Duncan, I think most of the ideas in the Giuliani column sound really good. In fact, much of the data you presented supports the url I posted to you last night--that it is really in the culture of poverty that unwed teenage motherhood is considered a rite of passage. My daughter and her girlfriends are all fourteen now, and none of them has been anything but kissed. Of course, they have exciting lives ahead of them, with college, travel, good careers to look forward to. It would be irrational for them to jeopardize their goals.
Poor children do not have these dreams motivating them, and are also making decisions to have babies that seem rational to them, unfortunately. Aside from creating a better America where all kids have a chance at success, regardless of their background, which I consider a very important goal, I don't think many people, even really liberal people, argue that welfare reform is necessary, and that teenagers need to stop having children. In order to do that, some social engineering is required to help them make better choices, and certainly teenage motherhood in the past was made more appealing by financial rewards, and we can change that pretty easily.
However, welfare reform to ensure that there is not another generation of damaged children is a much different issue than helping the children who already exist. So deliberately depriving them of adequate nutrition when as a society we can easily afford that, accomplishes just what? I am not sure I understand. |
