# Tings Were Better In the Fifties, Vol. I: Teen Pregnancy (the SA debate series) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996 "2009-11-02T00:05:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/61 "2009-11-02T14:30:25Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > There were stories of back alley abortions. Dangerous, expensive operations often performed by an unqualified person, who knew just a little more than did. You had to go through with it because it was definitely a black mark if an unmarried girl got preggers. The coat hanger crude abortions often resulted in emergency room visits. The results sometimes were the girl may never be able to have children when they were done butchering her. Rumors were some died. It was a scary and ugly time to get someone pregnant. If a girls family had money, it could be performed safely in a hospital. Please provide cites from credible, unbiased sources for the percentage of unwed pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 50s who underwent illegal back-alley abortions, and went to the emergency room as a result. Also provide a cite for the percentage of unwed, pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 1950s who became infertile as a result. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/62 "2009-11-02T14:34:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > =I don’t know, and I don’t think we have enough data on the table to even begin a run at that question yet. I do think that trying to resolve all of those complex questions when we have yet to nail down definitive stats for the question i posed in the OP is folly. I posted what I think is a pretty solid answer for your original question up-thread, there hasn’t been any sizable increase in the rate of unwed pregnancies (leading to birth) amongst teens since the 50’s. A womans chance of being unmarried and prgenant in her teens is about equal today as to what it was in 1957. Technically your original question was “number” not “rate”, but I assume you meant rate, since the number of about everything has probably increased since the fifties due to increasing population. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/63 "2009-11-02T14:51:40Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > But if you’ll be satisfied with teen pregnancies that lead to a birth, then we’ve already answered the question. The rate of teen pregnancy has about halved since 1957, while the proportion of teen woman who are unmarried at the time of conception is about 90% vs 40% in 1955-1959. So assuming my algebra is correct (its late here), I think you’ll see that the two rates for total unwed teen pregnancy are within a few points of each other. A larger chunk of teens who get pregnant remain unmarried, but they become pregnant at a much lower rate. I’m not sure we can dismiss abortion so easily. I think we can agree that the number of teens who get abortions this year will be dramatically higher than the number of teens who got abortions in, say, 1957. Yes? So even if I accept your conclusion that total unwed pregnancy that leads to birth is about the same, we have all those additional pregnancies now that end in abortion, which should rachet up today’s numbers. Or am i missing something? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/64 "2009-11-02T15:22:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure we can dismiss abortion so easily. I think we can agree that the number of teens who get abortions this year will be dramatically higher than the number of teens who got abortions in, say, 1957. Yes? > > So even if I accept your conclusion that total unwed pregnancy that leads to birth is about the same, we have all those additional pregnancies now that end in abortion, which should rachet up today’s numbers. > > Or am i missing something? You’re missing that for the totality of teenagers, married or not, the rate of births has halved. There is no reliable data available on the rate of abortions in the 50s, but “only” about 25-30% of pregnant teenagers have abortions today. Which means abortions cannot explain the decrease in births even if there were none in the 50s - there logically must be a decrease in the rate of teen pregnancies. Also take the fact that the average age of marriage for girls in the US is about 25 today while it was 20 in the 50s. In other words, we would expect the % of married girls age 15 - 18 (pregnant or not) to be lower now than it was in the 50s. And we have seen no data yet on how many of those unwed girls today are actually in a stable relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/65 "2009-11-02T15:28:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not sure we can dismiss abortion so easily. I think we can agree that the number of teens who get abortions this year will be dramatically higher than the number of teens who got abortions in, say, 1957. Yes? I guess I don’t really understand the point of convolving the two, even if we accept that both teenage unwed mothers and abortions are bad things (and I doubt everyone agrees that the latter is bad), they seem pretty different types of socital evil. Plus, as I said before, I think we can answer the first question, but I doubt you’ll ever find clear statistics on the number of teen abortions in the 50’s. And, FWIW, I think the result is interesting. I was suprised, and I think a lot of others would be, by the fact that the rate of unwed pregnancies coming to term is more or less the same now as it was in '57. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/66 "2009-11-02T15:35:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Please provide cites from credible, unbiased sources for the percentage of unwed pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 50s who underwent illegal back-alley abortions, and went to the emergency room as a result. Also provide a cite for the percentage of unwed, pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 1950s who became infertile as a result. > > Regards, > Shodan [http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html](http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html) OK ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/67 "2009-11-02T15:43:10Z")
I said “credible” and “unbiased”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/68 "2009-11-02T15:51:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Please provide cites from credible, unbiased sources for the percentage of unwed pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 50s who underwent illegal back-alley abortions, and went to the emergency room as a result. Also provide a cite for the percentage of unwed, pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 1950s who became infertile as a result. > > Regards, > Shodan > [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html](http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html) OK > [@Shodan](#): > > I said “credible” and “unbiased”. More to the point: you also said “percentages” which do not appear to be present in the cite **gonzomax** offered. Even if we assume the author is credible and unbiased, it merely repeats the generalized claim. Undoubtedly there were more amateur, back-alley abortions when the procedure was not legal… the question is (I assume) how MANY more? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/69 "2009-11-02T15:55:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I said “credible” and “unbiased”. > > Regards, > Shodan Well, can we at least assume that since there is legalized access to relatively safe abortions now, the percentage was higher in the 50s? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/70 "2009-11-02T16:08:50Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > You’re missing that for the totality of teenagers, married or not, the rate of births has halved. There is no reliable data available on the rate of abortions in the 50s, but “only” about 25-30% of pregnant teenagers have abortions today. Which means abortions cannot explain the decrease in births even if there were none in the 50s - there logically must be a decrease in the rate of teen pregnancies. > > Also take the fact that the average age of marriage for girls in the US is about 25 today while it was 20 in the 50s. In other words, we would expect the % of married girls age 15 - 18 (pregnant or not) to be lower now than it was in the 50s. And we have seen no data yet on how many of those unwed girls today are actually in a stable relationship. > [@jsgoddess' cite](#): > > Childbearing. The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000 (see chart below). > . > . > . > Unmarried childbearing. Even though teen childbearing overall has declined steeply over the last half-century, the proportion of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased equally dramatically, from 13% in 1950 to 79% in 2000 (see chart). > Abortion. Birthrates rise and fall as a result of changes in the rate at which women become pregnant or resolve their pregnancies in abortion, or a combination of both. Among teens in the United States, at least in recent years, declining birthrates are not the result of more pregnant teens opting to have an abortion. The U.S. teen abortion rate, after rising through the 1970s and holding fairly constant during the 1980s, then began a steady decline. By 1997, the rate was 28 abortions per 1,000 women 15-19—33% lower than the rate a decade earlier. So in 1957, 96 out of every 1,000 teenagers (married and unmarried alike) gave birth. We will assume that abortions were vanishingly small and are not a factor, so that 96 out of ever 1,000 teenagers became pregnant that year. Only 13% of those were non-marital. So in 1957, 12 teenagers out of 1,000 gave birth out of wedlock. Now we look at 2000. In 2000, 49 teenagers out of 1000 gave birth, married and unmarried alike. We’ll apply 1997’s number to this figure, assuming it’s not too different from 2000’s. 28 abortions were obtained per 1,000 teenagers, meaning that 77 out of 1,000 teenagers became pregnant that year – 49 gave birth and 28 had abortions. It’s not central to the meat of the matter, anyway. 79% of those 49 who gave birth were not married. That means that 39 teens who gave birth in 2000 were not married. \*\* In 1957, 12 teenagers out of 1,000 gave birth out of wedlock. In 2000, 39 teenagers out of 1,000 gave birth out of wedlock. \*\* I’m not a statistician, so I’d be interested to hear of any boneheaded mistakes I may have made in the preceding analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/71 "2009-11-02T16:09:43Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Well, can we at least assume that since there is legalized access to relatively safe abortions now, the percentage was higher in the 50s? No. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/72 "2009-11-02T16:15:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No. > > Regards, > Shodan Why not? [Legality of abortion is a very bad indicator of the actual rate](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html#fn3a). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/73 "2009-11-02T16:19:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Please provide cites from credible, unbiased sources for the percentage of unwed pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 50s who underwent illegal back-alley abortions, and went to the emergency room as a result. Also provide a cite for the percentage of unwed, pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 1950s who became infertile as a result. > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Well, can we at least assume that since there is legalized access to relatively safe abortions now, the percentage was higher in the 50s? > [@Shodan](#): > > No. **Shodan** : why not? It seems pretty clear to me that the percentage of emergency room visits from illegal back-alley abortions was higher then than it is now, simply by force of reasoning. Ditto for sterility as a result of same. I suspect your “no” has to do more with a sense of, “They want to play the ‘cite’ game? Fine. I’ll make them dig up a cite for everything.” If that’s indeed the motive, I’d suggest it’s not a good way to proceed. Obviously, you may have a principled objection that I’m missing. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/74 "2009-11-02T16:23:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The citation was the stories that **mhendo** posted: Well, sort of. This is, once again, excellent evidence of **Starving Artist** ’s selective use of evidence. It’s true that more than one of the articles made the claim that _some_ teenage girls got pregnant to avoid school. They never said how many; they never even asserted that such girls constituted anything like a majority. In fact, the piece you quoted said specifically, “In a number of instances…” The other quotes say that “some” and “a few” girls got pregnant for this reason. I don’t know how many that is. Do you? Do you think **Starving Artist** knows? Surely if it were a high proportion of the total, the stories would have mentioned it. And yet, on the basis of such evidence, **Starving Artist** gives us: > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > …in **many** cases pregnancy was used as a tool to escape school rather than as the result of peer pressure or a cultural environment that encourages the sexual activity that results in it. Many? Not one of those quotes says many, or even implies that such girls constituted anything like a majority. Furthermore, a few of the quotes i gave specifically provide reason to think that “peer pressure or a cultural environment that encourages the sexual activity” that leads to pregnancy might have been a factor. More than one of the articles note the rise of “going steady,” and i quoted the last one as noting that “going steady” was considered by some girls a marker of their good looks and popularity. If you open and read the full articles i linked, you’ll see there are more references to such things. Surely it’s reasonable to attribute a desire for popularity, at least in part, to “peer pressure.” There are also explicit assertions by sociologists and by the journalists who wrote the articles that the “cultural environment” related to sexual activity had been changing. Here’s one bit, taken directly from one of the quotes in my earlier post: > [@](#): > > Her answer capsules what sociologists mean when they say: “Former patterns of sex behavior seem to be changing. The double standard is dissolving. Women are playing a more aggressive sex role and emerging as a new concept of womanhood in American culture.” And yet, from all this, **Starving Artist** focuses on the girls (we don’t know how many) who were getting pregnant to get out of school, and completely ignores the evidence that cultural changes and peer pressure were, in fact, a factor in teen pregnancy, according to the doctors and sociologists who were actually studying the issue in the 1950s. The sheer hubris of the guy, when his cherry-picking is right there for everyone to see, is beyond belief. The fact that you’re willing to take lots of time and dozens of posts debating with his detractors, and yet you don’t seem interested in responding directly to any of his own obfuscation, is somewhat puzzling to me. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/75 "2009-11-02T16:28:52Z")
Oh wait, I found something. [from what seems to be a respectable\* site](http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp) > [@AbortionFacts.com](#): > > U.S. BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL > > Reported Maternal Deaths from YEAR Illegal Abortion in U.S. > 1940 1,679 > 1950 316 > 1960 289 > 1966 120 First State Legalized in 1967 > 1970 128 > 1972 39 Supreme Court Decision in 1973 > 1977 21 > 1981 8 - Rather anti-abortion biased, when I read a little further. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/76 "2009-11-02T16:29:37Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Your position seems to be that abortion isn’t a problem so teen pregnancy isn’t a problem. > > But abortion is not a good thing. It’s costly for the kids and their families who have to come up with the money to pay for it; it creates stress, tension and unhappiness between pregnant teens and their parents and sometimes even between the parents themselves. It’s traumatizing for many if not most young girls to have to go through. And many girls who get abortions suffer doubt, regret and guilt, often lasting to one degree or another for many years afterward, if not for the rest of their lives. If we’re to assume the worst case for abortion, why not the worst case for unwanted children? Lost educational and employment opportunities, leading to frustration and child abuse and such, turning the child into someone more likely to eventually abuse _teir_ own children. As for shrinking marriage rates, may as well blame Ronald Reagan for “normalizing” divorce (i.e. while governor of California, signed the first no-fault divorce law in the U.S.) so if marriage is largely seen today as someting unecessary, it was because a conservative conceded the point. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/77 "2009-11-02T16:31:19Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Oh wait, I found something. And it’s interesting how these numbers are often misused to suggest an abortion ban would be no big deal. I just figure if it’s not meant to be a big deal, why have it at all? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/78 "2009-11-02T16:42:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It seems to me that if you accept the premise that single motherhood is a negative then it follows that Roe v Wade was a clear improvement of American culture - it obviously prevented a large number of single women from giving birth. Only if you consider abortion itself to be either morally positive or morally neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/79 "2009-11-02T16:52:08Z")
I’m not sure how morality enters into it - reproduction is a fairly mundane (and by no means universal) biological imperative. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/80 "2009-11-02T17:16:08Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, sort of. This is, once again, excellent evidence of **Starving Artist** ’s selective use of evidence. > > It’s true that more than one of the articles made the claim that _some_ teenage girls got pregnant to avoid school. They never said how many; they never even asserted that such girls constituted anything like a majority. In fact, the piece you quoted said specifically, “In a number of instances…” The other quotes say that “some” and “a few” girls got pregnant for this reason. I don’t know how many that is. Do you? Do you think **Starving Artist** knows? Surely if it were a high proportion of the total, the stories would have mentioned it. > > And yet, on the basis of such evidence, **Starving Artist** gives us:Many? Not one of those quotes says many, or even implies that such girls constituted anything like a majority. I don’t agree that “many” means or implies a majority. But I do agree with you: there’s no support in any linked article for just how widespread that particular phenomenon was. On the other hand, I don’t agree with your view that “surely” it would have been mentioned if it were a high proportion of the total – apart from self-reporting, how would it be known? In short, in my view, the case simply isn’t proven one way or the other. It happened, and we don’t have any evidence at all of how frequently it happened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996.md?page=5)