Strollerderby

New Baby Boom

Posted by Madeline Holler

Did you have a baby in 2007? Probably. Because that year saw more births than ever recorded in American history, the New York Times reports. And yes, that's more births than the post-war Baby Boom.

(Don't blame Octomom -- she only gave birth to one baby that year.) 

Just how many babies are we talking about?

There were 4,317,000 births in 2007, just slightly more than in 1957 which was the height of the baby boom, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. 

So who is having all these babies?

Well, teens for one. After years of decline, 2007 saw a rise in births for teen moms. Also, unmarried women are having a larger share of the babies born. Today, the average woman has 2.1 children. 

Know what else hit a record high that year, despite talk of efforts to cut back the number? Ceasarean births. They made up 32 percent of all births, 2 percent more than the previous year.

Photo: timesonline.co.uk

 


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

g8grl said:

Chinese year of the Golden Pig...super duper good fortune for kids born that year.

March 19, 2009 12:38 PM
 

herewithin said:

My son was born in the year of the Golden Fire Pig.  I had an emergency C-section.  Hmm...

March 19, 2009 3:25 PM
 

albb said:

The rise in c-sections has to be partly due to the rise in multiple births (adding to the number of babies born), which is due to the increased use of fertility methods, which is due to women waiting until they are older to start a family... it's all related.

March 19, 2009 6:04 PM
 

Bean's Dad said:

I thought my baby was alternative, but now I see we're just part of the herd.

March 19, 2009 7:54 PM
 

Obama-boom said:

Obama's election results in baby boom for young hip couples? I heard that a lot of couples started trying for babies after hearing that Obama won the election. Probably a result of the feel-good wave that passed after that. That would be interesting... :p

March 20, 2009 8:23 AM
 

mchaos said:

Thank you Albb.  It bothers me when people quote that statistic about a rise in c-sections without correlating it to the reasons why that might be (multiple births, older moms, heart disease, etc.).  By itself the data is meaningless.

March 20, 2009 5:38 PM
 

cheri said:

The data is not meaningless, unless you consider the fact that the US has 3x the number of csections in european countries meaningless.  Im betting multiple births and heart disease do not account for those numbers.  It bothers me when people abuse statistics.

March 24, 2009 4:32 PM

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage