Why is there such a difference in this country in terms of teen pregnancies compared to North America?

I think that the difference is that the Dutch view sex as normal and healthy, while many Americans view sex as sinful unless it's for reproduction. We had a lot of Puritans as our founders, and that attitude still lingers. In many places in the US (I don't know about Canada and Mexico), we teach only "abstinence only" sex education, where the emphasis is on NOT having sex until marriage, and then only having sex within the marriage. While this might work for some people, it's not very realistic. The urge to have sex is secondary only to the urge to eat and drink, because it's necessary for the survival of the species. People who didn't have a strong urge to have sex usually died without descendants. Abstinence only education has been proven to cause MORE teen pregnancies than no sex ed or sex ed that includes birth control and other sexual topics.

If a parent knows that a teen is having sex (and allowing a teen to have a boyfriend/girlfriend sleep over is a sure sign that the parent knows something's going on), then that parent is probably going to take steps to make sure the teen knows how to have safer sex, with a smaller chance of pregnancy. When my daughter was a teenager, I gave her a box of condoms, and I showed her how to put a condom on a broomstick. I made her demonstrate that she knew how to do it. I told her that I'd buy her condoms or any other kind of birth control that she wanted. She never got pregnant. Teaching teens about sex, and letting them know that you know that they have sexual feelings WORKS.

However, I very much doubt that we will change our methods any time soon. There are too many very religious people in power, and even those who aren't religious themselves know that if they buck the religious leaders they'll get voted out.

Americans are never satisfied. It sounds bad but it is not, satisfaction leads to stagnation while dissatisfaction leads to innovation. I am for a certain amount of nationalized health care. But then again we already have a good deal of nationalized health care already. What I am opposed to is rationing and mandatory participation. Another large drawback will be that the government will of course set up multi levels of bureaucracy that will sap money out of the system and lower medical standards. We have had major interference in the field of medicine already such as Clinton setting up the HMO's that everyone complains about now. What we really need is what we had years ago when communities had local physicians, well kind of. It would be like mini groups that all of the members pay a set amount yearly and hire a family practitioner, a dentist and an optometrist. These are salaried and all of the members go to see them with out bills. Naturally the pay in amount would be larger than the salaries and would be rolled into a group catastrophic medical insurance plan to cover surgeries an the like. Sometimes the people can do a lot more and better than the government. What the government could do is to make a tax credit to all individuals that participate in something like this.

Should we also embrace the permissive attitudes toward prostitution and pornography also found in the Netherlands? What about drugs for that matter?

That's not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious about whether these cultural differences might also be relevant. I honestly don't know and don't pretend to know.

EDIT

Yes, the welfare system might also be relevant as another answer points out.

There is a correlation between level of benefits paid and the number of young single parents in Europe, only one country, finland bucks the trend.

In america there is planned parent hood, so you see a surplus of b/c and abortion services in minority areas and a lack of them majority white areas. There is also the religious right element giving young people unhelpful messages and encouraging abstinence over b/c.

If embracing teenage sexuality results in fewer pregnancies then by all means we should do it.

However, how are we defining "teenage"?

The lowest age of consent in America is 16; if we are applying this new attitude to 15 year olds and younger it would be incongruous not to also lower the age of consent.

1

Could they be? Sure. Will they be? Not a chance in hell.

What makes it impossible is for all of our claims of religious freedom and diversity, we are a primarily a nation of Puritans.