Why The Breakdown Of The Family Matters

[FaninAma]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

It is undeniable that kids raised by single mothers are at significant risk for having poorer social life outcomes.

It is undeniable that federal government social programs subsidize single mother families.

It is undeniable that when you monetarily subsidize an activity you get more of that activity.

This country will be paying a high price for a long time for the government subsidizing of the breakdown of the family in this country.

But by gawd those single mom's make good Democrats so don't expect the party of Barack and Harry Reid to try and change anything soon.

[soonercruiser]

Forget all that common sense!
Along with true history, it's not taught in scrools (and homes) any more.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

It is undeniable that kids raised by single mothers are at significant risk for having poorer social life outcomes.

It is undeniable that federal government social programs subsidize single mother families.

It is undeniable that when you monetarily subsidize an activity you get more of that activity.

This country will be paying a high price for a long time for the government subsidizing of the breakdown of the family in this country.

But by gawd those single mom's make good Democrats so don't expect the party of Barack and Harry Reid to try and change anything soon.

No blame for the absent dads? It almost always the guy's fault.

[FaninAma]

No blame for the absent dads? It almost always the guy's fault.

Your point is very valid and is addressed in the artcle. I like the term the author uses......"marriage gap".

Barak(government) has become defacto daddy, lover , protector for single women.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yes, single moms make good Democrats so they can get free birth control to make more babies.

But i guess it will surpprise no one that Adam Lanza's single mom, Nancy Lanza, was a registered pub.

[yermom]

Yes, single moms make good Democrats so they can get free birth control to make more babies.

But i guess it will surpprise no one that Adam Lanza's single mom, Nancy Lanza, was a registered pub.

thus the guns

[yermom]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

It is undeniable that kids raised by single mothers are at significant risk for having poorer social life outcomes.

It is undeniable that federal government social programs subsidize single mother families.

It is undeniable that when you monetarily subsidize an activity you get more of that activity.

This country will be paying a high price for a long time for the government subsidizing of the breakdown of the family in this country.

But by gawd those single mom's make good Democrats so don't expect the party of Barack and Harry Reid to try and change anything soon.

the pubs keep banging the abstinence education drum though

[soonerhubs]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

It is undeniable that kids raised by single mothers are at significant risk for having poorer social life outcomes.

It is undeniable that federal government social programs subsidize single mother families.

It is undeniable that when you monetarily subsidize an activity you get more of that activity.

This country will be paying a high price for a long time for the government subsidizing of the breakdown of the family in this country.

But by gawd those single mom's make good Democrats so don't expect the party of Barack and Harry Reid to try and change anything soon.

the pubs keep banging the abstinence education drum though


Agreed, and it's beyond ludicrous.

[FaninAma]

Yes, single moms make good Democrats so they can get free birth control to make more babies.

But i guess it will surpprise no one that Adam Lanza's single mom, Nancy Lanza, was a registered pub.

I see you are in denial. I am pretty sure you don't have to be on welfare to get free or subsidized birth control. And why is it that a large segment of the population have to be paid to do the right thing. Finally, what does having access to birth control have to do with getting married and being resposible? I am pretty sure the first oral contraceptives weren't around until the 60's yet I don't recall single mothers being very prevalent prior to this period even in minority communities.

Lanza's mother was married until 2008. Do you have a link to prove she was a Republican....not that it matters but I'd like to see where you got your information and why they are trying to make a point over it.

[FaninAma]

the pubs keep banging the abstinence education drum though

And they should....its healthier. But are you saying that women who get pregnant without being married do so because they weren't aware of birth control methods or didn't have access to those methods? Please clarify how talking about abstinence has contributed to the epidemic of single mothers in this country.

[diverdog]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

It is undeniable that kids raised by single mothers are at significant risk for having poorer social life outcomes.

It is undeniable that federal government social programs subsidize single mother families.

It is undeniable that when you monetarily subsidize an activity you get more of that activity.

This country will be paying a high price for a long time for the government subsidizing of the breakdown of the family in this country.

But by gawd those single mom's make good Democrats so don't expect the party of Barack and Harry Reid to try and change anything soon.


Again you put 2+2 together and get 6.

Read this:

http://247wallst.com/2011/08/25/the-states-with-the-highest-divorce-rates/

If you live in a poor state it is a good bet you get a divorce.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101228_11_A1_Single795323

This whole idea of yours that somehow the Democrats are responsible for the single family homes is a joke. Especially since so called conservative states have a real issue with single mothers and high divorce rates.

I agree with you that this is a problem but it is problem created by a whole bunch of issues not just government policy.

[cleller]

Evidently some here are young enough to be unable to recognize the differences in the overall behavior of persons who were reared in a society when the overwhelming majority of parents were solely responsible for providing for the support of their family.

[yermom]

and that comment is based on what?

who is promoting the idea that there isn't a problem with single moms raising kids?

[cleller]

and that comment is based on what?

who is promoting the idea that there isn't a problem with single moms raising kids?

The general push-back against any idea that points a finger at government involvement in family life as a negative. That guns= Republican=real cause of the massacre. That abstinence= ridiculous idea that fewer births to unready people will mean fewer problems in society.

The key factor in the rise in single moms is our government, and its willingness to step in and enable that behavior. If our government did not finance these circumstances, they would just not be so prevalent.

I'll add I also support abortion, unlike most of my peers.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

It is undeniable that kids raised by single mothers are at significant risk for having poorer social life outcomes.

It is undeniable that federal government social programs subsidize single mother families.

It is undeniable that when you monetarily subsidize an activity you get more of that activity.

This country will be paying a high price for a long time for the government subsidizing of the breakdown of the family in this country.

But by gawd those single mom's make good Democrats so don't expect the party of Barack and Harry Reid to try and change anything soon.

Divide and conquer the sheeple... Gov't controls our lives, moving to the Socialist eutopia of the libs and progressives...

[badger]

While I do the best I can for baby badger, I know that her little life so far wouldn't have been nearly as happy, healthy and baby if daddy NP wasn't around.

If there's any doubt, after a day in daycare, no matter how tired or fussy she is, one sight of daddy and she's smiling and trying to crawl toward him.

There's no replacing daddy... or at least no replacing a daddy as good as NP :)

[TitoMorelli]

Divide and conquer the sheeple... Gov't controls our lives, moving to the Socialist ewetopia of the libs and progressives...

tweaked it a little :)

[Soonerjeepman]

And they should....its healthier. But are you saying that women who get pregnant without being married do so because they weren't aware of birth control methods or didn't have access to those methods? Please clarify how talking about abstinence has contributed to the epidemic of single mothers in this country.

NO doubt. good grief...it's SEX...you can NO NO NO...or NOT NOW NOT NOW NOT NOW...it isn't rocket science. The problem is the POOR DON'T USE BC! less babies = less $$$ don't have to have a script for condoms.

it really isn't that hard.

Middle class or higher (which I'd say 90% of us are) are having 1-2 kids...maybe 3. The poor have 3-5...it's already showed in this past election, in 15 yrs the workers will be out voted by the non workers.

I"m divorced, bad thing. I was just as responsible as my kids' mother. Unfortunately things happen. I still and have always been very active in the lives of my kids. With that said there is def a break down in family. This is from a Columbine father...good read.

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death.

Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

- Darrell Scott
Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can.
God Bless

[yermom]

only he said that 10+ years ago, not after this

and last i checked, no one said your kids can't pray on their own in school

[soonercruiser]

thus the guns

Yup! "Only Repugs have guns"!!
(sarcasm..)
And you lefties accuse the conservatives on the forum of over-generalizing???
Duh!
:stupid:

Oh yes, fellow citizens:
Children can't be taught to behave and become self-sufficient.
We must be told what is appropriate to say and think!
We cannot be expected control our hormones or sex organs!
We cannot be expected to live honorable, moral lives!
We tax-payers must pay for other's recreation, and the bad outcomes of their own personal decisions....let alone the bad that others indirectly receive from other's bad choices!
And...after decades of abortion.....human life is now devalued (What a suprise!)....unless the Left can use human tragedies like the school shootings to FORWARD their liberal statist agendas!

[soonercruiser]

Agreed, and it's beyond ludicrous.

What is really LUDICROUS is the fact that the Left, and Dem politicians have absolutely no expectations at all for their followers.
They are all "dumb designated"... to dumb to govern, or help themselves in any way.
The Leftist Dem mantra is..."you are not worthy"! You need the government to survive!
Scre* them!

[yermom]

Yup! "Only Repugs have guns"!!
(sarcasm..)
And you lefties accuse the conservatives on the forum of over-generalizing???
Duh!
:stupid:

Oh yes, fellow citizens:
Children can't be taught to behave and become self-sufficient.
We must be told what is appropriate to say and think!
We cannot be expected control our hormones or sex organs!
We cannot be expected to live honorable, moral lives!
We tax-payers must pay for other's recreation, and the bad outcomes of their own personal decisions....let alone the bad that others indirectly receive from other's bad choices!
And...after decades of abortion.....human life is now devalued (What a suprise!)....unless the Left can use human tragedies like the school shootings to FORWARD their liberal statist agendas!

your rant might be a little misplaced.

but i might take the right seriously when they combine pro-life with helping to realistically prevent pregnancies

[JohnnyMack]

Poor Red states are still leading the way in divorce rates, no?

[yermom]

Poor Red states are still leading the way in divorce rates, no?

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!11!

[FaninAma]

Again you put 2+2 together and get 6.

Read this:

http://247wallst.com/2011/08/25/the-states-with-the-highest-divorce-rates/

If you live in a poor state it is a good bet you get a divorce.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101228_11_A1_Single795323

This whole idea of yours that somehow the Democrats are responsible for the single family homes is a joke. Especially since so called conservative states have a real issue with single mothers and high divorce rates.

I agree with you that this is a problem but it is problem created by a whole bunch of issues not just government policy.

Your links actually support my contention since the progressives like to point out that Red states have higher rates of people on welfare(while Blue states have higher total numbers) and thus have higher rates of single mother homes.

History supports the breakdown of the family accelerating tremendously since the big Democratic social programs were first passed in the Great Society and subsequently enlarged by later progressively controlled Congresses. The government replaced the father in lower socioeconomic groups and now more and more middle class families are falling prey to this insidious dependency.

Government entitlement dependency is devestating. Ignoring the accelerating trend of these groups falling further and further behind economically and in every other measure of success and achievement as entitlements accelerate is naive and not conducive to reversing the trends.

You need to remove yourself from your little insulated coccoon and volunteer in an inner city medical clinic or daycare or high school and see how well single mother families are or aren't doing. And yes, I have done exactly that and I currently see it every day in the current practice I am in.

And once again, access or lack of access to birth control plays no role in whether a woman decides to have a child outside of marriage and to raise that child by herself. None.

The fact is the government subsidizes single mother families. Families are paid more if the mother is single and not marries. They lose benfits if the parents are married. they get more benefits if they have more children. The government absolves irresponsible men of the burden of providing for the children they father. In return all the women have to do is keep voting for the politicians they think are their providers and benefactors.

[yermom]

And once again, access or lack of access to birth control plays no role in whether a woman decides to have a child outside of marriage and to raise that child by herself. None.

based on what? are you saying 16 year old Sally is pregnant on purpose? what choice are you talking about?

[soonercruiser]

based on what? are you saying 16 year old Sally is pregnant on purpose? what choice are you talking about?

Surely a poor woman would never choose to have another child just to get more welfare $$????
Surely not!

[KantoSooner]

As much as I do NOT want to make of it a right or a legal obligation, the role of the community is critical in any kid's life. We are not doing that part of things as well as we once did, as well as some other societies are doing it now or as well as we could.

It is pretty easy, really, you need to recognize people in your neighborhood and accept that they, too, are responsible and mostly are trying to help. PJ O'Rourke made an good point on this years ago when he wrote about housing projects and compared them to the 'perfectly good ghettos' that had been bulldozed to make way for them.
When you have small business owners (shop owners, local barbers, whatever), beat cops, passersby and the like talking to kids, even if only to tell them to get the hell off the sidewalk and out of your way, it helps to socialize the little brats. It can also help to replace absent fathers or replace extended family.

And, no, absent fathers are not an invention of the late 20th century. I strongly suggest the book 'Gangs of New York' (from which the episode that became the movie was drawn - the book covers 150 years and is much more an academic piece). Most of Manhattan was a living hell of poverty, disease, drug/alcohol abuse, violence and all the rest...starting soon after the rebuilding following the revolution. The was little, if any, government relief and the problems were present nonetheless. Lest you think that somehow NYC had a monopoly on these issues or spawned them, do a little looking into nineteenth century Pittsburgh or San Francisco or Atlanta or Vicksburg (once boasting a higher rate of birth among its prostitutes than among its married women - roll on big river!)

Most societies laud the glories of married life, quite rightly. Virtually all fall far, far short of their public aspirations. Successful societies then quietly patch over the problems, generally with a healthy dose of extended family and public spirited neighborliness.

What we have in the US, in my opinion, is not so much an abnormal breakdown in family as a breakdown in community. Our government has attempted, without too much success, to fill in for healthy communities with money. If we're unhappy with the way things are now, my suggestion would be to walk around outside more. Talk more with your neighbors and with your local merchants. And say whatever to kids. They may look at you funny to start with, but they'll get used to the goofy old man or lady soon enough. It'll make 'em feel loved to know somebody sees them.

And it doesn't cost one cent of your own or the government's money.

[FaninAma]

based on what? are you saying 16 year old Sally is pregnant on purpose? what choice are you talking about?
This argument is old and is tiresome. Are you saying 16 year old Sally is too poor, dumb and ignorant and doesn't know what causes pregnancy or where to go for birth control? Or are you disagreeing with the FACT that girls that come from 2 parent homes are about 10 times less likely to become pregant as teenagers? Which way do you want to argue this?

[yermom]

so you think sex ed and birth control are easily accessible?

how about Bristol Palin, the poster child for abstinence education? :D

[FaninAma]

so you think sex ed and birth control are easily accessible?

how about Bristol Palin, the poster child for abstinence education? :D

Yes, they are easily accessible unless you are one of those types that has to be physically led around by the hand.

You know what is even easier? If you are too stupid or too poor to locate birth control that should be your first clue you are not ready to have a kid. Try keeping it in your damned pants or keeping your legs closed until you are responsible enough to have a child.Are we raising a bunch of kids who are like dogs in heat?

I think once a teenager gets pregnant then they should be placed in a program that insures they do not get pregnant again until they can prove they are ready to support a child during such time they have to work and go to school and get their high school diploma. After high school, the same sanctions apply. You want to have kids that you can't support? Fine, but at least you will have some skin in the game as far as providing for them. Same thing goes for the little **** that knocked her up.

[JohnnyMack]

Heh, you said "skin in the game".

[yermom]

Yes, they are easily accessible unless you are one of those types that has to be physically led around by the hand.

You know what is even easier? If you are too stupid or too poor to locate birth control that should be your first clue you are not ready to have a kid. Try keeping it in your damned pants or keeping your legs closed until you are responsible enough to have a child.Are we raising a bunch of kids who are like dogs in heat?

I think once a teenager gets pregnant then they should be placed in a program that insures they do not get pregnant again until they can prove they are ready to support a child during such time they have to work and go to school and get their high school diploma. After high school, the same sanctions apply. You want to have kids that you can't support? Fine, but at least you will have some skin in the game as far as providing for them. Same thing goes for the little **** that knocked her up.

yeah... expecting them to keep it in their pants works well so far, right?

as for the rest, that sounds a little authoritarian and big government, don't you think? wouldn't free condoms be cheaper?

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, I can agree with you on the personal responsibility side and still conclude that we simply are not going to change human behavior that much. Hell, the promiscuity of good, Christian, cloistered farmers' daughters has been a subject of jokes for at least 300 years. Shotguns, jail, social opprobrium, poverty, AIDS etc etc have not deterred our youthful sexual voyageurs. Loss of government aid is now going to 'fix' this thing? You have more faith in the power of government than Obama himself (I kid, but the point is valid).

If you want to prevent teenaged pregnancy, the solution is easy: Norplant, or the like. Implant every girl at the age of 10, leave it in until she's 20 and we're done with this. Now, there are several leetle civil rights and relgious 'issues' to be dealt with; but essentially, we can 'solve' this problem with very little cost.
Plus after that, she can go at it like a stoat, which should keep little Johnny off the street and out of crime/violence. (It's harder to rob a bank with your pants around your ankles.)

I think we have a winner, here.

[OU68]

Now that's funny!!

[Soonerjeepman]

Fanin, I can agree with you on the personal responsibility side and still conclude that we simply are not going to change human behavior that much. Hell, the promiscuity of good, Christian, cloistered farmers' daughters has been a subject of jokes for at least 300 years. Shotguns, jail, social opprobrium, poverty, AIDS etc etc have not deterred our youthful sexual voyageurs. Loss of government aid is now going to 'fix' this thing? You have more faith in the power of government than Obama himself (I kid, but the point is valid).

If you want to prevent teenaged pregnancy, the solution is easy: Norplant, or the like. Implant every girl at the age of 10, leave it in until she's 20 and we're done with this. Now, there are several leetle civil rights and relgious 'issues' to be dealt with; but essentially, we can 'solve' this problem with very little cost.
Plus after that, she can go at it like a stoat, which should keep little Johnny off the street and out of crime/violence. (It's harder to rob a bank with your pants around your ankles.)

I think we have a winner, here.

sounds like a winner....in the sense it stops unwanted pregs but that is not a world I want to be a part of...talk about gov control. NOW it seems the majority of Americans are just too lazy to say no and act responsible. Where did that come from? In the past it wasn't that bad. Yes, there were unwed mothers, teenage pregs, shootings, drug use, etc., but the fact these all have increased...why? Lack of 2 parents, lack of church, lack of prayer in school, new drugs, new morals...all this has contributed.

It seems the majority of diff is that both sides think they see what CAUSED this and the conservatives feel that we need to go back to some sort of "morality" where the libs feel we are ok.

[FaninAma]

yeah... expecting them to keep it in their pants works well so far, right?

as for the rest, that sounds a little authoritarian and big government, don't you think? wouldn't free condoms be cheaper?

When I was 16 I had a worker's permit for my job. I got 2 speeding tickets while on the job. I had my license put on probation. I had to go to classes to keep my license and I had to not get another ticket for 4 years. Now why are speeding tickets (both less than 10 miles over the speed limit) worse than having kids you expect society to support?

A rehab program is required for the traffic offenses but not the poor decisions that cost society, the child and the mother far greater damage in terms of loss of potential and future burdens to our society?

That's what drives me insane. This country has laws that favor the public's rights over individuals' rights and are designed to benefit society as a whole yet we turn a blind eye to poor behavior that is costing this society dearly.

[KantoSooner]

jeepman, of course I don't want to live in that world either. And, obviously, the causation of people's dumbazzery are complex and multiple. Teenagers are basically not very prone to thinking about consequences.
That's one reason teenaged boys make the best infantry out there. Us old men get ordered to charge at a machinegun nest and we go all Matlock on the Sergeant. Or discover that we have a sudden case of broken legs, or something. Anyway, you guys go on ahead, I'll be right with you.
I'm not sure I'd agree that social ills are that much worse than they were before. (Check whisky consumption in the old west. Surprising figures for children from 6-12. Likewise prescription meds, etc. And teen/un-wed pregnancy? Far higher than you'd think.) I also would challenge that religion had much of a prohibitory effect. Religion most certainly condemned and made, in particular, the girl's life hell for a time thereafter (not so much the boys), but stop it? Not so much.
So I don't buy that this is new. What I do think is new is the relative lack of a good, old fashioned intrusive community. I don't like all the attributes of that sort of lifestyle, but it had a functionality in providing a far broader and deeper network of positive and negative reinforcement of behavioral norms.
I am hopeful that we can recapture some of the good aspects of that simply by forcing ourselves to spend X% of our personal free time in 'public'. I may be completely wrong, but I do believe that something that simple will have disproportionate beneficial impact on our society.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, you need a license to go fishing. You don't need jack to go have a kid. Kind of interesting, no?

[yermom]

jeepman, of course I don't want to live in that world either. And, obviously, the causation of people's dumbazzery are complex and multiple. Teenagers are basically not very prone to thinking about consequences.
That's one reason teenaged boys make the best infantry out there. Us old men get ordered to charge at a machinegun nest and we go all Matlock on the Sergeant. Or discover that we have a sudden case of broken legs, or something. Anyway, you guys go on ahead, I'll be right with you.
I'm not sure I'd agree that social ills are that much worse than they were before. (Check whisky consumption in the old west. Surprising figures for children from 6-12. Likewise prescription meds, etc. And teen/un-wed pregnancy? Far higher than you'd think.) I also would challenge that religion had much of a prohibitory effect. Religion most certainly condemned and made, in particular, the girl's life hell for a time thereafter (not so much the boys), but stop it? Not so much.
So I don't buy that this is new. What I do think is new is the relative lack of a good, old fashioned intrusive community. I don't like all the attributes of that sort of lifestyle, but it had a functionality in providing a far broader and deeper network of positive and negative reinforcement of behavioral norms.
I am hopeful that we can recapture some of the good aspects of that simply by forcing ourselves to spend X% of our personal free time in 'public'. I may be completely wrong, but I do believe that something that simple will have disproportionate beneficial impact on our society.

i would agree that there should be much more of a stigma to being a deadbeat dad, but at the same time, the courts seem to leave dads with little rights and access to their kids at times. just a constant drain on their wallet.

[soonerhubs]

yeah... expecting them to keep it in their pants works well so far, right?

as for the rest, that sounds a little authoritarian and big government, don't you think? wouldn't free condoms be cheaper?

Whether some of you guys want to keep your head in the sand or not is completely up to you, but Yermom is right when it comes to the Birth Control issue.

Are you prolife and against abortion? Well then there's a great way to reduce abortion and the birthrates of these "heathen mothers" who always vote Democrat: Free access to birth control across the board. A recent study showed that it cut some abortion rates in half. If that doesn't taste right in the mouths of some of you big government GOP fanboys who think the likes of Palin and Santorum are capable of rational thought, perhaps you should just consider this a form of legislating morality so as to help the medicine go down.

Also, teaching "Abstinence-only" sounds great from the pulpit or the Santorum soapbox, but the research shows that it doesn't reduce pregnancy rates (which in turn doesn't reduce abortion rates for some of these folks).

However, a comprehensive sexual education program does prove its efficacy across multiple populations in the United States. If that disturbs you, then perhaps you parents should pull your heads out of your asses and let little Johnny or Suzie have a regular, honest, and open talk with you about sex. I won't hold my breath, because most of you won't spend 5 minutes talking about it.

So the government is subsidizing single mothers. True, but what are they supposed to do? Let them starve? Do welfare programs need revising to help lift folks out of poverty? Sure! However, some of you folks who think that there's some leftist conspiracy to increase the amount single mothers in society sure do seem to ignore the other central causes to this cultural problem such as lack of education and access to resources.

Divorce rates are higher in the state of Oklahoma when compared to the liberal state of Massachusetts. Possible factors include age at first marriage, lower education rates, and higher poverty rates. Where does the blame fall for that?

Should we punish folks who choose to divorce? Aside from abusive households, research suggests that choosing divorce may be a mistake. Folks who typically are unsatisfied with their marriages but stay together anyways are found, on average, to be happier with their relationships and lives 5 years down the road (when compared to those who chose the divorce path).

Why is divorce so bad?

1) It causes single mothers.
2) It creates immense trauma for all involved, but this is more especially the case for the children.
3) It perpetuates a culture that endorses low commitment and relational work-ethic. Do you think that helps to decrease single motherhood?

I'm cutting this rant short, but I thought someone with a PhD on the subject matter better chime in. I study this for a living, not a hobby.

I ask everyone to stop thinking so linearly when looking for causes to these problems.

[soonerhubs]

Also, for those who would like some insight into the cultural aspects of single-parenting, here's a video by a well-respected, Christian, and quite conservative scholar. It's true that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, but it also helps to show folks an alternative to their poor choices rather than skewer them with semantic rants:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Oqeov0Gcw

[8timechamps]

i would agree that there should be much more of a stigma to being a deadbeat dad, but at the same time, the courts seem to leave dads with little rights and access to their kids at times. just a constant drain on their wallet.

This isn't really true. It's a myth propagated by divorced men that didn't think things through when they went through their divorce.

If the courts treat men with a bias, it's because there are so many deadbeats out there that make it hard for the courts to lean toward the fathers. In reality, dads that want to be involved with their children after divorce/separation, will be.

[okie52]

Whether some of you guys want to keep your head in the sand or not is completely up to you, but Yermom is right when it comes to the Birth Control issue.

Are you prolife and against abortion? Well then there's a great way to reduce abortion and the birthrates of these "heathen mothers" who always vote Democrat: Free access to birth control across the board. A recent study showed that it cut some abortion rates in half. If that doesn't taste right in the mouths of some of you big government GOP fanboys who think the likes of Palin and Santorum are capable of rational thought, perhaps you should just consider this a form of legislating morality so as to help the medicine go down.

Also, teaching "Abstinence-only" sounds great from the pulpit or the Santorum soapbox, but the research shows that it doesn't reduce pregnancy rates (which in turn doesn't reduce abortion rates for some of these folks).

However, a comprehensive sexual education program does prove its efficacy across multiple populations in the United States. If that disturbs you, then perhaps you parents should pull your heads out of your asses and let little Johnny or Suzie have a regular, honest, and open talk with you about sex. I won't hold my breath, because most of you won't spend 5 minutes talking about it.

So the government is subsidizing single mothers. True, but what are they supposed to do? Let them starve? Do welfare programs need revising to help lift folks out of poverty? Sure! However, some of you folks who think that there's some leftist conspiracy to increase the amount single mothers in society sure do seem to ignore the other central causes to this cultural problem such as lack of education and access to resources.

Divorce rates are higher in the state of Oklahoma when compared to the liberal state of Massachusetts. Possible factors include age at first marriage, lower education rates, and higher poverty rates. Where does the blame fall for that?

Should we punish folks who choose to divorce? Aside from abusive households, research suggests that choosing divorce may be a mistake. Folks who typically are unsatisfied with their marriages but stay together anyways are found, on average, to be happier with their relationships and lives 5 years down the road (when compared to those who chose the divorce path).

Why is divorce so bad?

1) It causes single mothers.
2) It creates immense trauma for all involved, but this is more especially the case for the children.
3) It perpetuates a culture that endorses low commitment and relational work-ethic. Do you think that helps to decrease single motherhood?

I'm cutting this rant short, but I thought someone with a PhD on the subject matter better chime in. I study this for a living, not a hobby.

I ask everyone to stop thinking so linearly when looking for causes to these problems.

Sounds good to me professor...so how about mandatory contraceptive injections for those on welfare? After all, they probably wouldn't go to the trouble of using a condom or BC anyway...

[soonerhubs]

Sounds good to me professor...so how about mandatory contraceptive injections for those on welfare? After all, they probably wouldn't go to the trouble of using a condom or BC anyway...

That's a tough call. Perhaps it would help to mandate such actions. The good news is that these don't need to be mandatory to substantially reduce the financial burdens on the taxpayers.

[FaninAma]

Soonerhubs,

This thread has been diverted into an arguement over the availability of birth control somehow plays a role in the rise of single mother families. I think that is a smoke screen. How available was birth control prior to 1965? how prevalent were single mother families prior to 1965?

The phenomenon is directly due to changing society values and mores over whether it is acceptable to expect society to be resposible for providing open-ended support for the irresponsible decisions of an ever growing segment of that society.

And here are a few more documented studies concerning single mother families v. 2 parent families I provide for your review.
http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics

[soonerhubs]

Cherlin proposes that it is largely influenced by the deinstitutionalization of marriage.

I agree that it's a cultural issue, but I suggest that there is no one simple solution such as cutting funding for single mothers.

[cleller]

Lots of arguing over what causes 16 year olds to get pregnant. Let 'em get pregnant, then find a way to survive on their own.

Its not the government's job to care for them. They have options available to them to see them thru the event without taxpayers giving them money. Their peers would learn some important lessons.

Faninama, of course, makes the good point that birth control, et al, is a bunch of smoke. Any teen alive should no how to prevent pregnancy, and be able to. They just don't care, and aren't worried about it.

[rainiersooner]

The fact is the government subsidizes single mother families. Families are paid more if the mother is single and not marries. They lose benfits if the parents are married. they get more benefits if they have more children.

do they get more gross benefits or net benefits - i.e., is there a marginal increase per child?

[diverdog]

Your links actually support my contention since the progressives like to point out that Red states have higher rates of people on welfare(while Blue states have higher total numbers) and thus have higher rates of single mother homes.

History supports the breakdown of the family accelerating tremendously since the big Democratic social programs were first passed in the Great Society and subsequently enlarged by later progressively controlled Congresses. The government replaced the father in lower socioeconomic groups and now more and more middle class families are falling prey to this insidious dependency.

Government entitlement dependency is devestating. Ignoring the accelerating trend of these groups falling further and further behind economically and in every other measure of success and achievement as entitlements accelerate is naive and not conducive to reversing the trends.

You need to remove yourself from your little insulated coccoon and volunteer in an inner city medical clinic or daycare or high school and see how well single mother families are or aren't doing. And yes, I have done exactly that and I currently see it every day in the current practice I am in.

And once again, access or lack of access to birth control plays no role in whether a woman decides to have a child outside of marriage and to raise that child by herself. None.

The fact is the government subsidizes single mother families. Families are paid more if the mother is single and not marries. They lose benfits if the parents are married. they get more benefits if they have more children. The government absolves irresponsible men of the burden of providing for the children they father. In return all the women have to do is keep voting for the politicians they think are their providers and benefactors.

Please explain to me what cocoon I live in. I am all ears.

[soonercruiser]

As much as I do NOT want to make of it a right or a legal obligation, the role of the community is critical in any kid's life. We are not doing that part of things as well as we once did, as well as some other societies are doing it now or as well as we could.

It is pretty easy, really, you need to recognize people in your neighborhood and accept that they, too, are responsible and mostly are trying to help. PJ O'Rourke made an good point on this years ago when he wrote about housing projects and compared them to the 'perfectly good ghettos' that had been bulldozed to make way for them.
When you have small business owners (shop owners, local barbers, whatever), beat cops, passersby and the like talking to kids, even if only to tell them to get the hell off the sidewalk and out of your way, it helps to socialize the little brats. It can also help to replace absent fathers or replace extended family.

And, no, absent fathers are not an invention of the late 20th century. I strongly suggest the book 'Gangs of New York' (from which the episode that became the movie was drawn - the book covers 150 years and is much more an academic piece). Most of Manhattan was a living hell of poverty, disease, drug/alcohol abuse, violence and all the rest...starting soon after the rebuilding following the revolution. The was little, if any, government relief and the problems were present nonetheless. Lest you think that somehow NYC had a monopoly on these issues or spawned them, do a little looking into nineteenth century Pittsburgh or San Francisco or Atlanta or Vicksburg (once boasting a higher rate of birth among its prostitutes than among its married women - roll on big river!)

Most societies laud the glories of married life, quite rightly. Virtually all fall far, far short of their public aspirations. Successful societies then quietly patch over the problems, generally with a healthy dose of extended family and public spirited neighborliness.

What we have in the US, in my opinion, is not so much an abnormal breakdown in family as a breakdown in community. Our government has attempted, without too much success, to fill in for healthy communities with money. If we're unhappy with the way things are now, my suggestion would be to walk around outside more. Talk more with your neighbors and with your local merchants. And say whatever to kids. They may look at you funny to start with, but they'll get used to the goofy old man or lady soon enough. It'll make 'em feel loved to know somebody sees them.

And it doesn't cost one cent of your own or the government's money.

Now we are to blame the "community"????
GMAFB!
It takes healthy families to form a healthy community.

[cleller]

Now we are to blame the "community"????
GMAFB!
It takes healthy families to form a healthy community.

I think I get a whiff of what he means. The more a kid is exposed to a cross section of his community, the less isolated he feels. A kid that plays little league ball, goes to a neighborhood church, interacts with the local merchants is less likely to go nutzoid and start blasting.

Picture Opie in Mayberry as opposed to some kid living in a high rise govt housing project. The kid in the project mostly runs with his little gang, and is cut off from the rest.

Was it this thread I read the quote about the govt "tearing down perfectly good ghettos" to build the projects? I took that to mean at least in the ghettos there was still some semblance of typical life with shops, schools, etc.

[KantoSooner]

That's about it. I am NOT about 'it takes a village'. I do, however, think that families have been dysfunctional for most of ever. It's the disintegration of our community life that has been more pronounced in the last 50 - 100 years.

[yermom]

This isn't really true. It's a myth propagated by divorced men that didn't think things through when they went through their divorce.

If the courts treat men with a bias, it's because there are so many deadbeats out there that make it hard for the courts to lean toward the fathers. In reality, dads that want to be involved with their children after divorce/separation, will be.

who says they were married in the first place?

[Midtowner]

Sounds good to me professor...so how about mandatory contraceptive injections for those on welfare? After all, they probably wouldn't go to the trouble of using a condom or BC anyway...

People would scream eugenics for one thing and for another thing, I can't imagine how that'd be constitutional.

[diverdog]

That's about it. I am NOT about 'it takes a village'. I do, however, think that families have been dysfunctional for most of ever. It's the disintegration of our community life that has been more pronounced in the last 50 - 100 years.

I agree.

[okie52]

That's a tough call. Perhaps it would help to mandate such actions. The good news is that these don't need to be mandatory to substantially reduce the financial burdens on the taxpayers.

I wonder what those numbers would look like as in free vs paying for contraceptives? Condoms are relatively cheap even for those on welfare yet I would question how often they would be used even if they were free. The pill might be another story, however. I would assume it would improve the numbers on abortions and unwanted pregnancies but I don't know how substantial it would be. Many of those on welfare look at the addition of another child as an increase in their welfare paycheck.

[Soonerjeepman]

If that disturbs you, then perhaps you parents should pull your heads out of your asses and let little Johnny or Suzie have a regular, honest, and open talk with you about sex. I won't hold my breath, because most of you won't spend 5 minutes talking about it.



lol..really you said that and you supposedly do this for a living...love how you GENERALIZE but yet it's wrong for others to do that...whatever. You know NOTHING about what I do with my kids. I'd venture to guess the majority of these folks DON"T have the talks...

[okie52]

People would scream eugenics for one thing and for another thing, I can't imagine how that'd be constitutional.

Let 'em scream. Nobody is requiring them to be on welfare but taxpayers should have a right to require responsible behavior while they are receiving the benefits.

Constitutional? Probably not since we have circuit courts requiring states to educate and provide benefits for children here illegally.

[Midtowner]

sounds like a winner....in the sense it stops unwanted pregs but that is not a world I want to be a part of...talk about gov control. NOW it seems the majority of Americans are just too lazy to say no and act responsible. Where did that come from? In the past it wasn't that bad. Yes, there were unwed mothers, teenage pregs, shootings, drug use, etc., but the fact these all have increased...why? Lack of 2 parents, lack of church, lack of prayer in school, new drugs, new morals...all this has contributed.

It seems the majority of diff is that both sides think they see what CAUSED this and the conservatives feel that we need to go back to some sort of "morality" where the libs feel we are ok.

Please show some evidence as to the causal link between prayer in school and decreased violence, etc. Such malarkey.

Just like gun violence, teenage pregnancy rates are actually down and have continued to consistently trend that direction since the late 80s and maybe before. While we're on that subject though, pious red-state Oklahoma is #3 in the nation in teenage pregnancy, and it's far and away mostly happening with non-Hispanic white girls. Drug use is up, but rather than a lack of God, I think we have our policies and the "drug war" to thank for that, treating illicit drug use like a crime and not like a disease or even something which has legitimate recreational and medicinal use has never worked anywhere. We were smart enough to repeal prohibition and now have a booming alcohol industry. Our founding fathers smoked marijuana and our current leaders admit to it as well. Look at us vs. the Netherlands. Which policy would you call idiotic and which one is enlightened? Care to compare crime rates and violence rates?

Perhaps God is actually the problem. Religious people are slow to embrace science and objective fact or to alter their way of addressing a problem or deciding what is actually a problem. Religious people would rather sit back and blame others when their own actions are at least partially to blame? Why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when there is a log in your own?

[Midtowner]

Probably not since we have circuit courts requiring states to educate and provide benefits for children here illegally.

That's actually the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

[soonerhubs]

If that disturbs you, then perhaps you parents should pull your heads out of your asses and let little Johnny or Suzie have a regular, honest, and open talk with you about sex. I won't hold my breath, because most of you won't spend 5 minutes talking about it.



lol..really you said that and you supposedly do this for a living...love how you GENERALIZE but yet it's wrong for others to do that...whatever. You know NOTHING about what I do with my kids. I'd venture to guess the majority of these folks DON"T have the talks...

Did Soonerjeepman come up in my rant? Dude I was speaking in probabilistic terms (I.e, On average), so quit looking for a personal attack that's not there.


Your ventured guess is spot on based on my readings of the literature as well as my own research.

[Midtowner]

I think once a teenager gets pregnant then they should be placed in a program that insures they do not get pregnant again until they can prove they are ready to support a child during such time they have to work and go to school and get their high school diploma. After high school, the same sanctions apply. You want to have kids that you can't support? Fine, but at least you will have some skin in the game as far as providing for them. Same thing goes for the little **** that knocked her up.

What's your proposed vehicle to compel them into this program and are you willing to pay more tax money to pay for this program? I imagine it would be absolutely massive. What you're suggesting here sounds like it could be accomplished perhaps through a juvenile deprived sort of action, but the very nature and constitutionality of those is the compelling government interest in protecting currently abused and neglected children, not hypothetical future ones.

Our current system can't even closely adequately service those currently being serviced by it, but what you're proposing here is an exponential growth in DHS or some other criminal bureaucracy and an assumption that there are really jobs out there for unwed teenage mothers. Also, are you going to provide daycare subsidies so they can work? If not, do you have the slightest clue what infant daycare costs? Are you going to force employers to pay enough so these women can afford food and shelter? You make a lot of sweeping statements, but getting down to the nuts and bolts, to be viable, your concept is really the suggestion of an historic expansion of the welfare state.

[okie52]

That's actually the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

In some cases....others, like prop 187 that was passed by California voters overwhelmingly never made it to the SC due to a dem governor (gray Davis) refusing to pursue the case to the SC.

[Midtowner]

In some cases....others, like prop 187 that was passed by California voters overwhelmingly never made it to the SC due to a dem governor (gray Davis) refusing to pursue the case to the SC.

Probably because there was Supreme Court precedent directly on point and unlike Oklahoma, Gov. Davis didn't want to subsidize the ACLU by filing frivolous appeals.

[LiveLaughLove]

Biblical morality that has been banished by the government says hello.

Whoops, wasn't supposed to bring that in to the subject was I?

Never mind just ignore that and carry on with trying to figure out the "reasons".

[Soonerjeepman]

Did Soonerjeepman come up in my rant? Dude I was speaking in probabilistic terms (I.e, On average), so quit looking for a personal attack that's not there.


Your ventured guess is spot on based on my readings of the literature as well as my own research.

lol..not looking for a personal attack. My response was based on your assertion that people wanting abstinence as a viable option DON'T talk to their kids about sex.."you parents should pull your head out of your asses" I believe was the exact words. I believe abstinence SHOULD be a viable option and don't "have my head up my ***" like you suggest.

The "majority" of folks who don't have the talks are the ones who DON'T want abstinence as an option, just pass out the condoms and pills. That is my ventured guess. I've had personal experience with this, not only in my job (teaching/coaching) but in dealings with my son's baseball teammates while coaching summer ball.

[C&CDean]

I ain't gonna go all scholar like some of y'all are trying to do (even though I could since my Masters is in Human Relations). Alls I know is this:

I divorced my first wife in 1987 when our children were 6, 3, and 3 months. I had custody of them until I moved to Oklahoma; at which time a liberal dyke judge decided to split them up and let the oldest go with me to Oklahoma and the two younger stayed with my ex. This one still boggles my mind. I spent over 2 years and $38K+ getting custody only to have the kids split up because "I believe it's in their best interest to keep the younger boys with their biological mother and the extended family, blah blah blah..."

Anyhow, my point here is that although I might have been the world's greatest dad, I pretty much sucked as a mother. All the little things a mother does - kid falls down and scrapes his knee and mom goes "here, let mommy fix it honey." Me? "Get up and quit your crying."

If my first wife was the world's best mother, she pretty much sucked at being a dad. "Give me some money and your car keys mom." Mom "why honey?" "Just give em to me." "OK. Be careful and don't stay out too late." "Can I have some money and borrow the car dad?" "Are you on crack? I don't think so. Get your grades up and then come talk to me."

My kids are all adults now and still suffer. They're not as bad as some who never had a dad or mom in their life, but they have issues. Issues that I don't have - as I was raised by mom and dad in a loving home.

As for teenage pregnancy? Five sons, no daughters so it doesn't cut that close to the bone personally. However, I have instructed my boys to practice Texas birth control. Tell her to "swallow." Nobody ever gets knocked up that way.

[Soonerjeepman]

lol...nice one.

[soonerhubs]

lol..not looking for a personal attack. My response was based on your assertion that people wanting abstinence as a viable option DON'T talk to their kids about sex.."you parents should pull your head out of your asses" I believe was the exact words. I believe abstinence SHOULD be a viable option and don't "have my head up my ***" like you suggest.

The "majority" of folks who don't have the talks are the ones who DON'T want abstinence as an option, just pass out the condoms and pills. That is my ventured guess. I've had personal experience with this, not only in my job (teaching/coaching) but in dealings with my son's baseball teammates while coaching summer ball.

You know what? I apologize for my assertion that parents who seek abstinence-only instruction need to pull their heads out of their asses. This is not always the case, and I shouldn't just assume that most don't have the sex talk with their children.

You are correct in stating that my statements certainly shouldn't be generalized to all. I got carried away a bit.

I do want to mention that the multiple research studies that I have read provide evidence supporting the proposition that a comprehensive sexual education program taught in public schools has shown to reduce risky sexual behaviors and consequences (including STDs and unwanted pregnancies).

[yermom]

exhibit A for my case on inadequate sex ed:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yMnASH6vE1YC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=inside+out+condom+paternity&source=bl&ots=jfUOkt6N_5&sig=ypdJ9eq8Hh5mWcDOBqy5njcClX0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xazUUIT5Fo602AWy34GYDg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=inside%20out%20condom%20paternity&f=false

Story from Kansas on pg. 46

[C&CDean]

exhibit A for my case on inadequate sex ed:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yMnASH6vE1YC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=inside+out+condom+paternity&source=bl&ots=jfUOkt6N_5&sig=ypdJ9eq8Hh5mWcDOBqy5njcClX0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xazUUIT5Fo602AWy34GYDg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=inside%20out%20condom%20paternity&f=false

Story from Kansas on pg. 46

The best birth control? EVAR? Grow long hair, a big-assed beard and drive a blue boobaru.

[yermom]

chicks dig the beard.

the Subaru? not so much.

[C&CDean]

Heh.

[soonercruiser]

Probably because there was Supreme Court precedent directly on point and unlike Oklahoma, Gov. Davis didn't want to subsidize the ACLU by filing frivolous appeals.

So, Oklahoma should depend on your judgement, Mid, when to file suit???
Duh!
Men (and women) of principle ACT to do the right things!
So, why don't you give the ACLU some advice? (or, have you already?)
Gonna bet you have donated to them!
:torn:

[Midtowner]

So, Oklahoma should depend on your judgement, Mid, when to file suit???
Duh!
Men (and women) of principle ACT to do the right things!
So, why don't you give the ACLU some advice? (or, have you already?)
Gonna bet you have donated to them!
:torn:

When you have a state which is billions in debt, the last thing you should be doing is taking frivolous cases to the Supreme Court.

And ETA:

If you really are a partisan stalwart and want to advance a certain agenda, when you do so with a Supreme Court which has repeatedly held against you with similar personnel, all you do is strengthen the effect of the law you want to change.

Do you know what all of these laws against abortion have done with Oklahoma's abortion law? They've basically given a right to abortion on steroids and foreclosed a whole lot of methods for the legislature to limit it.

The trouble is that the either the AG is too stupid to know this or he thinks you all are too stupid to realize it.... or perhaps both. Betting on both.

[soonercruiser]

Please show some evidence as to the causal link between prayer in school and decreased violence, etc. Such malarkey.

Perhaps God is actually the problem. Religious people are slow to embrace science and objective fact or to alter their way of addressing a problem or deciding what is actually a problem. Religious people would rather sit back and blame others when their own actions are at least partially to blame? Why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when there is a log in your own?

Let me put it too you this way Mid,
I have a close friend who work for Merc back in "the day" of developing contraceptives.
When the research started to show significant side effects, they cut the dosage by x10, and told the drug reps to market it to doctors.

Blame GOD??
I hope you have a chance to think that one through some day.
The liberal education and research community would never do such research. Especially since if they really get to the root of all our problems, they wouldn't be getting any more research money.

Show me some research that the ACLU has really improved American society!
We show you libs the statistics on gun violence and CC laws, and you guys hide you heads up "there"!
So, we know who the manipulators of science are.....liberals!
Give Al Gore a call and wish him a MERRY CHRISTMAS for me!!!

[KantoSooner]

So, Oklahoma should depend on your judgement, Mid, when to file suit???
:torn:

Well, let's see what Mid has on our current AG.

1. He's literate. Meaning he reads and writes.
2. Seemingly, he went to law school and actually learned something while he was there.
3. From some of his comments, at least, he seems to understand that lawsuits cost money to bring, carry through and, when you lose, you sometimes have to pay the other guy's expenses as well.
4. he also seems to 'get' that when you choose to reprise the losing side of a case already decided by the supreme court, you should take care that it be an older decision that the court might well have a desire to overturn. In the case that they have only recently ruled on the same issue, and that no personnel have changed on the court, he seems to comprehend that you will, well, lose and lose your state's money, as well.

In those four ways, at least, he'd be a step up from what we have putting his buttprint in the upholstry in the AG's office right now.

(I swear that when I see our current AG, I hear the Talking Heads in the background, "How did I get here? How do I work this? Where does this highway go to?")

[Midtowner]

Let me put it too you this way Mid,
I have a close friend who work for Merc back in "the day" of developing contraceptives.
When the research started to show significant side effects, they cut the dosage by x10, and told the drug reps to market it to doctors.

Not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.


Blame GOD??
I hope you have a chance to think that one through some day.
The liberal education and research community would never do such research. Especially since if they really get to the root of all our problems, they wouldn't be getting any more research money.

Not God per se, but religious magical dogmatic thinking. Flat Earth thinking. Young Earth creationism thinking. Hostility towards education as that bolded above. Big problem.


Show me some research that the ACLU has really improved American society!

The ACLU has protected our freedom of speech unlike any other group out there, beginning in the 1930s when the government attempted to outlaw speech if it had a "dangerous tendency," even if the speech didn't lead towards violence. The ACLU stopped that.

It has upheld the freedom to practice your religion, in 1943, a school board expelled 2,000 students who were Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to take the pledge of allegiance. The ACLU put a stop to that as well.

In 1944, it got rid of political parties' ability to limit participation in primaries by excluding blacks. Yes, that went on until the ACLU acted in 1944.

In 1946, the ACLU blocked the Postmaster General from censoring the mail.

In 1948, the ACLU blocked a restrictive covenants in homeowners associations which blocked the sale of property to black people.

In 1952, the ACLU stopped the government from censoring a film (or any speech by extension) because the Catholic Church condemned it. Yes, that went on as well until the ACLU stepped in.

That year the ACLU also filed a suit which prevented the police from being able to forcibly pump a suspect's stomach against his will searching for drugs. That was legal until 1952.

And in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education. You may have heard of it.

In 1957, the ACLU reigned in the House UnAmerican Activities Committee which was conducting a witch hunt for Communists.

In 1958, the ACLU stopped the government from requiring citizens to attest that they were not Communists in order to have passports issued to them.

In 1961, the ACLU filed suit to uphold the protections of the 4th Amendment with both state and federal police.

In 1963, the ACLU made sure that from there on, indigent defendants would be supplied public defenders. Until then, you were either rich and okay or poor and SOL in our court system.

In 1964, the ACLU established the rule that when someone requests their lawyer, any confession after that is thrown out.

In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona, ever heard of Miranda Rights? Thank the ACLU.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur59.htm

I mean go on through those, the ACLU is a stalwart guardian of our constitutional freedoms. You really can't argue otherwise.

In 1962, the ACLU brought a case again protecting us from having religion imposed on us by stopping Bible readings conducted in public schools by school officials. Imagine if your child's school read the Koran to them.


We show you libs the statistics on gun violence and CC laws, and you guys hide you heads up "there"!
So, we know who the manipulators of science are.....liberals!
Give Al Gore a call and wish him a MERRY CHRISTMAS for me!!!

I show you the statistics on countries which have successfully taken care of their gun problem. We're basically similar to a third world country in terms of gun violence. Something's gotta give.

[yermom]

that list may or may not sound favorable to this crowd ;)

[Midtowner]

that list may or may not sound favorable to this crowd ;)

Yeah, and I was really just scratching the surface. It was a pretty ignorant question.

--unless he's a white supremacist, then he can hate the ACLU except that the ACLU has actually fought for the free speech rights of white supremacists.

[Midtowner]

that list may or may not sound favorable to this crowd ;)

Yeah, and I was really just scratching the surface. It was a pretty ignorant question.

--unless he's a white supremacist, then he can hate the ACLU except that the ACLU has actually fought for the free speech rights of white supremacists.

[yermom]

i was a member, but like the NRA they have no sense of how much mail is too much, and really no regard for your privacy

[Mjcpr]

It all went to **** when Urkel outgrew his part.

[JohnnyMack]

It all went to **** when Urkel outgrew his part.

What was his alter-ego called? Stephan?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

http://media.moddb.com/images/members/1/316/315685/carl-on-duty-black-cops-25208-1289332909-10.jpg

[C&CDean]

The two fags show up waaaaay late. Figures. Check the other thread homos.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Showing late is better than coming early..

[C&CDean]

Take it up with lover boy.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

nobody knows how to take it up like you....take....it

[C&CDean]

up?

[8timechamps]

who says they were married in the first place?

I think that's an entirely different ball of wax. Most courts would probably lean toward the mother, because in most cases the mother is the one that wants custody and has the family support in place. If all things were equal, then I would think joint custody would be awarded.

I can only speak from my own experience, but when I was going through my divorce, I was told by everyone that I didn't stand a chance and my kids would be given to my ex-wife. After a lot of discussion with my attorney, and time in front of the court, I learned that isn't the case. At least in my situation, the court researched my situation, and granted equal custody. If I had half-assed it, then I'm sure the judge would have awarded custody to my ex-wife.

[soonercruiser]

When you have a state which is billions in debt, the last thing you should be doing is taking frivolous cases to the Supreme Court.

And ETA:

If you really are a partisan stalwart and want to advance a certain agenda, when you do so with a Supreme Court which has repeatedly held against you with similar personnel, all you do is strengthen the effect of the law you want to change.

Do you know what all of these laws against abortion have done with Oklahoma's abortion law? They've basically given a right to abortion on steroids and foreclosed a whole lot of methods for the legislature to limit it.

The trouble is that the either the AG is too stupid to know this or he thinks you all are too stupid to realize it.... or perhaps both. Betting on both.

Mid!
He is smart enough, and good enough to be the State Attny Gen.!
And you are.......?????
..an liberal blogger!

State elections have consequences! Get over it!

[FirstandGoal]

So I only skimmed the last 5 pages cause I figured if I read too closely it might **** me off.

So far I only see men posting, no women and definitely no single moms. Well boys, that's about to change so here it is.

First, I was married when I had my kids. Not only was I married, but I also had finished college and had started my career (at the ripe old age of 24-- yep, that's right-- I made it through pharmacy school by the age of 22)
Not only was I married and established, but I also am a Republican.
Not only was I married and established and a Republican, but I am also a Christian.
Not only was I a married established Republican Christian, but my children were planned (or at least they weren't NOT planned)
Not only was I a married established Republican Christin who (more or less) planned her children, I also was most definitely not poor.


So why am I a single mom?
Well, when the kids were 7 and 3, their dad decided that all of that responsibility just wasn't "his scene." He pretty much told me that I was "too perfect" for his taste-- he said he always felt inferior to me-- and that since it looked like I had everything under control, he was gonna check out and "get away from it all" for a while.
Whatever, the man was a dumbass and every move he's made in the 12+ years has proven over and over again that he will more than likely be a dumbass til the day he dies.
To this day I am still a single mom because I quite honestly don't think its any other man's job to try to raise my kids and I've never been the sort of woman to go looking for somebody else to help me fix my problems. Do I miss having a husband? Of course I do, but my daughter is now 15 and won't be living here much longer. At this point in time, I'm just going to finish raising her and then maybe think about dating. Everything has a season and all that stuff.

Now, I'm not saying that women who remarry are weak, or are wrong (same goes for men who have custody), but I'm just saying that for me personally it really wasn't an option. I had a horrible rebound relationship right after my ex jumped ship and that hell was enough to teach me to never ever expect another person to try to "fix" what was broken in my life.

Raising kids is about the hardest thing on the planet a person can do and I pray to God that neither of my children have to raise theirs on their own, but then again I didn't plan on it either. However, with the trend towards break downs in family values, I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

[FirstandGoal]

Oh and as far as teaching kids abstinence.......


LOL!

My son is 19 and the other day I took him and his 17yo girlfriend aside and had a casual conversation about how antibiotics decreased the effectiveness of birth control pills. You see, his girlfriend had strep and I'd found out she had just been given some antibiotics. I might be his mother, but I'm not stupid.
Oh, and not only did I have "the talk" with him, but I also had my brother have the same talk from a guy's perspective. My 15yo daughter and I have also had the same talk and while I'm already much stricter with her than I ever was with my son-- yes I know its sexist, but I honestly don't give a crap-- I've also told her that when she turns 16 not only am I taking her to the doc to start having her yearly physicals, but that I'm also gonna put her on the pill. Its not that I'm encouraging either child to have sex, but I also want them to be educated and have kids when they plan and want to have them. The last thing either one of them needs is to be a teen parent.
Oh, and I've also had both of them immunized with Gardasil. At least if they make really bad choices, they won't have to deal with potential health problems on top of it.

Of course they've both been advised to practice abstinence first as I think it really is damaging to the psyche to have sex at a very young age, but there's only so much advice a young'un will listen to.

[olevetonahill]

What the hell is 'Gardisil'? as for me I raised my 2 sons alone cause they Momma wanted to be a party girl stead of a Momma. I solved the sex prob By feedin em a lot of salt Peter

[diverdog]

So I only skimmed the last 5 pages cause I figured if I read too closely it might **** me off.

So far I only see men posting, no women and definitely no single moms. Well boys, that's about to change so here it is.

First, I was married when I had my kids. Not only was I married, but I also had finished college and had started my career (at the ripe old age of 24-- yep, that's right-- I made it through pharmacy school by the age of 22)
Not only was I married and established, but I also am a Republican.
Not only was I married and established and a Republican, but I am also a Christian.
Not only was I a married established Republican Christian, but my children were planned (or at least they weren't NOT planned)
Not only was I a married established Republican Christin who (more or less) planned her children, I also was most definitely not poor.


So why am I a single mom?
Well, when the kids were 7 and 3, their dad decided that all of that responsibility just wasn't "his scene." He pretty much told me that I was "too perfect" for his taste-- he said he always felt inferior to me-- and that since it looked like I had everything under control, he was gonna check out and "get away from it all" for a while.
Whatever, the man was a dumbass and every move he's made in the 12+ years has proven over and over again that he will more than likely be a dumbass til the day he dies.
To this day I am still a single mom because I quite honestly don't think its any other man's job to try to raise my kids and I've never been the sort of woman to go looking for somebody else to help me fix my problems. Do I miss having a husband? Of course I do, but my daughter is now 15 and won't be living here much longer. At this point in time, I'm just going to finish raising her and then maybe think about dating. Everything has a season and all that stuff.

Now, I'm not saying that women who remarry are weak, or are wrong (same goes for men who have custody), but I'm just saying that for me personally it really wasn't an option. I had a horrible rebound relationship right after my ex jumped ship and that hell was enough to teach me to never ever expect another person to try to "fix" what was broken in my life.

Raising kids is about the hardest thing on the planet a person can do and I pray to God that neither of my children have to raise theirs on their own, but then again I didn't plan on it either. However, with the trend towards break downs in family values, I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

i never thought raising my boys was that hard. I do worry about them but I have always loved being a dad. About the coolest gig on the planet.

[yermom]

What the hell is 'Gardisil'? as for me I raised my 2 sons alone cause they Momma wanted to be a party girl stead of a Momma. I solved the sex prob By feedin em a lot of salt Peter

HPV vaccination

[olevetonahill]

HPV vaccination

Ok thanks , Now WTH is HPV?

[FirstandGoal]

i never thought raising my boys was that hard. I do worry about them but I have always loved being a dad. About the coolest gig on the planet.


Not gonna lie, I love being a mom, but there are days when its harder than hell. BUT, I've learned those are the days that make it all worth it.

Vet, I ain't gonna 'splain HPV, you're gonna have to google it.

[yermom]

Ok thanks , Now WTH is HPV?

Human Papillomavirus

http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/

[olevetonahill]

Not gonna lie, I love being a mom, but there are days when its harder than hell. BUT, I've learned those are the days that make it all worth it.

Vet, I ain't gonna 'splain HPV, you're gonna have to google it.

Hell at my age and all my kids grown I prolly dont need to know anyway

[olevetonahill]

Human Papillomavirus

http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/

So kinda like the Clap er somepun?

[yermom]

So kinda like the Clap er somepun?

the cauliflower

[soonercruiser]

Kinda like klappin' until your hands get funny contageous growths on them!
Precancerous growths, BTW!
Then you begin to klap with one of someone else's hands. And pretty soon everone is happy Klappin'! You know, like laughing...it's contageous!
:surprise:

[soonercruiser]

Yeah, and I was really just scratching the surface. It was a pretty ignorant question.

--unless he's a white supremacist, then he can hate the ACLU except that the ACLU has actually fought for the free speech rights of white supremacists.

Unless you are drunk and double post and don't even realise it!

[soonercruiser]

Oh and as far as teaching kids abstinence.......


LOL!

My son is 19 and the other day I took him and his 17yo girlfriend aside and had a casual conversation about how antibiotics decreased the effectiveness of birth control pills. You see, his girlfriend had strep and I'd found out she had just been given some antibiotics. I might be his mother, but I'm not stupid.
Oh, and not only did I have "the talk" with him, but I also had my brother have the same talk from a guy's perspective. My 15yo daughter and I have also had the same talk and while I'm already much stricter with her than I ever was with my son-- yes I know its sexist, but I honestly don't give a crap-- I've also told her that when she turns 16 not only am I taking her to the doc to start having her yearly physicals, but that I'm also gonna put her on the pill. Its not that I'm encouraging either child to have sex, but I also want them to be educated and have kids when they plan and want to have them. The last thing either one of them needs is to be a teen parent.
Oh, and I've also had both of them immunized with Gardasil. At least if they make really bad choices, they won't have to deal with potential health problems on top of it.

Of course they've both been advised to practice abstinence first as I think it really is damaging to the psyche to have sex at a very young age, but there's only so much advice a young'un will listen to.

F&G,
What are the long-term side effects of Gardisil?
Contraceptives are great too, huh? Yet, the side efects are increasing risk of sterility, breast and cervical cancer, and sudden cardiac event in women.

[yermom]

condoms do all those things?

[FirstandGoal]

F&G,
What are the long-term side effects of Gardisil?
Contraceptives are great too, huh? Yet, the side efects are increasing risk of sterility, breast and cervical cancer, and sudden cardiac event in women.

As of right now, its not even certain that Gardisil even works in boys like it works in girls. I haven't seen any negative long-term effects and the benefits greatly outweigh any potential negatives thus far. To me, that's the gold standard of if a medication is appropriate or not. Nothing is ever guaranteed 100% safe.

Same argument for contraceptives. Yeah, some of them can cause certain types of issues, but most women actually benefit from them long-term. Many times they will help out a lot of reproductive issues and have even been thought to reduce certain types of cancers. If a woman has a serious concern about estrogen, she can always choose a progesterone-only OC. Oh, and those can also be taken while nursing (although I personally don't think OC's are really warranted while nursing to be honest) For the women who are at high-risk for breast cancer or cardiac disease (over 35, smoker, history of breast cancer) then the obvious answer is to go another route.


condoms do all those things?

LOL, this is generally the best answer, but so many kids (and even adults who know better) don't use them properly. Especially when judgement is impaired.


Okay, sorry to have hijacked this thread, by all means let's get back to the previous discussion.

[soonercruiser]

condoms do all those things?

"The PILL""! Were we talking about "medications"...PILLS!

[soonerhubs]

I heard that condoms cause autism.

[soonercruiser]

I heard that condoms cause autism.

They do, if you place them over you ears and eyes!
No, that's Nancy Peeloskism.
:kiwi-fruit: