A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

While teenage pregnancies and births are down, except for a jump in the 70s and 80s, the unmarried pregnancy/delivery rate is up enormously.

Oh! How scandalous. So you say, sex before marriage is actually happening? Wow! Tell me; how long has this been going on for?

Who said anything about marriage?

What is your definition of irresponsible sex, then?

Mine is having sex before you are fully prepared to have and raise a child in a stable two-parent home where the family is not dependent on public largess for their economic support, should you get pregnant.

So, is marriage necessary for that condition to be met? If not, why bring up the unmarried pregnancy/delivery rate?

FFS, you sound like a christian, or for that matter a muslim fundamentalist.

Again, who said anything about marriage? The phrase I used was extremely detailed and specific and did NOT include the word "marriage." A stable, self-supporting two-parent home ought to be considered a fundamental civil right for a minor child, and the state should prohibit child abuse and violation of the child's rights by irresponsible parents.

In summary: You began by asserting that irresponsible sexual behaviour is unquestionably more prevalent because of the availability of abortion and of contraceptives.

It did. The availability of contraceptives and abortion gave young people license to engage in sexual activities. Unfortunately not all of the teens who had sex took advantage of contraception or abortion, and some of them who did experienced expected and quantified failures of contraception. Some of those resorted to abortion in order to escape the consequences of their irresponsibility.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. For the woman getting pregnant and creating a moral, ethical and legal burden of caring for and raising a child is one of the known consequences of having sex, protected or not, and for the man creating a moral, ethical and legal obligation of support for a child so created is also a known consequence of having sex with a fertile woman.

I'm in favor of people accepting and enduring the consequences of their actions, not being relieved of their responsibility to act ethically, morally and legally as part of enduring those consequences. This attitude leads to better, more honest, less irresponsible adults, which is what society needs rather than more irresponsible, dishonest, selfish dependent-class leeches.

I see no compelling reason why a woman with a normal pregnancy involving a normal child and the ordinary risks of pregnancy should not be required to carry the child to term and deliver it alive. I see no moral, ethical or social benefit to giving the sexually irresponsible a way out of their due and payable consequences just because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable to them. I think that the value of those innocent human lives outweighs any temporary discomfort, cost or risk undertaken by the parents as a natural and ordinary part of engaging in voluntary sexual relations.

I don't have a problem with the parents surrendering custody of the child to the state and being freed from financial liability if the state chooses to act to prohibit terminating the child's life. But I do object to abortion on demand as a matter of principle...the principle that every person ought to accept the consequences of freely-taken actions without complaint and without demanding relief from the state.

teenage pregnancy rate prior to the 1960s was low and going down, but when The Pill was released, the rate of teenage pregnancy literally skyrocketed and has stayed high ever since. Lacking any means to counter the fact that the teenage pregnancy rate has plummeted since the availability of abortion and of contraceptives, you retreat to saying, erm, what precisely? Oh, I know. This: Irresponsible sexual behaviour is unquestionably more prevalent despite the fact that the teenage pregnancy rate has plummeted since the availability of abortion and of contraceptives.

As for the stable two-parent home, historically this is what the lack of contraception and abortion does for the wellbeing of children:[/quote]

Horseshit. Lack of contraception or abortion is not the cause of child abuse, poor decisionmaking and a refusal to deal with the consequences of having sex along with narcissistic selfishness and disregard for others. In other words, child abuse is caused by sociopathic parents, not the lack of contraception or abortion. The proper way to handle sociopathic parents is to not permit them to become parents and to remove any children they might create before the children can be harmed. One way to do that is to make such sociopathic behavior a capital crime.

[Seth]

Hermit, your graph is for teen birth rate, not teen pregnancy rate.

Read Seth's assertion again. No, don't bother looking for it. I'll quote it for you: "The consequence of having to carry, deliver and raise a baby was a persuasive argument against irresponsible sex right up until abortion and contraception appeared to reduce the risk of pregnancy." [my emphasis]

The relevant part of what Seth wrote was actually:

The teenage pregnancy rate prior to the 1960s was low and going down, but when The Pill was released, the rate of teenage pregnancy literally skyrocketed and has stayed high ever since.

Notice how Seth uses the word "pregnancy", while you presented data on "birth" rates. The two are not the same, as illustrated here:

The middle line is the teen birth rate, which is the same as the middle line in your graph, except this graph happens to start in 1972. Notice how the birth rate fell during the 1970s, but the pregnancy rate did the opposite: it increased.

The facts actually do support the part of Seth's statement that the rate of teenage pregnancy - not births, pregnancy - skyrocketed when the pill was released. The part they do not support is the part about it staying high ever since - the teen pregnancy rate actually leveled out around 1980, and then fell steadily from the early 1990s onward.

You are correct and I concede that point. My argument does not change however.

[Hermit]

The facts actually do support the part of Seth's statement that the rate of teenage pregnancy - not births, pregnancy - skyrocketed when the pill was released. The part they do not support is the part about it staying high ever since - the teen pregnancy rate actually leveled out around 1980, and then fell steadily from the early 1990s onward.

You noted that your graph goes back to 1972. "The Pill" has been used as a contraceptive in the USA since 1957, and by 1960 its usage had become pretty much main-stream. Now look at teenage pregnancy rates reaching back to its introduction:



Do you still maintain that the facts actually do support the part of Seth's statement that the rate of teenage pregnancy - not births, pregnancy - skyrocketed when the pill was released?

Edit: the graph comes from a conservative blogger who bemoaned the rise of Illegitimate Births. (His capitalisation) http://festungarnulfinger.blogspot.com. ... chive.html

[Warren Dew]

Now look at teenage pregnancy rates reaching back to its introduction:

Your new graph is mislabeled. The line labeled teen pregnancy rate is actually teen birth rate. Compare it to your previous graph on teen birth rate and see how the two lines are the same.

[Hermit]

whoops

[Audley Strange]

Hmm, any ideas what was happening between 80 and 90 that caused the increase?

[Warren Dew]

Hmm, any ideas what was happening between 80 and 90 that caused the increase?

On a year by year graph, the rise doesn't actually start until 1988, and doesn't seem to have been limited to teens. It might have had something to do with the end of the Cold War, but that's just guess.

[Hermit]

Now look at teenage pregnancy rates reaching back to its introduction:

Your new graph is mislabeled. The line labeled teen pregnancy rate is actually teen birth rate. Compare it to your previous graph on teen birth rate and see how the two lines are the same.

And so it is. Sorry.

Just the same, Seth's assertion that irresponsible sexual behaviour is unquestionably more prevalent because of the availability of abortion and of contraceptives is based on the claim that the teenage pregnancy rate prior to the 1960s was low and going down, but when The Pill was released, the rate of teenage pregnancy literally skyrocketed and has stayed high ever since. The trouble with that is that no teenage pregnancy rates are available for the twelve years following the introduction of the pill. The only thing the data indicate is that twelve years after the pill became widely available, teenage birthrates rose from 95.1/1000 to 111.9 in 1992, which in percentage terms is not exactly in the skyrocketing range itself. Once you add to that the fact that we don't even know the starting point, that is the teenage birthrate was in 1960, Seth's claim turns out to be constructed of hyperbole once again, consisting of no more than hot air emanating from his lowest orifice. As you almost noted, post 1992 trends made it utterly clear that Seth was merely soapboxing, and not letting facts stand in the way of his prejudices. The fact is that by 2008 the teen pregnancy rate was down to 67.8 per 1,000. In summary: skyrocketing, my foot.

[Warren Dew]

Yeah. If I just look at the graph, it's almost as if teens didn't figure out how to use contraception until 1990 or so. That doesn't match my actual memory, though.