about time somebody started calling us to be accountable and responsible and not just be lipsync-ers.
if we all fulfilled our responsibilities towards these single moms, these single moms [and their children] would all have their needs met.
while bad choices need to be changed so the issues are no longer the same, the products of the bad choices need not be chastened for the behavior of the parents.
but do unwed fathers need our help, too?
uncle jim | 09.16.06 - 1:21 am | #

As long as "acts of mercy through a matrix of services" comes from churches and not the government teat, I'm all for it!
Macmom | 09.16.06 - 10:41 am | #

Darn, I knew I shouldn't have read the article, which puts the quote in (what is for me) a somewhat different and more difficult context. I might come back later and comment about that, but for now, on a practical level, let me say that the quote sounds like a very good thing (to me it kinda sketches out the difference between a movement which is narrowly and harshly anti-abortion and one that is compassionately pro-life).

Indeed, this general sort of thing should bring together people across the whole spectrum. Certainly, while a woman being able to decide whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term is vital, it takes on a different and unfortunate tinge when it is a decision imposed by practical necessity - lack of support and resources : ( - although that's one reason why it's so important.

Hence most people who are pro-choice - liberal ones, anyway - have strongly supported things like "maternity leave and flexible schedules at all levels of education and enterprise." (I can't see how anyone could oppose it - well, I can, but still!)

The FMLA is better than nothing, but honestly, unpaid leave (ooh, 3 months to care for a new baby, how insanely generous) - that's like a slap in the face to all those families who can't really afford to lose a wage-earner for any length of time. Pam at Pandagon makes a similar point about breast-feeding, quoting the NY Times:
…a two-class system is emerging for working mothers. For those with autonomy in their jobs — generally, well-paid professionals — breast-feeding, and the pumping it requires, is a matter of choice…But for lower-income mothers — including many who work in restaurants, factories, call centers and the military — pumping at work is close to impossible, causing many women to decline to breast-feed at all, and others to quit after a short time.. ."
- here we're talking policy rather than law, but they reflect the same thing.

We're never going to agree on a whole bunch o' stuff, but when it comes to this sort of thing - call it countercultural, perhaps, in terms of the prevailing culture that elevates corporate welfare over the health of individuals, families and communities - well, it's going to take a lot of people, y'know.

______
In related news, pro-life and pro-choice House Democrats have put foward legislation aimed at reducing the number and necessity of abortions. See here and here.

I caught a snippet on NPR that I thought seemed to say that additional funding for federal family planning services would be earmarked for non-abortion stuff, but I don't know for sure.
Dan S. | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 10:56 am | #

I thought her article was great.

But this part at the end made me shudder ---

"After hearing me give a talk on abortion, eugenics, and teenage pregnancy, my oldest daughter, with whom I had not yet initiated a talk about birds and bees, looked up at me and said frankly, "Mom, if God gives me a baby before I am married, I won't worry. I know that you and Dad would take care of it so that I could stay in school."

I just hope her daughter is very young. My own daughter is nine, and already knows the rudiments of the "birds and bees" -- and knows what an abortion is, too.
L. | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 11:52 am | #

"I just hope her daughter is very young."

L., that's what I've been hoping, and that 'oldest daughter' means something like the 7 year old as opposed to the 5 year old (etc.) or whatever. Or if not, at least that the "gives me a baby" reflects some idea of providence that nevertheless is tied to a decent understanding of common secular cause-and-effect.

No, I said that wrong - that makes it sound like I'm worried that the girl in question is at or close to reproductive age but thinks that pregnancy happens because God puts babies in ladies' tummies. It's because if she isn't little, it suggests that she sees herself as essentially passive in this regard . . . nah, not exactly it either. but that's closer . . .

I'm guessing that she really is jus' a little thing, but fairly or not, that exchange sorta sums up everything that disturbs me about the article - there's a very, very fundamental difference in opinion here, one that's too big for me to really get.

In a weird way, - when we get down to specifics, not the ideas contained in the quote here, which I really do think are very important - she's sorta urging people to adopt a view that's not entirely unlike the one held by many low-income young unwed moms - white, black, brown, & etc.
____________

Macmom: "As long as "acts of mercy through a matrix of services" comes from churches and not the government teat, I'm all for it!"

Why? I mean, there certainly some things where it's most efficient/sensible/etc. for other institutions than gov't to handle them, and certainly religious institutions should be doing this stuff on top of whatever anybody else might be doing, but why do you think the gov't shouldn't be involved at all?

I mean, 'as long as proposed firefighting services come from private organizations,' rather than gov't, I'm all for it' sounds weird to us today - why is this different?
Dan S. | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 12:37 pm | #

Um - Dawn? Feel free to delete my response to Macmom - it's not actually my intention to drag this thread off into a debate over the proper role of government. . .
Dan S. | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 1:41 pm | #

I doubt that sufficient thought has been given here to the distinction between Christian charity on the one hand and facilitating and enabling on the other. As an economist will tell you, if you subsidize something you'll get more of it--even if the thing is fatherless children. It's a troubling fact.

Provide child care and money and housing and health care and emotional support to unwed teen mothers, and you will make it easier for them to choose to be sexually active and, in fact, to choose to have babies, as many of them most certainly do. (And I say that not as speculation but from a ring-side seat at the social welfare system.)

In the Bad Old Days, society's taboos visited grief and shame on illegitimate children. Who could possibly approve of that? But shucking off the taboos and the shaming seems to have created an enormous generation of fatherless children with woefully incompetent mothers. So remind me who we've been helping with our new approach?

Maybe it was better when a pregnant unmarried woman was discreetly sent away for a while, "gave up" her child for adoption, and then returned home with no explanation and sidelong glances all around. Better for the children, anyway. But alas, now if we send her away, she returns much sooner with no more pregnancy.

People at the front lines of pro-life-inspired compassion run into an obnoxious phenomenon: The young woman who, because she thought about it and decided not to kill her baby, now feels like a hero, and feels entitled to everything that a mother would want for herself and her child. Providing for her baby is now our responsibility, because she spared it as we asked her to do. Hmmm.

Anyway, I think the issue is enormously complex, and that people may have serious reasons other than selfishness or lovelessness for hesitating to provide help in a given circumstance.

I also think that many Christians ARE currently doing a lot to help these mothers and children.
DGus | 09.16.06 - 2:27 pm | #

...and yet, it's not so obvious to solve--we want the babies to live--that's not negotiable. At the same time, it is greatly more beneficial to the child if he is relinquished for adoption, not raised by an unwed mom, no matter how many neighbors and grandparents get involved. The closing line of the article excludes the superior solution.

Because the hard question remains, how do you overcome the unintended consequences of the fact that whatever you subsidize, you get more of? If we made unwed motherhood as comfy as they do in, say, Sweden, we'd get more unwed motherhood, as in Sweden. How do you bend your energies to making things practical for an unmarried woman to raise her child, while at the same time promoting the healthier-but-initially-harder option of adoption into a mom-and-dad home?

I speak as a mom who divorced when her kids were 3 and 7--much as I was desperate for the church, family, and friends to become involved, I came to realize they have their own God-given responsibilities, their own clogged sinks and overdue bills, that they, too, could use a babysitter on a Saturday night; it wasn't realistic, or even fair, to expect they'd help much except in crisis, nor was it fortifying for my character and the dignity and faith of my little brood to look to others to assume control of our daily dilemmas. We were terribly poor, but God never let us be defeated.

The idea of a matrix of help needs to be approached judiciously, cautiously. I believe help is best given in an uncoordinated and individual fashion, lest it be quickly taken for granted and factored in to making the rearing of children without fathers not only possible, but a good option. The Christian Church needs to strongly promote adoption, to laud mothers who have the courage to lovingly relinquish their infants born out of wedlock.

It may sound an odd distinction, BTW, but I think it more important to keep an eye out for the needs of single-parent children--take them on your family snow trip, include them in the scout troup--than of their mothers. We moms will get along; but good mothers draw huge relief and spiritiual refreshment from seeing their children valued and included by the family of faith, and if it's finances you're wanting to help out with, believe me, keeping our kids on the right path and introducing them to wholesome and visionary opportunities pays off incalculably in the end.
kwerna | 09.16.06 - 3:03 pm | #

The nineteenth century pro-life feminists thought that if women could get decent-paying jobs, could control when they got pregnant (through abstinence, was the usual theme for married women), and weren't shunned for having children out of wedlock, they wouldn't seek abortion.

I don't think abortion will decline until there is a vast societal seriousness about chastity, (including passionate sexual married chastity), marriage, family, and child raising - until the unity of these things is appreciated.

And the fewer people who have children in bad circumstances, the easier it will be to help them.
Lisa | 09.16.06 - 4:14 pm | #

"As an economist will tell you, if you subsidize something you'll get more of it--even if the thing is fatherless children. It's a troubling fact."

But this kind of argument could, in fairness or not, be leveled against most kinds of charity/ social assistance, as it was in this case against our country's rudimentary social welfare system.
- Yet I'd also end also arguing that one really important thing is helping reduce the number of teens who get pregnant.

I just want to stress that the part of the Hall article which is making me unhappy isn't the point about helping out teenage moms, or not trying to shame actual or potential teenage moms, or etc - Indeed, I suspect the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy posters that so upset her probably weren't really intended to shame and humiliate either, but were an attempt at attention-grabbing hip edginess, although I can't say for sure (you can see then here and judge for yourself).

What worries me is the implict (and at one point explict) linkage I see her as making between eugenic and anti-immigration movements of several generations ago and - not just modern day efforts to prevent teen pregnancy, but really, a much bigger and older shift: family planning itself, in the broadest sense; the idea that a couple - or even the woman! - might seek to intentionally control and even limit their fertility. Note that a good bit of the reason behind this isn't idle selfishness (ooh, I want a new widescreen tv!) but a harder to parody urge for a better life for oneself and often one's family.

This is another very complex issue and actually getting into it would probably require quite a few actual posts rather than comment-squatting - I may have to, one of these days - and more attention then I can muster right now; it also doesn't help that a lot of the vocabulary has very different connotations or moral charges across the subcultural divide . . . but it seems to be coming up more and more, though, maybe?
_______

"At the same time, it is greatly more beneficial to the child if he is relinquished for adoption, not raised by an unwed mom, no matter how many neighbors and grandparents get involved. "

Yet this is almost certainly not true across the board - and even if it is in one sense, it's a very worrying kind of sense (one that taken to (il)logical extremes hypothetically has us snatching babies out of poorer families' arms to give to affluent but childless couples).

" If we made unwed motherhood as comfy as they do in, say, Sweden, we'd get more unwed motherhood, as in Sweden. "

But (and partially as a result), unwed motherhood in Sweden often means something rather different from what it often means in the US. Interestingly, the big risk I see with unwed motherhood (mainly low-income, young unwed motherhood) is that it's generally very, very uncomfy, both at the time and in terms of future possibilities.

Whatever. My 2¢? In a community, people help each other. (That piece of kindergarten wisdom was brought to you today by the letter Q, and the numbers 1, 2 and 3.)
Dan S. | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 4:31 pm | #

..."introducing them to wholesome and visionary opportunities pays off incalculably in the end."

kwerna,
No doubt this feels very true. But a vulnerable single mother's bills don't wait incalculably for the end...

When the path to righteousness or to the "superior solution" coincides smoothly with not lifting a finger to help people of whom you disapprove, it may be a sign that the chosen path may not be the only one.

I have the greatest respect for compassionately practical pro-lifers. I've worked peacefully alongside one in pursuit of the aims described in Dawn's article. We disagreed profoundly but - 99% of the time - politely about all other aspects of the abortion debate.
jody tresidder | 09.16.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Um - Dawn? Feel free to delete my response to Macmom - it's not actually my intention to drag this thread off into a debate over the proper role of government. . .

Dan, unless you insist, I don't mind that kind of tangent.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 7:48 pm | #

"People at the front lines of pro-life-inspired compassion run into an obnoxious phenomenon: The young woman who, because she thought about it and decided not to kill her baby, now feels like a hero, and feels entitled to everything that a mother would want for herself and her child. Providing for her baby is now our responsibility, because she spared it as we asked her to do."

That attitude of entitlement is far from unique among unwed mothers. It rears its ugly head everywhere, but often seems ugliest among the the very rich and the very poor. It all gets back to the "teach a man to fish" adage -- some people just don`t want to learn to fish.
L. | Homepage | 09.16.06 - 8:48 pm | #

Speaking again as a mom who went through years of extreme poverty while raising two children in the church, I must respectfully disagree with Dan's assertion that the biggest risk of unwed motherhood (and, by generalization, raising children without an intact home) is the uncomfiness of it.

Yes, it is very uncomfortable to lack resources; in fact, it's terrifying; but in retrospect, having seen my own children and my cohort of single moms' children grow to young adults, worse is the devastation wreaked psychologically by not having a dad. Even the best mothering does not, cannot compensate. Fathers matter terribly.

While it is counterintuitive to love a child by letting him go, it is supremely unselfish and wise, and should be respected as a noble act. It is a grave injustice purposely to deprive a child, even your own child, of a father and an intact home, when you had it in your power to do otherwise--and especially if you precipitated the crisis by your own previous choices.

Is adoption ALWAYS more successful and beneficial to the baby? Do adoptive families never end in divorce themselves? Such questions are fruitless. We aren't able to control the future. Our obligation is to do our best, here, starting now.
kwerna | 09.17.06 - 12:57 am | #

"Even the best mothering does not, cannot compensate."

I respectfully disagree.
L. | Homepage | 09.17.06 - 2:23 am | #

"We aren't able to control the future. Our obligation is to do our best, here, starting now."

Kwerna,
Doesn't this firm statement bizarrely contradict your earlier one?


Here you urge giving up a child for adoption as a hard but noble sacrifice for other women in the short term because it's fruitless contemplating the longer term eventualities out of the women's hands.

But you earlier urge not helping out single mothers with money in the short term because it's better contemplating the longer term eventualities "the wholesome and visionary opportunities [that] pay off incalculably in the end."?

I understand your opinions. It's just the basis for their justification that leaves me in a logical fog.
jody tresidder | 09.17.06 - 7:07 am | #

I don't urge that you not give to single moms; I stated that I think it should be done privately and individually, not through a "matrix" that may give the false impression that single motherhood is a paid-up ticket. It's not. It's miserably hard, and the kids suffer.

BUt, back to my original point, the fear we have as Christians committed to the preservation of innocent life is that a sober, realistic discussion of the difficulties in keeping the baby might undermine the mother's motivation to let it live at all, which may be very fragile. Many pregnant woman would rather have an abortion than consider adoption--if you've counseled women, you know this is very common-- and since they can see that keeping the baby would be untenable in one or more ways, and moreover never heard any praise of mothers who chose adoption as a loving option, they go ahead and abort, God forbid.

In the face of that real possibility, feeling as though we dare not broach a possibility that would require amazing toughness, rare compassion, and heartrending pain for the mother, we support her giving the baby life in whatever form she can manage.

But if we look beyond the immediate need for saving the baby's life and saving the woman from the nightmare of post-abortive guilt and self loathing, and we work to bring a healthy Christian model of sexuality and family to the wretched mess our society has become, our strategy must include long-term elements such as respecting chastity, valuing marriage, and promoting adoption.

Each generation in which a good chunk of kids never knew an intact home is a generation removed from our collective memory of what a healthy, functioning family was, and a generation frustrated in its ability to forge lasting love and commitment. Those who remember when it was taken for granted that most kidds had a mom and dad at home are already middle aged.

Adoption, by the way, is by no means a smelly little cop-out in the Christian definition; it is with great honor and through much travail that our Heavenly Father has adopted us believers as His sons.
kwerna | 09.17.06 - 10:51 am | #

Kwerna,
Thanks for your reply.
One thing I don't quite follow.

You have twice mentioned details of your personal circumstances - and it sounds as if you were very brave and individually resourceful during an exceptionally difficult period. And that you knew others facing a similar struggle.

Are you saying though, that had you properly appreciated how fraught it was, you would not have divorced? Or not raised your children yourself?
jody tresidder | 09.17.06 - 12:03 pm | #

The above is a blog post, by the way, not intended as a comprehensive essay on the emotional and physiological dangers of abortion to the mother.

If anyone wants to read more about the risks of maternal injury, disease, and death due to abortion, Lime Five by Mark Crutcher is an excellent place to start.
kwerna | 09.17.06 - 12:04 pm | #

A divorced mother is in a different situation in that she can't give them her children a baggage-free start in life, even if she wanted to. They know her, for heaven's sake, the relationship is already the most important thing in their lives, and it would be unconscionable to "give them away."

Thus a divorced mother's options are severly circumscribed, while an unwed mother can do something very beautiful for the child without breaking his heart.

I fled an abusive situation. Would I have done it again? Yes. Is divorce an objective good? No. Should the church love me and my children? Yes. Should they hold me up as some sort of role model or consider my family circumstances to be a "lifestyle choice" as valid as that of a functioning, two-parent family? No.
kwerna | 09.17.06 - 12:19 pm | #

Kwerna,

Surely you're simply saying that personal circumstances can torpedo what might otherwise be termed an "objective" good? As it did in your case?

How can you deny that you're a admirable role model as a single mother yourself - even more so since it wasn't your clear-eyed intention to be one in the first place?
jody tresidder | 09.17.06 - 2:56 pm | #

I'm able to encourage a mom in similar circumstances to stand fast in trusting the Lord. We all offer our lessons learned, and Christ redeems our brokenness and sorrows as we walk with Him, but parents without partners is assuredly not the model God made us for.
kwerna | 09.17.06 - 4:07 pm | #

The sad part is that women who are aware that they can get things for their children -- may not only be discouraged from abortion.

They know about it before they become pregnant. Which means that they may become pregnant because they figure it's not a big deal, they can always go on welfare or what have you, and then they decide whether to have an abortion. . .

Making unwed maternity more pleasant can increase abortions.
Mary | 09.17.06 - 4:11 pm | #

Making unwed maternity more pleasant can increase abortions.
Mary |

And making marriage more pleasant can increase divorce. Surely?
jody tresidder | 09.17.06 - 4:30 pm | #

"Should [the church] hold me up as some sort of role model or consider my family circumstances to be a "lifestyle choice" as valid as that of a functioning, two-parent family? No."

Like jody, I'd have to say that you seem like a pretty good role model to me. You mention that you fled an abusive situation. So, for starters, you're showing self-respect. If the abuse was at least in part directed at your children, then you kept them safe. If it wasn't, then you kept them safe in a different way, by keeping them from growing up in an abusive household and having that as a model of adult relationships.

I know this isn't quite what you were getting at, but still . . . .really, doing the best you can with what you have is the best 'lifestyle choice' one can try for, however that translates into specific circumstances.
Dan S. | Homepage | 09.17.06 - 6:17 pm | #

This is news? Between the Gabriel Project and the Catherine Foundation and the Catholic Churches in Charles County, we have been doing this for decades.
John J. Simmins | 09.18.06 - 9:03 am | #

"Even the best mothering does not, cannot compensate."

I respectfully disagree.

You can if you like, L. But it doesn't change the fact that all things being equal, a home with a loving father and mother is better than a home without one or the other.

Fathers bring a male perspective into a child's life that is critical to their development whether you care to admit it or not.

I'm sure that a single mother is much better than a home with an abusive father, but women need to make much better choices as to the fathers they choose for their children.
Tony | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 11:00 am | #

Tony, did I say, "all things being equal, a home with a loving father and mother is NOT better than a home without one or the other?" No, I don`t believe I did. So please don`t refute me by stating something so obvious that no one would disagree with it.

Many studies have shown that households headed by single mothers fare worse than two-parent households, and most of this is the poverty factor.

But I know plenty of lesbians successfully raising fine boys, who do wonderfully with no fathers around -- this doesn`t mean their sons grow up with no male role models.

And when you say, "....but women need to make much better choices as to the fathers they choose for their children," I have to ask, why is onus on the women to CHOOSE better, and not on all the deadbeat men to CHANGE?
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 11:49 am | #

And when you say, "....but women need to make much better choices as to the fathers they choose for their children," I have to ask, why is onus on the women to CHOOSE better, and not on all the deadbeat men to CHANGE?

L,

I was thinking the same thing.
Anonymous | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 12:50 pm | #

That anonymous was me-my name didn't come up.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 12:52 pm | #

Thank you very much for linking to my piece. Protein Wisdom seems to be having severe issues today; anyone who wants to read the piece can do so here.
Robert | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 1:30 pm | #

I have to ask, why is onus on the women to CHOOSE better, and not on all the deadbeat men to CHANGE?

This is simple. Because women need to concentrate on what they are able to control.

If you choose a "fixer-upper" (a deadbeat man) expecting him to change, you shouldn't be too surprised when that doesn't happen. If you really hate stripes, you shouldn't date zebras.

That having been said, I'm sure there are cases of perfectly decent men who through mental illness, have complete personality changes that render them jerks. But I think in the vast majority of cases, the guy was a jerk to begin with.

Which brings us to the Thrill of the Chaste. When women choose men first and foremost for sexual compatibility (try them before you buy them), and that is a primary motivation for choosing a mate, two things happen, both of them completely consistent with the Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality.

1. You take the chance of creating new life. This is regardless of what protections you might take.

2. You flood your system with "happy chemicals" that can be addicting, and can cloud your judgement as to what type of man you spread your legs for.

When the baby comes, and you're not quite so "fun" and sexually available anymore, you'll find the "sheep" are separated by the "goats" with regard to men. If you've sterilized yourself either with a device or chemically to make yourself available to a man sexually with no lifetime repurcussions, don't be surprised when the man you've been sleeping with is primarily interested in you sexually (these men seek out promiscuous and contracepting women).

The best thing to do is to remain chaste, and let your man court you for a while as you get to know him. Take the advice of your friends and family with regard to his suitability for you, and save the sex until you're married.

You'll attract a much better class of man .
Tony | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 1:53 pm | #

The biggest problem with this country is the lack of
Eph. 5
men.
John J. Simmins | 09.18.06 - 1:53 pm | #

You flood your system with "happy chemicals" that can be addicting, and can cloud your judgement as to what type of man you spread your legs for.

Without arguing about chastity (since even I, who do/did not practice it would never argue that it doesn`t have many merits), I want to point out that these "happy chemicals" can cloud your judgment whether or not you "spread your legs."

(And just an aside -- why do and so many others like to use the phrase, "spread your legs" to describe all unmarried sexual intercourse? Wouldn`t you be offended if I used it to describe the sex between you and your own wife? "When your wife spreads her legs for you..." etc. Do you see what I mean?)

Take the advice of your friends and family with regard to his suitability for you...

All I can say is that I`m personally really, REALLY glad I didn`t live according to your advice, on that particular point!
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 2:15 pm | #

Tony,

I agree with you to a point about women being discerning. I know women who find men that are like "where did you find this guy? And you're surprised?" I mean I could find something better in my basement, under rock. Sometimes I think the best thing they did was get pregnant because the man ran for the hills.

But I know many women who hook up with what seems to be really decent guys, and they just won't commit. Our culture has taught them among other things, that children are not a reason to get married, that commitment is not about a decision to do so, but about some "feeling", and that there really is more honor in having as many women as possible than having a wife.

And again, I bring this up and I hate to, but in the black community 80% of the kids are out of wedlock. As far as finding a mate to marry, that makes for pretty good odds you won't. And I am not saying that chasitity is unrealistic, I'm saying the deviance is more a tone of the culture than the women. Unless you are someone who was strongly raised in a counter-cultural home, you will probably do what everyone else does.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:19 pm | #

Without arguing about chastity (since even I, who do/did not practice it would never argue that it doesn`t have many merits), I want to point out that these "happy chemicals" can cloud your judgment whether or not you "spread your legs."

Then can you explain why a bad relationship that is non-sexual lasts an average of 2 years, while a bad relationship that is sexual lasts an average of 5 years?

[Tony, that last, now-deleted remark wasn't funny - Ed]

Edited By Siteowner
Tony | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:28 pm | #

Then can you explain why a bad relationship that is non-sexual lasts an average of 2 years, while a bad relationship that is sexual lasts an average of 5 years?

That`s interesting -- do you have a link to the study? I`d like to see how they define a "bad" relationship.

Pansy speaks the truth -- I, too, know many women (who "keep their legs shut") who hook up with guys who seems to be really decent, and the guys just won't commit.

I also have many Japanese friends who "kept their legs shut," and followed their families` advice --- and are now in miserable arranged marriages, with traditional husbands who don`t lift a finger around the house or help with the kids, and are rarely even home.

Unfortunately, playing by society`s rules is no guarantee of future happiness, anymore than NOT playing by the rules (as in my own case) is a guarantee of future misery. We all just do the best we can.
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:39 pm | #

Oh, I`m sorry, Dawn -- I referred to Tony`s deleted part in my last comment! I guess my comments will need editing, too. [Just a tad -- thanks for the understanding. - Dawn]
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:40 pm | #

But I know many women who hook up with what seems to be really decent guys, and they just won't commit. Our culture has taught them among other things, that children are not a reason to get married, that commitment is not about a decision to do so, but about some "feeling", and that there really is more honor in having as many women as possible than having a wife.

One of the problems is that these guys are getting everything they want out of a relationship without being married, especially if the woman is living with him in addition to sleeping with him. What is the incentive to commit?

But on the men's side, they also need to be educated on what manliness is. This is usually done by manly fathers who have committed to their mother and families and who have a solid sense of honor and duty.

And I have to apologize to L in advance, but I don't believe two lesbians or a single mom can teach a young boy how to become a decent young man.

And I am not saying that chasitity is unrealistic, I'm saying the deviance is more a tone of the culture than the women. Unless you are someone who was strongly raised in a counter-cultural home, you will probably do what everyone else does.

Pansy, you are entirely on track with this. How do you fight the influence of the prevailing culture and explain to both men and women the benefits of chastity? (And there are concrete secular benefits.)

Now I agree with L that men ought to behave better. But a biological fact is that women have much more to lose in a sexual relationship than men. It isn't fair, but it's fact.

I gave the same speech to a male who was complaining about how he got some girl pregnant and now was being taken to the cleaners with the child support.

I told him: "Whenever you have sex with a woman, you take a chance on being tied to her against your will for the next 18 years or so. Before you stick it in, think carefully if that is the kind of chance you'd like to take. One foul up, and life as you know it will change forever" .
Tony | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:42 pm | #

Sorry about that Dawn.
Tony | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:43 pm | #

I don't believe two lesbians or a single mom can teach a young boy how to become a decent young man.

You`re cetainly entitled to your beliefs, though I`ve personally known many fine young men raised by widows. And if my husband and I had died while my oldest son was a baby, he would have been raised instead by friends of ours who are lesbians, and I`m sure they would have done a fine job.

And your at the end advice is a little crass, but it sounds a great deal like the talk I plan to give my sons.
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:52 pm | #

Pansy speaks the truth -- I, too, know many women (who "keep their legs shut") who hook up with guys who seems to be really decent (who don`t "[Censored]"), and the guys just won't commit.

Then why do they stay with these men? There should be some timeline say a couple of years.

Oh, and I haven't been able to find the study I talked about. I'll keep looking
Tony | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:57 pm | #

....if the woman is living with him in addition to sleeping with him. What is the incentive to commit?

I can only speak from my personal case here, which was the mirror-opposite: I wanted to continue to "live in sin," and my husband wanted to make a decent woman out of me. In my case, it was the financial and immigration benefits of marriage -- we could live in his subsidized company housing, and I could stop worrying about my visa, etc.

The repeal of the "marriage tax" was a good start, to convince people like me that legal marriage is the best way to go. Maybe you can`t legislate morality, but you can certainly make it appealing with financial incentives!
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 3:57 pm | #

Then why do they stay with these men? There should be some timeline say a couple of years.

Love. You know, those darn "happy chemicals," mucking everything up, even when no sex is involved.
L. | Homepage | 09.18.06 - 4:00 pm | #

I'm saying the deviance is more a tone of the culture than the women.

What is this "culture"? Something in the air? Culture does not exist somewhere out there.
Mary | 09.18.06 - 8:34 pm | #

To come back to the original topic, I think what both writers linked to here mean is the necessity of a Christian attitude towards our "neighbour".

We can well decry single-parent families in abstracto, but the 18-year-old girl out there who is pregnant and terrified needs our help NOW. It's interesting that as soon as someone says that, everyone is falling back on thinking about it in abstracto, on general societal terms: "what we subsidize we will get more of".

But it's not about "subsidizing" single-parent households and teen pregnancies. It's about helping a specific girl/woman of a specific age, birthplace, social circumstances, job (or lack of it), schooling, hair color, skin color etc. who is pregnant. Love of neighbor is love of specific persons, not of humankind in general (which is often rather prideful and disdainful towards specific, living people).

GKC writes somewhere that moralizing charity is no real charity. The 'I'll only give you help if you are moral, not if you're not' is un-Christian. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a place of so-called 'respectable people'. If we help people who got problems (such as an unwanted pregnancy) due to an immoral lifestyle, we may pray for them and guide them towards a more moral, wholesome lifestyle.

But love of neighbor is not confined to "respectable people", rather the opposite. If someone needs our help, we must help - and especially if they are living in grave sin or have done grave sins. Why do the prison, prostitution and other ministries exist if not exactly for this?

And if you fear "subsidizing" teen pregnancies if you help a teenage mother cope socially and psychologically, always think of the principle: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
Petra | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 8:44 am | #

Good for you, Petra:)
jody tresidder | 09.19.06 - 10:09 am | #