Posted on 06/07/2018 2:45:47 PM PDT by grundle
Faulkner is married and living on two paychecks, while Ms. Schairer is raising her children by herself. That gives the Faulkner family a profound advantage in income and nurturing time, and makes their children statistically more likely to finish college, find good jobs and form stable marriages.
Ms. Faulkner goes home to a trim subdivision and weekends crowded with children’s events. Ms. Schairer’s rent consumes more than half her income, and she scrapes by on food stamps.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The moral of the story is get married and then have children.
Has the NY Slimes come down on the side of responsible “Ward & June Cleaver” lifestyles?
Where’s ‘daddy’.................or ‘daddies’?.................
Stupid people don’t get married before they go to bed with someone.
This is news?
Traditional values exist because they were good rules to live by, who knew?
They are not divided by ‘I Do’, they are divided by ‘I DID’..................
“It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.
I am so glad I do not have an advanced degree and work for a University, they must be required to show they are an idiot.
Bottom line: CHOICES
They’re trying to shame people with intact families and trying to create more single moms on welfare. I remember an article 1-2 years ago that was shaming parents that read to their children because other kids didn’t have that.
Goal of Times and their fellow Marxists: transfer of income from Faulkner to Schairer. It’s gotta be Faulker’s fault.
There is a reason why it was the norm to get married and then have children even in non-Christian societies. It just made sense.
Even those societies that allowed for premarital sex the sex was preMARITAL. When the girl got pregnant you got married and settled down to raise your children.
Now it is hop in the sack at the drop of a hat and forget about such silly things as commitment. And as for carefully selecting your mate? Oh no. You should only consider the tingling in your loins.
I foresee a government program to provide husbands for single mothers. It just needs a catchy acronym.
It’s a shame there was nothing Ms. Schairer could have done to avoid her situation. This was simply bad luck for her. Unavoidable. As for the Faulkners, with their stable, married family, they didn’t build that. It simply happened.
“...no child support...”
Why is this???
And, it’s not true. I am paying their child support. So are you, the reader.
Ms. Schairer chose poorly.
Baby-murder is the inevitable consequence of widely accepted and practiced promiscuity.
Bingo!
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.