Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (19547)	3/31/1998 1:03:00 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

>Reformers should replace them with special schools for unwed mothers that impose the highest standard of responsibility and include a mandated curriculum in child care. As my colleague Myron Magnet has proposed, they should also experiment with closely supervised residential programs for single teen mothers and their children, aimed at instilling in the children the skills and the ethical sense that may have been missing in the mothers' upbringing. Would such an arrangement stigmatize teen mothers? If it does, so much the better. After all, the aim is to prevent illegitimacy.< I happen to agree with this. Of course such programs are expensive, but I am willing to pay. Are you willing to pay?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (19547)	3/31/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

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.