Choice Moms - Page 7

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆😆 Vinit, the red hi-lighted portion was a straight lift from your post that souro quoted on page three...not my words. see, that's what happens when you focus on just a fragment rather than the whole argument someone is making😆😆😆

see the original quotations in all their entirty below😉

that is your post, I didnt modify it, you can check that😉😆😆 chalo boss, better luck next time😛😆😆

😆 😆 😆 Arey kya Gauri Ji, jis baat pe debate chal raha tha, aapne to wo baat hi finish kar di! 😆

Mein bhi soch rahi thi ki ye tape kyun atka hua about the choice mom being selfish and fantasized about a toy 😕.. Now I see sense 😆

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆😆 Vinit, the red hi-lighted portion was a straight lift from your post that souro quoted on page three...not my words. see, that's what happens when you focus on just a fragment rather than the whole argument someone is making😆😆😆

perhaps you need to be careful while plagiarizing next time then😉, b'cos you yourself ended up calling the choice mom as obstinate, hell bent, and then are complaining about me doing it and conveiniently ignoring the part that you agreed in principle to that part😉

see the original quotations in all their entirty below😉

that is your post, I didnt modify it, you can check that😉😆😆 chalo boss, better luck next time😛😆😆

better luck plagiaurizing and not nullifying your own point next time, it seems you seem to have lost the will or appetite to continue the discussion on points😉

Perhaps you should read and decide what argument you want to make, b;cos look you are contradicting yourself

I said is

"Is this more of an obstinate attitude that I can make it without a man(or a woman) in my life or is this unwillingness to make the adjustment required in a relationship that makes a decision to become a choice mom "
your response

"if she is being obstinate and hell bent on proving that she can make it without a man. "

and then you are saying I am calling me out for calling her self centric, when you yourself called her that

I have a clear conscience, I have stayed with my argument, havent contradicted myself, but you seem to be flip flopping in the discussion

Originally posted by: sareg

rutumodi915,

we are talking about a person who has willingly chosen to stay single for whatever reasons, I am not judging her for that, all the power to her

you seem to be talking about divorcee mom(i.e a woman who has a child and then divorces), and a widowed mom(i.e a woman who had children from a marriage and her husband passed away)

Vs

A person who has willingly chosen to stay single for whatever reasons, I am not judging her for that, all the power to her

For you perhaps there is no difference, but I see the following difference

when you have a child and you have a equal partner in life(i.e husband or in case of lesbians, another woman) you have that backup, another parent, who has equal bondage with the child, if that person passes away or gets divorced you suck it up and try to fill in that role to the best of your ability, nothing can change the loss. b'cos you know this is your child, you are used to the responsbility of raising a child, now you just got more things to do

now about the support staff

from my perspective I see a parent has more affinity towards the child then a granny/grandpa/uncle/aunt, you can never replace a mother or a father by granny/grandpa/uncle/aunt, you can try to peice it, but never replace it.

you cannot replace that feeling of responsibility that a person has for their own child by substituting the father/partner by granny/grandpa/uncle/aunt

so, in the case of a choice mom, by choice the choice mom has snatched that person and replaced with several other support staff, just by choice

isnt that a self centric attitude?

No, it is not. I don't understand how you are depriving the child of anything if the child had nothing to begin with. 😕

the price for those choices is a lack of a father in the life of a child, I say what is the fault of the child in this, that he/she is not given an option to have a father?

What was the fault of the child who was left in the orphanage? What was their fault that their parents dumped them in an anathashram at an early age? But here is a woman, who has decided to adopt a child who has had no parents love, and wants to nurture this child as her own and give him/her something that they have been deprived for... And, we are judging her saying she is a feminist and egoist? I don't see how you have got that idea

you seem to be looking at it from the mother's point of view, fine, all the power to the nari mukti yojna. for once can we give the nari-power a rest, we are talking about kids here. Nobody is torching a woman or anything , we are talking about a child being borne and bought up, can we stop making this only about "The Nari"

I don't think anyone has been talking about "The Nari". It is about the child and why can't you see that the child has at least one parent now, be it a father or a mother. Definitely better than no parents, ain't it? Wo kehte hai na, Something is better than noting!

Question to you

1. I have seen all three of you agree Father plays a important role in a child's life,now this was by choice the mother decided not to provide for that

As a parent she was responsible to provide everything humanly possible to the child, has she done that?

She just could not find somebody. So, now she has to tie herself with someone she is not compatible with just because she wants to be a mother and wants to nuture a child and help him/her to be a part of the world. Maybe, she did try to get married, maybe she did try to get close to a man.. What is her fault if she could not do it? We don't know yet if this was all due to her adjustment problems. And I don't know how you are justifying that she won't give the child everythng that is in her power? 😕

2. What has the child done, that this mother is taking away that right of having a father from him/her?

Answered before.

3. Everyone seems to be talking about the role of the family members/role models. Can you tell me, would you in your case replace the father with numerous family members in your life, will your life be the same?

I think Kal El answered this very well!

Originally posted by: Kal El

um you already responded to that post of mine; why did you quote that again? You could have quoted my last post as well. Then again, we are repeating ourselves again and again. 😆

B'cos everyone on the for side seem to be losing sight we are talking about a mom who has made a choice, not b'cos her husband passed away

Anyway, I am not looking at it solely from the mother's point of view. In fact, I remained neutral with respect to the gender of the single parent in all my posts in this thread. Where did that nari mukti tangent come from? 😆 I prefer looking at it from BOTH the parent (either gender) AND the child's POV. 😊

Now, you are continuously assuming that the absence of the other parent (mother or father) is definitely going to result in poor parenting.

yes, and everyone seems to agree here that both parents have a role in a child's life, if you take one away, you can try to fill that void, but is not doable, unless you put another person one to one to do that role

This is not always the case. I mentioned (probably more than once) earlier that it is possible for the single parent to provide "complete coverage" (ie sufficient coverage) as you put it.

it is possible for anyone to do anything, the question is not possibility, the question is, should it be done by choice, there are a lot of things possible for humans, but we dont do it, b'cos we look at the greater good of everyone involved, you seem to think I am denying it can be done, I am not denying that, I am just saying it should not be done by choice, b'cos the repurcusions are faced by a child, not by the person making the choice

You said something about replacing the partner with other family members and that it is not enough. The problem is you are unable to understand that it is not a question of replacing at all. The family structure for a single parent household is different from a couple household but it is not necessarily worse.

It is different, I understand that, making a choice to subject a child to that environment is what I am questioning

That is the incorrect assumption in your argument: you keep assuming that it will be worse. You simplu cannot assume that the single parent is NOT selfishly snatching anything from the child because it is possible for this other type of family structure to function perfectly well for the child. 😊

you talk about functioning environment, yes it works, there are thousands of kids in a single parent household, yes, it is doable, but it happens b'cos something bad happened, the mother had a divorce or someone died. It is forced, the loss of one parent for the child, in that situation is not due to some choice, it is a event that cannot be avoided

you do not seem to be comprehending the difference between that situation and this one.

When the child loses a parent in that situation, it is easily explainable, well this happened, that happened

In this case, it is a question of choice, and the child is deprived of the other parent by choice
[quote=sareg]

Question to you

1. I have seen all three of you agree Father plays a important role in a child's life,now this was by choice the mother decided not to provide for that

As a parent she was responsible to provide everything humanly possible to the child, has she done that?[/quote]

Reminder: you have erroneously assumed I am only looking at the mother's POV.

Repeat: It is possible for the single parent to provide all the care, nurture, support and security necessary for a complete upbringing. Beyond that one would have to judge on a case by case basis whether a particular single parent has suceeded or not.

I am not talking about possibility here, can we please move beyond the possibility part? everything is possible in the world if wished, the question is knowingly depriving the child of a father, a role that cannot be fulfilled by the mother

[quote=sareg]2. What has the child done, that this mother is taking away that right of having a father from him/her? [/quote]

If we are talking about orphans then consider that he/she did not have any parents to begin with. At least now he/she has a family. It may not be the type of family you arbitrarily categorize as the "only norm" but it is a family nevertheless, something a million times better than an orphanage. In this case the child is not losing anything, rather gaining a lot.

why are we even talking about orphans here?

we are talking comparing normal situation, if you want to talk about orphans being adopted by choice moms that is a different point, we can certainly talk about it seperately

here we are talking about a mom making a choice to only provide a child with a "mother" + something else vs a family providing a child with a mother+father+maybe something else

In that case "mother+father+maybe something else" wins

If we are talking about the single parent actually having a biological child (IVF/surrogacy) then again, why are you assuming that the single parent will always be unable to provide complete care, support, etc to the child?

will the single parent be able to provide the other parent? the emotional needs provided by the other parent without any exceptions? whatever you do it still remains single parent doing the best they can

On that note, how are you certain that the addition of the "other parent" will guarantee 100% success?

and you seem to be driving your discussion off of that failure rate, we are all accepting there is less than 100% success, but certainly far more families have a successs rate over 60-70% in the world, so your argument seems to be, since it works in the 30%, let us subject more in that

why not base your assumption on a failure rate😆?

It can very well result in the opposite as well. Why are you just assuming that one possibility will always be true and the other false? 😆

everything is possible, I am not saying it is impossible😆, I am only questioning the reasoning of doing it by "choice"
[quote=sareg]3. Everyone seems to be talking about the role of the family members/role models. Can you tell me, would you in your case replace the father with numerous family members in your life, will your life be the same?[/quote]

Classic appeal to emotion logical fallacy. 😆 You are resorting to emotion instead of constructing a logical argument.

yes, to maybe one understand you have to put them in that, but I have seen none of the for side is willing to be able to do that

Every single factor that has ALREADY been a part of anyone's life, no matter how minute or big, was important in shaping that person. Some of the factors may even be irrelevent to you or me but not to that person's life. Take the slightest factor (that has already played a part in his/her life) away and you would end up a different person. You cannot compare this with a child who se childhood has only just begun. Heck you can't even take one person's life and just apply to others with no rhyme or reason. The real question that you should be considering is: would that person's life be worse? Not necessarily I say. Assuming the parent is independent and competent enough, that person in question could still have had a wondeful childhood. Only the specific chain of events would be different and he/she would grow up to be a different person. But not necessarily a worse one. That's all. On the same note, say you find someone who was brought up by a single parent. If you go back in time and change his/her history to include both parents it would change the person he/she would become but would it necessarily make him/her a better person? Would he/she have had a better life? Not necessarily. This has no bearing on the debate at hand though. Changing any factor in your particular life (that has already gone though the childhood phase) would alter you regardless of whether you are in a single parent family or not.

and rather than answering a simple question, one goes on a long long "yawning" argument

point I I realized here, you seem to be thinking I dont think this is doable

I am saying it is doable, yes thousands of people do it b'cos of some reason or the other, such as a divorce or a loss of a parent, all I am questioning the reasoning of doing this by "choice"

most of the single parent home's you and others talk about, if you ask the children, after 15-16 years, they will agree they got an excellent upbringing, but they will also add that they missed having the other parent and often wonder how it would have been

All I am saying why subject the children to that by "choice"

Even children of a broken home resent the fact that their parents deprived them of something

the children in a choice mom household would end up hating the mom, even if she did an excellent job in raising them, for depriving them of the "other" parent, which may or may not have been significant

Originally posted by: rutumodi915

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

agree with you Vinu. Not all can handle it but those who can should not be judged as obstinate, feminist, selfish, egoist etc. Getting in to relationship or not is a matter of choice. Some just choose not to be in one. That should not mean that they should be deprived of experiencing motherhood as well😊

those who can in the current world, do so for some event in life, no-one is calling them selfish

it is the people who are trying to create a calamity when none existed before are called as selfish😆, simple enough😉

Originally posted by: sareg

Perhaps you should read and decide what argument you want to make, b;cos look you are contradicting yourself

😆😆😆...did you even pay attention to that "if".😉😆

I said is

"Is this more of an obstinate attitude that I can make it without a man(or a woman) in my life or is this unwillingness to make the adjustment required in a relationship that makes a decision to become a choice mom "
your response

"if she is being obstinate and hell bent on proving that she can make it without a man. "

and then you are saying I am calling me out for calling her self centric, when you yourself called her that

I have a clear conscience, I have stayed with my argument, havent contradicted myself, but you seem to be flip flopping in the discussion

😆😆😆 can't help it if you don't get the puns with direct quotes off your posts and call it "Plagiarizing".

First you label the choice moms as feminists now this😆😆 tells me someone is really running off steam here😆

btw, you missed that big fat underlined "IF" in my arguement above😉

read everything again and in contexet and you'll see that i did not agree with you. that was my way of telling you how exactly your points sounded to me😆

We all here have "clear conscience" and no one is accusing anyone of anything...except...may be you😆😆