While out-of-wedlock births have long been associated with teen mothers, the teen birth rate actually dropped last year to the lowest level on record. Instead, births among unwed mothers rose most dramatically among women in their 20s.
Experts said the overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married. They said it also reflects the fact that having a child out of wedlock is more acceptable nowadays and not necessarily the source of shame it once was.
The increase in births to unwed mothers was seen in all racial groups, but rose most sharply among Hispanics. It was up among all age groups except youngsters ages 10 to 17.
I've seen a lot more 20-somethings who haven't equated having children with marriage. It's like they think the marriage thing is optional, not even optimal. This may be a consequence of the high divorce rate in this country, which might cause young adults to be more jaded about marriage. But mainly what I see is that they just don't think getting married before having kids is a big deal, and if you ask them, they think you must be old-fashioned.
But don't bring up that single parenthood tends to mean that men aren't involved.
Just because a mother is not married does not mean the father isn't around, (Stephanie) Ventura (of the National Center for Health Statistics) noted. She cited 2002 statistics that showed that about 20 percent of all new mothers under 20 were unmarried but living with the father at the time of the birth. That same was true of about 13 percent of all new mothers ages 20 to 24.
According to census figures, the median age at first marriage was 27 for men and 25 for women last year, up from 23 and 20 in 1950. Meanwhile, the number of unmarried-couple households with children has been climbing, hitting more than 1.7 million last year, up from under 200,000 in 1970.
Of course, that means that 80% of the fathers with the under 20 moms and 87% of fathers with the 20 to 24-year-old moms weren't living together. And the story doesn't discuss which of these non-living-together dads were actually involved daily in their children's lives. I doubt very many of them were. But marriage before childbirth is just another lifestyle, right?
"Marriage before childbirth is just another lifestyle, right?"
ReplyDeleteYep. That's about the size of it. Sorry to bust your angry-bubble.
argh.
ReplyDeleteout-of-wedlock does not always equal unwanted, as you yourself end up touching on when you talk about the decrease in stigma and the marriage-as-optional attitude. if i got pregnant and WANTED to have a baby, but wasn't married, your response would be that i either should have gotten married or should have gotten a tubal? makes no sense.
again fyi, the minimum age for getting sterilization covered or even performed is not 18. i didn't say it's teenagers who can't get them -- most of whom, anyway, are probably NOT all opposed to ever having babies but would not be able to deal with one anytime soon, duh. the women who can't obtain tubal ligation are in their twenties and even thirties. do a little reading about it before trying to trivialize the problem.
Marriage before childbirth is a lifestyle that is obviously a happy "choice" for the parents. I doubt seriously most children would rather their parents exercise this "choice" as opposed to committing to marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnd the problem with the "wanted" illegitimate child is that he/she is still a child raised with the benefit of ONE parent, a parent who "chose" to give their child that "gift." The argument about getting a tubal still doesn't work under your reasoning. But the truth is that having children IN marriage is still better for them than any of the other alternatives.
i still don't feel like i have an answer. what do you mean, "the argument about tubal ligation doesn't work under my reasoning"? WHAT argument doesn't work? and what reasoning of mine -- that they are hard to get? what you said feels terribly vague as a response to what i asked. i asked what your response is to a woman who chooses to keep an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
ReplyDelete(i could also ask, what's with all the "quotation marks"?)
i still don't feel like i have an answer. what do you mean, "the argument about tubal ligation doesn't work under my reasoning"? WHAT argument doesn't work? and what reasoning of mine -- that they are hard to get? what you said feels terribly vague as a response to what i asked.
ReplyDeleteYou argued that if you got pregnant and wanted the baby but weren't married, my response would be that you either should have gotten married or should have gotten a tubal and that it makes no sense. But it does make sense because children in one-parent homes (including single, never-married women) fare much worse than children in two parent homes. Should you (in your hypo) have a tubal rather than have the child? I would say if you were one of the women saying you "don't like kids" and "never want children," then yes, go get one because regardless of the expense, it would be worth it for you not to face that reality.
If you are a woman who wants children but "not right now," then I would say you should be seriously considering why you are having sex. I understand that it is harsh to tell people they should be thinking about these things when they want to have sex because our society has come to see non-procreational sex as a right. But the truth is that sex leads to pregnancy. I liked the way Amanda tried to explain that sex didn't cause babies. While there are certainly other ways of reproducing, intercourse is the most widely recognized way of producing offspring. And just because she argues that fetal development is a continuum (through the nine months of pregnancy), that doesn't mean it doesn't typically start with sex.
I understand there are doctors unwilling to perform tubals on young women because many will regret it later. There's a situation that would be worth working to change.
As for the "quotation marks," I use them around words like "choice" when you and I would have much different views of what those "choices" really mean.
i asked what your response is to a woman who chooses to keep an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
I say I'm happy she decided not to kill her child. Is having children out of wedlock the best choice? No, but if the alternatives are killing the kids because it's not a good time, then it's a better solution.
Because most women who talk about their abortions actually show some sadness and remorse about what happened and why they did it.
ReplyDeleteNone of the women I've ever heard talk about having had an abortion say they regret doing so. It would not surprise me that women who feel they had to terminate a pregnancy mainly for economic reasons might well feel regret about it.
Why then isn't the pro-life movement heavily involved in trying to make the US the best country in the world to have a baby in, rather than (as right now) the worst country among developed nations? American women don't even have a federally-mandated right to paid maternity leave, or a legal obligation on a woman's employer to give her her job back if she takes a couple of years off to look after a young child: and I've never once seen pro-lifers push for free-at-point-of-access health care available to all pregnant women and all children, or free daycare for all children.
None of the women I've ever heard talk about having had an abortion say they regret doing so. It would not surprise me that women who feel they had to terminate a pregnancy mainly for economic reasons might well feel regret about it.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of reasons a woman might regret having an abortion and not all those reasons are apparent within some short period of time after the surgery. Most women I've known are very philosophical about it in the immediate aftermath; it's only later (usually years later) that they look back on what happened to them with sadness and regret.
Women may regret feeling trapped into having an abortion because their partner is unwilling to support them, the baby, or the relationship (both emotionally and financially). They may feel unsupported by family and friends, particularly if the relationship is a bad one. They might have been scared about having a baby and so gotten the abortion quickly so they didn't have to think about it. There may have been medical reasons for it. In short, there are all kinds of reasons a woman might have for an abortion that later on don't look so good.
On the other hand, I've never heard a woman say she regretted having the baby, even if life was hard. There may be women who wish they'd killed their babies when they had the chance, but I doubt they would say that. And even people who say things like," You're smart not to have children" are usually speaking out of frustration with their offspring. Look, having kids is tough. They are taxing physically when they are infants and they are taxing mentally as they grow up. But I just don't know of many people who aren't happy they had them, including the "accidents."
Why then isn't the pro-life movement heavily involved in trying to make the US the best country in the world to have a baby in, rather than (as right now) the worst country among developed nations? American women don't even have a federally-mandated right to paid maternity leave, or a legal obligation on a woman's employer to give her her job back if she takes a couple of years off to look after a young child: and I've never once seen pro-lifers push for free-at-point-of-access health care available to all pregnant women and all children, or free daycare for all children.
It's interesting to me that you seem to think the only way to help women is through governmental action. I seriously doubt that most women have abortions because their company doesn't give them paid-in-full maternity leave.
Be that as it may, there are many pro-lifers, individually and as groups, that help women who are pregnant and have children. These people run shelters, kitchens, thrift stores, job placement services, and a whole host of other services designed to help people (and people includes women). I knew people who hosted pregnant women in their homes, where the women lived rent-free both while pregnant and after. There are many free clinics around the country. This doesn't include the variety of federal programs for women and children. In short, there's lots of help. But you have to decide you want to take it. Of course, just killing the baby is probably easier.
If you are a woman who wants children but "not right now," then I would say you should be seriously considering why you are having sex.
ReplyDeletewell, let's see...because I'm an adult, because I have a husband who enjoys sex as much as I do, because I will *never* want kids, because our doctors won't sterilize us for another four years...because...can I stop listing the reasons now? I have work to do.
well, let's see...because I'm an adult, because I have a husband who enjoys sex as much as I do, because I will *never* want kids, because our doctors won't sterilize us for another four years...because...can I stop listing the reasons now? I have work to do.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds to me like if you are an adult, as you say, and you are married, as you say, then you should be adult enough to deal with a baby should you become pregnant. You do know where babies come from, right?
See, here is where the conversation is breaking down. I have kids. It never occurred to me, at any time, that I would have wanted an abortion. Not because they all came at the "right time" but because having them was just another fact of life to deal with, like losing your job, caring for an elderly parent, or finding a new place to live. In other words, the fetus (since you guys seem to like that word) wasn't the problem. I think the problem is that there are an awful lot of adults who don't want to accept that children can happen when one has sex. And virtually every reason I've seen given here and at Pandagon boils down to "I don't feel like it." Well, I don't always feel like dealing with my 80-year-old dad but that doesn't mean I'm gonna kill him because it's not convenient. And to me, it's pretty much the same thing, just at the other end of the life cycle.
well, ok, so you are of the opinion that children are (and should be) an inevitable consequence of having sex.
ReplyDeletei think what other people here are saying to that is twofold:
1) since the time of unmitigated procreation-lust, we've made lots of of cool technological advances that allow us to avoid that "natural consequence", since just because something "naturally" happens doesn't mean we have to embrace it. for example, getting in a car crash and hemorrhaging doesn't mean you should decine offers of blood transfusion, now that we have that technology.
2) even if you are NOT using a contraceptive method, babies is actually a relatively infrequent outcome of sex. first of all, i'm guessing roughly 25% of unprotected sex, if it's randomly done (i.e. not avoiding ovulation times), results in pregnancy. i don't know for sure. i think that's not a bad guess though since you're not guaranteed to get pregnant in your fertile window and not guaranteed not to the rest of the time. so maybe 75% of randomly-arrayed sex doesn't actually lead to pregnancy. secondly, between a third and a half of pregnancies end in miscarriage (called "spontaneous abortion"). naturally. so that's a lot of sex that, even if you're totally unprotected, is NOT making babies. just by the numbers.
so for a lot of us babies don't seem like the "inevitable" outcome of sex at all! even if we are having unprotected sex! so i imagine it seems especially silly to be told to say "well i should've expected this would happen, time to face the music and shoulder my inevitable burden" if we ARE using protection.
all that said, the fact that YOU never had a problem with getting pregnant doesn't mean that you were somehow more mature or more in tune with biology than others. it really doesn't. it just means you were more okay with having a pregnancy and a child than others are, and that's fine too.
well, ok, so you are of the opinion that children are (and should be) an inevitable consequence of having sex.
ReplyDeleteRoula,
I don't think I would say children are inevitable. They obviously are not, since people don't get pregnant every time they have sex (or every time they are available to become pregnant).
And yes, you don't necessarily get pregnant even with unprotected sex. But I can tell you that the more you do it, the greater your chance of getting pregnant. It's just the law of averages. But that's not really the point, either.
I must not be making this point very clear. It's not that children are an inevitable consequence of sex. It's that they are a normal and predictable consequence of sex. That is, from about the time kids hit puberty, they know how babies are made and are told many times in many different ways how to avoid having kids. If a person deliberately decides to ignore that fact, they do it at their own peril.
all that said, the fact that YOU never had a problem with getting pregnant doesn't mean that you were somehow more mature or more in tune with biology than others. it really doesn't. it just means you were more okay with having a pregnancy and a child than others are, and that's fine too.
In no way was I saying I was more mature than other people. I simply thought it might be a way of explaining why I think about these things as I do. What it does mean is that I did actually think about what would happen if I got pregnant. And I had zero support from family or friends at the time. It was then that I realized that pregnancy was simply not the worst thing that would ever happen to me (much worse things have happened since). Now, maybe if I'd been 19, I would have thought differently about it, but it still wouldn't have made it the worst thing to happen. It just would have been a different one.
On the other hand, I've never heard a woman say she regretted having the baby, even if life was hard.
ReplyDeleteI have: when women were compelled by circumstance to give a baby up for adoption.
It's interesting to me that you seem to think the only way to help women is through governmental action. I seriously doubt that most women have abortions because their company doesn't give them paid-in-full maternity leave.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Planned Parenthood, 23% of women who have abortions at their clinics list "can't afford a child/can't afford another child" as a strong reason for needing an abortion.
So, economic support for women throughout pregnancy and during the the dependent years of a child's life, could well cut down the number of abortions in the US by a significant percentage. Is reducing the number of abortions unimportant to you compared to the right-wing principle than an employer ought to have the right to sack a woman for being pregnant, and that a woman who has a baby, if she wants to keep her job to support the baby, had better head back to work as soon after birth as she can?
Be that as it may, there are many pro-lifers, individually and as groups, that help women who are pregnant and have children.
As there are many pro-lifers - employers who sack women for being pregnant, politicians who oppose financial support for single mothers - who do their utmost to prevent help for women who are pregnant/have children. Rather than trying to force pregnant women/women with children to depend on charity, wouldn't it be better (and just as right-wing, since that's evidently more important to you than any of your anti-abortion principles) to help women with children work?
Support paid maternity leave and the right to return to work after up to two years leave: support paid paternity leave, to encourage fathers to be involved with their children. Provide assistance for women working - tax relief on day care, for example. Pro-lifers don't do that - neither as individuals nor as a movement. Why not? Which matters more to you - being against abortion, or being capitalist?
Oh, and how do you manage to correlate your support for children having married parents with your opposition to letting parents with children get married?
ReplyDeleteHow do you conflate wanting voters to be allowed to vote on an issue with being against parents getting married?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying you do in fact support marriage in Massachusetts?
ReplyDeleteUm, because people's humanity isn't something a majority get to vote on. It either exists and we accept it, or we create an oppressive regime that says these people are less-than-human. Which you seem to be all for.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying you do in fact support marriage in Massachusetts?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the voters of Massachusetts creating whatever marriage laws they want. Do you?
Um, because people's humanity isn't something a majority get to vote on. It either exists and we accept it, or we create an oppressive regime that says these people are less-than-human. Which you seem to be all for.
Are you this accepting of pedophiles or bigamists? And if not, why not?
Are you this accepting of pedophiles or bigamists? And if not, why not?
ReplyDeleteBecause to say that LGBT people who wish to marry along the lines of "one person marries another person" = "Bigamists and Pedophiles" is a completely malicious and incorrect judgment of a people you deem different than you. For one, children != full grown adults. This may be hard for your under-developed brain to understand. If so, lo siento.
Also, (and if this is also hard for your 30-point IQ to deal with, I am truly sorry) "more-than-two-people" relationships != Two-person relationships. Can you add, or better yet, can you discern the difference between "2" and a number greater than "2"?
And just to let you know "!=" is "does not equal", since I'm sure you have no idea what my notation means...most stupid people don't, and I am unconvinced that you are stupid.
"I am unconvinced that you are stupid."
ReplyDeleteHeh. Should be "not stupid."
First of all, pedophiles would tell you they are "born that way," as well and it is part of their humanity. Why is that any different?
ReplyDeleteBigamists would say that they just love each other and that that's what marriage is about. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry as well?
Why is that any different?
ReplyDeleteDamn, you can't read either. I am truly sorry.
Just to further elucidate, though, I get the feeling you didn't read the first time (which troubled me before, seeing as how I hate to make fun of illiterate people), I said:
ReplyDeleteBecause to say that LGBT people who wish to marry along the lines of "one person marries another person" = "Bigamists and Pedophiles" is a completely malicious and incorrect judgment of a people you deem different than you
and
children != full grown adults.
I sincerely hope you can read this. If not, there are many courses you can take at local universities that will help you understand how to read an will help you to understand that 2 does not equal a number that has a value more than 2, like 3 or 4 or even 5. If this still does not make sense to you, I cannot help you. Please consult outside assistance.
Just to note, I kind of get what you are saying, that pedophiles and bigamists will attempt to argue that we are diminishing their humanity by excluding them from our definition of marriage. Pedophiles are much more easily cast aside because children, according to other laws of our government, do not have the full understanding it takes to consent to marriage (or other things).
ReplyDeleteMultiple people who have the ability to consent (being of-age) who wish to marry each other however, is a harder aspect to exclude within "marriage". That is why marriage defined as between two (2, 1 + 1, dos, deux, etc) people is important. One can argue we are oppressing the polygamists, sure, but, in reality, to define marriage as between solely one man and one woman will exclude much more people that it will exclude polygamists. Is this right? Well, I'm not going to argue yes or no, but I will tell you that large amounts of people are being oppressed by your system, whereas under a hetero/homo friendly system, only polygamists are, in the end, discriminated against.
That isn't to say that it is fair. It is however more fair and equal and just than the current system. I am personally not for or against polygamy because I know of no one who is willing to enter into it.
I, however, know 13 couples (read: 2 (two, 1 + 1, dos, deux, zwei) people in love) at the moment who are same-sex and wish, at some point, to marry.
It's nice to see you took that course at Sylvan's. I assume you also came to realize that because someone doesn't accept your premise, it isn't the same as that person being unable to read. But just to address a couple of points:
ReplyDelete1. Most states allow children (under 18) to get married with the consent of one or both parents. Since children are old enough (according to some) to choose abortion, should they also be free to choose to have sex with pedophiles?
2. Is fairness the reason we have marriage?