There have been a lot of discussions on this forum about “liberal” and “conservative” parctices and programs relating to sex education in this country and the relative success of the alternative philosophies.
In a report just released the following stats stand out.
TEEN BIRTH RATE 15-19
San Francisco
20 in 1,000
Bay Area
34 in 1,000
California
37 in 1,000
US
42 in 1,000
TEEN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE RATE (% of teens that have had intercourse before 19)
I’m glad to see that those liberals out in SF are teaching abstinence. It seems to be working!
Wow! If that wasn’t a deliberate strawman. I bet you are probably shocked that they don’t just rely on abortions as birth control…in addition to just wanting to have abortions.
I just interpreted the data that was provided (which didn’t address abortions, btw). Sorry if you don’t like the data…talk to Matt about that.
I think what the data obviously points to is the fact that you can promote safe sex and the responsible use of contraception and it does not drive up rates of teen intercourse. Condoms are widely available in the San Francisco public school system and in all sorts of youth oriented programs, and our teen sex rate is just over a third the national average.
Lower rates of teen sex mean fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions.
I just interpreted the data that was provided (which didn’t address abortions, btw). Sorry if you don’t like the data…talk to Matt about that.
Okay, I’ll play along. You wrote:
"I’m glad to see that those liberals out in SF are teaching abstinence. It seems to be working! "
How do you know, from the data presented, that liberals in SF are teaching anything, let alone abstinance?
How do you know, from the data presented, that abstinence is leading to decreased brith rates?
25% are having sex yet only 2% are having children. Is this consistent with what you know about reproduction rates? Had you removed the use of birthcontrol, are you seriously suggesting that the birth rates would not significantly increase? Or are you suggesting that people would have less sex if they didn’t know about condoms, despite already having a higher abstinence rate compared to the rest of the country.
While we’re at it, can you name me a single program in the country that specifically ignores abstinence as, not only a form of brith control, but as the best and only sure form of birth control?
***1) How do you know, from the data presented, that liberals in SF are teaching anything, let alone abstinance? ***
You’re right. I guess it’s possible that the teens in SF are choosing to abstain without being taught to do so. If that’s the case, I’ve given too much credit to the adults and not enough to the teens.
***2) How do you know, from the data presented, that abstinence is leading to decreased brith rates? ***
You understand that sex is what causes pregnancy, right? Not having sex, tends to cause not being pregnant.
I’m going to use the smilies at the end of each of your sentences as evidence that you are intentionally being obtuse. I’m just interpereting the data.
BTW, this just in. 99% of the homes in my town were not broken into because they had locks on the doors. Meanwhile someone accidentaly shot himself. The data clearly shows that guns serve no practical purpose, are dangerous, and should be outlawed.
Curious. Sexual intercourse is generally defined as vaginal penetration by a penis. Is it that San Francisco teens are less sexually active or is it that they are engaging in different types of sexual activity? If they are engaging in sex acts that are not intercourse, it would explain the lower pregnancy rates and may explain the higher percentage use of condoms.
Not obtuse. Just one way of interpreting the data…
Sorry if you don’t like it, but given the data provided in the OP, the interpretation is perfectly sound.
The little smilies are meant to show how much fun it is to screw with you and Matt with your own data when what you provide is either incomplete or insufficient.
If they are engaging in sex acts that are not intercourse, it would explain the lower pregnancy rates and may explain the higher percentage use of condoms
I’m guessing that the use of condoms is expressed as a % of the sexually active kids, rather than the total population.
Not obtuse. Just one way of interpreting the data…
Sorry if you don’t like it, but given the data provided in the OP, the interpretation is perfectly sound.
The little smilies are meant to show how much fun it is to screw with you and Matt with your own data when what you provide is either incomplete or insufficient.
So then you agree that we should engage in “locked doors only” safety policies based on the data I provided you.
You’re right. It is birth rate. Certainly a lower birth rate could reflect a higher abortion rate. It would be good to see all three numbers (pregnancy, abortion and birth).
***I’m guessing that the use of condoms is expressed as a % of the sexually active kids, rather than the total population. ***
Agreed. But my point is that the lower birth rate and the lower sexual intercourse rate may be explained by sexually active teens engaging in sex acts that are not intercourse. As far as condom use is concerned, if they are engaging in oral or anal sex more frequently than teens in other parts of the country, they may be more inclined to use a condom than if they were engaging in vaginal intercourse. In any event the high percentage use of condoms is a huge positive and it would serve the country well to attempt to replicate that result.
