PM Lee: What future do you want for Singapore?
-
ksi:
Like it or not, biologically speaking yup. Legally speaking in terms of commitment, different ballgame altogether. Whether or not the father plays a role in the child's life, is for the people involved to hash out. Accidents do happen, we all know that. The scenario of a man fathering a child out of wedlock deciding to get married eventually to someone else, that is already happening. Couples divorce and remarry, etc. This is real life.
Just contributing sperm is a father? :scratchhead: How about those from sperm bank? Most likely if one cannot find someone to marry will seek help from sperm bank. Which man will contribute sperm to a woman he does not want to marry but only want to sleep with? What if one day he decides to get married to someone else, won't he be complicating his life? Sleep yes, contribute sperm? errrr....I don't think men are naive leh.... And from the macro level, what kind of society is this? legally rojak...Funz:
Don't understand your 2nd question. Why would the child be without a father? Married or not, the man who contributed the sperm is the father.
Maybe like what that Indranee fella said, the govt did not set out to discriminate against unmarried parents but to encourage married couples. I however am of the thinking if the policies are to support child rearing, it should be for that, regardless of marital status.
I know now it is already happening with the EMAs and all ....but endorsing and not endorsing formally does make a major difference to a society make-up. So is the child penalised then, can the child say no? Food for thought.
I am not saying to endorse. The deterring factor should be societal norms, not policies. Policies to support child rearing should be just that, support regardless of whether the child is born out of wedlock or not. -
Funz:
But policies do influence societal norms. Imagine if our govr goes ahead with gays marriage, won't it slowly evolve into a norm?
. The deterring factor should be societal norms, not policies. . -
Funz:
Yes things are already happening in real life but if there is no support, they learn their lesson better. My friends make these mistakes and learn it well. People have to think responsibly before they act, not change the rules to make their games easier. And I still have not heard a direct address to \"Is it a penalty for the child to be born without given the choice of a complete family?\" if it is considered a penalty for single women not to be able to bear children on their own without a spouse?
Like it or not, biologically speaking yup. Legally speaking in terms of commitment, different ballgame altogether. Whether or not the father plays a role in the child's life, is for the people involved to hash out. Accidents do happen, we all know that. The scenario of a man fathering a child out of wedlock deciding to get married eventually to someone else, that is already happening. Couples divorce and remarry, etc. This is real life.
I am not saying to endorse. The deterring factor should be societal norms, not policies. Policies to support child rearing should be just that, support regardless of whether the child is born out of wedlock or not. -
Lilac66:
The gay marriage thing is another touchy subject hor.
But policies do influence societal norms. Imagine if our govr goes ahead with gays marriage, won't it slowly evolve into a norm?Funz:
. The deterring factor should be societal norms, not policies. .
I reserve my views on that. -
Funz:
The gay marriage thing is another touchy subject hor.
But policies do influence societal norms. Imagine if our govr goes ahead with gays marriage, won't it slowly evolve into a norm?Lilac66:
[quote=\"Funz\"]
. The deterring factor should be societal norms, not policies. .
I reserve my views on that.[/quote]
Ya hor, a very touchy topic ... then back to the topic of single women giving birth, the above applies too.
-
ksi:
You latched onto my use of the word penalised huh? My friends made these mistakes but will not change their decisions of having their child should they be able to do it all over again. Change the man maybe, but not the decision to keep the child. :razz:
Yes things are already happening in real life but if there is no support, they learn their lesson better. My friends make these mistakes and learn it well. People have to think responsibly before they act, not change the rules to make their games easier. And I still have not heard a direct address to \"Is it a penalty for the child to be born without given the choice of a complete family?\" if it is considered a penalty for single women not to be able to bear children on their own without a spouse?Funz:
Like it or not, biologically speaking yup. Legally speaking in terms of commitment, different ballgame altogether. Whether or not the father plays a role in the child's life, is for the people involved to hash out. Accidents do happen, we all know that. The scenario of a man fathering a child out of wedlock deciding to get married eventually to someone else, that is already happening. Couples divorce and remarry, etc. This is real life.
I am not saying to endorse. The deterring factor should be societal norms, not policies. Policies to support child rearing should be just that, support regardless of whether the child is born out of wedlock or not.
You asking if it is a penalty for the child to not have both father and mother who are married to each other? Well there can be many scenarios, not married doesn't mean either parent is completely absent. And in cases where either parent is missing, is it a penalty? It all depends on how the remaining parent handle the situation. And personally, I think it is a bigger penalty if a child is not born at all. But that is another debate altogether. And I think I digress.
And I am just offering my views. I know it does not conform with societal norms. I do know that if I had not met DH, I would still want to have children, be they biologically my own or adopted. And if the current policies on child care support were to be extended to the unmarried me, it will be doubly welcomed as it will only go to benefit my child/children. -
Whether singles chose to bear children is a personal choice.
Innocent children shd nvr be made to bear d burden of their parents’ choice.
Is it wise to encourage singles to hv children without d financial ability to take care of them?
Look to NZ’s experience with single moms. -
Its a personal choice for unmarried or singles to hve kids, this one can’t help but agreed. Of course there are adverse consequences as pointed out by many here.
The promoters try hard to convince others that’s they hve the financial means and there’s indeed nothing wrong as it is in one’s state of mind. This statement its totally rubbish! There’s such a thing as wrong instead of no right or wrong and in this instance, it is incorrect for singles or unmarried couples to procreate as their off springs will hve to bear the brunt. Fortunately, our government is wise enough not to acceed to the request to amend existing policies.
Supposing the promoters of alternative life style hve their way, two things will sure to happen. First, our society will sure to disintegrade and deteriorate and once this happen, it will lead to the second one- that is the ruling party will lose power sooner than expected! -
Funz:
A normal family is encouraged to have kids. And that is the direction of the govt policies.
Yah boy, another topic for debate.
Why only the reasonably well off can have kids alone? If thinking along that line, only reasonably well off couples should have kids too?
A single parent family, on the other hand, is not encouraged. Bcoz it is not \"natural\". You are kinda upsetting the eco system of family structure, and it doesn't seems very conductive environment to bring up a child in a single parent family. Can the parent afford to give the kid fully what the they need? or is the parent struggling to make ends meet, and no spare attention to devote to the upbringing of the kid(s)?
In the early 70s, when the govt deemed that SG is not ready for population boom.. they also introduced stop-at-Two policy.
And as currently, they may feel that SG is not really for excessive Single parent families.. so.. no encouragement.
Perhaps they may feel that it is a potential social problem if kids that do not have a natural family structure are more likely to be led astray? There may be some statistics somewhere.. not too sure.. -
[quote]Traditional family still key: PM Lee[/quote]
With respect, what was he talking about? The traditional Asian family I am familiar with often consisted of one husband and several wives. That's the traditional family of my grandparents and great-grandparents' generation that I grew up in. Let's not have selective amnesia here, ok? This one husband, one wife thing is... uhm... Western in origin.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login