Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yeah, I mean, in this day and age, why in the world would any unmarried people be not using a condom, in spite of the fact that the woman is on birth control pills? Geeze.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I couldn't disagree more, RT. I think it's the carelessness that young men engage in sex, with no thought of the consequences, that is at the heart of this problem. I think one of the major ways we could improve the sex ed that's being taught in schools is by really and truly stressing male responsibility.>> Yes and no. Guys should certainly take more responsibility. But the last I heard many unwed mothers didn't really care much one way or the other if they got pregnant. In fact many of them ACTIVELY wanted to get pregnant because a baby would give them someone who would unconditionally love them PLUS get them welfare benefits. So yes, males should be more responsible. But where is the incentive? Tell them their welfare will be cut off? They don't qualify in the first place. Tell them they will lose their kids? Most guys in that situation could care less. Whether it is fair or not, the only place you can apply incentive in this situation is with the women. After all is said and done, they have one great advantage. Their brain is not controlled by the one-eyed monster.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Yeah, I mean, in this day and age, why in the world would any unmarried people be not using a condom, in spite of the fact that the woman is on birth control pills?>> Let’s get real. I did not come of age in the age of AIDS, so I was perhaps more casual than people should be today. But if I knew (or suspected or hoped) that the girl I was with was on the pill, do you think I even considered donning the raincoat?? No way. I'm not saying it SHOULD be that way. Just that it is.
Originally Posted By mele I wonder if there will be less abortions now that the Morning After Pill is available over the counter. (I'm not sure if it is available in all states. It is here in WA.) I would think more women would opt to use that instead of abortions. Cheaper and easier. I don't believe life truly begins until the egg implants itself into the uterine wall but I know other people believe that the second the sperm fertilizes the egg, life is created.
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, sperm is living tissue. It is alive. Life truly begins before the egg is implanted, and even before the egg is fertilized.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Actually, sperm is living tissue. It is alive. Life truly begins before the egg is implanted, and even before the egg is fertilized.>> Oh crap! Thousands of lives destroyed over the years as I used Kleenex to wipe off my hands...
Originally Posted By DlandJB <<Actually, sperm is living tissue. It is alive. Life truly begins before the egg is implanted, and even before the egg is fertilized.>> It is a reproductive cell...so is the egg (ovum). They are alive, like any cell, but since they are incapable of reproducing themselves without the help of the other, they aren't alive in the same way Woody Allen in a sperm suit is alive. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S perm</a>
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <I couldn't disagree more, RT. I think it's the carelessness that young men engage in sex, with no thought of the consequences, that is at the heart of this problem. I think one of the major ways we could improve the sex ed that's being taught in schools is by really and truly stressing male responsibility.> I think it takes to two to tango. I think males should learn responsibility and awareness, but also females. As far as kids out of wedlock and banning abortions after the first for any woman though, then you also have cases of rape and incest that wouldn't be so black-and-white.
Originally Posted By ecdc "I think it's the carelessness that young men engage in sex, with no thought of the consequences, that is at the heart of this problem. I think one of the major ways we could improve the sex ed that's being taught in schools is by really and truly stressing male responsibility." Wholeheartedly agree. We have young high school boys with raging hormones who say anything to get sex. They tell women they love them, they want to be with them forever, yada yada yada. And these young girls believe them so have sex with them whether or not they really want to. I actually think the women who are wanting to have sex and enjoying it for themselves are usually responsible and aren't the problem here. The problem is young couples who don't think about it or plan on it. Planned parenthood shouldn't just be the name of an organization; it needs to be the goal of all sexually active couples. Having a guy who hates condoms head the nation's family planning office isn't the smartest move, either.
Originally Posted By jonvn "They are alive, like any cell, but since they are incapable of reproducing themselves without the help of the other, they aren't alive in the same way Woody Allen in a sperm suit is alive." It is alive, it is life. Life is life.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd OK, being as I'm one of those horrid out of wedlock abominations who has a child I figured I should chime in. My son is loved and has two parents who love him and each other. The fact that we never had a ceremony does not change that. We did not run out and have a child for the welfare money. Sometimes life just happens. It is becoming more and more commen as people opt to live together without being married that more and more children and being born "out-of-wedlock." I have several other friends who are in commited relationships with loved children who have opted to not marry. The government even recognizes it as common-law marriage and does not treat us as second rate. The funny thing is, our relationship has outlasted most of our married friends who are now all getting quicky divorces and dividing up the kids for the weekend. Now tell me again who's using their children only as a convenience? I'd be careful with your statistics and your solutions. Don't try to solve a problem for the rest of us that doesn't even exist. As for the abortions, you all are on your own. I ain't touching that one with a ten foot pole. You want to stop women from having abortions and stop women from having children out of wedlock. Seems contradictory to me.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Thanks for chiming in sherrytodd - I see where you are coming from. We got married before having kids because we wanted to, but I think we are becoming less of the norm. I work for a large professional company and I think more people there are co-habiting and having kids than the ones that are married. So I agree that not all "Out of Wedlock" kids are accidents or welfare homes, far from. It just shows the times they are a changing. As for the abortion thing - well I used to have different views before having kids. But if some one is going to have one, they are likely to have one. I'd rather it be in a safe clinical environment. And if someone doesn't want kids. Well, having spent most of my career working with Child Protection Services and the Justice System, I would rather someone have an abortion than abuse/neglect their kids. That's this bear's 2 cents. Ultimately people need to be openly educated. And I really due feel the prudish behaviour of the American establishment does more harm than good. Abstinence is not the answer folks. (San Francisco and European living coming out here).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My son is loved and has two parents who love him and each other. The fact that we never had a ceremony does not change that. We did not run out and have a child for the welfare money. Sometimes life just happens.>> I've used the term "Out of Wedlock" because that is what the headline used. I made it pretty clear though in post #5 what my feelings were on the issue: <<A kid should have two parents in a committed relationship. I don't care if that means a man and a woman, two women, or two men. But every study ever done shows that two parents are better than one.>> A piece of paper doesn't make me any difference. It is the relationship that counts.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It is becoming more and more commen as people opt to live together without being married that more and more children and being born "out-of-wedlock."" That was what I was touching on in my earlier post. I think less people are bothering getting married, because it offers basically no benefit at all to anyone. I also have to agree with post 33. Foolish prudism about ourselves, and a pre-occupation with violence that devalues human life in all of our "entertainment." A single human breast (which everyone has) shown during a football game causes national hysteria while shows depicting young, slashed to death girls on autopsy tables show up on shows without a whisper. It's a culture of death and violence where sex is hidden and frowned upon, while death and murder is celebrated (OJ book?). With all that going on, does anyone have any reason to think that unplanned pregnancy is so high, as well as abortion? It's much more acceptable in this society to not talk about reasoned behavior regarding sex, and just go and get the thing killed afterwards. I have relatives who have also worked in CPS. An abortion for some of these poor kids would have been the best thing that could have happened to them.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Regarding the argument that women are out there having more children to get more welfare money, the average number of children per family that receives TANF is 2. Not 8, not 9 and a Mercedes - 2. According to the statistics, only 1 in 10 families has more than 3 kids. This welfare mother myth is just that, a myth. The overwhelming majority of people who receive TANF are NOT out there having more babies for more money. The money they are paid does not raise them above the poverty level. Add that in with a lifetime cap of 5 years of aid received and it's clear that the myth of the "welfare mother" is perpatuated by those who don't believe in TANF at all. It's not a major factor in those who receive welfare.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Just to add on to post 36. There is a limit on the amount of children that can be on welfare in a family as well. It's either 2 or 3, depending on circumstances.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Whoa...perpetuated. My typing is off. And this sentence "According to the statistics, only 1 in 10 families has more than 3 kids." should read "1 in 10 families who receive TANF." This statistic does not necessarily apply to all families in general.
Originally Posted By jonvn I just read an article on this. It says that the out of wedlock births are being done by women in their 20s, and it is because marriage on the whole is on a decline. Births among teenaged mothers are down by 2%.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 A number of the posts on this thread equate "unwed" pregnancies with "unwanted" pregnancies. Other posts "blame" primarily males or females for the "accidents." Someone has pointed out that the rate of teenage pregnancy has dropped by a whopping 2%. Nobody, though, has mentioned what seems to me to be the biggest contributor to the out-of-wedlock birth rate: that there is a cultural norm among African-American teens that one has to become a baby-mama to become a woman. Before you crucify me... ... I don't mean ALL Black high school students. It's income-related as well as race-related, but it's definitely race-related. ... If you don't believe me, ask your white daughters who attend integrated high schools about the phenomenon.
