main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Abstinence Only

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Ewan, Jan 21, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Epicauthor

    Epicauthor Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Beverly Hills 90210.

    Said by Donna to her mother and the school board when there was an uproar over condoms I believe.

    I agree with abstinence-stressed education because while it is the best way to avoid pregnancy and disease, kids aren't going to always abstain. It's better to give them the tools they need than to let them go alone.
     
  2. darkcide

    darkcide Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 17, 2003
    What about masturbation? That's a good alternative to sex that can be taught to kids. "You see,it begins with something between a person and him/her-self..."
     
  3. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
  4. irishjedi49

    irishjedi49 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Words of wisdom from '90210'? Come on, Vaderize :p

    Here's my thought - I really don't think they absolutely positively WILL end up in the swimming pool, especially if you don't just put up the fence saying 'don't go there' but instead explain why the fence is there. Yes, if you just put up a sign saying "forbidden," curiosity leads people to ignore the sign and try it out. But the point of education is to explain concepts, right? And there are lots of (readily explainable) reasons that teenagers should not be having sex. So, you teach what sex is, what happens to the body at puberty, and explain why sex is something you should not do as a teenager.

    Besides, if you teach people to swim in your example, you're effectively conceding they will be swimming shortly anyway. Ergo, the fence might as well not be there at all. Why bother mentioning it?

    I just don't accept that it's a foregone conclusion everyone will ignore an abstinence message. I'm in my mid-20's, and waiting until marriage. My four siblings, late teens to early twenties, are also all waiting until marriage. Of my circle of friends in college, I can easily name many who either are waiting until marriage, or at least waited until they were out of high school. Yes, this anecdotal evidence isn't dispositive, and yes, lots of people will have sex no matter what you tell them - but that's not an obvious conclusion. I mean, look at numbers - teenage pregnancies shot way up in the last 40 years in this country, with a lot more comprehensive sex education than was around in the 50's. Isn't it at least possible (it's absolutely true, but concede merely the possibility) that more people think it's okay to have sex outside of marriage today than 40 years ago? And that more people are in fact having sex outside of marriage than 40 years ago?* So we know it's at least possible that it's not a constant always and everywhere that everyone will have sex no matter what you tell them.


    *and as a note, lots of negative consequences followed from this new laissez-faire attitude towards sex - consequences which, like the STD epidemic or extremely high rate of nonmarital children (33% of all kids in the US, plus 1 million abortions a year?) with all the social consequences that causes, can easily provide rationale for returning to that teaching of abstinence...
     
  5. womberty

    womberty Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Besides, if you teach people to swim in your example, you're effectively conceding they will be swimming shortly anyway. Ergo, the fence might as well not be there at all. Why bother mentioning it?

    Are you advocating that schools not teach anything about sex, other than "you shouldn't do it"?

    If sex ed in schools teaches students what the basic process of sex is, does that mean the schools concede that the students will be engaging in sex shortly anyway?

    Unless you think that schools should not teach students about sex at all, then when they do teach them about sex, why not teach them about contraception along with it? If a school can teach a student about sex but assume the student will not try it until marriage, then why can't they assume the same for birth control?
     
  6. irishjedi49

    irishjedi49 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Interesting question, womberty, and I think that could be okay. If birth control was explained, but taught in the same context as sex ("don't do or use this until marriage") I suppose that could work. My concern is with "don't do this, but if you do...(wink, nod)" -- that is effectively saying, we know you'll do it anyway, so here's how.

    I do note that I did not say sex ed. shouldn't be taught at all (sure it should, but more of a "here's what's happening to your body, here's what men and women do, but you should abstain from doing this until marriage..."), and I did clarify that straight prohibitions minus explanations are no good (so the end of my statement would be "...and here's why.") Please do me the credit of seeing the whole explanation I tried to give :)
     
  7. Jansons_Funny_Twin

    Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2002
    If birth control was explained, but taught in the same context as sex ("don't do or use this until marriage")

    I don't agree with this. I don't think the school should be saying "Don't do or use this until marriage." They should be telling the facts, nothing more, nothing less. I think it's up to the parents to teach their kids to wait until marriage, not the school's. Abstinance-only is a morality position, one that should not be taught by the school.





    Don't leave me.
    Don't ignore me.
    Don't kill me!
     
  8. womberty

    womberty Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2002
    I do note that I did not say sex ed. shouldn't be taught at all ... Please do me the credit of seeing the whole explanation I tried to give

    I was just pointing out, from your analogy, it would sound as though you would prefer we not teach sex at all, for fear that it might prompt some students to engage in it.

    I know you're not against sex ed, but to use that logic to prohibit contraception education and not sex education seemed contradictory.
     
  9. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    irish: Not everyone will ignore an abstinence message--you're right. But some will--that's why I'm in favor of a program that stresses abstinence but not one that teaches it to the exclusion of all others.

    Isn't it at least possible (it's absolutely true, but concede merely the possibility) that more people think it's okay to have sex outside of marriage today than 40 years ago? And that more people are in fact having sex outside of marriage than 40 years ago?*

    I don't think this is true actually. I just think there is less of a stigma attached to it. People still had sex and got pregnant in the 50s but it was covered up--the girl either had a back alley abortion wih a coat hanger or (in most cases) was sent away to a relative or a "home" several states away while she lived out her pregnancy in shame and secrecy. Or, people got pregnant and then were required by the girl's father with a shotgun to get married. Also, in those days it was acceptable to get married at 17 or 18. It's not now.

    Premarital sex happened, but no one knew. It's just like everything else in the 50s that interfered with the Norman Rockwell viewpoint of perfection--it was covered up. And therefore, even statistics lie.
     
  10. alpha_red

    alpha_red Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Abstinence-stressed-in addition to birth control methods-is a much better option than "abstinence-only". Bush's policy ignores reality and sacrifices the health of teenagers to please a political constituency that has its' collective head in the sand.


    Just about the best damn summary of this I've seen.
     
  11. Obi-Ewan

    Obi-Ewan Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2000
    Besides, if you teach people to swim in your example, you're effectively conceding they will be swimming shortly anyway. Ergo, the fence might as well not be there at all. Why bother mentioning it?

    Because, to apply this to the topic at hand, teenagers are having sex anyway, despite us telling them not too, and our belief that they shouldn't. We can either think idealistically (Kids shouldn't be having sex) or realistically (they are having sex, how do we prevent unwanted results?) You're not helping a kid any by keeping him ignorant of all possible precautions.
     
  12. Space_Man

    Space_Man Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2003
    I thought we already had an Abstinence Only Sex Education thread around here somewhere.... No matter. My question: What -- exactly -- does an "abstinence only" curriculum consist of? Seem like it would take about 2-minutes to teach:

    TEACHER: Kids, today we're beginning our Abstinence-Only class. Are you ready? Don't have sex!

    THE TEENAGE STUDENTS: :confused:

    TEACHER: Now that we're done with that, we will begin studying Western Civilizations....

    ME: [face_plain]

     
  13. womberty

    womberty Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Exactly!

    If they're going to go ahead and teach about sex, why not teach about contraception at the same time?

    The problem seems to be that parents assume their children will take education about contraception to mean "it's okay to do as long as you use contraception." But how are the kids supposed to understand that just being taught about sex doesn't necessarily mean "it's okay to do, and you don't need contraception"?

    If you're going to teach them about sex, you might as well teach them about the risks that go along with sex and the methods available to reduce the risks. Better yet, show them the evidence that these methods aren't 100% foolproof so they're less likely to trust their luck to a condom. And let the parents sort out the message of abstinence until marriage - it's their job, and they're just trying to delegate it to the school (and as a result, enforce it on everyone's children).
     
  14. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Irish Jedi, by any chance, did you go to private school?

    It's just been my experience that conservative law students tend to come from private school, and also tend to believe that the liberal agenda in public schools is whack.

    When I was a grade-school student, they taught us about sex. When I was in junior high, they taught us about sex again, but this time, they taught us about sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy.

    Then you know what they did? They taught us about both contraceptives and abstinance. They went over each and every kind of contraceptive, the pill, condoms, diaphrams, spermacide, etc, and they went over what exactly these devices do (prevent pregnancy, prevent STD's,), heck, they even taught us the rythem method, and then they told us the generaly percentage of effectiveness, (98%, 93%, 66%, or whatever).

    But you know what? Every time they talked about it, every class, they ALWAYS stressed the fact that none of these methods are 100% effective, that the ONLY fully effective method is abstinance. (Of course, even abstinance is not 100%, you can get STD's in other ways, and then there is the hole oral sex grey area.)

    The point is, they taught us about effective birth control, STD's, and all that, and they stressed that abstinance is the BEST MOST EFFECTIVE SAFEST method.


    EDIT: The most important thing I forgot to mention to everyone is this: I don't give a rats arse about what you think is right. I don't give a damn if your religion frowns upon sex or sex before marriage. I feel like this is something conservatives understand if you put it in certain terms, so here goes, think of it as WAR. This is WAR on micro-viruses, deadly evil micro-viruses, together, which can be classified only as a chemcial weapon of mass destruction. Aids is a weapon of mass destruction, and this war is on the evil viruses that plague our bodies. WE MUST EDUCATE OUR CITIZENS ON HOW TO COMBAT AND AVOID DEATH at the hands of these viruses. We need to STOP the virus from spreading.

    To live in your conservative la-la land and hope everyone would just listen to the will of God and prevent proper sex education is a threat to national security.

     
  15. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Geez, OWM, feeling slightly randy today?

    What hasn't been covered is Bush's actual plan..Has anyone even taken the time to research what the plan includes, or is this another case of mass assumption?

    I haven't seen his plan either, since he outlined it on tuesday, but here is an example of one of his previous initiatives:

    HERE

    Although it is showy, because it comes from his own site, it outlines an AIDS plan:

    The disease of AIDS is fought with knowledge and medical skill. It also is fought with decent and loving hearts.

    President Museveni has begun a comprehensive program in 1986 with a prevention strategy emphasizing abstinence and marital fidelity, as well as condoms, to prevent HIV transmission.

    Throughout all regions of targeted countries, we'll provide HIV testing, we'll purchase anti-retroviral medications and other drugs that are needed to extend lives.


    Clearly, in this instance, Bush hasn't supported an "abstinence only" program, but one that promotes abstinence, while offering information about other means of protection and treatment.

    That is no different than what most people in this thread are advocating as well..


     
  16. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    Obi-Wan McCartney,

    You speak wisely. It would be to the benefit of many here to listen to your words.
     
  17. irishjedi49

    irishjedi49 Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 23, 2002
    People, if you read my posts, you will notice I said nothing at all about morality. Or religion. I realize you (apparently) don't think anyone could hold the positions I do for any conceivable secular reasons, but I can and do. And those reasons exist. So:

    JFT:

    Abstinance-only is a morality position, one that should not be taught by the school.

    Some people teach abstinence for moral reasons, true. "Moral" doesn't always equal "religious," though - states have the power to regulate public morals under their police power, for instance. In the case of sex ed for middle-schoolers, abstinence is not just (or even only) a morality position, and it absolutely should be taught by the school. Why? Public and individual health. Thirty-three percent of all children in this country are born out of wedlock - about ten percent of all births to unmarried teenagers. Those babies are more likely to have low birthweights, developmental problems, be abused, live in poverty, drop out of school, and be in jail. The mothers don't fare too well either. Eighty percent of all teen mothers will go on welfare.* (Not to mention all the abortions - not good for women's health.) Three million new teenagers get STD's every year - genital herpes, chlamydia, HPV, genital warts, cervical cancer, HIV. These can be difficult, expensive and painful to treat, most can't be cured, and several can cause infertility. Condoms don't stop transmission in most cases.

    Therefore, 1) to decrease public spending on welfare, 2) to lower the rate of STD's and related public health costs of treating these diseases, 3) to lower the teen pregnancy rate and protect the health of teens and their own possible children --

    I'd say the state has several strong nonmoral reasons to promote the only sure way to achieve all those goals: abstinence.

    *these stats from Planned Parenthood

    womberty - I do think it's important to have sex ed, to teach about biology and the nature of sex ... but then to point out all the serious hazards associated with doing this as a teenager in particular, as a means to explain why teens should abstain.

    a_g - You make a good point about the age that most people get married being a lot younger 50 years ago. However, I don't think one can credibly claim that people aren't having way more sex outside marriage now than they were at that time. Even the specter of those "coat-hanger abortions" - look, if one million women were dying in back alleys every years, don't you think we would have noticed? And it's indisputable that out-of-wedlock pregnancies (a frequent consequence of sex) and STD's skyrocketed from the 1960s on. There's a different cultural attitude, and it's had demonstrably negative consequences in a lot of ways. However, my point was merely that "they're going to do it anyway" isn't necessarily a given. I was pointing out that in other times, kids didn't have sex as much as today - so it's not something you have to throw up your hands at because there's absolutely no other possibility than that most kids will have sex. Abstinence messages can work (I think you also think this is true in a lot of cases).

    Obi-Ewan -

    Because, to apply this to the topic at hand, teenagers are having sex anyway, despite us telling them not too, and our belief that they shouldn't.

    Well, are we telling them not to? Do we believe they shouldn't? Check other posts here - an awful lot of people think abstinence isn't just futile, it's a wrong message to send, because teens should have sex whenever they're ready. I think we should try to send the message, before we decide it doesn't work. (Though many studies tend to show it does.)

    As for keeping kids ignorant, that's actually why I think womberty made an interesting point - if you teach about what contraceptives are, but in the context of why these don't give a license to do what you want (i.e., here's stuff that exists, but don't use it) - consonant with abstinence, that might be good.

    Space-Man
     
  18. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    irish: I don't have any stats and I don't know that anyone does, so I have no way of either proving or disproving your claim, other than to say that I think stats would be skewed by the number of women who got married because they were pregnant (more so than they do today) or hid their pregnancies out of shame by getting sent off to a relative several states away. I don't know how many died in back-alley abortions, but one death is too many. I also know that some doctors would perform abortions illegally and cover them up as medically-necessary D&Cs. Michael Crichton wrote about it in 1968 in his book In Case of Need, which was originally published under a pen name so he wouldn't lose his medical license.

    Yes, the abstinence message does work in some cases. However, there are far too many cases in which it doesn't work, and that is why I believe that we should have a program in which abstinence is stressed as the only 100 percent foolproof method, but not a program in which abstinence is the only method taught--a program like the one in North Carolina in which teachers aren't allowed to mention birth control even to students who come to them and ask for information.
     
  19. Lanky

    Lanky Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Abstinence is a wise idea for teenagers, however, they ARE teenagers (do I really need to explain? :p). It seems to me, the best idea is to have sex-ed classes where the topic is discussed frankly and openly. Sex is far too much of a taboo in society, for something with such far-reaching effects. The fact is, (ESPECIALLY with teenagers :p) alot of them ARE going to have sex at some point, and they deserve to know the facts, and how to prevent things like disease and pregnancy. Whether or not such classes actually encourage sexual activity (which I doubt, kids have hormones, they dont need a class explaining everything in detail to act on them) is immaterial in my view. Whether they are sexually active, plan on being sexually active, or abstinent, they all NEED to know about sex. I'm sure most of them, no matter what their thoughts, plan on having it at some point. :p

    As for abstinence itself, it's a wise decision for highschoolers. From my point of view, who wants to complicate already complicated lives with the resposibilities of sex? Not I, said the little red hen. :p
     
  20. Jansons_Funny_Twin

    Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Some people teach abstinence for moral reasons, true. "Moral" doesn't always equal "religious,"

    Never said it was. I assume you thought that I was saying "Because it's based on morality/religion, it has no place in school." That's not at all what I was saying. What I was saying, is that we need to teach them facts. Abstinence-only Sex Education is based on an opinion. I believe that we should teach kids the facts (one of which is that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control/protection from STDs), not opinions (the idea of abstinence-only is based on a morality-based position on sex's place in teenage lives).

    though - states have the power to regulate public morals under their police power, for instance.

    No, they regulate the law with the police, not morality.

    In the case of sex ed for middle-schoolers, abstinence is not just (or even only) a morality position, and it absolutely should be taught by the school. Why? Public and individual health. Thirty-three percent of all children in this country are born out of wedlock - about ten percent of all births to unmarried teenagers. Those babies are more likely to have low birthweights, developmental problems, be abused, live in poverty, drop out of school, and be in jail. The mothers don't fare too well either. Eighty percent of all teen mothers will go on welfare.* (Not to mention all the abortions - not good for women's health.) Three million new teenagers get STD's every year - genital herpes, chlamydia, HPV, genital warts, cervical cancer, HIV. These can be difficult, expensive and painful to treat, most can't be cured, and several can cause infertility. Condoms don't stop transmission in most cases.

    Therefore, 1) to decrease public spending on welfare, 2) to lower the rate of STD's and related public health costs of treating these diseases, 3) to lower the teen pregnancy rate and protect the health of teens and their own possible children --

    I'd say the state has several strong nonmoral reasons to promote the only sure way to achieve all those goals: abstinence.


    While most of that is true (not gonna get into a debate on condoms and abortion here), it doesn't change my argument on why schools teaching abstinence-only is not the way to go. If the parents want to teach abstinence-only, let them. It's their job to teach and pass on morality-based opinions, while it's the school's place to teach just the facts.

    Facts at school, tempered by opinions taught at home, are the way to go here.






    Don't leave me.
    Don't ignore me.
    Don't kill me!

     
  21. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Kudos to epicauthor-gets the plate of brownies :p!


    Words of wisdom from '90210'? Come on, Vaderize

    Actually, knowing that 90210 was watched by millions of high-school teenagers nationwide, I thought that the show's authors addressed social issues in a quite well-balanced manner.

    Here's my thought - I really don't think they absolutely positively WILL end up in the swimming pool, especially if you don't just put up the fence saying 'don't go there' but instead explain why the fence is there. Yes, if you just put up a sign saying "forbidden," curiosity leads people to ignore the sign and try it out. But the point of education is to explain concepts, right? And there are lots of (readily explainable) reasons that teenagers should not be having sex. So, you teach what sex is, what happens to the body at puberty, and explain why sex is something you should not do as a teenager.

    You missed the point, irishjedi. What you stated is all well and good, but what I was trying to say is that there are things you can't control. You have millions of years of evolution going against you here; simply crying "forbidden!" ignores reality, doesn't solve the problem, and creates more problems of its own. The fact is, we can stress abstinence, but it is pure folly to ignore sexual and birth control education. More below.

    Besides, if you teach people to swim in your example, you're effectively conceding they will be swimming shortly anyway. Ergo, the fence might as well not be there at all. Why bother mentioning it?

    No, no no! We are giving the tools to protect themselves, so that they are prepared in case they end up in that situation. My whole point is that you can't control them every moment, all the time. Teaching the risks is good, but educating them on not only avoiding those risks, but reducing them, is better. It brings us into the real world, where not everybody waits until marriage. Simply demanding that they wait is unrealistic. There are decades of evidence to back this up, yet it gets ignored.

    If you believe that this adds up to condoning, that's fine. But you can't make that decision for my child or anybody else's child in a public school, as far as I am concerned. If you fail to teach children about birth control and disease prevention, then it's as if the fence might as well not be there, as we then become culpable for their mistakes. We knowingly kept them in the dark, allowing them to stumble into dangerous territory without the basic background knowledge of where they were going and what they were doing. We can ignore reality and pretend that they won't crash through the barriers we erect, but I for one would sleep much, much better at night (and with a much clearer conscience) knowing that my child had been educated. I want to be able to trust their judgement, and hope that they will make the right decision and wait for love. But not telling them that they could drown in the pool without swimming lessons is not something that can pass my conscience. If they did drown, it becomes partly my fault.

    That is where your logic faulters.

    I just don't accept that it's a foregone conclusion everyone will ignore an abstinence message.

    I never said everyone will. But many will. Which is why you must teach both and stress abstinence.

    I'm in my mid-20's, and waiting until marriage. My four siblings, late teens to early twenties, are also all waiting until marriage. Of my circle of friends in college, I can easily name many who either are waiting until marriage, or at least waited until they were out of high school.

    Their choices. They and you are free to make them. Others choose differently.

    Yes, this anecdotal evidence isn't dispositive, and yes, lots of people will have sex no matter what you tell them - but that's not an obvious conclusion. I mean, look at numbers - teenage pregnancies shot way up in the last 40 years in this country, with a
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.