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.
Two different subjects, really.
Subject 1: Mary's being pregnant is really NOYB.
Subject 2: I think there are a whole heck of a lot more important things to be concerned about than legislating morality.
..it just depends on whose morals will be legislated.
My county tried to pass a form of Planned Parenthood Sex Ed Curriculum 15 years ago....
I was involved in the schools as a parent and sat on the School Improvement Committee...
I-(plus parents/teachers countywide)- received a copy of this curriculum for review to essentially approve it before it was sent to our school board.
It was already a 'done deal' as far as Florida's legislature was concerned.
But teachers/principals(covertly).. & parents, business folk, clergy, across the board kind of folks, etc... across our very long county...
..started organizing/networking to prevent this curriculum.
You see, we didn't want them to legislate this kind of morality in our county.
The bottom line, we were able to get 400 concerned individuals to the school board meetings to present their grievances and also request the board to consider an alternate curriculum that promoted abstinence only.
They rejected our curriculum.....but turned around and rewrote theirs to reflect ours almost word for word!...
And it still stands.
The problem isn't in people's argument that children need fathers, the problem is in the high incidence of divorce. Now we're adding/allowing an additional problem for children to overcome? Read some of the links in post 514.
With your statement "many of the fathers that are around are abusing in some fashion and the kids would truly be better off without them" are you justifying gay/lesbian adoption by pointing to abuse eminating from heterosexual marriages? Pointing to worse/illegal activity does not justify something that is less bad.
And what do you mean by asking "And really, how many heterosexuals are having children for noble and good reasons?" I'm not certain I get the point of the question?
Finally, I disagree with your "whole point". The whole point is people can disagree on gay/lesbian adoption and have the absolute right to voice such disagreement. If the state has a compelling reason to legislate to protect children, then it has the responsibility to do such.....regardless if one Mary Cheney will be an excellent parent.
Norge, having strong and self-sufficient relatives does not equal being under the authority of Christ the King. I think several in your family would affirm this!!
As would I. But that applies to all who are not under the authority of Christ the King, not just lesbians. That would include, I would venture to guess, someone very close to you who does not acknowledge Christ's authority.
First of all I wish Mary Cheney and her baby the best. A cursory reading of my posts is witness to that. Second of all, evidently it is your business to tell me what is my business. You seeing a problem there pal?
Subject 2: I think there are a whole heck of a lot more important things to be concerned about than legislating morality.
That's because you're ignorant of American and the legislative process. Every law has moral components. Name one that doesn't. I've issued this challenge umpteen times members of the "you can't legislate morality" caucus and I've yet to see the challenge met. I have no doubt that you will fail to meet it as well.
FYI, we have elections to determine whose moral precepts will be making next terms laws. I know that news may be shocking but there you have it.
LOL, I apologize. I apologize that our education system has led 'conservatives' to come to the mistaken belief that the national legislature should be involved in moral issues at all. From one of your previous posts:
in fact the totality of the Constitution, the BOR's, the DOI and every law passed by every legislature since the founding are and were based on "moral concerns".
Quite lincolnian. Association of the DOI in the same group as the BOR, the Constitution and 'every law'. By that association, most unfortunately would put the DOI on the same level as the other documents. I've seen it here myself in previous state concerns that 'true conservatives' wanted legislated at the federal level (i.e. Schiavo debacle)
You can't seem to grasp the the American Revolution as expressed in the DOI was based on the moral concern that men were endowed with certain rights and that when governments abrogated those rights the moral thing to do was to abolish that immoral government.
Oh good Lord. The Framers were businessmen. Many of their concerns were based on business issues and taxation. Sheesh, they weren't saints. As late as 1754, Franklin was advocating some sort of government that would allow the colonies to stay under British rule. Hell until Paine's writings and publishment in the winter of '75-'76, many of the leaders were expecting a return to British control eventually. Seems if they were so gung ho on the idea it wouldn't have needed Paine's push on the eve of the Declaration. If they were so gung ho on 'moral concerns' and ideals, the debate for secession wouldn't have lasted as long.
The Constitution was drawn to protect the rights of "the people" because that was the moral thing to do in the eyes of the founders.
Again in all actuality the origin of the Constitution was a contract between the states and the general government. The original preamble listed the separate and sovereign states. However under concerns that some states would be listed that had not validated the Constitution, those names were removed to just read 'the people'.
Kabeesh?
What?!?
Of course I have to congratulate you on your ability to steer away from the intent of the thread. In nonsensical arguing, you have failed to answer the concerns of this pregnancy, how it affects you personally, and what should be done about it if you feel it does affect you.
Talk to me in 20 years.
You are obviously obtuse.
I personally know of two families with children, that have broken up because one of the spouses comes out of the closet. It is a heart-wrenching break up for the family and it leaves the children on shaking ground, with both parents. Not to mention, it brings trauma on the children when trying to 'sort out' the facts.
I don't care if Mary Cheney has a baby. I hope the BABY will be received with love from all of the family... and lovingly supported by everyone from the moment of birth until forever.
I KNOW in my heart that Dick and Lynne Cheney love their daughter, and they will LOVE this grandchild, just as much as they would love another grandchild. They will not see this child differently. And I support them in their love for their daughter and this baby.
Life is HARD. And we need to remember that it is the CHILD that is important in all of this. The child will be received with love, same as any other.
Can someone please explain why we need to give the federal government the power and authority to police all families and enforce certain moral values? Sounds a lot like liberalism, except you replace the word "family values" with "social justice" as the reason why we need Momma Government to create paradise on Earth.
In fact, aren't we busy killing people in Iraq because they want to create a government exactly like that?
"You are bringing a baby into a home parented by two people both of whom are suffering from a mental disorder. You call that secure?"
You do realize any judge can find a psychiatrist who will call homophobia a mental disorder. Do you really want the federal government policing and enforcing who is allowed to have kids? Say goodbye to Christians adopting if this is the road we start down.
"Even if most gay parents did not abuse their children, 47% of molestation cases come from within the family: fathers, stepfathers, and uncles. Allowing gay marriage endangers many more children."
I DEMAND to be lesbian-adopted by Portia DiRossi.
:-} Now you have your big chance Bill. Name a law that doesn't have a moral component. Just one Bill, that should be easy for a man of your abilities.
Quite lincolnian. Association of the DOI in the same group as the BOR, the Constitution and 'every law'. By that association, most unfortunately would put the DOI on the same level as the other documents. I've seen it here myself in previous state concerns that 'true conservatives' wanted legislated at the federal level (i.e. Schiavo debacle)
Lincolnian my arse. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your meds are on schedule and taken in the proper dose. That leaves the third option, you knowingly and willfully lie when it suits your needs. Not a conservative value Bill. I never said the DOI was the law of the land, you made it up out of whole cloth, and dirty cloth at that. You're failure to acknowledge that fact is a character flaw. My pointing out that diverse documents all have moral components has absolutely nothing to do with what is or isn't the Law of the Land.
Oh good Lord. The Framers were businessmen. Many of their concerns were based on business issues and taxation. Sheesh, they weren't saints. As late as 1754, Franklin was advocating some sort of government that would allow the colonies to stay under British rule. Hell until Paine's writings and publishment in the winter of '75-'76, many of the leaders were expecting a return to British control eventually. Seems if they were so gung ho on the idea it wouldn't have needed Paine's push on the eve of the Declaration. If they were so gung ho on 'moral concerns' and ideals, the debate for secession wouldn't have lasted as long.
Hey your argument is with the folks that signed the DOI Bill. Not a word in there about about Saints or such and such's "business interests" but plenty of morality based statements. For instance:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Sounds like a lot of moral concerns going on in that paragraph Bill. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to mind. I suppose they could have said 'Business interests, lower taxes and the pursuit of prurient interests' but they didn't. Of course they would have been moral concerns as well.
Again in all actuality the origin of the Constitution was a contract between the states and the general government. The original preamble listed the separate and sovereign states. However under concerns that some states would be listed that had not validated the Constitution, those names were removed to just read 'the people'.
So now "the people" means "the states"? Presumably when they say "the right of the people" they mean "the right of the states". But wait a minute, states don't have rights, they have powers. So you'll understand if I take your Clintonian nonsense and file it in the crapper Bill.
This time the preamble to the Constitution Bill:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I know, they don't really mean they want to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, the really mean that they are securing the blessings of liberty for the states, right Bill? It's just a contract between the states and federal government, the people have no rights that the states don't benevolently give them and the Constitution of the United States is an amoral document.
Comprende?
Of course I have to congratulate you on your ability to steer away from the intent of the thread. In nonsensical arguing, you have failed to answer the concerns of this pregnancy, how it affects you personally, and what should be done about it if you feel it does affect you
My "nonsensical" arguing has just portrayed you for what you are. A man prone to lie when it suits his needs, dissemble to prolong an argument he lost a long time ago and substitute words that suit him in a document that has thus far survived the ages without Billbears edits.
As for Mary Cheney and her baby, I wish them both the best. Her life is hers. I have my opinions about her choices but once her choice to have a baby presented as an embryo in Mary's womb I wish them both health and happiness.
Hubris is dangerous Bill, there's always somebody out there who knows as much as you do, and perhaps a little more who doesn't feel the need to stick words into 230 year old documents or their opponents posts.
Merry Christmas!
Hear! Hear!
It's a great comment. It deserved repeating!
see post 672 re the homosexual take-over of psychiatry.
Wise words.
Subject 2: I think there are a whole heck of a lot more important things to be concerned about than legislating morality.
I always respond to "you can't legislate morality" by asking "what else do we legislate?".
No, there are more than enough laws on the books now. Anyway, IMHO Ms Cheney's choice of lifestyles is a moral issue, not a matter to be addressed by civil or criminal law.
Just who would you demand not be allowed to be pregnant next?
I don't demand anything from anyone except honesty and truthfulness in their dealings with me. But I firmly believe that the general acceptance of sexual immorality by our culture today as a normal and wholesome way of life is as great a danger to the continued existence of the US as great nation as would be failing to maintain a strong military capability. The traditional family as designed by God at the beginning of human history is the basic building block of civilization. When enough American families eventually fall apart due to widespread immoral practices such as homosexual depravity, addiction to pornography, and the killing of innocent unborn children, the entire nation will suffer the inevitable consequences. There are good reasons why God forbade the practice of immoral acts by the men and women he created. Practicing an immoral lifestyle over a period of time is always injurious to a man's or woman's physical, emotional, and mental health, and if a person or a nation continues in that practice that person or nation will eventually come to grief. In the case of individuals that grief may come after this mortal life ends, but in the case of nations it usually comes here in this time/space dimension.
You claim "I like Cheney as much as anyone on FR, and I wish he could be our next president," yet can't see that since he doesn't have a problem with his daughter why should you?
I like Cheney as a public official who espouses many of the same views on matters of governance that I do. AFAIK he isn't personally involved in the kind of immoral lifestyle that his daughter has apparently chosen for herself. And anyway, how do you or anyone else outside his immediate family know that Cheney has no problem with his daughter's decision to become pregnant out of wedlock? I wouldn't expect him to make a public issue out of a very difficult private family matter such as this one, but who knows what he really feels about her choices in his heart of hearts? If my adult daughter had chosen a morally repugnant lifestyle I would not love her any less than I do now, but I would be sick at heart unless and until she realized that she had made a very poor choice and returned to living a normal life. I don't believe that any decent man such as Cheney is would act any differently toward a daughter who he loves.
Are you one of those that Kerry and Edwards were aiming their words at when they dropped the lesbian bomb a few times during the 2004 campaign?
I don't know anything about the "lesbian bomb" you refer to. I heard rumors during the first campaign about Cheney having a homosexual daughter, but I don't remember hearing anything new about it during the last one. It wouldn't have affected my vote anyway unless Cheney himself had come out in favor of same sex marriage or some other claimed "right" for homosexuals that I believe would help to further shred the rapidly rotting moral fabric of our nation. Even that would not have kept me from voting for Bush, as usual the Democrat alternative in both elections was too awful to even be considered.
"Say goodbye to Christians adopting if this is the road we start down."
1. Foster and, AFAIK, prospective adoptive parents, in CA already have to submit to gay-friendly propaganda sessions in order to be approved.
2. There have been (maybe in CA, can't remember) cases of foster and prospective adoptive parents who have been punished because they wanted to take the foster kids to church and teach them traditional biblical values that were not "gay friendly".
3. In Massachusetts, the last figures I saw showed that 40% of kids in the foster/ adoption system were given to homosexuals.
So, it's already happening. The truth is that children should never, ever be given to homosexuals to foster or adopt. The truth is that homosexuality is neither benign, neutral, or normal. Children should have a home with a mother and father, if at all possible. It's not that there aren't mothers and fathers who want to adopt - there are.
Hildy--you missed my point! Nobody can (or should) "play God" as you state. He has given us in His word everything we need to live by, and by that I mean standards, or a plumb line, if you will. It's not all that tough to follow . . . when folks don't follow, what usually follows is a whole lot of hurt. Why shouldn't I be able to say that IMHO what's best for a child is a warm, loving two parent home with a female Mom and a male Dad; now why do some people find that so disconcerting??
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.