main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Single parenthood, marriage and the effects on children

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by irishjedi49, Oct 16, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. womberty

    womberty Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2002
    What about all of the MARRIED people who "shouldn't" be having children?

    By whose standards?


    There are millions of people who are married who are not ready to be, nor would make good parents also!

    And whose decision is that? That decision has to be left to the potential parents. Good education can help them realize whether or not they're ready for marriage and/or children, but there will always be some people having children when you would rather they didn't. That's not your job to decide, and it's not the government's job, either.


    Ridiculous double-standard based on out-dated religious dogma, IMO.

    Agreed. I know some people who would rather have their children married at 15 than see them engage in pre-marital sex at 18. I don't think that's right. We can't prevent those people from getting married (after a certain point anyway); all we can do is try to raise awareness about the choices available and the consequences of having sex and getting married.
     
  2. ferelwookie

    ferelwookie Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 4, 2001
    By whose standards?

    Exactly my point. Who is to decide if UNmarried people should or shouldn't reproduce? Why the double-standard?

    And whose decision is that? That decision has to be left to the potential parents. Good education can help them realize whether or not they're ready for marriage and/or children, but there will always be some people having children when you would rather they didn't. That's not your job to decide, and it's not the government's job, either.

    Nor is it society's...agreed, but the same holds true for those who have children out of wed-lock.



     
  3. irishjedi49

    irishjedi49 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Do you have any statistical data to support this conclusion?

    Darth Snowdog, the statistical data that's relevant is that two out of every three (two out of three!) black children born in America today are born to a single mother. You're right that race is not the single most determinative factor; I agree that education is very important. However, the disparity between percentages of children born to white and black unwed mothers in America is undeniable. It is difficult to talk about this issue (in America) without reference to race, even though the social and individual problems that arise from illegitimacy certainly do cross racial lines; it is simply that the issue is even more widespread in the African-American (and Hispanic) communities than among whites.

    Why is it MORE acceptable if THEY have a child ("unplanned" or not) but are not ready or really totally willing to raise it "right"? Ridiculous double-standard based on out-dated religious dogma, IMO.

    I disagree; I think, and it's objectively demonstrable, that marriage really is better, for the children and for families as a whole. Whether or not you think it should be more acceptable than not to have children in marriage (you're entitled to your opinion), the overwhelming evidence is that children do better in two-parent homes. They are five times less likely to live in poverty, for one thing. They receive better grades, have fewer psychological issues, are less likely to be incarcerated, or have children out of wedlock themselves.

    Marriage is also safer for children. From one article about DOJ statistics I read, "Justice Department figures show that mothers who never marry are abused at three times the rate of married, separated, and divorced couples combined. Children are six times more likely to be abused in a step-family, 13 times more likely in a family with a single mother living alone, 20 times more likely in a cohabiting natural family, and 33 times more likely if they live with their natural mother and a boyfriend who isn't their father."

    I have tremendous respect for single mothers who are raising their children the best way they know how, if they are doing it because they have escaped an abusive situation, lost a spouse, or made a difficult choice but are committed to making the most of it. (I also respect those who are trying for a second time to make marriage work.) It's just undeniable that children do better in two-parent homes. Children need their fathers. And part of this, as some people have said, is taking responsibility - after a child is born, if that's what happens, but also before: avoid getting pregnant outside of marriage in the first place, by not having sex (or using birth control). Though the latter option is not nearly as effective.

    Are there exceptions, are there some instances where children are not best off in a family with their married parents? Doubtless. But the preponderance of the evidence shows that is an exception. The frequently heard canard about "better to live with one good parent than two bad ones" is a bit of a false dichotomy: this is not what is normally at stake. Marriage really is better. There needs to be more education in this regard.
     
  4. irishjedi49

    irishjedi49 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 23, 2002
    I've asked a mod to change the title of this thread to be more about children in single-parent families, so that the term 'illegitimate' doesn't offend or mislabel -- since I emphatically agree that it's not the children who are illegitimate.
     
  5. Humble extra

    Humble extra Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 1999
    i think i read some stats somewhere that showed whites had higher illegitimacy than blacks till the 1950s.......

    anyway, as far as I am aware, without having ever studied this in any great depth illegimate births have been a constant in modern industrial societies, perhaps before then as well, but then most family records were maintained by the Churches, so i guess we will never know.....trying to blame illegitimate births on very recent social changes in the last 50 years seems to imply that the natural state of humanity is in some formal, monogamous relationship, when in fact that is just for these purposes a christian ideal
     
  6. Coolguy4522

    Coolguy4522 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2000
    When has single parenthood ever been widespread throughout an entire society for a sustained period of time? I can't think of any, but if you can, please let me know.
     
  7. irishjedi49

    irishjedi49 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Thanks, KesselRunner!

    trying to blame illegitimate births on very recent social changes in the last 50 years seems to imply that the natural state of humanity is in some formal, monogamous relationship, when in fact that is just for these purposes a christian ideal

    Well, it would certainly be easier for those who want to argue against formal monogamous relationships if history didn't tend to (statistically and generally) overwhelmingly support the institution of marriage, especially (but not exclusively) in Western society. But even in societies where the pretense to respect marriage has been just that, a pretense, still the ideal was maintained, because most societies have recognized the value of marriage to society.

    But the numbers aren't made up; they have in fact increased dramatically in the last 50 years. In 1950, the illegitimacy rate for non-Hispanic whites and blacks in America was, respectively, 2% and 18%. Today, it's 22.5% and 67%. What's changed? Those "social changes", read: sexual "revolution". (BTW, perhaps in absolute numbers, there may be more births to unwed white mothers than black -- I don't know -- but the percentages are vastly disparate, for whatever reason.)

    Coolguy, I don't think it has been at any point, I think you're right. It would be interesting to see if there's a contrary example out there, however. (Though one example certainly wouldn't disprove a general rule!) :)
     
  8. Coolguy4522

    Coolguy4522 Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 21, 2000
    Although formal marriage hasn't been always maintained, it has been a general rule for most of human history, and the family, whatever form it may be, has always been an important part of society, and with the destruction of such a basic unit of society, I feel that it is very hard for society to cope with such a thing and is detrimental to all of us.

    One force that has lead me to believe this is my religion, but in the distopia books I have read it seems all of them portray a lack of families as a primary cause of the faults of society.
     
  9. POLUNIS

    POLUNIS Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Education is helpful in some regards, but simply educating people is certainly not going to guarantee they will make better decisions...especially regarding sexual matters. Do we need educated idiots or self-controlled, responsible people? I would prefer more of the latter. If the latter are educated, it is an added bonus. Education can be looked upon as icing on a cake, but the actual cake portion has to be satisfactory in order for the frosting to really complement it sufficiently; you cannot redeem a bad cake with frosting, but you can improve an already delicious cake with it.
     
  10. womberty

    womberty Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Do we need educated idiots or self-controlled, responsible people?

    And how do people become self-controlled and responsible without an education? If you were just planning to give them instructions on their sexual behavior (e.g. "just don't do it"), that doesn't sound much like self-control to me.
     
  11. Humble extra

    Humble extra Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 1999
    i am not entirely convinced....just from the impressions i got studying european, and especially british history in the 19th century illegitimacy was a lot more common that you would think, what with the whole "victorian" mindset and all....however i will concede that i am not certain about this, having not studied tooo much social history.

    factors i would think that support illegitimacy in pre 20th century:
    -lack of effective birth control-no condoms, no pills, abortion extremely dangerous--therefore very hard to prevent accidental pregnancy, or dispose of the consequences safely
    -high cost of marriage/setting up household
    -high number of orphanages/orphans in historical fact and popular literature of the times-implying large numbers of children not "accounted for"
    -poor communications and transportation-lack of cheap transport/communication meant that to a large extent if you could excape you home environment, then you could start afresh in a new town/country without anyone knowing your past
    -industrilisation/urbanisation-married men often just moved to the city to find work, left wife children at home for long periods-temptation to start new family/relationship for both parties-this can be seen in many industrialising countries today eg South Africa
     
  12. Waning Drill

    Waning Drill Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 1999
    Perhaps, but how realistic is that? People aren't just going to stop having sex outside of marriage. I think education about and easy access to birth control is a much more practical solution.


    If people will not refrain from fornication, then the government shouldn't have to hold their hand when they screw up. Don't want a kid? Get a vasectomy or something.

    Contraceptives are not some scarce, hard-to-come-by resource reserved for the wealthy. They have ads for the things on freaking billboards for God's sake. They're really not all that expensive. And if you can't afford at the most 3/4 of the products out there then I'm sorry, but you sure can't afford a kid in its place!

    Hell, if you're that much of a nymphomaniac you can go buy a bag of rubbers at CVS for $2.35.
     
  13. tenorjedi

    tenorjedi Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 2000
    You know untill I started working as a tax preparer I never, never, would have thought that people would get pregnant for social welfare and refundable tax credits. After 3 years of seeing it first hand I have to say that it is doing more harm than good. There's is literally a culture of poverty in this nation that has become an accetable and promoted way of life for people. They've accepted their status and have no desire to change it. People literally plan their lives off of their refund (well you have to pay to get a refund) checks. These people actually earn less than they could because they can take home just as much and work less because of EIC and ACTC. It's like winning the lottery to these people.

    And they won't get married because that will take away the credit. And even more sickening is when the mom brings in their 13 or 14 year old daughter and "teaches" them how to work the system and just what to say. Preparing them for that inevitable child to come in 2 or 3 years. It sickens me, and I want to slap some sense into them. But if you think about it $4000 tax free is motivation for murder, why wouldn't it be motivation for working the system as well? (hell it's 2 1/2 months takehome pay for me, and then it annoys me more to think "wow there goes all my federal income tax going to someone who "earned" that by sitting on her arse instead of working. Yeay socialism!!!")

    Don't believe me? Get a job working during tax season anywhere near low income housing or a trailer home and you'll see what I mean. Ask someone that works in the business about it. It's crazy and I probably wouldn't believe it either if I didn't see it first hand but in the US, EIC and ACTC are one of the biggest reason for single parent homes. That's why we're seeing the statistics that we are. This isn't a conspiracy theory or some baseless accusation, this is how it actually works. And whats worse is that the amounts keep going up.
     
  14. POLUNIS

    POLUNIS Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    People can be self-controlled and responsible with little or no education to speak of. Do we actually need to teach these children how to have sex? Besides, if we are going to teach them anything, let us teach them life skills.
     
  15. naw ibo

    naw ibo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 1999
    The big difference is that when people got pregnant in past centuries, they just got married because of it. If you compare the marriage and birth records which were kept in the past, there are actually an inordinantly large amount of children who are born like six months after the wedding. :) I was watching something on The History Channel a few weeks ago and they mentioned that in Puritan New England statistics from the marriage and birth records show that something like 40% of brides were already pregnant.

    So not only do you have all the "long visits to a sick aunt" situations, you've got the quickie shotgun marriages, the secret adoptions, infanticides, secret and risky abortions.

    And most single parent studies which have been adjusted for income level show that income has more of an impact on how much trouble the kid gets into than just about anything.
     
  16. darthmomm

    darthmomm Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 16, 2001
    well guys......

    My son is......"illegitamate". First of all, I hate that term. It is outdated and tends to promote stereo types.

    Now, lets look at the facts here: they may shed some light on the...ahem...'problem'.

    Now, many children born out of wedlock, are born into poverty, uneducated families, and low social status.

    because of that, parents lack the resources to make good parents. These parents are victims of a society that does not allow them to go back to school, or find them help.

    The child protective agencies are backwards and incredibly flawed.

    So, with these single parents who are stuck in low paying jobs that often do not give them the opportunity to better themselves (employee ignorance propagates financial opportunities for the business owners) they get stucj in a circle.

    Living in high crime areas because it is the only place they can afford.
    Improper child care, lack of money.
    High incicdence of substance abuse (gets depressing not being able to take care of ones child)
    High incidents of forms of abuse(emotional, sexual, physical)

    Thus, completing the circle.

    Now, these children grow up to perhaps start another circle, because they do not know better. They have not been showed another way...so, what do we do about it?

    But lets not put poor children in this neat little box. Lets look at something here,

    Harris and Klebold came from upper middle class families that were not divorced.

    Children who kilkl thier parents statistically ARE NOT POOR ILLIGITAMATE CHILDREN!!

    They are white, upper middle class brats who married parents don't care!
    These are the children who commit extremely violent crimes.
    And when they do, it is the proverbial "where did society go wrong"? But when an inner city black kid gets caught in a drive buy, we RARELY hear about it.

    We as a society promote ignorannce by not giving these people education.

    The problem is not single parent hood my friends, it is the lack of education, lack of recourses, lack of basic human kindness that is the problem.

    Now, I was a young single mother. My son is not a bastard (except when he comes home after he loses a game :D )
    I was poor.
    I lacked education.
    I lacked resources
    poor white trash some would have called me... [face_plain]
    but I made it. and my kid will be a success.



    Let's look at marriage in the 50's.

    The incidents of drug addiction and alcoholism where no lowere in the 50's that they are now. They were just hidden better. (in fact, morphine addiction was at it's highest, morphine is heroin based)
    Yes, marriages stayed together, but, domestic abuse was SKY high. So was pedophelia, and other types of sexual abuse.
    Woman were kept uneducated, and african americans were kept in the back of the bus.

    These are the parents who gave birth to the people who now are responsible for the statistics of today. Is it better, or is it worse?
     
  17. Jedi_Master_Mom

    Jedi_Master_Mom Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    May 29, 2002
    I think the majority of women who need help from the state do it as as temporary means...though there are few hard-core ones who still refuse to work. When I had my oldest I was on AFDC for a year and a half, when I found a job that allowed me to have my son with me I still didn't make much...600 dollars a month plus a room...I qualified for earned income credit, which gave me about $3000 extra a year. I did use a small amount to buy luxeries, but the rest went for my education so I could get a better job. Thats what these programs are there for...as a means to help people get back on their feet, should we not have them since a minority abuse the system?

    Even married people can qualified for earned income credit...the first 2 years when we were married and my husband was apprenticing as an Electician we qualified.

    Marriage is an ideal for a family. But a child should only see a mariage where the parents love each other. Some people are better parents when they are not married. THe child doesn't witness constant arguements, fights, screaming and yelling and two very miserable people living together, this can scar a child for life. I know that the right thing for me was not to marry my oldests father, it would have been horrible sitution, I married my husband because I loved him. My children see a lovely couple that will influence how they will behave and will look for in relationships in the future.

    My parents married because my mom was pregnant with me. I blamed myself for a very long time each time they fought and how miserable they both were. They are two very incompatable people who never should have married in the first place. It did scar me and I have only been able to work though it with counseling. Marriage should be for love, not because society deems it to be the only right type family.

     
  18. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    I just like to add a quick comment.

    The whole point of getting married is to provide a stable base for raising children.

    If you take children out of the equation, there is no reason (at least nowadays) to get married.
     
  19. Jedi_Master_Mom

    Jedi_Master_Mom Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    May 29, 2002
    The point of getting married is because you want to spend the rest of your life with one person because you love them.

    There are many married couples who never have children.

    Someday children will grow up and leave the house and you will still be with that person.

     
  20. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    I was just browsing this thread, and thought I'd give my two pence:

    Despite the fact I'm an avid Marxist (or perhaps, because of, depending on your opinion of Marxism), I'm a strong believer in traditional family values. I think a loving, two-parent family is the ideal for any child, and as someone who spent half childhood with one, and half his childhood without (i.e., I was born into a family with my biological mother and father, spent my early teen years (13-17) with my mother, then the remainder of my time at home with my mother and her boyfriend (who was a great man, and did everything he could to fulfill a traditional paternal role)), I think I'm qualified to make such a statement.

    However, I wouldn't advocate this situation being used under any circumstances. In the extreme cases of domestic violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc., it of course makes sense that a single-parent family is the best option. It can eradicate, or at least minimise, the hardship inflicted on the children (unless they end up with the 'bad' parent, in which case there'd be no difference). Even in the case that the parents no longer love one another/are attracted to each other, I think it can be advisable to split - kids aren't stupid, they can sense when that kind of thing is going on, and it can seriously screw up their conceptions of what a healthy relationship is like.

    Now, that said, I still think a conventional two-parent 'nuclear family' is probably the closest we can get to familial perfection. There's the material benefit of two incomes, and two people looking out for the children's safety and wellbeing, but also the mutual support in such a parental relationship. In my experience - I'm sure there must be statistical evidence to prove it somewhere[/v], but that isn't my point - it's also a lot more stable.

    In response to 'tenorjedi,' I think your comments are a little unfair. I'm sure there are people that work the benefit system, and some that even get pregnant just for that purpose (though I'd be hesitant to say it's wide-scale), but I seriously doubt that it's the number-one cause for single-parent families in America. I'm sure there must be a 'study' somewhere that shows it is, but I'd be highly interested to know how credible said 'study' is, and their research methods. I think there's just too many reasons for single-parent families - be it an increasing single-parent culture, domestic problems, lack of love between the mother and father, and so on - to say that it's the biggest, or even one of the biggest reasons for single-parent families. I think you're treading on dangerous ground when you accuse so many millions of only choosing to have a single-parent family because of tax benefits.

    - TSB.
     
  21. Darth_SnowDog

    Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2001
    People can be self-controlled and responsible with little or no education to speak of. Do we actually need to teach these children how to have sex? Besides, if we are going to teach them anything, let us teach them life skills.

    I think understanding sexual reproduction is about as basic as it gets when talking about "life skills". Just because we are self-conscious and afraid of our bodies doesn't mean we should run and hide away from understanding how they work.

    If you don't teach your children the facts of life... what kind of risk do you think that poses to your child? If you don't educate them... someone or something else will.

    Single parenthood isn't the problem... unprepared, undereducated, and underfunded parenthood is.

    Where it once was the responsibility of the entire tribe to raise a child, we have become isolationists, perversely fixed on "needing" our "space"... such that we avoid discussing the facts of life with our kids, and we send our parents to retirement homes.

    We have taught ourselves to effectively extricate ourselves from the kind of social structure that could prevent a child from being without adequate support.

    If two people with sub-poverty incomes and a shaky relationship get married and have six kids... is marriage solving anything?
     
  22. tenorjedi

    tenorjedi Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 2000
    In response to 'tenorjedi,' I think your comments are a little unfair.

    If I hadn't seen what I've seen I'd agree

    I'm sure there are people that work the benefit system, and some that even get pregnant just for that purpose (though I'd be hesitant to say it's wide-scale),

    Don't be so sure. It's uncanny how many of these single moms make within an hundred of the maximum for the benefit. That's just a weird coinincidence. It's free money up for grabs, and alot of money at that. When you only make 20,000 a year, 4000 is a whole lotta money. I see moms I know are one meth or herioine that take the money, shoot it all up while the baby gets neglected while they're tripping. It's sad, but I legally cannot do anything. In fact I'm bound by law to not say anything without a police warrant.

    but I seriously doubt that it's the number-one cause for single-parent families in America

    No I didn't mean to imply that it was the reason for single parent families and I'm sorry that it came off that way. I meant to include poverty in there. Single parent families in poverty, who's kids are single parents in poverty, yes, absolutely. These aren't all bad people. Trailer moms sitting at home watching their "stories". However even a fairly honest person is tempted by free money.

    As for proof, the only proof I've got aside from imperical evidence is that the 24 loans from tax places, they won't even loan on the max EIC returns. The fraud is so bad they'll pass up 100+% interest rates. That's pretty bad.

    I think there's just too many reasons for single-parent families

    I agree there are lots of reasons, but what I'm seeing is a growing trend, and kids tend to emulate their parents. Money is the number one reason for divorce, why couldn't it be the number one reason for not getting married in the first place? If you combine two incomes, you can kiss EIC and ACTC goodbye.

    I think you're treading on dangerous ground when you accuse so many millions of only choosing to have a single-parent family because of tax benefits

    Again before I started this job I would have agreed with you. Now I'm in the "desert of the real...." There's a very very dark side to social programs. This is the prime example.

    If two people with sub-poverty incomes and a shaky relationship get married and have six kids... is marriage solving anything?

    Marraige for marraige's sake is wrong IMO. If the marraige is obviously doomed from the start it's better for everyone to get child support set up and go on your way. If it were a perfect world, I'd encourage marraige for any parent but the truth is either spouse can be emotionally and physically abusive. Hopefully you'd find that out first but that's another topic for another thread.
     
  23. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    I think, at the moment, tenorjedi, you're using your personal experience as your argument. While personal experience is all well and good, I'd be hesitant to accept that as the 'truth' of any one issue.

    I can understand and respect your argument, but I would like to see some kind of statistics backing your argument before I take a bite. Sorry.

    - TSB.
     
  24. tenorjedi

    tenorjedi Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 2000
    Obviously I wouldn't ask you to go on my word alone TSB

    From the IRS 99 Complliance report * requires Adobe acrobat

    "An estimated $31.3 billion in claims were made by taxpayers who filed tax year 1999 returns in 2000. Approximately $9.9 billion should not have been paid based on upper bound estimates."

    1/3 of the money was claimed in fraud.

    That's just fraud. That says nothing about those working the system.

    A full half (49.5%) of EIC returns were overclaiming their refund amount to get even more money. Meanwhile only 6.8% underclaimed.

    Let me just quantify this for you. 1/2 (with an underclaim of 7% it's safe to say at least 40% by conservative estimates) of the people trying to get this money so badly they're willing to try and defraud the IRS to get it. This is like winning the lottery to them. This is big money. Again this is motivation for murder for some. 31 Billion doled out in TY99. More like 45 billion in 2001 (verbal estimate from the deputy director of the IRS, not yet published results) with the new laws! Again this is free money, that they never paid in. This is huge.
     
  25. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Tenorjedi,

    Ok, those figures seem convincing enough, but I don't see how they relate to single-parent families. I read your note a couple of times, and I didn't see the connection. It could have something to do with my not being American, or having terrible comprehension skills at the moment, though...


    - TSB
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.