In his most most recent article “Dutch Debate” Dr. Kurtz does three things:
- Reiterates his theory that the campaign for same sex marriage has caused marriage rates to decline and out of wedlock births to rise in Scandinavia and in the Netherlands
- Claims there are data to support his theory.
- Tries to refute Dr. Lee Badgett’s statistics which clearly contradict his theory.
It would take more than one article to illustrate the huge volume of distortions and outright errors in “Dutch Debate”. I will not attempt to do so in one. Instead I will focus on those errors associated with Dr. Kurtz’s interpretation of the data describing the rise in the out of wedlock birthrate in the Netherlands. Dr. Kurtz described these data in “Going Dutch”.
I will focus on the Dutch data for two reasons. The first reason is that Dr. Kurtz repeatedly emphasizes that the Dutch data are the best evidence supporting his theory. The second reason is Dr. Badgett and I presented similar data and arguments regarding the Dutch data. So, were Dr. Kurtz’s feeble attempts to refute Dr. Badgett’s arguments and data valid, they would also apply to some of my data and arguments.
So, to begin the counter argument to Kurtz’s counter argument to Badgett’s counter argument to Kurtz’s argument! In essence, what Dr. Kurtz has done is this: He advanced a theory. He is now trying to scrounge up data to support his theory.
As many people know, it is easy to advance theories, and especially spurious theories. Theories often emerge during “brain storming sessions,” and I imagine the spin meisters at conservative think tanks like the Hoover Institute (where Dr. Kurtz works) often get together, have a few drinks and dream these things up. The challenge is finding data to support a theory. In my opinion, Dr. Kurtz is failing miserably in his attempt to support his theory; he cannot support his theory because it is incorrect and ridiculously implausible.
Although I believe his theory to be drivel, I am willing to consider it. To support his theory, Dr. Kurtz must show that all of the following three things are true:
- the Dutch data are, in a some sense, remarkable compared to Europe,
- the rise cannot be explained by some other cause and
- there is some plausible reason the contradictory Scandinavian data can be ignored.
That is to say, his theory can be shown to be incorrect if even one of the following things are true:
b) the rate of rise in the Dutch out of wedlock birth rate is better explained by causes other than the campaign for same sex marriage. I will show it is better explained by economic factors.
c) the contradictory data from three other Scandanavian countries which show decreasing out of wedlock birth rates are sufficient to counter balance the Dutch data. I may discuss this further in a future post.
(In fact, there are other points that can be used to disprove his theory, but I am not discussing them here, so I am omitting them from this list.)
Showing either (a), (b), or (c) are true individually is sufficient to demonstrate that Dr. Kurtz’s theory is unsupported by the evidence. In fact, all three are true. However, as I indicated before, I will focus on (a) and (b) for the time being; I will allude only briefy to (c). I may address (c) further in some later article, should the topic move me.
Synopsis of Argument to Date
Both Dr. Badgett, many others, and I have criticized Dr. Kurtz interpretation of the Dutch data. I will discuss two of the flaws, along with Dr. Kurtz’s responses:
- Dr. Badgett and I showed the rise in out of wedlock births in the Netherlands does not stand out from the general rate of rise in Europe. That is, based on European data, we both already made point (a) listed above. Dr. Kurtz now claims that, when assessing the effect of same sex marriage on the out of wedlock birth rate, one should consider countries in Europe but exclude countries where women are unable to prevent births because access to contraception and abortion is limited.
- Dr. Badgett and critics of Kurtz’s theory have suggested the factors contributing to the rise Dutch out of wedlock births are qualitatively similar to those in other European countries where out of wedlock rates are also rising. Dr. Kurtz seems to insist that the only social and economic change that had a major influence on Dutch marital or reproductive habits was the campaign for same sex marriage. (Occasionally, when accused of claiming this, he backtracks and admits that, of course, there could have been other contributing factors. Later he regroups, and insists same sex marriage is the only significant contributing factor. In any case, if other factors had a major influence on the rate of rise, that weakens his claim that same sex marriage had the major influence.) This argument pertains to (b).
I will address both issues in order.
Are the Dutch Data remarkable? (No.)
To begin, let’s review the types of claims Dr. Kurtz makes about the exceptional nature of the Dutch data. In my article Response to Senator Brownbeck, I provided this quote by Dr. Kurtz:
Here, we see the importance of the Dutch data to Dr. Kurtz’s argument. Dr. Kurtz says Netherlands’ out of wedlock birth rate has been rising at rate of 2% a year; his wording suggests that this rate of rise is not only remarkable, it is the highest in all of Europe, possibly the largest by a long shot. Presumably, this must be caused by something that did not occur in the other countries in Europe. In Dr. Kurtz’s opinion, this factor would be legalized same sex partnerships and marriage. Dr. Kurtz repeats this claim over and over in his articles. [1]
Dr. Badgett observed:
Her footnote indicates:
I observed if the NRO had vigilant fact checkers, Dr. Kurtz might have edited the sentence to read:
I provided similar information in a graph, which describes the data for 24 European countries. (Click image to enlarge.)
As shown in the bar chart, the Dutch rate of rise is not remarkable. Similar and much larger increases are seen in many other European countries, none of which have enacted same sex marriage or partnerships. Moreover, if same sex marriage leads to exploding birth rates, why did birth rates drop in Scandinavia? For that matter, why is it that, if one actually bothers to calculate a correlation coefficient, including the Netherlands, rising birth rates are inversely correlated with legalized same sex marriage? (Note: This final observation deals with point (c) above. The Dutch rate of change, while somewhat high, is counter balanced by the low rates in most countries that have enacted same sex registration. )
Dr. Kurtz recognized the importance of this observation. He is aware that if he cannot rebut it, this graph represents very strong counter evidence to his refute his theory.
In response, Dr. Kurtz maintains the Dutch rate of rise, is remarkable for Europe. Why? Because, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Slovenia and Slovakia don’t count.
Why, according to Dr. Kurtz, don’t they count? He claims women in those countries have limited means of preventing birth.
So, let’s do as Dr. Kurtz suggests and only compare the Dutch data to data from countries where women can limit births as well or better than the Dutch can!
But, let’s correctly identify which countries those are, and let’s make sure that we apply the criteria for eliminating countries even handedly. That is: if two countries have similar access or usage of birth control both must be retained or eliminated. As an academic, I am sure Dr. Kurtz will recognize this as a standard statistical practice. Failing to apply elimination criteria unevenly is called “statistical sleight of hand” or “cherry picking”.
Dr. Kurtz tells us Bulgaria has the worst access to birth control in Europe; he goes so far as to claim Bulgarian women’s ability to avoid unwanted births is on par with that of women in third world countries. Kurtz bases his claim on an article by Klijzing, providing no further citation. Googling, I found this article: “Are There Unmet Family Planning Needs in Europe?” by an Erik Klijzing. Erik Klijzing studied and reported on “unmet contraceptive needs” in 10 European countries. He did, indeed, report that the “unmet contraceptive need” was highest in Bulgaria; he characterized their access to birth control as being equivalent to the level available in third world countries.
That said, there is something puzzling. After all:
- The United Nations reports that married women in Bulgaria had the highest level of birth control use out of 100 countries studied. Their rate of use significantly exceeds the 76% American rate. [2]
- The UN value for Bulgarian birth control use is consistent with CIA fact book data which states, in 2003, Bulgaria had the lowest birth rate in the world, and
- Bulgaria’s birth rate dropped from 13/1000 in 1990 to 9.65/1000 people in 2000; that is a 26% drop in a decade.
So, there significant evidence to suggest that Dr. Klijzing’s findings are either flawed or not intended to describe women’s ability to avoid giving birth. Having read the report, I lean towards the second interpretation; Kurtz is misinterpreting Klijzing definition of “unmet contraceptive needs”. Kurtz misinterpretation is intentional or unintentional, implying that Klijzing found women in Bulgaria were unable to limit births is astonishingly misleading.
Bulgarian women are certainly able to avoid unwanted births. Back in the days when people used the term “the third world”, El Salvador, where I was born, was called a third world country. El Salvadoran women do have difficulty preventing unwanted births; this is reflected in their high birth rate, which was 27.9/1000 in 2003; this is nearly 3.5 times the birth rate in Bulgaria. The US is generally not considered to be a third world country; the American birthrate was 14.14/1000. In fact, Bulgarians are limiting births more effectively than people in any third world country, the US, the Netherlands, and even the world. Bulgarian’s limited births very effectively throughout the 90’s. (Visit photius.com for 2003 birth rates.)
Lack of birth control absolutely does not explain why the non marital birth rate soared in Bulgaria during the 90’s, far surpassing the rate of increase in the Netherlands.
Let us now address the other countries Dr. Kurtz wishes to exclude. We find that use of birth control in Catholic Lithuania is approximately equal to Italian usage; the respective rates are 60% and 58%. I might consider ignoring the data from Lithuania on this basis; however, consistency would require me to ignore Italy, and for that matter, Austria, where contraceptive use is 51%, a level significantly lower than that in Italy or Lithuania.
However, I think we should retain the statistics in both Italy and Lithuania, for the following reason: Their low level of use does not appear reflect lack of availability; it reflects the popularity of celibacy and use of the rhythm method in Catholic countries. (Klijzing notes that many seem able to use this method effectively. However, it is not included in the UN compilation.) If we examine Klijzing, we learn that over 34.5% of Lithuanians, and 21.6% of the adults in both countries are celibate. In contrast, only 11.1% of Belgians and 9.1% of French adults are celibate. This suggest a large fraction of non-celibate Italians an Lithuanians do use birth control!
We could also consider ignoring Latvia based on their 48% use of birth control. However, if we ignore Latvia, we must ignore Austria whose use is only 51%. If we ignore both, it doesn’t help Dr. Kurtz’s case.
In any case, it looks like I can provide further justification for retaining the countries with the rapidly increasing birth rates! In 2003, the 10 countries with the lowest birth rates were: Austria (9.43), Guernsey (9.43), Hungary (9.32), Estonia (9.24), Slovenia (9.23), Italy (9.18), Czech Republic (9.01), Germany (8.6), Latvia (8.55) and of course, Bulgaria (8.02). The birthrates in Slovakia, and the Netherlands are 10.1, and respectively 11.31%. (Countries Dr. Kurtz wishes to exclude because they cannot limit births as well as the Dutch are shown in bold. Note both Latvia and Austria appear, buttressing the argument that women in those countries have no difficulty limiting births.)
So, Dr. Kurtz’s argument for excluding the eastern European countries because they have less access to birth control and abortion than do Dutch women appears baseless.
But let us look at the final country Dr. Kurtz wishes to eliminate. Contraception is also available in Ireland the Irish seem to use it successfully; the Irish birth rate of 14.63/1000 people is only slightly higher than the American rate of 14.14/1000 people. Possibly we can eliminate the Irish for lack of local access to abortion. However, UK records indicate the Irish often travel to obtain abortions. They just don’t obtain them in Ireland. (Many American’s also travel to obtain abortions.)
So, to answer the question: “Should Any European Countries be Excluded when Interpreting the Dutch Data?”. No! Well, maybe, but I haven’t found one!
It makes much more sense to retain all the countries on Dr. Kurtz’s hit list, particularly those in eastern Europe. It appears that when it comes to limiting births, women in all these countries are outperforming not only the Netherlands, but the entire world. Moreover, if we begin to concoct criteria to eliminate any of these countries for lack of access to birth control, we find we must eliminate a European country with slowly increasing birth rates as or more often, than we eliminate countries with rapidly increasing birth rates.
Finally, there is absolutely no criterion we can apply to eliminate Bulgaria, whose out of wedlock birth rates soared most drastically during the 90s.
The fact is, the increase in the out of wedlock birth rate for the Netherlands is not exceptional for Europe!
Were there important social or economic changes other than same sex marriage in the Netherlands? (Yes)
Interestingly, when addressing the rising non marital birth rate in eastern Europe, Dr. Kurtz suggests a well accepted factor that can lead to changes in social mores, marital habits and rising non marital birth rates. He states:
The Netherlands experienced serious economic stress during the 90s. In “The Evolution Of Social Protection in the Netherlands” (1999), discussing unemployment, van Oorschot et al reported:
The number of unemployment claims per 1000 is listed in the table below, along with the increase in the out of wedlock birth ratio for that year. Notice the out of wedlock birth ratio and unemployment claims rate rise together.
| Year | 1970 | 1975 | 1980 | 1985 | 1990 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 |
| Unemployment Claims | 31 | 90 | 69 | 84 | 164 | 337 | 341 | 370 | 288 | 257 |
| Annual rise in birth rate | -0.1% | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.6% | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.3% | 1.5% | 2.2% | 1.6% |
It is notable that 1997 is the first year in which the birth ratio increased 2% or more in the Netherlands; this is also the first year Dr. Kurtz highlights in red in his infamous graph in “Going Dutch”. Accounting for a 40 week gestation period, children born in 1997 were conceived between March 1, 1996 and March 1, 1997; that is to say, these babies were conceived during the year of peak unemployment claims.
The specific effects of this recession might be expected to influence marital habits very strongly. The recession hit young adults disproportionately. Male participation in the work force fell dramatically. Men, the traditional bread winners, have been forced to accept part time jobs causing male part time employment to rise from 6.3% in 1983 to 16.1% in 1996. To compensate for the lost income, women entered the work force in rising numbers. They too often accepted the part time jobs available.
Van Oorschot reports:
In light of these changes, how could one expect young Dutch couples to imitate their parents’ marriages – marriages in which a full time employed husband supported his non working wife and children? Many men became unemployed or partially employed. Whether traditional or liberal, married and unmarried women entered the work force to replace the income. Having experienced economic uncertainty, the women will likely keep their new jobs– cementing the new model of a two wage earner family. And all these changes affected younger unmarried Dutch people more seriously than older already married Dutch people.
Can we find further evidence that young Dutch, stressed by the economic changes, may be basing their decisions to cohabit or marry on economic factors?
Indeed we can! Professor M. van Mourik, a Dutch-scholar-opponent of same sex marriage endorrsed by Dr. Kurtz, alludes to the economic motivation of young Dutch couples. In a frank interview with Addy de Jong, Professor van Mourik lamented:
Oh yes. In the wake of a recession, financial factors are affecting young Dutch couples’ marital decisions!
So, were there important social or economic changes other than same sex marriage in the Netherlands? You bet!
The Dutch recession, with its large unemployment level and which peaked just when the non marital birth rate began to increase at 2% a year, likely affected marital decisions. The fact that this recession shifted the employment from men to women, likely also affected young peoples attitudes toward traditional marriage. And I haven’t even discussed other factors: like the dramatic rise in immigration during the 90s which has resulted in pockets of impoverished minorities in parts of the Netherlands.
So, it seems plausible that the young Dutch changed their behavior in response to economic stress, which began before the non marital birth rations began to rise rapidly. It seem somewhat implausible that in 1996, young Dutch couple were reacting to the upcoming 1997 vote to enact partner registrations!
Just as if economic stress could accelerate rising out of wedlock births in eastern Europe, economic stress can have a similar effect in the Netherlands.
Conclusion
In a vain effort to convince himself that the Dutch data are remarkable, Dr. Kurtz desperately attempted to explain away exploding birth rates in European countries which have not enacted same sex marriage. He incorrectly attributed the explosive growth outside the Netherlands to economic stress in conjuction with lack of birth control and abortion. However, in his frantic attempt to claim these countries lacked birth control and abortion, he failed to look at freely available UN data. Had he done so, he might have noticed that these countries have the best access to birth control in the world
Dr. Kurtz was likely correct when he suggested the exploding birth rates in easter Europe are due in large measure to economic stress. Economic stress is known to influences people marital decisions. The Netherlands experienced qualitatively similar economic stress; economic stress likely contributed to the less dramatic rise in Dutch out of wedlock births.
The idea that economics played a major role in the rising Dutch cohabitation and non marital birth rates is further supported by the fact that both rose in tandem with the deepening recession. This particular recession hit people of marriageable age hard. Male participation dropped and shifted to part time labor. Women entering the work force to support themselves and their families also found and accepted part time work. It is abundantly clear that the new labor pattern is no longer consistent with the traditional Dutch family based on a male bread winner and a stay at home mother.
Naturally, to remain fiscally solvent, young Dutch changed their habits. Even a Dutch opponent to same sex marriage observed that young Dutch consulting him base their marital decisions on financial considerations.
Before seeking unusual factors affecting peoples behavior, it is always worth considering the effects of the economy. The changes in the Dutch data is sufficiently explained by economic factors. Why desperately try to attribute it to same sex marriage?
End Notes:
[ 1: Elsewhere in the article (not quoted here), Dr. Kurtz also says the rate of rise was 2% each year 7 times in a row between 1996 and 2003. This claim is not entirely accurate; the rate of rise was 1.5% in 1996, 1.6% in 1998, and 1.9% in 2002 and 2003.]
[2:Note: NationMaster uses the term contraception to include both modern and traditional methods. It is based on the 1995 European European Fertility and Family Survey. (This note edited for accuracy Sept. 20, 2004. I had indicated the value included abortion, which it does not.) ]
=====
Revised: (July 27, 2004 )My thanks to Chairm Mohn who noted that I used “contraception” where “birth control” was the more correct term. I changed two appearances of the term “contraception” to “birth control”, which includes abortion. Use of birth control, and not contraception, is the critical factors when assessing changes in marital or nonmarital birth rates. The high level of use of birth control by Bulgarian women can be confirmed here International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 29, Number 1, March 2003. You must scroll down to figure 4, which is available as a pdf.
.
The real question is: does Dr. Kurtz himself genuinely believe that permitting same-sex couples to marry affects the birth rate? Or did he just figure that with enough numbers it would make a plausible boogeyman?
All right, it’s not the real question, but it’s shame you have to waste time on disproving such an obviously wackaloon theory.
I also have to wonder if he believes it…..
But, it’s kind of fun writing these! I mean… Bulgarians can’t prevent out of wedlock births? Where does he even come up with his ideas? And doesn’t he have time to even check the UN data?
So far, my case for same sex marriage causing the drop in the US non marital birth rates is holding up WAY better! And I will finally admit publically– it was intended as irony!
I wouldn’t be astonished if someone suddenly finds a plausible alternate explanation. But sheesh!
As an unmarried cohabitating Dutch parent I find it somewhat bizarre to be talked about as if I were some sort of lab animal subjected to different stimuli.
And Stanley Kurtz quotes some Dutch scholars who wrote a letter to a fundamentalist Christian newspaper claiming:
But no proponent of same sex marriage is claiming that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’. If that were so, there would be no need for same sex marriage.
And the English translation sucks. ‘Alternatieven’ means ‘alternatives’, not ‘lifestyle choices’, and ‘sociale gevolgen’ means ‘social consequences’, not ‘serious social consequences’, to name but two inventions.
As an unmarried cohabitating Dutch parent I find it somewhat bizarre to be talked about as if I were some sort of lab animal subjected to different stimuli.
I understand this sentiment. I am sorry to be contributing to it by responding to Kurtz. Unfortunately, Kurtz’s arguments are being presented to Congress, used by Senators etc. So, they can’t just be left “out there”.
But no proponent of same sex marriage is claiming that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’. If that were so, there would be no need for same sex marriage.
Obviously, it makes absolutely no sense that proponents would say this. Why would anyone: “We should be granted marriage because cohabitation is just as good as marriage?” Obviously, if cohabitation is just as good, you’d have what you wanted once you got cohabitation!
Looking through Kurtz’s article, he provides no evidence that even one proponent of same sex marriage has ever said cohabitation is just as good as marriage. His articles are filled with quotes from opponents accusing the proponents of saying this.
I didn’t address some of those problems with his “theory”– because discussing lack of support makes the article pretty long already!
As to translations….Boy I wish I could read Dutch!
Very nice work, Lucia!
Lucia, have you asked anyone to doublecheck, or edit, your writing? While I don’t have the time and energy to devote to checking all of your counterpoints on Kurtz et al, I just did a brief comparison of one part of your recent post. It was randomly selected. If the following errors are any indication, perhaps it would be wise to withdraw and slowdown a bit before proceeding further.
>>Lucia: “[Kurtz] claims women in those countries have limited means of preventing birth.”
Preventing conception is not the same as preventing birth as per this subject material. Dr Klijzing demonstrated that Bulgarian women experienced a high rate of unmet contraceptive needs. The resulting unwanted pregnancies were destroyed. In recent years, Bulgarians have had more induced abortions than live births. While this reduced the birthrate, it did not demonstrate that contraceptive needs were being met very well.
You have misinterpreted abortion for contraception.
>>Lucia: “1. The United Nations reports that married women in Bulgaria had highest level of contraceptive use out of 100 countries studied. Their rate of use significantly exceeds the 76% American rate.”
According to the to the UN’s Human Development Report, the rate you found for Bulgaria on that site must be an error.
The rate of contraceptive prevalence is a measure of married women aged 15-49 who are using any form of contraception (modern or not). According to the UN’s data for 1995-2001, the USA was ranked 7th with a rate of 76%; Bulgaria had a rate of 42% which was very low for Europe. Latvia had 48% and Lithuania 47%.
>>Lucia: “Dr. Kurtz tells us Bulgaria has the worst access to birth control in Europe; he goes so far as to claim Bulgarian women’s ability to avoid unwanted births is on par with that of women in third world countries. … [Dr.] Klijzing … report[ed] that the “unmet contraceptive need” was highest in Bulgaria; he characterized their access to birth control as being equivalent to the level available in third world countries.”
Judging by what he wrote Dr. Kurtz understood Dr. Klijzing’s study.
>>Lucia: “2. The UN value for Bulgarian contraceptive use is consistent with CIA fact book data which states, in 2003, Bulgaria had the lowest birth rate in the world”
Dr. Klijzing noted the extraordinarily high abortion rate in Bulgaria: 137 abortions for every 100 live births. Here is his graph that plots Bulgaria’s abortion rate as compared with the other countries studied.
http://www.agi-usa.org/graphics/32_2/3207400_f2.gif
Dr Klijzing’s wrote that, “[T]here is a clear association between unmet need and abortion ratios: Where levels of unmet need are high, the number of abortions per 100 live births is also relatively high” And that supports what Kurtz said about Bulgaria.
The unmet need for family planning is expressed as a percentage of women of reproductive age who are married or are in consensual unions and report that they want no more children or want to delay the next pregnancy by two years or more, but are not using contraception.
According to the UN, in Europe the unmet need for family planning is 6% on average. In sub-Saharan Africa the average rate was 23%; which was better than Bulgaria’s 30% minimum, as reported by Dr. Klijzing.
Citations:
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_56_1_1.html
http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm
Hi Chairm.
Thanks for the heads up on the poor word choice.
You are correct, NationMaster used the term “contraception” where they meant “birth control”. I should have caught that poor use of terms, and used “birth control”.
As per your suggestion, I edited, and changed “contraception” the two places where I misused it.
You will find confirmation that the 86% value is correct if the term “birth control” is used if you visit International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 29, Number 1, March 2003 (I added the link in the footnote.)
As to Kurtz understanding of Klizing, he is misapplying the concept of unmet needs to explain the rise in nonmarital births. Use of birth control or any sort, and not contraception or “unmet planning needs”, is the key factor when discussing women’s ability to limit births. And it is their ability to limit births that affects the nonmarital birth ratio.
I prefer to believe Kurtz misunderstood the article and believe it to mean “birth control” rather than distorted intentionally. After all, everyone can make a mistake.
Kurtz is correct about Bulgaria.
It might be wise to reassess your analysis with a reputable subject matter expert.
Hi Chairm,
Right in what way?
Has Kurtz fixed his links so people can read his citations? Were you able to get both?
I was able to read the anectdotal account account on the geocities web page. It does not indicate that women in Bulgaria are having difficulties accessing birth control. It also makes no mention of any differences in married or unmarried women’s abilities to acces birth control.
I don’t see how the reporter noting the presences of high school girls in the lobby of an abortion clinics/hospitals buttresses Kurtz that these young unmarried girls are to uneducated to be aware that they can get abortions, and therefor give birth leading to an increase in the nonmarital birth ratio.
The article does describe economic distress– a fact I never denied. The economic distress in Bulgaria predates the rise in the nonmarital birth ratio.
The newsarticle was not a statistical report, Lucia, but it provided more than a few salient statistics and facts. The piece provided background in a snapshot.
You have misunderstood “unmet need for contraception” in the K study. The maximum is a measure of the demand for contraceptives, primarily. The minimum is a measure of the demand for family planning to *prevent* unintended pregnancies.
Abortion is a separate phenomenon.
You also point to Nationmaster’s listing of a high rate of prevalence of contraception in Bulgaria, but that was based on a 1975 survey which has never been verified. In fact, the original datasets have been lost. Besides, the period under discussion is the decade or so of wrenching transition from the communist system to and open system. The UN — and others — report a prevalence of around 42% in Bulgaria. They’ve updated their database based on a 1997 survey of both married and unmarried women.
And it appears that you’ve misrepresented Kurtz who talked about “contraceptives” not birth control. It was you, Lucia, not Kurtz, who conflated and did a switch of terminology.
There are numerous errors of fact and misrepresentations of sources in your comments about Bulgaria. You say this is not central to your argument, but don’t believe it.
Chairm:
I have not mistaken “contraception” for “birth control”. I am entirely aware that Klizing discusses “contraception” and not “birth control”. I am also aware that Kurtz’s argument only makes sense if Bulgarian women have no access to “birth control”. As far as impact on the non-marital birth ratio is concerned, it makes no difference whether the method is contraception or abortion. Kurtz’s conflation of the two is a logical error.
It is birth control– of any sort– that is logically relevant to the issue of births — both marital and nonmarital .
I am simply pointing this out. I think I said this many time in my article.
Or, are you suggesting one should ignore the access to abortion, because aborted fetuses somehow, contribute to the non-marital birth ratio? Is Kurtz?
Lucia, in a previous post you said:
>>>Use of birth control or any sort, and not contraception or “unmet planning needs”, is the key factor when discussing women’s ability to limit births. And it is their ability to limit births that affects the nonmarital birth ratio.”
But that is a straw man. Kurtz emphasized women who were under-educated, impoverished, and very young. The K study confirmed an unmet need for contraceptives that resembled the rate in “third world countries” — as indeed the UN’s indicators show. Unmarried and impoverished girls would be even less, not more, likely to afford or to use contraceptives. There has not been a large population of unmarried adult women in Bulgaria; most unmarried women have been among the very youngest cohort. That is the group to whom you need to look, not women in general.
Factually you were wrong. The prevalence of contraceptive use in Bulgaria is not 86%, but less than half of that. You swapped-in “birth control” to include abortion and discussed the prevention of birth among adult women who were mostly married. That avoided the point Kurtz made about preventing pregnancy among young, mostly unmarried, women.
Saying that this made sense of Kurtz’s remarks, is like putting words into his mouth that he had not said.
Clarification:
I said, “There has not been a large population of unmarried adult women in Bulgaria; most unmarried women have been among the very youngest cohort.”
Of course, I referred to unmarried women of reproductive age, and not elderly widows.
And for clarity’s sake, what is the meaning you have attributed to the term, nonmarital birth ratio?
1) The non marital bith ratio is the ratio of the number of births to unmarried women to the total number of births.
That is the quantity Kurtz plots in Dutch Decline. In that article, he uses that term. In later articles, he uses the term non-marital birth rate– which is, strictly speaking– the wrong term. That is, however, a quibble– since the slight misuse of term is not the fundamental problem with his argument.
2) In his first article, Kurtz says “contraception and/or abortion”. It is the “and” that makes logical sense. He then switches to discussing contraception only vis. a vis Bulgaria. That is the semantic sleight of hand, and it is his. It is “contraception and abortion” to prevent birth.
When you can show that abortion does not prevent birth, then you can logically limit the argument to contraception only.
Lucia, he described several countries. The “and/or” works fine when discussing the prohibition on abortion in Ireland and the low access to contraceptives in Bulgaria. He could’ve used Poland and Russia as two more pairs that fit the and/or usage. But even if you insist that his language was ambiguous, the rest of what he said should have cleared that up.
To reiterate, you have claimed that Bulgaria has the highest birth control rate in the world and you claimed that Kurtz said that Bulgaria has the lowest in Europe. It is right there on your chart and was emphasized in your posts.
http://amptoons.poliblog.com/blog/ChangeInNonMaritalV2.gif
Your sources, the UN and the Klijzing study, both contradict your first claim.
The UN reports show that Bulgaria has one of the lowest rates of contraceptive prevalence in Europe. The term “family planning” (as per the measure of unmet need by Klijzing) does not include use of abortion.
Now you say that you knew that was the case but you struggled to make sense of what Kurtz had said. And the only way to do that, in your mind, was to change what Kurtz had said.
>>>Lucia: “Dr. Kurtz tells us Bulgaria has the worst access to birth control in Europe; he goes so far as to claim Bulgarian women’s ability to avoid unwanted births is on par with that of women in third world countries.”
Contrary to your claim, Kurtz did not state that Bulgaria had the lowest birth control rate in Europe. Your second claim is contradicted by what Kurtz actually did say:
>>>Kurtz: “In a recent study of contraceptive availability in Europe, Erik Klijzing found that contraceptives were far less available in Lithuania and Bulgaria than in other European countries. Some eastern European nations have as little access to contraception as third-world countries. Curiously, of all the countries Klijzing studied, only in Lithuania do educated people have even less access to contraceptives than uneducated people. That fits the model of a culturally modernizing population with loosening sexual mores, but poor access to contraception.”
Considering that he repeatedly referred to the rising birth rate among unwed mothers, it would be reasonable to read his words as meaning that some growing portion of births had escaped the high rates of abortion in some of these countries.
>>>Lucia: “When you can show that abortion does not prevent birth, then you can logically limit the argument to contraception only.”
Too easy. When abortion is not utilized, it does not prevent birth.
Where some method of contraception (modern or traditional) is not utilized, pregnancies can and do result. Not all unintended pregnancies are unwanted children. Abortion is not always an open option.
But you have a point about accounting for abortions. That’s done by adding abortions to births to determine the number of pregnancies. The abortion ratio is abortions divided by the sum of abortions and births. It is also worth looking at the age group that Kurtz had emphasized: the very young “women-girls”.
Women usually married very young during the days of communism in Bulgaria. Couples were encouraged to have one or two children early in their marriages. Society had to make some large adjustments when the incentives fell away.
The outcome developed over about a decade: Unwed teenagers provide more than 50% of births outside of marriage. As adults aborted 6 in 10 pregnancies, the teenagers gave birth to 6 in 10 newborns. As adult women withdrew from giving birth, teenagers maintained an already high birth rate and their share of births increased. At first, most pregnant teenagers married; but that shifted and today about 80% of new teenage moms are unwed.
Kurtz was correct when he said that in Bulgaria the very young women had driven the non-marital birth rate during the crisis plagued transition. Kurtz correctly pointed to relevant factors such as poverty, under-education, and the low access to and adverse attitudes toward contraceptives.
For clarity: what is measured by the “birth control rate”?
If this is an official measure used by the UN, could you please provide links or references to the ranking of countries — like Bulgaria, the United States, and the Netherlands?
Chairm:
Kurtz initially claimed we should be astonished by the Netherlands because it is so much worse than all of Europe. He now wants us to consider all of Europe — except Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Ireland on the high side. He also wants us to disregard the low rate of increase in the nonmarital birthratio in Norway, Sweden and Denmark on the low side. (For various and sundry reasons.)
That doesn’t leave much of Europe for comparison. It smells of cherry picking.
As to Bulgaria specifically: I do not need to “prove” Bulgaria is in Europe. It’s there.
If you wish to explain why one should believe the Netherlands is remarkable– compared to “all of Europe” (which Kurtz once seemed to believe was essential) then you need to make a complete and coherent argument that hold together all around.
1) If you have reason to believe women in Bulgaria have difficulty avoiding birth and this, not changing mores, is why the non-marital birth ratio exploded, it is your job (or that of Dr. Kurtz’s) to provide evidence they cannot avoid giving birth. Evidence about contraception is false evidence–as you yourself pointed out in your first post on this subject. Bulgarian’s have a profoundly low birth rate– which the Bulgarian authorities are very, very worried about.
2) If you or Kurtz have reason to believe that explosion in non-marital births during the 90’s is due to increasing births to teens, you should show this. The average age of first birth in Bulgaria increased significantly during the 90’s, The references Kurtz cited indicate the number of births to those under 20 declined precipitously during the time period when the non-marital birth ratio exploded. This would suggest that the rise in non-marital births was not due to any increase in the number of births to unwed teens during that period. Kurtz can repeat the claim that it’s due to teen Bulgarians. (and specifically metion the hordes of uneducated Gypsies). Repettion is not proof– he– or you– need to find evidence to support this bald unsupported claim.
3) If you now believe that abortion is not available in Bulgaria, or not available to some sub-group you should show that. Earlier, you were under the impression that it was widely available and widely used. Now you have changed your mind, and are asking me for proof that abortion is used. The anecdote that Kurtz cited indicated that abortion clinics are co-located with maternity wards. Klizing cited stupendous abortion rates. You can look in your UN book yourself and find the Bulgarian abortion rate is astonishing.
4) In sum, if you believe the Anguelova( Kurtz’s cited referenece), or others I cited, are incorrect in attributing that the increase in the non-marital birth rates to the increase in adults deciding not to marry and instead cohabitating, you should provide data to show their conclusions are wrong. (Note: adults deciding not to marry and cohabiting — as a result of “changing mores’ is precisely the reason Kurtz thinks the Dutch nonmarital birth rate increased.)
If you do not want to show any of this, you can wait for Kurtz to do so. All he did so far was make bald claim about teens — which he did not attempt to support– and which is not are not supported by the authorities he cited. Overall, the data in the reports would seem to contradict his claim.
You can say Kurtz gave accurate statistics about contraception until you are blue in the face. Correct statistics about something irrelevant are irrelevant. One might just as well give correct statistics about how many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches Bulgarian teens eat. It doesn’t matter.
Either he knew contraception was irrelevant, and used his little “and/or” construction at the beginning of his discussion to make it appear he was stringing together a collection of correct facts — to create a false story OR he does not understand that contraception is irrelevant.
Lucia, there are other factual errors in your remarks about Bulgaria. The Anguelova reports, for example, are also misrepresented in your posts and comments.
Based on the evidence, changes to the notes on your chart about nonmarital births should be expected. For a start.
[I’m still on my roadtrip and will be for some time, however, this weekend I’ll send some charts. How do I post these?]
Chairm:
Visitors cannot post pictures to this blog– the blog software doesn’t permit it. (The nice programmers recognize the infinite danger of letting people post pictures. The danger would be called ‘porn spam’.)
To post your own articles and your own charts, you should create an account on something like “blogger. When you write your article, you can leave a track back ping– or post a comment here suggesting people read your article. (You will note Gabriel, Jason, Amp and I do this to each other all the time.)
Blogger is free and provides directions on how to set up your own blog.
As to editorial revisions to my own article: I think it would be inappropriate to revise my article at this point. Dr. Kurtz when he has already commented on it himself, and I have commented back on his comment. I made quick revisions before this article was widely read– and posted footnotes indicating the revisions. But, I think at this point, the article is what it is. Commentary would become incoherent if articles were constantly revised!
If necessary, I will write a new article clarifying or revising where I find necessary — and if necessary posting new charts indicating any changes. I think the time stamps on these articles are important and editing content afterwards can be deceptive. You can, of course, comment on anything you disagree with.
Of course, you should feel free to take all the time you need writing your article. I’ll be interested to read your article when I see the ping. Meanwhile, have fun on vacation.
Kurtz clearly emphasized unwed “women-girls” but you now promise that this, too, is dismissable. You say it is a bald claim. That is very odd. You have written as if you were quite familiar with the subject material. You scoffed at the very idea of unwed teens driving the nonmarital birth rate but have provided no reasonable objection.
This line of attack has revealed a lack of knowledge of the subject even within the context of the United States — let alone Bulgaria, former communist states, or Europe.
When I first looked at the your posts, I selected the Bulgarian example at random. A sort of quality control check on your facts and representations of source material. So far this example does not lend credibility to the rest of your analysis.
>>>Lucia: “Correct statistics about something irrelevant are irrelevant.”
That’s true. Let’s decide what is relevant.
You made a big point of referring to national contraception rates in your chart on nonmarital births; but that was only after you had mistakenly relabelled these rates as rates of “birth control”. Now you promise that the accuracey of statistics on contraception use is irrelevant.
If you think there is greater importance in the abortion rates alone, call those rates by their proper designation and proceed. If you think there is a blend of these two rates that creates a new category, “birth control rates”, please provide the backup for this assertion without contradicting yourself by referring to contraception as irrelevant to such a blended rate.
Speaking of which, where does the UN rank countries by the so-called “birth control rate”? Or is this your own ranking?
—
Lucia, you may be laboring under a false perception. I am not a spokesman for Dr. Kurtz. Although I agree with much of what he has written on the marriage issues, please do not suggest that I have a “job” to present a coherent argument on behalf of Dr Kurtz.
But thank you for the points on setting up a blog site. For now I don’t plan to do that, but will continue without the charts. There are severe limits on the time and energy I can apply to discussion on blog sites so setting up one of my own would not seem appropriate.
—
On the weekend, I’ll bring a summary of the stats on unwed teens. And a bit of background on monitoring the trends — in Bulgaria and in general.
Kurtz clearly emphasized unwed “women-girls” but you now promise that this, too, is dismissable.
Chairm: Kurtz did not emphasize women- girls in Dutch Debate. He discussed the issue of age in a post on NRO after I wrote this article. It is true that I did not consider comments he had not yet made when I wrote this one. I do not consider that to be “dismissing” them here.
You say it is a bald claim. That is very odd. You have written as if you were quite familiar with the subject material. You scoffed at the very idea of unwed teens driving the nonmarital birth rate but have provided no reasonable objection.
Obviously, we have differences of opinion on a number of points.
As to my objection: I believe I did provide a reasonable objection. For one, Anguelova, the authority he uses to support his claim later states the rise is due to cohabitation. So do several others. I provide the links in my later article. You are entitled to your opinion as to wether or not this is a “sufficient” objection.
As to the bald claim: Since Kurtz is claiming he can just wave away Bulgaria based on the unwed teens, I believe it is up to him to look at the numbers in the article he cites and show us that the rate of increase is dominated by teens. Otherwise, the default assumption is Bulgaria stays in. If he does not examine the numbers, he is making a claim.
I will now discuss the numbers in Anguelova– even though I hate to do this in comments, and I dislike doing too many numbers on a blog.
In fact, the numbers in the first Anguelova report (which Kurtz cites) are consistent with the rise being driven by women over 20. Let’s look at some. (Hopefully, I won’t have any typos.)
The non-marital birth ratio was 11.40% in 1989; 31.5% in 1998 (table on page 16)
The number of non marital births 12851 in 1989 20562 in 1998
This means the total number of births were 112,728 in 1989; 65276 in 1998 (I divided and rounded.)
The non-marital birth ratio for those under 20 was 30.70% in 1989, 65.8% in 1998. (Page 17 — preliminary)
The number of births to those under 20 were 23495 in 1989 ; 12747 in 1998 (page 15 — preliminary)
As a percentage birthts to those under 20 constitute 20.1% of all births in 1989; 19.5% in 1998
If we now examine the 11.4% total non marital birth rate from 1989, we find that 20.1%*30.7% = 6.045% is the ccontribution due to those under 20. (That is, the fraction of those born to those under 20 minus multiplied by the out of wedlock birth rate.) The remaining 5% is due to women over 20. (So, 6.04%+5% = 11.04%)
So, in 1989, most of the non-marital births were due to women under 20. (Some of whom are adults.)
However, let’s look at how that changed during the 90’s. Change is, after all, the essential feature we are considering.
In 1998, the 31.5% breaks down this way: 19.5%*65.8%= 12.85%. The remaining 18.65% is due to women over 20.
Now, if subtract, we see that the overall growth was 31.5%-11.4% = 30.1%. Of that, 6.5% was due to women under 20, 13.65% was due to women over 20.
So, most of the growth was due to women over 20. (I suspect if we have more detailed data, we would find many of those births to women under 20 are to women who are 18 and 19. We call these adults in the US. They can join the marines! If I could do the math to include 18-19 year olds in the “adult” group, we’d see even more of the growth is due to adults.)
That is: The majority of the growth is not due to teens of any sort — although teens do contribute to the birth rates and the nonmarital birth ratio, as they do everywhere to some extent.
Now, if we examine annualized non-marital growth rate for Bulgarian women over 20 two ways.
First: we can consider the nonmarital rate I already calculated. That would make it appear the non-marital rate for women over 20, climbed 1.53% a year for 9 years.
However, if we examine the meaning of this value, it represents the ratio of (nonMarital births to women over 20 / births to all women). This is a non standard quantity, since one group of women is in the numerator and different group is in the denominator.. We can correct for that by subtracting out the births to women under 20 from the denominator. In principle, that would give us the “same” thing to compare to a country where women below 20 do not give birth.
If we do this, we find, on average, over 9 years, that the “adult only” non-marital birth ratio grew 1.9% a year in Bulgaria. This is pretty darn close to the 2% growth rate during the 6 years when the non-marital birth ratio grew at it’s fastest rate in the Netherlands. And that fast rate in the Netherlands counts all women in the Netherlands!
Not only that, but this is not the period of maximum growth in Bulgaria. It is also not the years I discuss in my article. It is just the period that Anguelova happened to provide data for.
So, where are we:
1) The growth rate in non-marital births in Bulgaria would appear to be primarily to adult women over 20 and over.
2) If we eliminate younger women from consideration– thus reducing the rate in Bulgaria and comparing it to a non-reduced rate in the Netherlands, the growth rate in the non-marital birth ratio between 1989 and 1998 was higher than in any 9 year period in the Netherlands.
3)I have now corrected Bulgaria and not corrected the Netherlands. Moreover,due to data availability for this particular analysis, I am looking at a period when the nominal non-marital growth rate in Bulgaria was 2.23%. The years in my graph had a 2.4% nominal growth rate– and overlap the years for the Netherlands.
Based on these numbers, it seemed quite plausible to me that Anguelova dropped the teen – Roma population text from her later article because, after the anlysis was no longer “preliminary”, she concluded the increase was due to cohabitation.
You should note that the comments in the earlier article included the word “preliminary” from time to time, and they also indicated that “others” had suggested those theories.
The fact is, the non-marital birth rate for teens alone is high, the rise in the overall rate is now dominated by adult women choosing to give birth out of wedlock.. (BTW, the non-marital birth rate for teens in the Netherlands is also very high. However, fewer teens give birth– so for the same reason, they do not drive the increase in the overall birth rate.
This line of attack has revealed a lack of knowledge of the subject even within the context of the United States — let alone Bulgaria, former communist states, or Europe.
Have I discussed the US here? I discussed it in a previous blog– which I have admitted was ironic.
Lucia: “Correct statistics about something irrelevant are irrelevant.” …That’s true. Let’s decide what is relevant. ..You made a big point of referring to national contraception rates in your chart on nonmarital births; but that was only after you had mistakenly relabelled these rates as rates of “birth control”. Now you promise that the accuracey of statistics on contraception use is irrelevant.
I used the word birth control, and. I cite a Nationmaster.com as a reference. They cite the UN — using 2002 data. If that reference was incorrect, that, obviously is a problem. However, it does appear they mistake contraception for birth control– that said, I intended to convey the idea of birth control. (I also admitted, I had mistakenly also said contraception– and corrected that. I agree that was a mistake, and admitted it long ago.)
To show the natioinmaster data doesn’t come out of left field, I did provide another reference which supported the Nationmaster.com information. (Although, I have already noted that nationmaster.com used contraception when they should have said birth control.) That reference was a peer reviewed article was published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in 2003. The Alan Guttmacher Institute is generally thought reliable.
In your Aug. 9, 10:11 am comment, you seem to suggest the NationMaster data (or possibly you mean the article) was published 1975 and not replicated. The article was published in 1975. Possibly, you think the figure, which contains data from 1960 to around 1997 was published in 1975. If I read the notes figure, I note that it mentions the year 1975, in a line that says “Modern methods of contraception were difficult to obtain before 1975”, and provides a reference for that. You will note the figure cites numerous references — some early some later. (The early references are used to explain the data from earlier years.).
As to what I mean by relevant. I mean:
Relevant to deciding whether or not Bulgarian data can or cannot be compared to the Netherlands.
That was supposedly Kurtz’s motive for introducing those data.
However, if you examine my article, argument, I also indicated
1) that, in my opinion, it is the ability to limit births, and not conception, is that matters and
2) I provided additional, fiduciary, evidence to suggest that Bulgarians are well able to limit births.
In this context, birth control matters. The contraception rate could be zero– if women have access to abortion, those who do not wish to give birth need not do so.
You will note that in Kurtz’s response to this article, he does not even attempt to justify the idea that accurate statistics on contraception would matter. Of course I cannot know his motive, but he chose not to try to go on about that point. The fact is– that contraception data that ignore abortion is insufficient to support his argument which in essence: Women in bulgaria cannot avoid giving birth if they don’t want to. And since, logically, the only reason contraception can matter is that it is one method of limiting births he brought it up.
Instead he switched to the teen — minority– Romas issue. Although you believe he discussed this “repeatedly”, I would characterize his two paragraph response as “brief”.
If you think there is greater importance in the abortion rates alone, call those rates by their proper designation and proceed. If you think there is a blend of these two rates that creates a new category, “birth control rates”, please provide the backup for this assertion without contradicting yourself by referring to contraception as irrelevant to such a blended rate. ….Speaking of which, where does the UN rank countries by the so-called “birth control rate”? Or is this your own ranking?
That is whatever the article I cited used– and appear to be what Nationmaster.com used. I believe you have already clicked on the link. Once again, if Nationmaster was incorrect, I already admitted– way back when– that that would be a problem. For that reason, I provided the 2003 Alan Guttemacher institute article. I also included footnotes indicating that you noted that.
Given that, people can decide for themselves whether my argument– in substance– is sound. Or they can decide whether the issue of the issue about contraception you are raising is substantive or semantic.
—
Lucia, you may be laboring under a false perception. I am not a spokesman for Dr. Kurtz. Although I agree with much of what he has written on the marriage issues, please do not suggest that I have a “job” to present a coherent argument on behalf of Dr Kurtz.
I am not suggesting you do Dr. Kurtz’s job.
In your past posts, you seemed to be suggesting that you would, in future, to provide a number of comments and an argument. I obviously cannot respond arguments you have not yet made, and if it is long and complex, I thought you might find the idea of actually writing an article helpful to you– to achieve your goals– not Dr. Kurtz’s.
Obviously, if you wrote the article, I could respond to all your points. Otherwise, we can keep discussing the issue of the importance of contraception vs. birth control over and over. But, I suspect at this point, readers have decided whether they believe that specific issue invalidates everything, and they have decided whether or not they believe the rest of the argument.
Clearly, if they care to do so, they can also check out those bits of information. I would point out: A journalist as the NRO recentlty wrote an article about the languishing economy in Europe. He did not mention the Netherlands, but the fact that Europes economy is in the doldrums is not news.
But thank you for the points on setting up a blog site. For now I don’t plan to do that, but will continue without the charts. There are severe limits on the time and energy I can apply to discussion on blog sites so setting up one of my own would not seem appropriate.
That is obviously up to you. I suggested it because I was under the impression you wished to make some expansive points of your own.
—
On the weekend, I’ll bring a summary of the stats on unwed teens. And a bit of background on monitoring the trends — in Bulgaria and in general.
Great!
=== (I edited this comment after posting to clarify the italics– Some didn’t seem to stick the way they should.
Lucia’s posts have been about the statistics — about what has been measured. But she has attacked the ideas of Kurtz with sweeping rhetoric that has produced errors of fact and misrepresentations of source materials. That is important.
I believe there are other more plausible lines in her argument but she does a great disservice both to herself and to readers by not correcting these significant missteps.
Feel free to skip to the last line in this post if these errors and misrepresentations seem trivial to you or if you are ambivalent about it at the moment.
It is not just a difference of semantics. It is a huge misrepresentation to relabel contraceptive use as “birth control” with the intention of including abortions. On a matter of substance you are mistaken.
1. The cited Nationmaster statistics described contraception and did not include abortion.
2. In addition, the contraception statistic on Bulgaria was almost thirty years out-of-date — and was unreliable in the first place. The UN updated its database in the 1990s.
3. There is no “birth control rate” — the UN does not measure a blend of abortion and contraceptive use.
Now, I can see someone making adjustments to language to communicate more clearly, but Lucia has muddled the meaning of what has been measured in these statistics.
Her “birth control rate” relabelling is a misrepresentation of the 1) Nationmaster listing, 2) the current and relevant data on Bulgaria, and 3) the UN’s measure of contraception. She has not shown that there is an official “birth control rate” nor has she explained how it is measured.
So on point of substance, Lucia is mistaken. On point of form, she has defended a misrepresentation. These two points apply to her analysis of non-marital births in Bulgaria as well as in other societies. This is no semantic quibble.
Readers might hope we’d all stick to the facts rather than swap-words to make the statistics mean something other than what was measured. While you’ve accused Kurtz of doing this, it now appears that Lucia defended word-swapping as necessary to making her argument.
I’ll move on to other points and perhaps in due course we can agree that abortion and contraception are related but separate measures in this discussion.
First, I will respond to Chairms three bulleted items. Afterwards, I will provides some discussion. (I suspect few readers are reading this, but I think I need to respond, even in the cases where I have responded before.)
1. The cited Nationmaster statistics described contraception and did not include abortion.
First, – a substantive point: If the Nationmaster statistics describe contraception alone, and are correct, they entirely contradict Kurtz’s argument, and the support my major argument which is: Women in Bulgaria can avoid pregnancy if they wish to do so.
The cited Nationmaster statistics say “contraception rates” — as I said in my original post before I edited in consideratoin of Chairm’s first criticisms. The Nationmaster data cites a 2002 UN report for this.
The value Nationmaster cites for Bulgaria is consistent with statistics for “total contraception use” provided in Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence , a peer reviewed journal published in 2003 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. The data for the evolution of both these are plotted in figure 4(pdf) of that report.
The data in that report also provide data describing the rate of use of “modern methods” for Bulgaria. That level matches the level of contraceptive use claimed by Chairm in earlier comments. Naturally, the numerical values for the two types of o contraceptive use do not match, since use of “all methods” is always greater or equal than use of “modern methods” only. In countries where they differ widely, the values can be very, very different.
In responding to Chairm’s very first criticism, and reading the peer reviewed journal article, I did make the mistake of thinking “all methods” included abortion. It does not — it includes contraception only. Chairm’s comments focused on the wide spread availability of abortion, and abortion levels for Bulgaria are also shown on the graph in the report.
( I should note: The report does not specify which methods are “modern” and which “traditional” . However, it appears based on some of the text, that condoms, withdrawal and periodic abstinence may be included in the category of “traditional”. )
This means: Based on Chairms comment 1, if Chairm is correct on this point, Kurtz is substantively incorrect on his major point; I am substantively correct on my major point. However, I made a error on a subsidiary point. I thought the value included abortion when it does not.
Instead, we conclude Bulgaria women have high access to contraception itself — although this includes use of traditional methods.
(Although, various people can decide whether they believe the data I cite are reliable. In that case, I provided my sources.)
Moreover, even if Bulgarian access to contraception were low– Kurtz would also be substantively incorrect– because they also have access to, and use abortion.
2. In addition, the contraception statistic on Bulgaria was almost thirty years out-of-date — and was unreliable in the first place. The UN updated its database in the 1990s.
I have absolutely, positively, no idea where Chairm gets the idea that the data I cited are 30 years out of date. I have already responded to this claim. I also do not know why he believes the data unrealiable.
I will respond once more:
I cited two sources. As to the claim one or the other is 30 years old:
The Nationmaster data cites the year 2002. Specifically: Definition: % contraceptive prevalence 1995 – 2000. Data refer to married women aged 15-49, but the actual age range covered may vary across countries. Source: UN (United Nations). 2002. United Nations Population Division Database on Contraceptive Use. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. January. New York.
The peer reviewed report I cited to show the Nationmaster information seems to accurately reflect the use of contraception in Bulgaria– provided the rate is understood to refer to use of “all methods”. The peer reviewed report, cites a large variety of recent articles– some published as recently as 2001. The chart includes data for 1995– and cites reports much more fresher than 30 years old to support that 1995 data. (Those who wish to confirm these dates can click see the dates of the reports, then scroll down and see the dates of the references.)
The report discusses trends from the 60’s forward. Consequently, it does cite some older references. It is conventional to cite data from the 60’s and 70’s when providing data for the 60’s or 70’s. This does not artificially “age” the citations from the 90’s. The figure also cites references– all recent.
I assume those who click on the references will see the dates, and that no one wants to hear me repeat my response should Chairm make this claim again.
As to the reliability:
Although, it is possible for unrealiable data to slip by during the peer review process, I believe it is considered acceptable to rely on peer reviewed articles. Although it is possible that Nationmaster’s contraception rates, which they say come are from the UN 2002 data base and which match the data in a peer reviewe article, are unreliable, but this seems unlikely.
Chairm has not provided any citation to indicate that the 1995 data published in the 2003 peer reviewed article has been found to be unreliable.
Reader obviously can decide for themselves whether or not Chairm has show the data from the 90’s are unreliable.
3. There is no “birth control rate” — the UN does not measure a blend of abortion and contraceptive use.
Now, I can see someone making adjustments to language to communicate more clearly, but Lucia has muddled the meaning of what has been measured in these statistics.
I did use a clumsy term. When Chairm previously asked about this term, I suggested he read the peer reviewed report and examine the information therein to clarify what the data I was citing, and to which I applied this term.
It does appear that I applied the clumsy term “birth control rate” to describe what the report calls the “rate of use of all methods of contraception not including abortion”. In comments and at other places I also used the to describe the “rate of use of all methods of contraception including abortion”. (This is definitely a clumsy use of the same term in two ways.)
In fact, the data for “all methods” in the article does not include abortion. If the term included abortion (whoever that might be accounted for) the value would be higher.
I am guilty of falling into imprecision because I was also when trying to discuss the concept associated with Dr. Kurtz argument. It is access to birth control that matters– and that is the point I am trying to make. Moreover, some of the discussion is in comments — and my word usage is generally surrounded by additonal sentences trying to clarify what I meant.
I believe my substantive claim is correct: Bulgarian women can avoid giving birth if they chose. This is true — regardless of word choice. I believe I have stated this over and over.
======================================
I now want to address two things: The context of the discussion, and the issue of word choice.
I think the important point of this whole discussion is the following question:
Has Dr. Kurtz succeeded in showing that the rate of change in of the non-marital birth ratio in the Netherlands stands out? Has he succeeded in showing that Bulgaria can be ignored. I believe he has not.
I think Chairm is not focusing on this issue. Instead he is:
1) Trying to focus on a semantic issue — which I believe I have tried to explain. I admit my explanation may be clumsy; I could have used better words. I have attempted to point Chairm to articles and sources containing substantive information, but he wishes to focus on word choice.
2) Three times suggested that my sources are from the 70’s and unreliable. Those who click on them can easily verify that they are fresh and recent..
3) Trying to ignore the context of both Dr. Kurt’s word use, and mine when defending his semantic quibble and
4) Sometimes suggesting that, when I wrote this article, I should have interpreted Dr. Kurtz’s claims about the availibility of “contraception and/or abortion” in “Dutch Debate” in terms of his later response to this article.
Chairm closes by seeming to suggest that my style of writing indicates that the substance of the argument is untrue. This, logical fallacy is well known, and discussed here.
Although I admit, writing style is important, and mine could probably be improved, I do not intend to write a new article re-iterating substantially the same points, but edited for improved word choice. I will certainly not edit this one.
I have already provided one reason for this: Were I to edit this one, it would render public discussion between Kurtz and me incoherent. Moreover, although Chairm is insisting my data are inaccurate, old, and/or deceptive, Kurtz himself seems to have more or less conceded the point that adult married Bulgarian women do, indeed, have excellent access to birth control. (Kurtz’s response seems to suggest he believes the Nationmaster data do accurately reflect contraception use for married women, but ignores teens– particularly gypsies. Kurtz then shifts to the teen argument. If Kurtz shared Chairm’s opinion of the Nationmaster data, he has not said so.)
My second reason is that, in my opinion, no one would be particularly interested in re-reading the same points edited for better word choice. My third reason is, people who wish to learn more in depth, can read the comments here, they can click on the links, and they can decide for themselves what they believe. (Finally, I suspect nearly no one is reading the comments at this point.)
Of course, each individual reader can decide for themselves whether this is a good decision or not. (I think we can all rest assured that Chairm will think that this decision not to edit for improved word choice, somehow makes the substantive points false.)
I will probably not respond to future comments unless they contain a point that is both new and substantive rather than semantic. I also think these are the important issues regarding the political debate:
1) Is there any evidence that SSM might, or has caused an increase in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio? (I think the answer is NO.)
2) Does the data from the Netherlands stand out. (I think the answer is NO.)
3) Can we ignore data from the other countries for reasons Kurtz suggested either in Dutch Debate or his response to It’s the economy? (I think the answer is NO.)
Of course, it possible that there are people who are interested in the following questions:
1) Does lucia write well? (The answer is likely: She writes about as well as can be expected for blogger picked at random.)
2) Is her word choice ideal? (See answer above.)
3) Is she sometimes confusing? (Yes.)
I suspect there are few, other than Chairm, losing sleep over the last three questions. If Chairm wants to fill comments with observations about my writing style or poor, inconsistent, word choice, he is free to do so.
My point was that your rhetoric is getting in the way of making a decent argument with solid facts.
Thank you for making it crystal clear that contraceptive use and abortion are two separate, but related, phenomena. We can proceed on that basis. It would be reasonable to correct the graph in your original post so as to avoid miscommunication for new readers. A simple and brief note explaining the modification would be worth whatever slight confusion it might produce.
It is always far better to get the facts and terminology correct before embarking on the sort of rhetorical flourishes that later need correction. As you just admitted, many others who may have got the gist of your earlier mistaken remarks have probably moved on. The damage is hard to undo. But a good faith effort might be expected.
Thanks for conceding that the prevalence of contraceptive use in Bulgaria was as I had reported earlier. (I did provide citations).
—
We now can agree on the following facts:
1. High unmet need for contraceptives in Bulgaria.
2. High abortion rate which aligned with the unmet need.
3. Low prevalence of contraceptive use (around the 40% mark), also aligned with the unmet need.
4. There is no ranking based on a “birth control rate”.
I’ll add that if the unmet need and the prevalence of contaceptive use were as we now agree, then, Bulgaria would have been ranked among the lowest in Europe on both measures. But ranked among other post-communist countries. And since the abortion rate has been, and is, so high, it would be reasonable to say that the effectiveness of traditional methods has also been very low which, in turn, aligns with low knowledge of how to make the most of available methods of contraception.
Even if there was “excellent access” to abstinence and withdrawal methods, however, there’s no contradiction of Kurtz’s main point about low availability of contraceptives in Bulgaria. Pregnancies occured more often than not; and a good portion of unintended pregnancies produced non-marital newborns rather than abortions.
In fact, the first three facts above (plus the one I added about traditional methods) are the same that came to the attention of European NGOs who have recently embarked on a big effort to increase the distribution of contraceptives at low cost, or no cost, to Bulgarian women — especially to the very young and unmarried.
If I’m reading you correctly, you think that the high abortion rate has contributed to the increase in non-marital births. But the statistics don’t show this.
This is relevant to your discussion of which countries might be compared effectively with Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
The *absolute number* of births outside of marriage increased in Bulgaria. The option to avoid birth did not prevent the arrival of 7.7 thousand more non-marital births in 1998 than in 1989. The share of non-marital births to women under twenty climbed to almost 80% in 2003. The unwed birth rate shot-up from about 21 births per thousand unwed women to more than 70 per thousand.
This society, like other post-communist states, has undergone a huge shock to its system. It is not solely about the econonmic factors — as stark as those are in these countries.
Now, earlier you made some calculations to show that the teenage share of all non-marital births had decreased slightly. But contrary to your assertion, this demonstrates that the youngest mothers had driven the trend of increased non-marital births.
Your calculations simply traced the progress through time of the girls who were 15-19 in the beginning of the 1990s. As they aged during the past 15 years or so they continued to contribute to the rise in non-marital births, first as teenagers and later as women in their early twenties and now in their late twenties.
Meanwhile, the age cohorts that followed have increased the share of non-marital births among women-girls aged 15-19. The overall trend has been and continues to be driven by the youngsters in Bulgaria who have children outside of marriage. As I said earlier, the NGOs recognize this by focussing much effort on the teenaged women. Perhaps your understanding of “driven” is different than the norm?
In 2003 the teenage population comprised a smaller share of women of reproductive age than in previous years. Still, they have increased to new levels the number and the share of women who are unmarried. And out of proportion, they continued to account for almost half of all births outside of marriage. Plus, the share of non-marital births has continued to increase. Through these years of transiton in Bulgaria, the birth rate of teenagers has been higher than that of women aged 20-44. The trend has not diminished, it has become more established.
The Bulgarian example applies to the other post-communist countries as well.
The socio-economic storm in eastern europe that pushed this trend into high gear was not experienced in the Netherlands. Older Dutch women have increasingly had children outside of marriage — both their firstborns and their subsequent children. While Bulgaria is one of the most impoverished countries in Europe, and is still coping with the aftermath of the collapse of the communist state system, the Netherlands is one of the most stable societies and is counted as the fourth most wealthy country in the European Economic Community. The Dutch may have experienced temporary stagflation but that does not come close to the hyperinflation, hyper unemployment, and extreme levels of emigration and deep poverty in Bulgaria.
—
I’ll add a few citations when I have the scooped together for links. Most of my sources are hardcopy but I believe a good many are available on the internet as well. Taking a break from my vacation. ;-)
Chairm:
It is clear you and I are talking past each other.
I disagree with your interpretation of what Kurtz said in the article I criticised in this blog, and what his argument means.’
In short: I believe social mores have changed in both Bulgaria and the Netherlands for many reasons. I have not disputed the social mores can change for many different reasons, and that they have done so everywhere.
My impression is that Kurtz is arguing non-marital births rose in the Netherlands due to changes in social mores (due to SSM) whereas they rose in Bulgaria because women some how cannot avoid giving birth. That does not appear to be the case.
If you believe you have made such a case, then we can agree to disagree on that.
As to particulars:
I disagree with the claim Kurtz e made in response to this article– which is the rise in the Bulgarian non marital birth ratio rose to 40% during the 90’s is due to births among teenagers. In fact, the preponderance of the non-marital births are born to adult women over 20. Moreover, the rise in non-marital births is due primarily to women who were adults when they gave birth. That’s what the numbers show. I believe I showed those numbers, and people may read them.
If you have numbers that show otherwise, I would be interested to see them. I am trying to read and interpret what you are saying but I suspect you have not yet made your full case? For example you say this:
Chairm: As they aged during the past 15 years or so they continued to contribute to the rise in non-marital births, first as teenagers and later as women in their early twenties and now in their late twenties
I keep reading the bits around the quote. Are you simply saying the adult women who are now giving birht out of wedlock were once teenagers? So Kurtz is correct to blame these births in the late 90s on women were once teens? And that is somehow different from what is happening in the Netherlands? (Or is that what you think Kurtz said or meant?)
It is true that all adult women, in both Bulgaria and the Netherlands, and the world over were once teens. They were all once infants, and if they don’t die, they will eventually be old women. I think you will have to elaborate on this idea before I can even attempt to respond.
As to economic issues: I have not claimed the Dutch financial problems were anywhere as severe as those in Bulgaria. It is simply the case the Dutch experienced a particular type of economic dislocation, these tyoes of economic disruptions have been long thought to affect people’s behavior.
In the case of the Netherlands, during this particular disruption, women moved into the work force, and this can change attitudes in a country where women previously assumed they would not work, but would marry and stay at home with children and live comfortably.
When young women and men find that they cannot follow the pattern establiashed by their parents, it is not unnatural for men and women to change their habits and mores.
There is no reason to hunt around for another reason.
The fact that the country is wealthy does not make this less likely to occur. The young people grew up with certain economic expectations, and find they have to adapt their behavior to achieve them.
It is of course, prefectly acceptable to cite hard copy references!
Your determined resistance to my plodding correction of factual errors and misrepresentations does not consitute “talking past each other”. I’ve directly addressed a few of your points and you have now conceded that Kurtz was correct on those points.
It seems plodding to me because you’ve thrown so much mud at the wall that we are now wading knee-deep in it. ;-)
Contrary to your criticism, it is common and reasonable to track trends by age cohorts. The UN also monitors the 15-19 age group specifically on reproductive health measures. As does just about every census bureau in the world. It is standard practice.
Kurtz referred to “women-girls” and I thought to illustrate what he probably meant by pointing to the available data on the 15-19 age group. You roughly tracked the age cohorts.
But isolating the “preponderance” of non-marital births mischaracterizes what it means to drive the non-marital birth trend. Later, I’ll return to your quasi point about the context of factors such as employment.
As for the women-girls of the Gypsy variety, I think you may want to do some homework on Bulgaria and Eastern Europe. Particularly the share of population, age composition, and birth rates, and family formation customs.
A minority group can make a very significant contribution to non-marital births. Look at how the census bureaus in the Netherlands and in our own country examine stats on non-marital births. [I personally don’t buy the concept of race itself, but I recognize the legitimate reasons to monitor demographics of ethnic minorities.] It is not about “blame”, as you put it. Gypsie representatives acknowledge the same facts that Kurtz very briefly mentioned.
Your innuendos implied bigotry where there was none. You were mistaken, again.
I hope you’ll re-examine that aspect of your comments and consider an apology to Kurtz and to your readers for mistakenly casting such aspersions.
Here’s a hefty (and pricey) hardcopy source:
From Abortion to Contraception
http://www.greenwood.com/books/BookDetail.asp?sku=GR0587
By Henry P. David with the assistance of Joanna Skilogianis. A Resource to Public Policies and Reproductive Behavior in Central and Eastern Europe from 1917 to the Present.
Can double as a coffee table. Or small boat.
Reproductive Heatlh Behavior of Young Europeans:
http://www.coe.int/t/e/social_cohesion/population/EPPS_No_17_Kontula.pdf
See page 30 for the case study of Bulgaria. It was written by someone for whom English is a second language so you might need to slowdown while slogging through it.
Here are a few snippets:
>>>At the start of the 1990s, women married early and almost universally and quickly had a first child, but reproductive activity also came to an equally early end. Even as late as 1995, a significant proportion of women reported reliance on traditional contraceptive methods or they did not use contraceptives at all. Limited choice of fertility-control methods plus an early end to childbearing resulted in frequent recourse to induced abortion.
>>>Abortion is legal and free for women older than 35. For the rest the fee is approximately $50 (average montly salary is $150). Young women up to the age of 18 can perform an abortion only with the written consent of one of their parents. Main contraceptives are available in pharmacies and can be obtained with prescription from a gynecologist. [I’ll add that the Bulgarian-made stuff — particularly the condoms — have an awful reputation for dissolving at the worst moments.]
>>>After 1989 the Ministry of Health and other state institutions showed a fresh interest in family planning…. IUDs were designed, produced and distributed. Cooperative production of condoms was arranged with a Singapore company. Pills could be obtained through pharmacies privatized in 1991. However, the cost of modern contraceptives gradually rose to international levels, out of reach for wider utilization. Within this context international assistance was requested and provided.
—
Bulgaria country profile
http://www.unfpa.org/profile/bulgaria.cfm
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund)
Health Indicators for 2003
Contraceptive Prevalence Rate for Women 15-49, Modern Method: 25.40%.
Contraceptive Prevalence Rate for Women 15-49, Any Method, Per Cent: 41.50%.
[Note that these more recent survey results contradict the 1995 survey results. Bulgaria has had some help from Eurostat in improving survey methods to eliminate sampling and non-sampling errors.]
I got loads more — but I’ll be back with just a handful on Eastern Europe and another few on Scandinavia. It might be better if I could post links rather than just URLs. HowdoIdothat?
>> I’ve directly addressed a few of your points and you have now conceded that Kurtz was correct on those points.
I have not conceded that Kurtz is correct on any substantive points and I believe his argument is incorrect overall. I believe he used ambiguous and shifting language, which causes me to interpret his meaning one way, and you to interpret it another way. For that reason, you believe you have somehow proven him correct in some sense, and me incorrect.
I believe readers can decide for themselves what Kurtz meant when he used the term “contraception and/or abortion”, which can be interpreted two ways, and what he is implying afterwards and whether or not the information he supplies afterwards supports his contention.
I believe his contention was that women in Bulgaria cannot prevent non-marital births (or births in general) because they do not have access to birth control while those in the Netherlands can. This is simply not true.
I do believe we are talking past each other.
In one sense, there is nothing wrong with talking past each other — except that we will keep going in circles, which is pointless. (but possibly fun! ;-P)
I will as much as possible, respond to items that seem “new” rather than things we seems to have disagreed on 3 or 4 times and, as much as possible avoid rehashing stuff that we have discussed several times..
>>Contrary to your criticism, it is common and reasonable to track trends by age cohorts. The UN also
>> monitors the 15-19 age group specifically on reproductive health measures. As does just about every
>> census bureau in the world. It is standard practice.
>> Kurtz referred to “women-girls” and I thought to illustrate what he probably meant by pointing to the
>> available data on the 15-19 age group. You roughly tracked the age cohorts.I
In his reply to this article where you, Chairm and I, are posting comments
Kurtz used the term “single, teens” not “women-girls”.
My response to him assumes when he said teens, he meant “teens”. If Kurtz meant to include 20-25 year old and meant to say “women-girls” when he used “teens”, presumably he would have said that. In which case, I would have attempted to respond to that.
As to your impression that I have criticized or objected to tracking births to 15-19 year olds, I have not. The statistics I cited and used in my calculation were the standard ones which report births to 15-19 year olds. Based on that data, I showed the preponderance of the out of wedlock births are to women 20 and above. and not to women 19 and younger.
I showed, using that precise data, the proportion of out of wedlock births has shifted very strongly to women over 20 during the 90s, the period when the non-marital birth rate soared in Bulgaria– and the preponderance of out or wedlock birth are now to women over 20. The rise is due to that group.
That is to say– I used these statistics you seem to believe I scorn in making my argument and they support my point, not Dr. Kurtz claim that the rise in non-marital births is due to teen mothers. (Others can scroll back to read the relatively boring calculation.)
Since you do not explain why you believe I object to the data that includes 15-19 year olds, I will have to guess and respond based on my guesses. I have two guesses:
1. Possibly, you believe I am objecting because I commented that the 15-19 year age group includes 18 and 19 year old women, who we consider adults here in the US, and my observation that if someone happened the number of births to non-adults is lower than the number of births to teens. In my opinion, that fact does need to be considered when interpreting what births to this group means in terms of Kurtz’s larger argument about choice, age, lack of education etc.
Recognizing the adulthood of these women is not a criticism of the UN tracking 15-19 year olds– the UN must obviously decide which groups to track and do so with some consistency across countries. I am simply pointing out the fact that some teens– those who are 18 and 19 year olds are adults. As such when one calculates the proportion of births to this group, one is including some births to adult women.
2. Possibly, you believe I am objecting to the data partitioning because I asked you a question of clarification. In your response to my comment where I performed a calculation using the data for births to 15-19 year olds, it appeared to me that you were suggesting the births to 20-45 year old Bulgarian women should be attributed to teens, because these women were once teens. I found that puzzling, assumed it could not be what you mean and asked that you develop that thought a little further before I comment on it.
>> As for the women-girls of the Gypsy variety, I think you may want to do some homework on Bulgaria and >> Eastern Europe. Particularly the share of population, age composition, and birth rates, and family
>> formation customs.
>> A minority group can make a very significant contribution to non-marital births.
I have not suggested that a sufficiently large minority group could never contribute significatnly. However, I pointed out the non-marital birth rate is now near 40%. Gypsies are 2.5% according to most sources ( a few list them as 4%). Although I am aware the birth rate (both marital and non-marital) for Gypsies is higher than the birth rate for other women, to achieve a 40% non-marital birth ratio many of the non-marital births must be attributed to the 97.5% of women who are not Gypsies.
>>Your innuendos implied bigotry where there was none. You were mistaken, again.
>>I hope you’ll re-examine that aspect of your comments and consider an apology to Kurtz and to your >>readers for mistakenly casting such aspersions.
I do not believe I suggested Kurtz was a bigot.
I believe I simply pointed out that his reference provides no numbers to indicate the Gypsies are contributing to the 40% out of wedlock birth ratio, it is implausible, based on the numbers. Anti-Gypsy prejudice in Bulgaria, and Eastern Europe in general is widely reported. When large scale sociological problems are attributed to an opprossed group, with no numbers provided to substantiate the attribution, one might suspect the possibility that such prejudice has infected some workers.
There are no numbers provided in the source Kurtz cited to suggest the 40% non marital out of wedlock birth rate in Bulgaria is due to the Gypsy population.
But, are you suggesting there is no anti-gypsie bigotry in Bulgaria? Are you suggesting that blaming social problems on the Gypsies does not, or has not occurred in Bulgaria?
====
Finally, I’m not going to try to infer what points you are making from the various files or references unless you actually points you are trying to show by citing them.
However, I trust you did note that on page 29 of the pdf file you supplied, the article says:
At the same time, cohabitation prior to marriage became a dominant mode of behavior.” This of course, supports the idea cohabitation is increasing in Bulgaria, and explains why one sees people explaining the rise in the Bulgarian non-marital birth rate in terms of cohabitation– not teen births. (See some of my previous citations.)
Increasing cohabitation prior to marriage or in place of marriage is the reason Kurtz claims non-marital births are rising in the Netherlands. When explaining why we can ignore Bulgaria (and other countries) he appears to be trying to suggest is that things are different in Bulgaria because the rise in Bulgaria is not due to cohabitation.
Lucia,
You said that some Bulgarians blamed Gypsies for problems. Then you linked that to the cited source, to Kurtz, and now, apparently, to me.
That looks like poisoning the well.
No one here has denied the suffering of the Gypsie people. There ought to be no need for anyone to spell that out for you. The need to substantiate your hunches — especially were a specific charge of racial prejudice is put forth — ought to be obvious to you.
If you meant no ill-will, please clarify your meaning.
Chairm:
Kurtz suggested the problem is due to Gypsies citing a source wich provided no data supporting the contention that the Gypsies contribute to the problem. I simply pointed this out citing the source, and Kurtz.
I don’t know how one can provide the counter argument to Kurtz’s assertion that the problems are caused by Gypsie without citing the article where he made asserted it. I don’t see how this is poisoning the well.
I also pointed out that, in Bulgaria, there is a lot of prejudice against this minority, and things do get blamed on the Gypsies. When ideas like these are pervasive, they can creep into report– particularly report quoting other reports rather than relying on primary sources. (Which is the case for Anguelova’s report.)
Since I think I am mostly repeating what I said before, (except for the question), I doubt this is clarifying. I don’t believe I mean ill will. Moreover, I’m not entirely sure who you are suggesting I am harming.
I have no idea what you mean by citing you. I responded to the comments you had made on the topic of gypsies, which were addressed to me. I also asked you a question.
I’d be happy to discuss the subject material.
However, before continuing with other topics here, let’s get to the root of your allegations.
In case readers might be confused by your evasions, I’ll move my comments to the thread on your post about Kurtz’s remarks in which he cited the Anguelova paper. The very paper that you repeatedly allege had cited a prejudiced source.
I did not allege the source is prejudiced. Sources themselves cannot be prejudiced– they are documents. I also did not say the author was prejudiced. I stated that prejudice can cause unsubstantiated claims to be introduced into sources, particularly derivative ones. Because of this, one should be suspicious when problems are attributed to a dsiparaged minority group without providing any data to suggest the problem is due to them.
You may of course, place your comments where you believe they are most appropriate.
Chairm,
I have deleted two comments, and I am closing comments. My reason is I believe it is time for Chairm to consolodate his argument into a full article, so that people, (including me) can get some context. As I have noted before, we each seem to keep repeating things, and talking past one another. I believe the problem of talking past each other, misunderstanding points and other difficulties could be remedied if each of us writes full articles rather than trying to cut and paste individual sentences from comments spaced weeks apart.
I previously suggested blogger.com as a free method of posting articles. It is easy to use, and I am under the impression you must be back from vacation now.
Pingback: Majikthise
Pingback: Alas, a Blog