Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_society [2015/10/23 04:50] marri |
effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_society [2022/03/23 16:14] (current) |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ==========Effects of Out-of-Wedlock Births on Society========== | ||
+ | =====1. Intergenerational Effect===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The absence of married parents can lead to intergenerational out-of-wedlock births. Even as the child enters adolescence and the influence of peers and community increases, the consequences of being born outside marriage continue to affect the [[effects_of_out-of-wedlock_births_on_children|development of many young people]] and compound the risks confronting them. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nonmarital births are becoming the accepted way of life, particularly in inner-city poor communities. In 2013, nonmarital births accounted for 41 percent of all U.S. births. Roughly 29 percent of these births were to White women, 53 percent to Hispanic women, and 71 percent to Black women.((Carmen Solomon-Fears, | ||
+ | |||
+ | This growing practice of birth outside of marriage is now widely accepted and is affecting expectations. Nationally, 41 percent of blacks, 29 percent of Hispanics and 23 percent of whites are positively disposed toward the idea of being a single parent.((Jonathan Vespa, Jamie M. Lewis, and Rose M. Kreider “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: | ||
+ | =====2. Crime===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The effects of nonmarital births continue into adolescence and are linked to increased crime rates in a neighborhood. Again the professional literature illustrates the statistical relationship: | ||
+ | |||
+ | It has been known for some time that high rates of welfare dependency correlate with high crime rates among young men in a neighborhood.((Robert Rector, “The Effects of Welfare Reform”, //Heritage Foundation// | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Overall the analysis shows that rates of black violent offending, especially by juveniles, are strongly influenced by variations in family structure. Independent of the major candidates supplied by prior criminological theory (e.g. income, region, size, density, age, and race composition) black family disruptions has the largest effects on black juvenile robbery and homicide…The effects of family structure are strong and cannot be easily dismissed by reference to other structural and cultural features of urban environments…The effect of family disruption on black violence is not due to the effect of black violence on family structure. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Commenting on crime among whites, Sampson concludes: “In fact the predictors of white robbery are in large part identical in sign and magnitude to those for blacks.”((Robert J. Sampson, “Urban Black Violence: The Effect of Male Joblessness and Family Disruption, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Dr. June O’Neill, of Baruch College, City of University of New York, in recent research on underclass behaviors, confirms the linkage between crimes and [[effects_of_fatherless_families_on_crime_rates|single-parent families]]. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, O’Neill found that young black men raised in single-parent families were twice as likely to engage in criminal activities when compared to black men raised in two-parent families, even after holding constant a wide range of variables such as family income, urban residence, neighborhood environment, | ||
+ | |||
+ | These academic findings on the relationship between crime and nonmarital births are confirmed in government studies. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in 1987 that 70 percent of juveniles in custody did not live with both parents while growing up, and almost three-quarters of those lived primarily in a [[effects_of_parents_on_crime_rates|single-parent family]].((Stephen Demuth and Susan L. Brown, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Meanwhile, a major sociological review from the University of Wisconsin concludes that teens from single-parent families are much more likely to become delinquent than are teens from intact families. Family disruption drives up delinquency rates because of the way it “hampers the formation of attachments to parents and the transmission of antidelinquent definitions from parent to child.” Adolescents from broken homes often “associate with delinquents learn…definitions favorable to delinquency and consequently, | ||
+ | |||
+ | =====3. Welfare===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The absence of married parents reinforces the cycle of welfare. The cumulative earlier effects carry over into young adult life. Welfare contributes to the sorry picture. From the professional literature, for instance, it becomes clear that receiving public aid increases the percentage of pregnant teenagers choosing unmarried motherhood.((Arleen Liebowitz, Marvin Eisen, and Winston K. Chow, “An Economic Model of Teenage Pregnancy Decision-Making, | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to eminent poverty researcher Sara McLanahan, then at the University of Wisconsin and now at Princeton University, family structure is powerful in explaining much of these effects. Though the numbers show that single parenthood in adolescence is associated with daughters’ future dependence, they also show that single parenthood in adolescence is associated with daughters’ future likelihood of being on welfare, even after controlling for family income and size.((Sara S. McLanahan, “Family Structure and Dependency: Early Transitions to Female Household Headship, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Not only are out-of-wedlock births linked to future welfare dependency, but welfare dependency is linked to out-of-wedlock births. For instance research by Dr. C.R. Winegarden of the University of Toledo found that half of the increase in black out-of-wedlock births in recent decades could be attributed to the effects of welfare. Research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert D. Plotnick of the University of Washington shows that an increase of roughly $200 per a month in welfare benefits per family causes the teenage out-of-wedlock birth rate in a state to increase by 150 percent. Dr. June O’Neill’s research has found that, holding constant a wide range of other variables such as income, parental education and urban and neighborhood setting, a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of AFDC and Food Stamp benefits led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.((Robert Rector, " | ||
+ | |||
+ | This pattern also holds in Canada, where welfare disbursements are more generous. A recent study of the Canadian welfare system, for instance, found that increases in welfare led to an increase in the number of births outside of marriage. An addition of $100-$200 in yearly welfare support was found to lead to a 5 percent increase in the probability of being a single parent, a 2 percent increase in the probability of a child being born out of wedlock and a 1 percent increase in divorce.((Douglas W. Allen, “Welfare and the Family: The Canadian Experience, | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | \\ | ||
+ | This entry draws heavily from [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | =====4. Role of Government===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The evidence is clear and disturbing, being born outside of marriage lowers the health of newborns and increases their chances of dying; it delays children’s cognitive (especially their verbal) development; | ||
+ | |||
+ | To make the situation worse, the government has instilled powerful incentives in the [[marriage_in_welfare_reform|welfare system]] which makes illegitimacy a community way of life, particularly in very poor communities. The widespread incidence of illegitimacy in turn passes on all these effects to the next generation in an even more malignant form. | ||
+ | |||
+ | While the government cannot instill virtue, it does not need to subsidize this rejection. Government policies have subsidized illegitimacy, |