Troop Leader and Out -of-Wedlock Child

[FScouter]

Some of you have mistaken my position on this issue. I jumped into this discussion in response to a opinion put forth by Dan Kroh where he said it was morally correct for a woman to make a conscious decision to have a child, with no father. My thoughts, then and now, are that a woman that makes a choice to bring a child into the world with no father is selfish and self-centered. There is no honor in a conscious decision to create a child and raise it as a single parent.

 

Choosing to bear a child with no father is not morally responsible. The thing that makes this wrong is the self-centered belief that a child doesnt need a father, or that the womans self-gratifying desire to raise a child alone is more important than the needs of the child.

 

An unplanned, out of wedlock pregnancy is a little different, assuming the bio father disappears. The mother either opts to keep the baby, or give it up for adoption. Even under the most ideal circumstances, keeping the baby still leaves one huge hole; there is no father. And it should take a lot of positive points in favor of the unwed mother keeping the baby to outweigh the huge negative of denying the child a father.

[Trevorum]

IMHO, I can think of nothing that a person with an XY genotype (male) can bring to child raising that an XX genotype (female) can not. On the other hand, I can think of several rather important things that a XY person can NOT do.

 

I am reminded of the bumper sticker: "A Woman needs a Man like a Fish needs a Bicycle"

[Hunt]

Thanks, FScouter, for clarifying your position. I find more to agree with as you have restated it.

 

"Choosing to bear a child with no father is not morally responsible. The thing that makes this wrong is the self-centered belief that a child doesnt need a father, or that the womans self-gratifying desire to raise a child alone is more important than the needs of the child."

 

I tend to agree with this--and I have some of the same discomfort with single people who want to adopt children. But I don't think this is the norm--most women do not "get themselves pregnant" in order to become single moms. More typically, the pregnancy comes first, as a result of carelessness or a breakdown in technology, and the decision comes after. Common things being common, this is most likely what happened with the young woman being discussed here. (I leave aside the issue of same-sex couples, and the issue of whether what's important is two parents or a father and mother--because I think that's a different, although related, issue). So..

 

"An unplanned, out of wedlock pregnancy is a little different, assuming the bio father disappears. The mother either opts to keep the baby, or give it up for adoption. Even under the most ideal circumstances, keeping the baby still leaves one huge hole; there is no father. And it should take a lot of positive points in favor of the unwed mother keeping the baby to outweigh the huge negative of denying the child a father."

 

I generally agree with this too, but I think you may be giving too many points in the balancing test to the adoption route.

 

[CrewMomma]

This has been an interesting thread to read.

 

1)22YO's as Scoutmaster's : male or female, that is too young to be a Scoutmaster. Not enough experience or maturity to be role models. Let's face it, Scoutmasters are almost like surrogate parents. I'm married to a SM and I am a Crew Assistant adviser as well (in a different troop from his). I treat the kids in both the program as I would my own.

 

2)Young Single Mom's: Adoption isn't always the answer. My oldest half sister was adopted and ended up being molested by her adopted father instead of cared for as my Mom was told she would be. I was a young Mom at 20, got married when I was 5 mos pregnant, had a very rough first ten years of marriage and now after 17 years I cannot even fathom living without the love of my life.

 

Just because I know how hard it is to be young and have a young child, I personally cannot imagine wanting to be a SM with babies to deal with on my own. Unfortunately I think this young lady has chosen a route that is going to be very difficult for her, but it is her choice (and the CO's) and it sounds like she has a family that can help support her emotionally and physically.

 

3)Two Parents: I agree that in an ideal situation, children need both parents around to learn from. They learn different things from Mothers and Fathers but as we know, this isn't an ideal world and things happen whether it is a parent that dies or decides not to be in the marriage/parent anymore. I have both of these scenario's in our troop and I applaud these parents for the wonderful job they are doing raising their children the best they can.

 

4)Morally: We have no right to be a moral judge of anyone. People make their decisions and have to live with their own consequences. BSA has a moral law that we chose to live under but, how many of us can say that we can tick off all 12 attributes. Go ahead, throw the first stone.

 

A SM is a highly visible position, if someone chooses to accept that position then they need to understand that there is a certain amount of scrutiny that comes with it. People are either going to hate you or love you. You get a tough skin and keep scouting on. (I can just imagine the SM Crowd out there rolling their eyes and nodding their heads)

 

(This last point is preaching a bit! You can stop reading now if you want to!)

 

5)Jesus loved people regardless of their situation. He may not like what you are doing or what you have done but He loves you regardless how many mistakes you make. He has the ability to take our most screwed up situations and turn them into His most valuable creations. It is us responding back to His love that makes us want to change the screwed up thing we are doing. Go spread some love.

 

 

 

[evmori]

The only thing scarier than FScouter's views is that FScouter is a Scouter and has young men whom he is influencing. What's next, gender cleansing?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[dan]

From a presentation I have done and will do again in about a month.

 

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Think of ethics as an understanding of what is right and wrong for an individual and for groups of people.

 

Ethics are the standards by which we act, both when we are around others and when we are alone.

 

In other words ethics is an understanding between right and wrong for a person of a group of people.

Ethics are the standards of how we act both in a group and alone.

 

Ethics come from values learned from family and society.

 

Any attempt to make a good decision has to begin with getting the facts of the situation straight. In some cases that seem at first quite difficult, additional facts are enough to make the correct course of action apparent.

 

My point to the above is that even though you believe the adult having a child out of wedlock is unmoral and unethical, which is fine. Other people believe that it is acceptable, which is also fine. We may not be able to change a person ethics/morals but we can discuss each others views and hopefully walk away with a better understanding of each other.

 

EagleDad said early in this thread that morals come from religious teachings, which is true sometimes, not all scouters are religious, or are a different religion than I am, the BSA says that is ok, which we should agree with if we are scouters.

 

For the adoption thing, there are 1000s of children out there living in foster care that cannot get adopted, they sometimes live in 2 to 3 foster homes per year. My neighbor works for Catholic Charities her job is to place kids in foster care, that will never be adopted, she has some real horror stories. A single parent would be better than that.

[Eagledad]

>>Jesus loved people regardless of their situation.

[FScouter]

is this SM the role model you want for you son?

 

Nope. My judgment is that based on her behavior, she doesnt have the moral character to be my sons Scoutmaster. She may have good qualities in other areas, but she failed the morality test. For me, thats a big one.

 

My neighbor works for Catholic Charities her job is to place kids in foster care, that will never be adopted, she has some real horror stories. A single parent would be better than that.

 

Lets not confuse an adoptive family with foster care. Kids in foster care are usually there because what they had with their biological parent was worse. If the bio mothers and fathers of these foster kids had given their babies up for adoption from the beginning, these now unadoptable kids wouldnt be bouncing around between foster homes.

[evmori]

Nope. My judgment is that based on her behavior, she doesnt have the moral character to be my sons Scoutmaster. She may have good qualities in other areas, but she failed the morality test. For me, thats a big one.

 

Her behavior? You know how & why she had a child? You seem to be judging without all the facts. Maybe she was artificially inseminated. Maybe she was raped. Do you know? No.

 

I agree she is not the ideal person to be the SM.

 

I have a feeling most people would fail FScouters morality test.

 

Maybe the BSA needs a new reg that states no single parents allowed!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[ScoutNut]

I REALLY hate blanket judgments.

 

"Choosing to bear a child with no father is not morally responsible."

 

I am sure that all of the war widows out there whose children will never get to know their fathers would disagree with you. I am sure that all of the grandparents of those fatherless children would also disagree with you.

 

"If the bio mothers and fathers of these foster kids had given their babies up for adoption from the beginning, these now unadaptable kids wouldnt be bouncing around between foster homes."

 

Wow, what an uninformed comment from someone who obviously only knows the system from the movies. Are you advocating that prospective single mothers put their babies up for sale? That they find the "perfect" couple to buy/give their baby to? You must be, because otherwise these WANTED babies, that MUST be given up because to be a single mother is "selfish, self-centered, and morally reprehensible", end up in the SAME PLACES as your "unadaptable" kids. Granted, it is easier to find placements for babies, but that does NOT guarantee that EVERY baby will get placed in a decent home.

 

Unless you go the private adoption route and sell the baby (& even then you can not really guarantee decent folks will end up with the child) the baby will FIRST go into the DCFS system. There are a LOT of unwanted babies out there waiting in foster care for new parents. Some never find them & are raised in a variety of foster homes until they are kicked out on their 18th birthday to fend for themselves.

 

Personally, I don't give a darn HOW/WHY a child was conceived. If the mother loves that child, wants that child, & has a support system of family & friends in place to help her raise that child, then that child is WAY better off with that mother. Yes, there ARE times/circumstances, when giving the child up would be the better option, but it is never the best option & should certainly NOT be the ONLY option a mother has.

 

 

BTW - I notice that you seem to be only opposed to a single MOTHER raising a child, but a single FATHER seems to be OK with you. Why is that?

 

[Eagledad]

>>Her behavior? You know how & why she had a child? You seem to be judging without all the facts. Maybe she was artificially inseminated. Maybe she was raped. Do you know? No.

[evmori]

Barry,

 

Why? Because FScouter's comments remind me of the logic ethnic cleansers use. He isn't looking out for the kids! His reasons have no foundation & his morals seem skewed! It really scares me!

 

I am adopted. Never met my real mom. I know her name. Don't know my real dad's name. I do know I have 8 brothers/sisters somewhere. Would I have been better off with my real mom? Don't know. Never will.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Diver66]

This is a very interesting topic to say the least. There are some good, bad and just plain scary points discussed here.

 

The Moral issue aside, if you can. I do feel there is a serious Moral issue here, I am not trying to play that part down.

 

One of the biggest issues as said earlier is can she give time to the Troop as needed. I would have to say no, she has limited herself on things she can do with the Troop;

 

Camping for instance, is she willing to leave the baby with someone when she takes the Troop camping ,serious seperation issue with the child for this option, is she going to bring the child with, tons of stuff here, or is she just not going camping for years till the child is old enough, not doing her troop any favors with this one.

 

Serious problems with the leadership in this Troop, if the parents are going to the DE for help, then they must feel the Committee is not willing and/or able to handle problems in the Troop.

 

The CO drop the ball on this, IMHO they should have removed her as soon as they found out she was pregant, unless she did not tell anyone or did not show.

 

This is where I get on my soap box. As said eairlier, what on earth is she doing there in the first place, if as said she is put there for the mother to control, then she is not there willingly and did not make a good leader, if, GOD forbid she has a thing for boys then she needs to be put in jail. On that note who is the father, someone she has been seeing, a one night stand, or again GOD forbid one of the Scouts. These are questions I would be asking.

 

Now I think this is a good time to re-adjust the leadership in this Troop if you can, you have a very hard task ahead and you will probably be loosing some Scouts and parents over this. My prayers are with you and your Troop, but I also feel that good can come of all things.

 

Barry D

 

 

[DanKroh]

Preface: Oops, it just occurred to me that Barry was addressing the other Dan. Oh well, I'll leave the response anyway....

 

Barry wrote: "Dan, I enjoyed your last reply, but Im not sure where you were going with it. I would enjoy reading your expanded thoughts there. I think scouting units run into this problem of unit leaders a lot more than we realize. I know some units who want to fire a SM simply because he smokes. Yet, I know of one Troop where the SM was caught with an ASMs wife. He didnt get kicked out until a year later when he was caught offering a scout a beer. There were plenty of warning signs before that event, why did they wait until a scout became a victim? We shouldnt judge? Problem is we are too afraid to judge and more often than not, it comes back at us later. How many have regrets that we could have prevented something bad against our youth had we just reacted the first time we saw the adult behave badly. I admit it is hard to know when the line is crossed, but we don't hessitate to ride ourselves of a smoking SM and hold our judgement for one who openly commits adultry."

 

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that an SM (or any Scout leader) should be held to a higher standard of behavior. But I think the guiding principle in establishing that standard can be summed up by a single question "Is this person modeling good behavior?"

 

If it were up to me, personally, I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction). Similary, I would also boot an SM who committed adultery, because he/she broke a vow. An SM who had or caused an unintended pregancy is being sexually irresponsible, also not a good thing. But in all these cases, I think blanket condemnations are bad, because there can always be mitigating circumstances (which is what spurred this whole side discussion, anyway).

 

The place where my view would probably differ greatest from some others is around sexual relations by unmarried leaders. I'm sure there are some who would want to boot out an unmarried leader who was living with someone, or who had a (planned, or at least desired) child outside of marriage. To me, those behaviors are neither immoral or irresponsible. One might argue that they are modeling "sexual promiscuity", but if they are in a committed relationship that just doesn't happen to be marriage, I would disagree. Again, it all depends on circumstances.

 

I think there are plenty of behaviors that make for poor leaders. Not all of them are "immoral" (lack of patience, for instance, or poor mentoring skills, or lack of organization), and they don't make those people *bad people*, just poor leader material.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[funscout]

If the young, single, pregnant SM had been following the Scout Oath, she would have remained "morally straight." I would not consider her to be a good role model for my boys. At every Scout meeting, my boys recite the Scout Oath and Law. They would have difficulty understanding why the SM didn't have to live up to the Scout Law. Why would the boys be motivated to live by the Scout Oath if their SM didn't think it was important?

 

I would respect this woman if she did the honorable thing and stepped down as SM, without having to be asked to do so. That would show the boys that she knew she had failed the Scout Oath, and it would be more appropriate for someone else to step up as leader. Stepping down would also be in her child's best interests. I can't imagine a mother choosing to spend time away from her baby when she didn't have to. As a single mother, she will have to work, which will take her away from her child. She would be doing her child a disservice to take herself away in the evenings and weekends as well. That would truly be selfish.

 

I agree with FScouter that it is selfish for a woman to choose to conceive a child without a father in the picture. In that case, the woman is purposely depriving her child of a father. In the case of rape or failed birth control, then the woman faces a tough decision. She can either do what is probably best for the child, and place him/her up for adoption, or she can struggle to raise the child on her own, because her maternal instincts tell her to keep the baby. All you single, widowed, or divorced parents know first hand how difficult it is to raise kids on your own. I do not advocate taking babies away only because the child is father-less, but I do feel that a two parent home is better in most cases.

 

My friend who lost his wife and is raising 3 boys on his own, would never have chosen to be a single Dad. He had no choice in the matter. Many of us try to give some "mother" time to his boys, but it will never make up for the loss of their own mother. My husband travels during the week, so I get a taste of single motherhood during the week. My boys have already informed us that they will choose a job that allows them to be home with their families, because it's been hard not having their Dad around full-time.