CDC: Nearly 1 in 4 babies born to unwed cohabitors

[Zeus]

A live-in boyfriend isn't a step-parent. A step-parent is a parent by marriage, and a cohabitating boyfriend is, by definition, not married. You correctly identified the issue, which is commitment to the family. Someone who lacks that commitment and simply shacks up will see a child as something that gets in the way of his pleasure, while someone who has that commitment will see a child as a person to be nurtured, loved and raised. That's why marriage matters. Marriage is a commitment to the long haul, not just between a man and a woman, but between a man, a woman and the children that they will raise together.

I would just add a commitment to the community at large because the commitment to family invariably leads to civic responsibility. Commitment, Duty and Honor, strong suits of the greatest generation that are sorely lacking in the generations that have followed. We can see the results in our families and communities and country.

[Hawkgirl]

A live-in boyfriend isn't a step-parent. A step-parent is a parent by marriage, and a cohabitating boyfriend is, by definition, not married. You correctly identified the issue, which is commitment to the family. Someone who lacks that commitment and simply shacks up will see a child as something that gets in the way of his pleasure, while someone who has that commitment will see a child as a person to be nurtured, loved and raised. That's why marriage matters. Marriage is a commitment to the long haul, not just between a man and a woman, but between a man, a woman and the children that they will raise together.

You stated that perfectly. I see child abuse on a regular basis at the hospital..and it is ALWAYS the boyfriend. In very few cases is it the natural mother.
I recently read the story of Karly Sheehan as someone wrote a book about her recently...it will break your heart. The mother's boyfriend tortured this little girl for her short three years of life and tried to set up the natural father in order to get the father to pay child support. The mother also played a part in it by being negligent.

[Hawkgirl]

Every single parent that I know personally is raising his or her child in the extended family. What I find much more disturbing are the "nuclear families" in which the children barely know their grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. My niece went to school with kids whose grandparents were visitors in their lives, rather than being a part of their lives. I have met grandparents who proudly proclaim (and this sounds so trashy, if they could only hear themselves) "I don't babysit. I raised my kids and they can raise theirs."

My coworker resents her mother who had that belief system. She got divorced when her 3 children were very young, (her husband was abusive) but her mother refused to help her. She still harbors resentment towards her to this day.

[Odysseus]

As someone who often gets told that marriage can be accomplished through paperwork other than a marriage certificate (when it can't actually) , I would point out that the primary function of marriage regarding childbirth has been overcome by law and technology.

The law and technology do not raise children. They do not impart moral guidance, life lessons, sit up with them when they are frightened or sick, or do any of the million other things that parents do.

A woman no longer needs to be married for 9 months (preferably more than a year) prior to giving birth to designate the father and to legally bind him to the child.

A man no longer needs to socially acknowledge his acceptance of paternity. Lawyers and doctors can do it for him.

How very materialist of you. There is so much more to raising a child than just paying the bills. Treating fathers as ATMs and mothers as brood mares reduces children to an expense, a nuisance and a chore. No wonder you are pro-choice.

A disturbing trend in marriage and childbirth- which I have certainly noticed and perhaps others here have as well is the phenomenon of women who have a baby and then suddenly realize that their husband simply can no longer be tolerated. Isn't that convenient? Seriously, think about all of the younger couples you know, when did they get divorced?

Usually after the husband returns from deployment.

I would just add a commitment to the community at large because the commitment to family invariably leads to civic responsibility. Commitment, Duty and Honor, strong suits of the greatest generation that are sorely lacking in the generations that have followed. We can see the results in our families and communities and country.

Growing up in a secure, loving family teaches important lessons about trust and loyalty, which extend to the community at large. Children who never learn to deal with a community within their home never learn to deal with one outside of their home, except in the most impersonal way.

You stated that perfectly. I see child abuse on a regular basis at the hospital..and it is ALWAYS the boyfriend. In very few cases is it the natural mother.
I recently read the story of Karly Sheehan as someone wrote a book about her recently...it will break your heart. The mother's boyfriend tortured this little girl for her short three years of life and tried to set up the natural father in order to get the father to pay child support. The mother also played a part in it by being negligent.

Thanks.

Often, the mother turns a blind eye because she doesn't want to sacrifice the relationship, and convinces herself that she isn't seeing what's obviously there. The instability of a shack up creates insecurity that facilitates abuse. The absence of a blood tie between boyfriend and child also creates impermanence. It's tragic when a marriage breaks up, but it's worse when society decides that marriage is unimportant, or redefines it out of existence.

[Starbuck]

As someone who often gets told that marriage can be accomplished through paperwork other than a marriage certificate (when it can't actually) , I would point out that the primary function of marriage regarding childbirth has been overcome by law and technology......

Let's you and me get on the same page here. Marriage is commitment. The primary function of marriage should be, I believe, a solemn vow of commitment. You know; thick and thin, sickness and health, partnership.

I don't think it matters whether children are involved or planned for. I think everyone needs a partner. Everyone, I'm saying.

As far as I am concerned two people can jump a broom and proclaim that they are married, and they are. They have said it out loud in front of whoever they chose and the church and the state has no say at all in the matter. The IRS may argue the case, and I'm sure they will, but to me that's not the issue.

[CueSi]

As someone who often gets told that marriage can be accomplished through paperwork other than a marriage certificate (when it can't actually) , I would point out that the primary function of marriage regarding childbirth has been overcome by law and technology.

A woman no longer needs to be married for 9 months (preferably more than a year) prior to giving birth to designate the father and to legally bind him to the child.

A man no longer needs to socially acknowledge his acceptance of paternity. Lawyers and doctors can do it for him.

A disturbing trend in marriage and childbirth- which I have certainly noticed and perhaps others here have as well is the phenomenon of women who have a baby and then suddenly realize that their husband simply can no longer be tolerated. Isn't that convenient? Seriously, think about all of the younger couples you know, when did they get divorced?

That reminded me of something I heard from some internet effluvia, then I found it. :)

Here:

If she's been on birth-control pills the whole time you dated, there's a chance you're both being tricked into marrying exactly the wrong person by your own bodies.
When a woman is actually pregnant, her body decides, "It's not like I can get more pregnant," and it stops doing a bunch of the things it normally does. The pill basically uses hormones to convince a woman's body that it's already pregnant. The woman doesn't want to get pregnant, her body thinks it's pregnant, everyone's happy.

Or at least, they would be if it weren't for that pesky MHC stuff controlling who you can fall in love with. Just as a pregnant woman might find herself suddenly craving food she used to find repulsive, her taste in MHC undergoes a polar reversal. She's no longer attracted to people with MHC that is dissimilar to hers, and way more attracted to men with similar MHC. From an evolutionary perspective, this was probably so that women would want to spend more time around family members in a protective environment rather than out at a bar trying to get laid again. In a modern context, it's probably why pregnant women so often want to murder their husbands with a meat cleaver: He no longer smells like her type, and it's far too late for that.
A woman on the pill gets exactly the same effect, without the belly or the appearance of the boob fairy. For the entire time she's on the pill, a woman will prefer people with MHC that is similar to her own. This is why some psychologists believe that the high divorce rate in modern times can be blamed on the pill. Two people can be dating for years, thinking they're meant for each other when in reality, their MHC is the exact opposite of compatible. Of course, they only find out when they're ready to hatch one and she goes off the pill, which of course is often way, way too late.


Read more: 6 Factors That Secretly Influence Who You Have Sex With | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_19024...#ixzz1sA7YyF7f

I did some chasing down to confirm it...it comes from a 1995 Study by a Biologist named Claus Weskind at the University of Switzerland in Bern.

And it's also why I use the sponge instead. :p

~QC