With nearly half of all children in the United States being born out of wedlock, an unmarried mother is nearly as common as married one. As the number of women giving birth to children out of wedlock increases, so does the acceptance that society shows towards them.  

In 1960, only about 5 percent of the children in America were born out of wedlock. Mothers who had their children out of wedlock were rejected by society. That has changed dramatically for several reasons. While many politicians still hold to the belief that the breakdown of the nuclear family unit is one factor of America’s disintegrating society, a large percentage of the American public has no problem with women who have their children out of wedlock. 

One reason is that economically, women are more successful than ever before, making it possible for them to raise children without a partner to help financially. Many of these women have put childbearing on hold while they aggressively pursued their career goals. When they do want children, they may not have a serious partner with whom to realize their dream. As a result, they may decide to conceive on their own, whether with a sperm donor or a friend. 

While most people still feel that children are better off in a two-parent household, just as many are deciding that upbringing and general environment is key factors in a child’s well being whether or not they are born out of wedlock. There have been many studies done on the matter.

Some of these studies have connected later social problems in a child’s life with being born out of wedlock or in a single family home. However, the connection is not thought to be directly related to a single-parent household, whether or not the child was born out of wedlock.  

Having a child out of wedlock used to be rare. Today, it is very common. Politicians frequently blame the demise of the traditional family unit for a number of social problems in the United States. While many people in society do not seem to think about the legitimacy in the way they once did, politicians can still touch a nerve by mentioning it.

Politicians blame the erosion of the family unit in part on the fact that many children are born out of wedlock. Politicians have used the financial angle as a way to attack women who have children out of wedlock for years now. As a group, mothers having children out of wedlock were less likely to vote than other people and they were generally underrepresented. In general, the unwed mothers who did vote tended to have more progressive views.

Most of the time, when politicians attack mothers who have had children out of wedlock, they target unwed teenage mothers, not older women who can financially support a child on their own. Many women choose to have a relationship with their child’s father without involving marriage. Many politicians are still against this type of relationship. Many politicians believe that a family unit should consist of two married parents and their children.

While it is mostly conservative political agendas that address the erosion of the nuclear family unit, even liberal politicians have expressed concern about the subject. Many people believe that addressing this concern has been pointless, as numbers of children born out of wedlock continues to grow rapidly. While legitimacy is important to some people, others consider it an old fashioned concern.

Some women choose to get pregnant with the aid of donated sperm. There are several reasons why a woman may choose to use sperm donation to have a child instead of using a male partner. 

Women who use sperm donors do not often worry about the legitimacy of their child. Having the child, not the child’s legal status, is the important thing. There are two other reasons why donated sperm may be used to achieve pregnancy, although the issue of illegitimacy does not factor in one.

If a couple is trying to have a baby and the man has the fertility problems, they may choose to use sperm donation as a way of impregnating the wife. That child will not be illegitimate because the woman’s husband is able to sign the birth certificate. The other reason for using donated sperm is to help lesbian couples with having children. Technically, this counts as illegitimacy. 

Society has different views on women who use sperm donors. These women will almost never be using any type of Government aid program, since they are usually financially secure. However, excepting couples where male infertility is an issue, all these children will likely grow up without a father in the home.

Even in a progressive society, it is still generally believed that children who grow up in a stable, two-parent home are better off than children in a single parent home. However, many people also feel that no one should be deprived the ability to start a family, whether or not they are married. 

Some people consider single mothers by choice to be selfish, since they are purposely bringing a child into a home with no father. Since financial matters, such as welfare programs or State-funded financial assistance, are not a factor, society’s main issue with single mothers by choice is the obvious lack of a father in the home.

The child’s legitimacy is less important than the fact that there will be no father in the child’s life at all, nor will they ever know their real father. Usually, women who decide to conceive using a sperm donation are well prepared. 

In the case of lesbian couples, the views vary depending on an individual’s personal beliefs on the subject. Once again, it is usually not the illegitimacy factor that is important to individual’s in this case. An individual’s feelings about this situation relates to their beliefs on homosexuality.

The women who choose to make use of sperm donors to have children are still sometimes discriminated against by society, although the reasons are generally different from the discrimination faced by other unwed mothers. 

In today’s society, a child born to unmarried parents are not subject to the same poor treatment or lack of legal rights that they once faced. However, some nationality laws tend to discriminate against children born to unmarried parents, mainly in regards to Jus Sanguinis. Jus Sanguinis is a policy that dictates that citizenship of an individual is determined by parental citizenship status. 

Many European countries prefer this method of determining citizenship. This method recognizes maternal blood as the basis for determining citizenship. The child’s paternity dictates their nationality through if the child is legitimate. If the child is born to unmarried parents, that child is supposed to be a citizen of the same country as the mother. Any child that is born to unmarried parents will have an extremely difficult time gaining citizenship to their father’s country if they are able to at all.

Many countries followed the rule of Jus Soli, or “right of soil” until the late 18th Century. Canada and the United States continue to follow this rule, which grants citizenship based on place of birth instead of parental citizenship. The law of soil allows for one to have no other connections to the country besides birthplace to achieve citizenship.

A parent’s birthplace is unimportant. Acknowledgment of paternity is not important. It does not matter if both or neither of the parents happen to be citizens of the United States. The United States does not recognize right of blood as a way of determining citizenship. 

Most European countries began using blood right to determine citizenship in the late 18th Century and have been using it since. Many countries combine the rules of right of blood and right of soil. 

Laws regarding the treatment of children born to unmarried parents has changed drastically within the last century. However, nationality laws that base citizenship on right of blood still treat children born to unmarried parents differently than legitimate children. The rule of blood holds the paternity of the child in the highest regard.