The teen pregnancy epidemic - it's a myth

[Jason McCullough]

I'm reading Michael Lind's Up From Conservatism; it's probably the best political book I've ever read.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684831864/002-7510926-8560057?v=glance

He spent a full chapeter on something I think needs broader airing.

Everyone can recite the popular conception from memory: thanks to the disintegration of the nuclear family, the turn away from God, satanism, curse words on television, and the rising divorce rate, teen pregnancy is completely out of control.

There's just one little problem with this: it's completely fucking wrong. The teen pregnancy rate - defined as the percentage of teenagers who get pregnant - has not significantly changed since the 1920s.

So where did the myth come from? Well, conservative groups found a shocking statistic back in the early 1980s - the percentage of kids born to teenagers has doubled. The culture wars were practically founded on this. It does sound shocking - until you think about it. "The percentage of kids born to teenagers" is defined as:

Percentage of kids born to teenagers = births to teenagers/(births to teenagers + births to non-teenagers).

Any alarm bells going off looking at that? The percentage can go up if either births to teens go up or births to non-teens go down. The latter is exactly what happened - the demographic transition of the 20th century, a halving of the number of children per woman, took place almost entirely in adult women planning their families. Surprise!

The only significant changes in teenage pregnancy over the last 80 years are that more of them end in abortion and the women that do give birth marry the father less often than they used to. There's your horrible epidemic.

That significant members of the conservative media factory knew it was horseshit all along deserves its own post.....

[Jobe]

I could probably understand this a lot better if I had a churning emotive agenda that could astound and stupefy, but as it stands I don't see how "everything else went down but that" totally debunks the problem that "the percentage doubled" implies. I guess I'll infer that you're correct from your usage of boldface and sarcasm.

[Jason McCullough]

The chance of a teenager getting pregnant today is about the same as 1920; almost no one knows this; conservatives actively lie about it through creative use of statistics like the one above. What's to miss?

[TomChick]

I don't see how "everything else went down but that" totally debunks the problem that "the percentage doubled" implies

Then you're doomed to a life of being duped by factoids. What Jason posted is pretty significant in that it illustrates the importance of looking closely at what people tell you. Understanding these sort of data shenanigans is a vital part of installing your own bullshit filter.

-Tom

[Bob Cherub]

Yea, I also thought the Democrats were right when they said the rich don't pay enough taxes until I looked at the data shenanigans as a part of installing my own bullshit filter

[Jason McCullough]

"The rich don't pay enough taxes" is a normative statement, not a positive one.

[Jobe]

I don't think I was duped by the way the fact was presented, considering I've only seen it presented in this post, to which Jason applied plenty of context. What I'm not getting is how the percentage of teen pregnancies doubling isn't a bad thing, even after all that emotionally-charged attempted foolery by your source is removed. Isn't it reasonable to ask why teen pregnancies didn't go down as well?

I'm not sure how the wording from conservative groups would trick anybody not wearing a wife-beater, so I guess you'll have to recategorize my blinding stupidity with help from my first paragraph, just as long as I get to do a Beavis & Butthead "rock on!!!!" gesture to the entire politics and religion board.

[Bull]

I'm not sure how the wording from conservative groups would trick anybody not wearing a wife-beater

You're saying you knew all along that teenage pregnencies were the same as they were in the 1920s?

I don't think I was duped by the way the fact was presented, considering I've only seen it presented in this post, to which Jason applied plenty of context.

So you (and everyone else not wearing a wife beater) knew all along about the teen pregnancy statistic, but this is also the first time you've ever seen it presented in this context. What was your first clue that the teen pregnancy rate was the same now as it was in the 1920s?

[Jobe]

Are you fucking serious?

I say that I don't think the wording is tricky and somehow you think I'm saying that I knew the statistic beforehand, and then you take that non sequitur and insert what I actually said which, surprise(!), contradicts your asinine non sequitur, and then claim a contradiction. Is this particular forum just a piss take, and some small group of qt3ers laughs in a private forum whenever somebody takes the discussion seriously?

This is exactly why I don't discuss either politics or religion with people I don't know well.

[MikeSofaer]

Maybe there's a middle ground somehwere?

Perhaps "Teen pregnancy rates are rising!" is too much but we can say

"Teen pregnancy rates are staying the same while all other pregnancies decline"

And then the statistic can be both

1) Made to look worse than it is by many people

and

2) Still somewhat alarming as it really is.

[cyborg]

The point is that if teenage pregnancy being on the increase is being used as the starting point for showing a downward trend in societal values this arguement does not hold if in fact in real terms there is no more teenage pregnancy than there was at some comparative point in history.

Hence, the slant on the figures is being used to argue for connections to other things that are not necessarially connected. Infact if anything the whole story shows the opposite - generally teenage experimentation leading to pregnancy hasn't changed since time immorial but those who get though puberty are more responsible when it comes ot spreading their genetic material around.

[awdougherty]

While I think Jason makes a good point by highlighting how the simple wording of a statistic can create meaning, it seems a little alarming that teen pregnancy hasn't gone down unless the teen pregnancy rate is so small that it can be written off as an anomaly (not really sure what the rate is).

[Linoleum]

Is that statistic general to teens in general or specific to unmarried teens? The percentage of girls getting married in their late teens would have been higher back in the 20s.

[Rywill]

I'm with Jobe on this one. I see your point, Jason, but I don't think it's as strong as you think it is. If the world has changed such that mature women are having fewer kids, but teens continue to have kids at the same rate they did in the 20's, that's still a legitimate concern. I agree that conservatives have generally characterized it as "Because of the decline of the family, teens are getting pregnant like minks," which is misleading. But realistically it's not really much different to say "Because of the decline of the family, teens are totally missing the responsibility wave that swept other age groups in the last 80 years." It's not as good a sound bite, but the effect is pretty much identical, since all you're talking about is a relative relationship (teen pregnancy vs. non-teen pregnancy). Right? I mean, all that matters is the relative number. It would be nonsense to holler that the number of pregnant teens has increased fivefold since 1920, if one also admits the population has increased fivefold in the same period. What matters is RATE of teen pregnancy, and obviously it matters most as compared to rates of other pregnancies. So while I think the quoted statistic is misleading, I think the likely misinterpretation (teens more likely to get pregnant than before) is basically the same as the true fact (teens less likely to avoid pregnancy compared to the rest of society). Close enough that I wouldn't flip out about it, anyway.

[Rywill]

generally teenage experimentation leading to pregnancy hasn't changed since time immorial but those who get though puberty are more responsible when it comes ot spreading their genetic material around.
But isn't that a problem? If modern adults are more responsible about getting pregnant, or society has shifted such that fewer kids are needed, shouldn't we be concerned that teens have completely missed the boat and are having kids like it's 1920?

[Phil_Stein]

I think any moralizing I've heard on the subject has not been so much focused on teen pregnancy, as on pregnancy by unmarried mothers in general and unwed teenagers in particular.

And the statistical evidence that this has risen dramatically over the last few decades is undeniable. While of course many unmarried mothers do an excellent job of raising their children, the averages for virtually every measurable health/development/social measurement out there show children without a father in the house to have a worse time than those with both parents in the household.

[MarchHare]

Why isn't teenage pregnancy measured the same way as, for example, murder? As in how many people per 100,000 meet the criteria (murder, teenage pregnancy, etc.) That way you completely side-step the statistical issue presented by Jason.

[Jason McCullough]

While I think Jason makes a good point by highlighting how the simple wording of a statistic can create meaning, it seems a little alarming that teen pregnancy hasn't gone down unless the teen pregnancy rate is so small that it can be written off as an anomaly (not really sure what the rate is).

Can you tell me why you'd expect it to go down? I mean, yes, teens technically have access to birth control, but how many actually use it? The reason everyone else had less kids is they wanted to have less kids, and used birth control to get that result.

I mean, how many teenagers do you know who are on the pill? If not, that religiously use condoms all the time? Maybe it's just the kids I grew up around, but condoms were considered the height of technical sophistication, and half the time they ended up being strictly for show. The ones most likely to get pregnant, anecdotally, were the ones who took the whole moralizing thing a little too seriously. They'd end up "accidentally" having sex, and using condoms is kind of considered a much worse sin than having sex (the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder, apparently), so you draw the connection. Absolutely no one was on the pill.

I think any moralizing I've heard on the subject has not been so much focused on teen pregnancy, as on pregnancy by unmarried mothers in general and unwed teenagers in particular.

We went over this last week in another one. :D

One, the number of unwed teenager mothers who stay unmarried for more than a year or two is very small. Two, the actual effect on mother's income of having a kid while single is about 20%. Three, there's no statistical correlation between teenage pregnancy and crime rates, deliquency, you name it. All those horror story statistics don't compare apples to apples; they assume the population of teen mothers looks the same as the total population of mothers, when it doesn't.

Why isn't teenage pregnancy measured the same way as, for example, murder?

It is. Various social conservative groups just used other numbers, like the ones above, to do some useful lying about the state of modern society.

[Jason McCullough]

Forgot to mention: "why isn't the teen pregnancy rate decreasing" is a serious case of moving the goalposts, when probably not one person in ten on the street would agree with "it's the same today as 1920."

[awdougherty]

While I think Jason makes a good point by highlighting how the simple wording of a statistic can create meaning, it seems a little alarming that teen pregnancy hasn't gone down unless the teen pregnancy rate is so small that it can be written off as an anomaly (not really sure what the rate is).

Can you tell me why you'd expect it to go down? I mean, yes, teens technically have access to birth control, but how many actually use it? The reason everyone else had less kids is they wanted to have less kids, and used birth control to get that result.

Well, I would hope it would go down because pregnancy is much easier to control now than it was in the 20's. It's an issue the US considers to be a problem. The US has better means to address the problem. Therefore I would hope the problem would lessen.

Since it hasn't, it seems like something else is at work here. Either the improved methods aren't getting to the teens, or the methods aren't getting used by the teens, or who knows what combination of issues. Anyway, that was what I thought was more alarming. Obviously if we want to control birth rates, we can, but for some reason we're not when it comes to teens.

[Rywill]

Jason, your whole post seems to sidestep the issue. You make good arguments for why the teen preganancy rate is so high (comparatively to pregnancies by adults, is the metric I'm using throughout this post). They don't use birth control, they have sex without considering consequences, etc. I think you're probably right about those things, although I just have anecdotal evidence and my own memories to go by.

But everyone already knows that. It's not like anybody thinks teen pregancy is high because teens are more fertile or get magically pregnant or something. We know they have sex without considering consequences and don't use birth control. The question is more "Why do they do that?" and, more importantly, what effect will that have on society and, assuming the effect is bad, what can we do to help them catch up with adults? IOW, how can we, and should we, help teens view the issue the same way modern adults do?

You may say "Well, no teen is going to view it as a modern adult does. They're teens, for chrissakes." But something happened between 1920 and now that caused adults to get pregnant at much lower rates. What is it? Can it be transplanted to teens? If not, is that bad, and how bad?

Anyway, your original point was essentially "There's no teen pregnancy epidemic, it's all statistical hand-waving." I say you're wrong in that assertion. We can debate why teens get pregnant and whether it's bad, neutral or even good. But to say there's no there there is simply false.

[XPav]

Since it hasn't, it seems like something else is at work here. Either the improved methods aren't getting to the teens, or the methods aren't getting used by the teens, or who knows what combination of issues. Anyway, that was what I thought was more alarming. Obviously if we want to control birth rates, we can, but for some reason we're not when it comes to teens.

It couldn't be because this same right that talks about the perils of teen pregnancy fights tooth and nail against any school program that -gasp- teaches these improved methods, could it?

[awdougherty]

You know, XPav, they are listening. I think we may be in violation of the Patriot Act just for acknowledging their existence.

Besides, what's so bad about telling kids that their only alternative if they don't want to be hell bound whores is to fight every natural instinct they have?

I think the US needs to adopt a new education program that promotes anal.

[Angie Gallant]

In my experience, teen girls asking their parents for birth control get turned down and yelled at for wanting to be sluts. Some girls would fake intensely difficult menstrual cycles for months just to get their doctor to talk their parents into letting them on birth control, but most girls wouldn't go to the trouble.

A big part of the problem is the adult perception that letting teens have access to birth control will make them more likely to have sex, when kids will have sex without birth control just fine.

[Jason McCullough]

But something happened between 1920 and now that caused adults to get pregnant at much lower rates. What is it?

Two things: birth control to reduce the accidental pregnancy rate, and a lower number of wanted children. As I mentioned earlier, the number of wanted children doesn't matter for teenagers; it's 100% accidental. The reason the accidental pregnancy rate hasn't dropped is that teenagers aren't using birth control.

If you're arguing teenagers should pretty much all be on birth control, I agree. Can you recall the last time you heard a public moralist saying that, though? The people hyperventilating over their cherry-picked statistics are the same ones opposing sex education and birth control for teenagers.

But to say there's no there there is simply false.

If murder rate didn't change between 1920 and 2000, would you say there's a new "murder epidemic", and talk about how before the evil 1960s people didn't kill each other all the time?

[Jason McCullough]

A somewhat irrelevant aside - has anyone noticed that social conservatives, especially the southern baptist variety, tend to think of teenage pregnancy as god's punishment for having sex outside of marriage? Sure, they don't come right out and *say it*, but.....

[MarchHare]

A somewhat irrelevant aside - has anyone noticed that social conservatives, especially the southern baptist variety, tend to think of teenage pregnancy as god's punishment for having sex outside of marriage? Sure, they don't come right out and *say it*, but.....

Much like they *do* come right and and say that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality.

[Mark Asher]

While I think Jason makes a good point by highlighting how the simple wording of a statistic can create meaning, it seems a little alarming that teen pregnancy hasn't gone down unless the teen pregnancy rate is so small that it can be written off as an anomaly (not really sure what the rate is).

It makes perfect sense to me. Teenagers are behaving now like they been doing since the 1920's. The teen years are the years of experimentation with sex. Human nature being somewhat unchanging, I would expect teen pregnancy rates to be somewhat constant, which they apparently are.

That adults are having fewer babies doesn't surprise me either. We're a more educated society and more educated people tend to have fewer children. I'd also guess that the number of families with two full-time wage earners has risen dramatically in the last twenty-five years. With both husband and wife working, there's less time to have children.

What conservatives should be looking into is why our economy is such that most families need two wage earners. If you want to talk about family values, teen pregnancy isn't as serious an issue as the inability of many families to afford a stay-at-home parent. The conservatives should be bemoaning that.

[XPav]

Ahh, but they're all free-market Republicans! Hypocrisy!

Of course, I'm sure someone can find a few consistency problems with liberal positions too in about a minute. :lol:

The point, I think, is that teen preganancy hasn't changed since the 1920s, and it hasn't changed because the group that complains about teen pregnancy is unwilling, for ideological reason, to promote the same methods that the rest of the populace has used to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Accidental teen pregnancy rates will always be higher that everyone else's, because, well, they're teenagers.

Angie's points strikes me as very useful. Stepping back, it seems kinda odd that we've got a whole bunch of 20+ year old men talking about something that only happens directly to teenage girls.

edit: geez, i need an integrated BB grammar checker

[awdougherty]

I think Angie has a very good point. Kids are going to find ways to mess around whether or not the adult population is willing to face up to it. I feel like the system in the US does two things, it fails to teach teens to have the proper respect for sex while it fails to protect them from their mistakes. I feel like we let teens down in multiple ways.

Mark, I agree that the human nature of teens isn't going to change, but we have much better ways to deal with that nature, so that's why I was surprised that the rate hadn't gone down. We know teens will do things like that, we have ways to deal with it, but we don't. That's the part that I found alarming.

[Mark Asher]

It's entirely possible that more teens are having sex AND more are practicing birth control. That's one possible explanation that fits with the idea of a more permissive society and rising sexual activity among teens.

[steve]

It's entirely possible that more teens are having sex AND more are practicing birth control. That's one possible explanation that fits with the idea of a more permissive society and rising sexual activity among teens.
And that's good. A wise man once said, "Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it, but everybody should."

[XPav]

It's entirely possible that more teens are having sex AND more are practicing birth control. That's one possible explanation that fits with the idea of a more permissive society and rising sexual activity among teens.

That's a very good point, and brings us full circle to the "how do you prevent teen preganancy" debate -- abstinence vs effective sex education.

[DavidCPA]

It's entirely possible that more teens are having sex AND more are practicing birth control. That's one possible explanation that fits with the idea of a more permissive society and rising sexual activity among teens.
And that's good. A wise man once said, "Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it, but everybody should."

I think the wise man who said that had very little interest in contributing to the teen pregnancy problem :D

-DavidCPA

[milo]

That's a very good point, and brings us full circle to the "how do you prevent teen preganancy" debate -- abstinence vs effective sex education.
Why "vs" ? Why should abstinence not be part of effective sex education?

[quatoria]

Versus, because the proponents of abstinence, such as the Bush administration, insist that it be the ONLY form of sex education. They deny funding to programs that distribute condoms, discuss birth control, or, GASP, even mention the existance of abortion. What's been the effect of this "abstinence only" education wave sweeping the nation? Kids still have sex at the same rates. Only now, they're roughly half as likely to have birth control for their first sexual experience as they were during the 70's.

[Jason McCullough]

It's entirely possible that more teens are having sex AND more are practicing birth control. That's one possible explanation that fits with the idea of a more permissive society and rising sexual activity among teens.

Maybe, but anecdotally I sure don't see this wide use of birth control.

Colorado survey by the CDC:

http://www.youth4change.com/statistics.htm

Did not use a condom during the last sexual intercourse 33% (42.1%)
Did not use birth control pills during last sexual intercourse 83%

When you consider those are self-reported, and people have a natural tendency to give the "right" answer on surveys, the use of birth control is probably near zero, and condom use spotty at best.

[cyborg]

Not forgetting of course that not using condoms has led to an increasing amount of STDs. By not encouraging it in teens it sets a bad precident.

[Bull]

Are you fucking serious?

It's not so much that you're contradicting yourself as you're just missing the point. The language about teen pregnancy is dense and misleading. If you're concerned why teen pregnancy are at the same rate as they were in the 1920, or why non-teen pregnancy is much less than it was in the 1920, that's fine. Just say so. As evidenced by the posts thoughou the day, there are probably plenty of legitimate reasons for both.

Certainly you can agree that whether teen pregnancy is the same as the 1920s, or non-teen pregnancy is much less than it was in the 1920s has little to do with the claim the family is falling apart.

This is exactly why I don't discuss either politics or religion with people I don't know well.

Considering your tone, it’s probably a good policy.

[Rywill]

Certainly you can agree that whether teen pregnancy is the same as the 1920s, or non-teen pregnancy is much less than it was in the 1920s has little to do with the claim the family is falling apart.
How do you know this? Is it possible that children from nuclear families have shared in the pregnancy rate drop (i.e., whatever it is that has led to adults getting pregnant less, also happens to teens in nuclear families), but teens from non-nuclear families have not?

I don't know. I'm no sociologist. And I don't want to come off like some wacko conservative--I agree with Jason and XPav and Angie that a big part of the problem is conservatives being anti-birth-control for teens. But it just bugs me to see people go "Well, pregnancy rates overall have dropped a lot. But teen pregnancies haven't dropped at all. Still, since the teen pregancy rate is the same as it's always been, there must not be a problem."

I mean, if I told you that everyone's standard of living had increased 500% since 1920, but southern blacks were still living in the same squalor they were in 1920, wouldn't you agree that there was some problem there that needs to be addressed? If I said "Hey, there's no problem, the southern blacks are doing just as well as they always have, it's just that everyone else is doing even better," wouldn't you look at me as if I were crazy?

[Jobe]

Bull, you're freaking me out here.

[cyborg]

How do you know this? Is it possible that children from nuclear families have shared in the pregnancy rate drop (i.e., whatever it is that has led to adults getting pregnant less, also happens to teens in nuclear families), but teens from non-nuclear families have not?

With divorce rates going up those non-nuclear family teens would be more widespread anyway - remaining inconclusive.

[Jason McCullough]

How do you know this? Is it possible that children from nuclear families have shared in the pregnancy rate drop (i.e., whatever it is that has led to adults getting pregnant less, also happens to teens in nuclear families), but teens from non-nuclear families have not?

No, because there's no significant correlation between being a single mother and your kid getting pregnant, according to Lind.


I mean, if I told you that everyone's standard of living had increased 500% since 1920, but southern blacks were still living in the same squalor they were in 1920, wouldn't you agree that there was some problem there that needs to be addressed? If I said "Hey, there's no problem, the southern blacks are doing just as well as they always have, it's just that everyone else is doing even better," wouldn't you look at me as if I were crazy?

Yeah, but everyone has a natural expectation that income will increase every year - who the heck expects that the "natural" action of the pregnancy rate is to decrease every year?

[Rywill]

No, because there's no significant correlation between being a single mother and your kid getting pregnant, according to Lind.
So the rule is that if you quote one study that supports your view, the debate is over? I mean, I don't have enough interest to go Google it, but my guess is that I could find a study that says there is a correlation. I would actually be really surprised if there were actually no correlation, because I assume single motherhood and teen pregnancy both have a correlation with poverty, and therefore with each other (even if it isn't causal, I would expect a correlation).


Yeah, but everyone has a natural expectation that income will increase every year - who the heck expects that the "natural" action of the pregnancy rate is to decrease every year?
I guess anyone who has seen pregnancy rates decrease for the last 80 years? I mean, everyone "has a natural expectation" that income will increase simply because it has in the last century or two (and note that it did NOT always increase historically).

[Jason McCullough]

That's exactly it: there's a correlation between parent's income and the daughter getting pregnant. There isn't a correlation between single motherhood and the daughter getting pregnant. The scare statistics that get circulated on the right compare the general population of mothers to the population of single/teen mothers, which is useless; single and teen mothers are *already* poor before they get pregnant, so you have to back that factor out.

If you have a study refuting this, ok, but I don't think it's out there.

I guess anyone who has seen pregnancy rates decrease for the last 80 years?

Yeah, but this gets back to expectations in the first place - why the hell would you expect teenagers to have a declining pregnancy rate?

SUVs are a type of vehicle. Historically, vehicle gas mileage has improved. However, SUV gas mileage hasn't improved - not all things that are of a class are the same.

[Squirrel Killer]

As Mark Twain said, statistics can be just another form of a lie. Sure conservatives may bemoan the teen pregnancy rate despite the percentage of teens getting pregnant remaining flat over time, but don't liberals decry a less-than expected budget increase as a cut? Statistics are nothing without context. There's an ad on the back of the latest "Campaigns & Elections" from the Newspaper Association that boasts "3 out of 4 undecided voters read newspapers!" They never mention that probably 9 out 10 undecided voters watch TV, or that 7 out of 8 people in general read newspapers. They don't even bother to note that newspaper advertising is one of the most puke-sickeningly over-priced frauds in advertising. To hear Jason tell it, only conservatives are guilty of using favorable stats and presenting them without the context to properly judge them. I'm too cynical to believe that.

Despite Jason's minimizing of the "horrible epidemic", there are real reasons to be concerned about teen pregnancy regardless of whether the problem is actually "a higher % of teens getting pregnant", "teen pregnancy % hasn't dropped with general population", or "a higher % of babies born to teen mothers."

Higher % of teens getting pregnant

From the discussion, this seems to be false. Instead the % of teen getting pregnant has remained flat. Before I crucify anyone for perpetrating this falsehood, let me ask: Have you ever tried to push a message? Have you ever had a news outlet report on something you had a hand in? If you have, you've probably experienced some frustration in that, in the reporting, the fine points get muddled and lost. You could probably see how "% of babies born to teens" get morphed into "more pregnant teens" by a well-meaning, but ill-informed reporter.

Teen pregnancy % hasn't dropped with general population

...[T]een preganancy hasn't changed since the 1920s...because the group that complains about teen pregnancy is unwilling, for ideological reason[s], to promote the same methods that the rest of the populace has used to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Despite the efforts of conservatives, the level of sex education and the promotion of various birth control methods have dramatically increased since the 1920's, when, in some states, it was illegal for a doctor to talk to an adult patient about birth control. I can guarantee that my sex education circa mid-1980's was more explicit and instructional than my parents' education in, what, the Paleozoic Era.

If pregnancy rates aren't dropping in sync, it raises the obvious quesion of why? One would think that all of the reasons that women choose to plan their pregnancies should apply to teens as well. But despite increased education on the matter, rates have remained static. XPav is blaming conservatives, even though they haven't been able to achieve their supposed goal of no sex ed. (Their real goal is reduced teen pregnancy and sex ed that follows their faith/beliefs, but don't let that stop you.) This is poor answer to "Why haven't pregnancy rates for teens dropped with the rest of the population?"

Higher % of babies born to teen mothers

This is a problem all in itself. I don't understand why Jason comes to this conclusion, and then basically says that the teen pregnancy epidemic is a myth and that we don't have to worry about it. Huh? A higher % of babies born to teen mothers means that more kids will be raised by teenagers (for you logic fans, this is "A=A", a tautology). Even though Jason says that once you control for income, teen mothers compare well with other mothers, how many teens do you know that a half of a two-income family pulling down $100k? How many 32yo single moms with a part-time job at Wal-Mart can send their kids to the best private schools money can buy? So if you have more kids born to teen mothers, you're going to end up with more kids in poverty situations. This is what Jason wants us to open our eyes to and say "Oh, those darn conservatives!"? I'll pass, thanks, and continue to work for ways to reduce teen pregnancy, whether it be by reducing teen pregnacy rates, reducing the percentage of babies born to teen mothers, or (I can only hope) reduce the actual overall number of babies born to teens or number of teens having babies.

[Squirrel Killer]

(Double post)

[Squirrel Killer]

That's exactly it: there's a correlation between parent's income and the daughter getting pregnant. There isn't a correlation between single motherhood and the daughter getting pregnant.

Question: Is there a correlation between parent's income and single motherhood? (i.e. Does being a single mother have an effect on household income?)

[Angie Gallant]

If pregnancy rates aren't dropping in sync, it raises the obvious quesion of why? One would think that all of the reasons that women choose to plan their pregnancies should apply to teens as well.

But they don't. A teenage girl cannot get birth control pills without parental consent. From my personal experiences there's a whole lot of girls who want birth control but who cannot get access to it until they are 18 because their parents won't allow it. But not being able to get on birth control doesn't mean that the desire to have sex magically goes away, especially not when there's a boyfriend in the picture who wants it too.

There is a barrier to birth control that teenage girls face that adult women do not face. That's where I would look first.

[Mark Asher]

This is a problem all in itself. I don't understand why Jason comes to this conclusion, and then basically says that the teen pregnancy epidemic is a myth and that we don't have to worry about it. Huh? A higher % of babies born to teen mothers means that more kids will be raised by teenagers (for you logic fans, this is "A=A", a tautology).

But it's not "more kids" really -- it's a higher percentage of kids relative to overall births. It's the same problem it's been since the 1920's. It's not a growing problem as it's been portrayed.

[Bull]

But it just bugs me to see people go "Well, pregnancy rates overall have dropped a lot. But teen pregnancies haven't dropped at all. Still, since the teen pregancy rate is the same as it's always been, there must not be a problem."


Not to paint you as a wacko conservative, because I know that's not your point. But if someone were to feel this business of the non-teen pregnancy rate dropping while the teen pregnancy rate stayed the same showing something noteworthy about the family, I would like to hear them make the study. What we have here--and what galls me about this whole situation--are the people using dense language to make a pseudo non-point about the family.

So again, if this is the point you want to make, then fine go ahead and make your point. Use straightforward language. I still may not agree with you after all is said and done (or maybe I will), but I won't complain about you using smoke and mirrors to make your point.

Not to derail this thread, but these were the type of tricks used by the current administration to get Americans to believe Iraq actually posed an immediate threat.

[Bull]

Sure conservatives may bemoan the teen pregnancy rate despite the percentage of teens getting pregnant remaining flat over time, but don't liberals decry a less-than expected budget increase as a cut? Statistics are nothing without context.

Point being since everyone is doing it, it must be okay to do? That's sad.

From the discussion, this seems to be false. Instead the % of teen getting pregnant has remained flat. Before I crucify anyone for perpetrating this falsehood, let me ask: Have you ever tried to push a message? Have you ever had a news outlet report on something you had a hand in? If you have, you've probably experienced some frustration in that, in the reporting, the fine points get muddled and lost. You could probably see how "% of babies born to teens" get morphed into "more pregnant teens" by a well-meaning, but ill-informed reporter.

You're saying it really isn't the conservative party's wish to send a bogus message, we've all just interpreted it wrong? That's also pretty sad.

[Squirrel Killer]

A teenage girl cannot get birth control pills without parental consent. From my personal experiences there's a whole lot of girls who want birth control but who cannot get access to it until they are 18 because their parents won't allow it. But not being able to get on birth control doesn't mean that the desire to have sex magically goes away, especially not when there's a boyfriend in the picture who wants it too.

There is a barrier to birth control that teenage girls face that adult women do not face. That's where I would look first.

I would certainly agree that teens have more barriers to birth control than sexually active adults, but a lot of barriers have fallen since the 1920's. Even taking into consideration that teens are less likely to use condoms than sexually active adults, shouldn't that alone result in a slight reduction of pregnancy rates?

I do have trouble with getting rid of the barrier of parental consent for birth control pills. There are a wide variet of other methods, and it seems hypocritical to me to require parental consent for elective medical treatments, but then let the minor decide, without parental input, that she wants to go on the pill. Minors can't vote, they can't enter into contracts, can't get a tattoo, can't drive (for the most part), and can't elect to undergo medical proceedures not because we adults hate them, but because they don't have the critical thinking skills and life experiences that will guide them to make good choices for themselves. But to throw all of that reasoning away just because they want a little nookie ignores the valid reasons those measures are in place to begin with.

[Rywill]

I feel like this is going a little in circles, so here are what I think are my two big points:

1) Missing out on a good national trend is just as much of a problem as having your own negative trend. In other words, teens "missing the boat" on decreasing pregancy rates is probably just as bad as if pregnancy rates remained the same overall but teen pregnancy rates increased. It's like Jason's SUV example: SUVs may get the same mileage that cars have been getting since 1950, but given that all other cars now get significantly better mileage, there is a problem with SUV gas mileage. You can't just say there's no problem because SUV mileage is "flat" compared to cars from the 1950's (or 1920's). So everyone (Mark!) that keeps coming in here and saying "There's no problem, teen pregnancy rates are just flat," I totally disagree with you. Yes the rates are flat, but that's a big problem when placed against the background of steeply falling pregnancy rates nationwide.

2) Assuming teens are missing out on the national trend of falling pregnancy rates, I think most people would agree that is bad--that teens make worse mothers than adults, and single parents have a much harder time devoting sufficient attention and money to their kids (I know there are a lot of single parents here; I don't mean any offense, I just think that's what most people think, and it makes intuitive sense--raising kids is a lot of work, and if you're doing it on your own, that's got to be extremely difficult, PARTICULARLY if you're a teen with presumably low earning potential and little maturity and life experience). So I think it's reasonable to say that we should do something to address the problem. Maybe that means making birth control easier to get as a teen. Or more reasonable and frank discussions of sexuality in school (rather than an "abstinence only" policy). Whatever. We can talk about what needs to be done. But only if we acknowledge that SOMETHING needs to be done.

Re: Jason's post, what Squirrel Killer said: if there is a correlation between income and single motherhood (and there MUST be), and we already know there's a correlation between income and teen pregnancy, there must be a correlation between single motherhood and teen pregnancy (A=B and B=C, therefore A=C). (I mean, technically it's possible that all the pregnant teens with single mothers happen to be rich, so there'd be no correlation, but does anyone really believe that's the case?) Assuming such a correlation exists, it's reasonable to ask whether single motherhood leads to teen pregnancy. Maybe the answer is "no." I have no clue. Maybe the answer is "Poverty causes both single motherhood and teen pregnancy." But too many people are coming in here and saying you can't even ask the question because it's all just a bunch of media hysteria.

I don't understand Jason's point about "backing out" income. Why isn't it reasonable to compare the percentage of teen mothers to the percentage of overall mothers? Your objection appears to be "Well, single mothers are poor, and therefore have more teens who get pregnant." Isn't that significant, in your mind? If being a single mother means you're going to be poor (because you have a kid and only one income), and that in turn will lead to your kid more likely getting pregnant, don't we care about that? Maybe your reasoning is "Well, all that matters is that they're poor, not how many parents there are." But I disagree, because maybe they're poor because there's only one adult in the household. In other words, just saying "It's because they're poor" leads to the natural question, "How can we help them be less poor?" Maybe in Communist Jasonland the answer is "Give them a bunch of other peoples' money," but in Libertarian Ryanland one possible answer is "See if there's any way to encourage multi-parent households, which are less poor and have other benefits as well." Maybe that doesn't work at all. Maybe there's no way to encourage it. I don't know. But again, the only way to find out is to explore it, and you keep trying to foreclose any possibility that single parenthood contributes to teen pregnancy (even if indirectly, such as by causing poverty).

Edit: this answer's Bull's question as well. Sure, I'd love to see a study. I'd like to know how much effect (if any) single parenthood has on teen pregnancy rate. Like you and Jason seem to say, maybe there's none. My objection is just to people (like Jason's original post) saying there's no reason to even check.

[Jason McCullough]

If pregnancy rates aren't dropping in sync, it raises the obvious quesion of why?

Because they don't use birth control, that's why!


Higher % of babies born to teen mothers This is a problem all in itself.


You're confusing a percentage and a count. For example:

Before: 1000 kids born to non-teen mothers, 100 born to teen mothers. 9% of births are to teen mothers.
After: 500 kids born to non-teen mothers, 100 born to teen mothers. 16% of births are to teen mothers.

Nothing at all happened to the teen motherhood count. All the changes happened to non-teen mothers. No idea how this means teen motherhood is getting worse - it's not getting better, obviously, but it's not getting worse.

Even though Jason says that once you control for income, teen mothers compare well with other mothers, how many teens do you know that a half of a two-income family pulling down $100k? How many 32yo single moms with a part-time job at Wal-Mart can send their kids to the best private schools money can buy?

How many 32 year old *married* moms with a part-time job at Wal-Mart can send their kids to private schools? What's your point?

Question: Is there a correlation between parent's income and single motherhood? (i.e. Does being a single mother have an effect on household income?)

Once you control for family background, parent's income, and whatnot, it's an income drop of 20%. This is about how much the income of mothers who keep the kids drops when they get divorced, too. However, the "bad outcomes" - kids getting worse jobs, kids getting pregnant, kids committing crimes, etc. - are entirely due to the income drop. A single mother with $X income has the same statistical outcome in child rearing that a married mother with $X household income has.

Obviously being a single mom isn't exactly good for you, but it's not the nightmare people make it out to be. The mother being poor before she ever gets pregnant is a far, far higher risk factor - she's far more likely to get pregnant, and far more likely to have her kids turn out badly. Marriage is practically an independent variable, by comparision.

But to throw all of that reasoning away just because they want a little nookie ignores the valid reasons those measures are in place to begin with.

Really? Do tell, I want to hear the "valid reason" parents should be able to veto their daughter getting birth control.

[Bull]

I would certainly agree that teens have more barriers to birth control than sexually active adults, but a lot of barriers have fallen since the 1920's. Even taking into consideration that teens are less likely to use condoms than sexually active adults, shouldn't that alone result in a slight reduction of pregnancy rates?

It's hard to say just by using anecdotal evidence. You need to study the problem. But you're not going to get a study by just decrying family values or sticking your head in the sand about birth control.

I do have trouble with getting rid of the barrier of parental consent for birth control pills. There are a wide variet of other methods, and it seems hypocritical to me to require parental consent for elective medical treatments, but then let the minor decide, without parental input, that she wants to go on the pill.

What are these wide variant of other methods besides birth control pills that you would find acceptable? Typically the conservative position is that only abstinence will do. Abstinence was available in the 1920s. If you're looking for reasons why the non-teen population has decreased rates, you almost have to start looking at birth control improvements, like Angie and others have said.

Minors can't vote, they can't enter into contracts, can't get a tattoo, can't drive (for the most part), and can't elect to undergo medical proceedures not because we adults hate them, but because they don't have the critical thinking skills and life experiences that will guide them to make good choices for themselves. But to throw all of that reasoning away just because they want a little nookie ignores the valid reasons those measures are in place to begin with.

Of course, the big difference between what you're saying and reality is that humans do have a sex drive, but don't have hormonal urges that drive them to enter into contracts, get tattoos, drive, or undergo medical procedures. Moreover, the hormonal urge to have sex kicks in when you're--surprise!--a teenager. :)

[Jason McCullough]

Rywill, I understand your objection - I agree it's bad that teenage pregnancy rates haven't fallen. But the reasons, as pointed out above, are:

1) Teens aren't using birth control all that much.
2) One of the obvious solutions - have teenagers use more birth control - is actively opposed by the very people who insist they're the most worried about it. They're prefer if teenagers couldn't get any kind of birth control at all.

The point is that the myth about teenagers being more moral in the old days is horsecrap, and the suggested "solution" of the state making them more moral through various measures - abstinence education, various welfare thingies, etc. - is based on utter hooey. It's like a doctor diagnosing the root cause of you feeling bad all the time as cancer, when it's actually heart disease - god only knows if the treatment will make you healthier.

that teens make worse mothers than adults

There's no statistical evidence for this. Compared to mothers with similar income and backgrounds, they have similar outcomes. Note that if you want to improve the lives of teen mothers you could just as easily raise their income as try to keep them from getting pregnant - there's multiple solutions. You're assuming that being a teenager is a priori bad for motherhood, when that's not true.

Why isn't it reasonable to compare the percentage of teen mothers to the percentage of overall mothers?

The average teenage mother, before she gets pregnant, is extremely poor and has a bad family background. The average non-teen mother, before she gets pregnant, has ok income and an ok family background.

If you really want to see what the effect of just being a teenage mother is - without confusing it with the fact that teenage mothers are already poor to start with - you have to compare similiar people. In a perfect scenario, two identical twins from the same family, one who has a kid at 17 and one who has a kid at 26. Just doing a population-to-population comparision doesn't tell you anything. If you don't believe me, go ask a statistics expert; it's called codependent variables, if I remember correctly.

[Squirrel Killer]

Sure conservatives may bemoan the teen pregnancy rate despite the percentage of teens getting pregnant remaining flat over time, but don't liberals decry a less-than expected budget increase as a cut? Statistics are nothing without context.

Point being since everyone is doing it, it must be okay to do? That's sad.

Point being that everyone paints their cause in a way to get people to agree with them. Point being that everyone (except for the really precise) uses statisics out of context. Point being that Jason raising his blood pressure through the roof because conservatives talk about an issue, that even taking Jason's "best" interpretation of is still an issue, is hypocritical because liberals do the same thing every day.

You're saying it really isn't the conservative party's wish to send a bogus message, we've all just interpreted it wrong? That's also pretty sad.

My comments can be applied to any party on any issue, not just conservatives on teen pregnancy. Take a hard look a environmental issues, and you'll see similar results. Sierra Club will put out a press release that says "We've lost x% of species y's habitat." AP writer z will take that release, read later in the release that y lives in certain wetlands, and accidentially write that we've lost x% of wetlands. Then the individual newspapers' headline writers will put "x+2.3% Wetlands Lost" in 48 point type above the fold. Everyone gets into a lather, only difference is Jason doesn't write this screed, Daniel Morris does.

[Jason McCullough]

Re: Jason's post, what Squirrel Killer said: if there is a correlation between income and single motherhood (and there MUST be), and we already know there's a correlation between income and teen pregnancy, there must be a correlation between single motherhood and teen pregnancy (A=B and B=C, therefore A=C). (I mean, technically it's possible that all the pregnant teens with single mothers happen to be rich, so there'd be no correlation, but does anyone really believe that's the case?) Assuming such a correlation exists, it's reasonable to ask whether single motherhood leads to teen pregnancy. Maybe the answer is "no." I have no clue. Maybe the answer is "Poverty causes both single motherhood and teen pregnancy." But too many people are coming in here and saying you can't even ask the question because it's all just a bunch of media hysteria.

I guess I wasn't clear enough; I obviously don't want people to stop researching this stuff. What I want is certain public people to stop lying about it, and everyone else to realize they're being lied to. The conventional wisdom is not only wrong, it's blatantly and demonstrably so.

Let me summarize my reading of the material:

1) There is a clear correlation between parent's income and child rearing outcomes.
2) There is a clear correlation between being poor *before* you get pregnant and teenage pregnancy. Obviously causation can't work backwards, so being poor leads to more teen pregnancies. Not too surprising.
3) There is a noticable drop in single mother lifetime incomes after they give birth, regardless of income before they got pregnant - something like 20%. Interestingly, this is roughly the same amount that divorced mother's earnings drop. I suspect that an earnings effect is also visible in married couple's income when they have children, so this may not be as bad as it appears on its face; I need to look more.


As for "does being a single mother make your kids more likely to get pregnant" - at comparable income levels, no. A married family at the 51% income percentile has the same chance of a pregnant teenage daughter as a single parent family at the 51% income percentile (I can't remember if they do this by household income or what, but the way labor market participation works out it's not as silly as it sounds - there's still a lot of single-earner households out there).

Obviously the reduced income of just having one parent, and only one parent to spread the costs of having a kid across, reduces income, and make outcomes worse. I think you have to be careful with this line of reasoning, however; you can end up with some pretty unjustified and toxic conclusions. For example:

A parent being a single mother in itself isn't bad for kids. It's just that single mothers have less income, and when the parents have less income, kids suffer - more likely to commit crimes, get pregnant as teenagers, and so on. Therefore, society should discourage single motherhood.

A parent being black in itself isn't bad for kids. It's just that black mothers have less income, and when the parents have less income, kids suffer - more likely to commit crimes, get pregnant as teenagers, and so on. Therefore, society should discourage black motherhood.

A particularly amusing one:
A parent being straight in itself isn't bad for kids. It's just that straight mothers have less income, and when the parents have less income, kids suffer - more likely to commit crimes, get pregnant as teenagers, and so on. Therefore, society should discourage straight motherhood.

:D

[Jason McCullough]

Then the individual newspapers' headline writers will put "x+2.3% Wetlands Lost" in 48 point type above the fold.

The difference is that's an accident, while this stuff about kids, pregnancy, and single moms is stuff they *know* is lies, but continue to push anyway because it's politically good for them. AEI and Charles Murray are particularly egregious about this.

[Bull]

Point being that everyone paints their cause in a way to get people to agree with them. Point being that everyone (except for the really precise) uses statisics out of context. Point being that Jason raising his blood pressure through the roof because conservatives talk about an issue, that even taking Jason's "best" interpretation of is still an issue, is hypocritical because liberals do the same thing every day.

You're just repeating the libreals do it, why can't we. That's still lame.

[Squirrel Killer]

If pregnancy rates aren't dropping in sync, it raises the obvious quesion of why?

Because they don't use birth control, that's why!

Why not? It's not like condoms aren't available virtually everywhere. It's not like sex education isn't available, it's certainly more available than in 1920, which seems to be the baseline year for this discussion. Blaming it on conservatives who don't want sex ed ignores that, for the most part, they've lost their battles.

You're confusing a percentage and a count. For example:

[snip basic math]

Nothing at all happened to the teen motherhood count. All the changes happened to non-teen mothers. No idea how this means teen motherhood is getting worse - it's not getting better, obviously, but it's not getting worse.

I understand the math involved, and I'm not confusing the percentage and the count. I'm stating that the a higher percentage of teen mothers is, in and of itself, a problem, just as a a higher count is a problem. Teen mothers are more likely to be in poverty stituations, so a higher percentage of teen mothers means that a higher percentage of babies will be in poverty situations. A higher percentage of babies, whatever the count, in poverty is bad. (Note: Even a lower percentage of babies in poverty, if it's accompanied by a higher actual number of babies in poverty, can be bad.)

How many 32 year old *married* moms with a part-time job at Wal-Mart can send their kids to private schools? What's your point?

My point is that teen mothers are more likely to be in poverty situations, so when you control for income, you don't compare teen mothers to all other mothers, you compare teen mothers to other mothers in poverty situations.

Question: Is there a correlation between parent's income and single motherhood? (i.e. Does being a single mother have an effect on household income?)

Once you control for family background, parent's income, and whatnot, it's an income drop of 20%...[snip to make a point]...However, the "bad outcomes" - kids getting worse jobs, kids getting pregnant, kids committing crimes, etc. - are entirely due to the income drop. A single mother with $X income has the same statistical outcome in child rearing that a married mother with $X household income has.

Obviously being a single mom isn't exactly good for you, but it's not the nightmare people make it out to be. The mother being poor before she ever gets pregnant is a far, far higher risk factor - she's far more likely to get pregnant, and far more likely to have her kids turn out badly. Marriage is practically an independent variable, by comparision.

How can you not see that if income drops 20% due to teen motherhood, and lower household income is a risk factor for "bad outcomes", then teen motherhood is inherently a risk factor too? Teen motherhood (A) = lower income (B). Lower income (B) = bad outcome (C). As Rywill said, if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

I've said this before, but by controling for income, you're blinding yourself to the very reason teen motherhood is so bad! It's like saying the LA Clippers have a bad record, but if you control for ability, they're competitive. Sure, to your local community college team.

Really? Do tell, I want to hear the "valid reason" parents should be able to veto their daughter getting birth control.

This is too easy. From Planned Parenthood's site:

- bleeding between periods
- weight gain or loss
- breast tenderness
- nausea — rarely, vomiting
- changes in mood
- headache
- change in sexual desire
- depression
Serious problems do not occur very often. Pill users have a slightly greater chance of certain major disorders than nonusers. The most serious is the possibility of blood clots in the legs, lungs, heart, or brain. Women on the Pill who undergo major surgery seem to have a greater chance of having blood clots.

How about the Feminist Women Health Center site:

Cautions
Some women may not be able to take The Pill because of the risk of serious health problems...Women who use The Pill have a higher risk of heart attack and stroke. The effects of The Pill on breast cancer are still unknown.

Side Effects
- Irregular bleeding or spotting
- Nausea
- Breast tenderness
- Weight gain and/or water retention
- Spotty darkening of the skin
- Mood changes

Drug Interactions
The effectiveness of the Pill is lowered when taken with certain medications, including antibiotics, anti-seizure, tuberculosis, and migraine medications. If you are taking any medications, tell your clinician.

[Rywill]

I've said this before, but by controling for income, you're blinding yourself to the very reason teen motherhood is so bad! It's like saying the LA Clippers have a bad record, but if you control for ability, they're competitive. Sure, to your local community college team.
Exactly, exactly, exactly. I've been trying to express this but haven't come up with nearly as clear and good an analogy.

I almost feel like Jason is just unwilling to admit that maybe there's something bad about teen motherhood. Your rejoinder that there's "no statistical evidence" that teens are worse mothers is completely unconvincing to me, because "good mother" isn't something that is amenable to statistical measurement for the most part. If your assertion is that a teenager, with her limited life experience, immaturity, and low income potential, is going to be just as good a mother as an average adult woman, I completely disagree and don't even really see the point of discussing it much more--it's like we're on different planets. If your argument is "Well, compared to a poor, immature, inexperienced adult, a teen isn't any worse," I agree with you, but fail to see your point, since most adults are not poor, immature, and inexperienced, but most teens are.

[Squirrel Killer]

The difference is that's an accident, while this stuff about kids, pregnancy, and single moms is stuff they *know* is lies, but continue to push anyway because it's politically good for them. AEI and Charles Murray are particularly egregious about this.

That's a pretty strong conclusion, I would hope that Michael Lind has some pretty strong evidence to prove it. I know the quote is often used in debunking ESP and the like, but it applies here too - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I've worked on both sides of the aisle (that Sierra Club example is a lot closer to the truth than you might realize), and if I wanted to paint a mirror portrait of the liberals, I could. I don't make this claim because activists on both sides are truely good people who are just trying to make the world a better place (even GWB). And for every conservative that, yes, I'd agree is a bad person (few as they are), there's a liberal who, you would agree (perhaps not to me), is a bad person (few as they are).

As "lame" as it is to not fully disclose everything about your argument, the fact of the matter is that you can't, because the other side will exploit whatever weakness they find, but they won't return the favor and disclose everything about their argument. This goes for both sides. Don't sit on your elephant or donkey thinking you alone are on the side of the angels. Politics is a blood sport.

In the end:
1) teenage pregnancy in our society is a bad situation
2) it doesn't matter if teenage pregnancy numbers or rates are going up or down, we should still seek to minimize the situation

[Bull]

I almost feel like Jason is just unwilling to admit that maybe there's something bad about teen motherhood

I don't see how teens being less able to make decisions as mature adults, means that family values are somehow going to pot, which I think is the point you're missing.

Teens have always been less able to make good decsions, simply because they don't have the life experience that allows them to make better decisions. Isn't that obvious?

The fact that teens can't make good decision is no differnt now that it was in the past. So making an argument that statistics show teens are still unable to make good decision in regards to pregnanacy is lame. Taking it a step further to show it reflects poorly on family values is even worse.

[Rywill]

Sure, but I think that reverses the causality. My understanding of the conservative argument is "Fewer traditional families leads to more teen pregnancy," not vice-versa. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

[Rywill]

Teens have always been less able to make good decsions, simply because they don't have the life experience that allows them to make better decisions. Isn't that obvious?
I mean, *I* think so, but it's the exact opposite of what Jason is saying--that teens aren't bad mothers, it's just poor people who are bad mothers (i.e., that your age has no effect on how good a mother you are). So he's got essentially three objections to the conservative argument: 1) teens aren't actually any worse mothers than adults; 2) single-parent families don't lead to teen pregnancy; and 3) teen pregnancy isn't any worse than it used to be anyway. My responses are 1) yes they are, as should be obvious; 2) there is at least a correlation between single-parent families and pregnant teens, which should be investigated and alleviated if possible; and 3) it's comparatively worse, which is all that matters since pregnancy rates are merely comparative statistics.

[Angie Gallant]

I can offer a few reasons why teenagers don't use condoms. Girls are loathe to carry them for fear of being outed as a "slut", you can justify birth control pills with non-sexual reasons, but it's hard to justify a box of trojans. Boys are loathe to carry them because they're uncomfortable to use and all the HURR SENSITIVITY LOSS stuff. Most teens do not plan sex in advance, and they aren't likely to stop making out long enough to stop by the drug store.

[Jason McCullough]

This is too easy. From Planned Parenthood's site:

Right, parents forbid their kids from getting birth control because they're deeply concerned about their health! I mean, getting pregnant is one thing, but a small chance of blood clots - holy god! Please.

That's a pretty strong conclusion, I would hope that Michael Lind has some pretty strong evidence to prove it.

He does; he was part of the conservative intelligentsia until 1994 or so. He has a quote from Kristol admitting the culture war shit is made up. Pick up the book if you don't believe it.

I almost feel like Jason is just unwilling to admit that maybe there's something bad about teen motherhood.

The only bad thing about teen or single motherhood is that it makes you somewhat poorer. Everything else flows from that.

If your argument is "Well, compared to a poor, immature, inexperienced adult, a teen isn't any worse," I agree with you, but fail to see your point, since most adults are not poor, immature, and inexperienced, but most teens are.

Let me see if I can be clearer:

The pregnant teenage daughter of a middle class mom will have statistically the same childrearing outcomes as her mother.

The pregnant teenage daughter of a low-income mom living in a trailer will have statistically the same childrearing outcomes as her mother.

Rywill, if you have some evidence refuting either of these one-line summaries, I'd love to see it, because it would completely contradict my understanding of the evidence on this. Everyone assumes that being a teenager a priori makes you a worse mother, but there's just no evidence for this. I mean, think about this - are you actually arguing that child rearing today is far better than it used to be? After all, the median and average age of mothers is at an all time high; it's gone up 1.4 years just since the 1950s. God only knows what it was in the 19th century - 19? People must have been horrible at raising kids then.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:efg3g-XW66UJ:www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t991x05.pdf+median+mother+age&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Why not? It's not like condoms aren't available virtually everywhere. It's not like sex education isn't available, it's certainly more available than in 1920, which seems to be the baseline year for this discussion. Blaming it on conservatives who don't want sex ed ignores that, for the most part, they've lost their battles.

Hey, you asked why teenage pregnancy rates aren't dropping, and I gave you the answer - they don't really use birth control.

Maybe it's not the fault of conservatives trying as hard as they can to keep kids from getting it, but the fault of the kids themselves - which I guess is what you're saying - though I doubt it; is it coincidental that Europe has more reasonable laws and norms in these areas, and a lower teen pregnancy rate?

[Bull]

3) it's comparatively worse, which is all that matters since pregnancy rates are merely comparative statistics

No, it's unchanged. If you compare teen numbers from present to back in the day, it's unchanged.

[Squirrel Killer]

Right, parents forbid their kids from getting birth control because they're deeply concerned about their health! I mean, getting pregnant is one thing, but a small chance of blood clots - holy god! Please.

Why the double standard? Why is it if a minor needs braces, there needs to be all sorts of parental consent, but if the same minor wants a drug that increases their risk of heart attacks and strokes, no parental consent is needed? Regardless of whether the risks are rare or not, it is the responsibility, duty, and job of the parent to know what's happening with their child's health.

Keep in mind that the list of health risks came from strong advocates for birth control pills. If I wanted to really make a point, I would have quoted the FDA, which lists some of the risks as, "cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, blood clots, heart attack, and strokes." Several sites mention the link between smoking and increased risks taking the pill. Is a minor, who is already circumventing her parents, really going to be honest with the doctor when she asks, "Now, I really shouldn't give these to you if you smoke. You don't smoke do you?" Imagine if I had quoted some of the anti-pill sites: "Five very serious side effects are associated with OC use, increased incidence of: sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), pelvic inflammatory disease (PTD), infertility, cervical cancer, and ectopic pregnancy. Other well-known dangers include endometrial atrophy (shrinking of the womb) and permanent sterility."

He does; he was part of the conservative intelligentsia until 1994 or so. He has a quote from Kristol admitting the culture war shit is made up. Pick up the book if you don't believe it.

So you'll give me the same respect when I tell you that a PIRG canvas manager turned a blind eye to a significant error I pointed out during our fundraising for Sierra Club?

Let me see if I can be clearer:

The pregnant teenage daughter of a middle class mom will have statistically the same childrearing outcomes as her mother.

The pregnant teenage daughter of a low-income mom living in a trailer will have statistically the same childrearing outcomes as her mother.

...Everyone assumes that being a teenager a priori makes you a worse mother, but there's just no evidence for this. I mean, think about this - are you actually arguing that child rearing today is far better than it used to be? After all, the median and average age of mothers is at an all time high; it's gone up 1.4 years just since the 1950s. God only knows what it was in the 19th century - 19? People must have been horrible at raising kids then.

Now wait a minute. Previously, you've said "if you compare teenager mothers to non-teenage mothers with comparable incomes, parental incomes, neighboorhoods, and so on, you get the same results." Now you're saying that you only have to look at a teenage mother's mother to determine the childrearing outcome. Which is it?

And once again, I have to say that that not "everyone assumes that being a teenager a priori makes you a worse mother". People want to end teenage motherhood, not because teens are bad mothers, but because teen mothers have less resources to care for their child, and because of what motherhood does to the teen's lifestyle and potential. You say, "oh it's only a 20% hit on income" as if 20% is minor. Try giving yourself a 20% pay cut, and then add say $10k/yr as the cost of raising a child. Then sacrifice any hope of going to college because of the time and money issues you now have.

Hey, you asked why teenage pregnancy rates aren't dropping, and I gave you the answer - they don't really use birth control.

Maybe it's not the fault of conservatives trying as hard as they can to keep kids from getting it, but the fault of the kids themselves - which I guess is what you're saying - though I doubt it; is it coincidental that Europe has more reasonable laws and norms in these areas, and a lower teen pregnancy rate?

So, teens don't use birth control despite condom machines in virtually all public bathrooms, sex ed in schools, the Trojan company's advertising in teenage publications and TV shows, and PSAs on TV, in magazines, over radio, pop-ups on web sites, and a host of other information outlets and product hand-outs, but it's the conservatives who are to blame due to their dasteredly plans to keep sex ed out of kindergarten and not spend public money on hand-outs to pre-teens? I would wholeheartly agree with you that America is vastly more prudish than Europe, but it's a social difference, not a political one. I'd argue that societal mores go further in explaining the differences in teen pregnancy rates than the vast right wing conspiracy.

[Rywill]

3) it's comparatively worse, which is all that matters since pregnancy rates are merely comparative statistics

No, it's unchanged. If you compare teen numbers from present to back in the day, it's unchanged.

If the world has changed such that mature women are having fewer kids, but teens continue to have kids at the same rate they did in the 20's, that's still a legitimate concern. I agree that conservatives have generally characterized it as "Because of the decline of the family, teens are getting pregnant like minks," which is misleading. But realistically it's not really much different to say "Because of the decline of the family, teens are totally missing the responsibility wave that swept other age groups in the last 80 years." It's not as good a sound bite, but the effect is pretty much identical, since all you're talking about is a relative relationship (teen pregnancy vs. non-teen pregnancy).

But it just bugs me to see people go "Well, pregnancy rates overall have dropped a lot. But teen pregnancies haven't dropped at all. Still, since the teen pregancy rate is the same as it's always been, there must not be a problem." I mean, if I told you that everyone's standard of living had increased 500% since 1920, but southern blacks were still living in the same squalor they were in 1920, wouldn't you agree that there was some problem there that needs to be addressed? If I said "Hey, there's no problem, the southern blacks are doing just as well as they always have, it's just that everyone else is doing even better," wouldn't you look at me as if I were crazy?

I feel like this is going a little in circles, so here are what I think are my two big points: 1) Missing out on a good national trend is just as much of a problem as having your own negative trend. In other words, teens "missing the boat" on decreasing pregancy rates is probably just as bad as if pregnancy rates remained the same overall but teen pregnancy rates increased. It's like Jason's SUV example: SUVs may get the same mileage that cars have been getting since 1950, but given that all other cars now get significantly better mileage, there is a problem with SUV gas mileage. You can't just say there's no problem because SUV mileage is "flat" compared to cars from the 1950's (or 1920's). So everyone (Mark!) that keeps coming in here and saying "There's no problem, teen pregnancy rates are just flat," I totally disagree with you. Yes the rates are flat, but that's a big problem when placed against the background of steeply falling pregnancy rates nationwide.

If you don't agree, I guess you just don't agree, but that seems crazy to me. Maybe it's the word "worse" that annoys you, but like I said, it's comparatively worse. IOW, teens now are doing worse, compared to the rest of society, than they were doing in 1920, even though the actual teen pregnancy rate is flat.

[Bull]

I'd argue that societal mores go further in explaining the differences in teen pregnancy rates than the vast right wing conspiracy.a

You mean if there were a difference in teen pregnancy rates. Or did you want to discuss the socital issues for why adults are having less children?

[Jason McCullough]

Now wait a minute. Previously, you've said "if you compare teenager mothers to non-teenage mothers with comparable incomes, parental incomes, neighboorhoods, and so on, you get the same results." Now you're saying that you only have to look at a teenage mother's mother to determine the childrearing outcome. Which is it?

Excuse me: statistically, a daughter's income more or less tracks with her mother's income; that's what I meant. Maybe it'd be clearer to say if you "two identical twins, one of which has a kid at 26 and one at 17, will statistically have the same childrearing outcomes."

I would wholeheartly agree with you that America is vastly more prudish than Europe, but it's a social difference, not a political one. I'd argue that societal mores go further in explaining the differences in teen pregnancy rates than the vast right wing conspiracy.

Oh please, I'm not arguing there's a conspiracy to get kids pregnant. There is, however, a quasi-religious movement to deny birth control of all forms to kids, especially the most effective kinds, both legally and through social stigma. In my opinion, it's based in the social worldview that the only way to discourage something is through punishment, preferably as harsh as possible - why, if you let them "get away" with having sex without suffering god's punishment of pregnancy, they'll have no morals at all!

Why the double standard? Why is it if a minor needs braces, there needs to be all sorts of parental consent, but if the same minor wants a drug that increases their risk of heart attacks and strokes, no parental consent is needed?

Ok. So if a parent wants their daughter to get an abortion over her objections, do you think they should be legally able to force her to do so? If you want to be all consistent and everything.

IOW, teens now are doing worse, compared to the rest of society, than they were doing in 1920, even though the actual teen pregnancy rate is flat.

I'm telling you, it's a statistical artifact.

Type A: Teenage pregnancy occurs for one reason:
1) Accidental pregnancies. These are prevented by either not having sex or birth control.

Type B: Adult pregnancy occurs for two reasons:
1) Accidental pregnancies. These are prevented by either not having sex or birth control.
2) Intentional pregnancies.

The first reason adult pregnancy dropped is because adult women wanted fewer children total - a drop in intentional, planned pregnancies. This obviously has no relevance to teenage pregnancy, as the number of teenagers trying to get pregnant is approximately zero.

The second reason adult pregnancy dropped is because adult women had access to birth control - this led to a drop in unintentional, unplanned pregnancies. This *should* have relevance to teenage pregnancy, but for various reasons we're arguing about, teenagers just don't use birth control consistently.

So the question of "why didn't teenage pregnancy rates decline over the last 80 years like overall pregnancy rates did?" reduces logically to "why don't teenagers use birth control as consistently as adults?"

[Bull]

If you don't agree, I guess you just don't agree, but that seems crazy to me. Maybe it's the word "worse" that annoys you, but like I said, it's comparatively worse. IOW, teens now are doing worse, compared to the rest of society, than they were doing in 1920, even though the actual teen pregnancy rate is flat.

Yeah, maybe it is the word worse. If you're going to discuss this in terms of moral values of the family, then what do you mean by worse? Are the adults having less children of better moral quality than their counterparts back in the 1920s? That's just silly. If the adults are not of better moral quality, then how can you find the teens of worse moral quality?

[Rywill]

If you don't agree, I guess you just don't agree, but that seems crazy to me. Maybe it's the word "worse" that annoys you, but like I said, it's comparatively worse. IOW, teens now are doing worse, compared to the rest of society, than they were doing in 1920, even though the actual teen pregnancy rate is flat.

Yeah, maybe it is the word worse. If you're going to discuss this in terms of moral values of the family, then what do you mean by worse? Are the adults having less children of better moral quality than their counterparts back in the 1920s? That's just silly. If the adults are not of better moral quality, then how can you find the teens of worse moral quality?
I don't mean morally worse, I guess. I just mean higher. I guess that implies the assumption that higher pregnancy rates are not as good as lower ones, but for teens at least, I suppose that's my underlying assumption: that it's bad for them and their kids for teens to get pregnant, at least in general. Whether that makes teens "immoral" or just misinformed, unsupported, thrown into a bad sex education system, whatever, I don't know, although my guess is that it's more a problem of inadequate support (e.g., unbiased sex ed, birth control available, etc.) than anything.

[Bull]

I don't mean morally worse, I guess. I just mean higher. I guess that implies the assumption that higher pregnancy rates are not as good as lower ones, but for teens at least, I suppose that's my underlying assumption: that it's bad for them and their kids for teens to get pregnant, at least in general. Whether that makes teens "immoral" or just misinformed, unsupported, thrown into a bad sex education system, whatever, I don't know, although my guess is that it's more a problem of inadequate support (e.g., unbiased sex ed, birth control available, etc.) than anything.

ok, so now it sounds like you're saying the conservative position is flawed? the conservative position sort of relies on the statistics showing that family values are declining.

I don't think anyone is saying that teen pregnancy is a good thing in and of itself. It's just that comparing it to the non-teen pregnancy rate doesn't give you a defacto moral litmus test.

[Rywill]

I don't know that I have any stand on the conservative position, whatever it is. My only point is that A) teen pregnancy rate is getting disproportionately higher to the overall rate as time goes on; and B) that's not a good thing. I know that some (many?) conservatives claim teen pregnancy is on the rise (or not on the decline, whatever) because too many families are now single-parent rather than not (that's what I understood the decline in "family values" to mean--that people no longer stay in a nuclear family; although I know it's become sort of a catchall term for anything you like or don't like). I assume there's a correlation between being a single parent, and having a pregnant teen (i.e., that pregnant teens are disproportionately in single-parent households). So it's at least possible that the conservatives are right--that single parenting contributes to teen pregnancy. As I said, it's also certainly possible that they're wrong--that there is some other thing (like poverty) that contributes to both single parenting and pregnancy, for example.

[Mark Asher]

My only point is that A) teen pregnancy rate is getting disproportionately higher to the overall rate as time goes on; and B) that's not a good thing.

I think it's apples and oranges. You're comparing unwanted pregnancy rates (teens) with controlled pregnancy rates (adults choosing to have children).

In other words you have a group that's not choosing to have babies but is having them anyway because that group is dumb about sex and birth control because that group is comprised of impetuous teens. Their behavior doesn't seem to have changed over the years dating back to the 1920's. So how is this becoming a greater problem? It's the same problem it's always been.

The other group is able to exercise much better control over their reproductive choices and they are having fewer babies, probably because of education, choosing career over children, a desire to spend less on child-rearing, delaying having children (and then having fertility problems), and so on. None of the likely reasons for older people to choose to have fewer children probably apply to teens. There's no reason to expect that the trend of fewer babies would therefore fit for teen pregnancies.

Just a guess on my part.

[Jason McCullough]

I assume there's a correlation between being a single parent, and having a pregnant teen (i.e., that pregnant teens are disproportionately in single-parent households). So it's at least possible that the conservatives are right--that single parenting contributes to teen pregnancy.

Yeah, but again, it's only because single parents have lower income; take that away and the effect disappears. Somehow I don't think this is what conservatives mean.

[Bull]

I assume there's a correlation between being a single parent, and having a pregnant teen (i.e., that pregnant teens are disproportionately in single-parent households). So it's at least possible that the conservatives are right--that single parenting contributes to teen pregnancy.

Yeah, but again, it's only because single parents have lower income; take that away and the effect disappears. Somehow I don't think this is what conservatives mean.

I agree with Jason.

However, I would also point out that even if you're right and this really is what the conservatives mean when they say that teen pregnancy has doubled, then they sure have a lousy way of articulating their argument.

[Squirrel Killer]

I'd argue that societal mores go further in explaining the differences in teen pregnancy rates than the vast right wing conspiracy.

You mean if there were a difference in teen pregnancy rates. Or did you want to discuss the socital issues for why adults are having less children?

Jason asserted that teenage pregnancy rates in Europe are lower than they are in the US. I haven't researched European teen pregnancy rates, so I'm taking Jason's word for it that they are, in fact, lower than the US rates. So yes, I mean what I said if there is an actual difference in teen pregnancy rates. In my hopelessly Amero-centric view, Europe is much more progressive than the US regarding sexuality. I applaud them for it, athough I'm sure the average European couldn't care less what I think about them.

But sexual topics aren't taboo because of politics, they're taboo due to social mores. There are plenty of liberals who get very moralist aroud sex, and there are plenty of conservative hedonists. (Contrary to popular opinion, conservatives throw a mean party, you just have to watch the guest list a little closer than normal.) There are significant populations that are union, Democrat-loyal, Catholics that will support anything a Democrat pushes, but will walk away at the first sign of a pro-choice position.

So who do you blame for the increased percentage of babies born to teen mothers? Does it really make sense to pin it on the largely unsuccessful efforts of conservatives to limit sex ed, when you've got peers calling each others sluts, whores, easy lays, or studs just because one of them has a condom? Sure, go ahead and blame conservatives, or any other political group really, but you won't make much progress until you change the underlying social expectations. Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

[Brad Grenz]

Am I the only one who sees the horrible flaw of using birthrates to quantify pregnancy rates when abortion is legal and fairly common? Like Mark says, I'd say it's very possible more teenagers are having sex, using birth control, and of those who do become pregnant, not all are brought to term. I also have trouble with the generic term of "teenagers" which presumably includes 18 and 19 year olds, more likely, I'd assume, to have wanted pregnancies in 1920. What are the numbers for 13 and 14 year old back then, comparable to today?

[Mark Asher]

Good point. You really need to look at unwed teen mothers + unwed teen females who have aborted babies to get a more realistic number of teen pregnancies.

Of course, you have to wonder what the impact of the conservative agenda would be on the teen birth rates if birth control was made harder for teens to obtain, if education on birth control was removed from the schools, and if abortion was restricted? I'd guess that would result in a rise of teen pregnancies.

[Squirrel Killer]

Why the double standard? Why is it if a minor needs braces, there needs to be all sorts of parental consent, but if the same minor wants a drug that increases their risk of heart attacks and strokes, no parental consent is needed?

Ok. So if a parent wants their daughter to get an abortion over her objections, do you think they should be legally able to force her to do so? If you want to be all consistent and everything.

I kinda expected this to be brought up, in fact, I thought about raising it myself, but decided it would derail the discussion about teen pregnancy. But since you laid the coin on the track, I'll go ahead and push the train ahead...

Parental authority only goes so far. This principle has been upheld many times. A parent can't abuse the child. A parent can't rape the child. A parent can't cut off a hand of the child. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the courts have ruled that a Christian Science parent can't deny a child medical care. So obviously, the idea that a parent could force a child to undergo a medical proceedure against the child wishes is abhorent.

It is not in the least inconsistent to require parental consent for a child's medical treatment but not allow a parent to force treatment on a child. But thanks for trying to make me look like an ogre.

[Dunc]

...It's not like anybody thinks teen pregancy is high because teens are more fertile or get magically pregnant or something.
Sorry to throw this in so late; but when Rywill mentioned fertility the other day it reminded me that Barry Glassner has a section on the Myth of Teen Moms in his book Fear.

...until relatively recently, most thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds were unable to bear children...As recently as a century ago the average age for manarche was sixteen or older, whereas today girls typically have their first menstural period by age thirteen, and some as early as age nine. Some scientists blame high-calorie diets and sedentary lifestyles for the early biological maturity of contemporary girls, but whatever the reason, the implications of early menarche are plain. Only lately have girls been called upon by society to wait so long from the onset of sexual maturity before having children.
He sites Diane Scott-Jones, "Adolescent Childbearing," Phi Beta Kappan, which I've never heard of. I found similar information at the Museum of Menstruation (http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm.) Which is going right to the top of my bookmarks.

[Jason McCullough]

Sorry, I used birth rates in a couple places where I meant pregnancy rates. 15-19 year olds actually get abortions less than other age groups, though, which just further exaggerates that "percentage of all births" number.

http://agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html

They don't adjust for level of sexual activity, if you're wondering why the unintended pregnancy rate is so high for the 20-24 age bracket. No idea how 18% of 15-and-under pregnancies are intended.

It is not in the least inconsistent to require parental consent for a child's medical treatment but not allow a parent to force treatment on a child. But thanks for trying to make me look like an ogre.

Oh please, but it's fine to force her to *not* get a treatment? I'm sorry, you're so picking and choosing.

[Rywill]

Oh please, but it's fine to force her to *not* get a treatment? I'm sorry, you're so picking and choosing.
It's the law that picks and chooses, not him. Whether you like it or not, the fact is that minors almost always need permission from a parent or guardian to have an invasive procedure done or to be prescribed medication.

I actually don't know what the deal is with forcing a minor to have a medical procedure, though. My understanding was that an adult could do that, too--it doesn't matter that your kid doesn't want a tonsilectomy if you say he's getting one. Maybe it's different with abortion, I don't know. It might be one of those cases where the law tries to look out for the child's best interest (whatever the law determines that to be). For example, I vaguely remember reading a case that went back-and-forth about a parent getting their kid (who was mildly retarded, IIRC) sterilized.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, I know that's how it is in the legal system, but I don't know how you have a coherent worldview that results in that outcome, unless you think abortion should be completely banned.

[Squirrel Killer]

Oh, I know that's how it is in the legal system, but I don't know how you have a coherent worldview that results in that outcome, unless you think abortion should be completely banned.

You're making some huge logical leaps.

First of all, I never said that the current system of parental consent was what I would advocate. All I said was that if the system requires parental consent for some low risk procedures/drugs, then it should require consent for other low risk procedures/drugs. Why does the sexual health of a minor require less parental supervision than other health issues?

Second you twist my words grotesquely. How does "consistency" mean that "support for parental consent for treatments/drugs" requires "support for forced treatments/drugs". I'm honestly asking, because I'm missing the logical flow of that argument. Where does the ability to provide consent become to ability to force? (Note that I'm not talking about 7yo Timmy being scared about his tonsilectomy. Although that could be portrayed as a "forced" procedure, I'm talking about a situation where the true best interests are being ignored.)

Finally, while I think abortion is wrong, I believe that banning abortion would lead to much worse outcomes. But again, where do you get your jumping skills? If I believe that parental consent should be consistently required for medical procedures and drugs means that I need to believe abortion should be banned in order to have a consistent worldview? WTF?

Jason, your arguments are non sequitors.

[Jason McCullough]

I do have trouble with getting rid of the barrier of parental consent for birth control pills. There are a wide variet of other methods, and it seems hypocritical to me to require parental consent for elective medical treatments, but then let the minor decide, without parental input, that she wants to go on the pill. Minors can't vote, they can't enter into contracts, can't get a tattoo, can't drive (for the most part), and can't elect to undergo medical proceedures not because we adults hate them, but because they don't have the critical thinking skills and life experiences that will guide them to make good choices for themselves. But to throw all of that reasoning away just because they want a little nookie ignores the valid reasons those measures are in place to begin with.

Can't imagine where I got that impression.

[Squirrel Killer]

Can't imagine where I got that impression.

Again with the non sequitor. What's your point? It's a double standard to limit minor's abilities to do all sorts of things, but as soon as you get to birth control, let the kiddies play.

In the meantime, are you going to bother to explain how you made the logical leap that if you support consent for procedures it means you must support forced procedures/drugs to be "consistant"?

[Jason McCullough]

"The parent preventing the child from getting an abortion is ok."
"The parent preventing the child from getting their tonsils out is ok."

"The parent forcing the child to get an abortion is not ok."
"The parent forcing the child to get their tonsils out is ok."

I totally don't understand how these set of statements can have a single principle behind them. This is more or less our current legal system, but I don't get it.

The principle people normally say is behind adult control of minor medical decisions is that they're not mature enough to make the decision, etc., etc., right? But then how come you can force your kid to get their tonsils out, but can't force them to get an abortion? They're too young to make the decision, right?

This also applies to birth control. I'm of the opinion that if you're old enough to get pregnant, you're old enough to make your own damn decisions in that area, and people use the delegated power of parents in medical matters inconsistently when this comes up to get the outcomes they prefer. There's no consistent overriding principle.

[Squirrel Killer]

"The parent preventing the child from getting an abortion is ok."
"The parent preventing the child from getting their tonsils out is ok."
"The parent forcing the child to get an abortion is not ok."
"The parent forcing the child to get their tonsils out is ok."

I totally don't understand how these set of statements can have a single principle behind them. This is more or less our current legal system, but I don't get it.

Ok, that's better, I can see where your fallacy is now. :wink:

You're not wrong to think that there's not a consistent principle behind them. There isn't. But you've got the situation wrong. Perhaps there's some bizzare exception that'll prove the rule, but a parent can't force a child to get their tonsils out. It's an issue of informed refusal. Parents are not all powerful. Prince v. Massachusetts, although originally about child labor laws, has later been construed to hold parental control over a minor is not absolute. (Essentially a mom was prosecuted under child labor laws for forcing her own children to work.) Now my 2-month old daughter really can't give informed refusal, so you could say that I "forced" her to get immunized, but that not really the issue we're discussing.

This also applies to birth control. I'm of the opinion that if you're old enough to get pregnant, you're old enough to make your own damn decisions in that area, and people use the delegated power of parents in medical matters inconsistently when this comes up to get the outcomes they prefer. There's no consistent overriding principle.

But if they're old enough to get birth control on their own, why do they need parental consent to get Advil from a doctor?

[Jason McCullough]

I kind of think informed medical rights should fully transfer to kids around 13 or so, but if you don't want them donating their kidneys or whatnot, I see nothing wrong with declaring reproduction "different"; there's probably a good legal argument out there related to it being an issue between the child and *their* potential child, not something for the potential grandparents to decide, or something. Beats me, but I know if I was pregnant at 16 and my parents vetoed an abortion - the most common case where this comes up - I'd still be pissed about it. Something about the rights relationship there strikes me as intrinsicly wrong.

As Rywill mentioned, I'm pretty sure you can force your child to get any non-crazy (short of sawing their legs off, that is) medical procedure you want. I actually can't find anything about parents trying to force kids to get abortions against their will, so it is a hypothetical, but I'm quite sure what everyone would say if it did happen.

Oh wait, I found some sites saying that "no one can force you to have an abortion." Not a perfect source, but still.

[Jason McCullough]

Here we go:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_minors_00.html

I'd put pregnancy in there as a case of "emancipation" from parental medical decisionmaking along with marriage.

[Brian Koontz]

I've read maybe 85% of the posts in this thread, and I'm surprised noone mentioned the obvious...

In 1920 nearly all women didn't participate in the public workforce. The economy was in transition from primarily agricultural to primarily industrial.

So... why not have a kid at 19? The sooner you have kids the sooner the kids will be old enough to help on the farm, or help in the factory (I don't recall exactly when many child labor laws were passed, but it was around 1920 I believe).

The biggest problem with teen pregnancy nowadays is not that teens are relatively immature compared to teens in 1920, but that education is MUCH more important in the lives of women today than in 1920, and a standard level of education (bachelor's degree) is not obtained normally until the age of 22. If a woman has to deal with the gestation and raising of a child during this educational process, it raises considerable difficulty. Also notice that the biggest problems lie in *single* teen pregnancy... where the mother does not have support from parents and/or a husband in raising the child. Thus the child is a real time-killer and education is delayed, which is never a positive thing economically.

You can certainly argue about the degree to which teen pregnancy is a problem, and even make a case for supporting it. But you can't say that there is no difference between 1920 and today with respect to it. The economic world is much, much different, especially for women.

[Rywill]

Perhaps there's some bizzare exception that'll prove the rule, but a parent can't force a child to get their tonsils out. It's an issue of informed refusal. Parents are not all powerful.
Although I don't practice in this area and have done no research on it, I find that impossible to believe. If a parent takes an 11-year-old to the doctor because he needs an appendectomy, there is no way, no way, the 11-year-old has the power to halt the operation if he doesn't want it. That's insane.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, and furthermore, good luck finding someone who thinks the parent shouldn't be able to force the kid to do it.

[Squirrel Killer]

Although I don't practice in this area and have done no research on it, I find that impossible to believe. If a parent takes an 11-year-old to the doctor because he needs an appendectomy, there is no way, no way, the 11-year-old has the power to halt the operation if he doesn't want it. That's insane.

If the the alternative to the appendectomy is death/permanent disability, but the 11yo doesn't want it because he's scared, that's not an "informed refusal", it's irrational refusal. I myself refused treatment despite my parents' and my doctor's suggestions.

...(A)dolescents, especially those age 14 and older, may have as well developed decisional skills as adults for making informed health care decisions...An adolescent's refusal of consent in cases such as these may well be legally (and ethically) binding. If "conflict resolution" fails, formal, legal adjudication may be needed.

[Supertanker]

There's an article on CNN (www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/parenting/12/17/american.births.ap/index.html) today about the average birth age hitting an all-time high for women in the US. It also notes, "The teen birth rate has dropped 30 percent in the past decade to a historic low of 43 births per 1,000 women in 2002. The CDC also said births among women ages 20 to 24 had dropped to 104 per 1,000 women, from a high of 109.7 in 2000."

[Bull]

There's an article on CNN (www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/parenting/12/17/american.births.ap/index.html) today about the average birth age hitting an all-time high for women in the US. It also notes, "The teen birth rate has dropped 30 percent in the past decade to a historic low of 43 births per 1,000 women in 2002. The CDC also said births among women ages 20 to 24 had dropped to 104 per 1,000 women, from a high of 109.7 in 2000."

I place the blame squarely on conservative family values.

[Squirrel Killer]

If a bad outcome rate is going down, that's great. But isn't it reasonable to seek to continue the reduction?

[Rywill]

There's an article on CNN (www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/parenting/12/17/american.births.ap/index.html) today about the average birth age hitting an all-time high for women in the US. It also notes, "The teen birth rate has dropped 30 percent in the past decade to a historic low of 43 births per 1,000 women in 2002. The CDC also said births among women ages 20 to 24 had dropped to 104 per 1,000 women, from a high of 109.7 in 2000."
Well, that totally derails this thread. :lol: Everyone's been arguing under the assumption that Jason's assertions in the first post--that teen birthrates are flat and non-teen birthrates are going down--were correct. According to the CNN article, I guess both assertions were false--in fact, teen rates are going precipitously down and the article at least implies that the birthrate of mothers over 24 is going up. I assume Jason is going to claim moral victory because in fact there's no teen pregnancy epidemic, even if it's for reasons completely the opposite of what he thought, so congrats on that. I'm glad there's no problem with teen pregnancies, in any case.

[Jason McCullough]

The book was written in 1995, before it started falling. Don't see how it changing after that changes any of my points.

[Rywill]

Don't see how it changing after that changes any of my points.
Yeah, me either. Actually, I have a book written in 937 that says the sun moves around the earth. Maybe evidence has changed since then, but it still seems like it's worth discussing. What do you think?

[milo]

Didn't we go over all of this in the last teen pregnancy thread (The Culture of Fear)?

The teen pregnancy rate fluctuates all the time. It peaked in 1957 (or thereabouts), dropped through the sixties and seventies, and then went back up again in the eighties. In the past decade or so it has been declining again. These aren't huge variations though. I think it was something like plus or minus twenty percent.

I didn't save the CDC studies links I used to look this up last month. But a web search on teen pregnancy rate and 1957 will lead you to all kinds of useless statistics.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[Jason McCullough]

Don't see how it changing after that changes any of my points.
Yeah, me either. Actually, I have a book written in 937 that says the sun moves around the earth. Maybe evidence has changed since then, but it still seems like it's worth discussing. What do you think?

Erm, so it dropping after 1995 means that conservatives were right? I'm not following.[/list]

[Munky]

There's an article on CNN (www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/parenting/12/17/american.births.ap/index.html) today about the average birth age hitting an all-time high for women in the US. It also notes, "The teen birth rate has dropped 30 percent in the past decade to a historic low of 43 births per 1,000 women in 2002. The CDC also said births among women ages 20 to 24 had dropped to 104 per 1,000 women, from a high of 109.7 in 2000."

Could this just be an artifact of the aging of the population being measured? ie, fewer people at the lower end of the spectrum, and more at the higher end as time passes?

Oh yeah. Besides which, birth rate != pregnancy rate. And it was pregnancy rate that started the thread.

[Rywill]

Erm, so it dropping after 1995 means that conservatives were right? I'm not following.[/list]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, or you're deliberately misunderstanding me, but I thought this thread was about how there's no teen pregnancy crisis because politicians made it all up through statistical manipulation. Now it turns out that the underlying factors you accuse them of manipulating are no longer true. At best, I guess your point is that someone lied in the past about a problem that no longer exists. Yay. Once this no longer becomes a debate about "Is this a problem and why?" it's kind of pointless.

In other words, if the thrust of your argument here is not about the teen pregnancy rate, but about your problems with a conservative argument that was advanced ten years ago, big f'ing deal. If your argument is instead what it appeared to be throughout this thread--that teen pregnancy rates are okay because they're flat, compared to dropping rates of older mothers--it turns out you're mistaken on both points.

[Jason McCullough]

My argument was that there isn't an epidemic of teen pregnancies like everyone thinks, and a corrolary is that conservatives were especially dishonest about the whole thing, manipulating it for political benefit. And my apologies for overselling the flatnes - it has varied a bit, but social policy purposes it's practically unchanged.

I don't what the teen pregnancy rate dropping in the last 8 years has to do with this. After all, people *still* insist the teen pregnancy rate is higher than some mythical point in the 1950s - try polling your office and see what answers you get.

[Ben Sones]

I assume Jason is going to claim moral victory because in fact there's no teen pregnancy epidemic, even if it's for reasons completely the opposite of what he thought, so congrats on that.

It's like you can see the future. Want to give me some stock tips?

[Anaxagoras]

I thought this thread was about how there's no teen pregnancy crisis because politicians made it all up through statistical manipulation. Now it turns out that the underlying factors you accuse them of manipulating are no longer true. At best, I guess your point is that someone lied in the past about a problem that no longer exists. Yay. Once this no longer becomes a debate about "Is this a problem and why?" it's kind of pointless.

His point wasn't that "someone lied in the past about a problem that no longer exists"... it's that someone is *still* lying about a problem that never existed in the first place. In fact, the most recent data further emphasizes that there's no problem... and yet that won't stop the Conservatives from trying to pretend that there is one.