Actually, it doesn’t say that. It says the % of births has almost halved. There are no historical numbers on abortions by teens in that link. It only says
Given that my complaints were the catalyst for this thread, I think the context in which I have been using the term is the one that should be definitive. I’ve been using it in regard to single, young girls (usually still living with their parents though they don’t have to be) in the 13 to 18 year age range, with pregnancies that result either in abortion or births outside of a stable, loving, live-in arrangement.
Given that the context of the complaint is with regard to the negative effects that these types of pregnancies have upon society and the people involved, I think they are the ones that should be the subject of the debate and not pregnancies that occur within marriage or in relatively permanent live-in types of arrangements where there is the expectation of a more normal type of family life.
This is not to hijack the thread from Bricker, and he or group concensus are certainly free to set the terms of the discussion, but I thought that to get to the bottom of what I’ve been driving at it would be useful to know the context in which I’ve been talking about it.
I’m not going to ask for a cite, but I’ll bet that if I did you wouldn’t find more than a dozen occasions when I’ve said that, if that many.
See, one [del]problem[/del] great ting about the 50’s is that dey hid tings well den. An honest appraisal of the question of whether teen pregnancy/birth rates in the 50’s were higher or lower, and the squishier question of whether it was “better” or “worse” is that it’s going to be nigh-on-impossible to get believable numbers for out-of-wedlock pregnancies and abortions.
And you call me dishonest! :rolleyes:
Every word you just said [about me] is either an error, a distortion, or a lie. If I were the type to play the ‘bog things down with cite demands’ game, I’d yell cite at every one of your assertions.
I would suggest to the OP that it would be a good idea to keep the thread on topic and not allow it to get thrown off track by allegations made simply for the purpose of making me look bad and having nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
I may seem like a real interloper here given that I haven’t been around much in the last six months or so.
But, fwiw, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have Great Debates takes its inspiration from the BBQ Pit.
The hybrid form that ensues is bound to be something less than “great.” And I think the signs of that area already showing.
Why is a pregnancy that ends in abortion equivalent to a birth outside of a “stable, loving, live-in arrangement”? They quite obviously are nothing alike.
Define “pregnancy within marriage”. If a girl gets pregnant in a one-night stand, but then marries the bloke within nine months, is that a “pregnancy within marriage”? What if it’s not the father that she marries, but some other fellow, does that count?
Well, it’s debatable whether shotgun marriages are preferable over abortions (and keep in mind that the marriage age has gone up a lot since the 50s). It’s certainly debatable whether abortions, especially for young women, have significant " negative effects […] upon society". But the first bits of data in this thread indicate that the acutal percentage of young women giving birth is down by almost 50% compared to the 50s. With an abortion rate (including still-births and miscarriages) of 25%, meaning teen pregnancies are down something like 40%.
My guess is that in the end we could use statistics to support pretty much any viewpoint you want to make.
As an aside, in most civilized countries, teen pregnancy rates are currently a lot lower than in the US, which is generally blamed on “abstinence only” policies and similar religiously-induced crap. Which should probably have its own pit thread.
I don’t think moving BBQ debates to GD are specifically a bad thing, but the question being debated should probably be repeated in the OP. In this case, Bricker just asked an easily googlable question and referenced some stuff SA said somewhere, without telling us what that stuff was.
End result is a lot of bickering over what we’re actually supposed to be debating, what SA may or may not have said other places, and not a lot of actual interesting debate.
My reading of the Gospel According to St. Arving suggests that this horror of promiscuous lascivity was the direct result of “liberal permissiveness”. The example of teen pregnancy is offered as an example, a salient point. The suggestion is that this is but one of many examples. So many that if this one be weakened, or even shot down in cited flame, it is not crucial. The point remains that liberal permisiveness is the root cause of rampant STDs, drug use, and the designated hitter rule. And, of course, snotty teenagers in funny clothes.
Don’t accuse other posters of lying in Great Debates.
OTOH, Lissener and Der Trihs, you are out of line creating alleged paraphrases of Starving Artist’s positions at a point where he had not even posted to the thread or in regards to points that he had not actually raised. If you need to take cheap shots, go back to the Pit thread to do it.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m talking about unwed pregnancies.
I thought it was okay to call something a poster says a lie, but not to call the poster a liar. My apologies.
Not at all.
I accept the idea that double-parking violations are a negative, in that they screw up downtown traffic. But if we were to institute the death penlty for double parking, and the rate of double-parking dropped dramatically, I would not concede that the overall change in society was positive.
In other words, your post contains a number of juicy logical fallacies. Let’s go with excluded middle as the most obvious.
Well, I agree it’s a somewhat slippery animal.
For example, let’s assume that we can show that unwed teen pregnancies in the fifties were much more rare than they are today. This alone doesn’t demostrate “things were better.” If nearly every pregnant teen married before giving birth, it would explain those numbers, but open a new argument about wther it’s better to marry out of obligation and social pressure at 17 to a boy who was similarly forced into the marriage, or whether it’s better to abort the child, or raise it as a single mother.
I recognize that, as Superfluous Parentheses cogently observes above, we could use statistics to support a variety of viewpoints.
But for the nonce, I think there would be value in at least agreeing on those statistics. We can then proceed to arguing over what they mean.
We are talking my time here. I went to a high school with 4000 students. I did not know all the students I graduated with.But on graduation day only one girl was obviously pregnant. It was a shocker for us.
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.
There were no facilities to take care of pregnant students. they disappeared. There were homes for unwed mothers. In my area Vista Maria was run by gestapo nuns. It did not lack discipline. It was a home for girls the parents could not handle or ones that got pregnant. It had a lot more in common with a jail than a home.
A good rule in general but the excluded middle is not really relevant here. A woman is either pregnant or she isn’t - what middle ground is being excluded? Abortion is a means to move her from one side to the other. So if being pregnant out of wedlock is a problem, an abortion is a solution that resolves the problem completely.
If being pregnant is morally good, then abortions are morally bad. And if being pregnant is morally bad, then abortions are morally good. But arguing that being pregnant and having an abortion are both immoral seems paradoxical.
And if double parking is punished by the death penalty, that removes the double parking problem completely.
Stop arguing here, because you’re either deliberately trying to derail this or you have a truly astonishingly thin grasp on analysis. Excluded middle means that it’s possible for a pregnancy to be bad but abortion to be worse, just as double parking is bad, but applying the death penalty to the offense is worse.