Births to Unmarried U.S. Women Set Record (the cause of worry for the

[rodeodance]

fundamentalists------the 'family' is breaking up!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_us/american_births;_ylt=Ar5tj6sLRMU.N5kJGX3_0lCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
Births to Unmarried U.S. Women Set Record

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Nearly 1.5 million babies, a record, were born to unmarried women in the United States last year, the government reported Friday. And it isn't just teenagers any more.

"People have the impression that teens and unmarried mothers are synonymous," said Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics.

But last year teens accounted for just 24 percent of unwed births, down from 50 percent in 1970, she commented.

The increases in unmarried births have been among women in their 20s, she said, particularly those 25 to 29.....

[valerief]

1. Holy Murphy Brown!

For every unmarried mom, there's an unmarried dad (well, some of the dads are unmarried).

[mestup]

4. Would love to see a headline like that.

FOX BREAKING NEWS: 1.5 million babies born to unmarried Dads

[femrap]

29. ME TOO! n/t

I do hope the dads are put on the birth certificate...at least financial responsibilty can be assumed.

[Breeze54]

59. Good news for Dead Beat Dads/Parents - ONLY!

http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2005/10/28/opinions/694639

Galvan: Cuts benefit deadbeat dads, harm grads
by Astrid Galvan
published on Friday, October 28, 2005

House Republicans voted to cut different programs from the national budget Wednesday in order to save money.
Among these programs are employee benefits, child-support enforcement and (surprise, surprise) federal student aid.

It gets even better.
Not only will there be a total of $50 billion in cuts over the next five years, as opposed to originally planned $35 billion,
but the efforts will also include new fees on student loans and higher fees on parent loans.

To make these plans work, the House has assembled eight legislative committees to manage the cuts.
One is the House of Education panel, which was instructed to generate $18 billion in savings over the next five years.

The House of Education's plan of action:
to stop helping students pay for their education,
the one thing they need to succeed.
And if, by chance, they do still take out loan money,
they must charge them fees in addition to the higher interest rates.

As if it isn't enough to screw "America's future,"
the House is also incorporating premium raises on employers for retiring and pension benefits.
This means less money for us when we grow gray.

In regards to the cuts in child-support enforcement,
there is good news for deadbeat dads all around the country:
$3.8 billion of the money spent to enforce child-support payments will be cut.

But wait kids there's more.
This bill would also mess with foster-care assistance in nine states.

Why all this money, you ask?

Well, they certainly aren't trying to teach us how to save money,
something Americans are notorious for being physically incapable
of doing.
Instead, the government is attempting to cut the national deficit,
which now lies at a number too great for your pretty eyes.

For the most part,
the $50 billion in cuts is result of Hurricane Katrina and the necessary disaster relief.
Basically, the Republican House is under extreme pressure to save more money than planned.
They are under even more pressure to "out-save" the Senate,
who has different plans for the national budget.

So what other measures should they take?

They could approve a disgusting plan to make $2.4 billion in lease revenues
by allowing the art of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But approval would be devastating for environmentalists everywhere.

Predictably, President Bush stands firmly behind these budget-cutting plans.
He announced this on Wednesday to the Economic Club of Washington.

"We can help the people of the Gulf Coast region and recover and rebuild,
and we can be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars at the same time,
which means we're going to have to reduce unnecessary spending elsewhere in the budget," Bush said.

Pardon me,
I wasn't aware that student aid, education and child support were "unnecessary."

What is necessary, though, is that students speak out.
Perhaps protest on Hayden Lawn.
Send a letter to your state representative.
If nobody is going to do anything to stop this catastrophe,
we,
the students, should.

Astrid Galvan is a journalism junior.

[bloom]

75. In Indiana

The state recently - under newly "elected?" Governor "Ditch Mitch" Daniels (Former Bush* budget director) - the child support collection system was recently privatized so that when money is paid by the non-custodial parent it doesn't go directly to the other parent - it goes and sits in a bank and earns interest - presumably for "Ditch Mitch's" friends. Nice, huh.

Sometimes it sits there for months. It's pretty messed up.

[TriMetFan]

48. Or

FOX BREAKING NEWS: 1.5 million babies born to unmarried Dads or Dads having affairs.

[northzax]

53. well, to be perfectly fair

some of them were probably sperm donation routines, so technically, it's not the same. but the gist is right, certainly. I would just write is as 1.5 million babies born to unmarried parents.

and how many of these women would be married, if the state allowed them to?

[dsc]

68. actually probably not

I would imagine there are a non trivial number of men who are 'fathers' to more than one child out of wedlock in a given year. Thus 1.5 million mothers doesn't necessarily translate into 1.5 million fathers.

[bloom]

74. That's a good point

It may be .5 million fathers for the 1.5 million mothers.

Reminds me of sister's former "boyfriend" - serial father. Well - he's in jail now for awhile. About the only thing that would stop him. He didn't pay child support, either.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. I don't think this is a good thing

Certainly, you can have a perfectly good family structure with a single mother or unmarried parents. And many, many children who come out of those households do fine.

But is that the majority? The unfortunate reality is that most unwed mothers are people who can't afford children, who have unplanned pregnancies, and are young. Without some kind of stable family structure - and I believe that includes MANY different types - children often do suffer. Having a single mother or ummarried parents itself isn't a cause for concern. The problem is that many single mothers are not economically self-sustaining and if that's followed by a number of shoddy marriages or live-in relationships with various boyfriends - well, that doesn't really provide for the most stable family structure, now does it?

ON EDIT: It does appear the article notes the major source of this rise is from the rise in unmarried couples having children, particularly those in their older 20s. That's not really a problem, particularly if the couple intends to stay together or marry.

[sonicx]

5. in Nordic countries, 45-55% of kids are born out of wedlock

But to be fair, that situation is different. They have fewer financial and social reasons to get married and there's a better social safety net.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Well, that's my point

I think if you have an unmarried couple raising children, that can be a perfectly stable environment. And single-parenthood CAN be a stable, sustainable environment - it's just that often, it's not, for various reasons.

My concerns aren't moral, they're practical.

[AngryAmish]

67. Good point

I'm not married and I don't have kids. However, I'm tired after an hour of babysitting. I could not imagine trying to do my job and try to raise kids without someone home to help.

[funflower]

21. Marriage often seems to come after children in Scandinavia these days.

However, many such parents in already in established relationships before they have children. Of course, this is also true in many cases in the U.S..

[mestup]

6. Are you basically saying it takes two incomes to raise a family?

For the most part?

[Mithras61]

10. Considering that minimum wage...

pay $10,920 for straight full-time employment, and the poverty line for a family of four is somewhere in the neighborhood of $18K, it sure seems that two incomes would be required (if the 'pukes get us all on minimum wage like they want). I'd really like to see some minimum wage legislation that would tie the minimum wage to the poverty line. For example, a minimum wage job has to provide a single person enough money to live at the poverty line, plus federal & state taxes are not levied until you make more than the poverty line, and then create a formula to set the poverty line at some realistic level.

[northzax]

54. you basically don't pay federal or state taxes

except social security, below the poverty line, you get the first 15 grand free of income tax, and deductions deal with the rest.

[mbperrin]

55. Except that 8-3/4% Texas state sales tax!

EVERYONE pays it, and the poor pay the greatest per cent of their incomes (100%, since they must spend everything to live, leaving them 91-1/4% of the income after tax or 82-1/2% after SS, which means overall they pay 17-1/2% without recourse or deduction of any kind.

YIKES!

[northzax]

57. yes, texas has a very regressive tax system

especially since there are few exceptions to the sales (and rental, of course) tax. If we're going to have a sales tax, I think that food, medical expenses, rent and tuition should be exempt. The tradition of sales tax holidays for back to school is also a good one (in DC it's twice a year, and only on clothing and supplies under $100.

who's paying 10 percent of their income in Social Security and Medicare? if you are self employed, you pay 12% SS and .5% medicare, if you are employed, you pay 6% SS and .25% Medicare, your employer matches that.

[kineneb]

76. I figured out what I pay in taxes

being that I now make very little. It comes out to about 11% of my gross goes to taxes, Soc. Sec. etc. When you are only grossing $150/week that is still a lot of money. Thank goodness we have some money from SSI until Hubby's disability kicks in.

[northzax]

77. well, 6.25 goes to Soc Sec, if you're not self employed

so your actualy income tax rate is less than five percent. that's not bad for a combination of federal, state and local taxes. so it's $7.50 a week. would that make much of a difference, really? I know it sucks, and I hope things turn around for you soon.

[China_cat]

11. Well, when WalMart says

that it is in the same league with other companies (not just other companies of comparable size, either) in this country and then go on to say in their own memo...which I have a copy of here...that with their benefit package an associate at WalMart will have to have spent between 74% and 150% of their HOUSEHOLD income before health insurance kicks in, it seems to me that 2 incomes might not be enough unless both salaries are in 6 figures.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Often, yeah. Particularly when you have parents working at minimum-wage

And I do think a stable structure is good. That structure can be anything - unmarried couples, gay couples, single mother, single father. But I do think that in general two-parent households are more stable. Obviously there are exceptions, but particularly when you have a single-parent household in the lower economic stratum, it's not good for the child's development. It's not that the mother would be a bad parent, but that without enough income she'll have to work ungodly hours. She won't have resources to provide her children with good housing, good health care, or good education. It's a vicious cycle.

[sonicx]

18. 2 parents is probably ideal, but the study doen't say if

the unwed mothers in question are single or cohabitating. The study said the increases mostly came from women 25 to 29, so i'd guess mostly the later.

[Breeze54]

61. oh...pleeeezzzzeee.....get off the single parents, will you?

"but particularly when you have a single-parent household
in the lower economic stratum,
it's not good for the child's development."

CHILDREN THRIVE WITH A LOVING PARENT!
POOR OR NOT!
Key word is LOVING!

I have THREE son's whom I raised after their "father" (my EX)
took off to start, yet, another family.
'whore-dog'...

I worked and he shirked!
The judge's 'allowed him to"!
He (sperm donor) :sarcasm: cried everytime CHILD SUPPORT
was mentioned and attempted to be collected or raised!
Cried "POOR MOUTH" drivel!
The judges let him off!!
EVERYTIME! :grr:
Because he claimed he was 'unemployed'...(LIAR!)
He was working UNDER the TABLE! :grr:

Despite him........
My two oldest son's have graduated high school;
went on to college and the military,
both but not in that order.
Youngest WILL graduate in two years.

I know many single, custodial mother's and they ARE stable!
It's "the other' parent who is NOT stable or doesn't pay
the Child Support, who injects financial instability!

The single parent's should NEVER include Child Support
in their household budget!
EVER!
THIS should be taught!



If they get a payment at all, it's called "New Sneakers"! :P

:rant:

[liberalpragmatist]

64. Nowhere did I say that it can never work

I know of many children raised in single-parent households who have had wonderful, loving environments. I am not attacking you and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't misconstrue my words as an insult.

But the simple fact of the matter is that if we want to reduce poverty and reduce child poverty, eliminating unplanned pregnancies must be a major part of the effort. I emphasize that people should not be forced to form relationships or 2-parent households because that can cause more problems that it solves. But you're not going to be able to lift a family out of poverty when that family consists of a single mom in the inner-city working 2 minimum-wage jobs and with 3 kids from 3 different, deadbeat fathers who are never around and don't pay child support. And yes, even in those circumstances, there are SOME people who emerge out of that fine. But that's not the majority, or even the vast majority. The type of single-parenthood I have described is too often the case and we need to make a push towards ending that by reducing unwanted pregnancies and providing a stronger social safety net.

And one other thing - where do I insinuate that this is all somehow the mother's fault? Parenthood is the result of TWO people and of course the male has a major role to play. Encouraging responsible fatherhood is crucial to forming stable families.

[Breeze54]

73. I said parent

FOUR times and mother ONCE!

You are missing the point!
YOU are implying that single parent's are not stable.

How about raising the minimum wage?
and more job/skill oriented education ?
How about more good paying jobs in the inner cities?

"And one other thing - where do I insinuate
that this is all somehow the mother's fault?"

I didn't say that at all...but 'most' single parent's are mother's.

But you did insinuate it!
". Encouraging responsible fatherhood is
crucial to forming stable families."

There is YOUR insinuation!

[liberalpragmatist]

81. These things are not mutually exclusive

Your situation appears to have been fine. But government policy has to look at general situations. Too often, single-parent households ARE unstable and economically insecure. That is not healthy for a child's development.

I'm sure you did a great job raising your children. I know many children of single parents - usually mothers - who have raised perfectly wonderful children. But unfortunately, that's not always the case. Too often, single-parent households ARE left insecure and unstable. Of course we need a higher minimum-wage and a stronger safety net, but the government can't solve every problem and we should discourage unwanted pregnancies and single parenthood among people who can't afford it. Otherwise, we aren't going to make a serious dent in poverty.

And if that makes me some sort of right-winger, so be it. Obviously, there are exceptions, but you can't seriously claim that all children raised in single-parent households are fine. Unless they're economically secure, too many single-parent households are NOT fine.

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. My hat is off to you

My cousin raised 3 kids while her ex quit his job and started his own business, hence avoiding child support. He bought breast implants for his girlfriend, so my cousin took him to court. But the court relied on his tax returns, instead of his credit card statements or his girlfriend's medical bills. And of course, his tax returns made him look very poor.

Then my cousin was offered a new job in another state, but the ex fought her in court and the judge said she couldn't leave the state without ex's permission. She went anyway. By that time, she had lost any faith she may have had in the court system to make sure her kids were cared for financially. In her new state, the laws were very different and they went after the ex for child support and got it. The ex is now putting all 3 kids through college. :)

And her ex didn't have enough money for a good lawyer and wasn't smart enough to get her into trouble for leaving the state with the kids without permission. So it was all good in the end.

[progressivebydesign]

79. Beyond your own story, can you see that it's not always ideal?

In America, two wager earners can barely afford to care for a child, unfortunately. I see that Nordic countries have high unwed parent childbirth rates, but they also have medical care and child care provided by the government.

You were obviously an exlemplary parent, and did a great job with no money and no partner. I wish there were more like you out there, as so many kids are left behind with emotionally and financially overwhelmed single parents. Sadly, statistics show a huge correlation between boys raised without a father figure, and problems in school, and experience in the criminal system.

Ideally, it wouldn't matter if one, two, or even three, people raised children, but the financial reality of our country now, is that it's a stress emotionally and financially to raise a child alone. I'm happy for you that you made it work and your children have been successful. My Mom was left with 3 children and zero emotional or financial support, no work skills, no car, no social or family support. She did a great job, but frankly... we would have all fared much better in life had she had a partner of some sort of help with us. It stretches one person so thin in all ways, that the kids aren't usually better for it.

[sweepster]

40. It does take 2 incomes to raise children

Not in all cases of course. Not everyone is a rich actress or singer. The fact of the matter is there are more Wal Mart jobs being created than higher paying jobs.
I don't see how the average person can raise a child(ren) on todays incomes without gov't assistance

[loyalsister]

28. So, would it be better

if these women married men and had terrible marriages?
Would it be better for these children if they grew up in homes where there were two incomes, but the parents fought all the time and there was abuse?
The reality behind these situations may be that the relationships may not be mature enough for marriage, but the women may be mature enough for parenthood. I have seen this plenty. The stereotypical extrapolations you list disregard potential bumps in the road that are also practical problems.
I think for that reason, it's none of our damn business.

[Hekate]

30. Absolutely. Hallelujah. Unauthorized sex must be punished

The ultra-conservatives are in a tough spot.

On the one hand, abortion is evil and contraception (in their pointy heads) is the same as abortion. So those blastocysts must develop into babies and those babies must be born.

On the other hand, out of wedlock babies are irrefutable evidence of unauthorized sex by women, which is sinful.

What to do, what to do.

They really want to turn back the clock half a century and ensure both social and legal sanctions against unauthorized sex, and they want to define what authorized sex is.

Say, here's a good one: about 1959, when I was in grade school, a family across the street took in a young woman whose boyfriend not only dumped her after impregnating her, it turned out he had already played that game with several other naive girls. She decided her best bet (considering there was no safe legal abortion, and considering she didn't want to give up her firstborn to adoption) was to have the baby where she was, then move back to her home town and tell her family and friends her "husband" had "died." Too bad. When she was handed the birth certificate, it was stamped "Illegitimate."

I still shudder.

Oh yeah, the good old days.

Hekate

[meow2u3]

50. Sexist Fundies: unauthorized FEMALE sex must be punished

Unauthorized male sex must be rewarded with a license for them to use and abuse women at will---goddamn sexist assholes!

STP to fundie hypocrites: Try some consistency--insist that the boys keep it in their pants, too! Or is that against your religion?

[liberalpragmatist]

32. No. I think we need to eliminate unplanned pregnancies as much as possible

Children who are born into economically-depressed circumstances in single-income households and as a result of an unplanned pregnancies are not going to be in a stable environment or get the attention and resources they need.

I don't believe in forcing people into relationships. I just tend to believe that unplanned pregnancies in to low-income, single mothers are not beneficial. We need to work hard to increase access to birth control and reduce unwanted pregnancies so that we don't have children who are unwanted or financially unsustained.

[BlueIris]

35. Free vasectomies for all!

I swear to God, if I see one more poster on this allegedly enlightened site label the responsibility for preventing pregnancy as a woman's alone, I'm going to scream until my head explodes. It's 2005. The idea that the rate of unintended pregnancy would decline if the male portion of sexually active adults finally started pitching in and doing their share is a concept everyone should embrace. Jesus. I thought I was posting with a bunch of grown-ups. Who uses terms like "unwed mother" anymore?

[liberalpragmatist]

36. I never said it was the woman's alone

And I'm sorry if the term "unwed mother" is too politically-charged. I didn't mean it with any kind of disrespect. So "single mothers." Like I said, I have no moral issue with single-motherhood, I just believe that in many cases single mothers in economically-depressed situations are unable to provide a stable home environment for their children.

And nowhere did I say that the responsibility is the woman's alone. I said I want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. That is all I said. By extension, that includes, besides obviously the pill, condom usage. Plus access to emergency contraception and the right-of-choice.

If there's something offensive in that, I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

[loyalsister]

38. As long as you're on this kick

look up Buck vs. Bell and take note that it has never been reversed.

[wordpix2]

44. free vasectomies AND free tube-tying

[Gnostic]

47. What term shall we use then?

OK, fine, let's be all politically correct and all that BS. What shall we call an, ahem, "unwed mother", cough, then? What, in your perspective, is the "enlightened" term for it?

No matter how you may try to spin it, unplanned pregnancies resulting in dysfunctional and drama filled families who split and leave "unwed mothers or fathers" alone to care for children are NOT a good thing, for the people involved and for the rest of us taxpayers who inevitably have to foot the bill for most of it.

And I don't think anyone is saying it's all the female's fault. But she did have to spread her legs to get that way, did she not?

[meow2u3]

51. Forget vasectomies

I'd rather see the guys punished for fathering kids out of wedlock, especially the fundie married men who knock up some teenage girl!

[femrap]

78. Remember when you were a kid and your mom said....

Now if you don't take care of your 'toys,' you won't get anymore of them!

Couldn't we translate that to the adult world? Why should men be encouraged to ejaculate irresponsibly? Our culture thinks it's 'cute' when 'boys will be boys.' I am so sick of that 'excuse.'

Given the overpopulation of our planet....when are we ever going to wake up?

[loyalsister]

37. I don't disagree

My point is that every time people bash single mothers and suggest that it is healthier to be in relationships regardless it legitimizes some of the RW policies such as "encouraging marriage."
Not to mention their family values BS.

[Gnostic]

49. I disagree

I grew up without a dad. My mom raised me alone.

I will forever respect her and love her for the sacrifices she made to keep a roof over our heads so many years.

But I will NOT sit here and say I would'nt have been better off with a more stable homelife that included a dad.

And anybody who says otherwise is fooling themselves because the fact is you missed out on a whole lot too if you lived through it as well, and you're talking out your ass if you did'nt.

I do not think having a single parent is the best thing for a child, though it certainly can work. But the ugly truth is, not only did I not have a dad, I really did'nt have a mom either because she had to work so much to support my sister and I when very young. I don't see it as the healthiest thing for a child.

And if that makes me some sort of quasi-RW'er in your mind, so be it.

[loyalsister]

83. To each his\her own

My growing up experience would have been much better had my abusive alcoholic dad not been a part of our household.
It might have saved my siblings some time in AA, too.

[progressivebydesign]

80. Very pragmatic of you! I agree.. but the righties hate birth control.

I've never understood that.. they fight both birth control and abortion (and even sex education). Seems pretty practical to support birth control and education to avoid unplanned pregnancies.

[liberalpragmatist]

82. Agree completely

I can never understand not supporting birth control. If you're going to prevent unwanted pregnancies - if you're going to want to prevent ABORTIONS - then access to birth control is ESSENTIAL.

[deadparrot]

3. Clinton's fault.

;)

[0007]

7. Bet that ain't true in Utah! LOL!! n/t

[sonicx]

8. Other interesting numbers...

Births to whites declined by nearly 18,000 while Hispanics were up 32,000, there was an increase of more than 8,000 in births to Asians and a rise of just 72 births among black women.

[Lorien]

9. My 36 year old sister fits that profile; just had her second out of

wedlock child (the first she gave up for adoption 18 years ago), AND she's a fundie...don't know how that works. :shrug:

[China_cat]

13. I do.

Fundies aren't perfect...they're just 'forgiven'.

[rodeodance]

22. chuckle. does she know the rules of being a fundie?

[Straight Shooter]

23. Wouldn't 18 years be a milestone in her mind for the child she gave up?

Maybe subconsciously she's trying to correct the mistakes of her past, by keeping this one for the next 18 years. I don't know your sister and don't presume to judge her actions, but the 18 year gap is very telling.

Fundie or not, I wish her the best of luck with that child. Just curious, was the first child a boy and this one a girl? Or were they the same gender?

[Lorien]

24. Didn't think of that, but you may have something there

The milestone didn't strike me until I wrote it down.

Oh, and the children are both boys.

[Straight Shooter]

25. Both boys. Interesting.

Maybe the Universe granted her wish. (Or, in her mind, God answered her prayer.)

Ask her if she feels that's the reason. You may get into a real dialogue that opens up some feelings she's kept suppressed for a long time. Again, best of luck to her.

[HockeyMom]

12. STRAIGHTS killing Marriage, not Gays

First grade class where I used to work in a perfect example. Out of 22 kids, only NINE lived with their biological parents. The majority of parents were DIVORCED and either living alone or remarried. Two kids were living with grandparents. No, their parents weren't dead. They just didn't want to raise them. Yes, Virginia, there were two kids in the class who were also living with their two Mommies too(DIVORCED, not IVF).

No, there weren't any never married mothers in the group. Still, hardly a "model" of what the Fundies are trying to impose either.

[Psephos]

58. Ain't that the truth. n/t

[Up2Late]

14. Another Victory for the * "Abstinence only" plan!

I wonder how they are going to spin this one?

[sonicx]

15. Who knows, but it's funny...

I looked at some more numbers, and it seems the South has the highest out of wedlock birth rate.

Who knew? ;)

[wordpix2]

42. good point

[wordpix2]

43. and don't forget the BushCo policy of not supporting Planned Parenthood

here and overseas

[geniph]

19. Yes, let's make contraceptives harder to obtain!

what a good idea, fundy fruitbats - keep women from obtaining their birth control at pharmacies! Then we can force more births to occur and ignore the plight of even more children born to impoverished teenage mothers!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

20. "Many of the women in that age group are living with partners...

but still count as unmarried mothers if they haven't formally married, Ventura noted."

I wonder what national marriage and divorce stats look like.

[Breeze54]

62. Bible Belt Leads U.S. In Divorces

Bible Belt Leads U.S. In Divorces

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html

Aside from the quickie-divorce Mecca of Nevada,

no region of the United States
has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt.

Nearly half of all marriages break up,
but the divorce rates in these southern states
are roughly 50 percent above the national average.

According to federal figures:

* Nationally, there were about 4.2 divorces
for every thousand people in 1998.

* The rate was 8.5 per thousand in Nevada,
6.4 in Tennessee, 6.1 in Arkansas, 6.0 in Alabama and Oklahoma.

* Of southeastern states, only South Carolina's rate
of 3.8 was below the national average.

* By contrast, the divorce rate is less than 3.0
in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.

Why so many divorces in the Bible Belt?

Experts cite low household incomes
(Oklahoma ranks 46th and Arkansas 47th),
and a tendency for couples to marry at a younger age
than in many other states.

Religion may play a role, since some of the
lowest divorce rates are in northeastern states
with relatively high household incomes and large numbers
of Roman Catholics whose church doesn't recognize divorce.

Bible Belt states, in contrast,
are dominated by fundamentalist Protestant denominations
that proclaim the sanctity of marriage but generally do not
want to estrange churchgoers who do divorce.

No state has been more embarrassed by the divorce problem
than Oklahoma.
Over the past few months, Gov. Frank Keating has enlisted
clergymen, academics, lawyers and psychologists in a campaign
to reduce the divorce rate by a third within 10 years.
In neighboring Arkansas,
state officials hope to halve the divorce rate by 2010.

Source: David Crary,
"Bible Belt Leads U.S. in Divorces,"
Associated Press, November 12, 1999.

For more on Divorce http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/social2.html

:wtf:
Bible Belt has the HIGHEST divorce rates?

:rofl:

[DemoTex]

26. A dear un-married friend of ours wanted a kid in the early 90s.

She asked us (Dr. D and me) for help. She was, BTW, desperate. She had been jilted by a long-time boyfriend (a total asshole) and her bio-clock was ticking. She proposed insemination in the normal way, with me. Uh ... not no, but hell no! Then she suggested artificial insemination with me as a donor. Since Dr. D and I had been unable to have kids due to some of her problems (which was fine with both of us), we again said NO. Friend then adopted a Chinese baby girl who is absolutely wonderful. And smart as a whip. Thank goodness for that option. She got her child, and we stayed good friends.

Mac

[bleedingheart]

27. how on earth are the homosexuals doing this....????

:sarcasm:

they are just breaking up our way of life....

:sarcasm:

[radwriter0555]

31. A piece of paper signifying committment doesn't make someone into a good

parent, it takes good parents who care and love.

They don't have to be married or even live together in order to be good parents and raise their kid well.

It's all about love, security and stability. The conservative rules about raising children haven't worked out very well, apparently, so it seems that women are doing what's best for their families in spite of archaic, rigid ideals.

And, fortunately, women no longer need to be dependent on men for income. We can do just fine on our own, even if the standards of pay are a bit lower due to mysogeny, we still manage.

It's not a woman's fault if a man chooses to withhold any financial or emotional support from his child.

[Porcupine]

34. So all straight men are evil then? Nasty sperm donors?

I would note that marraige vows are as frequently broken by women as by men. I would also note that there are large numbers of men (like myself) who PAY CHILD SUPPORT but are not counted as equal parents by the courts.

So why the hell should women bother getting married? If they stay single they can get health care, child care, emotional support, validation and they can even have a guy around to boink and cuddle.

The best part is that they can either dun the biological father for child support or if some other guy steps up to the bat and marries them they can zap him if that marraige doesn't work out.

All the benefits, none of the hassles.

I guess marraige must be for gay people only. I wouldn't advise a straight guy to go through with it. I did the sensitive new age guy, mr. mom thing; got burned. Don't advise it at all.

When democrats start supporting working fathers with the zeal they support gay marriage and welfare moms they can start winning elections with real margins. Not till then.

(A single non-custodial dad who supports gay marraige and fully funded child care and health care)

[radwriter0555]

39. Well said. I was a single sole custody mom who never saw a single dime of

well over $50,000 in child support in these past 12 years.

Lemme tell you about those wonderful men who you think the democrats should start worry about;

96% of the people in jail are men.

In the USA 1 in 4 children are molested. 98% of the time, males are the molestors, most often, the father or the stepfather or the boyfriend. Make sure you know that those men didn't accidentally molest those kids. They sought out those vulnerable families specifically to molest those children. It was no accident.

Add that to

70% of the people on welfare are kids.

The average age of people on welfare is 9.

Most women on welfare have left an abusive relationship.

When those dads start stepping up to the plate and being proper dads, parents and fathers and husbands, I'll start respecting their perceived rights a little more, and maybe then the democrats will start regarding their concerns a bit more. As it stands, those welfare moms need a lot more support since they're the ones actually raising the kids. As it stands, the courts are pretty clear on who the best parties are to raise these kids, thank goodness.

Until then, we women will remain in control of child rearing and deciding whether or not marriage is a viable option. It would appear far easier to raise a kid without the benefit of marriage since dissolving a legal entanglement is very costly, especially when it comes to custodial issues.

And I don't mean to come across as angry and bitter. I love men! I married a pretty groovy one recently, for the first time at age 45. I just happen to be very blunt and outspoken on these specific issues. There is no sense putting a sugar coating on reality.

I make a very good living now, but in my daughter's first couple of years, we really, really struggled. I sure could have used a break.

Dads get to walk away and can always come up with SOME excuse about why they've abandoned their kids to welfare or whine, whine, whine about paying that $60 a week to their first family while happily married and breeding up the second family.

Women don't get the privilege of those excuses, we just get the bills.

[HockeyMom]

63. Two heterosexual, biological, married, people don't necessarily equal

"best" home for kids. Neither does staying together for the sake of the children. I LIVED that life. I used to PRAY my parents would divorce so I would have PEACE. By the time I was in my 20s and they were married 30 years, they had stopped talking to each other.

My Dad apologized to me on his deathbed for making my childhood so miserable. My Mom didn't even go to see him in death. BUT they stayed together in TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. What a crock. SPARE THE CHILDREN these kinds of marriages. Been there, done that.

[lovuian]

33. Its the only way women get health Insurance for the babies!!!

:bounce:

[wordpix2]

41. very sad statistic---a woman's way out of growing up is to

have a baby herself. She thinks this is better than improving herself, getting educated or discovering who she is. Women, grow up before you have a child, either in or out of wedlock!

[bloom]

71. It said the majority

were between 25 and 29.

How grown up do they have to be according to you?

[Gnostic]

45. Under the Clinton Admin

abortion rates actually fell every year despite the fact the admin was pro-choice. Now, not only have they gone back up under the anti-abortion Bush admin and congress, but now this saddening statistic as well.

Coincidence?

[wordpix2]

46. not coincidence

Most women will make good choices if they are presented clearly without the screaming rhetoric of the BushCo fundie hords. Planned Parenthood does a good job of that and Clinton and Dems supported the effort around the world but BushCo has cut back funding.

IDIOTS!!! Just another reason for hating this Chimp-run admin.

[newspeak]

52. i remember in my environmental science class

in 1987 discussing population control. We read essays from individual's like G. Gordon Liddy and Buckley. If you read these early essays, the reason their against abortion was not pro-life, but pro-white. Their argument was that whites would be a minority race-arguments against birth control was the perpetuation of the "white" race, not the "life" issue. And as my professor stated, once these neocons outlaw abortion, contraceptives will be next.

[Psephos]

56. Life is better for the kid when there's a dad as well as a mom

Better for the mom, too.

Maybe not in every case, but all other things being equal, two parents equals twice the parenting resources available. Twice the love, I might add.

Peace.

[Ellen Forradalom]

65. Truism du jour

Easily uttered, widely believed, perhaps true in general; but when applied to the individual case, can be inadvertently oppressive.

[Psephos]

84. Thank you. Laughter really is the best medicine. :-)

The unintentional irony of your formulaic response and one-size-fits-all opressionpolitik tickled me right where I itch. Is there anything quite as delicious as hypocrisy? Better than peanut butter on toast.

"This statement is generally true, except when it's not, in which case it can cause problems." (Said with a pedantic air, of course.)

;-)



Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
- George Orwell

[Nikia]

60. This is the real reason that we should be concerned

http://www.a-team.org/stats.html
Yes, there are some children who live with their married parents who do get abused. Children born to parents who are not married and do marry shortly after birth are more likely to get abused though. Personally, I would not have a child with a man who I didn't plan to stay married to unless I thought that I could handle raising a child by myself and was willing to remain single for the duration of the child's childhood. I say this as someone who was abused by an evil stepfather who treated my sister and I much different than his biological child. I have seen it with friends also. The statistics show this is true.

[Tatiana]

69. Looks like promotion of abstinence is a rousing success!

Or not.... :eyes:

[wildwww2]

70. The fundies need to mind the own freaking business I think.

But of course that would be like what Jesus wanted. To let just God be the judge of people. And not fundamentalist wackos who twist Jesus`s words to their own sick,hypocritical,selfish wants.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[dsc]

72. Ironically the fundies have themselves to blame here

By fighting gay marriage so hard they have encouraged companies and many governments to stop giving marriage preference that it had once enjoyed. Coupled with the economic policies that pretty much require all adults in a household to work anyhow where is the incentive to marry for many people? Isn't it ironic that by trying to keep marriage pure they have helped bring about its demise?