Jon writes:
quote:
What I said was that it is ridiculous to include in a study about the effectiveness of the use of 'X' incidents in which 'X' was never used.
But that's just it: The failure rates of all other methods of contraception include inconsistent use. Abstinence folks are happy to claim that condoms don't work, citing failure rates of 20% or more, but that's because they are including the population of people who don't use condoms all the time. When you look at only those who do use them all the time, the effectiveness rate is nearly 100%.
So if we're going to talk about "reliability," then we must take into account the entire population, including those who don't practice their method consistently. And in that light, abstinence is a rotten method. Kids who received abstinence sex ed were more likely to have sex without any protection of any kind, had more pregnancies, and had more STDs than those who received comprehensive sex ed.
Thus, the claim that abstinence is the only "reliable" method simply isn't true.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.