You were the one who in a mangled "sentence" who suggested RvW was responsible for children becoming sex maniacs. IF that's not what you meant then learn to make a sentence. Maybe you could explain to me how handing out BC anywhere creates MORE pregnancies.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to document every illicit sex act of every generation and compare numbers, it is impossible. However, it's not only possible but a fact that humans pretty much haven't change in their drive to have sex ever.
Statistics show that if you have sex with multiple partners before you are married that you have a higher chance of divorce. Divorce increases the chance for poverty / crime / etc. So why do you want to make it easier for kids to have per-marital sex? Why do you want to create the illusion that there won't be any consequences. I also stated that there has been epidemic levels of sexually transmitted diseases in the youth of our generation. Birth control does nothing to prevent STDs. - - - Updated - - - The census shows the rise in illegitimacy. That is pretty conclusive wouldn't you agree?
The fact that crime rates have decreased significantly along with the divorce rate over the last few decades sort of refutes your argument, doesn't it? While this has to much to do with how we see marriage, there is no connection to the availability of abortion. People today are having sex as much as they did in the 50's and 60's, they're just not being forced into doomed marriages because of it.
Unfortunately, facts just don't fall in line with this opinion. From your own site: However, some experts have added that the declining divorce rate does not necessarily mean that relationships are better off than in years past. Specifically, these experts have contributed this decline to the fact that more people are living together without being married nowadays. Since 1970, the number of unmarried couples who are living together has increased tenfold. People aren't even bothering getting married anymore. Furthermore, statistics back up exactly what I said the end result of this promiscuity would be. A continuing rise in the number of single family households: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/dat...8,867,133,38,35/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431\ And as to your second point I would like you to consider that maybe we maxed out the prisons in our country: No country incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than the United States. At 716 per 100,000 people, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies, the U.S. tops every other nation in the world. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/incarceration-rate-per-capita_n_3745291.html
did you look into the report and where the data for it came from? For one it is a graduate thesis, for another from the Acknowledgments it is obvious the author has shall we say a certain bias; First and foremost, I thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for guiding me and teaching me in my experience. Without Him, I would be lost and doomed for eternity, but for some reason He loved me. I’m not sure why He has brought me here, but I pray that what I have learned will be used for His glory in preaching the message of His cross throughout the world. The questionnaire was sent to 210 women (no men) via anonymous email and sent ONLY to Southern Baptist churches, there were 38 responses (18.57% response rate), 2 of the responses were scrapped, 34 responses from a single select group does not have the necessary population, culture, or wealth spread to come to any conclusion . .the best this thesis can claim is that the premise MAY be true for members of the Southern Baptist churches. The thesis also makes the following assumption - A major assumption of the current study was that females may show more concern for past sexual relationships than males. This assumption was derived from the sexual double standard that may be present in the U.S. for males and females (Muehlenhard & McCoy, 1991). It was assumed that females may be more concerned a bout the past sexual relationships of their current husbands because of the emotional connections that they may believe to exist between their husband and past sexual partners. It was also assumed that females would experience greater remorse or guilt for past sexual decisions than males, because premarital sexual experiences may be less socially acceptable for females than for males. Then we move onto the limitations stated in the thesis Due also to the high reported religiosity of the group, as well as the small sample size, the results of the study are not generalizable to the larger population. Conclusions made from the results may be applied only to Baptist women in the Baton Rouge area. Sorry but even after only a very quick amount of research this thesis in no way represents what you asserted. The three STD's that are required to be reported to local or state public health authorities—gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis - Gonorrhea: Reported at a historical low (2010) Chlamydia: Case reports have been increasing steadily over the past 20 years, and in 2010, 1.3 million chlamydia cases were reported. While the increase is due to expanded screening efforts, and not to an actual increase in the number of people with chlamydia Syphilis: The overall syphilis rate decreased for the first time in a decade, and is down 1.6 percent since 2009 http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm So again the actual data does not support your assertion, and of course one of the best ways to protect against an STD is a condom and comprehensive sex education, both of which, for the most, pro-lifers also campaign against.
No one disputes that there are more single-parent families, but it was your argument that pre-marital sex causes more divorces and more single-parent families means more crime. Both of these claims have been found wanting. Incarceration is responsible for less marriages???
One of the major factors in the increasing divorce rates is the signing into law of "no fault divorces" . .which BTW was first introduced by Republican Ex-President Ronald Reagan in California on January 1, 1970. Add to this that divorce rates have been dropping steadily since their peak in 1981 (5.3 per 1,000 marriages to 3.6 per 1,000 in 2006, the same rate as it was in 1972) Baby-boomers aged 40 to 59 in 2004 actually have the highest rates of divorce than any other age group; Baby Boomers contributed to the divorce rate. Baby Boomers and those immediately preceding them (born 1936-1945) have very high rates of divorce. Table 1 shows that the experience of ever having divorced is not directly related to age. In other words, the oldest members of society have NOT divorced the most. In fact, it is the Baby Boomers and Pre-Baby Boomers who divorced the most, followed by the oldest and then the younger cohorts. The up arrow symbol in Table 1 signifies the highest rate of divorce ever, which is found among women and men of the cohort 50-59 years (these are Baby Boomers born 1946-1955). The highest rate of currently divorced people is also found among the women and men of the 50-59 cohort. The Baby Boomers 1946-1955 still hold the highest divorce rates of any cohort in U.S. history. Their unprecedented high divorce rates raised the overall divorce rates for the entire nation and contributed in part to the myth of half of all marriages ending in divorce. Table 1 Source : http://freebooks.uvu.edu/SOC1200/index.php/ch12-divorce-and-separation.html So the data does not support your premise.
I think it's amusing that you use the person that conducted the study's religion to dispute the findings of the study. I'd like to stick to the findings for the purpose of this discussion. There are tons of other studies out there that back up the same finding that per-marital sex is correlated with a higher divorce rate. (http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2011/june/061411paik_study.html) Disclaimer, the study is from Iowa, and the guy has glasses. I keep looking for a credible study which shows that this is not the case, and haven't found one. How odd... Let's step back from the glad-handing of the CDC in 2010. Yes they declared victory against STDs in 2010. But then again, wasn't Bush in charge for the years leading up to the study? Don't think he possibly could have fudged the numbers a little? More likely, it was a statistical anomaly. In 2014, the CDC study shows these infections once again on the rise. (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/10/10/hidden-epidemic-110m-std-infections-in-us/ - sorry, you forced me to go cite a conservative site .... bwahahahaaa)
Actually it doesn't show anything of a sort, your evidence was a thesis paper using data from a very small select group of women, that admits to making assumptions and even states in it's limitations that the data does not support a conclusion for the country as a whole. Studies for this please. nobody is making it easier, what people are trying to do is make it safer . .no matter how hard you try you will never stop teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse. Abstinence only education has failed, with six of the top ten states with abstinence only education having the highest rate of teenage pregnancies and around 90% of purity pledges being broken, while there are numerous studies that show that comprehensive sex education (which includes emphasis on abstinence BTW) and free contraception reduces the number of teenage pregnancies and STD's Please do yourself a favor and research what is meant by comprehensive sex education, part of the program deals specifically in the consequences. Which the facts dispute. I'm sorry this is a comment born from ignorance. http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/3100.aspx?CategoryID=118 http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.html conclusive of what, that since 1960 the onus on people to marry if the female became pregnant has become less and less .. TBH I'd rather there be higher single parents than people living together in a sham marriage.
What about the Iowa study. Same findings... http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2011/june/061411paik_study.html Single parents and link to crime. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime
amazing you deride me for using the persons religion and then launch into a derision of not only Bush, but CDC as well. and if you actually look at what I stated I did not use her religion, I stated that the author had a bias . .everything else is taken DIRECTLY from the thesis you cited did you miss the part from the thesis you cited where it admitted that the findings could not be assumed to be accurate on a country wide level and may only be true for Southern Baptist women? Now to your second link supposedly proving your assertion .. I have to ask do you actually read these things before posting them. - A University of Iowa study found that women who make their sexual debut as young teens are more likely to divorce, especially if "the first time" was unwanted, or if she had mixed feelings about it. ... A first sexual experience that was unwanted or not completely wanted was strongly associated with divorce. If the young woman chose to lose her virginity as a teen, the results were more nuanced. and there is so much more in that report that does not hold to your assertion. Bush - republican, much more likely the data would have been "fudged" in order to show a worse analysis than a better one. The data from that report is data from 2008 2 years prior to the data I used. - About 50.5 million of these current infections are in men, and 59.5 million are in women, according to the CDC's 2013 report, in which the researchers looked at 2008 data. and those three STD's can be radically reduced IF teenagers are given comprehensive sex education & use a condom. Whatever site you want to use isn't a concern to me, I will always try to find the actually source data .. not something cooked up for a media outlet.
Why do you fixate on sex education. What you are asking to be taught is exactly what is being taught in most public schools in the nation. Meanwhile, the rate of single parent households is at an all time high. Poverty is skyrocketing along with crime. Condoms won't fix Ferguson, or any of these other problems. Only stable families will. Rather than divert even more public money to subsidize Trojan, what is your suggestion to deal with this epidemic in our society. Or should we continue to sit and watch our country's standard of living and our position in the world decline?
Please read that report and actually understand it and not put your own twist on it. It doesn't say anything close to what you are asserting. The reality of the figures does not support you or that link, if it did then please explain why crime as a whole went down in the 90's even though single parent family numbers were rising? Homicides Add to this that the Bureau of Justice Statistics did a large national study on inmates which includes family background information, and has been repeated since 1991, those studies found that 55% of the inmates did not live most of the time while growing up with both parents (2004 Report - http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf) , 55% is stretching it to say that children in a single parent household are a major cause of crime. By your logic being incarcerated is the biggest cause of crime as 75% of the inmates had prior convictions. Your link also does not take into consideration that the majority of inmates experienced high rates of poverty, homelessness, substance abuse, physical abuse, and family members incarceration .. but I suppose all those can be blamed on single parent households as well Here another report that disputes your assertion; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-cause-delinquency-expert-says-1505207.html or how about a graph detailing single-mothers and violent crime from 1960 - 2010. - http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2012/11/blog_violent_crime_single_mothers.jpg strange it seems that single-mothers stopped causing violent crime around 1990, one might also wonder why single motherhood rate was not correlated to crime rate prior to 1970. It turns out, in fact, that of the 50 years shown on this graph, the correlation seems to work for only about half the time ... when you cite these things using only the data that matches your assumption it is called being intellectually dishonest.
That is a pile of bull crap - Sex Education Laws By State Alabama Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must send a message of abstinence until marriage and teach prevention of STDs and HIV/AIDS. The courses do not need to include information about contraception. Alaska Schools are not required by law to provide sex education or prevention of STDs such as HIV/AIDS. If information about STDs and HIV/AIDS is provided, it must include abstinence but not other forms of prevention. Arizona Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must include information about abstinence. They are not required to provide information on contraception, STDs or HIV/AIDS. Arkansas Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. California Schools are not required by law to provide sex education but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must teach abstinence until marriage and give information on contraception. Schools also are required to provide STD and HIV/AIDS education. Colorado Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must teach abstinence. The schools are not required to provide information about contraception, STDs or HIV/AIDS. Connecticut Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but they must present information on STDs and HIV/AIDS. Delaware Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence, contraception and prevention of STDs and HIV/AIDS. District of Columbia Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on STDs and HIV/AIDS. Florida Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a district chooses to offer such courses they must include information about abstinence until marriage. Schools are required by law to provide STD and HIV/AIDS education and it must include information on methods of prevention, including abstinence until marriage. Georgia Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on STDs, HIV/AIDS, contraception and abstinence. Hawaii Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must include information about abstinence. The schools are not required to provide information about contraception, STDs or HIV/AIDS. Idaho Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. Illinois Schools are not required by law to provide sex education. If information on STDs and HIV/AIDS is provided, it must include a message of abstinence until marriage as well as details about other methods of prevention. Indiana Schools are not required by law to provide sex education. If information on STDs and HIV/AIDS is provided, it must include a message of abstinence until marriage. Iowa Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Kansas Schools are required by law to provide sex education and information about HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Kentucky Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about abstinence and HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Louisiana Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must include information about abstinence. The schools are not required to provide information about contraception, HIV/AIDS or other STDs. Maine Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. Maryland Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Massachusetts Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. Michigan Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must include information about abstinence until marriage, STDs and HIV/AIDS. They are not required to provide information about contraception. Minnesota Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about abstinence and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Mississippi Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must include information about abstinence until marriage and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. They are not required to provide information on contraception. Missouri Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must include information about abstinence until marriage and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Montana Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. Nebraska Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. Nevada Schools are required by law to provide STD, HIV/AIDS and sex education. New Hampshire Schools must provide information on HIV/AIDS and other STDs, but do not have to offer a general sex education course. New Jersey Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. New Mexico Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. New York Schools are not required by law to provide sex education but they must provide information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. North Carolina Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence and ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. North Dakota Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. Ohio Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but they must provide information on abstinence, HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Aside from abstinence, however, schools are not required to provide information on disease prevention. Oklahoma Schools are not required by law to provide general sex education, but they must provide information on abstinence and HIV/AIDS and other STDs. The state does require information on other methods of disease prevention, but not necessarily about contraception. Oregon Schools are not required by law to provide sex education. If it is taught, it must include information on abstinence and contraception. Pennsylvania Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but they must provide information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Rhode Island Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about abstinence and ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. South Carolina Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about contraception and ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. South Dakota Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. Tennessee Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about contraception and abstinence, and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Texas Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, the classes must also teach abstinence until marriage. The law does not require schools to provide information about STDs or HIV/AIDS. But if it is provided, it must include information on abstinence until marriage. Utah Schools are required by law to provide STD, HIV/AIDS and sex education. They also must teach abstinence until marriage but are not required to provide information on contraception. Vermont Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about contraception and abstinence, and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Virginia Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a school district chooses to offer such courses, they must provide information about abstinence until marriage. The law does not require schools to provide information about STDs or HIV/AIDS. If it is provided, it must include information on abstinence until marriage. Washington Schools are not required by law to provide sex education. But they must provide education on STD and HIV/AIDS prevention, including abstinence until marriage. West Virginia Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about contraception and abstinence, and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. Wisconsin Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but they must provide information on STDs and HIV/AIDS. Wyoming Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. 33 States have no legal obligation for their schools to provide comprehensive sex education. already explained why that is. There is no correlation between single-parent families and crime, certainly is a correlation between poverty and crime. WTF has Ferguson got to do with single-parent families? already shown you that the highest rate of divorces are amongst this so called fabled "golden time" Already told you, a legal requirement to have age appropriate comprehensive sex education is schools, cheaper or even free access to condoms and safer contraception like IUD's and slow release hormonal implants that have typical failure rates ~14% lower than condoms AND in the long run would cost the tax payer less. Pro-lifers are part of the problem not the solution, the only thing they offer is an attempt to turn back time to when women were treated as chattel.
You try to find one example so you can disprove the premise. It is a FACT that single parenthood = CRIME and POVERTY. Not just in the US, but in every country. Your statistical anomalies which you are clinging to are explained fairly well in this article in the Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/ar...ween-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/ If crime is going down in the US over this time, why do we currently have the highest percentage of its population in prison in the world? Maybe law enforcement is just pretty good here.
I've cited more than one example of why your assertion is incorrect, including the findings of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It is no FACT that single parenthood = CRIME & POVERTY. Your problem is that you are attempting to fit your conclusion to the data, data which is very narrow and does not include the numerous other factors that go up to making crime rates. So the reality is that there is no "statistical anomalies" just you cherry picking the data to suit. Even the information in the link you have given above is cherry picking information, try actually reading the studies it draws it's data and conclusions from, there a numerous reasons for high crime rates, trying to make out that single-parent families is a major factor is disingenuous. Prison incarceration in the USA has been growing since the 70's and the figures do not show any real correlation between increased prison incarceration and a decrease in crime; - http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95580 A new national study says that states with the biggest jumps in incarceration levels have not shown corresponding drops in crime, compared to states with smaller increases in their population behind bars. ... The study says that between 1991 and 1998, the 20 states with the highest rise in prison population a 72 percent increase on average recorded a 13 percent reduction in crime. It says the 30 states with smaller rises in prison population averaging a 30 percent increase had their crime rates drop 17 percent. While Texas, which led the nation in raising its incarceration rate 144 percent over the studys years, saw a significant drop in its crime rate of 35 percent, other large states showed similar drops with smaller rises in prison population. California, Massachusetts and New York all saw their crime rates decrease sharply during the years of the study. The Sentencing Project study also says while prison population increased continuously nationwide between 1984 and 1991, crime rates fluctuated significantly. BTW: While all of this is interesting it really doesn't mean anything in confirming your original premise that pre-marital sex causes more divorces and more single-parent families means more crime.
Studies that show that there isn't a correlation between poverty, crime, and single parenthood are a sham. As I mentioned, this is a documented fact by every credible authority on the subject. Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 62-66, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319) https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327 Single Parent Families and Poverty In father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families. U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011. Single Parent Families and Incarceration Even after controlling for income, youths in father-absent households still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those in mother-father families. Youths who never had a father in the household experienced the highest odds. Source: Harper, Cynthia C. and Sara S. McLanahan. “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.
If you believe this is true, why would you want to force single women to become single parents by banning abortion?
Even if it's true what do you propose? Forced marriages? Forced sterilizations? Making divorce illegal? Changing human nature? You DO want to FORCE all pregnant women to give birth so what else do you want to force people to do?
Right so now we move onto the standard response of anything that disputes what you say must be a sham. there is certainly evidence to suggest that poverty and crime have a correlation, there is little evidence to suggest that single parenthood and crime have as large a correlation, especially when all the factors are brought into play. so the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports and figures are a sham are they You do know that the authors of the item you linked to did NOT actually measure the number of incarcerations versus the status of the parent(s), but rather it surveys law enforcement officers et al about whether or not they agree with the assessment that single parent homes are more likely to produce criminals. Quote from your link - According to a 1993 Metropolitan Life Survey, "Violence in America's Public Schools," 71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment. Where as the Bureau of Justice report I linked DID actually measure the number if inmates versus the status of the parents. no problem with this, as I said single parent households and poverty certainly do have a correlation. you really do need to check your sources properly before asserting that they support you viewpoint; Extract from "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence - This study measured the likelihood of youth incarceration among adolescent males from father-absent households, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (N=34,031 person-years). At baseline, the adolescents ranged from 14 to 17 years, and the incarceration outcome measure spanned ages 15 to 30 years. This study tested whether risk factors concentrated in father-absent households explained the apparent effects of father absence. Results from longitudinal event-history analysis showed that although a sizable portion of the risk that appeared to be due to father absence could actually be attributed to other factors, such as teen motherhood, low parent education, racial inequalities, and poverty, adolescents in father-absent households still faced elevated incarceration risks. The adolescents who faced the highest incarceration risks, however, were those in stepparent families, including fatherstepmother families. Coresidential grandparents may help attenuate this risk, although remarriage and residential instability increased it. Social policies to support children should broaden beyond an emphasis on marriage to address the risks faced by adolescents living in stepfamilies as well. - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.00079.x/abstract so yet again your own "evidence" does not adhere to what you are asserting.
It simply is not true, what this poster is doing is cherry picking items from some studies that seem to adhere to his assertion, upon investigating the so called evidence it actually doesn't say what they think it does.
even funnier is the fact that single-parenthood does not automatically lead to poverty. Welfare payments in the USA are only the 5th highest expenditure by Federal & State, with pensions ($1,238.0 billion), Health Care ($1,332.4 billion), Education ($1,055.1 Billion) & Defence ($840.6 Billion) all WAY above the $495.9 Billion spent on Welfare - http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2015USbn_16bs2n_40#usgs302 Poverty is measured by a formula first calculated in the 1960's and has not changed since that time, the biggest cause of poverty has little to do with single-parent families but is more to do with low paid jobs.
