Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Memphis you raise some interesting points. Young women are able to have children at a rather early age. But just because they can does not mean that they should. I am sure that you know some tweens and teens. Do you think that they have the experience and knowledge to parent a child - ALONE? Do they have the financial resources to do so?
I know many girls that age since I am the parent of 2 teens and while I know of some wonderful kids that age, I know of none who I would recomend as a parent.
When adopting a child their are criteria that parents have to meet. Age is one of them as is financial stability. I am both an adoptive parent and a bio parent.
I can not believe how simple it was to have and take home my first born.
My second child was adopted and we had to jump through hoops of fire to adopt her. It was well worth it. I think of the criteria I had to meet in order to adopt and I think that it was comonsensical.
I think that parents should instill these same values and critera into their children.
If they did child moms and the unfortunate children they bear will be a bad memory.
Somethine Socialogy trumps biology!
My point is this, children out of wedlock do not lead to bad kids, or poor upbringing.
I do know teens and tweens, I have a 6 year old little boy myself.
Do I want my nieces or my son having kids in their teens, absolutely not, but is it the end of the world if that does happen, no its not.
The whole premise of this thread is that if someone has children out of wedlock, they are screwed. Doesn't matter the age of the parent, but that "all children need a mother and a father".
This is simply a fallacy.
As you know, sociology is a very broad subject. Why did younger people used to have children, and its suddenly "unacceptable" to do that? Its the upbringing of the children that are having children. As someone who understands the scientific part of society, you know that physically, we are capable of having children whenever, and raise them to be whatever you want. Age isn't the factor, its how the parent was raised.
But as I said, we've gone from "Two parents are a must" to "young kids having children is bad", which are really two completely different subjects if you ask me.
The point I've been trying to make, is that for the large part of human history, mothers alone were the primary parent. Fathers were absent from the home most of the time, working in the fields. When children reached the age of adulthood, then the father largely took over, and taught them how to work.
We completely change that today, where we expect fathers to be in the home all the time, and take an active role in their childrens lives from the get go. I feel that this forced parenthood leads to a lot of social problems. Sure, some Dads want that connection, I know I love mine. But I am not every man either, and most men I know have no patience with young kids.
The point I've been trying to make, is that for the large part of human history, mothers alone were the primary parent. Fathers were absent from the home most of the time, working in the fields. When children reached the age of adulthood, then the father largely took over, and taught them how to work.
We completely change that today, where we expect fathers to be in the home all the time, and take an active role in their childrens lives from the get go. I feel that this forced parenthood leads to a lot of social problems. Sure, some Dads want that connection, I know I love mine. But I am not every man either, and most men I know have no patience with young kids.
Well, and even in what people like to think of the "good old days" of the 1950s and 1960s, many times if the mom stayed home with the children, the dad was at work all day, and when he came home the kids were instructed to leave him alone because he'd had a hard day at work. His providing for the family was about as hands on as it got. The dad changing diapers and being really involved with the family is a relatively new construct.
Well, and even in what people like to think of the "good old days" of the 1950s and 1960s, many times if the mom stayed home with the children, the dad was at work all day, and when he came home the kids were instructed to leave him alone because he'd had a hard day at work. His providing for the family was about as hands on as it got. The dad changing diapers and being really involved with the family is a relatively new construct.
Exactly, and suddenly people are posting threads saying that children can't be raised in a single parent home.
The whole premise of this thread is that if someone has children out of wedlock, they are screwed. Doesn't matter the age of the parent, but that "all children need a mother and a father".
I think what is preventing a real discussion in this thread is that some perceive that we are talking in "absolutes". I do not condemn single parents. I do not claim it is impossible for a single parent to do a competent or even above-average job of parenting.
What those of us who support the two-parent household are claiming is more subtle and the meaning gets lost when people insist on talking in absolutes. We are saying this:
1. Life overall is a crapshoot. Everyone who is born will die. Nothing can change that.
2. It doesn't mean though that certain outcomes in life are not more desirable than other outcomes. Its better to be successful with a career and family than end up in prison or on public assistance.
3. Children raised in traditional two-parent households (that are not abusive households) are more likely to experience success in terms of education obtained, career satisfaction, and raising their own family than children who are not raised in a two parent household. If you want statistics on this, I can get them.
4. Since life overall is a risky proposition, doesn't it make the most sense to give children every possible advantage including that of a two-parent household?
5. If you try everything and your kids still don't turn out at least you can say that you gave it your best try.
I think what is preventing a real discussion in this thread is that some perceive that we are talking in "absolutes". I do not condemn single parents. I do not claim it is impossible for a single parent to do a competent or even above-average job of parenting.
What those of us who support the two-parent household are claiming is more subtle and the meaning gets lost when people insist on talking in absolutes. We are saying this:
1. Life overall is a crapshoot. Everyone who is born will die. Nothing can change that.
2. It doesn't mean though that certain outcomes in life are not more desirable than other outcomes. Its better to be successful with a career and family than end up in prison or on public assistance.
3. Children raised in traditional two-parent households (that are not abusive households) are more likely to experience success in terms of education obtained, career satisfaction, and raising their own family than children who are not raised in a two parent household. If you want statistics on this, I can get them.
4. Since life overall is a risky proposition, doesn't it make the most sense to give children every possible advantage including that of a two-parent household?
5. If you try everything and your kids still don't turn out at least you can say that you gave it your best try.
That's the crux of it.
And the perceived reason for someone being a single parent is that they made bad decisions, or chose to be single.
Life is not that simple. I'd wager to bet that most people who are single parents didn't want to be.
So it all boils down to "You shouldn't have sex unless you are married. If you're gay, don't have children. And you should only have sex if you want to have children."
Which is all really based on a false pretense that sex is something bad, and you shouldn't enjoy it, and God doesn't want you to have sex for pleasure.
And the perceived reason for someone being a single parent is that they made bad decisions, or chose to be single.
Life is not that simple. I'd wager to bet that most people who are single parents didn't want to be.
So it all boils down to "You shouldn't have sex unless you are married. If you're gay, don't have children. And you should only have sex if you want to have children."
Which is all really based on a false pretense that sex is something bad, and you shouldn't enjoy it, and God doesn't want you to have sex for pleasure.
I don't think people should have sex only if they want children. And in general, yes, I do think people who start out being single parents have made bad decisions. That doesn't mean they're bad people. But the older I get, the more I can see the reason why most of the world's major religions prohibit sex until marriage. Kids just do better that way. And, despite widespread availability of modern contraception, people aren't using it. And that stuff about contraception not being taught in school only goes so far. People can find out about stuff when they really want to.
If you don't want to start out as a single parent, you don't have to.
That's why they invented birth control. Adoption and abortion are also available.
I'm gay and don't have and don't want kids. All other things being equal though (yes, I know it's never that simple), I'd rather see a kid grow up with his/her married biological parents over a gay couple. It's makes sense that you'd want your kid to be raised by the 2 people who conceived you and under the same roof. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.
I think what is preventing a real discussion in this thread is that some perceive that we are talking in "absolutes". I do not condemn single parents. I do not claim it is impossible for a single parent to do a competent or even above-average job of parenting.
What those of us who support the two-parent household are claiming is more subtle and the meaning gets lost when people insist on talking in absolutes. We are saying this:
1. Life overall is a crapshoot. Everyone who is born will die. Nothing can change that.
2. It doesn't mean though that certain outcomes in life are not more desirable than other outcomes. Its better to be successful with a career and family than end up in prison or on public assistance.
3. Children raised in traditional two-parent households (that are not abusive households) are more likely to experience success in terms of education obtained, career satisfaction, and raising their own family than children who are not raised in a two parent household. If you want statistics on this, I can get them.
4. Since life overall is a risky proposition, doesn't it make the most sense to give children every possible advantage including that of a two-parent household?
5. If you try everything and your kids still don't turn out at least you can say that you gave it your best try.
That's the crux of it.
+1 You nailed it. But, unfortunately, people only see what they wanna see.
Sure, 2 parent families aren't always happier. But it's high time we started thinking about this issue in terms of the odds. The odds are stacked against kids and parents in single parent families, emotionally and financially. The evidence is overwhelming. Why do so many continually deny it?
Because statistics are about groups and people are individuals.
I think what is preventing a real discussion in this thread is that some perceive that we are talking in "absolutes". I do not condemn single parents. I do not claim it is impossible for a single parent to do a competent or even above-average job of parenting.
What those of us who support the two-parent household are claiming is more subtle and the meaning gets lost when people insist on talking in absolutes. We are saying this:
1. Life overall is a crapshoot. Everyone who is born will die. Nothing can change that.
2. It doesn't mean though that certain outcomes in life are not more desirable than other outcomes. Its better to be successful with a career and family than end up in prison or on public assistance.
3. Children raised in traditional two-parent households (that are not abusive households) are more likely to experience success in terms of education obtained, career satisfaction, and raising their own family than children who are not raised in a two parent household. If you want statistics on this, I can get them.
4. Since life overall is a risky proposition, doesn't it make the most sense to give children every possible advantage including that of a two-parent household?
5. If you try everything and your kids still don't turn out at least you can say that you gave it your best try.
That's the crux of it.
I agree with your post. I didn't see condemnation or finger pointing that we are all on welfare. Reps to you! So, yes, better odds with a well-adjusted two parent family, statistically speaking.
Individually, well, everyone's story is different.
Because statistics are about groups and people are individuals.
I suspect the real reason people deny that single parenting might be bad for themselves as well as their kids is because they think they're the exception to the rule. It seems to be an inborn human trait to think "I"m different" or "It won't happen to me or my kids".
Take a survey on just about anything and well over 50% of people will say they're "above average" even though that's impossible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You nailed it. But, unfortunately, people only see what they wanna see.
