Virtually all of the growth of
single-parent families in recent decades
has been driven by an increase in births
outside marriage. Divorce rates have
leveled off or declined modestly since the
early 1980s and thus have not contributed
to the rising proportion of children being
raised by only one parent nor to the
increase in child poverty and welfare
dependence associated with the rise in
single-parent families.
[T]there are at least four reasons to
focus on teens:
First, half of first non-marital births
are to teens. Thus, the pattern tends to
start in the teenage years, and, once
teens have had a first child outside
marriage, many go on to have additional
children out of wedlock at an older age
Second, teen childbearing is very costly:
teen childbearing costs taxpayers more
than $7 billion a year or $3,200 a year
for each teenage birth, conservatively
estimated.
Third, although almost all single mothers
face major challenges in raising their
children alone, teen mothers are
especially disadvantaged. They are more
likely to have dropped out of school and
are less likely to be able to support
themselves. Only one out of every five
teen mothers receives any support from
their child's father, and about 80 percent
end up on welfare. Once on welfare, they
are likely to remain there for a long
time. In fact, half of all current welfare
recipients had their first child as a
teenager.
Other research documents that teen
mothers are less likely to finish high
school, less likely to ever marry, and
more likely to have additional children
outside marriage. Thus, an early birth is
not just a marker of preexisting problems
but a barrier to subsequent upward
mobility. As Daniel Lichter of Ohio State
University has shown, even those unwed
mothers who eventually marry end up with
less successful partners than those who
delay childbearing. As a result, even if
married, these women face much higher
rates of poverty and dependence on
government assistance than those who avoid
an early birth. And early marriages are
much more likely to end in divorce. So
marriage, while helpful, is no panacea.
Fourth, the children of teen mothers face
far greater problems than those born to
older mothers. If the reason we care about
stemming the growth of single-parent
families is the consequences for children,
and if the age of the mother is as
important as her marital status, then
focusing solely on marital status would be
unwise. Not only are mothers who defer
childbearing more likely to marry, but
with or without marriage, their children
will be better off. The children of teen
mothers are more likely than the children
of older mothers to be born prematurely at
low birth weight and to suffer a variety
of health problems as a consequence. They
are more likely to do poorly in school, to
suffer higher rates of abuse and neglect,
and to end up in foster care with all its
attendant costs.
|
sweet_mom
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Posts: 140 Location: , Canada
Thanks: 3
Thanked:2
Re: Why It Is Better to Delay Childbearing Posted: 11-08-07 00:33am
futureshock
wrote:
The children of teen mothers
are more likely than the children of older
mothers to be born prematurely at low
birth weight and to suffer a variety of
health problems as a
consequence.
I must be the exception then,I had my son
when I was 17,he was 3 and a half weeks
late and he was over 10lbs.He has no
health problems,in fact he just got a cold
for the first time last week.
I know you said they were more likely to
be born premature to younger mothers,but
what's a good age then?
My mother had my brother when she was 30
and he was a month premature and only
weighed 4lbs.
Premature birth can happen at any
lifestage,I don't think it makes a
difference if you are young or an
'experienced' mother(older).
|
littlemus
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 Posts: 58 Location: Southern California,
Posted: 11-08-07 00:49am
thats interesting about the premature
thing im born prematurely, i have stated
this before, and i do have a few health
problems.
though my weak immune system can be
attributed to other things i do believe
being premature had something to do with
that.
i was also born underweight (obviously for
being so early), but i also lost weight
after i was allowed to be brought home.
(this was very dangerous because i was
already so tiny.)
i think there are too many benefits to
waiting till you are older to have
children, but that doesnt mean you cant
have problems then too.
your body is changing so much as a young
woman already in your teenage years to put
it through such stress has to be difficult
and cause some complications....
there are so many reasons waiting is a
great idea.
(this should be a very important topic for
all of those girls that post "i'm only
[insert age here] and i am trying to have
a baby! help!" SO LETS HOPE THEY READ IT!)
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Re: Why It Is Better to Delay Childbearing Posted: 11-08-07 07:52am
sweet_mom
wrote:
futureshock
wrote:
The children of teen mothers
are more likely than the children of older
mothers to be born prematurely at low
birth weight and to suffer a variety of
health problems as a
consequence.
I must be the exception then,I had my son
when I was 17,he was 3 and a half weeks
late and he was over 10lbs.He has no
health problems,in fact he just got a cold
for the first time last week.
I know you said they were more likely to
be born premature to younger mothers,but
what's a good age
then?
Waiting until you are at
least 20 makes a huge difference.
sweet_mom
wrote:
My mother had my brother when she was 30
and he was a month premature and only
weighed 4lbs.
Premature birth can happen at any
lifestage,I don't think it makes a
difference if you are young or an
'experienced'
mother(older).
It obviously DOES make a difference, or
this statement would be false:
futureshock
wrote:
The children of teen mothers
are more likely than the children of older
mothers to be born prematurely at low
birth weight and to suffer a variety of
health problems as a
consequence.
|
rosejackson
Supporter
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 4351 Location: hertfordshire, england
Thanks: 7
Thanked:11
Posted: 11-08-07 08:02am
i agree with sweet_mom. you can have
premature babies no matter what age you
are.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-08-07 08:13am
rosejackson
wrote:
i agree with sweet_mom. you
can have premature babies no matter what
age you are.
Where did anyone say otherwise?
|
rosejackson
Supporter
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 4351 Location: hertfordshire, england
Thanks: 7
Thanked:11
Posted: 11-08-07 08:18am
i know you didnt mention it, but you were
only aiming it at younger mums and that
one of the downfalls of being pregnant
young is that you're most likey to give
birth prematurely or have a low birth
weight. in most cases i have seen, it is
the older mums who have given birth
prematurely and had a low birth weight. i
know it is not always the case though
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 11-08-07 08:22am
So do you think this is false?
"The children of teen mothers are more
likely than the children of older mothers
to be born prematurely at low birth weight
and to suffer a variety of health problems
as a consequence"
|
rosejackson
Supporter
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 4351 Location: hertfordshire, england
Thanks: 7
Thanked:11
Posted: 11-08-07 08:27am
yes i think it is false because i think
that it doesn't matter what age you are.
anyone can give birth prematurely and have
a baby of low birth weight. many people
can suffer health problems as a
consequence of giving birth. my boyfriends
mum suffered loads of problems when she
was pregnant with louise and gave birth
prematurely to a 5lb baby and she's mid
30s, whereas i gave birth on time to
william, over 8lbs. i think the statement
could happen in some circumstances but,
from my experience, i don't think it's a
huge deal.
(sorry i like to debate about this, hope
you dont mind )