Direct correlation between number of abortions and increase in sex education?

[Teflon93]

As a stats guy, I have to caution people using terms “direct correlation” regarding such public policy issues, much less deriving causation from it.

The first challenge is in measuring the amount of sex education in schools. These kind of numbers are hard to come by. Does one measure hours of instruction, pages of instruction, amount retained from instruction, or some other metric?

Abortion numbers also tend to be obscure. In America in particular, there is resistance to publishing actual numbers of abortions. What numbers we have are necessarily speculative.

Then you’ve got to measure these two metrics over the same period of time and calculate the correlation coefficient between them.

Even when you get a strong correlation, causation still has not been proven (when teaching this, we use the example of the number of butterflies and number of hurricanes to note the absurdity of an interpretation that butterflies cause hurricanes).

Causation is proven (to the extent it can be in public policy) through observation and experimentation, both of which are quite difficult.

All of the above are reasons why one should be very, very skeptical of public policy studies which claim to “prove” something. It is easy to claim such a thing, but invariably one finds glaring problems in methodology which severely limit if not overturn such claims.

I had a law professor friend whose colleague undertook a study claiming to prove that racism drove death penalty convictions in Texas. Once I actually saw their data, it became very clear that he had saturated his model with 27 variables (“everything but the kitchen sink”) and failed to assess the proper fit (how much of the data the model explained) by eliminating insignificant variables first. When corrected, his model explained a tiny minority of the data, refuting his premise and indicating he’d missed some variables (such as prior convictions).

The point of which is that we need to be careful in the claims we make and the evidence we muster to support them.

 

[mapleoak]

Why make an exception for yourself?

No, it is not an exception. Just pointing out that Karen could be considering people with signs and billboards as an ‘organization out to teach their children’ and therefore have no business displaying them.

Because he thinks he is right and everyone who thinks differently from him is wrong?

Ouch.

I would hazard a guess that if a gay rights organization were out with signs and billboards containing graphic images of men or women engaging in homosexual intercourse, or if Playboy or Hustler was out with signs and billboards containing graphic images of men and women engaging in heterosexual intercourse, or if there were large billboards and signs with graphic images depicting the activities at a BDSM club or in an XXX movie or showing a graphic menage a trois session of intercourse, etc, in places where children could see them that many folks would likely consider that these “people with signs and billboards” were indeed deciding how and when the children who saw them learned about that aspect of sex.

No, my reaction certainly would not “who are they to decide when my children learn about such things”. I believe it would call for censorship for indecency. Do you consider pornagraphy the moral equivalent? Do you consider the Sistine Chapel to be pornographic?

I’m confused by this statement. Are you now for kindergarten teachers bringing up subjects in kindergarten that may spark discussion at home? (Like appropriate and inappropriate body touching, etc.) Because (and I may be confusing you w/ someone else) I was under the impression that you were against the politicians who are for sex ed in kindergarten.

What did I say that would make you think otherwise?

If this passes, and your child is taught that (for example) touching themselves is okay so long as it’s in private, you would have no problem w/ that?

Nope.

I understand you don’t agree w/ the premise, but it would offer you a wonderful opportunity to discuss with your kindergartener how you feel about masterbation.

Masturbation is an intrinsic evil which should not be taught that it is okay. Do you consider this the moral equivalent of ‘exposing the evil of abortion as wrong’ to be equal? Do you consider lambasting evil versus glorifying evil or giving approval to evil to be the same?

I guess I’m confused where you stand on exposing children to the “facts of life” whether good or bad “facts”. (Facts, meaning abortion, masterbation, etc.) On one thread you say it’s okay for organizations to post signs for children to see that their parents deem inappropriate, yet on the other (I think I remember) y ou say you don’t want sex ed in kindergarten.

I don’t recall saying this, but may have. Don’t remember. But this is correct, in very basic terms: anti-abortion signs are good, sex ed in kindergarten is bad (in fact by anyone other than the child’s parents). No ambiguities. I cannot for the life of me understand where the confusion comes from. I am truly puzzled. No wonder some can’t seem to comprehend that there is a world of difference in gravity between babies being aborted versus causing upset feelings to those who would be offended as made clear on the other thread. I haven’t looked at this thread since yesterday and it is amazing how you can get beat up when not there to defend yourself.

What is your stance, exactly?

I hope I have been clear enough and hope you are sincere when you ask this question, I will assume such.

(And if I have you confused w/ someone else I apologize. As I mentioned yesterday, I’m feeling under the weather, and my head is VERY cloudy! )

Thanks, and I can appreciate that. I do believe you are sincere. I would not know if you have confused me with someone else, but do understand.

 

[KarenNC]

Just pointing out that Karen could be considering people with signs and billboards as an ‘organization out to teach their children’ and therefore have no business displaying them.

Well, we need to make sure we are all defining our terms in the same way.

Merriam Webster—educate: 2 a : to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction b : to provide with information : INFORM
3 : to persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way

and teach: 1 a : to cause to know something b : to cause to know how c : to accustom to some action or attitude d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action <I’ll teach you to come home late>
…3 : to impart the knowledge of
4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience b : to make known and accepted

I certainly believe that anyone who puts up a billboard or holds a sign on a street corner is by definition intending to “educate” and “teach” everyone who sees that sign about the information on that sign or billboard. The people who are out with signs and billboards about pizza, hamburgers, amusement parks, movies, etc are certainly out to educate anyone who sees them about their topic.

The method is designed specifically to convey a message to a wide and indiscriminate and affect their behavior or opinion relevant to that topic. That is not the question. It is the content of that message and whether that content is indeed appropriate to all of that audience that is in question. If the content is not considered by the community to be appropriate for general consumption, then that community is well within their rights to protest it.

I believe it would call for censorship for indecency. Do you consider pornagraphy the moral equivalent? Do you consider the Sistine Chapel to be pornographic?

But if these activities exist and information about them is considered by the person displaying or teaching these things to be of benefit to someone who views it, then on what standard would you call it indecent? Such images are perfectly legal to be sold to anyone over the age of 18 in any store that chooses to carry them. Anyone over the age of 18 has the legal right to participate in any of the activities depicted. They only reflect the reality of what is going on legally in our society. Why then should it be “indecent” for anyone who passes by to see them?

Are people depicted engaging in actual acts of intercourse in the Sistine Chapel? I wasn’t aware of such, but it is a big ceiling. If you are asking if I consider the depiction of the nude human form to be inherently pornographic and something that my child should not see, no. I know there are parents out there who put sticky notes over pictures in art history books or glue pages together to ensure their children never see such (not sure if they ever go to museums), but I am not one of them.

Pornography the moral equivalent of sex education? No.

 

[KarenNC]

But this is correct, in very basic terms: anti-abortion signs are good, sex ed in kindergarten is bad (in fact by anyone other than the child’s parents). No ambiguities.

The problem is that life is not about black/white basics. It is all about ambiguities, weighing the best of sometimes undesirable options and definitions as we have already seen. For instance, I consider that telling children where babies come from, showing them what fetal development looks like, telling the actual correct anatomical terms for all their body parts and that boys and girls have different body parts, teaching them respect for their bodies, how to care for them and telling them that it is not appropriate or socially acceptable to touch other people in certain ways or to touch certain areas of their body in public was very age appropriate for my child in kindergarten and before. I consider all of this to be part of sex education, as I see sex education as including the entire person, not just the mechanics of a particular act.

That said, I am not out handing out age appropriate fetal development books to my child’s playmates and I don’t tend to let my daughter bring her books on this subject to playdates, as that does not respect their families’ rights to determine the when and how of sex education. I can have an opinion on whether they are doing it correctly, but I do not have the right to therefore take it on myself to do the educating.

I consider it the responsibility of every organization to consider carefully the appropriateness of the materials they present if those are going to be available to young children, as well as to make teaching materials that are out of the mainstream available to parents (actually I think parents should be allowed to see any and every text etc used to teach their child if they desire). I consider it my responsibility as a parent to make every effort to familiarize myself with what is being taught to my child by others, whether it be Sunday School, preschool, 4 H, Girl Scouts, public/private school, activity classes, etc and to take action if I deem it inappropriate.

As they are far from a point at which the information will be of any benefit to them, I do not consider it appropriate to be teaching kindergartners the mechanics of the sex act, information on sexually transmitted diseases, every possible permutation of sexual activity between human beings, violence that is associated with sexual activity be that rape or abortion, which contraceptives have the highest reliability rate, everything that can go wrong with a pregnancy, etc. These are things they will eventually need to know, but kindergarten is not that time. There are, I suppose, situations under which a parent would deem such knowledge useful, and it is certainly their right to provide such to their child, but these are not things that I believe we see as necessary or beneficial to kindergartners overall.

The issue of child molestation and sexual assault on children is a bit more of an ambiguous area for me. I am torn between the desire to protect the innocence of the child and the knowledge that the information may benefit some child. This is compounded by the fact that I have a young daughter, and that I have a stepniece who was molested by her father at a very young age. I have seen the effects on her of having her innocence ripped away and I don’t know if it would have come out sooner if she had had this type of education (I don’t believe that she did, she is now an adult). It is a balancing act between appropriate awareness and overexposure.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Virtus program (Protecting God’s Children) is mandatory in the Diocese of Little Rock. As a Catechist, I have to be certified.

When the training period for children (as opposed to certifying adults) comes around, I always get roped in – usually given the “difficult” children. So everyone sits and watches the video, plays the game, and then the kids break out by age.

And I always ask my catechism class, “Did you understand what that was about?” And 90% of the time I get blank stares. So I say, “It was about sex. There are people who would force children to have sex. We’re teaching you how you can protect yourself.”

I find that the most effective teachers in this subject are the kids themselves, after they’ve had a frank and open talk with an adult.

 

[boppaid]

Mapleoak, I think I had you confused with someone else. Sorry. (and yes, I was (am) very sincere! )

But this is correct, in very basic terms: anti-abortion signs are good, sex ed in kindergarten is bad (in fact by anyone other than the child’s parents). No ambiguities. I cannot for the life of me understand where the confusion comes from. I am truly puzzled. No wonder some can’t seem to comprehend that there is a world of difference in gravity between babies being aborted versus causing upset feelings to those who would be offended as made clear on the other thread.

I do disagree with you here. I think sex ed is important, because many parents do not teach their children at all. Children who go to school really must be taught about inappropriate touching, etc. Unfortunately not all parents do their jobs properly, and thus, I think the schools should step in to protect the children.

I don’t think I’m necessarily being hippocritical here, though, with regards to sex ed and graphic photos, as I do believe that parental consent for sex ed in school should be required. I just wish there was a way for parental consent required before graphic photos are displayed in front of children.

 

[Linnyo]

Yes, I have to agree that sex ed is necesarry but it is also necessary to teach the kids the morals that go along with it. Instead of teaching that it is ok to have sex as long as you don’t get caught, the kids need taught that sex should be kept within the context of marraige. They need to be taught that life starts at conception as opposed to 24 weeks gestation. They need to be taught that sex is wonderful and should only be between a husband and a wife. If the reasons for the morals are explained (ie. the reasons that God had for making these ‘rules’) then children will understand far better than if they are just dictated to. Why is it best within a marraige? Why did God tell us not to have sex till we are married? Why only one partner? These questions are the ones that children need to know in order to understand that it is for their benefit that there are moral guidelines not just because ‘us adults’ like to dictate their lives.

They also need to know that priests and other people are always there to listen and to helo them should they need help. They need to know that there are safety procedures in place if things happen that are outwith their control. There must be people willing to help them if they do get pregnant and that abortion isn’t their only ‘escape’.

 

[blessedtoo]

Even when you get a strong correlation, causation still has not been proven (when teaching this, we use the example of the number of butterflies and number of hurricanes to note the absurdity of an interpretation that butterflies cause hurricanes).

But there is absolutely no relationship between butterflies and hurricanes. There IS a relationship between sex education and abortion.

Based on your assertion, there can be no conclusions derived from the study of statistics. Why do we even bother then?

 

[Linnyo]

hey - it’s just as well we are not all statisticians! There would be little room for common sense. No, more seriously, I did put a question mark in the title of the thread because it was a question rather than a statement.

But there is absolutely no relationship between butterflies and hurricanes. There IS a relationship between sex education and abortion.

Based on your assertion, there can be no conclusions derived from the study of statistics. Why do we even bother then?

 

[mapleoak]

Well, we need to make sure we are all defining our terms in the same way.

Merriam Webster—educate: 2 a : to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically…

Why do we need a lesson in the English language?

I certainly believe that anyone who puts up a billboard or holds a sign on a street corner is by definition intending to “educate” and “teach” everyone who sees that sign about the information on that sign or billboard.

That is the whole idea. There are not there for decoration.

The method is designed specifically to convey a message to a wide and indiscriminate and affect their behavior or opinion relevant to that topic. That is not the question. It is the content of that message and whether that content is indeed appropriate to all of that audience that is in question. If the content is not considered by the community to be appropriate for general consumption, then that community is well within their rights to protest it.

Amen.

But if these activities exist and information about them is considered by the person displaying or teaching these things to be of benefit to someone who views it, then on what standard would you call it indecent?

An example is when a department store wants to sell lingerie and places paper insert ads in the paper with giant photos of scantily clad people in suggestive poses. When an unsuspecting hapling opens the paper, they are inudated with so-called indecent education.

Such images are perfectly legal to be sold to anyone over the age of 18 in any store that chooses to carry them. Anyone over the age of 18 has the legal right to participate in any of the activities depicted. They only reflect the reality of what is going on legally in our society. Why then should it be “indecent” for anyone who passes by to see them?

No, it is indecent for ‘anyone’ to see them and should not even be available in stores. Now you could argue that this type of material is by your dictionary quote to be so-called ‘education’. This type of sex eduction, in keeping with the title of this thread, most definitely contributes to the number of abortions.

Are people depicted engaging in actual acts of intercourse in the Sistine Chapel? I wasn’t aware of such, but it is a big ceiling.

No, but be careful, you may be ‘forced’ to explain to your four year old if unwittingly entering and she sees nude depictions for the first time. From what I remember, there were no warnings.

If you are asking if I consider the depiction of the nude human form to be inherently pornographic and something that my child should not see, no. I know there are parents out there who put sticky notes over pictures in art history books or glue pages together to ensure their children never see such (not sure if they ever go to museums), but I am not one of them.

Pornography the moral equivalent of sex education? No.

And you liken images of aborted babies to graphic horror flicks? How inconsistent.

 

[KarenNC]

That is the whole idea. There are not there for decoration.

Then it seems a bit disingenuous to say when one is displaying signs and billboards in areas where one knows young children will see them that:
“As long as we are not referring to people with signs and billboards as an ‘organization usurping parents rights to how and when they teach their children about sex’.”

An example is when a department store wants to sell lingerie and places paper insert ads in the paper with giant photos of scantily clad people in suggestive poses. When an unsuspecting hapling opens the paper, they are inudated with so-called indecent education.

Don’t know about you, but I have not been in the habit of handing my kindergartner the newspaper to flip through randomly on a regular basis or of many kindergartners going out and getting a newspaper on their own. It is usually a case of a choice on the part of the parent to allow the child access to such.

That is not possible with billboards and signs on the side of the street.

No, but be careful, you may be ‘forced’ to explain to your four year old if unwittingly entering and she sees nude depictions for the first time. From what I remember, there were no warnings.

I sincerely doubt that anyone who is taking the trouble to visit the Sistine Chapel has absolutely no idea of the kind of artwork one would be expected to find inside. It is not the kind of thing one “stumbles” over. Beautiful classical artwork depicting live intact human beings is rather a different thing in terms of what I want my child to learn about the human body than tractor trailer sized graphic blood-covered photographs of dismembered, decapitated and otherwise mutilated corpses of babies is in terms of what I want my kindergartner to learn about reproduction and the relationships between people, more specifically parents and children.

And you liken images of aborted babies to graphic horror flicks? How inconsistent.

Not exactly. Graphic horror flicks come with a rating, reviews, etc. They come with the requirement that you purchase a ticket and physically go to the theatre or rent the dvd and choose to play it in your house. They are shown on a television over which you have complete control.

To the best of my knowledge there is no group out parking tractor trailer trucks outside churches on a Sunday morning without permission and playing these movies for everyone who comes by. They aren’t playing these movies on public street corners or towing giant color photographs of horribly murdered people from them behind airplanes over cities. They aren’t showing them in the middle of apartment complex parking lots and neighborhoods, at the entrance to sporting events, in parades, etc.

 

[mapleoak]

Then it seems a bit disingenuous to say when one is displaying signs and billboards in areas where one knows young children will see them that:
“As long as we are not referring to people with signs and billboards as an ‘organization usurping parents rights to how and when they teach their children about sex’.”

No not at all. Billboards and signs used in the manner depicted on any number of the parallel threads currently running in this forum are not intended to teach sex to children. They are intended to educate the public on the horrible atrocity of abortion that the public for the most part takes a blind eye to. In no way does this usurp parents rights to teach their children how and when to teach their children about sex.

Don’t know about you, but I have not been in the habit of handing my kindergartner the newspaper to flip through randomly on a regular basis or of many kindergartners going out and getting a newspaper on their own. It is usually a case of a choice on the part of the parent to allow the child access to such.

How bout when one is carrying the paper and these glossy inserts slip out onto the floor in plain view? Not much discretion used on the part of these advertisers, IMO.

I sincerely doubt that anyone who is taking the trouble to visit the Sistine Chapel has absolutely no idea of the kind of artwork one would be expected to find inside. It is not the kind of thing one “stumbles” over. Beautiful classical artwork depicting live intact human beings is rather a different thing in terms of what I want my child to learn about the human body than tractor trailer sized graphic blood-covered photographs of dismembered, decapitated and otherwise mutilated corpses of babies is in terms of what I want my kindergartner to learn about reproduction and the relationships between people, more specifically parents and children.

The inconcistency is saying: Sistine Chapel artwork is to pornography as aborted children photos are to horror flicks.

Not exactly. Graphic horror flicks come with a rating, reviews, etc. They come with the requirement that you purchase a ticket and physically go to the theatre or rent the dvd and choose to play it in your house. They are shown on a television over which you have complete control.

For one, no you don’t have ‘complete’ control over what seen on your television. The only way to do that is get rid of it entirely. As said before, hollywood puts so called ratings on their films and places a ‘G’ rating on what it deems appropriate, not what you deem appropriate. Many films are rated G and have things I would not want to view let alone want my kids to ever to view. The only control you have is when something questionable is displayed, you can fast forward, stop, shut off, etc. By this time, however, you have already seen and so has your child, unless you are watching the movie in its entirety before your child watches it. As for daily programming, you don’t even have those options, except to turn it off.

 

[KarenNC]

How bout when one is carrying the paper and these glossy inserts slip out onto the floor in plain view? Not much discretion used on the part of these advertisers, IMO.

I have specifically said that “unintended” exposure of something to a child does include when something accidentally slips out of something given directly to an adult. I am arguing that “unintended” exposure to children does not include putting up a billboard along a busy street or parking a tractor trailer covered in these images outside a church on a Sunday morning or towing a banner with them behind an airplane over a city.

The inconcistency is saying: Sistine Chapel artwork is to pornography as aborted children photos are to horror flicks.

Yes that would be inconsistent. Good thing that is not what I said.

For one, no you don’t have ‘complete’ control over what seen on your television. The only way to do that is get rid of it entirely.

I would call that pretty complete control. Actually we managed it without going to that extreme. We’ve used ours only for dvds for years. We also somehow manage to actually read a review and find out something about the dvd before it enters our house. The nformation is readily available in a variety of media.

To get back to the topic, yes, I think that the images and messages from the general public to which a child is exposed do indeed form part of their sex education, part of the basis for their understanding of what appropriate interaction between the sexes is and their understanding of themselves as both gendered and sexual entities in their society.

 

[KarenNC]

Yes, I have to agree that sex ed is necesarry but it is also necessary to teach the kids the morals that go along with it. Instead of teaching that it is ok to have sex as long as you don’t get caught, the kids need taught that sex should be kept within the context of marraige. They need to be taught that life starts at conception as opposed to 24 weeks gestation. They need to be taught that sex is wonderful and should only be between a husband and a wife. If the reasons for the morals are explained (ie. the reasons that God had for making these ‘rules’) then children will understand far better than if they are just dictated to. Why is it best within a marraige? Why did God tell us not to have sex till we are married? Why only one partner? These questions are the ones that children need to know in order to understand that it is for their benefit that there are moral guidelines not just because ‘us adults’ like to dictate their lives.

They also need to know that priests and other people are always there to listen and to helo them should they need help. They need to know that there are safety procedures in place if things happen that are outwith their control. There must be people willing to help them if they do get pregnant and that abortion isn’t their only ‘escape’.

In terms of sex education in the schools, parents in most places in the US at least do have an option to preview the materials that are being used. They may have to push for that option, but it is usally there.

As to the moral component of sex education, is that something that one really wants to cede to whichever teacher your child happens to have that year? The school may be able to teach the mechanics, but it is, like it or not, within a pluralistic society the responsibility of the religious community and the family to teach the moral values it finds appropriate. Even within a broad similarity such as Christianity, there are many different standards of moral behavior in this context.

If one would rather cede to an outside educational authority the right to provide the moral portion, then one had better be prepared to actively choose that setting very carefully or be willing to compromise on the likelihood of getting what constitutes an ideal appropriate moral education in your family. Choosing such will also likely involve some compromise in other areas, such as cost, convenience, etc. because life is compromise. The public schools have to compromise because they can truly only teach effectively to the common denominator. They cannot be all things to all people and school is never the only place children learn about sexuality.

For instance, we have chosen to homeschool our daughter, even if the moral aspect forms only a part of the reason for that. In order to do so, we have had to make some compromises. I do not work outside the home, we have a lesser income, I have less freedom to do things without a young child in tow or having to arrange for a babysitter, I have to take on a much more active role in choosing curricula, outside activities, etc than I would if she were in school. It has been a good choice for our family, but not one everyone would want to make or should necessarily make. Private or parochial school would be a different set of compromises, ones we are not willing or able to make. Public school would be another set for us in many ways, ones which we are not willing to make at this point…

 

[mapleoak]

I have specifically said that “unintended” exposure of something to a child does include when something accidentally slips out of something given directly to an adult.

Would seem irresponsible of the advertisers to allow this to happen so easily. I think they “intentionally” want people to happen upon it. This is the opposite of “unintended”.

I am arguing that “unintended” exposure to children does not include putting up a billboard along a busy street or parking a tractor trailer covered in these images outside a church on a Sunday morning or towing a banner with them behind an airplane over a city.

It probably wouldn’t do as much good in front of a church (preaching to the choir). Forced exposure is nonsense. Don’t want to see, don’t look.

Yes that would be inconsistent. Good thing that is not what I said.

Yes it is what you said. You compared on many occasions pictures of abortion to horror flicks. Then turn around and say Sistine Chapel artwork is not pornography. Inconsistent. For the record: Sistine Chapel artwork is not pornography, and pictures of aborted babies are not the same as slasher films.

I would call that pretty complete control. Actually we managed it without going to that extreme.

Dumped mine many moons ago.

To get back to the topic, yes, I think that the images and messages from the general public to which a child is exposed do indeed form part of their sex education, part of the basis for their understanding of what appropriate interaction between the sexes is and their understanding of themselves as both gendered and sexual entities in their society.

Just as much as Sistine Chapel art forms a part of a four year old ‘sex education’. Just as much as a photo of someone who was shot in the street forms a part of someone’s sex education. Just as much as pretty sunset forms a part of someone’s sex education. If your child sees a photo of an aborted baby, it is YOU as a parent who choose whether to introduce the topic of sex to your child.

 

[mapleoak]

For instance, we have chosen to homeschool our daughter, even if the moral aspect forms only a part of the reason for that. In order to do so, we have had to make some compromises. I do not work outside the home, we have a lesser income, I have less freedom to do things without a young child in tow or having to arrange for a babysitter, I have to take on a much more active role in choosing curricula, outside activities, etc than I would if she were in school. It has been a good choice for our family, but not one everyone would want to make or should necessarily make. Private or parochial school would be a different set of compromises, ones we are not willing or able to make. Public school would be another set for us in many ways, ones which we are not willing to make at this point…

You actually said something that makes sense! Congratulations.
I can’t speak highly enough of homeschooling. I makes no sense whatsoever to entrust some paid teacher to instill values into ones children, including those regarding sex related issues.

 

[KarenNC]

It probably wouldn’t do as much good in front of a church (preaching to the choir). Forced exposure is nonsense. Don’t want to see, don’t look.

Some of the groups seem to think it does. Rather difficult to tell someone to keep their eyes closed whenever they are either outside or looking outside their own home.

Yes it is what you said. You compared on many occasions pictures of abortion to horror flicks. Then turn around and say Sistine Chapel artwork is not pornography. Inconsistent. For the record: Sistine Chapel artwork is not pornography, and pictures of aborted babies are not the same as slasher films.

To a 4 year old, pictures of bloody decapitatied, dismembered and otherwise mutilated children are pictures of bloody decaptiated, dismembered and otherwise mutilated children. That is why you don’t often find such used as illustrations in children’s books, even in nonfiction ones.

Just as much as Sistine Chapel art forms a part of a four year old ‘sex education’. Just as much as a photo of someone who was shot in the street forms a part of someone’s sex education. Just as much as pretty sunset forms a part of someone’s sex education.

A pretty sunset is not related to reproduction. Hopefully, the photo of someone who was shot in the street is not related to reproduction. Pretty hard to separate photographs of unborn babies who have died through abortion from reproduction and kind of hard to separate reproduction from sex education.

 

[KarenNC]

To attempt to get back on topic, it is, as vern pointed out, also useful to look at data related to teen pregnancy rates and teen sexual activity rates, not just abortion rates and sex ed rates.

To that end

guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
Each year, almost 750,000 teenage women aged 15–19 become pregnant. The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy.1

cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/trends/2005_YRBS_Sexual_Behaviors.pdf
Youth Risk Behavior Survey fact sheet on sexual behavior among teens in 9th-12th grade in public and private schools in US 1991 to 2005

aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/cyp/xsteesex.htm
Adolescent sexual behavior, pregnancy and parenthood: a review of research and interventions.

Another factor that we have not considered is whether teens are marrying rather than have either sex or abortions outside of marriage. Since studies show that the overwhelming majority of abortions are sought by unmarried young women (at least in the US), that is an important consideration
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried (82%), white (55%), and aged <25 years (51%).

This report looks very interesting in regard to that
census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0020/twps0020.html
Trends in Marital Status of U.S. Women at First Birth: 1930 to 1994

*The statistic in the last column of Table 1 shows the propensity to marry before the birth of a premaritally conceived child. Increases in the proportion of premarital births may result not only from increases in the rate of premarital childbearing but also from declines in the propensity of couples to marry before the birth of a premaritally conceived child in order to avert an out-of-wedlock birth. It is observed that there has been a decline in the propensity of women with a premaritally conceived birth to marry since the 1930s, although there seems to be a halt in this decline during the 1990s (Figure 2). The major decline in this statistic occurred between the 1960s and 1980s during a time of great social changes among young persons in the U.S. Nowadays, both the parents of unmarried teenage mothers and the unmarried mothers themselves may question the gains of a forced marriage, especially if the father of the child may not be able to maintain the family or may divorce soon after the marriage.

Estimates prepared by Alan Guttmacher Institute indicate that about one-half of the abortions performed to women 15 to 44 years old in 1994-95 were to unmarried women4. It is not known, however, what proportion of those unmarried women having an abortion would have married before the birth, in the absence of legal provisions for an abortion.

The declines in the proportion of women marrying before the birth of their premaritally conceived child may reflect the opinion of some women that they may be better off in the long run by relying more on the support of their parents and relatives for financial and emotional assistance than by entering a potentially unstable marriage undertaken solely to prevent an out-of-wedlock birth.

In general, the propensity to marry before the first birth is significantly less now than in the 1930s, regardless of age (Figure 3). Although a decline in this rate was noted among teenagers between 1985-89 and 1990-94, no such decline was noted for women 20 years old and over in this same period. It is possible that there may be changes in the attitudes of some older women who may be living with their partner and had planned to marry anyway, not just because the woman became pregnant.*