Matthew J. Franck
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Note: Family Facts in an occasional series of data presentations about family and religious practice and analysis of their role in maintaining civil society.
Compare this with Allendale County, SC. Census data reveals that 70% of households (with kids) do not have a married couple.
I’d like to see the statistics on two slightly different things:
Two-parent homes, but not original birth parents.
Two parent homes, but parent figures not married to one another, whether or not original parents.
Or flip it around — what’s the percentage of children who live with their original, married birth parents? I’m sure it’s a lot less than 75%.
Oh, and by “birth parents” I don’t mean to make a difference for legally adopted kids. Maybe I should say “legal parents” or something like that.
I think pentamom’s question is great, and I have some questions about how they made that chart. Why interpolate data from 1961-1967 instead of just starting the graph when they had data in 1968?
I’m guessing it was poor design rather than sneaky misrepresentation (trying to show stability prior to the rise of counter-culture, maybe?) but bad chart design always makes me suspicious.
That’s the gist of my complaint, but if you’re geeky, you can see a more detailed critique at my blog.
Leah, that’s not geeky, that’s the kind of scrutiny that I wish all statistics were subjected to when they’re thrown out into mass media. I suppose it’s only a pipe dream, but if that happened more often, maybe social science reporting would assume a modicum of responsibility.
To Leah and Penta: what I lack in geekiness I make up for in age and experience. I can say from memory that in 1960, single parenthood was very rare, and rightly seen to be a deprivation that only the foolish or the morally impaired would choose on purpose. I also observe that interpolating between 1960 and 1968 is the most reasonable assumption, since the acceptance of single-parenting was a gradual thing.
Later, grownup people who should have known better were urging single moms to assert their “rights” to keep their bastard children and raise them singly. (OK, I know already that this is not the only reason for single parenthood. But it’s the main reason for the growth in deliberate single parenthood.) A very toxic cultural ethos, that, and the root of many present and increasing future social problems.
Later, grownup people who should have known better were urging single moms to assert their “rights” to keep their bastard children and raise them singly.
Adoption is only better for the child when the mom is “ambivalent” about raising the child. (I would like to see more information about whether the exact type, nature, and/or cause of this “ambivalence” makes a difference: if the “ambivalence” is caused by poverty, then the proper solution is not to urge her to give up her child, but to open up a path for her to work her way out of poverty. I strongly believe that unearned handouts are toxic to the recipients, and that most single parents would be better off – and happier – if they were given opportunities rather than handouts, so that’s why I say that.)
I am firmly in the belief that people should be more responsible about not making unintended babies in the first place, and that “intended” babies should be made from within a marriage, rather than treating marriage as expendable. But if an unintended pregnancy is a fact, from that point out the question of what to do about it should be ruled by the child’s best interest.
If the mother wants the child, the best interest in the case would be to let her raise the child.
Ideally, either the father should be part of the unit, or his rights should be severed altogether and an adoptive father should be involved. Kids need both parents.
BTW I shouldn’t have said “let”. I should have said “encourage” or something.
Looks flat since 1995. “Increasingly” is fifteen years old.