Your posts don't reflect that.

Society already has laws in place for absent parents.


What we need now are ways to prevent irresponsible pond scum from polluting the earth.

Let em fck all they want. If they can't pass the competency test, make em take the anti-knockup shot or get fixed.

your posts don't reflect logic

guess wht, beyond having babies, people carry disease

so,, instead of just falling back on the 'its the un fixed womans fault', excuse for men to scrape by on


why not preach to your fellow men about being the kind of 'scum' that lay down with any and everything as if there are not potential consequences beyond their orgasm,,,,,




the minute anyone can show that someone can point out preemptive PROOF that any one individual will not be able to raise child, I will humor the idea that anybody should be able to STOP anyone else from their reproductive choice or their sexual choice

until then

I will leave the archaic idea of forced reproductive restrictions to those who have no clue what reality and PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY and maturity (both genders) is,,,,

More incoherent babble

If you are going to respond with spin, then the least you could do is make it look interesting.

just simplistic explanation,,,,,,

When did this become about you Harmony??...Your thread is titled "understanding out-of-wedlock stats"....Your OP reads as if you feel an obligation (or need) to try to convince those who don't agree with you to reconsider because they don't have enough intelligence to understand (look deeper) how the statistics are determined and therefore couldn't possibly have a valid opinion about their cause and effect...In the above post, it's clear (to me) that you take this personally, so maybe thats the problem...Maybe you can't or won't accept another person's point of view because you can't handle the implications...

that can happen, but a single woman with out a child has a far better chance at supporting herself....that is fairly obvious, and something hse needs to do with help from her FAMILY....not the gov't. and having a child just to get a check from the gov't is no good reason, it's reprehensible.

I honestly don;t know any people who have consistently worked, stayed off drugs and worked through college who are truly impoverished. Some may be poor or low income because of the profession they choose or unusual expenses (like supporting a family) but clearly it's better to wait ot have a family till one can support them. otherwise it is irresponsible

accidents do happen, but not several times over.

I understand where your sympathies lay but common sense please. WITHOUT the gov't check as a factor a woman without children to support will have more money for her own support.

I get that leigh...the thing that is kinda funny is that I actually have a background in stats....some knwledge not an expert but enough to interpret basic design and design/result metrics. and I defintely feel like she is trying to use these statistics to override common sense due to a personal agenda.

If there were fewer out of wedlock births many years ago it's probably because the gov't wasn't paying people who had children out of wedlock. life was hard for such women, and there were consequences like losing ones teen years and having to work. We have unintentionally incentivized single parenting and that needs to be rectified. I also agree that fathers must be held legally accountable.

some of the comments on here about women being ones responsible for birth control are just wrong. it is equally the man's responsiblity. if he unzips, he better do so knowing that it could result in 18 years of support payments. mandatory employment, and other consequences. Better yet, he be required to work and attend parenting classes with a shared custody requirement (where he is fit)

Totally agree, even though I am one of those who feel strongly that the buck (or birth) stops with the woman...When I say this I assume it's understood that, after paternity is proven, the fathers should be held "legally" responsible for one-half of the cost to support their children to emancipation...But, like I said earlier, after conception the woman is calling the shots and often her choices are in direct conflict with those the father would make if he could....

Another thing worth pointing out..More recent studies show that the "stigma" attached to having babies out-of-wedlock has been declining steadily for the past 40 years....Shotgun marriages are a thing of the past..Much of the credit for this decline is given to rapid technological advancement...So now we have a double edged sword playing a major contributing role...Welfare incentives combined with moral complacency...

my thread is sharing some information I found,,,,,plain and simple

I have no idea what intelligence anyone viewing it has

it simply shows that the out of wedlock statistics have

a) nothing to do with women becoming more irresponsible regarding childbirth

and

b) not as important a factor as the ECONOMY in the rising poverty rate,,,,



the prounoun I can be used in response to the pronoun You,, which was used in the posts above mine


and my answer is representative not of just me, but of the illogical GENERALIZATION that contributing opinions and spending casual down time with others in any way conflicts with having or using 'energy that should be spent earning money needed to do a proper job of raising your kids'

thts not actually right at all, we have had welfare since the forties,, that doesn't factor in to why poverty rates declined in SPITE of out of wedlock births in creasing in the past,, nor does it describe how poverty rates can match now a time when we had a fraction of the out of wedlock births

my information does not at all 'override common sense'

common sense says POVERTY IS ABOUT THE ECONOMY

not about peoples marital status when they have children


the FACT That having children out of wedlock , on an INDIVIDUAL basis, is more likely to land an INDIVIDUAL In poverty,,,is a separate issue from whether rising poverty rates can be placed on the shoulders of the out of wedlock rates,,,

Seriously?

seriously.

Any broad who ALLOWS herself to get knocked up, knowing full well, she can't afford to raise a kid without welfare, is pond scum.

Women's lib claims the woman's body is hers to do with.

Her body, her responsibility.

The man cannot legally demand she get an abortion or take BC.

yep, lets lower the standards even further

women, if you 'allow' yourself to get 'knocked up', make sure that you can be both mother and father to the child even if the chlld has a father,,, or you are 'pond scum' and the man cant skate away so easily,,,,,,

lets stop expecting anything from fathers,, we carry the child for nine months out of its life,, end of story

our responsibility and ours alone, and if you aren't having a child prepared to be the SOLE caretaker,, regardless of the reality of their being a FATHER involved in the equation


well, no one to blame but yourself (especially not the man)


,,,,wow


well, I will leave everyone to their own standards for the children,, I expect more for them FROM The people who create them,,,,both male and female,,,

Key word, ALLOW.

Id say that's a matter of trust

there are two consequences, potentially, of a sexual encounter

1 is deadly std
2 is a pregnancy


if a man ALLOWS himself to have sex unprotected, he is not only complicit in the risk of pregnancy, but he is SOLELY responsible for the risk of sexual disease, since the woman at the point of a consentual encounter can do NOTHIBG FURTHER to prevent the risk herself

so TWO PEOPLE 'ALLOW' themselves the risk of becoming parents or dying,, neither is getting off the hook with a logical person,,,

Emotionally healthy women, who do not want to get knocked up will tell the dude he won't be stickin' that thing in her without a wrapper on it.

A ghetto ho will just say, wut evah!
Ram that mutha on up in da house!

She don't care.

Folks, I have been looking at statistics that appear to support part of msharmony's argument. In short, the overall poverty rate in the USA has been dropping while the overall out-of-wedlock birth rate has been rising.

However, those statistics have nothing to do with why unmarried women become pregnant and, as a result, end up facing poverty.

Sure, men are equally responsible for out-of-wedlock births and equally responsible for preventing out-of-wedlock births.

At the same time, if pregnancy is a natural consequence of a single woman's choice to participate in sexual intercourse, then the woman is responsible for her choice and all of the consequences of that choice, including any poverty that she may experience as a result of her choice.

The connection between an individual's choices and an individual's financial situation is the "big picture" topic.

Some other thoughts.

October, 2012

Roger Clegg

Yesterday the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. That’s 40.7 percent overall: a disaster.

It is, of course, no surprise that the groups with the highest illegitimacy rates are the groups that are struggling economically, educationally, with crime, and so forth. Here’s a modest proposal: Why don’t the NAACP and similar organizations take all the money they use to challenge and complain about the standards that their groups (in the aggregate) don’t meet when it comes to university admissions, selective high-school admissions, school discipline, mortgage loans, police and firefighter tests, felon disenfranchisement laws, employment policies that look at criminal records, etc., etc., and use that money to figure out ways to bring down the illegitimacy rates that drive all these other disparities?