Turn Off The Baby Machines

In his efforts to strengthen and put his administrative approval to the reauthorization of the welfare reform act of 1996, President Bush wants to "to encourage the formation and maintenance of healthy two parent married families and responsible fatherhood", especially among the poor, unmarried young people in this nation. He supports spending hundreds of millions in federal money to see this accomplished. I must say I support his efforts in this area because I believe that the federal government, instead of the reverse, should encourage two parent families.

Yet, my main concern is the prevalence of illegitimate children in this country. Someone needs to speak up and truthfully address this issue, which is spinning out of control. It is time for something to be done about young women, particularly minority women, having babies. I really get tired of seeing a young, unmarried black female with a baby in tow, and I often wonder where is the father?

However, regardless of race or ethnicity, children out of wedlock should not be the socially accepted thing to do, I don't care how many of our so called leaders seemingly look the other way or endorse it.

Tennessee, like many other states is dealing with an epidemic of out of wedlock young women "spitting out babies like a baby machine" and enough is enough. We have ultra-liberal women in politics and civic organizations always carping about birth control and reproductive rights (read: abortion) and all sort of nonsense issues. But I rarely hear them say much on young women bringing babies in the world that are hardly in any condition, mentally, economically or educationally to care for them.

According to the latest figures available from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, there were an additional 38, 367 new unwed mothers in the state of Tennessee. That is an increase of over 30 per cent over the 1990 Census report. And according to the same 2000 report these unwed mothers make up 7.4 percent of our state's population, up from 7 per cent over 1990's figures. These are sobering statistics and should be addressed by our community leaders, our government officials, our church leaders and our educational system, especially since we are in a budgetary quandary.

It is not funny to see these young women walking down the street with their children. Many of these young women lose my sympathy primarily for three basic reasons. First, they are arrogant and unapologetic in their attitudes. They seemingly believe that the world owes them for everything, especially since they have a baby to provide for, not even realizing that we taxpayers are already subsidizing their behavioral patterns.

Secondly, many of the unwed young mothers I meet do not care about learning from their past indiscretions which precipitated their pregnancies. They are lax in taking advantage of government and community sponsored services that would assist them in better decision-making, or caring for their children. Their lackadaisical behavior is irritating to say the least.

Thirdly, some young girls are encouraged (yes, encouraged) by their mothers to have babies at a young age. Why? So that they can receive additional state and federal money, that is why. Their opinion is that more money will be coming in the house, and this just promotes generational illegitimacy, passing from mother to daughter to granddaughter, etc.

When President William Jefferson Clinton signed The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (better known as the Welfare and Reform Act), he was trying to wean those individuals who unnecessarily relied upon their federal government's largesse, from the clutches of their negative behavior, and continuing to abuse the system.

Part of that law had a section entitled, "Bonus to reward decrease in Illegitimacy Ratio", which mainly meant that the federal government was trying to increase funding for abstinence education and other programs to provide incentive in discouraging unwanted pregnancies, etc.

That is how to make a difference: use monies to dissuade these young girls from wanting to have children so early or out of wedlock. The Murphy Brown Syndrome should not be a socially (or governmentally) promoted way of life. Young people are very impressionable, so we must fully endorse those programs or community activities, which will lessen the burden of government spending over the long run and challenge these women to take personal responsibility for their actions. They must realize early on all the negative aspects of becoming pregnant at such a young age, realizing that the government will not give them a blank check to have baby after baby.

It is no hidden fact that children from these kinds of homes generally are more prone to be underweight at birth, have more birth defects, and have less effective medical care. They are also more likely to engage in crime, drop out of school, and when they reach puberty, are more likely themselves to become young, unmarried parents, promoting an endless cycle.

It is time to seriously address this illegitimacy problem. It is time for these young women to get an education, to have some self-respect, to practice sexual abstinence, to get a job, and take the necessary steps to arrest their predicament. Many people like me are perturbed by the silence from our civic leaders, our church folk, and from pro-women/lesbian groups who turn a deaf ear to this crisis of character. Their silence speaks volumes to the reasons we have an epidemic of baby machines in Tennessee and America.

Mark A. Rawls works for Golden Circle Life Insurance Company of Brownsville, Tennessee, ranked as the 8th largest black owned life insurance company in America (June 2002 Issue of Black Enterprise Magazine)

If the "War on Unwed Mothers" is as successful as the War on Drugs, then you might as well kiss marriage goodbye.

Seriously, doesn't government have better things to do -- like defending us from people who want to kill us?

From what I understand there is a queue of would-be adoptive parents waiting for babies. Why, then, are unwanted babies not being placed with people who want them? It would seem that there are some problems in the adoption system that need to be worked out.

"the man who impregnated them"??

Oh, I'm sorry it must have been rape. It takes TWO participants as I recall, to become pregnant. Why would a man be interested in marrying and supporting a woman who gives it up for nothing.?

Why would a man be interested in marrying and supporting a woman who gives it up for nothing.?

I'll bite.
Perhaps the man is a decent guy or has a sense of responsibility? Or perhaps he *gasp* loves the woman? I know, what concepts.

If a man is decent, he doesn't sleep with someone BEFORE they are married, and most decent guys I know, don't date "easy" women. And don't mix up lust with love. Love takes a long time to grow and develop and has very little to do with sexual attraction.

In terms of the beliefs of most people here ... what's the problem? They're doing what you want. These young women are giving birth to children. They're not having abortions.

The only "pro-life" advocates that I take seriously, and don't see as being hypocrites, are those who also work in adoption agencies or other arenas, to genuinely help clean up this "illegitimacy" mess. (Scare quotes because, as my mother said, the parents are the ones acting illegitimately, not the kids.)

"Pro-life" people who don't work in those areas are no better than liberals wanting another unbounded statist program addressing "need". They want enforced action, but they want others to pay for its consequences -- such as unwed mothers. And, for most, to pay for them in some way with extorted tax monies.

They're doing what you want. These young women are giving birth to children. They're not having abortions.

Your argument is bunk. What WE want, if you mean the Christians I stand with against abortion, is for these women to have enough respect for themselves to say no. What WE want is for the young men who date them to have enough respect for the women to not pressure them into having sex. What WE want is for all children to have parents who love them and raise them in a manner that they understand that having sex before marriage is wrong. Having children out of wedlock is wrong. Being a baby-squirting whore who lives off the hard work of the taxpayers is wrong. Being the father of a child who does not know its father or who is not supported by its father is wrong. WE don't want these young women having abortions. In fact, WE don't want them giving birth at all until they can bring their children into a home with a mother and a father and a support system that can provide for them.

The only way to seriously end out-of-wedlock births is to COMPLETELY and IMMEDIATELY cut off the government support checks! If it sounds like cruelty to the infant - it is ... It is the cruelty inflicted by the irresponsible parents.

Without that taxpayer largesse, these unwed mothers will spend their time extracting funds from the father. Hopefully they will make better decisions with their lives in the future. And they will be a huge negative example for other girls who are thinking about taking the same destructive decision.

Everyone must remember that these children are not the responsibility of the taxpayer - they are the responsibility of the parents. No matter how "well-intentioned" these welfare payment programs are, they do NOT justify theft by taxation.

The large majority of the baby-squirters are poor and black. That's the first problem and one that doesn't get talked about because it would be racist. White parents don't want black babies. Black social workers don't want to place black babies with white parents.

From what I understand, at least in some areas, white parents would be willing to accept black babies but the social workers refuse on the basis that the babies wouldn't be properly brought up into the "black" culture.

If this is so, it's a three-way win for liberals:

They get to portray adoptive parents as racist for failing to adopt kids they aren't allowed to adopt.
It prevents the production of black conservative citizens who are the anathema to the liberal cause.
It lets them point to the queues of black babies whom they won't let be adopted as being an argument for abortion.

Am I being overly cynical, or are liberals sacrificing black babies so they can achieve the above benefits?

[...] In fact, WE don't want them giving birth at all until they can bring their children into a home with a mother and a father and a support system that can provide for them.

And if they don't have such a home available, what are YOU going to do about it? Since you've ruled out abortions? You might show less of the hypocrisy I talked about, and support voluntary private agencies for them, as we once had. (My father was born in the '20s in one of the Margaret Booth Hospitals of the Salvation Army -- his parents were married, but these facilities had excellent obstetric services.)

Most FReepers I've encountered don't rule out the imposition of governmental force, as the author of the "baby machines" article above does not. They just want it used on different targets than are preferred by the liberals or socialists, that's all. Or they don't mind stealing others' tax money to do it, when the crunch comes -- and, in this case, the babies are here already.

We have ultra-liberal women in politics and civic organizations always carping about birth control and reproductive rights

In the mind of a liberal, there are only rights, NO responsibilities.

Because they're not unwanted by their mothers. And they're not an embarrassment to the girls' families, as out-of-wedlock babies would have been 30-40 years ago. Shotgun weddings and homes for unwed mothers are things of the past.

The only "pro-life" advocates that I take seriously, and don't see as being hypocrites...

So, the baby's only two options are, to have prosperous parents/guardians or to be butchered? Something ain’t right here.

Every time a friend sees a young girl with a baby, he calls it, "another girl displaying her F#ck Trophy."
Here's the other side. A young girl was pushing a baby carriage and she was verbally attacked by an older lady. The young girl was baby sitting.

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.