NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/parenting/07/05/teen.pregnancy.ap/index.html

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Just to head it off

"Duh that's the bias of the liberal media duhhhhh?"

;)

"Duh that's the bias of the liberal media duhhhhh?"


LOL

Hallelujahgobble!
Hallelujahgobble!

it probably also wouldn't hurt if these 'abstinence only' programs stopped lying to children.

This is where natural selection breaks down.

Only stupid girls get pregnant. :rolleyes:

Damn that Darwin!

No matter how many surveys are done and released, people will still say abstinence is the only way to teach youngsters about safe sex.

First off, why not teach both. Teach abstinence as the main part. But also teach that should you not have self-control there are birth control methods.

Second, abstinence is the only 100% effective way not to get STD's or pregnant. Condoms do fail, as such abstinence should be taught, but not exclusively.

it probably also wouldn't hurt if these 'abstinence only' programs stopped lying to children.

But the truth has a liberal bias that encourages the view that STD's are not personal vengance by God for your having disobeyed him. In order for people to have an objective view of morality they have to believe that immorality causes diseases and that condoms are completly useless for anything other than just daring God to smite you.

Remember. There is only one truth. That truth is God. People are incapable of truth by comparison, so just because something that someone says, in the service of God, doesn't happen to match observable facts it still doesn't make sense to call them a liar. Without omniscience there is no truth, so statements in the service of God are more comendable than statements in the service of condom manufacturing or drug companies market base because both statements will be equally false, just variably demonstrable.

First off, why not teach both. Teach abstinence as the main part. But also teach that should you not have self-control there are birth control methods.

Second, abstinence is the only 100% effective way not to get STD's or pregnant. Condoms do fail, as such abstinence should be taught, but not exclusively.

Safe sex programs already teach that. Conservatives aren't complaining that students aren't being taught that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid AIDS and pregnancy. They're complaining that they're also being taught other ways to limit risk if they do end up having sex. To them, acknowledging possibility is the same as giving permission.

Safe sex programs already teach that. Conservatives aren't complaining that students aren't being taught that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid AIDS and pregnancy. They're complaining that they're also being taught other ways to limit risk if they do end up having sex. To them, acknowledging possibility is the same as giving permission.
In some cases it is. Some programs do minimize any mention of abstinence and focus only on protection. This is just as bad as it gives the false illusion of safety where there is risk. When some programs teach use protection and nothing will happen that just as bad, maybe worse, than not talking about abstinence at all.

In some cases it is. Some programs do minimize any mention of abstinence and focus only on protection. This is just as bad as it gives the false illusion of safety where there is risk. When some programs teach use protection and nothing will happen that just as bad, maybe worse, than not talking about abstinence at all.
Huh... which programs are doing this? My own classes I took kept pushing the waiting game (to much eye rolling of us over-hormoned teens) and everything I have seen sence does the same. Not an attack, just really curious.

as a card carrying member of the social revolution, i'm in favor of the marginalization of the entire puritan thing towards sex. 'abstinence education', hah!

Huh... which programs are doing this? My own classes I took kept pushing the waiting game (to much eye rolling of us over-hormoned teens) and everything I have seen sence does the same. Not an attack, just really curious.
I have been through a sex ed program in each grade 5-10, n three different schools. They each taught differently, and I remember that one of them mentioned abstinence in a small passing comment only, while focusing mainly on safe sex and the mechanics of sex. Most though were as you said, emphasizing abstinence.

Anyway, the best sex ed is a responsible parent.

I personally think we should let STDs proliferate.
or use extreme case scenarios to scare kids out of doing it like they do for smoking.

show graphic pictures of what herpes looks like, and, let's say, anal warts, just for shits and giggles. followed by "just because it doesnt look like this, doesnt mean they don't have it"

'course, it won't work any better than whats goin on now. Kids these days are pretty damned stupid, so i'd reckonthat regardless of what's taught in public schools, there is going to be sex, and there is going to be pregnancy, and there are going to be STDs.

In some cases it is. Some programs do minimize any mention of abstinence and focus only on protection. This is just as bad as it gives the false illusion of safety where there is risk. When some programs teach use protection and nothing will happen that just as bad, maybe worse, than not talking about abstinence at all.

I'm not saying such a thing doesn't exist, but I doubt that it's the program itself, but rather the teachers tending to focus on the more technical aspects of the program. And to be fair, it doesn't make sense to give abstinence equal time. It doesn't take much time to say "the only 100% way to avoid disease and pregnancy is abstinence." You don't have to teach people how not to have sex, most of them will have been doing that their whole lives.

Safe sex is trickier and does require more detail. More detail means more time, and that means an appearance of emphasis. But that doesn't mean that kids haven't been taught the truth. Both sides of it.

as a card carrying member of the social revolution, i'm in favor of the marginalization of the entire puritan thing towards sex. 'abstinence education', hah!

I know. They caved so easily on the "no belt buckles on your head" thing, but they put up such a damned fight over the sex thing. Doesn't make any sense to me.

I know. They caved so easily on the "no belt buckles on your head" thing, but they put up such a damned fight over the sex thing. Doesn't make any sense to me.

yeah, seriously. at least we also convinced them to give up the most ridiculous of the names they were giving kids. i mean, come on, through-much-tribulation-we-enter-into-the-kingdom-of-heaven goodbody?