0
0

[–] Newtonip ago 

I just read the original paper in question and this article is quite selective in their quoting. Also, it absolutely does not say sex-ed classes caused more teen pregnancy, it rather took aim at a particular government program.

If the author's suspicions are correct, then that program was a waste of money and easy access to contraceptives to teens increases teen pregnancy rates. They do not say that comprehensive sex-ed doesn't work.

For starters, these are not cuts to sex-ed but to a particular project, the Teen Pregnancy Strategy:

To tackle the problem, in 1999, the U.K. Government launched the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, a major programme aimed at halving the under-18 conception rate in England by the year 2010.

This was an initiative to expand access to information and give easy access to contraceptives to teenagers:

The cornerstones of the Strategy were expanding access to sexual and relationships education (SRE) and contraception for young people.

The access to information part consists of (not all of it is sex-ed classes):

Typical projects included employing local teenage pregnancy co-ordinators, opening sexual health clinics aimed at young people (often based in schools), and increasing SRE provision within schools.

Teens had sex-ed before the project and still had sex-ed after the cuts, this was something that came on top of that.

The authors seem to suspect that the giving teens the easy access to contraceptives is what was not helping:

For instance, increased contraceptive use has been argued to increase sexual-risk taking

There are other factors that could affect the fall of teen pregnancy and the authors recognize as such:

It is well-established that socio-economic factors such as poverty, economic welfare and education are significant determinants of teen conception rates and changes in such factors may be obscuring the impact of expenditure cuts at an aggregate level.

Their beef is with throwing money at this particular program not sex-ed in general. They cite another study that concluded that improvements in sexual education in schools reduced pregnancy rates:

For example, Girma and Paton (2014) demonstrate that improvements in school education played a significant role in the fall in conception rates up to 2012.

In other studies, replacing comprehensive sex-ed with abstinence only sex-ed has correlated with increases in teen pregnancy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

0
0

[–] Cat-hax ago 

well duh they had to change it with all the shitskins moving in.

0
0

[–] cdinvb ago 

Cut funding for counting as well?

0
2

[–] Uncle_Tractor 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hmyeah ... either the UK is/was doing sex-ed really wrong, or lifesitenews has a very strong bias against sex-ed.

0
2

[–] Newtonip 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

lifesitenews dishonestly summarized the study. It took aim at a particular government program (that among other things distributed free contraceptives to students). It never concluded that sex-ed classes don't help. It even cites a study that indicates more comprehensive sex ed reduces teen pregnancy.

See my other post.

0
0

[–] WakkoWarner ago 

0
0

[–] SocialJusticePanda ago 

0
23

[–] weezkitty 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

You have to be very careful with correlation and causation here. It's not like that was the only change in that time period. It's also been shown in many, many studies that contraceptive education is a lot more effective than abstinence education.

0
1

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The article points out the contraceptive education handed out contraceptives as well - which would be a major confounding factor. Easy access would easily increase the willingness of teens to go at it - and it doesn't take a genius to guess that horny teens aren't always getting it right in the heat of the moment.

0
0

[–] weezkitty ago  (edited ago)

It is a point worth considering. I'd say it's a little odd to hand them out. That doesn't mean that is the only - or even primary variable at play though.

2
-1

[–] Obergruppenkraken 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It's also been shown in many, many studies that contraceptive education is a lot more effective than abstinence education.

In a world where we know that data is regularly manipulated to push an anti-white, anti-Christian ideological narrative, I don't know how you can look at any of those "studies" without an extreme amount of skepticism.

Further, how many of those studies are of White children? I'd venture a guess and say not a lot.

0
1

[–] weezkitty 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Always look at everything with some skepticism. But considering how teenagers think, the more plausible option seems clear. At least to me.

1
1

[–] get_into_the_box 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Yup, this post being upvoted is just confirmation bias.

0
7

[–] Bigbensbathroomstall 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Yeah this is sounding like one of those "more bars = more churches QED church means more drunks" correlations. With rapid changing demos in the UK l, i dont think there could be any one factor

0
7

[–] OKythen 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Is that a good thing?

I thought you guys wanted them breeding?

0
2

[–] In_Cog_Nito 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's what I'm wondering.

1
4

[–] menstreusel 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

we need teenage birth rates to increase if we are to survive the genocide.

load more comments ▼ (3 remaining)