Are Christians responsible for out-of-wedlock births?

37% of U.S. births are out-of-wedlock, a number which keeps rising each year. Back in 1970, only 11% of births were out-of-wedlock.

Is the Christian movement responsible for the increase?

But wait a minute, everyone knows that Christians preach abstinence before marriage, so how can Christians be responsible for this?

Once upon a time, the stigma of having a child out-of-wedlock was so powerful that the standard response to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy was a shotgun wedding. But then along came abortion, which offered a superior solution to the problem of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. The stigma of being an unwed mother is avoided and there's no need for the woman to marry some slimy guy she doesn't really like.

In order to discourage abortions, the Christian movement has actively encouraged women to become unwed mothers rather than to "murder" their unborn babies. Sure, the Christian movement also preaches chastity, but that message doesn't seem to be getting through to lower class women because it's preached with much lower volume than the anti-abortion message.

I think that, if the goal of the Christian movement was to prevent the so-called "murder" of the unborn, their actions backfired. By encouraging women to become unwed mothers rather than to abort, they participated in the destigmatization of unwed motherhood, thus encouraging more premarital sex and more out-of-wedlock pregnancies and more situations for women to have an abortion in the first place.

If Christians really want to prevent abortions, they should stop worrying about abortions and instead make premarital sex their number one focus. Christians need to re-stigmatize unwed motherhood.

Comments

[JewishAtheist]

I think their opposition to birth control is a big factor, too.

[Peter]

Christian re-stigmatization of unwed motherhood isn't going to have much effect. It's unlikely if more than a very tiny minority of the unmarried women who get pregnant are Christians.

[trumwill]

Most Christian denominations (even conservative ones) don't have a problem with birth control outside of abortion. It's mostly a Catholic thing. However, the stigma surrounding premarital sex often serves as a deterrant for getting birth control cause once you're prepared your sex becomes premeditated and harder to rationalize.

[trumwill]

Christian re-stigmatization of unwed motherhood isn't going to have much effect. It's unlikely if more than a very tiny minority of the unmarried women who get pregnant are Christians.

I don't agree here. In white and black community alike, poor people both are disproportionately religious and disproportionately have children born out of wedlock. There's going to be some pretty significant overlap.

[Amy]

Um, what about welfare for unwed mothers and their illegitimate children?

[Kirk]

If we want to cut down on illegitimate births, why not eliminate the promise of child-support for single moms? If we were to change the laws to focus only on married deadbeats, we could save money on enforcement, increase compliance, and stop lying to young women that the law can force every "daddy" to be a responsible one.

Also, a change in the child-support law would make marriage meaningful again. No ring, no child support. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Frank N Stein]

Amy is correct. The only religion responsible for the epidemic of single motherhood is modern liberalism and its holy grail, the welfare state.

When the productive are forced to subsidize the decisions of the animals, this is what you get.

[JewishAtheist]

When the productive are forced to subsidize the decisions of the animals, this is what you get.

Nope, no racists (classists?) here.

[trumwill]

If we want to cut down on illegitimate births, why not eliminate the promise of child-support for single moms?

Yes, because making sure that a man cannot be held to child support payments for leaving his wife and toddler behind couldn't possibly have detrimental effects. It certainly wouldn't be unfair, cause it's not like he's the one that went and got pregnant.

[The Engineer]

I agree in part with HS, although I think that he overstates things.

It is pretty clear to me that religious organizations aren't doing anything to discourage unwed motherhood or divorce. They are preaching against abortion (but in my experience, as a Catholic, I don't hear much about that either). And they are against sex education in schools.

If you add it up, HS's theory is at least plausible.

BTW, no religion other than Catholicism is against birth conrtol per se. That's a complete non-starter as an argument. The problem is when schools start pushing condoms on kids whose parents don't want them having sex.

The issue is kids and sex, not birth control in and of itself.

[Spungen]

In order to discourage abortions, the Christian movement has actively encouraged women to become unwed mothers rather than to "murder" their unborn babies.

I see no evidence of this. With the exception of the Catholic Church, the Christians who oppose abortion also tend to oppose the welfare programs that would help unwed mothers care for their children. Their focus is on adoption. They do everything they can to glamorize adoption, to make girls think there are all these wonderful perfect loving rich people out there who will give their kid a perfect life.

Of course, the reality is that a lot of women don't want to give a child away if they are going to go through a pregnancy and birth. It's not a small thing.

[David Alexander]

They do everything they can to glamorize adoption, to make girls think there are all these wonderful perfect loving rich people out there who will give their kid a perfect life.

You know, I wonder if these adoption agencies are making a profit from their trade in white babies.*

(but in my experience, as a Catholic, I don't hear much about that either).

The birth control and abortion issue is one my personal points of contention with the Catholic Church. I probably would have become an Eucharistic minister by now if it wasn't for it along with one or two other reasons.

I've personally made it a rule of thumb to withhold my weekly donation if the priest mentions abortion during the Homily. Sure it doesn't amount to much now, but in the future if there are other Catholic like myself doing this, we might be able to create some change.

If we want to cut down on illegitimate births, why not eliminate the promise of child-support for single moms?

It will eliminate some of the births because admittedly there are some women who use the child support checks for their own gain. Otherwise, these unemployed poor men weren't paying child support in the first place, and the elimination of child support reduces the chance of any of these men from actually bothering. There are some men who do rationalize their choice to stay involved with their children because they see that if they're going to have to pay CS, they might as well stick around. Admittedly, I wish there were more flexible arrangements for child support. I know of one couple where the father was a part-timer and served as the de facto day-care for his daughter while the mother worked, but the social service regime wasn't willing to recognize that.

*Black social workers loathe letting whites adopt black children. Secondly, white parents prefer white kids and Asian kids. So essentially black kids are "useless" on the adoption market, especially since blacks don't adopt children.

[Spungen]

I've personally made it a rule of thumb to withhold my weekly donation if the priest mentions abortion during the Homily.

You still go to weekly Mass, David A.? No, you don't. No way. Do you take the host?

[Spungen]

I probably would have become an Eucharistic minister by now if it wasn't for it along with one or two other reasons.

You mean, like the 200-plus porn DVDs on your computer???

[The Engineer]

>>I've personally made it a rule of thumb to withhold my weekly donation if the priest mentions abortion during the Homily.

I can hardly remember the last time I heard an anti-abortion message. Maybe 8 or 9 years ago, in Buffalo.

David, if you hear it often, I'd like to switch parishes with you. My parish is just liberal claptrap: no war, be nice to Mexicans, support the minimum wage, do something about global warming, yada, yada, yada.

If I wanted that, I'd be a Presbatyrian.

[The Engineer]

>>You still go to weekly Mass, David A.?

Just another cafateria catholic.

[The Engineer]

>>especially since blacks don't adopt children

They don't? Why is that?

I don't see how a white couple having a chinese kid, or a korean kid, or a black kid, is any different than the other. The fact that whites adopt kids of different races, and have been doing so in large numbers for quite a long time, says something about how little real racism there is anymore in America.

If whites were able to adopt black kids, they would.

[Spungen]

Just another cafateria catholic.

Weekly Mass attendance, that goes beyond most cafeteria plans. I'm currently trying to figure out how to join a parish and get the kid baptized (thus on the priority list for Catholic school) without alerting them to the fact that we were married in a restaurant by a Buddhist. I see a lot of procedural requirements looming.

[David Alexander]

You still go to weekly Mass, David A.? No, you don't. No way. Do you take the host?

Up until recently, I did attend mass weekly, but that was by virtue of the fact that my mother would force me to go as well. If she wasn't forcing me, I'd probably still go since I'm still an usher at my church. Recently, we've been going less and less since we're about thirty minutes away from the Church we've always gone to, and I'm personally uninterested in going to the church near-by.

And yes, I always take the host, but never the wine unless I'm the first person at the cup. Which in turn means that the last time I had the wine was from the last time that I served at my aunt's memorial mass.

You mean, like the 200-plus porn DVDs on your computer???

Yes, yes, that too. You can feel extremely guilty about that when you're handing out the body and blood of Christ.

David, if you hear it often, I'd like to switch parishes with you. My parish is just liberal claptrap: no war, be nice to Mexicans, support the minimum wage, do something about global warming, yada, yada, yada.

If I wanted that, I'd be a Presbatyrian.

Besides the periodic talk about abortion and birth control, I'm rather content with my parish. It's tolerably liberal enough for my tastes.

Now, if I ever left the Catholic Church, I'd go Episcopalian/Anglican. Protestant masses are just to weird for my personal tastes.

Just another cafateria catholic.

I'll admit to being a Cafeteria Catholic. I want my women and married priests and the Church to stop harassing people for birth control and abortion.

[David Alexander]

They don't? Why is that?

I've yet to figure out why, but it might have to do with the fact that many black people in some form or another adopt the children in their extended family. Sure my parents would never adopt a child, but had my mom been in much better health, my nephew would have probably grown up with us. The Bernie Mac Show is probably the best example of a how blacks "adopt" children.

If whites were able to adopt black kids, they would.

I'd imagine that some would, but I don't think the market would be as robust as it for Asian children. Too many nasty stereotypes to deal with.

OTOH, in French-speaking countries, some of the most popular adoptees are children from French-speaking black countries. The majority of the Asians who are adopted are Vietnamese babies, and Vietnam is a former French colony.

[David Alexander]

37% of U.S. births are out-of-wedlock, a number which keeps rising each year. Back in 1970, only 11% of births were out-of-wedlock.

What I'd like to see is a comparison of married couples and the time it took until the first child. I'll make a hypothesis and say that a good chunk of the couples married within a 3 to 4 month range before the child was born would today be out-of-wedlock births.

[Kirk]

Yes, because making sure that a man cannot be held to child support payments for leaving his wife and toddler behind couldn't possibly have detrimental effects. It certainly wouldn't be unfair, cause it's not like he's the one that went and got pregnant.

No not "wife". I'm talking about the vague titles such as "girlfriend", "significant other", "booty call," etc. Don't you think an abandoned wife should be a higher priority to help than some one-night stand?

This isn't an abstract complaint. My home state of Florida spent over $8 million in one year attempting to enforce child-support payments. They collected less than $250k. That's a 32/1 taxpayer-to-deadbeat ratio.

That's my money. I don't see why it should be spent attempting to make promiscuity an enjoyable lifestyle. I also don't think young women should be lied to, and told "we will make them pay" when it just isn't going to happen.

[David Alexander]

My home state of Florida spent over $8 million in one year attempting to enforce child-support payments. They collected less than $250k.

Even if you're against welfare, if the statistics are similar for other states, then it seems more cost effective to utilize the $8M in welfare appropriations than in enforcement...

[David Alexander]

...I'll also quickly add that it's quite possible that the men who aren't paying child support are the unemployable or incarcerated who can't pay, and probably won't pay.

BTW, promiscuity can be an excellent and enjoyable lifestyle for some, and there are plenty of promiscuous people who don't have children out of wedlock.

[Kirk]

BTW, promiscuity can be an excellent and enjoyable lifestyle for some...

With one out of every five adult Americans having herpes, I'm not sure how you can claim that. (And with "Friends" having six main characters, it was sometimes a fun mental exercise to wonder which one would have it. Most bet on "Joey.")

As for saying "there are plenty of promiscuous people who don't have children out of wedlock," that's like saying "There are plenty of people who don't put their kids in safety seats but don't kill their kids."

The fact that you can usually get away with something doesn't mean it's okay.

Figured I'd post a review on the book "Unprotected." I'm not sure if we discussed it here or not.

National Review, on the book "Unprotected"

Amazon listing

[trumwill]

No not "wife". I'm talking about the vague titles such as "girlfriend", "significant other", "booty call," etc. Don't you think an abandoned wife should be a higher priority to help than some one-night stand?

I suppose I got a bit confused because a divorced mom is a single mom insofar as she is a mom without a husband.

I'm not positive the "promise" of child support plays that big of a role on the night in which the baby is mistakenly conceived.

A while back I made the argument that the so-called "male abortion" (the ability to disown a child that some "father's rights" advocates push for) would lead to more real life abortions. My wife (who delivers babies of low-income mothers) shot down that idea, saying that child support generally isn't on the radar of the single mothers she deals with when the father is out of the picture. It enters the picture when they apply for government assistance. Thanks to welfare reform in the 90's many states require that the father be tracked down for child support before the state will help.

Her experiences may be atypical, but it's more experience than I got!