Sexual Education and the electionFollow

Possible, but not supported by the evidence.

Actually, it's the only conclusion supported by the evidence.


What the evidence shows us is that during this 10 year period of time, public education increasingly focused on teaching abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy (and STDs) and during the same time period the rates of teen pregnancies dropped.

Due to increased contraceptive use....

Wait, though. How is it that Abstinence Only education resulted in increased contraceptive use?? It's like a miracle machine!! Is it true that it's resulted in teenagers urinating grape kool aide, too?

Not by anyone that knows how to do research at all.

Or read it.

Nexa

Ooooohhhh... kay then.

Cue "Liberal Media Bias" in 5, 4, 3...

Yeah, duh, that's because of the push for "abstinence only" education.



Oh, gee, go figure. Yank funding for sex ed programs that teach comprehensive ("abstinence-plus") sex ed and throw it all into abstinence-only, and WOWEE! and you suddenly get more teachers teaching abstinence-only. Who knew?!




So what is your point? As has been established (and cited here multiple times) by countless studies, comprehensive sex ed works better in promoting BOTH abstinence (since any responsibly comprehensive program emphasizes abstinence as the BEST way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, though not the only way) and safer sex. So during the years while abstinence-plus was on the decline and abstinence-only on the rise, we saw residual benefit from the years of abstinence-plus education in both the number of pregnancies/STDs prevented, the number of abstinent people and the number of people using protection. And now that abstinence-only has proliferated long enough, we're seeing the opposite effect as fewer and fewer kids get comprehensive sex ed.

If you're trying to say that every other study on the subject is wrong and only the figures loosely cobbled-together out of context by you are correct, then you are basically lying with numbers.





Quoted because it's worth repeating.

Sorry I fail at quoting with a kid in my lap.

Edited, May 19th 2008 5:17pm by Ambrya

Edited, May 19th 2008 5:18pm by Ambrya

Also, what this does seem to indicate is that the public school system is not the only (or even best) format for teaching kids about contraceptive use. Since the effective use of contraceptives increased during the same time that public education programs focused on abstinence rather then contraception, one should conclude that those teens choosing to have sex are making better choices despite not being taught them as much in school.

Hahaha. What do you make of the fact that teen pregnancy rates among teens participating on abstinence only programs has risen?

I know we'd all be fascinated by your deep analysis there. I'd assume it's that they're being brutally raped by teens from neighboring communities where they hand out free condoms with milk cartons at lunch in 2nd grade.

Amirite?

I'm going off the data on the page Joph linked. If you wish to bring in another source that focuses on students taught purely abstinence only and show that among those teens only pregnancy rates rose (while apparently going down in the remainder) by all means go ahead.

That data isn't in the guttmacher paper...

Actually, I've noticed that I'm generally the only one who actually bothers to quote and cite scientific studies in these little debates. You just sit and use your layman's opinion to explain why every researcher or scientist who doesn't believe what you do is mistaken or a liar.

So why don't you find a study where the researchers have the same conclusion you're giving? Not a website where some dude does what you do and declares that the study says what he says it says, but one where the conclusion section matches your assertions.

If you wish to bring in another source that focuses on students taught purely abstinence only and show that among those teens only pregnancy rates rose (while apparently going down in the remainder) by all means go ahead.

This isn't that, but it's funnier:

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html


It is the fact that the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants.47 In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.48

In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called “Programs that Work,” which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies.49 All five of the programs identified in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website.

One scientist, recently departed from a high-ranking position at the CDC, recounts that, on one occasion, even top staff scientists at the agency were required by the administration to attend a day-long session purportedly devoted to the “science of abstinence.” As this source puts it, “out of the entire session, conducted by a nonscientist, the only thing resembling science was one study reportedly in progress and another not even begun.”50 Despite the absence of supporting data, this source and others contend, CDC scientists were regularly reminded to push the administration’s abstinence-only stance. As he puts it, “The effect
was very chilling.”51

Disallow the CDC from tracking teen pregnancy among female program participants.

Hahahaa. Ahh. I'd assume the thinking was morons would find some way to assume they worked, but I can't imagine anyone's really that stupid.

Right?

.

Edited, May 19th 2008 7:56pm by Jophiel

Are you dense? I quoted this earlier. What part of "abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs" do you think means that they were taught proper contraceptive use as well?

So the paper you linked to is sufficient source for your argument, but suddenly becomes insufficient when I use it to support a different position?

Hi. Because it doesn't support your position *in any way*.

Your conclusion is the opposite of the data. Seemingly arbitrarily.


The experts usually have an agenda and often do. Especially when you get into the soft sciences like sociology and psychology.

Hi. No.


How else do you explain a paper that includes a paragraph saying that the rate of abstinence only education has increased, and another saying that during that time, the rates of teen pregnancy decreased, and another saying that 25% of that decrease was because teens choose to abstain from having sex (delaying sexual activity), and then conclude that there's "no evidence" that abstinence education actually gets teens to abstain from sex.

One, you're not getting the math correct. The fact that the percentage of programs that are abstinence only increased does not imply that a smaller percentage of teens are being educated in school about contraceptive use. Teen pregnancy rates are based only on age. They include drop outs, home schooled kids, whatever. This correlation that you've imagined out of thin air, even if it did exist, wouldn't show causation in the effectiveness of AO programs. Nor would it show that the contraceptive education *became more effective*, which is far far more likely explanation by anyone's measure.

In point of fact, without isolation of the efficacy of the various programs in preventing pregnancy, you can't even begin to establish causality. When that's been done, there has been no correlation between AO programs and delaying the onset of sexual activity, or pregnancy, or STDs. None. There has been correlation between contraceptive education and decline in pregnancy, and STDs.

It's not a debate. There's no plausible scientific argument for AO education *at all*. There are only philosophical arguments based on ludicrous premises.

Clear?

Are you saying that those quoted statements are wrong then?


I guess I'm not seeing how there's a whole lot of wiggle room Joph. If the rate at which abstinence only was taught in our public schools increased over a period of time, and during that same time period the rate of teen pregnancy dropped, we can only conclude one of two things:

1. The rates of teen pregnancy really have nothing to do with what they're taught in public school.

2. Abstinence only education does somehow reduce teen pregnancy rates.



That's it. Those are your two options Joph. Ok. Technically, there's a third option: That there was some other factor (or factors) unrelated to what was taught in school that caused teens to get pregnant less often, but that if we'd taught them contraceptive use instead of abstinence only, that factor would have been even greater.

Um... But that's a pure guess. You have to start with an assumption that abstinence only can't possibly reduce the rates of teen pregnancy and then speculate that it's still not, but that something else overrode what was taught in the schools (ie: the AO training increased the rate, but something else decreased it even more, resulting in a net decrease *despite* the AO training).


Um... At the risk of pointing out the obvious, whichever one of those explanations you prefer, they all point to the same conclusion: Teaching contraceptive use in public schools isn't as needed as many people assume. Maybe social change alone will work just fine. Maybe kids are learning more on the internet, or on TV, or *gasp* more parents are teaching them. Whatever it is, clearly the impact of the education they receive in public school is either not helping or is so minimal as to be overridden by other factors.


In other words: Arguing that we *must* teach contraceptive use in schools is a non-issue. The benefits can't be seen to outweigh the costs. As I've pointed out repeatedly in other threads, parents have a right to raise their children as they wish. If they don't wish their kids to be taught how to use birth control, that's ultimately their right. You and I may think they're nuts, but it's still their right. Given the data I'm seeing, I don't see any reason why we should override the parents rights in this case. It's the state intruding itself for no real purpose.

I guess I'm not seeing how there's a whole lot of wiggle room Joph. If the rate at which abstinence only was taught in our public schools increased over a period of time, and during that same time period the rate of teen pregnancy dropped, we can only conclude one of two things:

1. The rates of teen pregnancy really have nothing to do with what they're taught in public school.

2. Abstinence only education does somehow reduce teen pregnancy rates.


And...you fail at logic, yet again.


As I've pointed out repeatedly in other threads, parents have a right to raise their children as they wish.

You know they can opt out of sending their kid to the class in all 50 states, right? You know that in many, possibly most states, they have to sign off and opt in to sending their kid to the class, right?

I mean, you can't possibly be that ignorant to the situation, can you? This entire debate is about the classes being *offered*. No one's forcing anyone to attend them against the parents wishes.