How to reduce teen pregnancy

[ronburgundy]

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.

Such correlations don't show education causing reduction in reproduction. The correlations are least partly if not mostly due to age of first pregnancy, number of kids (and socialized desired for kids) causing a reduction in educational attainment. Also, third variable factors (like lack of intellect, impulsive/risky decision making, social factors related to SES, etc.) all contribute to that correlation by causally impacting education and pregnancies (both intentional and non-intentional).
The degree of causal impact of education on better sex and reproductive choices is only a fraction of the observed correlation between education and those outcomes.

Their is already a good deal of education on pregnancy and STDs. In the modern age, one has to be rather dense not to grasp the extent of the many risks from unprotected sex. Odds are that those making bad choices in this area are not doing so for lack of availability of valid info about the consequences, but rather because other aspects of themselves or environment prompt them to disregard this info in their decision making.

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.

Their is no reason for such a trade-off, unless one takes Toni's approach of myopically emphasizing a singular solution and denigrating others, rather than recognizing the multi-causal nature of bad choices and negative outcomes, and thus the requirement of multiple combined solution paths.
IF we did for some reason have to choose between free and easily accessible contraception over an increase in "education", the contraception would likely prevent more life damaging unwanted pregnancies than the education, simply because the info related to pregnancies is already readily available to most who make the bad choices, and the causes lie elsewhere. Those still making such choices despite the info already available will be less likely to benefit from yet more information, either because they are unable or unwilling to learn it, and unlikely to apply it even if they do learn it. Education cannot hurt, so we might as well have more of it, but we should not impede free available contraception under the delusion that greater info about consequences is a more effective solution.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't think so. I think it's a symptom, not a causal factor.

Why can't it be both?

It probably CAN be, depending on the person, but on the whole I don't think so. Not in the sense that you're describing, at least, as if sexuality is seen as the end-all of relationship building and therefore having sex implies a long-term emotional commitment. My experience has been that the kinds of people who dive recklessly into those commitments are more sexually active BECAUSE they are reckless and quick to become deeply attached in relationships. On the other hand, I do not think it is common for someone to think "Oh, well, we were just casually dating before, but since we had sex that must mean we'll always be together!"

Even YOU must realize that the kind of person who would actually wait until marriage (or at least the full maturation of the relationship with enough time to build genuine intimacy) isn't the kind of person who has those kinds of attachment issues anyway.

First of all, I'm not suggesting that it is best to wait until marriage. I didn't and I don't regret it. I'm also not suggesting that it is best to wait until the 'full maturation of the relationship' whatever that means. I'm suggesting that girls are under a lot of pressure to present themselves as sexual beings and as sexually attractive and sexually available. Even if emotionally they are not ready for that kind of attention, much less to deal with the repercussions. I think that boys also have some of the same pressures and same limitations but I've never actually been a boy.

PRESENTING ones self as a sexual being is a far, far cry from actually having sex. The former is more a matter of personal expression and self-image, the latter is a logistical performance that also requires the cooperation of a suitable partner and a certain degree of privacy. This is something most men (and, weirdly, a lot of women) don't understand about sexuality: PRESENTING yourself as a sexual being is not equivalent to an actual invitation for someone to have sex with you. This is the sometimes perplexing effect observed by women who "dress slutty" and yet never seem to be interested in any romantic advances.

But we're talking about the turmoil that comes from relationship issues that people who aren't equipped to cope with them. In such situations, sexuality isn't really the problem, but the lack of ability to cope with romantic relationships in a healthy way. Someone who becomes deeply emotionally invested in what is essentially a total stranger would be a lot more willing to offer sex than someone who enters a relationship slowly and chooses to build affection over time.

Also, no, the pressures for boys are dramatically different. Mainly it's just about proving you're not gay, or if you ARE gay, proving to your gay friends that you're not an asshole.

What I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with putting your personal goals ahead of those pressures to be sexually active, especially when the pressures to be sexually active are external, rather than something you are choosing for yourself.

And what *I* am saying is that for people who are prone to make poor relationship choices, it isn't really about external pressure to be sexually active. For a lot of people, it's about the INTERNAL pressure to find a companion/soulmate/unconditional source of love and affection. Women and girls aren't even being pressured into MARRIAGE the way they have been in the past, and yet the "I must convince someone to love and cherish me at all costs!!!" reflex is alarmingly strong in some people.

Biology, specifically brain science, would disagree with you about the 16 year olds.

I assume by this you mean "biologists" and "neural scientists." Either way, you'd be wrong.

And certainly 20 year olds are still basically kids, albeit with more choices and responsibilities.

That, too, depends on the person. Again, not everyone matures at the same rate; some people ARE capable of making perfectly rational and adult decisions at a very young age, others fail to obtain this capacity even into middle age.

Having adult responsibilities is CERTAINLY not the same thing as being an adult. But then neither is "being young" the same thing as being immature.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Making the connection between sex and birth control requires some self-awareness and body consciousness. The teens who are not conscious of the ramifications of sex are not going to make the logical leap from the availability of birth control to sexual pressure. The teens who are body conscious enough to feel the pressure will also be the most able to view it rationally.

You are wrong.

There is a lot of magical thinking during adolescence...

And people who are prone to "magical thinking" do not have the self-awareness or body consciousness enough to understand the ramifications of sex and plan accordingly. By the same token, teens who have the mindset of "I know better than all of the adults " or "Old people are so out of touch, everything's different now" as if these are rational positions to hold aren't going to be responsible enough to take protective measures. These are attitudes adopted by immature people who are already prone to make immature choices.

It's absolutely true that girls who are immature enough to succumb to sexual pressure ALSO aren't going to be mature enough to seek out birth control on their own. But even if they WERE, this is probably beneficial for them in the long run since it can help reduce (though not eliminate) the negative consequences of their immature decisions. There's also the fact that a lot of the external pressure for girls to be sexually active is, in fact, being applied by BOYS, who know next to nothing about birth control and are far less motivated to find out.

 

[Jokodo]

We are, as per the OP, talking about a voluntary option to get an IUD for free. A girl or woman who decides to go to the hospital to get one is a girl or woman who plans to have sex anyway, whether or not you think she's old enough to make that choice meaningfully.

Not necessarily. Many women go on birth control "just in case." They aren't in sexual relations, and sometimes they don't even plan on being in a sexual relationship. They just want to be ready. I was listening to an interview podcast where a 12 year old was talking about how she keeps a condom in here purse. She has no intention of needing it. It's just a safety measure.

There's a big difference between keeping a condom in your purse just in case and getting an IUD just in case. I've known people in committed relationships, with absolutely no intention of cheating on their partners, who kept a condom in their purses just in case when going somewhere without them. I'm pretty sure none of them would have gotten a IUD just in case if their partner had a vasectomy.

 

[Toni]

Not necessarily. Many women go on birth control "just in case." They aren't in sexual relations, and sometimes they don't even plan on being in a sexual relationship. They just want to be ready. I was listening to an interview podcast where a 12 year old was talking about how she keeps a condom in here purse. She has no intention of needing it. It's just a safety measure.

There's a big difference between keeping a condom in your purse just in case and getting an IUD just in case. I've known people in committed relationships, with absolutely no intention of cheating on their partners, who kept a condom in their purses just in case when going somewhere without them. I'm pretty sure none of them would have gotten a IUD just in case if their partner had a vasectomy.

Women do go on birth control irrespective of whether they are in a relationship. Sometimes, not infrequently, actually, they go on birth control for non-contraceptive reasons. But aside from that: suppose you hope that you will meet someone and have a sexual relationship or even just a one off sexual encounter. It is foolish not to be on birth control. Also not to insist on the use of a condom. Also to sleep with any guy too selfish to provide his own condom or to refuse to use one.

12 year olds who carry condoms in their purses (and btw, I know lots and lots and lots of girls and women, not one of whom carried a purse at 12 so I'm more than a bit skeptical about that) 'just in case' are being done a tremendous disservice. She's carrying a condom in case someone wants to rape her but is considerate enough to use a condom she provides? In every single state, 12 year olds are unable to give consent to sex. It is statutory rape and almost certainly forcible rape.

Here's the thing in both posts here: The idea is that women and apparently 12 year olds- should be on birth control or carry condoms 'just in case.' I am not sure who you all know that you believe that women are so unable to control themselves or their bodies that they must be prepared at all times for spontaneous contraception should the need arise. So how low should we go? Is preschool too early to teach girls to carry a condom? Should one always be packed with extra diapers and a change of clothes in the diaper bag? Send home a 12 pack for baby girl when she's discharged from the hospital after being born?

Men, and boys: I've never been one so if you tell me that, contrary to my experience with men and boys my whole life that men are so unable to control their impulses that they must carry condoms at all times 'just in case' or that girls and women should carry one 'just in case' some guy can't help himself, well, I will defer to your superior judgment about the inner workings of males. Personally, I think that they should carry and then use condoms or forgo sex. If it's a spontaneous, casual encounter, using condoms reduces the chance of an STD as well as pregnancy. As Martha Stewart used to say: It's a good thing.

And also not entirely the responsibility of women.

 

[Toni]

You are wrong.

There is a lot of magical thinking during adolescence...

And people who are prone to "magical thinking" do not have the self-awareness or body consciousness enough to understand the ramifications of sex and plan accordingly.

Magical thinking is often piecemeal. It's not an entire way of thinking. You can believe with your whole heart that you should use birth control if you are going to have sex and then find yourself in the back of someone's car or family room and think 'this time won't matter' or 'we'll stop in time.' That's not even counting guys who promise to pull out or to stop. Magical thinking is not gender dependent.

Why not teach boys to be more responsible? Why not expect boys to be responsible for birth control and for preventing STDs? For their own benefit if for no other reason. What about all of those tricksy girls who lie about being on birth control?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In every single state, 12 year olds are unable to give consent to sex. It is statutory rape and almost certainly forcible rape.

Because there is no possibility whatsoever teenaged girls would want to have sex with teenaged boys.

The idea is that women and apparently 12 year olds- should be on birth control or carry condoms 'just in case.'

I don't know about 12 year olds, but high school students should at the very least have ACCESS to and knowledge of those mechanisms if and when their personal choices warrant their use.

I am not sure who you all know that you believe that women are so unable to control themselves or their bodies that they must be prepared at all times for spontaneous contraception should the need arise.

I'm confused... are you suggesting that sexually active teenaged girls are able to "control their bodies" and prevent conception by sheer force of will? If not, then giving them access to birth control IS, in fact, affording them additional control of their bodies that they wouldn't otherwise have in that situation.

Or is it your position that teenagers don't REALLY want to have sex but are more likely to cave to peer pressure if there aren't any consequences for doing so?

 

[laughing dog]

We are, as per the OP, talking about a voluntary option to get an IUD for free. A girl or woman who decides to go to the hospital to get one is a girl or woman who plans to have sex anyway, whether or not you think she's old enough to make that choice meaningfully.

Not necessarily. It may be a precautionary move to prevent pregnancy in the case where she may engage in poor decision-making or be raped.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And people who are prone to "magical thinking" do not have the self-awareness or body consciousness enough to understand the ramifications of sex and plan accordingly.

Magical thinking is often piecemeal. It's not an entire way of thinking.

Correct. It's an IRRATIONAL way of thinking, in which case "beliefs" don't really factor into it.

An irrational mindset has little or no internal consistency, nor does it require as much: any reasoning performed in an irrational mindset is really just post-hoc justification for what a person has decided to do anyway.

So the person who makes the irrational decision to forgo birth control because "It won't matter this time" is not attempting to construct a logically consistent argument so much as engaging in emotional ass-covering.

Why not teach boys to be more responsible?

Because boys are fucking stupid.

I'm not saying it's not worth a try, just that I don't think it's likely to work as well as comprehensive sex education (for BOTH sexes) and expanded access to birth control.

 

[Jokodo]

There's a big difference between keeping a condom in your purse just in case and getting an IUD just in case. I've known people in committed relationships, with absolutely no intention of cheating on their partners, who kept a condom in their purses just in case when going somewhere without them. I'm pretty sure none of them would have gotten a IUD just in case if their partner had a vasectomy.

Women do go on birth control irrespective of whether they are in a relationship.

I know.

Sometimes, not infrequently, actually, they go on birth control for non-contraceptive reasons.

I know, but IUDs?

But aside from that: suppose you hope that you will meet someone and have a sexual relationship or even just a one off sexual encounter. It is foolish not to be on birth control.

That's what I'm saying: Girls who accept the offer of a free IUD will be girls who hope that they's meet someone and have a sexual relationship/encounter (if they aren't already in a relationship). They'd still be hoping to meet someone for a sexual encounter if they didn't have the option of getting a free IUD, and in many cases having such encounters without contraception.

Also not to insist on the use of a condom. Also to sleep with any guy too selfish to provide his own condom or to refuse to use one.

Why does it have to be the guy? It is not unheard of for a girl or woman to say "whatever you do, don't stop now" just as the guy starts to search for a condom. Condoms protect against STDs, but they have the big downside of requiring coordinated action at the just the wrong time. Yes, not using a condom during a sexual encounter with someone you're not in a committed relationship with, and whose previous sexual history you don't know well, is foolish. But it's something people, not just teenagers either, so preparing for that case isn't itself foolish.
Try this as an analogy: Binge drinking is foolish. Binge drinking and then driving home in your own car is more foolish. Your argument looks to me very much like saying we shouldn't have nighttime bus services because, by taking away the necessity to stay fit for driving, they encourage binge drinking.

12 year olds who carry condoms in their purses (and btw, I know lots and lots and lots of girls and women, not one of whom carried a purse at 12 so I'm more than a bit skeptical about that) 'just in case' are being done a tremendous disservice. She's carrying a condom in case someone wants to rape her but is considerate enough to use a condom she provides? In every single state, 12 year olds are unable to give consent to sex. It is statutory rape and almost certainly forcible rape.

I believe that there are close-in-age exceptions in most states? We are doing this discussion a tremendous disservice by equating sex among minors with rape.

Here's the thing in both posts here: The idea is that women and apparently 12 year olds- should be on birth control or carry condoms 'just in case.'

No-one said they should be. Achwienichtig reported an anecdote of a girl who apparently did.

I am not sure who you all know that you believe that women are so unable to control themselves or their bodies that they must be prepared at all times for spontaneous contraception should the need arise.

Where do you get "unable to control their bodies"? Try: unwilling to forgo an opportunity should it arise. That's their choice, and you're being patronising again.

<snip>Personally, I think that they should carry and then use condoms or forgo sex.<snip>

Personally, I think that anyone who considers a sexual encounter a possibility should carry and then use condoms. But people, and especially young people, may fail to do so for any number of reasons. They could be afraid that their conservative parents find it, or they could have serious self-esteem issues that makes the possibility of finding someone willing to sleep with them appear to remote to consider, or they could have simply swapped jackets and forgot to carry it over. Encouraging both genders carry and use condoms maximises the chances that at least one partner in any encounter will actually have one. How's that a bad thing?

And also not entirely the responsibility of women.

I don't think anyone said otherwise.

 

[Toni]

Because there is no possibility whatsoever teenaged girls would want to have sex with teenaged boys.

A 12 year old is not a teenager.

The idea is that women and apparently 12 year olds- should be on birth control or carry condoms 'just in case.'

I don't know about 12 year olds, but high school students should at the very least have ACCESS to and knowledge of those mechanisms if and when their personal choices warrant their use.

I agree.

I'm confused... are you suggesting that sexually active teenaged girls are able to "control their bodies" and prevent conception by sheer force of will? If not, then giving them access to birth control IS, in fact, affording them additional control of their bodies that they wouldn't otherwise have in that situation.

Or is it your position that teenagers don't REALLY want to have sex but are more likely to cave to peer pressure if there aren't any consequences for doing so?

I think that all teenagers should have access to birth control, if they feel they might need it or if it is medically indicated. I have a family member who refused to put her daughter on the pill as her doctor strenuously advised in order to deal with some other issues because the mother thought it 'might give her the idea that it was ok to have sex.' So the poor girl suffered for years, until she was old enough to be emancipated and make her own decisions. It was stupid. The mother was stupid. And in the end, the girl got married at 18 (not pregnant) in order for it to be 'ok' to have sex. And, predictably, was divorced a year later. So much stupidity.

I believe that there is a lot more ambiguity about whether or not at least some girls want to have sex or not, and whether or not they want to have sex with a particular boy on a particular occasion under particular circumstances than apparently a lot of guys understand.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Such correlations don't show education causing reduction in reproduction. The correlations are least partly if not mostly due to age of first pregnancy, number of kids (and socialized desired for kids) causing a reduction in educational attainment. Also, third variable factors (like lack of intellect, impulsive/risky decision making, social factors related to SES, etc.) all contribute to that correlation by causally impacting education and pregnancies (both intentional and non-intentional).
The degree of causal impact of education on better sex and reproductive choices is only a fraction of the observed correlation between education and those outcomes.

Their is already a good deal of education on pregnancy and STDs. In the modern age, one has to be rather dense not to grasp the extent of the many risks from unprotected sex. Odds are that those making bad choices in this area are not doing so for lack of availability of valid info about the consequences, but rather because other aspects of themselves or environment prompt them to disregard this info in their decision making.

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.

Their is no reason for such a trade-off, unless one takes Toni's approach of myopically emphasizing a singular solution and denigrating others, rather than recognizing the multi-causal nature of bad choices and negative outcomes, and thus the requirement of multiple combined solution paths.
IF we did for some reason have to choose between free and easily accessible contraception over an increase in "education", the contraception would likely prevent more life damaging unwanted pregnancies than the education, simply because the info related to pregnancies is already readily available to most who make the bad choices, and the causes lie elsewhere. Those still making such choices despite the info already available will be less likely to benefit from yet more information, either because they are unable or unwilling to learn it, and unlikely to apply it even if they do learn it. Education cannot hurt, so we might as well have more of it, but we should not impede free available contraception under the delusion that greater info about consequences is a more effective solution.

I think you misunderstood Toni's argument. What she's arguing, they way I understand her at least, isn't more sex education, but more educational opportunities to give girls the notion that they can build their own future. She somehow seems to believe that self-confident girls who have their own goals in life won't give in to their sexual desires or social pressure and refrain from having sex, that more or less the only girls that do give in a girls that don't have any options in life, so the problem of teenage pregnancies would go away by itself if only we give girls more opportunities.

This is patent nonsense of course since there is no contradiction between getting sexually involved and pursuing your own goals. Sometimes, girls have sex not because they're too weak to resist but because they know what they want, and one of the things they want is sex, a reality Toni is implicitly denying.

 

[laughing dog]

I think you misunderstood Toni's argument. What she's arguing, they way I understand her at least, isn't more sex education, but more educational opportunities to give girls the notion that they can build their own future. She somehow seems to believe that self-confident girls who have their own goals in life won't give in to their sexual desires or social pressure and refrain from having sex, that more or less the only girls that do give in a girls that don't have any options in life, so the problem of teenage pregnancies would go away by itself if only we give girls more opportunities.

It is clear you also misunderstand it. People with more education tend to make better decisions. There is nothing in her argument about the people who "give in" to sexual desire.

This is patent nonsense ...

I agree. Your depiction is patent nonsense.

 

[laughing dog]

Such correlations don't show education causing reduction in reproduction...blah blah blah....
The degree of causal impact of education on better sex and reproductive choices is only a fraction of the observed correlation between education and those outcomes.

You rebut yourself in the same response.

Their is already a good deal of education on pregnancy and STDs. In the modern age, one has to be rather dense not to grasp the extent of the many risks from unprotected sex...

If by "dense" you mean ignorant, or in heat or any other reason young people who are not considered mature make mistakes, then I agree.

Their is no reason for such a trade-off...

There may very well be reasons - ignorance, cheapness, etc... It is true there is no necessary logical reason, but necessary logic does not seem to be an underlying pillar of public policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

12 year olds who carry condoms in their purses (and btw, I know lots and lots and lots of girls and women, not one of whom carried a purse at 12 so I'm more than a bit skeptical about that) 'just in case' are being done a tremendous disservice. She's carrying a condom in case someone wants to rape her but is considerate enough to use a condom she provides? In every single state, 12 year olds are unable to give consent to sex. It is statutory rape and almost certainly forcible rape.

Statutory, yes. Forcible--some 12 year olds consent to sex. Some even actively seek it out.

Here's the thing in both posts here: The idea is that women and apparently 12 year olds- should be on birth control or carry condoms 'just in case.' I am not sure who you all know that you believe that women are so unable to control themselves or their bodies that they must be prepared at all times for spontaneous contraception should the need arise. So how low should we go? Is preschool too early to teach girls to carry a condom? Should one always be packed with extra diapers and a change of clothes in the diaper bag? Send home a 12 pack for baby girl when she's discharged from the hospital after being born?

Anyone who chooses to carry a just-in-case condom should be carrying a just-in-case condom. If there's any possibility of sex one should have condoms.

- - - Updated - - -

And people who are prone to "magical thinking" do not have the self-awareness or body consciousness enough to understand the ramifications of sex and plan accordingly.

Magical thinking is often piecemeal. It's not an entire way of thinking. You can believe with your whole heart that you should use birth control if you are going to have sex and then find yourself in the back of someone's car or family room and think 'this time won't matter' or 'we'll stop in time.' That's not even counting guys who promise to pull out or to stop. Magical thinking is not gender dependent.

Why not teach boys to be more responsible? Why not expect boys to be responsible for birth control and for preventing STDs? For their own benefit if for no other reason. What about all of those tricksy girls who lie about being on birth control?

How about paying attention to reality: They're getting knocked up now.

 

[ronburgundy]

You rebut yourself in the same response.

You mean the "response" where you deliberately altered what I actually said, yet misquoted me as having said it? The part where you deleted my actual words and then inserted your own? I realize that annoying facts, and logical details of valid evidence-based reasoning might sound like "blah blah blah" to you. However, please do not continue to so blatantly misquote me without making it clear to readers that you inserted the "blah blah blah" because logic makes no sense to you.

What I actually said doesn't in any why rebut anything else I said. Can you specify exactly how the logic of my argument is self-contradictory? No, you cannot. Like your other claims, this one is without a shred of evidence or rational thought to support it.
You claimed correlations as evidence for the causal impact of education, yet theyprovide zero evidence of such an impact, because there is independent evidence showing that such correlations are produced by both the reverse causal relationship and third variable factors.

Their is already a good deal of education on pregnancy and STDs. In the modern age, one has to be rather dense not to grasp the extent of the many risks from unprotected sex...

If by "dense" you mean ignorant, or in heat or any other reason young people who are not considered mature make mistakes, then I agree

.

To the extent that they are "ignorant", it is mostly because they are either incapable or unwilling to learn the information on the topic that is already highly available and presented to them, and thus additional education will have minimal impact. Yes, "in heat" or other reasons for knowledge-ignoring bad decisions are also major factors, which also impede any positive impact of addition "education", thus making contraception availability a more positive impact on reducing harmful outcomes.

Their is no reason for such a trade-off...

There may very well be reasons - ignorance, cheapness, etc... It is true there is no necessary logical reason, but necessary logic does not seem to be an underlying pillar of public policy.

Those are unreasoned rationalizations and excuses, thus they do not qualify as providing "reason for such a trade-off". But even if a trade-off is forced by such unreasonable people, then contraception availability is the more reasonable forced-choice.
The contraception availability will prevent more negative outcomes pregnancies than the additional education, in large part due to the factors that you agreed to above that impede rational choices despite ready access to massive amounts of accurate and relevant knowledge.

 

[laughing dog]

You mean the "response" where you deliberately altered what I actually said, yet misquoted me as having said it? .....

You wrote "The degree of causal impact of education on better sex and reproductive choices is only a fraction of the observed correlation between education and those outcomes. ". There was nothing altered.

What I actually said doesn't in any why rebut anything else I said. Can you specify exactly how the logic of my argument is self-contradictory?....

You start with "Such correlations don't show education causing reduction in reproduction" but you later say it ".. is only a fraction of the observed correlation between education and those outcomes." That means there is a correlation.

You wrote what you wrote. Either you did not write what you meant or you do not read what you write.

Their is already a good deal of education on pregnancy and STDs. In the modern age, one has to be rather dense not to grasp the extent of the many risks from unprotected sex...

If by "dense" you mean ignorant, or in heat or any other reason young people who are not considered mature make mistakes, then I agree

.

Those are unreasoned rationalizations and excuses, thus they do not qualify as providing "reason for such a trade-off".

They qualify as explanations for a realized trade-off.

But even if a trade-off is forced by such unreasonable people, then contraception availability is the more reasonable forced-choice.

And it may cause more negative outcomes due to STDs and emotional distress.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A 12 year old is not a teenager.

And yet, there's no law forbidding twelve year olds having sex with other twelve/thirteen/fourteen year olds. it's not healthy, but it's also not totally unheard of.

I think that all teenagers should have access to birth control, if they feel they might need it or if it is medically indicated. I have a family member who refused to put her daughter on the pill as her doctor strenuously advised in order to deal with some other issues because the mother thought it 'might give her the idea that it was ok to have sex.' So the poor girl suffered for years, until she was old enough to be emancipated and make her own decisions. It was stupid. The mother was stupid. And in the end, the girl got married at 18 (not pregnant) in order for it to be 'ok' to have sex. And, predictably, was divorced a year later. So much stupidity.

So yeah, clearly you can look at it from both sides and see that it's actually a net GAIN to make birth control and sex education available. Sex education will (help) with the STD issue and birth control helps with the procreative problems.

Then, having solved those "side effect" issues maybe we can sit down as a society and try to figure out why we have so many young people who are obsessed with finding someone to love them. That, I suspect, is a much deeper problem with a less straightforward solution.

I believe that there is a lot more ambiguity about whether or not at least some girls want to have sex or not, and whether or not they want to have sex with a particular boy on a particular occasion under particular circumstances than apparently a lot of guys understand.

I don't think "ambiguity" is the right word here. A lot of girls simply haven't made up their minds whether they want to or not. Which, incidentally, is not a condition that is unique to teenagers or even strictly speaking to women and girls.

There are pressures in BOTH directions for the do/don't. But it seems that you understand perfectly well that access to birth control isn't really one of them. Different kinds of people at different maturity levels with different kinds of backgrounds and outlooks in the world respond to social pressures and social provocations in a wide variety of ways. Some of those responses are rational and constructive, while others -- like the example you gave -- are impulsive and self-defeating. You can't cure stupid, but you CAN reduce the number of stupid people who get pregnant as teenagers.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But even if a trade-off is forced by such unreasonable people, then contraception availability is the more reasonable forced-choice.

And it may cause more negative outcomes due to STDs and emotional distress.

It still seems to me that we can counter-balance that with comprehensive sex education and better student support services.

 

[Jokodo]

It is clear you also misunderstand it. People with more education tend to make better decisions. There is nothing in her argument about the people who "give in" to sexual desire.

So when she said that

I am always thrilled whenever men try to solve the issue of young girls and women and unwanted pregnancy by suggesting something girls and women need to do to reduce the inconvenience of unintended early pregnancies which has the added benefit of requiring zero effort or thought or inconvenience for men and leaves the girls and women available for sex with men.

... she didn't mean to imply that a girl being available for sex is primarily in the interest of men/boys and not really in the interest of girls themselves?

When she said (in a thread about teenage pregnancy):

Two things that also work or have the potential to work:

1. Help girls envision a future fore themselves that includes education and economic security.

... there was no insinuation that the need for free contraception will all but go away once girls can envision a future for themselves as independent beings? "Work" here doesn't mean "work to reduce teenage pregnancy"?

When she said

Bus do long as men get increased consequence free access to sex with teens, then I guess your argument is that it's a net good. Actual change that benefits young women and their future offspring is too much trouble.

... there was no suggestion that girls don't benefit from having the (voluntary) option of getting a free IUD?

Or when she said,

If girls grow up envisioning a life for themselves which involves work, recreation, and perhaps a mate and/or child(ren) instead of an assumption that of course their primary purpose is to be sexually available to men and the best way to keep a man is to give him a baby, then they can make real choices for themselves.

... there was no hint that those "real choices" would involve waiting for sex, thus making free contraception for teenagers redundant?

When she wrote

Yes, girls are sexual beings. But girls are also rational beings who have the capacity to <snip> delay early sexual involvement while they are getting the education they will need to make meaningful choices in their lives.

... there's an obvious alternative interpretation I'm missing that doesn't boil down to "young girls who haven't finished their education don't/can't make meaningful choices" or "girls who choose to have sex before their early twenties are acting irrationally"?

- - - Updated - - -

And it may cause more negative outcomes due to STDs and emotional distress.

Yeah, let's shut down night-time bus services. If folks have to drive home, they'll stop drinking on Friday nights, and thus no pub brawls.
Either that, or we'll have pub brawls AND car accidents from drunk drivers.