40% of babies born to unmarried women !!!

[severus68]

It is the live birth to “single” mothers rate. It does not take into account common law relationships where there is no common law marriage. I am not sure about the seperated women who have a child with a man other then their husband. The rate is pretty much the same in any country where the father/brother does not kill the single mother out of their sense of honor. In the Philippines for example the rate is 38% as of 2008.

Really? I find that incredible. You mean every year, in Japan, Malta, Madagascar, Indonesia, Japan, Australia, Singapore, Germany, Luxembourg etc, that statistic stands?

 

[JimG]

---

The men themselves – taking responsibility-- and not using women as scapegoats.

Of course. Still, a woman often acts as the conscience of a man. Unfair, surely. And in a good marriage, the spouses can act to reinforce the good in the other.

But fot the unmarried? Well, contraception gave men a great out. Now, there’s no reason for women to say ‘no,’ because she’s got the pill, he’s got the condom, abortion is available. No worries, right? But the consequences were disastrous. (See “Adam and Eve After the Pill” for a rundown of the results.)

I grew up at the wrong time. Back when I was in high school, all the guys were trying to get sex and all the girls were saying ‘no,’ and there were a few shotgun weddings (which ended up lasting for life) but there was no 40% out of wedlock pregnancy rate.

OK, so it was unfair that women had to be the gatekeepers. They gave up the job. And have the results been good?

 

[Walking_Home]

Of course. Still, a woman often acts as the conscience of a man. Unfair, surely. And in a good marriage, the spouses can act to reinforce the good in the other.

But fot the unmarried? Well, contraception gave men a great out. Now, there’s no reason for women to say ‘no,’ because she’s got the pill, I’ve got the condom, abortion is available. No worries, right? But the consequences were disastrous. (See “Adam and Eve After the Pill” for a rundown of the results.)

I grew up at the wrong time. Back when I was in high school, all the guys were trying to get sex and all the girls were saying ‘no,’ and there were a few shotgun weddings (which ended up lasting for life) but there was no 40% out of wedlock pregnancy rate.

OK, so it was unfair that women had to be the gatekeepers. They gave up the job. And have the results been good?

---

The results would be better – if men keep it zipped up in their pants.

 

[Cider]

At least they are giving birth and not aborting their children.

 

[JimG]

---

The results would be better – if men keep it zipped up in their pants.

Yes, so the men should say no. Then the women wouldn’t have to. But…contraception left men with less risk than women.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

The results would be better – if men keep it zipped up in their pants.

Yes, so the men should say no. Then the women wouldn’t have to. But…contraception left men with less risk than women.

---

There would a lot less risk – if men kept it zipped up.

 

[severus68]

At least they are giving birth and not aborting their children.

Yes.

 

[severus68]

---

There is a way – for I have seen boys and girls from single mothers – grow up to be responsible men and women. Of course – I believe in this situations – no one went around telling them that their lack of father set them up on the road to failure.

I think some subconsciously want them to fail, helps to keep their stats up.

 

[severus68]

Here are the ideas I see you promoting:

Children born to unmarried women are punishments and not blessings.

People who sin should not receive charity regardless of their level of need.

Neither of these ideas square with Catholic teaching in the slightest. I sincerely hope that there is a misunderstanding on my part and that you will be able to clarify further.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Unfortunately, there are a few with that same attitude.

 

[KayDeeNici]

So, forgive me for butting in, but I saw something mentioned earlier that has me a bit perplexed. I get the pro life argument against abortion, and I am seeing that many people are advocating that the child of the single mother should be put up for adoption. But what about the husband that skips town right before or right after the baby is born (and I have seen mother’s skip shortly after birth as well, so it’s not limited to men)? Or who dies unexpectedly? Or the mother who dies as a result of something unexpected (amniotic embolism) during childbirth? Why is there so much emphasis on the unmarried single mother when unexpected circumstances can make anyone a single parent? Why is the single unmarried women pushed to choose adoption, when I see none of these other populations targeted to “do the right thing” so the child grows up in a two parent household. I honestly have a hard time with this question, and have never had it answered to me satisfaction.

 

[PRmerger]

But what about the husband that skips town right before or right after the baby is born (and I have seen mother’s skip shortly after birth as well, so it’s not limited to men)?

Not sure how this applies, as the statistic relates to unmarried folks. So there is no such thing as a “husband” in this statistic.

 

[severus68]

The birth rate among unmarried women concerns me far less than the abortion rate among married women.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, married women account for 18.4% of all abortions. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion. Six in ten women having abortions already have another child. An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

About 75% of women obtaining abortions describe themselves as religiously affiliated; the rate of abortion among women who self-identify as Catholics is essentially the same as the general population. According to the CDC, in the United States the abortion ratio was 234 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2008. Yes…it has essentially gotten to the point that for every four children you see, another child was not allowed to live. Think about that before you decide how you’re going to talk about the women and the couples who choose life.

I think the last thing we need to do is to be overly critical of unmarried women who become pregnant and then give birth instead of aborting their child. A woman who chooses to be responsible and to raise her child ought to be supported. Why? Because some other woman who is pregnant and wondering what to do is watching how other women who do the right thing are being treated. If we are going to encourage the general population to choose life, we can’t afford to speak out of both sides of our mouths about it. Yes, we have to speak out in favor of sexual purity, too, but as a good to be embraced for its own sake, and not as something to be embraced out of a fear of being ostracized for failure. We ought not ever feed the fear that choosing life and choosing to carry a stigma are the same thing.

That’s what I think.

And I agree.

 

[EasterJoy]

So, forgive me for butting in, but I saw something mentioned earlier that has me a bit perplexed. I get the pro life argument against abortion, and I am seeing that many people are advocating that the child of the single mother should be put up for adoption. But what about the husband that skips town right before or right after the baby is born (and I have seen mother’s skip shortly after birth as well, so it’s not limited to men)? Or who dies unexpectedly? Or the mother who dies as a result of something unexpected (amniotic embolism) during childbirth? Why is there so much emphasis on the unmarried single mother when unexpected circumstances can make anyone a single parent? Why is the single unmarried women pushed to choose adoption, when I see none of these other populations targeted to “do the right thing” so the child grows up in a two parent household. I honestly have a hard time with this question, and have never had it answered to me satisfaction.

I don’t think she ought to be pushed to give the child up for adoption, not unless she feels herself that she could tell the child honestly that she really could not do otherwise in good conscience–and let her decide what “could not” means. The child wants both of his or her parents, sure, but speaking for myself, I’d rather be raised by one biological parent who wanted me than by neither. I’d only want my own mother to give me to someone else to raise if she felt that her own inner sense as my mother told her that she ought to. If I had found that anyone else in the world had made that choice for her, well, I’d be furious at them. I say this as mother, too: no parent ought to be pressured to give up their own child. That decision has to be lived with by parent and child, but like the vast number of parenting decisions, it must be borne by the parent, and the parents ought to make it.

 

[PRmerger]

A man I know had pre-marital sex with a Catholic woman…she got pregnant…and now they are married (because of her pregnancy).
The woman’s mother said it was “God’s will” that she got pregnant and was very happy about it.

So…was it’s God’s will or no?

God created good out of a bad situation.

So it was not God’s will that this couple fornicated.

But it was God’s will that a life was created from it.

Just cause these women are having babies and not married, doesn’t mean they won’t be allowed “into the Kingdom of Heaven”. As it’s been said many times on this site, that’s God’s decision and we don’t know what’s gonna happen over there on The Other Side.

I answer with the words of Jesus: they should strive to enter.

 

[severus68]

You do know that women don’t throw their own baby showers, right? That’s done by family and friends of the mom to be.

So let me get this straight. I’m unmarried. If I got pregnant tomorrow I should not get all happy about it, because as an unmarried woman my child is a mark of shame upon my life, not a new and wonderful addition to my family to be celebrated? My mom should not throw me a baby shower because how dare she get excited about a new grandchild to spoil and love? Yeesh, your view on children is warped. (And frankly, I would need a baby shower, I have absolutely nothing to start me on the road to motherhood. That’s what baby showers are for, to give the mom some essentials to help her on her way, because setting up for a baby and buying carseats, cribs, diapers, clothes, toys, etc is very expensive!)

I don’t know of any family, Catholic or otherwise, that would want to be told that the new baby joining their family, no matter what the circumstances, is something to be scorned, not celebrated.

Yes, we celebrate the birth of a baby, those who think otherwise should think about what being a Christian means or just being a decent human being.

 

[severus68]

That rant was mostly about people deserving support for an irresponsible action.

Do I think there should be some shame? Yes, but I am old fashioned, by that I mean she should not be throwing a baby shower and getting all happy over it. Do I think we have to go to extremes where we brand her and the father as well. NO A little balance in life goes a long way in life.

(The thirty years was talking about the shift acceptance of supporting single mothers actions and also the welfare state that encourages this behavior. So my thirty years started in the 1970… Ok forty years. Getting old, losing decades)

If you can afford to have a child I have no problem with it, but you never deserve my support.

If you are in the UK and you are talking about ch…, then I understand your anger but I would still not condemn, still see children as good things and educate. If you are in the US, what welfare state?

 

[severus68]

Or better yet, it needs the existence of women who never agree to sex without marriage. It needs the existence of women who as a general population will not agree to sex without marriage. Does that make women the gatekeepers? Pretty much, but women have pretty much always been the gatekeepers. The widespread acceptance of contraception allowed them to toss aside that role of gatekeeper, but it didn’t work. It just enabled men to have sex without responsibility while making women poorer. A bad bargain.

It needs decent men too - those who do not lead women on, those who do not jump into bed and not take responsibility. Women have historically been forced to act in a certain way or be branded for life while men could do what they wanted and be said to be “just being men”. What double standards. What rot.

 

[severus68]

When the rate was lower that is kind of what happened. Mom would leave town and return an aunt as her sister had the child. Or another couple would adopt. and if she did not leave home for the sake of family honor then the new grandparents, not just the mother bore the shame. It is the reason dad would pull out the shotgun and give the baby’s father the offer he could not refuse.

So, she would have had to give up her baby just because of what others would say? Not many real Christians around then.

 

[JimG]

So, forgive me for butting in, but I saw something mentioned earlier that has me a bit perplexed. I get the pro life argument against abortion, and I am seeing that many people are advocating that the child of the single mother should be put up for adoption. But what about the husband that skips town right before or right after the baby is born (and I have seen mother’s skip shortly after birth as well, so it’s not limited to men)? Or who dies unexpectedly? Or the mother who dies as a result of something unexpected (amniotic embolism) during childbirth? Why is there so much emphasis on the unmarried single mother when unexpected circumstances can make anyone a single parent? Why is the single unmarried women pushed to choose adoption, when I see none of these other populations targeted to “do the right thing” so the child grows up in a two parent household. I honestly have a hard time with this question, and have never had it answered to me satisfaction.

Unexpected circumstances can only account for a small part of a 40% or higher out of wedlock birth rate. Such a high rate is an indication of serious social collapse undermining family stability.

As for why the other party is not pressured to “do the right thing,” well he ought to be pressured. That was how fathers with shotguns expedited wedding engagements in the past. Such has fallen out of fashion now, though.

 

[severus68]

40% of babies may be born to unmarried women, but more than 95% of people have had sex before they were married. The only difference then is that these women are now “caught.” The plausible deniability is gone.

Most of the folks that want to rant and rave about paying for these “leeches” on the taxpayer themselves had premarital relations. This is what Christ was talking about when he was blasting the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites. We’re all sinners. Even those of us who waited before marriage, we still sinned. Most of us committed mortal sin. So why are you getting so bent out of shape just because there’s a baby now involved?

I concur that we should work to change the culture and reinforce the message that children need a two-parent and stable household in order to have the best opportunity to thrive. But busting out the shotgun and the shame cards are not going to help. Our message should be one that comes from Christian love. Christ saved the “severe condemnations” for the people who should have been spiritual leaders in the Hebrew community but instead were obsessed with calling out other people’s sins and passed on judging prostitutes and fraudsters.

Yes, isn’t the sin then in being caught? That happens with politics all around the world. You say many wise things here. I am impressed.