Single Parenting = Child Abuse

[Gravekeeper]

At least according to Wisconsin Republicans.

To quote the proposed bill:

Section 1. 48.982 (2) (g) 2. of the statutes is amended to read:
48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Section 2. 48.982 (2) (g) 4. of the statutes is amended to read:
48.982 (2) (g) 4. Disseminate information about the problems of and methods of preventing child abuse and neglect to the public and to organizations concerned with those problems. In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

So if you're single and/or unmarried = child abuse.

What the hell is going on down there lately? ><

[jackfaire]

So if you're single and/or unmarried = child abuse.

What the hell is going on down there lately? ><

It's a tactic to try and demonize gay parenting. Its not actually an attack on single parents that's just the unintended consequence most Republicans wouldn't tell a Soldier's widow, "Your abusing your child by letting your husband/wife die in the war"

However they love to use it to be like, "A child needs a stable married home not a home where mom or dad can walk out at any time"

It also attacks parents that don't believe they need marriage to be a family. But mostly they get to be, "Well you really shouldn't have children because it's not fair to them that you aren't married and either one of you could leave at anytime."

Blatantly ignoring the fact that if it were legal for the gay couple to get married they would do so in a heartbeat.

[Gravekeeper]

It's a tactic to try and demonize gay parenting.

No, numbnuts makes it pretty clear that this is about single mothers specifically and how they get so much free shit and their lives are so easy that they have no reason to get married. <twitch>

"In it, his premise is that the “Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government.” He supports this argument by claiming that single mothers are much better off financially staying single, due to programs like low-income housing assistance, food stamps, and day care, than they are married. He concludes that the rise in single motherhood has therefore been driven by all the great financial benefits single, low-income mothers receive, rather than a complex interaction of changing society, evolving cultural norms, earlier sexual activity among teens who use birth control sporadically, systemic discrimination, and other factors."

Yeah, being a poor single mother is fucking awesome. I mean it was fucking paradise on Earth for my mom when I was growing up. She totally didn't have to work two jobs and put her whole life on hold or anything to keep a roof over our head. >.>

[tropicsgoddess]

Single parenting = child abuse?!! WTF are those morons smoking?!!

[HYHYBT]

Saying one thing is a "contributing factor" to another is not the same as saying the two things are the same.

Even if it seems plain enough that, in this instance, it's meant to provide enough wiggle room to call it abuse except in cases it would look too bad on them to say so.

[Andara Bledin]

It's part of the "I've got mine, so the rest of you can starve in the streets" mentality.

I like the fact that these are the same assholes who want to demonize birth control of any kind, too.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

I like the fact that these are the same assholes who want to demonize birth control of any kind, too.

That's Republican logic for you.

I agree that it's frustrating to watch irresponsible people get rewarded for breeding. One of my friends is a single mom, and she would have to make over $40,000/year to lose her housing voucher. I seethe a little every year when I do my taxes and I see all the shit I can't qualify for because I managed to not have a baby. But we also can't very well let kids go without once they're in this world.

More access to contraception and better education on how to use it are the solutions. Getting religion to butt the hell out of the matter wouldn't hurt either. "But if I use a condom or take the pill, then Jesus will be mad because then I was planning to have sex!" arggghhhhhhh I wish there was a way to convince the world that, Oh, hey, we found this new scroll, and in it, Jesus says that it's totally cool to use contraception and condoms! Also, he's cool with the gays. Amazing!

[Anthony K. S.]

It's a tactic to try and demonize gay parenting.

It would, of course, be perfectly in character for a conservative Republican politician to do that. It's just not what they happen to be doing in this case.

[Andara Bledin]

I would categorize that as not only what they happen to be doing in this case.

^-.-^

[bara]

Also part of the groups that want to force us all to be good god fearing christians and our only form of birth control is abstinence.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

It's part of the "I've got mine, so the rest of you can starve in the streets" mentality.

I like the fact that these are the same assholes who want to demonize birth control of any kind, too.

^-.-^

They want women back in the 1950s, where their only job is to get married, get pregnant, clean the house and make the hard working husband and their kids dinner every night.

[BlaqueKatt]

I wish there was a way to convince the world that, Oh, hey, we found this new scroll, and in it, Jesus says that it's totally cool to use contraception and condoms! Also, he's cool with the gays. Amazing!

as I mentioned in a previous thread the Casti Comnubii is the church document against birth control, written by a council in 1930. So it has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity, and everything to do with oppression of women. seriously read it, it actually says

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: - physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.

[MadMike]

Once again, I saw the title and thought Dick Santorum had opened his big mouth again. I see it wasn't him, but it could have been.

Yeah, being a poor single mother is fucking awesome. I mean it was fucking paradise on Earth for my mom when I was growing up. She totally didn't have to work two jobs and put her whole life on hold or anything to keep a roof over our head. >.>

Yeah, so was being a single dad. Actually, compared to when my son's so-called mother was still with us, raising our son by myself was paradise. But I think my case was the exception to the rule. When she was with me, it was like I was trying to raise two two-year-olds instead of just one. At least I knew my son would grow out of it someday, and he wasn't running up all the bills, spending all my money, stealing from me, etc.

[bex1218]

Yeah, because married couples do so much better at raising kids than single parents. Abuse can be in any type of family. Whether its, single, couple (marriage or no marriage), gay or straight. Oy my brain hurts.

[Seshat]

I was thinking of single dads too, MadMike.

But also of widows/widowers. As if it's in any way their fault.

Or cases like the fictional Olivia Benson, of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Her mother (Serena) was raped, and chose to keep the child, but never married. Again, totally not Serena Benson's fault.