Skip to comments.Mary Cheney's pregnancy affects us all
Posted on 12/07/2006 7:16:54 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Mary Cheneys pregnancy poses problems not just for her child, but also for all Americans. Her action repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation. With 37 percent of American children born to fatherless families, Mary Cheney is contributing to a trend that is detrimental to all Americans who will live with the ramifications of millions of children whose anger and frustration at not knowing their father will be felt in the public schools and communities of our nation.
Mary Cheney is among that burgeoning group of adult women over age 20 that are driving the trend of women who dont want a man in the picture, but want to have a baby. These older women are pushing out-of-wedlock birth statistics higher and higher. At a time when teen births and teen abortions are declining dramatically, older women are having more un-wed births and more abortions, including repeat abortions (indicating that they are using abortion as birth control).
Well-educated, professional Mary Cheney is flying in the face of the accumulated wisdom of the top experts who agree that the very best family structure for a childs well-being is a married mom and dad family. Her child will have all the material advantages it will need, but it will still encounter the emotional devastation common to children without fathers.
One Georgia high school principal reported, We have too many young men and women from single-mother families that dont have the role models at home to teach them how to deal with adversity and handle responsibility. Theyve seen their mom work 60 hours a week just to put food on the table; they end up fending for themselves.
When fatherless children get to be teens, the girls tend to start looking for love in all the wrong places and the boys tend to find as their role model the bad-boy celebrities of MTV, NFL and NBA.
As they grow older, fatherless children tend to have trouble dealing with male authority figures. Too often children in single-mother households end up angry at their absent fathers and resentful of the mother who has had to be a father figure, too. Typically, the boys who have a love-hate relationship with their mother end up hating all women. Numerous of them look for vulnerable women where they can act out their anger and be in control.
Mary Cheneys action sets an example that is detrimental for mothers with less financial resources who will start down an irrevocable path into poverty that tends to be generational children in households without a father tend to themselves have unwed births later in life. Experts from both the left and the right cite a disastrous litany of negative outcomes that are predictable when a child grows up in a fatherless family. Such children tend to get involved in drugs, alcohol abuse, and delinquency; they tend to drop out of school and have teen pregnancies. An assistant principal in a Junior High School said that many of the behavioral problems that teachers face in the classroom stem from households without a fathers influence.
Marys pregnancy is an in-your-face action countering the Bush Administrations pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-life policies. She continues to repudiate the work to which her father has devoted his life. Mary has repeatedly said that studies show that children only need a loving home. Her statement is incomplete because the experts agree that for the well-being of children, they desperately need a married father and a mother.
All those people who talk about doing what is best for our children need to get back to the basics: children need a married mom and dad. Children can do without a lot of the trimmings of childhood, but nothing can replace a home where the mother and dad love each other enough to commit for a lifetime and are absolutely crazy about their kids enough to be willing to sacrifice their own needs to see that their children get the very best.
It affects you because it is human. If you undermine what humanity is, laws made by humans have no basis at all, and the reason for our entire government collapses.
Cheney's kid: Alive.
Aborted kid: Dead.
This really isn't complicated. You shouldn't have to ask.
And just because the media chooses to make a circus out of poor Mary Cheney doesn't mean it's 'public' behavior any more then it would be if the media started reporting on the sexual habits of the VP.
Maybe you aren't aware, but the legal underpinnings of legal abortion are a "right to privacy."
It grew from contraception to abortion and now is being used to support homosexual behavior and soon polygamy.
You don't embrace a legal argument on one topic and then kick out its feet on the next. You need to be consistent.
most of those children had heterosexual parents whose fathers walked out on the them, or refused to pay up and the mother was either forced to work several dead end jobs or go on welfare in some impoverished community
Mary Cheney's situation has absolutely NOTHING in common with those
you feel that mary cheney's engineering a child as a product of a lesbian relationship is a private affair and hurts no one, there are others, myself included, who LAMENT national trends like lesbians turkey basting babies into existence, and fatherless families, as a national trend harmful to society at large. personal invective against someone who holds the opposite viewpoint brings no weight/honor to your opinion.
LOL! That's about all most psychiatric "help" is worth, really.
Big Government wasn't shoving anything down your throat, it was stopping you from preventing another person from using his own property in a legal manner. Same thing as if the anti-trans-fat people wanted to stop a Burger King from opening--their morality is not a trump card, even if it might have been in the majority in this neighborhood. The punchline is that the good old capitalist system worked where the morality police couldn't.
You really should read what you write before hitting the send button.
To quote something I heard in 2nd grade: "No S#!t Sherlock, where'd you get the F*&king clue?"
You don't embrace a legal argument on one topic and then kick out its feet on the next. You need to be consistent.
Yah, because, clearly, I was making a legal arguement. I mean, I refered to the SC, cited cases just like out of a law school textbook and all that. /sarcasm
And clearly, it's impossible to believe in a concept of privacy unless you embrace RvW. /sarcasm
And EVEN IF I WAS making a legal arguement, which I clearly wasn't, it's not only possible, but consistent, to say that while a general right to privacy is good, it doesn't apply when there is a non-consenting party involved. aka the dead kid in an abortion.
But anyhow, keep it up. It's fun ridiculing your mindbogglingly stupid arguements.
I don't have time to do a search, but you used to appear on our threads now and then to nitpick and make snide remarks. My point is that you are entitled to your opinions. But, remember, so are the rest of us. In this case, we're commenting on a decision made by someone who is in the public eye.
This story isn't only about Cheney and her child; rather, it's another in a series of stories about a movement that affects everything, including school teachings, the definition of marriage, free speech, etc.
The fact that Cheney had a lesbian daughter to begin with should have disqualified him from being on a conservative Republican ticket. Its not like he just found out in 2001. The idiots in charge of Bush's campaign are to blame for this even coming up.
I believe scientists using DNA were able to link sally hemming's descendants to Thomas Jefferson beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also was well known in his time; The Federalists, particularly John Adams and his allies, used it to blacken Jefferson's reputation
If you use him as an example of righteous behavior, I can also show that he was a slaveowning deadbeat dad responsible for fatherless children
And where in ANY of Thomas Jefferson's, james Madison's, or John Adam's writings do you find any policy statements about lesbian couples having children?
...but then we gave him half of Europe. When I said beat the hell out of each other, I meant beat the hell out f each other. To the end.
Wow, don't tell me you've actually bought into the liberal notion that "Clinton's behavior was just about sex," have you?
Please tell me you didn't miss the fact that it was with his OWN EMPLOYEE, and that he LIED TO A GRAND JURY about it.
It was about abuse of power and purgery. Not his private behavior. You should know this.
I am no fan of parades, but they are protected under our first amendment as free speech and free assembly
and laws about juvenile delinquency, public indecency and sex in public are completely irrelevant to this discussion
sodomy laws are a place that the government has no right to go. that is my belief
use of ad hominem generally indicates one is losing the argument.
blah, blah, blah......
Conservative caught 'paging' page boys; black smear on all conservatives.
Barney Frank; frankly is as harmless as Barney the Dinosaur.
Talk about double standards and creating facts on the ground.
You really think we're stupid, don't you.
A legal arguement and a political arguement are different things. I've already proven why I was right on both counts. If you are too dumb to understand why, that's your problem.
Also, I would favor laws that said Government has no right to regulate the sexual behavior between two concenting adults. Although that's not in the Constitution, I think it would be good policy.
I agree. But unfortunately, I'm seeing many FReepers who think "Heather has two Mommies" is none of my business, and some go so far as to believe this is wonderful!
My attack was only after I had already proven him wrong. I was just egging him on because it's fun.
If you can refute one of my points, feel free. He certainly can't.
he was talking about the "morality" of Jefferson
I pointed out that Jefferson was himself responsible for fatherless children, so either he was an immoral deadbeat or he didn't view the father as being nessecary
take your pick. either way, his comments show his disregard of facts
I'll go on record as saying that the moment the Muzzies try to enslave our women and children, I'll be shooting at them. You can take that to the bank.
Yah, because, clearly, kids always grow up to do just what their parents tell them. /sarcasm
You're the one who debuted on this thread with the asinie argument that everything said herein must be considered a political argument for gov't action.
Don't cry when I turn your own stupid statement around for my own amusement.
this is a political forum. either you want the government, the politicians to outlaw it or you want them to leave it alone
take your pick
do you want the government to regulate who can have kids, so your pocketbook isn't affected? or do you want to let people live their life the way they wish as long as they are not hurting others?
Am I on Free Republic here??? or Dummie Underground?
I see it as a slap in the face to her father and to this Administration. She could have waited until her father was out of office.
how? in what way does society have ANY right whatsoever to tell Mary Cheney she can or cannot have a daughter?
please explain that. This is between Mary, her family and God.
Just this final thought:
Linda described herself as a liberitine:
"A person who is unconstrained by convention or morality; specifically one leading a dissolute life."
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary c.1965
"A man (rarely a woman) who is not restrained by moral law; one who leads a licentious life.
Acknowledging no law in religion or morals;...
Loose in morals,; licentious, dissolute..."
The Oxford Universal Dictionary c. 1961
That's what my dictionaries say.
Some people are proud of this.
They did not prove that Thomas Jefferson was the daddy beyond a reasonable doubt. They proved a Jefferson was the daddy. And there were a few amorous relatives around at the time who could also have fathered the Hemings' children.
I believe that T. Jefferson was the father, but that's just my feeling after visiting Monticello and reading a bit on the subject. My favorite professor, Forrest McDonald, believes T. did not father any of Sally Hemings' children. And he can't stand Jefferson! Jefferson was executor of several wills of slaveowners. It was the will of these folks that their slaves be freed upon their (the slaveowners) deaths. Jefferson did not free those slaves. His will provided that select slaves be freed upon his death.
Islamic nutjobs all over the globe are waging war on the West; for my part, if they attempt an incursion in my neighborhood, they'll get a third eye.
:sigh: I can't figure out if you are actually as clueless as you seem, or if you are just doing it to annoy me.
There is big "P" Political, which encompasses everything that the Government does.
Then, there is a division of powers, where we have the legislature do "political" things (you can replace the word "political" here with "policy" if that helps you), and the courts deal with "legal" things.
It's pretty clear the discussion of Mary Cheney's kid is big "P" Political.
But to the question of privacy, there is small p "political" things that can and should be done about it. I've stated my preferences. From a "legal" standpoint, it's an entirely different issue.
Do you get it yet? Or do you need to go back to PoliSci 101?
If there were more than a teeny tiny number of lesbians in 18th century America, if they had any children it would have been with an actual man as a father.
And they did not make it public, policy or a political statement.
Maragine and live sex shows have nothing in common.
The false dichotomy rears its ugly head again.
You guys are like a course in fallacies.
Nice......g'day, g'night, whatever it may be for you.....put me on your ping list if you have one. Regards.
"Just this final thought: "
O, could we only believe that were true! :)
As to the "libertine" comment, I knew you would not recognize it as humor. I've never seen you recognize humor in ANYone's posts.
You however, might be on DU, as you seem to buy their arguement that Clinton's behavior was "just about sex" and not about perjery, abuse of power and obstruction of justice; hook, line and sinker.
you are correct---I was not strictly correct. Someone closely related to Jefferson may have been the father, but considering that it was an "open secret" at the time, I would conclude that it is more than reasonable that Thomas Jefferson had illegitimate children.
"and laws about juvenile delinquency, public indecency and sex in public are completely irrelevant to this discussion.."
Gay Pride parades consist of public indecency, nudity, live sex acts, and children are witnesses and participants in the parades. So it is germane to the discussion.
And "free speech" didn't mean live sex acts, public nudity and so on until the ACLU teamed up with porn producers a la Larry Flynt. Thanks, ACLU and porn producers!
Clear to you.
The rest of us have stated over and over that we are not offering political arguments or demanding that our politicians do anythign about it.
Thanks for your constnat snide inner circle humor. You forgot your cutesy little smiley, or maybe I didn't notice it, since you splatter them so liberally about your comments.
so you are admitting that Jefferon, Washington and Adams did write about anything like this
so explain to me what your point was in invoking them on this issue?
I got a couple - Moral Absolutes and Homosexual Agenda. Wagglebee does them too; lately I've been busy but I seem to find the time lately!
Freepmail me which one/s you want on and I'll add your name.
Regards - I'm really off now!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.