We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It is not the government's place to stigmatize young mothers.
You know Bloomberg and his crew will not shame unwed wealthy actresses.
They are going to turn the public against young mothers just as smokers and heavy people have been demonized. It is done "for our own good" like all the freedom killing government projects.
I presume that abortion services will be advertised by the city government next to the shaming posters.
Ruth Marcus is a bit late to the party, don't you think?
It is shameful to bring a child into the world without a mother and father to raise it. Perhaps Ms. Marcus would expand her reintroduction of shaming to the two "married" homosexuals who appeared in an article in her newspaper, the Washington Post, a couple of weeks ago. They have a website called something like "baking for babies" through which they are selling baked goods to raise money to buy eggs and rent a surrogate womb. The writer of the article thought this was oh so touching, as did many of the commenters.
When babies become a commodity or a status symbol (as in the case of many teen pregnancies), our future is severely compromised.
First of all I really don't see what is wrong with shaming unwed mothers. Would you be equally opposed to shaming deadbeat dad's? But more importantly if this advertising campaign works it is a win/win. Potential unwed mothers are "saved" and the children who would have sufferred from this mistake are prevented (at least until the mother has a more stable situation). Isn't that desirable and worth the effort?
"Excuse me, but we're not supposed to have a negative opinion about teen pregnancy and parenthood? Isn't that the planned part of Planned Parenthood?.....But to say that we shouldn't shame pregnant teenagers is different from saying that it's a shame anytime a teenager gets pregnant. It is, and the squeamishness about saying so does teenagers no favor."
The unspoken and unwritten truth here is that the issue of children born out of wedlock is much more serious for the black community than it is for the white community, which is still playing catch-up on the rate of unwed mothers. But if you mention that it would be racist. The position taken by Planned Parenthood is especially interesting. PP does a good job of hiding the fact that it was founded by someone who believed in eugenics for the non-white races. And then, of course, there is the cost to the rest of us of all these illegitimate kids born to teen-age mothers who depend on social welfare programs instead of the support of the baby fathers. When government subsidizes out-of-wedlock births and supplants men as husband and father, you know the kids born into that situation are doomed.
LHF and Cooper have good points, however, there's a reason 30% of all US births are now out of wedlock, and it's not insufficient shaming. It's because if your teenager has a baby, AFDC/TANF will subsidize her to get her own apartment at the age of 16. The "freedom" of having the benefits of adulthood without most of the costs is hard to pass up, especially if you're a teenager with strict parents. (Then of course there are the ones whose mothers did it themselves; they know the score.)
As long as these subsidies keep coming, kids will take them.
The hard truth that the lefties don't want to hear is that the only way to start reducing the resulting suffering is to cut off the benefits, especially the most tempting ones. Make it a rule that anyone receiving welfare must move back in with his/her parents if they are alive. And that anyone on welfare who has another child will be declared an unfit parent and the child put in foster care. Even if this doesn't save money on taking care of the individuals involved, it will certainly get rid of the incentive that leads teens to go that route.
You did not read my comment carefully.
I said that it is not the Government's place to campaign against unwed mothers.
I did not say single motherhood is desirable. It should be discouraged by families, not by the government.
Smoking and eating too much is also not good, but it is not the government's job to single out our citizens!
Funny how so called conservatives jump at the chance to have the government campaign against those whom they disagree with.
I bet that if any of you are overweight , smoke ,love salt, drink large sodas, or fed formula to your babies are insulted by Nanny Bloomberg's campaign against your choices.
Now several of the commentators have fallen in line with the liberals by approving of Government Control and enforcement our beliefs and culture.
I think I read your comment more carefully than you wrote it. You said, "it is not the government's place to stigmatize young mothers," by which I presume you meant the growing number of unwed CHILDREN (!) who are having babies of their own. And I offered a quote from Ruth Marcus's article that said, in effect, hate the sin, not the sinner. The disintegration of the family structure in various communities, most notably urban black ones, has reached epidemic proportions. Bloomberg's campaign, according to Marcus, is intended to educate (not stigmatize or shame) underage girls, to make them aware of the enormous problems they will face should they become pregnant out of wedlock. The hope is to discourage them from acting so foolishly. And just to be clear, my further point is that the government would help matters considerably if it stopped subsidizing such bad behavior by our children. Government charity is doing more harm than good.
Oh dear, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. You must be a product of one of our nation's failing public schools.
No commenter here (certainly not I) has offered support of "government control" or of Bloomberg's (alleged) educational campaign, which is what Ruth Marcus wrote about. What several of us have written above is that government social welfare programs actually make the dual problems of teenage pregnancy and unwed motherhood worse, thereby encouraging young children to have babies out of wedlock. If I favor any government action, it is that the government should STOP intervening because, even if offered with good intentions, the government's current welfare programs end up doing more harm than good.
The original article is about Bloomberg shaming unwed mothers with posters on subways and buses. There is nothing in my original comment that showed I approve of unwed motherhood. I merely pointed out that it is not Bloomberg's place to lead the charge. It is obvious that Government is a major part of the problem. His posters will solve nothing as the problem of family breakdown has deep roots in government dependency and cultural breakdown.
Bloomberg is community organizing. Pitting citizens against each other. A dangerous activity. He is doing what all tyrants do to gain power.
It is not the governments place to to interfere in our lives in any way. However since we have decided to provide unwed mothers with welfare sometimes in excess of $40,000 a year it would appear that the government does indeed have a vested interest in preventing unwed mothers in the future. However I would really prefer we ended all forms of welfare at the federal level and all forms of unconstitutional interference in people's lives. Having said that I do believe that most such meddling is in fact constitutional at the state and local government level.