• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage

AdamT said:
Are you familiar with the difference between correlation and causation? Do you have a link for all those stats you just cited?
Click to expand...

they are in the book she was responding to. :) thanks for reading!

children of single parents do just as well in school and are just as well behaved as children from two-parent families, when you correct for the income and education of the parents.
Click to expand...

wow. you really didnt read a single word, did you?
 
Cutting education spending, lowering wages, kicking children out of the health insurance roles, cutting safety net spending, reducing child labor protections ... taken together, makes the case for intent. You can't argue with a straight fact that your party isn't focused on advancing the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Look at those tax plans your candidates are putting forward. Like Mr. Fetus, for example:

Like other Republican tax planks, Santorum’s would benefit corporations and high-income individuals. No surprise there. But unlike his rivals, he’d also cut taxes for many families with children.



Santorum is no bleeding heart, however. Even as he’d cut their taxes, he’d shred direct government spending for programs aimed at assisting these same households.

As part of his plan to cut federal spending by $5 trillion over five years, he’d immediately slash many domestic programs to 2008 levels and freeze for five years spending for social programs such as Medicaid, housing subsidies, food stamps, education and job training.
Click to expand...

Santorum's tax plan leaves hole in budget- MSN Money
 
cpwill said:
they are in the book she was responding to. :) thanks for reading!

wow. you really didnt read a single word, did you?
Click to expand...

Are you going to answer either question? :popcorn2:
 
:shrug:

1. i have no link - i have the printed word sitting directly in front of me.
2. single parent households are overwhelmingly under educated and make less money. arguing that you factor for that and everything is fine is like arguing that the car wreck didn't kill her so long as you factor out the steel beam slamming through her body.
 
AdamT said:
Cutting education spending, lowering wages, kicking children out of the health insurance roles, cutting safety net spending, reducing child labor protections ... taken together, makes the case for intent
Click to expand...

leaving aside your incorrect claim on health insurance (Obamacare, for example, outlaws the kinds of low cost plans that are so beneficial to the poor), your "intent" claim only makes sense if you assume that encouraging government dependency helps the poor. Conservatives woke up from that delusion long ago. Our programs are designed to actually help people, not cripple them.
 
There seems to be some inconsistency in this discussion. The "married, two parent household" seems to solely focus on heterosexual marriages, and "unwed mothers" seems to be used to indicate absent fathers, as opposed to couples in committed relationships who are simply not married.

The last type is becoming more and more popular, as the traditional uses of marriage (political alliances, transfer of women from family to family) are becoming obsolete in the face of social and economic equality for woman, and the economic uses of marriage (inheritance and joint property) no longer require a marriage to function.

The OP is talking about a rise in unmarried women having children. It doesn't differentiate well between single mothers and mothers in relationships. The idea of permanent linking just seems more dangerous now than it used to. It is completely possible to go through life unmarried. That was not the case a few centuries ago, when women had to marry for economic stability. Now, with the uncoupling of sex (and thus children) from marriage, marriage is no longer as needed.

Ms. Strader, in the article, is unwilling to risk marriage, as the men in her life weren't up to snuff. But should that limit her from having sex and raising her children? She doesn't need to marry these men, and doesn't need to take the risk.

Basically, legal mingling of two people is no longer the advantage, and certainly not the necessity, it once was.
 
Dragonfly said:
Is it ironic to anyone else that the PRO-LIFE crowd isn't taking this "statistic" as a win?

It means unmarried mothers are not aborting.

They are doing exactly what the pro-life crowd wants, yet for some reason the pro-life crowd still finds something to bitch about.

Awesome.
Click to expand...

If I thought that that was a valid argument in favor of abortion, then I would have to argue instead that it would be better to wait until a child has had at least a few year of life, enough to get a better idea of what kind of life that child is going to have, and then to kill those who are found to have lives that fall below some arbitrary threshold. This would certainly be more productive that killing children before they have even been born, based on any efforts we could make at that time to predict what kind of lives they would have.
 
Paschendale said:
There seems to be some inconsistency in this discussion. The "married, two parent household" seems to solely focus on heterosexual marriages, and "unwed mothers" seems to be used to indicate absent fathers, as opposed to couples in committed relationships who are simply not married.

The last type is becoming more and more popular, as the traditional uses of marriage (political alliances, transfer of women from family to family) are becoming obsolete in the face of social and economic equality for woman, and the economic uses of marriage (inheritance and joint property) no longer require a marriage to function.

The OP is talking about a rise in unmarried women having children. It doesn't differentiate well between single mothers and mothers in relationships. The idea of permanent linking just seems more dangerous now than it used to. It is completely possible to go through life unmarried. That was not the case a few centuries ago, when women had to marry for economic stability. Now, with the uncoupling of sex (and thus children) from marriage, marriage is no longer as needed.

Ms. Strader, in the article, is unwilling to risk marriage, as the men in her life weren't up to snuff. But should that limit her from having sex and raising her children? She doesn't need to marry these men, and doesn't need to take the risk.

Basically, legal mingling of two people is no longer the advantage, and certainly not the necessity, it once was.
Click to expand...

The article stated that unmarried with children couples were more likely to split up than married couples were.
As CP pointed out, the biggest player in family economics is whether or not, 2 parents exist in the household.

Supporting the unmarried but together family, can lead to disastrous consequences.
 
Paschendale said:
There seems to be some inconsistency in this discussion. The "married, two parent household" seems to solely focus on heterosexual marriages, and "unwed mothers" seems to be used to indicate absent fathers, as opposed to couples in committed relationships who are simply not married.
Click to expand...

because that's the statistically significant portions. you could have a discussion on whether being raised by a first cousin is better than being raised by a second cousin... but it wouldn't exactly be pertinent to the metatrends.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The article stated that unmarried with children couples were more likely to split up than married couples were.
As CP pointed out, the biggest player in family economics is whether or not, 2 parents exist in the household.

Supporting the unmarried but together family, can lead to disastrous consequences.
Click to expand...

You know though: from the experiences of many (including my own): BEING married can lead to disasterous consequences. Marriage is the 'fix it' for when you've ****ed up to countless people when yo '**** up' and 'get pregnant' when you're a teen - get married to 'fix it' and 'make it right' - - and you know: one wrong does not fix a wrong. Marriage shoudl never have been treated as a necessity in that way or a bandaide. Doing so just makes you another statistic. I was married, had 2 kids and divorced before the age of 21 - how pathetic is that? I ended up moving back in with my parents after that ended, too - obviously we could have just avoided the more disasterous consequences of the marriage altogether.

At least these women are willing to handle it on their own - I never considered the idea - I was incapable, honestly. Everyone preaches about personal responsibility - well there you go. They might have made the wrong choices that led to premarital sex and unplanned pregnancy but at least they're taking care of their responsibilities.

How is an unwanted marriage on top of an unplanned pregnancy suppose to FIX that? It won't. It will, however, create serious emotional and familial issues when there are none.

If a couple loves their child but doesn't want to be married - and that is what will make them GOOD parents becaues they can still get along and have a good life with their child then THAT is what's best.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Want to bring up a source for that claim jack?
Click to expand...

Reality, Common Sense, History, Life should be enough for you... but I guess you need others to tell you how to think, 1Perry has obliged.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know though: from my experiences and the experiences of many: BEING married can lead to disasterous consequences.
Click to expand...

hmm, no, marrying badly can lead to disastrous consequences. BEING married only leads to a disadvantage in rent-seeking.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know though: from my experiences and the experiences of many: BEING married can lead to disasterous consequences.
Click to expand...

It's not for everyone, my first was... well still recovering from that disaster, emotionally... financially. My marriage now is nothing short of "just right".
 
1Perry said:
The government subsidizes this. Stay single and get all sorts of tax benefits and a huge refund. Get married and lose it.
Click to expand...

Or get divorced and and see some benefit. Of course, that's only for lower income levels.
 
hah - and we aint' seen nothin yet on that score; wait until the marriage penalties in Obamacare start having a play.
 
liblady said:
Or get divorced and and see some benefit. Of course, that's only for lower income levels.
Click to expand...

It is but that is where we have the majority of problems IMO.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug:

1. i have no link - i have the printed word sitting directly in front of me.
2. single parent households are overwhelmingly under educated and make less money. arguing that you factor for that and everything is fine is like arguing that the car wreck didn't kill her so long as you factor out the steel beam slamming through her body.
Click to expand...

1. Well, since I don't have your source material in front of me I can't really discuss it;

2. Again, you are confusing correlation with causation. Lower income, less well educated people tend to be single parents more often, but it is the fact that they are lower income, and less well educated rather than their being single parents that correlates with lower school performance and behavioral problems. In other words, lower income, less well educated people tend to have poorer performing/behaving kids whether they are in single or two-parent formation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The article stated that unmarried with children couples were more likely to split up than married couples were.
As CP pointed out, the biggest player in family economics is whether or not, 2 parents exist in the household.

Supporting the unmarried but together family, can lead to disastrous consequences.
Click to expand...

But perhaps you're mixing up causes. It's not that a couple that doesn't get married is more likely to break up. It's that a couple that's more likely to break up doesn't get married. As we've discussed, marriage is less rewarding than it used to be. A woman doesn't need to marry in order to survive, and being unwed does not keep a person locked out of society. The ratio of risk and reward is tilted far more towards risk than it used to be.

So, the couples that aren't as sure about a financial future together, marriage is too big a risk. The article specifically stated that the risk is becoming too large for poorer couples to undertake. So what are these poorer couples to do? Must they refrain from attempting to build a life together unless they will take a huge financial risk? Must they remain abstinent? Must they give up their children? To say yes to any of those suggests that the right to love and have sex and reproduce must be purchased, and is reserved for those who can afford it.

Marriage seems to be an indicator of a stable household, not a cause of it. And the real cause looks to be money. Families that are not struggling to get by are the ones that last.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure, but we're dealing in averages here.
On average, married families do better than unmarried.

There's no denying that.
Click to expand...

This is confusing correlation with causation and is no reason why a couple should get married when they otherwise would not.
 
Paschendale said:
But perhaps you're mixing up causes. It's not that a couple that doesn't get married is more likely to break up. It's that a couple that's more likely to break up doesn't get married. As we've discussed, marriage is less rewarding than it used to be. A woman doesn't need to marry in order to survive, and being unwed does not keep a person locked out of society. The ratio of risk and reward is tilted far more towards risk than it used to be.

So, the couples that aren't as sure about a financial future together, marriage is too big a risk. The article specifically stated that the risk is becoming too large for poorer couples to undertake. So what are these poorer couples to do? Must they refrain from attempting to build a life together unless they will take a huge financial risk? Must they remain abstinent? Must they give up their children? To say yes to any of those suggests that the right to love and have sex and reproduce must be purchased, and is reserved for those who can afford it.

Marriage seems to be an indicator of a stable household, not a cause of it. And the real cause looks to be money. Families that are not struggling to get by are the ones that last.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm getting at, people who get married and stay married tend to have the behaviors which lead to raising a successful, productive family.
The risk for getting married is largely in the male counterparts direction, a man has significant risk, while the female doesn't (apart from the rare chance of abuse, relatively speaking.)

Poor people can get married for less than $100 is they wanted, but that's not the issue.
It's that they tend not to get married because they don't prioritize the important things in life, more than not poor people.
Behavior, that's the cause of all these statistics.
 
Lachean said:
This is confusing correlation with causation and is no reason why a couple should get married when they otherwise would not.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying getting married automatically equals success.
I'm saying that those who get married and stay married are more likely to be successful because of their underlying behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom