Political Crossfire Forums

[sLiPpY]

37 Percent of U.S. Births Out of Wedlock

Published: 11/21/06, 8:25 PM EDT
By MIKE STOBBE

ATLANTA (AP) - Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year, government health officials said Tuesday.

While out-of-wedlock births have long been associated with teen mothers, the birth rate among girls ages 10 to 17 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.

"A lot of people think of teenagers and unmarried mothers synonymously, but they are not driving this," said Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics, a co-author of the report.

The government also reported that the rate of births by Caesarean delivery continued to climb in 2005 to a record high, despite efforts by public health authorities to bring down the number.

Many experts believe a large number of C-sections are medically unnecessary and done only for the convenience of the mother or her doctor.

The government report includes information from 99 percent of U.S. birth certificates filed last year. The information for 2005 is considered preliminary, but officials said it is not expected to change much.

About 4.1 million babies were born in the United States last year, up slightly from 2004. More than 1.5 million of those were to unmarried women; that is about 37 percent of the total. In 2004, about 36 percent of births were out of wedlock.

Out-of-wedlock births have been rising since the late 1990s.

Several factors may be contributing to the trend, said Dr. Yolanda Wimberly, an adolescent-medicine specialist at Atlanta's Morehouse School of Medicine.

More women in their 30s and 40s, hearing their biological clock, are choosing to give birth despite their single status. Younger women are not as worried about being unmarried, either, she added.

"I think it's more acceptable in society" to have a child without getting married, she said.

Just because a mother is not married does not mean the father isn't around, Ventura 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. The 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.

Other findings in the report:

The birth rate among teenagers declined 2 percent in 2005, continuing a trend from the early 1990s. The rate is now about 40 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19. That is the lowest level in the 65 years for which a consistent series of rates is available.

The U.S. teen birth rate is still the highest among industrialized countries.

Births to women in their early 20s rose slightly, to 102 births per 1,000 women ages 20 to 24. Births to women in their late 20s - the most productive group in terms of childbirth - was about the same from the previous year, at about 116 per 1,000 women ages 25 to 29.

The C-section rate rose to 30.2 percent of all births in 2005, an increase of 1 percentage point from the previous year. The rate has risen by nearly half since 1996.

"It is clear that the procedure is being overused," Tonya Jamois, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, said in a statement. ICAN is a California-based nonprofit organization focused on lowering C-section rates.



Oh, my how things have changed. I chose the P&G vs. "Society" to post the story, because I wanted to ask if the Government should limit C-Sections to "medical reasons" only?

The social fabric is broken? or is society simply growing and evolving as it should with changing times?

[pyrophasma]

sLiPpY wrote:

Oh, my how things have changed. I chose the P&G vs. "Society" to post the story, because I wanted to ask if the Government should limit C-Sections to "medical reasons" only?


Yes, because we need the government intruding more in our lives.

[Fionn mac Cumhaill]

the govt should stay out of the c section issue

I don't know if the situation is evolving "as it should", but it's evolving.

again, the govt should stay out of it, although there will likely be negative consequences. It's something society will have to witness and adjust to in its own time.

a likely effect is a larger middle and lower middle class, which is more dependent on the upper middle and upper classes for goods and services.
it's a much less efficient system for one parent to pay child support to another who pays for child care while she works. it's a much more expensive and time consuming way of living than a two parent family.

the poor may not get poorer, but the rich will get richer

the disparity is dangerous as it breeds envy and resentment

also, higher crime rates, not because of income levels, but because of lack of guidance and stability

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

pyrophasma wrote: sLiPpY wrote:

Oh, my how things have changed. I chose the P&G vs. "Society" to post the story, because I wanted to ask if the Government should limit C-Sections to "medical reasons" only?


Yes, because we need the government intruding more in our lives.

Exactly.

Oh and sLiPpY, orange font ftl.

[Chymical]

Stuff Marriage, Stuff possessing people by govt enforced contracts on geniticular fidelity.

kids don't need to be brought up in a marriage, in a co-dependent neurotic home of endless arguing and hatred.
they just need love. The current social fabric is bs, built upon lies and the ownership of people and their slavery to contracts they little understood and had little chance to fulfill. Let the social fabric tear completely, unknit it then craft it into something better then concern with whether a majority of kids are brought up in marriages...

[Mr. Sunshine]

As a registered Independent, I can't help but wonder if this demographic will vote Democrat or Republican in the coming years. :lol:

[sLiPpY]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: sLiPpY wrote:

Oh, my how things have changed. I chose the P&G vs. "Society" to post the story, because I wanted to ask if the Government should limit C-Sections to "medical reasons" only?


Yes, because we need the government intruding more in our lives.

Exactly.

Oh and sLiPpY, orange font ftl.

fyb :flwr:

[Otacon]

"Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year"

Remind me why I care again?

[bob.appleyard]

Silver ring thing everyone!

[Vexillum]

The government is the problem, not the cure. The government is the enabler.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

That is, 37% o births happening without government 'authorization' IE marrage License.

[Vexillum]

Otacon wrote: "Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year"

Remind me why I care again?

Who do you think the daddy of these bastards is? It's the taxpayer. And, these bastards then grow up wanting the government to be everyone's daddy. If you like taxes but you don't like freedom, then you wouldn't care.

It's it's so acceptable to be a bastard, is it okay if I use the word?

[sfcwoodret]

Blame it on Viagra!

[Kumar]

That doesn't bode well for society's health.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

sLiPpY wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: sLiPpY wrote:

Oh, my how things have changed. I chose the P&G vs. "Society" to post the story, because I wanted to ask if the Government should limit C-Sections to "medical reasons" only?


Yes, because we need the government intruding more in our lives.

Exactly.

Oh and sLiPpY, orange font ftl.

fyb :flwr:

Well that wasn't very nice :lol:

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Kumar wrote: That doesn't bode well for society's health.

Agreed.

Use condoms, pills, whatever ... if you want to have sex.
Engaging in one night stands and then having a child or cheating and then having a child will lead to a society where caring for children will be a lost art [not that it was that good in the "old days" to begin with, but I hope you get what I mean].

[Ameriman]

How does out of wedlock births mean social growth? Don't you think a healthy two-parent home is the best environment for a child?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Ameriman wrote: How does out of wedlock births mean social growth? Don't you think a healthy two-parent home is the best environment for a child?

No, there are MANY variables involved in creating a good environment for raising a child. In effect, if a single mother/father is a high income earner with education, I would say, chances are the child will be raised in a good environment. Preversely, when a child is raised by two parents on welfare, that will negatively influence the child's development in many ways.

Overall, two parents could provide a good environment, but that is not a good measure of a good environment for raising children in and by itself.

[Kumar]

With all other things equal, a stable family of two adults providing for their children is the best way to raise productive members of society. A breakdown of this social order does come with serious consequences.

BBC wrote:
Why UK teenagers struggle to cope
By Mark Easton
BBC News home editor

Disconnected and disengaged...
British teenagers are among the most badly behaved in Europe, a study by think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests. Why?

In Britain we have come to both demonise and fear our teenagers: the yobs, the hoodies, the street gangs - the Asbo generation which terrorises neighbourhoods.

"Kids hanging around" is now regarded as the greatest social nuisance of our age.

As the new IPPR report puts it: "Commentators fear that British youth is on the verge of mental breakdown, at risk from anti-social behaviour, self-harm, drug and alcohol abuse. These concerns are, to an extent, borne out."

Such gloom is in contrast to evidence that there has never been a better time to be young.

Good times

More British teenagers leave school with good qualifications and go to university than ever before.

Youth unemployment has fallen dramatically in the last 25 years.

Today's parents are richer than ever before and young people have access to an extraordinary range of activities and opportunities undreamt of even a generation ago.

And yet the mental well-being of our adolescents is among the worst in Europe: one in 10 teenage girls has self-harmed. Child obesity is increasing.

UK 'among Europe's worst'

Our youngsters are more consumerist in their outlook than the Americans.

Concern about adolescents is not new, but what this research does is put the UK's experience in an international context - and the conclusions are troubling.

The European comparisons, putting our youngsters at or close to the top of every indicator of bad behaviour, suggest the causes are cultural.

Southern European nations with a strong Catholic tradition and a focus on the family do not share the same level of delinquency.

Scandinavian countries with a large welfare state and a strong sense of civic engagement also perform better.

'Hanging out'

But in the UK, where we have seen big changes in family structures - rising rates of divorce and single parenthood - and where the state traditionally resists intervening in domestic life, young people have been left to their own devices.

"Hanging out with mates" is what teenagers do in the UK.

In contrast to their European counterparts, they spend far more time with their peers than with adults where they miss out on the development of what are called "soft skills" - the social and personal development which is increasingly vital in a country built around service industry.

The days of young men leaving school at the first opportunity to go down the pit or into the shipyard have all but disappeared.

Those young men today are struggling to cope in a world which demands high levels of socialisation.

Teenagers play football
Could sport be an answer?

The IPPR report claims that social skills are as important, if not more important, than the academic qualifications our children are urged to achieve.

The key is that youngsters grow up in a warm, nurturing environment with plenty of adult interaction.

It doesn't have to be the traditional nuclear family although statistically children brought up by two married, biological parents do better than those from single-parent families or people cohabiting.

What the report amounts to is a challenge of traditional youth policy.

It points out that youngsters who go to a youth club are 6% more likely to smoke in adulthood, 1% more likely to be a single parent, 1% more likely to be a victim of crime and 5% more likely to have no qualifications than those who don't.

By contrast, those that went to structured sports or community centres are 3% less likely to be depressed; 5% less likely to be single, separated or divorced; 3% less likely to be in social housing and 2% less likely to have no qualifications.

The conclusions are obvious - but far from easy.

We need to repair the disconnect between our adolescents and the adult world.

That is not going to happen in a hurry but as the IPPR report puts it: "Young people who do not have access to the factors that develop their non-cognitive abilities are increasingly vulnerable to failure, while their better socialised peers will increasingly succeed."

[sLiPpY]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: pyrophasma wrote: sLiPpY wrote:

Oh, my how things have changed. I chose the P&G vs. "Society" to post the story, because I wanted to ask if the Government should limit C-Sections to "medical reasons" only?


Yes, because we need the government intruding more in our lives.

Exactly.

Oh and sLiPpY, orange font ftl.

fyb :flwr:

Well that wasn't very nice :lol:

True, but there are often moments in life...where the best way to let someone know that you appreciate them.

Is to givem' heck! :lol: