You're right that we did not take on the job of supporting the children of single parents. You say:

"If women would stop having illegitimate children and practice safe sex, they would not need the federal government's help, and we would not need so many government programs whose job is to suck more money from the taxpayer."

Correct. You're calling for personal responsibility here. But then you call for government to teach abstinence, protect the sanctity of marriage, and to preserve the importance of two-parent families. We didn't hire the government to do that either.

The purpose of the government is to protect rights, not mold people's private lives according to a certain point of view.

The more that we exersise personal responsibility and personal restraint the less that we need government. Until we achieve an enlightened state we will continue to require government. What is important is that government is transparent and responsive.

Sometimes that does involve social engineering such as teaching kids life skills. Should it? No, those should be taught at home, but there again we come back to people not exersising personal responsibility and should government step into cases where the job isn't being done at home.

Whether it's irresponsible for government to step in or irresponsible for it not to and if so when and how is a debate that we should be having. In a perfect world I don't want the government to interfere in private life at all.

This isn't a perfect world.

Very well said. Handouts like this drain away our tax dollars.
Hoorah for personal responsibility!

Virginia, If you want people to stop having unwanted pregnancies and children, then maybe you should advocate for sex education beyond abstinence. Adults and Teens will have sex, and until people realize this, pregnancy and disease will continue to run rampant, as will the "handouts" you speak of. Also, you should educate yourself more on the welfare system, because if you think for one moment that those families are content with the mere 8,000 to 11, 000 dollars a year they are given to support a family then you are sadly mistaken. And if the government finds out that you are working and trying to support your family, they take the money away. Bottom line is that having a job isnt enough anymore and minimum wage will not support a family of 4. Before judging people and forcing your idea of family values on others, you should get to know the individuals. Also, last time I checked Men had something to do with producing children and its not as simple as finding them to get them to give thier children money.

And, despite these handouts, more people are becoming homeless, the largest section of whom are children. I wonder what your Good Book says about how to treat people.

I am sure you will go to church tomorrow and feel like a good Christian.

Christ would disagree.

Ms.Garrett, I am rarely shocked by what people admit to thinking but your letter blew me away. It is so full of contempt for anyone who does not measure up to your standards. It hurts my heart that you express such distain for people you don't know.

You say it is the father's responsibility to pay for his child/children's upkeep. I agree with that but realize the kids you are talking about do not deserve to be punished when the dead-beat dads don't accept that responsibility.

Then you condemn women for having illegitimate children as if that is the only way we end up with single mothers. There are a multitude of reasons a mother may find herself without a partner and no way to support her children. I am not advocating lifelong benefits to shiftless mothers and fathers, just a helping hand for the children.

Although I am not knocking the teaching of abstinance as an option for future generations, I think it is not a very practical option. It's like trying to contain the sea once the boat has a hole the size of cannonball in the bottom.

You write "The answer is not more government handouts for irresponsible women whose lifestyle is getting a free check from the federal government each month." Are you suggesting all single mothers fit your description? How could you possibly know what all their circumstances are? And why are you being so judgemental?

I am asking in all sincerity, Ms. Garrett, if you think there is a better way to help people less fortunate than ourselves, what is it?

K.

How do you help people who won't help themselves? How do you help the children of people who won't do their part in supporting their offspring? And why isn't it enough to find the fathers or mothers who abandon their resposnibility and make them pay? You say that the mere $8000-11000 they are GIVEN will not support a family of 4, and I agree. Our government should provide a place for these children to stay while the single parent WORKS! If one minimum wage job doesn't provide the needed income, then work 2 jobs! The people who have abused our generous system for generations have made it difficult for the truly needy to get help.

I agree with Yvonne 100%. She hit the nail on the head on this one.

Jim and NC need to go back and read Virginia Garret's letter again. When they do, they will see there is no mention of her religion, the Good Book, or Christ. So stop putting words in her mouth and trying to use it to rail again Christianity. Besides, she has said enough stupid stuff without you putting words in her mouth.

Since Yvonne has done such an incredible job of addressing this issue, I'd like to add just one thing:

Virginia says it is the responsibility of the father to support the children. That's funny because I always felt it was the responsilibity of BOTH parents to see that kids got what they needed. To assume that only the father should support the kids financially or any other way is blatant sexism.

To add to the debate, consider this: A father has no say over the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy. If the mother so chooses, she can abort the child, give the child up for adoption, or keep the child. Since the father has no say in this most important decision, why do you presume that it is the father's responsiblity to provide support for the child in the event the mother decides on her own to keep the child? Perhaps the father would like to give the child up for adoption or would like the pregnancy to be terminated. The mother has every opportunity to get out of any responsibility. The father has NONE. And if he decides to abdicate his responsibility, he is called a deadbeat, a no-count, worthless, etc.

I'm sorry, but that hardly seems fair to men.

Mr. t, First, thank you for your kind words. Although I do not post to garner appreciation or validation, it is always nice when people I respect offer them.

Secondly, you are correct about the care of the child being the responsibility of BOTH parents. But your points re father's rights need additional comment, in my humble opinion.

Yes, a woman can abort an unwanted pregnancy without the father's imput. And yes, I do support her right to do so. I'm not saying, however, I think it is right to disregard the father's input because I'm not. What I am saying is that the woman should have final say.

A woman can keep a child but regardless if the woman is married to the father or not, if she acknowledges who the father is, the father has every right (legally and morally) to be a parent to that child. So I guess that choice is up to the father.

If a woman wants to give a child up for adoption and acknowledges who the father is, the father has, again, a legal right to contest that decision. But we both have a fairly good idea that few of the "dads" we are addressing here want that responsibility. Otherwise, more of them would step up to the plate, so to speak, and take that responsibility thus making this issue a moot point.

I think Billy has a good idea. Provide a place for the children to stay while the parents work or go to school for training in preparation of going to work. Make this a condition to receive AFDC, medicaid, subsidized rent or any other kind of government assistance. The only exceptions should be the physically or mentally handicapped parents. And I mean truly handicapped individuals, not a bunch of BS.

Yvonne,

I humbly agree with everything you just said except for "So I guess that choice is up to the father" If the father chooses NOT to be parent to the child, he can be forced to at least make monthly monetary payments to care for the child. So, he doesn't really have the same choice that the mother has.

While it may only be true in some cases, if a woman KNEW for a fact that legally she could not expect the father to pay one cent for her decision, I think unplanned pregnancies would go down. I am really addressing single parent pregnancies where there is no expectation that the father would be a parent to a child.

Having said that, I can attest that fatherhood is a wonderful experience. You don't have to be perfect or rich or anything else to be a decent father. The most important thing you have to 'be' is there with your kid.

Mr. t, couldn't agree with you more. Your child/children are lucky to have a father who wants to be a father.