NBC
Teen births plummet to record low
Births to teen mothers are now at a record low in the United States, the National Center for Health Statistics reports in Monday’s issue of the journal Pediatrics. The new rate: 31.3 births per 1,000 girls and women aged 15 to 19.
“There is lots of good news in the report,” said Brady Hamilton, a statistician at the NCHS who led the study.
It’s good news because such births are almost always unplanned and the parents are rarely ready to cope with the responsibility of raising a baby. Teenaged moms are also more likely to have babies of a smaller-than-healthy weight or to have stillborn babies.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Doing something irresponsible and then fixing your mistake before it becomes a burden to others is, itself, an act of taking responsibility. If a woman has unprotected sex, then uses her own money to pay for an abortion, the net cost to society for her initial act of irresponsibility is zero. In fact, the economy benefits in some small part from the free market transaction she just engaged in.
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM
You cannot believe in free will and use the word “urges” to describe sex. It is always a choice to act on upon it, you using the word urges makes it sound like it’s inevitable (its not). Also, you missed my other point (dutifully, I might add) about the lack of support from the FAMILIES who continue to have the child.
You heard it here first: all life leads to welfare.
nobar on February 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM
That’s crazy!
And Armin is convinced these people won’t keep voting for bigger government. Don’t you see – getting an abortion (government funded) means they are responsible people who won’t look to government to solve any other of the ills in their society.
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Amen. If you can’t possibly take care of a child you’re an immature human being and have no business having sex.
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Her act of irresponsibility is not zero. Her child is dead. And if you want to put it in economic terms you’ve just eliminated the economic output of a human’s life and the value they would have added to their community and society.
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Putting the unwanted child up for adoption just never enters into the equation for you folks, does it?
Relaxing adoption laws to make it less onerous and expensive would be a good first step.
Mitoch55 on February 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM
And all those single women getting abortions are small government types huh?
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM
The soulless ghouls are out in force.
CurtZHP on February 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM
I’m not sure what moronic definition of “free will” you’re using here, but I suspect its source is some papal encyclical or other religious document you lapped up without critically assessing. Humans don’t have urges that inform their actions? I mean, really?
I ignored your other “point” because what the hell does it have to do with anything?
If you’re going to intentionally misrepresent my arguments, then I have no reason to engage in further discussion with you.
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM
+1
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM
This process just ended, or do you not keep up with current events?
Just keep repeating this to yourself until it sinks in:
Cheapest health insurance plan is $20k
Cheapest health insurance plan is $20k
Cheapest health insurance plan is $20k
Cheapest health insurance plan is $20k
Healthcare of any kind is no longer a free market transaction.
BobMbx on February 11, 2013 at 4:31 PM
1: If you are not free to choose to NOT do something, then you aren’t really free at all
2: Huh, gee well maybe it does relate since SoCons families will help the new mother, ya know, instead of turning to welfare.
You insinuated that those single moms are newfound welfare recipients, simply because they “chose life.” YOU made the connection that life (pro-life) will lead to eventual welfare. I just put in simpler terms.
nobar on February 11, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Considering your proposed alternative is, by default, not getting pregnant in the first place, this is an utterly absurd and facile point to try to make. But if you really want to go that route, she has eliminated not just the potential “economic output” and “value” of her would-be offspring but also the potential liabilities to society in the form of possible incarceration and government dependency. In many or even most cases of abortion, that would outweigh her offspring’s positive contributions to society by a considerable margin.
I don’t have a problem with adoption, but you can’t pretend carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and then putting the child up for adoption presents the identical emotional and physical burdens to the mother that abortion does.
No, and if they “chose life” their children most likely would not be either. All the more reason to encourage them not to have kids, don’t you think?
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 4:37 PM
But a lifetime of irresponsibility is priceless.
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 4:38 PM
How do you expect someone who doesn’t have to face the consequences of their actions to be a responsible human? Do you think one day they will wake up and just say “Hey, I want to act responsible today!”
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 4:41 PM
I guess it’s not that “unwanted” then, is it?
Mitoch55 on February 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM
Rising teen pregnancy rates are a fantastic indicator of how well that imaginary barrier was working.
Also stop it with the wishful thinking.
lester on February 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM
What do you think about forced sterilization in 3rd world countries were virtually no one has the ability to offer the quality of life available here in the US?
If your concern is truly for the future of the unborn child, and you’ve determined that child will have a truly ugly, unsatisfying, and dreary life, shouldn’t there be a eugenics policy worldwide?
BobMbx on February 11, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Wow.
BobMbx on February 11, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Again: you’re misrepresenting what I said. I never once claimed that people are not free to not do something [have sex]. I said that their biological urges inform their actions and it is a losing proposition to ignore this (again, as evidence, consider Bible Belt states like Mississippi, which is the teen pregnancy capital of the entire country). This is not even remotely controversial.
Are you volunteering “SoCons families” to take care of the 1.2 million aborted fetuses each year? Somehow, I doubt it. The fact is, if you did away with abortion entirely, private charity would not be sufficient to take care of all of these would-be aborted children.
No, I did not. If you can’t understand the logical difference between rhetorically pointing out that every welfare mother “chose life” (read: did not terminate her pregnancy) and claiming that all single moms are welfare recipients, then I really don’t know what to say.
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Just because you don’t want to confront the issue doesn’t make it facile. My preference is that teens not get pregnant but if they do they should do what’s best for the child and bring it into the world and do their best to provide a future for it (even if it means giving it up for adoption). It’s possible to hold the consistent positions that it’s preferable teens don’t get pregnant and that teens killing their offspring is wrong.
As to the social costs: It’s not only teens of poor families who get abortions. Also, and most disturbingly, who the hell are you to decide the fate of a human life before it even enters the world?
In what world are you living where these teens who don’t have the means to take care of a child or give it up for adoption but walk into the abortion clinic proudly proclaiming they want the unsubsidized abortion because she’s expressing her independence?
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Seriously. Don’t want to get lester hot and bothered.
CurtZHP on February 11, 2013 at 4:47 PM
So getting an abortion isn’t an emotional and physical burden?
Yeah – knowing you gave your child to a family that could better provide for it is fraught with emotion. But knowing you killed your offspring is what exactly?
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Having an abortion, in the context of a free market economy, is facing the consequences of your actions. How is this difficult to grasp?
Unlike the typical big government social “conservative” I am not a globalist. I do not care in the least what policies third world countries enforce on their populations.
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Pure selfishness. I’m a gonna deny a family a baby because it’s takes a toll on me emotionally and physically? Are you freaking kidding me? Well maybe carrying a baby for nine months and going through all emotions will make you realize to need to grow up and stop being so freaking irresponsible in your sexual life.
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Free market economy? Are you referring to America?
What about the natural rights of the child?
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM
That’s all fine and well, but it has nothing to do with your original observation about the supposed economic toll of having an abortion.
Teenage pregnancy is, across the board, a good indicator of future poverty and government dependency, without respect to the economic situation of the teen mother’s family.
And I’m not deciding the “fate” of anything. That’s entirely on the conscience of the mother freely choosing the abortion.
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Really…..how? To me it’s the ultimate act of selfishness. I don’t want to care of a child or give it up for adoption so I’m going take a quick trip the abortion doctor pay a couple hundred dollars and kill it.
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Ok so no, an individual cannot overcome biology, got it.
If all government charity went away tomorrow, private charities would do just fine, thank you very much.
Yes you did. The flipside of what you said would be “If they had abortions, then there would be less single mom welfare recipients”. There is what you said, and then there is what you did not say, and what you didn’t say (inferred) was what I was mocking.
nobar on February 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM
I wasn’t aware that families who want a baby but are unable to produce one naturally are entitled to adopt one. You know, there’s no shortage of older children waiting to be adopted and the barriers for adopting them are considerably less onerous. Of course, most of these families desperately waiting to adopt an infant wouldn’t even consider opening their homes to an older child. Now who is being selfish?
What about the non-existent “natural rights” of a fetus?
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM
You’re the one that brought up the economic impact – not me.
You are advocating for a society where the child’s natural rights are completely stripped away. Just because the mother is making the choice and not you directly doesn’t change the morality of the equation – YOU are deciding that it’s morally acceptable for a mother to kill her own offspring because it’s convenient. YOU are the one arguing that the child is better off dead because it’s life will suck.
gwelf on February 11, 2013 at 5:06 PM
I would rather be poor and alive than dead. So what if many if these kids are going to grow up having very little? (And by the way the poor here in America get health care, education, housing and cell phones). I didn’t grow up having much but my life still of worth.
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 5:08 PM
If you’re going to continue to push this moronic line of reasoning concerning “free will” then I am going to have to ask for a sound explanation for why the states where “abstinence education” is pushed most strongly also have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy.
Private charities (actually, the original subject was “SoCons families” and not “private charities” but I’ll let this one slide) would do just fine if they were suddenly burdened with a million-plus new babies to take care of each year? I very much doubt it.
This is getting ridiculous. All A are B (all welfare mothers are women who “chose life”) is not logically identical to All B are A (all women who “chose life” are welfare mothers). why are you having such a hard time understanding this? This is elementary logic.
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 5:12 PM
These fu_cking dopes — the entire U.S. birthrate is at a low, including teen births. Why don’t they look at the real problem — the percentage of babies born to single teen mothers? Idiot liberals.
Jaibones on February 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM
The fetus has never, in the history of American civilization, been recognized to have natural rights. So no, I’m not advocating for the “child’s” natural rights to be stripped away, because you can’t strip away something that doesn’t exist.
Poverty is not something we should encourage. Poverty and government dependency are inextricably linked. Conservatives have no excuse for not recognizing this fact.
Armin Tamzarian on February 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM
You know what would cause less poverty? If “men” actually married the women they knocked up and took responsibility of their children.
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 5:21 PM
alternative headline:
Abortions among Tenns at record high.
unseen on February 11, 2013 at 5:22 PM
agree 100%……but with all the “help” government gives they have no incentive to do so.
poverty isn’t problem. Poor people have good lives. it doesn’t help but “poor” families have a decent life. its better than no life.
unseen on February 11, 2013 at 5:25 PM
free market? ROFL. the government funds the abortion clincs there is nothign “free market” in it.
I suppose you would be ok with government funded old people “clincs” where the old can go to die.
unseen on February 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM
I was poor growing up….and I must say my childhood was pretty awesome.
terryannonline on February 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Very simple. People will, at various times, choose to do things that they have been taught is wrong. Free will I’d a two way street. The other half of this is that the teens in the non abstinence states have a lower rate is because they (or their parents) choose abortion.
Getting rid of govt charities would result in a significant reduction in govt overall. That would make room for charities to flourish. There would also be less incentive to collect welfare (if it existed).
Your original statement was that those single mom welfare recipients chose life. The flip side of that (once again): If they had chosen abortion, there would be less single mom welfare recipients. In your own way, you connected pro-life to welfare. I simply took your argument to its natural end.
nobar on February 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM
*is. Darn iPhone.
nobar on February 11, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2