Teen pregnancy, abortion rates at record low

Birth and abortion rates among U.S. teens fell to record lows in 2008 as increased use of contraceptives sent the overall teen pregnancy rate to its lowest level since at least 1972, a study showed on Wednesday.

But disparities among racial and ethnic groups continued to persist, with black and Hispanic teens experiencing pregnancy and abortion rates two to four times higher than their white peers, the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research group that conducted the analysis, said.

The Guttmacher researchers looked at government statistics on teen-age sex, pregnancies and births, as well as the institute's own data on abortions for 2008, the most recent year for which all the numbers were available.

They found that nearly 750,000 U.S. women under the age of 20 became pregnant in 2008 — nearly 98 percent of them between the ages of 15 and 19.

That translated into a pregnancy rate of 67.8 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19, the researchers said, the lowest pregnancy rate seen since 1972, the year before the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established a woman's right to an abortion.

Continue reading at www.msnbc.msn.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

daves

This is very good news and shows that contraception is one of the best ways to fight abortion.
- http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
  
  Dave, most contraceptives are abortive – that is, infanticidal. The best way to fight infanticide is to teach abstinence to our children and make infanticide a capital crime for anyone involved in it.
  - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
    
    Yeah – except the 2 most popular contraceptives (condoms and the birth control pill) involve no semen-to-egg interaction… but why let the facts get in your way eh Ted?
    - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
      
      By the way, if you god back and read (instead of knee-jerking), you'll see I used the word "most." And, actually, if you do some research, you will find that even the birth control pill is sometimes infanticidal – but don't the let the facts get in your way, eh Joe?
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Your qualifier ("most") is still inaccurate.
        
        The birth control pill is almost NEVER "abortive". That is the absolute last defence (not allowing a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall), and only a small subset of birth control pills actually do this.
        
        The pill works be supressing ovulation – ergo no egg, and nothing for the sperm to fertilize.
        
        You are still dead wrong Ted – and dangerously so. Unless women know the truth about the pill, instead of your scare-mongering that it actually causes an abortion, they might not use it – which will lead to more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
      - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
        
        Thanks for proving my point: "not allowing a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus wall." Once fertilized and then destroyed (by whatever means, including not allowing it to attach to the uterus wall) is infanticidal.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        You do understand that when you type "most" you can't point to a TINY subset and claim you were correct, don't you?
        
        "Most" birth control pills don't even have this capability (stopping the egg from attaching to the wall). Only a tiny subset can do this – and even then, it almost never happens because the pill is effective in stopping the egg from entering the fallopean tubes in the first place.
        
        So I'm sorry – but you're still dead wrong and still positing dangerous misinformation…
      - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
        
        No, Joe, by not pointing out that even some birth control pills (and other methods of birth control) are infanticidal, it's you who are positing, not only dangerous, but murderous information.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Dude – it's simple.
        
        (Most) != (a tiny subset)
        
        Not even close… and if you're worried about the "abortion" that occurs in a TINY subset of pill takers then you really need to reassess your priorities. Are you aware that we're talking about a fertilized egg? It's a SINGLE cell at this point… a cell, not a person.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        @TedRWeiland – I think by your standards when I masturbate it's infanticidal… Even christians can agree that life doesn't begin by uterus linings and fertilizations… my goodness…
      - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
        
        From your masturbation comment, you not only prove yourself not to be the deep thinker you've self appointed yourself, but, based on our previous exchange, I'm not surprised that this doesn't concern you. Your type of Christianity has no impact upon the wicked (except for the few – Matthew 7:13 – who are won by the gospel) and thus Christians and innocents (like infants in womb from fertilization on) are trampled under foot (sometimes murdered) by the wicked.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        I am against abortion, it is murder. But I am not against contraception, nor is it a sin.. Catholics are crazy, and they need to back off. Furthermore, as from our previous post you put so much emphasis on government control, if it is murder, why does our government allow it??
        
        All I prove is that I look at the spirit of the law, not the letter.
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Ted wrote: "infants in womb from fertilization on…"
        
        Again – how ridiculous is your belief?! You really believe a SINGLE CELL is an "infant"? Messed up…
      - Linda F.
        
        That single fertilized cell is a life.
        
        And the only thing that is, "messed up," is the denial of the fact that that, "single cell," you're okay with seeing destroyed? It's a HUMAN life.
      - evermyrtle
        
        Not so deep, Every "Christian" knows that when the human ova/egg is fertilized we have a baby. To deliberately terminate it, is the murder of said baby. Ain't no way around that. Exercise that mind and dig deeper for the GOD given truth.
      - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
        
        "…if you're worried about the "abortion" that occurs in a TINY subset of pill takers…." You're absoltuly right, I'm concerned whenever murder occurs!
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        AAAHHHH!! Someone just ~murdered~ a single cell!!
        
        I hope you realize just how ridiculous your stance is… a single cell… wow.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Joe, you are asking a Christian if they realize how ridiculous their stance is?????
      - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
        
        AAAHHH! Let's see, and you have the exact number of cells it takes for it to be murder!?! Please, provide that number all-knowing one, so the rest of us can be enlightened.
        
        Yes, to you and Jeff, it may sound foolish – and who here is surprised by that?
        
        "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        I think the discussion of "murder" shouldn't be considered until the victim has a functioning nervous system at the VERY LEAST! The very least…
      - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
        
        And, let's see, we should care what you (a fool, Proverbs 14:1) thinks for what reason?
      - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
        
        Holy ADD batman!
        
        Hey Ted: you actually asked me – remember?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I would have no expectation that you would care what an Atheist believes. However, I do not post hoping that you might suddenly change your mind. I post for people who have not completely fallen under the god delusion, that they can see there is a viable alternative to mindless delusion.
      - evermyrtle
        
        Christians care what everybody thinks. We would like to know that every person would end up in heaven.That is what it means to be a Christian. That is why we strive to get all people educated in GOD'S expectations for HIS people, we want you to be HIS people. if we do not strive to see that you know also, we are not doing what HE expects out of us. And of course, if you were able to change our mind we would not be Christians the first place. We cannot cave in to the enemy. JESUS DIDN'T CAVE. HE GAVE HIS LIFE FOR YOU, JUST AS HE DID FOR ME.
      - Linda F.
        
        "I post for people who have not completely fallen under the god delusion, that they can see there is a viable alternative to mindless delusion."
        
        Last I heard, you have a website for that purpose. Why don't you spend more time there, and less (I mean, ZERO) time here?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Because your desires are of no concern to me.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Additionally, and because I realize you have such major difficulty in comprehending what you read, I was explaining why I post here.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        I just cut a small piece of skin off my finger, I've killed a few thousand cells… That isn't murder, why? Because those cells might not have TURNED INTO human beings in the future, but the ones used for procreation COULD according to Mr. Weiland… BUT, according to that logic, every time I get myself off I am letting millions of could be babies out the window. See the problem is, morality and laws are and should not be based on something that COULD be a crime.. Until it is, there is no crime!
      - http://www.missiontoisrael.org TedRWeiland
        
        Proverbs 26:4
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Isn't it your job to show me my folly? Do I sound angry? I don't think that verse represents the situation, I think you are unable to come up with logical answers to defend our beliefs… I say homosexuality is victimless and you say I'm a fool?? Pretty sad…
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        1 Peter3:15
        
        2 Timothy 4:2
        
        Proverbs 25:9
        
        Acts 18:28
      - evermyrtle
        
        Excellent answer, Ted!!
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Isaiah 45:7
        I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
      - keyboardshark
        
        DT: Neither your finger's skin cells nor sperm cells contain the complete set of genetic information necessary for a new human being, so your comparison of those cells with a fertilized egg, is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison. Taking another human's life, regardless of whether he or she is in the beginning stages as one cell, a one-month developing baby in the womb, or an adult of 30 years of age, is always a crime.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        I believe that murder is wrong, for sure. My quarrel is when does that exactly happen, a day after a woman has sex and a man has gone in her? It would seem to me that, like I said, the consistency needs to be applied. If a sperm cell and egg COULD generate a human life, then masturbation is murder because sperm COULD fertilize with the egg… Or, like you said, a fertilized egg COULD be a human life. But when is it actually a human life? The argument is that a fertilized egg can become none other than a human. But the key is, CAN BECOME.. But it hasn't yet. Not only that, many times, (a high percentage), the eggs and sperm are fertilized and yet no pregnancy comes about. My point is simply, contraception being a sin is quite the stretch… We can probably agree that one month after fertilization, a true pregnancy has taken place, and a true fetus is present.
        
        On top of all that, modern science throws a wrench in everything. Without modern science, when would a woman know she is pregnant, about a month later due to her period being missing… Again, the argument here is not pro-choice, but when is an abortion wrong.
      - keyboardshark
        
        D_T: See my reply to Jeff below.
      - Linda F.
        
        Life begins at conception.
        
        That LIFE is a human being.
        
        A human being is a PERSON.
        
        Your denial of that fact, doesn't make it any less true.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Your affirmation of your view does not make it any more true.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Her affirmation of her view may not make it true, but this does:
        
        "There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
        
        A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
        
        1. Living things are highly organized.
        
        2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
        
        3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
        
        4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
        
        5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
        
        According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
        
        Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception." http://prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There was life before conception. Sperm cells are alive. Eggs are alive. Each of them were alive before they joined. It was not the joining of the two that suddenly created life, for that already existed.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Sperm and egg cells truly are alive, but they do not possess the complete set of information (DNA) that defines a human being. Amoebas are alive too, but they do not possess the human genome either. Once the egg becomes fertilized, it is a NEW life, i.e. a new human being, having combined both sets of genetic information, one from each parent, into an entirely new life.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        It's interesting. If you are to come up with a distinction, such as this living thing is a human, then it is necessary it has some different characteristics than the ones above you described.
        
        Atoms, contain all of those characteristics, cept number 4. But number 4, precludes that a fertilized egg turns into a human, has reproductive organs, and ultimately can reproduce. This is unknown and therefore is a shoddy argument for a fertilized egg being "living" in distinction from all other living matter…
      - keyboardshark
        
        D_T : Notice it says this is an "elementary definition of life", in other words, to distinguish whether something is alive or not. You are correct that most cells would meet most of the criteria. But if we take it one step further, the fertilized egg has the entire set of human DNA, as you will see if you re-read the final paragraph of my reply to Jeff.
        
        So it's not just the fact that it is alive that makes destroying a fertilized egg cell wrong, for as you correctly pointed out, all cells meet most of the requirements, but rather the fact that it possesses the entire human genome that makes it wrong. It is now a unique human being.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        You are right, a sperm cell does not contain human DNA, BUT A skin cell has the entire set of Human DNA…… So that goes back to the skin cell argument… Just because something has HUMAN DNA, does that make it A Human? notice I said A, not a part of a human, or a cell that can become a human…
        
        Your logic:
        Human DNA in a cell makes it a human
        Skin or Hair cells have Human DNA
        Skin or Hair cells are Human
        Therefore cutting yourself or your hair is murder…
      - keyboardshark
        
        No, skin cells do not contain all the genes that are necessary to produce the rest of the human being, such as a heart, lungs, a brain, etc. so it still fails the test as being a new, distinct human being. True, skin cells contain DNA, but not the complete set of genetic instructions that make up a human being. They are only a specialized component OF a human being.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Actually you better go check up on your biology, During meiosis (the formation of gametes) there’s a step where Chromosome 1 from Mom and Chromosome 1 from dad can swap chunks of DNA – that’s recombination.Usually this only happens when making sperm or eggs, but it also occurs in non-gamete (somatic) cells – in the production of T cells. T-Cells actually contain THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME.. So are we ready to start calling them humans?
      - keyboardshark
        
        T-cells do not have the ability to grow into a complete human being, so they obviously do not have ALL of the genetic information that a fertilized egg has. Simply stated, a fertilized egg not only has all the genetic information found in the human genome, but also possesses the information necessary to form a complete, unique human being.
        
        T-cells only contain the same DNA as the body within which they reside. They do not contain UNIQUE genetic information that would make them a separate unique individual different from the person whose body they came from. That is why pro-abortion arguments that "it's my body" are not valid, because it's NOT their body–it is a completely different individual, as evidenced by the fertilized egg's unique genetic information.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Of course they don't the ability to grow into a complete human, because they aren't in the uterus, and doesn't get nutrition from the uterine gland, which without such nutrition, a fertilized egg wouldn't continue on its path. It's not the egg that just grows, otherwise it wouldn't need to be in the womb. Hence a T-cell is the same as a fertilized egg, but doesn't have the opportunity to grow into a human.
        
        And the pro-abortion argument, which I agree with you is wrong, is not as you say. You are right, they say "It's my body." But there can be only 3 instances of ownership in ones body.
        
        1) I own 100% of my physical body
        2) I partially own my physical body
        3) I don't own my physical body
        
        Obviously 1 is correct, hence the baby is an intruder, that has attached itself to the body. Therefore we have a right to expel such individual from our body. Now, obviously as a Christian I don't subscribe to that because a choice was probably made that enabled you to get pregnant, therefore you are responsible for that baby..
        
        But going back, THERE IS NO SPECIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A FERTILIZED EGG! It is the uterus and womb that allow the egg to become a human. HENCE IT IS THE SAME AS A T-CELL! Up until it's a fetus, it is not a human. Killing humans is murder, killing cells is not.
      - keyboardshark
        
        A baby in it's mother's womb is an "intruder"? Oh come on, give me a break. It didn't just get there with no action on her part. Quit trying to de-humanize it. It's a baby, a human being, for cryin' out loud. It got there because she chose to engage in sex.
        
        There most certainly IS special information in a fertilized egg. I challenge you to show me any evidence that a T-cell implanted into a womb would grow into a baby. Killing a fertilized egg is killing a baby, period, no matter what sleight-of-hand arguments you care to argue otherwise.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        I said that is the argument, i said I don't believe it.. CAN YOU NOT READ: "Now, obviously as a Christian I don't subscribe to that because a choice was probably made that enabled you to get pregnant, therefore you are responsible for that baby.. "
        
        I challenge you to show me what special information is in a fertilized egg, and I know you won't find any. It is the same as a chicken egg. It needs certain conditions to grow. A fertilized egg outside of the womb, can't grow. Otherwise implantation could take place and we would be harvesting babies in a lab!
      - keyboardshark
        
        A human egg is genetically identical to a chicken egg? Then why does one grow into a chicken and the other grows into a human? There very definitely is unique genetic information in a fertilized human egg not found in the egg of any other life form. It may be the same TYPE of genetic info, in other words, the complete genetic instructions for producing a whole animal, but it certainly does not contain IDENTICAL genetic information. I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to prove.
        
        Sorry if I misunderstood your position on the abortion argument, but you said "Obviously 1 is correct, hence the baby is an intruder, that has attached itself to the body" and I thought you were agreeing it was correct. It was late at night when I posted it, and obviously I didn't read far enough to put it in it's context. So I guess we can agree that those kind of arguments are fallacious.
- msjallen
  
  The "best way" to fight abortion is for teens not to have sex before marriage and if one does not want children after marriage then prevent the match-up of the sperm. There are too many people who have too many children that they cannot afford and our lax society recommends abortion as a contracetive. Our society as a whole no longer takes responsibilty for their own actions and play the Blame Game to assuage there conscience.
  Parents these days are children themselves and are not willing to set a good example for their children. Children cannot be your friends until they become mature adults.
Rachel1210

Are the figures this low because they are having abortions instead?
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Did you not read the title?
- http://talkorigins.org jatheist
  
  Rachel1210 asked: "Are the figures this low because they are having abortions instead?"
  
  Is it too much to ask for that you read the article before commenting? The very first sentence (above) states:
  
  "Birth and abortion rates among U.S. teens fell to record lows in 2008"
  
  So, no – they aren't having abortions instead…
  - evermyrtle
    
    Do you always read the entire article before commenting?? I mean, always???
    Again Proverbs 26:4, by this copycat!
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      I certainly read the title. And this was the title. "Teen pregnancy, abortion rates at record low"
- Just me
  
  It clearly says teen pregnancy and abortion rates low in the TITLE of the article……just thought I would clear that up for ya.
Blond1

And now if we could only see girls and boys getting married before they have sex! Today this seems like an unrealistic fantasy, even though it was once the consensus. Does God care? According to the Bible, you bet.
- http://talkorigins.org jatheist
  
  Blond1 wrote: "And now if we could only see girls and boys getting married before they have sex!"
  
  Why? Do you want to see the divorce rates skyrocket or something?
  
  Pre-marital sex isn't for everyone – I understand that. But this idea that EVERYONE should wait until they get married is truly a harmful stance. Finding out you aren't compatible in the bedroom is often a deal breaker for many relationships – better ~that~ happen before getting married than after.
  
  Blond1 cont'd: "Does God care? According to the Bible, you bet."
  
  He also (according to the bible) cares if you work on the sabbath, wear mixed fabric clothes, eat shell fish… in short – your God seems to care about a lot inconsequential things.
- daves
  
  "But if … evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…" (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
  - http://talkorigins.org jatheist
    
    That bible sure does just ooze with love eh?! ;)
    
    Oh to be a woman in the OT…
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Being a kid was no picnic.
      
      Deuteronomy 21
      …
      …
      21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
      
      21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
      
      21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
      
      21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
  - Deep_Thinker
    
    Show me in the Bible where is says sex before marriage is a sin?
    - Deep_Thinker
      
      I'm waiting….
      - keyboardshark
        
        It doesn't say it in those specific words, but whenever the Bible speaks of a man living in intimacy with a woman, she is always referred to as his wife. For example, in Genesis 2:24: "Wherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It doesn't say he shall cleave unto 'a woman', but rather "his wife".
        
        Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." Again, his WIFE, not a woman. And many more similar passages.
        
        God also specifically declares that it is a sin for a man to lay with another man's wife. Why would this be a sin if sex outside marriage were a sin? "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." (Lev 18:20) This sin is called adultery: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." This is very definitely a condemnation of sex outside of marriage.
        
        Furthermore, if a man were to lie with a woman that was not betrothed, he was commanded to marry her: "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (Exodus 22:16). Why would they be required to marry if God was in favor of unmarried sex?
        
        The sin of unmarried sex is specifically called fornication in the New Testament: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (I Corinthians 7:2). From all these and many other Scriptures we can safely conclude that the Bible teaches that sex is to be between married partners of the opposite sex.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        So in other words the order matters, but when it comes to baptism, those people who say order matters, say it doesn't and infants should be.. Interesting. …Making disciples of all nations, baptizing them… He who believes and is baptized. etc.. So you either use the order argument or you don't.
        
        Sex before marriage is surely a different thing than sleeping with a married person.. That is not even comparable for any purpose. The latter is adultery, the former is not. That is a condemnation of a married person having sex outside of the marriage, which is not the same thing as an unmarried person having sex. There is no marriage, you can't compare those two..
        
        In fact, let's look at this logically. "Unmarried" must include the following 1) Virgins 2) Divorced 3) Widowed.
        
        But Paul separates the 2: I Cor 8: But I say to the UNMARRIED (Divorced) and to the WIDOWS: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 25 … Now concerning VIRGINS: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. So "unmarried" does not mean anyone outside of marriage.
        
        And fornication does not mean the general new term of "sexual immorality". Othersiwe the two don't need to be separated:Galatians 5:19
        Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: ADULTERY, FORNICATION, uncleanness, lewdness, . . .
        
        Also, fornication and adultery are mutually exclusive, but it depends on if one is married or not. Fornication is for the unmarried – 1 Corinthians 7:2
        Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality (FORNICATION), let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
        
        Adultery for the married – Luke 16:18
        "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits ADULTERY; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits ADULTERY.
        
        Matthew 19:9 KJV
        And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) The ACT of Fornication = The ACT of Adultery
        
        Hence: Illicit intimate sex between one man and one woman whereby the offender (the Fornicator) is currently NOT married. The fornicator is the person outside of marriage, but the adulterer is the one inside of marriage.
        
        Nowhere does the term sexual immorality mean fornication if you are translating and interpreting honestly.
      - keyboardshark
        
        D_T : You are correct that there is a distinction between adultery and fornication, but as the verses I quoted above indicate, they are both sins. They both involve persons who are not married to each other. And further, it also says that a single man and woman who DO engage in sex are to be married.
        
        The word translated as 'fornication' in the NT is the Greek word 'porneia' which is where we get our word 'pornography', and comes from the Greek word 'porneuo', which means "indulge unlawful lust" or "practice idolatry" according to my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (4202, 4203, Greek), so 'fornication' certainly can be correctly defined as sexual immorality. Again, we have to conclude that the Bible indicates sexual relations are to be between married partners of the opposite sex.
        
        The distinctions between virgins, divorced (which is also against God's will), and widows are indeed mentioned, but has no bearing on the question of whether they are to have sex before marriage. If a widower wanted to have sex with a virgin, for example, it would still be wrong unless they were married. The statement in I Corinthians 8 does not speak to the issue of whether these individuals should be having sexual relations. That is specified elsewhere.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Nowhere does it say "And further, it also says that a single man and woman who DO engage in sex are to be married"
        
        Also, the definition of Pornuo is correct, but you overlooked one thing. In Biblical times, there were laws against fornication and adultery (having sex with a married person – fornication, or being the married person committing adultery). Your definitions, "indulge UNLAWFUL lust" means engaging in the act, not thoughts. Here are all the meanings, in which none of them refer to a general sexual immorality:
        
        Greek4202. porneia, por-ni'-ah; from Grk4203; harlotry (includ. adultery and incest); fig. idolatry:-fornication.
        Greek4203. porneuo, porn-yoo'-o; from Grk4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (lit.) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (fig.) practise idolatry:-commit (fornication).
        Greek4204. porne, por'-nay; fem. of Grk4205; a strumpet; fig. an idolater:-harlot, whore.
        Greek4205. pornos, por'-nos; from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of Grk4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by anal.) a debauchee (libertine):-fornicator, whoremonger.
        
        And: Matthew 19 (KJV)
        9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
        
        Matthew 19 (NKJV)
        9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
        
        Why was the same greek word translated "Fornication" in one version and then as sexual immorality in another and also in other Bible versions?
        
        None of the versions of definitions favor your argument, nor do the bible verses and their context. I think I amply proved above that Fornication is an act of immorality with a married person..
        
        Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication….
        
        One could rightly conclude that Fornication is A TYPE of Sexual Immorality, but Sexual Immorality is NOT A TYPE of Fornication.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I suspect Mr. "deep thinker" that here you are just trying to justify some dubious behavior on your part for which you feel guilt. But don't let me disturb your derailed thought.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Not one bit, don't be too quick to judge!!!
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Right!! Good cut and paste though.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Right, and good argument against what I was saying… Oh wait, you didn't have any!
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        You are about as deep a thinker as your smart phone there. Continue with the google.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Asking Joe for a good argument is like asking an infant to write a college essay. Neither has that ability. The difference is the infant could develop it over time.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Jeff do you call yourself deep tanker too? Or is he your brother? Your lack of thought patterns are amazingly similar. : D
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Go for the Google!!
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Chrome that is!!……Sheessh, what a disgusting thing.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I know, that evil Google. It must be difficult for you to wake up every day knowing that you are unable to function in modern society.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Yes Jeff, you are the epitome of the "modern man"–the "smart phone" was made for you, because you don't have any. And for your brother Deep Tanker.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I can at least agree that a "smart phone" complements you.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        So, you are agreeing with yourself. That seems about par for the course with you. An inane comment meeting absurdity.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Furthermore, your last point, actually proves my point:
        
        ""The sin of unmarried sex is specifically called fornication in the New Testament: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his OWN wife, and let every woman have her OWN husband." (I Corinthians 7:2). From all these and many other Scriptures we can safely conclude that the Bible teaches that sex is to be between married partners of the opposite sex. ""
        
        But if you look at the capped words, that clearly has the meaning of have your own, rather than SOMEONE ELSE'S.. Which proves my little thesis above.
      - keyboardshark
        
        But sex between unmarried partners and sex between partners who are married to someone else still involves sex between partners who are not married TO EACH OTHER. Whether they are already married to someone else is a separate issue, but it nonetheless remains that their relations with each other is still sinful.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Yes, you are right, but the Bible nowhere says that it is wrong.. Every instance of fornication is used with marriage.
        
        Fornication is not the same thing as sexual immorality, though fornication is a type of sexual immorality.
        
        Fornication is having sex with someone who is married…Adultery is the one who is married having sex with someone other than their spouse. Both are sins against the person in a marriage. But if there is no marriage, then there is no sin of adultery, or fornication.
        
        Hebrews 13:4
        Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
        
        1 Corinthians 5:1 (KJV)
        It is reported commonly that there is FORNICATION among you, and such FORNICATION as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
        
        Every verse with physical fornication (not spiritual fornication) talks about a married person… How can you separate fornication from marriage?? You can't!
      - keyboardshark
        
        if you are trying to make a case for unmarried sex to be condoned by the Bible, you still have to address the question of why God required unmarried individuals that were found to have had sexual relations to be married, as in Exodus 22:16. If fornication was only between married individuals, then what about a single person who engages in relations with a married person? Is he in the right, but the married one is not? See the dilemma with your definition?
        
        We can argue all night long about whether fornication refers to relations between unmarried partners or between partners married to someone else, but that does not answer the question of whether sex between unmarried partners is wrong or not. If it were not wrong, why does Exodus 22 require two single persons to marry?
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Of course he isn't in the right, one is the adulterer (married), one if the fornicator (unmarried). Did you not read my previous post? Fornication is not between married persons. It is between one married person, and the unmarried (fornicator)..
        
        I think you ought to read my above posts again. And the Exodus vs talks about paying the bride-price and marrying her.. An OT law, like many OT laws that taken literally in these days are a bit harsh..
        
        Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
        
        Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
        
        Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
        
        Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
        
        Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?
        
        If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?
        
        If a man sleeps with his father's wife… both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
        
        If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
        
        If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?
        
        If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
        
        Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
        
        If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
        
        People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
      - keyboardshark
        
        As I pointed out in my previous post, the word 'fornication' means "indulge unlawful lust" . Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28). This would certainly have to refer to unmarried persons lusting after other unmarried persons.
        
        And you are still ignoring the Old Testament command for the two singles to marry. This is a moral law which has never been rescinded or modified elsewhere in the Bible, unlike many of the ceremonial and dietary laws you cite.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        When something is mentioned in Scripture the first time, the same meaning for that verse holds true for subsequent verses.
        
        Never take one verse out of context in order to try to "prove" a point.
        
        You should never build a doctrine on just one verse. You need to find other verses to support your interpretation.
        
        Look at the original words used and do not change the meaning of words in different verses in order to make a point.
        
        The key word in Matthew 5:28 is "lust".
        
        The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. And so if Jesus did speak in Hebrew, then we can look into the Old Testament to see which word most closely matches the Greek word "epithumeo". We find this word “chamad” which means "to covet" in the tenth commandment in Exodus 20 verse 17 when God said, 17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
        
        We notice Jesus in Matthew 5:27 quotes the seventh commandment in Exodus 20 verse 14 which reads, "You shall not commit adultery".
        
        Then in Matthew 5 verse 28 Jesus appears to refer to the tenth commandment. In the tenth commandment, the Hebrew word for “covet” in Exodus 20:17 is the transliterated word “chamad” which can mean, “to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in.”
        
        Notice the similarity between the Greek word “epithumeo” which can mean, “to covet things forbidden, to desire earnestly; to have a longing desire for”, and the Hebrew word “chamad” which can mean, “to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in.”
        
        Since Jesus most likely spoke in Hebrew, he most likely used the word "chamad" which means "to covet" in Matthew 5:28. If we ever do find the original Hebrew translation of Matthew, this will help us intrepret this verse correctly.
        
        In Matthew 5 verse 28, Jesus explained that coveting to have sex with a married woman is the same as adultery.
        
        YOU ARE TAKING MATT 5:28 OUT OF CONTEXT!
      - keyboardshark
        
        You do not "lust" after your neighbor's house. You may covet your neighbor's house, but not lust after it.
        
        You are trying to force Matthew 5:28 to say something that it does not say. It does not say anything about a "married woman". It says "…whosoever looketh on a WOMAN to lust after her…" It does not say a married woman. It is you who is taking the verse out of context.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Lust means covet in the BIBLE! Can you not see the actual translation by doing a little research??? Covet assumes something is owned, meaning a married person is already taken for.
        
        "Math 5:27-28: An interpretation of this passage is that if you look at the Greek verb (lust more properly translated covet or desire), it's the same word used in the Septuagint's translation of the 10th Commandment (not covet). Matthew has Jesus saying that covetousness, the desire to deprive another of his property, is the essence of adultery. Jesus was then reaffirming a quite traditional understanding of what is wrong with adultery.
        
        The Greek word, epithumia, which also means "covet" and is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew, chamad, in Ex. 21:17 "Thou shalt not COVET ." It is not a coincidence that "neighbor's wife" is included with the other PROPERTY listed in this text…like neighbors ox etc…
        
        In Matthew, Jesus was saying adultery does not consist primarily of a sexual union of two people, at least one of which is married, but it consists rather in the intention, accomplished or not, to take what belongs to another. The purpose of the verse is to show no one is free of sin, but the nature of sin lies in impurity of the heart (taking from another man his wife) rather than the physical act itself. This is different from consensual nonmonogamy.
        
        The natural desire for sexual variety or the enjoyment of looking at a beautiful body has absolutely nothing to do with "lust" as you assume it to mean. Lust is only wrong if it is the selfish desire to take something from another.
        
        Hence Jesus "lusted to be with his disciples"
        
        In biblical times man could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as they wished once the man was age 12 and the women age 13, and adultery was only a sin for a married women. It was never a sin for a married man as long as the other women was not married (owned by another man). .
        
        I think I have amply proved my point, and you really don't have a leg to stand on..
      - keyboardshark
        
        I agree that 'covet' and 'lust' are two separate distinctions, but they are not mutually exclusive. One could 'covet' his neighbors wife without sexual lust. Maybe he wants her as HIS wife for social status, for example, and may not even find her physically attractive. On the other hand, if he 'lusted' after her, it would be sexual in nature.
        
        Just because men (usually kings) had multiple wives and concubines does not mean God condoned it:
        "Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
        
        But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
        
        Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deut. 17:15-17, my emphasis)
      - keyboardshark
        
        BTW, the words 'covet' and 'lust' in the New Testament are not the same. In Romans 7:7 we read, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." The word translated "covet" there is the Greek word 'epithumeo' according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.
        
        In I John 2:16 we read, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." The word translated "lust" here is the Greek word "epithumia". The words are very close in meaning, but they are two separate words.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Exodus 22:16 argues that if you sleep with an unmarried woman, then you should pay the bride-price. It is about payment, and if you were honest, you would include the next verse:
        
        16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
        
        17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Whether he pays money or not, he still is required to marry her. You cannot get around that fact.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        No, it says if the Father refuses the Father pays money, end of story. No marriage takes place, are you illiterate?
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Deep Tanker, I think you need a bilge pump.
      - keyboardshark
        
        You're right, D_T, it does say that the father can refuse to give his daughter in marriage. But that still does not mean that the premarital sex was OK, otherwise they would be allowed to remain together without a marriage, and there is no indication that this is the case. The premarital sex was still wrong.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Deep Tanker, are you saying that you are literate? Do attempt to clarify in English.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Why? You will unable to understand it.
  - msjallen
    
    Daves, we no longer live under the Law but under GRACE. Stoning is not allowed except in Muslim society.
aceituna

Christian standards need to be taught, but first the people need to acknowledge their sinfulness and turn to God for forgiveness. When this happens the Holy Spirit works upon their hearts and bring about true Christian attitudes and a new life.
- msjallen
  
  If people do not know what the Bible says then they do not know what God wants them to do. We do not acknowledge our sins to God before we believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in Him through the power of the Holy Spirit from the knowledge of Him being our substitute when He died on the cross for the sins of all mankind. After salvation, when we sin we acknowledge our sins to God the Father so that we can be in fellowship with Him.
  I John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
DMendoz

Or more than likely it's because teens are postponing sex, thanks to abstinence education.
- Deep_Thinker
  
  Show me in the Bible where it talks about abstinence…
  - Linda F.
    
    Try looking up the Scriptures that promote purity and forbid sexual immorality – including fornication.
Mexseiko

In such a bad economy people cannot afford even cheap defective profilactives so abstinence must be in operation now.
- bighoss
  
  Where can one find these "profilactives" of which you write?
  - Joe Anzilotti
    
    Bighoss, I believe these "profilactives" can now be ordered with the "smart phones." : )
Steve03

At least 50% of all fertilized human eggs spontaneously abort, with most doing so before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. Either God doesn't put much store in those "persons," or the human reproductive system is proof positive of ID ("incompetent design").
- Deep_Thinker
  
  Or until that fetus is truly "human", it isn't a life you are taking…
  - msjallen
    
    Amazing to hear another speak the truth since God breathes soul life at the moment the fetus immerges from the womb.
    "Then the dust [biological life] will return to the earth as it was, and the breath [soul life] will return to God who gave it" Eccl. 12:7