Political Crossfire Forums

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Kumar wrote: With all other things equal, a stable family of two adults providing for their children is the best way to raise productive members of society. A breakdown of this social order does come with serious consequences.

Not necessarily. The problem of the social break down comes more from civil discord. In effect, what occurs in highly individualistic societies, there is NOTHING that bounds people together. As the article you posted notes, in Southern European states, religion does that. In Scandinavian countries, civic duty does that. In Canada, an obsession with "nation-building" does that!

In the UK, however, there is nothing that bounds people together. If the ideals of Britishness along with a sense of duty and civic bond are strengthen through various institutions such as schools, army, etc, then I think the changing family structure is NOT necessarily a bad thing.

[sLiPpY]

Ameriman wrote: How does out of wedlock births mean social growth? Don't you think a healthy two-parent home is the best environment for a child?

I'm not sure what the best environment for a child is? I'll give you a few examples.

1. One of my close friends dad left the family when they were five. That kid's done fantastic in life, but still there's that open question and missing?

2. One of my close friends dad ended up in jail for most of that kid's life. The man's dead now, the kid's done well...but always ask what could have been?

3. My dad basically forgot about us, once he remarried. I haven't heard from him in seven years, and it isn't that I haven't tried.

Sometimes, I wonder if all of this social change...and the rise of "gayness" might be due to "over-population" Mother nature's way of attempting to bring humanity back in balance with available resources.

Sometimes, I wonder if it's not all by design...life presents circumstances to teach us things.

What I do know for sure, is that modern "family values" rhetoric is useless. Being it's statistically demonstrable it makes these "societal" health measures "worse."

Maybe it's just that we need to accept the way things are and 'go with it."?

[sLiPpY]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Kumar wrote: With all other things equal, a stable family of two adults providing for their children is the best way to raise productive members of society. A breakdown of this social order does come with serious consequences.

Not necessarily. The problem of the social break down comes more from civil discord. In effect, what occurs in highly individualistic societies, there is NOTHING that bounds people together. As the article you posted notes, in Southern European states, religion does that. In Scandinavian countries, civic duty does that. In Canada, an obsession with "nation-building" does that!

In the UK, however, there is nothing that bounds people together. If the ideals of Britishness along with a sense of duty and civic bond are strengthen through various institutions such as schools, army, etc, then I think the changing family structure is NOT necessarily a bad thing.

Those are some interesting points...the Roman Empire surely had a societal melt down.

The French had a guilded age of Conspicuous Consumption in the midst of the plague, fighting along with the English over control of the French Crown...and a transition from the Feudal to the more modern age.

I think we're at a time, where the ball is in motion...but I'm not quite sure where it will land?

[Kumar]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Kumar wrote: With all other things equal, a stable family of two adults providing for their children is the best way to raise productive members of society. A breakdown of this social order does come with serious consequences.

Not necessarily. The problem of the social break down comes more from civil discord. In effect, what occurs in highly individualistic societies, there is NOTHING that bounds people together. As the article you posted notes, in Southern European states, religion does that. In Scandinavian countries, civic duty does that. In Canada, an obsession with "nation-building" does that!

In the UK, however, there is nothing that bounds people together. If the ideals of Britishness along with a sense of duty and civic bond are strengthen through various institutions such as schools, army, etc, then I think the changing family structure is NOT necessarily a bad thing.
I agree that there need to be factors that bind people within a society together. However, a stable family structure falls into this category. It is a small, collectivist unit that can best develop the character of youth in a manner that no other collectivist unit can. The South European countries are well-known for their committment to the family structure. Scandinavian countries also provide generous benefits for families with children.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Kumar wrote: I agree that there need to be factors that bind people within a society together. However, a stable family structure falls into this category. It is a small, collectivist unit that can best develop the character of youth in a manner that no other collectivist unit can. The South European countries are well-known for their committment to the family structure. Scandinavian countries also provide generous benefits for families with children.

"Traditional" family isn't necessarily required. In fact, if conditions where a single mother/father could bring up a child on their own could be provided, then there is nothing to say that such child would be any worse off than their peers. Of course, the single parents usually have problems because of the lower income status and lower education and that will be the main problem for the children brought up by single parents.

Also, another thing you have to consider is the style of parenting. In the Western world, parenting as an Art form has been lost. Now, parents don't spend time with their children because of their work requirements, so again that in effect leads to the erosion of quality parent-child time together and instead it is filled by peers and video games, which leads to various problems.

sLiPpY wrote: Those are some interesting points...the Roman Empire surely had a societal melt down.

The French had a guilded age of Conspicuous Consumption in the midst of the plague, fighting along with the English over control of the French Crown...and a transition from the Feudal to the more modern age.

I think we're at a time, where the ball is in motion...but I'm not quite sure where it will land?

I certainly think you are right. Highly individualistic societies like the UK are at the forefront of change. The whole social structures are undergoing change. Change always brings about so many negative things. Look back at industrialization and class wars in the late 19th and early 20th century! Out of that era, a progressive developed society emerged. Now once again, the wheels are in motion. The Western world is inevitably moving towards drastic changes. It's just a question of how long it will take for the new order to emerge and how costly will it be?

[Kumar]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Western world is inevitably moving towards drastic changes.
It's moving in the wrong direction, unfortunately.

[Thrilla]

Kumar wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Western world is inevitably moving towards drastic changes.
It's moving in the wrong direction, unfortunately. agreed

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Kumar wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Western world is inevitably moving towards drastic changes.
It's moving in the wrong direction, unfortunately.

I would say a person living at the end of the 19th century witnessing the urban sprawls and children being killed by the machines in factories in Manchester, UK would have said the same thing. However, I have faith that the society eventually adapts to the new conditions.

[sLiPpY]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Kumar wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Western world is inevitably moving towards drastic changes.
It's moving in the wrong direction, unfortunately.

I would say a person living at the end of the 19th century witnessing the urban sprawls and children being killed by the machines in factories in Manchester, UK would have said the same thing. However, I have faith that the society eventually adapts to the new conditions.

Perhaps, each human lifetime has witness a transition period?

For me I think the catalyst was 9/11...not the event itself. In that the event upon itself is irrelevant, in context to our government and societal response to it. I think that instead of bringing Americans together, it made us more aware of what's "wrong in the world", what's "wrong in our own lives" and it's been compounded by changes that only serve to remind us..."we're less free."

Which is a very American centric, and not well-formulated viewpoint...

But I still percieve Sept 22nd vs the 11th as being the major catalyst for social change vs. the event itself. aka "how people chose to respond to it."

[Ek0nomik]

ABC News wrote: TEEN BIRTH RATE AT RECORD LOW Today, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report on birth statistics for the nation based on 99 percent of the birth certificates filed in the United States in 2005. They found that the teen birth rate is at its lowest level ever, 40.4 births per 1,000, which represents a 35 percent decrease from 1991. The report also found that the total number of births in the United States increased by 1 percent over the total from 2004. The number of births to unmarried mothers rose 4 percent from the previous year, as did the preterm birth rate and the percentage of babies born at low birth weights.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2671860&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Federali]

I wish these Liberals would divide the stats by race.

Fact of the matter is, most of the out-of-wedlock births are most common among Blacks and Hispanics. This also destroys the myth of so called "Hispanic family value". An oxymoron if there ever was one.

[homerjay_s]

sLiPpY wrote: 37 Percent of U.S. Births Out of Wedlock

Published: 11/21/06, 8:25 PM EDT
By MIKE STOBBE

ATLANTA (AP) - Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year, government health officials said Tuesday.

While out-of-wedlock births have long been associated with teen mothers, the birth rate among girls ages 10 to 17 actually dropped last year to the lowest level on record. Instead, births among unwed mothers rose most dramatically among women in their 20s.

Experts said the overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married. They said it also reflects the fact that having a child out of wedlock is more acceptable nowadays and not necessarily the source of shame it once was.
The increase in births to unwed mothers was seen in all racial groups, but rose most sharply among Hispanics. It was up among all age groups except youngsters ages 10 to 17.

"A lot of people think of teenagers and unmarried mothers synonymously, but they are not driving this," said Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics, a co-author of the report.

The government also reported that the rate of births by Caesarean delivery continued to climb in 2005 to a record high, despite efforts by public health authorities to bring down the number.

Many experts believe a large number of C-sections are medically unnecessary and done only for the convenience of the mother or her doctor.

The government report includes information from 99 percent of U.S. birth certificates filed last year. The information for 2005 is considered preliminary, but officials said it is not expected to change much.

About 4.1 million babies were born in the United States last year, up slightly from 2004. More than 1.5 million of those were to unmarried women; that is about 37 percent of the total. In 2004, about 36 percent of births were out of wedlock.

Out-of-wedlock births have been rising since the late 1990s.

Several factors may be contributing to the trend, said Dr. Yolanda Wimberly, an adolescent-medicine specialist at Atlanta's Morehouse School of Medicine.

More women in their 30s and 40s, hearing their biological clock, are choosing to give birth despite their single status. Younger women are not as worried about being unmarried, either, she added.

"I think it's more acceptable in society" to have a child without getting married, she said.

Just because a mother is not married does not mean the father isn't around, Ventura noted. She cited 2002 statistics that showed that about 20 percent of all new mothers under 20 were unmarried but living with the father at the time of the birth. The same was true of about 13 percent of all new mothers ages 20 to 24.

According to census figures, the median age at first marriage was 27 for men and 25 for women last year, up from 23 and 20 in 1950. Meanwhile, the number of unmarried-couple households with children has been climbing, hitting more than 1.7 million last year, up from under 200,000 in 1970.

Other findings in the report:

The birth rate among teenagers declined 2 percent in 2005, continuing a trend from the early 1990s. The rate is now about 40 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19. That is the lowest level in the 65 years for which a consistent series of rates is available.

The U.S. teen birth rate is still the highest among industrialized countries.

Births to women in their early 20s rose slightly, to 102 births per 1,000 women ages 20 to 24. Births to women in their late 20s - the most productive group in terms of childbirth - was about the same from the previous year, at about 116 per 1,000 women ages 25 to 29.

The C-section rate rose to 30.2 percent of all births in 2005, an increase of 1 percentage point from the previous year. The rate has risen by nearly half since 1996.

"It is clear that the procedure is being overused," Tonya Jamois, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, said in a statement. ICAN is a California-based nonprofit organization focused on lowering C-section rates.



Oh, my how things have changed. I chose the P&G vs. "Society" to post the story, because I wanted to ask if the Government should limit C-Sections to "medical reasons" only?

The social fabric is broken? or is society simply growing and evolving as it should with changing times?

I have four children born legally out of wedlock. All with the same woman, I now call her my wife. We have been together for over 10 years, however, we did live apart for about a year and a half in the middle, so technically we are not common law married. Part of the reason we never got married is because we were very young when our first was born, and we couldn't afford the wedding she wanted. As time moved on, it really just started to not matter, and honestly, I have for a long time felt that I do not need the state or a religious institution to validate my feelings. I have always voluntarily taken care of my children and their mother. I find men that do not handle their responsibility to women they impregnate and the resulting offspring to be a far more pressing issue in our society than whether or not the parents were married when the kid was born.

[_Kev_]

Federali wrote: I wish these Liberals would divide the stats by race.

Fact of the matter is, most of the out-of-wedlock births are most common among Blacks and Hispanics. This also destroys the myth of so called "Hispanic family value". An oxymoron if there ever was one.

Hateful and irrelevant.

Don't we have forum rules for this sort of post?

[_Kev_]

homerjay_s wrote:
I have four children born legally out of wedlock. All with the same woman, I now call her my wife. We have been together for over 10 years, however, we did live apart for about a year and a half in the middle, so technically we are not common law married. Part of the reason we never got married is because we were very young when our first was born, and we couldn't afford the wedding she wanted. As time moved on, it really just started to not matter, and honestly, I have for a long time felt that I do not need the state or a religious institution to validate my feelings. I have always voluntarily taken care of my children and their mother. I find men that do not handle their responsibility to women they impregnate and the resulting offspring to be a far more pressing issue in our society than whether or not the parents were married when the kid was born.

My wife and I did roughly the same, only with one kid and we bit the marriage bullet when her father was on his deathbed. To us, and I think you'd agree, marriage was just a word. It didn't change anything but our taxes and health insurance.

As responsible unmarried fathers, we're probably the exceptions. At least according to popular knowledge.

At any rate, this certainly has nothing to do with government responsiblity. The state should keep its nose out of my bed and my wife's uterus.

[Kumar]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
"Traditional" family isn't necessarily required. In fact, if conditions where a single mother/father could bring up a child on their own could be provided, then there is nothing to say that such child would be any worse off than their peers. Of course, the single parents usually have problems because of the lower income status and lower education and that will be the main problem for the children brought up by single parents.

Also, another thing you have to consider is the style of parenting. In the Western world, parenting as an Art form has been lost. Now, parents don't spend time with their children because of their work requirements, so again that in effect leads to the erosion of quality parent-child time together and instead it is filled by peers and video games, which leads to various problems.
Yes, the benefits of a traditional family typically include more financial security and more resources in general. It also translates into more time available to be spent with children, especially if one of the parents stays at home. This is crucial to child development at a young age and for guidance in the later years of youth. There are also larger extended families for support and interaction. There are some cases where a single parent will do a better job than two parents, but generally it is not the case, partly due to the reasons you and I have mentioned.

[Kumar]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Kumar wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: The Western world is inevitably moving towards drastic changes.
It's moving in the wrong direction, unfortunately.

I would say a person living at the end of the 19th century witnessing the urban sprawls and children being killed by the machines in factories in Manchester, UK would have said the same thing. However, I have faith that the society eventually adapts to the new conditions.
Maybe, but social change (depending on its nature) can also be something that brings societies to their knees.

[Chymical]

Federali wrote: I wish these Liberals would divide the stats by race.

Fact of the matter is, most of the out-of-wedlock births are most common among Blacks and Hispanics. This also destroys the myth of so called "Hispanic family value". An oxymoron if there ever was one.

I'd like some ice cream with my troll pie please 8:)

family values is code for possession of women. jealousy, fear and possession is something no family should be based around. Love between adults is oh so fickle, true love for the children never is or should be...

the only thing I can lament is the rise in deadbeat dads and bad mothers who were never shown the way as kids themselves because of a decrepit and fallacious theory of matrimonial wonderment.

Stuff wedlock, stuff 'family values'. Love is the law ;)

[homerjay_s]

KRiche2 wrote: homerjay_s wrote:
I have four children born legally out of wedlock. All with the same woman, I now call her my wife. We have been together for over 10 years, however, we did live apart for about a year and a half in the middle, so technically we are not common law married. Part of the reason we never got married is because we were very young when our first was born, and we couldn't afford the wedding she wanted. As time moved on, it really just started to not matter, and honestly, I have for a long time felt that I do not need the state or a religious institution to validate my feelings. I have always voluntarily taken care of my children and their mother. I find men that do not handle their responsibility to women they impregnate and the resulting offspring to be a far more pressing issue in our society than whether or not the parents were married when the kid was born.

My wife and I did roughly the same, only with one kid and we bit the marriage bullet when her father was on his deathbed. To us, and I think you'd agree, marriage was just a word. It didn't change anything but our taxes and health insurance.

As responsible unmarried fathers, we're probably the exceptions. At least according to popular knowledge.

At any rate, this certainly has nothing to do with government responsiblity. The state should keep its nose out of my bed and my wife's uterus.

Agreed. Marriage should not be a political issue, nor should sexual activity nor reproduction. I would also like to add that it's time to end discrimination based on marital status.

[homerjay_s]

Federali wrote: I wish these Liberals would divide the stats by race.

Fact of the matter is, most of the out-of-wedlock births are most common among Blacks and Hispanics. This also destroys the myth of so called "Hispanic family value". An oxymoron if there ever was one.

Hmm, I have four out of wedlock, and I'm as whiteboy as one can be.

[The Russian]

I believe in Germany theres actualy a tax incentive to stay unmarried but co-habitate with a kid. Not that they meant to do it, or maybe they did, but a full fam gets taxed heavier than two cohabitants.

Wish it was the same way in the US... somehow I feel the push of marriage is a religious agenda more than familial security.