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.
If we were a more liberal country our rates would be far better. For instance, the Netherlands has a lower teen pregnancy rate than America was in the 1950s.
So I would say that SA’s argument is completely worthless on the face of it.
Well, that’s the only reason I favor legal abortion. I certainly would have serious issues with abortion if I thought fetuses were humans.
I guess I should preview the thread before I post. 
There is a plausible (though spurious) explanation, which is that American kids are sufficiently liberal to be fuckin’, but American adults aren’t sufficiently liberalized to be offering useful sex education.
I’m fairly sure that that’s true. For an example, the UK is also pretty low in my posted list, and it too has pretty ineffectual sex education for younger children.
Hell, even the US has a lower teen pregnancy rate than it had in the 50s. The only statistic that has gone up is the number of unmarried pregnancies.
Yeah, but the Netherlands has an absolute number of teen pregnancies that is lower than American unwed pregnancies in the 1950s! That alone would suggest that SA’s argument that somehow conservatism is superior is completely without merit. Things are better now. Unless you embrace the stupidity of Conservative social policy.
I wonder if SA will comment on this?
This. It can’t be emphasized too much, and IMHO* Things were better in the fifties, because ([in part]) there were much fewer unwed pregnancies than there are now is not his real thesis; rather it is things were better in the fifties because (in part) there was much less unmarried copulation than there is now.
Bricker, you mention teasing out the objective facts that support (or fail to support) his statements. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to tease out if that’s SA’s real assertion, then move on to exploring the validity of the statistic underpinning the statement, and if it holds up, then discussing the betterness/worseness aspect?
Not interested in reading Hillary, but certainly true that nostalgia has no political affiliation and we’re all afflicted by it the more we age. However the larger point I was trying to make is that The Good Old Days, specifically from a societal view – as opposed to changing personal circumstances – never were and never will be. We simply add color to fading black and white memories…
Because your cite says nothing about 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. Nor is it a cite for the percentage of unwed, pregnant teenagers in the USA during the 1950s who became infertile as a result.
Even assuming the cite you later supplied to be accurate, the dramatic decline in maternal death from illegal abortion has no apparent correlation whatever with the legality or otherwise of abortion. The large majority of this decline happened before 1950, continued unchecked to the point that the first state legalized abortion, increased very slightly as soon as the first state had done so, and then resumed its decline. The rate of decline slowed somewhat after Roe v. Wade, and the phenomenon almost disappeared during the Reagan administration.
You would like to assume that the maternal death and infertility rates from abortion for unwed teenagers in the US during the 1950s was higher than it is today. Can we also assume that the maternal death and infertility rates from legal abortion for unwed teenagers in the US is higher today?
Regards,
Shodan
I have not yet finished reading the three pages of this thread, but this would seem to be a key point. There was a social expectation in the 1950s that, if one had gotten a girl pregnant, one was obliged to marry her. (There were of course cases where girls came down with ‘rheumatic fever’ and went to visit relatives living at some distance for the nine months it took to recuperate.)
I am wondering if it might be possible to nail down the number of ‘shotgun weddings’, perhaps by correlating wedding dates to birth of first child. (The tendency of young brides to “get pregnant just after the wedding and then deliver a healthy child prematurely after seven months” was a commonplace of popular culture in those days.)
Personally, I think girls have been getting pregnant without first marrying at about the same rate; the rise in unwed mothers is an artifact of society’s growing acceptance of such a role, and the decline in weddings forced by pregnancy. But I have no proof beyond observation.
Sorry, but it isn’t. Teen pregnancy is. (Along with a 25% STD rate among high school females, which would be a good subject for another thread.) Look it up.
I found some interesting data regarding the increase in the number of pregnant brides in the 50’s - the 1750’s. Turns out that by the middle of the 18th century, over 40% of brides were pregnant - and this was roughly 200 years prior to the summer of love:
Looks like things were better back in the 1600’s - at least until the Liberals of the mid 18th Century got a hold of things.
Oh, well in that case, you’re unequivocally wrong. Teen pregnancies per capita are unquestionably down from 1950s levels. Will you stop bringing them up now?
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.
And a shotgun wedding produced a pair of parents to care for the child, did it not? Not less so than arranged marriages common in many cultures even today. And those marriages seemed to be, in some cases, far more durable than marriages today. Of course, the obvious counter to that is that those marriages only lasted as long as they did because women had fewer options in the world, and a loveless or even abusive marriage was simply better than the then-stigma of divorce and the economic and social woes thereof.
Which is why I’m not yet making any claims in any of those areas.
First all, those are recorded numbers, probably lower than the actual numbers. I will also note that they come from a pretty strongly anti-abortionist source. I tried to find the original data from the CDC but I can’t find it.
And yes, you can assume the number of deaths from legal abortions are up from the 50s since there obviously were no legal abortions in the 50s. The latest number I could find for the US 1990~2000s were around 10 - total - deaths per year caused by abortions.
But look, that was not what you were asking:
You pretty much implied that there were no significant numbers of abortions and that there were no significant repercussions for the women involved. That is obviously not true if there were over a 1000 reported deaths per year in the 1940s. Also, I would point out that the actual number of pregnancies in teens is in fact something like 40% lower now than it was in the 50s. Unless you want to stipulate significantly more abortions then than you’re apparently willing.
Sure would be nice to see some cites for each of these claims.
Let me help you:
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.
For instance, the Netherlands has a lower teen pregnancy rate than America was in the 1950s.
Cite?
Yes. The ‘larger argument’ has been that liberal permissiveness has created a cultural environment that, in addition to other problems, has led to a greater rate of teen pregnancy (i.e., unmarried and undesired teen pregnancy). The permissiveness that in my opinion has led to the current rate of teen sexual activity, and it’s concurrent STD rates and teen pregnancy despite the easy availablity of birth control, is the main complaint.
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.
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.
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.
I already answered that. You’re ignoring the data we have on unwed teen mothers in the 50s. Hint: it’s almost twice the total rate of teen pregnancies in the NL.
As for point one made by you in the previous post, one example of conservative sex education being ineffective:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/
"Teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases, said Dr. S. Paige Hertweck, a pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville who provided advice for the report.
The report appears in July’s Pediatrics, being published Tuesday."