Free Contraceptive Program = 40% Drop In Teen Birth Rate

[Kosh]

Sex without consequence ain't about a woman's freedom. Historically it's about (mostly liberal) men's evasion of responsibility and control over women, the Playboy philosophy if you will. Unrestricted birth control for girls isn't much different from forcing Boy Scouts to hire overt homosexuals. It's a dream come true for degenerates.

Well, no. It's the woman who is usually stuck with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. I'd prefer to put more choice into their hands.

The proliferation of birth control in the modern era hasn't resulted in less unwanted pregnancies. 40% of children are born out of wedlock today as opposed to 10% around the time of Roe V Wade.

So forgive me if I am ambivalent about putting more taxpayer money towards contraception.

You're leaving out some important information. Out of wedlock pregnancies were mostly hidden due to the stigma - shotgun weddings, pregnant wives, and girls "sent away" for 9 months.

Birth control's most important function is that for the first time women have control over their reproductive choices and the old double standard of "boys will be boys" and women will remain chaste is done with. So is the common fact of women undergoing birth after birth until their bodies are wrecked, riddled with fistulas, and other issues and families having more children then they want or can afford.

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Yes you are trying to claim that the US government and the CDC do not use such figures because of a stigma..

 

[Steinlight]

Sex without consequence ain't about a woman's freedom. Historically it's about (mostly liberal) men's evasion of responsibility and control over women, the Playboy philosophy if you will. Unrestricted birth control for girls isn't much different from forcing Boy Scouts to hire overt homosexuals. It's a dream come true for degenerates.

Well, no. It's the woman who is usually stuck with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. I'd prefer to put more choice into their hands.

The proliferation of birth control in the modern era hasn't resulted in less unwanted pregnancies. 40% of children are born out of wedlock today as opposed to 10% around the time of Roe V Wade.

So forgive me if I am ambivalent about putting more taxpayer money towards contraception.

You're leaving out some important information. Out of wedlock pregnancies were mostly hidden due to the stigma - shotgun weddings, pregnant wives, and girls "sent away" for 9 months.

Birth control's most important function is that for the first time women have control over their reproductive choices and the old double standard of "boys will be boys" and women will remain chaste is done with. So is the common fact of women undergoing birth after birth until their bodies are wrecked, riddled with fistulas, and other issues and families having more children then they want or can afford.

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Did your link provide anything in the way of a statistic?

What was their estimated percentage of women who just didn't report their out of wedlock births out of social stigma.

As for "shotgun weddings". That is a separate issue from hiding away your pregnancy from society and not reporting it, but lets address that as well.

Yes, people use to get married when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, I don't think anyone disputes this. But what percentage of those marriages were involuntary or "shotgun" as you call them?

 

[Steinlight]

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

So you ignored my chart. It's OK, I'll try to get over it.

No I didn't, you should read before you post.

No, I meant specifically you addressing a decline in teenage pregnancies.

I did.

Free Contraceptive Program 40 Drop In Teen Birth Rate Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Like I said, read before you post.

Well, not really.

Unmarried teen birth rates. Down. It's a good thing. We can talk about carrying over until they get married or delaying until later in life. Point being, unmarried teen birth rates..down.

Actually, your stat was live teen birth rates, it didn't specify by marriage you have yet to post unmarried teen birth rates chart. I think a good deal of that can be explained away by the lower teen marriage rate.

However, your data, as I showed, is just a slice of the overall data, which shows 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned or unwanted, and 50% of those women use birth control, so the evidence just isn't there that this unprecedented rise in out of wedlock births is planned or wanted. All this in spite of the rise in the use of birth control.

 

[Coyote]

Well, no. It's the woman who is usually stuck with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. I'd prefer to put more choice into their hands.

The proliferation of birth control in the modern era hasn't resulted in less unwanted pregnancies. 40% of children are born out of wedlock today as opposed to 10% around the time of Roe V Wade.

So forgive me if I am ambivalent about putting more taxpayer money towards contraception.

You're leaving out some important information. Out of wedlock pregnancies were mostly hidden due to the stigma - shotgun weddings, pregnant wives, and girls "sent away" for 9 months.

Birth control's most important function is that for the first time women have control over their reproductive choices and the old double standard of "boys will be boys" and women will remain chaste is done with. So is the common fact of women undergoing birth after birth until their bodies are wrecked, riddled with fistulas, and other issues and families having more children then they want or can afford.

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Did your link provide anything in the way of a statistic?

Statistics aren't the only source of information and they can be notoriously unreliable the further back you go in history.

What was their estimated percentage of women who just didn't report their out of wedlock births out of social stigma.

Exactly how would you get that information? That's kind of like demanding exact numbers of people obtaining illegal abortions before it was legal.

As for "shotgun weddings". That is a separate issue from hiding away your pregnancy from society and not reporting it, but lets address that as well.

Yes, people use to get married when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, I don't think anyone disputes this. But what percentage of those marriages were involuntary or "shotgun" as you call them?

Given that women no longer have to get married because they become pregnant due to the lessening of social stigma and looking at the increased rate of single mothers - I think we can assume many were forced. Social pressures can be quite forceful. Again, you won't get that kind of exact data.

 

[Coyote]

Well, no. It's the woman who is usually stuck with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. I'd prefer to put more choice into their hands.

The proliferation of birth control in the modern era hasn't resulted in less unwanted pregnancies. 40% of children are born out of wedlock today as opposed to 10% around the time of Roe V Wade.

So forgive me if I am ambivalent about putting more taxpayer money towards contraception.

You're leaving out some important information. Out of wedlock pregnancies were mostly hidden due to the stigma - shotgun weddings, pregnant wives, and girls "sent away" for 9 months.

Birth control's most important function is that for the first time women have control over their reproductive choices and the old double standard of "boys will be boys" and women will remain chaste is done with. So is the common fact of women undergoing birth after birth until their bodies are wrecked, riddled with fistulas, and other issues and families having more children then they want or can afford.

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Yes you are trying to claim that the US government and the CDC do not use such figures because of a stigma..

You are not making any sense. As usual. Do you fancy yourself some kind of psychic that knows what other people are claiming when they haven't said anything?

 

[HappyJoy]

So you ignored my chart. It's OK, I'll try to get over it.

No I didn't, you should read before you post.

No, I meant specifically you addressing a decline in teenage pregnancies.

I did.

Free Contraceptive Program 40 Drop In Teen Birth Rate Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Like I said, read before you post.

Well, not really.

Unmarried teen birth rates. Down. It's a good thing. We can talk about carrying over until they get married or delaying until later in life. Point being, unmarried teen birth rates..down.

Actually, your stat was live teen birth rates, it didn't specify by marriage you have yet to post unmarried teen birth rates chart. I think a good deal of that can be explained away by the lower teen marriage rate.

However, your data, as I showed, is just a slice of the overall data, which shows 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned or unwanted, and 50% of those women use birth control, so the evidence just isn't there that this unprecedented rise in out of wedlock births is planned or wanted. All this in spite of the rise in the use of birth control.

Well, I mislabeled my chart. Yep, it's only teenage pregnancies. Married or not they are going down and considering the trend of people getting married later in life, I think it's safe to say that teen age pregnancies declining is a good thing.

As far as the out of wedlock pregnancies for all occurrences, that's outside of the subject of this thread. With many people choosing to marry later in life, it's not surprising, out of scope just the same.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread illustrates well how most liberals are pragmatists and most conservatives ideologues.

 

[Coyote]

This thread illustrates well how most liberals are pragmatists and most conservatives ideologues.

Actually...I think it just illustrates how conservatives think it's okie dokie for men to pokey but women better remain chaste.

 

[Steinlight]

The proliferation of birth control in the modern era hasn't resulted in less unwanted pregnancies. 40% of children are born out of wedlock today as opposed to 10% around the time of Roe V Wade.

So forgive me if I am ambivalent about putting more taxpayer money towards contraception.

You're leaving out some important information. Out of wedlock pregnancies were mostly hidden due to the stigma - shotgun weddings, pregnant wives, and girls "sent away" for 9 months.

Birth control's most important function is that for the first time women have control over their reproductive choices and the old double standard of "boys will be boys" and women will remain chaste is done with. So is the common fact of women undergoing birth after birth until their bodies are wrecked, riddled with fistulas, and other issues and families having more children then they want or can afford.

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Did your link provide anything in the way of a statistic?

Statistics aren't the only source of information and they can be notoriously unreliable the further back you go in history.

What was their estimated percentage of women who just didn't report their out of wedlock births out of social stigma.

Exactly how would you get that information? That's kind of like demanding exact numbers of people obtaining illegal abortions before it was legal.

As for "shotgun weddings". That is a separate issue from hiding away your pregnancy from society and not reporting it, but lets address that as well.

Yes, people use to get married when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, I don't think anyone disputes this. But what percentage of those marriages were involuntary or "shotgun" as you call them?

Given that women no longer have to get married because they become pregnant due to the lessening of social stigma and looking at the increased rate of single mothers - I think we can assume many were forced. Social pressures can be quite forceful. Again, you won't get that kind of exact data.

So I should just take your word that the out of wedlock birth rate was the same today as it was in the 1960s, but that all the women were forced into marriage? And this explains away the difference?

Sorry I can't buy that without some kind of relevant data backing up that conclusion.

I do agree that out of wedlock birth and sex outside of marriage has become normalized and this has led to the rise in the out of wedlock birthrate though. This certainly isn't a good thing that less children are not born to intact families.

 

[rdean]

Are they explaining the cancer risks to these teens? I doubt it

Why should you care?
gop blocks healthcare for millions - Google Search

 

[Steinlight]

No I didn't, you should read before you post.

No, I meant specifically you addressing a decline in teenage pregnancies.

I did.

Free Contraceptive Program 40 Drop In Teen Birth Rate Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Like I said, read before you post.

Well, not really.

Unmarried teen birth rates. Down. It's a good thing. We can talk about carrying over until they get married or delaying until later in life. Point being, unmarried teen birth rates..down.

Actually, your stat was live teen birth rates, it didn't specify by marriage you have yet to post unmarried teen birth rates chart. I think a good deal of that can be explained away by the lower teen marriage rate.

However, your data, as I showed, is just a slice of the overall data, which shows 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned or unwanted, and 50% of those women use birth control, so the evidence just isn't there that this unprecedented rise in out of wedlock births is planned or wanted. All this in spite of the rise in the use of birth control.

Well, I mislabeled my chart. Yep, it's only teenage pregnancies. Married or not they are going down and considering the trend of people getting married later in life, I think it's safe to say that teen age pregnancies declining is a good thing.

As far as the out of wedlock pregnancies for all occurrences, that's outside of the subject of this thread. With many people choosing to marry later in life, it's not surprising, out of scope just the same.

Not necessarily. Low birth rates result in strains in the entitlement system down the road. At this time, the US has a below replacement birth rate which eventually results in population decline and economic decline. I think people used to grow up a lot faster, people are in prolonged adolescence now and put off marriage and children to the detriment of society.

It is relevant because half the pregnancies in thus country are unwanted and mostly comprise the women who have children out of wedlock, which has risen despite the proliferation of birth control to the masses.

I don't know if I care very much for you just disregarding relevant data so callously. It is rather ignorant of you. You can't just pick and chose data and ignore the whole picture.

 

[Coyote]

You're leaving out some important information. Out of wedlock pregnancies were mostly hidden due to the stigma - shotgun weddings, pregnant wives, and girls "sent away" for 9 months.

Birth control's most important function is that for the first time women have control over their reproductive choices and the old double standard of "boys will be boys" and women will remain chaste is done with. So is the common fact of women undergoing birth after birth until their bodies are wrecked, riddled with fistulas, and other issues and families having more children then they want or can afford.

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Did your link provide anything in the way of a statistic?

Statistics aren't the only source of information and they can be notoriously unreliable the further back you go in history.

What was their estimated percentage of women who just didn't report their out of wedlock births out of social stigma.

Exactly how would you get that information? That's kind of like demanding exact numbers of people obtaining illegal abortions before it was legal.

As for "shotgun weddings". That is a separate issue from hiding away your pregnancy from society and not reporting it, but lets address that as well.

Yes, people use to get married when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, I don't think anyone disputes this. But what percentage of those marriages were involuntary or "shotgun" as you call them?

Given that women no longer have to get married because they become pregnant due to the lessening of social stigma and looking at the increased rate of single mothers - I think we can assume many were forced. Social pressures can be quite forceful. Again, you won't get that kind of exact data.

So I should just take your word that the out of wedlock birth rate was the same today as it was in the 1960s, but that all the women were forced into marriage? And this explains away the difference?

1. Of course not. But a little research indicates that it probably isn't much different as in this article: Mother and Baby Homes
2. No one said all the women were forced into marriage. Please review initial response.
3. That alone does not explain the difference nor did I claim that. You chose to focus on it.

Sorry I can't buy that without some kind of relevant data backing up that conclusion.

I do agree that out of wedlock birth and sex outside of marriage has become normalized and this has led to the rise in the out of wedlock birthrate though. This certainly isn't a good thing that less children are not born to intact families.

I think that was partly what I was saying - when there is no longer a stigma - there is no social pressure for marriage unless they really want it, there is no social pressure for women to hide away until they give birth, and then lose the baby to adoption.

 

[Steinlight]

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Did your link provide anything in the way of a statistic?

Statistics aren't the only source of information and they can be notoriously unreliable the further back you go in history.

What was their estimated percentage of women who just didn't report their out of wedlock births out of social stigma.

Exactly how would you get that information? That's kind of like demanding exact numbers of people obtaining illegal abortions before it was legal.

As for "shotgun weddings". That is a separate issue from hiding away your pregnancy from society and not reporting it, but lets address that as well.

Yes, people use to get married when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, I don't think anyone disputes this. But what percentage of those marriages were involuntary or "shotgun" as you call them?

Given that women no longer have to get married because they become pregnant due to the lessening of social stigma and looking at the increased rate of single mothers - I think we can assume many were forced. Social pressures can be quite forceful. Again, you won't get that kind of exact data.

So I should just take your word that the out of wedlock birth rate was the same today as it was in the 1960s, but that all the women were forced into marriage? And this explains away the difference?

1. Of course not. But a little research indicates that it probably isn't much different as in this article: Mother and Baby Homes
2. No one said all the women were forced into marriage. Please review initial response.
3. That alone does not explain the difference nor did I claim that. You chose to focus on it.

Sorry I can't buy that without some kind of relevant data backing up that conclusion.

I do agree that out of wedlock birth and sex outside of marriage has become normalized and this has led to the rise in the out of wedlock birthrate though. This certainly isn't a good thing that less children are not born to intact families.

I think that was partly what I was saying - when there is no longer a stigma - there is no social pressure for marriage unless they really want it, there is no social pressure for women to hide away until they give birth, and then lose the baby to adoption.

Social Stigma cannot account for a rise of out of wedlock births from around 5% to 40%, and I would defy you to provide data to that end.

Social stigma is HUGE. I already provided links on shotgun wedding a few posts earlier.

Mother and Baby Homes

Did your link provide anything in the way of a statistic?

Statistics aren't the only source of information and they can be notoriously unreliable the further back you go in history.

What was their estimated percentage of women who just didn't report their out of wedlock births out of social stigma.

Exactly how would you get that information? That's kind of like demanding exact numbers of people obtaining illegal abortions before it was legal.

As for "shotgun weddings". That is a separate issue from hiding away your pregnancy from society and not reporting it, but lets address that as well.

Yes, people use to get married when a woman got pregnant out of wedlock, I don't think anyone disputes this. But what percentage of those marriages were involuntary or "shotgun" as you call them?

Given that women no longer have to get married because they become pregnant due to the lessening of social stigma and looking at the increased rate of single mothers - I think we can assume many were forced. Social pressures can be quite forceful. Again, you won't get that kind of exact data.

So I should just take your word that the out of wedlock birth rate was the same today as it was in the 1960s, but that all the women were forced into marriage? And this explains away the difference?

1. Of course not. But a little research indicates that it probably isn't much different as in this article: Mother and Baby Homes
2. No one said all the women were forced into marriage. Please review initial response.
3. That alone does not explain the difference nor did I claim that. You chose to focus on it.

Sorry I can't buy that without some kind of relevant data backing up that conclusion.

I do agree that out of wedlock birth and sex outside of marriage has become normalized and this has led to the rise in the out of wedlock birthrate though. This certainly isn't a good thing that less children are not born to intact families.

I think that was partly what I was saying - when there is no longer a stigma - there is no social pressure for marriage unless they really want it, there is no social pressure for women to hide away until they give birth, and then lose the baby to adoption.

Sorry. I just fundamentally disagree that the jump from 5% to 40% can be explained in large part by the children just being absorbed into the family and counted for example as the parents child or a relatives. Certainly it happened. But not on that large a scale.

I do think you have something with social stigma of having sex and children out of wedlock contributing to the rise. I think that is the primary factor. The Normalization of the behavior and it certainly is not a good thing. But you really don't have a compelling case that a large amount of shotgun weddings occurred to mask the illegitimacy rate.

 

[HappyJoy]

No, I meant specifically you addressing a decline in teenage pregnancies.

I did.

Free Contraceptive Program 40 Drop In Teen Birth Rate Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Like I said, read before you post.

Well, not really.

Unmarried teen birth rates. Down. It's a good thing. We can talk about carrying over until they get married or delaying until later in life. Point being, unmarried teen birth rates..down.

Actually, your stat was live teen birth rates, it didn't specify by marriage you have yet to post unmarried teen birth rates chart. I think a good deal of that can be explained away by the lower teen marriage rate.

However, your data, as I showed, is just a slice of the overall data, which shows 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned or unwanted, and 50% of those women use birth control, so the evidence just isn't there that this unprecedented rise in out of wedlock births is planned or wanted. All this in spite of the rise in the use of birth control.

Well, I mislabeled my chart. Yep, it's only teenage pregnancies. Married or not they are going down and considering the trend of people getting married later in life, I think it's safe to say that teen age pregnancies declining is a good thing.

As far as the out of wedlock pregnancies for all occurrences, that's outside of the subject of this thread. With many people choosing to marry later in life, it's not surprising, out of scope just the same.

Not necessarily. Low birth rates result in strains in the entitlement system down the road. At this time, the US has a below replacement birth rate which eventually results in population decline and economic decline. I think people used to grow up a lot faster, people are in prolonged adolescence now and put off marriage and children to the detriment of society.

Are you making the claim that lower teen birth rates is a bad thing? Is our population decreasing? Anyway, sounds like excuses.

It is relevant because half the pregnancies in thus country are unwanted and mostly comprise the women who have children out of wedlock, which has risen despite the proliferation of birth control to the masses.

Eh, unintended pregnancies were almost 55% in 1981 and have declined due to access to birth control.

I don't know if I care very much for you just disregarding relevant data so callously. It is rather ignorant of you. You can't just pick and chose data and ignore the whole picture.

I thought that was what you were doing. This thread is about teen pregnancy and you're going full board on all pregnancies pointing out that today that 49% of pregnancies are unintended but fail to look at what it was before that.

Here is the link if you want it:

Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

 

[Steinlight]

I did.

Free Contraceptive Program 40 Drop In Teen Birth Rate Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Like I said, read before you post.

Well, not really.

Unmarried teen birth rates. Down. It's a good thing. We can talk about carrying over until they get married or delaying until later in life. Point being, unmarried teen birth rates..down.

Actually, your stat was live teen birth rates, it didn't specify by marriage you have yet to post unmarried teen birth rates chart. I think a good deal of that can be explained away by the lower teen marriage rate.

However, your data, as I showed, is just a slice of the overall data, which shows 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned or unwanted, and 50% of those women use birth control, so the evidence just isn't there that this unprecedented rise in out of wedlock births is planned or wanted. All this in spite of the rise in the use of birth control.

Well, I mislabeled my chart. Yep, it's only teenage pregnancies. Married or not they are going down and considering the trend of people getting married later in life, I think it's safe to say that teen age pregnancies declining is a good thing.

As far as the out of wedlock pregnancies for all occurrences, that's outside of the subject of this thread. With many people choosing to marry later in life, it's not surprising, out of scope just the same.

Not necessarily. Low birth rates result in strains in the entitlement system down the road. At this time, the US has a below replacement birth rate which eventually results in population decline and economic decline. I think people used to grow up a lot faster, people are in prolonged adolescence now and put off marriage and children to the detriment of society.

Are you making the claim that lower teen birth rates is a bad thing? Is our population decreasing? Anyway, sounds like excuses.

It is relevant because half the pregnancies in thus country are unwanted and mostly comprise the women who have children out of wedlock, which has risen despite the proliferation of birth control to the masses.

Eh, unintended pregnancies were almost 55% in 1981 and have declined due to access to birth control.

I don't know if I care very much for you just disregarding relevant data so callously. It is rather ignorant of you. You can't just pick and chose data and ignore the whole picture.

I thought that was what you were doing. This thread is about teen pregnancy and you're going full board on all pregnancies pointing out that today that 49% of pregnancies are unintended but fail to look at what it was before that.

I am not making "excuses", I am saying the picture isn't nearly as cut and dry as you present it.

Below replacement birth eventually results in population decline, but that manifests one or two generations down the road. To give you an idea of how lower birth rates and the subsequent aging of the population can affects entitlements and the economy, check out the declining workers to recipient ratio for social security. Not a pretty picture to say the least.

They are up since 1994, you certainly cannot establish a causal, much less a correlative relationship for your claim.

Well, you think wrong. I just don't see how one can look at the unprecedented rise in out of wedlock pregnancies and seriously suggest these are planned or intended for the most part, when there is no data to back up that assertion, when in fact 57% of out of wedlock births are not planned.

 

[HappyJoy]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Most of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the fuck is your point?

 

[Steinlight]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the fuck is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "fucking point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

 

[HappyJoy]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the fuck is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "fucking point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

1-2%? I bet more kids have sex now too. Much better then 1981 when birth control wasn't as readily available, am I right?

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Why listen to me? Here is your very own source on the subject:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]

• The costs associated with unintended pregnancy would be even higher if not for continued federal and state investments in family planning services. In 2010, the nationwide public investment in family planning services resulted in $13.6 billion in net savings from helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and a range of other negative reproductive health outcomes, such as HIV and other STIs, cervical cancer and infertility.[16]

• In the absence of the current U.S. publicly funded family planning effort, the public costs of unintended pregnancies in 2010 might have been 75% higher.[13]

Fuck you to tell me I throw out details that don't conform to my opinions. Let's see how you bullshit your way through it.

 

[Steinlight]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the fuck is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "fucking point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

1-2%? I bet more kids have sex now too. Much better then 1981 when birth control wasn't as readily available, am I right?

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Why listen to me? Here is your very own source on the subject:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]

• The costs associated with unintended pregnancy would be even higher if not for continued federal and state investments in family planning services. In 2010, the nationwide public investment in family planning services resulted in $13.6 billion in net savings from helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and a range of other negative reproductive health outcomes, such as HIV and other STIs, cervical cancer and infertility.[16]

• In the absence of the current U.S. publicly funded family planning effort, the public costs of unintended pregnancies in 2010 might have been 75% higher.[13]

Fuck you to tell me I throw out details that don't conform to my opinions. Let's see how you bullshit your way through it.

The percent increase doesn't matter, there is no causal or correlative relationship between declining unwanted and the rise in birth control, as unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

Actually, millennials have less sex partners than people did a generation ago.

New research has found that Milennials today have fewer sex partners than those who were part of both the Baby Boomers and Generation X during the 1950's and 1960's. The study, conducted by researchers at San Diego University, found that people from the Baby Boomer and Generation X generations had an average of 11 sexual partners while Millennials born in the 1980's and 1990's have 8 sexual partners.

Millennials Have Fewer Sex Partners Than Parents or Grandparents MEDICINE HEALTH Science Times

I'm afraid there is a difference between future projections and current data. The data as it stands establishes no statistical relationship for your claim that making birth control cheaper through increased subsidy results in less unwanted or out of wedlock pregnancies.

If only instead of anger, you had actual data to back up your opinions, you might be getting somewhere.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Duh......

In days of old when men were bold
And condoms weren't invented
We wrapped a sock upon our cocks
And babies were prevented