Life insurance

Bethie wrote:

Once you have kids, your whole outlook on life changes.

As a parent you are being irresponsible if you don't have it. If it was just us...we probably wouldn't get it. We didn't get it until Duncan was born, as it was.

Agreed, children change things. But to say that parents that don't carry life insurance are acting irresponsibly is inaccurate, un-called for, and unfair. Why? Because we don't know the entire situation.

Who are we to say that they haven't made other plans? Who are we to say that they haven't set up trust funds to care for their children, in the event of their demise? Who are we to dictate that they have life insurance - if funds are so tight they can't even pay to put food on the table?

I think the main point that Brian was trying to get across is that just because something is inexpensive/fun/easy to do/whatever, doesn't mean it should be done. He (and I) were merely asking for deeper reasons.

Are we against life insurance? No. I think it's a good idea, as it does provide in the ways mentioned - if the deaths occur under the guidelines specified by the insurance plans.

Bethie wrote:

We don't have life Ins. just cause its cheap....

Who said that was your reason? I believe Jess was the first to mention it was cheap. And I've never said it was a good thing or a bad thing.... Infact I don't recall ever even stating my comments on the subject. I just commented or asked questions on others statements. Just cause ask why you think they way you do on the subject, doesn't mean I agree or disagree, I'm just looking for the reasoning behind the comment. Trust me, If I disagree with you... you won't have any problem figuring it out. Remember, this is the debate section, and if you post here, then your going to have to explain your comments.

(I need to find a hug emoticon)Lots of hugs, its all in fun and learning... now lets get back to and please

Brian wrote:

Bethie wrote:

We don't have life Ins. just cause its cheap....

Who said that was your reason? I believe Jess was the first to mention it was cheap.

I wasn't saying you had said that about me, i was just stating that that is not the reason WE have it.

Brian wrote:

Trust me, If I disagree with you... you won't have any problem figuring it out. Remember, this is the debate section, and if you post here, then your going to have to explain your comments.

(I need to find a hug emoticon)Lots of hugs, its all in fun and learning... now lets get back to and please

I thought the reason for debating wasn't to say that you disagree with someone, but stating YOUR views and opinions. Wouldn't that make it a personal attack if you say, "i don't agree with you?" Your singling out one person that way.


And your right Amanda...i didn't really mean that everyone with kids HAD to have life ins. I meant they should have some way of providing for their kids in the event of their death.
I have heard many horror stories about kids whose parents had died and had everything they had taken away due to debts and things like that...
True, they may not have had money to put food on the table...but if that was the case...they should not have had unprotected relations(i kept it clean) in the event they became pregnant. But unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter anymore

Now i will try to

P.S...Brian...can you get the green smiley that looks like he gonna throw up?

Bethie wrote:

Wouldn't that make it a personal attack if you say, "i don't agree with you?" Your singling out one person that way.

Simply stating that you disagree with someone is not a personal attack.

Saying, however, that you disagree with them and they are stupid for holding that position would be deemed a personal attack.

There is a clear difference.

Bethie wrote:

True, they may not have had money to put food on the table...but if that was the case...they should not have had unprotected relations(i kept it clean) in the event they became pregnant.

Again - we can't make this generalization. We don't know the circumstances.

Consider, for example, that the person was ill with a terminal illness and therefore uneligible for life insurance, but the wife was pregnant or they already had children - before finding out about the illness. Or, a person had retirement monies tied up in a company pension plan and the company was allowed to back out of the agreement - or, went through a scandal like Enron. Or, a couple married, had children, and then lost their jobs - thereby making it impossible to afford an optional expense such as life insurance.

There is always at least one exception to a generalization.

In general circumstances where it can be affored and obtained, having life insurance or any other way of supporting your family in the event of your sudden and unexpected death should be the goal of any responsible parent. Every family and circumstance is different. You merely asked if we thought it was okay to have and we answered based on our personal experiences. We can't answer for everyone that is poorer or richer than we.

I think it is perfectly fine that LI being cheap is one of the reasons why we have it..... it's not the only reason though. After all, if it was not cheap then we would not have it.

You've yet to share you thoughts with us Amanda. Why were you/have you been thinking about this subject? What reasons do you have for and against it?

Jesse wrote:

Every family and circumstance is different. You merely asked if we thought it was okay to have and we answered based on our personal experiences. We can't answer for everyone that is poorer or richer than we.

And that was the reason behind my pointing out that generalizations cannot be made, such as parents being irresponsible for not having it.

I wasn't asking you to answer for others.

Jesse wrote:

You've yet to share you thoughts with us Amanda. Why were you/have you been thinking about this subject? What reasons do you have for and against it?

Yes, I did - just not in great detail. I said yesterday that I haven't decided one way or the other. On one hand, I see that it is a good idea. On the other hand, it seems to be "worrying about tomorrow," which we are directed not to do.

I also stated earlier today that I think it would be wise to have it. As I don't currently have life insurance, I see no point in going into greater detail of my explanations.

For the worry about tomorrow part....

Why do you go to work? Why do you go grocery shopping? Not worry about tomorrow doesn't mean not doing anything for yourself. You didn't say... I want my basement to be finished but I'm not going to worry about it, God will take care of it. You went out and bought the drywall and did the work.

"God promises to provide our food so I'm not going to worry about it... it will just magically appear in my fridge."

I'm not saying this to be mean or pick. I've just heard that reasoning used before for other stuff also and I think it's a way to avoid stuff. We're supposed to live like each day is our last but we're also supposed to plan for the future.

Well, I wasn't using it to avoid the issue. As I stated, I've given limited thought to the topic. I was merely wondering about what others thought.


And by the way - I go to work because I like to.

It seems more like "concern for my childs/spouses future." As a lowly human i find it hard to go through an entire day without worrying about something thats happening tomorrow, or the day after...or even once my son grows up.
But I don't think "don't worry about tomorrow" can be applied to everything.

Amanda wrote:

And by the way - I go to work because I like to.

You LIKE to go to work? Weird...although...Brandon likes to go to work...but only because he likes having money.

Bethie wrote:

Amanda wrote:

And by the way - I go to work because I like to.

You LIKE to go to work? Weird...although...Brandon likes to go to work...but only because he likes having money.

This is off-topic - but yes, I enjoy my job.

Amanda wrote:

Bethie wrote:

Wouldn't that make it a personal attack if you say, "i don't agree with you?" Your singling out one person that way.

Simply stating that you disagree with someone is not a personal attack.

Saying, however, that you disagree with them and they are stupid for holding that position would be deemed a personal attack.

There is a clear difference.

I was only responding to a topic that had already been discussed. But oh yes, Ruler of the Forums, I don't mind posting the exact same thing somewhere else.

Jesse wrote:

Amanda wrote:

Bethie wrote:

Wouldn't that make it a personal attack if you say, "i don't agree with you?" Your singling out one person that way.

Simply stating that you disagree with someone is not a personal attack.

Saying, however, that you disagree with them and they are stupid for holding that position would be deemed a personal attack.

There is a clear difference.

I was only responding to a topic that had already been discussed. But oh yes, Ruler of the Forums, I don't mind posting the exact same thing somewhere else.

Now who's attacking and calling names? Call me what you want. Brian made me a moderator - I didn't ask. I don't control what you post.

Amanda and Jess... You both either STOP.. or I will lock out our account.

PU-LEEZE if we are going to call one another names in a funny sarcastic way then USE THE LOL SIGN. That way we will know how you want us to take it. If you are doing it to be nasty sarcastic... then save it and think it all you want, that way it'll only be between you and God.