# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/121 "2009-11-02T20:47:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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. You would blame Reagan and no-fault divorce for the reason that marriage is largely viewed as unnecessary? I’d say it had more to do with the notion that took hold during and after the counter-culture revolution that marriage itself was unnecessary; that people didn’t need “a piece of paper” to legitimize their love; that it was better to live together first anyway to find out if the couple were compatible; and that living together made it easier and less messy to leave (negative effects on children produced in the meantime notwithstanding). ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/122 "2009-11-02T20:51:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, there’s a strong school of thought that it does erase the stain. “Doing the honorable thing.” “Making an honest woman of her.”… Not necessarily— rather, it glosses over and hides the stain. This obfuscation being aided and abetted by much of society, perhaps on the “there but for the grace of…” principle. It seems reasonable to interpret \*\*SA’s \*\*various pronouncements on this subject to refer to moral degeneration. As mentioned upthread, this should shift the discussion to the morally weighted issue of premarital sex as the obvious and necessary precursor to premarital pregnancy. I have seen zero evidence that the rate of sexual activity has actually increased. The only changes are in the after-the-fact realms of how many get caught at it, and what options are available to those who are. Call me biased since I’ve been here to witness it, but nothing stated by \*\*SA \*\*or others demonstrates to me any general moral decline since the 50’s. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/123 "2009-11-02T20:51:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Just to weigh in, one thing to consider is that the high rate of teen pregnancies in America today is a result of a \*conservative \*policy. Conservative inertia to sex education is what causes our teen pregnancy rates to be as high as they are. Really? Conservative mores were much more in evidence in the fifties, in fact predominating, and yet there was a lower teen pregnancy rate then, even by your own admission. ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/124 "2009-11-02T20:52:47Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Really? Conservative mores were much more in evidence in the fifties, in fact predominating, and yet there was a lower teen pregnancy rate then even by your own admission. There **wasn’t**. There was a lower **unwed teen pregnancy rate**. The **total teen pregnancy rate is currently almost 50% lower**. ETA: I would really appreciate it if you would like to comment on the fact that the US currently has almost 8 times as many teen pregnancies as the Netherlands. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/125 "2009-11-02T20:53:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, there’s a strong school of thought that it does erase the stain. “Doing the honorable thing.” “Making an honest woman of her.” And anecdotally, although there were always people that counted on their fingers the time between the wedding and the arrival of Junior, there was a wide-spread willingness to condone such “premature babies” while they would not have condoned an actual illegitimate child. Again, poor choice of words. Whether or not old ladies are _tssking_ behind their hands at the child is, for all intents and purposes, immaterial - being “a bastard” does not present any innate problems, aside from societal disdain, which can hardly be blamed on liberalism. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/126 "2009-11-02T20:55:02Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And secondarily to that, even though I haven’t brought it up as often, is my belief that sexual acitivity by youngish teens (13 to 17 or so) is a bad thing even when it doesn’t result in pregnancy or STDs. My belief is that people that age are not mature enough to deal emotionally with the complex emotional and libidinal soup that accompanies sexual activity. In other words, I believe that sexual activity itself is often harmful when engaged in at too young an age. In fact, this is the very reason why we have statutory rape laws: minor teens are not sufficiently mature to make those decisions and give informed consent. So in that sense, my assertion is that sexual activity by teens in that group is wrong, whether it results in pregnancy or STDs or not, and that liberal permissiveness has created an environment where teen sexual acitivity is rampant. Then why aren’t you railing against sex and pregnancy within the confines of teenage marriages? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/127 "2009-11-02T20:57:26Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > For the love of God, why? That question does deserve an answer. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/128 "2009-11-02T21:05:56Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Not necessarily— rather, it glosses over and hides the stain. This obfuscation being aided and abetted by much of society, perhaps on the “there but for the grace of…” principle. > > It seems reasonable to interpret \*\*SA’s \*\*various pronouncements on this subject to refer to moral degeneration. As mentioned upthread, this should shift the discussion to the morally weighted issue of premarital sex as the obvious and necessary precursor to premarital pregnancy. I have seen zero evidence that the rate of sexual activity has actually increased. The only changes are in the after-the-fact realms of how many get caught at it, and what options are available to those who are. > > Call me biased since I’ve been here to witness it, but nothing stated by \*\*SA \*\*or others demonstrates to me any general moral decline since the 50’s. I don’t know that evidence of a statistical kind even exists. I do think it’s reasonable to assume that in a society that puts far less negative social disapproval, if any, on teen sexual activity, and that surrounds them with music, movies, television and magazines that promote sexual activity, and that makes birth control easily available to them, is, ipso-facto, going to be a society in which teen sexual activity is much greater. I also think that the easy availability of birth control and the large number of girls that are on it also speaks loudly to much higher rates of teen sexual activity. One can only try to imagine what the teen pregnancy rate would be like without it. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/129 "2009-11-02T21:08:17Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Starving Artist** > > Really? Conservative mores were much more in evidence in the fifties, in fact predominating, and yet there was a lower teen pregnancy rate then even by your own admission. > > There **wasn’t**. There was a lower **unwed teen pregnancy rate**. The **total teen pregnancy rate is currently almost 50% lower**. > > ETA: I would really appreciate it if you would like to comment on the fact that the US currently has almost 8 times as many teen pregnancies as the Netherlands. I’m going to take the above exchange as strong support for the idea that **SA** ’s thesis pertains to unwed teen copulation more than to unwed teen pregnancy or unwed teen childbirth. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/130 "2009-11-02T21:16:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure would be nice to see some cites for each of these claims. > > Let me help you: > > 1. the high rate of teen pregnancies in America today is a result of a \*conservative \*policy. Conservative inertia to sex education is what causes our teen pregnancy rates to be as high as they are. > > 2. For instance, the Netherlands has a lower teen pregnancy rate than America was in the 1950s. > > Cite? I think you’re the one that needs help here. As Superfluous Parentheses explained number 2 has already been shown to be true. Can we agree on that? You will agree that the Netherlands now has a lower rate of unwed teen pregnancies than America in the 1950s, right? Okay, as for number one in your cite request, I can’t really believe that any thinking person thinks American sex education is keeping down teen pregnancy. But here you go: > **[Home - Advocates for Youth](https://www.advocatesforyouth.org/?option=com_content&task=view&id=1487&Itemid=336)** > > Advocates for Youth empowers young leaders to drive social change, promoting sexual health, rights, and justice. Join our youth advocates in creating a better future. Liberalism is helping to heal the damage caused by Social Conservative stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/131 "2009-11-02T21:18:00Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > There **wasn’t**. There was a lower **unwed teen pregnancy rate**. The **total teen pregnancy rate is currently almost 50% lower**. Good grief! Is it really necessary to parse things that finely? Do you or anyone else really not realize that unwed teen pregnancy is what I was talking about. > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > ETA: I would really appreciate it if you would like to comment on the fact that the US currently has almost 8 times as many teen pregnancies as the Netherlands. Only a guess, but I would imagine that the Netherlands has a far more mature and less politically driven attitude toward the promotion of sexual activity than we do here. But like I said, that’s only a guess. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’m going to take the above exchange as strong support for the idea that SA’s thesis pertains to unwed teen copulation more than to unwed teen pregnancy or unwed teen childbirth. I said as much and explained why around a dozen or so posts upthread. The posting window doesn’t show post number but it was in the post I wrote to **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/132 "2009-11-02T21:23:10Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Only a guess, but I would imagine that the Netherlands has a far more mature and less politically driven attitude toward the promotion of sexual activity than we do here. But like I said, that’s only a guess. Do you think teens in the US are having 8 times as much sex as teens in the Netherlands? ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/133 "2009-11-02T21:26:29Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Good grief! Is it really necessary to parse things that finely? Do you or anyone else really not realize that unwed teen pregnancy is what I was talking about. Yes it is important, because half the posters in this thread confuse the figures based on that distinction. > [@](#): > > Only a guess, but I would imagine that the Netherlands has a far more mature and less politically driven attitude toward the promotion of sexual activity than we do here. But like I said, that’s only a guess. Are you suggesting that there is a politically driven promotion of sexual activity in the US? I can’t deny it, I don’t live there, but it would surprise me. As far as maturity wrt sexual activity, we tend to give schoolchildren correct information about sex and reproduction and everybody who wants can have easy access to birth control, no parential notification required nor is anyone outside the hardcore christian parties crazy enough to suggest abstinence only as a government policy. We still get MTV here. And (for Americans probably shocking levels of) of nudity and sex on public and non-public broadcast TV. It seems to work for us. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/134 "2009-11-02T21:26:36Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I also think that the easy availability of birth control and the large number of girls that are on it also speaks loudly to much higher rates of teen sexual activity. One can only try to imagine what the teen pregnancy rate would be like without it. Birth control does not make kids have sex. Kids were having sex without it in your day, and they were having sex without it 1,000 years ago. In any case, birth control is often now prescribed to control extreme menstrual cramps, irregular periods, hormonal imbalances, and all sorts of other female issues not related to sex. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Only a guess, but I would imagine that the Netherlands has a far more mature and less politically driven attitude toward the promotion of sexual activity than we do here. But like I said, that’s only a guess. In other words, they’re more liberal about it. Bingo! ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/135 "2009-11-02T21:37:04Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Good grief! Is it really necessary to parse things that finely? Do you or anyone else really not realize that unwed teen pregnancy is what I was talking about.\*\*. Well, to paraphrase a conservative hero, _“There you go again!”_ It would be nice if you could keep your own assertions straight. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > …my belief that sexual acitivity by youngish teens (13 to 17 or so) is a bad thing even when it doesn’t result in pregnancy or STDs. My belief is that people that age are not mature enough to deal emotionally with the complex emotional and libidinal soup that accompanies sexual activity. In other words, I believe that sexual activity itself is often harmful when engaged in at too young an age… This is not to derail the thread into a discussion of teen sexual activity – which could also be a good subject for another thread – but rather to provide a greater context for my arguments with regard to teen pregnancy. Can we now return to my thesis that all this moralizing should be directed to sexual activity, not to the (greatly reduced) rate of teen pregnancy, or the rate of forced wed versus unwed teen pregnancy? ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/136 "2009-11-02T21:42:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is somewhat consistent with **jsgoddesses’** numbers for the US. It shows the United States, in 1996, with 55.6 teens giving birth and 30.2 having abortions, for a total number of pregnancies of 85.8. The numbers from the earlier cite were for 2000: 49 gave birth and 28 had abortions for a total of 77 pregnancies. Large difference for only four years, but certainly not incredible. > > And I guess here’s the cite for the Netherlands. > > This cite shows the Netherlands in 1996: 7.7 births, 3.3 abortions, for a total pregnancy rate of 11 per 1,000 teenagers, **married and unmarried**. > > It’s true that’s higher than the the US’s 1957 numbers of 96 out of every 1,000 teenagers giving birth, but again that refers to married and unmarried alike. I don’t really see an terrible indictment in a married teen giving birth, so I’m not prepared to assign this observation much weight. Even if you assume that all 11 of the Netherland’s pregnant teens were unmarried, that is still less than the 12 unmarried 1950’s pregnant teens that you derived from Jsgoddesses’ numbers. Plus the 12 ignores whatever abortions happened in the 1950’s, making Netherland’s advantage even greater. If the Netherlands have a similar 80% unmarried rate, that’s 9 to 12, a 33% increase for the 1950s ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/137 "2009-11-02T21:59:03Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Yes it is important, because half the posters in this thread confuse the figures based on that distinction. Point taken. > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Are you suggesting that there is a politically driven promotion of sexual activity in the US? I can’t deny it, I don’t live there, but it would surprise me. Yes. The thrust of liberalism in this country has been to defend and promote rampant sexuality at every turn. Women’s magazines such as Cosmopolitan promote casual and freewheeling sexual activty on the cover at every convenience store magazine rack; rap music is full of references to sucking dicks and fucking; movies and television, particularly cable television, are rife with R-rated images, and in the case of cable TV, X-rated programs are readily available. Whether people want to admit it or not, kids are exposed to all this on a regular basis. Liberalism in this country seems determined to shove sexuality at people from every angle, and to ridicule anyone who objects. Look at the scorn and laughter aimed at Tipper Gore simply because she wanted to put warning labels on music with sexually explicit lyrics. > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > As far as maturity wrt sexual activity, we tend to give schoolchildren correct information about sex and reproduction and everybody who wants can have easy access to birth control, no parential notification required nor is anyone outside the hardcore christian parties crazy enough to suggest abstinence only as a government policy. We still get MTV here. And (for Americans probably shocking levels of) of nudity and sex on public and non-public broadcast TV. It seems to work for us. It sounds to me like sexuality is open there but not rabidly promoted. There is a current of resentment and a determination to rub conservative noses in sexuality that underlies much of the promotion of sex in this country. As the result, a mature, common-sense approach, such as it sounds like exists in the Netherlands, is non-existent. To the degree that they can get away with it, it’s full-bore, anything goes sexuality coming from the left here, and it is the reason why we have so many kids getting pregnant, getting STDs, and having sex years before they’re emotionally able to deal with the consequences of it…all of which is not to mention the lives ruined when these kids try to raise children in single-parent homes, where the parent’s life is nothing but a struggle to get by and the child’s life is almost pre-determined to be one of deprivation, substandard education, and crime. Now, having said that I’m going to bow out of here for now. I had originally determined not to enter this thread and to just let it play out on its own, but as usual I find it difficult to keep quiet when I see things said about me or my positions that are incorrect. My apologies, **Bricker** , for taking the thread off topic to whatever degree I have, but hopefully things can progress now with a clearer understanding of what my position actually is. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/138 "2009-11-02T22:02:28Z")
And which of the two contradictory positions I quoted above is now your “actual” position? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/139 "2009-11-02T22:05:53Z")
I’ll answer you and then I’m out. What contradictions? Spell them out; I’m not seeing them. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996/140 "2009-11-02T22:07:42Z")
Well whatever you do, stay out of Amsterdam. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tings-were-better-in-the-fifties-vol-i-teen-pregnancy-the-sa-debate-series/515996.md?page=8)