For John, BLUF: It is all about (1) economic opportunity and (2) what you learn at home. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Why Are Teen Pregnancy Rates So Low in North Dakota?Click here to learn more.Fracking.
From the Althouse blog.
Regards — Cliff
14 comments:
I hate statistically lazy celebrations of anecdotal evidence like this. The data to show that abstinence-only education leads to higher teen pregnancy rates is compelling--that we have one anomalous outlier only emphasizes that preponderance. (Here's one study within the last five years and there are myriad others: http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2807%2900426-0/abstract).
Perhaps someone should study the correlation between abstinence-only education and population density and income demographics so we can correctly see that ND's socio-economic circumstances indeed play their expected role in influencing these outcomes. But suggesting any of this refutes clear statistical proof that abstinence-only education leads to higher rates of pregnancy and STD's is an astoundingly weak argument.
No wonder certain Republicans worry about being the "stupid party".
Kad
The problem is, you either go with the abstinence argument or you say it is a cultural thing and some subcultures have a higher pg rate than others. That is so ....
I think that it was clear from the article—it was clear to me in the Althouse discussion—that we are looking at things much bigger than public school education. On the other hand, learning from your buddies can help carry along the stigma that if you mess up it will come back to bite you.
I read the abstract and I am still left wondering why we have this epidemic of teen pregnancy and STDs. Is it some sort of high school dropout rate thing? Or, is it that in the old days when one got a girl preggers one married her, no questions asked and that is now out of fashion? Oh, and she wanted to have a husband and father for her child.
The point that came across to me was that there was (1) great economic opportunity and (2) the women had a sufficient field to pick from that they could be a little choosey. I took Abstinence Education to be a throw away line, although a couple of years back there was a study out of the UK that purported to show that Sex Ed increased teenage unwed pregnancy.
Regards — Cliff
It is pretty much the disintegration of the traditional American family......or any family at all. Mom and Dad are gone all day, and when they are home, they can't be bothered.
I'm certain I will be pilloried as a whacko right wing evangelical for saying this.....but hey.....I've been called much worse. I'd be interested in folding in some other variables before running the analysis.....little things like, "Did the young lady attend a church?" "With her parents?" "Did she have strict curfew and movement rules?" "Did she attend school and what was her GPA?" "Were both parents in the family unit?"
And let's not blame it on the absence of free female BC or the access to free condoms. During the hot days of my completely wasted youth, I can't think of anyone who HAD a condom....and if any of us were LUCKY (or unlucky if you will) to find a willing partner....it was like a miracle from above. I'd venture that in my HS class, 95% minimum were physical virgins......I say physical because we'd crossed the virginity line in our minds long before. Betty Paige was a real fav!!!!
Off topic, but the Althouse thread on the Pope was hilarious!
----
Number one leads to number two, lower teen pregnancy rates may be connected to better economic empowerment of men who can easily be employed of various educational/vocational attainment not women.
The distinction I would make is that any argument must be held to its related evidence, and abstinence needs to be retired as a discussion point while we are talking about reducing the rate of teen pregnancy. It simply does not help, regardless of how tightly some religious-oriented people cling to the illusion, and there are studies that more than adequately prove it. People have to accept this, live with this, and move on.
So, to your second option/condition: Yes, culture must play an important role, and I would wholeheartedly agree and insist that family is the most important element in any culture. Even church counts for something here, though the failure of church-oriented abstinence approaches does call such into a fair bit of question. But it's pretty obvious from a lot of demographic data that culture and family and a likely host of other factors do indeed influence teen pregnancy rates, so let's root them out and put them on the table for discussion.
My point is that discussing ND and its teen pregnancy rates with what we should know is a random statistical coincidence related to abstinence education is willfully stepping backwards from meaningful discourse. I want to learn how to export what ND has that does so well. To Neal's many points, I'd want to go light on the church canard, I surely would, unless and until someone can correlate church-going with better teenage sexual behavior, not least reason for which being the purely anecdotal and non-scientific experience of having had sex with a LOT of Catholic girls in my day who seemed to be MORE promiscuous, rather than less, the more often they were beaten by nuns for their misbehavior. No, I got none of them pregnant, and you might say such was helped by my strict Lutheran upbringing including literally every Sunday Lutheran church attendance, plus matins and vespers at home every Lent and Advent season, and a host of other religious orientation, indoctrination and practice. But I'll tell you it was because I understood at least enough of human reproductive biology to be able to figure out how to operate a condom, and I was educated to do so.
I would prefer we as a society would stop being naive about teenage behavior. Kids will rebel against culture and authority, and they will be compelled by an overpowering stew of hormonal chemicals to become sexually active. We can do a lot of things, but we can't change that part of human nature. What we do next becomes the important part. Any discussion that includes presuming that simply saying "no" deters a child is refuted by every parent's experience, and is ridiculous on its face. Saying "no" accompanied with other things? Sure. So what are those other things where teenage pregnancy is concerned? Let's talk about them and leave the abstinence nonsense out of it.
(And, yes I know, the ploy is to link it all to abstinence because it gets a rise out of people, but that's my point, too: If the gimmick leaves the attention in the wrong place, it's a bad gimmick. Better the headline should correlate ND's good fortune to the importance of a good youth and college hockey culture. THEN we'd be getting somewhere.
Who said religious folk are against abstinence? The Centers for Disease Control advocate for it as well.
The with teenage behavior is that we created the concept of being a teenager. If you are female and you menstruate, you're not a child. Stop treating them like kids, who need to rebel. Sure young adults may need guidance, and we don't want people taking advantage of them either.
----------
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-best-states-to-be-young-in-america.html
1. North Dakota
r
"While North Dakota may not be the first place you think of when it comes to youth culture, given how tough things are for young people these days, it might be wise to look somewhere off the beaten path," Barrington suggests.
"North Dakota's booming economy gave it very high marks across the board in economic categories, and it did just well enough in the lifestyle categories to grab the top spot."
Stats:
Youth unemployment rate: 5.3% (The lowest of all 50 states)
Percentage of population aged 20-24: 12.05%
Average car insurance rate: $1,400
Average cost of higher education: $10,774
Median rental cost: $564
Clearly, if you're 14 years old, you can easily be an independent adult by 18-20.
Interesting point by Renee. A woman is ready to operate fairly early (and historically have). At the same time, the human brain doesn't get fully formed until 23 or 24.
Regards — Cliff
The brain develop concern is that recent within the past few decades? Can we compare brains from 100 years ago?
I know relatives, in their 60s, who were teen moms. The fathers/husbands though, was able to obtain meaningful skilled work at 18 or a balance of school/work with the parenting help of grandparents.
North Dakota also has low juvenile incarceration rates, along with many New England states that have low teen pregnancy rates.
Ooops, That was for all incarceration, not just teens.
Girls are now becoming pregnant as early as 5 years old. (Just one so far, but that's a pretty remarkable circumstance). The number of 10 and 11 year old American girls getting pregnant (We've had a couple of 9's too) is no less sobering. (Almost seven dozen of them are known, including one from Massachusetts). None were from North Dakota, and, worth mentioning, absolutely none were from Canada. And none of these, I believe and would put forward in the strongest possible way, should be "treated as an adult" where their sexuality is concerned. Suggestions that menstruation somehow confers maturity are extremely dangerous to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
Canada, it is worth noting, leads the English-speaking world, and possibly the entire world, in early sex education. Here's a review from 2009, with what I thought was an extremely important observation: "Abstinence is a legitimate religious doctrine, and sometimes an individual personal choice, but it's not sex ed".
http://thetyee.ca/Life/2009/03/25/SexEd/
If the issue is morality, religion, life choices, or any other sort of cultural education, by all means, promote abstinence and all sorts of other philosophies. But if the issue is teenage pregnancy, the statistics are more than clear.
Boys' hormones are more important, then the relationship or love for the person. What matters The pressure 'to put out' is immense. The woman is objectified, and this is why so many women see their first sexual experiences to be more like rape, then love.
From the CDC on STD prevention.
"Abstinence:
The most reliable way to avoid infection is to not have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral)."
"Mutual monogamy:
Mutual monogamy means that you agree to be sexually active with only one person, who has agreed to be sexually active only with you. Being in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is one of the most reliable ways to avoid STDs. But you must both be certain you are not infected with STDs. It is important to have an open and honest conversation with your partner."
at the bottom of the list are condom....
It's not about religion, it's about public health.
As for Canada... they preach abstinence as well.
You Can Choose Not to Have Sex
You may not be ready for sex if:
Your partner isn’t ready.
You feel pressured.
You’re not sure about it.
Your can’t talk with your partner about it.
You don’t have a way to protect yourself from STI’s and pregnancy.
You need to get drunk or stoned to do it.
Your partner wants to get drunk or stoned to do it.
-----------
From Canada
"The per capita rate of new syphilis cases across Canada has soared almost 10-fold since 2000, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. Chlamydia rates, after falling through most of the 1990s, have jumped 66% since 2000, with more than 87,000 total new cases in 2009."
-------------
I have no problems with teenagers having sex, in fact I think they can be responsibly married and be parents. We just live in a world that denies that freedom to love.
To your point, Marie, and absolutely to mine, the Canadians do not in any way shape or form pursue and "abstinence only" approach. Abstaining is the first point they make. That's all agreed to be the best way to prevent all sorts of things, including teenage pregnancy. And good on them for putting it first.
Now, back to the point of this discussion: We're talking specifically about teenage pregnancy. (It's there in the title of the OP). Education that works to effectively mitigate the condition includes a long list of items following "you may choose not to" including specific and step-by-step instructions on using a condom. This is the ENORMOUS point of difference between the Canadian approach, listing abstinence first among many, as opposed to the "abstinence only" approach favored in many parts of this country, and sensationalized by the choice to discuss it in relation to ND's enviable public health record where teen pregnancy is concerned.
Regarding boys and their hormones, I take prima facie that a pregnant 9 or 10 year old girl represents reprehensible coercion, and it's absolutely why statutory rape statutes exist and are so vigorously prosecuted. I believe, as even-gender-handedly as they are presented, the list of reasons "you may not be ready" on the Canadian document are pointed squarely at the more "traditionally" female situation of being pressured, and not the "traditionally" male role of doing the pressuring. This is not to say that the situation can't be found in the reverse--just to speak practically that educating teens this way is critically important. I'm sorry, but 11 and 12 is just too young in our culture, if it could be in any culture, and we as the adults in the discussion have to take our responsibility in protecting our children.
All this reminding me that I should have been far more careful in my earlier comments to spell out "abstinence-only education" as the point of my objections, not "abstinence". I do not object to abstinence, and I surely don't object to its being listed first in the guidance to young teens regarding sexuality. In fact, I will emphasize again that the most effective public health policy in our hemisphere and possibly on the planet starts by pointing out that abstinence best solves all concerns with pregnancy and STD's. But, as the rest of my comments indicate, not teaching kids about condoms is, to my mind, socially negligent at best, and morally reprehensible at worst.
Post a Comment