Obama’s “Lady Parts” Give Us Children, Not Families

One of the most remarkable aspects to me of the 2012 Presidential race was how the Obama Campaign tossed all vestige of the 2008 centrist message and ran from the cultural and pansexual Left. “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.”

Well, “lady parts” can produce children with minimal contribution from “man parts.” But they can’t produce whole families. Obama’s boisterous campaign slogans and his loyalists’ videos need to be understood as roughly the equivalent of Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burns. Because, unless this trend is reversed, our economic woes have only just begun. As the Washington Times recently reported, homes that are not only missing a husband, but where the children all have different absentee fathers, are a growing social reality.

“In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.”

So in a half-century we’ve gone from just over a tenth to a third of children living fatherless. But those statistics, by themselves, might provide a slightly misleading picture. The children living in fatherless homes are not evenly distributed throughout the country. There are places where people still mostly have intact families and there are other places where a woman lives and raises several children all with different fathers. Naturally, such a household is often in the poverty level. “Married couples with children have an average income of $80,000, compared with $24,000 for single mothers.”

While there is a “racial divide” no demographic is immune to these changes:

“The decline has hit disproportionately in the South, which considers itself a bastion of traditional family values. Even in places where the percentage of the black population declined, single parenthood increased over the past decade, The Washington Times’ analysis of census data shows. In South Carolina, where the black share of the population fell by 2 percent, single parenthood rose by 5 percent. In Kentucky and Louisiana, where the black population was constant, single parenthood increased 6 percentage points.”

What is most horrible about this situation is not simply that it exists, but that there is an entire industry between big government and big corporations who are committed to pretending that it isn’t really a bad thing. If we just tinker a bit more and provide more childcare or other social services or add a few million more abortions, this will all be solved. The abortions are an evil idea but the fact remains that single poor women tend to want to have babies at some point in their lives, so until the Liberals make abortions mandatory, the single parent problem will remain.

Remember Obama’s sneering claims that Romney was going to bring us back to the fifties? It was a lie, of course. No president could pull that off. But it shows how people vote for their own destruction and can be trained to scoff at times when they would have been far better off. There is a reason why the sins of the fifties are constantly trotted out into public view in order to make us all feel superior to that age. It blinds us to the things that we are losing.

Whatever its faults or hypocrisies, “Christian” America was a self-sustaining society, not a self-destructive one. We experienced economic growth, not decline. Our “freethinkers” told us that religion was holding us down and holding us back.

But downward and backward is where they have lead us.