Who is right? Romney or Hillary.

Who is right? Romney or Hillary.

Romney says: "It takes a Family" to raise a child.
Hillary says: "It takes a Village" to raise a child.

I would have to say the family. But if the family has failed and abandoned the child than someone in the village has to pick up the pieces. Integrate the child into their family.

Hillary Team Tweaks Romney on 'Village' Remark

 

Both influence a child.. there is no black and white.

However, a woman whom wishes to have power over a country and it's men, is plainly wrong.

That's the damn trouble with women, Hilary - they're incapable of rational thought or forming intelligent decisions, which is why one believes she can become president in the USA. Ho hum, it's not happening Hilary. Stop trying to up-stage your philandering husband.

Pete

 

Well the family is what a child depends on the most if the child has one. But take a look at the other people that have an influence on a child as they grow up, helping to mold and shape their perspective... in effect 'raising' the child.

There are the child's friends, who have an enormous influence on him or her. Those children were in turn influenced by their parents. Kids often play or eat over at each-others houses, where the parents of the house are in charge and set the rules, and the tone of the evening.

Then there's the school. Most children go to a school, whether public, or private. There they are taught by teachers, who help to teach social skills to the lower grades, and also inform and train their minds with what we consider basking knowledge and skills like reading, writing, and arithmetic.

And if you feel you are a part of your community, and you see a kid about to get himself into a very dangerous situation, you don't just let the kid potentially kill himself, you either alert the parent, if near-bye, or try to save the kid from his, or her self.

Now I suppose that a family could decide to keep their child home, keep them inside the house, home school them, and try to teach them social skills till they hit 18... but even if they manage to teach that child the proper academics, how out of touch will that child be with society?

 

I would like to say it takes a family, AND a community...but first is the family. Village sounds to much like a tribe of some sort from the bush in australia....

 

This is the problem in politics: Repulican or Democrat, this or that, black or white...Of course they know better, but hope we don't

 

The thing to remember is, that the family is a part of that village. So if it takes the family -and- the rest of the village, it takes the whole village. The adage is about the fact that the whole village has an influence on how the child is raised... and that without that village, the child can't really be raised as well.

 

Surely it takes a family.... If the family is broken, even in village, a child cannot be raised well..

 

I guess the woman that bore you, did not have rational thoughts or made an intellegent decision marrying or have relations with your father. Very degrading and irrevlant to the question at hand.

Remember the men that were and are US Presidents had/have mothers. Are they so irrational and can not form intelligent decisions. To teach their sons anything. Hence which leads back to the question. A village or family.

When the child is born, who is their first influence. Parents and family. And not say well the doctors and nurses. Yes indeed they were the village to keep the child alive. But beyond that no.The family raises the child. Than village. Is like the question at hand: The chicken before the egg, or the egg before the chicken? A village or family. The family changes the diapers, feeds the child, clothes the child, loves the child, bathes the child, encourages the child to walk and talk. Teaches the child certain things are right and wrong. I know many will have to say they did not have their entire village doing this from day 1.

Agreed.

Take politics out of the equation and than answer the question. Village or Family?

Well said. But like I said:

 

*Rubs at temples*

The meaning of the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child" is not to say that the family unit is less important to the child than the rest of the community. The phrase means that a stable child cannot be raised in isolation. It also means that the parents and elder siblings are not the only ones who hold responsibility to any given child.

The family unit is the most important part of a child's life, but they cannot raise that child in a vacuum. The community you choose to raise your child in will have an impact upon that child.

Yes, the best way to raise a child involves a family, and in that method, the family is the most important thing to the child, but the family is a part of that village/community, and the rest of the community has an effect on the child.

That is the BASIC MEANING behind "it takes a village to raise a child."

 

I think you missed my point. Black and white thinking isn't always such a good thing, even if that's how some people want to couch everything.

 

The family. Is a part. Of the village.

This is a false dichotomy.

 

Yes by the influence starts at home before the village is involved is it not? The child wakes up within their home to whatever family structure they are currently living in before they leave out the front door. The influence starts before they leave.

 

Yaknow what, people keep replying like I'm saying "the village is more important than the family." I haven't said anything close to that. I'm done with this puerile discussion.

 

Something tells me that when Hillary says it, that it means the family sucks and the village (gov't) knows better how to raise your kids. This tends to be the liberal way of thinking proven by the laws they write. ie. see California laws.

 

Yes including Hugh Hefner's Money will help Hillary and her village(*cough* *cough*), Village of playmates.

 

Village raising child = Socialism
Family raising child = Democracy


GO Democracy. DO NOT ELECT socialists.