Out-of-Wedlock Birthrates Are Soaring, U.S. Reports

Out-of-Wedlock Birthrates Are Soaring, U.S. Reports

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html?_r=1&ref=health

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: May 13, 2009

WASHINGTON — Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007, a share that is increasing rapidly both here and abroad, according to government figures released Wednesday.

Before 1970, most unmarried mothers were teenagers. But in recent years the birthrate among unmarried women in their 20s and 30s has soared — rising 34 percent since 2002, for example, in women ages 30 to 34. In 2007, women in their 20s had 60 percent of all babies born out of wedlock, teenagers had 23 percent and women 30 and older had 17 percent.

Much of the increase in unmarried births has occurred among parents who are living together but are not married, cohabitation arrangements that tend to be less stable than marriages, studies show.

The pattern has been particularly pronounced among Hispanic women, climbing 20 percent from 2002 to 2006, the most recent year for which racial breakdowns are available. Eleven percent of unmarried Hispanic women had a baby in 2006, compared with 7 percent of unmarried black women and 3 percent of unmarried white women, according to government data drawn from birth certificates.

-------------------------------

Out-of-wedlock births are also rising in much of the industrialized world: in Iceland, 66 percent of children are born to unmarried mothers; in Sweden, the share is 55 percent. (In other societies, though, the phenomenon remains rare — just 2 percent in Japan, for example.)

----------------------

But experts say the increases in the United States are of greater concern because couples in many other countries tend to be more stable and government support for children is often higher.

“In Sweden, you see very little variation in the outcome of children based on marital status. Everybody does fairly well,” said Wendy Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “In the U.S., there’s much more disparity.”

Children born out of wedlock in the United States tend to have poorer health and educational outcomes than those born to married women, but that may be because unmarried mothers tend to share those problems.

This way there's less lawyering going on.

The American male is not supporting the pair bonding. He can't afford to, economically or ego-wise.

:wow:

How much of it is due to irresponsibility, what is deemed "realistic", apathy, or the media creating false illusions that people perceive as reality, I don't know. I think people should care, but explaining why isn't going to make a bit of difference these days.

I have no opinion. I do know that a woman with children will do just about anything to stay married. If she decides to break it off, it's usually because staying together is so much more dangerous than potential poverty.

Of course, he's talking about having to keep his zipper up.


Not my argument any longer, however. It's the choice of other people to do what to who and when and why. Trying to say "save it for love", "abstinence does work", and the usual cant is ignored or mocked anyway. So whatever. Nobody wants to care; Levi is the ultimate poster child for that.

Harm reduction (birth control, etc.) goes a lot further than preaching (to the choir?). I know from your posts that you're a reasonable guy, and that your argument isn't based in religious dogma, but you should be careful not to universalize your own experience. Just saying...

We all make mistakes.

It all depends on how you handle yourself, how you deal with potential consequences, and so forth. So if you yourself would rather not engage in sexual activity outside of a long-term monogamous relationship, then that's perfectly fine and valid. But if there's one thing to be learned from the political travesty that is the modern Religious Right, it's that personal, subjective "morality" is a poor basis for social policy.

I'd say those 'Scarlet Letter' wannabes out in the heartland are getting what they deserve right about now. Too bad the rest of us have to suffer (economically) along with them...

I don't think "middle america" has the highest rate of children born out of wedlock.

of how children born "out of wedlock" fare in life. And I was agreeing that this has to do with more social support, as well as less of a stigma, e.g. in Sweden. So my point is that a lot of people in this country, particularly religious conservatives, seem to care more about discouraging "immorality" than about the livelihood of mothers and their children.

So, while it may sound like a terrible thing to say, the current economic crisis seems to me like a fitting punishment for those moral busybodies who deplore abortion while taking a let-'em-eat-cake approach to actually, you know, caring for those "precious" children once they're born. Looks like their sanctimony and hypocrisy has come back to bite them in the ass...

Raising a child is hard work. Other people can and do raise children on their own, but I just don't think I have it in me.

as opposed to living together is health insurance and financial security through a spouse. Used to be higher odds if a woman got pregnant that her partner had a job with benefits or could get one. That's not so true anymore.

Having to get married for health care or financial security was never a plus. It created a lot of bad marriages (my previous one, for example).

In wedlock or out of it, the real issue is a lack of social programs which assure the health care and education of lower income children.

The real problem is as a nation we've turned our back on our children after they're born.

and with "good men" apparently in short supply these days, women decide to go it alone.. If there is assistance available, and/or the ability to support the child(ren), women can and do raise them without a man in the picture.

The jury is still out on whether it's a great societal plan, but it just is what it is..


Really, until the late 80's women did not have that much access to "good" jobs, and it's entirely possible that a whole batch of women saw how their Mothers fared in the "married-for-life" scenario, and how so many of their friends' marriages didn't turn out all that well, so maybe they decided they could do it all..

Many married & "working" women DO "do it all" while they are married.. They schlep the kids to daycare, go off to 8-10 hours of work, and still come home, to make dinner, help with homework, clean house , do laundry, etc.. maybe a whole lot of them decided they could do with "one less kid", and just skipped the husband part :evilgrin:

A few generations ago, an 18 yr old girl who did not go to college would usually marry her high school sweetheart, and they could live on one income and raise 4 or 5 kids..they did not leave their hometown, and pretty much hit rewind on their parents' lives.. That's not the case so much anymore.. Jobs are often not even available where they grew up, so young people are on the move..,meeting new people, and living different lives.. they marry later (if at all), and they don't feel compelled to marry the first guy that comes along.. kids or no kids..

The downside is that as kids with different dads come along, they become "less marketable" , and a 30 yr old woman with 3 kids (2 dads) is not all that likely to find a guy willing to take on all that baggage, so she most likely will raise those kids alone..

The women at the higher levels of the income ladder may just not want to put up with a man permanently, and after being in charge of her life for 10-15 years, she might just want to continue that routine, sans "baby-daddy"..

of friends and coworkers, do it all already -- while hubby surfs the TV channels. It's no surprise that many get divorced and go it alone; it ends up being a lot less work because you don't have to clean up after, and contend with, the questionable habits of another adult. Several black women of my acquaintance simply can't find an unattached black male who can even hold a job.

And it's very true that many women a bit younger than I am have decided not to even take on the job of a husband, because they saw what their mothers, aunts, and slightly older friends went through. It just wasn't worth the effort. It would be like dragging an anchor around all day in addition to all the other work involved in making a living and raising kids.