon wherein non-biological parents are far more likely to treat non-biological children poorly. Studies have repeatedly shown that non-biological children are at 100-300 times the risk of being beaten to death by their non-biological parents (particularly the father). You can add to this the elevated rates which in stepfathers don't play with their stepchildren, contribute to accidental injury of their stepchildren and less investment in stepchild's education cinderella effect facts.doc (ucsb.edu) .

There's no doubt that being raised with both biological parents is preferable for a child.

Unmarried parents are more likely to: be poor, suffer from depression, report substance abuse and spend time in jail

I'm not sure how anyone would argue against factors being good Non-marital childbearing has increased dramatically since the 1970s (princeton.edu) . Nonetheless, I will make some short arguments.

Being poor, parent or child, means that on average you (compared to non-poor people): had two fewer years of schooling, had incomes less than half, received $826 more annually in food stamps, almost 3 times likely to report poor health and twice as likely to be arrested (if male) 2.4 The Consequences of Poverty – Social Problems (umn.edu) .

Depression not only feels draining to be under, but also "raises levels of the stress hormone cortisol and can significantly weaken the immune system" Coping With Depression: A Guide to Good Treatment | Everyday Health .

Drug abuse routinely leads to problems with memory attention and decision-making. It also increases your body temperature, which can lead to problems with sleeping and other health complications The Physical & Mental Effects of Drug Abuse | Gateway Foundation .

Spending time in jail is extremely self-evident as being bad.

Closing thoughts

It's time society stops seeing alternative parenting set-ups, such as non-married parents, single mothers, double mothers/fathers, step-dads and teen parents, as credible alternatives to the traditional set-up. Instead, we should view them as objectively inferior.

Dr.Franklin

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,568

Dr.Franklin

08.02.2021 03:16AM

-->

@Mesmer

big agree on this one :)

Discipulus_Didicit

Debates: 9

Posts: 5,294

Discipulus_Didicit

08.02.2021 05:17AM

Born in wedlock*

RationalMadman

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,930

RationalMadman

08.02.2021 06:54AM

Some fathers are involved in toxic overbearing ways tbh, they try to ensure their children to best but drive them to the other end, especially in terms of motivation to do well.

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.02.2021 11:35AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Some fathers are involved in toxic overbearing ways tbh, they try to ensure their children to best but drive them to the other end, especially in terms of motivation to do well.

I'm talking about what is statistically best for children, not individual cases or anecdotes. Yes, sometimes married, biological parents will not raise children well. Yes, sometimes biological, married fathers will be overbearing to a toxic degree. It's just more likely that married, biological parents will do the best.

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,247

08.03.2021 08:10PM

-->

@Mesmer

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average

This is why being a deadbeat dad should be illegal and punishable.

Topic's author

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.03.2021 10:56PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

This is why being a deadbeat dad should be illegal and punishable.

It's super important to consider the context involving this, because not all dads who are classified as "deadbeat" actually are. Just because the dad isn't around doesn't mean he is actually a deadbeat.

Yes, men who have sex with women whilst knowing that there is no protection involved (e.g. condom, pill etc.), should be held accountable for the children they make as a result. That's a form of toxic masculinity that does exist and should be punished (although, the women involved are also responsible for allowing this to happen, if neither party wants a child). Furthermore, men who promise that they'll hang around to raise the child, and then leave as soon as she gets pregnant, are arguably the worst deadbeat dads. What you suggested in your comment should be applied to these men.

However, men who are entrapped through trickery *also* get lumped into this "deadbeat dad" classification. If you, as a man, make it clear that you won't have sex with a woman unless she's on the pill, and she lies to about that, the woman is to blame. If a woman sperm jacks you from the condom you put in the bin, or if she says the child is 100% yours when she knows she's slept with 5 other guys, we need to blame the woman. If a woman denies visitation rights or tells the family courts that the man was violent with her (when he wasn't), we need to blame the woman.

Both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity exist; it's not always the "deadbeat dad" who is to blame.

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,247

08.03.2021 11:12PM

-->

@Mesmer

It's super important to consider the context involving this, because not all dads who are classified as "deadbeat" actually are. Just because the dad isn't around doesn't mean he is actually a deadbeat.

It depends on the definition. My definition is someone who makes kids, doesn't set them up for adoption and then refuses to take care of them and makes the female take care of them. Also people that ditch girls that they get pregnant. If your divorced, I would generally advocate for split custody of the kids so neither parent is a deadbeat and so the kids get exposure from both parents.

Furthermore, men who promise that they'll hang around to raise the child, and then leave as soon as she gets pregnant, are arguably the worst deadbeat dads. What you suggested in your comment should be applied to these men.

I agree. Do you think sterilization is a good punishment for these deadbeat dads? I assume every deadbeat dad ditches their pregnant girlfriend or wife.

If you, as a man, make it clear that you won't have sex with a woman unless she's on the pill, and she lies to about that, the woman is to blame.

This I agree with. I don't know how common this is, but as a principle if a woman does that and she doesn't abort, I'd take the kids away from the mom since single motherhood is inevitable. I would prefer it if men weren't as promiscuious so there doesn't have to be unplanned pregnency, or if you do have sex at least keep all of your clothes on. I'd also want the woman to get sterilized once the kid is born because we can't risk her getting pregnant again. I don't trust women who lie about being on the pill for sex, pregnency, and the commitment that would come with it.

If a woman sperm jacks you from the condom you put in the bin, or if she says the child is 100% yours when she knows she's slept with 5 other guys, we need to blame the woman.

If she slept with 5 other guys, she either would have gotten pregnant from one of those other guys or she would have not gotten pregnant so their prior sex would result in a pregnency. But if a female sperm jacks a male and gets pregnant, I'd still punish the woman by sterilizing her after she births a kid. Those people can't be risked reproducing again since they could sperm jack instead. Since during pregnency, a female sacrifices more than a male, I don't imagine sperm jacking is a common thing among women but the ones who do it should be sterilized after they birth, miscarry, or get an abortion.

If a woman denies visitation rights or tells the family courts that the man was violent with her (when he wasn't), we need to blame the woman.

Here I would probably require evidence; in order for the courts to believe that a male was being violent, there has to be evidence of it beyond a reasonable doubt. The kids should also be a witness if available.

Both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity exist; it's not always the "deadbeat dad" who is to blame.

This is true. This is why I recommend getting a vasectomy before you have any sex if your a male and I recommend getting your tubes tied before you have any sex if your a woman. If you want kids in the future, your free to adopt(at least until there are no more kids dying of starvation); people love adopted kids as much as biological kids and we see this with dogs; dogs are adopted and people love their dogs. Why would a kid that's adopted be any different?

Debates: 21

Posts: 224

08.04.2021 12:16AM

-->

@Mesmer

Correct as it may be to say that alternative home environments for children statistically lead to a number of problems for the child and for the parent, to resoundingly denounce anything that differs from the norm is unfair. Having kids when you're too young or too poor to properly raise a child is bad in almost every case, and it should be avoided when possible, absolutely, but to claim that having step/single parents is inferior is where I start to disagree.

If a parent has an abusive partner and chooses to leave that partner and take the child with them, in that situation, it is very plausible that this situation is best for the parent and the child. It'd be great if the abuse wasn't present, and having only one parent puts the child and the parent at risk in the future, but it's the only reasonable option in that scenario. Similarly, if a woman becomes pregnant and then their partner leaves them, they effectively have no say in the matter. What are they supposed to do about it?

I have no qualms when it comes to pointing out these statistics, with mentioning that one-parent homes for example lead to less successful and happy kids, but I have a problem when we use those stats to say that certain home environments are inferior, because it leaves out so much of the situation. It just feels like rubbing salt in the wound to say "this home environment is not ideal and is inferior" when people in these situations probably know that already. The implication that the ideal environment for a child is the same one that the parent of that child may have had to leave to escape abuse is one that is not only deeply uncomfortable, but unjust.

Topic's author

#10

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.04.2021 12:37AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

It depends on the definition. My definition is someone who makes kids, doesn't set them up for adoption and then refuses to take care of them and makes the female take care of them. Also people that ditch girls that they get pregnant. If your divorced, I would generally advocate for split custody of the kids so neither parent is a deadbeat and so the kids get exposure from both parents.

I agree with all of this.

I agree. Do you think sterilization is a good punishment for these deadbeat dads? I assume every deadbeat dad ditches their pregnant girlfriend or wife.

It's a lot of power to give a legal system (maybe too much), but I'm not completely against the idea. I'd want the burden of proof to be pretty high for the prosecutors. Certainly, forcing them to pay for these children is a great start and may be sufficient. We'd have to make sure the family courts don't devolve into what they are (low burden of proof, woman assumed innocent and man assumed guilty until prove otherwise), otherwise this is far too harsh for men.

This I agree with. I don't know how common this is, but as a principle if a woman does that and she doesn't abort, I'd take the kids away from the mom since single motherhood is inevitable. I would prefer it if men weren't as promiscuious so there doesn't have to be unplanned pregnency, or if you do have sex at least keep all of your clothes on. I'd also want the woman to get sterilized once the kid is born because we can't risk her getting pregnant again. I don't trust women who lie about being on the pill for sex, pregnency, and the commitment that would come with it.

The problem with taking the kids away is that neither biological parent is going to raise the children now. The man didn't want them, and now the woman can't have them -- who will raise the children? I agree that these women shouldn't be enabled and should be punished somehow, but society will have serious amounts of trouble (lots of children without parents) if this deterrent doesn't prevent women from lying about being on the pill.

Agreed, male promiscuity is absolutely a problem. However, young women are having roughly 80% more sex than young men young men driving the decline in sex - Bing images . If anything, we should should be holding women as a collective more accountable for this promiscuity. However, I'd further argue that it's the top 20/10% of men who are having promiscuous sex with most women, although this argument has a lot of sources to it and probably goes beyond the scope of this thread (so I don't expect you to agree). These men (if you agree that they exist) are quite the problem, too, because a man having 10 sexual partners a month isn't going to be able to support them (and women decrease in value with the more partners they have). I'm not sure how you get these women and men to stop being promiscuous in an age with birth control and condoms are readily available, especially when the stigma of out-of-wedlock sex is virtually nonexistent An analysis of out-of-wedlock births in the United States (brookings.edu) (barring some religious communities).

With the sterilization, again I'd say I'd want the BoP to be quite high. It's also quite difficult to prove that someone verbally lied (as opposed to lying via text). Unless you've recorded the incident (which is sometimes not legal evidence in court), it's going to come down to his word versus hers at least some of the time. I'm not sure we'd generate enough convictions to make this method effective at preventing women lying like this.

If she slept with 5 other guys, she either would have gotten pregnant from one of those other guys or she would have not gotten pregnant so their prior sex would result in a pregnency. But if a female sperm jacks a male and gets pregnant, I'd still punish the woman by sterilizing her after she births a kid. Those people can't be risked reproducing again since they could sperm jack instead. Since during pregnency, a female sacrifices more than a male, I don't imagine sperm jacking is a common thing among women but the ones who do it should be sterilized after they birth, miscarry, or get an abortion.

Again, I'm just not sure sterilization is the way forward. It's super damaging to a person and these crimes are pretty damn hard to prove. How often will cases be his word against hers, without concrete evidence on either side?

Here I would probably require evidence; in order for the courts to believe that a male was being violent, there has to be evidence of it beyond a reasonable doubt. The kids should also be a witness if available.

Yes, this is what *should* happen, but men are not always afforded this right. Men are sometimes accused and even convicted on the basis of a woman's (lying) word, and even if they survive trial, the accusation of violence is enough to partially damage their lives (even if they're completely innocent). The Unspeakable Injustice to Brian Banks | The Anticitizen Manual (wordpress.com) False rape allegations (boysmeneducation.com) The false rape accusation model (northwestern.edu)

This is true. This is why I recommend getting a vasectomy before you have any sex if your a male and I recommend getting your tubes tied before you have any sex if your a woman. If you want kids in the future, your free to adopt(at least until there are no more kids dying of starvation); people love adopted kids as much as biological kids and we see this with dogs; dogs are adopted and people love their dogs. Why would a kid that's adopted be any different?

If you change your mind and decide you want children, how are you meant to have children if you have a vasectomy?

Not all people with adopted kids love them as much as biological kids -- this was in the OP with the reference to the Cinderella Effect. Step-parents are notoriously dreadful for children. I'm not saying that all adopted kids are treated poorly, but they're way more likely to be so.

Topic's author

#11

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.04.2021 01:01AM

-->

@Nyxified

If a parent has an abusive partner and chooses to leave that partner and take the child with them, in that situation, it is very plausible that this situation is best for the parent and the child. It'd be great if the abuse wasn't present, and having only one parent puts the child and the parent at risk in the future, but it's the only reasonable option in that scenario. Similarly, if a woman becomes pregnant and then their partner leaves them, they effectively have no say in the matter. What are they supposed to do about it?

A potential problem with this conception is that the term "abusive" is subject to inconsistent interpretation. Some women claim that their husband is abusive when he bashes her after drinking -- I have no problems with abusive being used like this. However, some women claim that their partner is abusive when he denies them the 45th pair of designer shoes. Some women will claim their partner is abusive if he refuses to have children with her. Some women will claim their partner is abusive if he refuses to take out the bins after she nagged him several times. Men can also be fake-abusive to women, too (demanding that she cleans the dishes despite her just coming home from a 12 hour shift, demanding that she changes the kid's nappies whilst he sits on the couch all day doing nothing etc.) Whilst a definition of "abusive" can be clear, its application and usage can be leveraged to gaslight the other partner. We need to make sure we're addressing actual abuse.

So, if there is genuine abuse in the relationship, then perhaps it is better if the partner leaves. However, this set-up remains objectively inferior to having a both biological parents raise the child in a non-abusive environment. Hence, it's the abusive element that determines the quality, and if that is held constant as a non-factor, wedlock marriages are superior to single parent child-rearing.

Perhaps if we had fault divorce, single mother stigma and 'no children before wedlock' values, people would be far less likely to partner with abusive people because they would be more careful with whom they are intimate with, due to the more severe consequences in getting it wrong. Perhaps we're re-discovering why ancient people had these rules in the first place.

I have no qualms when it comes to pointing out these statistics, with mentioning that one-parent homes for example lead to less successful and happy kids, but I have a problem when we use those stats to say that certain home environments are inferior, because it leaves out so much of the situation. It just feels like rubbing salt in the wound to say "this home environment is not ideal and is inferior" when people in these situations probably know that already. The implication that the ideal environment for a child is the same one that the parent of that child may have had to leave to escape abuse is one that is not only deeply uncomfortable, but unjust.

I have no idea why you would want to partner with an abusive person, other than you being infatuated with a person whilst ignoring the red flags. People need to be held accountable for their actions, and so if you're ignorant enough to partner with an abusive person, you deserve to have your single-parent set-up regarded as objectively inferior.

#12

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,247

08.04.2021 03:00PM

-->

@Mesmer

I'd want the burden of proof to be pretty high for the prosecutors. Certainly, forcing them to pay for these children is a great start and may be sufficient.

Child support isn't enough as a father being absent in the home causes kids to suffer with school much more which leads to poverty and dropping out of highschool. You can't make him be with his kids as that leads to abuse. Sterilization + child support is the only decent way I think to punish deadbeat dads.

The problem with taking the kids away is that neither biological parent is going to raise the children now. The man didn't want them, and now the woman can't have them -- who will raise the children?

The kids would be set up for adoption and have a 96% chance of being adopted by a better family within 5 years.

However, young women are having roughly 80% more sex than young men young men driving the decline in sex - Bing images .

Your source doesn't confirm this. It merely confirms that 82% of women had sex in the past year whereas 72% of men have. But unless a woman isn't a prostitute, she isn't having multiple sex partners, whereas it's common for a man to have multiple sex partners. So male sexuality is more variable than female sexuality.

I'm not sure how you get these women and men to stop being promiscuous in an age with birth control and condoms are readily available, especially when the stigma of out-of-wedlock sex is virtually nonexistent

Contraception has reduced unwanted pregnencies so contraception makes promiscuity less relevent due to the odds of an unwanted pregnency happening less and less.

With the sterilization, again I'd say I'd want the BoP to be quite high.

The BoP is easy to fufill and is high. If a woman gets pregnant and the father ditched her, that seems to be crystal clear evidence of the male being a deadbeat dad. I don't think women would get pregnant just to force a guy to stick with her because women who don't want to be mothers don't want to be pregnant.

Again, I'm just not sure sterilization is the way forward. It's super damaging to a person

I don't believe sterilization would be damaging.

How often will cases be his word against hers, without concrete evidence on either side?

I think a jury would decide who is in the wrong from the unwanted pregnency. If the female texts the guy stating that she is pregnant and the guy blocks her, then you know the guy is a deadbeat. Condoms often fail so if they had sex with a condom, it can be assumed to be a unwanted pregnency. I don't think women sperm jack someone. If you know your girlfriend wants a kid and you don't, don't have sex with her until you get sterilized. It works for me.

If you change your mind and decide you want children, how are you meant to have children if you have a vasectomy?

If a guy who gets a girl pregnant, ditches her, and wants kids again, he is free to re enter the relationship.

Step-parents are notoriously dreadful for children. I'm not saying that all adopted kids are treated poorly, but they're way more likely to be so.

I think this is a stereotype. I know a few adopted kids and they seem to be treated well. If people treat dogs well (who are also technically adopted), why would they treat an adopted human any worse?

#13

Debates: 21

Posts: 224

08.05.2021 01:30AM

I have no idea why you would want to partner with an abusive person, other than you being infatuated with a person whilst ignoring the red flags. People need to be held accountable for their actions, and so if you're ignorant enough to partner with an abusive person, you deserve to have your single-parent set-up regarded as objectively inferior.

*Thinking emoji*

#14

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,259

08.06.2021 06:25AM

-->

@Mesmer

Procreation V Acquired social convention.

Such is the evolution of our species I suppose.

Topic's author

#15

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.07.2021 04:06AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Child support isn't enough as a father being absent in the home causes kids to suffer with school much more which leads to poverty and dropping out of highschool. You can't make him be with his kids as that leads to abuse. Sterilization + child support is the only decent way I think to punish deadbeat dads.
[...]
The BoP is easy to fufill and is high. If a woman gets pregnant and the father ditched her, that seems to be crystal clear evidence of the male being a deadbeat dad. I don't think women would get pregnant just to force a guy to stick with her because women who don't want to be mothers don't want to be pregnant.
[...]
I don't believe sterilization would be damaging.
[...]
I think a jury would decide who is in the wrong from the unwanted pregnency. If the female texts the guy stating that she is pregnant and the guy blocks her, then you know the guy is a deadbeat. Condoms often fail so if they had sex with a condom, it can be assumed to be a unwanted pregnency. I don't think women sperm jack someone. If you know your girlfriend wants a kid and you don't, don't have sex with her until you get sterilized. It works for me.

I've clumped these comments together because I think they're arguing the same point that sterilizing the "deadbeat dad" is the way forward.

Firstly, at least in the U.K, 20% of fathers, who have been lead to believe they are fathering their biological child, are actually not the biological father Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar | Daily Mail Online . Paternity fraud is a real thing that can happen, so at least some women have sperm jacked men. As to the other type of fraud (tricking your male partner into having a baby), this is also something that can happen (but seems far rarer) Women Reveal The Shameless Reasons They Baby Trapped Their Men (babygaga.com) . So, some women do sperm jack men, and some women will fall pregnant on purpose to trap men.

Secondly, sterilization is usually not reversible (or at the very least difficult to undo) Sterilization (medicine) - Wikipedia . Unless you specifically have a reversible method in mind, I don't see how you could disagree with it being damaging.

Thirdly, your standard for proof isn't high enough and confirms my suspicions about your gung-ho attitude towards sterilization. For example, if a woman gets pregnant and the father ditched her, that might be an attempt at entrapment. However, under the standard you've provided here, you've now *enabled* entrapment and given it legal precedence -- that's an invitation for toxic females to exploit men. Another example: if a woman texts a man and he blocks her, there could be a variety of reasons he has done so: entrapment, thinking she's lying, already requested a paternity test to which she refused, threatening/abusive behavior from her etc. You are making a massive assumption in assuming cutting contact with the woman means the man is in the wrong.

So, because (1) women successfully lie and manipulate to entrap/trick, (2) sterilization is damaging (and often irreversible), and (3) your standard of proof isn't high enough to weed out false claims, your advocacy for sterilization shouldn't be endorsed (but it was a decent idea).

Topic's author

#16

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.07.2021 04:33AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

The kids would be set up for adoption and have a 96% chance of being adopted by a better family within 5 years.

Where did you get this figure from?

Your source doesn't confirm this. It merely confirms that 82% of women had sex in the past year whereas 72% of men have. But unless a woman isn't a prostitute, she isn't having multiple sex partners, whereas it's common for a man to have multiple sex partners. So male sexuality is more variable than female sexuality.

Yes, I posted the wrong source.

I couldn't find the original source (the link was broken) I found to argue that women are having more sex than men, so I Googled it and this graph looked like the one used in the correct study.

I'll keep looking for a working link and post it here if/when I find it.

I think this is a stereotype. I know a few adopted kids and they seem to be treated well. If people treat dogs well (who are also technically adopted), why would they treat an adopted human any worse?

I addressed this in the OP near the title the 'Cinderella Effect'. We have plenty of data on this already. The data clearly shows that adopted kids, on average, get treated way worse. No one of rational thought is going to be convinced by a few anecdotes.

#17

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,247

08.11.2021 03:54PM

-->

@Mesmer

Sperm jacking is definitely something that should be considered. If a woman sperm jacks a male, there needs to be a punishment for that, but I don't know a good punishment for it. If there is enough evidence to confirm a sperm jack, then the guy wouldn't have to get a vastectomy as punishment. But sperm jacking is one reason why I don't want sex until I get a vastectomy and I recommend all males follow that advice. Otherwise, it is like playing Russian Roulette; I feel sorry for you if you get shot but you really shouldn't have played that game. With sex, if your girlfriend sperm jacks you, I feel sorry for you but you really shouldn't have played the sex game. People say that's hard, but not having sex is so easy; I don't have to date or court a girl and I don't have to spend all this money on a useless female. It's so easy to not search for sex and porn is available if you have urges to look at naked girls.

Secondly, sterilization is usually not reversible (or at the very least difficult to undo) Sterilization (medicine) - Wikipedia . Unless you specifically have a reversible method in mind, I don't see how you could disagree with it being damaging.

The rate of sterilization reversibility is variable. My idea is a vastectomy, which is reversible around 30 to 90% of the time(Vasectomy reversal - Mayo Clinic).

However, under the standard you've provided here, you've now *enabled* entrapment and given it legal precedence -- that's an invitation for toxic females to exploit men.

Some females could end up exploiting men which is why males should be as careful with sex as what females currently are. The female is more scared of a pregnency than a male is, so if males have to worry about pregnency as well (even due to a sperm jack), then males will be more careful about sex, which there would be benefits to that such as the significant reduction in unwanted pregnencies, abortions, and STI transmissions.

If sperm jacking is a fear, then I wouldn't recommend sex then as it is similar to Russian Roulette.

The kids would be set up for adoption and have a 96% chance of being adopted by a better family within 5 years.
Where did you get this figure from?

US Adoption Statistics | Adoption Network | Adoption Network states:

11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family (43,083 children).

which means that 89% get adopted within 5 years. Another cite said it was 96%, but I couldn't find it. Either way, the vast majority of kids get adopted within 5 years.

The data clearly shows that adopted kids, on average, get treated way worse.

Lets say for the sake of argument that this is correct. If it's correct and significantly more people who get vastectomies end up adopting kids when they feel like it (assuming they aren't on welfare or on a sex offender list), then those foster kids are still getting an upgrade from the alternative; having no parents. If I was a foster kid and I had to pick between no parents and parents that treated me worse than the typical parent treats their biological kid, I'd pick the ladder because some parents are better than none.

Topic's author

#18

Debates: 0

Posts: 516

08.12.2021 11:42PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Sperm jacking is definitely something that should be considered. If a woman sperm jacks a male, there needs to be a punishment for that, but I don't know a good punishment for it.

Some kind of jail sentence seems reasonable.

If there is enough evidence to confirm a sperm jack, then the guy wouldn't have to get a vastectomy as punishment. But sperm jacking is one reason why I don't want sex until I get a vastectomy and I recommend all males follow that advice. Otherwise, it is like playing Russian Roulette; I feel sorry for you if you get shot but you really shouldn't have played that game. With sex, if your girlfriend sperm jacks you, I feel sorry for you but you really shouldn't have played the sex game. People say that's hard, but not having sex is so easy; I don't have to date or court a girl and I don't have to spend all this money on a useless female. It's so easy to not search for sex and porn is available if you have urges to look at naked girls.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect all men to get vasectomies, just so they don't get sperm jacked. Sperm jacking (according to the U.K. statistic), cannot happen at a rate any higher than 20%, and I doubt it's anywhere near that (most of that statistic is probably women becoming impregnated through casual sex, and then finding another man to take care of the child, without telling the new man that she's already pregnant -- cucking). It's a serious problem when sperm jacking happens, but it's not the majority of cases. It think it would be easier to punish the women in the few instances where it did happen, rather than vasectomizing all men just in case they get sperm jacked.

The rate of sterilization reversibility is variable. My idea is a vastectomy, which is reversible around 30 to 90% of the time(Vasectomy reversal - Mayo Clinic).

Firstly, the average of those two numbers is 60%. That means 40% of the time, if a man wants to become fertile again, he simply can't. Remember that these are men who didn't choose to not have children. These are men who got a vasectomy *in the case* that they were sperm jacked. I think it would be easier to give jail sentences for sperm jacking.

Secondly, this is going to cost money. Vasectomies cost anywhere from $300 to $3000 dollars How Much Does a Vasectomy Cost? (verywellhealth.com). If we take an average of those, $1500 per man is something to consider. Now, add to this the cost of vasectomy reversal ($5000-$15000), and we can bump this average cost up to $11500 per man Vasectomy Reversal Costs - Vasovasotomy and Affordable Options . Again, giving jail sentences to the women who commit the crimes is far cheaper than administering vasectomies and vasectomy reversals to every man, and probably acts as a better deterrent for women.

Some females could end up exploiting men which is why males should be as careful with sex as what females currently are. The female is more scared of a pregnency than a male is, so if males have to worry about pregnency as well (even due to a sperm jack), then males will be more careful about sex, which there would be benefits to that such as the significant reduction in unwanted pregnencies, abortions, and STI transmissions.

If sperm jacking is a fear, then I wouldn't recommend sex then as it is similar to Russian Roulette.

I agree that making women and men more careful about sex is a good thing. I'd even go a step further and argue that casual sex should be societally shunned, but that's another argument.

However, my point was that your 'if he leaves he's guilty' standard is an invitation for toxic women to attempt to entrap men. Sometimes, the female behavior is appalling to the point of being potentially criminal (sperm jacking, lying about being on the pill etc.) If a man leaves because of this, especially in light of there being little recourse he has to this toxic female behavior, you see how we're giving toxic females a weapon to entrap men? It's fine if the woman wants to get pregnant and have children, but she must have the man's consent because he usually pays for most of the child's upbringing.

Where did you get this figure from?
US Adoption Statistics | Adoption Network | Adoption Network states:

11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family (43,083 children).
which means that 89% get adopted within 5 years. Another cite said it was 96%, but I couldn't find it. Either way, the vast majority of kids get adopted within 5 years.

Thank you for providing the source.

It's good that adoption rates are so high that the children are likely to find a new family within 5 years. Still, this process does cost money and time, and it's better if no child had to be adopted. But I can agree, given your source, that finding (eventual) adoption isn't going to be a major problem for most children.

Lets say for the sake of argument that this is correct. If it's correct and significantly more people who get vastectomies end up adopting kids when they feel like it (assuming they aren't on welfare or on a sex offender list), then those foster kids are still getting an upgrade from the alternative; having no parents. If I was a foster kid and I had to pick between no parents and parents that treated me worse than the typical parent treats their biological kid, I'd pick the ladder because some parents are better than none.

I agree that within the dichotomy of having no parents or having adopted parents, that having adopted parents is preferred.

Still, it's better that we avoid adoption altogether and encourage children's biological parents to raise them in a stable relationship. That should be the goal of every society because stable relationships with biological parents are (1) the best for children, and (2) easier to set-up than adoption. I'm not yet convinced that taking single mother's children away from them helps societies produce the most stable relationships wherein both biological parents are raising the child.

#19

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,247

08.13.2021 12:22AM

-->

@Mesmer

Some kind of jail sentence seems reasonable.

There are 2 reasons why I don't want to jail someone for sperm jacking.

1) They are pregnant when you put them in jail and this could lead to a miscarry.

2) Taxpayers have to pay for the living expenses of a terrible person.

There has to be another way to punish sperm jackers.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect all men to get vasectomies, just so they don't get sperm jacked.

I don't either, but if your unwilling to get a vastectomy and you don't want kids, I'd say not having sex with women is the easiest way to avoid getting sperm jacked.

It think it would be easier to punish the women in the few instances where it did happen, rather than vasectomizing all men just in case they get sperm jacked.

The women who sperm jack should get punished, but I don't know how to punish them. A fine is too easy. The death penalty is too cruel. Jail involves jailing a pregnant female and wasting taxpayer dollars to keep a terrible person alive. I don't know how they can reasonably be punished.

I'd even go a step further and argue that casual sex should be societally shunned, but that's another argument.

The problem with this is that 97% of society has sex outside of marriage. Good luck shunning 97% of society.

However, my point was that your 'if he leaves he's guilty' standard is an invitation for toxic women to attempt to entrap men.

Toxic males and females exist, but how do you prove a guy was sperm jacked? I think if sperm jacking is illegal, it would lead to females hiding their behavior (maybe throwing out the condom) and the cops have no idea if the guy was sperm jacked or not.

Still, this process does cost money and time

It should be free to adopt. Then foster systems are emptied and abortion rates plummet due to the lack of fear of foster care.

Still, it's better that we avoid adoption altogether and encourage children's biological parents to raise them in a stable relationship.

Unfortunately, some parents (like a sperm jacked dad) aren't going to be in a stable relationship. If I had to pick between the dichotomy of a kid being raised by a single mom who is a sperm jacker or being raised by 2 competent foster parents, I would pick the ladder. Single motherhood destroys families.

565 days later

#20

Chloe_firm

Debates: 1

Posts: 1

Chloe_firm

03.01.2023 08:14PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

@Nyxified

I am not going to give any facts however I am an adopted child

I was adopted within 6 months of birth and have had a better life than I would of

My biological dad ran away with house and money leaving my biological mum poor so she put me up for adoption

I now live with my adopted parents who I love very much, have 7 animals and go to private school, if you don't know what that is it means my parents pay for school.

#21

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,259