Fathering a child

[theysawyoucomin']

What would you think of a national directive that said:

 

Any boy fathering a child outside of wedlock would be permanently ineligible for advancement.

 

Most religions don't support such behavior. Common sense tells us that kids do best with a loving Mom and Dad in an emotionally, financially stable home.

 

This would be a little more direct than pg 376 of the Scout handbook.

 

 

I think it is a national problem in that life is tough enough these days, the child born into such circumstances is the "victim", not a problem to be labeled. It is the two idiots that created the situation who are to blame. Many times the rest of "the village" ends up paying to support the child. The child is not given the benefit of a loving nuclear family.

 

Might give some Scouts cause to think about their actions. As the libs say about banning guns and other matters, "if it saves (helps) one life it would be worth it.

 

Your thoughts please.

[TheScout]

It would seem to me such a directive would also have to include a cause where a boy who participated in a deision to have a baby aborted would also be disqualified.

 

Either that, or you would have the BSA saying it is acceptable to abort a child, but not to bring him or her into the world. I do not think that would be compatible with the values of the BSA.

[John-in-KC]

And if the young man marries the young lady in question?

 

What do you do about SCOUTERS who have children out of wedlock? Give them "The Letter?" The one that bans them from lifetime participation in BSA?

 

PM Sent to OGE and Eamonn...

[Lisabob]

No I think that goes way too far. Looking at it from the perspective of working with youth, it is the parents' or guardians' job to deal with youth sexual behavior - NOT the BSA leaders' job. Looking at it from the perspective of adult volunteer leaders, the BSA can darn well keep its nose out of the bedroom. This is a volunteer organization, not a religion and not a cult, and the BSA doesn't/shouldn't expect to regulate these most personal aspects of people's lives.

 

Such a position reminds me of advice that was once commonly given to boys (but not usually to girls): "Do what you want but don't get caught." Further, such a position would encourage boys NOT TO take responsibility for their actions if such actions resulted in a girl becoming pregnant. That is not ethical.

 

 

[evmori]

I think it's a little harsh but should a Scout who "couldn't keep it in his pants" be awarded his Eagle?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Nike]

I agree whole heartedly with Lisabob. Do any of us REALLY want to delve into what the boys are up to with the girls? Unless one privately confesses it to me, my answer is an unequivocal NO!

 

Once a boy has fathered a child and baby is here, I would be very interested in how he is managing his life when he came up for BoR, and it would have some influence on my decision.

[scoutldr]

So, premarital sex is OK, as long as it's heterosexual and they eventually get married?

 

But let a scout declare that he doesn't think there's a God and he's out on his ear?

 

More of those contradictions I mentioned. My head hurts.

[dScouter15]

First, I'm thinking this thread might be better placed in the "Issues & Politics" section.

 

Secondly, I doubt there would ever be such a national directive. Its really not the BSA's position to be involved with the sexual history of any scout or scouter. You may personally feel that sex before marriage, or children out of wedlock is a morally bad thing. Others will disagree. Therefore, I think that it is important for each situation to be looked at individually - that is purpose of the Board of Review, to look at each individual scout's progress and qualifications for advancement. Some situations may show that a scout who has fathered a child is not deserving of advancement, based on the Scout Oath and Law. Other situations may show that the scout is indeed qualified to advance. I don't think that you, I, the BSA, or anyone else has any business making blanket one-size-fits-all judgments on these types of situations.

[John-in-KC]

I'm glad this thread is where it belongs!

 

Now, I'm pro-life and a conservative Christian.

 

Here's my question: Why isn't the unit promoting and rewarding positive values by teens to begin with? They want to press boundaries and experiment. Our job as Scouters is to support parents in their raising of their children. They are the ones accountable to God for morals, values, and ethics.

 

Mrs Reagan said it, 20+ years ago: "Just say no." We have to help these young people develop the moral and ethical courage to say no.

 

If you're from the Judeo-Christian tradition, you understand that sin began back in the Garden, and that failure in this life is a consequence of sin. To me, the issues involved when a young man is suddenly a father include:

- Has he accepted biological, parental, economic, and moral responsibility for his actions? Those imo are legitimate questions to ask on an EBOR.

 

- What are the familial decisions made?

--If the mother's family rejects him out and out, and the young man cannot fulfill his responsibilities, then how does he work that through?

--OTOH, if both families agree the young people should work together to finish their basic education, and join in marriage as adults, then a flat out policy denial of Eagle does not reinforce the ethics demonstrated by the family.

 

uz2bnowl, you claim you started this thread because the situation had happened that a young Scout Dad had come to his EBOR. Had I been a member of that EBOR in any capacity, I would have asked for an immediate adjournment of the Board. The situation at hand calls for the best advice available. The DAC (and/or Council Advancement Chairman), the UC, and the District Commissioner should have been brought into the loop to give advice and support. In my understanding of parliamentary procedure, an adjournment is not a denial of action, it is a pause in the meeting (however long) for any number of reasons, including to to gather and weigh needed information.

[scoutldr]

I was the one who sat the EBOR for the 18 year old father. As the District rep, that's exactly what I did...adjourned the board and called the DAC. We had just read the letters of recommendation and the scout had not yet been called in. The advice was to hold the board and let the chips fall. The Board denied the Eagle, and was overturned on appeal at the district level. (Another EBOR was held with all District people who did not know the scout.)

[Eamonn]

Thanks for the PM's.

We (the Ship)were meeting with SSS 548 in Maryland this weekend. So I don't know who moved the thread? I do think it is better off here than in the Advancement Area.

Re: " As the libs say about banning guns and other matters, "if it saves (helps) one life it would be worth it."

I kinda think of myself as being one of them there "Libs"

I don't like and don't care for guns very much.

Three of the lead stories on the local news tonight were about shootings.

I do however see that many people do hunt and do enjoy shooting sports and think responsible gun ownership is OK.

Being a practicing Roman Catholic, I view premarital sex as being wrong.

I also see that we hate the sin but forgive the sinner.

We as an organization would hope that we might have some influence on the young people we serve and they would see "Causal Sex" as being wrong.

 

I happen to think that all causal sex is wrong.

While the outcome of unprotected sex can be a lot different if the girl does become pregnant.

 

I'm a little puzzled by the use of "fathering a child "?

Does this mean that if the girl has an abortion the young man is off the hook?

We have had adults who have served as leaders who are not married to each other, who have lived together for many years.

I happen to think that this isn't a very good example for the youth we serve but I tend to see it as a fact of life.

Kids who turn on a TV or go to the movies see unmarried people having sex with multiple partners. Try watching a few episodes of Greys Anatomy!

I have explained my views to my son, he understands the teachings of our church on this subject. I seen this as my responsibility as a parent. While I now serve a coed group of teenagers and I along with the other adults do our best to ensure that the youth members are not given the opportunity to have sex while participating in Scouting activities. I see my role as helping to provide a program. If a CO were to have a rule that unmarried parents were not allowed in a unit that they chartered? I would have to take a long hard look to see if I wanted to be involved with that CO.

I don't shy away from talking with the Scouts I serve on almost any subject.

I try and be as honest as I can be. But I do make it clear that I'm talking for myself not the BSA or our CO.

My answer to :

"What would you think of a national directive that said:

 

Any boy fathering a child outside of wedlock would be permanently ineligible for advancement.

 

Would be that National would need to stick their directive in their ear!

If a CO wants to remove a Scout from a unit that they charter? That would be their call.

Of course the Lad would be free to go and find a unit with a CO that doesn't have such a rule.

Eamonn.

 

 

[theysawyoucomin']

Scoutldr thank you for speaking up about the EBOR. I thought John in KC was bats.

 

It sure would tick off some folks. But it would also show a position on a subject.

This behavior will not be tolerated. IT'S SIMPLY NOT GOOD FOR ANYBODY INVOLVED, SHOULD I GAMBLE HERE AND LOSE!

 

Just because movie stars and Tom Brady (QB NE PATS) think that fatherhood ends at conception doesn't mean we all have to drive down that road.

And no I'm not advocating abortion.

 

Banning Scouters? Now there's another topic!

 

Lisabob wrote:

Such a position reminds me of advice that was once commonly given to boys (but not usually to girls): "Do what you want but don't get caught." Further, such a position would encourage boys NOT TO take responsibility for their actions if such actions resulted in a girl becoming pregnant. That is not ethical.

 

Lisa, your post is insulting in that you could possibly think my position "would encourage boys NOT TO take responsibility for their actions if such actions resulted in a girl becoming pregnant. That is not ethical."

 

 

Further:

Such a position reminds me of advice that was once commonly given to boys (but not usually to girls): "Do what you want but don't get caught."

 

I can see your preconceived notions can lead you to think that about other people, yet you have only disclosed what you may feel yourself.

 

 

"Do what you want but don't get caught."

I missed where I wrote that.

 

I was addressing a national disgrace. A national situation that leads to poverty, child abuse, substance abuse by children as they grow up. A financial burden on taxpayers and national health care,a drain on public education. All because of the lack of self control.

 

"I'm out of control because my loins have taken over"

 

Makes us sound like a bunch of primates!

 

May God send a lightning bolt though my heart if I ever say to my son, "Do what you want but don't get caught."

 

 

 

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.

 

Trustworthy-I am with another Man's daughter. Would I want a young man to behave this way with my daughter.

 

Reverent- I don't think I need explain.

 

Kind- I am gambling with my future, her future and another possible human being's future. Would it be kind to have something bad happen here?

 

helpful- I am helping only myself.

 

Clean---- mind and body...you decide

 

Loyal- Am I being loyal to my parents who love me, I may shackle them with a financial responsibility as I am not able to provide all a child needs on my McDonalds salary. Delivery is in excess of $5k and that's just the first few hours of life.

 

And Lisa bob thought I meant "giddy up and go!"

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

No owl, you misunderstand what I was saying. Perhaps that's a result of the method of communication. But let me clarify. I did not intend to suggest that you, personally, hold the view that it is ok to engage in such behavior as long as one does not get caught. I don't know you so I'm certainly not interested in ascribing intent to your post.

 

My point, however, is that there would be plenty of other people who would interpret the policy you propose in such a manner. Part of the problem with writing such policies is that they often have unintended negative consequences. This might very easily be one of them.

 

And yes, that would be insulting in my view too, for people to return to an era where boys could, and sometimes did, engage in sexual behavior with few consequences while girls tended to have more, ah, obvious consequences if/when things "went wrong."

 

Of course today we have DNA tests, but who exactly is going to order those tests if the girl/her family doesn't? And even if they do, the information in those tests is not necessarily public knowledge. I can imagine situations in which a girl would become pregnant and the boy in question would not be terribly forthcoming about that situation with his Scoutmaster. That then puts the SM in a position to have to inquire about scouts' sexual behaviors - which most SM's I know would not touch with a ten foot pole - or, failing that, it could allow for the scout to go ahead and refrain from taking responsibility for his actions all the way to Eagle. After all, doing the "right" thing by being an involved father would mean no advancement so the "obvious" answer for some people would be "just deny it/ignore it." And no, that's not ethical. But scan through some of the threads about pushy parents who want their sons to "get" Eagle and it doesn't take long to see that some parents would probably actually *encourage* their son to do that. Sad, but I'm afraid, probably true.

 

And as for removing Scouters, it seems to me that this is the logical conclusion of such a policy toward youth. I am aware you didn't suggest that but I don't see how it could work any other way. Otherwise we're in the "do as I say but not as I do" mode. And my thoughts are that such a policy toward adults would be more than I'd personally put up with. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with my own marital status as you seemed to suggest? I just don't want any volunteer organization poking its nose into its members' bedrooms. (This is one reason why I also don't agree with the BSA's ban on gay leaders but that's another thread).

 

If a scout wants to discuss these sorts of things and has the level of trust in one of the Scouters in a troop to do that, then that's one thing. As Eamonn says, in such a case I hope that the Scouter would be honest but would speak from his or her personal view rather than from BSA policy. If it comes up in a BOR situation like someone else described then I also think it is fair game for discussion. But I think the approach you suggest is too routinely invasive on the part of the BSA and I don't think it would be advantageous to do that.

 

So no, I'm not suggesting that YOU were advocating "giddy up and go." I am suggesting that some people would interpret a policy like the one you describe to mean that boys should be more worried about getting "caught" than about anything else, leading boys (and perhaps their parents in some cases) to make even worse choices about what to do if they do find themselves in such a situation.

 

 

[Lisabob]

"I'm out of control because my loins have taken over"

 

 

And to be clear, I never said anything like that. Nor did I ascribe that view to you, or to anyone else. Not sure where that quote came from. If it was from someone else's post, I must have missed it.

[packsaddle]

My initial thought is:

How much of a problem is this in scouting already? If this is a big problem why haven't I heard about it? If not, why create the morass this thread has become?

 

I'm with Eamonn on the gun thing. I think I agree with LisaBob and dScouter15 on the rest, although I note that BSA certainly DOES poke its nose into the sexual history of scouts and scouters...if they are gay.