• 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!

US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

ATLANTA – Remember the baby boom? No, not the one after World War II. More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any other year in the nation's history — and a wedding band made increasingly little difference in the matter. The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

Today, U.S. women are averaging 2.1 children each. That's the highest level since the early 1970s, but is a relatively small increase from the rate it had hovered at for more than 10 years and is hardly transforming.

"It's the tiniest of baby booms," said Morgan in agreement. "This is not an earthquake; it's a slight tremor."

While I don't necessarily disagree with single women having children, I do have a problem with these women giving birth on the tax payers dime.

If statistics from 2002 still apply today and you account for additional births added about half of these women are using medicaid to give birth to children.

That is absolute bull**** in my opinion.
 
Yea let those women give birth in the streets and die from no care along with their bastard children!

Disclaimer: yes that was highly ironic
 
Yea let those women give birth in the streets and die from no care along with their bastard children!

Disclaimer: yes that was highly ironic

I was reading something else that says because medicaid exists that women decide to get pregnant.

Please try to refrain from emo red herrings.

emo_kids-12810.jpg
 
I was reading something else that says because medicaid exists that women decide to get pregnant.

Please try to refrain from emo red herrings.

emo_kids-12810.jpg
That makes sense. Considering we practically give an incentive for girls to have kids, I would think some of them might take advantage of Medicaid, espicially in a bad economy.

Remember, if you make 20,000 a year, and have 3 children, you don't pay federal income tax.
 
Last edited:
That makes sense. Considering we practically give an incentive for girls to have kids, I would think some of them might take advantage of Medicaid, espicially in a bad economy.

That is pretty much what it is.

If a women is pregnant she doesn't have to prove need to get medicaid.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of OBGYN clinics are not taking medicaid anymore.
 
Yea, but you have 3 kids and are making $20k a year. That sucks.

It depends on where you live.

In rural Georgia where I am, it's not bad and not only that but you will be eligible for food stamps, wic, subsidized school lunch, section 8, Pell grant, and on and on.

That **** gets abused like hell though around here.
 
Yea let those women give birth in the streets and die from no care along with their bastard children!

Disclaimer: yes that was highly ironic

Yeah, we have had too many street birth epidemics. :roll:

Where do you get this stuff?
Sorry... forgot for a moment... you're a Lib.

The last I knew, society didn't impregnate the women.
It wasn't a Village Job. Perhaps Bill has been really busy, but... even if he is the father of thousands...
...there are oodles of contraceptive choices... to prevent Little Hill-Billies.
Women can say "no", though not a workable option when Clinton the Rapist's hormones are raging.

People have to learn children are THEIR responsibilities.
Why should I be punished for their bad decisions?
I will help voluntarily, but by government theft and redistribution?
No.

Married or not, I am not responsible for other people's bad choices.

For their stupidities.

The Libs are an amazing lot.
They create the climate for societal decay, blame those that waved the WARNING FLAG, sounded the warning bell...
...they ignore it and ridicule us in the process, and then want our money to "fix it".

If we don't... we are the ones lacking compassion.

What is it about Liberty these people fail to understand?
Or dislike?
 
Last edited:
It depends on where you live.

In rural Georgia where I am, it's not bad and not only that but you will be eligible for food stamps, wic, subsidized school lunch, section 8, Pell grant, and on and on.

That **** gets abused like hell though around here.

could that be the reason why the south has higher wedlock rates than the north?
 
Objecting to helping to pay for the delivery of children?

How selfish can you get.
 
Objecting to helping to pay for the delivery of children?

How selfish can you get.

Because it encourages rather than discourages a life of government dependence.

Come and visit some time and see how much waste goes into single parent households.

Come experience the now perpetual failure it creates, you'll love it!
 
Objecting to helping to pay for the delivery of children?

How selfish can you get.

And there you go, down the slippery slope.
When do I get to stop paying for the Village idiots?

Why is it my responsibility?

I think it is selfish of others to expect strangers to pay for the upbringing of children they do not know and cannot influence.

By charity... OK, but not government mandate.
Where is that in our Constitution?
The, "it takes a Village" section?

I did not stick my dick into, and impregnate these women?
Have they no father, or was it an immaculate ejaculation?

Take personal responsibility.
For those in need there are charitable organizations.
And jobs that pay money.

.
 
Objecting to helping to pay for the delivery of children?

How selfish can you get.

Why is it selfish? I think it's selfish for people to have a child when they don't have the means to support him/her.
 
Objecting to helping to pay for the delivery of children?

How selfish can you get.
It's not delivery.....

It's DiGiorno. :mrgreen:
 
Higher wedlock rates?

I guess it depends on which part of the general community you are referring to.

I haven't seen the statistics so I don't know.
I'm sorry, I was thinking of the divorce statistic. nvm it.
 
The solution is simple.

Any woman that is pregnant that is not married shall be put to death. Any man fathering a child outside wedlock shall be put to death. All couples need a certificate of permission by local authorities or even better by the church to be allowed to have children. To have children you must a certain income, certain education, a certain size house and of course be part of a church.

Seriously, what is it with conservatives in the US always wanting to go after the weak in society no matter what. It does not matter if a woman is married or not for god sake, that is just religious babble and traditionalists that are still pissed that women are in the work place and on the pill and not in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Ever thought that it might be women and men who live together but dont want to get married but want children? No I aint saying it is all or even a majority but they do exist.

Now as for the economic issue, which is a much more valid issue than "not being married bs", what would you do? I see a lot of whining and complaining, but not even conservatives would deny a woman treatment I suspect, as it would endanger the fetus and we all know how conservatives feel about sperm and fetuses.

Like it or not, we do not live in the dark ages any more, and women do have a right to control their own bodies and that includes having children. On top of that, you have a society where sexual education is under attack on a daily basis and the word of "abstinence" is preferred over sensible birth control methods (especially when being taught to children of course, who grow up as adults not knowing or understanding the basics of birth control), then what do you expect! It is not like the biological mechanics of women and men can be switched on and off just because some paedophile church man says so.
 
Like it or not, we do not live in the dark ages any more, and women do have a right to control their own bodies and that includes having children.
You forgot to add: At the expense of the tax payer.
 
Last edited:
The solution is simple.

Any woman that is pregnant that is not married shall be put to death. Any man fathering a child outside wedlock shall be put to death. All couples need a certificate of permission by local authorities or even better by the church to be allowed to have children. To have children you must a certain income, certain education, a certain size house and of course be part of a church.

That is crazy. Are you a part of the Bush Administration? I think you must be a member of Focus on the Family.

Seriously, what is it with conservatives in the US always wanting to go after the weak in society no matter what. It does not matter if a woman is married or not for god sake, that is just religious babble and traditionalists that are still pissed that women are in the work place and on the pill and not in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

That is not it at all. It is that now almost half of these births are paid for by the government and that the government program has created an incentive for women to not have the resources before she plans to have a child.

Ever thought that it might be women and men who live together but dont want to get married but want children? No I aint saying it is all or even a majority but they do exist.

It's really not a problem as long as they pay for themselves.

Now as for the economic issue, which is a much more valid issue than "not being married bs", what would you do? I see a lot of whining and complaining, but not even conservatives would deny a woman treatment I suspect, as it would endanger the fetus and we all know how conservatives feel about sperm and fetuses.

I wouldn't deny her treatment no, what I would do is announce almost daily and three years ahead that the government is no longer going to pay for you to have a baby.

That is it, after the date has past you have to take care of yourself.

Like it or not, we do not live in the dark ages any more, and women do have a right to control their own bodies and that includes having children. On top of that, you have a society where sexual education is under attack on a daily basis and the word of "abstinence" is preferred over sensible birth control methods (especially when being taught to children of course, who grow up as adults not knowing or understanding the basics of birth control), then what do you expect! It is not like the biological mechanics of women and men can be switched on and off just because some paedophile church man says so.

Every single person in this country I'm suspecting knows what the hell birth control is.

That is moron speak to say that anyone who has been to a government school does not know what birth control is, just an outright lie.

Pete I'm trying to give you a chance but you are as bad or worse than some on here that you criticize.
 
That is crazy. Are you a part of the Bush Administration? I think you must be a member of Focus on the Family.

Is it now? I bet the religious right would love such laws.

How about forcing abortion on any woman that cant support a child... how you think that would go down?

That is not it at all. It is that now almost half of these births are paid for by the government and that the government program has created an incentive for women to not have the resources before she plans to have a child.

And why is that? Is it not in the nations interest to have as many births as possible? Is it also not in the nations interest not having a high child death rate because the women cant afford the required treatment? Is it also not morally and humanly societies job to help any child in need?

You might be pissed that you as a the tax payer is paying for these women (I know I am in my own country), but what is the alternative? Do you think that not having these "supposed incentives" will change the fact that women will have children? Do you really think that all these 40%, hell even a majority, are abusing the system to get more money? Could it not just be that they are in a situation where birth control is out of reach because of economic issues, lack of education or religious issues? Or could it be they are in a relationship and just dont want to get married?

It's really not a problem as long as they pay for themselves.

Well it is a problem, because they cant and they still have children. Are you saying you want to deny them the right to have children based on economic standing? How can you at all solve this problem without tackling the issue of birth control teaching from an early age instead of this brain dead abstinence only teaching that quite a few want instead?

I wouldn't deny her treatment no, what I would do is announce almost daily and three years ahead that the government is no longer going to pay for you to have a baby.

And what after 3 years? The child is only slightly less vulnerable than it was a birth. Dump mother and child on the street? Take the kid away from her and put it in an ophrange and tie the mothers tubes (force ably of course)? What is your solution other than cutting off funds a few years after birth, and making a bad situation into a tragic one?

Like it or not, government is in one hell of a pickle here. They can say, no will not pay you extra depending on the amount of children you have.. fine, but that will only lead to malnourished children and dead children, because it sure in hell wont stop people from having kids.

Every single person in this country I'm suspecting knows what the hell birth control is.

That is moron speak to say that anyone who has been to a government school does not know what birth control is, just an outright lie.

Pete I'm trying to give you a chance but you are as bad or worse than some on here that you criticize.

I am? And are you sure about that everyone knows what the hell birth control is in the US? The teen pregnancy rate kinda disproves that.

And "a government school".. well, what about in the states that promote abstinence programs over birth control programs (if they at all have it)? What about private schools, especially the religious variant that brainwashes children?

You can not deny that the US has issues when it comes to sex and birth control...
 
Society is in denial about the fact that Bastards are less.
 
This just in, American girls are easy.
 
Back
Top Bottom