Alltop.com

There are so many other possible factors... It could be that there are non-religious segments in these states that are simply rebelling against the norm or perhaps religious females have a higher sex drive or religion causes higher fertility... blah blah blah... more specific scientific studies are needed before you can conclude it all boils down to contraception.

A more likely reason? There is strong sociological pressure to have the unplanned baby rather than an abortion. The study doesn't suggest more teen sex, only more teens choosing to not abort.

The best way of birth control, don't fuck. It's rough to blame it on religion, pills, or the decision of murder.

Definitely think it is about being pro-life rather than being anti-contraception

I think Gary said it best. You come to the conclusion you wanted based on your own world view. I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in a god or gods. That said, I grew up in a Christian home, comparing the kids at church and the kids in public, they had the same behavior problems. The difference came down to how they chose to deal with the outcome. The kids at public schools aborted their children. The kids at church "chose" (were forced/talked into/etc) to keep their children.

Without information on the comparative teen sex rates you can't say the birth rate has anything to do with it. It's pure conjecture.

I think the statistic is higher because in non-christian societies they make abortions.

The point about abortions could be true, but also other factors need to be looked at. What type of general education are youth receiving in more religious communities? What's the are the poverty rates? To me, if you seriously focus on making quality education accessible and affordable (for high school and postsecondary education) then you should see a reduction in teen pregnancy.

Maybe people should read the article before commenting! It states "But even after accounting for the abortions, the study team still found a state's level of religiosity could predict their teen birth rate."

Ahh, well, let them multiply>>>it's the nature of the beast. Wait, I'll go and inquire from the Pope, OK? He loves to quantify...the only thing he's accustomed to...

I tend to agree with the guy who said that more teens choose to keep their unplanned babies...HOWEVER, the article is about teenage PREGNANCY, not teenage BIRTH RATES. Obviously more pregnancies occur than births because of abortion. Perhaps the author was talking about instances of pregnancy in religious states. Teens in Christian households can't have discussions about sex with their parents unless it's "DON'T DO IT." These kids are uninformed about contraception, and stats show kids are becoming sexually active at earlier and earlier ages.

1st quote: "while the study reveals information about states as a whole, it doesn't shed light on whether an individual teen who is more religious will also be more likely to have a child." the study didn't check the religious beliefs of the pregnant teens. So the idea that it was the religious beliefs about contraception is pure guess.
2nd quote: "the results showed more abortions among teenagers in the less religious states," this factors in since the data was on births not conceptions.
3rd quote: "But even after accounting for the abortions, the study team still found a state's level of religiosity could predict their teen birth rate" UNTRUE, the data they would need to collect from abortion clinics or hospitals in order to accurately make this statement cannot be released by either by LAW. This looks like an outcome based study.

I'm pretty sure this statistic also includes married teens. I bet there are a lot more of those in religious states than in non-religious. And I bet a lot of them get pregnant right away because they want to start families.

I think Utah alone would account for this statistic legitimately. These aren't unplanned pregnancies.

People are missing the obvious. Those in the more highly religious states e.g., MS, TX, AR, NM, etc. are likely of a lower socioeconomic class. That is ... more likely to be stupid.

What a poor analogy Brian has made: "lower socio-economic class" equals "more likely to be stupid">>Is that an insult to people here? Here's another analogy Brian...Madonna has an IQ of 145, but she keeps making stupid decisions when it comes to her private life. She is worth 500M$---but she's (not )stupid.....right??
,