In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Teen Pregnancy Rate Drops

Jill

For the 12th year in a row. Good work. The birth rate among single women has gone up — which some consider a bad thing, and make ridiculous statements about. Example A: Bridget Maher, from the Family Research Council, who “said another possible reason for the higher birth rate among single women is that they depend too much on contraception instead of abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Maher added, ‘Behavioral change — and not pharmaceuticals — will solve this problem.”‘

But who says it’s a problem?

Many researchers link the rise in the number of births to single women to an increase in unmarried cohabitation, later-in-life marriage and an increase in childbearing by older, single women, according to the Times. NCHS researcher and report author Stephanie Ventura said that because the number of births to teens has decreased, the increase in the number of births to single women is occurring among women ages 20 and older.

Many single women are now choosing to have children without being married. Is that necessarily a bad thing? The ideal situation for a lot of women may be the husband and the baby, but a lot of others either may not have the husband or may not want one (and there are certainly a lot who have a same-sex partner instead). I don’t think telling women in their 20s and 30s that they should toss out their pills and be abstinent will be very successful.

7 thoughts on Teen Pregnancy Rate Drops

  1. Jill, come on now. You know that these single whores are having children on their own because they hate men and are trying to destroy the American family, which by definition is headed by a man who rules over his wife and kids. They probably also tolerate the gays, maybe even have gay friends. So, yeah, it’s bad!

    YOu’re right though; telling them they should be abstinent won’t work. That’s why we have to make birth control pills illegal!

  2. Many single women are now choosing to have children without being married. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

    I’m of two minds on this. It’s not bad because women should have men, sex outside of marriage is sinful, children without a father figure grow up twisted, blah blah blah… but I do think that if you’ve got a family with only one provider, you’re living a hell of a lot closer to the edge than otherwise, and if you fall over, it’s not so great for either the woman or her kids. (Of course, having a supportive, extended family in your town or other sources of financial support can alleviate this problem.)

    I tend to think that pursuing public policies that would allow the creation of legal/financial family units not based on rubbing genitals together would be nice. But I’m just a nasty feminist who wants to destroy traditional families, so what do I know?

  3. I don’t think telling women in their 20s and 30s that they should toss out their pills and be abstinent will be very successful.

    Oh, but I want the wingnuts to try it. Nothing would turn off the vast majority of women of that age more from voting for wingnuts. 😛

  4. “Behavioral change — and not pharmaceuticals — will solve this problem.”

    Actually, pharmaceuticals do a pretty damn good job, and “behavioral change” is SOO much more trouble that it’s not even worth considering. Does she really think someone who really enjoys sex will give that up for just a 1%-ish decrease in her chances of becoming pregnant?

    And abstinence is so inefficient. Sure, it’s 100% (unless you get raped), but it’s like a protection racket: you have to keep paying and paying and paying to maintain the status quo. You have to be abstinent for the entire time you don’t want to get pregnant! Constantly! Whereas with the pill, the price of not becoming pregnant is the ten seconds or so that it takes to swallow a pill. Once a day. And then you can have sex.

    Abstinence, Ms. Maher, is only a good decision if sex isn’t important to you.

  5. I’m kind of of two minds about this too, but I admit I’m biased because of my personal experience. I grew up without a father or father figure, and while it wasn’t the only thing that “twisted” me, it sure as hell didn’t straighten me out.

    I think I agree with Chris Rock, who said on one of his specials that sure, a woman can raise a kid alone…but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the father, or even a man, but I believe in my heart that some sort of family structure larger than just a mother and child is better for kids.

    Now, none of this means I think the goverment has any place getting near legislating the issue. And it seems obvious to me that contraception is better than abstinence…for a number of reasons…but it’s just how I feel.

  6. sure, a woman can raise a kid alone…but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea

    Certainly. She needs another woman present to help raise the child. Chris Rock would agree, don’t you think?

  7. Um…I sorta kinda allowed for that. You know, that part where I said, “It doesn’t necessarily have to be the father, or even a man.” That was what that meant. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

Comments are currently closed.