Reply to NYT Article on "Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing"

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "NYT Article on "Rise of Single-Parent Families is Not a Good Thing""

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]There have been a couple similarly-themed articles in the NYT in the last couple weeks.

I don't think the articles or studies sufficiently parse out the difference between: (i) women who have babies without getting married, where dad may or may not be in the picture (but realistically, mom bears most of the childrearing); (ii) babies born to marriage, but where there's a divorce and one parent effectively abandons the family (basically, the classic 1970s divorce); and (iii) babies born to married, but where there's a divorce but both parents are still active, engaged parents in separate households.  I'm going to guess all are, on average, less favorable than the typical two-parent household, but that (iii) is a lot better than (i) and (ii).

But the primary solution shouldn't be making women care for babies in unhappy marriages.  It should be making abortions unstigmatized and available and, shocker, encouraged (with absolute knowing consent).  I don't really care about the arguments that this is "racist" eugenics because we're mostly talking about POC.  I think it's a lot more racist for their kids to grow up in a cycle of poverty that could have been predicted from the minute the sperm hit the egg.  We can put our tax dollars into women's prenatal healthcare (which is proven to work), or  we can put a lot more of it into the war on poverty, which 60 years later consensus is that it's really expensive and doesn't work.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics