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.
Do you believe a single mother having baby after baby is really trying to have much of an income? I don't think hard work is really the goal for most of them and how could they believe that's going to get them high paying jobs?
The number of what? is skyrocketing? The number of babies? The number of minority babies? The number of babies that go to college? What EXACTLY is so unacceptable?
The facts:
Number of individuals receiving TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, formerly known as AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
1939 (program founded): 700,000 (no children covered)
1960: 3 million
1994 (when Bill Clinton signed reforms): 14 million
1999: 2.6 million
In other words, there are fewer children on welfare today not more.
Furthermore, according to the DHHS statistics published here (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2008/tab07.htm - broken link), the number of single parent households with one child receiving TANF is 30%. And the number of two-parent households with one child receiving TANF is....30%. That's right, two parent households receive as much aid as single-parent households.
TANF is just ONE welfare program. Look at food stamps, Medicaid, Head Start programs, WIC, SSI and all the many other welfare programs.
Welfare is not down -- there are MORE children on Medicaid, WIC and food stamps than ever before.
From 1940 to 1957 the teen birth rate increased 78% to a record high.
No disrespect to your grandparents, but they're wrong. Couples did tend to get married after the pregnancy back then, so perhaps that accounts for the low rate of unwed moms. It would be nice to see a link for those numbers. There was no food stamps, but there was welfare and other assistance programs. Most of the women, (but not the men) had to drop out of school; that part is true, and was still true when I was in HS in the 60s.
You're both right. There were many teen mothers back then but many more of them were married. Back then it wasn't shocking to get married at age 18 or 19 like it is today.
Often the engagements were made when a baby was on the way - but so what - a great number of those marriages lasted and the babies grew up in a family, dads supported their kids.
Sadly, I believe I deleted the article, but please don't let that keep you from performing your own google search. There is a plethora of information, data, and statistics showing the correlation between married two-parent households and the social, emotional, and academic achievement of children. The correlations are statistically proven to exist, it is not conjecture.
The burden isn't on me as I'm not the one making the claim. In order for me to accept the argument being put forward(that there is something so inherent to the two married parent household which makes it more successful in child rearing that without it the chances for a child living a productive life are slim) I have to see causation. I want the causes isolated and the variables(eg; socioeconomic status, culture, education level, parent's education level) controlled for. Until then all we have is Rockwellian reminiscence.
Even humoring that argument, what would the implications be? So a married couple is superior in child rearing to all alternatives. Does the makeup of the marriage matter(eg: Man/Man Woman/Woman)? Does the quality of the marriage matter or should the couple just be married? Does the income level of the couple matter? All things considered equal, what about a married couple would make them more successful in child rearing than a serious cohabitant couple? What about divorce? Being born to married parents certainly does not indicate that those parents will stay married. Are the children of divorced parents better or worse off than those born out of wedlock? If they are better off, then apparently the two parent household is not inherently superior. If they are worse, then apparently marriage has the potential to do just as much harm to a child as an out of wedlock birth.
I am pretty liberal and not religious. But I have strong views on this. I think that the ideal situation for any child is to be raised by a man and a women - a married couple. Albeit, a couple who provides a loving, stable, safe environment. Not a home that is under the turmoil of abuse or alcoholism, etc. Single parents can do a fine job with raising children. That's been proven. But I think children do benefit from witnessing a healthy relationship between a man and a woman. It helps girls make good choices in men when they grow up. It shows boys how to treat women. It shows both sexes what a happy and loving relatoinship looks like. And if the child winds up gay, fine. That's okay too. However, if a boy is raised with by a heterosexual married couple and witnesses his mother being verbally and/or physically abused, that's not good. Not good for a daughter either. Their "normal" is skewed. So gays, single parents, etc. can all be great parents. But again, I think the ideal is being raised by a loving, married mom and dad. Marriage is a commitment, just as having a child is. If you're going to have a child with someone, commit yourselves to them. If you don't want to do that, then you shouldn't have a child with them. Having a child should not be the result of a "mistake". It should be the result of a couple who loves each other and who are committed to each other through good and bad and who want to start a family and go through the joy and tribulations of raising a child. I think that everyone should strive to first find a partner that is good for them. Too many people seem to create life with partners who were not a good choice. This sounds sarcastic but I can honestly say that I have known people that put more effort into researching cell phones, cars, and other purchases than they do before having sex with someone. This is why there are so many children born out of wedlock. It's one reason anyway. Another reason is that as more and more children are born out of wedlock, society has started to put less importance on children being born out of marriage. So kids grow up with one parent, are exposed to their parent dating, are exposed to kids that their mom's boyfriend may have, see their dad 2 weekends a month, if at all and so on. Adults should not put their "baggage" onto kids. And no matter how much of a blessing and miracle having a child is, women should not selfishly have one out of wedlock, because they can. 75% of women are fertile at 35 and under. It's not that difficult to make a baby. It's more difficult to make a wise choice in a husband. But perhaps many women can't because they never had an example? I firmly believe (and there are exceptions) that those with happy marriages are those who grew up witnessing a happy marriage. Children are sponges. They absorb everything. They learn by example and their parents are their first and primary examples. They mimic them, quote them and look up to them. Single parenthood is not easy. But apparently many women find it easier than being able to maintain a relationship with the father of the child. And if the father is an ass, then shame on the mother. She should be more mindful of who she's getting pregnant by. A gay loving couple, in my opinion is hand down superior than a woman having a child alone. The child of the gay couple is at least being exposed to living with a couple that loves each other. Anyone who thinks otherwise was probably raised in a family with dysfunction and turmoil between the parents. As someone who was raised by parents who loved each other and showed me an awesome example of how to live with someone for life, respectfully and with love, I can't imagine that a single parent situation could top that.
I still can't believe that so many teens decide to have children. At 62 I have witnessed the disaster one after another on their lifes. I have only seen a few who got their life together and that was in their 30's and mostly with parents supporting them most those years.
she should be more mindful of who she's getting pregnant by. A gay loving couple, in my opinion is hand down superior than a woman having a child alone. The child of the gay couple is at least being exposed to living with a couple that loves each other. Anyone who thinks otherwise was probably raised in a family with dysfunction and turmoil between the parents. as someone who was raised by parents who loved each other and showed me an awesome example of how to live with someone for life, respectfully and with love, i can't imagine that a single parent situation could top that.
qft.
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.
