by Vennis A. Vennable
I was talking to a guy in a bar recently(go figure), who told me St. Joseph, Missouri was the number two city per capita in the U.S. when it comes to unwed mothers. I challenged him on his facts, but he said he worked for a state agency and swore it was true. He continued to tell me that we were only behind Harlem, New York, and that the gap was closing! This sounded like typical bar B.S. to me but it got me thinking.
I may write for The Regular Joe, but I also am a regular subscriber to the local daily. One of my little rituals is looking at the records section and comparing the number of “same last name” parents, with those that don’t or have no father listed. Any day with more married than unmarried gets a mental star beside it. My unofficial count runs about 50/50, but I decided to do a little digging.
According to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, a review of birth records for all St. Joe zip codes show 653 babies born to married couples in ’06 (the most recent year on file), compared to 616 unmarried mothers. That’s over 48%.
Back in the dark ages when I was in school, it seemed once a year or so, some girl would “get in trouble.” Sometimes she “went away” for the semester, or at least dropped out of sight for a while. It was all hush-hush, but the rumors got around quick. Reputations were ruined and families were humiliated. The girls were used as cautionary tales at home and at school, to preach about the dangers of giving into teenage lust. Of course they weren’t allowed to attend school in their “condition,” and when the babies were born, the paper certainly didn’t print the news.
Now, I’m not trying to come across as one of those “back in the good old days” guys. I just wonder how we got here from there.
I’m sure there are a number of factors. Roe vs. Wade had to play a part. I’m not picking a side on that issue. I figure the lack of a uterus cancels my vote, but I wonder whether easy access to abortions contributes to the situation.
Birth control has to be involved too, but here I’m confused. How can today’s comparatively easy access to birth control explain this alarming trend? Wouldn’t you think we’d be going the other way? Does that mean most of these unwed pregnancies are planned instead of accidental, or are today’s teenagers just too lazy to take precautions?
A local high school teacher tells me there are always at least a dozen pregnant students at a time now. Teen moms dress up their babies and bring them to school for show and tell. Not only has the stigma been removed, it’s almost like an extra curricular activity. What, is Chess Club not cool enough anymore?
Welfare benefits play a role too. It’s unfortunate, but babies = income to a segment of our society. A teenager with a new baby comes off Mom’s check, but starts a new account of her own as the cycle continues.
Now hold on. Before you start blasting me with stories of how you, or someone you know, succeeded as a single mother, save your breath. I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying the deck is stacked against you. By the same token, being born to a married couple is no guarantee of a healthy happy life either. We’re talking in generalities here, and generally speaking, statistics indicate an enormous advantage for kids with both Mom and Dad in the house. It’s not nature vs. nurture. It’s both at the same time. Until science perfects asexual reproduction, it still takes a male and female, or at least their genetic material, to make a baby. Logic says there must be some good reason for that.
What does all this mean for society as a whole, and specifically for St. Joe? Who knows, but time will certainly tell. At the very least I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a heavier demand on social services as this generation of bastards comes of age. Sure gives the phrase “Who’s your daddy?” new meaning doesn’t it?
Filed under: General |