How to reduce teen pregnancy

[Toni]

Yes. And cheap - or free - birth control helps them make that choice. Yet you started a rant in a thread about just that.

Yes, girls are sexual beings. But girls are also rational beings who have the capacity to delay parenthood if they see better options for themselves.

And cheap - or free - birth control helps them do so.

Who delay early sexual involvement while they are getting the education they will need to make meaningful choices in their lives.

People who don't have a college degree - whether they're too young to even theoretically have one, or whether they started to work early, can be perfectly capable of meaningfully deciding that they want sex. Telling them that there choice is meaningless because they "don't have the education" is patronising. Telling women that their choices are meaningless is the antithesis of feminism as I understand it.

I believe the same about boys. It's a pity that the world doesn't seem to agree with me and seems to see no value in boys delaying sex and early parenthood while they obtain their education.

A lot of people see value in delaying early parenthood. That's why they advocate for free birth control - to which you respond with a rant.

For fuck's sake: too many people think that teenaged boys who have sex with their teachers are lucky, not abuse victims. Unless the teacher is male. Somehow, early sexual involvement is ok as long as it is heterosexual involvement.

Anyone in this thread? If not - strawman.

<snip>

Early sexual involvement, even without pregnancy (intended or not) or disease, can inhibit the development of the individual's long term aspirations and career goals.

Any evidence of that? 100% of the women I know had abortions while teenagers now have a PhD or are on track to get one in a couple of years. That's of course a small and biased sample, but still better than no data at all.

<snip>Right now, all of the risks and almost all of the limitations are born by females. Some say that is 'biology.' I say that is bullshit. It's a choice or rather a series of choices that as society--as societies across the world--have made.

Yes. And how does that make offering free birth control (using the most effective and least invasive means currently available, which happens to be UIDs) a bad thing worthy a rant?

I think you and I have vastly different ideas of what a 'rant' is. My definition does not include any clauses about whether or not you agree with me.

Nor have I posted anything against offering birth control to young women and young men. I believe in using birth control! Any and all of my children would certainly attest to my support of free and open access to birth control.

They'd also say that I made a powerful case for waiting for sex. And that none of it was related to religion.

What I have said--and posted a document supporting my position (see my 'rant' which is certainly mild compared to the document I linked), is that early sexual involvement can have serious negative consequences for young girls and women. Because it can. Whether or not a pregnancy or disease occurs. I also believe that it does for boys as well. There is less documentation for boys because the world seems to believe that boys should be able to have sex free of any consequences at all and believes that this is actually reality.

Yes. Boys are unfeeling robots. Their sole purpose is to inseminate. This has nothing to do with their socialization, of course, because they are not told that their feeling don't matter and that their self-worth is entirely derived from being able to convince a member of of the opposite sex to sleep with them - that or sacrificing theirselves for the collective. Girls have it harder. They have feelings and shit.

Riiiiiight. That's exactly my position. As evidenced by what I bolded here from my previous post.


I guess any suggestions that teenagers should delay sexual involvement, while recognizing that they don't always and should use reliable birth/disease control if they do is really a horrendously 'feminist' or 'conservative' opinion that cannot be conceived as anything other than horrendous by this board.

 

[Toni]

Then why make a cynical comment suggesting that this is yet again something that only helps the men while leaving the women vulnerable (to sex - as if that's something women didn't also want) in a thread about free and open access to birth control?

Actually, I think that early sexual involvement makes girls and women vulnerable to STDs, unwanted pregnancy if birth control fails, emotional manipulation, and abuse--all of which are much more common for girls and very young women in a sexual relationship.

Can you explain why my stance that girls (and boys) *might* be better served if they delayed early sexual involvement in favor of figuring out who they are as people, establishing goals for themselves as individuals is 'cynical' but promotion of a re-vamp of a decades old form of birth control by some who have staunchly argued against free birth control for women being covered in the affordable care act is not cynical? Even hypocritical?

I'm sorry I don't really see the big difference between "good girls wait till they get an education" and "good girls wait for Mr. Right and marriage". They both ostracise the "bad girls" for acting on their sexual desires.

Nowhere have I suggested that 'good girls (or boys) wait for education' or that girls (or boys) who have sex aren't 'good.'

Are YOU saying that it's bad or wrong for girls (or boys) or unnatural for girls (or boys) to put their own personal educational and career goals AHEAD of sex? Because all that crap you were told and probably told a few girls about blue balls is just crap.

Which document are you talking about? I only see a document saying that women with more education tend to have children later (etc.). You are attempting to claim the reverse causality.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Women with more education tend to have fewer children and healthier children--and tend to have them later. Isn't this in and of itself a sufficient reason to promote educational opportunity for women?

How about this? Hopefully it won't involve too much reading or thinking on your part:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3326801.html

During the 1980s, the proportion of adolescents in the United States who reported having had sexual intercourse before the age of 15 began to increase. Although some recent surveys indicate that this trend may be stabilizing, the U.S. age of sexual onset has continued to decline.1 This is of concern because early initiation of sexual intercourse places adolescents, particularly females, at elevated risk of being involved in an unintended pregnancy, of acquiring HIV or another sexually transmitted disease (STD), and of other negative social and psychological outcomes.2

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm sorry I don't really see the big difference between "good girls wait till they get an education" and "good girls wait for Mr. Right and marriage". They both ostracise the "bad girls" for acting on their sexual desires.

Nowhere have I suggested that 'good girls (or boys) wait for education' or that girls (or boys) who have sex aren't 'good.'

Are YOU saying that it's bad or wrong for girls (or boys) or unnatural for girls (or boys) to put their own personal educational and career goals AHEAD of sex? Because all that crap you were told and probably told a few girls about blue balls is just crap.

Which document are you talking about? I only see a document saying that women with more education tend to have children later (etc.). You are attempting to claim the reverse causality.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Women with more education tend to have fewer children and healthier children--and tend to have them later. Isn't this in and of itself a sufficient reason to promote educational opportunity for women?

How about this? Hopefully it won't involve too much reading or thinking on your part:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3326801.html

During the 1980s, the proportion of adolescents in the United States who reported having had sexual intercourse before the age of 15 began to increase. Although some recent surveys indicate that this trend may be stabilizing, the U.S. age of sexual onset has continued to decline.1 This is of concern because early initiation of sexual intercourse places adolescents, particularly females, at elevated risk of being involved in an unintended pregnancy, of acquiring HIV or another sexually transmitted disease (STD), and of other negative social and psychological outcomes.2

If you really want to productively delay sex in young people, there's really only one way to see that happens: chemically delay puberty, and give comprehensive sex education before buberty happens. It comes with the added bonus of people having an opportunity to decide for themselves which and even IF they want to have a hormonal gender, and to do so when they are mature enough to understand the impacts of those choices.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you really want to productively delay sex in young people, there's really only one way to see that happens: chemically delay puberty, and give comprehensive sex education before buberty happens.

That's not actually a bad idea, all things considered. I can't imagine that this wouldn't have some potentially damaging side effects though.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you really want to productively delay sex in young people, there's really only one way to see that happens: chemically delay puberty, and give comprehensive sex education before buberty happens.

That's not actually a bad idea, all things considered. I can't imagine that this wouldn't have some potentially damaging side effects though.

It seems to work well enough and not hurt people; it's done pretty regularly for kids who identify as trans pre-puberty. It gives them a few extra years to decide which way they really want to go. It would be really interesting to see what kinds of outcomes result from completely forgoing puberty though. All of the really bright, interesting and most valuable friends I have had notably slower delayed puberties...

 

[Bronzeage]

That's not actually a bad idea, all things considered. I can't imagine that this wouldn't have some potentially damaging side effects though.

It seems to work well enough and not hurt people; it's done pretty regularly for kids who identify as trans pre-puberty. It gives them a few extra years to decide which way they really want to go. It would be really interesting to see what kinds of outcomes result from completely forgoing puberty though. All of the really bright, interesting and most valuable friends I have had notably slower delayed puberties...

Seriously?
Do you mean there are doctors who prescribe drugs to suppress puberty to children who think they should be the opposite sex? Has this therapy ever worked?

Common experience would indicate that puberty generally settles the question, one way or the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One other soln is to have the public schools insist to the students that they are gay. That'll help the pregnancy rate plummet.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

One other soln is to have the public schools insist to the students that they are gay. That'll help the pregnancy rate plummet.

I've said it for years: homosexuality might just be nature's version of population control.

 

[Toni]

I'm sorry I don't really see the big difference between "good girls wait till they get an education" and "good girls wait for Mr. Right and marriage". They both ostracise the "bad girls" for acting on their sexual desires.

Nowhere have I suggested that 'good girls (or boys) wait for education' or that girls (or boys) who have sex aren't 'good.'

Are YOU saying that it's bad or wrong for girls (or boys) or unnatural for girls (or boys) to put their own personal educational and career goals AHEAD of sex? Because all that crap you were told and probably told a few girls about blue balls is just crap.

Which document are you talking about? I only see a document saying that women with more education tend to have children later (etc.). You are attempting to claim the reverse causality.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Women with more education tend to have fewer children and healthier children--and tend to have them later. Isn't this in and of itself a sufficient reason to promote educational opportunity for women?

How about this? Hopefully it won't involve too much reading or thinking on your part:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3326801.html

During the 1980s, the proportion of adolescents in the United States who reported having had sexual intercourse before the age of 15 began to increase. Although some recent surveys indicate that this trend may be stabilizing, the U.S. age of sexual onset has continued to decline.1 This is of concern because early initiation of sexual intercourse places adolescents, particularly females, at elevated risk of being involved in an unintended pregnancy, of acquiring HIV or another sexually transmitted disease (STD), and of other negative social and psychological outcomes.2

If you really want to productively delay sex in young people, there's really only one way to see that happens: chemically delay puberty, and give comprehensive sex education before buberty happens. It comes with the added bonus of people having an opportunity to decide for themselves which and even IF they want to have a hormonal gender, and to do so when they are mature enough to understand the impacts of those choices.

Actually, there are differences, chemically speaking, that occur long before puberty.

 

[ronburgundy]

The whole premise of the thread title is misguided.

If you want to get the GOP on board, don't say you are trying to reduce teen pregnancy. Say you are trying to reduce the abortion rate.

Politics is all about the spin.

Or even better, get conservatives on board by spinning it as trying to reduce the number of brown people.

Of course that would get some leftists against it, plenty of whom are dumb enough to actually believe that contraception choices should be blocked on manufactured grounds of racial or gender equality.

 

[Jokodo]

Can you explain why my stance that girls (and boys) *might* be better served if they delayed early sexual involvement in favor of figuring out who they are as people, establishing goals for themselves as individuals is 'cynical' but promotion of a re-vamp of a decades old form of birth control by some who have staunchly argued against free birth control for women being covered in the affordable care act is not cynical? Even hypocritical?

I don't know what you're talking about. If you wonder why I might say "cynical", re-read your first post in this thread. You're not just arguing that they "might be better served if they delayed early sexual involvement", you're decrying a policy that, imperfect as it is, helps minimise the impact of early sexual involvement as counterproductive. I have issues with the idea that early sexual involvement is in conflict with those other things (especially when "early"= late teens), but I wouldn't call you cynical over that disagreement.

I'm sorry I don't really see the big difference between "good girls wait till they get an education" and "good girls wait for Mr. Right and marriage". They both ostracise the "bad girls" for acting on their sexual desires.

Nowhere have I suggested that 'good girls (or boys) wait for education' or that girls (or boys) who have sex aren't 'good.'

Are YOU saying that it's bad or wrong for girls (or boys) or unnatural for girls (or boys) to put their own personal educational and career goals AHEAD of sex?

No, I reject your dilemma.

You can have an active sex life AND actively pursue your own educational goals. People half my age routinely manage to do both. Fuck, some 16-year-olds are probably better at keeping their romantic lives from interfering with their professional goals than I'm at 32. It would be preposterous of me to tell them that they have to pick, that they are too young to make meaningful decisions in one domain.

Yes, sometimes relationships break, and that can lead to all kinds of bad things, like depressions interfering with ones motivation to study or work, but if you want to prevent that from happening, you'll have to go all the way and advocate to wait till retirement. Waiting till sometime during or after college is arbitrary, and your position patronising.

Because all that crap you were told and probably told a few girls about blue balls is just crap.

Can we please not make this personal and without making assumptions? Also, you're wrong. You have no idea how wrong you are. I started late and for a long time only had sex with women older than me - so no sex with any woman younger than 21 at the time. I don't believe in blue balls and I certainly never told any girl about it. But just because I turned had sex late and turned out alright (or so I'd like to believe) doesn't mean you have to wait to turn out alright, that this is the only good way. If two 16-year-olds know that they want it, it's not up to you or me to judge or question their choice - even if, on a personal, emotional level, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of my kid getting sexually involved with anyone in just over 10 years time. Such emotional arguments don't make for good policies, though.

Which document are you talking about? I only see a document saying that women with more education tend to have children later (etc.). You are attempting to claim the reverse causality.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Women with more education tend to have fewer children and healthier children--and tend to have them later. Isn't this in and of itself a sufficient reason to promote educational opportunity for women?

I did read it. Did you read my post? Because I didn't argue against promoting educational opportunity for women, I argued against the idea that early sexual involvement is causally linked to bad educational outcomes, or that measures that make sexual involvement relatively safer are somehow in contradiction with the goal of promoting educational opportunities.

Your new link doesn't help you here either.

How about this? Hopefully it won't involve too much reading or thinking on your part:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3326801.html

During the 1980s, the proportion of adolescents in the United States who reported having had sexual intercourse before the age of 15 began to increase. Although some recent surveys indicate that this trend may be stabilizing, the U.S. age of sexual onset has continued to decline.1 This is of concern because early initiation of sexual intercourse places adolescents, particularly females, at elevated risk of being involved in an unintended pregnancy, of acquiring HIV or another sexually transmitted disease (STD), and of other negative social and psychological outcomes.2

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know what you're talking about. If you wonder why I might say "cynical", re-read your first post in this thread. You're not just arguing that they "might be better served if they delayed early sexual involvement", you're decrying a policy that, imperfect as it is, helps minimise the impact of early sexual involvement as counterproductive. I have issues with the idea that early sexual involvement is in conflict with those other things (especially when "early"= late teens), but I wouldn't call you cynical over that disagreement.

I think it is pretty clear you don't understand the argument. It isn't against early contraception per se, it is argument that there is a policy with multiple better outcomes. Now, you may disagree with that assessment, but that does not mean Toni is against contraception or boys or "bad girls" or anything else.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't know what you're talking about. If you wonder why I might say "cynical", re-read your first post in this thread. You're not just arguing that they "might be better served if they delayed early sexual involvement", you're decrying a policy that, imperfect as it is, helps minimise the impact of early sexual involvement as counterproductive. I have issues with the idea that early sexual involvement is in conflict with those other things (especially when "early"= late teens), but I wouldn't call you cynical over that disagreement.

I think it is pretty clear you don't understand the argument. It isn't against early contraception per se, it is argument that there is a policy with multiple better outcomes. Now, you may disagree with that assessment, but that does not mean Toni is against contraception or boys or "bad girls" or anything else.

Giving girls educational opportunities is a worthy goal on its own right, and while it does somewhat (measurably) reduce the need for making early contraception readily available, it doesn't make it go away. Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years. I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

 

[Achwienichtig]

The link between lack of education and teen pregnancy cuts both ways. Yes, educated woman are more likely to delay pregnancy, but woman who manage to avoid pregnancy are more likely to complete their education. To try to pit these against each other as if one must always come before the other is a mistake. What is needed is sex education and educated sexuality. We need to address the whole, not just the parts.

 

[Jokodo]

The link between lack of education and teen pregnancy cuts both ways. Yes, educated woman are more likely to delay pregnancy, but woman who manage to avoid pregnancy are more likely to complete their education. To try to pit these against each other as if one must always come before the other is a mistake. What is needed is sex education and educated sexuality. We need to address the whole, not just the parts.

That might be sound philosophically as far as I can assess philosophical arguments, but can you break it down for science people like us? What policies do you suggest based on those principles, or more specifically even (since that's what this thread is about), what assessment of the particular policy implemented in Colorado does this lead us to?

 

[Toni]

I think it is pretty clear you don't understand the argument. It isn't against early contraception per se, it is argument that there is a policy with multiple better outcomes. Now, you may disagree with that assessment, but that does not mean Toni is against contraception or boys or "bad girls" or anything else.

Giving girls educational opportunities is a worthy goal on its own right, and while it does somewhat (measurably) reduce the need for making early contraception readily available, it doesn't make it go away.

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

 

[Jokodo]

Giving girls educational opportunities is a worthy goal on its own right, and while it does somewhat (measurably) reduce the need for making early contraception readily available, it doesn't make it go away.

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

Birth control pills and IUDs were not even 'new' when I was a teen or college student, although as a college student, it was much easier to quietly get birth control from the campus health services or local branch of Planned Parenthood at prices even impoverished college kids could afford. Of course, PP was open to ALL and not just college aged men and women. Another benefit of PP was that they provided the best, most comprehensive and thorough sex education, including various aspects of sexual health, breast cancer screenings and education, as well as pretty practical and very accurate education about various contraceptive methods.

In those days, all STDs were curable by antibiotics. This was before the AIDS epidemic. There are more birth control options and MUCH more sex education available today compared with then.

So, I am quite certain that the women you know had access to reliable birth control, including IUDs. Since they have now earned Ph.Ds or are on track to do so, they are obviously intelligent women. Why did they need an abortion? Asked as an intellectual inquiry, with no judgment at all.

What I am asking you to do is to think about exactly what thought processes put these women in a position to require an abortion. Perhaps their birth control failed. Perhaps they were unexpectedly involved in a sexual relationship. Perhaps they were using a form of birth control that was less reliable. Perhaps their partners were using a condom and it broke or the guy promised to pull out in time (which isn't that effective, despite recent claims in the media: sperm is present in the first drops of fluid). Or maybe the guy objected to using a condom. Or some other reason.

I don't know why they had to go through an abortion. But some of the above possible reasons for an unwelcome pregnancy suggest that perhaps, as young women, they had some conflicting or confused feelings about their sexuality, whether to have sex and how to be safe during sex, maybe even some magical thinking (surprisingly persistent throughout adolescence, even with extremely intelligent people): It can't happen to me. Or even if they made their choices to have sex willingly and with full knowledge of the potential consequences.

I think I've heard all of the myths that are passed around (and read a couple of myths in this thread, as a matter of fact), some from my own kids. And I also know that kids are often more inclined to turn to one another for sexual information and advice rather than from a trusted adult, even if the adult is well informed, non-judgmental, open to discussion and offers information casually, informally.

I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

I didn't attack a policy of providing free contraception. I fully support such policies and have since probably before you were born.

I also do not believe that 'getting an education' always or necessarily means getting a college degree.

I am acutely aware of the pressures that girls in high school and college were back when I was in high school and college, and have observed the same pressures even stronger on girls in high school and college today. Access to safe and reliable birth control greatly reduces the chance of an unintended pregnancy and the disruptions that causes. But it also removes one of the excuses for delaying sex if you aren't really sure that you are ready for sex in this particular relationship. Even boys are a little afraid of an unintended pregnancy. And as far as I can tell, almost no one worries about STDs, which explains why they are increasing in exactly the population we are discussing.

FFS, I've done counseling with this population. I've raised kids through adolescence and into adulthood and had not only them but lots of their friends in and out of my house. Many of whom referred to me as 'mom' and a couple who still do, despite the fact that they have quite wonderful mothers of their own.

There is no way that I am suggesting that girls or boys who have sex during their teen years are 'bad' or are ruining their lives or even necessarily making mistakes. But heaven knows I've listened to enough crying jabs over break ups and watched enough nose dives after a bad break up, and seen enough kids (male and female) who are a bit psycho and more than a little stalker-ish after a break up to think that waiting a bit until you know who you are as a person and what you want out of life isn't such a bad thing to do. Breaking up is hard at any age but it's easier when you have had a few years under your belt and a little more perspective. Delaying sex can make it easier for adolescents to grow and develop their potential.

I've seen crying jabs over break ups involving no-one under the age of 30. I've seen people my age ruin their careers in the post break up mess. If that's going to be an argument for anything, it has to be an argument for waiting until retirement.

 

[laughing dog]

Giving girls educational opportunities is a worthy goal on its own right, and while it does somewhat (measurably) reduce the need for making early contraception readily available, it doesn't make it go away. Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years. I don't disagree that promoting educational opportunities is important - I very strongly agree, but if that's all there is, why attack a policy of providing free contraception, and why bring up "waiting till you get an education and can make meaningful decisions", implying that the decisions made by people without a college degree are meaningless? That's patronising, and that's what I'm up against.

First, I do not think there is any implication that decisions made by people without college degrees are not meaningful. However, there is lots of research that confirms that the more education women have, the fewer children they have and the later they have them.

Second, while I cannot speak for Toni, I think providing free contraception is not a bad idea, but that provision may reduce the urgency for promoting education.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The link between lack of education and teen pregnancy cuts both ways. Yes, educated woman are more likely to delay pregnancy, but woman who manage to avoid pregnancy are more likely to complete their education. To try to pit these against each other as if one must always come before the other is a mistake. What is needed is sex education and educated sexuality. We need to address the whole, not just the parts.

That might be sound philosophically as far as I can assess philosophical arguments, but can you break it down for science people like us? What policies do you suggest based on those principles, or more specifically even (since that's what this thread is about), what assessment of the particular policy implemented in Colorado does this lead us to?

Comprehensive sex education coupled with easy access to birth control and the encouragement of career counseling services in high school.

IOW, support services and products that make it much easier for young women to make informed decisions early in life and avoid negative consequences down the road.

You should keep in mind that it's more a question of maturity than age. There are INDEED some 16 year olds who make better relationship choices and can manage their sex lives far better than their adult counterparts; on the other hand, there are people in their 20s and 30s who still make the same mistakes they were making at 16, still bringing too much of their emotional baggage into the classroom and the workplace, still missing work/school/training because of relationship issues, etc. A person who lacks emotional maturity is going to make screwy decisions at just about ANY age.

 

[Jokodo]

Giving girls educational opportunities is a worthy goal on its own right, and while it does somewhat (measurably) reduce the need for making early contraception readily available, it doesn't make it go away.

Nowhere did I claim that it did.

Some (in fact all, but I accept that that's a biased sample) of the women I know for whom I know they had abortions as teenager did have educational opportunities, as evidenced by the fact that they now hold PhDs or are in track to get one in a couple of years.

So, did they not have access to reliable birth control and that is how/why they became pregnant? Given that it is pretty clear to me that you are a generation (at least) younger than I am, I doubt that.

I'm sure they did have access, in the sense that they didn't have to travel abroad to get it even semi-legally, that they could get it locally as long as paid for it with their own money, at a cost that's quite considerable for a high-school student. But they didn't have the option to get it for free at their local hospital. The data from Colorado suggests that that'll make all the difference for around 40% of the target group. How can that possibly be a bad thing?