Why do people have kids with their boyfriends/girlfriends?

[raccoon]

(OK, bear with me....)

It’s not that I think there’s anything morally wrong with it, it’s just that IMO, being a single parent is very hard.

Not only is it hard for practical reasons, but also economically. It’s often hard to get child support out of a non-custodial parent.

[AngryAmish]

1. half of the population has below 100 IQ...

[Flashmann]

8. half of the population has below 100 IQ...

Most of those are probably below 90....65 is,or was,the cutoff for officially certifiable idiocy.....Those would be your teabaggers.....

[onenote]

43. You can't believe that all or most of those who have a child without first getting married

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

have an IQ below 100, so I'm guessing this is an attempt at humor?

[morningfog]

65. What does that have to do with the OP?

[HiPointDem]

78. because the tests are designed to fall out on a bell curve. best predictor of your score on an

IQ test = income.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Birth control pills are expensive (but will be covered soon)!

[elleng]

16. 'Expensive' compared to what?

More like, young and impulsive; mistake; faulty 'prevention.' etc.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. Pizzas. $30/month buys 3 or more pizzas.

[elleng]

24. THANKS for that,

but no laughing matter.

[HappyMe]

26. A drop in the bucket

compared to raising a kid for 18 years.

[A HERETIC I AM]

47. A kid is a VERY nice house.

Never had any, as I am the only of my 2 brothers and my sis that has never had children, but it's about $300K these days, isn't it? Birth to 18?

[KharmaTrain]

85. I've Seen Far Higher...

...a lot depends on where you live. Also I assume this doesn't include helping with college or juco...that can easily tack on another 100k or more on that total...or the expenses if your kid lives at home after 18 (which many now do). I always told my kids they were my most expensive investments...

[SheilaT]

126. As someone who raised two kids

now 25 and 30, I've always found those estimates to be very high. They tend to assume buying an awful lot of stuff for kids that they really can do without.

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

56. Birth control pills are already covered for the poor. My daughter has two friends who get them free.

[redqueen]

95. Where do they get them?

This must be new.

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

112. They get them at CVS and I stand corrected, one gets them free and the other pays 4 dollars

which is still very, very, cheap.

[truebluegreen]

88. I'd say the message outside school was

"Here, don't be stupid even though you are young."

[Honeycombe8]

89. I assume you won't be complainig of increased ins. costs?

Incl. birth control, while worthwhile and a good thing, will be hugely expensive and result in increased premiums.

I've already started seeing posts complaining of increased ins. premiums. Well, I don't want to hear it. When something new is being covered that will apply to millions of women in a certain, wide age group, it won't be free. We will all have to chip in to pay for it. Which means higher premiums.

I don't know if Medicaid pays for birth control pills, which doesn't involve insurance. But of course there are other forms of birth control.

[sinkingfeeling]

93. What the ???? I think it's great that insurance will have to provide BC

for free and I don't think insurance premiums, which have been increasing 10-15% per year for the last 2 decades, are going to be impacted by this.

[Honeycombe8]

117. Ain't nothing free. It's free to the beneficiary, but it costs big time...

and we ALL have to chip in to pay for it. Well, the beneficiary may have to pay a copay. But the ins. co. isn't going to take that money out of its own pocket. It goes into the claims paid bucket, on which premiums are based. So premiums will rise. It's simple math.

I just don't want to hear Dems complaining about premiums increasing, when they wanted increased coverage. Increased coverage = increased premiums. Like I said, simple math.

My premiums haven't been increasing that much lately. In fact, United Health Care gave rebates last year because of the ACA; they have to use 80% or 85% of premiums collected on paying claims. If they don't, they have to give refunds.

Yes, birth control coverage, because of huge # of people who take it, will be expensive. I estimated it'd cost my company's insurer about $12,000 to $20,000 a year in increased payments. Consider that it's not a one-time thing. It's a hormone that millions of women take every month, year after year, for years. And then younger women will start on them, as older women get off them. It's neverending. It's a big expense. It's more costly than ins. cos paying for viagra (which is ridiculous), diabetes, or any other chronic thing.

I was not in favor of it for that reason, although now I think it will be a good thing for lower middle class women who have bare bones ins. Most of the beneficiaries, though, aren't poor women. Poor women don't have insurance. These are middle class and wealthy women. Anyway, I don't want to hear the complaining about premium increases.

[cally]

125. well, the simple math is not that simple

Yes, birth control costs money but it prevents pregnancy and helps control other health problems if needed. Birth control is relatively low cost for a prescription drug , and pales in comparison to the costs of providing maternal health care and pediatric care for 18 years. Further, costs of birth control will go down if all have full access to it and insurance companies have an incentive to lower costs. I seriously doubt the costs of birth control coverage increase costs of health care much, if any, when the other factors are included.

[Laelth]

102. I have no problem with higher insurance premiums.

I'd prefer higher taxes, and that's what we'd have if birth control were covered under a government-run single-payer system, but I will take what I can get. Having birth control covered (by either a single-payer system or an engorged insurance industry) is better than the alternatives.

-Laelth

[Honeycombe8]

127. That's my point.

Increased coverage = increased premiums. It's very simple. Some people don't seem to understand that. So premiums WILL increase. That's the flip side of increasing coverage for a chronic-type prescription coverage. So, I fully expect premiums to go up more than they otherwise would.

But already people are starting to complain about increased premiums. The people who demanded increased coverage. I get tired of hearing that sort of thing. If you demand more, you can expect to pay more. So don't complain about it, when you were the one demanding it. (Not YOU, per se...but you get my meaning.)

Did they think the ins. cos. were going to pay millions of dollars in increased coverage and not pass that increase along to the insureds?

I wasn't crazy about the idea because the beneficiaries are not POOR women. They are middle class and wealthy women, for the most part. The ones who have full ins. coverage. Ones who are fully capable of buying their own birth control pills. (Note that birth control pills were covered under ins. if the doctor specified it was for a medical condition.) I also don't consider birth control pills a medication. But, meh, I didn't care that much one way or the other. But I at least knew that ins. premiums would rise because of it.

Sit down with pen and paper and work out how much a company with 100 female employees between the ages of 18 and 45 will be spending on birth control pills, and you'll see what the ins. co. will be paying in increased ins. coverage for that company. The catch is really that it's not a one-year deal. It's a permanent increase in claim payments. The premiums won't increase a LOT, in many cases, but there will be an increase.

[A Little Weird]

128. I don't think it's so simple

Even if your hypothetical company is paying for birth control for 100 female employees. How does that balance out vs. the cost of even just one pregnancy and delivery and then of course adding a child for the next 18 years on the insurance plan? I think birth control will lower costs.

[forthemiddle]

98. get a condom in a gas station bathroom for 50 cents

Give me a break. That is such a lame excuse. There are more places to get free contraception than to get free hypertension meds (that is a pet peeve of mine.)
I can understand the occasional oops, the birth control failed, but to say I couldn't afford it is a piss poor argument. If you can't afford birth control, you sure as hell can't afford a baby, and you should keep your pants on (men and women).
As I said, I am not saying that unintended pregnancies can't happen, or are always the fault of the individual, but you know as well as I do that most of the time (again, not all of the time), it is just plain laziness, or I just don't care, someone will take care of me attitude.

There will ALWAYS be accidents that society should help out with, or a father that leaves a mother high and dry. Or a job loss, etc. Those are true cases of people who need help. But I sometimes think we have gone too far in not criticizing bad behavior, because we don't want to hurt feelings.
Statistics tell us that in secure "nuclear" families with two parents (gender, or sexual orientation does not matter) the children do better in life. Why shouldn't we encourage that? We don't have to ostracize those that don't follow the norm, but we can encourage the best outcome can't we? We can tell our kids to not have sex until you are ready for the responsibility of the outcomes?

[Agschmid]

3. I would never do this...

for me it's different I'd want stability...
I'd want an income which can sustain a child/family...
I'd want a partner to share the child's growth with...

but to each his own, I don't own you and you don't own me.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. From the male point of view, it was hard...

and the loss of blood to their brains left them unable to think about consequences.

Well, except for those couples that don't want to get married but do do want children.

[redqueen]

5. Maybe ask the people who wish they'd never gotten married. nt

[KansDem]

76. ^^^THIS!!!^^^

Things as they are, are changed upon the blue guitar, Wallace Stevens, "The Man with the Blue Guitar."

[murielm99]

6. We are old-fashioned, I guess.

I think it is a good idea to be married first. It is for the legal protection of the child. I have heard all the arguments against this, but I figure when you have a child, you have to stop being selfish and think about someone other than yourself. If one cannot do that, don't have children!

My niece had three kids with her boyfriend before they married. Somehow, always knew they would marry. But I wouldn't have done it that way, or advised it. The commitment needs to be made.

[RevStPatrick]

7. Well, first he puts his penis in her vagina...

...and he shakes it around a bit.
9 months later, the stork brings a baby.
Sometimes, the people who engage in that activity are not "married" and don't want to be.
Sometimes an "abortion" is not in the cards, for whatever reason.

Is there another alternative?

[Liberal_in_LA]

10. TMI! TMI!

[JoePhilly]

135. I was sad reading your post ...

Because I was SURE it was going to become a sexual version of the Hooke-Pokie!!!

Some thing like this:

He puts his penis in, he pulls his penis out, he puts his penis in, and he SHAKES IT ALL ABOUT.
They do the Hooke-Pokie and they grind it all around ... THAT's what its all about!

The sperm rush in, the sperm can't get out, the sperm rush in, and the egg is all they are about.
The egg say holy-smokie, and it lets a sperm within ... THAT's what its all about.

This area is ripe!!!

[Fresh_Start]

9. Don't know about everyone

read study about why young girls do...
they want someone to love them and they believe they will get love from their child

[Marrah_G]

11. having your children when married does not ensure you will never be a single parent.

[riqster]

18. Damn skippy.

It happened to me.

[notadmblnd]

58. thank you for that

My husband died when our son was 10
Then I lost my job
Then wall street took my savings
Then my house went bye bye

I still consider myself lucky,
Because my husband had a good job whose union negotiated decent survivors benefits
I have health insurance for myself and will only lose it if I marry again
Same with a portion of his pension. I will get that till the day I die or marry again.

It's not much, but when you're working a low wage job with no benefits those two things go a long way in helping me feel secure.
Because of this, tax payers have never had to fork over a dime for this single mother.

[Marrah_G]

59. Thank goodness for your husband's union

I'm so sorry for your loss, it had to be devastating. It sounds like he was able to still help in some small way from beyond.

~hugs~

[joelbny]

92. parenthood

The same happened to my wonderful aunt, whose husband passed away when their children were something like 7 and 4. Now they are 25 and 21. It was very difficult, especially early on, but she did an admirable job as a single mother.

In this day and age, as long as the parent(s) are able to provide the child with adequate love, housing, food, clothing, care, and an overall decent life, does it really matter if the parents are married, girlfriend & boyfriend, girlfriend & girlfriend, boyfriend & boyfriend, woman & sperm donor, etc?

While perhaps all things equal it's better to raise children in a married partnership, two married individuals can be lousy, inadequate parents, and one individual can be an excellent parent. I think what matters more are financial stability, emotional maturity, good priorities, responsibility, etc.

[notadmblnd]

115. only financially

if I hadn't been married, I would not have been entitled to my husband's pension and health care.

[Posteritatis]

119. And there's a *slight* difference between "not married" and "single." (nt)

[raccoon]

121. Tell me something I don't know. My father died when all us kids were under 10. nt

[HappyMe]

12. I don't know.

I don't think it's any of my business.

I was a single mom for awhile. It was hard, but I loved every minute of it. I never asked for nor wanted a dime.

Years later, I never wanted a dime from my ex-husband.

[blogslut]

13. wow

[abelenkpe]

14. My sister married all the guys who got her pregnant

and divorced them all too. (three to date)

I guess it made it easier to arrange custody and such though afterwards?

I dunno.

To each his own.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. Tell me about, I am actually surprised when my clients are married with children.

I can honestly say 90% of my clients, SNAP and medicaid have children born out of wedlock. It is an actual statistic that state and federal agencies track, it is even used in determinations for the eligibilty in certain programs.

[exboyfil]

21. In your last sentence

Are you saying that a child born to unmarried parents may have a better chance for some benefits? If so does that make sense as a society?

For SNAP and Medicaid is some attempt made to assertain the income level/available assets of the father (irrespective of the marital status)?

Do you feel that society does an adequate job in ensuring that the father steps up to his financial responsibilities (or the mother in the case of a father having custody of the child)?

[Puzzledtraveller]

33. In some cases yes......

Birth out of wedlock is but one deprivation used in determing eligibility for certain benefits in families with children, mostly those dealing with medicaid and TANF, or KTAP as it's call here. SNAP does not have determination based on deprivation factors and only looks at intact families that purchase and prepare meals together. Birth out of wedlock is the most common deprivation, it also is the primary deprivation in any family where the parents of the child are unmarried. Only one deprivation is considered in determining eligibility. For example, an intact married couple with children and no income may be eligible for medicaid and or cash assistance. In this scenario the deprivation is that one or both of the parents of a child or children are unemployed or under employed. Incapaciation due to disability is another example. In either of these situations, if the parents were not married the deprivation would be birth out of wedlock as the government sees birth out of wedlock as the greatest disadvantage to a child. It also is used in determing if a child support referall needs to me made, in some cases it is required. In my state you have to cooperate with child support enforcement when receiving certain categories of medicaid and cash assistance. Above all of this of course is income, even in the absence of an intact family income is still the first deciding factor so in that sense birth out of wedlock does not aid or give an advantage on those cases where it is a possible deprivation.

In the case of TANF or KTAP, in a household where the deprivation is birth out of wedlock, like I stated above, the client has to comply with child support enforcment. In these cases when child support is adjudicated the state receives the support not the client as a condition of receiving assistance.

It actually is much more complicated than this I only tried to spell out the basic concept on how and why children or unamarried parents are considered to be at a severe disadvantage.

About SNAP, intact in SNAP does not mean married. It means where you have a blood relationship or a legal relationship or obligation to provide food. Exmaple, I have a client who is pregnant and is living with her boyfriend, if I ask them if they purchase and prepare meals together and they say no, then they can apply separately so that each others income does not count on their case. As soon as baby is born we have an intact family and mom, dad and baby have to be on same case regardless what they claim. The same is true for medicaid cases. In this situation my pregnant client applies for medical assistance and is living with her boy friend, he has no realtionship to the client at this point, once the child is born we have a relationship and all three must be considered on the case. Considered means counting in the household and income being counted, not that it will also give coverage to the boy friend. That would requirea whole different program and eligibility factors. So yes, it's complicated.

[madokie]

19. Its better than having one with their pet

I know I know, lame.
sorry, please forgive

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. Because strangers generally won't cooperate in the process. n/t

[jberryhill]

53. Win

[Chemisse]

82. Haha!

[raccoon]

120. Yeah, right. nt

[slackmaster]

23. Because they're not thinking with the highest layers of their brains

It's natural.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

25. Marriage doesn't always mean a lifetime commitment.

Anymore than unmarried means a lack of one.

However, having a child together means those three lives are forever linked. For better or worse. Sharing the joys, hardships and expenses of a child they brought into the world. Or not, as the case sometimes is with both married and unmarried couples.

I think another question would be, why some couples have children without both parties fully considering the future? To which an easy answer is, we're human and we make mistakes.

[rbrnmw]

27. Why is it any of your concern?

Really a snide op imo

[leftstreet]

41. +1

I don't get why this crap shows up here

Class-based, bigoted, snotty bullshit

[liberal_at_heart]

73. I agree

[Chemisse]

83. I think so too.

[pipi_k]

28. No shit...

When asked why they don't get married first, they reply that they're "not ready to make a commitment", then they stupidly go and commit themselves to at least 18 years of having to deal with the person who will be the other parent of their child.

Not to mention a lifetime commitment to a child who, no matter how old he or she gets, will always be in that person's life in some manner, good or bad.

My opinion may not be a popular one, but I don't care...if I had it my way I would temporarily sterilize people who cannot adequately support a child, who don't have a spouse, or who can't pass some sort of psychological test.

There are way too many sick assholes out there running around having kids willy-nilly that they're not supporting...neither financially nor emotionally.

[get the red out]

32. Too many people

There are too many people having kids without any thought or sense of responsibility whether married or unmarried. Then the children suffer. They seem to just think that you just at some point get pregnant and have kids (HELLO, birth control?). I know there are great parents who had unplanned kids, but there are a LOT of bad ones too, and the kids suffer terribly and grow up to have rotten lives in many cases.

People giving no thought to the commitment of parenthood and being bad parents does harm society.

The worst of all is when I turn on the evening news and yet ANOTHER young couple is in jail because the boyfriend has beaten and killed the girlfriend's infant (not his) and she didn't do anything to stop him, or thought somehow he was able to babysit while she was at work. And these cases come up constantly around here.

I don't care about if someone is married or not. I just wish people would give thought to what it takes to be a parent before having kids.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. When I worked with street kids, I lost track of the number of girls who had been

sexually abused by mom's boyfriend. There's a certain type of creep who seeks out single women with daughters.

I also saw some cases in which the boyfriend was physically and verbally abusive to his girlfriend's son.

Single parents have to be very careful who let they let into their homes.

[raccoon]

34. That's what I was trying to say! thanks. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

64. what about all those people who get married thinking they just married the sweetest person on Earth?

Then things go south, they get divorced, the divorce turns ugly, and you end up with the same situation of having two angry people having to coparent. You can never really know either way. It's all a crap shoot.

[pipi_k]

131. That's why

it makes sense for people to live together...in marriage or not...long enough for the pretty wrapping paper to fall off before having children.

I guess I've been around the block a few times, and I've noticed that it takes...oh...at least three years before the fake crap stops.

We all know it happens, too.

new relationship/marriage. Everybody on their best behavior.

At some point, the gold plate rubs off and we see the real people behind the facade.

Makes sense to me that if people want to live together, go ahead and do it for a few years before having kids. Or get married and see if they can stand each other for a few more years, then have kids.

What doesn't make sense to me is people having kids with partners they hardly know and whom they've never had to deal with once the walls of "nice" have come down.

[liberal_at_heart]

133. It's easy to judge but human behavior is very complex

There are a lot of people who grow up in abusive households. Or households where someone is an alcoholic or does drugs. Or households where the father or mother leaves. They are already damaged when they start dating. They don't know how to pick the right person. They don't know how to be in a good relationship. Sometimes they pick the wrong person because they have low self esteem.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

71. Since when did marriage become a lifetime commitment?

You don't actually believe that vow stuff, do ya?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

81. maybe not

but some people take it seriously...

sP

[pipi_k]

97. Thank you, and I would also say

that maybe the older one gets, the more seriously one takes it.

I was young and dumb at my first two marriages. Neither one lasted, as a viable relationship anyway, longer than five years.

Third time around, I was in my 40s. This March will make 18 years. I'm older. Smarter. More able to see that, while my spouse may not be Prince Charming, I'm not exactly Cinderella, either.

I made my vows, and I intend to keep them.

[pipi_k]

96. Having been married

three times myself, no. I don't actually believe it.

But breaking up a marriage has bigger consequences than leaving someone you don't have a legal commitment to/with.

Or it should have, anyway.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

99. Wow

I'm not trying to shit on you, but three times? I'm kinda shocked you think marriage is still that much of a deal breaker here.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that many people do not take as much serious consideration as they should to the most important decision anyone can make....to bring another person into this world....but whether they are married or not just doesn't have a lot to do with it anymore. As long as the biological parent's names are on the birth certificate, the legal end is taken care of. People get divorced like they break up nowadays....they just don't seem to care.

[pipi_k]

105. yeah, three times

Like I said, I was young and dumb the first two times.

My son was born 3 months after I graduated from high school.

Do people still call out-of-wedlock children "bastards" anymore? I don't know. But I had plenty of people say that about my kid. As his mom, it hurt me more than I can say.

I realize that marriage doesn't mean someone is going to stick around, but there are still loads of people who see an unmarried living arrangement as being even more disposable than marriage.

What I tend to see a lot is young couples having a kid or two or three, living in bliss without marriage, then when they finally get married, they realize how tied down they are and break up.

After the kids have already been born.

Why not get married first, and wait a few years to make sure they can stand each other before bringing kids into the world.

Just because kids outside of marriage is pretty much the "norm" now, that doesn't mean it's smart.

And I say that from the perspective of someone who, at 60 years old, can see that some of the decisions I made at the age of 17...20...25 even...were really pretty dumb.

[Drale]

29. Whoops thats why

Accidents happen and most people aren't going to end a pregnancy just because they weren't really ready or weren't planning for a child right at that moment. It happens I'm sure there are a ton of people on DU who were mistakes even if their parents would never admit it.

[mythology]

50. I know I was a mistake

My mom had been told that she couldn't have kids. Whoops. Of course given my dad, perhaps the bigger mistake was the choice of (now ex)husband.

[hedgehog]

30. One possibility - more and more getting married is all about the BIG wedding

rather than a life time commitment. People who don't have money for the BIG wedding put it off until they have the money.

[pipi_k]

36. I don't know

if that's a recent thing or what, but yeah...I agree with you on how it's all about the big wedding.

Why, why, why do people put themselves in debt for ONE day?

I see so many people doing that. Putting themselves into debt. Going through the stress and aggravation.

OK maybe it's what they want to do, although only God knows why.


So anyway, one of the stepdaughters got married in Las Vegas in 2010. Most of her Mom's side went, along with her two older sisters, the groom's parents, etc. Mr Pipi and I did not go. I would be damned if I'm going to spend nearly a thousand dollars on something like that (money which, BTW, was subsequently spent on wood pellets for heating our home that winter).

The next month of that year stepdaughter and her hubby had a smaller wedding up here at our house. It was October...absolutely beautiful. Groom's parents came from TX. Both stepdaughters were here with their hubbies, and grandson with his girlfriend. Grandson officiated at the second ceremony.

What made this so special was a very funny incident that happened when grandson, who was driving g.f. and bride from his house to our house got lost in the woods, and it sparked off a hugely hilarious story which will be told again and again for many years to come.

That, to me, is more special than all the big-ass fancy weddings anyone could ever have.

[datasuspect]

31. because people fuck

and sometimes kids happen.

i would imagine tons of people do it intentionally as well.

[bigwillq]

35. Because they can, want to, it was an oops

I don't care what the reason is. It's their business. They can do what they want.

[Zoeisright]

38. Because they want to?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Back in the days of the Iran-Contra controversy, I had a teaching colleague who

had done most of her research in Nicaragua, so she was interested when Daniel Ortega (then president of Nicaragua and head of the much-vilified, leftist Sandinista movement) and his wife came to the States and were interviewed on TV.

The interviewer called them Communists, and they protested that they were Marxists, but still devout Catholics.

"How can you be devout Catholics when you lived together for seven years and had children before you were married?" the interviewer asked.

Ortega and his wife looked bewildered. "But all our children are baptized Catholic," his wife said, "and we go to Mass every Sunday."

My colleague explained that before the Sandinista revolution, divorce was absolutely forbidden in Nicaragua. For that reason, couples didn't get married unless they were entirely sure that they could make a life-long commitment, so cases like the Ortegas, living together and even having children before getting married, were extremely common.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

40. Short sightedness and lack of critical thinking skills.

People in general aren't very smart.

[onenote]

46. Careful where you are going with that ...

Statistics show that minority group members are much more likely to have children "out of wedlock" than non-minority group members. You aren't suggesting that minority group members as a whole aren't as smart as non-minority group members are you?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. I'm suggesting that if you pick a statistically significant and random sample set of people...

A solid portion of them, can justifiably be called stupid - minority status being irrelevant.

[onenote]

49. Do you think folks have kids without getting married because they're stupid or are they stupid

because they have kids without first getting married?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

55. Depends on the situation, really.

They may actually have made a conscious decision to have children out of wedlock. The merits of the 'stupidity' of those decisions in such predetermined situations would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. But for the most part, I think that the kids being had out of wedlock is resultant of poor critical thinking skills; not the other way around.

The primary specific factor seems to be the standards one sets for selecting a marriageable mate must typically be much higher than the standards one uses to select with whom they're willing to have sex. I can personally attest to the fact that there are numerous people I would consider screwing... but only a fraction of those would I be willing to commit to marrying. I suspect most other people hold a similar mindset. That's not stupidity, just a natural sex drive. The problem is that some people are too stupid to correctly use effective means of birth control.

[morningfog]

66. So, you think choosing to have kids out of wedlock is stupid

and that those who have kids out of wedlock unintentionally are also stupid. Do I have it right?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. No you don't have it right... let me write more easily understood for you.

Here is what I wrote:

They may actually have made a conscious decision to have children out of wedlock. The merits of the 'stupidity' of those decisions in such predetermined situations would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Translation: Some people consciously decide to have kids without being married. In spite of not being married, they said, "Let's have a baby." It might have been a perfectly logical decision or it might be for a stupid reason. It's impossible to say whether this decision is stupid without examining the details of the decision, but I do not discount the possibility that it may not be a bad/stuid decision.

But for the most part, I think that the kids being had out of wedlock is resultant of poor critical thinking skills; not the other way around.
...
The problem is that some people are too stupid to correctly use effective means of birth control.

Translation: And then other people make stupid mistakes and that I personally think most cases of having children outside of wedlock are simply cases of stupid mistakes manifesting themselves. Not thinking about the consequences of sex, not using effective birth control, misusing effective birth control, etc... all mistakes that even the simplest of forward-thinking could have prevented. This is not to say that a 'mistake' baby is necessarily bad because a baby by any means/preparation can be a real blessing and joy.

Edit: And before the conversion, as so many do on DU lately, steers towards rape let me preemtively state, Unwed pregnancies as a result of rape or deception are never the fault of the victim or due/deserved to any such lack of planning or lack of responsibility... etc.

[morningfog]

74. You just confirmed what I understood:

I personally think most cases of having children outside of wedlock are simply cases of stupid mistakes manifesting themselves

Do you feel the same about babies that are the product of a married couple?

[Freddie]

42. The most important decision you will ever make in your life

Is who you choose to be the other parent of your child.
Don't know who said that originally, but this is the wisest advice ever given.

[raccoon]

75. That is wise advice! never heard it before, but it's good. nt

[kestrel91316]

44. The RW likes to say that that's how the woman gets a guarantee of welfare so she

doesn't have to work.

I would hate to assume that about more than a very few, but I have no doubt that it's a factor for a minority of them. We are not talking about smart people here a lot of the time. So irresponsible motives can and do come into play.

[Riftaxe]

45. Live for the moment*

Birth control optional...

[shenmue]

51. Possibly lack of birth control, or it just fails sometimes

But more people should use protection. At least it will help most people, if they're not sure that they want to stay together.

[frogmarch]

52. They think it's romantic?

[yellerpup]

54. Usually by accident.

The same way most married couples do it.

[NCTraveler]

57. Because some people have sex before getting married.

And when people have sex, the woman may become pregnant.

Obvious, I know.

[al_liberal]

60. How about we've both been divorced and once was enough?

Make no mistake, I'm somewhat successful and so is her mother. We both wanted a child and we both knew that time was running out. She was 42 and I was 37. What's wrong with fulfilling a life's goal regardless of whether you've partaken in the ceremony that is supposed to unite you both for life? We'd both tried that and it didn't make sense to try it again.

I love my daughter more than anything in my life and I'm glad we did what we did. I pay over 1K/mo in support and I'm not a bit unhappy about it. Often times I pay much more than that to buy her things that she wants instead of what she needs. Yes, she is spoiled by both of us but neither of us ever expected to have a child.

[LeftyMom]

61. And here I thought Gladys Kravitz had died.

Wow, what a bunch of busybodies.

[liberal_at_heart]

62. what about single people that make lots of money?

What about single people that never find that right person? What about single people that just have a lot of love to give but not a lot of money? I was married when I had my first child but my husband and I were very poor. It was hard economically as well. I think people should have children when they are ready to have children regardless of their marital status or even economic status as long as they can provide that child with a loving home.

[MadrasT]

63. Fuck if I know.

I can't figure out why people have kids with their spouses. I have never had -- or understood -- the urge to procreate.

[Comrade Grumpy]

67. Because it's less icky than having them with their brothers or sisters?

[TransitJohn]

68. If they procreate with a boyfriend/girlfriend, how are they single?

I don't get your post. As if marriage would preclude someone later becoming a single parent. This ain't 1890.

[Whovian]

69. Because people in the "girlfriend/boyfriend" arena love fucking more than breathing.

[jeff47]

72. Why on earth do you think these kids were planned?

Accidents happen. And birth control can fail.

[pipi_k]

101. That's a hell of a lot

of accidents.

Really.

Any show I've ever seen on human sexuality, etc. points out the many things that have to go "right" in order for conception to occur.

It's amazing it happens as often as it does.

I would be willing to bet that an awful lot of birth control failures are really failures to use it properly.

Or not bothering to use it "just this one time", then forgetting that they skipped that one time.

[jeff47]

107. Yes, the most common failure mode is improper use (nt)

[Chemisse]

79. I expect many of these couples are living together.

So they are not single parents, practically speaking.

[Sheldon Cooper]

84. What an amazingly ignorant post, in so many ways.

But let's start with the most obvious: you do know that plenty of divorced non-custodial parents do everything they can to avoid paying child support? There are LOTS of deadbeat parents who used to be married.
Why you would think that having been married increases the likelihood of paying child support is beyond me.

[redqueen]

94. Ignorance?

I thought it was mostly conservatives who had such a twisted, idealized view of marriage.

[raccoon]

122. You're the one who's amazingly ignorant if you don't know that often it is a fight to get child

support out of the non-custodial parent--whether the couple were married or not.

"There are LOTS of deadbeat parents who used to be married. " You don't say!

[cynatnite]

87. This is really an odd question, IMO...

A lot of single parents used to be married parents. A lot of boyfriends/girlfriends are in committed relationships with each other and raising their children together. Also, the single parent stigma isn't there anymore. The definition of family has changed over the years.

This question is weird to me.

[Honeycombe8]

90. Accidents....urge to have children....subconsciously want children

There are various reasons. I think one of the reasons this happens is a subconscious desire to have children (a/k/a someone who loves the girl). People think it's just a matter of birth control, when it's more complicated than that, IMO.

But people need to realize that whenever you have sex, you can have a child. Birth control or no birth control. Guys esp don't seem to understand their culpability...they think the birth control is HER responsibility. But guys need to understand that if they have sex, yes, that can result in a child. That is one of the risks.

[Romulox]

100. My theory is people generally want and expect the natural outcomes of their actions.

That means women become single mothers with eyes wide open, because that's what they want to do. I don't believe it is a horrible accident in most cases (how did this happen?!?!) or that it is because condoms are too expensive ( ).

You might ask why women desire single motherhood, but my theory is that they seek single motherhood intentionally.

[patrice]

111. +1 I saw Pew research that suggested single-parenthood is no longer negative, no matter the demograp

hic cohort.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

103. Because - it's none of your business n/t

[pipi_k]

106. It absolutely is

our business if what parents do to their kids may impact them negatively because we, as a society, have to deal with the repercussions.

If a kid comes from a home where the father isn't around because there were no legal consequences to his leaving, you think there's no impact on the kid?

Like I said somewhere above, marriage doesn't always translate into stability, but if marriage is that disposable, then unmarried living arrangements, to those same people, are even more disposable.

And who ends up suffering in the end?

The kids.

People who have kids before they are financially and emotionally ready HURT their children.

But hey...screw the kids. It's all about what the adults want to do because they can.

[liberal_at_heart]

110. But the issue of marriage is irrelevant

You can have two people who divorce and decide to be civil in order to coparent. You have people who live together for decades and never get married. You have people get married and end up being abusive to one another but stay together because of the kids. You have married people who love each other but are unable to coparent. You have married people who have wonderful, loving relationships and treat their kids wonderfully. We are human. We are complicated. We are fallible. Yes, we should always strive to do what is best for our kids. but whether someone is single or married has nothing to do with it.

[pipi_k]

130. Please see

my reply in #129


Also, I'd like to add that, despite the assertions from some people that they're "not ready" for marriage, what they're really saying (IMO anyway) is that they don't want to be tied down legally to any one person and are keeping their options open for a fast getaway.

Like others have said, and I do agree...marriage doesn't always equate to stability.

I just don't see any reason to make it easier for one or the other to skip out when things get a little rocky instead of at least trying to repair it.

[liberal_at_heart]

136. I don't care how long anybody stays with anybody

If there are kids involved both parties should be legally bound to do what is best for the child and hopefully they can both agree to be civil in order to co parent. Not all people do this but there are people who do. I have been married for 18 years. Do I hope I stay married forever? Of course. Would I be devastated if he left? Yes. How did I pick a guy who has stuck around for 18 years? I don't know. I guess I got lucky. It is none of my business who picks who just as it is none of anybody's business who I picked. Maybe instead of judging people for picking bad partners, what we should be doing is helping people get therapy so they can have good self esteem and access to classes that can help them learn how to be in a healthy relationship.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

113. The father of my kids died when they were 8, 11, and 14

It definitely impacted my kids. I don't remember my husband having any legal consequences from having a brain aneurism. Nor do I remember society dealing with our family's repercussions. But hey...you've already determined that my attitude is "screw the kids".

You seem to think single parent=bad, married, 2 parent families = good. Neither are always true as a rule. But you already know that I am sure.

[pipi_k]

129. Actually I wasn't speaking of

your sort of situation.

I'm talking about people who live together for a year or so and then, before the gold plate has rubbed off the relationship, they decide it would be a neat idea to have a baby. Or maybe it just happens because one of them "forgot" the birth control or the other one didn't even bother.

People are running around having kids with each other before they even know who their partner is. They don't discuss finances. They don't discuss child rearing. They don't discuss anything at all.

They only think, oh what fun it would be to have a baby....

If my attitude about marriage seems a bit antiquated, blame it on the way I was raised, and the guilt and shame single parents lived with in those times.


People who don't even know why they're together in the first place...people who accept the most awful treatment and stick around "because I LOVE him!!" suck, and they suck even more when they stupidly bring innocent children into their fucked up lives.

From what I've seen, that's more the rule than the exception.

More power to people who manage to rise above that shit.

[raccoon]

123. Thank you! somebody gets it. nt

[Zorra]

104. Being a married parent can be far more difficult than being a single parent.

Some folks love children, and sometimes we choose to have children when the time feels right to us.

I'd be very sad if I never had a child. I could not imagine it.

[liberal_at_heart]

108. It's not always easier that's for sure

Two parents are not always going to agree on how to raise children and the issues that come up when raising children can be very big and difficult issues to deal with. I have gotten in some very heated discussions with my husband over decisions about the children, especially about our autistic son. The divorce rate among parents who have autistic children is very high. My husband and I have managed to maintain a good relationship but there have been times when it has been strained because of it.

[patrice]

109. A badge of "Pro-Life" "sainthood" & status for some financially secure emptynester grandparents?

[treestar]

114. Biological clock ticking and no Mr./Ms. Right

Looking around and seeing the rate of divorce - people end up single parents anyway, even if not at first.

[Motown_Johnny]

116. 'cause having them with your enemies sucks

[Posteritatis]

118. That's an impressively patronizing OP, even by moralist DU OP standards. (nt)

[Earth_First]

124. My girlfriend and I have a child and have been together for 10 years...

We own two cars, a mortgage, health and life insurance; everything that your "normal" couple does when married.

I'm intrigued why you believe that having a child out of wedlock automatically equates to single parenting...

[MineralMan]

132. Because they're having sex?

I'm being facetious, but one of my wife's cousins has two children with her "boyfriend." They've been together for over 20 years. They just don't plan to get married.

Every relationship is different. None of our business, really.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

134. You think a marriage certificate will magically make a relationship good??

You think that marriage makes a person love you, respect you, treat you right?

You think that piece of paper has magical properties?

That sounds like fundamentalists who just can't stand the idea of people having sex without a state-issued screwing license, because they think God gets mad. It's fetishizing a piece of paper.

You think that an unmarried couple will pay their child support obligations less often than a couple who are formerly married??? You must not be a lawyer. It's no different suing an unmarried person for child support than it is for suing an ex-spouse, except that divorces are messy, traumatic and very expensive.


Which fantasy world are you living in? Women have to pay child support too.

Guess you've never been married to someone who treated you with contempt and didn't respect you or their marriage vows to love, honor and cherish. I was married to two people who lied in front of the minister or the judge and guests and promised to love, honor and cherish, and did none of the above. In fact, actively hated my guts although I did nothing to invoke their anger.

It's hard being a divorced single parent just as it is being a never-married single parent.