Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1520212223242526272829 LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 566
  1. #481  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The downturn in abortions (20 years ago) just happened to happen when the gov't stated funding abstinenc only program. Don't you find that ironic?
    http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/history.htm
    Abstinence only programs don't work.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #482  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Abstinence only programs don't work.
    Your right, the trend line must be upside down.
  3. #483  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Your right, the trend line must be upside down.
    From your very own source you linked to a couple of posts up:

    To date, there are six published
    studies of abstinence-only programs.
    None have found consistent and signifi-
    cant program effects on delaying the
    onset of intercourse. In fact, at least one
    has provided strong evidence that the
    program did not delay the onset of
    intercourse.

    Proponents of abstinence-only-
    until-marriage programs often conduct
    their own in-house evaluations and cite
    them as proof that their programs are
    effective. However, outside experts
    have found them inadequate, method-
    ologically unsound, or inconclusive
    based on methodological limitations.

    The CDC’s Research to Classroom
    Projectidentifies curricula that have
    shown evidenceof reducing sexual risk
    behaviors.35A recent paper written by
    the White House Office of National
    AIDS Policy points out that “none of the
    curricula on the current list of programs
    uses an ‘abstinence-only’ approach.” The
    paper goes on to say that “...it is a matter
    of grave concern that there is such a
    large incentive to adopt unproven absti-
    nence-only approaches.”
  4. #484  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Nice try, but that has nothing to do with lack of absolutes... We have e.g. far lower teenage pregnancy rates and far lower abortion rates than the US (in fact both are record high in the US), despite being a far less religious and "absolute" society.
    This is simply false. See the chart in this very thread, for example. Teenage pregnancy rates have been on the decline for years in the U.S..

    You still need better sources of news over there.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #485  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    From your very own source you linked to a couple of posts up:

    To date, there are six published
    studies of abstinence-only programs.
    None have found consistent and signifi-
    cant program effects on delaying the
    onset of intercourse. In fact, at least one
    has provided strong evidence that the
    program did not delay the onset of
    intercourse.

    Proponents of abstinence-only-
    until-marriage programs often conduct
    their own in-house evaluations and cite
    them as proof that their programs are
    effective. However, outside experts
    have found them inadequate, method-
    ologically unsound, or inconclusive
    based on methodological limitations.

    The CDC’s Research to Classroom
    Projectidentifies curricula that have
    shown evidenceof reducing sexual risk
    behaviors.35A recent paper written by
    the White House Office of National
    AIDS Policy points out that “none of the
    curricula on the current list of programs
    uses an ‘abstinence-only’ approach.” The
    paper goes on to say that “...it is a matter
    of grave concern that there is such a
    large incentive to adopt unproven absti-
    nence-only approaches.”
    Right, I used a source that disagrees with abstinence only to show that when the funding for those programs increased, abortion decreased. And, I like the line where they say six studies done and (one even shows evidence of program not delaying intercourse), does that mean the other 5 studies might show it does work?
  6. #486  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Right, I used a source that disagrees with abstinence only to show that when the funding for those programs increased, abortion decreased. And, I like the line where they say six studies done and (one even shows evidence of program not delaying intercourse), does that mean the other 5 studies might show it does work?
    "None have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the
    onset of intercourse."

    The point is it does not work. If it does not work it has no effect on the lowering abortion rates.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #487  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "None have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the
    onset of intercourse."

    The point is it does not work. If it does not work it has no effect on the lowering abortion rates.
    So, is it a fluke of nature that as funding for that program went up, abortion numbers went down which is in direct contrast to the previous 20 years when the funding for sex-ed went up the teenage abortion numbers also rose.
  8. #488  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    True, but our world is "modern" not because of Christianity, but because of ideas which came up in the Renaissance and later in the Age of Enlightenment. It is the result of pushing back the influence and the dogmatism of the churches.
    Those ideas just materialized out of the ether? The Protestant Reformation and its precursor movements made them possible (by pushing back the influence and the dogmatism of the Catholic Church).

    Since you seem to not realize the impact it had, see here for more info:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
    Would you not say that fundamentalism, belief in having absolute and universal truth, and the like is steadily increasing in some places, and getting more influence in education, government, supreme court, and the like? Terry Schiavo case? Science curricula? Middle East/Israel politics with Biblical prophecies in mind? Principiis obsta!
    Yeah, right. I think you may be getting some slight exaggerations in your media accounts of these events.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. #489  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So, is it a fluke of nature that as funding for that program went up, abortion numbers went down which is in direct contrast to the previous 20 years when the funding for sex-ed went up the teenage abortion numbers also rose.
    Your assumption is that sex-ed funding went down proportionally to abstinence only going up. That would be a mistake, just like claiming abortions were "increasing".
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #490  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Your assumption is that sex-ed funding went down proportionally to abstinence only going up. That would be a mistake, just like claiming abortions were "increasing".
    I did not say sex-ed funding went down. I stated that for 20 years early 60's to early 80's, sex-ed funding went up (without abstinence based funding) and abortions rose, for the past 20 years early 80's to today, abstinence based funding increased and abortions decreased.

    And if you are referring to my earlier post replying to clulup and the statement that as absolutes decreased items such as euthanaia, abortion, drug abuse etc increased I was referring, and I assumed so was he, to a broader time range over society as a whole.
  11. #491  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I did not say sex-ed funding went down. I stated that for 20 years early 60's to early 80's, sex-ed funding went up (without abstinence based funding) and abortions rose, for the past 20 years early 80's to today, abstinence based funding increased and abortions decreased.

    And if you are referring to my earlier post replying to clulup and the statement that as absolutes decreased items such as euthanaia, abortion, drug abuse etc increased I was referring, and I assumed so was he, to a broader time range over society as a whole.
    I fail to see how you can infer the rate of an illegal activity with any accuracy.

    Could you please cite the per capita spending, over time, on sexual health education spending? I'm having trouble finding that and you seem to be very familiar with it.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #492  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I fail to see how you can infer the rate of an illegal activity with any accuracy.

    Could you please cite the per capita spending, over time, on sexual health education spending? I'm having trouble finding that and you seem to be very familiar with it.
    OK you got me, I should have put 1972 in parenthesis for those who did not realize when abotion became leagl. Here is a simple chart with abortion numbers. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

    Here is some info on sex ed funding
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1718.cfm

    I saw a chart earlier today with the data, don't see it right now and I gotta run. I wll give you the cite, going out of town for the weekend so may not get back here till Monday.


    More info on positives of abstinence based education
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1718.cfm
  13. #493  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    OK you got me, I should have put 1972 in parenthesis for those who did not realize when abotion became leagl. Here is a simple chart with abortion numbers. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

    Here is some info on sex ed funding
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1718.cfm

    I saw a chart earlier today with the data, don't see it right now and I gotta run. I wll give you the cite, going out of town for the weekend so may not get back here till Monday.


    More info on positives of abstinence based education
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1718.cfm

    Let's try to keep the cites less slanted than the Heritage Foundation eh?

    Ok, we'll let this one go. Have a nice long weekend!
  14. #494  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    OK you got me, I should have put 1972 in parenthesis for those who did not realize when abotion became leagl. Here is a simple chart with abortion numbers. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html
    Interesting trend that stuck out to me: the percentage of abortions experienced by those 25 and over rose steadily over the time period (edit: then plateaued at the peak). That of those in the 20-24 range remained relatively constant. And the under 20 range steadily declined.

    If my logic is working properly:
    1. literally more older women are having abortions (increasing percentages of decreasing populations)
    2. fewer 20-24's are having them (steady percentage of decreasing population)
    3.much fewer under 20's are having them (decreasing percentage of decreasing population)

    Assuming sex ed is primarily targeted at under 20's it would seem that whatever the youth are getting is tending toward fewer abortions. While whatever the older got when they were under 20 is not (or is no longer) having that effect.
    Last edited by shopharim; 10/06/2005 at 06:18 PM.
  15. #495  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interesting trend that stuck out to me: the percentage of abortions experienced by those 25 and over rose steadily over the time period. That of those in the 20-24 range remained relatively constant. And the under 20 range steadily declined.

    If my logic is working properly:
    1. literally more older women are having abortions (increasing percentages of decreasing populations)
    2. fewer 20-24's are having them (steady percentage of decreasing population)
    3.much fewer under 20's are having them (decreasing percentage of decreasing population)

    Assuming sex ed is primarily targeted at under 20's it would seem that whatever the youth are getting is tending toward fewer abortions. While whatever the older got when they were under 20 is not (or is no longer) having that effect.
    If you are still trying to blow abstinence's horn, don't bother. We've already seen that it has no impact and possibly leads to more unwanted pregnancies.
  16. #496  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If you are still trying to blow abstinence's horn, don't bother. We've already seen that it has no impact and possibly leads to more unwanted pregnancies.
    The beauty of data is that it has no "horn" to blow. I noticed the pattern when I observed the chart, and I deduced the trend using simple calculations.

    It would be interesting, though, to juxtapose sex ed curricula against those trends.
  17. #497  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The beauty of data is that it has no "horn" to blow. I noticed the pattern when I observed the chart, and I deduced the trend using simple calculations.

    It would be interesting, though, to juxtapose sex ed curricula against those trends.
    Yes, and what do the population spikes between those groups tell you about the numbers of abortions between them?
  18. #498  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    ....We've already seen that it has no impact and possibly leads to more unwanted pregnancies.
    I don't know that we have "seen" the impact of sex ed curricula at all. How much did the studies that promote one or the other account for other societal factors?

    I don't find that it is sufficuent to say a given event occured on this date and that is around the same time a second event occured, therefore the first caused the second.

    It may be that the first did indeed cause the second, but to draw that clear conclusion requires that other factors be proven to have had no effect.
  19. #499  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes, and what do the population spikes between those groups tell you about the numbers of abortions between them?
    I didn't notice an indicator of the population spikes on the chart. That nothwithstanding, the trends that I observed are not influenced by the size of the sub-population.

    If there were population spikes in any of the demographic groups, it is reasonable to assume that the sexual behavior within that group would have virtually the same pattern across the group, all things being equal (which, admittedly, they never are). That is to say, if 20% of the over 25 population were having abortions, it is reasonable to assume for purposes of discussion that 20% of the spike would likewise have abortions.

    But the chart shows # of abortions, and percentage breakdown's of the age groups having those aboritons. The number of people in the age group would not change any of that.

    What population spikes would show is the percentage of the subgroup having abortions.

    That is 20 out of 100 "over 25's" having abortions is 20%. 20 out of 200 is 10%

    But 20 "over 25's" out of 60 total abortions is 1/3 regardless.
  20. #500  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I didn't notice an indicator of the population spikes on the chart. That nothwithstanding, the trends that I observed are not influenced by the size of the sub-population.

    If there were population spikes in any of the demographic groups, it is reasonable to assume that the sexual behavior within that group would have virtually the same pattern across the group, all things being equal (which, admittedly, they never are). That is to say, if 20% of the over 25 population were having abortions, it is reasonable to assume for purposes of discussion that 20% of the spike would likewise have abortions.

    But the chart shows # of abortions, and percentage breakdown's of the age groups having those aboritons. The number of people in the age group would not change any of that.

    What population spikes would show is the percentage of the subgroup having abortions.

    That is 20 out of 100 "over 25's" having abortions is 20%. 20 out of 200 is 10%

    But 20 "over 25's" out of 60 total abortions is 1/3 regardless.
    If I look at the highest percentage of total abortions by age group I have to take into account the percentage of overall population each age group is. Your logic is not including this.

Posting Permissions