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.
My children don't need mentors. It's just another example of why the government should not be encouraging women to have babies they can't afford and who they will raise alone.
Children have needs. Very often an involved father can provide at least half of the child's needs. No one can mentor a child better than the child's own parents.
But they don't have two PARENTS. They have a burnt out neighborhood which looks like 1980's Beruit.
Who cares that you say they need two parents, if they don't have them they don't.
What we don't want is for them to have kids as a way of getting their needs met in the FIRST place. So they need mentors to guide them OUT OF THERE. Their parents/s are often not capable of doing it, they never had it themselves.
Indeed. Socioeconomic status matters - but we never want to talk about that.
Look I get it as humans we like simple narratives. I do, you do everyone does.
So when explaining something so complex as societal outcomes for children, that would entail so much complexity and random events, we focus on a few things. Some like me focus on poverty as a huge determinant, others focus on the marital status of parents, others focus on race, other focus on etc.
The problem is that the focus on marital status is really a moral judgement, that tends to lead to crappy policy ideas.
So I think that childhood poverty is this huge impediment for the future success of children, and I don't support government getting into the business of controlling who gives birth to babies.
So then answers I am looking at deal with how do we mitigate as a society the devastating impact of childhood poverty on future success.
There are legit criticisms to this approach and this understanding of the issue.
If someone thinks sexual immorality or single parents are the cause, they tend to be very judgmental about other peoples choices and their policy prescriptions tend to focus on punishment for those parents and their children.
Now the problem for me comes in when discussing policy, the people who favor punishing single moms and their children to discourage that behavior won't admit that this is what they want to do.
They won't admit the basic problem that they don't want outcomes for single parents and their children to improve because that would only encourage more people to have children single which to them is a worse outcome.
Enticing them? What else ya got, instead? Going to do something positive to "entice" kids who have zero resources to make a better future?
I'll work to end welfare handouts which encourages all this.
If welfare handouts weren't so enticing, would more women than ever be choosing to have babies without dads?
In many parts of the country now, MORE babies are born to welfare households than to married taxpaying couples. Very obviously many women consider the welfare life perfectly fine or they would not be jumping into it.
And my view is not that these women never have children. They shouldn't be trapped into welfare by thinking that welfare is going to always be so very generous -- providing even free cell phones!
They should have all the children they wish to have but only after they're in a position to provide for them or have a partner who will always be there to help them provide for them.
I'll work to end welfare handouts which encourages all this.
If welfare handouts weren't so enticing, would more women than ever be choosing to have babies without dads?
In many parts of the country now, MORE babies are born to welfare households than to married taxpaying couples. Very obviously many women consider the welfare life perfectly fine or they would not be jumping into it.
Yeah of course you will. Because you cannot see the real human issue here, just the monetary aspect.
If kids grow up wanting to DO SOMETHING important with their lives, they wont be content with some food stamps and WIC cheese, and chasing Johnny down the block for a bit of love and affection.
I'll guarantee you that hopeless women had babies as a way out way before welfare was available. Guarantee it.
Yeah of course you will. Because you cannot see the real human issue here, just the monetary aspect.
If kids grow up wanting to DO SOMETHING important with their lives, they wont be content with some food stamps and WIC cheese, and chasing Johnny down the block for a bit of love and affection.
I'll guarantee you that hopeless women had babies as a way out way before welfare was available. Guarantee it.
Welfare isn't working. Poverty is only increasing with all the trillions of dollars being spent on welfare programs.
In the past before a thousand forms of birth control, it was a different matter, today there is no excuse to be conceiving babies that you can't afford with men who want nothing to do with you or their child.
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?
No they won't admit that their poor lifestyle choices are the root of the problems and their children's suffering/neglect.
It's the way they were raised and the way they will raise their children, perpetuating this problem.
Welfare isn't working. Poverty is only increasing with all the trillions of dollars being spent on welfare programs.
In the past before a thousand forms of birth control, it was a different matter, today there is no excuse to be conceiving babies that you can't afford with men who want nothing to do with you or their child.
Is there? No excuse? They aren't excusing a damn thing. For some people that's the only thing they think they've got.
You could help them change that notion. Because its not just about the money. You have to change it from the ground up.
Cutting off survival money is simply going to drive more mothers to prostitution and dealing. Along with having babies. Good luck with that.
You think there's more "urban" single moms than rural ones? How much money do you wanna put on that?
And i think everybody by now understands that single motherhood has a high chance of ending badly for the kids.
You are correct, the suburban single moms usually have access to more money and an infrastructure of friends and family to help them get by.
That's why they receive less attention.
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.
