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.
So whose business is it to make sure people are loving and caring parents?
By what standard do we judge what's loving and caring? Once we throw out our judeo-christian standards we have to choose a new one.
Furthermore, she has aligned with the forces in this country and the Western world generally that are attempting to redefine the family from what it has meant since the West adopted the Christian religion and certainly in the context of American civilization. The fact that her father is a prominent public figure widely regarded as conservative makes her more valuable to the Left than if she were Chelsea Clinton or one of the daughters of Al Gore or John Kerry. The enemy values and publicizes defections and moral failures of their perceived foes, such as those connected with the financial scandals of Jim Bakker or the sexual sins of Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart, and covers up or fails to report the blackmail activities of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the sexual sins of Martin Luther King or Gene Robinson. Their double standard is obvious. What is also evident is the fact that Ms. Cheney has cast her lot with the enemy.
At one time we were a nation of people who recognized the importance of their responsibilities and moral duties. Babe Ruth had alcohol problems and was unfaithful to his life. For all his flaws, however, he took his duty as a role model for young boys seriously. Babe Ruth presented himself to the public as an upright person. While many reporters knew better, they recognized that there was a need to preserve the image of Ruth as a clean living athlete and not as a drunk and womanizer.
Unfortunately, we live in an era where decency is widely regarded as a tool of oppression by the racist, fascist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, yada, yada white Christian male power structure, blah, blah, blah. Promoting, justifying, and normalizing what was once considered wrong and sinful has become the standard. Speaking in another time and place of widespread moral decline, the prophet Isaiah said, woe to those who call good evil and evil good.
Correction. I meant to say, wife.
Freedom of choice is at the heart of what self-government is all about.
If homosexual activists are about freedom of choice then why do they keep going to the courts to coerce the rest of us to behave in certain ways?
By what standard do we judge what's loving and caring?
Why does loving and caring have to be judged at all? Once we judge, we assign value or degrees of value. Is that a swamp you want to venture into?
We have laws. So I guess it IS our business?
Point being that we have all kinds of rules and laws...'guidelines', if you will, on how best to organize our society. You elect the representatives that make the rules so it is your business.
There is a body of law that proscribes how best to organize society. Traditionally that has meant one mommy and one daddy per family, but after reading some of the posts on this thread, it's "no one's business" so I guess we'll soon see an assortment of family alternatives (is polygamy next?).
If you think 37 is not old, then you are too old and stupid to count.
You just made a major set of assumptions here that reflect your own line of thinking. Glad to have been of service in allowing you to spout off.
The laws are in place to serve society and the citizens. Society and its citizens do not serve the laws, except in cases of dictatorships and communism.
The DSM has not been a reliable source for information on mental illness for the past 35 years and, IMO, it should not be cited as an objective authority on that subject.
Removal from DSM-II (and subject editions) of homosexuality as a mental disorder was purely the result of threats, intimidation, political pressure and infiltration of the APA by homosexual activists. You can read about it here.
Whatever intellectual integrity American psychiatry may have had was lost forever in the early 1970s. Any activist group can force amendment of anything in the DSM by the simple process of infiltrating the APA and subverting APA deliberations.
Abuse and neglect are. I do not see the sexual preference of the parents is nor do I see an overriding reason why they should be.
Now, I am not expressing my personal preferences. Just what I consider the role of the government to be.
Yo, come on. This has nothing to do with sexual preferences. It's about whether families should be organized around two men, two women, or a man and a woman. There are no laws that prohibit gay males from marrying lesbian females. So it's not about gay.
People who don't want judging are judging. You can not dissolve judging unless we revert to plant life only, for they seem to be the only animals that don't judge.
1 Cor. 2:15-16 Tells us that we who are spiritual (Christian) judge "ALL" things...
Laws regarding personal behavior are murky, at best. For instance, when you use the term "marry" you mean a legally recognized union between a man and a woman. Yet, gay folks are getting "married" every day by ordained clergy -- their unions not recognized by the gubmint.
So, the secular/gubmint laws would seem to over-ride the religious aspect of marriage.
In my opinion, we'll never see widespread acceptance of gubmint sanctioned gay marriage, but we will eventually see two seperate devices governing it: one religious and one secular/legal.
I hope you're right, but after reading this thread there are many people here that think it's "none of their business" who marries whom.
And this isn't about gay. I have no objection to two gay people getting married as long as one is a male and the other is female.
The correct quote is:
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged by no man.
The "no man" thing is typical, of course, chicks get to mouth off, but guys have to keep their traps shut.
I see a lot of people who agree with me here, and the majority of conservatives in this country are against homosexuals raising children.
Of course it's not Mary Cheney's fault. In many ways she is a victim of a deviant lifestyle. We all sin and we are all weak. I still think with her upbringing she should have made a better choice. Surely her parents don't approve, no matter whta they say publicaly. We know the President does not. She is a public figure and will influence countless children.
Like I said, the saddest thing is the life this child will have. Either no one will ever teach the child to make good moral choices, or someone will, and he will have to live with the knowledge of his Mother's sin, and that she chose to strip his Father from his life. Horrible either way.
Prayers for this child.
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.