For Millennials, Out-of-Wedlock Childbirth Is the Norm (generation, health care, regular)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can this be good for the country? Studies have shown that raising a child without a father is usually detrimental to the child in the long run. I am a "Millennial" man who is engaged and we decided to not have kids until we get married and it seems that we are no longer the norm. Why is this happening?
The article does not say that out of wedlock childbirth is the norm for Millennials. Here's what it says:
64 percent of mothers gave birth at least once out of wedlock. Almost one-half had all of their children without ever exchanging vows.
The findings echo a separate study from 2012, which found that, among women under 30, more than one-half of all births happened outside of marriage
It says 64% of mothers in the Millennial generation gave birth at least once out of wedlock. That doesn't include all the Millennials who aren't mothers, and are single or in relationships without kids. The article went on to say that among college-educated Millennials, 3/4 married before having kids.
Also that number would include people who are in relationships but not married. Just because the parents aren't married, doesn't mean the child will grow up in 1 parent household.
Used to be that the only way a child could be supported, was if the father worked, and the mom took care of home and child...not the case, so much, anymore. Now, moms work, or are supported by welfare (meaning all of the working folk are paying her way...)so there's really little incentive for folks to take responsibility for themselves.
This is where our government is letting Americans down...they should be fostering MORE personal responsibility...not less. And, Americans should take PRIDE in supporting themselves.
The article had an ironically fatalistic tone for a liberal writer. The author just basically accepts this as the new normal, nothing the government can or should do about it. Better to just expand welfare in his estimation.
This seems silly in my mind. The progressive movement regularly commits to government efforts to change personal behavior: we shouldn't smoke or eat fatty foods, we should exercised, conserve energy, use public transit, teach each other equally, respect diversity, etc. I basically support all of their efforts on the grounds a that an individual's behavior impacts the rest of society. Someone's smoking drives up health care costs and sickens other, my polluting factory imposes a burden on the rest of society.
Single Parenthood is the same deal. All the studies show that single parent families are worse for children and impose deep social burdens.
I get that it is hard issue to change, but I don't think we should just throw our hands up and say there is nothing that can be done about the problem. It maybe hard to encourage marriage directly, but there are effective social policies for delaying childbirth (which is a major driver of the issue). We should do those and try to figure out better ways to also encourage having children inside stable relationships, fatherhood initiatives, etc.
Also that number would include people who are in relationships but not married. Just because the parents aren't married, doesn't mean the child will grow up in 1 parent household.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glass_of_merlot
OP, out of wedlock only means no marriage before childbirth. It doesn't mean the father is not involved.
Exactly, you don't need to be married to have a family. I'm not saying marriage itself is bad, but a couple can very well have kids and raise them together without ever being married.
Exactly, you don't need to be married to have a family. I'm not saying marriage itself is bad, but a couple can very well have kids and raise them together without ever being married.
In theory, that is certainly true and there are examples of stable cohabitating couples. But in practice, cohabitating relationships are far less stable than marriages.
Unlike in Western Europe, where couples cohabit for years and sometimes
decades, often with kids, less-educated Americans tend to rotate in and out of
cohabiting relationships as the years wear on. They have children with multiple
different partners, creating complex webs of child obligations, step-parents,
and half-siblings.
Used to be that the only way a child could be supported, was if the father worked, and the mom took care of home and child...not the case, so much, anymore. Now, moms work, or are supported by welfare (meaning all of the working folk are paying her way...)so there's really little incentive for folks to take responsibility for themselves.
This is where our government is letting Americans down...they should be fostering MORE personal responsibility...not less. And, Americans should take PRIDE in supporting themselves.
Most Americans do. Just read the multitude of threads from desperate job seekers on CD trying to figure out how to please potential employers so they can get the job and work for a living and you will know this is the case. And I don't understand why so many people assume having babies during marriage is the Holy Grail for children. Since half of all marriages end in divorce, and many of them are nasty bitter divorces, marriage is certainly no guarantee for the familial stability of children either. A loving couple or a great single parent raising the child is much better than a couple who just marries out of a sense of moral duty before having kids, IMO.
Lots of 20-somethings+ are living together for years before getting married now. Some never get married at all.
I'm a newlywed (we just had our 2 month wedding anniversary!), but my hubs and I have been living together for over five years.
We waited because we wanted to be in a better financial situation.
We never wanted to have kids out of wedlock and still aren't ready. I don't think that getting married is a necessity before having children, but I think it's the best decision for us. As long as both parents are personally and financially responsible for their children, a ring and a piece of paper don't necessarily matter.
In the past, I saw "having kids out of wedlock" as new relationships, one night stands, accidental pregnancies, etc. That isn't always the case, though. For example, I don't really feel any more committed to my husband now that we're married than I did three years into our cohabiting relationship. Commitment doesn't necessarily require a ring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
