When we speak of how the breakdown of the family affects the values of the children, when we suggest there is more crime when the family unit is not whole, are we correct?
I think we are, and let me tell you why. Parents realize, to a large extent, that it is their responsibility to teach the child not to steal, and not to lie, and to be good. That is a given. Whether it is instinctual or something society instills in them, parents know they are to teach their children to be good. Sometimes, they even might be wicked -- to use that term -- yet they strive to make their children better than themselves. "You will do as I say, not as I do."
And, there is something about the bond of a parent with a child that makes this instinct stronger -- love, perhaps. A natural parent is more likely to love the child. There is that tendency. The child is "flesh of my flesh," so the parent loves the child. A non-natural parent is more likely to be absent love for the child.
And, with the love, comes the correction. With the love comes the desire for the child to succeed, and to be good. I think of the wisdom of Solomon, and how two women both said a child was their own. Solomon suggested cutting the child it two, and giving half to each. The real mother would have none of it, for she loved the child, and wanted no harm to come to it.
But, what of having just one parent? Isn't that enough? If that person is the natural parent, won't there be love the same as if there were two?
Well, there are different factors, but overall, no, there will not be the same tendency to raise the child right when there is just one parent. Again, I must explain why. First, let me suggest there might be one factor that drives a single parent to be a better parent than a married parent. The child is all they have. They don't have a spouse. So, the tendency is to draw even closer to the child. This tendency will be stronger when parents have just one child, than when they have many.
Another factor is whether the child is considered a burden. There is a loss of freedom that comes with having a child. There are responsibilities that come. The parent sometimes seeks to be free of the responsibilities, even to the point that it creates a resentment of the child.
I think it should be noted that that tendency is more likely when there is just one parent than when there are two.
For one thing, the tendency to feel the child a burden is more likely with a single parent. Two parents sharing the responsibilities can meet them more easily. One parent facing all the tasks -- including earning a living -- is more easily overwhelmed; The burden factor is higher.
I read how half the women having abortions do so because they don't want to be single parents. Half! The breakdown of the family, then, clearly affects abortion rates. But, note this just as clearly: If there is a greater tendency for singles to abort, there probably also is a greater tendency for singles to feel the child a burden. Even after the child is born, and among mothers who do go ahead and have the child, instead of aborting, there is likely going to be more resentment of the child.
And, therefore, less love.
And so, is it not clear that the breakdown of the family creates less love? And, shouldn't it be clear that with less love, comes less tendency to teach the child correct values.? There comes more neglect, and a child that is neglected is not a child that is corrected.
Other factors bringing more love -- and thus more correction -- when there are two parents? How about competition? Whenever two people are involved in any project, there often will be a degree of competition.
And, there is the checks and balances principle. If one parent is not raising the child right, the other parent will spot it. How often is it, for example, that one parent will suggest to the other that he or she is spending too much time at work, and ought to be spending more time with the family?
And, there is more joy in an endeavor that is shared than in one that is faced alone.
Well, other reasons why two parents are better than one are coming to mind. But, I find myself so tired, I am nodding my head before I can write them down to remember them. Sufficient to say just a few more things.
One, a single parent can be just as good of a parent as a married one. There may be more built-in incentives for married parents, but that does not stop a single person from doing the job even he or she lacks those incentives.
Two, the breakdown of the family can come even when there are two parents. If parents are not loving and teaching their children, that is a breakdown. And so, we must suggest, a single-parent family providing love and instruction is more functional than a two-parent family without that love and instruction.
Three, when a society loses its values, the family suffers. The things parents teach, are the things society has taught the parents. The values of society are the values transmitted to the children. If you do not have correct values, you will not have correct training.
Four, what the children become is what the nation becomes. If have a breakdown in the family, you will have a breakdown of your society. If the family breaks down, you will have more crime. I see this is something I have not dealt with enough in what I have said above. But, if you do not teach something, it will be less likely to be practiced. If you do not guide someone against bad behavior, they will more naturally fall into it. In the verbiage of one religion, the natural man is an enemy to God. So, left alone and unguided, he or she will likely make the wrong choices.
If we are to rein in our crime -- if we are to cut down on gang violence, and police violence, and the number of mass shootings -- the place to start is in the home. Not all children grow up in accordance to their parents' teachings, but a lot of them do.
No comments:
Post a Comment