More Babies Born in 2007 Than Any Other Year in U.S. History

Foxrac

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
44,482
Reaction score
448
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday.

There is both good and bad news from the more than 4.3 million births:

—The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend.

—However, the teen birth rate was up for the second year in a row.

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women — especially those in their 30s and 40s — are choosing to have children despite their single status.

The new numbers indicate the nation is experiencing a baby boomlet with fertility rates higher in every racial group. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. The highest fertility rates were among Hispanics.

But it's not clear the boomlet will last long. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.

"I expect they'll go back down. The lowest birth rates recorded in the United States occurred during the Great Depression — and that was before modern contraception," said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.

The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted.

Meanwhile, U.S. abortions have been dropping to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.

Cultural attitudes may be a more likely explanation. Morgan noted the pregnancy of Bristol Palin, the unmarried teen daughter of former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The young woman had a baby boy in December, and plans for a wedding with the father, Levi Johnston, were scrapped.

"She's the poster child for what you do when you get pregnant now," Morgan said.

Teen women tend to follow what their older sisters do, so perhaps it's not surprising that teen births are going up just like births to older women, said Sarah Brown, the chief executive for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Indeed, it's harder to understand why teen births had been declining for about 15 years before the recent uptick, she said. It may have been due to a concentrated societal effort to reduce teen births in the 1990s that has waned in recent years, she said.

The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The numbers also showed:

—Cesarean section deliveries continue to rise, now accounting for almost a third of all births. Health officials say that rate is much higher than is medically necessary. About 34 percent of births to black women were by C-section, more than any other racial group. But geographically, the percentages were highest in Puerto Rico, at 49 percent, and New Jersey, at 38 percent.

—The pre-term birth rate, for infants delivered at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy, declined slightly. It had been generally increasing since the early 1980s. Experts said they aren't sure why it went down.

—Among the states, Utah continued to have the highest birth rate and Vermont the lowest.

CDC officials noted that despite the record number of births, this is nothing like what occurred in the 1950s, when a much smaller population of women were having nearly four children each, on average. That baby boom quickly transformed society, affecting everything from school construction to consumer culture.

Today, U.S. women are averaging 2.1 children each. That's the highest level it's been since the early 1970s, but is a relatively small increase from the rate it had hovered at for more than 10 years and is hardly transforming.

"It's the tiniest of baby booms," said Morgan in agreement. "This is not an earthquake; it's a slight tremor."

FOXNews.com - More Babies Born in 2007 Than Any Other Year in U.S. History - Pregnancy

Note: It's not abortion debate thread and keep all abortion debate out of here.

Thanks
 
I thought there were concerns for overpopulation? :hmm:
 
Whoa!!!!!! My ex gf got pregnant on that year including her 3 other friends, too. I believe 2008 might be another baby boom year, too.
 
Uh, aren't you forgetting about NY and California is heavily populated?

No, not all of heavily populated are same classified as overpopulation, they get plenty of idea to make enough room for population to growing, such as build taller apartment buildings in NYC.

Overpopulation issue would be China because they adopted 1 child policy in 1979 and haven't heard about India.

Outside of NYC, NY got plenty of land, same goes with CA for outside of numerous metro.

Otherwise, overpopulation would become issue if population is already over the housing capacity, there's probably no data to count on it for cities and I couldn't say if it's overpopulation or not.
 
No, not all of heavily populated are same classified as overpopulation, they get plenty of idea to make enough room for population to growing, such as build taller apartment buildings in NYC.

Overpopulation issue would be China because they adopted 1 child policy in 1979 and haven't heard about India.

Outside of NYC, NY got plenty of land, same goes with CA for outside of numerous metro.

Otherwise, overpopulation would become issue if population is already over the housing capacity, there's probably no data to count on it for cities and I couldn't say if it's overpopulation or not.

China IS overpopulated because most of the population is in east part of China....west part of China is not really populated.... The same goes with the US....it's heavily populated in the west and east of the US and not so populated in the middle of the US, which main reason....Tornado Alley. We do not need more people in the US. Look how polluted California is with all the cars and planes spewing all the crap in the air. More people doesn't mean better. It can affect their moods, behavior, etc when it gets pretty dense.

Also, one more thing to consider....many, many spieces of the animals have been disappearing or going into endangered list because of overpopulation and pollution. We do not need any more of that. Please, there's more than 300 million people in the US and growing rapidly thanks to the illegal immigrants and teen pregnancy (unwanted births)
 
China IS overpopulated because most of the population is in east part of China....west part of China is not really populated.... The same goes with the US....it's heavily populated in the west and east of the US and not so populated in the middle of the US, which main reason....Tornado Alley. We do not need more people in the US. Look how polluted California is with all the cars and planes spewing all the crap in the air. More people doesn't mean better. It can affect their moods, behavior, etc when it gets pretty dense.

Also, one more thing to consider....many, many spieces of the animals have been disappearing or going into endangered list because of overpopulation and pollution. We do not need any more of that. Please, there's more than 300 million people in the US and growing rapidly thanks to the illegal immigrants and teen pregnancy (unwanted births)

Ok, I already know about heavily populated in some of major metro, however I had never heard about overpopulation has been into debate or discuss by government, if government would able to make handle the population, same goes with handle on environment issue as well, define of overpopulation would be their opinion.

Pollution issue can be reduce or solve by seeking or invest into clean energy or green technologies but will going be very longer and governor of CA has views about want reduce of emission to same level as in 1990 in next few decade, our technologies are limited and we have use oil.

I never said more people will make better, I have agree with my best hearing friend that who is economist and USA need keep growing or economy will crash, even government need find way to handle the population and I'm not support illegal immigrants anymore because of job shortage and they don't make any benefits to our country, I want all of them to be out of USA but I had read on local newspaper about ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and they are became more effective to rid of illegal immigrants and deportation has increased so sharply.

I believe that wildlife animals would going be under control in next few decade if we able to find or invest on clean energy or green source to reduce the pollution and emission by big margin, also other countries like China need find way to control on emission too, it does help the global warming if entire of countries would able to control.

There's no way to make control or stop the sprawl or spread out, I don't have any idea to stop them and don't find any powers too.
 
NY is overpopulation than CA. wrong
CA is overpopulation than TX.
AK is underpopulation than RI. wrong

NY population = 19,297,729
CA population = 36,553,215

TX population = 23,904,380

AK population = 2,834,797
RI population = 1,057,832

source: US Census Bureau
 
the land will be GONE.. next is to live on water real SOON!

not at all. we simply have to move in-land like Byrdie.

dwysds.jpg


plenty of space left! :cool2: beside... we're already living on water... man-made land... like NYC!
 
ny is technically more crowded for the size of the state compared to cal. so the best way to figure out is divide sq miles of the state and population and u get the answer.

I will answer more abt the population when I get home tonight.
 
ny is technically more crowded for the size of the state compared to cal. so the best way to figure out is divide sq miles of the state and population and u get the answer.

I will answer more abt the population when I get home tonight.

ah.. so in terms of "Persons per square mile" aka density.

NY = 401.9
CA = 217.2

btw - no need to perform calculation. everything's done for you in US Census Bureau site.
 
NY population = 19,297,729
CA population = 36,553,215

TX population = 23,904,380

AK population = 2,834,797
RI population = 1,057,832

source: US Census Bureau



The number of people in Each State or City needs a Ratio to the Land Mass.

Numbers Alone, does not prove over populated areas or whatnot.
 
The number of people in Each State or City needs a Ratio of the Land Mass.

Numbers Alone, does not prove over populated areas or whatnot.

Jiro saw and respond3ed accordingly a fullllll ten minutes before you came along. :lol:
 
The number of people in Each State or City needs a Ratio to the Land Mass.

Numbers Alone, does not prove over populated areas or whatnot.

Yup, that's right.

Define of overpopulation and heavily populated in area would be opinion.

For my opinion, some area in US is heavily populated but overpopulation is in question.
 
Back
Top