Abstinence-based Sex-ed Letter

[grayman]

In yet another letter to the editor, I have found this one (http://www.trib.com/articles/2007/07/20/editorial/letters/60fd4400eb4761748725731c0072e64d.txt) arguing that abstinence-based sex-education results in lower teen pregnancies.

Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions.

Successful sex-ed programs hurt abortionists' business. So allowing them into the classroom to promote their "philosophies" has amounted to a criminal conflict of interest, with impressionable teens being the ultimate victims.

The letter was written because of recent actions by Matt Blunt and Dave Freudenthal, Governors of Missouri and Wyoming respectively.

However, this site (http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/160/11/1151) gives us a different result from their study on sex-education programs.

Main Outcome Measures Support for 3 different types of sex education in schools: abstinence only, comprehensive sex education, and condom instruction.

Results Approximately 82% of respondents indicated support for programs that teach students about both abstinence and other methods of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Similarly, 68.5% supported teaching how to properly use condoms. Abstinence-only education programs, in contrast, received the lowest levels of support (36%) and the highest level of opposition (about 50%) across the 3 program options. Self-identified conservative, liberal, and moderate respondents all supported abstinence-plus programs, although the extent of support varied significantly.

Any thoughts?

Forgot to add "Impacts of Four Abstinence Education Programs (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp)" and a column (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/17/the_politics_of_sex/) that mentions former surgeon general David Satcher and his opinion on this issue: As far back as 2001 he found no scientific evidence that abstinence-only education is effective, and recommended that children be given age-appropriate comprehensive sexuality education.



Mods, if this fits better in Religion or Politics, feel free to move.

[grayman]

BTW, a big thank you to Katana for the help and the links. :clap:

[kellyb]

Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions.

I'd be interested to see where they're getting their data from.
If it was private schools, I know exactly what's going on there.

[patnray]

I seriously question the statement "Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions."

Lower compared to what? No sex education at all, maybe.

I have always maintained that anti-abortionists could prevent far more abortions by promoting comprehensive sex education and demanding that condom dispensing machines be available in all high schools and youth centers than by marching outside clinics. That they don't do so shows that their campaign is more about enforcing their vision of morality than it is about "saving babies".

[Miss Anthrope]

I seriously question the statement "Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions."

Lower compared to what? No sex education at all, maybe.

I have always maintained that anti-abortionists could prevent far more abortions by promoting comprehensive sex education and demanding that condom dispensing machines be available in all high schools and youth centers than by marching outside clinics. That they don't do so shows that their campaign is more about enforcing their vision of morality than it is about "saving babies".

Exactly.

Look at this comparison between the US and the Netherlands, who have a much more progressive and comprehensive sex ed approach:

Women 15-19
Age at first intercourse US 15.8/Netherlands 17.7
Live births per 1,000 US 54.4/Netherlands 6.9
Abortion rates per 1,000 US 17.0/Netherlands 5.2

So teens well educated in sexual health in this case have sex LATER, have fewer abortions and very few children. Isn't this the outcome everyone wants?

Apparently not. They want their brand of morality, no doubt.

[joobz]

I seriously question the statement "Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions."

Lower compared to what? No sex education at all, maybe.

I have always maintained that anti-abortionists could prevent far more abortions by promoting comprehensive sex education and demanding that condom dispensing machines be available in all high schools and youth centers than by marching outside clinics. That they don't do so shows that their campaign is more about enforcing their vision of morality than it is about "saving babies".
I don't know about that. I know enough staunch anti-abortionists who do want complete sex-ed in schools for exactly the reason you give to doubt your claim. I'm sure the people you describe are in the most vocal, but I don't know if they represent the norm.

[kellyb]

Hahaha...I went looking around on the FRC site for whatever flawed study they were talking about there, and check this out...

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CU06A06

The article quotes one woman who underwent this surgery: "I wasn't a virgin when we got married and I thought: What better gift to give my husband than revirgination?" said the 40 year-old mother of four. "It was a real sentimental gift, it was something I could recreate for him and he was thrilled. He was like, 'Yeah, it was worth every penny'," she said.



Wow those guys are weird! A 40 year old mother of FOUR revirginated!

"Revirgination"...sounds like it would be a good name for a death metal band...

[joobz]

Exactly.

Look at this comparison between the US and the Netherlands, who have a much more progressive and comprehensive sex ed approach:

Women 15-19
Age at first intercourse US 15.8/Netherlands 17.7
Live births per 1,000 US 54.4/Netherlands 6.9
Abortion rates per 1,000 US 17.0/Netherlands 5.2

So teens well educated in sexual health in this case have sex LATER, have fewer abortions and very few children. Isn't this the outcome everyone wants?

Apparently not. They want their brand of morality, no doubt.
But look at the percent abortions, 23% US vs 43% Netherlands. To an anti-abortionist, your numbers can support thier point.

[kerikiwi]

Successful sex-ed programs hurt abortionists' business.

This person is seriously claiming that 'abortionists' deliberately plot to get as many customers as possible?
That alone is sufficient to assign all his other statements to the garbage, where they belong.

[Katana]

But look at the percent abortions, 23% US vs 43% Netherlands. To an anti-abortionist, your numbers can support thier point.


How did you calculate those percentages?

I'm definitely missing something.

Oh, and you're welcome, grayman. :)

[joobz]

How did you calculate those percentages?

I'm definitely missing something.

Oh, and you're welcome, grayman. :)
It's actually 24% and 43%

I used
Abortion percentage =(number of abortions)/(number of abortions + number of live births)

[Miss Anthrope]

But look at the percent abortions, 23% US vs 43% Netherlands. To an anti-abortionist, your numbers can support thier point.

According to the stats I just posted:

Women aged 15-19--roughly 5 per 1000 have abortions in the Netherlands, while 17 per 1000 in the US have abortions.

So what are you referring to?

[kellyb]

Here's the study I think they're using:

http://www.notmenotnow.org/NMNNimpactevaluation.pdf

[joobz]

According to the stats I just posted:

Women aged 15-19--roughly 5 per 1000 have abortions in the Netherlands, while 17 per 1000 in the US have abortions.

So what are you referring to?
The stats you quote give number of births and number of abortions per 1000 (I'm assuming 1000 15-19 year old girls). This is a rate on the total population

I'm looking at the percent abortion of those who were pregnant in the first place, which would be the sum of live births, abortions and misscarriages. Since we don't have a stat on that last one, I ignored it in my calc.

In either case, to an anti-abortionist who was interested in the preservation of life, I can see them showing that percent value as the true problem. Afterall, pro-lifers aren't against teenage mothers. Some may even encourage it....:covereyes

[kellyb]

Afterall, pro-lifers aren't against teenage mothers. Some may even encourage it....

Considering the other social policies they endorse, they seem to be a bit Darwinistic about what happens after the birth, though...

[Miss Anthrope]

According to all the sources I could locate, including an easy one on the main abortion page at Wikipedia, the overall abortion rate in the Netherlands is 10.6, one of the lowest around where it is legal, while every source I found on the US is at about 24%. So there is nothing there for the argument for pro-lifers to use.

[Dilb]

According to the stats I just posted:

Women aged 15-19--roughly 5 per 1000 have abortions in the Netherlands, while 17 per 1000 in the US have abortions.

So what are you referring to?

The 17 US teens having abortions are balanced out by the 54.4 teens giving birth, compared to 5.2 and 6.9 in the Netherlands. So we have pregnant teens in the Netherlands are almost twice as likely to get an abortion compared to pregnant teens in the USA. This ignores the fact that there are more proportionally more pregnant teens in the USA, and that overall abortions are reduced by comprehensive sex-ed, but is mathematically accurate. If your only goal was to make abortions unpopular with pregnant teens, the USA is doing better.

[Miss Anthrope]

The 17 US teens having abortions are balanced out by the 54.4 teens giving birth, compared to 5.2 and 6.9 in the Netherlands. So we have pregnant teens in the Netherlands are almost twice as likely to get an abortion compared to pregnant teens in the USA.


Got it:mgduh

Since those types love to twist statistics, that is something they could use. However, I still would say overall the fact that there are fewer pregancies and abortions should knock a little sense it to them.

......not that anything could.

[joobz]

According to all the sources I could locate, including an easy one on the main abortion page at Wikipedia, the overall abortion rate in the Netherlands is 10.6, one of the lowest around where it is legal, while every source I found on the US is at about 24%. So there is nothing there for the argument for pro-lifers to use.
The 24% for US agree's with the value you gave for teens. that would mean than that pregnant teenagers are no more likely to have an abortion than adult women.
Where as, in the Netherlands, Teenage girls who are pregnant are 5 times more likely to have an abortion than an adult woman.

it would be interesting to see how that statistic plays if we correllate to family factors (heavily religious, atheist, strict)

[Katana]

While I understand now what joobz did, and he?/she? does raise an interesting point, know that abortion statistics, particularly in the U.S., are unreliable even in states with mandatory reporting.

Given the different political climates between the two countries, I would think that providers would be far more comfortable accurately reporting their numbers in the Netherlands than in the U.S.

Maybe there really is a big difference between the two in the percentage of pregnancies ending with an abortion, or, perhaps, these statistics reflect more the lack of record-keeping in the U.S.

[joobz]

Successful sex-ed programs hurt abortionists' business.

This person is seriously claiming that 'abortionists' deliberately plot to get as many customers as possible?
That alone is sufficient to assign all his other statements to the garbage, where they belong.
You've never heard the claims made against planned parenthood then. Last one I remember was how they provide intentially faulty condoms so they could drum up more business.

[kerikiwi]

You've never heard the claims made against planned parenthood then. Last one I remember was how they provide intentially faulty condoms so they could drum up more business.

Perhaps we need to move to Conspiracy Theories.

[skeptigirl]

"Successful sex-ed programs hurt abortionists' business."

This person is seriously claiming that 'abortionists' deliberately plot to get as many customers as possible?
That alone is sufficient to assign all his other statements to the garbage, where they belong.
Ditto, but you should have used quotes. At first glance I thought you were making the claim.

[skeptigirl]

Here's what I replied to the editor:C Adamo cites an unsupportable 'fact',

"Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions."

It reflects on the problems the medical and scientific communities have in trying to promote evidence based interventions. When false claims such as this one are simply published without so much as a challenge to provide the basis for the conclusion, the news media contributes to the perpetuation of ignorance.

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

HHS - Impacts of Four Title V,
Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs; Final Report; April 2007

"The main objective of Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs is to teach abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. The impact results from the four selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence. About half of all study youth had remained abstinent at the time of the final follow-up survey, and program and control group youth had similar rates of sexual abstinence. Moreover, the average age at first sexual intercourse and the number of sexual partners were almost identical for program and control youth.”They screen letters before publishing them. The link is to the full report if anyone is interested.

[kerikiwi]

Ditto, but you should have used quotes. At first glance I thought you were making the claim.

I tried but somehow failed.
Let's see if it works this time!

[kerikiwi]

Yes!

[cyborg]

Didn't you know kerikiwi? Women love abortions!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33680

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly.

Look at this comparison between the US and the Netherlands, who have a much more progressive and comprehensive sex ed approach:

Women 15-19
Age at first intercourse US 15.8/Netherlands 17.7
Live births per 1,000 US 54.4/Netherlands 6.9
Abortion rates per 1,000 US 17.0/Netherlands 5.2

So teens well educated in sexual health in this case have sex LATER, have fewer abortions and very few children. Isn't this the outcome everyone wants?

Apparently not. They want their brand of morality, no doubt.

You make it sound like that is the real intent. I am not so sure. Makeing them aware of the dangers and ensureing that they are more likely to experiance these problems, would fit with the idea that these are divine punishements.

[Katana]

You make it sound like that is the real intent. I am not so sure. Makeing them aware of the dangers and ensureing that they are more likely to experiance these problems, would fit with the idea that these are divine punishements.


How are they ensured of experiencing "these problems"?

And what are "these problems"?

I think I know what you're getting at, but I'd love a clarification here.

[ponderingturtle]

How are they ensured of experiencing "these problems"?

And what are "these problems"?

I think I know what you're getting at, but I'd love a clarification here.

Well I seem to unusually inarticulate today.

If we consider say STD infection and unintended pregnancy to be divine punishment for immoral activity, and punishment is more merited the more one is aware of the sinfulness of the behavior, then the increase in these things is a benefit of abstinence only education.

It would seem to fit into the AIDS is a result of immoral homosexual behavior crowd.

[CapelDodger]

Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions.


Historically, keeping your daughters and their suitors under close observation has been even more successful.

[Katana]

Well I seem to unusually inarticulate today.

No. I can also be a bit dense.

Which is why I am still confused as you will see...

If we consider say STD infection and unintended pregnancy to be divine punishment for immoral activity, and punishment is more merited the more one is aware of the sinfulness of the behavior, then the increase in these things is a benefit of abstinence only education.

It would seem to fit into the AIDS is a result of immoral homosexual behavior crowd.


I'm still confused.

I'm sorry!

I have to admit to you that I am a bit distracted by some lovely Electric Light Orchestra blaring from my speakers. Ah, so good.

You may think that I'm kidding, but I assure you that I'm not.

I will refrain from posting further (at least in this thread which requires coherent thought) until my head is back in the game.

Yes, Miss A. I have had my first martini.

I'll have to watch myself. ;)

[Art Vandelay]

I'm looking at the percent abortion of those who were pregnant in the first place, which would be the sum of live births, abortions and misscarriages. Since we don't have a stat on that last one, I ignored it in my calc.You mean elective abortions?

In either case, to an anti-abortionist who was interested in the preservation of life, I can see them showing that percent value as the true problem.So if someone is concerned with deaths from gun shot wounds, are they going to focus on the death rate among GSW victims, or the total numbers of deaths from GSW overall?

I don't know about that. I know enough staunch anti-abortionists who do want complete sex-ed in schools for exactly the reason you give to doubt your claim. I'm sure the people you describe are in the most vocal, but I don't know if they represent the norm.If we assume that about half are anti-abortion, and only half of those are against contraception, that would make only one fourth of the total population. That seems too low to me.

If we consider say STD infection and unintended pregnancy to be divine punishment for immoral activity, and punishment is more merited the more one is aware of the sinfulness of the behavior, then the increase in these things is a benefit of abstinence only education.You posted this in response to the view that people who say that they are against abortions because it ends human life are really against it because it removes a punitive consequence from sex. Aren't you agreeing with that view?

[JoeEllison]

"Revirgination"...sounds like it would be a good name for a death metal band...

Totally... \m/

[Bikewer]

Last Winter, NPR's Talk of the Nation aired a 2-hour segment on sex education, including discussion with students and teachers.

It was pretty interesting. A number of teachers said their schools were taking federal money for "abstinence-only" education programs. However, they were also teaching broad-based sex education at the same time. When asked how they did that, they said that they get the money for the standard sex-ed classes from "other sources".

Students have apparently evolved their own definitions as to what "abstinence" means. In many cases, this boils down to "sexual activity which has no risk of pregnancy."
Thus, the kiddies are engaging in all manner of things their parents would no doubt be horrified at, and yet are (to their own way of thinking) remaining abstinent and virginal....

[ponderingturtle]

Historically, keeping your daughters and their suitors under close observation has been even more successful.

Even more successful of keeping your daughter from her suiters and selecting them yourself.

The real problem of unwed mothers can be laid entirely at the feet of letting women meet the man they might marry before they actually marry him.

Traditional family values that is the way to go.

[ponderingturtle]

You posted this in response to the view that people who say that they are against abortions because it ends human life are really against it because it removes a punitive consequence from sex. Aren't you agreeing with that view?

I think that it certainly fits with in certain christian idiologies. Not that they would be against it for only one of those reasons.

It is that they are for abstenence only education precisely because it is not effective at reducing unintended pregnancies and std infection. Now if they could force them to have the child it would be even better at punishing immoral behavior as god intended it.

[Herzblut]

The 17 US teens having abortions are balanced out by the 54.4 teens giving birth, compared to 5.2 and 6.9 in the Netherlands. So we have pregnant teens in the Netherlands are almost twice as likely to get an abortion compared to pregnant teens in the USA. This ignores the fact that there are more proportionally more pregnant teens in the USA, and that overall abortions are reduced by comprehensive sex-ed, but is mathematically accurate. If your only goal was to make abortions unpopular with pregnant teens, the USA is doing better.
Mathematically correct. But I read between the lines that you realize yourself you have no political point to make here.

A teen abortion politics that ignores the group of teenagers as such and instead focuses on just pregnant teens to reduce their abortion ratio is political suicide.

The only reasonable political goal seems to be to reduce teen pregnancy rates as such, based on the reasonings that (1) teen pregnancies are generally undesirable and (2) preventing teen pregnancies reduces the teen abortion rates as well.

Thus, the abstinence & restrictions based politics of the Bush administration can hardly be regarded as a major success. On the other hand, comparing the US &A figures presented here with those I found for 1996:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

I wouldn't say they are much worse (ignoring stratification by age). They seem basically unchanged.

Herzblut

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Abstinence does prevent teen pregnancy, abortion and the spread of STDs. Abstinence Ed most certainly doesn't.

For what it's worth, I don't think you should be having sex before you're even old enough to rent pornography. Adults should be having sex, not kids. Sex ed is neccessary for minimizing the damage and for later on, in adult life.

[joobz]

You mean elective abortions?
Miscarriages are hardly elective.
So if someone is concerned with deaths from gun shot wounds, are they going to focus on the death rate among GSW victims, or the total numbers of deaths from GSW overall?My mom has been a member of Right to life for 20+ years(no longer an active member, she disagrees with abstinence only education), and I have had many discussions explaining that the stats they give aren't very reliable. I know the kind of games they play. If they have a way to spin the numbers to support their games, they'll do it. they believe in the "don't let the truth get in the way of your cause" version of activism.

If we assume that about half are anti-abortion, and only half of those are against contraception, that would make only one fourth of the total population. That seems too low to me.I don't know. I think the active members of right to life will generally fit the crazy bill, but not all people who are anti-abortion are activists. Sort of like the difference between being for animal rights and being a member of PETA.

[joobz]

Abstinence does prevent teen pregnancy, abortion and the spread of STDs. Abstinence Ed most certainly doesn't.

For what it's worth, I don't think you should be having sex before you're even old enough to rent pornography. Adults should be having sex, not kids. Sex ed is neccessary for minimizing the damage and for later on, in adult life.You won't get anyone arguing with you on that stance.

And let me add, Hitler was a bad man.:p

[cyborg]

I could argue about what constitutes an adult if you like - oh and the fact that I had been accessing pornography since I was 12.

[joobz]

I could argue about what constitutes an adult if you like - oh and the fact that I had been accessing pornography since I was 12.
Come on, do you have to ruin my joke?:)

BTW, the claim was "old enough to RENT porno."

[cyborg]

Does it count as renting if I steal from my dad's porno stash and then put it back when I'm - ahem - finished?

[joobz]

Does it count as renting if I steal from my dad's porno stash and then put it back when I'm - ahem - finished?
Did you leave a deposit?

[Dilb]

Mathematically correct. But I read between the lines that you realize yourself you have no political point to make here.

I was just trying to explain how what joobz was saying was correct, and could be used by pro-lifers to argue for abstinence-only sex-ed.

A teen abortion politics that ignores the group of teenagers as such and instead focuses on just pregnant teens to reduce their abortion ratio is political suicide.

I wish that were obviously true, unfortunately "non-abstinence sex-ed doubles the abortion rate in pregnant teens" doesn't sound bad. If we want to, it hardly seems unreasonable to shorten that to "non-abstinence sex-ed doubles abortion rate in teens", because obviously only pregnant teens need abortions. I can easily imagine people who are pro-life, but not interested in personally doing anything about it, being mislead. Even Miss Anthrope, who is immediately interested in the issue, took a little while to grasp the (perfectly accurate) numbers.

[skeptigirl]

It's a bit of a dilemma for those of us who had guilt free relatively safe sex (there was no HIV yet) definitely using birth control since our mid teens. I can't say all sex is bad until you are 18. I have mixed feelings. I don't think kids handle drugs all that well and do want kids to wait on that one, but I can't say sex is always bad for all kids.

Drugs impair your judgment so kids already immature judgment isn't ready for that experience. And, obviously some kids aren't mature enough for sex since they get pregnant and that isn't good. But I have a hard time believing I had sex too young. I didn't feel that way then and I don't feel I did anything which if I had had a more mature mind I would have done differently.

[kellyb]

It's a bit of a dilemma for those of us who had guilt free relatively safe sex (there was no HIV yet) definitely using birth control since our mid teens. I can't say all sex is bad until you are 18. I have mixed feelings. I don't think kids handle drugs all that well and do want kids to wait on that one, but I can't say sex is always bad for all kids.

Drugs impair your judgment so kids already immature judgment isn't ready for that experience. And, obviously some kids aren't mature enough for sex since they get pregnant and that isn't good. But I have a hard time believing I had sex too young. I didn't feel that way then and I don't feel I did anything which if I had had a more mature mind I would have done differently.

Drugs are also different in that they might interfere with brain development.

It seems that humans are (generally) predisposed to becoming sexually active not too long after puberty.
Even intense brainwashing isn't terribly effective at stopping that. I had fairly unsafe sex in my mid teens, but then again, I was "abstinance only" educated, didn't believe condoms were effective much at all, and had no access to BCPs.

[Jackalgirl]

I seriously question the statement "Historically, abstinence-based sex-ed curricula have consistently resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates and, hence, fewer teens seeking abortions."

Lower compared to what? No sex education at all, maybe.

I have always maintained that anti-abortionists could prevent far more abortions by promoting comprehensive sex education and demanding that condom dispensing machines be available in all high schools and youth centers than by marching outside clinics. That they don't do so shows that their campaign is more about enforcing their vision of morality than it is about "saving babies".

I would tend to agree. I have always wondered, for example, about the often much-touted exception written into anti-abortion laws: "except in cases of rape or incest."

If the issue is truly about saving the baby, and about the baby's right to live, why would this exception be acceptable? After all, it's not the baby's fault that it was conceived via rape or incest, right? So it does seem to me that it's more about enforcing a certain moral code rather than it is about anyone's actual rights.

[Art Vandelay]

Miscarriages are hardly elective.But they are abortions.

I can easily imagine people who are pro-life, but not interested in personally doing anything about it, being mislead.Misled.

[Herzblut]

I was just trying to explain how what joobz was saying was correct, and could be used by pro-lifers to argue for abstinence-only sex-ed.

Yes, I understood. That's why I assumed you presented arguments of which you are aware they were wrong. You're too clever. :)


I wish that were obviously true, unfortunately "non-abstinence sex-ed doubles the abortion rate in pregnant teens" doesn't sound bad.

Yeah, OK, could make it up to a headline. But it's really easily refuted, and I see no disagreement about it in this thread.

Oh, btw, I had to learn (from my link above) that the correct term is "abortion ratio":

abortion rate = abortions per 1.000 women

abortion ratio = abortions per 100 known pregnancies

Thus "rate" refers to population and "ratio" to pregnancies. Your calculation converted one item into the other. Now we know their name! :)

In the end, I'm not so much interested in headlines but rather in a rational analysis. The problem is that the numbers provided by Anthrope (US vs. NL, teen abortions) don't support her claim that

modern sex-ed and/or liberal abortion laws lower teen abortion rates

First, chosing NL doesn't make statistics, it's just just one single country selected willfully to make up a case. And, oh dear!, the failure becomes even more striking if you know, that the NL stats include dutch residents only! Due to their liberal laws, NL executes a huge number of abortions to foreign women! Two decades or so ago, a huge number of German women quickly crossed the Dutch border, had their abortion done and returned to Germany as if nothing had happened.

Finally, I can easily mention counterexamples: Cuba provides proper sex-ed combined with very liberal abortion laws and is nevertheless a country with one of the highest number of abortions worldwide! Abortion rate=78 and abortion ratio= 59, insane! Compare with the US (23 and 26)! In Cuba, sex-ed in school is self-evident anyways, but Fidel did not get a grip on the abortion problem and is now even broadcasting frequent sex-ed reports on TV!

Thus, that simplistic relation above between sex-ed and abortions rates is obviously not existing! There is more complexity to the problem.

Herzblut

[articulett]

Historically, keeping your daughters and their suitors under close observation has been even more successful.

and stoning them for transgressions.

[articulett]

That letter is a lie, but religions love to proffer lies as "higher truths"--
Abstinence is an abysmal failure and many of the programs teach misinformation such as that condoms don't protect against aids. Humans didn't evolve to "just say no"-- neither did any successful member of our ancestry. Some animals die for the opportunity to do the deed.

Here are actual verifiable facts that tell the real story. Of course religion and the religious are always excused for their silly lies in the name of their intelligent designer-- and it's countries that understand science and don't obfuscate information about condoms that have the fewest abortions and the greatest societal health.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/05/23/index.html
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/pregnancy.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/iag/condom.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/17/1335224
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/30/152526/666
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/dacey-groth_10_2.htm
http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/53.php
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fshivaid.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

The lies spread in the name of religion cost lives as well as tax payer dollars. The more religious a developed society, the more abortion, teen pregnancy, venereal disease, drug use, and homicide (2nd study).

Facts are available, but what does evidence mean when you have faith, eh?

ETA (herzblut is a troll).

[articulett]

Drugs are also different in that they might interfere with brain development.

It seems that humans are (generally) predisposed to becoming sexually active not too long after puberty.
Even intense brainwashing isn't terribly effective at stopping that. I had fairly unsafe sex in my mid teens, but then again, I was "abstinance only" educated, didn't believe condoms were effective much at all, and had no access to BCPs.

The age of first intercourse has been the same for many years... and it's the same across many developed nations. But the U.S. has by far, the worst rates of teen pregnancy, venereal disease, and abortion plus abstinence only has shown no positive effect at all and those who go through the really fundamentalist programs (where they virginity pledges etc.) are more likely to have risky sex --unprotected -- to avoid pregnancy (anal and oral.)

I can't stand this ignorance because it costs lives. And I can't believe it's proffered by people who presumably have no memory of their own teen years.
The only way religion keeps people chaste is my stoning them or encouraging young marriage with no onanism beforehand (masturbation).

And Kellyb... they are still spreading the same lies you were told about condoms... that's really sad in a day of AIDS. Science brings us more and more knowledge and the fundies keep people more and more ignorant.

[articulett]

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data.
... detailed comparison of sexual practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except that the French tend - contrary to common impression
...
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know. I think the active members of right to life will generally fit the crazy bill, but not all people who are anti-abortion are activists. Sort of like the difference between being for animal rights and being a member of PETA.

Do they have sane organizations to belong to or support like the humane society?

[skeptigirl]

... and had no access to BCPs.Thank goodness for Planned Parenthood. Sliding scale meaning kids have free birth control and I donate back now. You had to watch educational videos, you got regular medical care with your BCPs and no one asked about your parents. That's how you prevent teen pregnancy.

[joobz]

Do they have sane organizations to belong to or support like the humane society?
In Theory, the republican party

[ponderingturtle]

In Theory, the republican party

Evidence suggests otherwise, they are enamored with abstinence only education as well.

[nails3jesus0]

Historically, keeping your daughters and their suitors under close observation has been even more successful.

i disagree

theres a certain age where teenagers realize that they can do whatever they want to, and go do it. sneaking out late at night was one of the things that hardly anyone got caught doing when i was in high school, its not like parents can watch everything 24 hours a day or secure every window/door in their house.