40% of babies born to unmarried women !!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam_777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
Oh, you don’t know me very well, or you would not try to patronize me about my understanding of analogies. Anyone who knows me remotely could tell you I take analogies very seriously, and I use them often, here and elsewhere. I did not have any difficulty with that portion of the SAT, sir.

I cannot abide an analogy that misleads. Yours misleads, it is in fact insulting to single mothers, and don’t try to tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...
It’s only as insulting as it is to use an analogy for earlobes and Christmas trees.

If you’re one of those folks who thinks, when the analogy is made, that it means that an earlobe *is the same as *a Christmas tree, then you will find my analogy I made insulting.

Those who can think in the abstract won’t find anything at all insulting about the analogy of people who do just fine smoking every single day with people who do just fine growing up in a home with a single parent.

Not insulting at all.

To those who understand analogies. 🤷
 
JimG said:
Of course. No child’s life is a mistake and a tragedy. What is a mistake and a tragedy is an out of wedlock birthrate of 40% to 70%. Does anyone really believe that our civilization can survive such atomization of family structure? Pointing out the adverse consequences of such trends is not an attack on individuals born into such situations or on their parents. They do the best they can. They turn a potentially bad situation into good. A great many of them do. A great many of them thrive.

But many of them don’t. Not everyone is so capable. Is a child born to a 14 year old going to be as fortunate as a child born to an adult? Will she be cared for by grandma while mom finishes school? Yes, it’s possible, but it simply isn’t an ideal situation.

Anyone who is having sex must be prepared to have and to care for a child. Because no contraception is perfect. If one is having sex without being married, one is telling their potential child, “you may not be born into the best situation. You may not have a dad. Dad, or mom, or both, might just disappear. But right now, at this moment, that’s not important to me. It’s not as important to me as having sex with this man who has never made a commitment to stay with me, or to raise you, so we’ll just have to do the best we can.”

I’ve mentioned Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family & Civilization.” It’s not a book of theory. It’s a historical study, and it was written in the 1940’s, before the breakdown of the family had reached such an advanced state as it has now. Even then, his conclusion was that the current state of families in western societies was showing signs of atomization equal to the two prior historical instances which led to civilizational collapse.

Individuals and individual families differ widely in their ability to cope. Society as a whole bears the weight of all those accumulated individual decisions.
Click to expand...
Well, thank you i suppose for at least trying to be sensitive about this. Regardless of whether or not I agree with your points about the breakdown of society, linking children being borne out of wedlock to a social ill just does not sit right with me. It makes me feel very uncomfortable and I can never accept it.

Much of the phenomena that tends to be attributed to out of wedlock births, such as a low income environment, violence and young age among others, are not an intrinsic part of it. I think people get confused amidst all these very different and nuanced issues.

Marriage in itself is not a guaranteed solver of problems. Which is why the Church wont marry a couple just because they are pregnant.

The problems we have in society (and i say this as someone who does not buy the whole ‘prior to the 60s the world was one big utopia’ spiel) I believe can be attributed to shaming, the shaming of single parents and men with virgin/whore complexes, who think they have the right to treat women like dirt just because they are not married to them.

We need to start teaching people that they ought to treat others with respect, just because.
 
JaneGrey said:
Well, thank you i suppose for at least trying to be sensitive about this. Regardless of whether or not I agree with your points about the breakdown of society, linking children being borne out of wedlock to a social ill just does not sit right with me. It makes me feel very uncomfortable and I can never accept it.

Much of the phenomena that tends to be attributed to out of wedlock births, such as a low income environment, violence and young age among others, are not an intrinsic part of it. I think people get confused amidst all these very different and nuanced issues.

Marriage in itself is not a guaranteed solver of problems. Which is why the Church wont marry a couple just because they are pregnant.

The problems we have in society (and i say this as someone who does not buy the whole ‘prior to the 60s the world was one big utopia’ spiel) I believe can be attributed to shaming, the shaming of single parents and men with virgin/whore complexes, who think they have the right to treat women like dirt just because they are not married to them.

We need to start teaching people that they ought to treat others with respect, just because.
Click to expand...
It is a social ill. The longer we take to recognize it, the longer it will have to take hold. If we say “it’s all good”, then why not promote it? In some ways, we do. Your discomfort is likely a result of realizing how devastating a phenomenon it is, and how prophetic Humanae Vitae was.

Marriage is not a guaranteed solver of problems, true, but illegitimate children have a much harder time in life as a rule.

The world had a much better handle on supporting families in the 1940s than it does now. I’m curious as to why you believe shaming would cause all of these problems. Do you have any suggestions as to how to prevent single-parent families? Why do you bring up “men with virgin/whore complexes”? Women have just as many “marks” against them as men. I think blaming men is not a good response to the problem. In courts they are frequently assumed to be guilty, and we wonder why they don’t want to marry (and therefore leave the mother open to abandonment). If we create environments for people to be discouraged from marrying, and encouraged not to, we create immense problems that we see every day.

Are you by chance effected by this phenomenon?
 
David_Thorne said:
It is a social ill. The longer we take to recognize it, the longer it will have to take hold. If we say “it’s all good”, then why not promote it? In some ways, we do. Your discomfort is likely a result of realizing how devastating a phenomenon it is, and how prophetic Humanae Vitae was.

Marriage is not a guaranteed solver of problems, true, but illegitimate children have a much harder time in life as a rule.

The world had a much better handle on supporting families in the 1940s than it does now. I’m curious as to why you believe shaming would cause all of these problems. Do you have any suggestions as to how to prevent single-parent families? Why do you bring up “men with virgin/whore complexes”? Women have just as many “marks” against them as men. I think blaming men is not a good response to the problem. In courts they are frequently assumed to be guilty, and we wonder why they don’t want to marry (and therefore leave the mother open to abandonment). If we create environments for people to be discouraged from marrying, and encouraged not to, we create immense problems that we see every day.

Are you by chance effected by this phenomenon?
Click to expand...
People need to get a bigger (and better) definition of what is really meant by the term “Illegitimate”!

As TriumphGuy just mentioned on another active thread, “Babies are always legitimate. In fact they are gift and grace.” (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10007649#post10007649)

And as far as the true definition of that word, see what the apologists have to say: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11787&highlight=illegitimate+illegitimacy
 
PRmerger said:
It’s only as insulting as it is to use an analogy for earlobes and Christmas trees.

If you’re one of those folks who thinks, when the analogy is made, that it means that an earlobe *is the same as *a Christmas tree, then you will find my analogy I made insulting.

Those who can think in the abstract won’t find anything at all insulting about the analogy of people who do just fine smoking every single day with people who do just fine growing up in a home with a single parent.

Not insulting at all.

To those who understand analogies. 🤷
Click to expand...
One of those folks who thinks? I am struggling mightly to maintain a civil posture, here. Suffice it to say that you can insult someone mightily without being convinced that you have.

No. Your analogy is not insulting because I don’t understand analogies. Your analogy is insulting because it is false. It is false because it is sloppy in considering the particular kind of cause and effect you’re implying. Allow me to explain in more obvious detail.

Having been raised by a single parent is not to being a well-adjusted child as having been a smoker is to being cancer-free as because cigarette smoke actively damages the lungs while a single parent can provide good but only a portion of the good that a child needs.

That is why your analogy is insulting: that is, if being raised by a single parent were to being a well-adjusted child as having been a smoker were to being cancer-free, then the well-adjusted child of a single parent would be that in spite of the active damage that the love and sacrifices of a single parent does to their child.

Now, if you had used the analogy of growing up with an otherwise sufficient diet but without enough flouride and reaching adulthood with good teeth, then that would have been an OK analogy. There is a big difference between being good but posing a danger due to an insufficiency than being actively damaging.
 
Thankyou Sam. To answer the question of why women are always called out on this, is because the Lord knows that we are strong enough to tolerate the dirty looks we get when we take our “illegitimate” children to church with us. Aren’t you glad that 40% of babies are BORN, rather than ABORTED, to unmarried women? I wonder how many unmarried women have abortions? SAM you sound like a typical middle eastern Muslim. Are they still doing “virgin tests” on the women in Saudi Arabia?
 
Helen31 said:
Thankyou Sam. To answer the question of why women are always called out on this, is because the Lord knows that we are strong enough to tolerate the dirty looks we get when we take our “illegitimate” children to church with us.
Click to expand...
:eek:

Who is giving you dirty looks for bringing illegitimate children to church with you?

Are you sure they’re not giving you dirty looks for some other reason?
 
LightBound said:
People need to get a bigger (and better) definition of what is really meant by the term “Illegitimate”!

As TriumphGuy just mentioned on another active thread, “Babies are always legitimate. In fact they are gift and grace.” (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10007649#post10007649)

And as far as the true definition of that word, see what the apologists have to say: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11787&highlight=illegitimate+illegitimacy
Click to expand...
“Illegitimate” refers to the fact that a child is born to unmarried parents. Your link says just that. I know some people will say the best definition is the one that applies to no one, but that just tries to avoid the consequences of their actions. And not all babies are legitimate - that just cannot be so, unfortunately.

The attempt to redefine the structures of society is mainly centered around making people feel better that they aren’t a part of them; if they are not in a family, redefine the family; if they can’t get married, redefine marriage; etc. The selfishness that led to having a child out of wedlock is the same selfishness that wants to redefine “wedlock” or abolish the term. Instead of pretending something doesn’t apply to us, why not work to have it not apply in the first place?

It takes work, but it’s worth it.
 
David_Thorne said:
“Illegitimate” refers to the fact that a child is born to unmarried parents. Your link says just that. I know some people will say the best definition is the one that applies to no one, but that just tries to avoid the consequences of their actions. And not all babies are legitimate - that just cannot be so, unfortunately.

The attempt to redefine the structures of society is mainly centered around making people feel better that they aren’t a part of them; if they are not in a family, redefine the family; if they can’t get married, redefine marriage; etc. The selfishness that led to having a child out of wedlock is the same selfishness that wants to redefine “wedlock” or abolish the term. Instead of pretending something doesn’t apply to us, why not work to have it not apply in the first place?

It takes work, but it’s worth it.
Click to expand...
I’d say having a child out of wedlock is a lot less selfish than having an abortion, wouldn’t you? Afterall, why not just have the abortion? You’ve already sinned by having premarital sex, so why endure the “shame” of being an unmarried, pregnant woman? Just abort the baby and no one is the wiser?

Really sick, isn’t it? Well, that what’s generally happened in the good old days when women got pregnant outside of marriage and the culture made outcasts of them and the child. That mentality has been going on long before Roe v Wade. Just because abortion wasnlt legal in all 50 states prior to that, doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening more than you probably think. I’d rather have less shame for an unmarried mom than a dead baby, but that’s just me.

“Legitimate” is just a legal term for the purpose of inheritance. It’s really hard to want to get back to calling children of an unwed mom “illegitimate” and we all know that word stronly implies inferior and perhaps rings with the sound of “shouldn’t have happened at all”, when we’re trying desperately to defend the child that’s a product of rape as also being a gift from God.
 
Helen31 said:
Thankyou Sam. To answer the question of why women are always called out on this, is because the Lord knows that we are strong enough to tolerate the dirty looks we get when we take our “illegitimate” children to church with us. Aren’t you glad that 40% of babies are BORN, rather than ABORTED, to unmarried women? I wonder how many unmarried women have abortions? SAM you sound like a typical middle eastern Muslim. Are they still doing “virgin tests” on the women in Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...
I notice that people who make mistakes (that they are aware of), they become hyper-aware of what people think of them, even if their perceptions are wrong. They are realizing the consequences of their actions most likely.

The last part of your post is at best a crude personal attack. :tsktsk:
 
LightBound said:
I’d say having a child out of wedlock is a lot less selfish than having an abortion, wouldn’t you? Afterall, why not just have the abortion? You’ve already sinned by having premarital sex, so why endure the “shame” of being an unmarried, pregnant woman? Just abort the baby and no one is the wiser?

Really sick, isn’t it? Well, that what’s generally happened in the good old days when women got pregnant outside of marriage and the culture made outcasts of them and the child. That mentality has been going on long before Roe v Wade. Just because abortion wasnlt legal in all 50 states prior to that, doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening more than you probably think. I’d rather have less shame for an unmarried mom than a dead baby, but that’s just me.
Click to expand...
I made no mention of levels/degrees of selfishness.

Since you are on the topic, what do you think stops people from having children out of wedlock?
 
David_Thorne said:
I notice that people who make mistakes (that they are aware of), they become hyper-aware of what people think of them, even if their perceptions are wrong. They are realizing the consequences of their actions most likely.

The last part of your post is at best a crude personal attack. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel that you were “attacked”. but you are perhaps a bit too sensitive if you feel it was that. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
<sigh.>

I don’t think you understand analogies, EJ.

The above are alike as analogs only.

Take this very simple analogy:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

If someone says, “How dare you equate a beautiful 6 foot tall, majestic, green Christmas tree with a fleshy, cartilaginous, 2 centimeter earlobe! Your analogy fails. An earlobe is NOT a Christmas tree!”…clearly you see that this person hasn’t a clue how to understand analogies.

And if they add, “Oh, and Christmas trees need water and earlobes don’t, so your analogy fails” you can just dismiss them as folks who just can’t think in the abstract.

🤷
Click to expand...
You do not further your view by being rude and patronising.
 
David_Thorne said:
I made no mention of levels/degrees of selfishness.

Since you are on the topic, what do you think stops people from having children out of wedlock?
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t mention any degrees or levels, but I still posted my thoughts on it.

Things to decrease pregnancy outside of marriage: Education, self-esteem. Breaking the poverty cycle. Less glamorizing of teen moms in the media.
 
severus68 said:
You do not further your view by being rude and patronising.
Click to expand...
Rude? Absolutely not.

Patronizing? Probably a little.

But there is no other way to be able to show someone who can’t understand a more complex analogy, than to proffer a very simple, basic, elementary one.
 
LightBound said:
No, you didn’t mention any degrees or levels, but I still posted my thoughts on it.

Things to decrease pregnancy outside of marriage: Education, self-esteem. Breaking the poverty cycle. Less glamorizing of teen moms in the media.
Click to expand...
But what do you think actually stops them, though? Well-educated, wealthy people still have illegitimate children. What do you think goes through someone’s mind that tells them in definite terms that having, or risking having, illegitimate children is not a good idea?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top