Posted on 06/27/2007 1:18:31 PM PDT by rhema
The sad case of pregnant, murdered Jessie Davis and her married lover (and alleged killer) Bobbie Cutts threatens to dominate cable news for months to come – especially now that Paris Hilton’s out of jail and the justice system has established the paternity of Anna Nicole’s baby.
Unlike these other media obsessions, however, this horrifying story conveys some significant messages and should help to refocus attention on the nation’s most significant and menacing social problem: the unchecked epidemic and unquestioning acceptance of out of wedlock birth.
Jessie Davis died within days of giving birth to her second illegitimate child, both of them fathered by Mr. Cutts. This busy police officer also found time to produce progeny with his wife, and with another extracurricular involvement (who eventually complained to authorities of his threats and harassment). The tragic details of the Davis disappearance included the testimony of her stricken two year old, Blake, found alone in their home in a dirty diaper, giving police only three enigmatic (and heartbreaking statements): “Mommy crying,” “Mommy broke table,” and “Mommy in rug,”
Numerous commentators worry over the future of this devastated little boy but fail to make the obvious observation about his pre-murder situation: that it’s a shame whenever any child is left alone with an unmarried mother in an obviously dysfunctional situation.
We’ve become so reluctant to issue “judgmental” comments that we refuse to discuss the way this case highlights the individual tragedies and gigantic social cost when one-third of all new babies in America are born to unmarried women.
Two other recent stories further demonstrate the vulnerability of children placed into these unhappy circumstances. In Pittsburgh, five kids below the age of seven died in a fire when their moms (both of them unwed mothers) locked them in an apartment while they went out together to a bar. In Lake Stevens, Washington, a nineteen-old-mother inadvertently killed her four-month-old son by taping a pacifier into his mouth so he’d keep quiet and she could catch up on her sleep. When she awoke (at 11 a.m. the next day) she found the baby’s lifeless body, but hesitated for more than half-hour to consult her boyfriend before calling 911. She also told police of her previous policy of binding the child in a “baby straightjacket” – using a blanket to tie his hands and arms to stop his irritating squirming.
These extreme cases hardly represent all single mothers, many of whom most certainly work hard and love their children and try to instill decent values. But any two-parent family that’s struggled with child-rearing can only imagine the vastly greater challenges faced by an unattached mother (or father) with no partner to share the tasks of earning money and caring for the young.
While some children of never-marred mothers do indeed provide inspiring, against-the-odds success stories the overall-statistics provide a grim reminder of the destructive impact of out-of-wedlock birth. Children from fatherless households represent some 70% of the prison population, and remain similarly over-represented among high school drop-outs, drug users, gang members, and the poor. The notorious black-white gap in educational and economic achievement stems in large part from the collapse of marriage in much of the African American community. Among blacks, close to 70% of all new babies are born to unwed mothers—about three times the rate of illegitimate birth that prevails among whites and Asians. No serious scholar or community advocate doubts that reducing the devastating rate of out-of-wedlock births among African-Americans would help move us toward the goal of a more level playing field among our various ethnic communities.
Unfortunately, we live in a society in which political correctness dictates that we must remain silent in the face of millions upon millions of children (of every racial group—more than 20% of white babies are born to unmarried mothers) raised by single mothers who are often poor, distracted, unprepared and stressed out. The fundamental principle in arguments about gay marriage deserves emphatic reaffirmation in this context: that children thrive best when nourished by a permanent combination (we call it matrimony) of one male and one female parent.
Rather than normalizing situations like that of Jessie Davis (who hoped to raise two children with no chance of marrying their father) as just another “family option” or “lifestyle choice,” we need to re-establish healthy norms – advancing the undeniable premise that most children will benefit from growing up in a stable, two parent, two gender household.
For pro-lifers, this recognition presents a painful dilemma: arguing that a baby deserves better than growing up as the child of a young, irresponsible, unmarried teenager will lead some people to push for abortion as a preferable alternative. The answer to such logic is two-fold:
First, it’s obvious that abortion has powerfully fueled, rather than reducing, the rate of out-of-wedlock birth. Before Roe V. Wade, less than 8% of American children arrive at unmarried households; today the rate is nearly 33%. By promoting the idea of sex-without-consequences, the easy availability of abortion led to more, not less, unmarried mothers.
Second, the notion that abortion represents the chief alternative to raising an illegitimate child ignores the powerful and positive option of adoption. Rather than removing the stigma against unwed motherhood, and encouraging single moms to keep and raise their babies, society should do everything possible to urge single, pregnant girls to give their babies the ultimate gift of love by arranging their adoption into loving, functional, two parent homes.
No one would argue that government should seize control of babies to remove them forcibly from their unwed mothers (except in the most dangerous and irresponsible circumstances). But by the same token, the authorities should do nothing to validate single parent households or to make it easier for unmarried women to keep their babies. The best interest of the child dictates a potent push for adoption, not single parenthood.
Since millions of Americans will now examine every detail of the Jessie Davis murder case, they ought to take a little time to consider this aspect of her situation. For two-year-old Blake, it didn’t represent kindness or generosity for Ms. Davis to keep the child and to attempt to raise him in her painful position. The more tender, loving, unselfish and, ultimately, more motherly decision would have been to place the child in a two parent home with vastly better odds of achieving happiness and success.
..much too rational, Michael.
My thinking exactly! Look where it got Nicole Brown Simpson.
Bingo, end welfare to unwed mothers today and watch the phenomenon evaporate.
Irrelevant, not to mention offensive.
It’s the “father’s” criminality that is the problem, not his color.
Good article, rhema.
I was appalled when they first started putting nurseries in high schools to take care of the out-of-wedlock babies of students. It just enabled and encouraged the behavior and, predictably, they got more of it.
No one wants to talk about how inappropriate it was for this young woman to engage in the behavior that she did. The first bite of the apple should have made her realize what this man was all about. We just don’t want to say these things.
The problem is there aren’t enough aunts in this country.
When I was in high school a class mate got pregnant (not mine). She went to live with an aunt in another town.
There are places in Europe where you could go to jail for writing an article like this.
What about what’s her name who’s husband killed her and dumped her in the SF bay a couple of years ago.
Any man who could kill his woman and baby wouldn’t be bothered by a marriage being in the picture.
Thinking it would is silly.
Why did you remove comment #2 MOD, he was speaking the truth. A little too much for you to handle perhaps? Take off your prude hat and rose colored glasses.
Let’s hope this Cutts scumbag gets the same sentence as Peterson. Same crime, same sentence.
The left would go apeknuckles over this -
“you’re going to sacrifice a whole generation to abject poverty without welfare!”
well, the welfare system has ensured that SEVERAL generations will be ruined. But then again, that was the point of it, and a lot of them know it.
Rhema, as far as I know, isn’t the mod. Pinging said mod to your question might get you further than not doing so.
Um, Lacey Peterson was married to Scott when he killed her and their unborn baby........so this doesn’t necessarily apply just to unwed mothers.........
I agree.
“We’ve become so reluctant to issue “judgmental” comments that we refuse...”
... to even mention one of the more obvious features of this case.
I'm all for welcoming a child no matter how you got pregnant, but all these women being careless or choosing to get pregnant with this guy. How is that a sensible decision? Answer, women are accepting that single motherhood is just hunky dory.
Pregnant teenagers used to visit their aunts because there was a stigma to being pregnant and unmarried. That stigma is now all but gone, so no one sees the need to send the pregnant teens packing. The latest issue of People magazine had a two page spread on pregnant celebrities. There were five white, wholesome (in appearance), pregnant actresses...four out of five of whom are unmarried. The spread of this phenomenon to the middle class over the last ten years signals, I fear, an irreversible change for the worse. And the liberals know what to say if conservatives complain about out of wedlock births: “So they should have abortions?”
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.