There is data that links comprehensive sex education with lower abortion rates as compared to “abstinence only” education. Examining the Declining Abortion Rate - Paste
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.
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.
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.
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 have this habit of calling out irrelevant things without actually contributing to the discussion in any way. Your first postin this thread I would have left alone, but this follow up is just too much. Do not junior mod.
[/moderating]
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:
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
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.
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:
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.