Unwed birth rate reaches all-time high in U.S.

[China]

Unwed birth rate reaches all-time high in U.S. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29754561/)

Report: Record number of babies born in 2007; 40 percent to single moms

ATLANTA - More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation’s history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday.

There is both good and bad news from the more than 4.3 million births:

The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend.
However, the teen birth rate was up for the second year in a row.

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women — especially those in their 30s and 40s — are choosing to have children despite their single status.

The new numbers indicate the nation is experiencing a baby boomlet with fertility rates higher in every racial group. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. The highest fertility rates were among Hispanics.

Click on the link for the full article

[skinsfan_1215]

Probably bc weddings are so ****ing expensive.

[greenspandan]

i blame candice bergen!

[Corcaigh]

Probably bc weddings are so ****ing expensive.

And the marriage tax penalty. While it's been reduced it still exists dependent on tax bracket.

[greenspandan]

And the marriage tax penalty. While it's been reduced it still exists dependent on tax bracket.

right, women are having children out of wedlock on the advice of their accountants.

[bcl05]

Thanks Bristol!

[PokerPacker]

perhaps less people are getting officially married?

[twa]

I blame the minorities....and the white women:saber:































Hey,not like we got a say in it.;)

[ljs]

The wedding part doesn't bother me.

Issue is this...who the **** is paying for it? I bet most of those women are on welfare, and problaby the "baby daddy" isn't around, or not paying for the kid.

THAT is the part I get mad about. Screw all day long for all I care, have kids. But you better damn well be able to pay for them and not expect my tax dollars to.

[twa]

Eh, the way the do child support now, what difference does marriage make?

get out of alimony maybe.

[mardi gras skin]

Our industrialized society has done any favors to the evolution of the household unit. The nuclear family has been a poor substitute for the multigenerational household and the tight integration of neighbors and neighborhoods. But this current trend is even worse.

Somehow, new household units are going to have to organize...or are they already organizing? The task of raising children requires it.

[Koolblue13]

Probably bc weddings are so ****ing expensive.
and ****in is so damn fun.:D

[Larry]

And the marriage tax penalty. While it's been reduced it still exists dependent on tax bracket.

Yep. I bet that 40% of all births in the US are to people who'd rather have their children born to unmarried parents than pay slightly higher income taxes.

[Larry]

This thread makes me think of the trend towards "abstinance only" education.

Not in the sense of "It's all because of those abstinance only people making kids get pregnant". (I suspect there might be a correlation, but I'm not trying to start a "Let's blame Party X" thread.)

No, what I'm wondering is, in the typical "abstinance only" sex ed class, when the teacher is preaching the virtues of saving yourself for marriage, what percentage of the students aren't living with their married, biological parents, right now?

Does a large number of students not living with married parents make it correspondingly difficult for a grownup to lecture the kids on the evils of sex outside marriage?

[Corcaigh]

Yep. I bet that 40% of all births in the US are to people who'd rather have their children born to unmarried parents than pay slightly higher income taxes.

If they see no merit in marriage, why pay more tax?

There's a generation of wealthy professional couples not much younger than you who see no stigma in having kids out of wedlock.

[Painkiller]

I blame Mark Brunell.

[GibbsFactor]

This thread makes me think of the trend towards "abstinance only" education.

Not in the sense of "It's all because of those abstinance only people making kids get pregnant". (I suspect there might be a correlation, but I'm not trying to start a "Let's blame Party X" thread.)

No, what I'm wondering is, in the typical "abstinance only" sex ed class, when the teacher is preaching the virtues of saving yourself for marriage, what percentage of the students aren't living with their married, biological parents, right now?

Does a large number of students not living with married parents make it correspondingly difficult for a grownup to lecture the kids on the evils of sex outside marriage?

I think this is a good point. Kids are being raised by split parents.