Comments about ‘Birth trends: Nonmarital births to women under 30 increasing’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 20 2012 3:56 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
sjgf
South Jordan, UT

I believe that most women want a certain level of security before taking on the responsibility of motherhood.

In ancient times (before 1970, or so), this meant that she needed to get married and do her best to encourage her breadwinner to go out an earn a living.

But with the U.S.A. becoming more and more amoral and socialistic, many women can now look to the government (ie, all the taxpayers in the U.S, both present and future) as her provider, so she can go ahead and start a family with only the government dole as her security, and lay the charge to supporting her family to everyone else.

So now I get to not only support my own children, but the children of a growing number of women who look to me, and those like me (in other words, their fellow Americans), as their breadwinner.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

The USA is NOT becoming more amoral and socialistic!

Where do you people get such nonsense?

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

@A Scientist:

Let me just scratch the tip of this iceberg:

1) Until the late 1950's, early 60s, prayers were allowed in schools. Then some amoral group of Supreme Court Justices found out that after nearly 200 years of prayers in school being constitutional, suddenly the Constitution had mysteriously changed meaning and prayers in school -- which help engender moral character in students -- was outlawed.

2) Until 1973, it was unconstitutional to kill one's own children. But somehow, after nearly 200 years of the Constitution defending life, some amoral judges decided that the Constitution had mysteriously changed, and Roe v Wade has resulted in millions upon millions of children being massacred in the U.S., under state sanction and support. Moral decline.

3) Until the start of the 21st century, marriage in all countries was between a man and a woman. Now, amoral judges across America are finding out that the Constitution has changed, and suddenly one of the most in-your-face types of immorality -- gay unions -- are found to be constitutionally protected.

The USA is definitely becoming more amoral. I could give similar examples of increasing socialism, but I've hit the 200 word limit on comments.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

Oh no... the sky must be falling.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

sjgf

The limit is not on your words, it is on your evidence.

Prayers are still allowed in schools. Your kids can pray anytime they would like. What ceased was the forced, formal establishment of religion in schools by requiring students to pray. Moreover, prayer does not = "morality", nor does the absence of prayer = amorality. There are other, more effective ways of engendering morality than prayer, and just because YOUR "morality" is not enshrined does not mean there is no morality.

"kill one's own children? "amoral judges"? You offer NO support for these judgmental claims. These are loaded assertions based on YOUR interpretation of morality. But Roe vs Wade does invoke a morality that balances human rights as well as they can be balanced for extreme situations of unwanted pregnancy. Just because it is not YOUR morality that is built into law does not make it "amoral" nor evidence of "moral decline."

Likewise, same-sex marriage is not "amoral" nor "immoral". There is NO Judeo-Christian scripture forbidding same sex marriage, and even if there was, the Bible is not the standard for human morality (thank heaven).

You do not have the patent on morality.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

A Scientist,

It's attitudes like the one you have demonstrated that prompt sjgf to make such comments. You are proving his point. However, to answer your question:

"The USA is NOT becoming more amoral and socialistic!

Where do you people get such nonsense?"

Here's a portion of a 2010 article that quotes a Gallup survey:

"Three-quarters of Americans say the country's moral values are worsening, blaming a decline in ethical standards, poor parenting, and dishonesty by government and business leaders, Gallup reports.

The number of Americans who say the nation's moral values are in decline grew by 5 percent since last year. Other reasons Americans mentioned were a rise in crime, a breakdown of the two-parent family and a moving away from religion or God.

Only 14 percent of respondents believe that the country's moral values are getting better. An increase in diversity and Americans pulling together in tough times are two of the reasons these respondents gave.

Pollsters also found 45 percent of Americans believe that current moral values are in a poor state. . . . Only 15 percent of Americans believe the country's morality is in an excellent or good state."

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

Riverton Cougar,

Those are opinion polls. Polls of people like sjgf who THINK the world is getting worse. They are not in anyway actual data proving anything is getting worse. People fear change. They fear what is different. They assume it is bad. Especially the older they get. Which is what this article demonstrates.

Once again... Oh no... the sky is falling.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Riverton Cougar

Neither you nor sgftz are proving your claims, other than revealing that you continue to believe and insist that you have the patent on morality and YOUR morality is not being enshrined into law and enforced in popular behavior.

So to support your unsupported claims, you throw out "a portion of a 2010 article that quotes a Gallup survey"? Really? Is that supposed to be persuasive because it is from such a credible source?

Moreover, opinion polls do not prove actual declines in morality. They are perceptions, not facts.

The fear-mongering emanating from Republicans in the election cycle can be blamed for a 5% increase in perceptions. They can only take back the power Bush so abused by convincing the citizenry that "morality is in decline!"

You wrote "45 percent of Americans believe that current moral values are in a poor state. . . . Only 15 percent of Americans believe the country's morality is in an excellent or good state."

I'm guessing that 45% are the religious fanatics who erroneously think anyone who does not believe in god (over 18% of citizens) are fundamentally immoral.

You failed to make your case.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

Morals are subjective. When you're saying the country's becoming immoral you're saying it's not aligning with YOUR morals. Stop being so selfish. Look up ethnocentrism. You're the epitome of it.

@sjgf

1) It's forcing Christianity on non-Christians. There shouldn't be mandatory prayers in public schools. You want prayers than put your kid in a private school.

2) For a long time there were no laws regarding abortions .... for more years than there have been. Again, check your facts and stop being self-centered on what YOU believe is right and wrong.

3) Gays immoral? Judging is immoral. And you're VERY judgmental. Very christlike. Gays, like women's rights and blacks wanting priesthood, are just another growing group that's been discriminated against looking for equal rights. Can't you see that? Do you even care about people?

"The USA is definitely becoming more amoral." - To YOU. To others it's becoming more accepting and loving. But to you, since it doesn't align with YOUR beliefs and views, the worlds falling apart.

Try opening your minds and loving one another. We'll go much further as a society.

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

@LValfre:

When people mention that the USA is becoming less moral, that is based on what it used to be. The United States is a Christian nation, and the moral measuring stick is that of the Judeo-Christian moral code. You can pretend all you want that we exist in a vacuum of morality, so that there is no such thing as morals, but that will only fly with a small percentage of people in this country.

Your points 1 and 3 are simply a difference of opinion, based on your rejection of history. However in point 2, you state, "there were no laws regarding abortions."

I took your challenge and looked up an authoritative document on this subject. Here are some excerpts:

"Abortion did not burst upon the American scene with Roe vs Wade.

Yet, because the facts surrounding abortion and abortion law in the first 200 years of our nation's history are not common knowledge, many are not aware that for nearly all of our country's existence, taking the life of a baby in the womb was prohibited."

continued in next post ...

sjgf
South Jordan, UT

Continuing:

"In fact, to those who have grown up in the post-Roe era, who have been taught little history, and who listen to pro-abortion rhetoric, the opposite may seem true. To these young people, it may appear that the United States was founded upon and has always guaranteed "freedom of choice" in abortion.

Until 1973, however, the pre-born baby was protected by American law."

It sounds like you might be part of the people who grew up in the post-Roe era, and have no memory of life more than 40 years ago. You might try researching history before making historical claims.

If you'll 'google' the quotes above, you should be able to find the original article with much more detail on the issue.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

"If you'll 'google' the quotes above, you should be able to find the original article with much more detail on the issue."

I can give you some quotes to Google if you have the courage to read non-approved literature that in reality was once official church literature.

TerryHaimes
Sturgis, MS

A lot of it maybe most of it is an economic issue. The republicans some years ago created something called an "earned income tax credit". The purpose being to encourage people with young children to work for minimum wage. A single parent with one to three children making in the range of $20,0000.00 per year can get a very nice check each year from the IRS. If you don't think it is significant money go talk to your used car dealer, furniture dealer and appliance dealer. If the couple mentioned in this article were to marry they would probably lose a good portion of this "tax refund". On the other hand college graduates expect and probably do make too much money to get the benefit of the earned income credit.

nhsaint
PETERBOROUGH, NH

I work in a public high school- we do NOT have a significant rate of teen pregnancy, but I do keep in touch with my students when they leave, and many of them begin families before they marry. I can tell you that for every single unmarried couple that I know with children, the issue is money. They receive many benefits from the state, such as free or reduced childcare, free health care for their children, food stamps, WIC, etc.

And yes, the Earned Income Credit is part of it all- but since it is collected only once per year, I can tell you that it is not the prime motivator. Young women cannot afford to stay home with their children, nor can they return to low-paying jobs that do not justify the cost of child care. We have created a system that makes it more fiscally prudent to live together, rather than marry. This is a huge societal mistake. It has marginalized marriage to the prosperous- and the documented benefits of growing up in a married family unit are lost for the children. We should shift those benefits to those who choose to marry.

Pack
Layton, Utah

Reading these posts just makes me laugh. One day we will all understand how wrong our personal perceptions were. As has been foretold, he is raging in the hearts of men.

joelwisch
Albuquerque, NM

That is fine.. let people do as they wish. But don't make the American Taxpayer pay for that process.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

My question is why are women the only ones being given this distinction for out of wed lock pregnancy, parenting, and giving birth? I think the men deserve just as much consideration for active participation equal to a women. Women can't do this alone so I think men should be given equal credit so they can qualify for a $50,000 permanent job with the state and federal welfare department.

Why is a $50,000 entitlement job benefit limited to the women? Men deserve the same entitlements so they can help support their out of wedlock or divorced children. There is a lot of discrimination and prejudicial crimes by blocking the fathers from receiving equal rights as women receiving jobs in government. Or at least a shared financial entitlement so these unwed mothers can have the fathers active in these childrens lives.

Welfare departments are home wreckers and family destroyers because of their prejudices and bias preventing the parents from getting married as joint custodians and care takers. Job entitlements should not be based on gender, its unconstitutional.

CWV1965
Taylorsville, UT

When you don't have morals, then you are immoral. And who decides morality? Not the immoral or government, they don't know what morals are nor can they be legislated.

Abstinence has been the only true birth control mechanism for 10,000 years and when the pill arrived it led to the abolishment of abstinence, called it unconstitutional violation of civil rights to procreate. The consequences were not acceptable either, pro-lifers say abstinence is not legal to prevent unwanted children from being created so the next best solution the creation of fetus abortions by medical experts being legalized to replace abstinence.

Now we are in a dilemma, do we allow abortion or unwanted children or do we legalize abstinence and do more to make that a socially acceptable birth control system that worked for 10,000 years? Of course "Kill Pill" and remover from the market. Abstinence as birth controls would apply to pro-lifers and men/women who don't want to have a baby.

Though attraction and hormones are a normal human process, education to control emotions and animal instincts should be taught in schools and the news media as choices to control equal to other social crimes.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: LValfre CHICAGO, IL

Those with failed marriages to minimize traditional marriages, and the advantages they bring when raising children.

The liberals tell us "not to judge" while they look down their nose at conservatives. We refer to it as the double standard.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

@Rifleman

"Those with failed marriages [tend] to minimize traditional marriages, and the advantages they bring when raising children."

I'm engaged to an ex-Mormon, we have no kids, don't live together, and we've waited for marriage. BUT ... this doesn't make me better or more moral than anyone else.

"The liberals tell us "not to judge" while they look down their nose at conservatives. We refer to it as the double standard."

I've never seen more judging than these boards and these kind of people. No offense. If you're going to follow Christ and the Gospel and constantly push it on people .... actually follow it and quit the constant judgments, generalizations (the liberals!), and double standards.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments