The one quote that bothers me is a statistic brought up by Sallie - "46% of teenagers (2002 stats) male and female are aware that having sex can cause children and they go ahead and have unprotected sex anyway." ONLY 46% are aware of the causal relationship between having sex and having babies? If nothing else, this confirms the need for comprehensive (and intensive) sex education.

"lowest birth rates" should have read "lowest teen pregnancy rates".

A recent report by the non-profit Every Child Matters Education Fund listed teenage birth rates for all 50 states. New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine were listed 1 thru 5 as having the lowest birth rates. It should hardly be a coincidence that these states have some of the most comprehensive sex-ed programs in the country, even to the point that some schools dispense contraceptives. The figures don't lie. Oklahoma is ranked like 45th.

Sallie, we can’t blame it on all the sex American teens see on TV, magazines, etc. for the significantly higher rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs among American teens compared with teens from other European countries. If you had spent as many years in Europe as I have, you would know that European TV has far more sex (and much more nudity) than you can find on the American TV (short of the premium cable channels.) . European teens play the same video games, see many of the same movies, have assess to the same internet, not to mention being exposed to nude bodies at their favorite beach. In Germany, it is not unusual for entire families to share a sauna or hot tub, all sitting around totally naked. The only real difference is the comprehensive sex education and the more open attidute to sex one finds in places like The Netherlands.

Sallie, you're right about the human element -- which I feel is why it is critical to give our children all the tools they need to make the best choices -- and to decrease the chances of teenage pregnancy and STDs from happening, human element or not. As to The Netherlands, they are, and have been, much freer about things like "free love" than the USA has even been. I have been to The Netherlands a number of times over the years, with my first visit there in 1974. Sex (and drugs) is much more open than here and much more readily available. I’ve had the chance to visit Amsterdam’s Red Light district where the working girls sit in storefronts with huge picture glass windows. The USA is much more prudish about sex than the majority of European countries. As nice as it might feel to blame the “free love” era of the 1960’s (and 1970’s) for the significantly higher rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs among American teens compared with teens from other countries, it can’t account for the difference.

B. We inundate teens with promotion of promiscuity in every level of our society. Movies, television, Hollywood, etc. We glorify it...and then when teenage boys and girls behave and mimic these very same actions we stand and go how did this happen? It is a whole lot more "than where babies come from" but the biology that creates babies is taught in grade school. 46% of teenagers (2002 stats) male and female are aware that having sex can cause children and they go ahead and have unprotected sex anyway. At 15 or 115 sex is part of the human nature. There are 33 million teens in the US alone. We can try to drop the rate of teen pregnancy, but short of neutering and spaying the whole lot, it is going to continue.

B, yes I understand the subject. I merely pointed out that inspite of all the education available, it still happens. There are 33 million teenagers in this country. 750,000 underage girls get pregnant each year. Of course education is vital but you can't eliminate the human element especially in the U.S. The Netherlands do educate their young much better than we do on issues of pregnancy and focus on prevention and they really got serious in the 60's. We did not. We were preaching free love and world peace. Remember?

And for those others who are confused about comprehensive sex education , it includes, but is not limited to, teaching and promoting abstinence.

Sallie, the discussion was about comprehensive sex education -- and STDs are very much a part of comprehensive sex education. Based on a number of your comments, I get the feeling that you are some what confused about what comprehensive sex education entails. It’s much more than simply telling children where babies come from.

Sallie did you actually read my comments or even understand them? It appears from your last comment you did not. The subject was about comprehensive sex education and its well documented effect on teenage pregnancy rates. When you are able to discuss the subject -- and back it up with credible facts --instead of resorting to your straw man argument, maybe then we can have an educated, honest and intelligent discussion. I personally find it interesting that you can not factually dispute any of my statements instead try to change the subject. And no, the fact that women want babies DOES NOT address the impact of comprehensive sex education on teenage pregnancy rates. If it did, there would be no significant differences in teenage pregnancy rates around the world -- comprehensive sex education or not. And DO NOT try to put words into my mouth like "brainless or uneducated." I thought you were better than that, but maybe I was wrong about you.

Oh yeah...where in my comment did I say that I opposed sex education? No where. It was assumed by the readers, not a statement from me.

STD's are a separate (spelling) issue B. STD's can kill, maim and disfigure. Neither men nor women want that. Sex ed. is not a bad thing at all, and STD should be taught, at home and in school as well as the effects of having babies as teenagers.

B, ...think it is rhetoric if you choose. 15 yrs. olds or 25, 35 yr. olds who have not had children do not always think of the actual day to day living entailed in raising kids. That does not lessen the female desire to have a baby. Of course not all women feel like this, but the majority do or sans all babies B.? You may want to think they are brainless and uneducated, but that is not really true. Why do you think teenagers have babies B.?

To all wanting more sex education in schools. our public school system has a hard enough time just teaching math and other courses, why do you think any type of sex education in our public schools will do the trick of less babies and less STDs?

Sallie, you said “but other than the very uneducated or the poor, young girls and women are very aware of what causes babies, with or without sex education.” Perhaps you don’t understand what comprehensive sex education is -- it does far more than simply tell teenage girls about “what causes babies”. It educates them on effective methods on how to avoid making babies as well as avoiding STDs.

There is certainly some irony in the fact that many of the abstinence only crowd are also the anti-abortion types. You shouldn't have sex, but you probably will, and we're not going to tell you how to do it safely, even if you wanted to, and then when you get pregnant, we don't want to let you terminate it, so when it's born you'll be scorned as one of those unwed teenage mothers on welfare that's ruining this nation.

Ryan, if we simply address the issue of abortion, the evidence is repeated over and over again that shows countries with the most comprehensive sex education plus easy access to birth control have the lowest abortion rates. If there were no other reason for comprehensive sex education except for reducing abortion rates, wouldn't that be enough?

I with you B. I don't understand why people are opposed to sexual education that includes abstinence, birth control, contraception and everything else. Some kids will abstain, some kids will not, but at least the kids that don't will be able to do it safely.

Sallie, so tell us just how many of those 15 years had sex with the specific intention of getting pregnant. I'm sure you have the facts to back up your "argument" or is it simply mere rhetoric?

Sallie, so are you trying to claim that those hundreds of thousands of American teenage girls all got pregnant because they "choose" to get pregnant? Or are you trying to claim the reason why The Netherlands’s teenage pregnancy rate is 1/10 that of the USA is because only 1/10 of the girls in The Netherlands’s “choose” to get pregnant? A recent CDC study found that at least one in four teenage American girls had had an STD. Only about half of the girls in the study acknowledged having sex. Some teens define sex as only intercourse, yet other types of intimate behavior including oral sex can spread some diseases. I guess you are going to claim that those teenage girls also “choose” to get STDs as well. The fact Sallie, is that in countries that provide comprehensive sex education and make birth control have significantly lower teenage birth rates, significantly lower abortions rates, and significantly lower STDs among teenagers. Sallie, please try to address the facts, instead of relying on straw man arguments.

I love the abstinence only sex education logic. Maybe we should apply it elsewhere: Not driving is the only 100% effective way to avoid auto collisions. Not eating is 100% effective at preventing obesity. Not working is the only 100% effective way to avoid on the job injuries.

For the record, this fact is not altered by age. 15 yrs. or to age of being unable to get pregnant, women will have kids.

Gentlemen....B, may know the numbers, he knows lots of stats....but other than the very uneducated or the poor, young girls and women are very aware of what causes babies, with or without sex education. We learn it from our mothers. Sex for women in the year 2008 is no different today that it was in 1800 B.C. (it is no different for men either) Unprotected sex will always be a doorway for babies, male and female alike. All of the education available will not stop any woman from getting pregnant if we choose to do so (note, CHOOSE, not rape, incest or being unaware). That it may have negative effects on both the child and the mother have no value at that particular time. Most women want babies (this is not logical, just female) and all the fussing in parental upbringing, church, newspapers, child care services, welfare programs, working mothers and fathers, or political agendas will not stop it. All societies and countries pay for our own progeny (spelling)one way or the other. There seems to be a need for people to control womens bodies, even from other females, that is important to a certain number of people. Why? I don't know. Please do not be misled. If women want a baby, they will have one. That is what we do. Of course we spend the next 18 years going "what was I thinking?)Like it or not, fuss about it or not,almost all women want babies and grandchildren.

Can more education lower the rate of teenage pregnancy? Despite what some very misinformed folks might say, the answer is a resounding YES. In countries that DO teach comprehensive sex education and make birth control readily available, such as The Netherlands, they havesignificantly far lower rates of teen pregnancies compared to the USA. The USA’s teenage pregnancy rate is almost 9 TIMES AS GREAT than Netherlandss. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tee_bir_rat-people-teenage-birth-rate If people like Pat Robertson and Ronald Reagan both ended with first born, full term babies born less than 7 months after they marry, why is it not a surprise when we see hundreds of thousands of teenagers follow suit? That's what happen in the "good old days." People either got married (and gave birth 6 or 7 months later) or the girls made a sudden trip out of town for a really. really long visit -- say 7 or 8 months.

Joe, you are right. Despite what some very misinformed folks might say, one can hardly say “all” or even most American teenagers have any real or factual understanding regarding birth control or STD prevention. Abstinence-Only Curricula far too often contain false information about the
effectiveness of contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent the
effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and
pregnancy. One curriculum says that “the popular claim that ‘condoms
help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data”; another
states that “ condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time”; and another teaches that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These erroneous statements are presented as “proven scientific facts.”
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:E7kguasvRUAJ:oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf+abstinence+only+curriculum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Obama doesn't care about our soldiers or Iraq only himself. I know this isn't about pregnancy but it sure is interesting. WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

How come teen pregnancy didn't become an issue until the late-1960's/early 1970's when the Free Love movement of the poor, misunderstood baby boomers were coming of age?

Claude Ledbetter's letter is right on. If only a few listen then it helps. All he is saying is to keep telling them abstinence works. And for Lance who claims the far right religous nuts are the only ones it's ok to have sex, isn't true but they are not asking the governemnet to pay for their baby and themselves and the majority of have both parents at home. Even Obama admits faith based iniatives work.

Bob, This discussion only detracts from our more pressing problems, of energy, health care, and putting food on the table, and now of course bank failures.

Joe, Who is going to teach the course? Kids with their hormones are not going to learn much more than they have already learned from home and on the street, they are told not to drink and what can happen if they do. They are told not to speed and what can happen if they do. But they do it antway. I know as a kid I did and I imagine you did a lot of these things also. We know but we think as kids we will not get caught. But when that red light shines in our bach window we learn better, We are taught in many ways that seat belts in cars save lives. And it is the law. But a majority do nnot use the belt and that includes some police officers. Education is a wonderful thing but sometimes no amount of education saves the end result of whatever unsafe act is taken

Bert, you say the kids know a lot about sex and we should not educate them. I disagree. Knowing a lot about sex by what you hear on the school bus and in the locker room is far different than a formalized education based on science and facts.

Joe, These kids know about sex and condoms and a lot more than we give them credit for it seems. But they do it anyway. They know what the end result can be. More education will not lower the rate of kids having sex nor lower the rate of pregnancy ot STDs .

And for the record, if abstinence among young people was remotely plausible, I might be all for focusing on it educationally. However, the reality is that it is not the choice most young people will make. Perhaps a few generations ago when people were routinely getting married at 16 years old, perhaps abstinence until marraige MAY have been more common. Today, however, many hope their children will graduate from high school and attend college and possibly graduate school - all before getting married. It is unreasonable to think that anything except a very, very small minority will make it to their early-to-mid-20s without having sex. That is why it is important to teach healthy sexual practices in junior high or high school.

I do not think there is any doubt that all teenagers and even a lot of kids below the teen age know about birth control. They are not uneducated in this subject. Just as they know what drinking can do. But a lot of them do it anyway. Both sex and drinking and in the end a lot of them suffer and pay the price. But it is not that they do not know what the end results can be.

Of course Pastor Ledbetter neglects to mention that when condoms are used properly they have a high rate of prevention of pregnancy and disease. He insinuates that birth control pills and condoms don't work because 750,000 teens get pregnant each year. Baloney.

Regarding Mr. Ledbetter's and Ms. Preston's letters, I agree that "abstinence works every time." However, it is not only naive, but irresponsible as parents and society to adopt an abstinence-only educational policy. The fact is teenagers are going to have sex. The vast majority of abstinence-only crusaders had premarital sex despite their parents’ and pastor's wishes. All of the abstinence-signifying bracelets, purity rings, extracurricular clubs, church organizations and good intentions are no match for teen hormones as evidenced by the often higher rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease among those who pledged abstinence. I, too, would prefer that my children, when reaching their teen years, refrain from sex. However, I realize I am fighting nature itself and will teach them to protect themselves from both pregnancy and disease if they make a choice other than that which I would prefer. Likewise, when my children begin to drive, I hope they obey all traffic laws, constantly aware of their surroundings and the actions of others. However, I know that they will at times be reckless, talk on their cell phone, and have other lapses in judgment that may put them and others in harm’s way. It is for those times that I will have taught them to always wear their seatbelt. To do otherwise would amount to negligent parenting.

Joe-- you're 100% correct. But the far-right religious nuts who can't stand it when people have sex (except for themselves) will never go for anything but 'abstinence-only'.

If teens are "going to have sex anyway" then we ought to lower the drinking age as well, since they're just going to drink anyway.

Bob, we should not necessarily lower the drinking age because young people are "going to drink anyway." However, because we recognize that people below the legal drinking age are likely to drink, in addition to stressing the illegality we should also instruct those who do drink not to drive and instruct on the dangers of binge drinking, etc. Unfortunately, in today's society - just like in the past - it is not enough to tell kids not to do something. To act as if it were enough is to have our heads in the sand. Frankly, it would not make me feel any better when my daughter came home pregnant or with an STD to say, "I told you not to have sex." I would rather be disappointed in her choice to have sex but have her not pregnant and free of STDs because she was educated on how to prevent them.

Bob, It looks like Joe's pregmatic point went over your head.However there is a move afoot by collage presidents to lower the drinking age as you suggested