[–] Uncle_Tractor 0 points 2 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.
[–] Newtonip 0 points 2 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.
[–] weezkitty 0 points 23 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.
[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] Obergruppenkraken 2 points -1 points 1 point (+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.
[–] get_into_the_box 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Yup, this post being upvoted is just confirmation bias.
[–] Bigbensbathroomstall 0 points 7 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
[–] menstreusel 1 point 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago
we need teenage birth rates to increase if we are to survive the genocide.
[–] 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:
This was an initiative to expand access to information and give easy access to contraceptives to teenagers:
The access to information part consists of (not all of it is sex-ed classes):
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:
There are other factors that could affect the fall of teen pregnancy and the authors recognize as such:
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:
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/