They were completely valid quotes and 100% on target. Denial? Really? Well no problem, everyone else can read them too.
Alright, let's address them.
"In 2008, teen pregnancy and childbirth accounted for nearly $11 billion per year in costs to U.S. taxpayers for increased health care and foster care, 1.)
increased incarceration rates among children of teen parents, 2.) and lost tax revenue because of lower educational attainment and income among teen mothers."
1. There is no causal relationship between having a teen mother and ending up in jail 2. There is no way to statistically measure the lost tax revenue due to lower educational attainment because a.) we don't know future tax rates b.) having a baby does not preclude getting an education and therefore... the author pulled this 11 billion figure out of his ass.
"Pregnancy and birth are significant contributors to high school drop out rates among girls. Only about 50% of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, versus approximately 90% of women who had not given birth during adolescence."
Misleading stat because a higher percentage of teen pregnancies occur in minority neighborhoods. Graduation rates in those neighborhoods are generally lower than the national average. Why that matters - teen pregnancy is caused by socioeconomic factors. Lower graduation rates are also caused by socioeconomic factors. Therefore, teen pregnancy does not lead directly to lower graduation, it merely correlates because both occur to a greater extent in the same poor minority neighborhoods
"The children of teenage mothers are more likely to have lower school achievement and drop out of high school, have more health problems, be incarcerated at some time during adolescence, give birth as a teenager, and face unemployment as a young adult."
Again you have a case where correlation doesn't imply causation. I would argue that socioeconomic factors are more in play.
And I also want to live in a world where people respect life...women's lives....women LIVING and breathing and participating in society and deserving of respect you choose to deny them (just by minimizing the risks of pregnancy and childbirth and their futures). Women with rights.
More ignorance: no birth control is 100% unless it's surgical. So married couples shouldnt have sex after they cant afford more kids? Or in between? Or couples that dont want kids at all? Or people that wish to enjoy sex? Otherwise...the women must jeopardize their lives and futures....TOTAL disrespect.
Yeah...it's just IMO but I believe women's lives are indeed more worth of respect than fetuses.
How is it disrespectful to women to disallow abortion? You know that there are women who do not believe in abortion as well, are they equally disrespectful to their own gender, or is this just a convenient argument you can use on me due to my gender?
Part of what makes a woman a woman is that for a period of time, she will have two bodies within her instead of just one. I hear pro-choice folks talk about a fetus like it's a parasite and I know that cannot be what God intended. Life is precious.
More anecdotes: One of the most successful and amazing women I have ever met had her first child at age 16, and her second child at age 19. She is a purchasing manager for us and is attending college in the evenings, completely paid for by us as we value our employees continuing education. Her husband drives a truck which he now owns himself, and they live a comfortable low-six figures middle class life.
The point is, having a baby at a young age made her more focused and determined to succeed, and she did succeed with everything she set out for herself to do.
So you can throw statistics at me but I've shown you how they can be fudged, and you won't convince me that it's not possible to succeed professionally while raising a family at a young age.
, but there are times when the government can take possessions. One of the situations where it is legal is the "pluck them law" in which criminals are "freed" from the proceeds of their crimes (like big expensive cars, boats, villa's etc. etc. etc.). But sometimes the government also takes someones land or house but this is never without there being legal recourse (you can petition a judge etc.) and usually this only happens in extraordinary situations. Like someone owns a piece of land that is vital in building a new protection dyke against floods that threaten the lives of thousands and that person refuses to sell that land. In circumstances like that the government can forcibly procure that land, but that still can be undone by a judge.
