Posted on 12/07/2006 7:16:54 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Mary Cheney’s pregnancy poses problems not just for her child, but also for all Americans. Her action repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation. With 37 percent of American children born to fatherless families, Mary Cheney is contributing to a trend that is detrimental to all Americans who will live with the ramifications of millions of children whose anger and frustration at not knowing their father will be felt in the public schools and communities of our nation.
Mary Cheney is among that burgeoning group of adult women over age 20 that are driving the trend of women who don’t want a man in the picture, but want to have a baby. These older women are pushing out-of-wedlock birth statistics higher and higher. At a time when teen births and teen abortions are declining dramatically, older women are having more un-wed births and more abortions, including repeat abortions (indicating that they are using abortion as birth control).
Well-educated, professional Mary Cheney is flying in the face of the accumulated wisdom of the top experts who agree that the very best family structure for a child’s well-being is a married mom and dad family. Her child will have all the material advantages it will need, but it will still encounter the emotional devastation common to children without fathers.
One Georgia high school principal reported, “We have too many young men and women from single-mother families that don’t have the role models at home to teach them how to deal with adversity and handle responsibility. They’ve seen their mom work 60 hours a week just to put food on the table; they end up fending for themselves.”
When fatherless children get to be teens, the girls tend to start looking for love in all the wrong places and the boys tend to find as their role model the bad-boy celebrities of MTV, NFL and NBA.
As they grow older, fatherless children tend to have trouble dealing with male authority figures. Too often children in single-mother households end up angry at their absent fathers and resentful of the mother who has had to be a father figure, too. Typically, the boys who have a love-hate relationship with their mother end up hating all women. Numerous of them look for vulnerable women where they can act out their anger and be in control.
Mary Cheney’s action sets an example that is detrimental for mothers with less financial resources who will start down an irrevocable path into poverty that tends to be generational –– children in households without a father tend to themselves have unwed births later in life. Experts from both the left and the right cite a disastrous litany of negative outcomes that are predictable when a child grows up in a fatherless family. Such children tend to get involved in drugs, alcohol abuse, and delinquency; they tend to drop out of school and have teen pregnancies. An assistant principal in a Junior High School said that many of the behavioral problems that teachers face in the classroom stem from households without a father’s influence.
Mary’s pregnancy is an “in-your-face” action countering the Bush Administration’s pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-life policies. She continues to repudiate the work to which her father has devoted his life. Mary has repeatedly said that “studies” show that children only need a loving home. Her statement is incomplete because the experts agree that for the well-being of children, they desperately need a married father and a mother.
All those people who talk about doing what is best “for our children” need to get back to the basics: children need a married mom and dad. Children can do without a lot of the trimmings of childhood, but nothing can replace a home where the mother and dad love each other enough to commit for a lifetime and are absolutely crazy about their kids –– enough to be willing to sacrifice their own needs to see that their children get the very best.
May I suggest that your fascination with me could be more profitably directed elsewhere? :)
In those cases, I'm in favor of a return to corporal punishment. ;-)
Anyone claiming that people like me are just sticking our noses in other peoples' bedrooms is living in the early 90s. Or late 80s. If homosexuals and others of their ilk just what they did in the privacy of their own bedrooms, bathrooms, or animal sheds, no one would know or care.
Their purpose is not to be safe from having their doors kicked in by the Vice squad. (As if that had been happeing!] They want to change the very face of society, they admit it, the say it out loud, and their actions have proven this is what they want.
The lie that social conservatives want Big Government is another laughable talking point. It is Big Governement that pays for AIDS drugs, welfare for single mothers, day care for single mothers, it is Big Government that mandates same sex marriage, domestic partnerships, promoting homosexuality in schools, and so on. It is not small government doing these things.
Saying that they just want to live their lives privately is as much a conscious lie that "ten percent are gay", which they used as propaganda knowing it to be a lie. And when confronted with the fact that it was a lie, they said it was justified since they were oppressed victims.
There is a culture war, and people have to take one side or the other. By not taking a side, one contributes to the downfall of civilization.
Ah. The rallying cry of the moral relativist.
emotionally? really? perhaps if they live in a vacuum. but things have not yet deteriorated to the point where a child born to two women won't be noticed and have some stigma attached to it. oh i know, you think it's because people like me, who disapprove and lament this situation, are the reason that there is stigma. but it truly is the lack of stigma that has caused the deterioration of things to the point they are now. i know the moral relativists long for the values neutral utopia when everyone can do what they please and be lauded for it. i lament how close we have come to that thus far.
>>>Mary Cheney's pregnancy affects us all<<<
No, it doesn't. I couldn't care less.
Mary has to have a baby, or else when the old folks kick off, her sisters' kids will inherit the gazillion billion oil dollars.
That's what it's all about.
....want to know something funny?......liberals always accuse conservatives, Christians as being focused on sex.
Laughable.....oddly enough, I don't demand special rights based on sexual proclivities.
For example, I like dark eyed, dark haired women.
You won't find me trying to establish some 'organization' attempting to exert political leverage based on that fact.
Yes, of course.
I mean isn't this just the inverse of the whiny "nice guy" who sits home alone because he won't do whatever it takes to change into something more desirable to women?
It's very similar, except that these women tend to not convince themselves how nice they are. They tend to convince themselves what a prized catch they are. Just like many of the the 'nice guys,' sometimes - but not always - this is delusional.
I already agreed that a (married) mother and father are optimal. But I don't think it would be preferable for Ms. Cheney to have a mock marriage to a male just to provide a father.
nice how you mention Jefferson in this context, who fathered illegitimate children with at least one of his slaves
Just so you know. I think it's revealing you didn't even bother to refute the rest of my post.
I see above you like trashing families where both parents work without bothering to know all the facts too.
Do yourself, and the conservative movement a favor: Lock yourself in the closet and never come out.
Everyone is feeling more devestated over this than they were on 7 November. That is where the priorities are. We are stuck with two years of democratic rule and we are worried about one baby who I guarantee will not turn out like the statistics. I would bet my life on it in fact. They are going to have great grandparents and money to help them so they don't have to work 60 hours a week.
Are you allowed to marry a consenting dark eyed, dark haired women?
....and by the way, the Quadrophenia album by the Who was the first album I ever bought, drjimmy; I have your number in more ways than one.
how about living her life as a lesbian without bringing a fatherless child into the world, you don't mention that particular option.
the poster said his taxes were paying for her irresponsibility
I responded that Ms. Cheney pays taxes and is likely not on public assistance
Good. So a father can not be substituted for and is ideal.
But I don't think it would be preferable for Ms. Cheney to have a mock marriage to a male just to provide a father.
No one has suggested that. It's quite ludicrous, actually.
The suggestion is that Ms. Cheney accept the biological facts of her sexual orientation. The acts which bring her pleasure are by nature fruitless.
He only comes out when I drink my gin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.