To the Editorial Staff of Slate.com:

I would like to start off by saying I genuinely enjoy reading many of the commentaries on your website; they are, for the most part, well reasoned, intriguing, and informative. That said, when I read Emily Yoffe’s March 20, 2008 editorial entitled, “…And Baby Makes Two,” I found it to be thoroughly opinionated and uninformed. Having encountered the issue of out-of-wedlock birth with friends and family members, it is my opinion that this trend is far from a “national catastrophe.” Furthermore, the steps that Ms. Yoffe takes in order to arrive at this conclusion fail to take into consideration both sides of the argument regarding out-of-wedlock births. Contrary to Ms. Yoffe’s opinions, I believe that, first, wedlock does not necessarily lead to poverty or the demise of the family environment; and second, that wedlock may, in fact, be a “survival of the fittest” mechanism.

My first encounter with a child born out of wedlock came just four years ago when my cousin gave birth to a son. Though she herself was raised in a middle class family and scored well on standardized tests, after rebelling in high school, she found herself alone and living near the poverty line. It was at this point that she made several poor decisions which ultimately culminated in the birth of her child. Thankfully, her family intervened and adopted her child and raised it as their own in a middle class environment. However, this example proves that Ms. Yoffe’s belief that wedlock leads to poverty may be misguided; in my experience, it was poverty, a lack of education, and poor decision-making that led to a birth out of wedlock.

Additionally, Ms. Yoffe’s idea that parents must be married in order to successfully raise a child seems folly to me. I have a friend who recently became pregnant with her boyfriend of six months. Upon finding out about the pregnancy, her boyfriend purchased a ring and proposed. Without hesitation, my friend declined his proposal knowing that this was a knee-jerk reaction to the pregnancy. She has since given birth to twins, and she and her boyfriend have been raising two boys successfully and functionally, without being married. It was her belief that raising the children in an artificial marriage would have been more damaging in the long run for their values and beliefs.

Finally, it seems possible to me that Ms. Yoffe has neglected to take into consideration the possibility that having a child out of wedlock might be a “survival of the fittest” mechanism for some women. It is the goal of all species to reproduce successfully and to raise offspring who will assure the continued success of the species. In this sense, it is only logical for women who have mated with a male who is not a suitable father to leave him and seek out a more reliable candidate. This ensures that both she, and her child, will have the greatest possible chance of survival. Contrary to Ms. Yoffe’s beliefs, many women who have children out of wedlock are acting rationally.

Again, I would like to thank you for continued publication of quality, informative, and well-reasoned editorial commentary. This article written by Ms. Yoffe will certainly not turn me away from your superb magazine in the future.

Sincerely,

ABA

It was at this point that she made several poor decisions which ultimately culminated in the birth of her child. Thankfully, her family intervened and adopted her child and raised it as their own in a middle class environment. However, this example proves that Ms. Yoffe’s belief that wedlock leads to poverty may be misguided; in my experience, it was poverty, a lack of education, and poor decision-making that led to a birth out of wedlock.

Exactly how does the fact that her parents were willing and able to take over her responsibilities proof that her decision wouldn't have had disastrous consequences if they hadn't intervened?

she and her boyfriend have been raising two boys successfully and functionally, without being married. It was her belief that raising the children in an artificial marriage would have been more damaging in the long run for their values and beliefs.

Um, if they are living together and raising kids, they are basically in an artificial marriage. The only difference between this one and the real thing is that it is a lot easier and more likely that the boyfriend will leave and the kids will live without his time and money, which makes them a lot more likely to fall into poverty and get into trouble. This isn't a morality issue, it is a math issue.

In this sense, it is only logical for women who have mated with a male who is not a suitable father to leave him and seek out a more reliable candidate. This ensures that both she, and her child, will have the greatest possible chance of survival.

Wouldn't the most rational thing to do be to wait until you are with a reliable canidate before having kids? And just what makes you think that mom stands a good chance of finding Mr Right with kids in tow? Most of the reliable men I know don't want a woman with kids. Kids add complication to a budding relationship, and their presence means that the mom will have this other man in her life--thier father.

Wouldn't the most rational thing to do be to wait until you are with a reliable canidate before having kids?

That is a very rational thing to do, however, it is not always possible. Men can successfully reproduce much later than women can and therefore are much more likely to put off marraige and/or reproduction until later.

Therefore women cannot always find a 'reliable candidate' before the time remaining on their biological clock is up. The next logical choice for women who want to have biological children before they are physically incapable is to go ahead and have them outside of a relationship.

darlar:

Wouldn't the most rational thing to do be to wait until you are with a reliable canidate before having kids?

That is a very rational thing to do, however, it is not always possible. Men can successfully reproduce much later than women can and therefore are much more likely to put off marraige and/or reproduction until later.

Therefore women cannot always find a 'reliable candidate' before the time remaining on their biological clock is up.

I completely diagree with this. The "logic" makes no sense. Women can have healthy babies into their forties. If you can't find a reliable candidate for a husband and father by your mid-forties, then perhaps you shouldn't be having kids anyway.

In addition, women are NOT, for the most part, having kids out of wedlock because they can't find a suitable husband. They are doing it because they either haven't been responsible about birth control, or they simply don't care about finding a father for their child. They selfishly assume that since they want a cute baby, they should just have one, regardless of their financial or relationship situation.

It's not difficult in the beginning to have sex, get pregnant, and become a single parent. Being a great single parent is extremely tough, however. On the flip side, it is sometimes harder to wait for the right person, establish a solid relationship, get married, and have children in a solid environment, but it is well worth the effort in the long run, and makes for a much smoother and happier life for your kids.

"I completely disagree with this. The "logic" makes no sense. Women can have healthy babies into their forties."

Yes they can, but that does not necessarily means they will. Care to look at statistics?

"In addition, women are NOT, for the most part, having kids out of wedlock because they can't find a suitable husband."

Now THAT was funny.

Are you working for a stand-up comedy club or something?))))

Yes, well there is still the problem that a woman acting in this fashion is incentivized to do so, because she can shop for another mate while still receiving economic support from the father. It is rational, but it depends on the government's intervention in terms of child support or other welfare for the mother.

I would have little problem with this behavior if said woman subsidized her own choices, and the father had power to negotiate on his own behalf. Then of course that woman would be forced to be responsible one way or another.

The success or failure of a parenting style is not determined by the appearance of success while the children are young. There is a great deal of evidence that children raised by single-parent households have higher teen delinquency and crime, lower grades and greater rates of teen pregnancy as well. Other measurements also give two-parent households an edge, as a general rule, although I'm sure there are many individual exceptions.

"Finally, it seems possible to me that Ms. Yoffe has neglected to take into consideration the possibility that having a child out of wedlock might be a “survival of the fittest” mechanism for some women. It is the goal of all species to reproduce successfully and to raise offspring who will assure the continued success of the species. In this sense, it is only logical for women who have mated with a male who is not a suitable father to leave him and seek out a more reliable candidate. This ensures that both she, and her child, will have the greatest possible chance of survival. Contrary to Ms. Yoffe’s beliefs, many women who have children out of wedlock are acting rationally."

If she was truely concerned about "survival of the fittest" she wouldn't be having sex with the scumbag guy to begin with. You describe a situation where the scumbag gets to pass off his genes to the next generation and the chump gets to raise mook-mook's kid for him, while mook-mook goes off and knocks up some other ditzy slut and the cycle continues. You're kind of saying it is the job of "good" men to raise bad men's children. This is almost as bad as the argument that you shouldn't have children because then you can't go to France.

"Yes, well there is still the problem that a woman acting in this fashion is incentivized to do so, because she can shop for another mate while still receiving economic support from the father. It is rational, but it depends on the government's intervention in terms of child support or other welfare for the mother.

I would have little problem with this behavior if said woman subsidized her own choices, and the father had power to negotiate on his own behalf. Then of course that woman would be forced to be responsible one way or another."

This is a very good observation, because when the author of the original post is talking about the "survival of the fittest," he/she is partially right. ( After all, such thing as Matriarchy is a historical fact.) The problem is - this "women emancipation" thing doesn't really belong with the modern US society, but rather with African village, or countries like Soviet Union, where the dynamics of the society - the extended families, and the type of economy were far more supportive and far more appropriate for this idea.

What I am talking about here is nothing new indeed - have a look at this article for example.

<link>

There is a reason why USA to begin with, was based on a strict Christian values, that are quite patriarchal in its nature, and there is a reason why many would like to deny it at this point in history.

I mean nothing in Christianity looks particularly harsh or offensive; it would have been quite easy to embrace it, if not for this very inconvinient point, such as "and you, wives, submit under your husbands......"

Wow, thanks "turning point". That was an excellent article. Retired principal.

Oh, you are welcome Retired.

So what I'm seeing here, is probably that the idea itself has its own merits, but it has been planted on the wrong soil, and implemented in the culture that is quite incompatible with it. That's why it's bound to bring obvious controversy and uresolvable conflict.

"Women can have healthy babies into their forties."
"In addition, women are NOT, for the most part, having kids out of wedlock because they can't find a suitable husband. They are doing it because they either haven't been responsible about birth control, or they simply don't care about finding a father for their child."

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!

Studies over and over have told us time and again that the BEST time for a woman to be pregnant and give birth is from her mid-teens through her mid twenties. After that, her fertility begins to decline until about 40, at which it takes a steep drop. After 40, the chances of a woman getting pregnant, having a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy, and a normal healthy child drop to about 35%. Ever wonder why fertility clinics have become so popular? Even men have a drop in fertility rates after 40, though they still produce enough sperm to get a woman pregnant for many years after.

Between 1991 and 2005 out of wedlock births to teenagers fell 34%. Between 2005 and 2006, there was a modest increase of 3%. However, there has been a 20% increase in unmarried births since 2002, ALMOST ENTIRELY AMONG WOMEN AGED 25-36, WITH LARGEST INCREASE IN WOMEN AGED 26-29 (10%).

You can find this information easily on the official NCHS website sponsored by the CDC. It took me all of 10 minutes to find it.

So, the BIGGEST increase in out of wedlock births is to OLDER women, who, presumably, are tired of waiting around for a decent man and are deciding to have children anyway, before their fertility declines beyond repair. It can also indicate an increase in non-married partnerships that are raising children, but the NCHS does not keep track of that.

However, what is frustrating me the most about the ignorant postings of neanderthals like yourself, GetADog and others, is the COMPLETE BLAME BEING PLACED ON THE FEMALE. It takes TWO to tango, remember? If men feel so victimized by our female child bearing decisions, then why are they out there getting us pregnant? Why is it ENTIRELY the female's responsibility to "keep her legs shut", while absolutely nothing has been said about the male responsibility to "keep it in his pants"?

Can you say: HYPOCRITE!