Just because the parents have different last names does not mean that they are not married. Some women chose to keep their names when they marry.

Just my two-cents worth...

When I was in 7th grade, late 1960s, one of the 11th grade girls suddenly had to leave school. No further schooling, no graduation, no diploma, and wasn't she seen in town until much later.

She was in the "family way" and unmarried. Unmarried pregnant students had to leave school. She didn't have a shower; she was rarely seen after the baby was born. This was the norm at the time. I remember one teacher explaining to an older student "Miss X is sick." Another teacher said "Yeah, love sick." in a very unflattering way. I didn't know what he meant, but I did know he was being mean and hurtful and it upset me.

Several years later she married a wonderful man, not the child's father, raised more children and seemed to have a wonderful life. She was always very shy and reserved. She was probably traumatized for life. That should not have happened.

Since I was 12 and hardly understood any of it; it scared the beejeez out of me.

Now single pregnant students, from middle school on, are often glorified and praised. They graduate with babies slung on their hips...of course, Grandma and Grandpa, or the welfare systems, are raising and providing for most of the babies.

It seems like there should be a balance between the two. I'm all for children; IF the parent, or parents, can provide for them, care for them, and raise them. In this day and age of various methods of mostly-reliable birth control, I don't understand why girls are still having so many babies before they're old enough to provide for them.

I still think it's best for children to born to two married parents, born into a home where they have the basic needs met, like food and warmth, and love. I know many single mothers can provide these things too.

(And the couple could have been married. Many women don't change their names. I didn't until after we'd been married for nearly 8 years. It was important to DH, so I changed it.)

I'm on the band wagon with Caroline:

"It seems like there should be a balance between the two. I'm all for children; IF the parent, or parents, can provide for them, care for them, and raise them. """"In this day and age of various methods of mostly-reliable birth control, I don't understand why girls are still having so many babies before they're old enough to provide for them."""""

I still think it's best for children to born to two married parents, born into a home where they have the basic needs met, like food and warmth, and love. "

I know what you mean, there shold be a happy medium. My mother had my brother out of wed lock and this was back in the 30's. She seemed to pay for that all her life. It was a real shame back then. Now, no one bats an eye when a single girl has a baby. Some, even purposly get PG, and raise them with out the, or a, father. I don't have the answer, and I'm not sure there even is one. It seems like fathers are not necessary any more. Dottie

I agree Caroline there should be a balance between the two extremes. One of my best friends was an unwed mother in high school. She confided in me that she very seriously considered suicide.

I seriously doubt that this very young looking couple in the picture are married and I don't condem them if they aren't...I am just saying, times have changed and it isn't necessarily all bad.

I keep hearing on the TV that 41% of the babies born in Louisville are to unwed mothers. It just makes me wonder about many things these days...for starters, how many of them will be kept by the mother, how many will have their biological fathers in their lives, helping them and helping to support them, how many are born to mothers who already have other children with no fathers, whose amoney is paying for all these pregnancies, yada, yada, yada.

just my 2 cents...and a few more.

Sue

My dd was due on Feb22, 1966. DH and I got married May 21, 1965. That means we were married nine months and one day when she was due. I am absolutely positive I wasn't pregnant when we got married. It wasn't possible. Anyway, his insurance where he worked wouldn't cover the cost of having the baby because we had not been married a year. It covered me for other medical expenses, just not chlid birth. DD was born Feb. 12,1966.....

At some point and I don't know when, the place I worked had insurance to cover childbirth of women the male employees had babies with but were not married to and also it covered childbirth costs of minor children of employees if they weren't married.

You are right, times sure have changed.

Linda

Linda, that stinks! Darned insurance companies.

This year's New Year's babies in the Tampa Bay area, in St. Pete the mom and dad (different last names) was 21 and it was her second baby. Across the bay, the new mother was was 19 and single.

Yep, times have changed. Maybe for the better from the way gazania described the "good old days". But the jury's out on that one.

I would think the sad thing is the women AND children (IE B@st@rd child) suffered.. Not the men.. How cruel it was to one sex and not the other...

The shame was deffinately meant to be one sided...

Here's a bit of a funny story from back in 1969. Near the end of our senior year, a GF got pregnant by her boyfriend of several years. Their wedding was scheduled for the summer of 69 after they both graduated from high school. Wellllll....the principal got wind of it and told her she either would not graduate (being kicked out for pregnancy), or she would not be going through commencement with the rest of us. I'm just not sure.

Me and a mutual friend were very concerned for our pregnant friend. At my suggestion, the mutual friend went and got a pregnancy test, giving the name of the pregnant girl, and it came back negative. The pregnant girl presented proof she was not pregnant, got to graduate, and we got a really good laugh on the principal that none of us particularly cared for.

It all ended well. The couple married, raised a family, and are a happy couple to this day.

Sue

A gal I went to school with got married over Christmas break our senior year. She was 5 months pregnant when we graduated. Yes, she definitely was showing, even in her 'gathered' skirts she wore to camouflage it. All of us supported her in continuing to go to school. And our graduation gowns certainly were big enough to cover her well. But the assinine supt after giving her her diploma made a huge deal out of it publicly. Yes, he sounded supportive and all, but it embarrassed her greatly. Discretion and common sense weren't a part of his makeup, I guess.

Shirley

My mom left town when she got pregnant with my brother. His dad was an American service man. He bailed, went back to the states.

My dad courted my mom for quite a while, and saw his opportunity when the whole town was shunning her. He followed her, and they had weekends together.

But, my mom got pregnant with me before my parents married. We ended up 5 children, and unfortunately an unhappy marriage. My parents got divorced when I was 17.

We were shunned by many people in our town, cause of the b@astard child in the family. I am not sure, how many realized I was a "full term" 7 month baby.

Moni

On the front page of the paper this week was a picture of a local "first baby" contest winner. The mother appeared to be very young. The story said the new baby joined 4 brothers and sisters, ages 4, 3, 2, and 1. Can you IMAGINE???!!!!!!!

Oh, and the mother's last name and her youngest 2 kids' last name was (I'm making these names up, of course) Smith, the oldest 2 kids' last names was Brown, and the father of the brand new baby's last name was Johnson. (I'm wondering if the editor of the paper was making a statement by publishing the differing last names of the brothers and sisters . . . )

Now, I hate to draw conclusions from this, but maybe, just MAYBE, is the state paying to support this rapidly growing family?

littlebug5...the just maybe here would be... just MAYBE you and I, the taxpayers, are supporting this rapidly growing family. It is a shame that many people will read this story and draw that conclusion. But how can you not?

It is kinda the same thing here. The first baby born in Omaha was born at the University Hospital, and they received $2,008.00, for being the first. The parents, when interviewed, had an interpreter because they don't speak English. It really kinda rubs me wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but they probably got free hospital/delivery, plus got paid over $2,000. and probably aren't even here legally.
Leslie

Even so I am totally against people being here illegally, there is a good chance, that people can be here legally and still not speak the language.

Moni

Here in Edmonton, the first baby of the new year, was a baby boy born to a 20 year old girl, and a 48 year old man, who already has 7 children and a couple of grandchildren. Yup, times have changed alright!!!!

Moni, I agree with you on that. I am all for those who go through the correct process, and are here legally, and I hope they are.
Leslie

I can relate to Mscsippy...I got PG soon after the wedding in the 50's. Impossible to be PG before. Our insurance didn't kick in untill wer were married 10 months. DH drove the car when I was with him, like he was driving over eggs, untill the 10th minth came, then he drove over rough roads and RR tracks like he wd driving on the Indianappolis speedway, LOL Our baby was born 10 minths and 11 days after the I Do's. I remember the snide remarks from certain reletives about my blooming figure so soon after the nuptuals. As the heading of this post says......Times sure have changed. It seems like some men think its a sign of their manhood to sprew their seeds far and wide to any and every woman they can. It seems stayng around to take care of the resulting child they make, isn't important. Dottie