Children's Rights - Katy Faust | Maiden Mother Matriarch 22
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2023
- Katy Faust is the founder and director of the children’s rights organisation, Them Before Us. On the podcast, Katy talks about why her philosophy centres children's rights and the areas this impacts from reproductive technology, to childcare and adoption. You can find extended episodes, bonus episodes, and the MMM chat community at louiseperry.substack.com
The MMM podcast can also be found on Apple, Spotify, and all other streaming platforms: linktr.ee/maidenmothermatriarch
Follow Maiden Mother Matriarch on social media:
Twitter: / maiden_podcast
Instagram: / maiden_mother_matriarch
TikTok: tiktok.com/@maiden_podcast
Keeper - Meet the person who meets your standards with the world’s most advanced matchmaking solution. Driven by AI and relationship science. Guided by human care. Learn more at keeper.ai
#LouisePerry #KatyFaust #MaidenMotherMatriarch
This lady is so so on the money with all of this. And delivered so eloquently. Louise as always is a pleasure to listen to. I find her to be one of the only podcasters that can tackle difficult topics without sounding angry or frustrated, her gentle and open curiosity makes her a pleasure to listen to and usually leaves me feeling positive about the world and about change rather than deeply disheartened. Keep up the good work!
When we talk about child-centric decision making, we should also consider that sometimes the most child-centric thing a person can do is not have children at all if he or she (or his or her partner or spouse) won't be an adequate parent. There are many alternative ways to have children in your life and to contribute to their well-being, from volunteering, participating in advocacy for social justice, children's rights, and environmental issues, contributing money to groups protecting children and the planet, helping with your extended family, helping with the children of your friends and neighbors, or doing responsible adoption and fostering.
The thing is that it's easy to have children (not so easy to bring them up). And often the very people who shouldn't become parents are the ones who give the least consideration of whether they're ready or not.
@@frusia123 Indeed, the Idiocracy should stop having so many children. Well, someone has to put Brawndo on the crops.
An interview with Suzanne Venker around children's actual rights would be interesting and some of her sources . A female friend of mine ran a daycare before getting out of the industry, she told me that she could always tell which children had been in day care a lot & not in a good way.
Thank you for your guest, nice to see someone prioritize children.
I do think she rather has rose colored glasses on. I was sexually abused back in the 50s when I was a young child by my biological father. It was a blessing when my parents divorced even though he had already stopped before I went to grade school. We finally had peace in the house as my parents had done nothing but fight. Now when he came to pick me and my siblings up we had quality time and he was much happier. My mom remarried twice, neither of these men were at all abusive. My mom was very happy with her third husband, they were 'lovebirds' and I finally got to see two adults love each other and my mom be happy.
Love in the household is most important.
I am sorry to hear you had to go through abuse. Your case is exceptional though. The lady herself has an adopted child. The entire conversation circles around this idea that adults prioritise themselves over kids and comforts themseles with the idea - if im happy, my child is happy. That's not the case in most of broken families. People are getting divorced just because they get bored with each other or just not willing to work on their relationship. If abuse is in the picture, of course you going to feel like divorce is best thing to happen to you. Because it is.
YAY!! YES, IT HAPPENED!!! TWO OF MY TWO FAVORITE INTELLECTUALS!!!! Btw @katyfaust I want you to know that I am doing the good Lord's work and going head to head with folks on the internet about the ills of the sexual revolution and how children's rights ALWAYS come first. As the daughter of lesbians, as someone that was the product of casual sex and the crack epidemic, as a victim of the sexual revolution, I say to you THANK YOU!!!! We need more people to be willing to tell the truth. I use your arguments in every day conversation now and even though I get banned from some groups and flagged and downvoted, I will die on the hill of children's rights. And Louise Perry, God bless you for having this much needed conversation. Love the energy ladies, keep it up!!!!
I agree. I've only just began but she's already brought up a subject I've been arguing for decades. That no fault divorce has severely harmed marriage and families.
Fantastic conversation! Lots of food for thought. Thank you.
Yeah, I get this. In an ideal world every child deserves to have a biological mum and dad. The reality is though that a large proportion of us grew up in less than perfect families - that's why we wanted to do better, to change that traditional model in which we grew up ourselves. I say we, because I'm from Eastern Europe, where the social changes came about a couple of decades later than in the West. So I grew up in a largely traditional society, even though I'm in my 40s now.
Before divorce had become too easy, (some) mothers wanted/ desperately needed the freedom to take their children away from their abusive fathers. Also, despite the motherly love being the highest version of love, the world is full of toxic selfish mothers.
Our generation wanted to change the traditional model because it was so far from perfect. It's very possible that the change didn't go in the right direction but that doesn't mean that a change wasn't needed.
Some people compare society to a swinging pendulum. It will go the the extreme end at some time, not stay stable.
@@skylinefever I would like to believe the pendulum is swinging to eventually stabilise in some kind of nice middle.
Great conversation. My parents divorced, my father was violent. I was glad they separated, but I am single and childless, and I guess that's because of what I saw in their relationship. But my question for Katy would be, is there any class breakdown of your stats? Do children raised in higher socio-economic groups do better or worse? Or is there no difference?
this is my suspicion too. i think she is missing the forest for the trees here.
My father was violent and I was the eldest. As a result I married at 17. It wasn't until I married and left home that my parents marriage finally ended. So in my case growing up in a dysfunctional family had the reverse effect. I hope you meet the right person soon.
Needs to have a discussion with Razib Khan who talked about the studies that show that parenting is irrelevant and that the genetics shine through.
We need more studies. This is an important topic. However criminal behavior in boys may be due some thing other than "male hunger". It could be that lack of supervision and neighborhood factors are more important than psychological longing for a male attention.
I think it is also a lack of male discipline such as severely disappointing a man they admire greatly. I don't think it has to be a father, but a grandfather or biological uncle in their lives would help fill this void.
Love the new background!
40:39 It’s so sad to think of the children deprived of siblings because of this. Siblings are the adult children’s family connection and support, after the parents have left this world. They’ll be their family long into life far beyond parents.
A single child, with only one parent raising them leaves them more vulnerable in this world if anything was to happen to the parent.
I love 💕 the work that Katy Faust does with Them Before Us.Issues surrounding marriage and family is much needed at this time.
Thank you Katy Faust
Not just surrogacy, it also means no sperm or egg donors
An important discussion
I’ve been having this conversation with people since my daughter was born almost three ago. I speak of it in terms of “what is ideal for babies/children?” Everyone seems to have extreme aversion to this idea and pushes back hard. I’m grateful to hear this message in such clear and eloquent terms. Thank you for this!
Three weeks? Congratulations
@@grannyannie2948 Three years. :)
Regarding the lively "gay marriage" debate in the UK I ended up arguing that the biggest problem & undermining of marriage was heterosexuals queering their relationships & lifestyles & that this is what resulted in the argument reaching where it did.
I don't understand this at all. Were unmarried straight couples "queering their relationships" (whatever that means) prior to the legalisation of gay marriage?
Yes I would also like more information. My understanding of queer is that it's a political identity not a sexual identity.
I see Katy Faust, I like! I feel she made me sane again with this obvious yet seemingly forgotten value: children come FIRST, always.
Look up Within Heaven's Gates by Rebecca Springer 😇
Thanks, I will ☺️
Awesome conversation. Considering moving to the paid version. Which would be a first for me.
I came from Perry's todays video of parenting and women
And i just saw a episode where a mom gives up her fling over her kids mainly daughter and the dad was in a separated situation
MMM relocated from Descartes' empty dark nowhere space, to a smart but stylish British sitting room.
How does this relate to the isolated nuclear family vs a more traditional extended family? Are the outcomes the same for - say - the children of a single mother who are raised in a home with a live-in uncle and grandpa?
I would say this is an advantage, probably more so if it's grandpa and grandma, as it's also important to have role models of a successful relationship. Which grandpa on his own can't provide.
1:00:52 That’s hoping your extended family can pass the vetting too.
Gripping conversation. I'll add lesbians struggle with interpersonal violence levels, higher divorce rates, and inherent to birthing a human, one is not related to the child, which is part of the biological pull issue. For the example of one egg, birthing other mom, gay family friend, it strikes me that if moms died, is the man the guardian, or his family involved as biological relatives in the kids lives? So many ethical issues to parse out there... especially if his mom is thrilled to be a grandma and struggles with interpersonal boundaries. Also, who writes that kid into the will and does that (or any kid) have rights to seek out their fathers and be part of the estate of the fathers parents. So many issues that will keep growing as courts throw out anonymous donor sperm rights to stay in the dark about paternity. Excited to read her book!
Good shit LP. Good shit
What is the speech referred to at the beginning? Where can I find it? I want to look it up but cannot catch all the words.
czcams.com/video/-jYdo4KYO4I/video.html
My dad had an undiagnosed mental illness and in some ways my childhood sucked. But I think of what it would have been worse had they separated. Fighting, financial distress, and feeling guilty about favoring one parent all would have been worse.
It's so ingrained and absolutely FALSE, to see women as safe and men as dangerous. So many women hide behind this while inflicting staggering abuse. I find the mere suggestion women should not be viewed with suspicion at least as much as men, to be abuse apologism.
Women and men have different preferred ways of inflicting harm. But neither is more harmful than the other. It just results in wounds in different places, either the mind or the body.
YT keeps removing a link I post to today's Fukuyama Spectator interview.
Mmm. I had 3 children. All now wonderful and individual adults. Due to both my birth parents being unable to care for me, I grew up largely in care which wasn’t ideal. Still, I did survive. I had 3 children by 2 different fathers. Although my couple relationships with each father didn’t last, each father remained in their children’s lives and, without conflict, we managed joint parenting; which allowed me to re train as a counsellor and then a mediator. When my children were aged 8,12 and 14 I met and a few years after, married a woman. We have closely parented together, with the support of the dads. Nothing went to shit. My children are graduates, working or at Uni. We did a good job and are a close family; looking forward to the patter, hopefully in a year or two, to tiny grandchild feet. I encourage my children to have their children young and if possible to stay with their partners. I think it may well be easier but still, we did ok. My point is to suggest that the level of conflict between separated parents is very important. My kids saw their dads regularly which was particularly important to me as I have never met my father. There’s a broad brush here that brushes me and my family out. As a child of the state I won’t be shamed again.
I'm so pleased to hear your story. I worked with many children, mostly girls, who were wards of the state. They are all adults now, many of them mothers. Sadly in most cases the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Most are on drugs and living in unstable accommodation with several unrelated adults, and their own children are in and out of care. I'm so pleased to hear a positive outcome. I probably live in another country but I found it was not fostercare, it was the fact that by 14 or 15 the girls preferred to be placed in "group homes" with virtually no rules. At which point many dropped out of school and became addicted to drugs.
Louise keeps talking about some kind of utopian ideal of a family. Yes, it's good to have ideals, and it's great if someone grows up in a family that's close to the ideal. But the reality is that we all do our best with what we have. My parents didn't divorce, but their marriage wasn't happy. My mother was orphaned by her mother at the age of 2. My father also had a difficult childhood. They both were born in the 40s, in the middle of WW2, in Poland. They were brought up by deeply traumatised parents and the trauma was passed to my generation also. My parents did their best, that's what I believe, even though my father became an alcoholic and I don't remember my mother being happy. I often wished she divorced him and had a better life. Instead, she stayed because she didn't want her children to grow up without a father. What would have been better? It's really hard to say.
@@frusia123 Thankyou for sharing I confess I have a different view. For most of human history many children didn't survive childhood. For those who did it was constant work towards producing enough food and other necessities. If you are enough food to be healthy and had enough clothing to be warm you had much to be grateful for. It's a very recent idea really, that childhood should be happy as well.
@@grannyannie2948 Yes, I don't blame my parents, I truly believe they did their best. As an adult I've learnt that no matter how hard we try, and how deeply we love, we're not perfect. That's why I find Louise's views utopian - she's chasing this ideal family model, and she seems to believe that going back to what used to be will help her reach that ideal. But life is not ideal, and never has been. Also in terms of future prospects, reality isn't as black and white as she's suggesting - some children who had a difficult childhood will do better in life than those who had it easy - there's plenty of evidence for that too.
@@frusia123 Oh I agree completely. We try as hard as we can to give our kids the best life we can. But we are only human. I also agree that bad times can make stronger people. Which is why the current victim culture is so damaging. As for Louise she is still the mother of an infant. Things might get more difficult for her as her child gets older. Infants need food and warmth and love and affection. They don't yet seek personal happiness beyond these things.
Single parents don't have to stay single & celibate, it is possible to have relationships that don't inflict on the children. Eg only seeing partners when the children are with the other parents, not living with them, only introducing if established.
😅🙄😅
I would never move a boyfriend in with me if I were a hypothetical single mother. I don’t see what’s wrong with casual dating where you don’t bring the bf around though. I guess the problem is older women tend not to want casual dates.
I am emotional watching this because I have wondered when it would get said. I was adopted and when I tell people: no, I'm not okay with surrogacy or adoption - at all, in its present state - those people are furious. When I see the AGPs pretending to breastfeed and the like, honestly it reminds me of the woman who adopted me. Gay men don't have a right to a baby; childless women don't have a right to one. They exposed me to every form of abuse and neglect but I still get people telling me I should be grateful to them, and the whole thing feels like state sanctioned baby farming. My adoptive parents were the last people who should have been given a baby.
I could go on til the cows come home but what I'm saying is, the idea people have of how it works is so skewed. It's propaganda.
What is an AGP?
@@karlj1564 an autogynephile
@@karlj1564 Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female.
It seems that the adoption screening in your country is to blame. Not the concept of adoption. It could have been worse. Your biological mother could have opted for abortion.
That idea, the idea that how this changes the outcome for the child should be the absolute top priority, is going to leave some people upset, but I really don't see another standard that a thinking person could call "ethical."
"A lie. A motherlie. A statistic."
After parenting will 'peer -impact' be a dominant factor of forging oneself's.
"Equality creates friendship"
- Plato
I think this is the first thing I heard Louise say that I disagree. What I understood is that she thinks it is preferable for a divorced woman to not have romantic relationship because of the risk it poses to her children. I think this only encourages the radical feminist's claim that all men are dangerous.
Any person should be highly sensible when entering a romantic relationship with another individual. And obviously, any decent mother would pay extra attention to anyone that would have close contact with her children, romantic partner or not. But to deny that a woman has the discernment to select a partner that would not be abusive to her children is the kind of infatalization of women that we often critize the modern feminists of advocating.
I am married and have a 3 year old girl. If something was to happen to my husband (wether divorce or death) I would like to have a second go at making a family, having another partner, and having more children. I understand that poses many challenges that are my current situation does not have, but I still think it would be better for my daughter to have a stepfather and half siblings, than to be left only with me especially when I grow older, get sick and/or die.
Louise doesn’t seem to be saying that men are inherently dangerous, rather that children who suffer abuse are more likely to experience it from a step parent than a genetic parents.
You can say that it infantilizes women to say they can’t discern an abusive partner, but when there’s a 100x greater risk that a child will experience abuse at the hands of a step parent, that statistic didn’t come out if thin air, it came from genetic parents inviting a step parent into the house and bad things happened. Idk if that means the women weren’t watching for signs of abuse, if the step parents were good at hiding it, or if males just are likely to use violence against a kid that’s not there’s, but there’s a reason the pattern exists, and simply saying “they should be able to discern that” doesn’t seem to get the root of the problem. Also, it could come off as saying “if there’s abuse in the home by a step parent, clearly the mom wasn’t smart or careful enough to identify a dangerous individual”
I get wanting a family, I want one myself, but your daughter would be your family, and putting her first would be your top concern. I don’t know the original statistic, so I don’t know what a 100x increase in chance of abuse says about the average guy in the population, nor do I know how that statistic relates to boyfriends vs married step parents, but I’d be hesitant to say “well all those other people couldn’t discern a good man from a bad one, but I’m the exception”.
Hopefully that situation never comes to pass for your family, but to say that it would be better for a step parent to be in the picture than not, I’m not sure if the statistics are on your side.
Indian cinema has a history of Bad Step Mothers
Is it also the case that couple that experience the most abuse from a partner are lesbian couples? Would that also play out here for children placed in such homes?
Plenty of stories of absolutely awful things happening to the children with the misfortune to be in lesbian households
Anecdotally I've found that too.
There's open adoption but there are people who were are who don't want to be contacted but still ignored. Oh just because there bored and it's all women who file? So let's just force marriage again? Just don't be surprised when the kids are out that's if the women had some choice in family size? It depends on the Siblings another conservative talking point. That scenario doesn't always workout even from the same parents.
You're underemphasizing a simple point. IVF babies would either not be alive at all if it were illegal, or would be adoption cases, if they are born and Mother decides not to raise. If IVF Mother changes mind and decides to raise once born, that could be considered ideal and she should have that right, I believe UK just passed that law which I would support. But the adoption analog holds better than you think. Nuclear family works best, but whether IVF or adoption, should baby have no parents instead of one? Should not be born instead of having non-ideal upbringing? I think the cost benefit analysis is just not quite being properly calculated here, such considerations are a basis for ethics.
Also it's hard to summarize or recognize all differences btw US and UK Right, overall politics, and society. US is more functionally, moderately Libertarian than anywhere. We allow things and pay a price for it. When US Right was going wrong notably in 2000's, was overusing government. Now Left doing same. Government hyper control does not work here, whether design flaw or feature, this is the heuristic to keep in mind. UK, Europe, small urbanized countries wield much more government control over dense populations out of necessity. There's an obvious relationship here to government size, and spending.
The key is, there's one US in the world. Other countries have money to spend because US has picked up the tab for defense. That's it. British discuss a big, rich, and powerful enough Non-Authoritarian government to regulate all the things they want regulated. The simple truth is, you'll be forced to fight wars, maintain security, and function well enough as nation state to do this in spite of geography. Or you need global police, US hasn't rly been equipped to provide that since mid Soviet period, we've all just been going on momentum several decades.
Louise, real talk, you cannot have the controls you want without Authoritarianism, Brits seem not to recognize government and structural limitations because you all live on almost a city island, and when your guests argue from either side for overregulation you might be having on the wrong Americans for convo, and at worst indulging some slightly Authoritarian impulses. You're a high quality, versatile commentator, I'm not calling you an Authoritarian, and the discussion raised some interesting points, I'm not calling your guest the wrong kind of American.
I'm interested, considering your opinion on IVF on your opinion on abortion. Wouldn't it also be better that all these babies are born as well?
I don't live in the UK or the US, we do spend the correct percentage of GDP on defense and we have fought in every war the US has fought, however our population is small. We are also an island but a very large one. Sadly covid showed we are capable of being extremely authoritative, not just the government, but a surprising number of the people. This might be explained by the latest census which shows half the population are recent immigrants, including authoritive countries like China.
@@grannyannie2948 I understand, for the common strain of defacto moderate Libertarianism in America, a good touchstone for the kind of thing I have in mind is the Prohibition Era. The main idea is, how many destructive or questionable things can ppl be prevented from doing, and at what cost? What kind of population are you dealing with, and how muscular would a government have to be to impose certain laws in particular society?
So to some extent here, I'm separating practical limitations from purely ethical considerations. With that said, I'm fairly moderate, slightly left by US standards, I take seriously the recent Postliberal and NatCon critique, but still consider myself a Classical Liberal. A better example than abortion for how I'd like to balance practical and ethical might be drug policing/regulations, but for brevity I'll say I agree exactly with Michael Shellenberger on that issue.
On abortion I thought 2nd trimester should be legal maybe 10-15 yrs ago, but I became more educated on latest Neuroscience research, which also increasingly showed during that time, what's going on with fetus brain development 2nd trimester. Most ppl feel 1st tri abortions are not so bad, 2nd are worse, I only made up my mind the same way after learning abt Neurodevelopment, I like to look at evidence and decide what factors I think are relevant. Like most ppl, I don't feel early Perception development is most significant, which occurs roughly in 1st. I do feel early Cognitive development is significant in 2nd. The usual caveat, in life threatening cases doctors might perform later term.
I'm borrowing from Ed Dutton here, on immigrant populations bringing authoritarian ideas, I think immigration can grow economy, until/unless dominant local culture is significantly weakened or undermined. That's very different, assimilation is replaced by tribalism, how quickly or easily this happens determines how much immigration a nation can tolerate to begin with, if any. For UK's place in the world today, I gotta just refer to the work of Peter Zeihan.
Although it seems Louise's sensibility might be slightly more Conservative than mine, sane ppl's utopian visions usually don't wildly differ. It would be great to have as many babies as ppl could ever want, or as few, without downsides, and if two biological parents always raised children. It would be easier if ppl never felt compelled to resort to IVF, or wouldn't seek on black market which subsequently increases violent crime, if illegal, like drugs now or alcohol in Prohibition. It would be great if Democracies, or Republics could always afford and manage to regulate approximately what reasonable ppl agree should be regulated. Personally, I have no more time for Wokeists than for irresponsible utopians of any stripe! I'm not saying that's Louise, but imo her reasonable humane considerations need to be better balanced with practical limitations and trade-offs.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy I'm Australian and covid proved it does not take a muscular government to achieve totalitarian control and commit human rights abuses. Just a narrative to frighten the sheep, and a largely compliant population. Like immigration, mandated vaxes, tribalised the nation, which I don't see ever healing. In addition the government is pushing yet another decisive referendum, designed to further tribalise race relations.
I nolonger believe in left and right, or democracy. Indeed the far right statements are those of the far left three or four decades ago. It doesn't really matter which side gets elected they share the same core policies so only the rhetoric changes. None of the politicians represent Australia or Australians. They are openly globalist puppets who's strings are pulled by the UN, WHO, WEF, and yes race relations with China and the USA.
Immigration has also destroyed democracy. We had high levels of migration immediately after WW2, but it was restricted to Britain and western Europe. There was a very high level of assimilation. Exactly fifty years ago, this policy was ended in favour of multiculturalism, without assimilation. Laws were also passed outlawing freedom of speech so that people couldn't complain. So immigration is another area where successive governments of both stripes have used authoritive measures to control public behaviour/speech/ opinion. Again it is undemocratic. 84% of people want immigration severely reduced. However both major political parties are bipartisan on the subject once they are in power. And as I outlined above, half the people voting have not lived in the country long.
Thankyou for sharing about abortion. I confess my views are different. I believe the only justification is if the mothers life is in imminent danger. This is not an abortion. As it takes place in a hospital not an abortion clinic. The baby is referred to as a baby, and whilst the primary objective is saving the mother, the baby is also saved when possible. I learnt about neurological development, the ability to feel pain etc during the parliamentary debates on abortion in NSW about five years ago. It did get passed effectively up until birth. One interesting fact which emerged was that late abortions would mostly be used for gender selection of babies by cultures who did not value female children. So we had the oxymoronic case of feminists arguing for girls to be discriminated against on the most basic level.
I also follow Dr. Dutton and Peter Zeihan, and I've read their books. I found Zeihan's prediction of the end of globalisation fascinating. Only yesterday I heard small Pacific nations are calling for a tax on all our exports and imports to assist the climate. James Lindsay recently shared a document from the UK explaining that unless cargo ships convert to nuclear power, which they admit is unlikely on scale, then imports and exports must end by 2030 to achieve net zero.
GoshDarned CZcams only shows me 2 replies.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy Typical. I sent a lengthy reply beginning, I'm Australian. I don't think I said anything I haven't said before on CZcams. I haven't got time now, will try again:)
Way past time to DISincentivize divorce by giving the house to the kids so the parents have to rotate residence for custody
Excellent idea
Brilliant, sometimes the truth is so obvious but I was blind to it.
I keep hearing this distinction between children and adults. Yet little recognition that adults, in most cases are simply children who have lived past an arbitrary age limit (18? 21? 25?) No one suddenly becomes capable, responsible, all-sacrificing being just because they've had a set number of birthdays.
The legal age of adulthood is somewhat of an arbitray distinction. But there are vast differences between adults and children in a whole host of important areas including physical/sexual maturation, psychological and cognitive development, language and reasoning skills, etc.
All this to say, an adult isn't simply a child with more birthdays or additional life experience.
And the distinction between the adult and child is quite important. It's the reason why we don't put certain responsibilities on children before they're developmentally ready. It's why children can't legally give consent.
I dont think anyone is saying that self-sacrifice, developing competence, and shouldering responsibilities as an adult is easy. It just that it makes more sense that those things are expected of an adult in any given situation not a child.
It's not sudden, more gradual, however the distinction between a child and an adult is vast and obvious. Of course there's a certain age when the distinction is sort of blurry and quite individual, so one 18 year old can be mature and another can still be childish. We agree on a certain age for practical and legal purposes. But generally the definition of a child is pretty clear and understandable across cultures, much like the definitions of a male or a female.
What is the nature of the family in the plan of God?
A man a woman united in marriage form a family together with their children. God instituted the family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. Members of the same family establish among themselves personal relationships and primary responsibilities. In Christ the family becomes the domestic church because it is a community of faith, of hope, and of charity.
So true that heterosexual and especially Christian adults hold the majority of the responsibility for children. If Christians would stand up and live their faith, the world would be a different place.
So tell me about John The Baptists marriage and number of children.
By calling same gender relationships “marriage”, did we begin the slippery slope of introducing too much compromise in children’s rights? Did we give these new “marriages” too many rights and entitlements when we should have limited them to financial rights and not parental rights?
I'm with her, No Fault Divorce is to blame, and that was introduced in 1975 in my country
@@grannyannie2948 mix no fault divorce with incentivizing through welfare the state of single parenthood. Bad combo
@@swcordovaf Yes in Australia they both happened in the same year. I believe this was planned. In 1987, a Prime Minister recognised the damage this did to working class families. He introduced an allowance for married mothers on low incomes who chose to stay at home with their children. Over time inflation made it nothing, and it went from being something for the whole of their childhood (18) to a pittance you get until they start school.
One essential, though too often overlooked, right of any child is the right to non-existence. A child has the right not to exist if, to the best of their judgment, when they have really thought about this, the potential parents do not feel up to the task of raising him or her. This right could be guaranteed, pragmatically, by the creation of a parenting license, modelled on the driving license.
The word "pragmatically" is doing an egregious amount of work in that sentence. What is the state supposed to do with all the unlicensed babies?
I think the idea doesn't work well because non-existence and nothing can't possess any rights. I can't see how any agent can have obligations or duties towards non-existent things.
Babies should also have a universal right not to abborted.
@@grannyannie2948 By definition they have not been. Foetuses are aborted, not babies.
@@alexpotts6520 Gave an answer yesterday. Was censored. End of discussion..
this seems very black and white and honesty way underestimates how bad biological parents can be. literally she said to just google “moms boyfriend” as her justification for avoiding step parents. hate to break it to her, but there are more examples of abusive biological parents. also, totally disagree that if you’re a single mother you just have to not date or get married. just strikes me as incredibly wrong headed and people who follow such advice may very well pass up the chance to heal.
i could go on and on. i am a stepfather of a child with a pos biological father who is a textbook narcissist. i don’t believe we would all be better off with his mom single and the only male influence in his life as his manipulative dad. i also think you find way more correlation with socio economic status and abuse than presence of step parents and abuse. of course often they do go together but their interpretation is vastly over simplified.
I know there are many excellent stepfathers. I know quite a few. Whilst we are probably in different countries, I have worked with children in foster care in my own country and children who's mother has boyfriends being statistically 100x more at risk sounds right. I only knew two children in care, who had a biological father on the scene.
It's also important to define "boyfriends" in many cases it is a revolving door of men offering short term relationships, without any real commitment to the woman or the family. Statistically, the more men you bring into your childrens home for casual sex, the more chance you will strike someone dreadful. The worst case I struck involved a single mother of three having sex with her drug dealer in exchange for drugs.
The socio economic question is interesting. In most cases the mother had drug problems. This also impacted on her ability to work or even pay rent regularly. So which came first, the socio economic status or the reasons why.
What I did find is that it's intergenerational. A single mother whose family of origin is still intact has parents and siblings they can live with if they lose their job, or can't afford the rent. Thereby keeping their children safe, rather than couch surfing with their children in share houses of unrelated adults. Probably half of the children and teens had mothers who had also grown up in fostercare, sometimes grandmother's as well. These children are grown up today, and many of those now have children. They tend to raise their kids the same as their mothers, not their foster mothers, and now their children are in care. I largely blame group homes for teens, for reasons I can explain.
@@grannyannie2948 I often joke that the film Idiocracy explained how broken homes just produce more broken homes.
@@skylinefever And it's not really a joke. Besides inability to maintain a safe environment for children, low IQ, poor literacy skills etc were also intergenerational. Some blamed drug use during pregnancy. But it could just simply be genetics.
@@grannyannie2948 Indeed, I joke about the upsides of bribing the Idiocracy to get sterilized.
@@skylinefever The eugenics of a century ago. Much cheaper just to end welfare for single mothers. It would have a similar effect.
Katy Faust sounds like a broken record. She repeats herself everywhere she goes and gets destroyed and left speechless every single time 😂😂😂😂😂