Posted on 10/28/2005 11:58:41 AM PDT by mlc9852
WASHINGTON - Nearly 1.5 million babies, a record, were born to unmarried women in the United States last year, the government reported Friday. And it isn't just teenagers any more. ADVERTISEMENT [0]
"People have the impression that teens and unmarried mothers are synonymous," said Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics.
But last year teens accounted for just 24 percent of unwed births, down from 50 percent in 1970, she commented.
The increases in unmarried births have been among women in their 20s, she said, particularly those 25 to 29.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The idea is to encourage better choices are made BEFORE the sheets are tussled.
You don't need insurance if the car never leaves the garage.
The only area where a contemporary man would be benefitted by marriage is if he ABSOLUTELY desires children. If he is unsure, he would be in a better situation to simply date women on a long-term basis. If they pressure him continually for marriage, that would be his cue to dump them and date different women.
~ Blue Jays ~
It's no accident that the family is being destroyed. The left is destroying it on purpose, so that the state can fill the void.
We ain't talking about cars. We're talking about 1.5 million babies born...not aborted.
The family is changing, as it's always changed.
TV sitcoms and entertainment magazines can be thanked for their contribution to this. Getting pregnant w/o the sanctity of marriage is not only accepted but expected; it is the rule rather than the exception. I tire of standing in line at the supermarket seeing mags with cover story of which Hollywoood slut is having who's bastard.
You wouldn't happen to have a list of Hollywood sluts, would you?
This is the most disturbing news of the day.
Forget about Lewis Libby.
And Joe Wilson is only one bastard.
Now we have a nation of bastards.
hahahahahahaha
In what ways has it always changed?
"And you can peddle your judgmental crap to someone who cares. Or you can just continue to not address the question."
The main point in my long, initial post on this thread was that "nonjudgementalism" is one of the biggest factors in the creation of this situation. And now you accuse me of being..."judgemental."
If a lot more of us had embraced judgementalism in the last 30 years, we'd be in a far, far better place today. "Nonjudgementalism" is of course the handmaiden to moral relativism, which is what is destroying Western society--more specifically, this country.
It is insidious and corrosive and relentless. It takes reasonable people with intelligent minds and turns them into VERY flexible weenies in a relatively short period of time. Very TOLERANT weenies. Because, you know, we don't really want to judge anyone, do we?
You know, once you embrace a solid philosophy to live by, life gets pretty clear. Not always easy, but clear. "Situational ethics" are out the window. If I'm broke and find a wallet with a lot of cash in it (it's happened to me), I do not think for a second that maybe I'll keep it. It is not mine. How very simple.
Moral relativism doesn't count as an embraceable philosophy, by the way, because it is so very, very amorphous and malleable--and corrupt, in its evil heart.
Here's some of my judgemental crap, in no particular order:
If you don't put in a full, honest day's work, you're stealing (unless you're self-employed, in which case you're just stupid).
If you have a child out of wedlock, by choice, and choose to remain out of wedlocke, you're a selfish, irresponsible child yourself, I don't care if you're the mother or the father (or both, I guess, in the new order that seems to be coming our way).
I could go on, but you might start to take this personally (heh heh). Didn't mean to frost your cheese, let's not get into a flame war.
It is my judgement that Judgementalism may be the only thing that remains to save us.
There have been children born out of wedlock since there have been two sexes. Why brand the innocent children as bastards? That's harsh.
"Would you rather they aborted them? Give them credit for giving birth and not murdering them in the womb."
Reading is your friend (this is from my post 6):
Since I have backed into this subject before on FR, and had to deal with serious hysterical incoming, let me make clear what I'm saying and what I'm not saying. I am NOT saying that these children should have been aborted, for God's sake.
In what ways has it always changed?
Well, it's changing right at the roots, for one thing, in terms of selection of spouses. Cheap travel, communication and other technological and economic developments have widened the pool from which someone can select a spouse. A hundred years ago you got to marry someone in your small town. Period. Now, you might meet your potential spouse a couple thousand miles away from home.
The nuclear family is more or less unraveling because of financial realities. A hundred years ago, it was not uncommon to have a multi-generational extended family set-up with aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. under a single roof. That trend dwindled in the 20th century, but is now coming back. Kids are not leaving home as they did in the 1960s or 1970s, and grandparents are moving in with couples.
Now, you're also getting blended families, which is not new, but different.
Marriage, family, etc. changes to reflect culture and economic realities.
Here in Massghanistan it apparently takes at least two to tango. The lastest suite on the queer marriage front is a group of people suing over the number two!
Lots of successful career women in their late 30s/early 40s out there looking for a man. They seem not to care for us younger guys, however.
It beats a probe sucking their brains out in the womb. If you have two choices, one born out of wedlock and one abortion, I pray they all choose the former.
Don't say the third choice is keeping legs together and pants zipped, if they had done that at the get go, choices one and two would be a non issue.
no dems has a secret list of Hollywood sluts...
Not so easy finding decent guys between 30-40 either. They all want younger chicks.
...or so I've heard
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.