Understanding the Motivation of the Right Wing Fundamentalists

The Republican Party is now the official pro-abortion party.

By introducing numerous bills into state and federal legislatures trying to curtail women's access to the most reliable birth control methods available (i.e. the pill, IUD, patch, implant, shot, tubal ligation, Plan B, etc., etc.), Republicans have made it clear that they are NOT in favor of trying to reduce the abortion rate.  In fact, their actions WILL INCREASE the abortion rate as many women will go without these most reliable methods of birth control for financial reasons.

If Republicans were actually trying to reduce the number of abortions performed in the U.S. each year, they would be introducing bills which would make birth control MORE available for more women.

As usual, it is the Democrats who are doing more to reduce the abortion rate than Republicans.

Children living with a divorced parent are advantaged compared to children living with an unwed parent, especially when that parent is the father, in general.

It is well known that children living with single parents are disadvantaged in many ways, in general, when compared with children living with both of their parents.  The following information breaks down the quality of life further, outlining how differences in the former marital status of the parent impacts the children.  It clearly shows that children of formally married parents are advantaged as compared with children of unwed parents, and it shows that children living with single fathers are advantaged as compared with those living with single mothers, in general.

Census Brief
Children with single parents
how they fare

CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME WITH BOTH PARENTS grow up with more financial and educational advantages than youngsters raised
by one parent, as U.S. Census Bureau statistics have long shown. But even for those children living in single parent homes, the marital status of the
parent can affect the quality of life.  Children living with a divorced parent typically have a big edge over those living with a parent who has never married-an even bigger edge if that parent is the father.

DIVORCED PARENTS ARE
MORE EDUCATED

About 85 percent of children living with either a divorced mother or
father in 1995 were living with a parent who had finished high school. In
contrast, among children living with a never married parent, fewer than
two thirds had parents who had completed high school.

CHILDREN OF DIVORCED
PARENTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO LIVE
IN RENTAL HOMES...

Of the 19 million children of single parents, two thirds lived in rented homes. [78] percent of children living with never married parents and one
half (52 percent) of children living with divorced parents lived in rented homes.

AND LESS LIKELY TO BE POOR

...

Nearly six of 10 children living with only their
mother were near (or below) the poverty line.
About 45 percent of children raised by divorced
mothers and 69 percent of those raised by never
married mothers lived in or near poverty. Children
living with their father (particularly if he was di
vorced) were more likely to be part of a family with
a higher median income than those living with a
single mom.

Employment was an important reason. While many single parents had jobs, there were 7.4 million children living with single moms who were unemployed or not in the labor force.
Children of never married mothers were twice as likely (59 percent) to have their moms unemployed or not in the labor force as children whose mothers were divorced (29 percent).

source

Most marriages DO NOT end in divorce. The divorce rate is lower than you think.

 

U.S. divorce rates returning to idyllic 1950s levels
More than 65 percent of first marriages reach their 10th anniversaries. That number has jumped to about 80 percent for recent marriages.

Many long for the 1950s, when intact, happily married couples populated the popular imagination. In a way, that era has quietly returned. The average number of children exposed to divorce today has dropped to near the average experienced during that decade.

The rate of divorce among Baby Boomers is lower than that of their parents. Their children's divorce rate is even lower.


Read more: http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/01/17/1264925/us-divorce-rates-returning-to.html#ixzz1FsM8YOBQ


U.S. Divorce Rate Lowest Since 1970

America's divorce rate began climbing in the late 1960s and skyrocketed during the '70s and early '80s, as virtually every state adopted no-fault divorce laws. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981.
But since then it's dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That's the lowest rate since 1970.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8p1mg601&show_article=1

Unmarried Men Leave Relationships Which Include Children At Much Higher Rates Than Married Men.

Sometimes during a discussion about the importance of marriage, especially with respect to the frequency with which men leave a relationship that includes a child, the assertion is made that men leave with the same frequency regardless of marital status, since the divorce rate is so high.

That is patently untrue. 

Following is evidence that the divorce rate is not as high as some claim it is, followed by evidence showing that unmarried men leave relationships with children at much high rates than married men.

•  The divorce rate is not actually 50%, it is lower than that.  Also, married men do not leave as often as unmarried men.

  The following is information of the frequency with which cohabiting couples break up, so keep in mind that couples who have children also include many who do not live together.  Their break up rates are even HIGHER than the cohabiting break up rates mentioned here.

  COHABITING STABILITY

  Quote:
  
  

   

  Cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents and the effects of breakup can be devastating and often long lasting.   Moreover, children living in cohabiting unions are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence, including lethal violence, than are children living with married parents.
  One of the greatest problems for children living with a cohabiting couple is the high risk that the couple will break up.25
  Fully three quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born to married parents face a similar fate
   Parental break up, as is now widely known, almost always entails a myriad of personal and social difficulties for children, some of which can be long lasting.  For the children of a cohabiting couple these may come on top of a plethora of already existing problems.  One study found that children currently living with a mother and her unmarried partner had significantly more behavior problems and lower academic performance than children from intact families.27
  25.  Zheng Wu, "The Stability of Cohabitation Relationships: The
Role of Children."Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:231-236.
  27.  Elizabeth Thompson, T. L. Hanson and S. S. McLanahan.. "Family
Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources versus Parental
Behaviors." Social Forces 73-1:221-242.
  cohabiting couples break up at a rate five times higher than for married couples
  Poponoe.
  http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-23056

   

  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  
  Cohabiting parents break up at much higher rates than married parents.6
  6  McManus, 2008, p. 41.

  
  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  Single parenthood stems both from unwed births and from parental breakup after birth. Cohabitation is a factor in spurring higher parenthood due to births to couples not married. It is also responsible due to the higher breakup rate for cohabiting couples who have children -- which is more than twice what it is for married couples with children.
  
  Popenoe tied in the higher break-up rate to the lack of commitment in cohabiting couples, a point also mentioned in the McManus book. Cohabiting partners, he said, “tend to have a weaker sense of couple identity, less willingness to sacrifice for the other, and a lower desire to see the relationship go long term.”
  
  He cited one study carried out in the United States that calculated cohabiting couples break up at a rate five times higher than for married couples.
  
  http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-23056

  
  
  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  The Negative Effects of Cohabitation
  Linda J. Waite
  
  The Cohabitation Deal versus the Marriage Bargain
  
  Cohabitation is a tentative, non-legal coresidential union. It does not require or imply a lifetime commitment to stay together. Even if one partner expects the relationship to be permanent, the other partner often does not. Cohabiting unions break up at a much higher rate than marriages. Cohabitors have no responsibility for financial support of their partner and most do not pool financial resources. Cohabitors are more likely than married couples to both value separate leisure activities and to keep their social lives independent. Although most cohabitors expect their relationship to be sexually exclusive, in fact they are much less likely than husbands and wives to be monogamous.
  
  A substantial proportion of cohabiting couples have definite plans to marry, and these couples tend to behave like already-married couples. Others have no plans to marry and these tentative and uncommitted relationships are bound together by the "cohabitation deal" rather than the "marriage bargain." In fact, couples may choose cohabitation precisely because it carries no formal constraints or responsibilities.
  
  
  What Cohabitation "Produces"
  
  As the previous section showed, marriage fosters certain behavioral changes-by both the couple and those around them-that cohabitation simply doesn't encourage: each partner can specialize; in-laws can get involved; children and their parent's spouse can invest in a mutual relationship; and so on. What, though, are the empirical results of these behavioral changes, and of the many other ways in which the two options differ?
  
  Before seeking to answer this question, it must first be acknowledged that cohabiting couples, especially those with no plans to marry, tend to differ from married couples even before the cohabitation begins. Living with someone rather than marrying attracts people less committed to marriage, and less likely to be successful at it. Thus, selection of people with less to offer a partner and less to gain from marriage accounts for some of the poorer outcomes of cohabitors. But, as we shall see, at least some of the evidence suggests that cohabiting itself also contributes to those outcomes.
  
  Recovering the Wheat without the Chaff
  
  The cumulative evidence clearly suggests that compared to marriage, uncommitted cohabitation-cohabitation by couples who are not engaged-is an inferior social arrangement. Couples who live together with no definite plans to marry are making a different bargain than married couples or engaged cohabitors. The bargain is very much not marriage, and is "marriage-like" only in that couples share an active sex life and a house or apartment. Cohabiting men tend to be quite uncommitted to the relationship; cohabiting women with children tend to be quite uncertain about its future. Levels of domestic violence are much higher in these couples than in either married or engaged cohabiting couples. Children in families headed by an unmarried couple do much worse than children in families with married parents. Uncommitted cohabitation delivers relatively few benefits to men, women, or children. This social arrangement also probably benefits communities less than marriage.
  http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/rcq_negativeeffects_waite.html

  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  
  
  Cohabiting couples who don't marry also break up at a rate that greatly exceeds the nation's divorce rate.
  
  Katherine Kersten
  Center of the American Experiment

  
  

  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  THE FACTS BEHIND COHABITATION
  Stability
  Cohabiting relationships are fragile. They are always more likely to break up than marriages entered into at the same time, regardless of age or income.
  Cheating
  Both men and women in cohabiting relationships are more likely to be unfaithful to their partners than married people.
  Domestic violence
  Women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than wives to be abused. In one study, marital status was the strongest predictor of abuse-ahead of race, age, education or housing conditions.
  http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php#2t
  

  
  
  DIVORCE

  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  Divorce Rates Going Down ... Way Down
  Submitted by admin on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 15:40
  
  Whether listening to talk radio, reading the tabloids or even occasionally from a Sunday morning pulpit, the conventional wisdom is that approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce. This statistic has been so deeply ingrained into our minds and culture that it affects the way people think about marriage, talk about marriage, and even enter into marriage.
 
How disheartening it is to believe that the most intimate and foundational of all human relationships is also so fragile.
 
But host of scientific relationship research cast a much more positive light on the health of marriage in the United States. To begin, these studies reveal that the “50% of marriages end in divorce” mantra is a total myth.
 
The truth is, the rate of divorce peaked at approximately 47% for couples married in the 1970’s, which proved to be a very turbulent decade for marriage. But since that decade, the rate of divorce has been on a steady and encouraging decline. For a more in-depth look at the data, click on the link: Marriage Data
 
When you remove “serial divorcees” from the equation, the divorce rates are even lower. Another encouraging statistic studies like this reveal is that once a marriage reaches the 10 year milestone, it’s chance of lasting a lifetime increases significantly.
  http://www.oregonfamilycouncil.org/blog/2010/07/02/divorce-rates-going-down-way-down

  
  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think
  By DAN HURLEY
  The New York Times
  
  
  How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the
  statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and
  campaign speeches.
  
  The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
  marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate.
  
  But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are
  divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and
  that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In
  fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has
  never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that,
  with rates now declining, it probably never will.
  
  "The crude divorce rate has been going down," said Dr. Andrew J. Cherlin,
  professor of public policy in the sociology department at Johns Hopkins.
  "But whether the rates will ultimately reach 45 percent or 50 percent over
  the next few decades are just projections. None of them are ironclad."
  What all experts do agree on is that, after more than a century of rising
  divorce rates in the United States, the rates abruptly stopped going up
  around 1980.
  http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html

  
  
  
  
  
  

  Quote:
  
  U.S. divorce rate falls to lowest level since 1970
  
  “Families with two earners with good jobs have seen an improvement in their standard of living, which leads to less tension at home and lower probability of divorce,” said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of public policy at Johns Hopkins University.
  America’s divorce rate began climbing in the late 1960s and skyrocketed during the ’70s and early ’80s, as virtually every state adopted no-fault divorce laws. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981.
  But since then it’s dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That’s the lowest rate since 1970.
  © 2010 The Associated Press.
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18600304/
  
  

  Discussion including non-cohabiting parents and cohabiting parents

   

   

  Quote:
  
  

  "Union Dissolution"
  Kathryn Edin
  Kathy_edin@ksg.harvard.edu
  Laura Tach
  tach@fas.harvard.edu
  Harvard University
  Paper Submitted to the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association
  
  
   

  Since unmarried parents are more than four times as likely to break up as to marry, the causes of relationship dissolution among unmarried parents should be a topic of significant scholarly concern.
  (Carlson, England, and
  McLanahan 2004; Osborne, Manning and Smock 2007).
  
  [A]lmost half of all nonmarital births were to cohabiting parents  (McLanahan et al. 2001; Kennedy and Bumpass 2007)
  
  Osborne, Manning, and Smock (2007) found that children born to cohabiting parents were over five times more likely to experience their parents’ separation than children born to married parents.
  
  
  Marriage Entry
  When asked about their relationships shortly following the birth of a shared child, more than 80 percent of unmarried parents reported that they were romantically involved, and over half said that the probability that they will marry each other is either “good” or “certain” (Center for Research on Child Wellbeing 2007; 2002). 

  Unmarried parents also attach a high degree of importance to the institution of marriage (Edin and Kafalas 2005; Osborne 2005; Gibson-Davis 2005; Lichter Batson and Brown 2004). Yet, unmarried parents are relatively unlikely to marry following a nonmarital birth.  Recent evidence from the Fragile Families Study finds that among a cohort of nonmarital children born in the late 1990s, only 16 percent of their parents have married by their fifth birthday, while over sixty percent are no longer romantically involved.
  
  
  
  Relationship Dissolution
  Qualitative accounts of why unmarried parents break up tend to focus on negative partner behavior and low relationship quality. Unmarried parents who broke up reported higher rates of infidelity, mistrust, substance abuse, and domestic violence; infidelity and mistrust were the most common reported causes of dissolution (Reed 2007; Hill 2007).
  While financial and economic issues play a central role in the literature on why married couples divorce (Becker 1991; England and Farkas 1986), they do not play a central role
  in unmarried parents’ accounts of why their relationships ended.
  Family complexity has a strong influence on the current relationships of unmarried parents. Romantic relationships among unmarried parents with children are often quite volatile even from the beginning (Reed 2007; Hill 2007).  As conception is seldom intentional and the length of the courtship before first conception brief, the couple’s relationship is more likely to begin as a response to an unplanned pregnancy—an attempt to build a family around a baby—than as an outgrowth of a stable relationship.  Sexual
  jealousy between new and old partners is a common theme (Edin, Tach, and Mincy, forthcoming; Hill 2007).
  
  Parents with children from prior marital and nonmarital unions are more likely to experience separation than parents with only one biological child (Carlson et al. 2004; Osborne 2005; White and Booth, 1985). Many of these conditions which increase relationship instability predate
  the union (e.g. prior fertility), rather than being caused by it.
  
   
  Data from fragile families study
  We refer to unmarried parents and their children as “fragile families” to underscore that they are families and that they are at greater risk of breaking up and living in poverty than more traditional families.
  Edin, Kathryn. and Tach, Laura. "Union Dissolution in Fragile Families" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Hilton San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, Aug 08, 2009 Online <PDF>. 2010-11-19 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p309357_index.html>

http://www.cafemom.com/group/416/forums/read/12746299/Compared_To_Married_Men_Why_Do_So_Many_Unmarried_Men_Leave_When_Their_Girlfriend_Has_A_Baby_Or_Short?last#last

• You wrote on Nov. 19, 2010 at 11:47 AM

In spite of their better economic circumstances on average, children in step-families face many of the same risks as children of never-married or divorced parents.

 

ABOUT THIS BRIEF
 
Over the past 20 years, a body of research has developed on how changes in patterns of family structure affect children. Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological1 parents who have low-conflict relationships. 

McLanahan and Sandefur found that children who did not
live with both biological parents were roughly twice as likely to be poor, to have a birth outside of marriage, to have behavioral and psychological problems, and to not graduate from high school.

[T]he risk of dropping out of high school for the average white child was substantially lower in a two-parent biological family (11 percent) than in a single-parent family or step-family (28 percent).8 For the average African American child, the risk of dropping out of high school was 17 percent in a two- parent family versus 30 percent in a single- or step-parent family. And for the average Hispanic child, the risk of dropping out of school was 25 percent in a two-parent family and 49 percent in a single- or step-parent family.  



Up to half of the higher risk for negative educational outcomes for children in single-parent families is due to living with a significantly reduced household income. Other major factors are related to disruptions in family structure, including turmoil a child experiences when parents separate and/or re-couple with a step-parent (including residential instability), weaker connections between the child and his or her non-custodial parent (usually the father), and weakened connections to resources outside of the immediate family—that is, other adults and institutions in the community that the non-custodial parent may have provided access to.9 
 
When controlling for other differences in family characteristics, such as race, level of parents’ education, family size, and residential location, McLanahan and Sandefur found little difference in outcomes for children according to whether the single-parent families were a result of non- marital births or divorce. However, children of widowed parents do better than children of other types of single-parent families with similar characteristics.  
 


In spite of their better economic circumstances on average, children in step-families face many of the same risks as children of never-married or divorced parents. They are more likely to have negative behavioral, health, and educational outcomes, and they tend to leave home earlier than children who live with both married biological parents. However, the effect sizes are small for many of these differences,37 and risk levels may vary according to race and level of socio- economic disadvantage. One study found that African American daughters in step-families were 92 percent less likely to have engaged in sex than African American daughters of single mothers.
They were also less likely to become pregnant.38 Finally, children in step-families are at increased risk for experiencing physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.39 

www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf

 

The quality and stability of remarriages: The role of stepchildren.
White, Lynn K.; Booth, Alan

Although remarriages can be just as happy as 1st marriages, Ss with stepchildren reported significantly less satisfaction with their family life than Ss with biological children. In addition to breaking up their families through divorce, stepfamilies tend to move teenagers out of the home and empty the nest faster than biological families. It is concluded that the presence of stepchildren is a destabilizing influence within remarriages and a major contributor to the somewhat greater rate of divorce.
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1986-29857-001


Violence against stepchildren.
Daly, Martin; Wilson, Margo I.

Data indicate that the rate of abuse and murder is greatly elevated in step-families. Explanations are offered for why step-parent households appear more dangerous than genetic-parent households. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1996-05333-003

Some relationships of step-children to their parents.
Bowerman, Charles E.; Irish, Donald P.
Marriage & Family Living. Vol 24(2)

Step-relationships showed more stress, ambivalence, and low cohesiveness than did normal homes. Stepmothers had more difficult roles than did stepfathers. Stepdaughters manifested more extreme reactions than did stepsons. The presence of a stepparent tended adversely to influence the adjustment of the child to the natural parent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1963-02911-001

 

There are several reasons to devote special attention to stepfamilies. First, as documented in the next section, stepfamilies are common as a result of divorces, remarriages, and first marriages following out-of-wedlock births. Second, as discussed in the next chapter, stepfamilies face a variety of unique challenges that generally go unaddressed in depth in most existing marriage education curricula but which may put them at higher risk for dissolution than non-stepfamilies. These challenges arise in part from complex relationships with stepchildren, former partners, and half- and stepsiblings. Third, although children can do well in a variety of family forms, it appears that living in a stepfamily is associated with greater risk for a variety of negative outcomes for children when compared to living in a nuclear family (in this paper we define “nuclear” family as one that includes only a married man and a woman and their children in common). On average, children in stepfamilies do worse on measures of social and emotional well-being when compared to children living in nuclear families (e.g., Cherlin & Furstenburg, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; see Coleman et al., 2000 and Ganong & Coleman, 2004 for reviews).2


http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/sup_stepfamilies/reports/meeting_needs/meeting_needs_ch1.html#foot2b

 

Step-Mothers are actually more dangerous to a step-daughter, or any step-child really. (compared with fathers) Again the step-child diverts resources and energy away from the new step-mother’s children wither from a prior or current partner is immaterial. Here the aim of the new step-mother is to drive away or destroy the children from the prior marriage. (Yes, all those fairy tales about evil step-mothers had more than a kernel of psychological and biological truth behind them.) Where a Step-Father might become intimately involved with a Step-Daughter on occasion and may compete for power with a Step-son, a Step-Mother will almost always, to one extent or another, see any step-child as competition for her husbands attentions as well as resources that could be going to her and her children and act in a destructive manor toward the step-children. Basic socio-biology.  OPINION
http://ten34.org/child-abuse-statistics/step-fathers-and-child-abuse

 

 

Children of Teen Mothers Have a Higher Risk of Negative Consequences

Children of Teen Mothers:  Poor school performance, etc.


The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect.
http://www.familyfirstaid.org/teen-pregnancy.html


 A child born to a teenage mother is 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade in school and is more likely to perform poorly on standardized tests and drop out before finishing high school (3).
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1159.asp


The negative effects on the cognitive development of children born to adolescent mothers are evident. A study of children ages four to 14 showed that those born to the youngest teen mothers performed more poorly on tests of cognitive ability, were more likely to be retained a grade, and were less
likely to be perceived by their teachers as performing favorably by the time they reached high school.
Children of adolescent mothers are more likely to drop out of high school when compared to the children of mothers age 20-21. Only 77% of children born to adolescent mothers complete high school by early adulthood compared to 89% of the comparison group.

One researcher looked at the incarceration rates of the sons of young mothers. His findings revealed that 10.3% of those born to mothers age 17 and younger were incarcerated, compared to 3.8% of the sons born to older mothers. That is, the sons of young teen mothers are nearly three times more likely to be incarcerated than those born to adult mothers.

When compared to women born to mothers aged 20-21, the daughters of adolescent mothers are significantly more likely to give birth themselves before the age of 18. An analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data demonstrated that early childbearing is much more common among the daughters of adolescent mothers. In addition, daughters of
adolescent mothers are more susceptible than their mothers to economic dependence and less likely to escape poverty.

Children born to teen mothers often do not have an even start in life. They are more likely to grow up in a poor and mother-only family, to live in a poor or underclass neighborhood, and to experience high risks to both their
health status and potential school achievement.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bSq3S3xL-OUJ:www.cpeip.fsu.edu/resourceFiles/resourceFile_78.pdf+children+teen+mothers+do+poorly+in+school&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgSl6Dv0UBUOFmQZ3Ohuddeb4wyavnSQN7qtXlQZA6yYbcRe_3GqlKtaTdkf0bF8aoWjHuiU9st3Ps2bBiMX7ZgwfePy7_1MZoAZI_V8Q_2UUHWR4S2GxijK5svx42hk4GVups-&sig=AHIEtbRXA8zTBcC9Z70Hf4-xXdMoYMWCxg


A child born to a teenage mother is also seen to be at a disadvantage in society. Newborns of teen mothers tend to have a lower birth weight. As they get older, they are more likely to do poorly in school and have a greater chance of experiencing abuse and neglect. It has been found that sons of teenage mothers are more likely to wind up in prison. Daughters of teen mothers have an increased risk of experiencing a teenage pregnancy themselves.
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/teen_pregnancy_statistics.html




Teenage mothers and fathers tend to have less education and are more likely to live in poverty than their peers who are not teen parents. Babies born to teen mothers are more likely to have health problems at birth, do poorly in school, do time in jail and also become teen parents.
http://www.health.state.nm.us/phd/fp/teen_pregnancy.htm#_ftn4



Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school, (only one-third receive a high school diploma)7 and more likely to end up on welfare (nearly 80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare).8
The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights9, are more likely to perform poorly in school10, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect.11
The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.12
Maynard, R.A., (Ed.). (1996). Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing, New York: Robin Hood Foundation.
George, R.M., & Lee, B.J. (1997). Abuse and Neglect of Children. In R.A. Maynard (Ed.), Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (pp. 205-230). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Maynard, R.A. (Ed.). (1996). Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report On the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing. New York: Robin Hood Foundation. See also Haveman, R.H., Wolfe, B., & Peterson, E. (1997). Children of Early Childbearers as Young Adults. In R.A. Maynard (Ed.), Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (pp. 257-284). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Moore, K.A., Driscoll, A.K., & Lindberg, L.D. (1998). A Statistical Portrait of Adolescent Sex, Contraception, and Childbearing. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

http://www.theodora.com/teddy/newyork/teenage.html

To Hear People Discuss Abortion You'd Think It Was A Very Rare Procedure...

That could not be further from the truth.  In reality, abortion is one of the most common medical procedures performed in the United States. 

Health Topics: Facts for Women: Termination of Pregnancy

Half of all women in the United States will have an abortion in their lifetime.


Health Topics: Facts for Women: Termination of Pregnancy
Half of all women in the United States will have an abortion in their lifetime. A woman may choose to have an abortion for many different reasons, ...
depts.washington.edu/uwcoe/healthtopics/.../term_facts.html - Cached - Similar




Who chooses an abortion?
Half of all women in the United States will have an abortion in their lifetime.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwcoe/healthtopics/familyplan/term_facts.html

_{^{Half U.S. abortions are repeats for women}}
Most were over 30 and were using contraception at the time, study finds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15841448/

Unplanned Pregnancy, Abortion Often Happen More Than Once in a Woman's Lifetime

http://www.emaxhealth.com/89/8395.html


In fact, the only notable differences between women obtaining a first abortion and those who had already had one or more abortions are that those obtaining repeat abortions tend to be older and to have more children. This makes sense, as older women have been at risk of unintended pregnancy longer than younger women. Overall, most women obtaining abortions are poor or low-income, and six in 10 are already mothers.
The majority of women having abortions were using contraceptives when they became pregnant, regardless of whether it was their first abortion or they had already had a prior abortion. In fact, women obtaining second and higher-order abortions were slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (such as the pill, the patch or the ring) when they became pregnant. These patterns suggest that most women who have abortions are trying to avoid unintended pregnancies but are having trouble doing so.
http://www.emaxhealth.com/89/8395.html

61% of women obtaining abortions in 2008 already had children, including 34% who had two or more.
Half of the women surveyed reported one or more prior abortions; most of these women (37% of all abortion patients) reported both a prior birth and a prior abortion.
http://blog.archny.org/steppingout/?p=1024

A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

from
"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
When the Anti-Choice Choose
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Though only 31% of teens believe they would consider an abortion; in fact about 40% of teens have abortions.6

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6FgX6sejWB0J:www.cedu.niu.edu/~shumow/iit/Teenage%2520Pregnancy.pdf+why+do+teens+feel+it+is+socially+acceptable+to+be+teen+mothers&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjpvDTWMXvs0KU6azjoZkxeaMknc0ymp2wYIwvF4jFBmaczSQ5z3S0VJpgs80x4DeAzpOK91lv4kVU3ihapx7bL2kXUnaY0rzW-QhVeeJGb5p-gCpZBDt9ah05OXPuL_SWBnRms&sig=AHIEtbSlM7Wwbm87uvh-1GpwCK_CHXwwGA


6
SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). Teen Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion.
SIECUS Report, Volume 30, Number 3: February/March 2002. Available online:
http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0010.html

How Can Society Reduce the Numbers Of People Who Rely On Public Assistance? Stop Giving Public Assistance to Single Mothers.

Ideas from Charles Murray:

Excerpts from:

Should the system be abolished? - welfare reformer Charles Murray - Cover Story

The best way to solve America's welfare problem is to close off a large part of the welfare infrastructure--Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (now known as TANF) and food stamps--to single mothers. His principal exception would be Medicaid, he said, because "all children [should] have medical coverage."

There should be decisive moves to reduce the number of children born out of wedlock. The current welfare system, by paying mothers more for each child and denying benefits to families with two parents*, Murray argues, is a powerful force driving illegitimacy.

Out-of-wedlock births--not crime or drugs or poverty or illiteracy or homelessness--constitute "the single most important social problem of our time," Murray contends. Illegitimacy has produced a huge "underclass" in the black community and is within a whisker of doing the same among whites, he says, and this trend is creating the very dynamics that produce growing numbers of welfare recipients.

    •    Murray argues that if the welfare safety net were at least partly removed, women on welfare would be discouraged from having children, and people around those women--mothers, sisters, brothers, boyfriends--would join in discouraging them from having children.
    •    Welfare women who still choose to give birth, Murray says, could do the old-fashioned thing and marry, seek charity, or put the children up for adoption in orphanages funded and run by government--a chilling thought to many politicians and welfare officials.

    •    source

*Public Assistance Use Among Two-Parent Families: An Analysis of TANF and Food Stamp Program Eligibility and Participation


TANF  
Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs.  States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.”
source

In General

In writing many times you will see a statement being made about a particular group of people, and then you will see this immediately followed by the phrase:  "in general."  What does that mean and why does the writer add that phrase?

Here are some examples:

Unwed relationships Are Inferior to Marriage In General

There is a DIFFERENCE between the outcomes of the children of teen mothers IN GENERAL, as compared to the children of older mothers.

This means that the writer is NOT talking about every single marriage in existence, or the outcome of every single child of teen mothers.  The last thing you should do in response to this is to write about your own experience that you feel is a counter example to the statement.

For example, if you see a statement that says: Children do better in school, in general, when raised by both parents.  Let's say that your children were raised only by one parent, and they did better in school than some of their peers who were raised by both parents.  Should you write a response countering the statement about children performing better when raised by both parents?  NO.  Why?  Because the author NEVER SAID that ALL children raised by both parents perform better in school than ALL children of single parents.

For example, if a statistic says "children raised by both parents, in general, outperform children raised by single parents in school", the children of single parents who got straight A's ARE INCLUDED in that statistic.   That's what the "in general" refers to.

It means FOR EXAMPLE that you have two groups of children.

group A                                       group B

children of single mothers          children of married parents

their school grades                     their school grades

A                                                A

A                                                A

B                                                D

C                                                B

C                                                B

D                                                C

A                                                A

C                                                A

C                                                A

C                                                B

You can see there are A students on both sides and D students on both sides.  But OVER ALL and IN GENERAL the children of married parents outperformed AS A GROUP the children of single parents AS A GROUP.

generally

by and large, more often than not, mostly, in general, in the main

gen·er·al·ly
   [jen-er-uh-lee]  Show IPA
–adverb
1.
usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon.
2.
with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts.
3.
without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking.



—Synonyms 
1. See often. 

—Antonyms 
1.  seldom.


Main Entry:
generally
Part of Speech:
adverb
Definition:
mainly, in most cases
Synonyms:
about, all in all, almost always, altogether, approximately, as a rule, broadly, by and large, chiefly, commonly, conventionally, customarily, en masse, extensively, for the most part, habitually, largely, mostly, normally, on average, on the whole, ordinarily, overall, popularly, practically, predominantly, primarily, principally, publicly, regularly, roughly, roundly, thereabouts, typically, universally, usually, widely
Antonyms:
exactly, particularly, rarely, seldom, specifically

general

of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual: the general mood of the people.

not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc.; miscellaneous: the general public; general science.

considering or dealing with overall characteristics, universal aspects, or important elements, esp. without considering all details or specific aspects: general instructions; a general description; a general resemblance one to another.

not specific or definite: I could give them only a general idea of what was going on.

 

Children Of Teen Mothers: Poor School Performance, Increased Incarceration Rates, Increased Poverty Rates

The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect.
http://www.familyfirstaid.org/teen-pregnancy.html


About 64 percent of children born to an unmarried teenage high-school dropout live in poverty, compared to 7 percent of children born to women over age 20 who are married and high school graduates (3). A child born to a teenage mother is 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade in school and is more likely to perform poorly on standardized tests and drop out before finishing high school (3).
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1159.asp


The negative effects on the cognitive development of children born to
adolescent mothers are evident. A study of children ages four to 14 showed
that those born to the youngest teen mothers performed more poorly on tests
of cognitive ability, were more likely to be retained a grade, and were less
likely to be perceived by their teachers as performing favorably by the time
they reached high school.
Children of adolescent mothers are more likely to drop out of high school
when compared to the children of mothers age 20-21. Only 77% of children
born to adolescent mothers complete high school by early adulthood
compared to 89% of the comparison group.
One researcher looked at the incarceration rates of the sons of young
mothers. His findings revealed that 10.3% of those born to mothers age 17
and younger were incarcerated, compared to 3.8% of the sons born to older
mothers. That is, the sons of young teen mothers are nearly three times more
likely to be incarcerated than those born to adult mothers.
When compared to women born to mothers aged 20-21, the daughters of
adolescent mothers are significantly more likely to give birth themselves
before the age of 18. An analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth data demonstrated that early childbearing is much more common
among the daughters of adolescent mothers. In addition, daughters of
adolescent mothers are more susceptible than their mothers to economic
dependence and less likely to escape poverty.
Children born to teen mothers often do not have an even start in life. They
are more likely to grow up in a poor and mother-only family, to live in a
poor or underclass neighborhood, and to experience high risks to both their
health status and potential school achievement.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bSq3S3xL-OUJ:www.cpeip.fsu.edu/resourceFiles/resourceFile_78.pdf+children+teen+mothers+do+poorly+in+school&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgSl6Dv0UBUOFmQZ3Ohuddeb4wyavnSQN7qtXlQZA6yYbcRe_3GqlKtaTdkf0bF8aoWjHuiU9st3Ps2bBiMX7ZgwfePy7_1MZoAZI_V8Q_2UUHWR4S2GxijK5svx42hk4GVups-&sig=AHIEtbRXA8zTBcC9Z70Hf4-xXdMoYMWCxg


A child born to a teenage mother is also seen to be at a disadvantage in society. Newborns of teen mothers tend to have a lower birth weight. As they get older, they are more likely to do poorly in school and have a greater chance of experiencing abuse and neglect. It has been found that sons of teenage mothers are more likely to wind up in prison. Daughters of teen mothers have an increased risk of experiencing a teenage pregnancy themselves.
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/teen_pregnancy_statistics.html




Teenage mothers and fathers tend to have less education and are more likely to live in poverty than their peers who are not teen parents. Babies born to teen mothers are more likely to have health problems at birth, do poorly in school, do time in jail and also become teen parents.
http://www.health.state.nm.us/phd/fp/teen_pregnancy.htm#_ftn4



Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school, (only one-third receive a high school diploma)7 and more likely to end up on welfare (nearly 80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare).8
The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights9, are more likely to perform poorly in school10, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect.11
The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.12
Maynard, R.A., (Ed.). (1996). Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report on the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing, New York: Robin Hood Foundation.
George, R.M., & Lee, B.J. (1997). Abuse and Neglect of Children. In R.A. Maynard (Ed.), Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (pp. 205-230). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Maynard, R.A. (Ed.). (1996). Kids Having Kids: A Robin Hood Foundation Special Report On the Costs of Adolescent Childbearing. New York: Robin Hood Foundation. See also Haveman, R.H., Wolfe, B., & Peterson, E. (1997). Children of Early Childbearers as Young Adults. In R.A. Maynard (Ed.), Kids Having Kids: Economic Costs and Social Consequences of Teen Pregnancy (pp. 257-284). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Moore, K.A., Driscoll, A.K., & Lindberg, L.D. (1998). A Statistical Portrait of Adolescent Sex, Contraception, and Childbearing. Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

http://www.theodora.com/teddy/newyork/teenage.html