Why The Breakdown Of The Family Matters

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!

 

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

 

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

 

WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!11!

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

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

 

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.

 

Heh, you said "skin in the game".

 

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?

 

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.

 

Now that's funny!!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.