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

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.

Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.

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.

For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women — especially those in their 30s and 40s — are choosing to have children despite their single status.

The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with U.S. fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the "magic number" required for a population to replace itself.

Countries with much lower rates — such as Japan and Italy — face future labor shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.

While the number of births in the U.S. reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.

"I expect they'll go back down. The lowest birth rates recorded in the United States occurred during the Great Depression — and that was before modern contraception," said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.

The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted.

Meanwhile, U.S. abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.

Cultural attitudes may be a more likely explanation. Morgan noted the pregnancy of Bristol Palin, the unmarried teen daughter of former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The young woman had a baby boy in December, and plans for a wedding with the father, Levi Johnston, were scrapped.

"She's the poster child for what you do when you get pregnant now," Morgan said.

Teen women tend to follow what their older sisters do, so perhaps it's not surprising that teen births are going up just like births to older women, said Sarah Brown, the chief executive for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Indeed, it's harder to understand why teen births had been declining for about 15 years before the recent uptick, she said. It may have been due to a concentrated effort to reduce teen births in the 1990s that has waned in recent years, she said.

The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The numbers also showed:

_Cesarean section deliveries continue to rise, now accounting for almost a third of all births. Health officials say that rate is much higher than is medically necessary. About 34 percent of births to black women were by C-section, more than any other racial group. But geographically, the percentages were highest in Puerto Rico, at 49 percent, and New Jersey, at 38 percent.

_The pre-term birth rate, for infants delivered at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy, declined slightly. It had been generally increasing since the early 1980s. Experts said they aren't sure why it went down.

_Among the states, Utah continued to have the highest birth rate and Vermont the lowest.

CDC officials noted that despite the record number of births, this increase is different from occurred in the 1950s, when a much smaller population of women were having nearly four children each, on average. That baby boom quickly transformed society, affecting everything from school construction to consumer culture.

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."

Is marriage good for individuals?

Is marriage the preferred state for those with children?

(There are apparently 60% of those between 20 and 24 who consciously go out and have children without getting married, and those who choose living together or something over marriage.)

I'm not trying to bring up the gay marriage thing again, but I will say this as an example:  I think it would be better for a child to be raised by two married gay adults than by a single mother; but I think it is more optimum for a child to be raised by a mother and a father who are married and provide both the male and female role models, as well as the support of two loving adults.

The other thing that sets me off is Octomom.  To have 6 children as a single mother (2 with special needs, as I recall), and then to consciously go out and have 8 more without any intention of getting married...and then to rely on the state to pick up the tab for the children...this cannot be healthy for the children and will ultimately be a big burden on society.

Vexen says most agree that marriage is a good thing.  That's what I'm wondering.  I always assumed that too, but statistics don't seem to support that long held assumption.

Is marriage good for individuals?

Is marriage the preferred state for those with children?

but I think it is more optimum for a child to be raised by a mother and a father who are married and provide both the male and female role models, as well as the support of two loving adults.

The other thing that sets me off is Octomom.  To have 6 children as a single mother (2 with special needs, as I recall), and then to consciously go out and have 8 more without any intention of getting married...and then to rely on the state to pick up the tab for the children...this cannot be healthy for the children and will ultimately be a big burden on society.

Preferred by whom?  Again, I think if two people are together, and committed to raising the child in a healthy, loving environment, that's what matters.  Marriage might encourage that, but it doesn't guarantee it.

I'm not sure that's what stats showed.  Rather, 60% of people who had kids between 20 and 24 weren't married.  Might seem like a nitpick, but since many people between 20 and 24 don't have kids at all, it's a numerically very important one. 

And it's probably better if they're rich, too. ;)

More seriously, though, Octomom seems a bit crazy to me, but its not really my business.

I think what she did was a bad decision, but she probably thinks that my lack of kids is a bad decision.

The fact that I don't have a million dollars in my bank account doesn't mean I don't think it's a good idea to have a million dollars.  I would imagine many (though certainly not all) of the people having kids think marriage is a good idea...just perhaps not to the person they're currently with.

And it does have an actual effect.  Being married means you've committed yourself legally and shows a deeper level of commitment than two people just living with each other who can easily extract themselves from the relationship if it goes south.

More seriously, though, Octomom seems a bit crazy to me, but its not really my business.

See, that's sad to me.  It's your business in two ways:  1) These children have no choice in the matter, and they are innocent fellow citizens,

and 2) our tax money will be paying for them.  The last I heard, the expected cost for her to effectively raise them is $115,000 PER MONTH!  And we'll be paying the tab for that...

I think it goes without saying, however, that the respect for the institution of marriage has gone down in the last 30+ years, at least since the time of the institution of the no fault divorce laws and "free love."

Is that a cause or an effect, in your opinion?  Does getting married cause you to be more committed, or do people get married because they've made more of a commitment, in your view?  Also, in this day and age, I'm not sure that it really does show a deeper level of commitment, based on the rate of divorce (which is perhaps your point).

Nobody's children have a choice in the matter, though.  That's nothing special about these kids.

  I might think people who indoctrinate their kids with religion from an early age are harming my innocent fellow citizens, but I don't feel I have any right to stop them from doing it.

And like I said, compared to all the other things my tax dollars are paying for that I don't like, this is way down on the list of things that get me upset.  compared to $12 billion per month for the iraq war, I just can't get all that worked up about something like that.

  Compared to other places my tax dollars are going, this is neither that big, nor that offensive. 

I think it's unfair to say that the modern population doesn't value honesty, commitment, or openness, at least to any degree that the prior generations did. One doesn't need any of those things, honestly, to have a lasting marriage. To have a happy one, likely, but it seems like marriage advocates seem to equate long-lasting with healthy and loving, when history has shown that's simply not true.

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the marriage advocates.  The position is (1) if you commit to it fully through marriage, you need to work on it even if there are bad times (and there are bad times in every marriage) -- marriage is about working with a partner as much as, or more than, love, and (2) and this is critical, children need the stability of a marriage (and deserve it) to prevent many problems, from dropping out of school to happy relationships themselves as adults.

Most marriage advocates say if you don't have children (or they're grown), then divorce is a last option but an available one.  But not marrying at all means never really committing (not to mention the morality issues that come into play from a religious perspective for those who are religious).

In any case, the children are the number one concern for marriage advocates, and far more important than a "happy" marriage.

Nobody's children have a choice in the matter, though.  That's nothing special about these kids.

I see what you're saying, but it's not her specifically I'm talking about.  She's a very prominent and exaggerated display of what is going on all over America.  It's what she stands for that I'm really talking about, and all the kids across the country in similar situations.

  I might think people who indoctrinate their kids with religion from an early age are harming my innocent fellow citizens, but I don't feel I have any right to stop them from doing it.

First, that would be opinion, and not a reasonably sufficient harm in any case.

This woman, for example, already had one of her kids walk off and get lost for hours because she wasn't watching,

and now she has 8 more.  In any case, she's being investigated by CPS, so that should tell you something.  And they certainly aren't any better off for being poor, on welfare, with no father and 13 siblings...hard to argue against that, I think.

I quickly looked up welfare costs.  I didn't find the latest stats, just up to 1995, but over 20% of our gross domestic product was spent on social welfare programs.  That was over $1.5 trillion in 1995 and is probably much higher now.

So:
Cost for the war: about $12 billion per month
Cost for welfare programs:  well over $125 billion per month

So it is not fair to use the cost of the war as the concern.  If money is your concern, welfare programs cost 10 times as much as the war each month, so under the standard you stated, you should be much more concerned about the welfare programs.

  Compared to other places my tax dollars are going, this is neither that big, nor that offensive. 

Hmmm....see my comment above.  Not big???

But God's character as revealed in the Bible should be our standard.

Educated couples are statistically different to uneducated couples, but it would be unethical to ban uneducated people from getting married.

Yeah, I get the informing perspective couples of the terms of marriage part, but what happens to those who fail the test? Are they not married?

I don't think we should expect to pay $100k for these kids every month for their entire lives.  That's more than $10k each, every month.  I haven't seen see any reason to expect them to be getting that much from the government for 18 years.

Octomom's angels who are scheduled to provide $135,000. plus monthly in neonatal care are possibly broke.

The “Angels in Waiting” charity offering to help Nadya Suleman cover her bills hasn’t exactly been rolling in the money. The Octomom needs an estimated $135,000 per month to care for her kids.

Still sounds to me like it's a short term thing (or, at least I haven't seen anything indicating otherwise).  Even if it's for 14 kids, that still nearly $10k per month each, which seems well over what many people manage to spend on their kids. 

You're trying to make a generalization.  I'm talking about this woman specifically.  CPS has already visited her with the intention of possibly taking away the children.  (There are other factors too, not the least of which is that she lost one of her kids before and threatened suicide and said she only had the children so she could get a girl.)

Marriage Encounter isn't required. My parents covered it for us though, just because it's a *really* solid program. Chat with the priest is free.

Yeah, I agree that meeting with the priest was sort of... well, not the hugest help. But at the same time, we probably spent 40 minutes there, so there's not a lot that the most experienced counselor can do with that time. It was really focused on the very basic things though; we didn't meet in Vegas the night before, it wasn't a shotgun wedding, our beliefs were not totally incompatible. The idea being that the priest can speak out against the sort of situations that anyone with any sense would recognize as being issues.

The question is:

Is marriage good for individuals?

Is marriage the preferred state for those with children?

Vexen says most agree that marriage is a good thing.  That's what I'm wondering.  I always assumed that too, but statistics don't seem to support that long held assumption.

I don't know who said "strongly suggested". Marriage/Engaged Encounter was strongly suggested by my parents to me because it's a really good program. Our priest never mentioned it, nor did any other member of the Church (aside from other family friends).

However, the priest counseling is in fact required. They won't conduct the ceremony without it. There is a cost associated with it; I don't recall how much. Something on the order of $50 for them to do the little questionnaire, plus some other miniscule amount for the church space for the day of. (Our whole wedding + reception was under $3,000 and the majority of that was dinner.) The whole thing is extremely cheap if you're a member of the Church, and they'll waive it if you're in any sort of financial need (we weren't, so paying $200 for four hours was fine).

However, I do know of some churches that require more costly marriage counseling before allowing you to be married.  That, I think is mercenary.