Is Mandatory Contraception the Solution to Teen Pregnancy?

[zomgwtf]

...don't have time for this right now, though. But in short, I don't see the issue too much differently than mandatory innoculation.

Is there mandatory inoculation in America? I know in Canada there is absolutely no law/policy regarding mandatory inoculation. Some schools/workplaces/groups of people will require you to have specific vaccinations prior to you joining... but that's not 'mandatory'. So no this would not be the same, as I understand it to be, as mandatory inoculation.

Now what if jobs or high schools started requiring that female students undergo this contraception. Who will pay for it? The school? The government? The parents? I still don't think it's the same, even if it were done for free by the government. Vaccinations don't toss out the window a persons natural rights. Mandatory contraception does.

 

[magpies]

For real why do you all even care about birth rates? The problem is not birth rates but stupidity. If the stupidity isn't so high we will be able to manage many children. Of course I do understand that a society with a lot of smarts probably would be having mostly clones born in a factory rather then barbaric way...

I guess my point is face it your all barbarians living in the stone age your only hope is for a group of friendly aliens to arive and tame this wilderness.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's not going to work. And here's why.

In the U.S., teen pregnancy is primarily a problem in religious societies, particularly among Catholics. Normal people like you and I allow and approve of sex-ed, condoms, abortion in the first trimester if it comes to that. Religious zealots do not approve of any of it. Their standard answer is "abstinence till marriage". And, of course, it fails. It fails so bad that teen pregnancy rates among latina girls (for the most part, raised in zealous Catholic households) can be literally TEN TIMES higher than those of godless white residents of Silicon Valley.

You can have the best available kinds of contraception in the world, and they won't help if the only thing that the teen's parents would accept is abstinence till marriage.

Or maybe it has to do with that the majority of latinas live in poverty? Which was exactly what russ's post points at: A cycle of pregnancies and increasing poverty. I highly doubt the people in Silicon Valley are poor by any standard. Doesn't Apple and Intel have their headquarters there? I know there are probably 10 Fortune 100 companies with headquarters there.

 

[Char. Limit]

Or maybe it has to do with that the majority of latinas live in poverty? Which was exactly what russ's post points at: A cycle of pregnancies and increasing poverty. I highly doubt the people in Silicon Valley are poor by any standard. Doesn't Apple and Intel have their headquarters there? I know there are probably 10 Fortune 100 companies with headquarters there.

In short, we have one effect, and two possible causes. You are arguing for one, zomg, and hamster is arguing for another. I just want to ask... why not both?

 

[zomgwtf]

For real why do you all even care about birth rates? The problem is not birth rates but stupidity. If the stupidity isn't so high we will be able to manage many children. Of course I do understand that a society with a lot of smarts probably would be having mostly clones born in a factory rather then barbaric way...

Yeah it is stupidity but it has nothing to do with 'managing' children. It has to do with parenting ability and the impact a child will have on ANOTHER CHILD WHO IS THE PARENT. I know my mother dropped out of high-school in grade 10 in order to raise my ***. BOOM Highschool education out the window, further education opportunities ALL GONE, economic security at the time, NONE. etc. etc. the list just goes on and on.

I guess my point is face it your all barbarians living in the stone age your only hope is for a group of friendly aliens to arive and tame this wilderness.

I guess my point is, if your not posting to make a valid post in relation to the OP, then don't post at all.

 

[Kerrie]

Give it a few years. But the point is, you can't mandatory inject women with anti-fertility drugs, and let man roam free. Besides the fact that creating infertility in a human being, even temporary, against it's will is a violation of the most elementary rights, targeting only women is sexual discrimination.

I agree with most of this statement. For one, has there been any research as to any long term effects of injected contraception for young women? They may be able to produce a child, but that doesn't mean they themselves are done developing. Also, with such a mandate, this gives license to young men (and even older men) to have sex more frequently and again, spread disease more rapidly. I don't agree this is sexual discrimination because if Norplant was available for men, there is still the debate of rampant sex that in the end can lead to diseases.

 

[zomgwtf]

In short, we have one effect, and two possible causes. You are arguing for one, zomg, and hamster is arguing for another. I just want to ask... why not both?

It very well might be both. I'm sure there is a poll done somewhere on the internet.

I would say though, with 90% certainty that at least 80% of the problem has to do with the people being in poverty in the first place which greatly effects their quality of education.

 

[Char. Limit]

I agree with most of this statement. For one, has there been any research as to any long term effects of injected contraception for young women? They may be able to produce a child, but that doesn't mean they themselves are done developing. Also, with such a mandate, this gives license to young men (and even older men) to have sex more frequently and again, spread disease more rapidly. I don't agree this is sexual discrimination because if Norplant was available for men, there is still the debate of rampant sex that in the end can lead to diseases.

I can't tell about the last sentence... are you saying that you don't agree, that this is sexual discrimination, or you don't agree that this is sexual discrimination? Are you saying it is or it isn't?

 

[magpies]

I think the main reason for not going through with forced condoms is that once we walk down that road it's going to be twice as hard to get out of it. Why not just make it so that people have to raise there own children. I bet half the people who have babies would stop if there wasn't a good reason $$$ wise to do it. So basically all we men would have to do is stop supporting women who get pregnent via what ever means we do. Like tax breaks, food stamps, education, appartments ect... Just take away any help from someone who has a child. If they can't raise the child without help they shouldn't be having it right?

 

[russ_watters]

In the U.S., teen pregnancy is primarily a problem in religious societies, particularly among Catholics. Normal people like you and I allow and approve of sex-ed, condoms, abortion in the first trimester if it comes to that. Religious zealots do not approve of any of it. Their standard answer is "abstinence till marriage". And, of course, it fails. It fails so bad that teen pregnancy rates among latina girls (for the most part, raised in zealous Catholic households) can be literally TEN TIMES higher than those of godless white residents of Silicon Valley.

You can have the best available kinds of contraception in the world, and they won't help if the only thing that the teen's parents would accept is abstinence till marriage.

I don't know that that necessarily follows. Your one stat there has an obvious income-based bias to it, so I'd need to see some statistics normalized for income/social status/race in order to accept that religion alone plays a big role. Ie, do wealthy catholic whites have 10x the teen pregnancy rate of wealthy protestant whites or wealthy athiest whites?

 

[zomgwtf]

I think the main reason for not going through with forced condoms is that once we walk down that road it's going to be twice as hard to get out of it. Why not just make it so that people have to raise there own children. I bet half the people who have babies would stop if there wasn't a good reason $$$ wise to do it. So basically all we men would have to do is stop supporting women who get pregnent via what ever means we do. Like tax breaks, food stamps, education, appartments ect... Just take away any help from someone who has a child. If they can't raise the child without help they shouldn't be having it right?

So you punish the child? This probably won't effect the type of parent your talking about. They would probably just get rid of the child, have an abortion legally or illegally, or the child will just end up dying of neglect.

Maybe we should just take the baby away from the mother at birth and after the mother goes through labour we take out her ovaries.

 

[hamster143]

Or maybe it has to do with that the majority of latinas live in poverty? Which was exactly what russ's post points at: A cycle of pregnancies and increasing poverty. I highly doubt the people in Silicon Valley are poor by any standard. Doesn't Apple and Intel have their headquarters there? I know there are probably 10 Fortune 100 companies with headquarters there.

Where's the causal link between poverty and pregnancy rate? This is not sub-Saharan Africa, you can't argue that poor people can't afford protection. Our local Albertson's carries lubricated condoms for $12.49 per 12-pack. A https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000H3URIU/?tag=pfamazon01-20 will provide your average non-promiscuous teenage girl with protection for a year.

On the other hand, there is an obvious causal link between religiousness and teen pregnancies.

 

[russ_watters]

In short, we have one effect, and two possible causes. You are arguing for one, zomg, and hamster is arguing for another. I just want to ask... why not both?

Well, both are really suggestions of a factual nature, so we should try to see which one (or part of both) is true. Here's some stats: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

Unfortunately, they are not broken down according to income or religion, but they are broken down by race. What they say is that latinas have twice the teen pregnancy rate of whites and blacks are a little higher than latinas. Since latinas are more likely to be catholic than black, but both blacks and latinas are on average poorer than whites, I infer a more economic-based corellation.

...I'll continue to look for better stats, though...

 

[Char. Limit]

Where's the causal link between poverty and pregnancy rate? This is not sub-Saharan Africa, you can't argue that poor people can't afford protection. Our local Albertsons carries lubricated condoms for $12.49 per 12-pack. A https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000H3URIU/?tag=pfamazon01-20 will provide your average non-promiscuous teenage girl with protection for a year.

On the other hand, there is an obvious causal link between religiousness and teen pregnancies.

Yay, representation for my workplace!

 

[zomgwtf]

Where's the causal link between poverty and pregnancy rate? This is not sub-Saharan Africa, you can't argue that poor people can't afford protection. Our local Albertson's carries lubricated condoms for $12.49 per 12-pack. A https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000H3URIU/?tag=pfamazon01-20 will provide your average non-promiscuous teenage girl with protection for a year.

On the other hand, there is an obvious causal link between religiousness and teen pregnancies.

Education or lack thereof. I clearly stated that in my post. KKTHX

 

[JoeDawg]

try reading the rest of the post, where I say that even though pregnancy isn't a disease, vaccination is still a precedent;

Oh well, as long as YOU said it... but you're still wrong.
They are completely different situations.
So your precedent is invalid.

 

[hamster143]

Unfortunately, they are not broken down according to income or religion, but they are broken down by race. What they say is that latinas have twice the teen pregnancy rate of whites and blacks are a little higher than latinas.

With regard to birth rates, here's some data for different races in California counties:

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_1107HJCC.pdf

page 18

Marin county (very wealthy county, I can't afford to live there and probably neither can you), :

Latinas: 80.5 births / 1000 teens / year
Whites: 3.0 births / 1000 teens / year

 

[russ_watters]

Though I doubt many people disagree about the core facts I've claimed (people are arguing as if they assume they are true), here's some interesting stats I just found that support the starting premise:

What are the chances of a child growing up in pov-erty if:
(1) the mother gave birth as a teen,
(2) the par-ents were unmarried when the child was born, and
(3) the mother did not receive a high school diploma or GED?
27% if one of these things happen
42% if two of these things happen
64% if three of these things happen
Only 7% if none of these things happen
Put another way, if these three things happen, a child’s chance of growing up in poverty is 9 times greater than if none of these things happen.7

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/why-it-matters/pdf/poverty.pdf

 

[hamster143]

Education or lack thereof. I clearly stated that in my post. KKTHX

Please clarify what you mean by education. Latinas and whites go to the same schools and follow the same curricula. Is there something that wealthy white parents learn in college that makes their kids less likely to get pregnant?

 

[russ_watters]

Where's the causal link between poverty and pregnancy rate?

See my post above.

On the other hand, there is an obvious causal link between religiousness and teen pregnancies.

That's a claim of fact I'll need to see evidence for. I can see logically that if a corellation exists the causation would be logical, but I do not see evidence that the corellation exists.

Please clarify what you mean by education. Latinas and whites go to the same schools and follow the same curricula. Is there something that wealthy white parents learn in college that makes their kids less likely to get pregnant?

It's not what they learned in college, it is what they learned at home that enabled them to go to college. Again, see the stats I just posted.

 

[hamster143]

See my post above. That's a claim of fact I'll need to see evidence for. I can see logically that if a corellation exists the causation would be logical, but I do not see evidence that the corellation exists. It's not what they learned in college, it is what they learned at home that enabled them to go to college. Again, see the stats I just posted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

"U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests. ... [The researchers] found a strong correlation between statewide conservative religiousness and statewide teen birth rate even when they accounted for income and abortion rates."

 

[russ_watters]

With regard to birth rates, here's some data for different races in California counties:

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_1107HJCC.pdf

page 18

Marin county (very wealthy county, I can't afford to live there and probably neither can you), :

Latinas: 80.5 births / 1000 teens / year
Whites: 3.0 births / 1000 teens / year

That data is useless. You seem to be implying that we can assume everyone in that county is equally wealthy, but we can't.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

"U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests. ... [The researchers] found a strong correlation between statewide conservative religiousness and statewide teen birth rate even when they accounted for income and abortion rates."

[edit] I was incorrect. It says they did control for income. Well in that case, I'd very much like to see their stats.

 

[hamster143]

It's not what they learned in college, it is what they learned at home that enabled them to go to college. Again, see the stats I just posted.

That's still too vague. "What they learned at home that enabled them to go to college" might well be some liberal religion or lack of any religion. You're implying some sort of intermediate link in the causal chain (since there's no direct poverty->teen pregnancy causation), but it's not clear to me what it is.

The researchers do not attempt to control for education

They do control for income:

"Religiosity correlated negatively with median household income, with r = -0.66, and income correlated negatively with teen birth rate, with r = -0.63. But the correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate remained highly significant when income was controlled for via partial correlation: the partial correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate, controlling for income, was 0.53 (p < 0.0005). "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19761588

 

[zomgwtf]

What I mean by lack of education is simply that from my experience poor people tend not to attend school, and they tend to not pay attention or they dick around etc.. Those that really strive in school and want to better themselves are really rare. Most of them just want to make money you know?

I never said a correlation for religion didn't have anything to do with I just downplayed how substantial a role it had to do with it relative to income. Especially since you are picking on the latinas, which aren't exactly the most wealthy group in America.

hamster seems to be getting rid of poverty entirely and is taking this moment in time to hack away at religious ideologies, you can tell by the way he treats what other people bring up as completely wrong and throws all the blame to religion lol.

EDIT: By the way, my math skills are not up-to-par but I think what that article says is that income is a more substantial influence in teen-pregnancy. Not 100% sure though...

 

[russ_watters]

That's still too vague. "What they learned at home that enabled them to go to college" might well be some liberal religion or lack of any religion. You're implying some sort of intermediate link in the causal chain (since there's no direct poverty->teen pregnancy causation), but it's not clear to me what it is.

The causal link is that poverty is associated with/caused by poor life choices/risk behaviors. Teen pregnancy the result of one of those risk behaviors and kids learn it from their parents.

They do control for income:

"Religiosity correlated negatively with median household income, with r = -0.66, and income correlated negatively with teen birth rate, with r = -0.63. But the correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate remained highly significant when income was controlled for via partial correlation: the partial correlation between religiosity and teen birth rate, controlling for income, was 0.53 (p < 0.0005). "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19761588

I edited my post after reading more of the article - I'll take a look. In any case, the quote you posted above says that while "religiosity" is significant, income is more significant.

 

[russ_watters]

While I find this part of the discussion interesting, it is really off topic. Regardless of what causes teen pregnancy, you do agree that teen pregnancy causes poverty, right?

 

[magpies]

Teen pregnancy doesn't cause poverty... Poverty exists because money needs slaves.

 

[russ_watters]

Teen pregnancy doesn't cause poverty... Poverty exists because money needs slaves.

Huh?

 

[JoeDawg]

Regardless of what causes teen pregnancy, you do agree that teen pregnancy causes poverty, right?

This is a severe leap in logic, unless you're claiming Bristol Palin is now living in poverty.
Some how I doubt it.

Not having rich parents, however, can lead to poverty.