An interesting piece of journalism in yesterday’s LA Times marshals economic and sociological factors (is anyone shocked?) against the “single-mother revolution.”
. . . those who opt for single motherhood are hurting not just themselves but their offspring. The children of single mothers are twice as likely as children growing up with both parents to drop out of high school. Those who do graduate are less likely to go to college, even if you control for household income and the mother’s education. Decades of research show that kids growing up with single mothers (again, even after you allow for the obvious variables) have lower scholastic achievement from kindergarten through high school, as well as higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, depression, behavior problems and teen pregnancy. All these factors are likely to reduce their eventual incomes at a time when what children need is more education, more training and more planning. The rise in single motherhood was ill-adapted for the economic shifts of the late 20th century.
June 4th, 2012 | 12:52 pm
I wonder how many instances, like this, of social research showing the truth of what we in Chrisitanity have known for about 2000 years, before someone will wake up and see the connection?
June 4th, 2012 | 2:01 pm
While I agree that single motherhood is hard on the offspring, I would argue further that all broken family bonds have costs – and we would do well to start measuring those costs, since we’ve been pretty reckless about going around destroying the bonds that hold families together.
June 4th, 2012 | 3:53 pm
Blake,
If a single woman gets pregnant with no prospect of marriage, what should she do? Of course, if she had been following traditional Christian morality, she would not get pregnant, so please don’t say single women shouldn’t get pregnant. The question is, If a single women gets pregnant with no prospect of marriage, what should she do?
June 4th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
Has there been any serious recent analysis to determine WHY so many women are choosing single motherhood today? Why do they disdain marriage? What advantages do they see in being a single parent?
I particularly wonder about those who deliberately choose to become unmarried mothers, but also wonder about the women who have unplanned pregnancies with “serious” partners.
June 4th, 2012 | 8:39 pm
If a single woman gets pregnant with no prospect of marriage, what should she do?
That’s sort of like a kid who got his sneaker caught in the railroad tracks demanding to know what he’s supposed to do, now that a train is coming down the tracks.
Better to teach kids not to play on the train tracks to begin with.
In the scenario you describe, the parents have already caused their child harm and grief. There is no choice such a mother can make that is capable of sparing the child suffering.
June 4th, 2012 | 8:47 pm
Of course, if she had been following traditional Christian morality, she would not get pregnant, so please don’t say single women shouldn’t get pregnant.
It has nothing to do with Christian morality.
Whatever your beliefs, there is no reason why anyone old enough to have sex is not also old enough to take responsibility for their body.
This is the whole point of having an age of consent (which, interestingly, liberals undermine shamelessly).
Exactly how one ought to take responsibility for one’s body is a question that Christians and non-Christians can and do legitimately disagree on, but the question of whether one ought to take responsibility for one’s body should not be so controversial.
June 4th, 2012 | 9:56 pm
Women who find themselves single mothers, for whatever reason, should do the best they can in their circumstances, and Christians presumably ought to give them and their children whatever help they are able to.
This is not inconsistent with discouraging people from getting into that situation in the first place.
I think most people understand that a child with a father and mother is better off than one with only 1 parent, but there are voices out there that tell them that enough support, the right social agencies etc can make up for it.
June 5th, 2012 | 8:22 am
David, Blake and Peter,
Before the current, and rather recent, cultural “norm” of single parents simply keeping their kids and raising them themselves, the norm was for the woman to offer the child for adoption.
This was the most loving thing for the mother to do–love being willing (and acting on that will) for the greatest good of the other. You will respond with some horror story of an adoption gone wrong, to make the point that adoption is not a panacea. Granted, but it’s the best option when the unwed mother, and her impregnator, have already created a situation where they are left with only imperfect options.
In most cases, adoption works well and provides the little person with that which every child should not be deprived of (at least deliberately)–the opportunity to grow up in an intact family, with mother and dad present.
Nickol (about what his ideas are worth) dismisses chastity and family as “traditional Christian morality.” It’s more like things which “we can’t not know”–see J. Budziszewski’s book by that title. We can’t not know, but many pretend they don’t.
June 5th, 2012 | 9:34 am
“That’s sort of like a kid who got his sneaker caught in the railroad tracks demanding to know what he’s supposed to do, now that a train is coming down the tracks.
Better to teach kids not to play on the train tracks to begin with.”
Or as Garrison Keillor’s fictional priest asked an unhappily pregnant single woman: “If you didn’t want to go to Minneapolis, why did you get on the bus?”
June 5th, 2012 | 11:16 am
Before the current, and rather recent, cultural “norm” of single parents simply keeping their kids and raising them themselves, the norm was for the woman to offer the child for adoption.
This was the most loving thing for the mother to do–love being willing (and acting on that will) for the greatest good of the other.
Actually there is some research available, which suggests that adoption is not always the best solution. If the woman in question wants to undertake the burden, the child is better off with the mother. (Adoption is better if the woman is not ready to undertake that burden, and that includes being emotionally unwilling.)
I agree with those who argue that we should support the mother who wishes to raise her child, but I would add that we need to find a way to support the family in a way that helps the family heal rather than in a way that seeks to whitewash over the question of whether healing is necessary.
June 6th, 2012 | 12:02 pm
Joe DeVet –
It’s worth noting, though, that sometimes a theory can be right in many areas for the wrong reasons; e.g., geocentrism.
June 6th, 2012 | 6:56 pm
@Joe:”do the best they can under the circumstances” doesn’t rule giving the child up for adoption, if that is going to give the child a better chance at life.
June 15th, 2012 | 4:16 am
[...] Marriage Makes Cents, on the benefits of two-parent families. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact