[–] collegetoker 0 points 21 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago (edited ago)
What are the races of the teens getting pregnant? When taking in massive amounts of inbred sand hillbillies, I think that matters. As a follow up, how far away do they live from Rotheram?
[–] ZenAtheist 4 points 6 points 10 points (+10|-4) ago
I don't believe it. First off, someone could just make this all up - which is probably what this is. Secondly, of you think that anything a teacher says has any bearing on whether teens touch each other's sex bits, you're a bit out of touch.
[–] 1812-was-not-a-tie 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
I believe it. Sowell has been saying it for years: https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/23/factfree-liberals-part-iii-n1781571 But I admit that I am too lazy to track down the studies.
[–] menstreusel 1 point 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago
we need teenage birth rates to increase if we are to survive the genocide.
[–] 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.
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/
[–] 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.
[–] 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
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] get_into_the_box 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Yup, this post being upvoted is just confirmation bias.
[–] Obergruppenkraken 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago (edited ago)
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.
[–] weezkitty 0 points 1 point 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.