The Palins and Chastity

[Catholic_Dude]

A Catholic blogger wrote this brief article not too long ago and I thing it’s worthy of posting here. I think you should share this 1 page article with your family and friends; it’s that good.
** The Palins and Chastity **

Track Palin and his wife Britta apparently conceived before they were married or even engaged. Bristol Palin is making a lot of money talking to teens about chastity after getting pregnant as a teen. This is not unusual. Often youth leaders who talk the most about chastity did not keep their virginity until marriage. Teens notice that. Certainly those asserting teen chastity is unrealistic have noticed. So what is going wrong?

The problem is the tie between sex and procreation has been cut. Protestants and many Catholics don’t talk about being ready for sex as being ready to raise a child. They talk about waiting for marriage but they are unclear on what precisely happens on your wedding day. Marriage is not understood as a sacrament and divorce is seen as a fact of life. So what is marriage? It does not mean openness to life. It does not mean a special grace from God to join you together. It does not mean staying together no matter what. So why wait with sex until marriage when it means so little?

The most concrete reason is children. It is easy to understand that God intended sex and procreation to be linked. It is the way we are made. It is intuitive that sex should not be manipulated just for kicks. People get that it is something sacred. So the argument against contraception is much easier to make than the argument that contraception is OK but you should wait for marriage anyway.

From a teen point of view marriage seems like easy sex for adults. Why should they be expected to exercise self control? They are less mature. Their hormone levels, at least for males, are higher. So why is chastity for teens while adults get this big out with marriage, divorce, and contraception? Does it not make much more sense to say sexual self control is simply something they will need in every state of life? Marriage and celibacy would both be seen as hard roads that you would only go down if you were really called. Guess what? That way you end up with strong families and solid vocations instead of broken homes and an abuse crisis.

So chastity as it is taught now is unrealistic. Not because it is too hard. The problem is it is too easy. It is a compromise with the culture that has left Christian sexual ethics incoherent. People can do hard things if they have a good reason. They do very little if they are given a story that does not ring true. If young men know they are remaining pure so they can be good fathers or good priests they will rise to the challenge. If they think their future is in a contraceptive marriage where they won’t need self control then they won’t work hard to develop it.
In other words, the Contraceptive lifestyle has severed the link between marriage and sex, since the whole point of ‘waiting until marriage’ was precisely so you could provide a stable environment for the children. When sex has no direct link to children, as contraception teaches, then the stable environment is no longer the foundation of marriage, only an optional accessory.

This is why “chastity talks” as a whole, particularly by Protestants, have been a flop (even though some good has also come). If there is no coherent basis, then all the child hears is “sex is for people who are older that you,” which means nothing.

Any thoughts?

Have you shared this on your blog or with family or students you’re teaching?

 

[Rence]

Any thoughts?

Have you shared this on your blog or with family or students you’re teaching?

I think that the horse (contraceptive sex) has been let out of the barn, but unlike a real horse, it’s going to be near impossible to get this horse back in the barn because people enjoy having sex without consequences. In order to change anything, you would have to change the way people think.

People used to have sex as teenagers before, that’s why they went “to go stay with so-and-so-relatives” to have their child and come back home, whether they went to a convent, or a real relative, or were just sent away. That’s why there were “gunshot weddings”. The only difference is, people are doing a lot more of it, and not hiding the fact. Most people I know teach their kids that sex is associated with the risk of getting pregnant…I think most preach chastity. But kids get information (and usually incomplete information) about ABCs as well from various sources.

Our culture has evolved over time: people like having sex and they like having sex without consequences. I don’t know the sources of these “studies” that say that abstinence only programs are successful, because I can find similar studies that say the opposite. And surely from where I see it in real life, it’s not working. What I see happening is everyone having sex. The higher class and/or more educated a person is, the less likely they will end up pregnant because they have been well versed as to the correct usage of their chosen ABC method. The lower class and/or less educated a teenager is, the more likely they will end up pregnant because they are not well versed as to the correct usage of their chosen ABC method. I see a lot more abortion in the north than in the south. But we’re only talking two cities. If we poll everyone on the forum, we might get very different answers.

Chaste people are in the minority. I was always the most conservative person I know when it came to morality.

Like it or not, people don’t think there is anything wrong with having sex outside of marriage, they like it a lot, and they do it all the time, and with multiple partners. The more conservative people have less partners…like one or two. Unless you can change the way people think, that will continue.

The fact is, the majority of people do not associate marriage with the obligation to have many kids, or any kids at all. The majority of people believe marriage is a partnership of two adults who want to share their lives together. Most want one to three kids. Many don’t want any. Big families are a thing of the past. The families being called to have large families are doing so. It’s not in everyone’s cards. The majority of people do not believe it’s right to not share the marital embrace with their spouse, and don’t believe they have to do only if they are open to life. Even Catholics.

The requirement to be open to life is a strict teaching of the Church, one that is ignored by most Catholics. But if you are not Catholic, that is not a requirement of any other Church. Even the Jews who provided us with the text that reads, “be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth” got a different meaning from their message from God. And they are the ones who got the message. They believe that’s already been done, and they don’t have to fill the earth, though they are still called to have at least one child. More is better, but it’s not required. And again, I know many Jewish familes, and many big Jewish families with
6+ kids in the family.

Given all that, people in general want to be able to have sex without consequences and will do so. I don’t see how that can be stopped. Society in general is not going to let ABCs dissappear. They want it too much.

I don’t know about where everyone else came from, but among my friends and acquaintences, sex was taught to be a grown up activity with grown up consequences. They just ignored it. As to marriage, one only has to obseve the crumbling marriages with spouses treating each other like dirt around them to not take it seriously anymore. Even if I wanted to get married, I don’t know where I’d even find someone who takes it more seriously than a big financial mess if marriage failed.

 

[mark_a]

Any thoughts?

The Catholic Church’s teaching that the unitive and procreative aspects of sex must not be separated can answer every single question about homosexuality, beastiality, rape, self abuse, etc. and yes, even married sex.

The Catholic Church’s teaching is nothing short of brilliant.

Many Protestant Churches and groups have their dating teachings right, but nearly all have the marriage teachings wrong.

 

[TimothyH]

In other words, the Contraceptive lifestyle has severed the link between marriage and sex, since the whole point of ‘waiting until marriage’ was precisely so you could provide a stable environment for the children. When sex has no direct link to children, as contraception teaches, then the stable environment is no longer the foundation of marriage, only an optional accessory.

And the contraceptive lifestyle of recreational sex has led to many very real disasters including a return of STDs, divorce, addiction to pornography, and a whole generation of black children, and to a lesser extent white children, who live without fathers.

It is my contention that contraception is the root cause of the demand for and legalization of abortion as well. Widespread acceptance and use of contraceptives has led to a society which views recreational sex as a right, the natural result of which is a demand for abortion. Those who use contraception are directly contributing to the culture of recreational sex and thus the demand for abortions.

An excellent article titled CONTRACEPTION: The Bacteria Devouring Amerca’s Soul at Catholic Exchange.

-Tim-

 

[Rence]

And the contraceptive lifestyle of recreational sex has led to many very real disasters including a return of STDs, divorce, addiction to pornography, and a whole generation of black children, and to a lesser extent white children, who live without fathers.

It is my contention that contraception is the root cause of the demand for and legalization of abortion as well. Widespread acceptance and use of contraceptives has led to a society which views recreational sex as a right, the natural result of which is a demand for abortion. Those who use contraception are directly contributing to the culture of recreational sex and thus the demand for abortions.

I don’t find that to be true at all. Many married people use ABCs. That doesn’t mean they’re automatically going to have an abortion if they discovered they were pregnant.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t find that to be true at all. Many married people use ABCs. That doesn’t mean they’re automatically going to have an abortion if they discovered they were pregnant.

In fact, abortion among the married (in this country, as opposed to Latin American countries and some other regions) is the smallest of any group. The highest percentage of U.S. abortions occur among unmarried women 20-24, the second highest among unmarried women 25-29. Married women in this country do not have a lot of abortions unless they are very poor; generally these are also young, uneducated, and in highly dysfunctional marriages in which the father is incapable of earning a living, immature, and irresponsible about emotionally & financially supporting his family. (And by the way in which there are no consequences for such behavior on his part.)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Good comments.

The Supreme Court said in Case Vs Planned Parenthood in 1992 that abortion has to remain legal because couples have build their lives around the reliance of abortion in the event contraception should fail. Thus, there is a direct connection between abortion and contraception, since abortion is “plan b” when “plan a” (contraception) fails.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Supreme Court said in Case Vs Planned Parenthood in 1992 that abortion has to remain legal because couples have build their lives around the reliance of abortion in the event contraception should fail. Thus, there is a direct connection between abortion and contraception, since abortion is “plan b” when “plan a” (contraception) fails.

But the married, in this country, do not often use Plan B even when contraception fails. It is the unmarried who use Plan B. Overwhelmingly, married couples accept the pregnancy when contraception fails. So it makes no sense to forbid contraception (as others have suggested) for married couples, because in their case, the “connection” is not there. It is the license to engage in fornication – unmarried sex without consequences – a license that includes both contraception & abortion – that is the heart of the problem.

Editing to add: And the reason that such license exists is the detachment of sex from marriage. (Not sex from the emotions of love, necessarily, although there is also the raw pursuit of pleasure outside of love, but it is definitely non-convenantal, non-permanent relationships that “permit,” with societal approval, unbridled use of contraception, and abortion as Plan B.)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

But the married, in this country, do not often use Plan B even when contraception fails. It is the unmarried who use Plan B. Overwhelmingly, married couples accept the pregnancy when contraception fails.

I would expect most married couples to keep the child (though I’d bet this tide is turning as well) when Plan A fails, but the contraception mentality is so engrained that even such children are branded “accidents” or “unintentional,” which is equally troubling. Further, I’d say the only reason why such “unintentionals” are not more frequently aborted is because the married couple has turned to more and more effective uses of contraception (esp sterilization) and thus truly preventing Plan B from even being a possibility. If it turned out that, on average, Plan A was failing frequently enough that multiple “unintentionals” resulted, I’d bet you’d see an increase in married couples aborting (such is already true in other parts of the world). So contraception has an absolute stranglehold on the modern concept of marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would expect most married couples to keep the child (though I’d bet this tide is turning as well) when Plan A fails,

There is no evidence for that. There is evidence that abortion is sometimes (not always) chosen among married couples when there is strong indication, or confirmation, that a significant genetic defect has occurred. However, if anything, the prenatal testing on this is becoming increasingly more refined, not less so, with chorionic villii sampling becoming safer & a more accurate predictor than previously (vs. amnio, for example)… and thus reducing an ‘automatic’ choice to abort just because of (previously vaguer) indications.

the contraception mentality is so engrained that even such children are branded “accidents” or “unintentional,” which is equally troubling.

It may be “troubling” to you, but it is not troubling to me if the accident is considered a happy accident, which among the married, it mostly is.

Again, it is the unmarried state – with or without used contraception, ill-used contraception, consistently used contraception – that is the largest predictor of abortion as Plan B. It is not contraception which is the predictor, especially given how many married couples use contraception regularly, and how low the rate of elective abortion is among the married, in this country. And in the Netherlands, where contraception is universal and effectively used (including among the unmarried), abortion is low as a national statistic, not high.

Contraception does not predict abortion as a stand-alone factor. Fornication predicts abortion to a much greater degree than contraception does, at least (again) in this country.

 

[Rence]

It may be “troubling” to you, but it is not troubling to me if the accident is considered a happy accident, which among the married, it mostly is.

Incidentally, I want to point out that though I understand a lot of people on CAF are very touchy about the word “accident”, or “mistake”, or “oops pregnancy”, I’ve never heard a married couple take a pregnancy as an unhappy accident. Yes, they’ve been shocked. Yes, it was planned. Yes, it was an accident. But in real life, I’ve never had anyone regret that mistake one bit…

OTOH, unmarried people…they have unhappy accidents all the time. Though, I have to say, there have been quite a few happy mistakes as well…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I would expect most married couples to keep the child (though I’d bet this tide is turning as well) when Plan A fails,

I would say the overall break down in the family, with high divorce rates and paganization of marriage/sexuality, is good enough grounds to say the tide is turning.

the contraception mentality is so engrained that even such children are branded “accidents” or “unintentional,” which is equally troubling

It may be “troubling” to you, but it is not troubling to me if the accident is considered a happy accident, which among the married, it mostly is.

I think you missed my point: it’s the terminology of “accident” that’s where the real problem is. I know of many “happy accidents” myself, but the fact is their parents either let such terminology slip in reference to them or they tell the child plainly. Such a mindset betrays the fact that the modern definition of “sex” has been severed from procreation. To add to that, I also know of accidents who are unhappy to know they even are, or worse yet treated as such.

Again, it is the unmarried state – with or without used contraception, ill-used contraception, consistently used contraception – that is the largest predictor of abortion as Plan B.

I would agree precisely on the grounds originally stated, which was that marriage is by nature designed to provide a stable environment for children. As for actual figures, a major abortion site I checked said 82% of abortions happen among unmarried - with 16% (of that 82%) being divorced/separated. So it’s safe to say 20% of abortions happen among the married, which is about 260,000 of the 1.3 million abortions in the U.S. per year. Thus 260,000 married couples have an abortion every year, which can add up over the years (if 30% of the 260,000 are first time abortions each year, that’s 75,000 new couples per year).

So the figures themselves state 260,000 couples per year need Plan B, which is not an insignificant amount of people (approximately 500,000 people).

It is not contraception which is the predictor, especially given how many married couples use contraception regularly, and how low the rate of elective abortion is among the married, in this country. And in the Netherlands, where contraception is universal and effectively used (including among the unmarried), abortion is low as a national statistic, not high. Contraception does not predict abortion as a stand-alone factor. Fornication predicts abortion to a much greater degree than contraception does, at least (again) in this country.

But you need to look at the big picture, not just percentage!
The concept of marriage continues to be paganized and be seen as purely utilitarian precisely because of contraception:

• That’s precisely why there is a skyrocket in cohabitation, because marriage is seen as a formality and even a bad experience (e.g. divorced spouse/parents). That’s why even the 82% statistic is misleading, because even a significant percentage of that is divorced and includes those who would otherwise marry but cohabit instead.
• The number of couples getting sterilized continues to grow, particularly after the 2nd-3rd child, thus while Plan B is effectively eliminated (and thus brings down the percentage), the natural concept of sex has been truly bastardized. Another pro-abortion site I consulted said 16% of couples have the male sterilized and 34% of couples have the female sterilized - that’s a whopping 50% of couples sterilized!
• After breaking down the data I found, there are approximately 260,000 married couples having an abortion each year in the U.S. alone. And assuming a percentage of those are 1st-time abortions, means tens of thousands of new unique couples are having 1st-time abortions each year.

So the results are not pretty, and in light of the big picture the “lower percentage of abortions among married couples” statistic is still very disturbing because it skews the all the various real-life ramifications.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think you missed my point: it’s the terminology of “accident” that’s where the real problem is. I know of many “happy accidents” myself, but the fact is their parents either let such terminology slip in reference to them or they tell the child plainly. Such a mindset betrays the fact that the modern definition of “sex” has been severed from procreation. To add to that, I also know of accidents who are unhappy to know they even are, or worse yet treated as such.

No, I didn’t miss your point. I just don’t agree with it. You and I don’t have any idea what percentage of children whose conception is accidental are told that. You and I hear anecdotes that some have been told. Naturally such language is a bad idea, but the fact remains that that child is an unaborted child. That’s what we’re talking about here. And it is not aborted precisely because marriage discourages such abortion and “permits,” indeed encourages, such proper absorption of unplanned pregnancies in a way that the non-married state does not.

The absence of marriage positively encourages abortion. There’s a fairly famous actress who has had several abortions while she has waited for even more famous star to marry her. He never did. She sued him unsuccessfully, blaming him for her abortions, and stating that had they married (as he supposedly had continually promised), she would never have had those abortions and that now she regrets not being a mother. I’m not supporting her reasoning; I’m just saying that it is the default reasoning of the unmarried.

That’s precisely why there is a skyrocket in cohabitation, because marriage is seen as a formality and even a bad experience (e.g. divorced spouse/parents). .

The reason for the skyrocket in cohabitation is not contraception, since The Pill has been available since the early '60’s. The increase in cohabitation is linked to the decline in the value of the family (a point you brought up at the top of your post), a decline in the value of permanence, stability, community, and in the unifying ties of religion, ritual and religious rituals as aspects of bonding. It is becoming increasingly a value-less society, and a symbol-endangered society.

I had to laugh at the irony when Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins announced their recent break-up of their long term intimate relationship. She declared with surprise that she “assumed that since they weren’t tied to a [contractual relationship], their relationship would be stronger and thus survive.” (No, honey, it’s marriage which is the definitive difference in creating that sense of permanence and strength over time.)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Elizabeth,

What is your take on the 260,000 married couples having abortions (with at least 75,000 new couples each year)?

And what is your take on the ~50% of married couples getting sterilized?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, What is your take on the 260,000 married couples having abortions (with at least 75,000 new couples each year)?

My “take” is that it pales in comparison with the circumstances of the vast majority of U.S. abortions, and therefore to begin with married couples as an anti-abortion target is extremely inefficient. Some of those among the married are due to genetic defect discovered, some are due to poverty; some are due to abusive marriages or marriages endangered by something similarly serious.

In Latin America, the largest percentage of abortions are among the married who are also despicably poor; generally their husbands have abandoned them physically, financially, and/or emotionally, and often these women have married early with not much in the way of employable skills, and thus the livelihoods of their families are (considered by these mothers) endangered by repeat pregnancies. Often these abortions are botched or self-induced with disastrous results. )

In the U.S., there are Latina women who continue this practice of early, inappropriate marriage either after very early pregnancy or shortly before a very young pregnancy, and this population can be counted among the U.S. marrieds who do abort. Similar for the black population of those who have married early. Among these two minority groups, it is not uncommon for a 2nd or 3rd pregnancy to be aborted, even when the first is not.

And what is your take on the ~50% of married couples getting sterilized?

I think I’d first like to verify that statistic as to whether that represents 50% of currently married couples now have vasectomies or tubal ligations. That seems high. I do know that I’ve had acquaintances in the somewhat distant past who proclaimed that sterilizaiton was their intent (given their concerns about overpopulation, mostly, and their ambivalence about parenthood, secondarily); I did not follow up on these couples to learn whether they did or did not get sterilized.

Know also that sterilization has become a mainstreamed birth control procedure in Mexico, for those women who’ve had repeat early abortions. What happens is that the healthcare professionals, after even the second abortion, take the woman into an office and suggest sterilization, regardless of age, regardless of marital status. It is seen as preferable to repeat abortions for women who apparently feel helpless as to options.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The most respected compiler of statistics regarding contraception, reproduction, and abortion is the Guttmacher Institute. Here’s what they say regarding sterilization, not broken down by marital status except where indicated. The only “~50%” figure would be from the “age 40-44 range who practice contraception,” and which would include those who do have children:

Sixty-three percent of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use nonpermanent methods, including hormonal methods (such as the pill, patch, implant, injectable and vaginal ring), the IUD and condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]

(I don’t consider 37% of all women to be the same as “~50% of married couples.”)

The pill and female sterilization have been the two leading contraceptive methods in the United States since 1982. However, sterilization is the most common method among black and Hispanic women, while white women mostly commonly choose the pill.[2]

• Female sterilization is most commonly relied on by women who are aged 35 or older, women who are currently or have previously been married, women with two or more children, women below 150% of the federal poverty level and women with less than a college education.[2]

• Half of all women aged 40–44 who practice contraception have been sterilized, and another 20% have a partner who has had a vasectomy.[2]

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

 

[Catholic_Dude]

My “take” is that it pales in comparison with the circumstances of the vast majority of U.S. abortions, and therefore to begin with married couples as an anti-abortion target is extremely inefficient.

I see your point, but if that statistic is skewed (e.g. by the presence of mass sterilization), then the real question is: what is/are the underlying cause(s) for these problems? Most Catholic sources would put contraception at a top (if not the top) contender.

I think I’d first like to verify that statistic as to whether that represents 50% of currently married couples now have vasectomies or tubal ligations. That seems high.

It does seem high, but not surprising after the initial shock wears off and I considered the reasoning behind it.

The “~50%” figure comes from Guttmacher’s breakdown: (a) 37% of women and (b) 20% of men.

Know also that sterilization has become a mainstreamed birth control procedure in Mexico, for those women who’ve had repeat early abortions. What happens is that the healthcare professionals, after even the second abortion, take the woman into an office and suggest sterilization, regardless of age, regardless of marital status. It is seen as preferable to repeat abortions for women who apparently feel helpless as to options.

I’ve heard this is becoming common everywhere.

The most respected compiler of statistics regarding contraception, reproduction, and abortion is the Guttmacher Institute. Here’s what they say regarding sterilization, not broken down by marital status except where indicated. The only “~50%” figure would be from the “age 40-44 range who practice contraception,” and which would include those who do have children:

Sixty-three percent of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use nonpermanent methods, including hormonal methods (such as the pill, patch, implant, injectable and vaginal ring), the IUD and condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.

So it’s no exaggeration to say the sterilization rate among married couples is high (even around 50%), and this very clearly linked to the severing of sex from procreation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I just think you’re combining some of these statistics as to usage/frequency, when they’re often shared within the same couple. (We’re using the same source, and coming up with different math.)

Further, the sterilizations are more frequently happening after reproduction has occurred, and at the end of the reproductive cycle as well (than during the peak). The logic of the secularist is that if I know I will no longer need to, want to, reproduce, why should I bother with any method other than the convenience of sterilization? I find it to be very unnattractive, but it fits with modern demand for convenience.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I just think you’re combining some of these statistics as to usage/frequency, when they’re often shared within the same couple. (We’re using the same source, and coming up with different math.)

I’m not sure what you mean about “different math”.
You agreed with me when you said:
I don’t consider 37% of all women to be the same as “~50% of married couples.”
We agree the reported data is 37% - already disturbingly high. The key here is to realize this is speaking only of women - meaning there is a corresponding percentage of men sterilized as well. Assuming only one of the partners needs sterilization, then the reported 20% of sterilized men results in ~50% of couples where either the husband or wife is sterilized.

Further, the sterilizations are more frequently happening after reproduction has occurred, and at the end of the reproductive cycle as well (than during the peak). The logic of the secularist is that if I know I will no longer need to, want to, reproduce, why should I bother with any method other than the convenience of sterilization? I find it to be very unnattractive, but it fits with modern demand for convenience.

Agreed, but that solidifies the point: they are at the point of “no more babies” and apart from the ‘safetynet’ of sterilization, they would “risk” having more than 2 “accidents,” which by it’s nature increases the need for abortion. This reasonably correlates to why the average family size today is 3-4 children, rather than 6 (i.e. 2 “accidents”).

 

[Elizabeth502]

I simply do not agree that fighting a fight about sterilization keeps one on track for fighting abortion. They are different issues, CD, and they are different populations, except for the category I discussed, which is the impoverished young woman, sometimes even married quite young, who has not used contraception (or used it sporadically, which might as well be not at all), has children, and then aborts 2nd or 3rd children. And even that category does not represent most abortions in this country.

I repeat: the category responsible for the stunningly high abortion rate is the category of women aged 20-24, unmarried. Second highest rate is by women aged 25-29, unmarried. Third highest rate is teenagers, most of whom are unmarried. Next highest rates are, in decreasing order of age, women above age 30. But all combined – married and unmarried – it is the unmarried who still represent a minimum of 80% of abortions in this country and as much as 90%. In other words, fornicators who are clearly not sterilized, or they would not be having abortions!

Why is it that whenever one tries to seriously address the need for reducing abortions in this country, people get sidetracked talking about the need to eliminate contraception and sterilization, instead of the clear need to reduce fornication, which is the most consistent, the most common thread among the highest proportion of those obtaining elective abortions? Married people are using contraception at very high rates, Catholics and non-Catholics, and I promise you that no effort to eradicate contraception among legally married adults in the U.S. has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.

Now, if you want to talk about seeking ways to severely reduce the easy availability of contraception among the unmarried (particularly among minors ), I’m all ears. I would love to see that, although I think that is also very much an uphill fight. I would love to see easy sex with no consequences becoming very inconvenient --as inconvenient as it was prior to The Pill, when unmarried couples had to be a lot more circumspect about taking big risks in that department – and when there was an “accident,” the default choice was not (an illegal) abortion, but often marriage! That was also a different era when (1) women had much fewer choices for sustaining self-support outside of marriage, and (2) men and women, both, took far greater responsibility for all of their private actions, and (3) casual sex was hardly unheard-of; however, unmarried couples tended to become intimate more often when they were already serious about each other, and less as a form of detached recreation. (Thus, marriage as an option after conception was often logically indicated anyway.)