• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,861
9,665
I don't think religion plays into. The poor pregnant girls went to a special school and hopefully finished their education. The rich girls got a little fat and disappeared to Mexico during spring break.

I'm wondering if that study accounts for reported pregnancies or births? If it's based on births then the data is definitely skewed.
 

Winnie

Beach Fanatic
Jul 22, 2008
695
213
Santa Rosa Beach
I don't think religion plays into. The poor pregnant girls went to a special school and hopefully finished their education. The rich girls got a little fat and disappeared to Mexico during spring break.

I'm wondering if that study accounts for reported pregnancies or births? If it's based on births then the data is definitely skewed.

The article is: Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
 

Lynnie

SoWal Insider
Apr 18, 2007
8,151
434
SoBuc
I went to a Catholic HS - very high rate of pregnancies.

While there are many variables (all noted here), I'd say it also has to do with hormones and experimentation.
 

fisher

Beach Fanatic
Sep 19, 2005
822
76
what total hogwash. This is nothing but liberal spin on an issue to try to discredit religion. Bob and Lucifer should do a bit of research before posting on such propoganda. I delved into the research by Guttmacher and the data does not support the conclusion Bob and Lucifer want to espouse. The data is located at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf.

The biggest problem with the conclusion drawn by the author is that she totally discounts the fact that people get married younger and have kids younger in these religious states. A quote from the article --In the south, there is a higher rate of marriage of teenagers. And one possible explanation is just that in the southern states, which are also more religious, people just get married earlier and have planned pregnancies and those have perfectly good outcomes," Strayhorn said. He added that he doesn't think the earlier marriage idea explains the religion-birth link. . Okay, he doesn't THINK it has an effect but shows no data to support his THOUGHT.

The second problem is that she discounts the abortion part of the equation.

The data to look at is not birth rates, but pregnancy rates to get the real story.

Here are the top fifteen PREGNANCY rate states (per 1000) in order--Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, NC, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Alabama

These stats take abortion out of the picture. Lo and behold, all of a sudden, Nevada (that bastion of the Christian faith) jumps to number one. And, Florida, California, New York, Hawaii, Maryland make huge leaps up in the rankings.

SC, Tenn, La, OK, Ky, drop out of the top 15.

Bottom line, you cannot come to the conclusion that Bob and Lucifer would like to come to--ie: in more religious states, there is more of a problem with teenage sex and pregnancy. In other words, what they are trying to say is, look at those hypocrites.

Give me a break.

Next time do your homework before posting data that was analyzed by a lib to push a lib agenda. The complete look at the data doesn't support your position.
 
Last edited:

lms47

Beach Lover
Apr 23, 2008
217
59
Freeport, FL
Disregarding poverty, religion and education, my observation is that in SOME areas and cultures "being pregnant" is a type of status symbol. Just MHO!
 

fisher

Beach Fanatic
Sep 19, 2005
822
76
I don't think religion plays into. The poor pregnant girls went to a special school and hopefully finished their education. The rich girls got a little fat and disappeared to Mexico during spring break.

I'm wondering if that study accounts for reported pregnancies or births? If it's based on births then the data is definitely skewed.

My point exactly. See my post where I look at the data from a pregnancy perspective and there is no correlation.
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
what total hogwash. This is nothing but liberal spin on an issue to try to discredit religion. Bob and Lucifer should do a bit of research before posting on such propoganda. I delved into the research by Guttmacher and the data does not support the conclusion Bob and Lucifer want to espouse. The data is located at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf.

The biggest problem with the conclusion drawn by the author is that she totally discounts the fact that people get married younger and have kids younger in these religious states. A quote from the article --In the south, there is a higher rate of marriage of teenagers. And one possible explanation is just that in the southern states, which are also more religious, people just get married earlier and have planned pregnancies and those have perfectly good outcomes," Strayhorn said. He added that he doesn't think the earlier marriage idea explains the religion-birth link. . Okay, he doesn't THINK it has an effect but shows no data to support his THOUGHT.

The second problem is that she discounts the abortion part of the equation.

The data to look at is not birth rates, but pregnancy rates to get the real story.

Here are the top fifteen PREGNANCY rate states (per 1000) in order--Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, NC, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Alabama

These stats take abortion out of the picture. Lo and behold, all of a sudden, Nevada (that bastion of the Christian faith) jumps to number one. And, Florida, California, New York, Hawaii, Maryland make huge leaps up in the rankings.

SC, Tenn, La, OK, Ky, drop out of the top 15.

Bottom line, you cannot come to the conclusion that Bob and Lucifer would like to come to--ie: in more religious states, there is more of a problem with teenage sex and pregnancy. In other words, what they are trying to say is, look at those hypocrites.

Give me a break.

Next time do your homework before posting data that was analyzed by a lib to push a lib agenda. The complete look at the data doesn't support your position.

I'm not sure why you're getting you panties in such a wad. (no pun intended :funn:), but the link Bob provided said the trend holds true even when accounting for abortions. The chart below confirms this using data in the link you provided. Just keep in mind, facts are your friends and don't be afraid of knowledge. It won't bite.:cool: And another thing, you don't need me to discredit religion when there are practitioners like you doing that job for me. Have a nice day!
 

Matt J

SWGB
May 9, 2007
24,861
9,665
Fighting teens having sex is a lot like bailing with a sieve.

It wasn't even 200 years ago that a pregnant 15 year-old was perfectly common since she was most likely married already anyway. If she was really lucky and didn't die during child birth she might get to see her child get married. Socially we have pushed the acceptable age of sex and marriage way up while biologically we haven't evolved to match that expectation.

I'm not advocating kids having sex, but I do believe that they should be given options if they choose to do so. If you can honestly get a teenager to not have sex simply by telling them not too then you are one hell of a gifted speaker.
 

fisher

Beach Fanatic
Sep 19, 2005
822
76
I'm not sure why you're getting you panties in such a wad. (no pun intended :funn:), but the link Bob provided said the trend holds true even when accounting for abortions. The chart below confirms this using data in the link you provided. Just keep in mind, facts are your friends and don't be afraid of knowledge. It won't bite.:cool: And another thing, you don't need me to discredit religion when there are practitioners like you doing that job for me. Have a nice day!


There are too many relevant omitted variables in the model to place any reliance in your linear regression model of religiosity and pregnancy rates (for instance, age of marriage, poverty levels). In addition, ASSUMING that there are no other variables that could effect the data, the data point pattern is not tight enough around the line to come to the conclusion you would like to reach. Do you understand the term deviation as it relates to linear regression analysis? Only one of your data points actually sits on the line and the deviations of all the other data points (not even considering the omitted relevant variables) is significant. In other words, the graph you submitted is worthless in terms of drawing the conclusion you would like to make.

Sorry. Spin doesn't work when the facts don't support you. It doesn't take linear regression analysis or a rocket scientist to see that when Nevada, California, Hawaii, and New York are in the top 15 of the data, religiousity and pregnancy in teens are not related.

It was a pretty chart though. :rotfl: Nice to know you can use excel.:clap: Did you lose your job with ACORN recently? :lolabove:
 
Last edited:

poppy

Banned
Sep 10, 2008
2,854
928
Miramar Beach
what total hogwash. This is nothing but liberal spin on an issue to try to discredit religion. Bob and Lucifer should do a bit of research before posting on such propoganda. I delved into the research by Guttmacher and the data does not support the conclusion Bob and Lucifer want to espouse. The data is located at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf.

The biggest problem with the conclusion drawn by the author is that she totally discounts the fact that people get married younger and have kids younger in these religious states. A quote from the article --In the south, there is a higher rate of marriage of teenagers. And one possible explanation is just that in the southern states, which are also more religious, people just get married earlier and have planned pregnancies and those have perfectly good outcomes," Strayhorn said. He added that he doesn't think the earlier marriage idea explains the religion-birth link. . Okay, he doesn't THINK it has an effect but shows no data to support his THOUGHT.

The second problem is that she discounts the abortion part of the equation.

The data to look at is not birth rates, but pregnancy rates to get the real story.

Here are the top fifteen PREGNANCY rate states (per 1000) in order--Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, NC, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Alabama

These stats take abortion out of the picture. Lo and behold, all of a sudden, Nevada (that bastion of the Christian faith) jumps to number one. And, Florida, California, New York, Hawaii, Maryland make huge leaps up in the rankings.

SC, Tenn, La, OK, Ky, drop out of the top 15.

Bottom line, you cannot come to the conclusion that Bob and Lucifer would like to come to--ie: in more religious states, there is more of a problem with teenage sex and pregnancy. In other words, what they are trying to say is, look at those hypocrites.

Give me a break.

Next time do your homework before posting data that was analyzed by a lib to push a lib agenda. The complete look at the data doesn't support your position.

If as you are saying Bob and Lucifer believe there is more of a problem with teenage sex in religious states I would think the data to look at would not be pregnancy rates but the number of teens who are sexually active as this would be considered a "sin" among the more religious population. Pregnancy would be the result of those not practicing safe sex. I did not see a table for this rate (maybe I missed it). Sexual activity should include all forms of sex not just intercourse.
Reports have indicated teens who sign chastity pledges are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex believing they are not breaking their pledge.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter