In cases where the single mother is not a competent parent, it should be easier to remove the child and place with extented family where possible. Conceiving the first child before marriage has not been uncommon for a very long time. What has changed for the worse is the glorification of single mothers. The 22 year old mom in Florida who murdered her little girl, was, before the murder, the typical "brave single mom" hailed at the DNC convention. There are too many of these shallow party-girl single moms out there.
So chand you'll be voting for Obama to protest parents who let these kinds of shenanigans go on? I thought the whole RNC platform was to celebrate single mothers who choose to keep the child, regardless of age/circumstance.
Charles, It is unfortunate and a little embarrassing that Bristol Palin is pregnant and unmarried. And if there were no plans to marry the father, her mother would lose alot of support. But the point is to promote stable families. We all have friends or family who could have made baby shower announcements at the wedding.
c hand, can't let you off the hook that easy. Would you say the same about black kids in Larry's ministry? How about the Obama girls? Double standard, dude!
Gee, I remember the “old” days when my mom used to comment that a girl had gotten into trouble and it was a disgrace. A shotgun marriage was performed and they were expected to live happily ever after. Unfortunately, marriage does not mean “stability” and too many times the marriage ends in divorce. I used to have the snooty attitude myself until my teenage daughter ended up pregnant. She made the decision to keep her baby and I supported her decision. She decided not to marry the father because he was not demonstrating stable behavior and it became apparent that she DID make the right decision about the marriage. She did marry a good man later who took good care of her and her young son and loved them unconditionally. Under no circumstances would I consider my daughter a shallow party girl. There are good single moms and there are bad single moms. There are also good married parents and bad married parents so let’s not label someone who MAY have made a poor choice at one point in her life as shallow or a partier. You have to look at the big picture with all of this and whatever decision that is made needs to be in the best interest of the child. Marriage is not always the answer. In the meantime, if abstinence is not going to work why can’t we focus more on male birth control since the men are just as responsible for the pregnancy as the women!
Here is a good argument against the abstinence only sex education: http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=3626&format=html
If we insist in abstinence only we have a moral duty to provide the care needed for the mother and unborn child. Otherwise, the position is just plain hypocritical.
Double standard? Doesn't Larry work to discourage teen pregnancy? Doesn't he work to keep viable couples together for the good of the child? Does he encourage extended family members to rally to the cause? Why do we need a double standard?
As for Obama, I think he's on the record saying he would advise abortion for his girls because he doesn't "want them punished with a baby"
Girls who have sex with men that they don't want to marry, are damaging the country.
The Wilt Chamberlain playaz have been and will always be around, ready, and willing to bed available girls. What has changed in the last 40 years is the number of girls available for bedding.
In previous times society's taboo against being cheap and easy worked to protect these vulnerable girls against rash disisions. Who is better off when it is removed.
I'm very grateful that you took the time to post this link to my blog on yours. It's provoked an interesting discussion on mine as well as here.
I'd particularly like to share this comment posted today by a good friend of mine, a theologian, John, whom I characterize as 'the smartest person I know, and also one of the best human beings I've met.' It's well worth a careful reading:
"Karen, as always, the commitment of your heart leads to cries of prophetic truth. Let me respond technically from a theological viewpoint. The difficulty you describe comes under an ethical discussion of cooperation with evil. If, morally, you consider the persons you are aiding to be committing some kind of wrong, by supporting them in this situation, are you cooperating with an evil action? In the case of street marriages, allowing street couples to live together to help them in their pregnancy would not fall under the categories of formal cooperation or immediate material cooperation. According to mainstream ethics, such formal or immediate cooperation would be morally problematic, where the “evil” action could not occur without your aid. However, the street couple will live together whether or not you allow them into your shelter. Aiding them while allowing them to live together would be considered a type of mediate material cooperation. In such cooperation, your actions are not essential to the problematic action. The goal of the cooperation must be proportionately valuable in relation to the action supported. And one must seek to avoid scandal. In the case you describe, such a consideration would be not only morally acceptable but almost morally absolute, given that your goal is protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child.
The example of Jesus often demonstrates such an attitude, and his concern for scandal was not very highly attuned. He seemed to cause scandal wherever he went. If we only seek to aid people if and when they free themselves from their faults, we won’t have many people to help. From a Christian perspective, Christ came to heal the sick, not the healthy. The reality of aiding the homeless is that we have to help these real people in all their great strengths and weaknesses, without demanding that they reform themselves in order to be served. We can hope for their growth and rehabilitation, but we certainly can’t demand it as a contractual obligation. Like Mother Teresa, we must love the poor as they are, not as we would wish them to be. And we must love ourselves as we are as well and not expect that we must be perfect in order to serve others."
From Pregnant and On the Street, 2008/09/15 at 7:30 AM
11 comments:
In cases where the single mother is not a competent parent, it should be easier to remove the child and place with extented family where possible.
Conceiving the first child before marriage has not been uncommon for a very long time. What has changed for the worse is the glorification of single mothers. The 22 year old mom in Florida who murdered her little girl, was, before the murder, the typical "brave single mom" hailed at the DNC convention. There are too many of these shallow party-girl single moms out there.
So chand you'll be voting for Obama to protest parents who let these kinds of shenanigans go on? I thought the whole RNC platform was to celebrate single mothers who choose to keep the child, regardless of age/circumstance.
Larry, thanks for the link.
Charles, It is unfortunate and a little embarrassing that Bristol Palin is pregnant and unmarried. And if there were no plans to marry the father, her mother would lose alot of support. But the point is to promote stable families. We all have friends or family who could have made baby shower announcements at the wedding.
Life happens.
c hand, can't let you off the hook that easy. Would you say the same about black kids in Larry's ministry? How about the Obama girls? Double standard, dude!
Gee, I remember the “old” days when my mom used to comment that a girl had gotten into trouble and it was a disgrace. A shotgun marriage was performed and they were expected to live happily ever after. Unfortunately, marriage does not mean “stability” and too many times the marriage ends in divorce. I used to have the snooty attitude myself until my teenage daughter ended up pregnant. She made the decision to keep her baby and I supported her decision. She decided not to marry the father because he was not demonstrating stable behavior and it became apparent that she DID make the right decision about the marriage. She did marry a good man later who took good care of her and her young son and loved them unconditionally.
Under no circumstances would I consider my daughter a shallow party girl. There are good single moms and there are bad single moms. There are also good married parents and bad married parents so let’s not label someone who MAY have made a poor choice at one point in her life as shallow or a partier. You have to look at the big picture with all of this and whatever decision that is made needs to be in the best interest of the child. Marriage is not always the answer. In the meantime, if abstinence is not going to work why can’t we focus more on male birth control since the men are just as responsible for the pregnancy as the women!
Here is a good argument against the abstinence only sex education: http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=3626&format=html
If we insist in abstinence only we have a moral duty to provide the care needed for the mother and unborn child. Otherwise, the position is just plain hypocritical.
Double standard? Doesn't Larry work to discourage teen pregnancy? Doesn't he work to keep viable couples together for the good of the child? Does he encourage extended family members to rally to the cause? Why do we need a double standard?
As for Obama, I think he's on the record saying he would advise abortion for his girls because he doesn't "want them punished with a baby"
Girls who have sex with men that they don't want to marry, are damaging the country.
c hand, so you are assuming that every man that has sex with a women is expecting to marry her if she gets pregnant? Give me a break!!!
The Wilt Chamberlain playaz have been and will always be around, ready, and willing to bed available girls. What has changed in the last 40 years is the number of girls available for bedding.
In previous times society's taboo against being cheap and easy worked to protect these vulnerable girls against rash disisions. Who is better off when it is removed.
COURTS
Travis judge tells woman to stop having kids
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/12/0912salazar.html
Larry,
I'm very grateful that you took the time to post this link to my blog on yours. It's provoked an interesting discussion on mine as well as here.
I'd particularly like to share this comment posted today by a good friend of mine, a theologian, John, whom I characterize as 'the smartest person I know, and also one of the best human beings I've met.' It's well worth a careful reading:
"Karen, as always, the commitment of your heart leads to cries of prophetic truth. Let me respond technically from a theological viewpoint. The difficulty you describe comes under an ethical discussion of cooperation with evil. If, morally, you consider the persons you are aiding to be committing some kind of wrong, by supporting them in this situation, are you cooperating with an evil action? In the case of street marriages, allowing street couples to live together to help them in their pregnancy would not fall under the categories of formal cooperation or immediate material cooperation. According to mainstream ethics, such formal or immediate cooperation would be morally problematic, where the “evil” action could not occur without your aid. However, the street couple will live together whether or not you allow them into your shelter. Aiding them while allowing them to live together would be considered a type of mediate material cooperation. In such cooperation, your actions are not essential to the problematic action. The goal of the cooperation must be proportionately valuable in relation to the action supported. And one must seek to avoid scandal. In the case you describe, such a consideration would be not only morally acceptable but almost morally absolute, given that your goal is protecting the life of the mother and the unborn child.
The example of Jesus often demonstrates such an attitude, and his concern for scandal was not very highly attuned. He seemed to cause scandal wherever he went. If we only seek to aid people if and when they free themselves from their faults, we won’t have many people to help. From a Christian perspective, Christ came to heal the sick, not the healthy. The reality of aiding the homeless is that we have to help these real people in all their great strengths and weaknesses, without demanding that they reform themselves in order to be served. We can hope for their growth and rehabilitation, but we certainly can’t demand it as a contractual obligation. Like Mother Teresa, we must love the poor as they are, not as we would wish them to be. And we must love ourselves as we are as well and not expect that we must be perfect in order to serve others."
From Pregnant and On the Street, 2008/09/15 at 7:30 AM
Post a Comment