Unwed motherhood is usually a mistake. But it happens. Should we make it more hurtful to the mother and children? The shame ends up hurting the child, too, which is even more unjust.
Second chances are essential to a decent social order. Can we really afford to cast people off for an irreversible but not criminal mistake?
I certainly agree with the sentiment above, and I don't want to kick people when they're down to where they can't get back up. I also realize that there are some single parent situations that, in and of itself, is better than the mother staying with an abusive/addicted/criminal/otherwise seriously dysfunctional father. I realize that rape victims did not ask for their situation and deserve, IMO, special treatment when they bring a child into the world (including all the mental health counseling they will ever need to overcome their trauma). Indeed, I have the highest regard for women who, having gone through the horrible trauma of sexual assault, choose to bring the resultant child into the world. These women deserve special honor for what they have done in acknowledging the humanity of their unborn child, and deserve TANGIBLE support in meeting both her needs and the needs of her child. (Barney Frank was very correct when he called out pro-lifers for acting as if life begins at conception and ends at birth.)
But the idea that it makes no difference, in terms of AGGREGATE outcomes, as to whether or not children are reared in a traditional nuclear family, a stepfamily, a single-parent situation, or something else, is just plain denial. The traditional nuclear family, IN THE AGGREGATE, produces better outcomes for kids in terms of a wide variety of measures of happiness and functionality; this was asserted in a 1993 ATLANTIC MONTHLY article entitled "Dan Quayle Was Right" by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, and it has never been refuted credibly, nor have the trends documented in that article been reversed. Child outcomes can be measured and documented by longitudinal studies. If anyone can document that divorced families, stepfamilies, single parent situations, or any other alternative family organization produces IN THE AGGREGATE better outcomes for children than the traditional two-parent nuclear family, I'm willing to listen.I would not come up with any statement to the contrary of what you say. Of course girls and women are wise to keep their clothing intact in the presence of men until they have a wedding ring on a finger. The temptation always remains, and where someone's weak will and suspect reasoning meets an overpowering desire, there will be reckless sex that can lead to a family that consists solely of a woman and a child. Scriptwriters can easily create interesting female characters who have great lives into which they can introduce a child who has excellent support. Most unwed mothers have dreadful lives, and their children pay for that.
I can defend same-sex couples far more than I can defend behaviors that lead to single mothers with no means of support, other than ill-paid toil that ensures poverty, for children that result from premarital sex. Nobody chooses to be a homosexual; a loving gay or lesbian couple with some overall competence can be good parents.
The woman would endure the stigmatization because the 'men' or 'boys' are harder to find.
