Topic : 06/05 Conception Deception

Yeah... such a nuisance to have to actually work for a relationship's success... and hey, kids are resilient... they can handle the upheaval just fine. 

  

*rolling eyes* 

  

Sometimes people need to get out of relationships because they're unhealthy and even dangerous. 

  

Sometimes people are enmeshed in the "soulmate" mentality and fail to understand that great relationships are not conflict-free relationships... and leave as soon as they feel "unhappy"... and fail to even consider the fallout where their children are concerned. 

  

In closing, let me offer you these words that come from John Gottman, William Doherty, Linda Waite, and ten others who by any measure represent the foremost family social scientists in America: 

  

Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. 

 

It is also a social good. 

 

Not every person can or should marry. And not every child raised outside of marriage is damaged as a result. Marriage is not a cure-all that will solve all of our social problems. 

 

But marriage matters. 

 

Children in ***average***, intact married families do better than children in average single parent and stepparent families.  

 

Communities where ***good-enough*** (note: not high caliber) marriages are common have better outcomes for ***children***, ***women***, and men than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried childbearing, and high-conflict or violent marriages. Moreover... the benefits of a strong marriage culture extend across lines of race, ethnicity, and class. 

 

The sociologist Paul Amato (Penn State) recently estimated the likely effects of returning marriage rates for households with children to the level they were in 1980. This is what he found: 

 

Increasing marital stability to the same level as in 1980 is associated with a decline of nearly one-half million children suspended from school, about two hundred thousand fewer children engaging in delinquency or violence, a quarter of a million fewer children receiving therapy, about a quarter of a million fewer smokers, about 80,000 fewer children thinking about suicide, and about 28,000 fewer children attempting suicide. 

 

So, the institutional strength of marriage in our society has clear consequences for children, adults, and the communities in which they live. 

 

( -- Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences, 2005) 

  

My point: if you have children, and if you have the capacity to love, and if the other person has the capacity to love, it is the most wonderful thing in the world to make the commitment to each other and to your children that you will work on your relationship and make something beautiful of it.  

  

(I'm personally in a second marriage, so I'm not speaking from "on-high" as if I haven't had failure. ) 

Well, it did not appear that Derek wanted to abandon his child, in fact Dr. Phil made it pretty clear that the love and devotion to the child was not in question. 

  

Stacy was unfair to Derek, but the needs (including the financial, emotional, and spiritual support of BOTH parents) of the child trumps Derek's right to "fairness". 

  

If we are going to live in the perfect world, what would we do about men who pledge eternal love and devotion to a woman until she becomes pregnant or has the baby? For every guy who feels tricked by a pregnancy, there's a woman out there feeling abandoned by false promises of commitment and devotion. The unfairness door swings both ways. 

I don't even know whether it's even worth it to respond. I obviously need to be EXTREMELY specific when writing posts because there are those people out there that don't use common sense to "fill in the blanks". Of course every relationship isn't conflict-free and they do require work. I was sticking to the topic which is the situation between Derek & Stacy. What Stacy did is an absolute deal-breaker in my book. One of the things a marriage is built on is trust. Once that trust is shattered the way Stacy shattered it, it's in everyones best interest to go their seperate ways. I guess my post was too general for you. Sorry.

I absolutely agree that it's a problem on both sides of the coin. However, when the mother has all of the advantages legally, and the father has next to nothing in terms of rights, something has to be done to even out the "playing field".

What are the statistics on a pregnancy being the foundation of the marriage taking place to begin with and it lasting?   

Well, that was your quote! I am here to let you know that me and my husband did get married because of a pregnancy and we have been happy going on now 9 years. We have another child also. who are you to judge anyone?  

 Who is responsible for contreception?  Why is it only the girl who is responsible?  If you don't want any chance of pregnancy both parties should be providing the proper protection.  He should take responsibility in his actions.  Doing the right thing is providing for the child.  It doesn't have to be in a marital status.

So, if you "obviously need to be extremely specific," then you must take the position that it is "extremely" rare to find someone in this country who believes what you said (if you're unhappy in your relationship, get out, end of story) without qualification... ? 

  

I'm not a therapist, but it wouldn't surprise many of us to find out that Stacy is co-dependent... let's be real... that's no revelation to Derek.  

  

One of the symptoms of that co-dependency would be that she's willing to go to such extremes to hold on to him... in this case, have his baby. 

  

She took advantage of the situation, and it was a very selfish, counter-productive thing to do... absolutely. 

  

Can co-dependent people have successful relationships? Not without addressing the deep fears and feelings of inadequacy that led to the co-dependency... but if addressed, it can happen.  

  

I'm inclined to agree that the trust may be too shattered, but then again, only Derek can really say... and the challenge for him is to make that call without being overcome with feeling sorry for Stacy, as is likely a big part of how the relationship had gotten as far as it had before she became pregnant.  

Sounds to me like you are lucky.  The posters point is that marriage shouldn't be based on pregnancy. Marriage should be based on love, compatibility and common values.  It's a COINCIDENCE that you and your husband have all those things. You did get married for the wrong reasons, you are lucky that things worked out.

This poster wasn't judging anyone or anything but stating an opinion based on very good reasoning that a marriage that is started and based on an unexpected pregnancy is more likely to fail than succeed.

This is an issue I go back and forth on...seriously. I can't decide who is right on this 'baby wars' issue.  It's been driving me crazy.

A woman has a legal right to an abortion, but that's hardly an unfair advantage unless one is coldly nonchalant about abortion. The legal right to an abortion would be absolutely no consolation to me if a man who a professed a love and commitment to me abandoned me because of an unintended pregnancy. 

  

  

A woman can also collect child support, but it is not a financial windfall. She will contribute as much to the financial needs of the child. Statistically, single mothers are not at a financial advantage. 

  

Not all advantages are legal. Men have the advantage of never having to physically deal with an unintended pregnancy. They will never have to consider having a morally questionable procedure done on their bodies because their partner decided parenthood was not convenient. They will never deal with carrying a child for nine months and then handing it over to strangers. Women may have more options, but it's not like they are GOOD options. 

  

I am no way condoning women deceiving their partners about birth control - that is most unfair to the CHILD. But in terms of "the playing field", it's just not as skewed as you might like to think.