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.
I've thought about this controversial issue for quite sometime.
I'm a black American woman that simply can not understand why so many poor urban women continue to have children, without any male support. Obviously, the overall rapid decay of vast urban communities, seem to prove that single parent homes are ineffective. Sadly, the children almost always end up either dead or in jail.
Given the grim circumstances, why do urban women continue to have out of wedlock children, without any male assistance or help from their male partners?
I just don't understand the point of a thread like this.
There is just too much hyperbole. Most children of single moms don't end of either dead nor in jail. This is objective reality.
A rational discussion cannot occur when a person is making grossly false points.
I don't know what you mean by urban women. Do you believe these urban women are the only single moms? I think you'd be surprised by the reality of many rural, and suburban areas.
Also, urban women are not some monolithic group who all do the same things for the same reasons.
One woman may have oow children because she fell in love, another may have been sexually abused, another may just want a child, another maybe addicted to drugs and prostituting herself. By making this blanket condemnation of urban moms you attempt to rob them of the individuality of their lives and choices.
We all have that inner desire to procreate, but common sense should intervene, if the circumstances will create havoc in our lives or quite possibly the lives of others...
It's laughable that people actually believe welfare recipients do well. In actuality, most earn less than 20K per year and often reside in crime infested areas.
Your premise is absolutely wrong.
I never had any desire to breed, nor do many people that I know.
Neither birth control nor education are readily available in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGirl332
I'm interested in why these women continue to have children, when they know the grim reality.
Why don't you ask some of the people in your demographic rather than a mostly white middle class board like CD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGirl332
It doesn't just happen, obviously they are engaging in sex. They should at least demand that the guy use a condom.
I just don't understand the point of a thread like this.
There is just too much hyperbole. Most children of single moms don't end of either dead nor in jail. This is objective reality.
A rational discussion cannot occur when a person is making grossly false points.
I don't know what you mean by urban women. Do you believe these urban women are the only single moms? I think you'd be surprised by the reality of many rural, and suburban areas.
Also, urban women are not some monolithic group who all do the same things for the same reasons.
One woman may have oow children because she fell in love, another may have been sexually abused, another may just want a child, another maybe addicted to drugs and prostituting herself. By making this blanket condemnation of urban moms you attempt to rob them of the individuality of their lives and choices.
Ah, exactly how would B/C be provided free? Someone has to produce these products, and they usually want to be paid for them. Why not say it like you mean, that you want others to pay for them?
Even so, aren't "taxpayer purchased" condoms available at nearly every clinic and Planned Parenthood, let alone high schools?
Y'all want to close all of the planned parenthoods, right?
They've lost lots of funding because of your type. R's are closing clinics every chance that they get.
Don't you whine and moan about supporting the poor?
Pay a little up front or for 18 years.
Try a little fiscal responsibility...
One day of the cost of war would pay for birth control for all people wanting it for years.
Y'all want to close all of the planned parenthoods, right?
They've lost lots of funding because of your type. R's are closing clinics every chance that they get.
Don't you whine and moan about supporting the poor?
Pay a little up front or for 18 years.
Try a little fiscal responsibility...
One day of the cost of war would pay for birth control for all people wanting it for years.
So tell your boy to not send all that aid to Syrian rebels.... since you are against war..... Obama beating those drums with his friend McCain
I like how you are dodging the issue....... nice deflecting
I know it its difficult when you have nothing to say that single parents are better for kids..... another epic fail for Chiel
Ah, exactly how would B/C be provided free? Someone has to produce these products, and they usually want to be paid for them. Why not say it like you mean, that you want others to pay for them?
WE pay for it. Us - the taxpayers.
Seriously.
What do you think is going to cost more? Providing birth control free of charge........or paying (housing, food, medical) to support each of these children for eighteen years?
Do the math.
I'm not naive enough, or idealistic enough, to think this will solve the problem entirely, but I do believe the easier it is for women to get free birth control, the more likely more women will take advantage of it.
A quick exam (free) and they walk out with a year's prescription (free) - or, better yet, the patch (free). Or, even better yet, an appointment for a free sterilization procedure.
The studies always show that single parent households are not ideal..... so they should be avoided in most cases if possible
Look, you are arguing a point that I didn't make. Look the person who started this thread had a post with the assertion that most children from single parents either end up in jail or dead. This is patently false.
Also, I want to make a point about this comparison between the outcomes of children from single parent households and those from two parent households, there are statistically big differences, but so what.
There are statistically big differences in the outcomes of all sorts of people born in this nation.
Black children born to parents be they 2 parent or single parent rich, middle class, or poor, when compared to a white children with a similar family background, will as a group have worse outcomes than those white children.
So stats could be used to encourage black parents not to have any children because just like stats show worse outcomes for the children of single moms, the stats show worse outcomes for black children when compared to white children from similar backgrounds.
What about parents who are just high school grads, what if we use the stats that show that children of high school grads fair a lot worse in general than children of college grads?
Would you then go to parents who are high school grads and say see look the stats show that your children do statistically worse then children born to parents who graduate from college?
What about parents whose combined family income is under $30,000?
What if the stats that showed children from families that make under $30,000 a year do statistically worse than children born to parents whose combined incomes are $200,000?
Would we tell parents that unless you are making at least $200,000 a year it is irresponsible to have children because look at those children's increased risks for bad outcomes in life?
What if we went to different areas of the nation and used stats that show children born in certain regions of the nation fair far worse than children born in other parts of the nation in significant ways?
Would we then go to parents in that part of the nation and use those stats to chastise them for having children when stats show that the do worse than children born in other parts of the nation?
My point is the focus on worse outcomes for the children of single moms is a moral judgement we make as society.
We could EASILY use other metrics like region of birth, race of parents, income of parents, education level of parents and show worse outcomes for children from those family situations.
Even better yet have a mother and father raise them. Na that doesn't make much sense in this mess of a society the liberal ideology has created. To liberals anyway.
We all have that inner desire to procreate, but common sense should intervene, if the circumstances will create havoc in our lives or quite possibly the lives of others...
It's laughable that people actually believe welfare recipients do well. In actuality, most earn less than 20K per year and often reside in crime infested areas.
There is your answer......Common sense isn't very common in todays society.
My point is the focus on worse outcomes for the children of single moms is a moral judgement we make as society.
And making moral judgements as a society is a good thing. This particular moral judgement - that it is wrong to have children outside of wedlock - was one of the most important factors in the development of modern civilization. Without it most of us would still be subsistance farmers.
Quote:
We could EASILY use other metrics like region of birth, race of parents,
income of parents, education level of parents and show worse outcomes for
children from those family situations.
Yet we don't make those distinctions.
We do still make some of those distinctions. Many people take their education, income and location into account when deciding whether or not to have kids. But most see a two parent home as the most basic requirement.
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.
