Skip to comments.U.S. births broke record in 2007; 40% were out of wedlock
Posted on 03/18/2009 10:58:18 AM PDT by truthandlife
More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nations history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported today.
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, its become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke Universitys S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Statistically speaking, they most likely will.
BO’s the one that said that if they make a “mistake” he doesn’t want them punished with a baby....
...and 75% of the unwed births to women 20 years or older! I guess the “wait until marriage” approach doesn’t work as well with that group.
A lot of C-sections, too - as many as a third of all live births. Fear of lawsuits? Mother’s choice? No reasons given, unfortunately.
At least the number of abortions is dropping.
Plus they're being raised by their Ghetto grandmother while they're mother is out making speeches so that doesn't help.
Having children out of wedlock is ENCOURAGED by leftists and their policies.
The intent is the devaluing and destruction of the traditional family.
Oh, and those 40% born to “single mothers”?
They’ll be criminals. And they will commit crimes against YOU and your family.
Not very charitable of you.
I hope the get married to real men and grow up conservative.
How so, contraception is more prevalent than ever?
Correct, before my wife and I got married, I was counseled by a leftist not to get married because of the marriage tax. Both of us were head of housholds, so getting married hit us heavily in the pocketbook. We believed God would honor the obedience of getting married and so right we were.
In September we were able to do the Dave Ramsey "Debt Free" scream with "Status Symbol of Choice" - the paid off home mortgage. The leftist had also opposed paying off the house and has said they were wrong on this (a rare thing), but still thinks living in sin would have been better.
In fact this leftist did the same with my daughter and her Husband. And I am glad to say they are happy not to taken that advice.
Don't Pay the "Stupid Tax", don't listen to the Liberals.
What a great freedom for aldults around the Country! Children be damned!
That’s not really a very nice thing to say. I hope Sasha and Malia grow, get married and have large, happy families...with CONSERVATIVE husbands.
Could you imagine what that would do to Michelle? :)
Wouldn’t it be great if they both turned out to be sort of like reverse Ron Reagans?
Disintegration of the family, as men are able to have “their pleasure,” with no further responsibility. Uncle Samuel now pays for all. Who needs a father. Except, who is going to teach young men to act in a civilized manner?
“Now I think it’s President Obama and his minions who obviously made a very conscious decision to suppress the numbers on out of wedlock births by race of birth mother.”
One very easy way to verify your suspicion is to compare this version of the report with others issued in the past decade. Have you done this, maybe googled it? It would be good to know.
Thanks for your link to the original report btw.
That could be the result of sterility from sexually transmitted diseases and/or the spread of homosexuality.
Only 30% of out-of-wedlock sons end up in prison.
The original articles cites no explanation:
“Meanwhile, U.S. abortions have been dropping to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions. Cultural attitudes may be a more likely explanation.”
How would homosexuality result in fewer abortions, though? Theoretically, there would be fewer births, not fewer abortions.
Why? Have they don't anything to hurt you? Yeah, I know leftists go after Sarah Palin's kids and so on but that's what makes them look like the crass lunatics that they are.
Wrong + Wrong <> Right
O’Reilly used to say there was a sure fire way to make certain that you would be poor. Be a teen and have a kid out of wedlock. Poverty follows in most cases like night follows day.
Dude playing fair is going to get us nowhere. It's like when MLK Jr did the non-violence thing. Ok, pretty effective. Good job. But that's only because his enemies were his enemies.
What if MLK Jr did the non-violence thing against Hitler? Suddenly non-violence thing would look pretty stupid as they threw him in the oven or the gas chamber or maybe just shot him in the head.
Or what if MLK Jr did the non-violence thing against Stalin. Oops that didn't go very well...
Just saying the being reasonable and playing fair would've worked 20 years ago-- but against these DailyKos, HuffPo smear machine-- we have no chance playing fair. Look what they did to Palin. They'll do it to every conservative. Sorry rant over.
God’s moral laws and the consequences of breaking them are as immutable as His physical laws.
I said that the other night and had a lib FREAK OUT on me.
Truth does that.
“A lot of C-sections, too - as many as a third of all live births. Fear of lawsuits? Mothers choice? No reasons given, unfortunately”
This is the real answer.
Childbirth loosens the vagina dramatically. Kegel exercises can help tighten the vagina, but a return to it’s former glory would require a Vaginaplasty.
Optional C’s are covered by most insurance plans. V-plasty’s are not.
It's not an issue of being fair so much as an issue of not crawling in the mud so you look like just as much of a piece of slime as your opponents. That they'll do anything to win is what makes lefts so slimy and dangerous. If you want to attack Obama, attack Obama. There is plenty there without going after his wife or kids.
The only reason why the left gets away with things like sliming Sarah Palin (and I'm not convinced it was all that successful or will be in the long run) is that the mainstream media covers for them. They don't cover for us. They do the opposite and highlight our embarassments. It's not a level playing field and it is a double standard. But we don't do ourselves any favors by playing into left-wing stereotypes.
Yes, it can feel mighty good to blow off steam and blast away at leftists but that's not going to convince the people who have been convinced that they're wrong and we're right. What's going to get them to listen is conservatives not being anything like the worst stereotypes that liberals have of conservatives because once people realize the stereotypes are wrong, they listen. That's because the leftist steroetypes of conservatives are designed to convince people not to listent (just like their strategy on global warming and so on).
Malthusian fear of overpopulation: Malthus saw two ways to keep population down, "positive" and "preventive" checks. Positive checks were nasty: famine, plague and warfare.
Preventive checks included voluntary actions reasonable people could take. Malthus (a clergyman) identified two types of voluntary action, the moral one of deferring marriage, and a variety of "vices" or immoral steps that included birth control, abortion, infanticide, adultery, prostitution and homosexuality.
The overpopulation elite - Rockefeller, Planned Parenthood and all those types push homosexuality in the schools for a reason. Our very existence offends and frightens them.
Conservatives are fighting really evil people who have plans for us.
I guess she can live in the White House and teach the kids about oppression.
Okay ...but if an elite is attempting to keep population in check, then that would result in MORE abortions, according to your argument. But the statistics show fewer abortions, which results in more live births.
How does homosexuality result in fewer abortions? That was your original position.
By “real answer”, do you mean your belief? Are there any statistics showing that c-sections are primarily the result of mother’s choice, as opposed to doctors’ attempting to avoid potential lawsuits, or mothers’ increasing age?
Homosexuals don’t make babies that need to be aborted. That’s why the overpopulation elites push homosexuality and abortion and the rest. They are all ways to promote non-life.
If the elites can’t get you to abort your babies, they can at least try to make your babies homosexual so you won’t have any grandchildren. If you do manage to get some grandchildren, the elites would like to have them aborted...
Yes. I understand your argument.
You still haven’t explained how the encouragement of homosexuality would result in a lower abortion rate. The article states that there are more live births, in part because fewer women are choosing to have abortions.
I guess I can’t see why someone pushing a “homosexual agenda” would help depress abortion levels, thus resulting in more pregnancies being brought to term. You say yourself that the elites want more homosexuality and MORE abortions, not fewer.
What we actually have is fewer. So the plan of the elites that you argue exits is failing.
Those are anchor babies.
If there are more homosexuals, there are less babies, less abortions.
(Don't forget the sterility from sexually transmitted diseases - less babies, less abortions.)
The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend.
It’s not healthy when the people having kids are morons. I’d rather see the birth rate stagnant or be reversed, but have married women who are not too young giving birth. It’s this celebrity-obsessed culture we live in. I despise these people.......