Free Contraceptive Program = 40% Drop In Teen Birth Rate

[Steinlight]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

I disagree in this case. With birth control, it's not only the cost of the pill but the associated doctors visits - poor people would struggle to afford that.

Women Struggle with the Cost of Birth Control

This is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue. A 2010 survey found that more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently. This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month. That adds up to over $600 per year. Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.​

That is rather cheap and often times birth control can be less than even 15 dollars a month, and the price has only gone down over time.

 

[Coyote]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

And note: no more shotgun weddings.

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

 

[Coyote]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

I disagree in this case. With birth control, it's not only the cost of the pill but the associated doctors visits - poor people would struggle to afford that.

Women Struggle with the Cost of Birth Control

This is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue. A 2010 survey found that more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently. This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month. That adds up to over $600 per year. Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.​

That is rather cheap and often times birth control can be less than even 15 dollars a month, and the price has only gone down over time.

It's not cheap when you don't have much income and a family to support, and it doesn't include the doctor's visits.

 

[Steinlight]

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

That is not true.

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

I saw charts indicating the opposite.

There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

On the other hand - one important trend that foes along with unintended pregnancies is the teen pregnancy rate and that has gone down significantly:

No you haven't seen charts indicating the opposite. You have seen charts indicating a lower teen birth rate, but unintended birth rares have gone up since 1994. I provided charts and links to this end several times in this thread. So you are clearly being selective in your reading here. I will post the chart once more for clarity but my patience with careless posters is starting to run incredibly thin.
unintended birth rates up - Google Search

Go back and read this thread before you engage in thus conversation further. Thank you.

 

[Coyote]

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

That is not true.

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

I saw charts indicating the opposite.

There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

On the other hand - one important trend that foes along with unintended pregnancies is the teen pregnancy rate and that has gone down significantly:

No you haven't seen charts indicating the opposite. You have seen charts indicating a lower teen birth rate, but unintended birth rares have gone up since 1994. I provided charts and links to this end several times in this thread. So you are clearly being selective in your reading here. I will post the chart once more for clarity but my patience with careless posters is starting to run incredibly thin.

Go back and read this thread before you engage in thus conversation further. Thank you.

Again: There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

 

[Steinlight]

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

That is not true.

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

I saw charts indicating the opposite.

There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

On the other hand - one important trend that foes along with unintended pregnancies is the teen pregnancy rate and that has gone down significantly:

No you haven't seen charts indicating the opposite. You have seen charts indicating a lower teen birth rate, but unintended birth rares have gone up since 1994. I provided charts and links to this end several times in this thread. So you are clearly being selective in your reading here. I will post the chart once more for clarity but my patience with careless posters is starting to run incredibly thin.

Go back and read this thread before you engage in thus conversation further. Thank you.

Again: There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

Yes there is. Look at the link.

 

[Coyote]

That is not true.

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

I saw charts indicating the opposite.

There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

On the other hand - one important trend that foes along with unintended pregnancies is the teen pregnancy rate and that has gone down significantly:

No you haven't seen charts indicating the opposite. You have seen charts indicating a lower teen birth rate, but unintended birth rares have gone up since 1994. I provided charts and links to this end several times in this thread. So you are clearly being selective in your reading here. I will post the chart once more for clarity but my patience with careless posters is starting to run incredibly thin.

Go back and read this thread before you engage in thus conversation further. Thank you.

Again: There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

Yes there is. Look at the link.

The link makes this point:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]​

 

[Steinlight]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

I disagree in this case. With birth control, it's not only the cost of the pill but the associated doctors visits - poor people would struggle to afford that.

Women Struggle with the Cost of Birth Control

This is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue. A 2010 survey found that more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently. This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month. That adds up to over $600 per year. Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.​

That is rather cheap and often times birth control can be less than even 15 dollars a month, and the price has only gone down over time.

It's not cheap when you don't have much income and a family to support, and it doesn't include the doctor's visits.

Birth control is becoming cheaper and more affordable as time increases. It is more affordable now than it ever has been for low income women. And you don't need to go to a doctor everytime to get said birth control, and can receive birth control through pharmacies a free/ low cost clinics.

 

[Steinlight]

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

I saw charts indicating the opposite.

There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

On the other hand - one important trend that foes along with unintended pregnancies is the teen pregnancy rate and that has gone down significantly:

No you haven't seen charts indicating the opposite. You have seen charts indicating a lower teen birth rate, but unintended birth rares have gone up since 1994. I provided charts and links to this end several times in this thread. So you are clearly being selective in your reading here. I will post the chart once more for clarity but my patience with careless posters is starting to run incredibly thin.

Go back and read this thread before you engage in thus conversation further. Thank you.

Again: There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

Yes there is. Look at the link.

The link makes this point:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]​

That is a prediction. However their own existing data indicates no statistical correlation between less unintended births and the rise in birth control, as unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994

 

[Coyote]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

I disagree in this case. With birth control, it's not only the cost of the pill but the associated doctors visits - poor people would struggle to afford that.

Women Struggle with the Cost of Birth Control

This is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue. A 2010 survey found that more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently. This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month. That adds up to over $600 per year. Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.​

That is rather cheap and often times birth control can be less than even 15 dollars a month, and the price has only gone down over time.

It's not cheap when you don't have much income and a family to support, and it doesn't include the doctor's visits.

Birth control is becoming cheaper and more affordable as time increases. It is more affordable now than it ever has been for low income women. And you don't need to go to a doctor everytime to get said birth control, and can receive birth control through pharmacies a free/ low cost clinics.

You can only get it by prescription so you need to see a doctor at regular intervals for that.

If it's that cheap - then why fuss over publically funding it?

 

[Steinlight]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

And note: no more shotgun weddings.

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

But yes, people used to get married when unintended pregnancies arose whereas now plow don't as much due to reduced stigma. I don't see what your point is here. We are in agreement here yes?

 

[Coyote]

I saw charts indicating the opposite.

There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

On the other hand - one important trend that foes along with unintended pregnancies is the teen pregnancy rate and that has gone down significantly:

No you haven't seen charts indicating the opposite. You have seen charts indicating a lower teen birth rate, but unintended birth rares have gone up since 1994. I provided charts and links to this end several times in this thread. So you are clearly being selective in your reading here. I will post the chart once more for clarity but my patience with careless posters is starting to run incredibly thin.

Go back and read this thread before you engage in thus conversation further. Thank you.

Again: There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

Yes there is. Look at the link.

The link makes this point:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]​

That is a prediction. However their own existing data indicates no statistical correlation between less unintended births and the rise in birth control, as unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994

It's impossible to accurately count the number of unintended pregnancies before birth control and the decline of forced marriage - the data just isn't there.

 

[Coyote]

And note: no more shotgun weddings.

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

By forced - I mean primarily culturally forced. The stigma was huge and men were pressured to marry a girl they got pregnant. Parents as well would force marriage and did, with the alternative being kicking the girl out.

 

[Steinlight]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

I disagree in this case. With birth control, it's not only the cost of the pill but the associated doctors visits - poor people would struggle to afford that.

Women Struggle with the Cost of Birth Control

This is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue. A 2010 survey found that more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently. This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month. That adds up to over $600 per year. Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.​

That is rather cheap and often times birth control can be less than even 15 dollars a month, and the price has only gone down over time.

It's not cheap when you don't have much income and a family to support, and it doesn't include the doctor's visits.

Birth control is becoming cheaper and more affordable as time increases. It is more affordable now than it ever has been for low income women. And you don't need to go to a doctor everytime to get said birth control, and can receive birth control through pharmacies a free/ low cost clinics.

You can only get it by prescription so you need to see a doctor at regular intervals for that.

If it's that cheap - then why fuss over publically funding it?

Define a regular interval. And how much each individual costs. Often times birth control is free as well through clinics. So this idea birth control breaks the bank just doesn't meet the facts, as it has become significantly cheaper over time.

 

[Steinlight]

No you haven't seen charts indicating the opposite. You have seen charts indicating a lower teen birth rate, but unintended birth rares have gone up since 1994. I provided charts and links to this end several times in this thread. So you are clearly being selective in your reading here. I will post the chart once more for clarity but my patience with careless posters is starting to run incredibly thin.

Go back and read this thread before you engage in thus conversation further. Thank you.

Again: There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

Yes there is. Look at the link.

The link makes this point:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]​

That is a prediction. However their own existing data indicates no statistical correlation between less unintended births and the rise in birth control, as unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994

It's impossible to accurately count the number of unintended pregnancies before birth control and the decline of forced marriage - the data just isn't there.

We aren't talking before birth control. We are talking since 1994. Data shows unintended pregnancy rate is up since 1994. Thus there us no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in intended pregnancy rate.

 

[Steinlight]

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

By forced - I mean primarily culturally forced. The stigma was huge and men were pressured to marry a girl they got pregnant. Parents as well would force marriage and did, with the alternative being kicking the girl out.

Social pressure is different than force as defined by a shotgun wedding. Conforming to the ascribed social practices of your society is not defined as force by any traditional definition.

 

[Steinlight]

I f

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

The stigma was huge and men were pressured to marry a girl they got pregnant.

But yes, people used to get married when unintended pregnancies arose whereas now plow don't as much due to reduced stigma. I don't see what your point is here. We are in agreement here yes?

 

[Coyote]

I f

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

The stigma was huge and men were pressured to marry a girl they got pregnant.

But yes, people used to get married when unintended pregnancies arose whereas now plow don't as much due to reduced stigma. I don't see what your point is here. We are in agreement here yes?

maybe....but it means data on unintended pregnancies is not very accurate.

 

[Steinlight]

I f

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

The stigma was huge and men were pressured to marry a girl they got pregnant.

But yes, people used to get married when unintended pregnancies arose whereas now plow don't as much due to reduced stigma. I don't see what your point is here. We are in agreement here yes?

maybe....but it means data on unintended pregnancies is not very accurate.

What proof do you have data from 1981 onward is not accurate?

What is your issue with the methodology used to aggregate said data?

It establishes no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unintended pregnancies.

 

[Coyote]

I f

Exactly. Whereas prior to that unintended pregnancies were hidden by forced marriages.

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

The stigma was huge and men were pressured to marry a girl they got pregnant.

But yes, people used to get married when unintended pregnancies arose whereas now plow don't as much due to reduced stigma. I don't see what your point is here. We are in agreement here yes?

maybe....but it means data on unintended pregnancies is not very accurate.

What proof do you have data from 1981 onward is not accurate?

What is your issue with the methodology used to aggregate said data?

Because marriage would obscure it.