The traditional family

[zippy2006]

Not true.

No, it is true. Pair bonding is embedded so deeply within our species that it is a biological, genetic, and neurochemical fact of our nature:

The human species is rather unusual among mammals in that we form long-lasting selective social bonds between mates in addition to the parent-child bond resulting in the nuclear family. The precise nature of the nuclear family varies from culture to culture, ranging from strict monogamy reinforced by society and religion to polygyny or polyandry. Whether or not one considers human beings to be truly monogamous, it is clear that the selective bond between mates, manifested in our species as an emotion we call love, is extremely powerful, and is undoubtedly rooted in our biology and genetic heritage.

-Offspring: Human Fertility Behavior in Biodemographic Perspective​

All evidence is that human societies have had a variety of kinship structures for hundreds of thousands of years.

Sure, but none that exclude the nuclear family. So how is this relevant?

In fact, during the paleolithic, there was likely more diversity than today.

What does that even mean? "Likely more diversity"? We have no need to go back to the paleolithic era, for all parties have agreed that there was more familial diversity in the age of the OT patriarchs than today. Nevertheless I don't see what any of this has to do with the nuclear family and biological pair bonding.

 

[FireDragon76]

YES!
husband and I love our daughter so much!


my mom told me about all the pain "I" caused her before I was even born

glad I didn't have to go through pregnancy & labor to become a parent

Sometimes the kinds of families that we make ourselves are the real blessings. Just because they don't fit into other peoples boxes is not a reason to not accept them as a gift with gratitude.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, it is true. Pair bonding is embedded so deeply within our species that it is a biological, genetic, and neurochemical fact of our nature:

Children can bond to anybody that shows they care. What is "natural" in your mind is irrelevant to that fact.

 

[zippy2006]

Children can bond to anybody that shows they care. What is "natural" in your mind is irrelevant to that fact.

Just so we're clear: you just responded to peer-reviewed research with a Hallmark card.

 

[FireDragon76]

Just so we're clear: you just responded to peer-reviewed research with a Hallmark card.

Research manipulated for a political agenda, to discredit nontraditional families for no other purpose than to support a dubious worldview.

But way to go offering a slap in the face to sentiments like love and care.

 

[zippy2006]

Research manipulated for a political agenda, to discredit nontraditional families for no other purpose than to support a dubious worldview.

You are claiming that the National Research Council Panel for the Workshop on the Biodemography of Fertility and Family Behavior is a political propaganda outlet? Seriously?

But way to go offering a slap in the face to sentiments like love and care.

Love and care are wonderful, but they don't magically negate the demonstrable fact of biological pair bonding in humans. I'm not sure why it is believed that invoking these words constitutes a continuation of our argument, much less a rebuttal.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are claiming that the National Research Council Panel for the Workshop on the Biodemography of Fertility and Family Behavior is a political propaganda outlet? Seriously?

Not necessarily, but when a Catholic wields it to buttress their views of family life, it is.

 

[FireDragon76]

As Fr. Mychal Judge put it, does the world have so much love, that we can afford to discriminate against love?

Wise words.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are claiming that the National Research Council Panel for the Workshop on the Biodemography of Fertility and Family Behavior is a political propaganda outlet? Seriously?



Love and care are wonderful, but they don't magically negate the demonstrable fact of biological pair bonding in humans. I'm not sure why it is believed that invoking these words constitutes a continuation of our argument, much less a rebuttal.

Why do you act like biological bonding is the only kind that counts? (and what does that even mean? Vaginal sex? Why is that the only kind of love that counts? That's not even sufficient to count as love, frankly.)

I am sure all those orphans out there would rather have somebody caring for them than nobody at all. I'm pretty sure they aren't choosy, either.

 

[mama2one]

Offspring: Human Fertility Behavior in Biodemographic Perspective[/I][/INDENT]

read that whole article & research was done on rats/voles
there didn't appear to be any definite conclusions based on the research as pertains to humans

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[FireDragon76]

personally, I don't understand all the people who undergo IVF or other medical procedures in order to have a child with their genes
(know more than one RC family who has done this & surprising to me)

adopting a child seems like a better choice for Christian families

why are so many so insistent that their children MUST be biological?

Well in truth, it's sort of rooted in biology and cultural expectations. But life can be lived more deliberately, with reason, and transcend our biology. And this really is better than just going through the motions and expecting a reward for doing what only comes natural (hence my disdain for the cult of nature implied in much of Christian natural law ethics).

Humans are greater than merely being breeding machines. We can use our bodies to create art, beauty, and love, and we don't need to limit ourselves to ancient stories about the world. That is what is wonderful about life. Not having it all planned out and handed to you by some church authority, but discovering life for yourself.

Every human being is a sacred person on a sacred journey, and nobody has the right to tell anyone their family is defective merely because it doesn't measure up to somebody else's ideal.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[Paidiske]

personally, don't understand people who undergo IVF or other medical procedures in order to have a child with their genes

adopting a child seems like a better choice for Christian families
we attended a church for a while where the Pastor promoted adoption
because he was FOR adoption, over 100 families ended up adopting at that church
more kids would have homes, if other Pastors promoted adoption

Adoption isn't a good possibility for everyone (where I live, at least, there is much more demand to adopt than there are children to be adopted, and international adoption is made very difficult).

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[FireDragon76]

maybe that's why when we told family & friends we were going to adopt we got comments like this:

"which one of you has something wrong with you?"

"we don't need any more immigrants in this country"

"oh, you'll probably get pregnant now"

not one "Congratulations" like all pregnant woman get





thing is, I never thought of adoption as a second choice so was pretty hurt by family/friend comments

That's fairly common for people that take the road less travelled, unfortunately. But it's also an opportunity to grow. Convention is a horrible taskmaster.

 

[stevevw]

Speaking about love. Fostering a child is a good way to give them a loving home with caring and loving parents. But most children who end up in foster care have been physically and sexually abused, neglected or abandoned. So why don't we work on the reasons why these children are traumatized in the first place and reduced this.

Research shows that the highest risk for poor child health and well-being is with separated families and that step families have a high risk of further abuse. The best way for children to have healthy development is with their two biological parents. So yes it is good that people can come in and save these poor children but how about minimizing and stopping the problem happening in the first place and supporting families to ensure they are prepared for children and can managed things when they do have children.

 

[Paidiske]

Research shows that the highest risk for abuse for children is with step families...

That's not what I'm seeing, for example, here:

▪ Individual child factors

• low birth weight
• pregnancy or birth complications
• child temperament or behaviour
• child disability

Family/parental factors

• parental substance abuse
• involvement in criminal behaviour
• family conflict or violence
• mental health problems
• child perceived as problem by parents
• history of child abuse and neglect
• large family size
• exposure to stress
• parental temperament
• teenage/young parent/s
• single or unmarried parents
• low level of parental education
• use of corporal punishment
• unplanned pregnancy
• physical health problems
• low self-esteem
• social isolation

Social/environment factors

• socio-economic disadvantage
• parental unemployment
• housing stress
• lack of access to social support
• lack of pre-natal care
• neighbourhood disadvantage
• neighbourhood violence

 

[Lazarus Long]

Speaking about love. Fostering a child is a good way to give them a loving home with caring and loving parents. But most children who end up in foster care have been physically and sexually abused, neglected or abandoned. So why don't we work on the reasons why these children are traumatized in the first place and reduced this.

Research shows that the highest risk for abuse for children is with step families and the best way for children to have healthy development is with their two biological parents. So yes it is good that people can come in and save these poor children but how about minimizing and stopping the problem happening in the first place.

Are you suggesting that men should be more harshly treated for spousal abuse? Do you think this would reduce family breakups or are you suggesting that women should just accept the abuse for the sake of their children?

 

[stevevw]

That's not what I'm seeing, for example, here:

▪ Individual child factors

• low birth weight
• pregnancy or birth complications
• child temperament or behaviour
• child disability

Family/parental factors

• parental substance abuse
• involvement in criminal behaviour
• family conflict or violence
• mental health problems
• child perceived as problem by parents
• history of child abuse and neglect
• large family size
• exposure to stress
• parental temperament
• teenage/young parent/s
• single or unmarried parents
• low level of parental education
• use of corporal punishment
• unplanned pregnancy
• physical health problems
• low self-esteem
• social isolation

Social/environment factors

• socio-economic disadvantage
• parental unemployment
• housing stress
• lack of access to social support
• lack of pre-natal care
• neighbourhood disadvantage
• neighbourhood violence

Yes but most of these factors do not determine whether they happen in the original family of foster and blended families. For example parental temperament, exposure to stress, mental health problems, neighborhood violence, low self-esteem, parental substance abuse, child temperament or behaviour and family conflict or violence don't discriminate between original nuclear family and non nuclear families like blended and foster families.

I was not really focusing on Australia only. The research when looking at the differences between family setups from the US shows that the safest families are not only biological parents but ones that are married.
Data Illustrated
The NIS-41) report is especially significant as it was the first examination by the Department of Health and Human Services exploring the relationship between family structure and child maltreatment in the U.S. Past reports looked at family structure but not to the same degree. For example, NIS-3 did not collect data on cohabitation or stepfamilies.

Evidence from NIS-4 confirm the data from other countries indicating that family structure is tangibly linked to the likelihood of child abuse. Specifically:

• The safest environment for a child—that is, the family environment with the lowest risk ratio for physical abuse—is one in which the biological parents are married and the family has always been intact.
• The rate of abuse is three and a half times higher if the child is living with a single parent
• The rate of abuse is four times higher if the child is living with biological parents who are not married but are cohabiting.
• The rate of abuse is six times higher in the blended family in which the child is living with a married couple, most commonly in the case of divorce and remarriage but also possible in households of adoption.
• The rate of abuse is 10 times higher if the child is living with a parent who is cohabiting with another adult.

Link Between Family Structure and Child Abuse [Marripedia]

But even when we look at Australia we find a similar situation. The Royal commission into child abuse which is the largest and most comprehensive investigation into child abuse in Australia has found that the breakdown of families is a major contribution to the increase in child abuse. It shows that since the 1960's the traditional family has broken down and that this is the main factor for the increase because children don't have the security of married parents in a stable family.

But even more significant is that the findings point out that there is a silence similar to what lead to the covering up of child abuse by pedophiles in society not wanting to acknowledge that the loss of the traditional family is the major cause of abuse. They attribute this to political correctness in not wanting to criticize other family setups because of ideologies that want to support and promote that any family setup is OK. They say that this is the new silence that we need to overcome otherwise we will see another era of child neglect and abuse.

The New Silence: Family Breakdown and Child Sexual Abuse
Conclusion Approximately 27% (more than one in four) Australian children do not currently live with both natural parents.69 This compares to around 90% of children who lived with both natural parents in 1960.70 Rising rates of divorce and ex-nuptial births have led to substantial growth in the number of step-, blended and single-parent Approximately 27% (more than one in four) Australian children do not currently live with both natural parents. Issue Analysis 15 families. Only 7.1% of families with dependent children were single-parent families in the late 1960s compared to 17% today, and the proportion of step- and blended families has approximately doubled.71 The social changes of the recent decades have transformed the character of Australian families and placed larger numbers of children in non-traditional families at greater risk of maltreatment, including sexual abuse.

A comparable silence surrounding family breakdown and child welfare confronts us today, because cultural politics intervene and render us mute. Admitting that a major threat to the welfare of children stems from the breakdown of the traditional family demands a re-evaluation of the progressive social values in which cultural elites have invested much political and intellectual capital. The unwillingness to challenge the conventional, socially progressive attitudes that now constitute the established order is similar to the veil of silence that helped hide the crimes of paedophile priests.
https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/04/images/stories/issue-analysis/ia142.pdf