mini-rant: contraceptives in high schools

[bluemonq]

this is more of a vent than a rant, but i had to say it. today, i overheard someone saying how some high school making contraceptives available was inducing and/or encouraging students to have sex.

by her logic, if the school didn't provide anything, those same students wouldn't have sex.

wtf? i really should have confronted her.

[Yeahman]

High schools giving out condoms does indeed give students the impression that it is acceptable for them to have sex, as long as it's safe.

[bluemonq]

so you're saying that if the school hadn't given its tacit approval, all those students wouldn't have sex until they were mature individuals, able to take responsibility for whatever occurs? wow, i never knew that high schoolers took their school administration's beliefs to heart. honestly, im amazed.

[Yeahman]

so you're saying that if the school hadn't given its tacit approval, all those students wouldn't have sex until they were mature individuals, able to take responsibility for whatever occurs?
No.

[bluemonq]

so if the kids are going to have sex anyway, wouldn't it be better it to be safe sex?

[Yeahman]

so if the kids are going to have sex anyway, wouldn't it be better it to be safe sex?
Not with my tax dollars! They can go buy their own condoms.

[bluemonq]

so then for you it's not a matter of schools approving of pre-marital sex, but tax dollars right? i have no problem with people arguing that their money shouldn't go to a public issue like this; if that was the beef that the lady had, i wouldn't have been nearly so irritated. the issue was that she stated that she "knows" - not even think or believe - that "those kids are going to have sex" - in her words - "willy-nilly because of those idiots in the school administration."

[ahsingjai]

Teens will experiment and have sex either way, it's also educational/safer for them to start using condoms instead of bringing in babies in to this world that they know they won't be able to support...

Forcing the guy to quit school and even the mother and find dead end job(s) to support this baby they might or might not hate for ruining their lives...

[Arex]

Not with my tax dollars! They can go buy their own condoms.As between having my tax dollars being spent on condoms or on govt. funded health care for teenage parents and their children, not to mention the welfare they may very likely end up on because they dropped out of school to raise their kids, I think I'd rather pay for the condoms.

RX

[Yeahman]

so then for you it's not a matter of schools approving of pre-marital sex, but tax dollars right? i have no problem with people arguing that their money shouldn't go to a public issue like this; if that was the beef that the lady had, i wouldn't have been nearly so irritated. the issue was that she stated that she "knows" - not even think or believe - that "those kids are going to have sex" - in her words - "willy-nilly because of those idiots in the school administration."
I have a problem with schools approving of pre-marital sex too. I agree that they aren't going to stop having sex if the school stops giving out condoms, though.

As between having my tax dollars being spent on condoms or on govt. funded health care for teenage parents and their children, not to mention the welfare they may very likely end up on because they dropped out of school to raise their kids, I think I'd rather pay for the condoms.
Tax-payer funded preemptive immorality? That reminds me of a war.

[DragonKnight]

Tax-payer funded preemptive immorality? That reminds me of a war.
So kill off condoms *and* govt. funded health care for teenage parents and their children is what you're saying? Not that I agree or disagree with you on this particular issue, but I am curious on where you stand with the govt. funded heath care for teenage parents and their children.

[Yeahman]

So kill off condoms *and* govt. funded health care for teenage parents and their children is what you're saying? Not that I agree or disagree with you on this particular issue, but I am curious on where you stand with the govt. funded heath care for teenage parents and their children.
I believe in universal healthcare.

[ahsingjai]

I believe in universal healthcare.

WHat? That's unheard of... You damn canadian! :rolleyes:

[Yeahman]

Not Canadian-style socialized healthcare.
I want vouchers so people can choose whatever health insurance they want. If the rich want to pay more for better healthcare, they can.

[Arex]

Tax-payer funded preemptive immorality? That reminds me of a war.Hardly. War involves inflicting violence and destruction and taking away the rights of others. Providing condoms infringes on no one's rights except, perhaps, the parents who don't want their kids exposed to condoms. Those (naive) parents should have the right to prevent their kid from obtaining free condoms from the school, just as some schools allow parents to request that their kid not participate in sex ed.

As you said, teens will have sex regardless. Might as well make sure they're doing it in the safest manner possible to limit the spread of STDs and the number of teen pregnancies. It's good for the kid, it's great for taxpayers, and it's even better for all the unwanted fetuses that won't have to be aborted.

Are you also against government funding for sex ed?

[Yeahman]

Are you also against government funding for sex ed?
Depends on what's being taught. As long as premartial sex isn't taught as acceptable, I'm fine with it.

[DragonKnight]

Depends on what's being taught. As long as premartial sex isn't taught as acceptable, I'm fine with it.
Hrm, probably not since the concept of premarital sex is based mostly on religious belief. I'm pretty sure people would like to seperate religion and its involvement in public education.

Just on a seperate note, have you ever had premarital sex, ye110man? You don't have to answer that btw. I'm just curious as it'll give me a better idea how you came about with this attitude besides the usual, "God said it was a big no-no to stick yer weeny in the vaginy before the exchange of vows and ringies." :wink:

[Yeahman]

Hrm, probably not since the concept of premarital sex is based mostly on religious belief. I'm pretty sure people would like to seperate religion and its involvement in public education.
Promoting abstinence is a violation of the 1st amendment? The ACLU probably wouldn't even touch that one.
Promoting premarital sex is violating the religious rights of the religious.
That's the problem with ultra-liberals. They preach a seperation of Church and State but promote hedonistic atheism.

Just on a seperate note, have you ever had premarital sex, ye110man? You don't have to answer that btw. I'm just curious as it'll give me a better idea how you came about with this attitude besides the usual, "God said it was a big no-no to stick yer weeny in the vaginy before the exchange of vows and ringies." :wink:
And how would your idea change?

[DragonKnight]

Promoting abstinence is a violation of the 1st amendment? The ACLU probably wouldn't even touch that one.
Promoting premarital sex is violating the religious rights of the religious.
That's the problem with ultra-liberals. They preach a seperation of Church and State but promote hedonistic atheism.
Are people *explicitly* promoting premarital sex and hedonistic behavior by providing condoms? As compared to conservatives *explicitly* forcing their Christian religious beliefs regarding premarital sex?

Nope.


And how would your idea change?
Either answer the question or let me know that you're not interested in answering and I'll let it be. And no, I have no interest in answering your own question since I was the one asking the question first. :wink:

[hooligan]

Promoting abstinence is a violation of the 1st amendment? The ACLU probably wouldn't even touch that one.
Promoting premarital sex is violating the religious rights of the religious.
That's the problem with ultra-liberals. They preach a seperation of Church and State but promote hedonistic atheism.

1. Stop jumping to conclusions. Giving out condoms and teaching sex education by far is not promoting sex, it's empowering people to be more responsible if they choose to engage in sex.

2. Abstinence, unfortunately is driven by morality. Usually, this morality is driven within a religious context. The problem with you neo-conservative religious APIAs is they you can't see beyond your limited scope and can't realize that teaching people to be responsible does not imply that we're teaching them "hedonistic atheism".

So, in other words, grow up and go get some.

[Yeahman]

Are people *explicitly* promoting premarital sex and hedonistic behavior by providing condoms? As compared to conservatives *explicitly* forcing their Christian religious beliefs regarding premarital sex?

Nope.
Christian religious beliefs aren't explicitly promoted by not distributing condoms in schools.

Either answer the question or let me know that you're not interested in answering and I'll let it be. And no, I have no interest in answering your own question since I was the one asking the question first. :wink:
I'm just interest in knowing what difference it makes.

1. Stop jumping to conclusions. Giving out condoms and teaching sex education by far is not promoting sex, it's empowering people to be more responsible if they choose to engage in sex.
It is most definately acquiescing that premarital sex is OK.

2. Abstinence, unfortunately is driven by morality. Usually, this morality is driven within a religious context. The problem with you neo-conservative religious APIAs is they you can't see beyond your limited scope and can't realize that teaching people to be responsible does not imply that we're teaching them "hedonistic atheism".
"neo-conservaitve relgious APIAs"? What does this have to do with foreign policy and race?

Would you be for a free drug testing program at school so that kids can test the purity of the drugs they buy so that they don't take anything that'll kill them?

[John0101]

High schools giving out condoms does indeed give students the impression that it is acceptable for them to have sex, as long as it's safe.

I semi-disagree with this arguement.

By giving out free condoms it implies that sexuality is much more of an open issue in high schools. But what it does not imply is whether the school approves or disapprove with students having sex. It is possible that the high school does not aprrove of students having sex but realize that they cannot do anything about it and therefore give out condoms.

There is a sense of indepedant responsibility for the student to take the condom and use it in which the school is an impartial giver.

So giving out condoms tell students it is their responsibility to decide to have sex or not and hopefully in a safe way.

[bluemonq]

Would you be for a free drug testing program at school so that kids can test the purity of the drugs they buy so that they don't take anything that'll kill them?
taking the testing requires that they have drugs. taking a condom does not require them actually having sex. at my (private) high school, i can say with pretty good confidence that most if not all of the condoms passed out were used as water balloons. they're pretty good for that actually, since they get really thin with the right amount of water.

[DragonKnight]

Christian religious beliefs aren't explicitly promoted by not distributing condoms in schools.

They are when religious conservatives like yourself try to stand in the way of their distribution imposing your beliefs on premarital sex. There are those who don't give a shit about marriage so premarital sex is not even a concept to be debated with. Yet here we go with the premarital sex argument which is based in Christian beliefs at least within the United States.

Now, if you were to say, "I don't want condoms being distributed solely based on the fact that I don't want my tax dollars being used in such a matter" *WITHOUT* the argument that it promotes premarital sex, then your whining...err, preaching...err, I meant reasoning would have better merit to those who aren't Christian and/or as religiously fanatical...uhh, devout as you are. :wink:


I'm just interest in knowing what difference it makes.

Yet I was the one who was first asking the question. Safe to presume you're dodging the original question I presented to you. Thus you aren't answering it. Sheesh, could have just came out and say you weren't planning on not answering in the first place, kid. Do you enjoy wasting people's time not only with your holier-than-thou preaching but dodging questions as well?

[Yeahman]

They are when religious conservatives like yourself try to stand in the way of their distribution imposing your beliefs on premarital sex. There are those who don't give a shit about marriage so premarital sex is not even a concept to be debated with. Yet here we go with the premarital sex argument which is based in Christian beliefs at least within the United States.
So why are you trying to infringe on my religious rights by saying that schools should teach that premarital sex is OK?
Besides you're the only one that keeps on bringing up religion. Promoting abstinence is supported by secularists too. Do you also consider the vast majority of Washington Democrats "religious conservatives"? Face it. You hold an extremist view.
It's the only guarenteed way to prevent teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Now, if you were to say, "I don't want condoms being distributed solely based on the fact that I don't want my tax dollars being used in such a matter" *WITHOUT* the argument that it promotes premarital sex, then your whining...err, preaching...err, I meant reasoning would have better merit to those who aren't Christian and/or as religiously fanatical...uhh, devout as you are. :wink:
I stated both reasons.

Yet I was the one who was first asking the question. Safe to presume you're dodging the original question I presented to you. Thus you aren't answering it. Sheesh, could have just came out and say you weren't planning on not answering in the first place, kid. Do you enjoy wasting people's time not only with your holier-than-thou preaching but dodging questions as well?
I was planning on PMing you my answer but now that you're just being an ass, I've decided that it's probably not a good idea.
You really need to grow up. I don't believe that I'm not holier than thou, but it seems that I am more mature.

[haplesshobo]

The problem with those abstinence only sex ed programs is that studies have showed that participants aren't any safer from sexually transmitted diseases. They end up having sex, but when they do, they're less likely to use protection like condoms.

[Yeahman]

The problem with those abstinence only sex ed programs is that studies have showed that participants aren't any safer from sexually transmitted diseases. They end up having sex, but when they do, they're less likely to use protection like condoms.
The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual Activity Among Youth (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm)
Critics of abstinence education often assert that while abstinence education that exclusively promotes abstaining from premarital sex is a good idea in theory, there is no evidence that such education can actually reduce sexual activity among young people. Such criticism is erroneous. There are currently 10 scientific evaluations (described below) that demonstrate the effectiveness of abstinence programs in altering sexual behavior.

[haplesshobo]

dude, i remember, you're the same guy that argued adult stem cells were just as totipotent as fetal stem cells.

first of all, the link is outdated. there's been recent studies that questioned and challanged the safety of using abstinence only programs. i'd question some of its claims such as the ineffectiveness of condoms for HIV. HIV is very fragile, and I just don't use how it would get transmitted if a condom is used properly and doesn't break. Are they implying that HIV is transmitted through some other method which I haven't heard about, since a condom would control for the transmission via semen.

After its distortions about HIV, I'm less inclined to believe any of its other claims. But, let's pretend for now, there's nothing shifty about the studies.

i read the link, and it doesn't disprove my argument at all. basically, what those studies are saying that it delays teenagers engaging in sex. it doesn't prove that participants are any safer once they engage in sexual relations.

my argument is that those who take only abstinence only sex ed class will eventually break their vows and end up having premarital sex. when they do, they end up not using protection vs. those who did take comprehensive sex ed classes.

for those abstinence programs to be trully effective, the participants would need to remain virgins until marriage. but, i don't think they even argue that's what they've done.

let's look at this way: 100 people take abstinence program vs. comprehensive sex ed, and every time somebody has unprotected sex they get an STD. people who take comp. sex ed, all of them start having sex at age 15. the abstinence programs delays
this, and its particpants who do engage in sex don't start until they're 16. out of abstinence program, about a third don't engage in sexual relations at all. (i'm using this third refraining from sex from one of the studies you cited)

by the end of high school, you have 100 students who took compr. sex edu who are having sex. out of that group, 20 were too stupid and don't use condoms or protection. so, 20 students end up with STD. but, the rest, 80 students, use protection and don't get std.

let's compare this to absitence group. by end of high school, where you'd only have about 66 students that engage in sex. the rest of the group took to heart the message of abstinence. out of this 66, about half use condoms and use it properly. maybe, a higher amount tried to use protection, but didn't know how to use it effectively. (you might laugh at this, but that's what your studies must be assuming when it says that condoms don't stop the transimission of HIV up to 31% of time. maybe, the people didn't know how to use it).

so, in the end, 20 students from the first group, the comprehensive sex ed, got infected with std. and, about 33 students from the absitence only program, got infected with std. and, this is after assuming that abstinence programs delays sexual initation as well as that some of its participants would actually abstain from sex. this is a simplification of why abstinence programs aren't as safe as you'd believe, even if we accepted the claims of the studies you cited.

i respect that you have your beliefs and all, but its kind of scary that you'd want to push something that you know is still ineffective and ultimately dangerous.

[DragonKnight]

So why are you trying to infringe on my religious rights by saying that schools should teach that premarital sex is OK?

Looks like we're going to go in circles here. I already answered that with your religious beliefs imposing itself into the school system.


Besides you're the only one that keeps on bringing up religion.

Considering your moral beliefs I thought it would be interesting dragging that religious part out to the open. Which you've shown quite nicely.


Promoting abstinence is supported by secularists too. Do you also consider the vast majority of Washington Democrats "religious conservatives"? Face it. You hold an extremist view.
It's the only guarenteed way to prevent teenage pregnancy and STDs.

Yet reason schools still pass out condoms to those who'll accept them (for whatever purposes they may use them for). Granted it's not like they're adding them to their cafeteria meals to go along with saltine crackers and veggy soup. So far those Washington Democrats may promote abstinence, but they sure aren't doing much to prevent premarital sex considering the current policies.

Now you claim that passing out condoms promote premarital sex. See, this I find very interesting cause the very programs that pass out condoms *do* promote abstinence as well. In fact, I think its perfectly fine to promote abstinence. But if people want to have sex, why not help promote education in safe sex at the very most? What, do you think the adults passing these out are saying, "Hey, take this rubber, go out there, and have a 'fucking' good time." *wink, wink* Nope, I don't think so. The first thing on their minds is promoting abstinence. But being realistic, they also educate on safe sex.

From what I can tell, it's the lack of parental supervision and the lack of sex education that promote premarital and unsafe sex. Wanna guess which schools in my area had the rep for having the horniest and most sexually active people? The private Roman Catholic and Christian schools. Cause they have some shitty sex ed programs (if they had them at all) back in the days and their naive parents think that just cause they send their kids to a religious school that sex is the last thing on their minds. BULLSHIT. Not to say our public school system is any better, but at least we know the risks, have a better understanding of the more *gasp* forbidden parts of the human anatomy, and how to properly strap a jimmy-hat on.


I was planning on PMing you my answer but now that you're just being an ass, I've decided that it's probably not a good idea.
You really need to grow up. I don't believe that I'm not holier than thou, [b]but it seems that I am more mature.
Wow, takes a real mature guy to reaffirm himself on a public forum time and time again that he's mature. Should I get you a mirror the next time you say that? Or is your soapbox too high for you to see your own reflection as the rest of us 'hedonistic' infidels down here on the level of reality are trying our best to reflect your inane, pious arrogance back atcha.

[Yeahman]

dude, i remember, you're the same guy that argued adult stem cells were just as totipotent as fetal stem cells.
I'd love to see a quote of me arguing that.

Now you claim that passing out condoms promote premarital sex. See, this I find very interesting cause the very programs that pass out condoms *do* promote abstinence as well. In fact, I think its perfectly fine to promote abstinence.
That's not what you said before. You just changed your position now that I reminded you that you are not in sync with the Democratic party.
Passing out condoms is not a very effective way of promoting abstinence. "Here have a condom but don't use it!"

Or is your soapbox too high for you to see your own reflection as the rest of us 'hedonistic' infidels down here on the level of reality are trying our best to reflect your inane, pious arrogance back atcha.
Rest of you? There's only one of you.
You cannot cite a single example of my "pious arrogance." That's just your "I'm so above all that religion crap" mindset that assumes that everyone who professes a faith is a Jerry Falwell. We all know you despise people with religions talking about issues. How dare they, right? Those with religious views have no right to talk about issues (unless of course the Democratic party allows it)! Now THAT is arrogance!

[Atealtha]

At my high school people were getting head on the stairs before they started putting "free condoms" signs everywhere. Not to mention one of the students were pregnant.

[bluemonq]

well, i guess that would qualify as altered sexual behavior, wouldn't it? since oral and anal sex "isn't really sex" :rolleyes:. i keep hearing time and time again that that's what's happening to many people who pledge abstinence; they find a loophole. and then they aren't practicing it safely, increasing the likelihood of std transmission.
I'd love to see a quote of me arguing that.

i believe the quote in question is this one:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showpost.php?p=383174&postcount=9
The totipotent nature of embryonic stem cells has been a negative so far. When that South Korean parapalegic was cured last year, the scientists said that they prefered to use non-embryonic stem cells because they are easily to work with. Non-embryonic stem cells taken from the donor and used on the same person are also more effective unless you compare it to cloned embryos.under certain interpretations, you could effectively be arguing that non-embryonic stem cells are just as totipotent as embryonic stem cells. though i'm definitey having trouble parsing that last sentence.

[Yeahman]

well, i guess that would qualify as altered sexual behavior, wouldn't it? since oral and anal sex "isn't really sex" :rolleyes:.
I can see the oral sex, bou really think there are people who have anal sex because they want to wait for the right time to have "real" sex?

i believe the quote in question is this one:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showpost.php?p=383174&postcount=9
under certain interpretations, you could effectively be arguing that non-embryonic stem cells are just as totipotent as embryonic stem cells. though i'm definitey having trouble parsing that last sentence.
I never said that adult stem cells were just as totipotent as embryonic stem cells. I was saying just the opposite. I was saying that because embryonic stem cells are more totipotent, it has been harder to work with. For practical purposes, scientists prefer adult stem cells.
In the last sentence I was saying that adult stem cells that are used by the original donor are more effective than foreign embryonic stem cells. So to achieve the same effectiveness with embryonic stem cells, it would have to be a cloned embryo.

[haplesshobo]

ye11oman,

i feel left out. how come you didn't address any of my challenges about abstinence only program, and instead used the stem cell comment as a red herring?

have you read any of the recent studies that challenged the abstinence only programs? what happens if you read a study that shows the weakness of abstinence only programs, would you be willing to admit the need for a more comprehensive education?

i'm not saying condoms are 100% safe, because nothing really ever is. but, do you realy think that the transmission of HIV will be as high as 30% when somebody is using condoms properly?

in your opinion, what is the ultimate goal for any effective sex ed programs?
for me, it should be about reducing std's and teen pregnancies. do you share this same goal, or do you feel that its more important that teenagers are virgins?

[Yeahman]

ye11oman,

i feel left out. how come you didn't address any of my challenges about abstinence only program, and instead used the stem cell comment as a red herring?
You're the one that made the accusation. I wanted to clear it up.

have you read any of the recent studies that challenged the abstinence only programs? what happens if you read a study that shows the weakness of abstinence only programs, would you be willing to admit the need for a more comprehensive education?
We can throw studies at each other. If abstinence only programs are weak then we should look at how to strengthen them, not to weaken them.

i'm not saying condoms are 100% safe, because nothing really ever is.
Abstinence is.

but, do you realy think that the transmission of HIV will be as high as 30% when somebody is using condoms properly?
No.

in your opinion, what is the ultimate goal for any effective sex ed programs?
To learn about sex.

for me, it should be about reducing std's and teen pregnancies. do you share this same goal, or do you feel that its more important that teenagers are virgins?
They aren't incompatible goals. Besides, I never said that teenagers shouldn't learn about condoms. I just don't want schools giving them out or teachings kids that it's OK to have sex as long as it's safe.

[haplesshobo]

the underlying weakness of any abstinence program is that it doesn't address the issue of what happens when teenagers finally do have sex and hasn't prepared them for that. yes, abstinence is only the thing 100% guaranteed, but its not guaranteed that teenagers will practice that 100% of the time. and, they do a disservice by throwing out numbers that condoms won't be effective up to 30% of the time for HIV. that's the number i got from your link.

the problem is that with comprehensive sex ed, people have accused it of promoting sex when they teach kids about safe sex and condoms.

i would have no problems with a program that said that abstinence was the safest thing, but it only works when you don't engage in sex. but, if you ever decide its the right time, here's how to protect yourself...

what they should really teach in sex ed is how to be a good lover and sexually satisfy your mate. :)

[DragonKnight]

That's not what you said before. You just changed your position now that I reminded you that you are not in sync with the Democratic party.

Lol, that's cause I already didn't mind the abstinence promotion which I left out stating cause I knew you would think that I would advocate safe sex only. What bothered me is your particular fervor in your opposition in passing out free condoms that had a religous tone to it which seems to be the basis of a majority of your arguments. I attacked your position cause you had a major thing against premarital sex. What about those who have no plans to get married? What, have no sex at all? Laf, if they're legal I say stay out of their sex lives if they want to have them. But give them proper education as there is a risk and a sample of the primary tools in preventing the spread of AIDS.


Passing out condoms is not a very effective way of promoting abstinence. "Here have a condom but don't use it!"

Did I say that passing out condoms was an effective way of promoting abstinence? No. I said education and parent involvement in their kids' lives was. The condom is there for those who do participate.


Rest of you? There's only one of you.

You're the minority here that goes off on your soapbox and your constant ranting of lack of morals and whats-not that is always tinged with fanatical Roman Catholic religious fervor. If anything, you


You cannot cite a single example of my "pious arrogance."

So far a majority of your posts that I comment on is an example. You just don't see it cause you're so full of your 'righteous' anger. You always keep pushing the premarital sex issue. Which is based on one of the 10 JEWISH commandments that later gets corrupted by MEN in a form of social control...cause it was a good idea at the time that ran along with the forbidden consumption of shellfish, pork, and other previously dangerious non-kosher meals. Hey, premarital sex is not exclusive to just Christian ideas, but in this country that's where the concept took root. Corrupting Christian ideas and concepts in this country justified slavery, racial discrimination, the cultural and populance genocide of the Native Americans, the cultural genocide of whatever nation preachers tend to touch, and every form of social control you can think of...in this case sexual activity.


That's just your "I'm so above all that religion crap" mindset that assumes that everyone who professes a faith is a Jerry Falwell. We all know you despise people with religions talking about issues. How dare they, right?

Actually, I like listening to the Buddhist, Shinto, and Islamic believers of the group (and not limited to that btw) along with REASONABLE Christians as well. It's fanatics like you who go forward and say that following God and Jesus is the only truth in this world that perturb me to no end. Then carry on arguments tinged with religious fervor. Now YOU'RE the one SWINGING into the prevention of AIDS and other STDs instead of the issue of premarital sex. Before, it was *just* premarital sex. But I'll believe that your intention was also to prevent AIDS and other STDs instead of just controlling the sexual lives of people. :wink:


Those with religious views have no right to talk about issues (unless of course the Democratic party allows it)! Now THAT is arrogance!
It's those who project their religious views like an unwanted penis (ahem...I wonder whose? :wink: ) into the faces of others who just happen to either have a different religious view or no religious view at all; and would rather you not project the unwanted penis in their face cause it'll either make them yack...or laugh their asses off. Now if you project your views WITHOUT the religous fervor (in this case, shoving the concept of premarital sex which in this debate, is a bothersome Christian taboo) and concentrating on the prevention of the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, then you would have an argument that I actually would think of agreeing with.

[Yeahman]

Lol, that's cause I already didn't mind the abstinence promotion which I left out stating cause I knew you would think that I would advocate safe sex only. What bothered me is your particular fervor in your opposition in passing out free condoms that had a religous tone to it which seems to be the basis of a majority of your arguments. I attacked your position cause you had a major thing against premarital sex. What about those who have no plans to get married? What, have no sex at all? Laf, if they're legal I say stay out of their sex lives if they want to have them. But give them proper education as there is a risk and a sample of the primary tools in preventing the spread of AIDS.
You want Christians to stay out of the lives of atheists but you want atheists involved in the lives of Christians.
I don't want my children being taught that premarital sex is OK. Why do you have to force your beliefs on them?

You're the minority here that goes off on your soapbox and your constant ranting of lack of morals and whats-not that is always tinged with fanatical Roman Catholic religious fervor. If anything, you
No, you're the only one that has a problem here. Other people tolerant different faiths. You're the only one here intolerant of people who believe in a religion. You're the only extremist here.

So far a majority of your posts that I comment on is an example. You just don't see it cause you're so full of your 'righteous' anger. You always keep pushing the premarital sex issue. Which is based on one of the 10 JEWISH commandments that later gets corrupted by MEN in a form of social control...cause it was a good idea at the time that ran along with the forbidden consumption of shellfish, pork, and other previously dangerious non-kosher meals. Hey, premarital sex is not exclusive to just Christian ideas, but in this country that's where the concept took root. Corrupting Christian ideas and concepts in this country justified slavery, racial discrimination, the cultural and populance genocide of the Native Americans, the cultural genocide of whatever nation preachers tend to touch, and every form of social control you can think of...in this case sexual activity.
So men wanted to control society by denying themselves sex?
The 10 Commandments are divine laws for all men. The ban on pork, shaving sideburns, etc... were the Mosaic laws of a particular covenant.

Christian ideas and concepts in this country justified abolition, civil rights, and the human rights of the Native Americans.

It's fine if you're against Christian practices. But stop attacking me for believing in them.

Actually, I like listening to the Buddhist, Shinto, and Islamic believers of the group (and not limited to that btw) along with REASONABLE Christians as well. It's fanatics like you who go forward and say that following God and Jesus is the only truth in this world that perturb me to no end.
In other words, you don't like Christians who actually believe in Christianity.

Then carry on arguments tinged with religious fervor. Now YOU'RE the one SWINGING into the prevention of AIDS and other STDs instead of the issue of premarital sex. Before, it was *just* premarital sex. But I'll believe that your intention was also to prevent AIDS and other STDs instead of just controlling the sexual lives of people. :wink:
Yeah I want to control the sexual lives of people. :rolleyes:
I don't want to ban condoms. I don't want to ban premarital sex. I was against the anti-sodomy laws. I want to legalize prostitution. I just don't want schools teaching kids that premarital sex is OK.
But that doesn't matter to you believe you just want me to stop being Christian. Or if I choose to be Christian, to stop talking about issues.

the underlying weakness of any abstinence program is that it doesn't address the issue of what happens when teenagers finally do have sex and hasn't prepared them for that. yes, abstinence is only the thing 100% guaranteed, but its not guaranteed that teenagers will practice that 100% of the time. and, they do a disservice by throwing out numbers that condoms won't be effective up to 30% of the time for HIV. that's the number i got from your link.

the problem is that with comprehensive sex ed, people have accused it of promoting sex when they teach kids about safe sex and condoms.

i would have no problems with a program that said that abstinence was the safest thing, but it only works when you don't engage in sex. but, if you ever decide its the right time, here's how to protect yourself...
I don't have a problem with teaching facts about anything. I have no problem with...
"This is a condom. This is what it does and this is how it works."
I do have a problem with...
"You should use condoms."

Many people here argued that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge even if it was voluntary because those students who don't participate may face a negative stigma. Likewise, many people here argued that voluntary Bible study should not be offered during school hours because of the possible negative stigma.
So what about sex ed that teaches things contrary to the beliefs of a large portion of the class? I'm not talking about teaching facts but teaching what to do in a situtation that requires a moral judgement call.

[haplesshobo]

i've got no problems with them saying 'you should use condoms if you're going to engage in sex because as a fact, its the safest thing to do if you're going to have sex. even then, its not 100% protective.'

but, the abstinence only programs don't really address the issues about condoms. instead, for the most part, they seem to ignore it or seem to exagerate the dangers of using condoms. to me, those aren't facts but hysteria.

[Yeahman]

i've got no problems with them saying 'you should use condoms if you're going to engage in sex because as a fact, its the safest thing to do if you're going to have sex. even then, its not 100% protective.'
So you don't care that that moral judgement call (you should...) goes against the beliefs of the students and their parents?

[haplesshobo]

nope, i don't see it as a moral judgement to state that condoms are for the most part safe and that if you're going to have sex, you 'should' be protected. they're not advocating the kids have sex. instead, they're simply presenting the options, and giving the kids enough information so they'll know how to protect themselves if they choose to have sex.

what's the other option. simply show what a condom is. if you're going to argue that saying that 'one should use a condom if one is going to have sex' as promoting sex, then it seems like some could also argue that even showing what a condom is would also promote sex. would facts about the reliablity and the overall safety of a condom not be included because some might view this as promoting sex?

[DragonKnight]

*stretches* *yawn*

Okay, I'm out. It's been going in circles in the last half-dozen or so posts. Granted anytime ye110man is involved things tend to go that way. :biggrin:

[Yeahman]

nope, i don't see it as a moral judgement to state that condoms are for the most part safe and that if you're going to have sex, you 'should' be protected. they're not advocating the kids have sex. instead, they're simply presenting the options, and giving the kids enough information so they'll know how to protect themselves if they choose to have sex.
"Condoms are effective 95% of the time" is an amoral statement with evidence to back it up. You can pit data against each other but you still wouldn't be debating morals.

"If you are going to have sex, you should use a condom" is certainly a moral judgement which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

what's the other option. simply show what a condom is. if you're going to argue that saying that 'one should use a condom if one is going to have sex' as promoting sex, then it seems like some could also argue that even showing what a condom is would also promote sex. would facts about the reliablity and the overall safety of a condom not be included because some might view this as promoting sex?
You can rattle off all sorts of facts and figures about condoms.
"This is a condom. This is how it works and what it can do. It can help prevent... It cannot prevent..."

That's all fine. But just don't infringe on religious freedom and tell the kids that it's morally permissible. You don't have to tell them that's it's not either. Just tell them make up their own minds.

[haplesshobo]

alright fine, would this be acceptable to you:

'this is a condom. its 95% effective against the tranmisssion of STD, prengancy, etc..
list everything it will prevent. it cannot prevent mono which is spread by kissing. keep these numbers in mind if you are going to engage in sex, as its been proven to be one of the safest methods of protection. without it, you are increasing your risks of std, HIV, etc... This is what happens when you don't use protection, use protection improprerly, or when protections fails- STD, etc..

Now, we will show everybody how it works on this bannana. remember, protections is useless if you don't know how to use it properly'

[Yeahman]

alright fine, would this be acceptable to you:

'this is a condom. its 95% effective against the tranmisssion of STD, prengancy, etc..
list everything it will prevent. it cannot prevent mono which is spread by kissing.
That's fine.

keep these numbers in mind if you are going to engage in sex, as its been proven to be one of the safest methods of protection. without it, you are increasing your risks of std, HIV, etc... This is what happens when you don't use protection, use protection improprerly, or when protections fails- STD, etc..
That is not acceptable.
You made no mention of abstinence which is the most effective way to prevent STDs. You remove that bias and you're just repeating what you said before in the first quote.

Now, we will show everybody how it works on this bannana.
Fine.

remember, protections is useless if you don't know how to use it properly'
No, protection is also useless, if you don't need it.

[Arex]

But seriously, does anyone really think that a school making free condoms available at the nurse's office is the equivalent of the school saying it's morally permissible to engage in premarital sex? C'mon! There's no imposition there as far as I see it. That's like saying a school which has beef stew available for purchase in the cafeteria on Lent is saying it's morally acceptable to eat meat on Lent.

The kids that are going into the nurse's office to get the free condoms at that point have already decided they're going to be doing the deed. It'd be different if the school was handing out condoms to every student with their welcome packages, but I don't think that's what's going on here.

[haplesshobo]

That's fine.


That is not acceptable.
You made no mention of abstinence which is the most effective way to prevent STDs. You remove that bias and you're just repeating what you said before in the first quote.


Fine.


No, protection is also useless, if you don't need it.

Well, I earlier said that I had no problems with a program that taught abstinence was the safest thing first before moving onto condoms.

I kind of assumed my speech came after the speech about how abstinence is the safest thing, provided you actually don't do sex.

[hooligan]

Taking The Pledge
(Page 1 of 2)

May 22, 2005
Safe Sex Or Abstinence?

Amy Fritsche and Rick Gutierrez plan to do what more than two million young people have already done in the past 10 years – take a pledge to remain virgins until marriage. (Photo: CBS)

(CBS) For about two decades, the top public health agencies in America urged young people to use condoms to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

But the U.S. government has dramatically reversed course. Over the past five years, it has spent nearly $1 billion to persuade young people that the only safe form of sex is within marriage -- and that condoms are not as effective as people think.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to bring the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage message to the nation’s classrooms. Millions more are going to religious organizations that urge kids to take a virginity pledge promising to remain abstinent-until-marriage.

As Correspondent Ed Bradley reports, it's a message many young Americans are eager to hear. Amy Fritsche and Rick Gutierrez are high school sweethearts in Fort Myers, Fla. They’re planning to do what more than two million young people have already done in the past 10 years – take a pledge to remain virgins until marriage.

"You're are not a virgin, right?" Bradley asks Rick.

"That's right," says Rick. "It's a second chance."

"So you’re OK with this? You don’t mind?" asks Bradley. "Even though you’ve had sex before, you don’t mind not having sex with your girlfriend?"

"I do not mind at all," says Rick. "I respect her greatly."

What do their friends who are sexually active think about Amy and Rick's decision?

"They think we can't do it," says Amy. "That it's impossible. But it's not."

Amy and Rick will be taking their virginity pledge at a music and light sex-education show called Silver Ring Thing. In the last few years, Silver Ring Thing has received more than $1 million in federal and state subsidies. Its aim is to encourage young people to put on a ring and promise to abstain from sex until marriage.

Denny Pattyn, a Christian youth minister, founded Silver Ring Thing in 1996. "After three-and-a-half hours of giving them our best shot [on stage], 75 percent become convinced and put on the ring," says Pattyn. "Our goal actually is to create a culture shift in America. We want to see the concept of abstinence be the norm rather than the exception."

Pattyn doesn’t just preach the virtues of sexual abstinence. His show is full of negative messages about condoms – messages warning that condoms won’t protect kids from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

"We spoke with some of the kids after the show in Fort Meyers and they said that going into the program they thought that condoms did work, but your show convinced them that they didn’t," says Bradley to Pattyn.

"Right. Well, that’s good because we believe that condoms aren’t the answer," says Pattyn.

"You’re telling kids not to have sex. But some kids are going to have sex," says Bradley. "What do you tell those kids. You tell them not to wear a condom?"

"What I would say is if you chose to use a condom, don’t think you’re getting the protection you think you’re getting," says Pattyn.

"A kid’s part of your program, and he comes to you and says, 'You know, I’m going to have sex. I’ve reached a point and I’m going to do this. Should I use a condom?' What do you say?" asks Bradley.

"My own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active. I would not tell her to use a condom," says Pattyn. "I don't think it'll protect her. It won’t protect her heart. It won’t protect her emotional life. And it’s not going to protect her. I don’t want her to get out there and think that she’s going to be protected using a condom."

But wouldn't his daughter be more protected with a condom than without? "Not long term," says Pattyn.

The federal government is spending $167 million this year to spread that abstinence-only message. And there’s a law that says that for a program like Silver Ring Thing to receive government funding, it must not talk about the health benefits of using condoms -- only about how they fail.

Is this a good thing?

"It’s a good thing because I’ve looked at the last 30 years. I’ve seen what the safe sex teaching has created both here and internationally," says Pattyn. "Thirty years and $5.4 billion later, of federal funds, look at what we have. We have a massive, massive mess sexually with teenagers."

"Sex education doesn’t cause all these negative outcomes. What causes these negative outcomes is kids who are having sex and aren’t protecting themselves," says Columbia University’s Peter Bearman, who co-authored the most comprehensive study ever done on adolescent health and sexuality.

It was a $45-million project, funded by 17 separate federal agencies. Bearman’s investigators interviewed more than 20,000 young people about virginity pledge programs -- and there was some good news.

"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It’s almost two school years."

So what's the downside?

"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they’re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex."

Why do they not use condoms?

"They’ve been taught that condoms don’t work; they’re fearful of them. They don’t know how to use them," says Bearman. "Their peers don’t use them. They have no experience with them. They don’t know how to get them. They’re had to get access to. For whatever reason they don’t use them, that has long-term consequences."

Propaganda at its best.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml

Damn, you know what? if you don't know how to use them that's probably why you're scared of them.

[Martino]

I wonder if Denny Pattyn will tell his daughter to abstain from combination drug therapy when she catches one of the fastest spreading STDs in the heterosexual population: HIV.

But, if these people want to create their own living hells ....

[nola]

Abstinence programs don't really work and alot of kids get STDs. Suppression makes things worse. For example, since Bush took office in 2000, there have been 25% more abortions performed in the US.

[Atealtha]

When some gays suppress their homosexuality and eventually accept it, they go into a phase where they feel they need to "make up" for their past. And then they go out to have sex with as many same sex partners as possible.

Sounds very possible with this abstinence thing.

[Yeahman]

Abstinence programs don't really work and alot of kids get STDs. Suppression makes things worse. For example, since Bush took office in 2000, there have been 25% more abortions performed in the US.
http://factcheck.org/article330.html
We asked the Democratic National Committee repeatedly where Dean got his 25 percent figure, but we got no response. Even if Stassen's estimate of 52,000 additional abortions were correct, that would figure to an increase of less than 4 percent. And in any case the rate is going down, not up, according to the most authoritative figures available.

When some gays suppress their homosexuality and eventually accept it, they go into a phase where they feel they need to "make up" for their past. And then they go out to have sex with as many same sex partners as possible.

Sounds very possible with this abstinence thing.
puahhahahahaha
You anti-abstinence people are crazy relying on myths and propoganda.

[Atealtha]

Keyword "some". You don't think that it can happen to some people that abstaine?

[hooligan]

http://factcheck.org/article330.html
puahhahahahaha
You anti-abstinence people are crazy relying on myths and propoganda.
And do you know why they're going down? Legitimate places that provide abortions are losing funding thanks to this administration's policies. They're closing down and people are having less and less places to get legal abortions. It doesn't mean that they're going down, nor does it mean it' sstopping people from getting abortions. It simply implies that there are less resources to get abortions and places for reproductive health.

PROVIDERS AND SERVICES
The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). 87% of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2000. These counties were home to 34% of all 15-44-year-old women.[16]

97% of abortion facilities provide abortion at 8 weeks, and 86% provide services at 12 weeks, but provision drops off steeply after that, with only 13% of providers offering services at 24 weeks.[17]

A growing proportion of providers offer very early abortion (at 4 weeks gestation), and increase from 7% in 1993 to 37% in 2000.[18]

In 2000, the cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation ranged from $150 to $4,000, and the average amount paid was $372.[19]


Abstinence is not the only alternative, stop talking about it as though it is. Your arrogance is sickening, once again ye110, pot, kettle, black.

[Yeahman]

Abortions have been decreasing for the last 15 years or so including during Clinton's reign. There are lots of reasons. It's reached a saturation point, there's increased access to birth control, and that Divine assistance.

[nola]

WELL GOOD that's what I always thought. That abortions have gone down (from 30/1000 women to 20/1000 women for the last 25 years) because of the women's movement, reproductive health education and sex education.

I just heard the statistic on Meet the Press.

[hooligan]

Abortions have been decreasing for the last 15 years or so including during Clinton's reign. There are lots of reasons. It's reached a saturation point, there's increased access to birth control, and that Divine assistance.
Don't forget, sex education, funding for programs that talk about reproductive health, making contraceptives available for everyone. It wasn't the fundies or Christians berating us about being abstinant. It was women, activists and people who pushed for education in something that matters. Making sure people take responsibility for their own personal reproductive health.

Now there's this attack on sex education, how it's "perverting" the minds of our young by giving them "ideas". Wait, these were the same sex ed that helped drop the abortion rate?! What's to become of this?? HYPOCRISY? NO!

[Yeahman]

Steve Levitt might also argue that those who would have had abortions were aborted themselves. The children of pro-lifers are more likely to be pro-life themselves. The first of the aborted babies would have started having their own abortions around 1988 which is just a couple of years before abortions started dropping.

Don't forget, sex education, funding for programs that talk about reproductive health, making contraceptives available for everyone. It wasn't the fundies or Christians berating us about being abstinant. It was women, activists and people who pushed for education in something that matters. Making sure people take responsibility for their own personal reproductive health.

Now there's this attack on sex education, how it's "perverting" the minds of our young by giving them "ideas". Wait, these were the same sex ed that helped drop the abortion rate?! What's to become of this?? HYPOCRISY? NO!
No hypocrisy because you can't prove it. That's your guess. It could very well be that those programs are keeping abortion rates above what they would be without them.

[hooligan]

Steve Levitt might also argue that those who would have had abortions were aborted themselves. The children of pro-lifers are more likely to be pro-life themselves. The first of the aborted babies would have started having their own abortions around 1988 which is just a couple of years before abortions started dropping.


No hypocrisy because you can't prove it. That's your guess. It could very well be that those programs are keeping abortion rates above what they would be without them.
Please, it's more likely that these programs have had a definite effect on abortion rates and teen pregnancy rates than Steve Levitt or bible thumpers speaking on abstinance.

So, you're going to suggest the reason that the abortion rates remain low is that if the aborted babies were allowed to live, they would have aborted their fetuses and thus the abortion rates would have remained the same? That's almost setting up a straw man argument and probably unprovable, unless you can project yourself in an alternate universe where these fetuses grew up to be children, etc.

[nola]

Steve Levitt might also argue that those who would have had abortions were aborted themselves. The children of pro-lifers are more likely to be pro-life themselves. The first of the aborted babies would have started having their own abortions around 1988 which is just a couple of years before abortions started dropping.Can yall tell this Steve Levitt is probably really stupid and ignores common sense?

[hooligan]

Since I don't have access to the pubmed server at my apartment, here are some abstracts from reputable journals.

Trends in teenage fertility, abortion, and pregnancy rates in Iceland compared with other Nordic countries, 1976-99.

Bender S, Geirsson RT, Kosunen E.

Faculties of Nursing, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. ssb@hi.is

BACKGROUND: Iceland is often considered very similar to the other Nordic countries. The purpose of this study was to explore trends in teenage fertility, abortion, and pregnancy rates in Iceland, compare these trends with corresponding rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden during the period 1976-99, and to evaluate similarities and dissimilarities. METHODS: The study is based on data about fertility, abortion, and pregnancy rates obtained from the Icelandic and Nordic national population and abortion registers for the age group 15-19 years years. RESULTS: Teenage fertility and pregnancy rates in the five Nordic countries declined over the study period by 57-67% and 31-50%, respectively, and in Iceland they remained significantly higher than in the Nordic countries. In 1999 almost every other teenage pregnancy in Iceland (45.9/1000) resulted in a childbirth (24.4/1000). Regional fertility rates were highest in the countryside. While the abortion rate has been declining in the four Nordic countries by 20-41%, they have concurrently been rising in Iceland by 133% (9.4/1000 in 1976-80, 21.9/1000 in 1996-99) and are presently higher than in the other Nordic countries. Regionally, abortion rates in Iceland were highest in the Capital area. CONCLUSIONS: The teenage pregnancy rate is higher in Iceland than in the other Nordic countries. This may be explained by cultural norms in Iceland's society regarding childbearing, early initiation of sexual intercourse, more limited sex education, and less effective delivery and use of contraceptive methods. There is a need to promote sexual and reproductive health to young people in Iceland by combining diverse preventive approaches.

[Abortion in Korea since 1945]

[Article in Korean]

Jeon HS, Seo HG.

Department of Medical History and Ethics, Inje University College of Medicine.

Since prehistorical era, the human has desired to control reproduction artificially. However, abortion, one of the productive methods has been prohibited to a certain degree by law in some countries, but the operation of abortion has been done in practice. Also, controversial arguments on legitimacy of abortion have been raised. In Korea, physicians operates abortions more than 2 million times each year. In spite of serious social problems, arguments on abortion have not been common yet. The efforts to find a good solution for abortion have not been very sufficient. Therefore, this study is to investigate the concerns for the conditions of abortion since 1945 (this year is the independent one from Japan's government) through a historical perspective and to suggest the efficient direction in policy. Since 1945, many women have had no choice but abortion for their basic life. The Korean government of legislated the Crimes of Abortion in Criminal Law in 1953. However, the number of women who underwent abortion increased since 1962 due to the governmental Family Planning Policy. In addition, the Mother and Fatherless Child Health Act was enacted in 1973 that tolerated abortion to some extent. The disparate treatment of abortion between Criminal Lam and the governmental policy fueled the confusion to potentially pregnant women. The first reason why Korean women choose abortion is wrongful pregnancy. Compared to other counties, in Korea, abortion were operated for sex selection. To conclude, it is important to be implement positive sex education, proper contraception education by government and social publicization of arguments on abortion.

Family planning in the balance.

Hwang AC, Stewart FH.

Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, University of California, San Francisco, 94143, USA.

Family planning has long been acknowledged as an effective public health intervention. In recent years, however, family planning has come under increased scrutiny from conservative politicians and constituents. National US policies instituted since 2001 are resulting in cutbacks in family planning programs worldwide. In the long run, these conservative initiatives may set back several decades of progress in reproductive health and reproductive rights. In promoting an ideologically driven approach to sexual and reproductive health, the recent policy developments threaten to subvert ethical standards of medical care and the principle of evidence-based policy.
PMID: 14713687 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2002 Apr-Jun;14(2):91-6. Related Articles, Links

Adolescent pregnancy in the United States.

Klerman LV.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. klerman@brandeis.edu

The rates of adolescent pregnancies and births in the United States are higher than those in most industrialized nations. Fortunately, the rates of sexual activity, pregnancies, and births have declined in the last few years. Contraceptive use has increased and the induced abortion rate and ratio have also declined. The decrease in sexual activity and the increase in contraceptive use are usually attributed, at least in part, to fear of contracting HIV/AIDS. Other contributing factors may be health education programs, a changing moral climate, new contraceptives, and the improved economy. The decrease in sexual activity and increase in contraceptive use have led to the decline in the pregnancy and birth rates. The decline in induced abortions is probably due to legislation restricting access to abortion for minors, harassment of abortion facilities, and violence against abortion providers. Programs to prevent adolescent pregnancies and births have traditionally focused on health education and provision of contraceptive services. Recently there has been increased emphasis, supported by federal funds, on teaching about the value of abstinence. Another new approach has been youth development programs that provide adolescents with opportunities to interact with caring adults outside of their families and to build self-esteem, a sense of self-worth, and skills.

Publication Types:

* Review
* Review, Tutorial


PMID: 12467178 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Look, here's a journal that discusses the use of abstinence. Also, read the line before the bolded one for added background of why these rates might be declining.

[Yeahman]

So, you're going to suggest the reason that the abortion rates remain low is that if the aborted babies were allowed to live, they would have aborted their fetuses and thus the abortion rates would have remained the same? That's almost setting up a straw man argument and probably unprovable, unless you can project yourself in an alternate universe where these fetuses grew up to be children, etc.
Can yall tell this Steve Levitt is probably really stupid and ignores common sense?
How about you do the research that he has done? His theories are gaining more and more acceptance everyday. He is neither a liberal nor a conservative and does not argue for or against any moral position but instead just presents the data.

His theory is that the drop in crime during the 90's was do mostly to abortion. Unwanted children are more likely to commit crimes. Starting in 1973 lots of them were being aborted. My theory is an extention of his and is perfectly logical.

Is is really that hard to imagine that abortion rates differ in different socio-economic groups? So a group with a high abortion rate would have a lower rate a generation later because some of them were aborted and cannot have abortions of their own.


If it was a decrease in the number of abortions instead of just the abortion rate, I would attribute that to a change in demographics. The babyboomers were the ones having the abortions in the 70's and 80's but they started to stop due to age in the 90's. But we are seeing a drop in the rate of abortion.

Be more openminded people. It's impossible to pinpoint why abortion rates are falling. There are lots of possible explinations.

[hooligan]

Well, I'm sure he's got interesting points and I will need to read up on him. Edward Said calls economists, re-badged Orientalists. ; )

[etcj]

Well, now that the school year is over, I guess school boards have another year to decide whether or not they will implement condom machines in bathrooms. The common misconception is that implementation of these dispensers will cost money to taxpayers. Ahemm, condoms are actually readily available in many schools, particularly those in large urban areas. The difference is that they most are currently located in the nurse's office or guidance counselor's offices. Student petitions to move them into the bathroom isn't a move to promote sex, but to eliminate the stigma and embarassment of asking a nurse or guidance counselor for a condom.

Of course, I remember when I was in high school, the only "barrier" to the machines was the fact that pranksters might take the condoms and use them as water balloons.

[nola]

What global research has always shown is that a combination of sex education, reproductive rights and women's rights lowers the rates of abortion.

[ahsingjai]

What global research has always shown is that a combination of sex education, reproductive rights and women's rights lowers the rates of abortion.

Don't need research. Just look at Japan.


Edit: Wait, I didn't think before I type that... I was thinking birth rates.

[haplesshobo]

Here's two funny, wicked videos spoofing sex-ed and abstinence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD1pvhDJG9o&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwpqJ_ntRSU&mode=related&search=

[BeTheReds]

Giving condoms to kids gives the message that it's okay to have sex as long as it is safe. Educating them about condoms is one thing, but giving them out for free is altogether different.

[DEADFORWEEKS]

this is more of a vent than a rant, but i had to say it. today, i overheard someone saying how some high school making contraceptives available was inducing and/or encouraging students to have sex.

by her logic, if the school didn't provide anything, those same students wouldn't have sex.

wtf? i really should have confronted her.

Same old rhetorical theological conservative bullshit. Tell her to shove that bible far up her hideously fat albino ass.