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 ...
I just dont' understand how if 2 people are in a committed relationship (minus the actual document "legalizing" it), love each other, love their children, raise them to know that such things as lying, stealing and cheating are wrong, they are being selfish and ey 2 people who follow the same principles but are married aren't being selfish. What is the big difference between the 2 that are married and the 2 that aren't? Being married isn't necessarily going to stop one person the relationship leaving. If a person wants to up and leave someone at an inopportune time being married or not is not going to make a difference.
The thread is not about abortion, but unilaterally shaming women (and children) for unwed procreation is how we got in this abortion quagmire to begin with.
If BOTH parents were socially and legally expected to support and raise the children they co-create, we would not see such high abortion rates, nor would we we see so many unmarried parents.
If, as a parent, one were expected and required to support and care for a child he/she begets, what is the point of remaining unmarried? Both parents would realize it will be easier to pull together than to support/raise the child separately.
Creating a child creates OBLIGATIONS on the parentS to the child. We need to revamp our social and legal systems to this reality. Going back to an earlier unilateral shaming system which backfired and which was socially unjust to children isn't the answer. Or in the words of a pretty bright guy ...
"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." ___ Albert Einstein
you got that right!
Those studies have "survivorship bias." Good marriages are great for both spouses. But, I don't think they have health studies for the ex-married guys. I bet they fare worse than both either the always single and the happily married.
The analogy holds.
I'm glad they made the right choice in keeping the baby and not terminating the pregnancy, but don't look to the taxpayers to foot the bill.
Make the right decision before you get naked, and you won't have to make a different decision when you're faced with the consequence.
Man + Woman + Child = Family.
Been that way since Adam & Eve. Funny how the basic formulas still hold true after all these years!
Man + Woman + Child = Family.
Been that way since Adam & Eve. Funny how the basic formulas still hold true after all these years!
Actually it hasn't always been that way. In some instances, even in America, it would have been impossible to survive with just man+woman+child. In rural America as recently as the 1880s the extended family was the norm rather than the exception. Large families with multiple children were desired because young children would inconveniently die and work needed to be done.
I agree. Would that they would. (sigh)
Oh brother.
Man + Woman + Child(ren) = Family.
Better?
My cousin's a barber, I'll have him send you a whole bag of hairs to split.
Given the context of the original article, and comparing it to the God-ordained model - that is the point I'm making.
I know what you meant. But the point I'm making is that the "family" changes as economics and conditions dictate. For instance, Man+Woman+Children+grandparents is also a family,as is man+woman+children+uncle lou.
I'll certainly agree to that, but the basic foundation has never changed. You're talking about "add-ons", the article is making the case for Woman + Child = Family = Super Duper!
New additions to the welfare rolls????
I see your point. As long as there is a man+woman+child the add ons are not that big a deal. But they are a huge deal. They change the whole economic and family dynamic.
Fer instance: You get a woman who has to work at the local wal-mart or doctor's office to make ends meet. Figure she's making $20,000 a year part time. In a nuclear family she'd have to pay $5,000 to $7,000 a year for child care. In an extended family with relatively healthy grandparents, the child care is free, adding $7,000 to the family income. In addition to low cost to free child care, the grandparents probably do a better job of it.
Example 2: a guy is less likely to play around if he knows that his mother or mother-in-law is the one who'll be cleaning the lipstick off his boxer shorts.
My point is, the family is in constant flux, reconfiguring itself for economic and practical purposes.
Having children out of wedlock is a very bad thing.
If you have a child out of wedlock, by choice, and choose to remain out of wedlock, you're a selfish, irresponsible child yourself, I don't care if you're the mother or the father (or both, I guess, in the new order that seems to be coming our way).
This subject is NOT about abortion.
Until the Government stops paying for most of these bastards nothing will change.
And so are we all, since we have to deal with those children and the adults they become.
So when you look around and think to yourself, "Wow, there are a lot of bastards out there," you're not just imagining it. It's true.
Are we turning into a nation of b@$#@%*$?
Looks like we're going to need to build more jails.
A better title may be: "More Sluts in US than Ever Before". The women in those situations got what they deserve.
They just had the misfortune of being born to an irresponsible parent.
What the heck are their reference points?
Now we have a nation of bastards.
Another problem that people often ignore is how much danger the daughters are in from mom's revolving door boyfriends.
While single parents deserve our help through acts of kindness and charity as needed, it is not the best situation and we should never pretend that it is.
I like older women, but I prefer them to be independent and Something ladies should think about should they decide to pop one out: you aren't as attractive to the men out there unless you are a total slut, and IN THAT CASE, you will only get the bottom of the barrel.
wow, what a spectrum of opinions. No one wants to be called judgmental, yet look above and what is written. Although the posters will allow that not all single moms are sluts or trying to advance a liberal agenda - it sure seems like fun to assume that and make the comments with that ASSumption.
So here's a perspective without hysteria for ya - I'm a single mom. I was 34 when I got pregnant - it was not a serious relationship, - It was however after a marriage dissolved. I was wrong to be intimately involved. And - so was the dad - he isn't paying child support, has nothing to do with his daughter. And quite frankly, since all he's done is lie for the last few years, it's not a relationship I would chose to foster for her.
Now - in the ideal world this wouldn't have happened. But I live in the real world, I made a decision in a heartbeat that I carry the consequence and the stigma (and don't think for an instant, there is not still stigma about being a single mom). My world involves a small business that means I am able work from home ( alot of hours) and take care of my own daughter. I don't get assistance from the state (and did I mention I don't get assistance from the dad? - I don't recall seeing any cracks on the dad's that disappear, just cracks on the moms that have kids. When Christian men "mess up" King David is brought up as an example of God using broken vessels, when women get pregnant - we're sluts and whores).
I'm a Christian, I grew up in a Christian home, went to Christian schools and universities, had the same two married to each other parents until my wonderful dad passed away in January. I didn't step away from my faith - I did however, step away from what I knew to be right.
What point of reference do I have for my daughter? - well there are aunts and uncles that have been married for 20 years now - there are church friends, and other friends. They get pointed out. We have the Bible to use as a reference. And somehow, by the Lord's graciousness, I get past my bitterness, and help her grow up wanting a family, a GODLY husband - and all the blessings that can entail. And I tell her stories, and we're around my extended family - she knows it's not just the two of us. We're in a lot better position then a lot of folks are. (Not that there isn't a lot of juggling that goes on, but that's for me to carry - not her.)
I made an irresponsible choice. I am not an irresponsible person - that would have been the easy way out - and like it or not John Robinson - that does include abortion. I am not a selfish person - except with my time. I'm the one who looks at my beautiful blessing all day every day, and thanks God for such a wonderful opportunity. How in the world did He trust me with this daughter of mine?
I understand there is an agenda among some to leave father's out entirely. As someone who had the best dad one could ask for (in spite of how much I exasperated him over the years) it pains me to think that people want to deliberately leave that out. It hurts deeply that my daughter will never know what it's like to be a daddy's girl (or a grandpa's girl for that matter.) And I'm still not sure who's going to teach her to not throw like a girl. I can teach her to root for the Raider's (even in the tough years) though.
What's to stop her from repeating my mistake? Hopefully she'll see the consequences first hand, and will avoid it - if not - she always has a home to come back to with no stones - owning up to responsibility - sure, but no stones.
Hopefully she gets a tough shell early on by well meaning, but hateful comments from people in the real world much like people on this forum who think she can't possibly have a shot, because she's only got a- selfish- irresponsible mother.
Come on, words - even typed - hit people you don't expect them to. Opinions are like - well we all have one - but we can still have opinions with out being harsh and mean just because we can.
Many would argue that what has changed is not unwed women becoming pregnant,that has always happened, but the fact that men will not marry them if they do become pregnant. Years ago it was done as a sense of duty and honor. Men sorely lack that honor today.
ping for later
Move upstate NY, It's near impossible to find a single women over 25 who doesn't have kids. It's one of the reasons I moved to New Jersey.
But when looking at the Unmarried birth rate on a State to State basis the NW seems pretty low, The worst areas not surprisingly are the SW and the Bible Belt states
But
The increases in unmarried births have been among women in their 20s, she said, particularly those 25 to 29.
The birth rate for women aged 35 to 39 increased 4 percent from 2003 to 2004.
Xer Ping
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
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.