Family – Births to unmarried women, and births by C-section, hit record highs in 2005, according to the CDC's annual "vital statistics" report.
Great, more and more uneeded people. How selfish are people that they see meeting their desire to have a baby is more important than providing for those already here? There's something very wrong with us, that we celebrate conception and birth while we ignore the devastation that an ever increasing human population causes.
Boy, you are a really horrible person. Suicide? You should hide your darker side from public view though.
I already have not created another person. The best thing about birth control is that all ones has to do is NOT create a person who already doesn't exist! It's that easy. that way, resources can be expended on people that do exist and we can provide more for our nonhuman brethren.
Selfish AND greedy... you get more money from the Government to take care of the kids... and then the woman doesn't have to work. Just stay home, poppin' em out. A burden for the rest of us.
This isn't about religion, this is about common sense, decent morality - providing for and taking care of what YOU create!! i.e., for your own children. Everyone else has to pick up the slack for these greedy people. We all pay for it, one way or another.
That may be the single most ridiculous statement ever posted on netscape. Maybe this really is nutscape. What are you gonna do with all the kids whose parents arent worth ****** who dont want to pay and or take the time out from their meth habit to take their children to and from school?
To even suggest that there is one single person on earth who went through 9 months of pregnancy and pain and financial hardship to get a $1500 tax credit shows what kind of intelligence levels you have.
This sounds like someone without kids. Because if you did you'd laugh at your comment. Where do you think a write off of $2,000 for the year even remotley covers raising a child - hell that wouldn't pay for 6 months of diapers !
Anyone who wants kids doesn't have them because of any 'write-offs'...I'll give you a simple clue. Your bills are $5000 per month and the Govt. will give you 100 for the year to cover this cost....That would equal getting this hugh 'write-off' !
elfish AND greedy... you get more money from the Government to take care of the kids... and then the woman doesn't have to work. Just stay home, poppin' em out. A burden for the rest of us.>>>>
What a judgmental & arrogant little thing you are. I raised two children alone, and burdened society with nothing. Matter of fact, I'd venture that I've paid more in federal taxes than most. So get off your high horse. You know nothing about single mom's overall, or what their 'contributions' are or aren't.
Growing social dichotomy. Religious conservatism getting stricter each day at battle with liberal social norms getting looser each day. It would be nice if there was abstinence before marriage like decades ago just so unmarried females wouldn't end up pregnant & with her man running away from her, but that's all in the past. We can't go back to the so-called cushy comfy 'innocent' 1950s anymore (that had unsafe back-alley taboo abortion procedures either). The fact: there will always be people that have sex outside marriage regardless of religious teachings or any laws legalized by religious lawmakers. Religious people have the freedom NOT to have sex outside marriage; no liberal is going to make religious people change their own point of view. Why must liberals then change for religious people? It only makes sense to keep birth control readily available for liberals & let religious people practice their own abstinence for themselves. Then everybody gets what they want.
Forget the religious or even moralistic views here. The worst part about this is the fact that these children do not have a father. Fact is children with a father in thier lives are more likely to do better in life, not to say this is true in all situations but in most. These kids are the ones suffering for the parents not wanting to be held down.
In a perfect world, you may be right, but...
Seven months into my pregnancy, my husband (now ex) became physically abusive--as in holding a gun to my head, choking me, etc. (I guess he assumed I was too pregnant to run away!) I've never regretted removing my son from an environment in which violent behavior would have been modeled.
"his physical strengths were not leveraged for the protection of the family."
You can say that again! By the time I left, he bore no resemblance to the man I married, and I never did figure out why he flipped out so suddenly. But I was told that, about 2 years after I fled, he got into hard drugs, robbed a quick shop, brandished a weapon at a police officer, and wound up doing time.
Like I said, there are some situations in which a child is better off with only one parent.
http://www.answers.com/father&r=67
Not one of these definitions says anything about having to be married to be a father. Marriage is a religious institution and while I chose to marry due to my religious beliefs I dont see it as being even close to neccesary to raise a child. My first child was born out of wedlock, I dont have an std and my child sees me everyday. Of course, there are religious nutcases on both sides of my family who wont even say hello to me or my children due to what they have been brainwashed to believe.
I believe itsme2 has misunderstood what an unwed birth is. It doesnt mean that the children have no father, which would be impossible. It means that the parents werent married when the child was born.
Religion may dictate the behavioral standards of its members. It may preach those standards to others. What it may not do is regulate the behavior of those outside their particular organization. If you study history you will discover that children of married couples were without fathers present for most of their lives. Sea captains, soldiers, salesmen, ranchers, etc. etc. etc. All men whose jobs kept them away for months or years at a time. Amazingly, we look back on those folks as paragons of morality. How did they get that way without fathers? Is a puzzlement. My father was away in WWII until I was 3. Many mothers were widowed, and remained unmarried for years while they raised their children. The "Leave It To Beaver" family is fiction, folks. Get real and look at the world as it is and has been, not through the eyes of Ladies Home Journal.
if you read closely the majority of unmarried women giving births are bt the ages of 15 and 19. Is the 19 yr-old-boy (father)--or maybe younger-- going to show any type of responsibilities for this unwanted baby?
why is 15-yr-old kid having sex anyways??are not they supposed to be playing computer games or sports?
i wish they teach the girls and the boys to wait untill they are mature enough in case something like that happens. maybe they do but the kids are tooo horny to listen
I work in a teen health clinic and I see children from 14 and up having babies. There are all kinds of reasons that these kids are having sex. I believe the number one reason girls have sexual intercourse with boys at an early age has to do with poor self esteem. They are coerced into sex because they believe "he won't love me if I don't have sex with him." They come from households where their own self esteem isn't nurtured by parents. All they are looking for is love. And once they get pregnant they think if they keep the baby, they'll manage to keep the boy too. Of course, the majority of the time this doesn't happen.
Horny? Most young girls have no idea what an orgasm is, what sexual pleasure and would give you a blank look if you mentioned foreplay. How do we teach these children to wait? What we need to teach them is self worth and that you don't need to do something if you don't want to.
I stand by my first post, and to Jordan11, I wasn't referring TO YOU. YOU are responsible evidently, and proud of it... I'm talking about the people that keep making babies together & choose NOT to get married, because they will lose their social security & welfare benefits!! I know of one such case by the way, and these folks are WHITE. There not meth addicts, as far as I know anyway, they are just taking all they can get from the US Government... This isn't about race, its about taking responsibility.
Children certainly benefit from having a relationship with both parents as long as there is no abuse or neglect. It is important to have a female and male role model. Sometimes circumstances arise which result in a one parent home. This will always be the case to some degree.
None of that bothers me much. What bothers me is spending my hard-earned money to support other peoples children. Bottom line is YOUR kids are YOUR responsibility. It's not my job to pay for them. If you can't afford them, don't have them.
For sure the gov't is enabling them. I think all welfare recipients should do some community work then they would think a million time b4 submitting their application and they would be creative trust me.
at least, they can clean the snow for us. we pay them salary. we work hard for our money so should them!!!
I've got a story to share. One day I was working at pharmacy-in dispensary area- a woman is on welfare she wants 6 month supply of her medication because she is going on vacation. I told her no you can only have enough for one month. She started screaming and cursing us and many stories like that. I am working 40 hours a week to send her on vacation. I can't afford 6 month-vacations myself. There is something wrong with the system.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
lopater
hanami
gigma
lejung
yayaying
wenly
moddang
razorlight
DianeSBlack
IdaTRange
roughtouch
JohnCKent
storycreator
Shankari25
Leannder
Alexey
ishmuga
Watchemoket
nostalgia
froggy72
ScottMiller
AMDeitzler
hoylelisa
Aidenag
fmnews
eryos30
Wil
Patience
lovelytxwoman
Tide1992
PoohandPIglet
mwar55
Jeni R
RASSRASS
rweste65
EmpressNika
Helixbuilder
ethelaris66
pagey
sue2008
TechnologyExpert
gatitabonitasen
Varadinum
idyll
corey.spring
starshinediva
KeithMcDuffee
94)
"...record-high birth rate for unmarried women: in 2005, 47.6 births per 1,000 women."
I'm surprised it's this high since the Religious Sickos in the U.S.A. punish this behavior so severely.
The fact that the Gummint even reports such a thing as "birth rates for unmarried women" illustrates how insidiously Religion has jammed its nose into every facet of our lives.
Boy, this post of yours was worth posting wasn't it? You just had to "turrets" something in retaliation didn't you?
The media is rife with celegratory stories about births every day, with nothing about the evil of adding to human overpopulation. So, where is this punishment?
Also, the religious right is constantly blasting immoral behavior, including unwed sex, which is one of the reasons they don't want kids to get the new vaccination against cervical cancer - because it would imply that they should have sex! So, don't vaccinate your kid against a cause of cancer so that they develop cancer if they are so immoral that they have sex.
It would be interesting to see how this slices through America. The religious right likes to make kids take a celibacy pledge which then leads to a higher transmission of STDs and unintended pregnancy because when those that took the pledge break it they don't use protection at the same rate as those who never took the pledge.
There is no such thing as overpopulation.
Check your statistics. Birth rates in the industrialized nations are down over the past decade, below the level of replacement.
U.S. population increases because of immigration.
Look it up.
There never was such a thing as overpopulation, only the "word" of fear-mongers.
The world has over 6 billion people and the earth's systems are strained to breaking, so yes there is such a thing as overpopulation. We aren't talking about just one country, we are talking about the planet. Besides, a declining population may still be too many until a sustainable level is reached. There aren't enough global resources for all people to live at the poverty level in the U.S. and allow wildlife to survive.
The only ones who don't think that there can ever be enough people are either religious zealots who think that the earth was designed to support any number of people or delusional people who think that technology will always solve any given problem.
No, there aren't the resouces to support all the people now at the U.S. poverty level and technology will not be able to resolve those issues.
Many Christians, but not all, are anti-environmentalism for the reason that they believe god created a perfect earth and there is no way we could overuse it.
Immorality is a joke because for the most part it is based purely on a person's religious beliefs and nothing else. Using the bible it can be argued that slavery is moral as is murder. All one has to do is act in agreement with a capricious religious belief and one is moral even if that action harms another. There is a higher morality but it doesn't come from any religion.
First the world is bigger than just Europe. Move to Haiti and see just how well an overpopulated place supports the people that live there.
Second, people that hate the idea of the greater responsibility that is environmentalism don't need a specific verse, but the fact that in Genesis god is quoted as saying that we have dominion is enough. I would say that there are Christains and Jews who don't go along with the beliefs of say Dominionist Christians.
Slavery is a binding contract? Equating slavery with unions? You are simply an ideologue. Everything must fit within your simplistic "greed is good" view of the world, doesn't it?
As for the biblical stand on murder, the righteous can murder the unrighteous. Stoning an adultress for example.
thank for share
It is the people of faith on the right that use government to control behavior that is simply considered immoral but not harmful. It is the people of faith on the right that provides only a partial story, such as in not providing sex education thus leading to unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
Mandatory? Polio vaccines were mandatory, so why not ensure that our females children are protected? The only reason is that the religious right doesn't like the idea of protecting a person from the punishment of immoral behavior. So, refuse to protect your daughter so that she has a greater probability of suffering from cervical cancer because you don't want her to feel she can have sex without that threat. This is the sign of a sick person.
Immoral: Not worshipping the lord. Harmful: Nope.
Look at who fights sex education and you cannot deny that it is the religious right. The only thing that STDs serve the religious right is fear.
Also the infant mortality rate in the US is based mostly on the infant mortality of illegal aliens
Yep, so between the "enviro-wackos" and the Religious Do-gooders problems have been created where there were none before.
Yes, people conceiving children before we take care of people who already exist is negative behavior. Satisfying one's desires before taking care of another's needs is selfish.
DavidHalko. You seem to have confused my comment with something going around in your mind having very little to do with my comment.
AND YET, you got two pluse marks! I guess you just write some Christianie stuff and the plus marks flow in automatically.
The record-high number of unwed mothers is a direct result of the failure of the abstinence movement, and its staunch opposition to Birth control, including condoms. Teens who take abstinence ed are far less likely to use birth control.
Therefore, abstinence-only ed greatly increases the number of unwed mothers.
This statistic is kept because it is scientifically significant not because of any religious imperative. People on the left use this statistic to promote the need for social programs that help single mothers. The religious right uses it to track the decline of morals in this country.
I don't think that any responsible person is going to suggest that children are better off in single parent families. Some fathers are worthless. Some mothers are worthless. Sometimes neither parent is worth much, but these instances are the exception and not the rule.
By and large the best environment for child development is to have two parents who can provide an environment that will allow them to develop into people who can someday pursue their own dreams.
I am sorry that you have an ax to grind with religion.
Decline of morals? Whose morality? Yours? Those of another's sect or religion? Morality is as capricious an idea as you can get. Using the bible you can claim that slavery is moral so long as the rules set forth in the bible are follwed. You can claim that murder is righteous so long as the one being killed is unrighteous.
Don't give me that "moral" argument. There is a higher morality but it isn't found from mere belief systems.
He did: "The religious right uses it to track the decline of morals in this country."
Religions are merely belief systems. People can create a religion based simply on their personal beliefs and their interpretation of existing texts/oral traditions. I am not claiming that there are not good religious people only that a religious person is not necessarily good.
David,
Thanks for your rationality. My point was in the statements regarding the right and left was not to endorse or demean either point of view, but rather to show how different sides use the same statistic to advocate completely different agendas.
I hope that Jeff is able to let go of the hatefulness that he clearly feels toward religious people so that he can listen to them on the off chance that they say something that he might feel is meaningful.
Man what a riot!! It's like watching a boxing match between Halko and Jeffery. A point for Halko, and Jeffery socks him right back!! Feel rather passionately about this, hmmmm......
Ding, end of round 1.
And the only thing I got from the article is that maybe more people are tired of marriages not lasting or women are tired of waiting for Mr. Right to come along and are having children without getting married. I know I have considered it. True, it may be ideal to have a father around, but it's not actually necessary anymore. It appears there are only 3 categories of men anymore: gay, diseased or married.
Of course the unmarried birth rate is high. Cut off welfare, ADC and all that BS and it will plummet.