Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05-20-2019, 08:07 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,897
There is data that links comprehensive sex education with lower abortion rates as compared to "abstinence only" education. https://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...tion-rate.html

This could be entirely coincidental, of course -- maybe those states that have comprehensive sex education also have magical abortion-prevention-fairies, just by the whims of the gods. Or maybe the two things could be connected.
  #102  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:14 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,127
I don't see anything in your cite demonstrating that comprehensive sex education reduced abortions.

Regards,
Shodan
  #103  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't see anything in your cite demonstrating that comprehensive sex education reduced abortions.

Regards,
Shodan
Of course -- correlation doesn't imply causation. Unlike something like smoking causing cancer, which can be definitively supported with laboratory studies of the effects of certain chemicals on lung tissue and cancer growth, IIRC, the effectiveness of different types of education on the human brain can't be so easily measured. The best we can do is use our own logic and common sense and pair it with this sort of data -- IMO, all this together suggests that it's reasonable to believe that comprehensive sex education is more likely to reduce abortion rates than abstinence only education. YMM, and apparently does, vary.
  #104  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:50 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,127
You're missing the point. There is no evidence that abstinence-based sex education reduces abortion rates. There is also no evidence that comprehensive sex education reduces abortion rates.

Regards,
Shodan
  #105  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You're missing the point. There is no evidence that abstinence-based sex education reduces abortion rates. There is also no evidence that comprehensive sex education reduces abortion rates.

Regards,
Shodan
Depends on your definition of "evidence", I suppose -- I think there's plenty of data-based reasons to believe (i.e. "evidence") that comprehensive sex education reduces abortion rates when compared to abstinence-only sex ed.
  #106  
Old 05-20-2019, 09:53 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
But why should the state encourage vasectomies? What public interest would that serve???

I said that if I were a doctor, I would refuse to do a vasectomy on a 26 yo, and if I were a legislator, I would also oppose a law encouraging doctors to do vasectomies on 26 yo, for the exact same reason
Well, on a broad level, a mass liberalization of vasectomy procedures would enable men to have roughly the same amount of control over the reproductive aspects of their sexuality as women who are on birth control. Moreover, mass vasectomies *would* reduce unintended pregnancies; e.g., any sexually active 16 year old guy who gets the procedure is simply not going to become a teenaged father after the fact, which would in all likelihood be a net positive for his long-term well-being as well as the well-being of his sexual partners.

Last edited by 2ManyTacos; 05-20-2019 at 09:55 AM.
  #107  
Old 05-20-2019, 02:31 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,304

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
NOBODY wants your so-called "help." Please back your posts up with actual facts, not "google it".
You have this habit of calling out irrelevant things without actually contributing to the discussion in any way. Your first post in this thread I would have left alone, but this follow up is just too much. Do not junior mod.

[/moderating]
  #108  
Old 05-20-2019, 03:01 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Well, on a broad level, a mass liberalization of vasectomy procedures would enable men to have roughly the same amount of control over the reproductive aspects of their sexuality as women who are on birth control. Moreover, mass vasectomies *would* reduce unintended pregnancies; e.g., any sexually active 16 year old guy who gets the procedure is simply not going to become a teenaged father after the fact, which would in all likelihood be a net positive for his long-term well-being as well as the well-being of his sexual partners.
You can argue for the removal of a law dictating an age-based waiting period, and I might agree with you. You can argue for a set waiting period of say, six months or one year for all men seeking a vasectomy. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You can argue for a state-wide subsidy for vasectomies, which I disagree with for various reasons (cost-ineffective, doesn't prevent rape-induced pregnancy, possibly doesn't further a state interest if most men don't want children, doesn't prevent STDs), and you might yet get the law passed.

But then you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Yup. When I went into having a consult for mine, the doc wouldn't even let me get a word in and spent the whole time basically lecturing me about how supposedly wrong my decision was. I'm going to try again in a couple years when I hit 30, but there's definitely a high likelihood that I'll run into the same issue.

And that's the practice that I'm talking about either banning or making illegal. I just think it would go a long way towards alleviating some of the tension on the anti-abortion crisis.
This "ban" would be a law enjoining urinologists from refusing to sterilize willing young men. On this law you will never prevail. I agree with the physician: a young man who wants a vasectomy simply because he doesn't want to worry about contraceptives is not entitled to a vasectomy. There is no medical necessity, there is no urgency, there is no right to have sex without a chance of conception (although there is a right to due process and equal protection under the law); the physician who refuses to operate until a year after the request inflicts no tangible harm upon the patient or society. In fact the physician has a duty to tell you at length how you might regret this operation, and is in the right to impose a waiting period. If you're serious about the vasectomy you will request that the physician enter into the medical record your wishes, and press for a reasonable, fixed waiting period. If you switch doctors be sure to bring along a copy of that record saying you requested a vasectomy on such-and-such dates, that the risks were explained at length. If the doctor refuses to authorize a vasectomy, you have the right to find another doctor (or ask your insurance company for an authorization yourself). If it was the case that your doctor refuses to authorize a vasectomy, and finding another doctor who will presents an undue burden, you might be able to convince your legislator to pass a law. But I don't think this is the situation.

Going on with the procedure does have a chance of complications and malpractice suits. More importantly (I hope) the doctor cannot morally or ethically justify the operation, due to a professional opinion that the patient is unsure about their decision, or hasn't thought it through. I wouldn't have any problem having a law that limits waiting periods to a year (or less), or requiring doctors to record that they went over the risks of the procedure and "started" the waiting period. Doctors have a responsibility to make sure you are fully informed and ensure that your decision is well considered.

~Max
  #109  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:42 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Depends on your definition of "evidence", I suppose -- I think there's plenty of data-based reasons to believe (i.e. "evidence") that comprehensive sex education reduces abortion rates when compared to abstinence-only sex ed.
No one has presented any data-based reason to believe that abstinence only sex ed reduces abortions.

No one has presented any data-based reason to believe that comprehensive sex ed reduces abortions.

Therefore, both abstinence-only and comprehensive sex ed have a net effect on abortions of zero.

If you have "evidence" that comprehensive sex ed reduces abortions, please present it. Then we can compare it to abstinence-only, and see if it has any effect greater than zero. But we can't do that until you present your "evidence".

Regards,
Shodan
  #110  
Old 05-21-2019, 07:43 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No one has presented any data-based reason to believe that abstinence only sex ed reduces abortions.

No one has presented any data-based reason to believe that comprehensive sex ed reduces abortions.

Therefore, both abstinence-only and comprehensive sex ed have a net effect on abortions of zero.

If you have "evidence" that comprehensive sex ed reduces abortions, please present it. Then we can compare it to abstinence-only, and see if it has any effect greater than zero. But we can't do that until you present your "evidence".

Regards,
Shodan
I have presented that evidence, and it's available for interested parties to read. You are free to ignore it if you like.
  #111  
Old 05-21-2019, 11:19 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No one has presented any data-based reason to believe that abstinence only sex ed reduces abortions.

No one has presented any data-based reason to believe that comprehensive sex ed reduces abortions.
Well, it seems to be true that comprehensive sex ed (although not abstinence-only sex ed) reduces teen pregnancy risk, according to this Scientific American article:
Quote:
A 2008 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health entitled “Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy” found that among American adolescents ages 15 to 19, “abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse” and that “adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.”
Here's the referenced paper:
Quote:
Results

Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively).

Conclusions

Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.
Emphasis added. If you want to deploy the nitpick of desperation that a reduced pregnancy risk isn't necessarily identical to a reduced abortion rate, knock yourself out. But it is pretty easy to understand that fewer unwanted pregnancies tends to mean fewer abortions.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017