Posted on 06/03/2012 9:09:45 AM PDT by pinochet
In 2009, the New York Times had a heartbreaking story on the hatred and prejudice that single mothers receive in South Korea, for bringing up children without husbands. They are fired from their jobs, ostracized by their families, evicted from their apartments, and their children are shamed in school and made to wish they had never been born. This has resulted in South Korea having a 2 percent illegitimacy rate, compared to a 40 percent illegitimacy rate for Americans.
The Times notes that a shocking 96 percent of single mothers who get pregnant, have abortions. That is the huge price that South Korea pays for its 2 percent illegitimacy rates. About 70 percent of the babies who are born, are given to foreigners for adoption, because the mothers want to avoid the shame of single parenthood. Here is the NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/asia/08mothers.html?_r=1
If one was to compare South Korean culture (which aborts 96 percent of babies born to single parents) to black American culture that encourages a 70 percent ilegitimacy rate, which of the two cultures is a more moral culture?
Shoot the father... or shoot the bride?
With respect to the problems of the black underclass, none of them are solvable by imposing sanctions on black males. The ones impregnating the most women are the thugs who will most likely be killed by other thugs before the kids they conceive are in their teens. They have no assets to be seized, and no garnishable income to be grabbed for child support.
The only side upon whom sanctions can work, are the women.
One way or another, the money for it has to be there at an earlier age than it is now.
I mentioned the solution, which includes socially chastising both females and males. No government resolution is necessary.
As for the extra measure, since males completely escape the physical birthing process and the pain associated with raising illegitimate children, they will need to be indebted for life... making stiff child support payment (a fixed amount that accounts for social costs of out-of-wedlock children, rather than a minuscule portion from their paycheck). In no time they will be in the streets, which should serve as a notice to future deadbeats.
Abortion is far worse. There are no illegitimate children, only unfit parents.
Infertility, even among people in their 30s, is at an all time high. The reproductive system seems to be one of the most sensitive to environmental conditions, and things are not good lately.
Babies conceived should be born and given for adoption. So many infertile couples want them.
My earnest recommendation is that you neither father nor adopt any daughters, nor any children of single mothers. Learn to love with humility, since all of us sin and fall short of the glory of God.
What you ask of me is to show restraint and do not speak my opinion. I will call the “single mothers” by their more accurate title — slut-mothers. They may or may not be single(they seem to hook up with every guy in the neighborhood), but they sure are sluts!
The society has to be judgmental, or else it will go down the toilet.The government’s job is to be judgmental towards criminals and defense. They better stay out of legislating morality. The society can be as judgmental towards the sluts , the pimps, the druggies, the gluttons, and rest of the vermin in the society!
Believing that is our only choice, refusing to accept discouragement of either as a valid choice, makes the only two options given in that choice dual self-fulfilling prophecies - more illegitimate births AND more abortions, not less of one and more of the other.
On the other side, ALL children deserve the same respect of THEIR innocence and born to a single mother or not, THEY deserve to be treated no differently than their peers. That means that whatever discouragement towards out-of-wedlock births is socially appropriate, those policies should not morph into "discouragement" towards the child.
So you’re saying women murder their unborn out of shame?
Doesn’t the example of the USA prove you wrong?
Women murder their unborn to spite the fathers or just for convenience.
Yes, you are right of course, windows are different from never-married mothers.
However, to stick with Clinton, his mother re-married and although he took his step-father’s surname (which I think REALLY helped him in life because I don’t think William Blythe would have been elected president, in the 19th cen. maybe, but probably not in 1992) my impression is that it was a less than happy family situation for him.
But I’ve always given Clinton credit for being a hard worker and he overcame whatever struggles he had in life and did get elected AG, GOV and POTUS, not to shabby esp. for such a really shabby guy.
Had he never lived at all he would have done none of these things.
Now, I’m sorry Clinton ended up our President, but to go back to the hypothetical for a moment, it was good, at least for him, that he was born.
This is my problem with, I don’t know what to call it, let’s call it post-feminist child-bearing. There is a lot of pressure that you shouldn’t have a child unless the child and his/her life is going to be pretty close to perfect.
Of course this idea infests the upper and middle classes only, the poor don’t dwell on such concepts. Thus we have far more poor people bearing children than middle or upper class people.
I’m off topic now, so I’ll stop before I wander even further afield.
Both are terrible for our society.
Women alone bringing up children is a pathology on the culture.
Babies killed through abortion strikes the moral fabric of the culture.
Keeping procreation within marriage and keeping the other two options beyond the pale, with adoption as an alternative is probably the best way to handle a difficult situation.
The other more foundational issue is the culture the young people are swimming in. Without a moral and strict culture that does not treat people like meat none of the above converstion means anything,
Marriage is the best solution if possible. I am not against some social pressure on the baby daddy to man up and face his responsiblities. Many marriages have started out this way, some times they work out, some times they don’t, but even if the marriage doesn’t work out, at least they tried and the children will know that their parents made the effort to get married. It shows some respect for their child and societies’ morals.
Mothers and fathers who have children out of wedlock lose the respect of their children. Children cannot have a sense of morality if the parents did not show them a good example. It is hard enough to raise children when married but when there is not the basis of respect, it is very difficult.
Nothing ruins your day like waking up dead.
Freudian slip?
There is even more to it than you may at first imagine. If we’re going to have this conversation, we’re also going to have to understand that the suicide rate in South Korea is 10% higher for men than the USA and 500% what it is for women in the USA.
Rigid societies like you see in South Korea, Singapore, Japan etc, take a heavy toll in more ways than one. We as a country, as a culture, do not want to emulate them.
Matthew 7:1-5.
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.