Posted on 12/08/2006 8:31:16 PM PST by rakovskii
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.
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a culturally conservative think tank for Concerned Women for America, is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns.
Now I thought it was a relatively cheap shot so it confuses me to see you say that. LOL
That doesn't mean it didn't have a smidgen of merit to it though.
Well, you just humbled the heck out of me.
Thank you, and God bless you!!
If wishes were horses...
When the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency - nothing was done on changing the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Republicans and the Republican party are not going to ban gays or retreat into the past on what you call traditional issues. The GOP will continue to be about personal freedom and personal responsibility.
Ok, so some of your best friends are poor Salvadorians. None of your or anyone else's personal anecdotes change the statistical reality that the group most likely to produce well-adjusted children is still the married biological parents who raise their own kids. Allowing other forms may be fun for the alternative parents, but it will be their kids who bear the brunt of social experimentation.
Yeah, its a weak argument because, instead of arguing, you used it as a way to insinuate I am gay.
You used to be better than that.
If I asked people here a year ago about Haggard, I really doubt that anyone would condemn him.
The Roman Empire had a real problem with bulimia. People think of Roman orgies and vomitoriums. Even though there were no actual vomitoriums for the deposit of pre-eaten chowder, Roman over eating and purging was a common practice and an indicator of a society on the downward decadent fall. Homosexuality is as sickening a disorder as bulimia and whenever I think of it, I feel like I want to hurl. This tells me that Dick Cheney is a very strong man to be able to overcome the nausea and still love his daughter.
Its God's fault, He allows it, therefore God must be flawed.
The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.
'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.
yitbos - Tolerance is acceptance
When either parent leaves, it's a problem. There are factors that lead to men leaving in higher numbers. One of them is the choices women make in this day and age. This doesn't excuse the men who do leave. There are definately problems with men. There are problems with women too.
I am saddened to see women hoodwinked by the women's movement, that seemed to tell them that they should be able to screw around just like men were thought in the old days. This has been very detrimental to couples and the children they produce.
Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is a different issue altogether and well debated in free republic before. Who said anything about banning gays when the issue is how to prevent these people from taking a major role in the party.
Foley is the issue here, where Republicans were hurt that they did nothing to stop a man even though they knew about it, probably they thought that they would be called mean and homophobic if they go against him, a clear case where accomodativeness has hurt the party.
I agree, this isn't something we should worry about as much as other things. But I am troubled that the idea of a man and woman as parents is slowly being eroded by books and other means.
I watched a little boy grow up terribly conflicted due to his mother and dad divorcing and her becoming a gay activist. The boy was miserable, wanted to live with Dad, who tried very hard to keep things as normal as possible. It wasn't a case where he denigrated Mom or anything like that.
The boy just never adjusted to his mother's lifestyle, and she was a family counselor! Thankfully he had a loving dad in his life, and that is the part of the equation that I think may present the most problems if the kids don't have male (or female) figures somewhere in their life.
FWIW, Mary has been with her whatever, for 15 years, which is a whole lot longer, than most of the crabby, misogynistic divorced men on FR, who rabidly complain about women and marriage, on almost a daily basis.
I doubt you see it this way, but it seems to me bringing him up was a rather dishonest arguement in and of itself. It didn't add to the discussion. If I were to mention over and over again a homosexual who killed a child, would that be germain to the discussion? I don't think so.
Your personal comments are fair. I disagree, but your arguement isn't totally off base.
That's nice.
Not relevant to the discussion at hand though.
If you want to imply that gay couples are commie marxists, its gonna take more than some quotes and bolding.
I could give a rats a** about Mary Cheney and her pregnancy. Just think the poor kid raised by lesbians deserves a Mom and a Dad. F*** the queers!!!!
There are two aspects to marriage under law. One is the contract aspect and the other is the covenant aspect. The contract aspect has, in the long run, lost out legally compared with the covenant aspect. A covenant means that marriage is a set of expectations between the couple, towards their children and with all of society to behave in certain ways and not others. The reason societies have marriage laws is for the protection of dependent parties to the marriage, which is always the children and often the caregiving parent, usually the mother.
Once you start down the path of saying that society can have different expectations of male homosexuals from female homosexuals from male heterosexuals from female heterosexuals, you open the field to an endless battle of individual approaches to relationships.
While this may sound like a libertarian's dream, it is a nightmare for children. The needs of children are extreme, pressing, urgent, constant and monumental from birth until late adolescence, and for some people extending into young adulthood. Your fantasies of completely individualized approaches to reproduction and the care of children are just that -- if society completely took the reins off, we would descend into chaos within days. As an example, look to the nearest "inner city."
I TOTALLY agree there...the whole lib "public service" payroll is geared to gay females.
I just don't have a bias otherwise (not that I like it).
"Mary Cheney is NOT "young"! She is 37..."
37 is very YOUNG !!!
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.