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.
And the fact is that Mary Cheney and other homosexuals have kids...and as most of the posters on this thread have stated - it is really no one else's business.
Well, what I was trying to say is that there are lots of hypocrites out there, on the left and on the right. I kept bringing up Mr. Haggard because no one here had the guts to try to address it.
If you don't like gay couples having kids, that is your right, but, tough luck, you can't change it, its not your place, nor government's place to step in.
And dollars to donuts, all of those here, who fantasize about the "good old days", wouldn't be able to survive them IF they could go back to the times they wistfully pine away for, without really knowing or understanding much of anything at all, as to how they REALLY were!
It's your opinion that it is none of our business. By implication, you are stating it is not the business of community members what shape their community begins to morph into. I would disagree.
It is an inherently statist mindset that demands a connection between matters of private judgment and governmental legislation. Legislation is ultimately useless in changing the minds and hearts of men. As far as it goes, it is your side that has promoted "hate crimes" laws, "human rights" commissions, and other methods to suppress Biblical teachings and traditional morality.
I am by no means one of the uninformed on this subject -- far from it -- years of relevant experience, research and more research. However, if you know your Meyers-Briggs, you know that it is not necessary for everyone to put their hand on a hot stove to know that putting your hand on hot stove is a bad idea. Nor does everyone need to know a gay person intimately in order to use reason, intellect, intuition and logic concerning what behavior is detrimental to the individual or to society.
I like the quote but I'm confused by "yitbos".
Couldn't have said it better myself!
No - the argument against communism was that it is essentially anti-freedom. Now those on the far right are making anti-freedom arguments. They didn't work for communism and they also won't work against trying to control individuals' choices.
Those who are frightened by impending changes and are furiously trying to retreat into the past - will sadly find themselves more and more alienatated, imo.
AT LAST!!! SOMETHING almost all of us can agree on!!!
...if you don't think 37 is young...then you're too young and stupid to count....
My tag line is what I believe, you are free to believe what you want, its a free country.
But, I also don't shy away from an argument, and will strive to argue my opinions in a logical and and non personal way.
Well, since you are all fired up about lesbians and gays having kids, what do you want to do to stop it?
" That is a stretch"
Uh huh..
Berkeley study links Reagan, Hitler
Psychological research on conservatives finds them 'less complex'
Posted: July 23, 2003
2:15 p.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
In a study that ponders the similarities between former President Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh, four American university researchers say they now have a better understanding of what makes political conservatives tick.
WND BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Berkeley study links Reagan, Hitler
Psychological research on conservatives finds them 'less complex'
Posted: July 23, 2003
2:15 p.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
In a study that ponders the similarities between former President Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh, four American university researchers say they now have a better understanding of what makes political conservatives tick.
Adolf Hitler
Underlying psychological motivations that mark conservatives are "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33714
May GOD bless and keep your family, always.
I'd be willing to bet that lots of other leaders which you hold in high regard are guilty of the same sins you admit that Crouch and Haggard have done.
So, you are against gays having kids, what do you want to do about it to stop it?
There is plenty of evidence about the statistical probability of children turning out better in the care of their married biological parents. Your model lesbians are not what would happen to children within society at large if their outstanding efforts were judged to be the norm for all gay parents. You would find plenty of trailer trash among the rank-and-file gay parents if legalization were widespread, and the results of their average and below-average efforts would skew the results even lower than they are now in relation to the married biological parent families. Judging all persons according to your friendship emotions is not the correct way to form policy opinions.
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.