Some children genuinely will do best within the framework offered by the Roman Catholic Church. Some of those children have parents who are Roman Catholic and raise them in the church. Some do not. An African American friend of mine, probably a 12th cousin on the Cherokee side of our respective families, told me she grew up in a Catholic parish in New York during the worst of her mother’s heroin addiction, being light enough that people assumed she was Italian. She’s currently a member of a Baptist Church in a southern state. Some Roman Catholic raised children will not actually take to what the church offers, as is true of Muslim, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and other children. It is good to have many options, it is good to have a great deal of parental autonomy, it is worth remembering that offspring will, in time, make their own choices.

Beyond that, pushing sex at an early age is dead wrong. It is a facet of life each individual needs to grow into, and each child/adolescent/adult develops at their own pace. It is not a bad idea to keep it within some social and cultural channels, preferably ones that will give young people time to come to terms with their adult capacities and responsibilities. At one time, PP was dealing with the fact that children WERE experimenting and didn’t have much of anyplace to turn to for help. Now, they seem to assume that ALL children are copulating at age ten, which is equally false.

I agree with CL that large-scale profit-taking from abortion is deviant, although it arises in part from the way large parts of the medical profession have been intimidated into staying away from abortion entirely. It really should be something any OB/Gyn is able to do for their own patients in the relatively rare circumstances where it is necessary. I consider Roe v. Wade a proper framework for intervention by the blunt instrument of the law. Within that framework, there are many reasons abortion could be an appropriate choice or a very bad choice, and many people have many ways of evaluating which is which. Aside from the ill-considered reflex to reimpose criminal penalties, the currents of thought which have been labeled as the pro-life movement have an important and legitimate place at the table.

If you look at the UK, they have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe.
They also have one of the most comprehensive and liberal sex ed programs in the universe.
The solution, according to the UK government is to throw out more condoms and more sex ed.
And the result is going to be more teen abortions and pregnancies.

If you look at the UK, they have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe.
They also have one of the most comprehensive and liberal sex ed programs in the universe.
The solution is to throw out more condoms and more sex ed.
A the result is going to be more teen abortions and pregnancies.

I think the important issue here is that teens are still developing. Their brains are not developed to the point that they understand the consequences of their actions.
We, as adults need to recognize this.
We also need to recognize that teens are especially vulnerable because of their immaturity.

Sex has alot of consequences. One is pregnancy, borne (no pun intended) almost exclusively by the teen mother.

We should encourage abstinence.
Teens have no business having sex. They need to work on developing their gifts, personality and social skills. They need to focus on their education.

Many teens WANT an adult to tell them “no”.
It gives them permission to say no themselves instead of being sucked into the harmful hookup culture.

My respect for you, CL, has SKYROCKETED at the fact that
1) You and I have never interacted online before and
2) You are honest and humble enough to admit when you make a mistake.

That is great. Please stick around, CL. The blogosphere needs more honest people like you. God love you.

Please don’t feel silly. Probability trips up a great many solid thinkers, so consider yourself in very good company.

I’m sorry that your post ended up in the spam folder. I got it out as soon as I saw it.

You are both correct, of course. I am wrong about the statistics. I did a little research and apparently have been under a misinturpretation of something I learned for years.

Nothing makes one feel more silly…

Andrew,
I think you make a lot of assumptions about what I feel concerning abortion based on what I posted. Regardless of how you or I feel about it, abortion is legal in this country for now. However, pushing abortion for profit should be illegal and I assume it probably is if the fracts are as clear cut as the ones stated in the article. My words don’t imply that I approve of legal abortions.

Further, I don’t approve of teens having recreational sex, however, as a realist (not inconsistant with also being an idealist), a former public school teacher and a parent, I know it is going to happen and don’t believe restricting access to birth control is not going to stop or even curb it.

“However, that is mathematically innaccurate, though a common error. Each condom and therefore, each use, has a probability of working or not. Through testing, the average effective rate is determined. The defective condom does not have an 83% rate of success – it has a 0% chance regardless of what point in your stated “cycle” it is used. Your figure is like saying that if I play the lottery every day long enough, I am certain to win it given enough time. This is obviously not true.”

I haven’t read the article that you are discussing, but just from this description of yours that I have quoted, your understanding of probability is problematic. It IS true that if you play the lottery long enough your chances of winning will approach 1. The problem is that our lifespan is not long enough to reach that. Here is why:

Each lottery (or condom use) is an independent trial; that is, the outcome of one does not affect the other. So now suppose that the probability of winning the lottery is 1/100, just to make the numbers a little easier. If you play one game, what is the probability that you will win? Well, P(X)=1/100. If you play two games, what is the probability you will win at least once? Well, that is the same problem as figuring out what the probability is of LOSING both. Since these are independent, we apply the product rule and determine that (letting Y denote the probability of not X)

P(X)=1-P(Y)=1-(99/100)(99/100)=1-.9801=.0199

In general then, if you play the lottery n days in a row, the probability of winning AT LEAST one time is

P(X)=1-P(Y)=1-(99/100)^n

Thus, for example, if you play 500 days, you chances of winning at least one lottery game is .993429517. You are nearly guaranteed.

The same thing would be true of condemns then, if they are indeed independent trials.

“It simply does not follow that if a person begins having sex with a condom at a young age, then by age XX they are 100% (or 99% or 98%, etc) to have a pregnancy.”

So if using condemns are independent, it absolutely does follow that they will have a high probability of being pregnant by a certain age. Maybe it can be argued that condom use or sex should not be considered independent trials, but otherwise, this is basic probability theory. God love you, CL.

I don’t know what your background is, but I know my statistics and epidemiology. They are the ABC’s of my trade. The analysis in the post linked to about condoms is based upon each individual over the course of an entire year. These are CDC and Alan Gutmacher’s own data.

So, you have a quarrel with Planned Parenthood’s own statistician, not me. I like using Gutmacher and Planned Parenthood’s own data, as well as CDC, because it leaves the opposition shooting blanks.

As for your quote:

“As for IPPF, well, I think they do a job that no one else wants to do.”

Think long and hard about why that is so.

On the other hand, I have much to say about “The_Conservative_Lie”‘s comment…

First of all, that one would consider pushing abortions for profit to be “despicable” and at the same time simply resign the fact that, because many teens will have sex, we should equip them with contraceptives, seems duplicitous to me. Both realities—profit-driven abortions and ‘realistic’ contraceptive education—seem to share a similar, utilitarian base that views procreation merely as some disposable good seen only in relation to the total good in the aggregate. If we concede the permissibility of contraception, we concede that of abortion; it’s only a matter of degree. Profit or no profit, abortion is abortion.

Second, a clarification: Gerry’s statement that “contraceptive failures [would] approach 100%” is not, I think, inaccurate. This is not saying it will be 100%, or even anywhere entirely close—only that it will approach closer and closer to that mark as children become sexually active at younger ages.

If these are the issues you’re “torn” over, I hope to have provided some further clarity.

As for IPPF, well, I think they do a job that no one else wants to do. I’ll bet Bristol Palin could have used some contraceptives (though in truth, I don’t know that she didn’t and no one does except her, levi and God). She got pregnant as the daughter of a huge abstinance proponent and probably had the best abstinance education available. If it happened to her, it could happen to anyone’s daughter. Surely you aren’t going to fault the parents in every case. Surely Sarah did the best job she could in raising her. So, while no parent wants their child going to planned parenthood for condoms or abortions, how could disallowing them access to contraceptives be a good thing? Do you really think that teens are not going to have sex? Some will certainly abstain, but many will not.

If, in fact, they are “pushing” abortions for profit, then that is despicable and should be criminal if it is not. If it is, then that office should be investigated and the leadership removed.

“Step two is to involve younger children for whom contraceptive failures will approach 100%”

Okay, I read the article and understand how you extrapelate (sp?) your figures from that.
However, that is mathematically innaccurate, though a common error. Each condom and therefore, each use, has a probability of working or not. Through testing, the average effective rate is determined. The defective condom does not have an 83% rate of success – it has a 0% chance regardless of what point in your stated “cycle” it is used.
Your figure is like saying that if I play the lottery every day long enough, I am certain to win it given enough time. This is obviously not true.
It simply does not follow that if a person begins having sex with a condom at a young age, then by age XX they are 100% (or 99% or 98%, etc) to have a pregnancy.