The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Now, and I want you to absorb the first part of my next sentence very carefully because it will clue you in to the thin ice on which we seem to have skated and explain any unfortunate future event which may occur in this conversation, but which can be avoided altogether if one is careful.
So as I was saying, being an actual bastard, I find it neither sad nor shocking about the rising rate. Believe it or not, being born out of wedlock has no impact whatsoever on a person. If you met me in real life -- you wouldn't be able to tell me apart from the others!
The biggest problem is not having two incomes. The biggest problem is poverty. Children raised by middle class and upper class single parents suffer no ill-effects, even if they're bastards. Thinking that solving illegitimate births will solve poverty is ridiculous. Giving people jobs, leveling the playing field, and providing social services will help the "underclass."
And I can guarantee that if you look behind the numbers of the rising rates, you will find that the increase correlates with the decrease in access to contraception and abortion. The slashing of funds for reproductive care, and the closing of many, many clinics.
Oh, and as to your comment above which I'll get to later, hospitals do not have to treat anyone here -- only if it is a life-threatening emergency.
Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
First, thank you for this tutorial on boxing information. I'm such a jerk here, a little intimidated at reading the material, and I allow that to become an obstacle. But this is great!! I'm going to start my own wchurchill notebook on these tips
Second, thank you for pointing out the thin ice. Your comment makes me realize that I was not as precise with my language as I should have been. first, let me say i have a number of situations in my direct family where children are born out of wedlock. For me it is not a moral issue, it's just the world today. When I lived in London I was initially surprised to see so many people having children, living like a married couple, but not getting married due to a number of issues--taxes being one. (this was the late '80's.) but what they were doing was very logical. the term bastard never comes to my mind, in the literal sense anyway. And as I say, directly in my family other situations have occured where a single parent situation just evolved--and it was the right thing under the circumstances,,,the children are just as wonderful and well loved as any others.
My point as I intended it, is that I think it is very challenging to raise children in a single parent situation--particularly boys, and perhaps even more specifically, boys with single mothers who live in poorer areas where there are other adult males who are not good role models. Now, that is not to say that every child, every boy, is doomed in that situation. Some of those single mothers are strong, committed, brilliant women, who keep their sons in line with wonderful love and an iron hand, and have wonderful material to start with in their children. Nor is it to say that all children out of the susposedly "perfect traditional two parent family" have a red carpet to success. We probably both know wonderful successes from both situations, and sad failures from both.
I have also had direct experience, personal, in this area, that unfortunately turned out tragically. I, and others around, felt that the lack of a father in this young man's first ten years was a major negative event in the way his life played out. And of course I've seen other situations from further away.
And of course even stating my view more precisely, I realize it's a debatable proposition. And it's a social trend that would be a challenge to change--though I think the welfare system of the great society, with its negative financial incentive for the father's to live at home, was one of those situations of good intentions, but unintended consequences, that will be hard to recover from. In other words, a place where policy influenced a social trend.
Though you still may disagree with my thinking, I'm glad that I can better point out that my view is a pragmatic one, rather than a moral one. And I apologize for stating this poorly in that last sentence. Kind of ironic that I did that, as you would see if you knew my own family situation in more detail.
I do have to run as I'm very tied up with some matters. But when I saw your wonderful post, and recognized my imprecision, I had to take the time immediately to respond.
You have also motivated me to do some work on the uninsured in America. There is much misunderstanding about healthcare for this group of people. I'm not arguing that things are fine--I would like all to be insured. But I have friends who are professionally very involved in this area, and am going to see if they would contribute to a diary in this area that I think would be very illuminating. The situation is far from perfect, but not as bad as it is portrayed in the press, nor as bad as our European friends think--most of whom think this group doesn't get healthcare. But I'll try to lay something out that will be factual and hopefully documented, that people can review,,,hopefully it will add to our knowledge base, and then it can be challenged and debated.
Thank you again for a very helpful and thoughtful post. As I realize from your other posts, you are a generous, kind and well motivated person, and I feel honored to share a dialogue with you.
I think it is very challenging to raise children -- particularly boys -- in poorer areas where there are other adult males who are not good role models.
I think there's rather too much emphasis placed on the role of single mothers in these situations and not enough on the simple fact that young men (in particular) who feel, for whatever reason, that they have been abandoned by or are outside society are inclined not to be very nice to that society. Humans aren't very nice animals, especillay when we're young.
which is why many lower income and uninsured people do not seek treatment for a condition when it first arises, but wait until it becomes a life-threatening emergency -- at which time it costs far more to intervene than it would have to provide decent preventive care in the first place. it is not only immoral but financially nonsensical, the current system. to be financially sensible it would have to go that last Scroogeian eugenicist step and refuse the emergency care as well, leaving the poor to die, and "decrease the surplus population." (just another instance in which "good financial sense" implies a psychopathic degree of amorality -- and this itself is a rich vein for future discussions to mine.)
The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 18 23 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 13 30 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 42 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 8 70 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 4 18 comments
by Bernard - Aug 27 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 30 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1823 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 1330 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 870 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 742 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 418 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3014 comments
by Bernard - Aug 275 comments
by gmoke - Aug 27