Should negligent parents be punished by the law?

[Ken]

It seems it is the fornicating that you don't like, not the single parenting.

I don't like either. I think fornication is wrong, and that it causes bad consequences, especially for children. I think being a birth parent out of wedlock is also bad, and is proven to cause bad outcomes.

A foster carer is irrelevant to this discussion and is not the same as a birth single mother. Like I said, it's disgusting you'd even compare the two.

If you had read the story you would have discovered that the Oregon single mother that I cited already had 5 children and was seeking to ADOPT two more, not be a foster parent. From the article:

That revelation led Bates to Oregon's foster care system, where she decided she wanted to adopt two kids — siblings under the age of 9. But when she went to fill out forms for her home evaluation, she got hung up on one section.

Like I said, it seems like it is really just single people having sex that you disapprove of, not single parenting.

Because if it was really an issue of parental negligence then we would be asking the state to look into and punish married families as well for things like improperly educating their children, or failing to vaccinate them, or failing to give them appropriate medical care, or feeding them poor diets, or letting them operate dangerous farm machinery, or beating them, etc. etc. etc.

And note. I am nowhere defending single parenting. I think parenting is already hard enough with two parents. I can't imagine doing it with just one. I'm simply pushing back on the notion that the solution to this issue is to criminalize it rather than figure out how to reduce the incident of single parents. Such as keeping kids in school. Dropping out of school also correlates heavily with getting pregnant out of wedlock. So education would be the logical place to start, not the criminal justice system. Promoting birth control is also an obvious way to reduce unwanted pregnancies that has proven highly effective around the world.

One thing that hasn't proven effective? Trying to ban premarital sex.

[RZehr]

One thing that hasn't proven effective? Trying to ban premarital sex.

Seems to work really well in our circles. We ban it. And we aren’t dependent on abortion, or birth control to get lower teen pregnancy rates either.
The obvious answer is for people to live as their Creator tells us to.

[Ken]

One thing that hasn't proven effective? Trying to ban premarital sex.

Seems to work really well in our circles. We ban it. And we aren’t dependent on abortion, or birth control to get lower teen pregnancy rates either.
The obvious answer is for people to live as their Creator tells us to.

If that is the answer then we should consider that Anabaptism has present in the US since the founding of the country. How successful has it been in convincing people to join and follow?

I mean it is kind of like saying that if people don't fight then there would be no war. Or if people don't steal then there would be no theft. Unfortunately human nature doesn't work like that. And if we want to use public policy to affect change (the subject of this thread is using the LAW to affect change) then we need to figure out WHY people are behaving in a certain way and incentivize them to do the opposite.

[RZehr]

One thing that hasn't proven effective? Trying to ban premarital sex.

Seems to work really well in our circles. We ban it. And we aren’t dependent on abortion, or birth control to get lower teen pregnancy rates either.
The obvious answer is for people to live as their Creator tells us to.

If that is the answer then we should consider that Anabaptism has present in the US since the founding of the country. How successful has it been in convincing people to join and follow?

I mean it is kind of like saying that if people don't fight then there would be no war. Or if people don't steal then there would be no theft. Unfortunately human nature doesn't work like that. And if we want to use public policy to affect change (the subject of this thread is using the LAW to affect change) then we need to figure out WHY people are behaving in a certain way and incentivize them to do the opposite.

If there is a problem and there is a group who is demonstrably succeeding at it, it seems the responsible and sensible thing to do is to take a hard look at how they are successful. Instead of simply saying that banning premarital sex isn’t effective, when clearly it can be. Basically, your argument seems to be saying that God doesn’t know what he is talking about for mankind on this matter.

[Josh]

Like I said, it seems like it is really just single people having sex that you disapprove of, not single parenting.

Let me clear it up for you. I don't approve of fornication. I also don't approve of people choosing to conceive a child and bear a child out of wedlock.

Fostering or adopting a child out of wedlock is entirely different. I don't have a problem with it.

Because if it was really an issue of parental negligence then we would be asking the state to look into and punish married families as well for things like improperly educating their children, or failing to vaccinate them, or failing to give them appropriate medical care, or feeding them poor diets, or letting them operate dangerous farm machinery, or beating them, etc. etc. etc.

The state already has compulsory attendance laws. I don't think it's negligent not to vaccinate children. I think people should make their own medical decisions, not the state.

And note. I am nowhere defending single parenting. I think parenting is already hard enough with two parents. I can't imagine doing it with just one. I'm simply pushing back on the notion that the solution to this issue is to criminalize it rather than figure out how to reduce the incident of single parents. Such as keeping kids in school. Dropping out of school also correlates heavily with getting pregnant out of wedlock.

Mennonite & Amish communities stop school at 8th grade yet have a very low amount of children born out of wedlock.

So education would be the logical place to start, not the criminal justice system. Promoting birth control is also an obvious way to reduce unwanted pregnancies that has proven highly effective around the world.

Since I think fornication is wrong, I don't think birth control is the right place to start - and as pointed out in the study I posted earlier, widespread birth control & abortion actually leads to more children out of wedlock, because people become careless. In the Victorian era, the rate was lower than it is now. Many children are conceived (both in single people and married people) by a couple that was using birth control.

One thing that hasn't proven effective? Trying to ban premarital sex.

Seems to work great in Mennonite & Amish communities.

[Ken]

Seems to work really well in our circles. We ban it. And we aren’t dependent on abortion, or birth control to get lower teen pregnancy rates either.
The obvious answer is for people to live as their Creator tells us to.

If that is the answer then we should consider that Anabaptism has present in the US since the founding of the country. How successful has it been in convincing people to join and follow?

I mean it is kind of like saying that if people don't fight then there would be no war. Or if people don't steal then there would be no theft. Unfortunately human nature doesn't work like that. And if we want to use public policy to affect change (the subject of this thread is using the LAW to affect change) then we need to figure out WHY people are behaving in a certain way and incentivize them to do the opposite.

If there is a problem and there is a group who is demonstrably succeeding at it, it seems the responsible and sensible thing to do is to take a hard look at how they are successful. Instead of simply saying that banning premarital sex isn’t effective, when clearly it can be. Basically, your argument seems to be saying that God doesn’t know what he is talking about for mankind on this matter.

This thread is about single parent families. Remind me where in the Bible God or Jesus ever spoke out against single parent families. And single parents have existed since the dawn of time. Remember the story of Hagar in Genesis? Or Naomi? How many single parent families did the Israelites create through their endless wars? Maybe God's message when it comes to single parent families isn't so clear as you think.

If you want to outlaw single people from having sex and then use the law to punish them for it, go for it. But let's not pretend that is about single parent families when the majority of single parent families are not due to single people intentionally having children.

Look, I don't think teenagers should be having children either. That usually amounts to a lifetime sentence of poverty in this country. But this is not a new problem. It is as old as time. And we have vast experience in both the US and other countries with what works and what doesn't work when it comes to policy solutions. One thing that doesn't work? The abstinence-only education that you are proposing. That was tried extensively in the US in the early 2000s and funded in numerous states at both the Federal and State level and is still common in some areas. What did we learn from all that effort? That teen pregnancies actually went UP in states that focused on abstinence-only education: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/a ... 018.304896 and https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S074 ... 8/abstract

• Research shows that federal abstinence-only funding does not lower adolescent birth rates. In fact, the more that state policies emphasize abstinence-only programs, the higher the incidence of adolescent pregnancies and births.
• An HHS-funded analysis found that abstinence-only programs do not affect the incidence of pregnancy, HIV or other STIs in adolescents.
• Young people who express intentions to wait until marriage to have sex have the same rates of premarital sex, STIs, and anal and oral sex as their peers who do not take pledges. They are also less likely to use contraceptives, are at higher risk for HPV and have higher rates of nonmarital pregnancy compared with those who never pledged abstinence.

also

• Framing abstinence as a choice—and anything else as a failure—is isolating and cruel to students who have been coerced or forced into sexual experiences. For example, abstinence-only programs are completely unprepared to meet the needs of the one in nine girls and one in 53 boys who have experienced sexual abuse or assault by an adult.

None of this is new. If the concern here is reducing the prevalence of single parent families then perhaps we should focus on polices that actually work. If you actually want to reduce the number of unwanted children in single parent households then there are lots of effective things that can be done, starting with keeping kids in school.

[Josh]

This thread is about single parent families.

No, it isn't. I made a reference to people who intentionally choose to fornicate and thus create a child outside of a loving marriage. You keep trying to muddy the waters by talking about all kinds of other irrelevant situations like an adoptive or foster parent.

Remind me where in the Bible God or Jesus ever spoke out against single parent families.

Both God, Jesus, and Paul spoke against fornication.

And single parents have existed since the dawn of time. Remember the story of Hagar in Genesis?

The Bible does not speak about Abraham's conduct towards Hagar in positive terms. I don't think it's wholesome at all for men to decide to have sex with their wife's household employee. Do you?

Or Naomi?

Naomi was a widow. A widow a single mother who has kids outside of wedlock are not the same thing, and it's disgusting to even compare the two.

If you want to outlaw single people from having sex and then use the law to punish them for it, go for it. But let's not pretend that is about single parent families

The only person pretending this is about every possible single parent situation is you. I keep on trying to return the conversation back to that I'm opposed to fornication and having children outside of wedlock, and I think you keep muddying the waters with topics like widows or adoptive parents.

• Research shows that federal abstinence-only funding does not lower adolescent birth rates. In fact, the more that state policies emphasize abstinence-only programs, the higher the incidence of adolescent pregnancies and births.

Mennonite and Amish society uses abstinence-only approach. And we have very low rates of out of wedlock pregnancy. As I understand it, when it does happen in Amish circles the parents usually get married very quickly, which is a good thing.

[*]An HHS-funded analysis found that abstinence-only programs do not affect the incidence of pregnancy, HIV or other STIs in adolescents.

I really could care less about people who fornicate getting diseases. People who drink alcohol get liver disease. People who smoke cigarettes get cancer. People who fornicate get STDs. There are consequences to choices.

None of this is new. If the concern here is reducing the prevalence of single parent families

That wasn't my concern. My concern was reducing children born out of wedlock. Can you please stay on topic?

then perhaps we should focus on polices that actually work. If you actually want to reduce the number of unwanted children in single parent households then there are lots of effective things that can be done, starting with keeping kids in school.

There are no unwanted children born in America. The list of parents who want to adopt is very very long. Some friends of mine at church recently spent $80,000 in order to adopt a baby.

[RZehr]

Extremely high demand for foster parents in Oregon. Chronic shortage. And yet the Oregon DHS is hostile to traditional Christian families.

[Ken]

This thread is about single parent families.

No, it isn't. I made a reference to people who intentionally choose to fornicate and thus create a child outside of a loving marriage. You keep trying to muddy the waters by talking about all kinds of other irrelevant situations like an adoptive or foster parent.

Remind me where in the Bible God or Jesus ever spoke out against single parent families.

Both God, Jesus, and Paul spoke against fornication.

And single parents have existed since the dawn of time. Remember the story of Hagar in Genesis?

The Bible does not speak about Abraham's conduct towards Hagar in positive terms. I don't think it's wholesome at all for men to decide to have sex with their wife's household employee. Do you?

Or Naomi?

Naomi was a widow. A widow a single mother who has kids outside of wedlock are not the same thing, and it's disgusting to even compare the two.

If you want to outlaw single people from having sex and then use the law to punish them for it, go for it. But let's not pretend that is about single parent families

The only person pretending this is about every possible single parent situation is you. I keep on trying to return the conversation back to that I'm opposed to fornication and having children outside of wedlock, and I think you keep muddying the waters with topics like widows or adoptive parents.

• Research shows that federal abstinence-only funding does not lower adolescent birth rates. In fact, the more that state policies emphasize abstinence-only programs, the higher the incidence of adolescent pregnancies and births.

Mennonite and Amish society uses abstinence-only approach. And we have very low rates of out of wedlock pregnancy. As I understand it, when it does happen in Amish circles the parents usually get married very quickly, which is a good thing.

[*]An HHS-funded analysis found that abstinence-only programs do not affect the incidence of pregnancy, HIV or other STIs in adolescents.

I really could care less about people who fornicate getting diseases. People who drink alcohol get liver disease. People who smoke cigarettes get cancer. People who fornicate get STDs. There are consequences to choices.

None of this is new. If the concern here is reducing the prevalence of single parent families

That wasn't my concern. My concern was reducing children born out of wedlock. Can you please stay on topic?

then perhaps we should focus on polices that actually work. If you actually want to reduce the number of unwanted children in single parent households then there are lots of effective things that can be done, starting with keeping kids in school.

There are no unwanted children born in America. The list of parents who want to adopt is very very long. Some friends of mine at church recently spent $80,000 in order to adopt a baby.

I am staying on topic.

If your concern is reducing the number of children born out of wedlock then abstinence-only education and criminalizing sex between single people is not going to accomplish that. We already know that. It has been tried. In fact, abstinence-only education has been shown to do the opposite and make the problem worse.

Obsessing about single people having sex isn’t going to reduce the incidence of children born out of wedlock. Nor is it going to reduce the number of single-parent families which is actually the reason why you say having children born out of wedlock is a bad thing.

Personally I think the problem is multi-faceted and requires a variety of solutions. For teenagers, keeping them in school and giving them comprehensive sex education has been shown to be most effective in preventing out-of-wedlock births. We have very good ideas about what sorts of polices work best to prevent teenage pregnancies. Which have been dropping dramatically in this country since the 1990s.

For older men and women who are out of school, policies that support marriage and encourage people to stay married are probably going to be most useful. And those are probably going to be things like supporting education and good paying working class jobs. It isn’t just education that correlates with higher marriage rates and lower divorce rates. Things like union membership also correlate with higher rates of marriage as union jobs provide more economic standard, benefits, and security to men and make them more marriageable. Southern states that virulently oppose unions are making the problem worse and that shows up in their higher rates of out-of-wedlock births. Their obsession with low-paid labor makes their states less family-friendly. That’s a fact. And of course there are lots of other factors in the equation such as the off-the-charts incarceration rates in the US, especially in southern states. That increases the rate of single parent families as well.

[ohio jones]

This thread is about single parent families.

Don't try to define the content of someone else's thread with statements like "what we are talking about is..."

I am staying on topic.

The topic as you define it, or the topic as Josh, the OP, defines it? It's obvious to the casual observer that there's a significant difference.