No. She should give the child up for adoption.
Why men won't marry you
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
No. She should give the child up for adoption.
I mean what I noted, that you're talking about the extraordinary and exceptional, not remotely anything like the rule. Beyond that I noted the law takes competence into consideration in contract. Or, if you're that impaired you can't enter into one, so it wouldn't really help your case if we were arguing over a legal threshold, though I haven't really advanced arguing over a legal threshold.
Neither of those assertions (while doubtless true) impacts my point or is quantified sufficiently to really address, except as I have in my response above on competence.
Then they aren't sufficiently impaired and more power to them, I suppose.
My notice is statistically sound, though I don't recall saying a law should be altered here, only noted that if the state's consideration is stable marriages where the children of them are more likely to be reared in a long lasting and stable marriage they might consider revisiting the age of consent given what we know about how it mostly turns out with people 21 and under and that people are better served, if that's their aim, waiting until their mid twenties.
Otherwise it's more of a losing side crap-shoot with their own happiness and the happiness of the kids they will likely bring into the world.
The link led to a report that essentially underscores my argument. The least happy marriages are those formed under twenty and they're more often than not the ones ending in divorce.
Under 20:
Happy - 31%
Not very - 17%
Divorced - 52%
So if you're in this group you have a 3-10 chance of having made a happy choice.
lain: Long odds.24-26:
Happy - 66%
Not very - 20%
Divorced - 14%
Waiting until our brain and life experience give you a better shot at consideration? Almost 7-10 of being happy and 8-10 chance of being satisfied enough to remain in it.
Around 30 the satisfaction level is significantly and negatively impacted. Though even late, where the happiness part is a coin flip, divorce is dramatically lower, some 8% which means kids have a more stable platform and expectation thereof from the mid twenties on.
Those women who marry past 30 don't tend to be as happy about it they aren't unhappy enough to end the relationship. And once you've been on your own for that long it's likely to be more difficult to work another person into the minutia of our life. That sort of integration is bound to be uncomfortable for people with established routines and accustomed to fairly complete control of their calendar.
1PeaceMaker
New member
All you've shown is that younger women are more mobile. Their lack of fear to get out of a bad relationship is a plus for their future families. They know they will still be a catch in the next ten years.
So of course less are unhappy in the youngest group than any other group. They aren't stuck yet. Stuck for stuck's sake is bad.
I think it looks bad for women in their late twenties because not only is their happiness falling, their divorce rate spikes. Why? Because they are feeling their biological tick at a desperate volume by the time they finally say "I do." Desperate feelings do bad things to relationships.
An 8% divorce rate in later life only indicates that they are either dying before they can switch, or they are scared of change. So they stay unhappy. Their expectations have fallen.... they are no catch anymore, so they cling desperately to the hope of a family in late life; as even a rotten one is better than being alone and extra vulnerable as an old lonely singleton to the plot twists in life.
Your view of older women is truly sad. You imply that woman in there late 20's and 30's have somehow become undesirable and worse, they begin to see themselves as failures. How dare you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Lack of fear of God (Pr 9:10). When she enters into a covenant, God expects her to keep her vow (Matt. 19:5) until death (Rom. 7:2, 3). If she tosses her husband out like a piece of garbage and
A catch :idunno: damaged goods Lk 16:18
opcorn: One will catch God's attention for disobedience (Heb 13:4). :burnlib:Is 5:20, Mt 19:6
Plot twists :idunno: serial adultery Heb 13:4
See:
Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper
Are many 40 year old women selling skin cream? Our culture idolizes youth and beauty. 1 Sa 16:7, Pr 31
Yep, it sure does. When I was a kid I listened to a lot of John Denver. Still do as a matter of fact. There are a couple of lines from his songs that have always stuck with me and kind of formed my views on aging.
From, "Poems, Prayers and Promises" ... it turns me on to think of growing old... Because of this line, I have never feared growing old.
From, "Nothing But a Breeze" ...Well, I don't mind being an old gray grandpa
As long as you'll be my gray grandma... Because of this I have never feared growing old with my bride.
Sadly, what you say is all too true. I have started to gray and I am getting urged to do something about it. It makes me sad because I don't mind turning gray yet it bothers my bride. :sigh:
Seems to me you have shown that younger women see marriage as more disposable if it doesn't live up to their dreams.
Wasn't he a pothead? Re 9:21
Ge 2:18, Pr 18:22
Lev 19:32
Last edited:
Rather, the statistics tell us that women who marry before that line in the genetic sand I noted tend to get divorced.
That's not what the stats said. Unhappy people divorce. 52% by this standard and more by the U.S. Dept. standard I looked at (which had the divorce rate closer to 60%). That's not more happy. Thats unhappy and moving on with another 17% staying married for who knows what reason. Likely everything from kids to maybe their unhappiness is about something other than their spouse.
The divorce rate for the 20 and younger group is 52% and the divorce rate is 20% for those in their late twenties. And while more women at the late end of their 20s would describe their marriages as unhappy (31% as opposed to the pre 20s 17%) those who remain married also report being happier than their young, mostly divorced counterparts 49% to 31%).
I don't think there's a metric here that helps the cause of pre 20s marrying. It's a generally awful idea, by the numbers. And one of the reasons for that is a want of solid judgment, from a genetic and experiential perspective.
That's just bias filtering speculation. It is what it is. Those who marry after 30 are a coin toss away from unhappiness or happiness, but they aren't apparently unhappy enough to want to end the relationship. That's all we can say.
Or they're not as unhappy as they say or it gets better or they figure that's life. Who knows? All we know, again, is that they opt in.
Ultimately the data says the happiest in their marriage and nearly the least likely to end with divorce are marriages that happen in the mid twenties, when judgement is sounder and enough time hasn't passed to lock people into a routine me first lifestyle that can be problematic later on.
I wonder how this same survey would shake out where men are concerned. :think:
elohiym
Well-known member
Breathtaking logic.
The article states:
The younger you are when you have your first child, the sooner you get the protective effect of pregnancy [9-11].
Interesting you "missed" that point.
It actually is but I think you missed it completely.
Considering the timing of the onset of cancer for my wife, she had protective effects of pregnancy and nursing. Twice.
In short, the possible reduction to the risk of contracting breast cancer is not a sufficiently compelling reason to marry at a young age.
elohiym
Well-known member
At what age is she old enough that she shouldn't give her child up for adoption?
Early to mid twenties.
elohiym
Well-known member
Should she be allowed to vote before that time?
Sure. But then parenting =/= voting. She should be allowed to drive. But then driving =/= parenting. She should be allowed to joing the military. But military service =/= parenting. Any more apples and car parts comparisons you would like to make?
1PeaceMaker
New member
No matter the age there will be casualties of love.
What doesn't make sense is the idea that we would be better off without those children of the young.
If you could go back in time and erase all the children and marriages starting before age 25, would we even have a human race? How big could it possibly be? Why war against what has worked to populate the world with all the people in it?
People don't divorce as often during recessions. So what does that tell you? Being empowered financially or physically will weigh in favor of divorce when people's values allow for it. Not that people SHOULD but the stats don't pertain to that.
Happiness being a coin toss at best - so we also must consider that there are other issues, like continuing the human race.
And the ones eager to marry are like the eager young soldier, giving their best years for the good of society. If we can accept casualties of war in that age group, why not for love? Only for eager volunteers, too. The ones who can't beheld back - so strongly do they feel...
Check out this study of successful teen marriages:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../BoykinThesis01.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Model T's worked for transportation why not go back to them? Heck, horse and buggys worked great, why not go back to them? Passenger ships worked fine for crossing the ocean, why not go back to them? The US Postal service works great for sending mail, why not go back to that exclusively? The point is that things change. What made sense and worked well in the past may not work so well today. Getting married young and having babies young makes a heck of a lot more sense when the average life span is 40 years. It makes far less sense when the average life span is 80 years.