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.
No, he was NOT guilty of the crime he was put on trial for.
Your anecdotes do not align with the aggregate patterns of behavior and the steady progress of Western civilization towards "spiritual man" and away from "animal man" for 5000 years up until the past 40 years, when elites in the US and Europe starting trying to shove Marxism down everyone's throat.
And there you have it. :) Does the "dialectic of negative criticism" have any nexus with the "nattering nabobs of negativism?" Just asking, just because I can. The best thing in life is to ask a question. Just ask any lawyer.
The burden of proof rests on both sides to make their case the best they can. Don't sit there and tell me I have to make a case when you haven't made your own.
I try to keep an open mind, but on certain issues I've seen too much to fall for what some try to pass off as reasoned.
I stand corrected, but bringing up a case from 70 years ago is has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
No, Mary Cheney doesn't have a baby; it's still in utero and would NOT be viable, if extracted from that place. There was NO real "advice" given; just some condescending drivel.
'Bringing up beastiality is a completly non starter to this issue.'
Funny that, as opposed to bring up bringing up Ted haggard and evangelicals when the issue is gay couples? Is that any relevant.
Atleast bestiality is trying to test your theory of Govt not being involved in others personal choices.
This just happened to be the show that I recall watching when I heard the statement I cited. That's all!
If I want to live my life as I see fit, free and unmolested, then why is that not hypocrisy if I constantly monitor, judge, and try to change the way someone else lives?
Been there, done that :-) Survived :-)
I always wonder about the people in some of these poster's "real lives." *Shudder*
Yeah, it is natural to wonder. The way they treat people here is surely not so very different than the way they treat at least want to treat those in close proximity.
"...many her are lacking..."
Don't worry! We all type lousy at this hour. But you are really off into deep DU land now.
Early on this thread I expressed the opinion that society should not interfere with homosexual couples who wanted to adopt. That being said, I do think there are severe negative implications for this being accepted across the board. I have expressed my concerns. You have refused to discuss the issue with honesty.
There are certainly some behaviors that society at large has a vested interest in, accepting or denying. You recognize that, but refused to acknowledge it since you rightly assessed it would damage your absolute hands off stance. Society does have a vested interest what takes place behind closed doors.
I have stated that I think many children will be exposed to a very detrimental situation due to acceptance of homosexual adoption across the board. You folks have disagreed. Sadly it is the children who will pay.
Thanks for the give and take.
Do you believe in God?
How would you feel if complete strangers told you how to raise your kids or go about in society, judged you on the merits, mocked you because you didn't rise to everyone's expectations of a father, chastised you for moving the goalpost of life down the field?
You know some dysfunctional gay parents I take it. Is that a fair inference, or is this some grand unified theory of yours of the total bankruptcy of the gay person's life in general, that can have no useful purpose or meaning at all, no matter what, rather than the issue at hand about gay parenting? Which is it?
dream on...
Would that be the same 30s and 40s when abortion on demand wasn't approved? Just wondered...
What is acceptance?
I spent years working in an industry full of gay people, what they did in their private lives was of zero concern to me. If they had displays of affection in front of our customers, I treated it exactly the same as with hetero employees.
You can have an opinion about what takes place in other peoples homes, but honestly, seriously, that is where it ends.
You have no right to barge in and stop anyone from doing anyone sexually that occurs between 2 consenting adults in a relationship. You don't get to be sherrif.
You don't grasp the fact that you have no place, zero, nada, ningun, in what other people do in their own homes that is not a crime.
Get over it.
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.