Neither does the data support the idea that abstinence-based sex education leads to decreased sexual activity.

Since you linked to an article in the London Times reporting that a major effort in England to reduce teen pregnancy via contraception-based sex education has failed, allow me to point you to this 2006 study which shows that 86% of the decline in teen pregnancy rates in the United States is due to improved contraceptive use, with the remainder (14%) due to delayed sexual activity among teens.

As I said in another thread recently, at some point you guys have to own up to the fact that impulsivity is the main problem leading to teen pregnancy (not to mention rampant STDs, the rate of which has increased exponentially as kids are being taught to engage in 'safe' sex). Regardless of whether kids (and some adults) have the education and access to contraception, many of them end up engaging in sexual activities without protection.

I'm not opposed to teaching contraception at all, but only if there's also a strong abstinence component (which helps empower girls to say no, which many of them would choose to do if they aren't pressured to have sex because of an overwhelming atmosphere of 'everyone else is doing it'.) Parents also have to be empowered to be part of the discussion, and not have their values undermined.

Actually, a woman's right to choose her physical and mental health — including but not limited to her life — exists both before and after pregnancy occurs. No human person should be required to sacrifice her or his own bodily integrity to ensure another's life. And except in the case of pregnancy, no human person IS so required. You are not required by law to have one of your kidneys removed if one of your children needed a kidney transplant. Doubtless, you would do it without a moment's thought to save your child's life — so would I. But it's still your choice.

There is also, of course, the fact that many if not most individuals who believe abortion should be criminalized also oppose (1) efforts to make contraception more widely and easily available to all women, including minor women; as well as (2) comprehensive and biologically, medically, scientifically accurate sex education (meaning of course not limited to abstinence). Many individuals who believe a woman should only be able to choose before pregnancy occurs also are the same individuals who support and defend pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives (emergency AND regular contraception); who support former Pres. Bush's last-minute “conscience rule” that permits anyone working in a health care facility to refuse to carry out their job responsibilities if they decide doing so would violate their conscience, and that is written so broadly that it could extend to receptionists making appointments and cleaning staff who scrub down examining rooms and clean surgical implements, as well as to hysterectomies, blood transfusions, and of course the dispensing of birth control.

The position that a woman's right to choose has to come before pregnancy occurs is not really a principled or honest position unless the person taking that position also supports unrestricted access to birth control and scientifically based sex education — and opposes all efforts to curtail or deny that access.

And to turn your point around, there are just as many people on the extreme abortion rights side who feel there should be NO consideration of right to life for the fetus. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle.