100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Understanding out of wedlock statistics | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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. yep, hoes will sleep with hoes,,,,but what has that to do with what children deserve ? and what should be expected of parents,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? you are not understanding the information given,, the BIRTH RATES ARE DECLINING ALREADY,,,, both married black women and unmarried black women are having fewer children,, but the MARRIED black women just happen to be dropping FASTER,, causeing the overall RATIO of out of wedlock births to climb the oow rate, is not what 'drives' the economy , or the poverty within it,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? you are not understanding the information given,, the BIRTH RATES ARE DECLINING ALREADY,,,, both married black women and unmarried black women are having fewer children,, but the MARRIED black women just happen to be dropping FASTER,, causeing the overall RATIO of out of wedlock births to climb I must agree with msharmony on this point. If the number of births to married women is dropping, then the ratio of oow/married will rise even if the number of oow births remains steady. That is why you have to compare quantity of oow births from year to year. the oow rate, is not what 'drives' the economy , or the poverty within it,, Again, the economy is a separate issue. When a single woman becomes pregnant because she chose to participate in sexual intercourse, the cause of her pregnancy is her choice, not the economy, not poverty, not any perceived injustice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/13/13 06:10 PM
|
|
I agree, men and women choose to make babies together,,,regardless of the economy
men and women who create babies with each other and do not or cannot provide for them are more likely to face poverty ( well, women and children are, as men in this culture have the convenience of walking away with little stigma to continue their own lives) of course, it is more difficult to provide with one income than it is with two,,, poverty RATES Though, are more an indication of the economy, logically speaking if jobs are available that are not below poverty level jobs,, a persons marital status would not be as impactful upon their own poverty level,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixing problem.
Just one of many other solutions that can be used along with it. FREE! Gibmedats love that word.  Free sterilization or, birth control shots. Fewer mouths for the tax payer to support, more jobs open, less crime, yada, yada, yada. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixing problem. Just one of many other solutions that can be used along with it. FREE! Gibmedats love that word. Free sterilization or, birth control shots. Fewer mouths for the tax payer to support, more jobs open, less crime, yada, yada, yada. yeah,, there are already FEWER MOUTHS< childbirth rates are declining,,, perhaps instead, give incentives to married women to have MORE CHILDREN,, so that out of wedlock ratio wont be causing yall such disturbance anymore,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonable people don't pollute.
I'll have to investigate that oBummercare and see how advanced eugenics is and how they propose to dispense the goodies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding statistics? As Disraeli once said (often misattributed to Mark Twain) There are three types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I could not prove it but I do not believe that OOW Birth statistics in the 30' and 40's, maybe even into the 50's were all that accurate.
If a young woman became pregnant OOW she simply illegally aborted, had the baby and handed it over to her parents to be raised and registered as a sibling, the Catholic church frequently but not exclusively, or simply fudge the date of birth of the child until a time that reflected being married for formal records. Fairly easy to do when babies were born at home and welfare agencies were rarely available in smaller communities. I personally worked from the premis that if I was sexually active without protection and parented a child that was not technically presumed to be the offspring by marriage it was my responsibility to support them. The state had a notion that a father had to be declared but I have to think that if a guy does not actively seek to create a 0arenting relationship and "ownership" of the r ole all the forced compliance in the world will not make him a parent. A very good reason NOT to have sex OOW because kids are expensive and pregnancy is to some degree incapacitateing at least for a period of time. I return to work ten days after my son was born. Not that doing so necessarily makes me "pond scum" or my child doomed to poverty. Nor would my my denying a birthfather his rights as a parent be possible if he decided to use the science available to protect his rights. I think a man who thinks he can exercise birthrights to a OOW child of a married woman is still blocked and basically out of luck but maybe that has been challenged in the courts by now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
Another responsible patent just spoke up. There are generations and bottom feeder cultures where it's perfectly accepted they can produce and take no personal responsibility. They raise criminals the states wind up having to babysit as adults. Or, some fortunate targeted victim successfully defends himself against and puts them down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh, get off of it
its not about 'responsibility' as people have become MORE responsible in their decisions to have children and 'criminals' come from all backgrounds, but the ones who end up most often convicted and in jail just happen to be the ones who can afford the least fancy attorneys,,,,,,,, in a perfect world, everyone would be married when they had children but people need to stop scapegoating single mothers or poor people as the cause of societies economic and justice ills,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, taking personal responsibility is scapegoating.
Gotcha '!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
something IM not sure everyone understands when we hear about childbirth rates,, there exists two main standards 1, the average number of children per,,,,whatever demographic 2. the percent of the demographic that has children ,,,,,,too often, we only hear about one of those two standards, the latter for example, since 1990 the percent of ALL births born to unwed mothers has grown from 28 to 40 percent,,, however, the RATE at which unwed mothers (number of births per 1000) are having babies has only climbed from 43 to 47 ,,, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf more specifically, say you have ten married and ten unmarried women over a period of ten years, you go from 5 of those ten unmarried having 5 babies each and 5 of those ten married women having 7 each a total of 60 babies, and a 42 percent oow rate now, imagine, ten years later,,,it changes with 5 of those ten unmarried now having 3 babies each, but 5 of those ten married cutting back to 1 baby now we have 20 babies, and a 75 percent oow rate indicating that the oow rate is not the simple indicator of responsibility amongst the unwed as it seems both groups , married and unmarried HAVE Been cutting back on childbirth,, but if the MARRIED cut back further, it will cause the OOW rate to go up,,,, so, what is my point,, my point is not to merely look at 'statistics' about the climbing percentage of ALL births are out of wedlock look deeper into how women, individually , are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children,,, when we look at trends, its important to look deeper than one level sometims,,, Ratios are not hard to understand…I'm willing to bet that everyone reading this thread understands how a decline in marriages would influence out-of-wedlock birth "rates" …The fact that the number of out-of-wedlock "births" is dropping slightly does not mean that an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 40.8% is not alarmingly high…High enough to affect crime rates, educational stats, poverty rates, burgeoning welfare costs, health care costs, health (and other) insurance premiums, and much, much more…High enough to be unsustainable over time…This thread is nothing more than a smokescreen created to convince people that adults, specifically women, are becoming more responsible about child birth…It is also a testament to why so many black communities continue to deteriorate…Harmony is right, to "understand out-of-wedlock statistics" in relationship to "how women, individually, are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children" you do have to look deeper, she just didn't look deep enough…In order to see the WHOLE picture, you need to look at the latest COMPLETED Census report IN ITS ENTIRETY…That would be 2010…Total population was 308,745,538…The majority of out-of-wedlock births were by white and black women because they account for the largest portion of total population…Total white pop. in 2010 was 240,822,000 (rounded), total black pop. was 40,137,000 (rounded)…Total births that year, 3,999,386…Total out-of-wedlock births, 1,633,000 (rounded)…Of those, 1,102,000 were by white women and 459,000 were by black women…Starting to see the big picture yet?…78% of total pop. in 2010 contributed 1,102,000 out-of-wedlock babies…13% of total pop. contributed 459,000 out-of-wedlock babies of which two-thirds or 306,000 were born to mothers living in poverty …The rest is simple, you do the math… In 2010, for non-hispanic whites the percentage of births to unwed mothers was 29%, for hispanics it was 53.4%, and for non-hispanic blacks it was 72.5%…To even suggest these statistics are not alarming because the marriage and birth rates are dropping is beyond sad...The OP is just one more example of how easy it is to rationalize irresponsible "adult" behavior.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
something IM not sure everyone understands when we hear about childbirth rates,, there exists two main standards 1, the average number of children per,,,,whatever demographic 2. the percent of the demographic that has children ,,,,,,too often, we only hear about one of those two standards, the latter for example, since 1990 the percent of ALL births born to unwed mothers has grown from 28 to 40 percent,,, however, the RATE at which unwed mothers (number of births per 1000) are having babies has only climbed from 43 to 47 ,,, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf more specifically, say you have ten married and ten unmarried women over a period of ten years, you go from 5 of those ten unmarried having 5 babies each and 5 of those ten married women having 7 each a total of 60 babies, and a 42 percent oow rate now, imagine, ten years later,,,it changes with 5 of those ten unmarried now having 3 babies each, but 5 of those ten married cutting back to 1 baby now we have 20 babies, and a 75 percent oow rate indicating that the oow rate is not the simple indicator of responsibility amongst the unwed as it seems both groups , married and unmarried HAVE Been cutting back on childbirth,, but if the MARRIED cut back further, it will cause the OOW rate to go up,,,, so, what is my point,, my point is not to merely look at 'statistics' about the climbing percentage of ALL births are out of wedlock look deeper into how women, individually , are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children,,, when we look at trends, its important to look deeper than one level sometims,,, Ratios are not hard to understand…I'm willing to bet that everyone reading this thread understands how a decline in marriages would influence out-of-wedlock birth "rates" …The fact that the number of out-of-wedlock "births" is dropping slightly does not mean that an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 40.8% is not alarmingly high…High enough to affect crime rates, educational stats, poverty rates, burgeoning welfare costs, health care costs, health (and other) insurance premiums, and much, much more…High enough to be unsustainable over time…This thread is nothing more than a smokescreen created to convince people that adults, specifically women, are becoming more responsible about child birth…It is also a testament to why so many black communities continue to deteriorate…Harmony is right, to "understand out-of-wedlock statistics" in relationship to "how women, individually, are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children" you do have to look deeper, she just didn't look deep enough…In order to see the WHOLE picture, you need to look at the latest COMPLETED Census report IN ITS ENTIRETY…That would be 2010…Total population was 308,745,538…The majority of out-of-wedlock births were by white and black women because they account for the largest portion of total population…Total white pop. in 2010 was 240,822,000 (rounded), total black pop. was 40,137,000 (rounded)…Total births that year, 3,999,386…Total out-of-wedlock births, 1,633,000 (rounded)…Of those, 1,102,000 were by white women and 459,000 were by black women…Starting to see the big picture yet?…78% of total pop. in 2010 contributed 1,102,000 out-of-wedlock babies…13% of total pop. contributed 459,000 out-of-wedlock babies of which two-thirds or 306,000 were born to mothers living in poverty …The rest is simple, you do the math… In 2010, for non-hispanic whites the percentage of births to unwed mothers was 29%, for hispanics it was 53.4%, and for non-hispanic blacks it was 72.5%…To even suggest these statistics are not alarming because the marriage and birth rates are dropping is beyond sad...The OP is just one more example of how easy it is to rationalize irresponsible "adult" behavior.... yes cause its so much MORE responsible to have more children in marriage, which would decrease the OOW ratios and so much MORE responsible to marry and divorce several times,,,, yep,, having a 'ring on it' at the moment of birth is what we need to be concerned about and the answer to societies ills,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
something IM not sure everyone understands when we hear about childbirth rates,, there exists two main standards 1, the average number of children per,,,,whatever demographic 2. the percent of the demographic that has children ,,,,,,too often, we only hear about one of those two standards, the latter for example, since 1990 the percent of ALL births born to unwed mothers has grown from 28 to 40 percent,,, however, the RATE at which unwed mothers (number of births per 1000) are having babies has only climbed from 43 to 47 ,,, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf more specifically, say you have ten married and ten unmarried women over a period of ten years, you go from 5 of those ten unmarried having 5 babies each and 5 of those ten married women having 7 each a total of 60 babies, and a 42 percent oow rate now, imagine, ten years later,,,it changes with 5 of those ten unmarried now having 3 babies each, but 5 of those ten married cutting back to 1 baby now we have 20 babies, and a 75 percent oow rate indicating that the oow rate is not the simple indicator of responsibility amongst the unwed as it seems both groups , married and unmarried HAVE Been cutting back on childbirth,, but if the MARRIED cut back further, it will cause the OOW rate to go up,,,, so, what is my point,, my point is not to merely look at 'statistics' about the climbing percentage of ALL births are out of wedlock look deeper into how women, individually , are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children,,, when we look at trends, its important to look deeper than one level sometims,,, Ratios are not hard to understand…I'm willing to bet that everyone reading this thread understands how a decline in marriages would influence out-of-wedlock birth "rates" …The fact that the number of out-of-wedlock "births" is dropping slightly does not mean that an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 40.8% is not alarmingly high…High enough to affect crime rates, educational stats, poverty rates, burgeoning welfare costs, health care costs, health (and other) insurance premiums, and much, much more…High enough to be unsustainable over time…This thread is nothing more than a smokescreen created to convince people that adults, specifically women, are becoming more responsible about child birth…It is also a testament to why so many black communities continue to deteriorate…Harmony is right, to "understand out-of-wedlock statistics" in relationship to "how women, individually, are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children" you do have to look deeper, she just didn't look deep enough…In order to see the WHOLE picture, you need to look at the latest COMPLETED Census report IN ITS ENTIRETY…That would be 2010…Total population was 308,745,538…The majority of out-of-wedlock births were by white and black women because they account for the largest portion of total population…Total white pop. in 2010 was 240,822,000 (rounded), total black pop. was 40,137,000 (rounded)…Total births that year, 3,999,386…Total out-of-wedlock births, 1,633,000 (rounded)…Of those, 1,102,000 were by white women and 459,000 were by black women…Starting to see the big picture yet?…78% of total pop. in 2010 contributed 1,102,000 out-of-wedlock babies…13% of total pop. contributed 459,000 out-of-wedlock babies of which two-thirds or 306,000 were born to mothers living in poverty …The rest is simple, you do the math… In 2010, for non-hispanic whites the percentage of births to unwed mothers was 29%, for hispanics it was 53.4%, and for non-hispanic blacks it was 72.5%…To even suggest these statistics are not alarming because the marriage and birth rates are dropping is beyond sad...The OP is just one more example of how easy it is to rationalize irresponsible "adult" behavior.... yes cause its so much MORE responsible to have more children in marriage, which would decrease the OOW ratios and so much MORE responsible to marry and divorce several times,,,, yep,, having a 'ring on it' at the moment of birth is what we need to be concerned about and the answer to societies ills,,, Just more rationalization IMO...It's not about the ring, it's about the ability to pay for the product...Ability to pay without assistance from conception to emancipation...And don't give me that crap about how "at times everybody needs help"...I'm not talking about unforeseen monumental problems or divorces after the fact, I'm talking about unwed women in poverty who continue to breed knowing full well they cannot support their babies without outside help be it from a one night stand, a long time boyfriend, a live in lover, or their neighbor who works for a living and pays taxes....I'm talking about the realities of the statistics you are tying to down play.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/14/13 10:45 AM
|
|
something IM not sure everyone understands when we hear about childbirth rates,, there exists two main standards 1, the average number of children per,,,,whatever demographic 2. the percent of the demographic that has children ,,,,,,too often, we only hear about one of those two standards, the latter for example, since 1990 the percent of ALL births born to unwed mothers has grown from 28 to 40 percent,,, however, the RATE at which unwed mothers (number of births per 1000) are having babies has only climbed from 43 to 47 ,,, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf more specifically, say you have ten married and ten unmarried women over a period of ten years, you go from 5 of those ten unmarried having 5 babies each and 5 of those ten married women having 7 each a total of 60 babies, and a 42 percent oow rate now, imagine, ten years later,,,it changes with 5 of those ten unmarried now having 3 babies each, but 5 of those ten married cutting back to 1 baby now we have 20 babies, and a 75 percent oow rate indicating that the oow rate is not the simple indicator of responsibility amongst the unwed as it seems both groups , married and unmarried HAVE Been cutting back on childbirth,, but if the MARRIED cut back further, it will cause the OOW rate to go up,,,, so, what is my point,, my point is not to merely look at 'statistics' about the climbing percentage of ALL births are out of wedlock look deeper into how women, individually , are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children,,, when we look at trends, its important to look deeper than one level sometims,,, Ratios are not hard to understand…I'm willing to bet that everyone reading this thread understands how a decline in marriages would influence out-of-wedlock birth "rates" …The fact that the number of out-of-wedlock "births" is dropping slightly does not mean that an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 40.8% is not alarmingly high…High enough to affect crime rates, educational stats, poverty rates, burgeoning welfare costs, health care costs, health (and other) insurance premiums, and much, much more…High enough to be unsustainable over time…This thread is nothing more than a smokescreen created to convince people that adults, specifically women, are becoming more responsible about child birth…It is also a testament to why so many black communities continue to deteriorate…Harmony is right, to "understand out-of-wedlock statistics" in relationship to "how women, individually, are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children" you do have to look deeper, she just didn't look deep enough…In order to see the WHOLE picture, you need to look at the latest COMPLETED Census report IN ITS ENTIRETY…That would be 2010…Total population was 308,745,538…The majority of out-of-wedlock births were by white and black women because they account for the largest portion of total population…Total white pop. in 2010 was 240,822,000 (rounded), total black pop. was 40,137,000 (rounded)…Total births that year, 3,999,386…Total out-of-wedlock births, 1,633,000 (rounded)…Of those, 1,102,000 were by white women and 459,000 were by black women…Starting to see the big picture yet?…78% of total pop. in 2010 contributed 1,102,000 out-of-wedlock babies…13% of total pop. contributed 459,000 out-of-wedlock babies of which two-thirds or 306,000 were born to mothers living in poverty …The rest is simple, you do the math… In 2010, for non-hispanic whites the percentage of births to unwed mothers was 29%, for hispanics it was 53.4%, and for non-hispanic blacks it was 72.5%…To even suggest these statistics are not alarming because the marriage and birth rates are dropping is beyond sad...The OP is just one more example of how easy it is to rationalize irresponsible "adult" behavior.... yes cause its so much MORE responsible to have more children in marriage, which would decrease the OOW ratios and so much MORE responsible to marry and divorce several times,,,, yep,, having a 'ring on it' at the moment of birth is what we need to be concerned about and the answer to societies ills,,, Just more rationalization IMO...It's not about the ring, it's about the ability to pay for the product...Ability to pay without assistance from conception to emancipation...And don't give me that crap about how "at times everybody needs help"...I'm not talking about unforeseen monumental problems or divorces after the fact, I'm talking about unwed women in poverty who continue to breed knowing full well they cannot support their babies without outside help be it from a one night stand, a long time boyfriend, a live in lover, or their neighbor who works for a living and pays taxes....I'm talking about the realities of the statistics you are tying to down play.... the reality is,,whether people choose to see it or not women, unwed and wed, in the black community(yep, I said it) HAVE BECOME MORE RESPONSIBLE in their decisions to have children and TO GET MARRIED after all, a ring and priest don't make two peoples incomes go any further when they have a child,,, and WHETHER They are having children while married or unmarried, has not changed their rtes of poverty in the last five decades so why don't we at least TRY to look at more realistic reasons for the discrepancies we see socially concerning crime, education, healthcare and poverty? or is it just so much easier to tell women to stop having babies or else be shamed into the box painting them as 'the problem' with every imaginable issue in the country,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
something IM not sure everyone understands when we hear about childbirth rates,, there exists two main standards 1, the average number of children per,,,,whatever demographic 2. the percent of the demographic that has children ,,,,,,too often, we only hear about one of those two standards, the latter for example, since 1990 the percent of ALL births born to unwed mothers has grown from 28 to 40 percent,,, however, the RATE at which unwed mothers (number of births per 1000) are having babies has only climbed from 43 to 47 ,,, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/007.pdf more specifically, say you have ten married and ten unmarried women over a period of ten years, you go from 5 of those ten unmarried having 5 babies each and 5 of those ten married women having 7 each a total of 60 babies, and a 42 percent oow rate now, imagine, ten years later,,,it changes with 5 of those ten unmarried now having 3 babies each, but 5 of those ten married cutting back to 1 baby now we have 20 babies, and a 75 percent oow rate indicating that the oow rate is not the simple indicator of responsibility amongst the unwed as it seems both groups , married and unmarried HAVE Been cutting back on childbirth,, but if the MARRIED cut back further, it will cause the OOW rate to go up,,,, so, what is my point,, my point is not to merely look at 'statistics' about the climbing percentage of ALL births are out of wedlock look deeper into how women, individually , are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children,,, when we look at trends, its important to look deeper than one level sometims,,, Ratios are not hard to understand…I'm willing to bet that everyone reading this thread understands how a decline in marriages would influence out-of-wedlock birth "rates" …The fact that the number of out-of-wedlock "births" is dropping slightly does not mean that an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 40.8% is not alarmingly high…High enough to affect crime rates, educational stats, poverty rates, burgeoning welfare costs, health care costs, health (and other) insurance premiums, and much, much more…High enough to be unsustainable over time…This thread is nothing more than a smokescreen created to convince people that adults, specifically women, are becoming more responsible about child birth…It is also a testament to why so many black communities continue to deteriorate…Harmony is right, to "understand out-of-wedlock statistics" in relationship to "how women, individually, are or are not deciding to be more responsible in their choice to have children" you do have to look deeper, she just didn't look deep enough…In order to see the WHOLE picture, you need to look at the latest COMPLETED Census report IN ITS ENTIRETY…That would be 2010…Total population was 308,745,538…The majority of out-of-wedlock births were by white and black women because they account for the largest portion of total population…Total white pop. in 2010 was 240,822,000 (rounded), total black pop. was 40,137,000 (rounded)…Total births that year, 3,999,386…Total out-of-wedlock births, 1,633,000 (rounded)…Of those, 1,102,000 were by white women and 459,000 were by black women…Starting to see the big picture yet?…78% of total pop. in 2010 contributed 1,102,000 out-of-wedlock babies…13% of total pop. contributed 459,000 out-of-wedlock babies of which two-thirds or 306,000 were born to mothers living in poverty …The rest is simple, you do the math… In 2010, for non-hispanic whites the percentage of births to unwed mothers was 29%, for hispanics it was 53.4%, and for non-hispanic blacks it was 72.5%…To even suggest these statistics are not alarming because the marriage and birth rates are dropping is beyond sad...The OP is just one more example of how easy it is to rationalize irresponsible "adult" behavior.... yes cause its so much MORE responsible to have more children in marriage, which would decrease the OOW ratios and so much MORE responsible to marry and divorce several times,,,, yep,, having a 'ring on it' at the moment of birth is what we need to be concerned about and the answer to societies ills,,, Just more rationalization IMO...It's not about the ring, it's about the ability to pay for the product...Ability to pay without assistance from conception to emancipation...And don't give me that crap about how "at times everybody needs help"...I'm not talking about unforeseen monumental problems or divorces after the fact, I'm talking about unwed women in poverty who continue to breed knowing full well they cannot support their babies without outside help be it from a one night stand, a long time boyfriend, a live in lover, or their neighbor who works for a living and pays taxes....I'm talking about the realities of the statistics you are tying to down play.... the reality is,,whether people choose to see it or not women, unwed and wed, in the black community HAVE BECOME MORE RESPONSIBLE in their decisions to have children and WHETHER They are having children while married or unmarried, has not changed their rtes of poverty in the last five decades so why don't we at least TRY to look at more realistic reasons for the discrepancies we see socially concerning crime, education, healthcare and poverty? or is it just so much easier to tell women to stop having babies or else be shamed into the box painting them as 'the problem' with every imaginable issue in the country,,,, It's not box painting Harmony they are one of the major sources of the problem and it's not women in general, it's unwed women of every race who continue to "choose" to have babies they cannot afford....I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but women (and men) are not becoming more responsible, they are becoming less responsible and there are specifics that identify the reasons...Some of the most pronounced reasons include diminishing social stigma, legalized abortion, birth control, and social programs.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them.
Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 08/14/13 11:49 AM
|
|
The rate of irresponsible births still exceeds the resources to support them. Competence testing. That would weed out those who could not responsibly support kids. If they test to where, one day, they could independently support kids, mandatory BC. Test and test shows they have a low percent rate to advance to the point of independently support a child, recommend sterilization. Poverty decreases. again, slowly POVERTY does not rise and fall upon whether people have a ring on their finger when they give child birth and no one is going to allow someone else to decide what type of 'competency' should be mandated for the very NATURAL right to have a family,,,,,, resources aren't based upon RATES but upon numbers, and we have not the RESOURCES to keep people out of poverty,, whatever the oow rates are evidenced by the FACT that although there are FEWERE NUMBERS of those to feed,, the poverty rates are still troublesome ,,,, the simple lesson of the op and then I am done,, , the simple point, that IM sure those looking to scapegoat will continue talking their way around RISING NUMBER OF OOW BIRTHRATES, is NOT, SYNONYMOUS WITH MORE CHILDREN BEING BORN TO UNWED MOTHERS or with UNWED MOTHERS HAVING RISING LEVELS OF IRRESPONSIBILITY,,, ...plain and simple now carry on with the fun of explaining how poverty is primarily the result of whether women are in a marriage when they give birth,,,, and if only more of them would have that ring on their finger when they give birth,, poverty rates would decline cause that's ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
