Might I suggest that ultimately, the root of the problem, which you eloquently address, is a lack of loving and caring families? May I further suggest that the later is more importantly defined by the unified effort and earnestness with which parents raise a child than by traditional definition of the nuclear family?
May I ultimately speculate that even the most extreme conservatives should at least examine the virtues of children raised in an “untraditional” but loving home?
I humbly come to the conclusion that the root of the problem may be deeper than trying to re-adjust and help young adults who come from broken homes. To truly address the problem, one might want to examine the lack of accountability and respect our society holds for bringing innocent lives into this world and nourishing their development.
As we increasingly become a secular society, people rely on the government to raise their children and educate them in scholastics and life and (or not). The importance of love and nurturing has been replaced by convenience, a substitution which is not as beneficial to the child.
Moreover, it seems that there are so many financial incentives in place for bearing children and/or raising them in a foster situation. Are foster parents really compelled by a desire to help a child, or by the check they receive for doing so? How many individuals simply bear children for possible financial incentives?
Finally, how many respected institutions, such as catholic charities, are unwilling to place a needing child in a loving “non-traditional” home?
So my point is? Remove financial incentives to raise children as income opportunities, and expand the base of potential loving parents. This may significantly change the statistics.
Thank you again for your poignant article.
Humbly,
Joanne Gomez
Read Tuchow's article, "Foster Care Should Not Lead to Homelessness"
PREVIOUS PAGE
