On Abortion

Saul Alarcon
Rhetoric 101-010
12/4/12
Let’s Not Have More Teen Pregnancy.

On September 20, 2002, Frederica Mathewes-Green exposed an article on her own website entitled “Let’s Have More Teenage Pregnancy” about her speculation of enforcing teen pregnancy and young marriage. Mathewes-Green was born in 1952. She holds a B.A. in English from the University of South Carolina as well as a M.A. in Theological studies from Virginia Theological Seminary. She has spoken against abortion in her speeches since she is pro-life as well as written books on abortion.
Mathewes-Green begins her article by stating that because a woman is able to reproduce at a young age, she should. She says that our sex drive is a natural way of telling us to reproduce young. It gives the woman better physical health and protection against breast cancer. It also makes the mom more patient with her children because teenage moms have more energy. She also feels that if we were able to advertise teenage marriage extensively, then we would not be limited to having children at an older age. She then says that children do not become adults fast enough and therefore prolong the age of childbearing. We would be able to marry younger, and our divorce rates would decrease. She explains how we were “trained” for divorce because of previous unsuccessful romantic relationships that they have before marriage. These claims are nearly all ill-supporting as well as dumbfounding.
Mathewes-Green begins by stating that a young woman (i.e., about 18 years old) is already physically and biologically capable of bearing a child. But just because she can have a child, does not mean she should. The average woman has an average of 2.61 children. If every woman decided to have children at such a young age, then our population would increase exponentially. Many people already believe that the world is already over populated. By choosing to wait later in life and plan for a child, the world has a moment to control for overcrowding.
If we look on the side of this “sex-driven biology,” we would be having children at age 18 or even younger. Yet our society has consciously chosen to have them at a later age because that is what has become socially and morally acceptable. A teenager that becomes pregnant is more likely to be shunned for her decision than a woman aged 20 or higher. Biologically it is fine to have a baby at a young age. Morally and ethically, it is not. Our morals constantly change, as well as our ideologies. A fad is quick to revolutionize, but our bodies are not. Our socio-economic world is much more readily adaptable for change than our bodies. For example, we as a society might decide one day doors should not be taller than four feet. This decision could take a mere day for us to agree upon. Our bodies, however, will have to evolutionize to fit into such small entrances after many generations. It can perhaps take thousands of years before everyone adjusts to becoming four feet tall. By keeping this concept in mind, it can theorized that after many years of having late marriage, our sexual drives will start to occur later in life.
It is also said that late childbearing is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. There is some truth to this. A study containing 91,000 women has shown that women who gave birth in their 30s were 63% more likely to develop breast cancer than women who gave birth in their early 20s. More importantly, a more recent study has suggested that this only applies to mothers who chose not to breastfeed. Meaning that if you breastfeed your child (which you should), the higher risk for breast cancer is nullified.
Because marriage has become more acceptable to occur at a much later age, so has childbearing. Our ancestors, on the contrary, married relatively young in comparison to us. Mathewes-Green proposes that this is because education has been “dumbed down.” That is, it takes a longer time to learn the same amount of material than it used to in previous decades. Therefore, the normal person would likely spend more time in college, hence delayed marriage and the protection of children. This is a mammoth fallacy that Mathewes-Green is too stubborn to perceive in her perspective. It is well known that people used to marry at younger ages. But this is not likely because they spent less time in school. It is more likely because people used to live younger lives in general. But now as medical science advances, we live longer each generation. There are certain life span intervals that we feel comfortable doing certain things. These events are rationally proportioned in accordance to our life expectancy. For example, if most people died in their 30s, then one would be more inclined to get married by age 20 or younger. That way, one would have enough time to raise children and see them start their families. If someone knew they would be able to live to 100, then they would be more likely to make a more careful choice on both marriage and conception, and take their time doing so. It has already been predicted that the first person to live to be 150 years old has already been born. Considering Matthews-Green’s age, it is entirely possible to presume that she is part of a generation in which people usually married younger. This could have been a large influence on her standpoint. It is no secret that we are constantly raising our average life span. Because we live so long in todays environment, it can only be expected that we will take our time with marriage.
This is not to say that education has not been “dumbed down”. It has. But still choosing to have a child early is idiotic. If you marry and have a child while still in school, you will be completely overwhelmed. You will not have enough time to focus on school or enough time to spend with your child. Balancing between these two major life changes is such a difficult and stressful endeavor. It is safe to say that this multi-tasking causes many moms to perform poorly in academics. When people are not getting good scores in college, the government does not respond by enforcing a better educational system. Although it has been tried numerous times, the government more often chooses to instead make education easier. If this cycle continues, then it means it will take even longer than before to get through school. So, by having teen pregnancy, we are only enforcing a dumber society.
The notion that older marriages tend to end in divorce is simply not true whatsoever. Matthews-Green says, “During the last half of the 20th century, as brides’ age rose from 20 to 25, the divorce rate has doubled.” This is where Mathewes-Green makes a gullible sense of statistics at first sight. To get a more clear understanding, see figure 1.

Figure 1
From this graph, we can see that the divorce rate has been increasing in recent years. Now take a look at figure 2, which has been extracted from the same source.
Figure 2
Figure 2 shows that divorce is more common in 20 to 24 year olds as opposed to 35 to 39 year olds. Mathewes-Green only saw the rise in divorce and the rise in older marriage. She then concluded that they were directly associated. What she failed to see was the confound, the distribution of divorces by age group (figure 2). It is now clearly shown that older marriages do not have a high rate of divorces, but in fact the near opposite.
Having children at such a young age would not allow us to experience life at its greatest magnitude. After marrying, some experts say it’s a good idea to put off having kids until a later age. This gives the couple opportunities to do things they likely would not be able to do once they have kids. They can vacation to their favorite destination or spend more time with their family among other things.
By having children at a later age, we are able to raise them better as well. The older we are, the more life experience and wisdom we have. So, if you choose to have kids later, you will have so much real-world knowledge you would be able to share with them. You would also likely have a good education because there wasn’t a child, an overwhelming responsibility, that inhibited your study. This allows you to better sculpt your child into the person that you want to see them become. Because you most likely finished school and had better grades, it is also more likely that you will have a better income. This will make sure that your child will receive a good education as well as participate in leisure activities. You will be much more financially stable and be able to provide a more enriching environment.
It is declared in the article that younger parents will be more patient and energetic with their children. Many might think that the excitement and spontaneity of a small child can be too much for an older person to handle. But it is actually what keeps these older people “young.” All of the energy the child exerts keeps the parents happy and like the child. This is one of the reasons that modern science is also showing that later childbearing is correlated with a longer life expectancy.
Mathewes-Green provides good foundations on her beliefs. They are just misguided. She truly accepts her own theories, but she fails in understanding her own concepts inside and out and with greater depth. Early childbearing may work for some certain individuals who remain mutually exclusive from many of the conditions previously stated. Early childbearing is by no means suitable for everyone. There is good reason why we have not already transitioned into a culture into which we encourage teen pregnancy. Live in an environment where we look forward to raising our children, and not see them as a burden, and they will do the same with their children.