Originally posted by lucifershammerGranted. So?
With teenage sex, however, there is never a necessity.
The lack of necessity is pretty irrelevant. It may not be "necessary" but it's going to happen regardless of what we teach. I'm all for teaching my now 13-year old son that abstinence is "right". (And I think it is.) But I also want to be sure that he knows more facts than that. I'd be happy to have him get through his teenage years without engaging in any risky behavior, sexual or otherwise. I can't predict the future, but few teenagers are going to do everything I say. Some will abstain. Some won't. Some will abstain from sex and do some different stupid and risky thing. Some will stay strictly away from alcohol and (other) drugs, but experiment with sex. I don't know which poison which kids will pick, but the teen years are not typically characterized by good judgement. IMHO, it's far better to make sure that as much factual information as possible is available.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnWell said.
Granted. So?
The lack of necessity is pretty irrelevant. It may not be "necessary" but it's going to happen regardless of what we teach. I'm all for teaching my now 13-year old son that abstinence is "right". (And I think it is.) But I also want to be sure that he knows more facts than that. I'd be happy to have him get through his teenage years with ...[text shortened]... to make sure that as much factual information as possible is available.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnI agree; I think it is my responsibility as a parent to see that my kids know at least as much, or more, about the dangers of life as I do.
Granted. So?
The lack of necessity is pretty irrelevant. It may not be "necessary" but it's going to happen regardless of what we teach. I'm all for teaching my now 13-year old son that abstinence is "right". (And I think it is.) But I also want to be sure that he knows more facts than that. I'd be happy to have him get through his teenage years with ...[text shortened]... to make sure that as much factual information as possible is available.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by lucifershammerOk. The analogy (which wasn't mine!) is not water-tight,
I think the analogy is flawed - simply because not using a car is rarely a viable and sustainable option. There is always a risk of accident no matter which mode of transport you choose - cars, buses, trains, airplanes, boats, whatever. Given this fact and the necessity of transportation, a car is usually the optimal solution if one does a cost-benefit or risk-reward type analysis.
With teenage sex, however, there is never a necessity.
I'll grant that. I feel it made the point adequately, but
because the parallel was not absolutely perfect, I'll
entertain this. Let's do another one, shall we?
Given: The internet is full of objectionable sites. We can
do two things:
1) Teach our kids that there are objectionable sites,
teach them how to avoid them and what to do if they
should find themselves there.
2) Forbid them from using the non-necessary internet.
Now, I would expect that, irrespective of the forbidding
they might end up using the internet at school or at
friends' houses. Not offering them the education in #1
puts them at grave moral risk.
Let's try another:
Given: 1) Alcohol is available at teenager parties; and 2)
Teenagers drive.
We can:
1) Teach our kids that drinking is wrong, but tell them
if they should do the wrong thing, that they most certainly
shouldn't drive while drunk, but that they should call their
parent to drive them home.
2) Teach our kids that drinking is wrong and leave it at
that.
In the second choice, we are not helping our child make
responsible decisions if they should find themselves in
a wrong way. I know that anything I teach my child will
be the full range of education: 1) Don't do x; 2) If you
do x, be sure you do y and never z.
Teaching abstinence is only half the education.
Nemesio
A lot of people have said that teenagers need "more education." However, despite a huge increase in sex education we have not seen a corresponding decrease in teenage pregancies or STD. In 2003 the number of new HIV infections worldwide was more than in ANY of the previous years. Instead of encouraging people to use more condoms we should be encouraging people to be less promiscuous.
Originally posted by Peter X
However, despite a huge increase in sex education we have not seen a corresponding decrease in teenage pregancies or STD.
This is categorically false.
Rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion among U.S. teenagers continued their downward trend in 2000. Nationwide, the teenage pregnancy rate declined by 2% between 1999 and 2000 (from 85.7 to 83.6 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19). From 1986 to 2000, the rate dropped by 22% and, more importantly, fell by 28% since peaking in 1990.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/covers/state_pregnancy_trends.html
Researchers at the 2004 National STD Prevention Conference noted a 74% drop in herpes infections amongst teens during the 1990’s.
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=logentry&ID=200
Another report on STDs said that only comprehensive sex education - that teaches both abstinence and birth control - will reduce their spread. Calling abstinence "the surest way to avoid STDs," the report said improved sex education, including instruction on proper condom use, is essential. The CDC acknowledges that condoms are effective against the spread of HIV, and in reducing the risk of gonorrhea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis.
http://www.peabodycenter.org/ITAMar04.pdf
Review the graphs on p. 47-49 which all show a gradual decrease in teenage
incidences of syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea. You may also notice that
the very states with reputations for shunning complete sexual education
have the highest per capita rates of teenage STDs.
www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/ 1997_Surveillance_Report.pdf
As sexual risk-taking by adolescents declines, their health improves. National population data show declines in adolescent pregnancy and childbearing. Disease surveillance data indicate that some STD rates among adolescents also have declined.
www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410027.pdf
Your claim is totally unsubstantiated by the facts. The rates have
in fact decreased. Are they still high? Yes. But they are getting lower
thanks to adequate and complete sexual education.
Originally posted by Peter X
In 2003 the number of new HIV infections worldwide was more than in ANY of the previous years. Instead of encouraging people to use more condoms we should be encouraging people to be less promiscuous.
Worldwide HIV infections are a product of not having condoms available
at all, much less education about it.
In any event, we are talking about education in America, so the statistics
involving the world are not relevant.
It is disingenous to throw around facts without any substantiation. You should
be ashamed.
Nemesio
.. isingenous to throw around facts without any substantiation. You shouldEat your words,Nemesio. I never "throw around facts without substantiation." I come from Australia, so naturally my sources will differ from yours. My quote on increasing rates of STD came from a local news report a few weeks ago, and my quote of 2003 HIV levels came from reading an article quoting the World Health Organisation. Here's another statistic for you, from the science program Catalyst; a medical study found that 10% of sexually active people had some kind of STD. Prevention is much better than cure, and abstinence is the best prevention there is.
be ashamed.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by Peter XAgreed. On the other hand, AIDS is a relatively new disease and any and all methods should be used to combat it, given that it is a virtual death sentence. Condom use should be encouraged.
A lot of people have said that teenagers need "more education." However, despite a huge increase in sex education we have not seen a corresponding decrease in teenage pregancies or STD. In 2003 the number of new HIV infections worldwide was more than in ANY of the previous years. Instead of encouraging people to use more condoms we should be encouraging people to be less promiscuous.
Originally posted by Peter XYou'll notice that the topic of this thread, which I get from
Eat your words,Nemesio. I never "throw around facts without substantiation." I come from Australia, so naturally my sources will differ from yours. My quote on increasing rates of STD came from a local news report a few weeks ago, and my ...[text shortened]... better than cure, and abstinence is the best prevention there is.
the first post, is about the 'US Federally funded abstinence program.'
As such, the 'default' country for this thread is the United States.
If you plan to introduce auxiliary statistics unrelated to these
abstinece programs, you should do so in another thread or, at the
very least, quote your source, specifying that you are refering to
another country not being discussed.
And, you did throw those facts without substantiation. There was
no citation of such a claim in your post.
And, I never questioned the HIV levels in the world; it wasn't part
of the topic of this thread: the US Federally funded abstinence program.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioOK, so how do we stop AIDS? We can do it ...
You'll notice that the [b]topic of this thread, which I get from
the first post, is about the 'US Federally funded abstinence program.'
As such, the 'default' country for this thread is the United States.
If you plan to introduce auxiliary statistics unrelated to these
abstinece programs, you should do so in another thread or, at the
very l ...[text shortened]... asn't part
of the topic of this thread: the US Federally funded abstinence program.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by nemesioI am new to these debates,so when I saw the heading "Abstinence" I thought it was a debate on abstinence in general, not just a USA law,which doesn't apply to me as I live elsewhere in the world. Therefore I will not make any more posts on this thread. P.S I will make sure I always quote my source from now on so people cannot accuse me of making things up. I hope this satisfies everyone.
You'll notice that the [b]topic of this thread, which I get from
the first post, is about the 'US Federally funded abstinence program.'
As such, the 'default' country for this thread is the United States.
I will teach my daughter why I think abstinence is a wise choice through the junior high/high school years.
1) You run the risk of becoming pregnant
2) Sex is an important decision that needs to be made when you are emotionally ready to deal with its effects.
3) STD's are a consideration
4) The boys in high school probably don't know anything about sex and would suck anyway.
Then I'd let her know that whether or not she chooses to engage in sex during high school, she should be in control of her reproductive cycle. Finally, I'd tell her that if she is going to have sex early, she should engage in it with some one she cares about and trust.
Originally posted by Peter XNo one is saying that a different perspective would be
I am new to these debates,so when I saw the heading "Abstinence" I thought it was a debate on abstinence in general, not just a USA law,which doesn't apply to me as I live elsewhere in the world. Therefore I will not make any more posts on this thread. P.S I will make sure I always quote my source from now on so people cannot accuse me of making things up. I hope this satisfies everyone.
unwelcome. It should just clearly be identified as such.
Citing your source is good etiquette, it helps to avoid
situations where people don't know what you are talking
about. It's for your own good.
Nemesio