Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Laphroaig10, Feb 1, 2010.
Some UPenn researchers appear to show that it might be:
what would be great is if parents could be responsible enough to teach their kids this crap at home.
Maybe the researchers should check their findings with this study showing teen pregnancy rates are up:
Or you could show how your link refutes his link? All you showed is an admittedly pro-choice organization claiming that abstinence-only education is to blame for the rise, and the only evidence they site is that California never took federal funds for it.
Partisan, err I mean Prodigal,
I too saw the political backings of the institute that noted the increase in teen pregnancies- but if the outlier in their study was say, Rhode Island you'd have a point. Instead it is our most populous state- so I'd say that a state with about 15% of the nation's population as a counter argument would enable any institution, regardless of political affiliation to have a point that abstinence programs in place of contraception may be the leading cause of the increase in teen pregnancies.
More notably- teen pregnancies are UP 3%- and that refutes the original idea that abstinence education has a measurable, positive effect in preventing the most serious repercussion from teenage sex which is of course the unwanted pregnancies.
oh Partisan is very light by WM standards!
I wouldn't call that article my link- I heard this story on the radio and also tv this past week- so when I saw this post I knew it had 'another version.' Try this please- go to google news, and type in pregnancy rate. You will find at least 50 articles on this in the past week- some that discuss this study and others that do not. It is more than just a liberal institution that has these results- I'm sure the NIH or similar will have similar numbers soon.
Rather than looking at the background or causal relationships- the most important fact to me in this area is teen pregnancies. And- they are up- a fact. Whatever the positive trend was since the 1980's is not continuing. And while I might be wrong- my personal guess is that teens will have sex regardless what well intended people tell them- and you may as well teach them how do it safely and without getting pregnant.
Perhaps these folks would do better to teach abstinence as the 'best' practice- but to couple it with, "if you can't wait- then" etc. But instead I think they are teaching abstinence as the only way to do things. Would be a great idea in the 1950's perhaps...
I'm sure abstinence-only education does something to prevent sex, but it also means that those having sex are much, MUCH more likely to have unprotected sex.
Last year, I taught in an unnamed small town that did abstinence-only education. There were 15 pregnancies at the MIDDLE SCHOOL. And in that small town, that's 5% of the middle school, or 10% of the girls at the middle school. One in every ten girls was pregnant.
Abstinence-only is just a bad idea.
as someone who is NOT for abstinence only education.. why can't we teach abstinence and methods of safe sex? I have never understood why 'comprehensive' couldn't mean comprehensive. Every site/group I have seen calling for comprehensive sex education had a kids are going to do it, so don't tell 'em not to, just tell 'em how to do it safely mentality. Maybe I was reading between the lines too much, but it sure seems that way.
Why not teach kids that the best option is not to.. and here are reasons why... (I think most of us agree there are plenty of reasons middle school kids shouldn't be having sex)... and also teach here is how you do have sex safely... That is what I got circa early 90s in Texas public HS. I thought it was actually a pretty good balance... They taught us all the safe sex stuff... but the teacher kept saying what a really bad idea it was.....
Also... there is NO substitute for good parenting and personal responsibility in this or any and all areas of life.
Interesting study. Wonder if it can be replicated with other populations?
I will tell you this – those free condoms they give teens suck! False sense of security! I don’t know how many times post-coital bliss was ruined.
I think that abstinence only education is less desirable than a more complete view of the subject matter because knowledge is useful to these kids. Abstinence is a wholly reasonable approach to avoiding the negative aspects of sex of teenagers, but ignorance is a terrible way to promote that (or anything else).
it should be fairly obvious why "the national teen pregnancy rate went up one year; therefore, abstinence ed is bollocks" is not a valid interpretation. Also, read the report in your link. They said that they were reporting a one time y/o/y increase, and it was too early to know if it was anomalous or a new trend.
the study linked in the op indicates that kids in contraception or comprehensive programs are not more likely to use contraception.
that link, at best, has limited information about the study and the conclusions that were drawn. however, I know this: the vast majority of abstinence pledgers break their own pledge.
teenage sex(as I remember it) is like stopping the tsunami. best to prepare people for the event than to pretend it won't happen.
Laphro- You can see in above posts I have no problem with abstinence education ONLY if it is coupled with sex ed, and condom use education. I think as several others have said as well- abstinence only is just a bad idea.
On a side note- I think we could hire Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson as spokeswomen for the "I believe in abstinence only, well until there was that one time with that one guy" movement.
Remember when little Britney claimed she was going to wait?
I was under the impression that the message of comprehensive sex-ed was "the only way to be 100% sure you don't get pregnant or an STD is to not have sex, barring that...." Is that not the case? Which is to say, I was under the impression that the controversial part was whether or not the classes would discuss prevention methods beyond abstinence, not that abstinence would NOT be taught. I thought the sex-ed classes were recommending safe sex as an alternative to unsafe sex, not as an alternative to not having sex.
Abstinence only sex ed = war on drugs = Fail
ProdigalHorn, I get your point, but I'm not sure that you can teach abstinence AND contraception without there being an implied "but" as a transition between the two. Not to mention the fact that unless we going exclusively with pretaped classes, it is going to be impossible to completely guard the tone of the presenter. At the end of the day, I think it is better for the kids to have more information rather than less. Which is to say, lead with abstinence and include contraception.