If you look at the chart under the quote I gave you, you see that the rates for non-Hispanic whites is lower than the other categories of race. The higher percentage of African Americans and Hispanics shows a higher number of teen births per 1000. I think you are trying to show that Texas is at fault for that. It makes sense that a state with a higher percentage of Hispanics will have a higher birth rate among teens.

If you think Texas policies are at fault for that, well... we disagree.

Yeah, it's risky to read too much into this correlation because there are almost certainly going to be other factors in play.

That said, I do think abstinence only education is a stupid policy that ignores human nature.

I do not like abstinence only education. I do, however, like a abstinence supported education. Teen sexuality should be discouraged.

Yes I am blaming Texas education and/or culture generally B.
Why?
•Rates for non-Hispanic white and Hispanic teenagers were uniformly higher in the Southeast and lower in the Northeast and California

White Texan teens give birth more often than white Massachusetts teens,
Hispanic Texan teens also give birth more than Hispanic Massachusetts teens.
The common feature is that teens of any race, living in Texas, are birthing babies more than their counterparts elsewhere....
Part of that is probably education. Part is probably a poor public health care system, and part just poverty...

Ahhhh... here's the problem. Too many teenagers in Texas under the age of 25!!
(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

bbauska wrote:I do not like abstinence only education. I do, however, like a abstinence supported education. Teen sexuality should be discouraged.

I'm not entirely sure what that means in practice. At some point, I think you have to tell young people about sex in a realistic way. The reality is that sex is fun and feels good (if you are not doing it wrong), and if in 'discouraging' sexuality in teenagers you give a false impression about that aspect, you will lose the trust in everything else you say about it.

I'd also be interested in what age range you consider it should be discouraged. 18-19 years old are surely teenagers and also adults, right?

I think that teaching abstinence is the best form of birth control is a fine method. You do need to teach that condoms/IUDs/birth control pills are not 100% effective, but many use them.

They should not be given at schools.

As to discouraging any sexual activity until what age? I would say that the public schools should not be supporting any sexual activity with a minor. That would be 18 here is the US.

Do you think that schools should be advocating sex with a minor?

I think you need to accept reality. Over here, 16 is the legal age for sex, and I really don't think 18 is an appropriate cut-off.

There is also a big difference between 'advocating' sex with a minor and being a bit more realistic about the fact that 'minors' will likely have sex before you want them to.

First we are not over "there". The age of majority is 18 here.

I told you what I thought and how our schools should not be supporting minors sexual activity. It should be discouraged. Reality is they do have sex. Reality is that we do not have to capitulate to it.

Teaching minors the benefits of having sex and showing minors engaging in sexual activity in a positive light should not be the place of an institution public education.

I don't believe that teenagers take any of their ethical or moral instruction on pre-marital sex from what they get told in school. They'll pick that up from their parents and peers. What they might learn in school is a bit of honest information about birth control and how to avoid unsafe sex. You can teach them about those things without actively advocating underage sex. The risk with emphasising abstinence in education is that the important message will be lost amid all the moralising.

bbauska wrote:First we are not over "there". The age of majority is 18 here.

Our system is more nuanced. 18 is the borderline for adulthood, but before that age someone can drive, smoke, get married (with parental permission), have sex, join the armed forces. But they can't vote, buy alcohol, sign up to credit etc.

I believe even in America, you treat some minors accused of crimes as adults. My point is that 18 is not some magical age at which kids suddenly become full adults. It is a process. Your rigid adherence to the particular law in one place is quaint, but it won't change the fact the 17 year olds are going to be into sex.

I told you what I thought and how our schools should not be supporting minors sexual activity. It should be discouraged.

With all due respect, you have not really answered my question about how this works in practice. Repeating that it should be 'discouraged' does not tell me how that is done or in what context. Neither does listing a few partial facts make for much of an explanation.

Reality is they do have sex. Reality is that we do not have to capitulate to it.

Huh? What does not capitulating mean? You think we need to declare a War on Sex? The point is that if you accept the reality, and you want to protect young people, you also need to show them how to protect themselves and their partners.

Teaching minors the benefits of having sex and showing minors engaging in sexual activity in a positive light should not be the place of an institution public education.

The thing is, between the negative ('it should be discouraged') and the positive there lies a middle ground you seem to be ignoring. What is so scary about neutral exposition of the facts.

b

First we are not over "there". The age of majority is 18 here

which has little to do with the age of consent.
In Texas age of consent is 17. In other states 16. And nothing at all to do with what Teens are actually deciding to do. (see link below)

and as for comparing "over there"

Teens in the United States and Europe have similar levels of sexual activity. However, European teens are more likely than U.S. teens to use contraceptives generally and to use the most effective methods; they therefore have substantially lower pregnancy rates.[6]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html

Does the quality of sex education have something to do with the more effective choices by those Euros?

Tell me if you think this teaching is untrue:
Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD transmission.
If you choose to risk STD and pregnancy, there are birth control options such as Condoms, IUDs and spermicides that can be procured from your doctor or pharmacy. We, as a school, do not provide any of these items.
Then you teach the biological aspects of pregnancy, life creations, and STD transmission.

Clinical, and non-moral. After all, whose morals do you want taught? They are going to be picked up from home and other teens. (from Sassenach)

Is that not basically what sex education is anyway ? It's been a long time since I was in school but I certainly don't recall my teachers ever actively encouraging me to have sex.

The sex education I was listing above is different that what Danivon said above.

At some point, I think you have to tell young people about sex in a realistic way. The reality is that sex is fun and feels good.

This says you have to tell kids sex is fun and feels good. I disagree that we need to tell kids this.