jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (17 posts)

Too many single mom and baby daddies

  1. Cassie Smith profile image74
    Cassie Smithposted 4 years ago

    For the first time in American history, more than half of all births to American women under 30 are occurring outside of marriage. It's mostly happening to the poor, working class and lower middle classes, the ones that are financially strapped to begin with.  So much for contraceptives.

  2. prettydarkhorse profile image66
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    How many percent are in consensual union or cohabiting? Poor economic conditions delay marriages.

  3. Cassie Smith profile image74
    Cassie Smithposted 4 years ago

    I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you can't afford to get married, how can you afford to have a baby?

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image66
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They are considered single even if they are in consensual union. They delay marriages because of the econ. conditions (and some other factors - changing views about marriage), not the other way around. A comprehensive research should be conducted to include changing views about marriage.

      1. Cassie Smith profile image74
        Cassie Smithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I doubt that a lot of single women are having babies in a consensual union only to delay marriage because it's more expensive.

        1. Shadesbreath profile image89
          Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this


          Insurance has created a whole new universe of how families are made. Obama exacerbated a system that was already all: "Hey, you can be on your parents insurance for a quarter of a century" as long as you don't get married... or get a job or make any life changes that might make you a contributing member of society on any scale worth talking about.

          So, now young couples don't even have the social pressure to get married if they are co-habitating and get pregnant.. even if they want to get married.  They literally can't afford to get married because if they do, they will lose the coverage of Mommy's insurance and not be able to get prenatal care, etc.

          So, now they literally CAN'T get married, even if they want to. The right's devotion to capital and profit prevents irresponsible/"unlucky" couples from getting a break when it comes to medical services. Making it worse is the left's commitment to making sure nobody ever thinks twice about just operating on pure pleasure and free love/sex/drugs, etc. which ensures that the right will always have a point about why the system can't sustain itself because they refuse to ever let anyone suffer the consequences of their decisions.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They can't stay 25 forever.

  4. Greek One profile image81
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    I blame Vegas

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Really, who knows how many babies happened in Vegas so stayed in Vegas.

  5. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago

    ...my two cents....

    ....there are many women having children without a father on the scene...they were raised without a father at home...and so...it is not necessarily a big deal to have the father living with the mother and child...it is a change that has happened for some...2nd and third generations....

    ..i don't know the research on it...just going by experience and what i see

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wasn't there some weird trend going on among high schoolers about having babies? They just wanted to have babies, didn't care about having fathers.

  6. IzzyM profile image84
    IzzyMposted 4 years ago

    In the UK, it is the norm now for couple to live together rather than get married. I don't know why, maybe to to save on the divorce costs later on?

    I 'lived in sin' briefly with my ex-husband before I married him, in the 70s when it wasn't really socially acceptable.

    Our marriage lasted longer than most (nearly 30 years) but it still did end in tears, just like everyone's it seems, nowadays.

    ALL of my friends and siblings have divorced. I don;t know anyone who is still married to the person they initially married.

    That is possibly why so many live in sin now rather than get married, they see their parent's marriage break up and don't want to take the risk.

    Naturally, their children will be born out of wedlock, but does it matter? I don't think it does.

    Unfortunately, it does tend to push up the 'unmarried mother' rate with its downwards connotations.

    We need a new expression for children born into a family unit who are not officially married.

    1. Jeni Pari profile image61
      Jeni Pariposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Here in Canada, things may be a little different.  It was quite a leap for me and my husband to get married.  Financially speaking it doesn't make sense. 
      As a single mother with my job and 2 children I was making more from child tax credits and equivilant to spouse tax credit as opposed to being married. 
      Deciding to claim ourselves common law mean't:

      a) we would loose the extra money we had come to depend on and
      b) would now cost money to take away the common-law status. 

      I have had discussions with many people about how middle class society is dwindling away.

      In order to get married, which we did, cost us tax credits and extra income.  It mean't more to us to get married than the extra $365/month I got as a single mother.

      There are a lot of families who can't afford to get married and loose the extra child tax money unfortunatly this is creating a whole generation of couples who live under the radar.

  7. Express10 profile image86
    Express10posted 4 years ago

    I completely agree that too many people are putting the cart before the horse and not considering the financial and emotional costs. It usually is a couple of people who are least financially or emotionally able to care for a child and many are simply adding to a brood of children outside of marriage. So many people are growing up without one or both parents that it is more common. I don't knock those who do it and are financially and emotionally prepared, but the majority of people with kids outside of marriage are deficient in one or both of these areas.

  8. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    The old rules have gone away..along with the old contract: If you work hard, you deserve a decent life.

    Nothing is the same...better realize and get used to it! smile

  9. TLMinut profile image60
    TLMinutposted 4 years ago

    Really, haven't men often been gone anyway? Men have traditionally gone exploring, trading, warring, headed west or east or out to sea...

    I do know a couple who have been married over 50 years and are still married - my parents. And I know more than one couple that didn't marry because of the loss of money and benefits that would happen if they do.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good observation. The institution of marriage as we've come to know it is probably only 150 yrs. old or so.