gbaji wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
I think the 40% statistic regarding unwed mothers isn't a tell-all since not all unwed mothers require financial assistance. If you could show the link between unwed mothers and required government assistance, then I may be able to agree with your point.
The rate has increased by a factor of 13 over that period of time. Are you suggesting that an unwed mother is only 1/13th as likely to require government assistance today as she would have back in the 50s? Why? That just seems like wishful thinking to me.
I'm suggesting the figure makes the situation seem worse than it actually is. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the difference between the involvement of women in the work force has doubled since 1950. In addition, the difference in average wage has changed quite dramatically since the 1950s. Adjusted for today's economy, women of the 1950s were making approximately $7,000/yr. That's compared to the $32,000/yr they are actually making, according to information collected in 2006. If you combine those two factors, it starts looking quite close to that 13 fold factor you have suggested. I stand by my claim that the information you provided paints an uneven picture.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Additionally, I do not think we are speaking of increasing the amount of birth control and/or sex education as a solution to fix a growing population.
Not a "growing population", but a "growing population in need of government services". Remember when I insisted that we clarify your hypothesis:
Quite right - an important clarification.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let's first recall that hypothesis. You are claiming that it is less expensive to fund an organization which provides birth control than it is to pay for the social services for the "spawn" which would otherwise result. Thus, you are assuming that a dollar spent providing birth control will prevent a dollars worth of social services on child care. More specifically, you are assuming that the money spent on funding for birth control will cause a reduction in the number of children born needing those social services.
Yes, I would agree that is my guess. For sake of debate, I'll agree with your wording and say it's my "claim".
Your assumption is that by funding birth control, we are decreasing the amount of funding we have to pay for social services to support the children which would otherwise be born. Your argument is exactly about using birth control as a means to solve the problem of a growing population of children born poverty. You do remember your own argument, right?
You are parsing my words too closely regarding my quote embedded in the above quote. To say it's my claim has a different connotation than I intend; it seems as though I am championing the assumption as fact when I am, in fact, quite openly stating it is a guess. That is all I meant.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The statistics will not be able to distinguish how the outcome would have played out were the birth control/education not already in place. The situation is more along the lines of "Will the rates of birth increase in groups who previously had access to those services once those services are removed?" It's a subtle difference, but an important one when trying to compare against history.
Sure. But as I stated before. If your reason for supporting government funding for birth control on the grounds that it will reduce the cost to government to support the children who would otherwise be born, it's clear that the data simply does not support that reasoning at all. There's no evidence at all that handing out birth control is having any effect on the rate at which children are born into the conditions most likely to result in them needing government assistance. None at all. We assume this because the "obvious" assumption is that birth control helps "control birth", and thus empowers people to avoid that condition.
But it's clear that for whatever reason, it's not working. Can we at least agree therefore that spending money on providing birth control isn't the solution to that problem? I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons for doing it. I'll point out that I'm not arguing against funding birth control. Despite appearances, what I'm arguing against is doing it for the reasons you are claiming. You just stated what I saw as a week/false argument for providing birth control. That's it.
I appreciate the clarification on your reasoning, and I believe I understand the position you're coming from. I think part of the reason you do not see any data on it "working as assumed" though is because you have no frame of reference were it not to be there. We are looking at reality and saying "It's not working! Nothing has changed!" I think that is not an entirely correct way to view the situation when trying to determine if it is preventing additional welfare payments. How could it be determined that its existence did not in fact have the effect of decreasing the rate at which welfare assistance has increased (under these specific circumstances to these specific groups as defined earlier in our discussion)? I think you would be hard pressed to show otherwise simply because we cannot analyze that situation.
