No Child Left Behind

In the first article, Hafner-Eaton and Pierce discuss the pros and cons to giving birth at home by means of a midwife or in a hospital. They compared and contrasted the different birthing traditions that occur within different cultures and countries. Many women choose to give birth at home because the low mortality rate of the infants. These women view birthing at home as a safe and natural way to give birth. They are also in the comfort of their home which is a naturally safe and familiar environment. There are many more risks and deaths that occur at hospitals. The majority of pregnant women in the United States turn to hospitals to give birth but there are far more infant deaths there than at home. I had always assumed that almost every sane woman gives birth at a hospital. Medicine and a handful of doctors surround you, so what could be so risky about it? I had always viewed birthing at home as such an archaic act that is selfish on behalf of the mother. After viewing this article, I think the decision of where to give birth is something that would take time and communication between parents to decide.

In the second article, Friedman sheds some light on the history and impact of formal adoptions. Adoptions used to occur to benefit the parents. In Europe, especially England and France, the blood line of the family is extremely important. Parents would adopt other family members into theirs to keep the family lineage alive. Adoptions changed overtime to accommodate orphans, children in need of a parental unit. However these children were taken in by farmers or others outside the city as they were seen as unwanted in a metropolitan area. Over the past forty years, adoption has changed even more. Adoption became a means for adults to have children, develop a family, even if it was impossible to produce children of their own. International adoptions have also become steadily more common. This notion was once revered as mixing of races within a family was a taboo.

In the welfare article, Sharon Hays discusses the reasoning behind the system of welfare in our nation. The conservatives and the liberals both felt the same way before our welfare system was revised in 1996. They both felt like it was outdated and did not support the needs of the citizens of the United States. The liberals see the welfare program has an absolutely necessary entity to support those who may not be able to support themselves. It is a way to assist poor families, single parents, and/or their children. The conservatives view the welfare system as a means to support lazy and unmotivated people. They see it as a free handout from the government. In 1996, the welfare system was reevaluated to include women and children. Single women support themselves and/or a family were now being included in the system. They were seen as equal to men. They had to seek paying jobs and received no more protection or support than men. This reform is a positive and negative step for our country. In one way, it shows that women are being treated equally to men and they have just as much of a contribution to our society as men do. At the same time, this puts a lot of pressure on women to find a job, find childcare, and support a household. It doesn’t provide any time off for her to have more children. Hays repeatedly says throughout the article that our welfare system showcases the values of our society.

In the fourth article, Block, Korteweg, and Woodward discuss the reasoning for why poverty develops and sustains itself in some countries over others. In the United States, the government and other economic classes view the poor as a failure to our society. They provide no positive contribution to society as a whole and it is their fault that they are where they are. They become too dependant on free handouts like welfare. Other countries like Germany and Norway view the poor as a group of people who are a direct result of how social and economic structures are set up. The individuals did nothing wrong to be in the poverty stricken place they are in. It is the country and government’s fault in the first place as to why there is even an impoverished class. The article discusses how to make the American Dream more accessible to every citizen of the United States. Ideas included making education programs more accessible, providing child care so that parents can work longer job hours, and lowering the price of health care.

According to Clawson and Gerstel the United States does not provide adequate and affordable child care to all of its citizens. In other countries like France and Denmark, child care is free because it is already paid for and supported by the government and public funding. In the United States, poor families are forced to pay for child care. It is just one more dent in their wallet. Providing national child care would alleviate the burden and stress of parents trying to work longer hours or maintain two jobs to support their family. If funding for child care was included in taxes and other public funding, families could be supported. They also suggested providing more after school programs, an extension of a regular school day, just like the French program. This provides a safe and meaningful environment to children, as well helps parents who then do not have to take time off from work to pick up or transport their children.