This is a tough one to write… but it has to be said.
Yesterday’s Oak Ridger featured a story of a young marine preparing to leave for Iraq, just days after the birth of his first child. Today’s News-Sentinel carries a front-page, above the fold photo of the same young marine, with his newborn son and girlfriend.
I deeply, sincerely hope that this young man comes home safely, and soon.
I also wish that, for the sake of this new baby, that he would marry the baby’s mother before he goes — to give the child the benefit of his name, to provide some security for the baby’s future should the peril of war take its toll.
Perhaps I am wrong, but my instinct is to chastise both newspapers for glorifying this little family that seems to have forgotten something terribly important: the paperwork. Marriage, commitment, and security. How many teenagers read these two papers and came away with the only tragedy is that the Marine has been called to war so early in fatherhood?
I desperately hope that the young mother pictured never has to tell her son that his father gave his life for his country… but couldn’t give his name for his child.
Other people’s lives are none of my business, but the media has a role in upholding the standards of society. Do we have any left?
“…standards of society” change. In the 50’s, women typically stayed in the house, had children and often had no higher education. Thank god those standards have changed.
I’ve always been a rather open-minded person, but I really just don’t see what’s so bad about “living in sin”. With the incredibly high rate of divorce, perhaps a “test drive” isn’t such a bad thing. AT and I would probably have been married eventually, but the initial reason was because his (then) very Catholic mom wouldn’t let us sleep in the same bed when we visited. Even though I was already pregnant.
It’s not the “living in sin” part that bothers me; it’s going off to war and leaving the child with no benefits and no sense of family should his father fail to return home.
There’s a difference in living together outside of marriage, and raising children in that environment. It involves an innocent party who couldn’t consent to the arrangement, but will suffer for it.
Mmm, still don’t necessarily agree with you. Military most likely makes concessions for children born out of wedlock. I’m sure the child will still receive (at least some) of the benefits a military kid would get.
Also, there may be practical reasons why they chose not to marry before he shipped out. Perhaps TennCare provided better coverage for the child, or perhaps the mother is getting some much-needed government assistance that she would lose if she were married.