You’ve no doubt seen this report that found that abstinence-only education has no effect. You probably haven’t seen this report, however (thanks to Don Surber):
The rate of childbirth among girls 15 to 19 years old fell to 40.4 per 1,000 in 2005 — an all-time low for the 65 years that data has been accumulated, reported the National Center for Health Statistics in its “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: 2005,†published in Pediatrics.
which interestingly, seems to contradict the widely-discussed abstinence report–which, again interestingly, does not mention how the data were collected. Did they survey these students? Did the put webcams in their bedrooms and the back seats of their cars? How do they know if these students were having sex or not? The Washington Post reporter, no doubt because she was slobbering all over herself to get this story out, did not seem to think it important.
How. Ever.
What I want to know is–and I’m asking both sides–why the government should be taking over parental duties (and I have the same question about the schools). I am equally opposed to abstinence-only and “just put on a condom and screw like a bunny” programs. Since when is it the job of the government to step in and be our parents?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. But what if they don’t KNOW? They know. The idea that there is somebody past puberty who doesn’t know you can get pregnant if you screw is ridiculous. That might be true in some parts of Africa, but not here.
Let them screw if they want. And if they get pregnant, make them take responsibility for it. Ditto if they get STDs. No government aid. No government insurance. No special funding. Just good, old-fashioned responsibility. And if they get pregnant and they’re too young to be parents, then their parents should step up and take responsibility–after all, they apparently weren’t paying much attention to their kids, or they wouldn’t be in this situation. Or as Jeffrey Quick so pointedly put it:
I’ll say it again, and you’ll call me an unfeeling brute again: the best abstinence ed is for teenage girls to watch their babies go hungry or without medical care.
joubertconlon says:
The part of the report that stunned me was that the average age of first sex is 14.9 years. I guess I’m getting old.
April 16, 2007, 4:05 pmPeggy U says:
I agree with Jeffrey Quick, with one exception. If you are on welfare, the infant should be placed for adoption, and you should receive implantable birth control until such a time as you cease to collect government benefits.
April 16, 2007, 5:50 pmMahndisa says:
04 17 07
DaYUM Prof!!!! Hehheheheheeh you and Patrick got me going this fine morning! You asked the pertinent questions, however. How was the data collected for these studies? It seems like as soon as something gets politicized, good data on the matter and sound, objective analysis goes out the window. Thanks for highlighting the missteps on both sides of the ideological divide;)
As to the responsibility of government, well part of the definition of the public good is something that is excludable and non rivalrous. If a good does not meet either criteria, the positive externalities it creates could still push it as a public good. Libraries are a good example, and so are the basic MMR vaccines. I view sexual education as an essential public good.
But how to educate children in such matters? I believe we should focus on the biology of sex and stop focusing on the ‘touchy feely gender queer every behavior is acceptable‘ stuff and focus on discussing sex as a biological science! The biggest issue I have is that sex education is oft politicized and used to push sexual behavior as natural, so long as it is safe.
I think we need to present facts to children from a scientific standpoint and take the touhy feely crap out of it. That may solve many problems. I also think parents should be more involved with their children’s upbringings and stop expecting teachers to fill in the gaps caused by the inadequacies of the parents!
On that note, happy rest of week!
April 17, 2007, 5:26 amJeffrey Quick says:
Hey Peggy, I’m taking your exception away: sounds like a good idea to me. I see one problem here though: the responsible Americans are not producing
April 17, 2007, 11:04 amcannon fodderchildren as fast as the Muslims are. Do we want to do anything to jeopardize the US birth rate?Peggy U says:
Jeffrey: Yes, we are losing the population war (seen the movie Idiocracy?). I sometimes wonder if that is part of the what motivates open immigration advocates.
I was just thinking that if you redistributed the babies of parents who couldn’t provide for them to those who could, then at least you’d be doing well by the kids and breaking the welfare cycle for them. That seems heartless, I suppose, but no more so than starving them to death or allowing them to die for lack of medical care.
April 17, 2007, 6:57 pmPeggy U says:
excuse me - not “the what”, just “what” … long day!
April 17, 2007, 6:58 pmlee says:
Again, we need to make government step back from being the parent, and let parents either be responsible parents or suffer the consequences of their actions. Great post! Thanks!
April 17, 2007, 9:19 pm