May 2007 - Sept 2007
In The Mail Bag... This is the latest column from Father Frank. It is chilling. --"joe"
On The Wire ... Food for thought. --joe
Vox Day
It's
not often that I'm forced to admit I was wrong, but logic must always bow before
evidence. Adhering to this basic rule would save many people, especially
intellectuals, from much public embarrassment. The author of "Freakonomics"
has established a lucrative literary career from exploiting the human tendency
to forget this truth, demonstrating how what everyone "knows" to be
the case is frequently wrong due to their application of reason to a foundation
of incomplete or inaccurate data.
As
with its digital counterpart, human logic is only as good as its input. Garbage
in, garbage out.
I had long assumed that because
nearly 800,000 abortions are committed in the United States each year, there
must have been a statistically significant, negative effect on the U.S.
population in the recent past. After all, it is reasonable to assume that the
destruction of 27.2 million unborn children over the last 34 years must have had
some depressing effect on the numbers, even if the population has continued to
grow during that time. Are we not caught up in the throes of an immigration
debate? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the negative effect of abortion has
been more than counterbalanced by the increase in mass immigration, especially
considering the ongoing Mexican migration?
It
has even been argued that one of the reasons Americans must accept immigration
is because of the lamentable habit of so many American women to exterminate
their offspring in the womb. While I am a restricted borders advocate myself, I
have to confess that I did take this argument seriously and considered it a
point for the open borders crowd that restrictionists would have to surmount.
This
was because I made the very same mistake so often made by those I criticize,
which is to say that I completely neglected to examine the relevant evidence
while trusting in a train of thought that made superficial sense to me, rather
like a liberal arguing that gun control reduces crime or a militant atheist
arguing that religion causes war. In this case, the relevant evidence is the
U.S. live birth rates from 1973 to the present.
In
1973, when the so-called right to abortion was miraculously discovered within
the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution, the American live birth rate
was 14.9. Thirty years later, the rate was 14.7, very slightly lower, but
essentially the same in light of how it had risen as high as 15.8 during the
intervening decades.
This
means that contrary to what is commonly imagined, abortion by itself does not
reduce the number of children that are born each year. This may seem
counterintuitive, but it is true. How can this be? The answer is simple. Given
the plethora of contraceptive means, women who don't want to have children will
not have them regardless of the nature of the precise means available to them.
Despite
the near-religious rhetoric with which pro-abortion women hail their
"right" to child-murder, abortion is nothing more than one of the many
forms of birth control. If it is available, women will make use of it. If it is
not available, they will find other methods ranging from condoms and
contraceptive paraphernalia to prescribed pills and injections to the same net
effect. Abortion, then, is literally nothing more than a personal preference for
the appalling sort of woman who prefers participating in a live human
vivisection to swallowing a pill.
While
abortion does not provide a reasonable basis for an argument against
immigration, perhaps this statistical proof of its complete lack of necessity
may prove to be a useful argument in support of an eventual ban on this violent,
dehumanizing and unnecessary act
In The Mail Bag...
On The Wire...
Planned
Parenthood denies being abortion giant
Last
week, a reader of the Wednesday
STOPP Report forwarded an e-mail in which Planned Parenthood
president Cecile Richards denied an accusation by a political strategist that
Planned Parenthood is the most radical pro-abortion group in the country. While
American Life League does not take any positions on any political candidates, we
must comment when the truth is assailed, which is precisely what Cecile Richards
has done.
According
to Planned
Parenthood’s own data, it committed 264,943 abortions in its own
business facilities during 2005. It did this by operating the nation’s largest
abortion chain—with 232 medical and surgical abortion facilities across the
country—and continually fighting for the so-called right of every woman to
kill her child through abortion.
The
president of Planned Parenthood can complain all she wants, but Richards cannot
erase Planned Parenthood’s relentless attack on the innocent that has claimed
more than four million preborn babies (in Planned Parenthood killing centers)
since 1970. When an organization ends the lives of 5,095 innocent human beings
every week—20 percent of all surgical abortions in the United States—it
doesn’t make any difference what else it does. Richards’ attempt to deny
that Planned Parenthood is the most radical pro-abortion group in the country
simply has no basis in fact.
On My Mind...
We explore options. We go on, advancing one day at a time. Babies continue to die, at the rate of one every three seconds worldwide. These poor lost souls, numbering in the millions, are the price we pay while we struggle to come to our collective senses about abortion.
One can only wonder how many geniuses, and saviors have been put to death here in America by Roe-v-Wade. We will never really know how badly we affected more than three decades of American humanity. we'll never know how many lives were turned upside-down and destroyed by the burden of abortion.
I have had readers claim that I am a candy-wipe, a bleeding heart, and other names I won’t mention here. I suppose this is because I care about others. And as I care about the well-being of others, I cannot sit idly by while common sense crumbles around me. I can see the world’s suffering from a civilization gone completely mad, where committees meet to determine just how insane infanticide is, and then sit back and wait for the chips to fall.
There is something one can do. One can stand up, speak out, and lead.
Defend the right to life. Someone defended yours. – “Joe”
In The Mail Bag... This came from a reader who wants to spread the word on abortion abolition. He has provided a valuable list of contacts to aid in this cause. I went the extra step and added a contact link to the names Will has provided. Get after it! Get the word out! Stand up! Speak out! Lead! --"Joe"
Hello,
I am a resident of the state of Michigan (Joe Knollenberg's—a Catholic
Congressman--district), and I urge you to write these men to bring about an
abolition of abortion nationwide, introducing house legislation to do so, and to
try to enlist conservative Democrats in the House and Senate to support the
effort...John Quincy Adams did the same with the abolition movement in the
1800's, and didn't stop until he died/left office (don't remember which).
William Wilberforce did the same in
They
rate 100% from the American Conservative Union,
House:
Senate:
(Please)
keep me posted re: course of action from here and progress,
On The Wire... Bradley Mattes is key player in the work at Life Issues. He is a powerful speaker with a powerful message. --"joe"
By Bradley Mattes, LifeIssues.Org
The
mental pain and anguish suffered by women who abort their babies is well known
and widely publicized within the pro-life movement. In addition, an extensive,
grass roots network exists to assist women who face the aftermath of abortion.
What
about a man involved in the decision to abort his baby? Does he too suffer
negative psychological effects? If so, where can he turn for help to cope? As we
investigate these questions and more, you will be surprised by the answers.
Peter
and his girlfriend had sex only once. A short time later she phoned to tell him
that she was pregnant, even though they had each used contraception. With him as
a reluctant participant, she aborted their child. Their relationship was one of
the first casualties of the abortion. Peter cited a lack of trust as the reason
for the split. Within a couple of months he was using alcohol and drugs to get
temporary relief from the pain. In an attempt to deal with his grief, he reached
out to his brothers and sisters, only to be told that he did the right thing.
His fear of women kept him from dating for 8 years.
Tad
was divorced when his girlfriend got pregnant and they agreed to abort their
baby. In the process, the relationship was destroyed. Not long after his second
marriage, his daughter got pregnant and he assisted her to abort his grandchild.
It wasn’t until his daughter planned her second abortion that Tad realized the
humanity of the unborn child. In his effort to bury his feelings about the
abortions, he assumed a "wooden demeanor". During this time Tad said
he did a lot of damage to his wife and children by being withdrawn.
These
are just two of more than thirty-million men who are struggling to cope with the
loss of their children through abortion. For many they willingly participated in
the decision to abort and assisted their partners in securing an abortion.
Several
even pressured their partners into having an abortion. Sadly, some watched
helplessly as their precious unborn child was aborted in spite of their pleas to
give their baby life. Still others weren’t told of their fatherhood until
after their child had already died in the abortion chamber.
MOTIVATING
FACTORS
In
many ways men and women respond very differently to the loss of a child from
abortion. To empathize with a man’s reaction to this profound loss, it is
important to first understand what motivates the human male species.
Instinct
drives men to achieve success in five key areas of their lives. Men are often
defined by their ability to: [enjoy] pleasure, procreate, provide, protect and
perform. Let’s briefly examine each of these instincts in the context of
abortion.
Pleasure.
The desire for men to enjoy pleasure extends beyond the need for sexual
satisfaction and fulfillment. It also encompasses the enjoyment of having
children, watching them grow, learn and become independent and productive
citizens in their own right. Men also seek the pleasure of a life-mate, a wife
who will provide companionship through the ups and downs along the way.
Procreate.
Perhaps the most important element motivating man is his desire to procreate.
Men provide an essential role in the continuation of the human race. Almost
every man, whether he verbalizes it or not, values the idea of having offspring
of his own flesh and blood — carrying on the family name or bloodline.
Provide.
A man’s reproductive cycle ends with the act of sex — the same time that a
woman’s cycle begins. Therefore a man’s priority shifts from procreation to
providing for the mother and the unborn offspring he has fathered. He
instinctively knows that this new family will look to him for many of the
day-to-day necessities. In his mind it is important that he succeeds in
providing for them.
Protect.
Like providing for his family, man is highly programmed to protect his family.
During his child’s lifetime there will be many dangers to continually guard
against — the threats of illness or injury, making wise decisions and knowing
when to say no to a myriad of tempting offers throughout life. The need for a
man to protect his offspring should not be underestimated.
Perform.
When talked about in contemporary society, this word most often refers to a
man’s sexual ability. While this applies, it is not limited to sexual
activity. Performance encompasses man’s ability to perform in various aspects
of life. Job performance is often primary to defining a man’s success — the
income it generates, the social standing it provides and the attained admiration
of his peers. Successful performance in the social arena secures friendships and
helps a man achieve his desire for pleasure.
Society
often judges a man based on his ability to be successful at pleasure,
procreation, provision, protection and performance. When a man experiences
abortion, these key elements of life are seriously damaged, or often totally
obliterated.
THE
SYMPTOMS
Perhaps
the most consistent and evident symptom in men due to loss of a child from
abortion is anger. A counselor, who personally experienced the abortion
decision, indicated that every man he has counseled has a higher level of anger
than before the abortion. In addition, each has acted on that anger in some way
that was harmful to himself or someone else. Another counselor likened this
anger to that of a "ticking time-bomb just waiting to go off."
A
man’s anger and frustration of not being able to protect and provide for his
unborn baby, because of abortion, manifests itself in several ways. He often
turns to alcohol and drugs to dull the pain of knowing he participated in or was
too "weak" to prevent the death of his unborn baby. Many become
workaholics to avoid contact with other people or in a desperate effort to
succeed in a crucial aspect of their life.
The
relationship most always fails after a decision to abort. In addition, future
relationships with women are often difficult or impossible. A woman has total
control over the decision to abort their baby, leaving the father no legal
recourse. This lack of control regarding a critical, life-impacting decision
often generates considerable resentment and mistrust towards women. As a result
of a previous experience, they do not want to be put into another situation
where another pregnancy may occur and they have no control of the outcome. Some
men experiment with homosexuality because it allows them to have a successful
sexual relationship with no commitment and no worry of pregnancy. Men may suffer
from other forms of sexual dysfunction such as impotency and addiction to
pornography and masturbation.
Other
symptoms of a man struggling with a loss from abortion may be that he suffers
from sleeplessness, panic attacks, poor coping skills, flashbacks, nightmares or
self-imposed isolation. He may be unable to hold a job due to his inability to
handle decision making, or he may be an excessive risk-taker in work and social
environments, setting himself up for failure. This may come from the feeling
that he deserves what he gets for being a loser and failing when it counted most
— protecting his unborn baby.
DEALING
WITH THE SYMPTOMS
To
be most effective, a man should receive counsel from another man when dealing
with the grief and shame caused by an abortion decision. A man can better assist
another man struggling with the loss of his child and fatherhood.
In general, men are more successful than women at burying their feelings after
an abortion. If a man fails to face the emotional aftermath of losing his child
to abortion within the first couple of months, he will often suppress it for
many years, making it more difficult to face. Many men acknowledge various
problems in their life without connecting them to a previous abortion decision.
Society
makes it doubly tough for men to deal with the aftermath of abortion. First,
most in the secular realm don’t even acknowledge the existence of
Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS) in women. Secondly, men are often taught as
children that it is less than manly to show weakness or cry. As a result, men
have no societal incentive to realistically deal with their abortion decision.
When
addressing post-traumatic stress in men, it is not effective to approach it from
the angle of PAS. Men tend to be compartmental thinkers. A vast majority of them
have bought into the false rhetoric that abortion is solely a woman’s
decision. Talking to them about PAS will only enforce their belief that this is
something that affects only women.
A
man may be more open to talking about and dealing with the loss of his child in
the context of abortion. That loss has affected him dramatically. However, he
may not yet be aware that it is the root-cause of his problems. It may be
helpful to
talk about the symptoms commonly experienced by other men after an abortion
decision. When he realizes that he shares many of those symptoms, he is more apt
to look at the cause for his problems in a new light.
Most
experienced counselors advocate a gentle but direct approach. This is no time
for subtlety. Tell him it’s OK to grieve for the baby he will never see or
hold in his arms. Let him cry for his profound loss. Let him cry as much and as
often as he needs to. He needs to grieve the loss and shame.
Almost
every woman who has begun the road to recovery after her abortion has given
credit to the fact that she returned to, or discovered, her religious faith.
That has proven to also be true with men. Allow him to experience the joy of
knowing he has complete, divine forgiveness. This will enable him to move on to
the next crucial stage of obtaining that God-given peace within himself. This is
likely the hardest step to complete. Because of his deep fear and distrust, he
may feel unworthy of a relationship with God.
Counselors
encourage churches to deal openly with this problem. "There are many
Christian men, sitting in pews, who haven’t dealt with their abortion
decision," said one counselor. When speaking of his own experience he said,
"If one man or the church had said something, I would have responded."
For churches and organizations that deal with counseling from a religious perspective, there are men’s bible studies available, tailored to suit various groups. Other resources are also available when dealing with men and their grief.
Please call or write Life Issues Institute for a free list of resources including experienced counselors who deal with men’s loss after abortion. Life Issues Institute is working to network people and materials in this field. Please send us samples of any materials or information on anyone you have in your area, qualified to assist these men. Write to: Life Issues Institute, 1821 West Galbraith Road, Cincinnati, OH 45239. Or phone (513) 729-3600.
On The Wire... Divided we fall and fail. ProLife advocates must be on the same page. There is no "half-way" point. --"joe"
No
one can be an effective advocate for the unborn without a complete understanding
of the fundamental principle guiding the pro-life position. The good news is
it's actually an easy concept to understand.
The
term "pro-life" is an acknowledgment of the biological reality that a)
human life begins at the moment a woman's egg is fertilized by a man's sperm,
and that b) every human being is entitled to have his or her life protected by
law from that moment forward.
Regrettably,
the pro-life position is often compromised or watered-down for political
expediency or in a misguided effort to appear "reasonable." You'll
hear people say that they are pro-life but that there should be
"exceptions" for certain circumstances – the most common exceptions
being for pregnancies that threaten the mother's life or health, when the
pregnancy resulted from either rape or incest, or when the unborn child is
handicapped. Some people – especially politicians – will even claim to be
pro-life while openly stating that abortion should be legal in the first
trimester.
To
see what a fraud these "exceptions" positions are, simply paraphrase
them. For example, the statement, "I am pro-life, but I think there should
be an exception when the pregnancy was the result of rape" should become,
"I am pro-life, but it should be legal to butcher babies who were conceived
in rape." Other paraphrased positions would be, "I am pro-life, but it
should be legal to butcher babies with Down syndrome" and "I am
pro-life, but I think it is OK to butcher babies in their first trimester of
life."
Every
exception can be paraphrased to more accurately reflect what is actually being
said, and in doing so it becomes clear that there is no such position as
"Pro-Life With Exceptions." By definition, it is impossible to
accurately label someone pro-life who approves killing certain groups of
children. It is as illogical as someone in 1860 saying, "I am an
abolitionist, but I believe slavery should be legal in some circumstances."
Remember,
the only legitimate pro-life position is that a 10-week-old unborn child is
morally equivalent to, and has the same right to life as, a 5-year-old born
child. When someone says they are pro-life but that abortion should be allowed
in some circumstances, the question is whether that person would support killing
a 5-year-old in those same circumstances. Since they are certainly not going to
take that position, the only logical conclusion is that they don't see born and
unborn children as morally equal. In other words, they are not pro-life.
The
bottom line is when someone takes the "Pro-Life With Exceptions"
position, what they are saying is that they support the "choice" to
kill some babies (conceived in rape, handicapped, etc.) but oppose the
"choice" to kill other babies. In other words, the only honest way to
define their position is "Pro-Choice With Exceptions."
That
brings us to the issue of legislation.
Let
me make it clear that I have never been a fan of the incremental approach to
pro-life legislation. I continue to believe that if we had forced the American
people to choose between absolute unrestricted abortion-on-demand through all
nine months of pregnancy or no abortion under any circumstances at any time, we
would have won by now. I am also concerned that the wording in some incremental
legislation could be twisted by a future court to establish abortion as a right
in state
law when Roe is overturned.
Having
said that, I am alarmed at the growing level of animosity between the so-called
"purists" like me and those who believe in the incremental approach. I
am also concerned that most of the acrimony seems to be coming from people on my
side of the debate.
The
controversy centers on the question of whether a pro-life individual or
organization that supports legislation to prohibit some killings but allow
others is a sell-out. For example, should the pro-life movement support a law
that would prohibit abortions except in the cases of rape, incest and when the
pregnancy threatens the mother's life? This is the kind of argument that has
plagued our movement for years. It is also the main source of the infighting and
turf wars that have destroyed so many worthwhile pro-life initiatives.
The
resolution of this conflict resides in understanding the distinction between support
and advocacy. Any group or individual that advocates legislation that
would permit the legal killing of even one unborn baby has no legitimate claim
to the label "pro-life." If, in the legislative process, the choice is
between a pure bill and a bill that allows exceptions, anyone who claims to be
pro-life while preferring the exceptions bill is a fraud.
However,
the choice we have to make is seldom between a pure bill and a bill with
exceptions. In almost every case, the choice we are given is between a bill with
exceptions and no bill at all. When that is the situation, pro-life support
of that legislation is not the same as advocating it. The necessity is
that we make it absolutely clear that the moment a bill is in place that saves
some babies, we will not lose one minute in returning to the battlefield to save
the others.
I
think a good analogy is seen in the legislative efforts to end America's
epidemic of drunk driving. When those who fight this battle lobby for
legislation to reduce the legal blood/alcohol level from .1 to .08, they are not
advocating that people should be allowed to drive with a blood/alcohol level of
.08. Their principle and their goal is the same as it has always been. That is,
people should not be allowed to drive with any amount of alcohol in their
system. They support the .08 legislation because they feel that is the most they
can get at the time. As soon as it is signed into law, they will be back at work
trying to take the next step. That defines the distinction between support and
advocacy.
Several
years ago, there was a movie about a wealthy Catholic businessman who helped
save Jews from being sent to the Nazi death camps. His name was Oskar Schindler,
and the movie was called "Schindler's List." The title came from the
fact that Mr. Schindler kept a list of people he thought it would be possible
for him to help. In the end, he was able to rescue about 1,100 people. But until
his death in 1974, he was constantly haunted by the fact that he had to choose
between those he could save and those he could not. The lesson in this for us is
that when Schindler left someone's name off his list he was not saying that they
should be killed. He was simply saying that he couldn't save them.
In
a sense, the pro-life movement already understands and accepts the concept that
the perfect should not become the enemy of the good. Those who work at a
pro-life crisis pregnancy center or do sidewalk counseling in front of an
abortion clinic know that they will not be able to save every baby. In fact,
these people must accept that in the environments in which they operate their
success rate will be small. But their inability to save all the babies does not
prevent them from trying to save the babies they can. And no one in the pro-life
movement criticizes them or questions their integrity over the ones they had no
choice but to leave behind.
For
pro-life political operatives who are attacked for proposing incremental
legislation, this seems like a double standard. They will tell you that they
want to protect all the babies, but until that is possible they will protect the
ones they can. So how is that different than the crisis pregnancy center or
sidewalk counselor?
The
answer is: It probably isn't different. Although I am firmly in the
"purist" camp, I don't believe that supporting legislation to protect
some babies until you can do better automatically makes one a sell-out to
the pro-life principle.
I
think the reason this conflict has festered for so long is the same reason
pro-lifers get involved in the first place: We care. We also understand how high
the stakes are. This is not some ivory-tower debating club where adversaries
wear smoking jackets with elbow patches. This is a street fight against people
who kill helpless children for money. If we did not care so deeply, and if we
did not know what the consequences of losing are, the often bitter conflict
between those who say "all or nothing" and those who say "all or
something" would not exist.
However,
just because this tension is understandable, perhaps even natural, we cannot
afford to ignore it. In fact, we are coming to a point where it is destined to
become exponentially more dangerous than it has been in the past. Ironically, it
is our success that will cause this conflict to take on this new and more
ominous potential.
Today,
the momentum is clearly on the side of the pro-life movement. It is so
indisputable that even many of our enemies are now predicting that Roe vs. Wade
will soon be history. However, as it stands now, we have not yet passed one
piece of legislation in one state that returns legal protection to even one
baby. Statutes related to parental notification, clinic regulations, waiting
periods, partial-birth abortion, etc., do not legally prohibit the killing of
the unborn; they simply define the circumstances under which the killings can
take place. This is not due to any failed political strategy, but to a Supreme
Court that will not allow us to do any more than that.
Because
the Court has made it clear, up until now, that they would throw out any
legislation we pass whether it prohibits every abortion or almost none, the
dispute between purists and incrementalists has been mostly a philosophical one.
However, when Roe falls, that will no longer be the case. At the moment it
becomes possible for us to start proposing meaningful legislation to protect the
unborn, this dispute stops being philosophical. It also takes on the possibility
of destroying everything we've worked for since the day this battle began.
The
stakes are simply too high for us to let that happen. This is a problem that
must be solved now so the wounds can heal before the great post-Roe battles
begin. Those confrontations are going to be viscous and costly, and our
potential for success will not exceed our ability to focus on the real enemy.
To
those who, like me, have profound misgivings about the incremental approach to
legislation, let us never challenge the motives or commitment of those who
embrace it. As long as their ultimate mission is to provide legal protection for
every child from the moment of fertilization, and as long as they are joining us
in the sacrifices necessary to see that job done, they are our brothers and
sisters in the battle.
And
that is how they deserve to be treated.
Mark
Crutcher is president of Life Dynamics
Incorporated of Denton, Texas.
On The Wire... Marriage fails as an institution when we fail to instill in our youth the importance of unity and commitment to one another. Divorce is far too common and far too easy. Read Ed Vitagliano's take on the subject. --"joe"
It barely caused a stir when the New York Times reported in mid-October that, for the first time in the history of the U.S., the percentage of American households that are home to a married couple had slipped into the minority.
That discouraging fact was revealed by the American Community Survey, which was released by the U.S. Census Bureau. The numbers show that 49.7% of the more than 111 million U.S. households in 2005 contained a married couple, whether or not they had children.
As the Times reported, however, that percentage is down from the 52% of households with a married couple in 2000, part of a longer-term trend in which fewer Americans appear intent on marrying. (See chart 1.)
In fact, most of the trends do seem to be heading in the wrong direction, according to information released by the National Marriage Project of Rutgers University. The project is directed by David Popenoe, Rutgers University professor and author of Life Without Father and War Over the Family, and social critic Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, author of The Divorce Culture and the infamous 1993 Atlantic Monthly article, "Dan Quayle Was Right."
For the past seven years, the project has issued an annual document titled "The State of Our Unions." In that document the researchers include what they believe to be the most important indicators concerning marriage, divorce, cohabitation, child-centeredness and other issues that gauge the relative strength or weakness of the institutions of marriage and family. They identify three areas in which trends reflect the weakening of marriage.
Divorce rate
When most people think of the decline of marriage as an institution, they probably think first about divorce, and for good reason: The U.S. divorce rate is currently almost double what it was in 1960. (See chart 2.) On the other hand, figures from The National Marriage Project show that the divorce rate has actually been dropping since around 1980, when the rate per 1,000 married women was 22.6. It declined to 18.1 in 2003 and again to 17.7 in 2004.
Still, the danger of divorce remains prevalent. Popenoe and Whitehead said, "For the average couple marrying in recent years, the lifetime probability of divorce or separation remains between 40 and 50%."
Despite that high risk of divorce, Popenoe and Whitehead said "the rate must be interpreted with caution and several important caveats," including the fact that several factors can lower the risk of divorce.
For example, couples decrease their risk of divorce when they: wait at least seven months before having a child, as opposed to having a baby before marriage; get married after they turn 25 years old, as opposed to marrying before they turn 18; do not come from broken homes; or have a religious affiliation, as opposed to having none.
Marriage rate
But has the divorce rate been dropping because people are beginning to treasure marriage more, and are fighting harder to preserve their marriages through tough times? Probably not, as indicated by another trend: a dropping marriage rate. (See chart 3.) According to the National Marriage Project, in 1970 there were 76.5 marriages per 1,000 unmarried adult women, but the rate dropped to 39.9 in 2004 -- a decline of nearly 50%
It appears that fewer people are getting married in the first place -- which would obviously mean there would be fewer recorded divorces when the relationship ended. "Marriage trends in recent decades indicate that Americans have become less likely to marry," Popenoe and Whitehead said.
Why is this happening? The researchers said the decline is partially explained by the increase in the number of people who choose to cohabit as well as "a small decrease in the tendency of divorced persons to remarry."
Also a factor, according to the project, is a clear trend toward waiting until later in life to get married. "[T]he median age at first marriage went from 20 for females and 23 for males in 1960 to about 26 and 27, respectively, in 2004," said The State of Our Unions.
Cohabitation rate
Again, part of the reason for the decline in the number of people who are getting married is cohabitation. "It is important to note that the decline in marriage does not mean that people are giving up on living together with a sexual partner," said Popenoe and Whitehead. "On the contrary, with the incidence of unmarried cohabitation increasing rapidly, marriage is giving ground to unwed unions."
When it comes to cohabitation, the researchers said, all the trends are in the wrong direction. "Most people now live together before they marry for the first time. An even higher percentage of those divorced who subsequently remarry live together first. And a growing number of persons, both young and old, are living together with no plans for marriage," they said.
According to the National Marriage Project, between 1960 and 2004 the number of unmarried couples in the U.S. who cohabited in a sexual union increased by almost 1,200%. (See chart 4.)
"Over half of all first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago," said Popenoe and Whitehead.
William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, said it was the baby boomer generation, following World War II, that changed the way our culture looks at marriage.
"It's the legacy of the boomers that have finally caused this tipping point [toward cohabitation]. Certainly later generations have followed in boomer footsteps, with high levels of living together before marriage, and more flexible lifestyles," he said. "But the boomers were the trailblazers, once again, rebelling against a norm their parents epitomized. This would seem to close the book on the Ozzie and Harriet era that characterized much of the last century."
Of course, The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet was the famous ABC sitcom, which ran from the early 1950s until the mid-1960s, and which has come to signify the by-gone era when the wholesome nuclear family reigned supreme.
However, what is happening to the institution of marriage in our country isn't a sitcom. It's real life. And the consequences for future generations, well beyond the baby boomers, will be all too real as well.
University of Maryland sociologist Douglas Besharov, who also serves as resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, said the American family is in the middle of "seismic change."
"You can't have three-and-a-half decades of high divorce rates -- as we have -- and as many as five decades of rising out-of-wedlock births and not see change," he said. "Change is in the air. The only question is whether it is catastrophic or just evolutionary."