Oh, that was an "argument?" LOL.
I fully support women going out and getting themselves a trophy stay-at-home husband.
Since there seems to be so much difficulty.1) I replied because of some unknown person on the internet calling a single mom wanting to better life for herself and child "repulsive."2) I did not reply to the "animal shelter argument" because the only point of my 2nd post was to refute the silly stereotyping the poster seemed to make about me because I go to Berkeley Law. Unless someone wants to claim that the stereotype people think of when thinking of Berkeley is old non-trad stay-at-home mom. Somehow I doubt that's the case. In addition, I was stating some qualifications and life experience I might have that may actually be relevant to this issue. The poster calling the OP "repulsive" does not seem to have any qualifications for making any statements about what single moms should or shouldn't do. 3) related - attacking me because I go to Berkeley law, making some remark as if my opinion is invalid is a logical fallacy. 4) Equating a woman who already has a child going to law school with a law student who wants to adopt a pet has so many problems with it, it seems ridiculous to give it any sort of weight. But since some seem to think it does, let's go for it. Is the argument, stated generally, so it could perhaps apply to a different fact set "People who are responsible for defenseless creatures should not attend law school?" or is the argument "Law students shouldn't adopt pets and therefore women that already have children should not attend law school?" The fact set between these two situations are completely different. - pets, children - treated differently under the law- person adopting a pet, by definition does not already have the pet. In the current situation, the woman already has a child. Perhaps an argument could be made that a single law student should not adopt a child. I could see drawing that analogy from the animal shelter argument. However, an animal shelter would not come into your home, after you'd already adopted it, and confiscate your pet because you went to law school, nor would anyone (reasonable) suggest that someone trying to better their life should not do so if they already have a pet. And now this thread has truly reached ridiculous proportions. OP, make a list of well-researched pros and cons about going to law school as a single parent of a young child. Make a reasoned decision based on the factors in your life. And please, ignore idiots on the internet.
In the second, he pointed out that animal shelters don't let people who are gone 12 hours/day adopt a pet (iirc, I didn't actually go back and read it). He didn't actually MAKE an argument. He just kinda left it open that we should somehow draw some conclusions.
Congrats to you Matthies, you are a super law student who knows which items to skim through. My classes generally assign readings that require 3 hours of study time for every hour of lecture... so 15 credits correlates to around 60 hours... and then law review/journals/clinics usually take up more time than that. But that is awesome that you are so good, I am sure you are a superior man than I.