View Full Version : Birth rate to teen moms in the U.S. at all time low
This news is getting a lot of traction today. While there are many things one can take away from it, it's good news as far as I'm concerned.
Here's the complete Guttmacher report. Note that it was originally released last February, hmmm, now all Mainstream media outlets are promoting it.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends08.pdf
Here's one news article that summarizes it:
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/fewer-teens-getting-pregnant-having-abortions-study-shows/
If this veers off into a debate about abortion I will place a pox on you. And I can do that, long distance, ya know, through the computer and all. Which isn't to say that mention of abortion as part of analysis of this study isn't entirely out of line, it is not, and it will not earn my wrath.
Great news it is. Can't wait to delve into the links later on this evening.
Apparently the little blighters have been watching Teen Moms. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_42.gif
I wish they'd make Teen Moms a required program in our local high school/junior highs. Son #2 came home today telling me 2 more girls in his class are pregnant.
Apparently the little blighters have been watching Teen Moms. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/connie/connie_42.gif
Both "16 and Pregnant" and the followup "Teen Moms" came out in 2009 per imdb.com. The statistics cited in the links Iris Lily posted are from 2008.
So now I'm very curious to see what the stats will be for 2010, 2011 after all those kids have seen these show :)
According to the information it looks like we need to keep the channels open to easy condoms, etc if we want this rate to continue to fall.
decemberlov
10-4-12, 10:28am
I haven't had a chance to read the links yet but am very interested in doing so.
This post however reminded me of this news I recently heard: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/24/13-new-york-city-schools-provide-morning-after-pills-to-teens/
Basically saying that NYC schools are dispensing the morning after pill to girls as young as 14 :confused:
I can't get too exercised over morning-after pills. Surely they're less of a health threat than pregnancy. Although it's ironic when you consider kids getting disciplined for sharing aspirin with a classmate.
JaneV2.0. I love the baby in the crib smiley! So authentically accurate Re: playing "drop-the-bottle" game, then crying to gain the attention of someone/anyone to run in and retrieve the bottle for them. My kids tossed stuffed animals out of their cribs to gain the same.
Float On. My oldest son mentioned that he knows of several girls in his school (teen girls) who have babies and/or are pregnant, and a couple of them dropped-out of school because. I can't imagine the disruption, turmoil, and heartache, parents go through Re: such circumstances. I also remember girls getting pregnant (and/or with babies) when I was in high school. Such a tough way to start-out in life.
I'm curious too, Dhiana.
ApatheticNoMore
10-4-12, 1:14pm
Basically saying that NYC schools are dispensing the morning after pill to girls as young as 14
14 is a bit young definitely, but there's nothing wrong with morning after pills.
Curious question to all who have stopped by this thread thus far. If you had a teen daughter and she got pregnant, how would you handle it? Tough love? Devote yourself to helping whenever/wherever you could? Encourage a termination of the pregnancy? Encourage your daughter to keep the baby?
I've thought about this many, many times, and although I have a few ideas as to how I'd approach such a matter, I, as of yet, still remain undecided (for the most part) as to how I'd handle/deal with it. What a difficult/challenging time it would be.
decemberlov
10-4-12, 1:32pm
14 is a bit young definitely, but there's nothing wrong with morning after pills.
Agreed, however, I don't think it's okay without a parents consent. They say that there's a paper sent home that the parents can opt out of but who's to say the kids are bringing the papers home to their parents to see. Unless of course they mail them directly.....
decemberlov
10-4-12, 1:39pm
Curious question to all who have stopped by this thread thus far. If you had a teen daughter and she got pregnant, how would you handle it? Tough love? Devote yourself to helping whenever/wherever you could?
I've thought about this many, many times, and although I have a few ideas as to how I'd approach such a matter, I, as of yet, still remain undecided (for the most part) as to how I'd handle/deal with it. What a difficult/challenging time it would be.
I got pregnant with my daughter at 17. I had a lot of support from my parents as well as her fathers parents. With the situation I was in I'm convinced my daughter saved my life. I was heading down a very dangerous path at that age and when I did get pregnant I decided to change my life for the better.
I think I would have to support my child and help her in any way possible. I use my experience to talk with her now about how very difficult it was, even with the support I had (my daughter is now 13). I also have a very open line of communication with her and will most likely have her on birth control the minute I have any idea she is sexually active. Some may think this is giving her permission to do so but I know when I was a teen no one could tell me anything or change my mind easily about my actions or decisions.
So nice hearing from you, Decemberlov.
What a great story, and so happy to hear all worked out well for you. :)
Agreed, however, I don't think it's okay without a parents consent. They say that there's a paper sent home that the parents can opt out of but who's to say the kids are bringing the papers home to their parents to see. Unless of course they mail them directly.....
I think if a parent is going to limit their child's choices, they should take legal and financial responsibility then as well.
I have just learned that 2 teenage girls that I know are pregnant. Luckily both have already graduated high school and have very supportive families, which is great because neither father of the unborn babies is the responsible type. One "babydaddy" (as they are called these days) is a drug addict who has stolen from the pregnant girl's mother and the other young man comes from a family of drinkers and drug users and seems quite immature.
What's done is done and both girl's families have accepted it and are truly making the best of the situation, and both of these children will be born into a world of love, happiness and support. As for the fathers of the babies, who knows how they will behave or if they will be responsible or loving fathers.
In both cases, it might be best if they both just signed over their rights as fathers so that the babies can be raised by their mom's and their mom's family without the drama of a father who has little to contribute but problems and drama.
14 is a bit young definitely, but there's nothing wrong with morning after pills.
I support a woman's right to choose whether abortion is an option or not. That is not a comfortable position for me because abortion would not be a consideration in our lives in anything except the most extreme cases, but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for anyone else. What does bother me about morning after pills is that they essentially perform an abortion. Quick, painless, effective and with no real (known) consequences. It just seems a little too easy. As with most health issues an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Morning after pills and even birth control pills won't prevent the spread of STD's or AIDS, but condoms can. Education has almost certainly prevented more pregnancies than morning after pills. I'm trying to fit in with a modern sensibility here, but my real support is with those who promote ongoing education backed up with effective, common sense measures that help keep our kids from getting pregnant or sick.
decemberlov
10-8-12, 9:57am
So nice hearing from you, Decemberlov.
What a great story, and so happy to hear all worked out well for you. :)
Thank you Mrs M :)
It definitely was not easy but I like to look at the plus side of things, such as how close we are and how easy it is for me to relate to her since there isn't a huge age gap. I also think it's rather exciting that when she is 18 I will be 35 and free to travel and do all those things I gave up to be a parent. Not that I won't be her parent and she will definitely still need me but things will be very different I'm sure. I'd really love to have another child but at this point it seems so scary to go back to diapers and sleepless nights (although I know the teen years can bring many sleepless nights as well :laff:).
Again, thank you for your kind words.
decemberlov
10-8-12, 10:01am
I support a woman's right to choose whether abortion is an option or not. That is not a comfortable position for me because abortion would not be a consideration in our lives in anything except the most extreme cases, but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for anyone else. What does bother me about morning after pills is that they essentially perform an abortion. Quick, painless, effective and with no real (known) consequences. It just seems a little too easy. As with most health issues an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Morning after pills and even birth control pills won't prevent the spread of STD's or AIDS, but condoms can. Education has almost certainly prevented more pregnancies than morning after pills. I'm trying to fit in with a modern sensibility here, but my real support is with those who promote ongoing education backed up with effective, common sense measures that help keep our kids from getting pregnant or sick.
well said Gregg.
I support a woman's right to choose whether abortion is an option or not. That is not a comfortable position for me because abortion would not be a consideration in our lives in anything except the most extreme cases, but I don't feel qualified to make that decision for anyone else. What does bother me about morning after pills is that they essentially perform an abortion. Quick, painless, effective and with no real (known) consequences. It just seems a little too easy. As with most health issues an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Morning after pills and even birth control pills won't prevent the spread of STD's or AIDS, but condoms can. Education has almost certainly prevented more pregnancies than morning after pills. I'm trying to fit in with a modern sensibility here, but my real support is with those who promote ongoing education backed up with effective, common sense measures that help keep our kids from getting pregnant or sick.
We certainly don't want it to be easy for women to go unpunished for the mortal sin of having unprotected or ill-protected sex. We should bring back scarlet letters, perhaps. (Note sarcasm)
From Jezebel http://jezebel.com/5916006/morning+after-slut-pills-dont-actually-prevent-implantation-after-all :
If you ask any of the bazillion "pro-life" dudes who bravely stand for zygotes by standing against emergency contraception, they'll tell you that the morning after pill — or Plan B if you want to get brand-namey — is an abortifacient because it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in a woman's uterus. The FDA will tell you that, too. And so will several leading hospital's websites. But, if you actually look into scientific studies of how the Morning After Pill works, you'll find that's simply not the case.
The New York Times examined several scientific studies and spoke with leading pharmaceutical experts. Their findings? Plan B doesn't stop a pregnancy from happening if the egg is already fertilized and en route to its 9-month home in Uterus Town — emergency contraception works by giving a woman who takes it a heavy dose of regular contraception, which can prevent her from ovulating in the first place and thicken her cervical mucus, thereby making it much more difficult for a man's sperm to reach her egg if ovulation has already occurred. So, even if you believe that a zygote is a person, just like a toddler or Christopher Walken, when a woman takes emergency contraception, no zygo-cide occurs; if anything, what happens is closer to spermicide. Or, sperm-inconvenience. Hard to get up in arms over that.
The last line of the article says it all, as far as I'm concerned:
Why, then, does the Church not stand against literally everything that could cause the end of a pregnancy by interfering with implantation? Because the abortion debate was never about saving babies — it was about punishing women who dared have sex without embracing motherhood.
It's all about control.
decemberlov
10-8-12, 10:51am
Just to clarify, I am not against the morning after pill. I am against things such as this, given without a parents consent. I would be pretty pissed if my kid came home and told me they were given a flu vaccine in school. These are decisions that should be between a parent and their child, not the school. This however is an entirely different topic....
We certainly don't want it to be easy for women to go unpunished for the mortal sin of having unprotected or ill-protected sex. We should bring back scarlet letters, perhaps...
My statement was, as your post pointed out, technically inaccurate. A morning after pill is not, clinically speaking, a chemical abortion. I'm sorry, my bad, although I don't really get what "the Church" has to do with my statement... Aside from that, I can find no reason to oppose my daughters (and my son) learning about ALL the potential consequences of unprotected sex. In our world there is a big difference between a consequence and a punishment and we try very hard to teach our kids about the first so there is no need for the second. It works more often than not.
My statement was, as your post pointed out, technically inaccurate. A morning after pill is not, clinically speaking, a chemical abortion. I'm sorry, my bad, although I don't really get what "the Church" has to do with my statement... Aside from that, I can find no reason to oppose my daughters (and my son) learning about ALL the potential consequences of unprotected sex. In our world there is a big difference between a consequence and a punishment and we try very hard to teach our kids about the first so there is no need for the second. It works more often than not.
"The Church" was in context before I pulled the quote. The italicized text is from the referenced article.
I'm a strong advocate for reproductive responsibility--in fact, responsibility in general. Historically, the consequences of careless sex devolve to the women participating, which is reflected in your son being a parenthetical afterthought. Women bear the consequences--literally--so reproductive rights and responsibility are primarily our issue.
My son is a "parenthetical afterthought" only because I was addressing your post that seeks to assign all the rights of a decision making process solely to women. It takes two to tango. Because he's been able to move beyond your antiquated, fist-in-the-air, feminist notions my son realizes that if pregnancy were to be a consequence of his actions he would also have responsibilities AND rights regarding what decisions were made. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by portraying women only as victims because there are three lives (or more) affected by every single pregnancy, intended or not. But our kids don't seem to be taught that, do they?
No one in this conversation, other than you Jane, is talking about the Church or religion in general as something that seeks to limit women's options. I am not uncomfortable with abortion thanks to any doctrine. I am uncomfortable with that procedure because I feel it violates the sanctity of life. I am uncomfortable with "the Church" because I think they are sticking their nose in places that are none of their damn business. As I said very clearly I do not feel qualified to impose my belief on anyone else and so I am pro choice. I also know that not all sperm donors are responsible. Neither are all egg donors. That is why I never said I was against any method of stopping pregnancy, only that I personally would support even more education and preventative measures such as condom use before I could get behind handing Plan B out to 14 year olds. YMMV.
My son is a "parenthetical afterthought" only because I was addressing your post that seeks to assign all the rights of a decision making process solely to women. It takes two to tango. Because he's been able to move beyond your antiquated, fist-in-the-air, feminist notions my son realizes that if pregnancy were to be a consequence of his actions he would also have responsibilities AND rights regarding what decisions were made. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by portraying women only as victims because there are three lives (or more) affected by every single pregnancy, intended or not. But our kids don't seem to be taught that, do they?
No one in this conversation, other than you Jane, is talking about the Church or religion in general as something that seeks to limit women's options. I am not uncomfortable with abortion thanks to any doctrine. I am uncomfortable with that procedure because I feel it violates the sanctity of life. I am uncomfortable with "the Church" because I think they are sticking their nose in places that are none of their damn business. As I said very clearly I do not feel qualified to impose my belief on anyone else and so I am pro choice. I also know that not all sperm donors are responsible. Neither are all egg donors. That is why I never said I was against any method of stopping pregnancy, only that I personally would support even more education and preventative measures such as condom use before I could get behind handing Plan B out to 14 year olds. YMMV.
Wow. So hard to type with an upraised fist! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/biggrin.gif
First, I obviously should have scrubbed "the Church" from my pull quote, which in no way would alter its meaning.
Second, I'm not a "victim feminist." Never have been. My entire point is that women, by nature of biology, have a much greater stake in pregnancy than men. Therefore, they risk weightier consequences and should take full responsibility for that fact. And yes, the decision to carry to term is entirely theirs, IMO. Entirely. Certainly, they are free to seek input from others.
I have mixed feelings about schools dispensing the morning-after pill, for the same reason a poster referenced immunizations.
A Pox Hex on both Jane and Gregg for going back and forth on the Abortion-as-politics issue. Gregg will get the Pox in more virulent form since he started it. :laff: You will remember that in my initial post I begged ya'll to NOT GO THERE.
I'll start another thread for this topic, but don't necessarily expect others to follow, you people really are impossible to control. ;)
I remembered too late not to take the bait. Duly chastened.
I remembered too late not to take the bait. Duly chastened.
Me, too. Hopefully my pox is covered with just a standard co-pay. rrrrr
Seriously, I agree that by nature a woman has to have the final say in pregnancy issues. My problem isn't with that, but with the fact that alot of people seem to believe women have the only say. I don't blame women for that, IMO it falls on the parents/mentors of the young men in the mix. Judging from so many of these young men being raised by single mothers we, as a society, apparently stopped teaching our boys responsibility in such matters a while back. We accept that it is somehow ok for the "men" to just say sorry and move on with little or no consequence. I'm glad there are multiple options for preventing pregnancy and now one more that will add another layer of insurance. I'm just frustrated because ethics have fallen so far out of fashion. It's sad, but hey, its an election year. I should have expected it.
Kudos to you, Gregg, for the "men" in quotes. I was reading one of Russell Simmons' books and came across the place where he encouraged pregnant women to let their baby daddies fly free blah blah blah. That's when I thought to myself, "Why am I reading this idiot's book?"
It is, in fact, possible to feel anti-abortion but pro-choice. Two in our household share that stance. Abortion is ick imho - but it's not for me to say whether someone chooses it.
That said, I don't consider preventing a fertilized egg from implanting/growing to be abortion, nor immoral. But that's I.L.'s other (eloquent) thread.
Calamine lotion might help that pox. It's as old-fashioned as strong ethics.
Me, too. Hopefully my pox is covered with just a standard co-pay. rrrrr
Seriously, I agree that by nature a woman has to have the final say in pregnancy issues. My problem isn't with that, but with the fact that alot of people seem to believe women have the only say. I don't blame women for that, IMO it falls on the parents/mentors of the young men in the mix. Judging from so many of these young men being raised by single mothers we, as a society, apparently stopped teaching our boys responsibility in such matters a while back. We accept that it is somehow ok for the "men" to just say sorry and move on with little or no consequence. I'm glad there are multiple options for preventing pregnancy and now one more that will add another layer of insurance. I'm just frustrated because ethics have fallen so far out of fashion. It's sad, but hey, its an election year. I should have expected it.
Of course you are right. Ethics only intrude when it's election season and republicans deem it necessary to win by inserting their phony ethics into the mix. And part of their 'ethics' is defunding planned parenthood. Which is kind of related to this thread which is the fact that unwanted pregnancies are down. (thank you for this link IL) And of course this is related to better birth control and , yes, abortions, cause unwanted pregnancies lead to unwanted children without them, which many choose to ignore.
Yes, the woman should be the first, last, and only decider as to a pregnancy. I would hope a woman would involve the father, and I'm fairly sure most do, but the women is the only authority as to the outcome. She may consult with the father, but ultimately, no matter what he wants, she should be the final word. Period.
Sorry Gregg, women do have the final/only say. Having the father support her is great, but it is her body and she does, in fact, have the only REAL say. HER choice is the only choice. The final say IS the only say.
The day most Americans gained freedom was the day women gained freedom of their own bodies. (Row V Wade) Republicans want to repeal that freedom. Do not vote to repeal that freedom. (freedom for gay Americans is yet to come, but coming)
Ironic timing. Just checked facebook for the first time in a while and the very first post was a picture of a sign that a friend put up. The sign said, "Respect for women is one of the greatest gifts a father can show to a son". Amen.
ApatheticNoMore
10-8-12, 7:07pm
My entire point is that women, by nature of biology, have a much greater stake in pregnancy than men. Therefore, they risk weightier consequences and should take full responsibility for that fact.
Yes, by nature of biology. Men may be taught they have a moral responsibility but moral responsibilities can be shunned, what is growing in your own body can not be as easily fled from (in fact the only way out after conception is abortion or adoption). It's there, it's biological reality. A man can skip town but can a woman skip out of her own body? I'm going to take leave of my corporal flesh for awhile ... No, of course not. And if the desire is to avoid an abortion that's just all the more reason to take the birth control seriously.
...Yes, the woman should be the first, last, and only decider as to a pregnancy. ..
emphasis mine.
I am so glad to see you using this word "decider" that many associate with lame brain-ness of GW Bush, but personally, I find that word very handy and I've adopted it into my personal lexicon. I am glad that GW put it out there.
Research on the word shows that GW didn't invent it, it's been around for a while. I predict it will make entry into an legitimate word use dictionary of modern terms one of these days. Maybe I will adopt it as my next screen name here.
Research on the word shows that GW didn't invent it, it's been around for a while. I predict it will make entry into an upcoming legitimate dictionary one of these days. Maybe I will adopt it as my next screen name here.
Made it into one (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=decider), although its not as positive as it could be (or as peggy intended).
And if the desire is to avoid an abortion that's just all the more reason to take the birth control seriously.
ANM, that gets a great big +1.
Made it into one (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=decider), although its not as positive as it could be (or as peggy intended).
That Urban dictionary doesn't count! Here's the historical background:
"...According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word decider was actually used for the first time in 1592 by W. Wyrley in Armorie 23: "The Scriptures of God, the decider of all contreuersies" (No typo, this is before grammar rules clearly defined the difference between u and v). The most recent of the measely three historical citations noted is Wilberforce's 1862 use of the word in the phrase: "The...danger of having...the Irish bishops made the actual deciders of our doctrine."
fromt his blog:http://thebowandgrimace.blogspot.com/2006/05/etymologyhermeneutics-of-decider.html
emphasis mine.
I am so glad to see you using this word "decider" that many associate with lame brain-ness of GW Bush, but personally, I find that word very handy and I've adopted it into my personal lexicon. I am glad that GW put it out there.
Research on the word shows that GW didn't invent it, it's been around for a while. I predict it will make entry into an legitimate word use dictionary of modern terms one of these days. Maybe I will adopt it as my next screen name here.
Iris Lily- THE DECIDER!
I like it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/melinda-gates-new-crusade-investing-billions-in-women-s-health.html
Melinda Gates now getting into the contraception cause.
ApatheticNoMore
10-10-12, 12:13am
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/melinda-gates-new-crusade-investing-billions-in-women-s-health.html
Melinda Gates now getting into the contraception cause.
Three cheers!!!! Such a good cause, for so many reasons. It's very good news.
Right now, she points out, 100,000 women annually die in childbirth after unintended pregnancies
Yoshihara says any attempt to link contraception and maternal health is “extremely controversial. You don’t tell a woman dying of an ectopic pregnancy that she should have used a female condom. To say that we’re going to help women not die in childbirth by telling them that they shouldn’t get pregnant in the first place, I think, borders on scandalous.”
But it seems women have always died in childbirth, and they have died in large numbers, pregnancy until modern medicine was always a potentially deadly affair. I was surprised to find that out, not something given much attention in HIS-Story. Half the human race fricken risked death just to reproduce. And of course it's not scandalous to help a woman never get pregnant in the first place if she never wanted to!
Such criticism will likely increase as the Gates Foundation becomes known for its work in developing new forms of birth control. Right now, it’s funding research into contraceptives that women could inject themselves, sparing them onerous clinic trips. Aware that many women reject the birth-control pill because of side effects, the foundation is investing in a search for a contraceptive medication that works without hormones, a “potential whole new class” of drug, says the Gates Foundation’s Darmstadt.
There’s currently very little investment in contraceptive research and development. The single biggest funder, Darmstadt says, is the U.S. government, through the National Institutes of Health. “It’s an area that’s really kind of stagnated,” he says. “One of the things that we see that we can do is to try to really stimulate that space
Are the drug companies actually good for anything? I'm pretty doubtful. Making massive profits on medicines that may do more harm than good yes, but I mean anything worthwhile. The government has to fund the research on what is a basic consumer product with mass appeal.
The Catholic Herald’s Phillips wrote, “A horrid image comes to mind, of white-coated boffins hard at work in diabolical laboratories, devising new ways of depriving men and women of their conjugal dignity, their culture and their traditions.”
They WANT to be so deprived! The women seek it out ...
I can't help but think, exposing teen girls to the daily/nightly rigors of motherhood, wouldn't have a lasting effect on them, making them think twice before acting.
JaneV2.0
10-12-12, 11:18pm
I can't help but think, exposing teen girls to the daily/nightly rigors of motherhood, wouldn't have a lasting effect on them, making them think twice before acting.
I fled screaming from babysitting, and I never even had to change a diaper. I didn't need any prompting to practice contraception assiduously.
You're a hoot, Jane! LOL!
Whenever/wherever I babysat, the kids purposely waited for me to show (so it seemed), then they'd fill their pants! And it wasn't Pampers, like it is today!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.