How to read the AP’s poll results on schools peddling birth control
I saw the headline yesterday: “Poll: Most OK birth control for schools.”
Here’s what the AP emphasized–the soundbite that got recycled on the nightly news and radio briefs endlessly over the last 24 hours:
Sixty-seven percent support giving contraceptives to students, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. About as many — 62 percent — said they believe providing birth control reduces the number of teenage pregnancies.
Only guess what?
There’s much more to the poll results than the dumbed-down soundbites suggest.
Sweetness and Light deconstructs the spin, including this telling tidbit:
That certainly explains quite a bit, doesn’t it?
***
Previous: B is for birth control
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- BizzyBlog » Couldn’t Help But Notice (110407)
- More AP poll manipulation « Crush Liberalism
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Purity Dances
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Education
Patterico
» Why We Need to Link Andrew Sullivan
JustOneMinute
» Seeing Is Not BelievingJustOneMinute
» Sweetheart Deal
Shocking…..someone interpreting a poll actually misrepresented the results to show a bias toward liberal policies??
What’s next?? Hillary Clinton actually answering a direct question about her
fantasypresidency???Polls are good for only those who wish to project their agendas. Now I could run a poll…say 2000 people…and find that Clinton has a commanding (90%) lead over every republican, for President. What I won’t tell you is that I did the poll in inner city of N.Y.. Push/pull polls are a waste of time too, but done by everyone.
I haven’t read the link yet, but I think you’re way off base concerning that “telling tidbit.”
I do not have a child, does that mean that my opinion in a matter of public health is moot? And what about the opinion of my grandparents? They put three and six kids through high school respectively. Surely they have some grasp of what it’s like to raise children.
That’s like saying your opinion on S-CHIP isn’t valid because you make more than $62,000 a year. Or that you shouldn’t have an opinion on Social Security if you’re under 65. In matters of what’s best for the country, everyone over the age of 18 has a say.
What I don’t get is the 5% gap between people who support giving out contraception in schools and the people who think these programs will prevent pregnancy. You’d think contraception preventing teen pregnancy would be a given.
Since this basically matters to parents, why are non-parents even polled - oh wait…
I’m actually surprised at the 0% for Don’t Know on the “Are you a parent” question?
Also, the link provided makes the following comment:
Yes. But this poll is dealing with birth control as a whole, not birth control pills. Condoms don’t contain hormones or drugs. And you don’t need a prescription.
There’s no debate that schools can’t just give out birth control pills. You’d need a prescription. Schools can’t give those out.
The headline is also misleading by failing to point out that only 37% agreed to schools providing birth control without the parents consent. The issue is not wether parents can give their child, or a third party with parental consent, birth control. The issue is can they do it without informing the parents, and overwhelmingly those polled were against.
Rusty:
The point is not that the information should be completely discarded, but rather that that information should be completely DISCLOSED.
By leaving that tidbit out, they’ve cast a shadow on the entirety of the results.
Actually, me too.
Rusty:
They can if they have a licensed doctor on the premises.
I remember going to high school BEFORE they handed out “birth control” and there were almost no pregnancies. Then, it became vogue to dish out “birth control” and pregnancies went through the roof. Now, teen abortions are through the roof but since babies are not being born, they are not counted as “pregnancies”. If you add the amount of abortions to the amount of births, you can get past the spin (giving out birth control does not increase sexual activity) pretty quickly. I raised 4 teenage girls at one time. None of them required birth control and none of them became pregnant of contracted a STD. I must have done something wrong as it flew in the face of this liberal BS.
Fco:
Schools have doctors now?
Really, the only thing that is stupid with the headline (not the poll) is what Fco (#6) pointed out. The argument here is for condoms without parental consent. That’s where the controversy is.
Ah, soap, sadly your argument has merit only if one is interested in getting past the spin.
So few of the blabbermouths who support this stuff have any desire to do so.
I’m more “relieved” than “surprised”…
Soap Box,
Abortions and miscarriages are indeed factored into teen pregnancy rates. Since those numbers are obviously hard to verify, they use a formula and polling to determine a rough estimate of how many pregnancies don’t come to term.
Teen pregnancy is lower than it was in the 50s. And way lower than it was in the 80s. The increase in birth control use is without a doubt one of the things that have created this.
That is bull. Link to studies.
As a parent, my girls knew more girls who had abortions than did not. Alas, I am a parent who listend to the reality of teen girls in high school rather than listening to talking points.
I agree — give me a link to those studies, Rusty, and I might be less inclined to disbelieve the quotes from the start.
For the sake of debate, let’s say this statement is true. You want to tell me if you factor in teen abortions today with pregnancies, the number will be larger than pregnancies in the 50’s?
I though pot smoking went out with the 70’s
Just like the Associated with Terrorist Press Corps to ask mostly folks that don’t have children about this issue. Nothing like ensuring the outcome you want.
(FYI — I graduated high school in 1997, and my parents moved to an entirely different school district when I was about to enter Jr. high school specifically to avoid the sky high pregnancy rates among 13 and 14 year old girls!)
Unless you count caffeine. Macchiato anyone? Sorry Michelle…
Rusty #3. You are correct that in the USA everybody over 18 has a vote. There is nothing sacred about that notion. In fact our founding fathers thought it should be only land owners. Those with a vested interest in the success - not those only interested in what it can give me.
As a point of reference, corporations only let owners (stockholders) vote and I think very few would argue that is not the “way it should be”.
I once saw a cartoon depicting a minister and conservative parents in the principal’s office and the principal said “We can not allow prayers in the classroom, but if you print your message on condoms, we’ll be happy to distribute them to the students.” I thought it was (and apparently is) a sad commentary on the state of affairs in our pc school systems.
Where did you live? That…that just seems implausible to me. I guess we have different life experiences.
Studies…well:
Check page five here. It’ll show you the decline in pregnancies since 1986. That obviously doesn’t apply to pre-Roe stuff, but if you look carefully you’ll see that abortions, stillbirths, and miscarriages are all part of the equation. And I know estimating abortion is imperfect, but there is a concerted effort to make sure those pregnancies are counted.
As for the pre-Roe stuff, check out this quotation from a 1998 CDC report:
The national teen birth rate was at its highest in 1957, at 96 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19.
Of course, back then teenagers were much more likely to get married before and after getting knocked up. The rate of single mother homes has skyrocketed since the 1950s (although that’s been in steady decline since the late 1980s as well).
Improved contraceptive use has been credited with this decrease in teen pregnancies.
That was kind of fun!
From Sweetness and Light:
Because they use the subscriber list from the NYT??
Rusty - something that is “credited” does not make causality a fact. Why not credit the increased output of the m&m candy factory?
Rusty –
thanks for the links, but I went to the first one, and thought I’d check out the organization that produced the report, and I frankly have a problem with using a sutdy done by an organization that explains clearly in its mission statement that one if it’s goals is to “enable women and men to…exercise the right to choose abortion”
I can’t help but see the inherent potential for bias in their statistics…I know I’m biased, but I sure as heck will admit to it up front!
Why are the schools involved in birth control?
Can’t you find a Walgreens or CVS every 100 ft, everywhere in the country. RX birth control aside, I don’t see the problem with kids having access to birth control. My high school didn’t give out condoms, foams, or sponges,but some how some way, students were able to get birth control for friends, family, or retail outlets. Schools being involved just creeps me out.
Yeah, I know. It was the first thing to pop up on Google. However you won’t find anything to contradict them other than anecdotes.
And, BuckI, in a perfect world, you’re right. Buying condoms and/or getting a Rx for the Pill is not the hardest thing in the world. But some people are embarrassed. Obviously anyone embarrassed by sexual issues like this shouldn’t be having sex, but we all know that doesn’t stop people.
Rusty,
I have to agree with you there….my real problem with it is that it’s yet another cookie jar that the gub’mint needs to get it’s greedy and wasteful hands out of, and quick!
I’d like to see a study of teen mothers that surveys their attitudes toward the contraception/dispensation/abortion/
complex of issues.
To look at “teen” and “pre-teen” behavior separate from the attitudes and projections about sex and birth control of their moms (and dads- but secondarily so), given the moms’ experiences with both, is a skewed endeavor.
Studies are often designed looking at the subject as a rational one, where the youngster is viewed as a “stand alone, self-contained unit”. There are schools of thought (Family Systems Psychology for one) that views the family- such as it is- as the primary emotional unit where many of these “choices” are made.
Drug use, alcoholism, homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity, depression, suicide, violence, criminal behavior, jailism, studding and breeding- all have their roots in the behavior patterns and attitudes of the supervising adults in a family system (uncles and aunties included).
Follow the hand that rocked the cradle (or didn’t and had Granny do it)to trace some of the prevailing attitudes that are driving governing panels at schools and in cities to push these types of resolutions and ordinances.
It is the key to organizing effective solutions to put a stop to the “well, they are just gonna have sex anyway” crowd.
Buck!!!! lol you made my day with your typo.
I always wonder how it would be to be able to buy wholesale lots for a “retail outlet”. That’s quite a bit a bang for the buck!!!
Having fun today
You know what I mean. Glad you’re having a good day though Bear.
There’s lies, damn lies, then there’s polls.
The very last sentence in the article:
Uh, huh. That is a representative number for a population the size of the U.S. of A.? And of course, two-thirds of the respondents didn’t even have school aged kids!
But what is most absent from this manipulation is whether or not government schools should even be in the private business of providing health care to children!! What fool goes to a lumber yard for investment advice? Krykee!!
Wake up, America.
#32 bear1909:
“That’s quite a bit a bang for the buck!!!”
Ouch!
Rim shot, please!
But, seriously, folks:
I agree with your comments in #31.
Looks like a discussion has developed similar to the one of a week or two ago that was based on the Portland, ME junior-high (or grammar?) school that was planning to dispense birth-control pills to 11- and 12-year-olds.
(I intend to exercise my constitutional right to not use the term “middle school”; and also, to split an infinitive.)
Bear, I’m afraid this discussion will get bogged down, because, again, of the difference of worldviews, of the conflict of visions (as Thomas Sowell puts it) of the participants.
You and I will never - I repeat, never - convince anyone that thinks young teens should be given birth control because “they’re gonna have sex anyway” that their approach is not helpful to society; indeed, that it is in fact overall hurtful to society.
You and I look at the sewer that our society has become over the past 40 years;
the other side argues over whether this or that statistic from this or that study supports their claim.
You and I believe we should repair the hole the iceberg has created;
the other side is arguing about which wax to use on the ship’s decks.
But, why rehash?
As I’ve said - the two sides have irreconcilable differences…as if they are speaking different, mutually unintelligible languages.
Keep on keeping on, Bear.
Granite,
Different world views or values or whatever is fine. If that is how you come to your conclusions on this issue. What is frustrating to me, and I think Rusty, is when people try to make an argument that has no basis in fact.
For example, Take Soapbox’s comment #10 summarized: “Back in my day, when condoms weren’t available girls weren’t going around getting pregnant like they are now.” That is on its face wrong. Until one can cite something more substantial that anecdote or their gut feeling, at least.
That may not change how you feel about the issue, and that’s fine. You can have any number of legitimate moral or ethical objections aside from its actual effect on teen pregnancy. But argue those and don’t make up “facts” to bolster your side.
This reminds how AllahPundit went hook, line and sinker for Democrat operative’s (David Paul Kuhn) claim that Hillary will “cream” Guliani in the South based soley on Kuhn’s unique interpration of one very questionable poll.
Gotta ask the “5 W’s” when someone proffers a poll as ironclad “proof”, even if the poll would seem to approve/validate one’s own personal take. Probably moreso in that case and especially so when it goes against every bit of common sense.
Soviet Union style polling brought to by …. Associated w/terrorist Press-Ipsos poll, if you need the right results you can rely on us!
You must be very young to need any proof of that, Chappie!
#36:
Over the past several decades, our society/culture has descended steadily and precipitously into the sewer.
That is obvious; it has absolutely nothing to do with the way I feel, with anecdotes, nor with gut feeling, nor with made-up facts (ah, of course, the straw man!).
The secularist approach has brought us to where we are.
However, secularists will never - never - admit that.
Instead, we will hear about the need for additional studies, additional funding, additional experts, etc, etc…essentially, about the need for more of the same way of thinking, for more of the same approach, that gave us our current society/culture.
If ever there was an example of someone yelling for more gasoline to put out the house fire, this - the secularist approach - is it.
Well, purplepeep, call me wacky but when it comes to teen pregnancy statistics I tend to put my faith in scientific studies performed by highly reputable scientific agencies rather than on the say-so of posters here.
Please show me proof that the study Rusty cited is flawed. Proof. Proof. You do know what that means? I don’t care that growing up, you didn’t know one girl that got pregnant. That’s super. Either you lived in Candyland or maybe, just maybe they were getting back alley abortions.
And not suprisingly, granite, you entirely missed my point. I accept that this is how you feel about society/culture today. I don’t necessarily disagree.
But at least be intellectually honest when arguing your point.
Chap-
I was in high school from 69-73. 445 students. Catholic co-ed. 124 girls. No pregnancies. No abortions.
Small school. No secrets. Everything got out. Who was smoking crystal and who was doin whom? It was a different era.
Who was counting in those days?
What are the contemporary researchers (of good repute) comparing their stats to and how far back can they go without extrapolation?
Scientific method is somewhat useful when it comes to human behavior. But statistical methods can be used speciously to interpret findings and to test hypotheses.
I mentioned a good reason in an earlier post as to why the research in this area can be skewed significantly; because of the failure to accomodate different thought models on families etc.
Social science research explains reality to the best of its ability and to the extent that it’s assumptions are challenged by precise questions and alternative approaches to data collection.
There is evidence. And then there is proof.
Surveys are one way to collect data. There may be other studies out there that do it differently.
But this gotcha mindset our country is in, with info-news scamming going on constantly to drive product sales to scratch every itch, seems to favor “quick polling” “survey shows!” kinda malarkey that reifies public biases.
My two cents
Rusty,
Okay, I read the links.
Note:
Numbers from the 50’s - absent.
I am not sure (but will guess) that the number of abortions reported since 2000 are going to drop due to the fact abortion numbers are hard to come by as providers have been fighting that effort (i.e. privatizing records of a minor even from their own parents) for a serious long time.
A guess is not a number therefore taints a “study”.
If you want to “prove” your “programs” are working, you just adjust the numbers you have and guess in the direction that favors your point.
I live in a rural area which is very conservative. Our girls came home often with, “Guess who is pregnant now?” “Guess who got an abortion”. That was a daily occurrence. One of our daughters had a friend who was 14 and had 3 abortions.
Still, 4 girls taught abstinence beats 4 girls on birth control every day.
P.S. No STD’s from abstinence.
While you may have mental issues, Chappie, your problem with this - as I said - is likely more due to naiveté and a lack of experience & common sense.
(All: insert group eyerolling here)
Another outburst displaying naiveté - in particular of logical argument - is probably the culprit here.
An intelligent person is not very easily sent off snipehunts to prove the negative for someone else’s “point”. When fanstastic claims going against all evidence, experience and common sense are tossed out the burden of proof isn’t on those on whom the unbelievable claims are offered up as would-be “proof”.
Even with hard numbers, which neither you or Rusty can offer, you have to know what’s what.
Now, if instead of throwing out as proof some webpage of a group named after notorious abortionist and head of “Planned Parenthood” Alan Guttmacher, y’all could post “cold” US Gov’t statistics showing the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births in 1907 compared to the current year, then you would be on the right track.
Otherwise your (and Rusty’s) notion is to be quite correctly dismissed out of hand.
Speaking of snipe hunting, I’m thinking you and Rusty might enjoy it. They are in season and they are mighty tasty - if you use the right kind of sauce and flavorings. Seek out a conservative and ask him if you can go along on a hunt. You’ll find most conservatives very welcoming of new fellow hunters.
This year the US Government is allowing hunters to hunt snipe without a license. Though last year’s requirement for reflective material (tape works good) on flashlights - for when they’re not turned on - has been continued. Hunter’s safety, y’know.
I’m thinking of having snipe instead of turkey for Thanksgiving again this year since everybody loved it last year. Hopefully we’ll get enough hunters together to bag the limit!
Even the liberal media has a “common sense clue” on the question at hand.
“Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year, government health officials said Tuesday.”
“Out-of-wedlock births have been rising since the late 1990s.”
CBS News - Nov. 21, 2006
“37 Percent of U.S. Births Out of Wedlock”
Snipe, er I mean, Peeps: it just goes to show ya just never know what people are into.
can ya hunt it with a bow?
And with all of 3 seconds of Googling, we find even the “Planned Parenthood”- linked group Rusty came up with as “proof positive” joins in the chorus to settle the matter -
“The ‘Illegitimacy Bonus’ and State Efforts To Reduce Out-of-Wedlock Births
By Patricia Donovan
Out-of-wedlock births have increased dramatically in recent decades and now account for about one-third of U.S. births each year.”
Pro-abortion group says there’s more unmarried pregnancies
How embarassing. Well, unless they lied on one webpage but told “the truth” on another, of course (but I don’t know Chaps and Rusty will wanna go that-a-route).
The voters not having kids raises an important issue. Just last year during the CA elections there was a measure on the ballot (got the SF wing-nuts in a major tizzy).
Measure was about allowing underage teens to have abortions without the consent of a parent. The emotional argument was that some teens feared that their parents would beat them up if they found out they were pregnant…and even perhaps KILL them.
(major eye roll from the feebs).
You had the typical banchies at the bart entrance - launching into verbal tirrades to passers by …throwing out flyers (paper cuts to innocent passers-by increased that day ten fold).
I couldn’t help it. I asked one of these harpes as a flyer was forced into the palm of my hand, “Miss, do you have children of your own?” Guess what her answer was…..
Thats right folks, its not whats in the best interest of the children…but rather anything to further their political causes…
Instead of reproductive responsibility…we have reproductive freedom…yeah, right!
Well, as you know, Bear, snipe are not dangerous creatures. But, of course, many snipehunting parties packy a firearm or other weapon to stop the animals who prey on the snipe. Some of these same animals could also be dangerous to humans.
From your own experience I expect you know how the snipe’s speed helps them avoid danger from other animals. (And from ending up on a hunter’s plate!) On the other hand, their speed does cut both ways as they usually cannot slow down enough to avoid being fully bagged.
bear…is that what all those piggies in Orinda are about?
Rusty’s problem is that he or she doesn’t have children. There is a different perspective when you are responsible for the well-being, care and devlopment of a young innocent life entrusted to you by God. And believe me you will be held accountable for your caregiver responsibilities. No greater privilege is there than to bring a life into this world and nurture that life responsibly and lovingly. To encourage open sex, pills, condoms, abortion, booze, drugs or whatever falls into the destructive trap of liberal secular humanistic thinking that there are no absolutes or consequences for violations of long standing cultural (Judeo Christian) norms.
#54 - i agree in part. i think being raised right helps. i don’t have kids…i think this is ridiculous.
As the mom of two teenage boys, I have to add to all of this that they see their school administration as an authority figure. If this authority figure is handing out condoms, I can’t help but think my boys will see that as legitimizing the behavior. I am so thankful that we have chosen to keep them in Catholic schools, where their teachers know them and are allowed to support the morals they are taught at home.
To be fair, Al - and in keeping with your context of faith - it can’t be all laid at the feet of “liberal secular humanism”, although that mindset is indeed a factor.
I don’t believe most liberal secular humanists follow that as an intentional cause and effect - i.e. “I demand moral anarchy!”. Some do.
In the Christian context it’s more the “human” than the “humanism”. A fallen nature rejects God and His way for a good life.
In such a state (fallen nature) people need - to avoid a “personal cognitive dissonance” of sorts - to find a way to excuse or explain away their own and all other manner of behavior. Probably the most common and “easiest” way people go about this is to claim “nobody knows what’s right and wrong, much less if there even is right or wrong”.
Having told oneself this, a person can reject “reaping and sowing” and go about doing whatever s/he chooses.
But I think you could correctly maintain that liberalism, as we know it today, includes the unintentional codification of that particular belief system of relevance and rejection of any authoriy other than that which feels right at any given time.
Booze has had home in a lot of Catholic cultures–well, maybe I’m primarily thinking of the Irish. Open sex, the pill, condoms less so.
Family planning is important though, even most U.S. Catholic families have moved away from Vatican teaching on contraception during the past generation.
peep…
re comment 45. How am I asking you to prove a negative? I am asking you to provide evidence refutes the study Rusty provided. That is not “proving a negative.” That’s like saying Rusty “proved a negative” by refuting Soapbox’s claim that teen pregancies are higher now than in the 50s. Learn your logic terms. You question the validity of the evidence provided by Rusty, one of which is by the CDC, but can’t find one study, even one done by someone like Focus on the Family or something that supports your contention? All any of you have provided is anecdote. That and a buck fifty will get you a coffee.
re comment 50. Unmarried pregnancies and teen pregnancies are not remotely the same thing.
Almaheehan: I will ignore the condescension in your post and just note for your sake and many others here the fact that 1) Rusty (nor I) is not advocating
“open sex, pills, condoms, abortion, booze, drugs or whatever falls into the destructive trap of liberal secular humanistic thinking” by pointing out that an argument someone is making to support their contention is, by all actual evidence provided here, false. I know that may be a too-subtle difference to some here, but it is an important one. Nor does that have anything in the world to do with whether or not someone has children. I am sure that having them may change one’s perspective, but it does not change fact.
One thing to bear in mind while looking at “teen pregnancy” rates is how many of them are married…It would be interesting to know how many people were getting married right out of highschool at any given period - I understand that a couple decades ago college was much rarer than it is today, which may indicate that people got married earlier. I know of one couple in the 1920s wherein the girl was 16.
Rusty may have a point, albeit not the one he thinking he is making - the culture glorifies promiscuity so much that school policy may not have much of an effect on students’ behavior in that area. How much effect does it have generally? (I was homeschooled, so I can’t say from experience)
Thinking about it, it occurs to me that to defend the distribution of birth control in schools one would have to show a fairly dramatic decrease in pregnancy rates - even a modest decrease will indicate that the benefit of easily available birth control is being being largely taken away by increased sexual activity. Promiscuous behavior carries penalties other than pregnancy - emotional problems and STDs come to mind.
So, even if you could prove a slight decrease in pregnancy rates by handing out birth control, you are still probably seeing an increase in sexual activity with all the associated problems.
In sum, in order to defend school distribution of contraception, one must show that it reduces pregnancy rates without increasing sexual activity. Making sense?
This is a fair point. There have been many studies that show that availability of condoms in school does not increase sexual activity nor decrease the average age of first sexual activity. Here is a link to one of the better ones. The WHO also did a meta-study of a number of studies studies and came to the conclusion. I had found it before for another thread, but can’t seem to find it right off.
Before I go through the same arguments as before: This does not mean you have to support birth control in schools. It just means that you shouldn’t use the argument that it increases promiscuity to support your point.
That 63 are you the parent of a teenager do you suppose that could be teenagers voting? Specifically do you believe in giving birth control pills to little girls btw 11-13- theres a good poll question, and ask people with children this age in middle school.
Really it is a Sampling not a real Poll. What is the criteria for a Poll, I mean the percentage of people queried?
On November 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 pm, dedalus said:
Ouch! My Irish ancestors may have enjoyed the booze a bit much, but I can honestly tell you that the Church’s teaching on natural family planning is taken quite seriously here!
It is, Chappie. Sometimes Creationists will use the same tactic you’re employing here: Rusty tried to pass off some opinions of a pro-abortion interest group and you state that “refutuation” has to be made to prove “it isn’t true”. Been called the “Criswell demand” and often follows the most patently absurd and unbelievable of claims:
Can You Prove It’s NOT true??!!
If most teenage girls were married, you’d have a point - otherwise you just have the very finest of distinctions. I suspect that few, if any, of the 11 year olds to whom the school wants to distribute birth controls pills have celebrated very many wedding aniversaries.
And therein is the crucial difference between being politically correct and being correct, Chaps. Anybody who depends on a webpage of special interest group as THE PROOF or THE TRUTH just isn’t starting out from the best of places intellectually. I personally just don’t have much interest in recycling third or forth hand opinions in a desperate attempt to justify my own. I have even less interest in an “interest group dueling opinions” performance. I’m much more given to cold, hard facts.
But if you accept Focus On The Family’s opinion on things as THE definitive final word, I’m sure many other folks will appreciate that acknowledgement on a great many questions that may arise here!
I hear you on both counts. My older Irish relatives are a little bit more into libations and more opposed to birth control. My peers in their 30’s and 40’s have settled on 2 or 3 children while our parents and grandparents seemed to average around 5 kids.
The CDC is a pro abortion interest group?
Here is how this argument is going. Rusty says “A” and supports that with actual scientific studies. You say “Not A” and support it with zilch. Zero. Nada. I don’t want to teach remedial logic, but “proving a negative” has to do with saying x is true solely because there is no proof that it is not. That is entirely different than saying x is true because studies have been done demonstrating the veracity of x and oh by the way, there is nothing to refute those studies.
All I want is for you to back up your assertion with proof. Is that asking too much? Seriously that is all I want.
In terms of the Focus on Family, I said that because at this point I would consider ANYTHING. Any emperical evidence to support your assertion. Please? Show me anything.
Hello Rusty…
Welcome to King Middle School in Portland Maine where the school board c just decided that it was ok to give prescribe birth control pills to 11 yo girls without parent notification at the in-school clinic.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=141436&ac=PHnws
So how exactly do you know what THEY meant in the poll?
I don’t think that schools should be in the birth control business. There is already a Planned Parent Clinic on every other street corner. Just how easy to we have to make it for them?
I’m not an idiot. With a 13, 11 and 10 year old… I’m preaching Abstinance. BUT… that’s not all I’m preaching. Because as much as I’d like them to wait if they decide not to I want them to be careful. And to feel comfortable coming to me. Pregnancy really is one of the more ‘minor’ side effects of teenage sex. There are thousands of families that would love to give a healthy infant a home. But STD’s and the dangers to self esteem and mental health can be life long.
No. You claim that the studies contradict each other (”they lied on one webpage but told “the truth” on another”). They do not contradict at all. It means that the increase in unmarried pregnancies is due 1) to more unmarried adults having kids 2)less married teens or 3) a combination of both. Follow?
It could be possible that there is a decrease in overall teen pregnancy but an increase in unmarried teen pregnancy since the 50s. This would not surprise me. But that is not what was being argued.
chapoutier,
Where to start.
#36: If you are going to “quote” me, cut and paste and get it right otherwise, take the “quote” marks off. Your paraphrase is a joke.
#59:
I never made the claim. I asked Rusty to provide the - what is the word you keep spouting - PROOF that teen pregnancies are lower now than in the 50’s (which he did not do).
You are a lawyer so we see what you are trying to do.
Rusty:
Your response:
Come on…honestly tell me you were not disagreeing with Rusty’s statement.
Huh? Yes. He did.
If being a lawyer means I am trying to actually make a logical argument, guilty as charged.
Chap
No, you are trying to redirect who has the burden of proof.
The increase in birth control use is without a doubt one of the things that have created this.
Without a doubt eh? Yep and I will say it again - that is bull.
Rusty: “And I know estimating abortion is imperfect, but there is a concerted effort to make sure those pregnancies are counted.”
You, being a lawyer, would have a case dismissed if this was “PROOF” of anything. Your first problem would be “estimating = concerted effort” representing a number.
Sir, I say to you - give us all a break.
What exactly was this meant to imply?
I note you only quote the “less pregnancies” part of Rusty’s assertion, not the causation part, when making this statement. The obvious assumption here is that you do not believe it to be true.
Again, maybe I am wrong, but I really think you were disagreeing with Rusty’s statement that there were less teen pregnancies in the 50s than today. Either that or you are simply careless with your words.
But here’s a simple test:
Do agree with the statement that teen pregnancies are lower now than in the 50s?
Yes or no.
If all you were really disputing was the idea that the decrease had to do with availability of birth control, this should not be too vexing.
Certainly the group Rusty linked to, without any mention that it’s a pro-abortion group - just a “click here, page five”, is undeniably a special interest activist group offering it’s opinions. By your own comparision, like “Focus On The Family”.
The one line that was cherry-picked completely out of contect from the CDC was:
“The national teen birth rate was at its highest in 1957, at 96 births per 1,000 women ages 15-19.”
Such dishonest highlighting is easily exposed and something more comes out in the inconvenient sentences before and after:
“Still, teen birth rates are higher today than in the mid-1980’s when the rate was at its lowest point, 50-53 births per thousand teens age 15-19.”
And the latter sentence, is devastatingly problematic to you:
“However, most teenagers giving birth in the 1950’s and for the next two decades were married while the vast majority of teenage mothers today are unmarried.”
You say that’s not important. By it’s very mention obviously the CDC disagrees.
Errr, no - he gave his opinion which he, in turn, got from a “Planned Parenthood”-related pro-abortion activist group opinion.
If you claim Santa is real because your best friend “said so” I’m under no obligation and I have the good sense not to debate Santa’s non-exsistence just to humor you. But I can say it’s total BS. Wouldn’t do that to a kid; I’d hope your constitution can take a like jolt, tho.
You could get into a rip-roaring debate with Dr. Dobson of FOTF; he claims homosexuality is a sin and cites supporting Bible texts. When he demands you to prove it’s not, you’re welcome to have at it. (Unless you believe it is a sin, of course.) As an alternative, common sense may kick in, you might tell yourself “I’m not getting suckered in by Doc Dobson’s Criswell demand”, point out the absurdity of the “prove it!” demand and decline to play altogether.
I agree, good career choice, Chap; one’s reach sometimes really should not exceed one’s ability.
I notice how folks sometimes tend to do that after they realize they’ve painted themselves into a corner.
(You can’t prove my opinion on that is wrong, Soap!)
The increase in birth control use is without a doubt one of the things that have created this.
Without a doubt eh? Yep and I will say it again - that is bull.
AHHHHHH IT WAS THE CDC THAT SAID THAT TEEN PREGNANCY WAS HIGHEST IN 1957! JUST BECAUSE A “PRO ABORTION” GROUP CITED THE STUDY DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS DONE BY THEM! And one (not someone with a shred of sense anyway) cannot equate a study done by the CDC with me believing in Santa because a friend “says so”. Are you listening to yourself?
Seriously, how can one not be able to follow a simple argument?
And guess what genius, I already acknowledged that teens in the 50s may have been married more than today. That is not what was being argued. I guess you missed that.
You do not understand how to make a logical argument, so please for the love of god stop trying.
Again, I welcome you to go right on hating the idea of condoms or birth control pills in school. Just do it from a sound factual/moral basis
I (or rather Rusty) made my prima facie case in the form of actual empirical evidence, apparently a novel concept here. As in any case once one has made his prima facie case, it doesn’t mean he has won, but it does mean that the burden of proof then shifts to the defendant to disprove one of the elements.
Your going off the deep end in making your argument even more emotional, Chap. Steady.
The linked pro-abortion group’s material actually never cites that sentence ( as near as I tell).
No, what you believe is some inflated bizarre spinning of one totally out of context sentence. Santa would make more sense in comparison.
More spin: “May have been”?
Actually it’s the very heart of the question at hand - that’s why it’s being so feverishly downplayed, it very clearly exposes where you careened off the logic track:
Nobody cares that married couples are having sex and having children.
If you can find anyone here who complained about sex within marriage in the 1950s, point it out. In regard to the matter here, everyone is refering to girls who “ran around” and got pregnant. Not wives who had children in the 60s.
So the folks here are correct as testified to by the unspun full facts, common sense and real life experential knowledge. You’re offering the spin, some tres fuzzy logic and likely, as I mentioned before, a short experiential base from which to work.
I meant the 50s. But since it applies up to the 80s, it’s okay.
Using an allegory to more clearly reframe the importance of the marriage factor re: Chap’s argument -
In comments on a hypothetical article about the uncreasing number of guns in “Chapsville”, Chappie (and others) could offer this observation:
“I’ve lived in Chapsville since the 50s, very few people were packing heat back then.”
I respond “Not really, most people have always carried handguns in Chapsville, even in the 50s.”
Chappie asks: “Where do you get your information on that?”
I reply: Here’s one place “Handguns 4 Everyone dot com” (a group devoted to the idea that everyone should carry a handgun). They mention a Chapsville Firearms Dept note that the majority of Chapsville residents carried revolvers in 1957.
I’d expect Chaps to blow off the “Handguns 4 Everyone” out of hand - not to shoot the messenger, but because they’re not the originating source of any relevant info.
(Fair enough, since they’re just spinners.)
I then offer this from the source, the Chapsville FireArms Dept, as my trump card:
“The Chapsville handgun carrying rate was at its highest in 1957″
Chaps points out the sentence following that one:
“However, the great majority of those who carried handguns were police.”
Chappie would, quite correctly, further point out that everyone expects the police to carry handguns, it’s normal for police to be required to carry a handgun. Numbering the police in with criminals who were packing heat was unhelpful at best, and in fact, if anything, with the police contituting the majority of those carrying handguns it goes to prove his original assertion.
There is also legal liability, Birth Control Pills, require a Doctor’s Perscription. This isn’t over the counter drugs, and even when the school is despensing over the counter drugs, they have to have the permission of the parent. I have to think before long there would be lawyers, circling the Public Schools, that pass this kind of School Policy.
Folks,discussing polls is a complete no winner. First, all polls are suspect. Do you remember the fed scientists who planted Lynx hair to prove that the stupid cats needed a larger territory? NASA and global warmimg. What is brought to the table is bias and it goes from there. Congrats to the parents who raised their children successfully. The real t*** in the punchbowl are STDs.
I pity the school that ever gives my daughter birth control pills without my knowledge. Problem is, parents are not doing their jobs and so the schools are trying to compensate for it. To me the whole thing is like handing out candy to children everytime they ask for it and then complaining the kids are too hyper.
As a parent, it’s my job to teach my kids about sex, how to be safe and smart and most importantly RESPONSIBLE for their actions. My kids are only 9 and 12 and we’ve already discussed the fact that if they don’t want the responsibility of a baby they best decide if sex is worth that potential side effect of it.
It’s my job to make sure that if my daughter really and truely needs to be on the pill that she hears all of her options and all potential side effects. Luckily she will know that and not seek it out at school because any school (or planned parenthood) that attempts to circumvent my role will find themselves at the end of a lawsuit.
The problem is this issue isn’t being handled at home where it belongs.
Agreed. A decision about birth control should be handled at home and not in the school.
How do we address teens who get little or no guidance at home? A teen who may have a single mom who was herself a teen mother. From a societal standpoint, do we benefit from a program that makes an attempt to reduce teen births.
The home is the first and best choice, but what if the home is a disaster?
Not politically correct, dedalus, but the very best way to remedy that has always been to remove children from unfit homes.
purple, sometimes you just need to know when to quit dude. Buck I kicked your hind parts up and down this thread…that was embarrassing.
Laddie, if you check you will see after I pointed out the patently false use of one sentence in your wild, failed attempt to prop up your Santa-like fantasy, I was finished. That my incredibly obvious point cannot be refuted speaks for itself.
But I suspect that wasn’t the first time you’ve been rendered silent by logic and clear thinking.
Had anyone complained here about all the 1950s-70s girls who were getting married and rasing families you might have stood a fighting chance; wasn’t to be though.
Sorry “dude”. (Eye’s rolling - what, I’m explaining things to a Valley Girl??)
This is where our schools really have an opportunity to provide a positive influence. Rather than handing out condoms, teachers/school administrators (as well as scout leaders, coaches, church members, and other adults who have close interactions with teens) could be modelling and encouraging moral behavior. Parents of teens can certainly influence the friends of their children, though it does require some willingness to risk being politically incorrect…
Can’t improve much on that. The public school system’s encouraging and enabling of bad behavior certainly isn’t the way to go.
Laddie, you still got your fanny kicked up and down this thread by Buck I. (Eyes rolling - what, I’m blasting an 80 year old Scottish guy???)
dakine, are you drunk or high or something?
Buck had these two posts on this thread:
It looks to me like Buck agrees with peep, mostly.
Put the bong down and go outside, dakine.
My guess would be “something”, AOFM.
The biggest problem here for those who tried to make the truly bizarre claim that teen pregnancies were more common in the 50s is the complete dependence on one out of context sentence from a webpage. The dependence is even more problematic when that sentence is clarified by the pages’ entirety.
If anybody had here bemoaned the rate of birth of 50s married couples, then Rusty, Chappy and Dak, et al might have a point.
As I outlined, what was tried here would be the same as lumping police in with criminals to determine how often guns are used to commit crimes since both groups carry guns.
On the other hand, the gang has helped to very vivid illustrate the lesson this blog entry highlights. Some people will try to lie with numbers - or, as in this case, misrepresent a tiny out of context snippet from some webpage - and hope you don’t ask any questions.
My bad…I meant to refer to chapoutier. Angry, I’ve seen your youtube stuff, so you might want to keep the ad hominems to a minimum.
The simple reality is that teenagers have sex despite our best efforts and intentions as parents. Always have, always will. News flash: even the “best” kids don’t always listen to their parents and don’t always tell their parents everything they do. Parents and other role models need to help kids understand the consequences related to sexual activity, but that’s often times not enough. Fact is, based on all available evidence and common sense, that the availability of effective birth control reduces teenage pregnancy rates and occurrences of STDs and does not result in an increase in sexual activity. All this is true without regard to a moral or religious need to believe that teenagers don’t have sex and/or that birth control is a bad thing.
Go Pats!
No, sorry, if you aren’t raising kids, especially girls, your opinion doesn’t count. I now have 2 teenage girls. When I was in my 20’s I thought it was great that girls could go to Planned (abortions)Parenthood and get pills almost for free without a prescription or consent. Now that I am older and have 2 of my own, I know better. Giving them pills is like giving them consent for sex. We teach self-respect and abstinence. So far it’s working. All girls Catholic school helps. I can’t control their every move and someday they may choose to have sex before they are married or while they are still teens, but my husband and I keep tabs on them and make it very difficult to be somewhere other than where they said they would be. That’s right liberals, we parent our kids. AND THEY DON”T HATE US. Why does everyone ignore the health risks in taking birth control pills? Stroke, blood clots, death???