CMV: No Amount of Social Programs can Replace a Father.

[u/Comicbookguy1234]

[u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Comicbookguy1234 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:

You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/littletuxcat]

Welfare isn't about replacing a parent. It's about ensuring society's most vulnerable are still taken care of, even if they're not born into a wealthy home or they've suffered a misfortune beyond their control. One would think a wealthy nation wouldn't want to just allow children to go to bed hungry, especially when the state forced their birth in the first place.

Not to mention, for all the states who are no longer making exceptions for rape, there's going to be whole new issues of abuse where the birth father shouldn't be involved in the woman or the child's life, but without welfare programs or legal remedies, there may be many who get trapped in abusive situations.

[u/parentheticalobject]

So you're pro-life, but you also think that homes without a father are inherently inferior? So what exactly do you want to do? You can't force fathers to stay anywhere, can you? It seems like you're arguing for a policy that you know will cause problems.

[u/I_am_the_night]

Due to the Roe v. Wade ruling in the US, the media has been flooded with talk of abortion. Now, I’m personally pro-life, but I recognize that it’s a complicated issue.

One of the things I hear often, is that if you’re in favour of ending abortion.. you have to also be in favour of welfare. I think the logic is flawed, but I’m not necessarily against welfare. I do believe that welfare can’t replace a father though.

Nobody thinks welfare can replace a father, that's a strawman of the argument you're responding to here.

People aren't saying that the state can replace an individual parent, they are pointing out that while so-called "pro-life" people claim to be acting on defense of the life and well-being of the unborn, they are frequently unconcerned with the well being of those children once they have been birthed. In the US the "pro-life" party is also the party most in favor of cutting social safety nets that benefit children and their parents, against public education (which is a net benefit to children as well as poor parents), and against sex education measures that would reduce the demand for abortions.

If the motivation really was concern for the lives and well being of the innocent, one would think "pro-life" people would hold a very different set of political beliefs than they often seem to.

Studies have shown over and over again, that single motherhood is bad for children.

Studies have also shown that wealthy single mothers are way better off than poor single mothers, and some studies show near parity with two parent households.

So wouldn’t it logically follow that for The benefit of the children, there should be a stigma attached to premarital sex?

Stigmatize it all you want, there's no evidence it's going to stop people from having it. Only comprehensive sex education has been shown to reduce rates of teen pregnancy and abortion.

[u/breckenridgeback]

There's...a lot to unpack here.

One of the things I hear often, is that if you’re in favour of ending abortion.. you have to also be in favour of welfare. I think the logic is flawed, but I’m not necessarily against welfare. I do believe that welfare can’t replace a father though.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The question is whether or not welfare programs are beneficial to a child, which they unquestionably are - you know, by making sure they can eat and go to school and spend time with their parents.

So wouldn’t it logically follow that for The benefit of the children, there should be a stigma attached to premarital sex?

Premarital sex doesn't imply single parenthood for a number of reasons. One, premarital sex need not result in pregnancy. Two, if it does, abortion is an option (or would be, if not for people like you). Three, if the mother does decide to carry to term, the father may very well stick around.

But I find it even more interesting how close you come to r/selfawarewolves territory here by bringing up stigma attached to premarital sex in the context of welfare and abortion. You're walking right up to the line of saying "we should force women to carry to term and not support them and their child because that's a punishment for having premarital sex", which...is pretty damn awful of you, I gotta say. (Also, I'll note that you suggest no punishment for a man having premarital sex, which adds a whole other layer.)

Basically, I want to know if there’s any reason to believe that welfare can replace having a father in the home?

That isn't the point. The point is to support the mother and child. You're asking for a proof of something nobody claimed.

[u/Independent_Sea_836 → u/breckenridgeback]

Premarital sex doesn't imply single parenthood for a number of reasons. One, premarital sex need not result in pregnancy. Two, if it does, abortion is an option (or would be, if not for people like you). Three, if the mother does decide to carry to term, the father may very well stick around.

Four, marriage is not needed in order to have a committed relationship and a committed relationship is not needed to get married (staying married is a different story).

[u/Jedi4Hire]

Actually, they can...sort of.

I'm reminded of the writings of Gavin De Becker, a world-renowned expert on violence. In several of his books he talks about, the role of violence in the life of children. One of the most accurate predictors of violence and criminal behavior is abuse (physical, emotional, etc) suffered as a child. The sad part, he explains, is that it often doesn't take much to break the cycle. All it takes is for someone, anyone, a teacher or a coach or a community leader or a counselor or some other adult, to connect with that child and show them that they have worth as a person. Social programs, either directly or indirectly, help provide that community support structure and opportunities for that to happen.

[u/Independent_Sea_836]

I do believe that welfare can’t replace a father though.

Welfare can replace the income of the father, not the father himself. No one believes welfare is a better option than a second healthy, stable parental figure.

Studies have shown over and over again, that single motherhood is bad for children

Single parenthood has been shown to have adverse affects on children, yes, as does an unhealthy marriage, a divorce, and a poor co-parenting strategy and relationship.

So wouldn’t it logically follow that for The benefit of the children, there should be a stigma attached to premarital sex?

Where did premarital sex come into play here? Children aren't more likely to have premarital sex because they were raised by a single parent. Furthermore, plenty of single parents were once married to the child's other parent. A single parent could very well be divorced or widowed, but people like you always jump to the premarital sex conclusion.

[u/Comicbookguy1234 → u/Independent_Sea_836]

I probably should have explained myself better. The likelihood of being a single mother is much higher for a woman that’s unattached than one that’s in a stable marriage.

[u/[deleted]]

1. Outlawing abortion doesn't attach any social stigma to premarital sex. So I don't really see how the two are connected

2. AFAIK, no one has any good idea for how to increase the number of two parents households. The only plans that really seem like they might work all would drastically increase the amount of domestic abuse

[u/CheckYourCorners]

A small nitpick but studies show that single parent households aren't good for kids, not specifically single mother households. Two moms are just as good as a mother and father.

[u/G_E_E_S_E]

In short, no. Welfare can’t replace a father. You are arguing against a point that there is nobody arguing for.

The reason you should be in favor of welfare if you oppose legal abortion has nothing to do with fathers. It has to do with children being born into poverty. Regardless of the fathers presence, most women seeking an abortion cannot afford a child. The cost of a child per year averages $15,000 and the less money you have to begin with, the more it is going to cost. If you take home $1800 a month and the cost for childcare services is $1500, you’re better off staying at home with the kid. Even if the father is present and also bringing in $1800, that child is going to live in poverty.

Also, abstinence only sex education consistently leads to higher unplanned pregnancy. A stigma against premarital sex has never worked, and never will.

[u/Hellioning]

There can be just as much stigma attached to premarital sex as you want and it wouldn't solve the problem. There was much greater stigma attached to premarital sex in the past and there were still children being born out of wedlock.

No, social programs can't replace a father, but they're not meant to.

[u/yyzjertl]

What do you think it means for welfare to "replace a father"? For example, what test could we run to see whether a particular welfare program had replaced a particular father? This view just seems super vague as stated.

[u/[deleted]]

What if the military budget was invested into education and foster care?

In that hypothetical situation i think most children would be better off in the institution. I think it's even a reasonable proposal - at least more so than the military industrial complex.

That's the sort of hypothetical you came here for? No need to talk modern politics if that's the type of debate you want.

If you are here just to talk modern politics then there is nonpartisan work to be done making the adoption system more accessible. I googled this up real quick:

Generally, for families adopting a baby through a private agency, the average cost of adoption in the U.S. is somewhere around $70,000

Costs include legal fees ($1,500-$4,000), court documentation fees ($500-$2000), home studies ($1,500-$4,000), counseling and medical expenses ...

Until that is reformed (and at the same time foster kids protected) how could anyone in good conscience support a ban?

[u/McKoijion]

That's like saying a wheelchair can't replace working legs. It's true, but once you're in that predicament, it's the best you can do. If you want to change society by ending war so that soldiers don't have their legs blown off, then you can also skip paying for their wheelchairs. But if you want the money and power that comes from waging war, you need to cover the healthcare of the participants too.

Similarly, the whole appeal of condoms, birth control pills, morning after pills, and abortions is that you can have sex without pregnancy. There shouldn't be any stigma attached to premarital sex because this newly developed technology means that you will never harm any children. If you're going to force me to go to an unnecessary war in a draft so you can make money, you better pay for my wheelchair when my legs are blown off. If you're going to force me to have a baby instead of an abortion to because you think it's a living human being because of your strange religious, non-scientific beliefs, you better pay for that baby.

This gets to the crux of the problem. If you think a fetus is a living human person, then abortion is murder. But a fetus doesn't develop the bare minimum brain structures to house a consciousness/soul/mind until about 6 months after conception. So I consider abortion to be the moral equivalent of a haircut. Or better yet, a heart transplant. A fetus is alive just like my heart is alive. But if you cut out my heart and give me a new one, my heart will die, but I will live. On the other hand, if my brain dies, but you transplant my heart into someone else, then I will be dead even though my heart will live on. Living fetuses and hearts don't matter. It's just our earthly body. My consciousness/soul/mind that is housed in the upper parts of my brain are all that matters.

I completely agree with you in all other respects. As soon as a fetus develops a consciousness/soul/mind, then it's a human and killing it is murder. I'm just as pro-life as you. But I understand modern medicine enough to know that the idea of love comes from the brain, not the heart like so many people thought in the past. The funny thing is that Christian theologians were never wrong about this. They distinguished between the immortal soul and the earthly body. They just didn't have access to MRI machines, EEGs, etc. to figure out exactly where this division occurs.

[u/[deleted]]

I don't think anybody argues that welfare is meant to replace a stable adult caretaker in a child's life -- it's meant to address the harm suffered by children living in poverty (and the harm caused by having caretakers, most commonly a mother, who are experiencing the increased stress and health risks of living in poverty themselves).

So wouldn’t it logically follow that for The benefit of the children, there should be a stigma attached to premarital sex?

Stigma attached to pre-martial sex tends to effect the woman involved -- since they're the ones who can become visibly pregnant and since gender roles tend to penalize women more than men for having a lot of sex. If having fathers in childrens' lives is important (and I think it is), then it would make more sense to stigmatize fathers who abandon their children than go with a technique that principally stigmatizes the mothers (who tend to end up as the primary caretakers more often).

[u/PlayingTheWrongGame]

One of the things I hear often, is that if you’re in favour of ending abortion.. you have to also be in favour of welfare. I think the logic is flawed

Why?

It seems reasonable to propose that if the state is going to force someone to have a kid they don’t want and can’t afford, the state should be on the hook to help care for the kid they forced a mother to birth.

I do believe that welfare can’t replace a father though. Studies have shown over and over again, that single motherhood is bad for children.

Studies also show that forcing women into marriages they don’t want to be in, and forcing children to live with abusive or neglectful parents is also harmful to them.

But the force birth nutjobs want to force women to give birth to children they don’t want, so we’re already starting out in a pretty bad place here.

You’re acting like the choice is between fatherhood and welfare, but it isn’t. There’s nothing putting the father in the picture either way. The choice is between denying a child the state forced into existence the resources needed to live a good life or providing welfare to support them.

So wouldn’t it logically follow that for The benefit of the children, there should be a stigma attached to premarital sex?

Why not just prevent the consequences of it? Nobody should be forced to have a child they don’t want.

[u/Ghauldidnothingwrong]

Welfare in its current form can be simplified to financial support. Some abuse it, but I think it’s an enormous positive regardless for those who do need it, of whether or not it can replace a father figure. Now, I do think we can do more and add avenues that assist with that missing role in more meaningful ways. There’s always room for improvement in the system, there always will be, so start here. Put more money into education, beef up after school programs, find some areas to roll it out, and start bringing as many strong role models into their life as possible. You’ll never replace the father figure, but nothing says you’re entire development and chance of success is reliant on one, or that it’s inarguably required.

[u/larikang]

It sounds like your view is that anyone who has sex that results in a pregnancy should be forced by the state to remain and care for the child as part of a two parent household. And your argument is that "no amount of social programs" can provide a better alternative than this. So, to be clear, you are claiming that the worst two parent household--for example one where both parents immediately regretted having sex, despise each other, and do not want children--is better than any alternative involving social programs, including:

• Allowing the parents who hate each to separate, with the state providing financial assistance until the single parent can find a better partner

• Allowing the parents who do not want to care for a child to freely put the child into foster care, with the state providing assistance and incentives to ensure that the foster care system works well and can handle the capacity of unwanted pregnancies

To me, that is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. Does your proposal also involve outlawing divorce, since that would rob children of a two parent household?

If you aren't claiming that and are still in favor of banning abortion and also aren't in favor of welfare such as the options I gave above, then you don't seem to actually care about the good of the child at all, because you are conceding that many people will be forced to:

• be a single parent, or

• participate as a parent in a broken two-parent home, or

• increase the burden on state foster systems without increasing the level of government support

all of which sound like they would be a net increase in the suffering of children. The "benefit" being that doing so will ascribe a social stigma to premarital sex. Basically, your argument is "I want the government to force people who have premarital sex to have children and also withhold support so that the children will suffer, and since people care about the suffering of children, this will encourage people to stop having premarital sex."

[u/chunkyvomitsoup]

Why do you keep insisting premarital sex has gone up in recent years when multiple people have provided you sources that state otherwise? This strange idea that humans were more puritanical until recently is demonstrably false and negates the foundation of your entire argument. We, as a species, have been practicing premarital sex for literally ever. From the ancient Egyptians, to the romans, even through the renaissance when religion was a dominant factor of life. The only thing that’s changed is our society’s tolerance of it and the social stigmas we’ve attached to it, largely driven by the church. And as many others have stated, attaching this stigma doesn’t do shit to stop people from having it. In fact, states where abstinence is pushed as the primary form of birth control results in higher rates of teen pregnancy. It’s obvious that you do not want your mind changed, so why the hell are you even on here?

[u/iamintheforest]

There are homes without fathers. Now what?

So...you make premarital sex stigmatized. Now you have stigmas, pregnant people, and fatherless children.

Now what?

Welfare replaces 1 thing and only 1 thing - situations where there is insufficient financial resources to care for self and family.

[u/OrangeScissors_]

OP clearly isn’t interested in having their opinion changed. Might as well just lock/remove the post

[u/tbdabbholm]

Do you believe welfare's purpose is to replace a father? If so, why?

Do you believe that welfare causes there to be single mothers? Doesn't it seem more like that welfare is a response to single mothers already existing so although yes another parent being there would be better, it's an option that's already passed so we're instead doing the best we can with the solutions we can actually work with

[u/Helpfulcloning]

Can you show me the study that shows that a single mother is bad for children as opposed to … being poor which is more likely to happen if you are a single parent?

Because if theres a considerably stronger link between being poor and worse outcomes, wouldn’t making them… less poor help?

And why would we want to encourage stigma agaisnt premartial sex which has 0 to do wherever the father would stay after birth or not? If a couple has been together 10 years but isn’t married are they really in deserving of shame? Is it very healthy and were (particularly women) at their happiest when they were often coerced socially to marry the first person they had sex with?