Birth trends: Nonmarital births to women under 30 increasing

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • johanBjorn Salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 12:04 p.m.

    Two things:

    1) The United States is NOT a Christian nation. It was never intended to be that way by the founding fathers. It has slowly evolved into that over the last century.

    2) Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You are so unbelievably judgmental with regard to anyone that is different than you are. You seem to think that your jacked up sense of morality is justified because it was derived from a religious text.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 5, 2012 5:46 p.m.

    Salt Lake City, UT
    And they'll all be voting for Obama!"

    That is really funny. I am adopted myself, and we have adopted a chile. In both cases the mothers were active LDS young ladies. You really think that only liberals get pregnant out of wedlock? Good grief the rose colored glasses have gotten thick.

  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    Nov. 4, 2012 10:14 p.m.

    Those voting for Obama believe in a fair equitable society where citizens have opportunity to get ahead economically according to desire and ability and the cards are not stacked against them at birth due to social status, gender, or skin color. We believe women should be able to decide IF they birth children, and WHEN they give birth, and HOW MANY children they want to have if they so choose to have children. We do not believe it is the place of religion to decide that for all Americans. Religion can certainly provide guidelines for its members who are members of that religion by choice and who are then free to choose to follow those guidelines or not. Religious people can be moral or immoral. Nonreligious people can be moral or immoral. But your religious views cannot dictate the rules that all Americans live by. Sigh......I think people get a little enthusiastic about their own religions and forget that part of our constitution sometimes.

  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    Nov. 4, 2012 8:27 p.m.

    sjgf: you write:
    "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."

    We also used to allow slavery. Child protection agencies did not exist. African Americans could not vote. Beating your wife was legal.

    Is all of that moral? That is, after all, what "used to be."

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    Reality. We just don't do it very well anymore.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 4, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    "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."
    Morals are absolute AND you believe deep down in your heart that they are absolute despite what you think you believe. One moment you say that morals are subjective, and the next you tell sjgf to stop being selfish. You believe in absolute morality that dictates that sjgf should not be selfish. That in itself is a projection of your belief in an absolute morality.

    "Look up ethnocentrism." That is a reference to multiculturalism Dogmatists have hijacked multiculturalism as a way to say that there is no absolutes. That all behaviors are equally neutral. The point of multiculturalism was to be exposed to different cultures to adopt better paradigms and values. But that view presupposes an absolute standard of right and wrong. How else can one study poetry written by cannibalistic societies and recognize that the poetry is good but the way of dealing with enemies is bad? Unfortunatley, most dogmatists never get that deep into multiculturalism.

  • Pipes Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    And they'll all be voting for Obama!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 4, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    Wouldn't it be nifty if when a woman had a baby and she left it at the hospital instead of taking it home, that the father would be arrested for child neglect.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 4, 2012 6:11 a.m.

    Ute Alumni.... nope, not products, but what make people commit to something, same dynmaics apply... and when "men" don't add any value to a family.... yeah, women will choose otherwise.

    And what I love about this "looks like 40% of pregnant women are doing a great job controling their bodies".... these women didn't get pregnant by themselves. What about men taking a little responsibility here?

    That is the whole problem. If men respected women, most of this problem would go away. It takes two, and either side could curtail this problem dramatically... including the men in the equation.

    But i love teh current thinking... lets blame someone, rather than taking responsibility. It took two to make a baby, that hasn't changed. It will take two to fix the problem - neither side is exempt from responsibility.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    marriage and babies are products? maybe you ought to rethink your "credentials"

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    this makes libs happy. looks like 40% of pregnant women are doing a great job controling their bodies

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 3, 2012 6:19 a.m.

    I am a man, I am married, and I am LDS. I have spent decades launching new products and building businesses.

    That said, if I have a product that is no longer selling, the usual suspect is that the product isn't adding the value it used to, or the customer has new options. For centuries, women who wanted families had to marry to have that happen, there were no options. I am not talking religiously, by economically. Lets be honest, women had to put up with some pretty useless and in come cases bad relationships to have families.

    Today, women have options. They don't have to put up with men who bring little value to the relationship in order to have kids. Yes, there are huge downsides to trying to raise kids alone. But what this says is in many cases, the men involved are worse options than going it alone. To me, this is a sad statement about many of my fellow men, that they are failing to live up to what would needed to be considered life partners.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:49 a.m.


    "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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 2, 2012 6:40 a.m.

    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.

  • CWV1965 Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 6:10 a.m.

    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.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 5:54 a.m.

    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.

  • joelwisch Albuquerque, NM
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:00 p.m.

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

  • Pack Layton, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2012 3:14 p.m.

    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.

  • nhsaint PETERBOROUGH, NH
    Nov. 1, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    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.

  • TerryHaimes Sturgis, MS
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    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.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 23, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    "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.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2012 6:39 p.m.


    "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.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2012 6:35 p.m.


    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 ...

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 22, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    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.


    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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 21, 2012 8:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 4:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 21, 2012 3:18 p.m.

    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."

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 21, 2012 1:17 p.m.


    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.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    Oh no... the sky must be falling.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 21, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    @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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 21, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    The USA is NOT becoming more amoral and socialistic!

    Where do you people get such nonsense?

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2012 10:12 p.m.

    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.