Originally Posted By jonvn a two percent drop is a lot better than a rise. I don't know what the deal is with black teenagers, if what you say is true or not. But if it is true, then that really goes back to education. They're not informed well enough as to what the consequences of their actions will be.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<But if it is true, then that really goes back to education. They're not informed well enough as to what the consequences of their actions will be.>> It's not about education, it's about culture. Education: If you have unprotected sex, you will get pregnant. Everyone understands that. Culture: White: Getting pregnant in high school is a bad thing. Black: Becoming a mama is what I want. Sex ed is not going to solve this.
Originally Posted By jonvn Not just sex ed, but showing what it means to your life if you have a kid too early.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Read this book, it will make you think about a lot of things like this topic. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard Herrnstein I'm not saying I agree with all it says, just that it is fantastick food for thought.
Originally Posted By avromark <<Integrated high schools>> Explain. <<It's not about education, it's about culture.>> True, I have a co-worker who pretty much says morals today are crap, I've never voiced it, but I beleive it so. <<White: Getting pregnant in high school is a bad thing.>> It makes a certain mom I know very sad that her daughter actually thinks getting pregnant is a sign of mental and emotional maturity and using abortion as birth control is fun. <<Sex ed is not going to solve this>> Nor is supplying condom machines in high school washrooms. I'm Christian, I think it's one thing for single or common-law moms to have a child, ones that are done high school and have a stable home environment (Ie their own place, a stable job, economic stability, mature attitude, even if truly single without a partner) it's the ones that don't have this that scares me. It's just cultural outlook today, it's not big enough taboo. Teen pregnancy is not seen as much of a bad thing anymore. It's "ok" to have pre-marital sex young. If children truly waited, then whether or not they're married I don't see a wrong. As for supplying condoms, yes accidents happen but it's probably the same people who don't use them regularly. Those that are truly concerned either go celibate or take proper precautions. As a male it's frustrating for me, since if I did have a child under those circumstances (I know I definitely did not) it hurts. I would hate to have a child and not be allowed to see her/him. I would want to be an active part of my life. Even if I get married it worries me that moms often get custody, that they don't truly look who is the better parent. Not saying this is always the case, but I do know men who's wife never worked, they divorce, they have no custody rights, their ex doesn't work and they support their ex and wife. In one case I know she doesn't spend the child support on the child, she'd rather shoot up or get her hair done. But she has custody, and he has visitation (very rare since she decided to move out east).
Originally Posted By avromark Also lets say the male wants to keep the child, but the female doesn't. Nothing is stopping her despite one parent wanting to raise the child.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's "ok" to have pre-marital sex young." It's ok in lots of places. It's a natural event, so it has to be ok. When that's finally realized by christian types, maybe they'll stop blocking approaches that solve the problem of teen pregnancy, which is worse here than in any other industrialized nation. Hmm....
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Cutting assistance that helps kids eat, have a home, be educated, and get medical care is not the best way to solve the problem. The amount of money that an additional kid represents to a mother on AFDC is actually pretty low, and lower than the cost of raising the kid. Cutting off aid isn't going to help do anything but ensure the expansion of criminal activity and make a permanent divide between the classes and races. A child of single parents is statistically more likely to be involved in crime or to have relationship problems in the future, but that is a correlation more than it is a causation. The other factors involved, such as poverty,educational level and the social network of the parent are far more important than the number of parents a child has in the home.
Originally Posted By jonvn The best we can do is educate. We can't force people to do what is best, but we can try to educate them. The thing is if we do that, and people do the wrong thing, we should not be supporting them. That is simply wrong.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The thing is if we do that, and people do the wrong thing, we should not be supporting them. That is simply wrong.<< Is it wrong to support the person who was born, though? They didn't make any mistakes at all.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, it is wrong. Because it supports the person who did the wrong, unfortunately. In this case, the best thing to do is to take the child away from the mother, and put it in an orphanage. That sounds harsh, but I really don't see any other way.
Originally Posted By jonvn And when that child is in an orphanage, you charge the mother for the care and feeding of the child. You make it so that you do not reward the mother for continuing to make babies, but instead punish her financially. Make her work three jobs. Make her work four. It is her fault she made these children, and she should be forced to deal with it as much as possible.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Why not just support the kid directly in kind rather than by money? Why divide families?
Originally Posted By jonvn Because someone having a kid who can't afford it should not be rewarded by the state with money. It's like this: If you can't find work to support yourself for some reason, fine. You should get job training and a chance to find work. Now, if you go and have a kid and you can't afford it, that doesn't mean you get a financial bonanza. It SHOULD mean that you are in no position to take care of a child, and it becomes a ward of the state. And that means either foster care or an orphanage. When you become able to take care of your kids financially, then you get them back. One at a time. You do this to remove the incentive to have children. This isn't to break up or divide families. This is to make sure we end up with responsible people.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Do you really think your solution would create healthier, more responsible children, Jonvn? Is raising a child in an orphanage better than raising a child in a single parent household?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Cutting assistance that helps kids eat, have a home, be educated, and get medical care is not the best way to solve the problem. The amount of money that an additional kid represents to a mother on AFDC is actually pretty low, and lower than the cost of raising the kid.>> I disagree. As you said in your post the increase is assistance is relatively low, so it should not have a huge impact on the child's financial welfare. What it would do is make a statement that society does not accept that type of behavior. As Inspector57 pointed out, there exists an urban sub-culture where girls bearing children is seen as a GOOD thing... a mark of womanhood. We need to make it less accepted. I'm not saying we need to return to the days of an automatic trip to the home for unwed mothers followed by an adoption. But as a society we should not structure our policies in a way that encourages that type of behavior. I'll give anyone a chance to make a major mistake once; just don't keep making the same mistake over and over.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You make it so that you do not reward the mother for continuing to make babies, but instead punish her financially.<< Meanwhile, where's the father? The other half of the picture?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Or do you care about that - maybe your concern is more about saving a few dollars on your taxes than anything else.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You 'punish' the mother, and you wind up ensuring a miserable life for the baby. Eventually that baby grows up and we get to see what we all created. Then what?
