Perhaps, the presence of BOTH parents has the most influence. The current rate of illegitimate births in the U.S. is a staggering 38%. In France, the number is 18%. When over 1/3rd of children have but a single parent--who most likely is either on government assistance or away from the child working--then the disastrous results are predictable.
It take parents to raise and teach a child--not more freedom.

It take parents to raise and teach a child--

For the libs, it takes a village. Unfortunately, the village is dysfunctional.

Je suis d'accord que les Américains ont tendance à micro-gale de leurs enfants au point de dysfonctionnement. Fondamentalement la méthode parent français est le même que celui utilisé par les parents d'enfants qui sont nés avant 1980 environ.

Votre cute tentative d'humour n'a aucune pertinence pour le sujet à part. Vous pourriez peut-être effectivement envisager d'aborder le sujet en discussion.

When over 1/3rd of children have but a single parent--who most likely is either on government assistance or away from the child working--then the disastrous results are predictable.

And those single parents are mostly women. Where are the deadbeat dads? You should be directing your energies into getting them to man up and pay for and care for the women they impregnate and the children they bring into the world - instead of blaming the government for stepping in to help the innocent children.

Those moms should have just had abortions, right?

written by JohnnyB, February 16, 2012 - 03:35 PM

Those moms should have just had abortions, right?

According to the anti-abortionists they were supposed to:

1) Not have sex at all
2) If they did have sex - buy birth control (rumor has it that the prescription stuff is cheap at all the drug stores and free at clinics)
3) If the birth control fails and they get pregnant - then be forced to have the baby.

That's where it ends. After this, then the anti-abortion's argument is: You made your bed, now lie in it. Don't expect me to pay for the baby I forced you to bring into this world. It's your problem now. See #1.

There are women who are on welfare who get pregnant on purpose so they get more money from the govt.

There are deadbeat dads too no doubt,a lot of theses guys have multiple children to different women.But why do I have to be responsible for paying for somebody elses kids.

written by cityboy, February 16, 2012 - 04:08 PM

There are women who are on welfare who get pregnant on purpose so they get more money from the govt.

There are deadbeat dads too no doubt,a lot of theses guys have multiple children to different women.But why do I have to be responsible for paying for somebody elses kids.

C'mon, cityboy, that whole - "women on welfare get pregnant on purpose to get more welfare" is just
a stereotype and not true in the broad sense:

The second issue regarding women on welfare who continue to have more children to increases their welfare check is also a misconception among the public. Both Berrick and Cammisa argue that a welfare recipient's check may increase due to having another child but only on average by approximately $70.00 per month (Berrick, Pg.15 & Cammisa, Pg.16). Seventy dollars per month is hardly enough money to support a child and supports the notion that in fact many women on welfare find it harder to raise their children and to escape poverty and the welfare system if they have additional children. Berrick states:

one study found that women on welfare were more conscientious about using contraceptives while on welfare, that they were less likely to want an additional pregnancy, and that they were less likely to become pregnant while on welfare. Other studies have found that women on welfare become less interested in having additional children when they realize how great the financial strain of child rearing is. In sum there is very little financial incentive to bear further children while on AFDC" (Pg. 15).

http://tiss.zdv.uni-tuebingen....enver2.htm

And as far as being responsible for paying for someone else's kids - that only comes into play if you are an advocate of forced birth, which you are. Then you own the whole deal, kid and all. You can't deny a woman access to a safe, legal abortion and then not own up to the child you force her to bring into this world.

I'll try to get back to the topic -- then I'll get sucked into one of the sidetrips we've taken.

GBRetired; Your comments are correct, but I'm not sure what to make of your last line.

I haven't read the book, but I think one of the points of "Bringing Up Bebe" isn't so much that more freedom does the trick as it is that French parents set and more strictly enforce limits than U.S. parents do. In effect, they insist that the child grow up, and too many American parents do not.

As one who has babysat for my two toddler grandsons, I'd have to agree that this is almost impossible for a single parent to do -- sometimes two of us (my wife & I) aren't enough.

So you're correct that the explosion of single parents is a disaster for both those children and the society they will enter.

I have long advocated that society should assist single parents -- not because we wish to help the single parent, but because it is in our own best interests that the child grow up to be a functional adult and contributing member of society. The arguement parallels the one for all of us paying school taxes even though some of us don't have children in the schools.

But I agree with cityboy that it grates to have to pay for a problem someone else created. I think we should send the bill to the absent parent instead.

So we could offer aid to the child (to be administered by the single parent assuming they're adjudged fit), contingent upon their naming the absent parent. We then corral the absent parent and inform them that they're either paying the bill, or they can work off that debt at $50 per day shackled in a chain gang.

There are nuances -- particularly free paternity tests for guys who claim they've been falsely accused. But this looks to me like it should work.

Sally,I respectfully disagree,it is not a stereotype,I see these women and very young girls who do this,they are in public housing and are on welfare.The more children they have the more we pay.

I have a cousin who is a field worker for wic and she also has seen it.Granted it is not every woman on welfare,but its there.I haave been in every project on the north side and in the west end.There is never a father figure in raising their children.

These people don't care,they pay for nothing and have no intention to either.Why not when they give birth have their tubes tied.

On a side note,all these people on welfare do have very good health insurance.

written by cityboy, February 16, 2012 - 07:54 PM

Sally,I respectfully disagree,it is not a stereotype,I see these women and very young girls who do this,they are in public housing and are on welfare.The more children they have the more we pay.

I have a cousin who is a field worker for wic and she also has seen it.Granted it is not every woman on welfare,but its there.I haave been in every project on the north side and in the west end.There is never a father figure in raising their children.

These people don't care,they pay for nothing and have no intention to either.Why not when they give birth have their tubes tied.

On a side note,all these people on welfare do have very good health insurance

cityboy, you severely damage your credibility when your posts are mostly anecdotal and stereotypical while rejecting (or even not reading) the facts, yet alone doing research yourself.

But if it's any comfort, your fellow conservatives do the same thing. So you are not alone.

...
written by cityboy, February 16, 2012 - 07:54 PM

Sally,I respectfully disagree,it is not a stereotype,I see these women and very young girls who do this,they are in public housing and are on welfare.The more children they have the more we pay.

Psst...cityboy...I'll bet most of 'em are colored, too, huh!

cityboy, you severely damage your credibility when your posts are mostly anecdotal and stereotypical while rejecting (or even not reading) the facts, yet alone doing research yourself.

Sally - I believe cityboy works for the government administrating social programs. Therefore, he is bringing his own experience to the table. Yet. As usual, you throw out the typical liberal response.

"C'mon, cityboy, that whole - "women on welfare get pregnant on purpose to get more welfare" is just
a stereotype and not true in the broad sense".

Of course it isn't, any more than the blanket condemnation of deadbeat dads.

"cityboy, you severely damage your credibility when your posts are mostly anecdotal and stereotypical while rejecting (or even not reading) the facts, yet alone doing research yourself."

Sally, when one sees the behavior with one's own eyes what's "anecdotal"? Speak frankly; by "doing research", you mean "ignore what you have learned by your own experience & take someone else's word for it. PhD = Piled higher & Deeper