This debate-style reader includes a compilation of a variety of issues, including pros and cons of marriage, family life, and traditional assumptions. Link to our student web site for additional study support and links to related sites. (www.dushkin.com/online/)
PART 1. Parental Decision Making: What’s Best for Children...or What’s Best for Parents?
ISSUE 1. Is It Ever Appropriate to Spank a Child?
YES: Walter L. Larimore, from “Is Spanking Actually Harmful to Children?” Focus on the Family (Focus on the Family, 2002)
NO: Irwin A. Hyman, from The Case Against Spanking: How to Discipline Your Child Without Hitting (Jossey-Bass, 1997)
Walter L. Larrimore, vice president of Medical Outreach at Focus on the Family, explains that parents have always spanked their children, and believes that what we see in the media are only examples of times when parents have become abusive rather than using spanking appropriately. Irwin A. Hyman, director of the National Center for Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives, argues that there is never any reason to hit a child. Focusing on the emotional effects of spanking, he asserts that spanking is much more likely to teach children to tolerate and perpetuate violence than it is to correct disobedience.
ISSUE 2. Does the U.S. Need a Parental-Rights Amendment?
YES: Greg D. Erken, from “Halt Social Engineering of the Nation’s Families,” Insight on the News (May 15, 1995)
NO: Jack C. Westman, from “License Parents to Ensure Children’s Welfare,” Insight on the News (May 15, 1995)
Greg D. Erken, executive director for Of the People, a nonprofit, parental-rights organization, challenges the concept that anyone other than a parent knows what is best for children. As the First Amendment exemplifies the principles on which Americans base discussions and debates around free speech, he maintains that the parental-rights amendment should do the same for parents’ rights. Jack C. Westman, professor of psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, asserts that a parental-rights amendment sets the government and parents up as enemies. He argues that many government policies, such as child neglect, labor, and mandatory education laws, have served children and families well. He contends that the amendment is unnecessary.
ISSUE 3. Are Single-Parent Families a Major Cause of Social Dysfunction?
YES: Patrick Fagan, from “Broken Families Strongly Correlate With a Range of Social Pathologies,” Insight on the News (December 8, 1997)
NO: Stephanie Coontz, from “Social Problems Correlate More Closely With Poverty Than Family Background,” Insight on the News (December 8, 1997)
Patrick Fagan, a resident scholar in family culture at The Heritage Foundation, cites the increased stress, lower production, and higher social risks that follow children who are born to single-parent families. These negative factors, he asserts, lead to other social ills later in life, such as unhealthy behaviors for managing stress and relationships that are based more on sexual attraction than on emotional connection and therefore are unlikely to last. He acknowledges the perseverance of many single-parent households but argues that all things being equal, “the intact married family beats the single-parent family in every other measurable dimension.” Stephanie Coontz, a family historian at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, counters that identifying a particular family type as the source of certain social ills is not only inaccurate but can also lead to ineffective public policies. The challenges facing many people such as poverty, school delinquency, and work benefits, she contends, are there whether a person is single or married. Coontz maintains that encouraging marriage as a panacea to these social ills is not the answer.
ISSUE 4. Does Divorce Create Long-Term Negative Effects for Children?
YES: Karl Zinsmeister, from “Divorce’s Toll on Children,” The American Enterprise (May/June 1996)
NO: David Gately and Andrew I. Schwebel, from “Favorable Outcomes in Children After Parental Divorce,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage (vol. 18, nos. 3–4, 1992)
Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise, points to research and surveys showing that not only is divorce much more harmful to children but also that children themselves say they would rather remain in a household where parents argue and fight than to have their parents break up. Educators David Gately and Andrew I. Schwebel highlight literature that demonstrates how going through a divorce can actually strengthen a child, helping to build her or his self-efficacy and level of self-esteem.
PART 2. How Much Control Should Parents Have Over Their Children’s Lives?
ISSUE 5. Should "Abstinence-Until-Marriage" Be the Only Message for Teens?
YES: Bridget E. Maher, from “Abstinence Until Marriage: The Best Message for Teens,” Family Research Council ()
NO: Sue Alford, from “What’s Wrong with Federal Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Requirements?” Transitions (March 2001)
Bridget E. Maher, an analyst on marriage and family issues at the Family Research Council, argues that far too much funding has gone into programs that teach young people about sexuality and contraception—programs that she asserts are ineffective. She points out that most teens say they and their peers should receive strong messages about abstinence, and argues that there are significant negative physical and emotional consequences for people who do not save sex for marriage. Sue Alford, editor and director of public information services at Advocates for Youth, argues that young people are receiving sexuality information and messages from so many sources that it is irresponsible to restrict sexuality and other educators from discussing anything other than abstinence. She maintains that the programs taught under the Abstinence Until Marriage funding often provide factually inaccurate information and hyperbolic assertions pertaining to the potential consequences of sexual relationships outside of marriage.
ISSUE 6. Should Parents Be Allowed to Opt Out of Vaccinating Their Kids?
YES: Barbara Loe Fisher, from “Children at Risk for Adverse Reactions Should Be Given a Pass Without Penalty,” Insight on the News (April 24, 2000)
NO: Steven P. Shelov, from “That Would Open the Door for Epidemics of Some Deadly Childhood Diseases,” Insight on the News (April 24, 2000)
Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, argues that the risks involved with vaccinating children need to be weighed by their parents. She asserts that in some states government policies relating to vaccinations for children discount the parents’ rights to choose what is best for their children and that parents should be allowed to decide whether or not to have their children vaccinated. Steven P. Shelov, chairman of the department of pediatrics at the Maimonides Medical Center in New York City, points to the vast number of diseases, disorders, and deaths that are preventable thanks to vaccines early in life. He maintains that parents should trust in science and the extensive research that has been done on these vaccines and make every effort to ensure that their children are vaccinated.
ISSUE 7. Should Parents of Deaf Children Choose Cochlear Implant Surgery?
YES: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, from “Kids and Cochlear Implants: Getting Connected,” a Brochure of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (2001)
NO: National Association of the Deaf, from “NAD Position Statement on Cochlear Implants,” (October 6, 2000)
The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, an international membership organization and resource center on hearing loss and spoken language, maintains that a cochlear device can lead to greater hearing and speech capability throughout a person’s life. The National Association of the Deaf, the oldest and largest constituency organization focusing on accessibility and civil rights of Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing, argues that the cochlear implant treats deafness as a disability and ignores the historical and cultural aspects of deaf life.
ISSUE 8. Should Parents Surgically Alter Their Intersex Infants?
YES: Amicur Farkas, B. Chertin, and Irith Hadas-Halpren, from “One-Stage Feminizing Genitoplasty: Eight Years of Experience With Forty-Nine Cases,” The Journal of Urology (June 2001)
NO: Alice Domurat Dreger, from “‘Ambiguous Sex’—or Ambivalent Medicine? Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Intersexuality,” Hastings Center Report (May–June 1998)
Amicur Farkas, B. Chertin, and Irith Hadas-Halpren, faculty of the Ben-Gurion University in Jerusalem, Israel, see ambiguous genitalia as a true emergency. They assert that feminizing surgery should be done on an infant with congenital adrenal hyperplasia to ensure that as an adult woman she will have sexual functioning and be able to give birth. Alice Domurat Dreger, assistant professor in the Lyman Briggs School at Michigan State University, explores the ethics in recommending to parents that they should have their children’s genitals altered surgically. With so little education available about the true meaning and options relating to children born wi th ambiguous genitalia, she wonders if any parents who decide that their child should have the surgery are truly giving informed consent.
PART 3. Should Children Have Legal Protections and Rights?
ISSUE 9. Sho...
