On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains, so we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all indicative of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer? Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000 women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so from a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.