E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSU.S. births fell for the fourth year in a row, the government reported Wednesday, with experts calling it more proof that the weak economy has continued to dampen enthusiasm for having children.
But there may be a silver lining: The decline in 2011 was just 1 percent — not as sharp a fall-off as the 2 to 3 percent drop seen in other recent years.
"It may be that the effect of the recession is slowly coming to an end," said Carl Haub, a senior demographer with the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization.
Most striking in the new report were steep declines in Hispanic birth rates and a new low in teen births. Hispanics have been disproportionately affected by the flagging economy, experts say, and teen birth rates have been falling for 20 years.
Falling births is a relatively new phenomenon in this country. Births had been on the rise since the late 1990s and hit an all-time high of more than 4.3 million in 2007.
But fewer than 4 million births were counted last year — the lowest number since 1998.
Among the people who study this sort of thing, the flagging economy has been seen as the primary explanation. The theory is that many women or couples who are out of work, underemployed or have other money problems feel they can't afford to start a family or add to it.
The economy officially was in a recession from December 2007 until June 2009. But well into 2011, polls show most Americans remained gloomy, citing anemic hiring, a depressed housing market and other factors.
The report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a first glimpse at 2011 birth certificate data from state health departments. More analysis comes later but officials don't expect the numbers to change much.
Early data for 2012 is not yet available, and it's too soon to guess whether the birth decline will change, said the CDC's Stephanie Ventura, one of the study's authors.
Highlights of the report include:
- The birth rate for single women fell for the third straight year, dropping by 3 percent from 2010 to 2011. The birth rate for married women, however, rose 1 percent. In most cases, married women are older and more financially secure.
- The birth rate for Hispanic women dropped a whopping 6 percent. But it declined only 2 percent for black women, stayed the same for whites and actually rose a bit for Asian-American and Pacific Islanders.
- Birth rates fell again for women in their early 20s, down 5 percent from 2010 — the lowest mark for women in that age group since 1940, when comprehensive national birth records were first compiled. For women in their late 20s, birth rates fell 1 percent.
- But birth rates held steady for women in their early 30s, and rose for moms ages 35 and older. Experts say that's not surprising: Older women generally have better jobs or financial security, and are more sensitive to the ticking away of their biological clocks.
- Birth rates for teen moms have been falling since 1991 and hit another historic low. The number of teen births last year — about 330,000 — was the fewest in one year since 1946. The teen birth rate fell 8 percent, and at 31 per 1,000 girls ages 15 through 19 was the lowest recorded in more than seven decades.
"The continued decline in the teen birth rates is astounding," said John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health.
Did the economy have anything to do with a drop in teen births?
Yes, indirectly, Santelli said. Teenagers watch the struggles and decisions that older sisters and older girlfriends are making, and what they see influences their thinking about sex and birth control, he said.
"Teens tend to emulate young adults," Santelli said. "They are less influenced directly by the economy than by people."
Studies show that since 2007, larger percentages of sexually active teenage girls are using the pill and other effective birth control. Studies also show a small decline in the proportion of girls ages 15 through 17 who say they've had sex, Santelli noted.
The new birth report also noted a fourth straight decline in a calculation of how many children women have over their lifetimes, based on the birth rates of a given year.
A rate of a little more than 2 children per woman means each couple is helping keep the population stable. The U.S. rate last year was slightly below 1.9.
Countries with rates close to 1 — such as Japan and Italy — face future labor shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
Officials here aren't as worried.
The U.S. replacement rate is still close to 2. And it has dropped in the past and then bounced back up again, said Ventura, an official at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
"And we haven't seen any studies that show couples want to have fewer children or no children," she added.
One more report highlight: The U.S. C-section rate may have finally peaked at just under 33 percent, the same level as last year.
Cesarean deliveries are sometimes medically necessary. But health officials have worried that many C-sections are done out of convenience or unwarranted caution, and in the 1980s set a goal of keeping the national rate at 15 percent.
The C-section rate had been rising steadily since 1996, until it dropped slightly in 2010.
"It does suggest the upward trend may be halted," said Joyce Martin, a CDC epidemiologist who co-authored the new report. But CDC officials want a few more years of data before declaring victory, she added.
More top health news:
Too fat for TV? Anchor fires back at critics
Docs claim first mom-to-daughter uterus transplant
If you have a cold, skip the vitamin D, study says
Leave a Comment:
Fertility depression is the result of the administration's economic failures.
One word refutes your premise: FILIBUSTER. Go figure......
If teen birth rates were up, you'd blame it on the administration's moral failures, right?
I wonder how many births were hidden and disposed illegally. No one wants to talk about such a horrific thing, but it probably happens a lot more than we hear or know about.
Riiiiiiiiiight.... lol
The worst part is, people who are financially coherent are the ones not having babies. Those who are rewarded, irresponsible or ignorant are still pumping out babies, and getting paid.
You can't continue to use government money to reward those who have more and more children, as it's impossible for a society/government to sustain it. Imagine if India, china or japan had the same type of idealism... they would have been choked out long ago. Unfortunately, we're rewarding those who are illegal with said dollars, and have successfully helped in taking over the 50% mark in what used to be a "minority" birth rate. It's not about race, as my state -West Virginia- holds the same ideals with receiving hand-outs.
With that said, even if Congress actually decided to agree on anything and make the right choices, the president would have very little influence on that. Regardless of the presidential race, whoever wins will not be able to sustain the economy unless there's some type of artificial influence such as war. If Obama wins, in 2 years the drop in economy will be his fault. If Romney wins, the drop in economy will be Obamas fault from one side due to inheritance, and Romney's from the other.
The fact is, without changes in regulations and taxes on trade/foreign investment/business, you won't change the consumer mindset of this nation, especially when lobbying flourishes the way it has. Tax those who save billions by outsourcing jobs, etc, and make the switch a no-brainer to stay in the US. Until then, you'll see more business going to china and the economy going downhill as we're just buying stuff from them with money that we're borrowing from them.
Well look at that, the Party of NO! (GOP) who obstructs everything in DC really ARE for birth control by keeping the Middle-Class and Poor from being able to afford to have children! Social Darwinism is still Darwinism, holy-rollers!
AND Contraception usage is UP!!! Looks like not many are paying the reich wing abstinence theories any mind LOL!!!
Mockylock - methinks you need to read the article a couple of times in order to digest the statistics. My doctor's wife just had her 4th kid - boom goes your theory!!!
Too many people on the planet so I view this favorably...
As is your erectile dysfunction.
If you subtracted births from all those illegal aliens these statistics would look even worse.
Responsible people are thinking before having children. Irresponsible people are still poping them one right after another. Duh how did that happen.
A decline in birth rates doesn't NEED a silver lining. A decline in birth rates IS a silver lining.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
Please read the article. The biggest decrease was in teen births, and corresponded to increased use of effective birth control in this demographic. I assume from your statements that you are a right wing conservative type who is anti-abortion and for abstinence-only sex education, and therefore have ignored the content of the article which contradicts your pre-conceived ideas.
Hmmmm, let's take a look at this. No job, no money, no insurance = no more kids for now. Most of the young couples we know are putting children off until the economic situation stabilizes. The only way the economy is going to stabilize is by electing a president that understands the economy, business, and what federal interference does to job creation. Who understands those items better: a community organizer that has proven he doesn't understand or a tried-and-true businessman who understands that if you hire experts for their advice that you better listen to them? Who understands better: someone who has run business projects or someone who has only taught political and legal theory? Who understands better: someone who has dealt with multi-billion dollar corporations or someone who has only organized block parties?
In 33 days, vote for the candidate who understands better how to deal with our problems, not someone who has helped make those problems worse.
Romney/Ryan 2012
The article clearly makes the premise that low fertility in the last four years is caused by the economy. It is a short step to connect that to the administration's economic failures.
The recession started in 2007, they even mentioned it. I'm guessing 4 years doesn't include this year, so the decline started DURING THE BUSH TERM. Understand buddy! Seriously, its getting a bit much.
It's only really going to matter if that certain segment of the population, the ones who pop out multiple babies for the extra payout, have less kids. Up to now, they've been just fine with having huge multiple-father families and allow us the privilege of paying for their WIC and cigarettes. Welfare needs sterilization after 2 kids. Expensive up front, saves money and reduces crime later. A little MORE government intervention on this one would be nice.
The Obama Democratic administration has been messing with the economy in "unsuccessful" ways for three and a half years. The should step down in a vote of no confidendce.
The birth rate has nothing to do with if the president is a democrat or a republican. We have better, more effective long-term birth control in place now that is being utilized.
I also take exception to jake2247's comments about multiple father families. It is more common to see men with multiple baby momma's.
I work in a busy postpartum unit and would love to have some of you spend a busy night with me. Serve these families you sneer at from atop your high horses. Learn some compassion, grow a heart. Stop making snap judgements and perhaps you'll be a more pleasant, happier person. The key is to give of yourself.
There's enough people bringing the world to ruin, a lower global birth rate would benefit the planet as a whole.
When you're constantly living hand to mouth week after week, who even thinks of sex anyway? Tough to get in the mood when the weight of survival is constantly pushing you down.
Just saying.
Actually people usually have more sex when they have less money, it's free entertainment. The proof is in the amount of children poor people have vs. the rich since the beginning of time.
F Walsh-
The study above refutes your statement. In fact, financially stable people have more children.
wrong zeig, worldwide demographic studies consistently show that people who are more educated and affluent tend to have less children. career aspirations for both parents put child bearing and rearing on hold, and the average size of families for the middle/upper middle classes have been declining for decades. its the richer and religious with stay at home moms who still want big families, and they can normally afford them. the lower middle class, meaning those above the welfare level, are the ones affected by economic contraception, they can't afford to make bigger families in tougher times. the poor economy doesn't affect the poor in regards to reproductive rates, they still get the same welfare and housing payments, nothing changes.
BD-
I accept that. I'm just saying that the study in the article points out that the birth rate decreased most for people who tend to be low-income, in the recession.
This does not mean that low-income people(worldwide is different from US, by the way) do not have more children, but their decision to have children is more affected by the recession than those who are well-off.
F Walsh
Actually people usually have more sex when they have less money, it's free entertainment. The proof is in the amount of children poor people have vs. the rich since the beginning of time.
Not true, Mr. Actually... Historically, as currently, the "Poor," as you say, have always been genetically healthier populations due to more diversity in their gene pool. The "Rich" have historically, on the other hand, participated heavily in the practice of inbreeding, resultant in a decreased fertility rate, coupled with higher infant and child mortality rates due to higher rates of representation of recessive genetic traits.
That, coupled with the dichotomy in (historically) support networks for the elderly, is a much more realistic guide to changing birthrates... You see, in the absence of society providing (sort of) for the elderly, they must provide such networks for themselves. This leads to a social pressure to have more children; so in a heavily stratified society, the poor will have many more children than the rich, primarily for the reasons noted above.
Study after study shows that as living conditions and social support improve for the entirety of society, birthrates decrease concurrently; NOT the other way around. Entertainment has nothing to do with it.
zeig, that's what i am saying. the low income that are affected be economic contraception are the non-welfare self-responsible working class who work hard just to make ends meet. they tighten their belts in tough economic times, including the choice of having more kids. however, this trend stops at the poverty line/welfare level, where the low income people below this line receive government assistance and continue to breed large families, no finacial disincentive. although both are "low income" they are two distinct and different demographics.
Too bad it would have been politically incorrect to break out the so called poor that were living on welfare. The poor that actually work for a living know very well that another kid costs money, those on welfare in many cases get a bigger check.
years ago, when i was non-welfare young working poor, my ex-wife and i chose not to have kids because it was expensive, decided to wait until we were better off financially. ended up divorced with no kids. as i worked hard and increased my standard of living significantly, i love that i chose responsibility, but get the opportunity to pay more taxes to support other people's irresponsibility.
Egads! The economy, and therefor the president and his party, has little to do with the decrease in the birth rate. There is better long term birth control and as written in the article the teen and Hispanic birth rates are down. Period. More women are opting for the implanon and the IUD both of which are effective long-term birth control.
I work in a busy postpartum unit and I have seen first hand the decrease. I have seen the increased use of birth control so please...hop off the high horses and accept facts for what thy are. Don't expose your intolerance and ignorance.
I can't afford to have kids. I'm too busy paying for all teen mom's and lazy folk popping out kids to get food stamps. I work for a living so I go without...not to mention I also pay for your schools that I don't use.
maybe you should use one of those schools.
Yeah them lazy sexually active sluts,right?
But god forbid they want to do the responsible thing and have an abortion, because maybe,just maybe they tried to avoid getting pregnant and their BC method failed-and idiots like you are up in arms about that too.If you think a woman is going through all the trouble of pregnancy and labor and putting up with a snotty nosed kiddo for 18+ years to get a few $ of welfare you got another thing coming.
Either way,a woman is screwed-either she has an unwanted kid and can't feed it, or aborts her unwanted pregnancy and then is called a murderer by your lot.
And I paid for the schools you used you dumb a$$. Have two children, 22 and 23 (almost done with college) and society paid for them and they will pay for the next generation That is what society is about. I see this as good news, fewer children, fewer teen pregnancies, is good. I will do my part, pay taxes, but I expect parents to do theirs, raise their kids to be productive members of society. I support choice because middle aged white men like me shouldn't be telling what women should should be doing with their bodies and for you that don't then get off your fat a$$es and take care of a crack baby or an unwanted child and you pay for them and for you that truely want funding to Planned Parenthood to be stopped, please put the barrel in your mouth and firmly pull the trigger. I have had it with you white trailer trash, Christian Taliban, women hating racists that have taken over the Grand Old Party.
Take a breath, Dan. But you and Dietrich are correct. Maria and fish, not so much.
Many Americans have finally grasped that (a) spermlettes are not the end all and be all of a fulfilled life - if even at all, and (b) basic birth control (likely males are finally using condoms - duh) not only avoids 18 years of ENORMOUS costly problems but it provides a healthier family life for oneself, partner and existing family, and (c) you might not end up getting a good one. Anyone who has visited a mall or grocery store lately knows the quality of children being produced has declined, along with most other things over the past decade ore so.
It is also likely that the more savvy folk among the welfare crowd have glommed onto the concept that jobs are not an option in this country anymore, either having one or the guarantee there will even be one when the backside finally gets off the couch; just as they've had the aha moment that taxpayers are sick and tired of carrying their useless butts on the national shoulder to such an extent that many of those existing social services might just go bye-bye, even under Obama 2 - as well as under whomever is elected in 2016, 2020, etc... Nothing last forever, even a govt. check or freebies for breeding.
You really are ignorant if you believe that someone would have a kid to collect a whopping $250 / month in food stamps.
Re. 3.4
Yes, Social Services are about to go the way of the Dodo. We are about to see the birthrate AND the infant mortality rate EXPLODE.
So when are you sending us the refund for your public education? It should come to about... oh, $180-250,000, on average.
“According to the U.S. government, the majority of welfare recipients are white, live in the suburbs, have two kids, want to work, and stay on welfare an average of only two years.”
What the @!$%# do you suppose a woman should do when she already has kids,and looses her income-give them away?Because that is the much more likely scenario of a welfare recipient.
You're also ignoring the fact that most people on welfare are white single moms who are looking for work and who stay on welfare less than 2-5 years total, and that the people on welfare have usually paid their fair share of taxes for years and so it is their OWN money that they are being granted to help them out now that they have fallen on hard times. You can’t even GET welfare if you do not have dependent minor children, or if your household income tops $9,000-11,000 annually, which is actually far below survival level.
This, of course, is all part of the perfect storm that will destroy my retirement. The previous generation, the Baby Boomers, will gobble up Social Security (and my investments) before I retire, then when it's my turn - 20 years from now - there will be a shortage of the younger generation to pay into it.
Well played, God/Universe/Karma/Fate! Well played!
Yeah the government mismanaging social security has nothing to do with that situation...it's all the baby boomers fault whose only guilt is in being born in a certain time frame...yeah that's it.
Not that I totally agree with The Angry Guy but "the government" you speak of is peopled by baby boomers so even from your perspective it's the boomers fault.
ckneeley
The mismanagement of social security is not a new concept happening by just current members of the government. The government has been mismanaging social security for 75 years. Are you telling me there were baby boomers running the government back then?
GREAT NEWS!!!!
Now that BIRTH CONTROL is covered by insurance (thanks President Obama) women have MORE CONTROL over their bodies and reproduction choices. GOD FORBID ROMNEY & RYAN get elected or STEAL the ELECTION like Bush & Cheney did... WOMEN WILL LOSE THEIR REPRODUCTION RIGHTS, PERIOD (or lack thereof PUN intended)!!!!
Lindsey Graham said, "the Republican Party needs more angry white men"...well I'm an ANGRY WHITE WOMAN and there are MORE of us then there are of you...get out and VOTE SISTERS!!! OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
I do not know where the birth rate is down because here in alabama you can not go Walmart and not see a hispanic woman with 4 kids and pregnant not to mention pays for 2 buggies loaded down with food stamps and a 20 dollar bill. I am a mother of 3 boys, but I have worked 2 jobs to take care of my boys, i do not ask the government for nothing. My husband and I will work til the day we die. We are not poor but are far from wealthy. Even if I could have a daughter I would not because the times ahead of us as a country scare the hell out of me for my teenage boys now. I would not want a kid to grow up in this violant country. I get happy when I actually turn on the news or computer and see a story that is not about (37 die when boats collied) It dont matter where it happens it is awful. I would like just once to see something positive. but any of the happy ending stories are hide you got to look for them.
If people are having less babies maybe it is not just the economy; it could be to spare the child from having to endure such a world of hate.
From bullies in school; to not finding or being able to keep a job when they grow up. I am almost 40 and this is a completely different world today, the bullies in school have new tools to torment kids.
No, your money went to Iraq and Afghanistan-- or to Haliburton and Blackwater.
You're right, it was our grandparents and our parents that f'ed us. My only real hope for retirement is a zombie apocalypse....
The same thing happened during the Great Depression. In the absence of reliable contraception, the abortion rate reached 1 million a year where it has remained to this day...even though abortions, of course, were illegal then.
....that the dirty little secret that the liberals, planned Parenthood & liberal politicians do not want to admit...
They view abortions as a form of contraception.
*snort* That's funny Comradechaos.
Just to clarify - as a very politically active liberal and someone who depended on the existence of planned parenthood when my parents insurance kicked me off at 18 until I had a well paying job at 22 - It's the ultimate goal that no one will need to have an abortion. Sex education tends to lower abortion rates AND teen pregnancy rates - See the scandinavian studies.
Sadly, this country views a woman carrying a condom with her as being slutty where as there, its consider smart.
A great documentary that is available on netflix streaming is called "Lets Talk About Sex" and it covers the difference between Scandinavian teens and American teens.
Obviously, even the most perfect birth control use has a certain failure rate so abortions will always be a necessity, mainly for women who for health reasons shouldn't carry a baby to term.
...but, quidproquote, you avoid addressing the fact that a great many abortions are not due to the health of the woman, but because the pregnancy / child is 'inconvenient', i.e. "getting pregnant is not in my plans right now, I need to first...fill in the blank..."
Sex education may lower abortion rate & teen pregnancy rate, but I bet when coupled with a healthy dose of abstinence awareness, it would bring it to zero.
ComradeChaos, I grew up in the south during the Bush administration. Abstinence only teaching was horrible. The bible belt coupled with no education meant tons of pregnant girls and stupid boys. According to the Guttmacher institute, most abortions are actually performed on women who already have children and having another child would seriously degrade the life of the children they already have. It's a good survival instinct, to give the children you already have a better chance.
Also, having a child when you don't want it is horrible. I can say this speaking as a child that was raised due to "religious necessity" back when I was younger and still believed in god, I would ask why he made me, wishing my mom had gotten an abortion. Life when you aren't wanted sucks. I really don't feel like my life started until I moved out at 18. I haven't seen my parents in 7 years.
you totally glossed over my last sentence, "Sex education may lower abortion rate & teen pregnancy rate, but I bet when coupled with a healthy dose of abstinence awareness, it would bring it to zero."
Sorry to hear your life sucked for the first 18 years, your parents should have been more Christian and less religious - thee is a difference.
I agree wholeheartedly ComradeChaos! But I had to have an abortion. I had an ectopic pregnancy between my 3rd and 4th babies. The OB told me it was a "glob of tissue" which I know now to be a lie. I'm an OB nurse now and have studied in my field extensively.
Now for your statement, there is a huge difference between being a Christ-follower and showing up at church and taking up space in a pew. Big difference. I have seen teens whose parents were the later, church for show, like it's a country club. Some have ended up screwed up but others found someone that loved them and modeled love and compassion. My own husband's family went to church every week then dear old dad would yell and scream at his "useless, no-good" kids during the week while beating his wife.
When you are paying for all the benefits that go to illegal immigrants you don't have money to start a family.
As long as it hasn't dampened enthusiasm for staying in practice to have children, everything will be ok.
Good. Maybe we can get into negative population growth and save the planet.
Ha. Go look at the article that's up right now about the Philipines trying to legalize contraception.
And yet there are people in government here who want to make it illegal.
Exactly, blooper. This planet needs to reduce it's population, drastically. My husband and I chose not to have children, because of several factors. One of the biggest is that I am sick, due to poor genetics. I already use way too many resources. What would my child/ren use? What kind fo planet would I be leaving them to grow up in? No thank you.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
You should have a clear picture of what it is that you are asking for. Otherwise, you aren't really making an informed decision...
It should be noted, also, that species with actual negative birthrates are on their way to inevitable extinction due to the concurrent (necessarily) decline in genetic diversity. I'd say look it up, but there probably isn't a nice compact, Reader's-Digest-style article to link to; you'd have to read books or go to college for related fields...
All I'm saying is there is a lot more to population and the scope of it's dynamics than some oversimplified WE'VE-GOT-TO-REDUCE-THE-POPULATION! Club of Rome propaganda.
This is because nobody can afford to have a baby anymore.
Of course that doesn't stop the illegals from breeding like fly's because they know the tax payers will pay for it for them.
Yes the truth hurts doesn't it?
The only people I know who've had babies that can't afford them at all are republican family members who are constantly begging for help from us (their family) and their church. They had 2 babies while being on the brink of foreclosure. Completely irresponsible.
Ummm...midwife I know says the Hispanics always pay her. It's a source of pride with them she told me. Whereas her Caucasian and African American clients were more of a problem. So Crown Point resident how do you explain that?
most cant afford kids now, the new taxes and direction of the country sucks so bad who would even want to bring a kid here these days. maybe after the election it will get better
Heck I see this as good news. America doing its part to prevent overpopulation!
Good for us, but according to another story on msn today, there is a woman in the Phillipines who will have 14 children to make up for our deficit in population.
Not sure what the lasting impacts are but I don't see this as a terribly bad thing though there are still many other countries where this needs to happen the world over. Simply put to many people and we need to see the population as a whole shrink down some, the world just can't support it. Before anyone jumps in and suggests I'm saying cull the herd due to your lack of comprehension skills I'm not, just saying have fewer babies for awhile.
Otherwise this shouldn't be to much of a surprise, the responsible (key word) people know that they likely can't afford the addition so they are waiting. Makes sense, just like in the wild, during hard times animals will have fewer young as well.
It is also interesting about the birth control part, surprise, it actually works vs the head in the sand approach others want advocate. No that is not a dem or repub stance even though the repub seem to be the majority to push no birth control or sex ed, but rather a common sense stance. Glad to see it works.
Also good point about C-sections. Need to keep having those go down. Way to high for an industrialized nation. Should never be looked at as an option for convenience. Only should be used for medical purposes. Likely having surgery for no reason really. Hope to see that trend come down more and doctors being more responsible and pushing for natural birth over c-section whenever possible. Might help the birth rates some to if people (mothers) know more than likely they will have to go the natural route.
It is time
Actually most Conservatives I know don't have an issue with birth control as in preventing pregnancy, we have an issue with killing the baby once conceived. No disrespect intended for anyone but in my book to kill a baby in or out of the womb is murder. The baby is alive once conceived and deserves a chance to live. Not to be discarded like yesterdays trash just because the timing or circumstances are inconvenient to the parents.
@It is time
Great post, except this part:
I can tell you from experience that a C-Section isn't a walk in the park compared to a vaginal delivery. It's major surgery and complications can and do happen. In this day of MRSA and other facility spread infections, I'd want to have my baby (and myself) out of the hospital (or whatever) as soon as possible. Giving birth is going to be painful, regardless of the route.
So you're good with paying for these children's benefits after they're born?
...i have maintained for years that if men could have children, NONE of this would ever be an issue at all!
ah, the old either you "allow and fund abortion" OR "you pay for the welfare" argument. why should we pay for either? we didn't participate in all that fun baby making, but we get to finacially participate in the baby killing or baby raising. what a great deal for the rest of us, getting "F'd" without getting to do the actual "F'ing"...
United - good point. I thought about that too. I guess more than the pain it probably still goes back to the convenience factor. I'd say you are right, the natural route is painful but I do believe recovery time is faster than the C-section route. Perhaps adding to the conundrum of why people choose still would choose the C-section without a good medical reason as it does seem the natural route is more off putting than the C-section. Pain meds for one and not the other perhaps? Again good point.
Tether - thanks for the level headed response for differing viewpoints. I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle on both sides regarding the abortion argument but it does seem more often than not that it is those on the right that attack birth control options or ways to make it more available and who attack sex education in school but give no other option than, well don't do it; aka abstinence only. No option or no eduction is just asking for trouble and that is what really bothers me. We can save the debate about abortion for a later date but don't stifle options for prevention or getting teenagers proper knowledge in a professional setting. That is the starting point and from there you can hope to limit both abortions and those who will be paid for and raised on the taxpayers dime; what severed head was alluding to. No brainer IMO.
NO @!$%#! It's because the Mexicans have gone back to Mexico as there are no jobs here for them. NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES!!
This will upset the catholic church. Fewer people to give them their guilt money to feed the billion dollar machine known as the Catholic Church.
Since the White Anglo Male has become labeled as a insane racist sex predictor it has become difficult to approach a Female without risking charges of sexual assault.
Not really. It's just you, you creepy guy.
we call them like we SEE them...
How about you approach women with less arrogance and self entitlement. You aren't gods gift to womankind. We have a tendency to shut that down right away.
Ha-I can barely afford my dog at this point I can't imagine having a kid.
I guess this must be disturbing to the 1% as the are running out of worker ants and army ants.
...wow...
...no doubt you've been sucking at the teat of govt for most of your life...
...wow...
Personal attack much?
...wow...
...truth to a liberal is as deadly as sunlight to a vampire.
ComradeChaos is a pretty entertaining troll. I swear I think I recognize your style from the SA forums.
Sorry, but I've never been to San Antonio, or South America, or St. Augustine, but I have been known to watch Sons of Anarchy.
...btw - trolls live under bridges; mostly because they got college degrees in liberal arts- which have no practical application to reality.
Something Awful forums :) A very very large internet community.
The great question facing every rational human being is whether or not to produce offspring. Children are a hope for the future but before producing any child into the world, there must be hope in which to give birth. What word are we going to bequeath to the children? What hope for them is there in the current rotten world? Isn't it a crime to produce any children into such a world? Should we be selfish enough to look after our own petty interests and produce children just for our own amusement, caring not a hoot for what they will suffer in this world--the headless suffering of our own cultures and of our own making? What is the crime that the would-be born have committed they shall have to suffer the shameless slavery of capitalism? What is their crime that they shall have to suffer Sadams, Gadafis, Basahl-ul-Asads, Behrain monarchy... and lay their lives for the pleasures of Hamid Karzais... and their bosses? What is their crime they that they should get themselves slaughtered in Bengazi or any other place? What is their crime that they should slaughter people in Koreas, Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans, and so forth?... And what is their crime that at the age of 75, they should get raped in some park?...
....don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em...
all other animal species lower reproduction when food is scarce and times are tough. us humans, with our compassion, i.e. welfare mentality, tend to ignore the basic laws of nature...
Why is a decline in births a negative thing? I'm not getting that...?
for the global warming and the planet, unemployment, etc... lower birth rates are great. for social programs like social security, and just the general tax base itself, lower birth rates are bad.
with 7 billion people already on earth, we hardly need teenagers adding to the problem, or people with 3-8 kids on welfare and different fathers taxing us to death-or the couple that says, we love kids and has number 3 or 4, because gosh darn it, the taxpayers pay for their education and and they get a huge tax break-Too bad the rest of the world exploded with babies--when they can't even support themselves with the basics-Lets get real, there is only so much tax money and so much in resources to support an ever growing population.There are not enough jobs to support this either.
More evidence that the majority of people have common sense, unlike the conservative or Catholic delusion that we should outlaw birth control.
Well, if the majority didn't have it, it really wouldn't be "common" sense now would it?
Empowering women has a lot of positive effects. I love seeing these stats, and agree that the economy had something to do with the low numbers, but also think that women are responsibly addressing birth control.
Planned Parenthood had a lot to do with this, for they educate women by giving them facts without the lectures on morals. Women can and will be responsible for their reproductive systems, and we need to continue to give them the assistance they need to make family planning decisions.
how about we "empower" women with the ultimate in power, the personal responsibility and freedom of taking care of it themselves instead of relying on the government to do it for them? sex education should be taught in school, at an age before it's a problem, not government funded after teenagers/adults have figured out that its fun, proactice instead of reactive.
Except for illegals are are multiplying faster than cockroaches. And guess what YOU and I get to pay for it.
Just shows how screwed up we really are. Here we monitor and whine about the birth rates and we abort / murder 3,700 babies a day. Very sad.