Pro-Choice in Canada and Reproductive Rights Are Working

[Black Dog]

To called it sex ed is really the wrong term. The proper term for these outfits should be promotion.

Are you disputing the figures? Because I've presented data showing that comprehensive sex ed is extremely limited in the U.S. Meanwhile, in jurdistictions where contraceptives, confidential health care and comprehensive sex education are the norm, teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD rates are lower than in the U.S. Surely you can put two and two together here.

[runningdog]

To called it sex ed is really the wrong term. The proper term for these outfits should be promotion.

Are you disputing the figures? Because I've presented data showing that comprehensive sex ed is extremely limited in the U.S. Meanwhile, in jurdistictions where contraceptives, confidential health care and comprehensive sex education are the norm, teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD rates are lower than in the U.S. Surely you can put two and two together here.

An educated child will make educated choices (not all the time, but the majority of the time) An uneducated child will make uneducated choices ALL the time) B.Max, you think having Sex Ed in schools promotes sex?? Rubbish. After reading your objections, frankly I'm surprised you allow a computer in your house (with an internet connection, no less)

[August1991]

I'll take a contrarian opinion and argue that what sex education is taught in schools matters much less than we might think. It's the improved economic opportunities of young women that largely (if not wholly) explain these results.

From the article above:

While the pregnancy rate is falling, sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are soaring among young people, and that points to poor sex education, Linda Capperauld, executive director of the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, said in an interview.

"We continue to focus on unintended pregnancy, but we're neglecting to give young people the tools to ensure their long-term sexual health," she said.

...

Research has also shown that where women - and young women, in particular - have access to good health care, education and employment opportunities, teen pregnancy rates decline.

"To encapsulate, we know that when adolescent women see hope for their future, they tend to take more direct, concerted action to control their reproductive health," Mr. McKay said.

Young people can earn more money now (in real terms) than ever before. Hence, the cost of a pregnancy is higher. (This also largely explains why birth rates are higher in poor countries and lower in rich countries.)

In the past, young girls were poor or had fewer job opportunities. They lost less if they got pregnant.

My argument is consistent with the observed rise in STDs and fall in teen pregnancies. Getting an STD does not diminish ones earning or career prospects.

You won't see my argument elsewhere because it doesn't fit the agenda of the left or the right. The B. Max's of this world want to believe that Godless Marxists have taken over the public school system and now teach the young how to, uh, fornicate. The social nursing progressive leftists want more tax dollars to spread the gospel of safe sex.

Neither will admit that they're both largely wrong and what sex-ed schools teach, or don't teach, matters little, if at all.

[Black Dog]

Research has also shown that where women - and young women, in particular - have access to good health care, education and employment opportunities, teen pregnancy rates decline.

August: what makes you think sex ed is not part of "improved health care and education?"

I don't think there's any single decisive factor here. But to suggest that sex ed is irrelevant compared to improved economic opportunities is to simply adopt a different absolutist position.

[August1991]

August: what makes you think sex ed is not part of "improved health care and education?"

When someone with the title "research co-ordinator at the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada" publishes a report, I'm not surprised that it urges spending more tax money on sex information and education.

Did you expect the report to conclude that economic factors explain teen pregnancy? I'm even surprised that the report allowed that possibility.

Here are two reasoned arguments: Sex education today is more or less the same everywhere in Canada (certainly compared to what it was, say, 50 years ago). Yet pregnancy rates today vary across Canada - just like economic opportunities vary across Canada. Hence, it's not education that matters.

Teen pregnancy (and its risk) is a personal matter of great importance to the young people involved. They will seek out the information necessary - if the cost to them of pregnancy is great. Hence, providing sex education won't matter much.

In any case, this is an empirical question. Without any statistical evidence at all, I'm arguing that the economic prospects (eg. hourly earnings) of young girls largely explains teen pregnancy rates. I think I'm right.

[geoffrey]

August may have a point here... after all I don't remember learning anything too earth shattering in sex ed class. Nothing common sense doesn't tell you already... STD's and protection are topics of conversation, the kids probably would learn anyways.

That said, I fear for the more inexperienced kids that happen to fall for the more experienced guy/girl. That's where I think sex ed is potentially valuable, with those not that comfortable about sex that they don't discuss the various topics with their peer group??