Kinda stands to reason that the vast majority of child pregnancies are the result of inappropriate sexual contact, but it is still alarming to see the numbers pointing out HOW inappropriate.
First, it is 32 to 37 years out of date. Social norms have shifted drastically. At the time of these studies, The Cosby Show was the highest rated show on TV.
Second:
70% of babies born to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men; only 30% are fathered by teenagers.
The majority of these 1980s/1990s cases were 19-year-old “teenagers” and their 20-year-old partners. The mean age of motherhood in the 1970s was only 20.2 years. As many girls below that age were becoming mothers as women above that age. (That puts the mean age of conception at 19.5 years, making teenage pregnancy the norm)
Motherhood age rose slightly through the 1990s, and jumped in the early 2000s. It’s currently 27.5 years and rising fast.
Third:
Of the pregnant teenagers had had an unwanted sexual experience,
The “unwanted” criterion might be doing a lot of work here. It might be including only a tiny percentage of all pregnancies. The greater the age difference, the more likely the experience was “unwanted”. This criterion might be capturing 100% of pregnancies with >10 year difference, but only 5% of pregnancies with <2 year difference. The overwhelming majority of the aforementioned 19/20 families aren’t being counted.
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
You can’t honestly believe that’s what he’s saying. That pointing out the data being posted is very old and thus not inherently indicative of modern society, somehow means the issue is resolved?
That data could still be accurate but with 30+ years of societal changes, including a dramatic shift in the median age of pregnancies, it should be assumed it is no longer accurate. It could be, but you should assume old data like that is no longer accurate, regardless of the specific topic of discussion.
What kind of logic is that, of course it does exist - its just that your data has the capacity to be severely incorrect. The only one playing pretend is you, because this whole thing is about your original analysis not playing pretend that it “doesnt” exist.
I think you misunderstood me. My criticism is of this particular data. This particular data is so terrible that it doesn’t even support the claim that any underage person has ever been pregnant!
To make any reasonable conclusions about the state of underage and teenage pregnancy, we have to go outside this particular data, because this data, as presented here, is total garbage.
Of course you don’t need much data to prove that. You need extraordinarily little data to support your point. Everyone knows your point is perfectly valid: rape has not been eliminated. Child rape has not been eliminated. Underage pregnancy has not been eliminated. These are all problems that this data does not quantify.
You seem to think I am arguing that rape no longer exists. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that this data doesn’t actually tell us a damn thing about either rape or teenage pregnancy. From the data presented here, we cannot determine if rape is more common than theft, or rarer than cannibalism.
From the data presented here, we cannot determine if rape is more common than theft, or rarer than cannibalism.
I guess its a super good thing that no one is talking about theft or cannibalism. Weird that you felt that making up a completely arbitrary criteria made sense as you move out all the stops to do everything you can to minimize child rape.
Why is this so important to you that you are willing to make such spurious arguments?
12 year olds still being raped and impregnated is bleak.
Indeed. However, the cited data doesn’t tell us anything about child rape. Sexual activity between two adolescents is not statutory rape. This is the overwhelming majority of cases.
You can pretend like underage pregnancies are all from consensual underage sex, but I’m not going to close my eyes to truths of the world.
I don’t believe I said anything of the sort. My point was only that the data presented is not representative of the current state. We have every reason to believe that the cited numbers were recorded at or near their peak, and that they have fallen precipitously in the past 30+ years.
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
Thats the conclusion which should’ve been included within op’s statement. Honestly such an outdated statistic is a poor indication of the status quo - because it isn’t the status quo. OP may imply various repeated statements however it doesn’t magically supplement the facts and statistics which exist today.
Within the research scene, OPs statement would be framed as misinformation due to its age - this factor alone is responsible here, so there is no room in twisting the logic here.
Just because it has decreased doesn’t mean that rape and sexual assaults don’t happen to teenagers and children anymore.
Yet again, you’re missing the point. This conclusion was already stated by countless of oppositions to your argument.
The main point is the fact that your research is invalid to explain the status quo - its the logic thats the problem not that “rape has somehow evaporated from existence”.
Note that the first 36% (43% if you include the implied 7% where the father is more than two years younger) includes age pairings like 19/22, and many people would include something like 18/24 as somewhat acceptable. Underage pregnancies should really be tracked separately from teenage pregnancies.
Also, teenage pregnancy and violent crime are both way down from 1989 (crime more than 50% and teenage pregnancy about 75%). I wonder if/how those two factors would affect the numbers in a modern study.
Teen pregnancy is lower for sure thanks in large part to access to contraception. It’s not because sexual activity and rape went down.
It’s not only because of that, but it seems highly likely that that contributed. Impregnating children is, as you noted, almost always a sex crime, and sex crime is down by half. It’s certainly possible that the entire decrease was in crimes against adults and AMAB children, but that seems unlikely.
I’m still confident based on all the available information that the majority of 12 year olds that find themselves pregnant are victims of men.
Absolutely, but 12-year-olds are not teenagers. The study you cited doesn’t actually include anyone who gives birth at 12. That’s one more reason to track underage pregnancies separately. 18/19-year-olds skew the numbers because they’re above the age of consent, and girls below 13 don’t contribute.
You’ll note that I quoted a bit more. That was for a reason: the part I took issue with was the “it’s not because of…”
So it would track based off this information that includes 13 year olds that it is similar for 12 year olds.
Perhaps, but it might not be. Those 13-year-olds are mixed in with 19-year-olds, whose circumstances are likely far different.
And I stand by my statement that most pregnant 12 year olds are victims.
You keep restating this as if anyone disagreed with you. I explicitly agreed in the comment to which you’re replying.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
And you’re citing data as if it were much more applicable than it is. Data for 12-year-olds is likely worse, no one is denying that, but it’s still a weak argument to cite data that doesn’t include the age group in question, does include age groups with far different circumstances, and is from a time when the two phenomena in question (violent sex crimes and teenage pregnancy) were two and four times higher respectively.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
Then why even attempt to supply evidence to the debate if you’re going to dismiss critiques of it later?
This is the point of research, and the thing is the ‘know-it-all’ type of debate ais all a result from your original statement. This isn’t about 12 year olds but the inherent logic within arguments.
I do suggest you add a disclaimer that your research may be slightly outdated. This of course, doesn’t invalidate it; however, clarity is important here as this can be on the verge of misinformation.
I do respect that this problem has been addressed, so well done.
This doesn’t necessarily make it appear as a disclaimer, but rather a reference. The premise doesn’t state that this may or may not be outdated - it gives the impression that it is the truth, despite the year.
Yep, my ex’s first husband first knocked her up in his 20s when she was 17. You’ll never guess which one decades later supports accessible abortion for teenagers…
Yes, but his consternation is not about a “baby” dying, but that a woman or girl could make a choice behind the back of her husband, father, or boyfriend. That’s why he frames it the way he does.
I agree. OP is greatly over generalizing the situation here. But as the other commenter said (even if the evidence is on the older less reliable side): the majority of cases are of older adults raping 12 year olds.
The composition fallacy doesn’t necessarily make the statement invalid, as considering the aim of the first person, that aim directly corresponds to the conclusion of second person and has a link with the supplied evidence.
Not that it changes anything in the women’s right to abortion, but a 14 or even a 12 years old boyfriend can get a 12 years old pregnant.
deleted by creator
Well that’s fucking bleak.
Kinda stands to reason that the vast majority of child pregnancies are the result of inappropriate sexual contact, but it is still alarming to see the numbers pointing out HOW inappropriate.
deleted by creator
I don’t put much stock in this data.
First, it is 32 to 37 years out of date. Social norms have shifted drastically. At the time of these studies, The Cosby Show was the highest rated show on TV.
Second:
The majority of these 1980s/1990s cases were 19-year-old “teenagers” and their 20-year-old partners. The mean age of motherhood in the 1970s was only 20.2 years. As many girls below that age were becoming mothers as women above that age. (That puts the mean age of conception at 19.5 years, making teenage pregnancy the norm)
Motherhood age rose slightly through the 1990s, and jumped in the early 2000s. It’s currently 27.5 years and rising fast.
Third:
The “unwanted” criterion might be doing a lot of work here. It might be including only a tiny percentage of all pregnancies. The greater the age difference, the more likely the experience was “unwanted”. This criterion might be capturing 100% of pregnancies with >10 year difference, but only 5% of pregnancies with <2 year difference. The overwhelming majority of the aforementioned 19/20 families aren’t being counted.
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
Nothing is stopping you from posting actual data instead of just whining that this is too old.
deleted by creator
Seriously. Dude is literally taking the position that we “solved rape” with zero support just because the last data he saw is old.
You can’t honestly believe that’s what he’s saying. That pointing out the data being posted is very old and thus not inherently indicative of modern society, somehow means the issue is resolved?
That data could still be accurate but with 30+ years of societal changes, including a dramatic shift in the median age of pregnancies, it should be assumed it is no longer accurate. It could be, but you should assume old data like that is no longer accurate, regardless of the specific topic of discussion.
Literally his actual position:
What kind of logic is that, of course it does exist - its just that your data has the capacity to be severely incorrect. The only one playing pretend is you, because this whole thing is about your original analysis not playing pretend that it “doesnt” exist.
deleted by creator
I think reading this last line would’ve been helpful here.
I think you misunderstood me. My criticism is of this particular data. This particular data is so terrible that it doesn’t even support the claim that any underage person has ever been pregnant!
To make any reasonable conclusions about the state of underage and teenage pregnancy, we have to go outside this particular data, because this data, as presented here, is total garbage.
Show me in this data where child rape still exists. Obviously, it does exist, but this data certainly doesn’t show it.
Technically, this data doesn’t even show that child rape ever existed. My point is simple: This data is trash.
You are similarly empowered.
Sure, except that I didn’t think I actually need much data to prove the rape didn’t disappear in the last twenty years.
Of course you don’t need much data to prove that. You need extraordinarily little data to support your point. Everyone knows your point is perfectly valid: rape has not been eliminated. Child rape has not been eliminated. Underage pregnancy has not been eliminated. These are all problems that this data does not quantify.
You seem to think I am arguing that rape no longer exists. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that this data doesn’t actually tell us a damn thing about either rape or teenage pregnancy. From the data presented here, we cannot determine if rape is more common than theft, or rarer than cannibalism.
As presented, this data is meaningless garbage.
I guess its a super good thing that no one is talking about theft or cannibalism. Weird that you felt that making up a completely arbitrary criteria made sense as you move out all the stops to do everything you can to minimize child rape.
Why is this so important to you that you are willing to make such spurious arguments?
deleted by creator
Indeed. However, the cited data doesn’t tell us anything about child rape. Sexual activity between two adolescents is not statutory rape. This is the overwhelming majority of cases.
deleted by creator
I don’t believe I said anything of the sort. My point was only that the data presented is not representative of the current state. We have every reason to believe that the cited numbers were recorded at or near their peak, and that they have fallen precipitously in the past 30+ years.
deleted by creator
I’m having a hard time understanding who are you trying to disprove with this statement:
I dont think OP even mentioned justifying rape. So what purpose do these straw men serve you?
deleted by creator
Thats the conclusion which should’ve been included within op’s statement. Honestly such an outdated statistic is a poor indication of the status quo - because it isn’t the status quo. OP may imply various repeated statements however it doesn’t magically supplement the facts and statistics which exist today.
Within the research scene, OPs statement would be framed as misinformation due to its age - this factor alone is responsible here, so there is no room in twisting the logic here.
deleted by creator
Yet again, you’re missing the point. This conclusion was already stated by countless of oppositions to your argument.
The main point is the fact that your research is invalid to explain the status quo - its the logic thats the problem not that “rape has somehow evaporated from existence”.
deleted by creator
The data in question does not support that point.
That doesn’t mean the point is invalid.
Including this particular data detracts from this point. Either find a point that this data does support, or don’t use this particular data.
Note that the first 36% (43% if you include the implied 7% where the father is more than two years younger) includes age pairings like 19/22, and many people would include something like 18/24 as somewhat acceptable. Underage pregnancies should really be tracked separately from teenage pregnancies.
Also, teenage pregnancy and violent crime are both way down from 1989 (crime more than 50% and teenage pregnancy about 75%). I wonder if/how those two factors would affect the numbers in a modern study.
deleted by creator
It’s not only because of that, but it seems highly likely that that contributed. Impregnating children is, as you noted, almost always a sex crime, and sex crime is down by half. It’s certainly possible that the entire decrease was in crimes against adults and AMAB children, but that seems unlikely.
Absolutely, but 12-year-olds are not teenagers. The study you cited doesn’t actually include anyone who gives birth at 12. That’s one more reason to track underage pregnancies separately. 18/19-year-olds skew the numbers because they’re above the age of consent, and girls below 13 don’t contribute.
deleted by creator
You’ll note that I quoted a bit more. That was for a reason: the part I took issue with was the “it’s not because of…”
Perhaps, but it might not be. Those 13-year-olds are mixed in with 19-year-olds, whose circumstances are likely far different.
You keep restating this as if anyone disagreed with you. I explicitly agreed in the comment to which you’re replying.
And you’re citing data as if it were much more applicable than it is. Data for 12-year-olds is likely worse, no one is denying that, but it’s still a weak argument to cite data that doesn’t include the age group in question, does include age groups with far different circumstances, and is from a time when the two phenomena in question (violent sex crimes and teenage pregnancy) were two and four times higher respectively.
Then why even attempt to supply evidence to the debate if you’re going to dismiss critiques of it later?
This is the point of research, and the thing is the ‘know-it-all’ type of debate ais all a result from your original statement. This isn’t about 12 year olds but the inherent logic within arguments.
deleted by creator
I do suggest you add a disclaimer that your research may be slightly outdated. This of course, doesn’t invalidate it; however, clarity is important here as this can be on the verge of misinformation.
I do respect that this problem has been addressed, so well done.
deleted by creator
This doesn’t necessarily make it appear as a disclaimer, but rather a reference. The premise doesn’t state that this may or may not be outdated - it gives the impression that it is the truth, despite the year.
deleted by creator
Yep, my ex’s first husband first knocked her up in his 20s when she was 17. You’ll never guess which one decades later supports accessible abortion for teenagers…
Yes, but his consternation is not about a “baby” dying, but that a woman or girl could make a choice behind the back of her husband, father, or boyfriend. That’s why he frames it the way he does.
I agree. OP is greatly over generalizing the situation here. But as the other commenter said (even if the evidence is on the older less reliable side): the majority of cases are of older adults raping 12 year olds.
The composition fallacy doesn’t necessarily make the statement invalid, as considering the aim of the first person, that aim directly corresponds to the conclusion of second person and has a link with the supplied evidence.