PDA

View Full Version : 40% of babies in US born out of wedlock



Hoosier
03-20-2009, 11:01 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_he_me/med_baby_boomlet

This is what the welfare mentality gets us.

Marvin S
03-20-2009, 11:04 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_he_me/med_baby_boomlet

This is what the welfare mentality gets us.

Thank You - LBJ!!!! :rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
03-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Thank You - LBJ!!!! :rolleyes:

Interestingly, it seems that nothing increases the unmarried birth rate more than having a republican in the white house. The overall rate unmarried birth rate remained relatively stable throughout the 60's and 70's. It began growing rapidly under Reagan and Bush Sr before stabilizing and then actually going down under Clinton. Following GWB's election, the rate began to grow again with a 50% increase during his presidency. The same pattern is followed by teen pregnancies, which actually declined fairly steadily except for increases under Reagan and increases again under GWB. Now I'm not saying that the total hostility of the Reagan and GWB presidencies to any form of education on birth control had anything to do with these increases (;)), but it certainly makes it hard to blame the increases on LBJ or the Democrats.

Data on this are available from a variety of sources for the period since 1997 (there are actually links in the yahoo pages referenced in the initial post). The early data is harder to find but is available on the CDC web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/tab1x18p.pdf.

Matt McKenzie
03-20-2009, 12:41 PM
Jeff,
That is a very interesting statistic and should be looked at more closely. I agree that those who propose "abstenence only" birth control education may be doing almost as much harm to out youth as a whole as the teacher's unions are.

badbullgator
03-20-2009, 01:03 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_he_me/med_baby_boomlet

This is what the welfare mentality gets us.


Not always true. We see many women who are single and in their mid 30's to 40ish that want to have childern but their clock is ticking, they are far from being on welfare. I know three couples that are friends of mine that have children, one that I work with, and not one of them is in any way on welfare, in fact far from it. Why don;t they marry? I don't know, but you are painting with a broad brush

BonMallari
03-20-2009, 04:05 PM
BBG is correct....I am a single dad that has a child out of wedlock, did I choose to have it that way,no I didnt.You may pass judgement on me if thats your thing but I would not subject my son to being in a fake marriage with his mother, because we do not get along anymore. Was my son a mistake ? certainly not, he was unplanned we were both 45 when we had him and we are both pro life, he is not on welfare and I pay child support and hopefully will get custody in the upcoming year...divorce also happens in this world and there are many that together for the sake of the children which is also just a harmful for all involved....

Patrick Johndrow
03-20-2009, 04:36 PM
Sounds like NObama should tax screwing.

Henry V
03-20-2009, 05:30 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_he_me/med_baby_boomlet

This is what the welfare mentality gets us.
Yes, it must be that simple. Welfare is the reason.

Does the study site any specifics rates for various states to support your conclusion? Oh, yes, it does at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_12.pdf . See table 12, page 17.

Gosh, since its so simple, a good conservative state like Alaska with a strong "family values" governor must have a lower rate of out of wedlock births than a commie liberal high welfare state like Minnesota. Hmmm, I guess it isn't so simple after all.

Richard Halstead
03-20-2009, 06:46 PM
since its so simple, a good conservative state like Alaska with a strong "family values" governor must have a lower rate of out of wedlock births than a commie liberal high welfare state like Minnesota. Hmmm, I guess it isn't so simple after all.

Henry you are assuming Alaskan represent Palins values while Minnesotaans reflect Govenor Pawlenty's values. Next figure the % of Minnesotans that receive just welfare vs the percent of Alaskans receiving welfare + their share of oil money + value added from food hunted, fished, grown, gathered. Would that make a difference in your statement?

Hoosier
03-20-2009, 08:47 PM
Not always true. We see many women who are single and in their mid 30's to 40ish that want to have childern but their clock is ticking, they are far from being on welfare. I know three couples that are friends of mine that have children, one that I work with, and not one of them is in any way on welfare, in fact far from it. Why don;t they marry? I don't know, but you are painting with a broad brush

You are probably right that I painted with to broad a brush. There is however a direct correlation between number of parents in the home and poverty. There is also a marked negative effect in likelihood of serving prison time for children raised in single parent homes.

Henry V
03-21-2009, 12:04 AM
Hi Richard,

No it would not. I was aware of the conclusions that you reached based on my statement and can live with those conclusions. Pawlenty is more effective at conveying family values than Palin and Alaska is more of a welfare state than Minnesota. Fine by me.

What I find most interesting in that list of states is how many states with some of the highest out of wedlock birth rates are republican strongholds (please note I said many not all). I was thinking that those states would have less welfare if the politicians in those states practiced what they preached. To come to the conclusion that it is due to "welfare" is overly simplistic but to be expected. The report presents clear data that many of these pregnancies are in older career women and the overall birth rate among all mothers under 20 has actually declined (see figure 2).