GetDotted Domains

Viewing Thread:
"Marriage & babies"

The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.

Mon 09/10/06 at 06:17
Regular
Posts: 938
Just wondering of the general consensus on this topic. This is in no way meant to identify or indignify anyone's individual choices, only to discuss reasonings.


1) If a couple wanted a baby, how long should they wait, after first meeting eachother, before having a baby? Is there a standard, socially acceptable time frame??

2) Do you believe said couple should marry first, before a baby?

3) But, what if it was an unplanned pregnancy? Should they get married for the sake of the baby and somehow try to make it work? (Excluding dysfunctional relationships - ie, domestic violence, abuse, etc..)

4) Do you believe that people should get married because they want or they're expecting a baby?

5) Or, do you believe women wanting children are better off getting artificially insemenated, because the mass of single mothers is increasing anyways? Why hassle with the man factor??

6) Why do you believe it's more socially accepted these days to have babies without being married, whereas generations ago it wasn't?



Thank you, you're comments would be greatly appreciated. :)
Thu 26/10/06 at 09:01
Regular
"AkaSeraphim"
Posts: 9,397
Mackieee wrote:
>I would never rush into a baby. It could go all wrong..?! you just >never know.

Then again even if you have a baby with someone, that wasnt rushed etc.. and was in a long term relationship. Doesnt mean its going to work out. No matter how much people think and feel they are ready for a baby its not always the case. Majority will soon dissapear once baby is born!


> No, Unplanned could be either of two reasons, Flings or strong
> relationships. But whatever the circumstances - The father
> should do his part in taking responsibility for the child given
> birth.

Aye, SHOULD do. Then some people just really can't be bothered.
Thu 26/10/06 at 00:01
Regular
"Formally:Ev][L~DarK"
Posts: 3,032
1) If a couple wanted a baby, how long should they wait, after first meeting eachother, before having a baby? Is there a standard, socially acceptable time frame??

I feel a couple they should have a baby once they are in good hygiene and able care for one to suit both career, relationship, time, personal goals and finance.. This could vary, but even though two people love each other a lot, I would never rush into a baby. It could go all wrong..?! you just never know.

2) Do you believe said couple should marry first, before a baby?

Yes!

3) But, what if it was an unplanned pregnancy? Should they get married for the sake of the baby and somehow try to make it work?(Excluding dysfunctional relationships - ie, domestic violence, abuse, etc..)

No, Unplanned could be either of two reasons, Flings or strong relationships. But whatever the circumstances - The father should do his part in taking responsibility for the child given birth, but not marriage.

4) Do you believe that people should get married because they want or they're expecting a baby?

No.

5) Or, do you believe women wanting children are better off getting artificially insemenated, because the mass of single mothers is increasing anyways? Why hassle with the man factor??

No.

6) Why do you believe it's more socially accepted these days to have babies without being married, whereas generations ago it wasn't?

Because its adapted with our lifestyle, Increasingly more complicated society with work and home life, Divorces are increasingly more common, thus unsurprising to society, therefore generally more acceptable to all. What doesn't shock us, we let happen.
Tue 24/10/06 at 08:24
Regular
"Going nowhere fast"
Posts: 6,574
Borat §agdiyev wrote:
> Yeah it's easy to take that view, but a great many of these
> single parent families are not in the situation by choice ...

I never said they were :(

> I guess it boils down to the way you view being a parent really
> ... you're angry that you have to go to work and pay taxes,
> these single parent families stay at home and have an easy life
> ... but it's not the case, is it?

I never said I was angry and I'm a little upset that you think me so small minded. I said I curse occasionally. I know the system works and I know that a lot of people need help - including, at one time, my sister. First when left by her husband with a six week old little girl and much later with a 5 year old boy when his father was killed in a car accident. She needed help a lot of help then but it was always short term until she got herself back on her feet. Blood breeds true and her daughter started dropping kids when she was sixteen. She now has two daughters herself and walked out on the father of the second child. She moved in with her mother, needs help but is also working herself out to support herself in the main.

I have no idea if staying at home to take care of children is an easy life but would never presume it to be so. Personally I'd rather work 12 hour nights but if everyone felt like me we would have died out years ago.
>
> I'm not saying it doesn't get abused, but I think on the whole
> the system works well for those who need the benefit of it.

Again I'm not saying it doesn't work. Nor do I curse helping genuine people but when you see girls of less then 20 walking around with 3 small children... following in their mothers footsteps... living off handouts and knowing they never gave themself a chance at a better life then I curse.

That may not sound as I mean it too. So to Angel who is still young and has small children. I don't mean to aggrevate or annoy you the above is a generalisation. I don't know your past but I do know you wouldn't be without your boys. I grudingly admire anyone who struggles to raise children on their own who do a good job.

However, when I see council estate scum (now I'm getting angry :D) walking around with 3+ kids, fag in mouth, beer can in hand and 2 mangy dogs in tow then yes I get mad. Before you scream at me for not understanding - I am from a big council estate myself.
Mon 23/10/06 at 16:09
Regular
"AkaSeraphim"
Posts: 9,397
Borat §agdiyev wrote:
> Yeah it's easy to take that view, but a great many of these
> single parent families are not in the situation by choice ...

I for one didnt choose to be in this situation :)

> these single parent families stay at home and have an easy life
> ... but it's not the case, is it?

No it really isnt the case!

> I'm not saying it doesn't get abused,

It does get abused though. I know someone who is the same age as me, she had a kid at school and then see that shats all she wants as she doesnt want to work. So far her plans are going right. She has 3 kids and hasnt worked a day in her life and doesnt plan to. Her attitude is she gets benefits and she just stays at home. But her kids are either at school or at her mums and she very rarely has them.
Mon 23/10/06 at 16:02
Regular
Posts: 20,776
Yeah it's easy to take that view, but a great many of these single parent families are not in the situation by choice ...

It's not a perfect system, as with any system regarding financial assistance to those out of work or in a single parent situation, it's open to abuse by those who want to exploit it, but it's in place for a reason and I like to believe the majority of cases are in genuine need of this help.

I guess it boils down to the way you view being a parent really ... you're angry that you have to go to work and pay taxes, these single parent families stay at home and have an easy life ... but it's not the case, is it?

I'm not saying it doesn't get abused, but I think on the whole the system works well for those who need the benefit of it.
Sun 22/10/06 at 16:19
Regular
"Going nowhere fast"
Posts: 6,574
Ladybird wrote:
> Just wondering of the general consensus on this topic. This is
> in no way meant to identify or indignify anyone's individual
> choices, only to discuss reasonings.
>
>
> 1) If a couple wanted a baby, how long should they wait, after
> first meeting eachother, before having a baby? Is there a
> standard, socially acceptable time frame??

Do people already think before meeting someone that they want a baby or immediately upon meeting someone think 'I could have a baby with this person?' Scary. As to how long they should wait.... how long is a piece of string? There is no socially acceptable time frame that I know of but commonsense should play a part. I believe that children should be had while you are young enough to cope with them and old enough to wave goodbye to them and still have a good life after they have grown up and moved on.

>
> 2) Do you believe said couple should marry first, before a
> baby?

No, marrying for the sake of a child is not the way to cement a good marriage.

> 3) But, what if it was an unplanned pregnancy? Should they get
> married for the sake of the baby and somehow try to make it work?
> (Excluding dysfunctional relationships - ie, domestic violence,
> abuse, etc..)

Again each to their own. Try to make things work? If you consider that you must 'try' then it is such a bad idea, you shouldn't have to try. If marriage and a family was already on the cards then a shuffling of priorities is all that needs to take place. Personally I would abort.
>
> 4) Do you believe that people should get married because
> they want or they're expecting a baby?

Never in a month of Sundays.

> 5) Or, do you believe women wanting children are better off
> getting artificially insemenated, because the mass of single
> mothers is increasing anyways? Why hassle with the man
> factor??

I believe that women wanting children need councilling not insemenation! Actually that is part said in joke mode but only part said. There are too many children from broken homes that need fostering or adopting. There is a lack in society of caring for those who need good care and solid family values instilled into them. If you want a child so desperately why can you not give your love to someone who so needs it. Preferably someone from your own 'back yard' not the other side of the world.
>
> 6) Why do you believe it's more socially accepted these days to
> have babies without being married, whereas generations ago it
> wasn't?

Times change. Society is more acceptable of single parents otherwise you are likely to shun a large section of society. Not just the parent but their family and friends. However there are times when I curse the amount of my taxes that go to supporting single parent families (sorry, no offence meant). I pay taxes (a lot) but get nothing back from the government for NOT needing their financial support to help me live a comfortable life.
>
Sat 21/10/06 at 16:17
Regular
"AkaSeraphim"
Posts: 9,397
Thats true. This woman that works with someone i know. She buys her kids anything new that comes out, yet she has had them in crèches and all sorts from when they were babies. Now i think there soon going to be in school. She always seems to just work or also leave them with a nanny if she isnt at work. Those poor kids, yeah have everything a kid could ever want, but where is the love and attention from there mother!
Sat 21/10/06 at 16:11
Regular
"@RichSmedley"
Posts: 10,009
I think giving them every material thing they want is just a substitute for parental attention and can only be a bad thing in the long run.
Sat 21/10/06 at 16:09
Regular
"AkaSeraphim"
Posts: 9,397
I think what people should think more along the lines of doing is preparing yourself for parenthood. Ok money helps at times. But if your starting out a family just do your best to look in to what a baby needs, A lot of love and care...

I know some people those that have alot of money seem to think that material stuff does it more for a child. Yeah throwing money at them is all well and good but there is more to life then money.

Babies just appreciate a nappy change a feed and a cuddle :)
Sat 21/10/06 at 16:03
Regular
"@RichSmedley"
Posts: 10,009
Yes they thought they'd have to give up everything and while they had to sacrifice certain things like going out for a meal regularly it wasn't nearly as bad as they thought.

I think they wanted a "buffer" of money in the bank as a security net but they only managed about £1000 over the year which in context of the big picture wasn't a lot.

Freeola & GetDotted are rated

Check out some of our customer reviews below:

Great services and friendly support
I have been a subscriber to your service for more than 9 yrs. I have got at least 12 other people to sign up to Freeola. This is due to the great services offered and the responsive friendly support.
Just a quick note to say thanks for a very good service ... in fact excellent service..
I am very happy with your customer service and speed and quality of my broadband connection .. keep up the good work . and a good new year to all of you at freeola.
Matthew Bradley

View More Reviews

Need some help? Give us a call on 01376 55 60 60

Go to Support Centre
Feedback Hide Feedback Tab

It appears you are using an old browser, as such, some parts of the Freeola and Getdotted site will not work as intended. Using the latest version of your browser, or another browser such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Opera will provide a better, safer browsing experience for you.