Brief Baby Boom. 2007, most births ever. 40% out of wedlock.

RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. teen birth rate rose for a second straight year in 2007 after a long decline and more babies were born to all mothers than even at the peak of the baby boom after World War Two, officials said on Wednesday.

In an encouraging development, the rate of premature births and low birthweight babies declined after a long upward trend, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

But Cesarean deliveries rose for an 11th straight year to a new high -- up 2 percent to 31.8 percent of births.

"Every pregnant woman in the U.S. should be alarmed by this rate," Pam Udy, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network advocacy group, said in a statement. "Half or more of Cesareans are avoidable and over-using major surgery on otherwise healthy women and babies is taking a toll."

A record 39.7 percent of babies in 2007 were born to unmarried women, including 71.6 percent of black babies and 51.3 percent of Hispanic babies, the report found.

The birth rate for teenage girls rose 5 percent between 2005 and 2007, according to the report.

The previously reported increase in 2006 ended 14 straight years of declines. The rate rose again in 2007 by 1 percent over the prior year to 42.5 births per 1,000 girls aged 15-19.

Some experts blame the teen birth rate increases on the government's support for "abstinence-only" education under the Bush administration that left office in January, but advocates of that approach have defended it as sound.

MORE SEX, LESS BIRTH CONTROL

"The teen birth rate in the U.S. had declined dramatically in past years because of both less sex and more contraception," Bill Albert of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy advocacy group said in a telephone interview.

"The teen birth rate is now going up probably for the opposite set of reasons -- the combination of more sex and less contraception."

According to the Child Trends nonprofit research group, fewer sexually active high school girls are using contraceptives and fewer U.S. students are getting formal contraceptive education.

"Two years of increases in the teen birth rate are a wake-up call showing the need to target efforts to help teens delay sexual activity, improve contraceptive use, and delay early and generally unplanned childbearing," said Jennifer Manlove of Child Trends.

The total of 4.3 million babies born in 2007 was the most ever recorded in the United States, topping even the peak of the baby boom in 1957, according to the report.

The percentage of babies born prematurely rose by more than a third since the 1980s but dropped by 1 percent in 2007 compared to the previous year.

Premature babies -- defined as born before the 37th week of pregnancy instead of the typical pregnancy of roughly 40 weeks -- are more likely to have medical and developmental problems.

The March of Dimes charity said pre-term birth is the leading cause of newborn deaths in the United States, with early births costing more than $26 billion annually.

For the first time since 1984 there was a drop in the percentage of babies born with low birth weight, which similarly increases the risk of a baby's health problems.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52H67H20090318?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0


40% out of births from single mothers (71% of black births and 51% of hispanic). Roughly 25% from women under 20, teen pregancies up again...

So I posted this because of the education thread. There was a lot of talk about how the parents are the most important part of a childs education (which I agree with). Yet nearly half of our population is being born to unwed mothers. Now, granted, some of those are going to end up being married, but just as many will end up in broken homes or maybe never even meet the father.

So, the question here is... is this a problem? If it is, what can do to reverse the trend?
 
Make parents pay for their kids.

If the parents can't afford a certain level of care for their kids, put the kids in a debtor's prison aka (po)orphanage.

No punishment for the parents, but no parental rights while the parents owe the government for care provided.

Parents never pay? No biggie, the parents don't get tax refunds or deductions for the children.

Harsh? Absolutely.

Want it more harsh? Prevent the parents from collecting unemployment, disability or retirement while in arrears.
 
This story makes me feel better about possibly not having children. There are more than enough in the world. Pisses me off greatly that it's up to 40% out of wedlock in the US though. So much for "Christian values." Christian values, my ass.
 
People need to close their fucking legs. Or wear a damn condom. Or just watch porn. People really shouldn't have kids until they are financially stable and can provide for the kid, and not have their Mom be a parent for another 10 years.
 
[quote name='Blackout']People need to close their fucking legs. Or wear a damn condom. Or just watch porn. People really shouldn't have kids until they are financially stable and can provide for the kid, and not have their Mom be a parent for another 10 years.[/quote]

Newsflash: Most of the people in the world are painfully stupid... ;)

And yet despite this, why will no one support my initiative to sterilize people with IQs below 100 and those without citizenship? :D
 
Damn, guess Bristol just barely missed being included in those figures.:lol:

I think it's time the government consider my birthing license idea.
 
Obviously it's a result of our half-hearted implementation of abstinence education. We need to go back to the schools again, this time with more bible, more Jesus, and less condoms!
 
[quote name='camoor']Obviously it's a result of our half-hearted implementation of abstinence education. We need to go back to the schools again, this time with more bible, more Jesus, and less condoms![/quote]

We should shame people into thinking sex is evil and dirty! Then, we need to brainwash people into thinking evil and dirty things aren't fun.
 
Everybody understands why the government won't enact any policies to stamp out unwed mother, right?

A single mother needs the government to survive.

A poorly adjust child will either require government for housing (prison or crapshack, but no mansion), be or create more unwed mothers (more people to nurse off the gubmint's teets) and/or have no chance of understanding the problems of a large government (low intelligence leads to poor planning, poor planning leads to poor/no rebellion).
 
I swear that some women have an entire house full of kids, just so they can collect welfare checks. I mean getting pregnant once without being able to support the kid, that's a bad decision. Doing it 5 more times, that's just the woman's own stupidity.

As long as the government continues to basically reward that behavior though, it won't ever stop.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I swear that some women have an entire house full of kids, just so they can collect welfare checks. I mean getting pregnant once without being able to support the kid, that's a bad decision. Doing it 5 more times, that's just the woman's own stupidity.

As long as the government continues to basically reward that behavior though, it won't ever stop.[/quote]

Most symbiotic relationships don't stop.

Why should the government hurt itself?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I swear that some women have an entire house full of kids, just so they can collect welfare checks. I mean getting pregnant once without being able to support the kid, that's a bad decision. Doing it 5 more times, that's just the woman's own stupidity.

As long as the government continues to basically reward that behavior though, it won't ever stop.[/QUOTE]

OMG you are so racist! Don't you knows that it's the Bushies who are the cause of this for demanding abstinence edumacation ? They hate black people and want them to keep living in the poverty by taking away there birth control and abortion rights. Its not there fault they have so many kids, its the system.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I swear that some women have an entire house full of kids, just so they can collect welfare checks. I mean getting pregnant once without being able to support the kid, that's a bad decision. Doing it 5 more times, that's just the woman's own stupidity.

As long as the government continues to basically reward that behavior though, it won't ever stop.[/QUOTE]

It's much worse in Europe. The socialist countries were are working hard to emulate have systems that very much reward unwed motherhood. In fact, it's probably the best opportunity for a good paying "job" a female has, that requires the least effort, in many Euro countries.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's much worse in Europe. The socialist countries were are working hard to emulate have systems that very much reward unwed motherhood. In fact, it's probably the best opportunity for a good paying "job" a female has, that requires the least effort, in many Euro countries.[/quote]

I see, is that why birth rates are on the decline in Europe (1.5 births per woman, below the replacement level)
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I swear that some women have an entire house full of kids, just so they can collect welfare checks. I mean getting pregnant once without being able to support the kid, that's a bad decision. Doing it 5 more times, that's just the woman's own stupidity.

As long as the government continues to basically reward that behavior though, it won't ever stop.[/quote]

But can you actually prove it?
 
[quote name='camoor']I see, is that why birth rates are on the decline in Europe (1.5 births per woman, below the replacement level)[/quote]

No. European women are hairier and European men prefer the great taste of cock. Furthermore, soccer was created by European women so that they would have something to do while the men cooked, cleaned and developed gay tendencies.
 
[quote name='evanft']But can you actually prove it?[/quote]

The octomom, perhaps?

Anymore demographic breakdowns that can be divulged? I'm also wondering about the percentage of children born to unwed couples. Are those counted in the 40% or not (what I'm asking is does this fall into the single women category)?
 
Not a whole lot that can be done--at least not over night.

It starts with working to reduce poverty and inequality and improving the education system especially in disadvantaged areas. Teen births are concentrated in poor, disadvantaged areas (be it urban or rural). Improve things so more kids get a decent education and feel like they can succeed and thus have a lot to lose by getting pregnant. If they feel trapped and that they can never get out of the poverty they've know their whole life they're much more likely to take risks like unprotected sex, drug use etc.

Sex education can help as well, it's likely not a coincidence that the spike happened toward the end of the Bush years of cutting sex ed funding and pushing abstinence only education.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No. European women are hairier and European men prefer the great taste of cock. Furthermore, soccer was created by European women so that they would have something to do while the men cooked, cleaned and developed gay tendencies. [/QUOTE]

This is so absurd it's funny.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No. European women are hairier and European men prefer the great taste of cock. Furthermore, soccer was created by European women so that they would have something to do while the men cooked, cleaned and developed gay tendencies. [/QUOTE]

I'm quoting that.:)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not a whole lot that can be done--at least not over night.[/quote]

What about removing the children from their ineffective homes and sticking them into poorphanages?
 
Memphis game tied at 40 with 14 minutes to go.

Butler battled back to take a lead briefly, down 53-49 with 11 minutes left.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What about removing the children from their ineffective homes and sticking them into poorphanages?[/QUOTE]

I was talking about preventing teen pregnancy mainly.

I don't know enough about orphanages to know who kids placed in them do in later life outcomes (their own teen pregnancy rates, drug use, high school graduation rates, college rates, marriage rates etc.) to know how they fair compared to kids raised by single parents to say much in support or against that approach.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What about removing the children from their ineffective homes and sticking them into poorphanages?[/QUOTE]

I was talking about preventing teen pregnancy mainly.

I don't know enough about orphanages to know who kids placed in them do in later life outcomes (their own teen pregnancy rates, drug use, high school graduation rates, college rates, marriage rates etc.) to know how they fair compared to kids raised by single parents to say much in support or against that approach.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The octomom, perhaps?

Anymore demographic breakdowns that can be divulged? I'm also wondering about the percentage of children born to unwed couples. Are those counted in the 40% or not (what I'm asking is does this fall into the single women category)?[/QUOTE]

the 40% number is unwed. none of the articles ive seen have broke that number down further, ie couples, singles, gay etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was talking about preventing teen pregnancy mainly.

I don't know enough about orphanages to know who kids placed in them do in later life outcomes (their own teen pregnancy rates, drug use, high school graduation rates, college rates, marriage rates etc.) to know how they fair compared to kids raised by single parents to say much in support or against that approach.[/quote]

I don't know offhand, either.

I think Rush talked about this after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

http://www.merage.uci.edu/~mckenzie/latimes1.html

"The orphans' high school graduation rate is at least 10% higher than their counterparts. Their college graduation rate is a fourth higher, and they have a higher percentage of advanced and professional degrees than do other white Americans in their age group."

" Nearly one in five Americans is receiving or has received some form of public assistance, but less than 4% of the orphans have ever received welfare as adults. The orphans' poverty rate is less than half that of their counterparts and their unemployment rate is one-sixth of the national rate. And few orphans have ever been jailed."

Assuming his research is valid, a child removed from a bad household will do better in the long run.

Mother underage and unwed? Pull the child.
Child unable to read or write at the age of 6? Pull the child.
Child with asthma problems and smoking parents? Pull the child.
Child wearing handmedowns? Pull the child.
Child living in a household with a credit score under 700? Pull the child.
Maybe that is too far, but I'm sure some limits need to be imposed.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn'] I don't know offhand, either.

I think Rush talked about this after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

http://www.merage.uci.edu/~mckenzie/latimes1.html

"The orphans' high school graduation rate is at least 10% higher than their counterparts. Their college graduation rate is a fourth higher, and they have a higher percentage of advanced and professional degrees than do other white Americans in their age group."

" Nearly one in five Americans is receiving or has received some form of public assistance, but less than 4% of the orphans have ever received welfare as adults. The orphans' poverty rate is less than half that of their counterparts and their unemployment rate is one-sixth of the national rate. And few orphans have ever been jailed."

Assuming his research is valid, a child removed from a bad household will do better in the long run.

Mother underage and unwed? Pull the child.
Child unable to read or write at the age of 6? Pull the child.
Child with asthma problems and smoking parents? Pull the child.
Child wearing handmedowns? Pull the child.
Child living in a household with a credit score under 700? Pull the child.
Maybe that is too far, but I'm sure some limits need to be imposed.[/QUOTE]


For bad households sure. But there are good one parent households--including young mothers. So I can't support the first point there. Nor with stuff like handmedowns. Plenty of single (or two parent) homes are poor but still love and support their children, stress the importance of education etc.

So you're putting the bar for pulling kids from homes way too low IMO. It's probably too high now with too many kids being abused and neglected, but we don't want to over-react to the problem.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The last unwed teenage Asian mother was in 1983.[/quote]

There was this one news story about a woman in Japan who was knocked up by her husband before he died. Apparently she was shunned as a single mother and there was no support program she could turn to given her scarlet A status.

I'm all for reducing the number of sociopathic octomoms in the world, but there is such a thing as going too far the other way.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Mother underage and unwed? Pull the child.
Child unable to read or write at the age of 6? Pull the child.
Child with asthma problems and smoking parents? Pull the child.
Child wearing handmedowns? Pull the child.
Child living in a household with a credit score under 700? Pull the child.
[/QUOTE]

jasper2.gif
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']For bad households sure. But there are good one parent households--including young mothers. So I can't support the first point there. Nor with stuff like handmedowns. Plenty of single (or two parent) homes are poor but still love and support their children, stress the importance of education etc.

So you're putting the bar for pulling kids from homes way too low IMO. It's probably too high now with too many kids being abused and neglected, but we don't want to over-react to the problem.[/quote]

Yeah, I know. About 5% of my kids' clothes are new. I can't pay retail for something like clothes. I was looking at one of my daughter's shirts she is outgrowing and thinking "Is this too girly for my son to wear?"
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Half of that was stolen from King of the Hill.[/QUOTE]

I'm one of the nine co-captains.
 
It sucks but there's nothing anyone can do except for real education. Keep teaching abstinence but educate about condoms at the same time. Give real statistics instead of cooked up Christian Scientist numbers like 80% of all women regret their first time. 95% of sexually active Americans have a disease. That kind of crap has to go.

Also, the government likes dumb people. Dumb people buy front row tickets to Smackdown instead of getting some savings together to buy a house that won't blow down in a stiff wind. Dumb people continue to smoke and drink even though that money could go towards food and clothes. Dumb people don't really care that we just got raped by the banks and that we've always been raped by Congress.
 
Hey, remember when everybody said all the shit I said was crazy?

The problem is that you give women multiple choices but not men. I believe that a male birth control method that's more effective than a condom would at least help with the rate. I believe that the reason one hasn't been released is more political than would be believed ( along the lines of what Mr. Burns said earlier ). I don't want to derail this thread, but it would be a good time to look into the tyranny that is this incarnation of child support.

The government isn't as willy nilly with the money it gives out for welfare as opposed to the fixed percentage that a *ahem* custodial parent gets for child support, nor does it mandate that the non custodial parent see exactly if the money is going to the child or not. Also, it is common for the custodial parent to deny visitation rights as the government sits on its hands. Don't pay child support and you go to jail. Can't afford it? You go to jail. Paternity fraud is also possible. DNA tests are not required. Once she puts you down you're on the hook and even if proved not to be the father you will never get that money back. There are several stories of this happenning .

It's about time someone realized the ills of the system and stood up for our rights instead of using the excuse "it's good for the children" because you find that it has to do a lot more with satisfying the custodial parents than helping the children, here's a video about said ills of the system by someone who was part of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk&feature=channel_page
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HovaEscobar']Hey, remember when everybody said all the shit I said was crazy?

The problem is that you give women multiple choices but not men. I believe that a male birth control method that's more effective than a condom would at least help with the rate. I believe that the reason one hasn't been released is more political than would be believed ( along the lines of what Mr. Burns said earlier ). I don't want to derail this thread, but it would be a good time to look into the tyranny that is this incarnation of child support.
[/QUOTE]

Would probably increase rates of STDs as many dumb guys that only were the condom for pregnancy prevention decide not to if they're taking male version of the pill.
 
So for those of you that think abstinence education is ridiculous, would you be against lacing our food/water with known libido killing substances?

I just think it's amusing that so many people are so hard for every type of birth control or chemical substance that might prevent pregnancy, because fucking with impunity is the end goal, right? But solutions that might make people stop wanting to fuck for fun can't be considered.
 
Nobody should be forced to take or do anything.

People should be made aware of options for safe sex and abstinence.

So you're argument holds no water, and is just your typical ideological nonsense.
 
I'm just countering the people here talking about things like licenses for having babies and making it a right you have to earn.

It's hypothetical and you need to lay off the red bull and relax.
 
That's still a far cry from putting drugs in drinking water or forcing people to take any kind of drug etc.,

So still absurd analogy, and just comes across as typical social conservative idiocy.

But I agree that many of those comments you refer to were stupid as well. Stupid people will always do stupid things, and more so when they live in concentrated disadvantage. Best we can do is to do everything we can to fight poverty and inequality and promote education.
 
First of all, I don't think overpopulation is a crisis like others here do, so I'm perfectly fine with babies being born. So I agree with you -- do nothing except educate.

If it were a world threatening crisis like many people think it is, then it wold make more sense to consider extreme policies. I'm merely commenting on how one sided these people's draconian measures they consider are.
 
Fair enough, I worry about overpopulation (and just don't like kids in general), but I'd still never support limits on having children--beyond opposing people popping out kids they can't afford and burdening the rest of us.

But not much ethically that can be done about that either. Just have to educate and work to reduce poverty etc.
 
Marriage rates are declining and divorce rates have leveled off at still rather-high rates.

People continue to have children.

What's to make of this? Not much, I'd say. It's emblematic of childbirth and marriage becoming more independent institutions, but it's a stretch, and kind of silly, to embrace this nonsensical "welfare mom who can't close her legs and/or wants a $71 more per month in TANF" position some of y'all are.

The only potentially problematic datapoint in the OP is that teenage pregnancy rates rose 5% from 06 to 07. But that, in the absence of longer trendlines, isn't yet something to panic about.
 
Yep, no cause for panic yet. If there's still up for 2008, I'd worry a bit more.

Also don't care much about the welfare mom stuff--beyond worrying about kids not getting proper care, good educations etc. But not so much from a financial standpoint. People like the octomom abusing the system are a minority that just get hyped to hell by the right (and many on the left).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top