Exactly, and my answer is 1000 times more empirical than yours. You imagine some tiny butterfly effect that might impact something vague but are ignoring the masses of evidence of the straight forward problems.
Hoofbeats, horses, etc. Also, when we deal with the horses we'll have a chance to check for any odd zebra.
(ie, even if you're right, the way to check is deal with the other 99% of the problem first...)
Your "empirical evidence" amounts to repeating anecdotes and strongly held suppositions with higher and higher levels of emotion. It's not at all convincing to me--someone who's predisposed to support very high levels of access to birth control, for everyone--and is certainly not convincing to anyone who's predisposed to oppose it.
Also, a nit: the butterfly effect has nothing to do with this discussion. It's an effect in chaotic systems where a small perturbation in initial conditions leads to large, unpredictable, non-linear differences in later states. I'm arguing that it's not crazy to think a small perturbation in policy (an x% decrease in the total cost of having sex) would likely lead to a small and proportionate response in behavior (a roughly x% increase in the amount of sex had).
Resolution of the truth-value of that requires, yes, actual scientific studies (which have almost certainly already been done already). The fact that some religiously-inclined folk might come to the "wrong" conclusion from a confirmation of this effect doesn't obviate the value of studying it.
ETA: Just as an example of such a study, look at this one [0]. It's about how certain abstinence-only programs, which presumably doesn't include access to contraceptives, can legitimately prevent the onset of teenage sexual activity. I'm sure there's plenty of room for methodological critiques, and there are also plenty of studies that come to other conclusions, naturally. I personally still would expect those to be confirmed in the end. But this isn't a question that you can resolve by loudly proclaiming that anyone who asks for evidence is an idiot.
> Also, a nit: the butterfly effect has nothing to do with this discussion. It's an effect [...]
Sorry, I had assumed it as an idiom without establishing a shared lexicon. I mean, an effect so small as to only possibly be significant via an appeal to the butterfly effect. As in, ultimately we can't rule out that assassinating Hitler when he was a teen would have caused the sun to go supernova, because X, but it's vanishingly unlikely.
> I'm arguing that it's not crazy to think a small perturbation in policy (an x% decrease in the total cost of having sex) would likely lead to a small and proportionate response in behavior [...]
Sure, this can always happen. We always need to have our eye on the metric (the 21st century "ball").
But unless you've actually got a good argument for why it's likely that this program will go wrong, you're more likely to cause harm by kvetching than by letting change happen.
> [...] as an example of such a study, look at this one [0]. It's about how certain abstinence-only programs [...]
Sure, if the alternative is emulating reality shows then anything, including _Catholic Hour in the Nursery_ would probably be better. Thankfully we don't live in a black and white world.
And of course any classes should include a huge dose of self-esteem and other training supporting the right/desire to say "No", but when a couple want to have sex do we really want to punish their offspring? Sins of the father? Srs?
Or do you really deny the plight of the unwanted/required (high death-rate) child?
TL;DR What I'm saying is that we know people will have sex despite it being wise. (Do you really require a cite? If so, list the keywords you've searched and I'll help you use the internet.) So when they do, though we may wish/help to delay that a while, lets help them do so safely when they inevitable do.
Hoofbeats, horses, etc. Also, when we deal with the horses we'll have a chance to check for any odd zebra.
(ie, even if you're right, the way to check is deal with the other 99% of the problem first...)