Posted on 12/07/2006 7:16:54 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
Mary Cheney’s 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 don’t 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 child’s 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 don’t have the role models at home to teach them how to deal with adversity and handle responsibility. They’ve 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 Cheney’s 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 father’s influence.
Mary’s pregnancy is an “in-your-face” action countering the Bush Administration’s 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.
I wish these columnists would leave the family alone. This is none of their business
I don't see how fathers abandoning their kids is Mary Cheney's fault. Those jagoffs were bolting long before gays started raising children of their own.
What can anyone do about adult, willful children who march to their own (often misguided) drummers?
I'd really like to know.
Leni
As a society it is all of our business. It's way past the time when we all say, "hey do just what you like"
The social pathologies of selfishness end up costing everyone.
Good post.
Poor Dick and Lynne. I'm sure they have to say how happy they are just to keep up appearances.
Cheney has maintained a 15-year relationship. She is now preparing to sacrifice the next few decades of her life to caring for a child.
How selfish.
No, it does not "affect us all". It's a private decision. MY ankles aren't swollen; I'M not throwing up every morning.
Since the baby is already on the way, I guess all that can be done about it now is for all of these busybody writers to urge her to have an abortion.
I've read on a number of threads that Lynne Cheney wrote a novel which included "steamy lesbian sex scenes" so maybe shoe's happy about the whole thing.
"I'm sure they have to say how happy they are just to keep up appearances."
You are "sure"? How often do you speak with them?
Yay, linda! Cheerleading for homosexuality as usual!
Have a nice day.
"Poor Dick and Lynne" would undoubtedly be the first to tell you to mind your own business. :)
By all indicators, they will is a more stable and successful 'family' than the chaos that 40% of this nation's children must overcome.
I have no problem defining them, and celebrating them, as a "family".
Am I posting at Free Republic here? Or DU?
The two of you are not the Cheney's, so you do not know how they are feeling or what they are thinking.
Jeri, I'm not cheerleading for homosexuality. I'm cheerleading for people making their own decisions whether you happen to approve of them or not.
You are shocked that people don't necessarily want to butt in on others business and don't share the condemnation that runs rampant on FR over some issues?
Must not have been here long I would guess.
You can have this book also....
the selfishness in this is demanding to experience motherhood and having a child, just because she can. there are plenty of children worthy of adoption that she could raise and devote her life to. just because one is capable of bearing a child doesn't mean one SHOULD, and especially if the lifestyle she has chosen doesn't encompass bearing a child as a consequence thereof. yes, it is extremely selfish of her.
I think you're mistaken about that. We're pro- people making their own private decisions without undue interference from people who are not concerned. You know, what used to be conservatism before the busybodies got into the act, and wanted Big Government, as long as it was Big Government who would enforce their own moral code.
no, one can just quietly express disappointment in the fact that she chose to do this. yes it's her decision. i lament it.
What else are they gonna' say?
In my post, I commented that while Dick and Lynne may be disgusted and appalled inside, their position in government dictates they put the best face forward that they can.
Life's realities are not black and white for them nor for any family in the world.
Leni
Books for everybody!
The motto of leftists everywhere, elevating the 'good of society' above the rights of the individual.
i agree leni, i am sure there isn't a thing in the world lynne or dick could have done to dissuade her, she is a grown woman. she may even have put it off til this point, out of deference to her father's career, for all we know. in any event, i lament her decision to do this.
I'm surprised to hear such an impassioned plea in support for gay adoption on this forum.
Count me in.
You REALLY have your panties in a knot over this, don't you?
Bringing a child into the world w/o a father IS selfish, clearly they care more about themselves than they do the child.
How selfish."
I agree with you 100%.
I may not choose this as my ideal way of bringing a child into this world. But, I'm not going to be changing the diapers or paying tuition.
I think Goldwater would agree with you too.
No, conservatism was never about promoting doing whatever feels good. No one is suggesting the government do anything about it. Calling something wrong that is morally wrong is conservatism. You confuse conservatism with libertarianism.
Here is something I've read 4-5 tiems:
Mary’s pregnancy is an “in-your-face” action countering the Bush Administration’s pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-life policies.I get this, don't you?
no, sorry. i happen to believe that the best home for a child has both a mom and a dad. of different sexes. but hey, you support whatever you like.
"Doing what feels good"? You've never given birth, have you? ;)
Reagan would not, and Reagan is much more of the standard bearer than Goldwater. Goldwater defended Clinton and voted for democrats late in his life.
Neither have you.
I had both a mother and a father when I was growing up, as I imagine a lot of us did. With that said, I wouldn't want to deny a young child the same thing.
Imagine, a mother AND a father? Since when has that been asking too much?
It is the emotional feeling of being a mother that is the 'feel good' part, not the actual child birth.
Honestly, I believe that is the ideal. But I'm willing to give responsible adults the benefit of the doubt as well.
That's exactly right, and the "doesn't feel so good" part is one of the reasons. ;)
And that's been a conservative value ... since when?
That is speculation, but having a child to promote an agenda is pretty disturbing. I really hope that is not her motivation, but we may never know.
She has never pushed an agenda yet, during her father's campaigns or public service, as far as I can see. She's stayed pretty low key overall. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt on this event as well.
Xs I got to agree with your #22 but add that hypocritcal heterosexuals do the same thing.
I think Dave put it best, "you can't open these cans of worms and then control the worms"
It's like children are some kind of accessory or consumer product. For the fulfillment of others.
Yes, it's sad to see the mysteries of life reduced to consumer driven "choices" and lifestyle choices.
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.