University of Virginia Library

Misdirected Morality

I found your editorial "Illegitimacy:
Who Pays" to be misdirected.
First, I doubt that many
children are actually being "supported
by welfare payments." It's
generally agreed that the majority
of illegitimate children never appear
on welfare roles; even of
those children who are legally entitled
to such payments, experts
place the percentage of those
actually receiving anything to be
less than half the total number.
The lucky ones who do get payments,
received, as of early 1966
a tremendous $8.84 per week.
Hence I agree with you that cutting
off aid to mothers after their second
child out of wedlock would fail
to reduce the number of such
children being born, nor would it
alter very much the financial situation
to the child.

Second, what bothers me most
about your article are the insinuations
that having children out of
wedlock is "immoral". While,
to bring children into this world
whom one cannot hope to adequately
care for is a questionable
practice, it is not a moral issue.
Most of the children in question
are conceived with the same
intensity of love and emotion as
the legitimate ones. They are mostly
loved, wanted, and appreciated.
I believe that the majority of these
children are conceived on
where a permanent
liaison between the mother and
father is economically and socially
unsound—and the parents are
cognizant of this fact. In this
situation it is enough for one
human being to need another and
to be able to mean something,
if only for a short time, to the
other individualist. To ask for more
than this is impossible. To expect
more than this smacks of middle
class morality—something no one
can have much of with $8.84 a
week.