Time To Admit It: the church was right on birth control

[HumblePie]

And the reason that such a law was passed is that women were still killing their babies and dumping them in a river.

Perhaps if safe-haven laws had existed in the past there would have been less infanticide

Again, the idea that there was less out of wed lock births in the past is a bit absurd to even state.

Yes your statement is correct, but it's a strawman argument to the OP. I was stating that there were higher than record out of wed lock births in the past, most of them led to infanticide which weren't normally recorded.

 

[Darwin333]

Interesting article about the effects of birth control on society,

http://www.businessinsider.com/time...has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2



Has our society degraded that neither parent is responsible for the child they created?

The mother has not obligation to carry the child to term. If she wishes she can abort the child.

The father has no obligation besides paying child support, medical co-pays and providing health insurance.

The article then touches on marriage,





In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women.
By 2010, it was 40.8%

And liberals call this progress?

Do you believe that sex should only be used as a means to produce offspring and nothing else?

 

[nehalem256]

Actually this chart coincides with giving those pushy women the right to vote after 1920

You do realize that the chart starts in 1940 right?

And appears to be basically level from 1940-1950

Increase slightly from 1950-1960

And then really increase from 1960 onward.

 

[nehalem256]

Again, the idea that there was less out of wed lock births in the past is a bit absurd to even state.

Yes your statement is correct, but it's a strawman argument to the OP. I was stating that there were higher than record out of wed lock births in the past, most of them led to infanticide which weren't normally recorded.

You have provided no real evidence that a statistically significant unrecorded number of out of wedlock births occurred.

 

[bshole]

Sexual revolution, television, music, womens rights groups, feminist,,, teach girls it is ok to have out sex with no commitments.

Um Beavis, it is absolutely OK to have sex without commitments. Fucking conservatives and their "if you enjoy it is evil" mentality. Christ why don't you get over it and just join the Taliban right now? You know you want to.

 

[fskimospy]

You have provided no real evidence that a statistically significant unrecorded number of out of wedlock births occurred.

Statistical significance has a meaning. Nothing you have posted here has dealt with statistical significance at all.

 

[HumblePie]

You have provided no real evidence that a statistically significant unrecorded number of out of wedlock births occurred.

And how would I be able to give a significant record of "unrecorded" events to prove my point beyond the papers discussing the fact that the levels of unrecorded birth rates were more than likely higher than today? Of course it is a guess based on looking at social anthropological issues from those eras. It could be absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

But I'll tell you this, humans are going to be human. Mating is a natural instinct for all sexual creatures on this planet. No amount of "moral" laws decrying how bad out of wed lock sex is; is going to stop humans from being humans. If you think it was better back in the good ol' days I got some beachfront property to sell you in Arizona for real cheap.

 

[nehalem256]

Statistical significance has a meaning. Nothing you have posted here has dealt with statistical significance at all.

Since 1960 the out-of-wedlock birthrate has increased by almost a factor of 8.

You don't need any fancy analysis to tell you that is statistically significant.

 

[Darwin333]

How is marriage and religion a problem?

Religion in the west has slowly lost the ability to "enforce" its rules. Personally I really miss burning at the stake, whats your favorite?

 

[nehalem256]

And how would I be able to give a significant record of "unrecorded" events to prove my point beyond the papers discussing the fact that the levels of unrecorded birth rates were more than likely higher than today? Of course it is a guess based on looking at social anthropological issues from those eras. It could be absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

I would imagine that finding evidence of the 100,000s or millions of tiny corpses that would be an obvious result of what you claim would be sufficient.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sexual revolution, television, music, womens rights groups, feminist,,, teach girls it is ok to have out sex with no commitments.

Men naturally want to have sex. Its what we do.

Birth control is wide spread and socially acceptable.

When you combine all of those, things can and will go wrong.

Did you read the linked article in the opening post?

There's a lot of assumption going on here. First, you're assuming that the sexual revolution would not have happened without the advent of cheap and effective birth control, and you've provided absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. Second, you assume that it's only men who naturally want to have sex, which either means you think there's a whole lot of rape happening or that women are completely powerless to resist men's charms when under the influence of birth control. And third, you assume that somehow taking birth control is making women more fertile and increasing their pregnancy rates while they're on birth control, something which strains credulity at every level. It takes a truly special mind to conclude that increasing access to birth control leads to an increase in pregnancies, and without any sort of evidence backing up a causal link, you're just pulling numbers and saying "SEE, IT'S TRUE." Yeah, and ice cream causes drowning.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you believe that sex should only be used as a means to produce offspring and nothing else?

No.

My stance is people should take responsibility for their actions. If a woman gets pregnant, then the two people should get married and take care of the child.

Provide the child with a stable home, stable family, uncles, aunts, grandparents,,,,. That is the responsible thing to do.

Um Beavis, it is absolutely OK to have sex without commitments.

And the children produced from that sex? What is to become of them?

The mom has 3 or 4 children by 3 or 4 different men. None of the men play active roles in raising the children.

According to you it is perfectly ok to ignore the results from careless behavior?

There's a lot of assumption going on here.

Read the linked article in the opening post, then get back with me.

 

[Geosurface]

Since 1960 the out-of-wedlock birthrate has increased by almost a factor of 8.

You don't need any fancy analysis to tell you that is statistically significant.

It's also entirely consistent with other societal trends. It fits into the larger picture perfectly.

 

[fskimospy]

Since 1960 the out-of-wedlock birthrate has increased by almost a factor of 8.

You don't need any fancy analysis to tell you that is statistically significant.

Of course you do, because birth rate is affected by countless factors.

This is yet another reason (outside of your general insanity) that your posts are so bad. You don't understand how statistics and basic analysis works.

It is posts like this that reinforce my opinion that everyone should be required to take a stats 101 course. It's amazing to me just how poorly they are understood despite how often they are used in our society.

 

[Texashiker]

It's also entirely consistent with other societal trends. It fits into the larger picture perfectly.

What is the larger picture?

Of course you do, because birth rate is affected by countless factors.

Coming from someone who is not married nor has any kids.

 

[Sonikku]

For once I am very torn on an issue. On the one hand it drives me crazy when women use birth control to limit their births because it's immoral. On the other hand, it drives me crazy when poor women crank out babies and put them on the government teat when they should have have been limiting their numbers and not having kids in the first place. I think the best middle ground is going to be for women to learn to take it in the butt. It may seem harsh, but it will help us reasonably satisfy both situations.

 

[nehalem256]

And how would I be able to give a significant record of "unrecorded" events to prove my point beyond the papers discussing the fact that the levels of unrecorded birth rates were more than likely higher than today? Of course it is a guess based on looking at social anthropological issues from those eras. It could be absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/babyboom.htm

From here. Lets assume an average of 3 million births/year between 1940-1960. With a claimed bastard rate of less <5%. Which means 150,000 bastards born per year. Now lets assume the rate was really secretly 20%, still 1/2 of todays. That would mean there would have to be 450,000 cases of infanticide a year necessary to cover things up.

So you are claiming that over 2 decades 9 million infants were murdered. You are essentially making a claim of secret American baby holocaust. It should be easy to find evidence for that. :awe:

 

[bshole]

Neh,

The difference is now women are having children out of wedlock ON PURPOSE. Christ I know a slew of women who have done just that. It is the new normal and there isn't damn thing wrong with it. Their kids are happy and well-adjusted. You are an anochronism. Your mores have come and gone. The world has moved on and it is a better world for it.

 

[HomerJS]

You do realize that the chart starts in 1940 right?

And appears to be basically level from 1940-1950

Increase slightly from 1950-1960

And then really increase from 1960 onward.

and no more relevant then the article.

Honestly are we going to take advice from an organization that had as a policy, when you priests finish banging every 10 year old boy in Pittsburgh we'll move you to Boston?

 

[Texashiker]

Neh,

The difference is now women are having children out of wedlock ON PURPOSE. Christ I know a slew of women who have done just that. It is the new normal and there isn't damn thing wrong with it. Their kids are happy and well-adjusted. You are an anochronism. Your mores have come and gone. The world has moved on and it is a better world for it.

Your small sampling is just that, a small sampling.

Single mothers make up the vast majority of people living in poverty and drawing welfare than any other group.

I would like to know how many men in prison were raised in homes headed by a single mom.

 

[Geosurface]

Neh,

The difference is now women are having children out of wedlock ON PURPOSE. Christ I know a slew of women who have done just that. It is the new normal and there isn't damn thing wrong with it.

Study: Crime rates linked to out-of-wedlock births

Your mores have come and gone. The world has moved on and it is a better world for it.

The world is a soulless mess on a downward trajectory. This current liberal society is unsustainable and will collapse. What will rise up from the ashes will be more traditional and in line with Nehalem's thinking.

 

[Texashiker]

Study: Crime rates linked to out-of-wedlock births

According to the analysis, an increase of 10 out-of-wedlock births per 1,000 live births was associated with up to a 5 percent increase in future murder rates.

That pretty much answers my question.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is why I included the graph for the US rate from 1940 onward.

Note that the 1940s rate appears to approximately line up with 1900 rate.

Do you have your own source that contradicts mine?

Why do I need to contradict you? The birth rate climbs in spite of contraception Since contraceptive failure rates aren't rising the only other alternative I see is that they are not being used, and so there's no possible rational connection between increasing access to contraception and increasing birth rates. The causes lie elsewhere.

Interesting thing to note is there are plateaus and even a reduction. Note the years between 1990 and 2002.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Read the linked article in the opening post, then get back with me.

I did. And the author offers up exactly zero evidence to support a claim that the sexual revolution has anything to do with the availability of birth control. His claims all stem from a linked article at Slate, which includes such mind-blowing statistics as abortions were more frequent in the 1980s than the 1960s, almost as if something that happened in 1973 might have made abortions more widespread. Trying to pin the sexual revolution entirely on birth control is absurd, and neither article makes a convincing case outside of "these things happened simultaneously, therefore A caused B." That's not how statistics works; correlation does not imply causation. Their argument about early use of birth control pills was this: "The use of birth-control pills at first intercourse by all unmarried women jumped from 6 percent to 15 percent in just a few years..." So the pill was the driving force behind the sexual revolution even though 85% of sexually active women weren't using it? That's a fairly tenuous link.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The problem is not birth control. Its marriage and religion thats the problem.

About as much as space aliens.