Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States

JolietJake

JolietJake

Banned
Thought this was an interesting article considering the abstinence only stance of most conservatives.

The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn't successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise.
Click to expand...

Yep, who needs birth control.



 
[quote name='spmahn']Correlation does not imply causation[/QUOTE]

Well actually correlation certainly does imply causation. It doesn't necessarily equal causation, however. (yeah yeah, I know it's the right saying, but still, "imply" can confuse...so maybe I should just deal with it...)

Which is why you would do more comparisons with more controls/similar extraneous variables. Which usually point in the same direction, in this case, so you don't really have an argument, especially when all of the studies will necessarily be correlational.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Correlation does not imply causation[/QUOTE]

And?

It's well known among thinking humans that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work, and never will.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Correlation does not imply causation[/QUOTE]
Except it's a foregone conclusion that this would be the case. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't fight human nature.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Except it's a foregone conclusion that this would be the case. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't fight human nature.[/QUOTE]

We could fight human nature with thicker frames on glasses and bigger braces.
 
holy-bible-live-by-the-word.gif
 
And plus, in those conservative, religious states - population density is low and the towns are small. They dont have a lot of alternative recreational options.
 
Yep, nothing surprising there. Studies have shown again and again that abstinence education doesn't work.

Sex is 100% natural and something everyone craves, especially in adolescence. Best to teach how to prevent STDs and pregnancies rather than just ignore that fact and only teach abstinence.
 
Yeah, but you know how religious people are. They'll say these teenage girls are pregnant because "the devil" got a hold of them.
 
I read a study once that showed the rates of violent crimes from about 1960 - 200X. The violent crimes increased dramatically in the years following 1969 - the same year Sesame Street debuted.

... man, we need to get that show off the air, now!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I read a study once that showed the rates of violent crimes from about 1960 - 200X. The violent crimes increased dramatically in the years following 1969 - the same year Sesame Street debuted.

... man, we need to get that show off the air, now![/QUOTE]

That's very interesting, I think your understanding of correlational studies may be as advanced as your understanding of racism!
 
[quote name='DrMunkee']My school didn't even teach us how to use condoms. Luckily, when the time came, it was easy to put on. Still, some people seem to have trouble putting them on.[/QUOTE]

...if someone can't figure out how to put a condom on, they don't need to even chance having offspring.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I read a study once that showed the rates of violent crimes from about 1960 - 200X. The violent crimes increased dramatically in the years following 1969 - the same year Sesame Street debuted.

... man, we need to get that show off the air, now![/QUOTE]

Are you a satire?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I read a study once that showed the rates of violent crimes from about 1960 - 200X. The violent crimes increased dramatically in the years following 1969 - the same year Sesame Street debuted.

... man, we need to get that show off the air, now![/QUOTE]

Yeeeaahhh, I dunno if that's really a good comparison to the topic at hand. I agree that religion may not be the main cause, but I do think abstinence education doesn't really work, it should be taught in conjunction with birth control methods.
 
Yeah I don't quite get why you can't have both. Abstinence education doesn't also mean you can't teach birth control and vice versa.

For my child, I'll make sure they know that if I find out they are having premarital sex I will kick their fucking asses. But I'll also make sure they know what a condom is, should they choose to be a dumbass.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah I don't quite get why you can't have both. Abstinence education doesn't also mean you can't teach birth control and vice versa.[/QUOTE]

You can't have both because the religious parents equate birth control and condom use with the schools teaching their children, "yeah, go ahead and fuck, kids." They won't have their children being taught to use such immoral tools.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah I don't quite get why you can't have both. Abstinence education doesn't also mean you can't teach birth control and vice versa.

For my child, I'll make sure they know that if I find out they are having premarital sex I will kick their fucking asses. But I'll also make sure they know what a condom is, should they choose to be a dumbass.[/QUOTE]

Well in any comprehensive sex education class they do teach both - obviously the only way to be 100% sure not to get pregnant/get somebody else pregnant or get an STD is to not have any sexual contact.
 
The choice to have sex is a moral issue, which is why schools usually don't deal with it. It's primarily the parents job to teach this.

I have no issue with schools discussing birth control as long as it's not presented in a way that's 'well you horny fuckers are going to screw each other anyway, so you better use bc". It should just be "Having sex makes babies. These are tools used to prevent babies".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah I don't quite get why you can't have both. Abstinence education doesn't also mean you can't teach birth control and vice versa.[/QUOTE]

I also find this confusing. I went to a Christian high school and while abstinence was emphasized, there was also a great deal of information on condoms, diaphrams, sponges, etc. There is *no* reason not to include this stuff.
 
I would think that Parents play an important role, much like everything else with a child.

Schools shouldn't be the only place for this information to stated.
 
This could be caused by these communities frowning upon the use of contraceptives yes. However, religious communities frown upon abortion even more so than contraceptives...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I read a study once that showed the rates of violent crimes from about 1960 - 200X. The violent crimes increased dramatically in the years following 1969 - the same year Sesame Street debuted.

... man, we need to get that show off the air, now![/QUOTE]
Well generations of kids have grown up believing all homeless people are grouchy assholes, can you blame them for wanting to kill them?
 
[quote name='depascal22']I would also support teaching both abstinence and birth control. No reason why education can't actually be comprehensive.[/QUOTE]

Sure there is: The majority of voters in the local school district want it to teach abstinence only. Remember, abstinence is birth control. If you're in the minority that wants to teach your kids about alternatives, you're free to do it at home.
 
[quote name='depascal22']If the majority of voters want to teach kids that the Earth is the center of the Universe, would you teach that also?[/QUOTE]

Sure, why not?
 
Because the job of schools is to provide a well-rounded education based on fact. Not teach what a lot of undereducated, bible thumpers or other categories of nutjobs think is the truth. Those types can fuck off and home school their kids or send them to a private school fitting with their beliefs.

As for sex ed. Teach abstinence and safe sex and allow parents to opt their kids out of it if they want.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Because the job of schools is to provide a well-rounded education based on fact. Not teach what a lot of undereducated, bible thumpers or other categories of nutjobs think is the truth.[/QUOTE]

So abstinence is an untrue fact? (I think you've pointed out the problem in the above hypo for me.)

I'm not sure I get the deceit-by-omission argument. There's lots of things kids can be taught but aren't, and a fair number of those are alternatives to things they are being taught.

How about this. Given the uncertainty inherent in all scientific knowledge, can you tell me why, in the name of "comprehensive" or "well-rounded" education, children shouldn't be taught intelligent design alongside evolution?
 
[quote name='Magus8472']How about this. Given the uncertainty inherent in all scientific knowledge, can you tell me why, in the name of "comprehensive" or "well-rounded" education, children shouldn't be taught intelligent design alongside evolution?[/QUOTE]

Because it has no scientific basis. If they can get a scientific basis for it, then you could teach it. You shouldn't teach it simply because it's a belief that exists in the same sphere as observed science. As an over-used example, it's the same reason you don't teach holocaust denial in history class - it has no basis in history. Simply because someone believes it doesn't mean it should be taught.

You could mention that it exists, but explain that it has no basis in either case, but to teach it is an entirely different thing.

Of course there is no parallel with sex education because it's an entirely different issue, so your analogy fails outright anyway. Sex education exists as a public health measure. If you're going to have a class with the goal of educating children about sex in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs, then teaching abstinence only is obviously a failure. You don't teach people about contraception simply to add to a repertoire of knowledge - "hey, I'm well-rounded because I know how birth control operates!"
 
Separation of church and state. Bible thumpers can cover that at home, or home school their kids or send them to a private religious school.

Science should be taught, and the scientific method should be covered with all it's bumps and showing how it's not infallable, how things that people once thought were true were later miss-proven etc.

But anything related to religion has no place in public schools due to separation of church and state.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Those types can fuck off and home school their kids or send them to a private school fitting with their beliefs.[/QUOTE]

So then is that a southern or eastern way of doing stuff... ? yeah yeah... I'll offend someone. It is a question... :roll:
 
[quote name='depascal22']
But anything related to religion has no place in public schools, unless science agrees with it, due to separation of church and state.[/QUOTE]

Fixed for accuracy. Or at least what I think you really mean.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']So then is that a southern or eastern way of doing stuff... ? yeah yeah... I'll offend someone. It is a question... :roll:[/QUOTE]

What? I'm not sure what you're asking there.

But it's the constitutional way of doing things. Religion belongs outside of the public, tax payer funded realm, especially with education IMO.

Keep in churches, the home, private schools etc. as dictated by separation of church and state. Teaching religion inherently endorses religion over non-belief, and in practice is generally going to endorse christian views in this country. No place for that in public schools.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Because it has no scientific basis. If they can get a scientific basis for it, then you could teach it. You shouldn't teach it simply because it's a belief that exists in the same sphere as observed science. As an over-used example, it's the same reason you don't teach holocaust denial in history class - it has no basis in history. Simply because someone believes it doesn't mean it should be taught.

You could mention that it exists, but explain that it has no basis in either case, but to teach it is an entirely different thing.[/QUOTE]

You propose a rather vague standard, the ultimate arbiter of which is going to be, as I said before, the school board (and by extension the electorate), whether we like it or not.

[quote name='SpazX']Of course there is no parallel with sex education because it's an entirely different issue, so your analogy fails outright anyway. Sex education exists as a public health measure. If you're going to have a class with the goal of educating children about sex in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs, then teaching abstinence only is obviously a failure. You don't teach people about contraception simply to add to a repertoire of knowledge - "hey, I'm well-rounded because I know how birth control operates!"[/QUOTE]

And you're right, but in so saying I think you're ignoring a large part of the role that community education is perceived to play in this country. Public schools are ostensibly as much about factual education as they are about "intangibles," endowing kids with civic virtue and/or moral values. To that end, then, the goal of these classes is not just to reduce unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs, but to do so in a way that meshes with the above, a goal which simply can't countenance teaching about contraception in some circles.

Basically, to treat an image of school is as a secular, egalitarian knowledge factory as anything but an idealistic fantasy is a bit silly.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']Well... besides "law" is that... why people in the south are "undereducated" or speak like they are when view by others? I'm trying to do observation rather than prejudice here...
[/QUOTE]

Lot of poverty has a lot to do with it. Lower tax base=less resources for school. Poverty=more broken homes, parents who don't care or don't have time to help kids with schoolwork from working 2 jobs etc.

And some of it is just stereotyped misconceptions--i.e. that having an accent=less intelligent.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Basically, to treat an image of school is as a secular, egalitarian knowledge factory as anything but an idealistic fantasy is a bit silly.[/QUOTE]

Too some degree--but all that stuff on manners, norms etc. is largely for pre-school, kindergarten and elementary school. Middle school and high school focus much more on learning knowledge rather than that stuff.

And in any case we should focus on reaching that ideal as much as we can if we don't want our populace to continue lagging behind other countries when it comes to education.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']You propose a rather vague standard, the ultimate arbiter of which is going to be, as I said before, the school board (and by extension the electorate), whether we like it or not.[/quote]

It's not really that vague, all you need to do is consult experts in their respective fields. Obviously school boards are determining what's in the classes, but I would hope school boards would be smart enough to consult people who learn about those subjects for a living. You can't vote what's true.


[quote name='Magus8472']And you're right, but in so saying I think you're ignoring a large part of the role that community education is perceived to play in this country. Public schools are ostensibly as much about factual education as they are about "intangibles," endowing kids with civic virtue and/or moral values. To that end, then, the goal of these classes is not just to reduce unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs, but to do so in a way that meshes with the above, a goal which simply can't countenance teaching about contraception in some circles.

Basically, to treat an image of school is as a secular, egalitarian knowledge factory as anything but an idealistic fantasy is a bit silly.[/QUOTE]

I know, but if you'd like the children to get higher education you're going to want to give them some kind of basis for that. They're not as apt to lie or omit in college-level classes, and it's really not a good idea to set children up learning about things they later find out were either false or "edited" so to speak. It doesn't give them a lot of faith in their communities, which I imagine is one of the goals they're trying to consider.

I can see why they deny children that information in respect to sex education, but that doesn't mean they're not damaging them in doing so. Sex education is more of a moral decision than determining what should be in textbooks, but if school boards decide to teach what is demonstrably ineffective, then they're doing a disservice to the kids. But apparently some people believe it's ok if their STD and pregnancy rates are higher because they're sending the right "message."
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Sure there is: The majority of voters in the local school district want it to teach abstinence only. Remember, abstinence is birth control. If you're in the minority that wants to teach your kids about alternatives, you're free to do it at home.[/QUOTE]

Huh? The priority of school is to educate students. They should be taught both abstinence and birth control because they are both viable strategies. If the majority of voters voted to ban math, you seriously would be okay with that?
 
[quote name='rabbitt']Telling teenagers to not have sex simply does not work. Getting them to use prophylactics is feasible.[/QUOTE]

You are right because you can't TELL teenagers to do anything and expect results. You can't TELL them to wear condoms and expect results either.

You educate them on what dicks and pussies do. What they are for. What the consequences of putting them together are. Why it's a bad idea to do so. And, if you want to live a risky lifestyle, what you can do to protect yourself.

That's the difference between authoritarianism and education.

I don't know anyone that just supports telling teenagers they better not have sex and leave it at that. The only place I've read that is places like the dailykos trying to explain their understanding of the religious right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top