Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:the idea itself will be shot down ... even the opposition would not dare to raise it up. current system , either you do really well and buy private property or wait for 35yrs old to start queuing or share a flat with your parents.
as for equal rights when you're advocating an unequal situation, highly unlikely.
it would be easier to pass off as equal rights for all singaporean children, rather then advocate equal rights for mothers..
our culture lol...... if guys are more attractive, desirable..... usually do not end up being family friendly. unless by that you mean having more than one family?
Of cors the idea will be shot down, what is the percentage of male in our government.
If you look at other countries with female oppression. It's more often a male dominated country, ruled by men.
Men with a LOT of insecurities.
"our culture lol...... if guys are more attractive, desirable..... usually do not end up being family friendly. unless by that you mean having more than one family?"
The root cause of such culture.. is related to your demand and supply theory.
It is simply because there isn't enough attractive, desirable and family friendly males around , that's why a male who is such is able to be lofty.
Now , if the supply of attractive, desirable and family friendly males... becomes the majority.... the ratio of women wanting to marry such men will be more balanced.
Hence I advocate raising the QUALITY of our boys... so as to help encourage more couples to be created.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:don't be a dick and always start with nonsensical statements you know the other side don't subcribe to.
obviously not all marriages are the results of a "good " choice. sometimes good mariages arise from bad choices, others end up badly even though both sides made a "good" choice.
what we have here is a political system that decides good/acceptable versus bad/unacceptable and then systematically rewards those who participates.
not personal moral values.
just like I personally don't give a shit whether gays are married or not, just don't force it down my throat and proclaim in the name of freedom I must support you.
but obviously the govt does. hence 377A
but yes as a single mother you get "punished" for your choice. . like you get "punished" for all other wrong choices in your life.
women who married lousy men are already punished for their choices. as for all mothers should be treated the same. nope sorry
I'll still disagree. like as mentioned. I believe they should have housing covered and the chance to provide necessities. beyond that you are punishing the rest who made the "correct" choice in the govt's eyes
Govt eyes ? Govt not my lao peh.
You think married women see it as a punishment if Single mothers get what we get ? That's rubbish.
Getting married is our personal lifestyle choice... and the "reward" is not what compels us to get married anyway...
We only see it as govt ploy to make life HARDER for single women because they choose to have babies without the legal liabilities of an irresponsible man.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:don't do that, please. there's a difference between pro-choice. and people who want a get out of jail free card.
being pro-choice means you're allowed to make your own choices. it doesn't mean the rest of us have to be supportive. at the end of the day it's to do with personal choice. the law allows it. unlike euthanasia.
there will always be people who support single mothers, likewise people who don't.. others like me who are neutral.
there are contraceptives. this is not the 16th century where people are using fish skin. either you make the guy wear something, pop a pill or go for a vasectomydon't screw up and blame the rest of us when society as a whole will always go for a conservative choice.
there's isn't that many situations where a lady or a very young girl ends up single and with a child. and how many do you think ends up with public sympathy?
and may I remind you, arguing a liberal cause with the general public usually makes it worse.
"and may I remind you, arguing a liberal cause with the general public usually makes it worse."
So how do you propose we should argue a liberal cause to he general public ?
Maybe all liberal ideas should be shunt under the carpet ?
How can we, as a progressive nation.. move away from oppression and obsolete conservatism so we may head towards a more liberated existence ?
History has taught us.. that you cannot imprison a human's mind for very long.
comon guys don;t deviate. TS wants women caned for not marrying. so should we start with JW women first?
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:comon guys don;t deviate. TS wants women caned for not marrying. so should we start with JW women first?
The only person who needs a good caning is John Wong the Thread Starter himself.
I need to go talk to his mom and shame her for having this idiot as a son.
Originally posted by John Wong:i don't deny that there ARE woman who want to be single mother...
but that is very different from jojo reality distortion field where she think there are hundred of thousands of woman who want to become single mother once society decides not to 'punish' single mothers...
there isn't any proof to prove anything either way
Originally posted by jojobeach:It's kinda obvious you havn't had a serious relationship yet.
Do you think an unmarried couple cannot enjoy sex and emotional satisfaction ?
Sex, companionship, emotional satisfaction does not increase or decrease after marriage.
The question here is... why is marriage so special. What does it provide, that a unmarried relationship cannot provide ? The answer is only.. Legal status.
The promise of exclusivity. Which can be easily broken in our current society, doesnt work anymore.. and we ALL know that.
As for NS.. I had in my many previous posts.. mentioned that NS is an obsolete requirement. I think it's now just a reform exercise to train our boys to become more obedient for easier control.
I always questioned.. why do we need so many years of NS ? Other countries only need 1 year. Is it because our boys are dumb and need more time compared to other countries ?
the whole point was the legal status thingy, inheiritance, children and the sort.
exclusivity......and a pretty recent thing. in an age where people can "no happy divorce lah!"
Originally posted by jojobeach:Of cors the idea will be shot down, what is the percentage of male in our government.
If you look at other countries with female oppression. It's more often a male dominated country, ruled by men.
I actually do not recall any female dominated country. but if you can stop for a while and actually think about it maybe you'll understand the reason it'll be shot down isn't because the majority don't have a vagina
again, I doubt it.Originally posted by jojobeach:Men with a LOT of insecurities.
Originally posted by jojobeach:"our culture lol...... if guys are more attractive, desirable..... usually do not end up being family friendly. unless by that you mean having more than one family?"
The root cause of such culture.. is related to your demand and supply theory.
It is simply because there isn't enough attractive, desirable and family friendly males around , that's why a male who is such is able to be lofty.
Now , if the supply of attractive, desirable and family friendly males... becomes the majority.... the ratio of women wanting to marry such men will be more balanced.
And if such a supply of men were to be avaliable, I doubt they'll marry local women.
your ideal men seem more like what I can find in female soft core fiction. "the alpha male conquered by the female protagonist through true love"
Again I must state, should a man become attractive and desirable, the last thing he would do is to start a family. it's more likely he'll contribute to the growing numbers of single mothers.
at last count, women already outnumber men. and men far outstrips women in numbers when it comes to marrying foreigners.
unless women are so desirable here that men have no choice but to helplessly turn themselves into soft core porn novel versions just to get one; where supply and demand are concerned.
| Age | percentage | male | female |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–14 years | 15.6% | 362,329 | 337,964 |
| 15–64 years | 76.1% | 1,666,709 | 1,750,736 |
| 65 years and over | 8.3% | 165,823 | 208,589 |
I'll say with less males and more males marrying foreigners. women here might have to seriously consider foreigners as well.
no one will fall for the "become attractive and desirable" thingy only to marry someone home to argue with
Originally posted by jojobeach:Govt eyes ? Govt not my lao peh.
You think married women see it as a punishment if Single mothers get what we get ? That's rubbish.
Getting married is our personal lifestyle choice... and the "reward" is not what compels us to get married anyway...
We only see it as govt ploy to make life HARDER for single women because they choose to have babies without the legal liabilities of an irresponsible man.
well, if you think they're not your lao peh and do not feel like playing by their rules.
why get upset over what they're doing?
and why must I keep repeating this. if it's something that is harder to do and you want to do it. by all means go ahead. if society does not approve or look upon it with approving eyes. AND YET the person in question is determined to carry it out. by all means do it if it makes you happier.
BUT if you already can guess how society will look at you and you find it that big a deal. do not fault society for it.
you're just walking over to the bar, ordering a beer and then complain about how beer sucks.
it's hard but it's not harder, just not easier to be a single mother.
Originally posted by jojobeach:"and may I remind you, arguing a liberal cause with the general public usually makes it worse."
So how do you propose we should argue a liberal cause to he general public ?
Maybe all liberal ideas should be shunt under the carpet ?
How can we, as a progressive nation.. move away from oppression and obsolete conservatism so we may head towards a more liberated existence ?
History has taught us.. that you cannot imprison a human's mind for very long.
the liberal today is the conservative tomorrow.
somethings only change because the older generation died off.
it takes a whole generation to change.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:well, if you think they're not your lao peh and do not feel like playing by their rules.
why get upset over what they're doing?
and why must I keep repeating this. if it's something that is harder to do and you want to do it. by all means go ahead. if society does not approve or look upon it with approving eyes. AND YET the person in question is determined to carry it out. by all means do it if it makes you happier.
BUT if you already can guess how society will look at you and you find it that big a deal. do not fault society for it.
you're just walking over to the bar, ordering a beer and then complain about how beer sucks.
it's hard but it's not harder, just not easier to be a single mother.
FYI. I am married and a mother . So please don't assume I am some power chicks trying to turn Singapore into some Amazonian women tribe.
I simply do not see the need for more oppressive measures to "manipulate" women into marital "bliss"..
Live and let live.
"it's hard but it's not harder, just not easier to be a single mother."
precisely, why shouldnt we make it easier for them than what they are having now?
Give them the right to public housing and equal maternity rights.
Not more.. just not less.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:the liberal today is the conservative tomorrow.
somethings only change because the older generation died off.
it takes a whole generation to change.
I disagree.
Generation needs to grow up. As they grow , social culture change.
The newer generations runs our country... the old ones RETIRE.
Old people keep thinking they rule the place... but with due respect... they don't.
So if you think " over my dead body" works.. you are simply delusional, and yes.. younger generations can't wait for you to die if that's the case.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:And if such a supply of men were to be avaliable, I doubt they'll marry local women.
your ideal men seem more like what I can find in female soft core fiction. "the alpha male conquered by the female protagonist through true love"
Again I must state, should a man become attractive and desirable, the last thing he would do is to start a family. it's more likely he'll contribute to the growing numbers of single mothers.
at last count, women already outnumber men. and men far outstrips women in numbers when it comes to marrying foreigners.
unless women are so desirable here that men have no choice but to helplessly turn themselves into soft core porn novel versions just to get one; where supply and demand are concerned.
Age percentage male female 0–14 years 15.6% 362,329 337,964 15–64 years 76.1% 1,666,709 1,750,736 65 years and over 8.3% 165,823 208,589
I'll say with less males and more males marrying foreigners. women here might have to seriously consider foreigners as well.
no one will fall for the "become attractive and desirable" thingy only to marry someone home to argue with
uh huh.. so you are saying good men don't marry.... only loserish, lame , lousy men will marry local girls ? Really ?
Then I guess single local women are condemned to marrying good for nothing local guys.
No wonder the single women are staying single !
Originally posted by jojobeach:I disagree.
Generation needs to grow up. As they grow , social culture change.
The newer generations runs our country... the old ones RETIRE.
Old people keep thinking they rule the place... but with due respect... they don't.
So if you think " over my dead body" works.. you are simply delusional, and yes.. younger generations can't wait for you to die if that's the case.
they do, and it's pretty much end of the story.
when I have to move on and start doing things on my own. I noticed the young rebel who struck out yesterday, became the old entrenched men today.
they tend to hold power and money in my trade, fought against the older generation complained against them.... and eventually became the next generation of old men.
it's the way humans work, only when the older generation dies off will the new generations in any society rise up with new ideas.
like example the idea that women can hold jobs. it changed a lot of stuff. my friends and myself included. have all stated we prefer daughter to sons. it's not something you can accept just 50 years ago if you were to tell your mother in law that.
My grandma strictly preferred sons and reserved the best for them.
short of stabbing them dead the only way for a peaceful transition is to wait for things to pass on
Originally posted by jojobeach:FYI. I am married and a mother . So please don't assume I am some power chicks trying to turn Singapore into some Amazonian women tribe.
I simply do not see the need for more oppressive measures to "manipulate" women into marital "bliss"..
Live and let live.
"it's hard but it's not harder, just not easier to be a single mother."
precisely, why shouldnt we make it easier for them than what they are having now?
Give them the right to public housing and equal maternity rights.
Not more.. just not less.
how about not becoming a single mother until you're ready financially?
like I said, giving anything else is considered more, not , not just less.
the majority of our society still have kids living with their parents till marriage.
the only way a single mother can appear is to take a path less trodden and to give rights to such situations is to put a totally different situation side by side with the current "acceptable" status quo
you basically want society to bear the cost of personal choices. I do believe in the right to housing but maternity rights , no.
I prefer for you to not get pregnant unless you can afford it.
Originally posted by jojobeach:uh huh.. so you are saying good men don't marry.... only loserish, lame , lousy men will marry local girls ? Really ?
Then I guess single local women are condemned to marrying good for nothing local guys.
No wonder the single women are staying single !
nope, I'm saying local women have interesting decisions.
And good does not equal to attractive and desirable.
like what happened with my friend's choice of men. I can only warn if I know what's going on. and with relationships, you can't comment too much.
if you knew that there're warning bells and you still kept quiet and refused to move on then come to me crying that he hurt you...... I really do think you deserve it.
or marrying a guy you don't like and think is trouble?
god.....
and some of the weird stories I heard.... the guy don't have a job or don't have a well paying job and wants a car..... the GF after kenna poloso decides to finance it for him.
and ends up crying when she realises she can't keep up with the loans. and if the BF decides to move on to a better target? obvious GG liao
all of these stuff happens to guys too.... and we call these guys dumb farks. been there myself and I still feel that I deserve it.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:how about not becoming a single mother until you're ready financially?
like I said, giving anything else is considered more, not , not just less.
the majority of our society still have kids living with their parents till marriage.
the only way a single mother can appear is to take a path less trodden and to give rights to such situations is to put a totally different situation side by side with the current "acceptable" status quo
you basically want society to bear the cost of personal choices. I do believe in the right to housing but maternity rights , no.
I prefer for you to not get pregnant unless you can afford it.
Ready financially? Like when , what is the benchmark? $3000 per month ? $5000 per month ?... how do you decide when is the right time to have a baby ?
When poor couples get married.. are they suppose to wait till they are "financially stable" before they attempt to have babies ?
Or perhaps.. poor couples really shouldn't get married at all... let alone have offsprings ?
And why not equal materinity rights for single mom ? Are you implying a married mother is a mother.. a single mother is not a mother ? Or are you implying that children from married mother need is different from a child from single mother...
FYI.. they are all SAME. A child is a child.. a mom is a mom... it is ridiculous to classify mothers differently.
Your argument is that...
Married mothers = 100% mother.... single mother = (less than) <100% mother... that's kinda stupid to say the least.
Very mind boggling how you men can justify labeling mothers as different beings and should not be treated same...( based on their marital status)...
Anyway.. you guys are crazy. And I am glad you will probably die before my kids get to live in your nonsensical world.
Originally posted by jojobeach:Ready financially? Like when , what is the benchmark? $3000 per month ? $5000 per month ?... how do you decide when is the right time to have a baby ?
When poor couples get married.. are they suppose to wait till they are "financially stable" before they attempt to have babies ?
Or perhaps.. poor couples really shouldn't get married at all... let alone have offsprings ?
And why not equal materinity rights for single mom ? Are you implying a married mother is a mother.. a single mother is not a mother ? Or are you implying that children from married mother need is different from a child from single mother...
FYI.. they are all SAME. A child is a child.. a mom is a mom... it is ridiculous to classify mothers differently.
Your argument is that...
Married mothers = 100% mother.... single mother = (less than) <100% mother... that's kinda stupid to say the least.
Very mind boggling how you men can justify labeling mothers as different beings and should not be treated same...( based on their marital status)...
Anyway.. you guys are crazy. And I am glad you will probably die before my kids get to live in your nonsensical world.
thing is, assuming there isn't a govt and a couple is living in the wilderness will have no support at all having children might actually threaten their chances of survival.
in case the logic hasn't gotten to you yet. if you can't afford it, don't do it.
when poor couples get married. if they are willing to cut back on certain things and at least one of them (assuming they are good parents) has to find work to support the family and feed the kids. it's actually possible to raise a family with kids with less than 2k total household income. but there'll be a lot less luxuries.
I came from a single income family, not much spare income but I was well fed, had my own bed. my parents did at least save up to let us go on trips. pass down clothing and toys. same shirt shared by three kids.
this was during the stop at 2 era. but my parents felt whether they had kids have nothing to do with the govt and the subsidies. they just made sure they could afford us.
the issue I should be asking you is, why should a single mother have more rights then a couple? why must couples go through hoops and even now with policies "favouring" them yet are still unable to start their own family be place on the same level as someone who simply decides to pop a baby out into the world like you're buying a dog?
*pop*
"ah! I have a baby now!"
it's not equal because the situation and the people involved are different.
how can it be equal?
what kind of a warped deranged mind actually thinks this way?
"Married mothers = 100% mother.... single mother = (less than) <100% mother... that's kinda stupid to say the least."
you're stupid for even bringing this up.
the policy already had govt spokesmen coming forward to state clearly it's to promote the family as a core unit. it's meant to reward couples who decided to form a family unit and have kids to make things easier for them.
supposingly you decide to have kids as a single mother, unlike countries which stone you. you are suprisingly allowed to do that here. Just that since you don't fit into their encouraged model you won't get anything out of it other then the joy of motherhood.
if the joy of motherhood is not enough to help you through the hardships, I suggest you go for a sex change operation and try fatherhood with another female with the help of artificial insemmination.
Originally posted by jojobeach:
And why not equal materinity rights for single mom ? Are you implying a married mother is a mother.. a single mother is not a mother ? Or are you implying that children from married mother need is different from a child from single mother...
FYI.. they are all SAME. A child is a child.. a mom is a mom... it is ridiculous to classify mothers differently.
Your argument is that...
Married mothers = 100% mother.... single mother = (less than) <100% mother... that's kinda stupid to say the least.
Very mind boggling how you men can justify labeling mothers as different beings and should not be treated same...( based on their marital status)...
Anyway.. you guys are crazy. And I am glad you will probably die before my kids get to live in your nonsensical world.
in case the above post didn't get through to you.
the message in simple terms is, no one is labeling anyone, but the person with the key to the treasury decided those who don't play by the rules don't get dessert. like EVERYTHING ELSE in life.
and my family is actually pretty long live. 80-90ish. assuming your kids behave in real life like your posts online. chances of me outliving your kids seem pretty darn high.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:thing is, assuming there isn't a govt and a couple is living in the wilderness will have no support at all having children might actually threaten their chances of survival.
in case the logic hasn't gotten to you yet. if you can't afford it, don't do it.
when poor couples get married. if they are willing to cut back on certain things and at least one of them (assuming they are good parents) has to find work to support the family and feed the kids. it's actually possible to raise a family with kids with less than 2k total household income. but there'll be a lot less luxuries.
I came from a single income family, not much spare income but I was well fed, had my own bed. my parents did at least save up to let us go on trips. pass down clothing and toys. same shirt shared by three kids.
this was during the stop at 2 era. but my parents felt whether they had kids have nothing to do with the govt and the subsidies. they just made sure they could afford us.
the issue I should be asking you is, why should a single mother have more rights then a couple? why must couples go through hoops and even now with policies "favouring" them yet are still unable to start their own family be place on the same level as someone who simply decides to pop a baby out into the world like you're buying a dog?
*pop*
"ah! I have a baby now!"
it's not equal because the situation and the people involved are different.
how can it be equal?
what kind of a warped deranged mind actually thinks this way?
"Married mothers = 100% mother.... single mother = (less than) <100% mother... that's kinda stupid to say the least."
you're stupid for even bringing this up.
the policy already had govt spokesmen coming forward to state clearly it's to promote the family as a core unit. it's meant to reward couples who decided to form a family unit and have kids to make things easier for them.
supposingly you decide to have kids as a single mother, unlike countries which stone you. you are suprisingly allowed to do that here. Just that since you don't fit into their encouraged model you won't get anything out of it other then the joy of motherhood.
if the joy of motherhood is not enough to help you through the hardships, I suggest you go for a sex change operation and try fatherhood with another female with the help of artificial insemmination.
Pop comes the baby ? LOL !!!
If only it is that simple.
In case you missed biology class... it takes a MAN an a WOMAN to have a baby. THE BABY HAS A FATHER !!!
Now.. I would totally agree with you if making a baby only require a woman to will it. No man needed.
Unfortunately, thats not the case...
If the father of the baby actually stepped up and marry that mother.. they would have a CORE unit. Baby before or after.. is irrelevant. It's a piece of paper, you sign your name on the dotted line.
The problem here is... the IRRESPONSIBLE man... impregnant that woman... and decide to ABANDON her.... is that her fault ?Takes two to clap remember ?
It is NO different from a man divorcing a wife and left the children with her... the only difference is..she cannot shove the kids back inside her womb and decide if she wants to keep them there or kill them.
While a pregnant single mother have to make a decision between KILLING her child in-vitro or giving him/her LIFE "pop them out" . The man.. simply .. take off.,, pretend nothing happend.. if she decides to keep that baby... she takes FULL responsibility and then more. That's the sick culture we have now.
I think it's about time these irresponsible men take responsibility. If a man impregnate a woman.. he is automatically the LEGAL Husband and should be treated like one in govt eyes. The mother will become legally a married woman.
If a man get a woman pregnant... that's their marriage certificate. If either of them do not want to continue the marriage.. they file for divorce later. And the mother becomes legally a divorced woman.
So marital status is established upon conception or DNA paternity confirmation.
So if a man don';t want to be a husband.. he shouldn't shoot sperm inside a vagina. It's THAT simple.
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:in case the above post didn't get through to you.
the message in simple terms is, no one is labeling anyone, but the person with the key to the treasury decided those who don't play by the rules don't get dessert. like EVERYTHING ELSE in life.
and my family is actually pretty long live. 80-90ish. assuming your kids behave in real life like your posts online. chances of me outliving your kids seem pretty darn high.
So you kow tow to the emperor. You pay the emperor , and he decides how to run your life ?
Well.. that's not my cup of tea..last time I checked.. we are a "Democratic Society".. Not a Dynasty !
It should be .....if I don't get desert , I don't have to pay .
As long as she pays into the system.. she is entitled to the goodies just like EVERYONE ELSE.
"the person with the key to the treasury decided those who don't play by the rules don't get dessert"
Do you give your money to the bank.. and let the bank decide HOW and WHEN you are allowed to use your money ? I don;t think so...
So why are you letting the treasury aka Govt... dictate your life for you , using TAX PAYERS money ????
I don't mind Govt "rewarding" good couples.... as long as they use THEIR own pocket money....like from a Private Charity. Call it an "award" from THe Core Unit Encouragement FUnd, funded by private entities.
If they want to play favourites... DON"T TOUCH OUR MONEY.
Is this getting through to you ?
"the issue I should be asking you is, why should a single mother have more rights then a couple?the issue I should be asking you is, why should a single mother have more rights then a couple?"
A single mother does not have more rights... and I never advocate them getting more than a married mother... I have made myself very very clear that they should be given EQUAL rights AS A MOTHER.
Yet you keep harping on MARITAL STATUS.
What is the difference between a DIVORCED single mother.. vs a Unmarried single mother ??? Oh.. i guess one had a man willing to marry her but left her... and the other had a man who refused to marry her and left her....
Do you really believe more women will jump in the marital wagon simply becuase of the Govt"Rewards"... that's an outright insult to women folks.
We arn't gonna die if we don't get it , understand ?And no we won't say no to men when they propose just becase the Govt decided to stop giving it...
Worst is if we know the reward was at the expense of someone else who needs it. Then no.. we really DONT want it.
"why must couples go through hoops and even now with policies "favouring" them yet are still unable to start their own family"
Jump through hoops ??? Old man... are you getting everything all muddled up.
It is current GOVT policy that's making it harder for couples.. nothing to do with single mothers.
Why are you punishing single mothers for the bad shit our incompetent government is imposing on couples ?????
Oh wait.. are you saying that ... single mothers had it easy.. as she does not have to jump through hoops like married couples ????? What the.... seriously.. dude... are you getting senile... surely you are not that old yet.
Originally posted by jojobeach:Pop comes the baby ? LOL !!!
If only it is that simple.
In case you missed biology class... it takes a MAN an a WOMAN to have a baby. THE BABY HAS A FATHER !!!
Now.. I would totally agree with you if making a baby only require a woman to will it. No man needed.
Unfortunately, thats not the case...
If the father of the baby actually stepped up and marry that mother.. they would have a CORE unit. Baby before or after.. is irrelevant. It's a piece of paper, you sign your name on the dotted line.
The problem here is... the IRRESPONSIBLE man... impregnant that woman... and decide to ABANDON her.... is that her fault ?Takes two to clap remember ?
It is NO different from a man divorcing a wife and left the children with her... the only difference is..she cannot shove the kids back inside her womb and decide if she wants to keep them there or kill them.
While a pregnant single mother have to make a decision between KILLING her child in-vitro or giving him/her LIFE "pop them out" . The man.. simply .. take off.,, pretend nothing happend.. if she decides to keep that baby... she takes FULL responsibility and then more. That's the sick culture we have now.
I think it's about time these irresponsible men take responsibility. If a man impregnate a woman.. he is automatically the LEGAL Husband and should be treated like one in govt eyes. The mother will become legally a married woman.
If a man get a woman pregnant... that's their marriage certificate. If either of them do not want to continue the marriage.. they file for divorce later. And the mother becomes legally a divorced woman.
So marital status is established upon conception or DNA paternity confirmation.
So if a man don';t want to be a husband.. he shouldn't shoot sperm inside a vagina. It's THAT simple.
which is why I am very supportive of punishing people by law should they try stuns like these. as stated earlier. I'm against people abanddoning their own offsprings.
you keep bringing this up like for? to show that you're crazy? can't read? I'm the govt and you want to vent your anger on me?
any logical explainations?
and yes if you still don't know by now, marriage in singapore means you are legally registered.
if someone makes you pregnant, that makes him a father and you a mother of that particular child should you choose to give birth to him/her.
not married.
Unmarried couples, like you said, it takes two hands to clap, if the girl sees that the guy isn't using protection and decides she's not using any either. what? hang the guy?
both side are irresponsible.
the sick culture we have actually hurts men more, but if you don't do anything legally the men gets off. simple as that.
how about the guys who get married, caught the wives red handed in bed with someone else, or when the babies came out they look really different, as in different col skin from the parents. then have to pay alimony. why? because the judges say, sorry lah no choice cos law says so.
if you're unmarried and didn't use protection, hard luck. but you can still claim child care IF you have decided to let the child come into this world.
if married you are legally allowed to claim alimony AND childcare.
IF you farking decided to do it alone. the fark do you want to claim? you stepped into a hole totally planned, and let society pay the bill?
"So if a man don';t want to be a husband.. he shouldn't shoot sperm inside a vagina. It's THAT simple."
I ..... after reading this, think you have no idea how many women in singapore don't want to become wives yet want to have men shoot sperm inside.
Originally posted by jojobeach:So you kow tow to the emperor. You pay the emperor , and he decides how to run your life ?
Well.. that's not my cup of tea..last time I checked.. we are a "Democratic Society".. Not a Dynasty !
It should be .....if I don't get desert , I don't have to pay .
As long as she pays into the system.. she is entitled to the goodies just like EVERYONE ELSE.
that's why you actually get to vote and his official title isn't emperor. I've never met him, can't say I loved, him doubt he's running my life.
and the payment thing, depends on where your " she" thinks where her money is going. police force? army? other govt services? what if the money for the maternal benefits don't come from her taxes?
what? pay GST and you want their lives? what about workfare bonuses? why's there an age limit? I pay taxes too! the hell I paid income taxes! so if I don't get married I don't enjoy anything!
........ ah... and apparently even if you're a responsible man and not abbandon your women , both of you won't get to use the benefits as long as you're NOT legally married.
that's just not fair isn't it?