Male Contraception News

Removable Mind said:

I hadn't thought of Alta Vista in years. There's been a lot of search engines fall out over the last 10 years.

In my opinion, to get "ACCURATE" information or stats on "Intended or Unintended Pregnancies" would pretty much have to be via a self-reporting survey that is collect by hospitals, abortion clinics, the CDC, Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, or the DHHS. I don't know of any laws that require giving such information to any private or government agencies. Thus the women who do report this type of information is because they choose to provide such information.

Data on abortions is difficult to get "accurate information" because prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was against the law except in 4 states. There's numbers available, but just how accurate they are...???? :shrug:

Click to expand...

how many unreported abortions were there last year?


please ignore the snipe hunt question

justabubba said:

how many unreported abortions were there last year?

Click to expand...

Don't know. Do you?

Removable Mind said:

I hadn't thought of Alta Vista in years. There's been a lot of search engines fall out over the last 10 years.

In my opinion, to get "ACCURATE" information or stats on "Intended or Unintended Pregnancies" would pretty much have to be via a self-reporting survey that is collect by hospitals, abortion clinics, the CDC, Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, or the DHHS. I don't know of any laws that require giving such information to any private or government agencies. Thus the women who do report this type of information is because they choose to provide such information.

Data on abortions is difficult to get "accurate information" because prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was against the law except in 4 states. There's numbers available, but just how accurate they are...???? :shrug:

Click to expand...

You are correct. But with Alta Vista, you could still find information by those who have written about such things. It's increasingly difficult to find past material.

Removable Mind said:

Don't know. Do you?

Click to expand...

apologies. i added to my post after you read it

my obtuse point was to note the silly requests for information which data is not likely to be available. such requests for information have been posted within this thread

justabubba said:

minnie. please don't allow that catastrophe to happen, since you were the one doing the research which destroyed his assertion
no minnie, do whatever you must to stay in his good graces so that valid data can continue to be offered to undermine his bogus arguments

Click to expand...

I hear ya. I'm really not sure what sources LOP expects to exist with the types of data that he's asked for in this thread.

As you well know, there is information on virtually every question regarding human reproduction. Whether or not the information is valid or accurate...?????

Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher Institute does offer stats on unintended pregnancies. So does the CDC. But generally such information is offered by age groups, not individual ages. For example: Age 15 through 19 is a common age group when providing statistical information on pregnancies, births, abortions, etc.

Some interesting info:

In 2014, 7.8 million women received publicly funded family planning services; these services helped women avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in 914,000 unplanned births and nearly 680,000 abortions (the remainder would have resulted in miscarriages).

In the absence of publicly funded family planning services, the numbers of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions in the United States would have been 68% higher—and the pregnancy rate for adolescents aged 15–19 would have been 73% higher—than they currently are

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-unintended-pregnancy-texas

Removable Mind said:

I hear ya. I'm really not sure what sources LOP expects to exist with the types of data that he's asked for in this thread.

Click to expand...

My original remarks had to do with responsibility, and the change in pregnancy rates of the youngest women. Teenagers have had sex through all of history, but we had a dramatic increase in the youngest of women. I have seen the stats in the past, but can no longer find them. They are washed out by the combination of commercialized search engines, and ever increasing data on severs. It used to be rare for a 15 year old girl to get pregnant. It wasn't until that "sweet 16" age that women started being sexually active. Now, it is common for 15 year old girls to get pregnant, and even 14 yr old.

Lord of Planar said:

My original remarks had to do with responsibility, and the change in pregnancy rates of the youngest women. Teenagers have had sex through all of history, but we had a dramatic increase in the youngest of women. I have seen the stats in the past, but can no longer find them. They are washed out by the combination of commercialized search engines, and ever increasing data on severs. It used to be rare for a 15 year old girl to get pregnant. It wasn't until that "sweet 16" age that women started being sexually active. Now, it is common for 15 year old girls to get pregnant, and even 14 yr old.

Click to expand...

Realizing that 50 years ago (1960 consensus), the population in the US was about 180.7 million vs 324 million today, then the stat to look for related to simply the number of pregnancies per 1000 or even 100,000 ratio during any given year...might be a more possible type data to acquire. That would define the increase in KNOWN pregnancies within a specific age GROUP, not necessarily a specific, individual age - from one point in our history to another point (like current). To narrow down such stats to "intended and unintended pregnancies" is a different ballgame.

But in all fairness to the debate, we really need some sources of data when making statistical claims. It reduces the tension between those in the debate. We tend not to take a general statements or claims about statistics as being real or accurate without something to backup such claims. Wouldn't you agree?

Lord of Planar said:

My original remarks had to do with responsibility, and the change in pregnancy rates of the youngest women. Teenagers have had sex through all of history, but we had a dramatic increase in the youngest of women. I have seen the stats in the past, but can no longer find them. They are washed out by the combination of commercialized search engines, and ever increasing data on severs. It used to be rare for a 15 year old girl to get pregnant. It wasn't until that "sweet 16" age that women started being sexually active. Now, it is common for 15 year old girls to get pregnant, and even 14 yr old.

Click to expand...

The following is an example of my previous post:

In 2014, there were 24.2 births for every 1,000 adolescent females ages 15-19, or 249,078 babies born to females in this age group. Nearly 89 percent of these births occurred outside of marriage. The 2014 teen birth rate indicates a decline of nine percent from 2013 when the birth rate was 26.5 per 1,000.

https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolesc...-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html

Removable Mind said:

Realizing that 50 years ago (1960 consensus), the population in the US was about 180.7 million vs 324 million today, then the stat to look for related to simply the number of pregnancies per 1000 or even 100,000 ratio during any given year...might be a more possible type data to acquire. That would define the increase in KNOWN pregnancies within a specific age GROUP, not necessarily a specific, individual age - from one point in our history to another point (like current). To narrow down such stats to "intended and unintended pregnancies" is a different ballgame.

But in all fairness to the debate, we really need some sources of data when making statistical claims. It reduces the tension between those in the debate. We tend not to take a general statements or claims about statistics as being real or accurate without something to backup such claims. Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

Agreed. But for someone to say I'm wrong, when I have seen the numbers in past years, is f'n annoying when they cant show proper numbers either.

I know what I saw in past data, then Minnie and others come up with all this data that doesn't prove squat against my contention, and thinks they are right.

Would you agree or not it is at least likely that women are starting to have sex at an earlier age than 50 years ago?

Lord of Planar said:

My original remarks had to do with responsibility, and the change in pregnancy rates of the youngest women.

Click to expand...

YOU ARE NOT LOOKING AT ENOUGH HISTORY. More about that below.

Lord of Planar said:

Teenagers have had sex through all of history, but we had a dramatic increase in the youngest of women.

Click to expand...

ONLY IN TERMS OF TOTAL POPULATION. Back before civilization was invented, practically all teenagers had sex and children. The infant mortality rate was so high that all women able to breed needed to be breeders, just to keep the tribe from dying out.

Lord of Planar said:

I have seen the stats in the past, but can no longer find them.

Click to expand...

DOESN'T MATTER. We know that after cities got built, it became somewhat more difficult for everyone living in them to get complete nutrition. One of the consequences of that was a delayed onset of puberty --and that is how Tradition began to change. We might say that 14-year-olds simply weren't interested in sex because the biological drive hadn't kicked in. But it usually had kicked in by the time they reached age 17 or so.

NOWADAYS, we know lots about nutrition that wasn't known back then, and we have things like vitamin pills (and vitamin-supplemented foods) to make sure almost everyone in a city gets complete nutrition. Net result: Puberty once again is kicking in at age 14 or so.

I snipped the last part of what you wrote, since it goes into more detail of what you already wrote, and is just as short-sighted with respect to long-term History.

Lord of Planar said:

Agreed. But for someone to say I'm wrong, when I have seen the numbers in past years, is f'n annoying when they cant show proper numbers either.

I know what I saw in past data, then Minnie and others come up with all this data that doesn't prove squat against my contention, and thinks they are right.

Would you agree or not it is at least likely that women are starting to have sex at an earlier age than 50 years ago?

Click to expand...

Here's something to ponder:

Between 1990 and 2010, the teen pregnancy rate declined by 51 percent—from 116.9 to 57.4 pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls.4 According to recent national data, this decline is due to the combination of an increased percentage of adolescents who are waiting to have sexual intercourse and the increased use of contraceptives by teens.

https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolesc...-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html

The above indicates that teenagers have become substantially more responsible through the year 2010 in two ways. One by waiting to have intercourse and two, by the increased numbers of teens responsibly using contraceptives. Recent reports show even a greater reduction in pregnancy rates among then girls.

Since the 2010 report the numbers have declined substantially more. The most recent data shows an incredible increase in teens being way more responsible regarding sexual conduct that leads to pregnancies.

Lord of Planar said:

Agreed. But for someone to say I'm wrong, when I have seen the numbers in past years, is f'n annoying when they cant show proper numbers either.

I know what I saw in past data, then Minnie and others come up with all this data that doesn't prove squat against my contention, and thinks they are right.

Would you agree or not it is at least likely that women are starting to have sex at an earlier age than 50 years ago?

Click to expand...

FYI...

The stat reporting method used by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on teen pregnancies is the following:

The teen pregnancy rate is the sum all known live births, abortions and miscarriages (or fetal losses) per 1,000 adolescent females ages 15-19 in a given year.

Removable Mind said:

Here's something to ponder:

Between 1990 and 2010, the teen pregnancy rate declined by 51 percent—from 116.9 to 57.4 pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls.4 According to recent national data, this decline is due to the combination of an increased percentage of adolescents who are waiting to have sexual intercourse and the increased use of contraceptives by teens.

https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolesc...-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html

The above indicates that teenagers have become substantially more responsible through the year 2010 in two ways. One by waiting to have intercourse and two, by the increased numbers of teens responsibly using contraceptives. Recent reports show even a greater reduction in pregnancy rates among then girls.

Since the 2010 report the numbers have declined substantially more. The most recent data shows an incredible increase in teens being way more responsible regarding sexual conduct that leads to pregnancies.

Click to expand...

Maybe the changes on benefits also made it less attractive to have kids before having money.

I remember news reports, or internet reports maybe 15 years back, that it had become a trend for young women to purposely get pregnant so they could live on government subsidies and get out of their parents house. Now how true that actually was, I haven't a clue.

Again however, I was speaking of a decline of responsibility from the past. Trends change all the time, and that doesn't erase the trend I was speaking of. Especially when I specified 40-50 years, and specified 15 years of age, and you guys keep coming back with the wrong years, and an age group.

Some people say the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I'm done with the ignorance here.

Goodbye. Removing thread from my subscription list.

Lord of Planar said:

Agreed. But for someone to say I'm wrong, when I have seen the numbers in past years, is f'n annoying when they cant show proper numbers either.

I know what I saw in past data, then Minnie and others come up with all this data that doesn't prove squat against my contention, and thinks they are right.

Would you agree or not it is at least likely that women are starting to have sex at an earlier age than 50 years ago?

Click to expand...

We've seen the numbers in the past too. And shown new ones.

You were wrong. And refused to either admit it or prove otherwise.

And no to the bold. Again, even in the US people often married younger.

Esp. rural kids...sex in their teens? Common.

Lursa said:

We've seen the numbers in the past too. And shown new ones.

You were wrong. And refused to either admit it or prove otherwise.

And no to the bold. Again, even in the US people often married younger.

Esp. rural kids...sex in their teens? Common.

Click to expand...

LOP is pissed because we don't take his word for some statistic he found eons ago, which may or may not be accurate or even related.

He's been given enough information, which debunks his argument. You and Minnie have pointed sources of information that out numerous times. They are close enough to show that he's wrong. Period.

He's asking for a statistic that can't be found in the exact manner that he said exists...somewhere. If it exists somewhere then it's up to him to find that source and post it. Otherwise "just his claim" means nothing in the grander scheme of things.

Removable Mind said:

LOP is pissed because we don't take his word for some statistic he found eons ago, which may or may not be accurate or even related.

He's been given enough information, which debunks his argument. You and Minnie have pointed sources of information that out numerous times. They are close enough to show that he's wrong. Period.

He's asking for a statistic that can't be found in the exact manner that he said exists...somewhere. If it exists somewhere then it's up to him to find that source and post it. Otherwise "just his claim" means nothing in the grander scheme of things.

Click to expand...

I know.

He cant debate something that isnt true and none of us bought it so he couldnt use it in his argument.

Oh well. Da Internetz can be tough!