Abstinence Education Funds Hit Record Levels in Congressional Bill

[Riprorin]

A new study by the Heritage Foundation tracked teenagers over four years and compared teens who took an abstinence pledge with those who didn't.

The study found, after three separate periods of analysis spaced years apart, that pledgers were one-third less likely than non-pledgers to have sex before the age of 18.

The Heritage study also revealed that teens who kept their pledge to abstain from sexual relations were 50% less likely to have out-of-wedlock births than non-pledgers and were less likely to have a sexually transmitted disease.

A January 2004 Zogby International poll shows parents overwhelmingly support abstinence education for teenagers.

Out of the 1,004 parents surveyed across the nation, 96 percent said abstinence is best for teens. The vast majority of American parents want their children's sex education classes to emphasize abstinence until marriage, according to poll, which was commissioned by Focus on the Family.

Link

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

 

[imported_KirbsAw]

Only one way to make sure kids don't have sex....make sure they're ugly 😉

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

If that's really what parents want, I guess it's what they *should* get.

Kinda smacks of sticking your head in the sand and hoping the issue will go away though.

To me, "one-third less likely..." sounds like an awful lot of people who signed those pledges had sex anyway. They would have been better off if given the knowledge to minimize their risks from doing so.

 

[Engineer]

Hormones win everytime!

 

[Tab]

Yea, thats a great sucess rate :roll:

 

[Vic]

The real issue here is why should our taxdollars be spent to teach chldren something that their parents should be teaching them?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

It's the Nanny State, Vic, its all the rage nowadays. Don't expect it to subside any time soon, especially in the next four years.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Vic
The real issue here is why should our taxdollars be spent to teach chldren something that their parents should be teaching them?

They shouldn't bit so long as they are, tax dollars should be used to support what parent clearly want taught.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

Yeah, great to see the Radical Religious Right Repugs spending money like water on things that they have no business spending money on and it doesn't do sh!t, way to go FLL's.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

Yeah, great to see the Radical Religious Right Repugs spending money like water on things that they have no business spending money on and it doesn't do sh!t, way to go FLL's.

I'd rather my spend money on abstinence programs than for federally funded abortions, AIDS and STD treament, welfare for single mothers and other social problems associated with unwanted pregnancies.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Actually, abstinence only reduces chances of 1st intercourse by two months. And unfortunately, kids are less likely to use protective measures.

Our media constantly blasts kids with images that sex = happiness and success and that everyone is literally doing it at least everyday.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

Yeah, great to see the Radical Religious Right Repugs spending money like water on things that they have no business spending money on and it doesn't do sh!t, way to go FLL's.

I'd rather my spend money on abstinence programs than for federally funded abortions, AIDS and STD treament, welfare for single mothers and other social problems associated with unwanted pregnancies.

I'd rather not spend money on those things either, but your stats show pretty convincingly that those problems don't just go away given abstinence-only education. AO has a moderate effect, and even then only on students who are strongly influenced by the material being taught.

I'd like to see teenage pregnancy and STD stats for students who receive AO education, but have no interest in signing any sort of pledge. Essentially kids who see little reason not to have sex, and don't receive education on how to have sex with the least possible risk.

I still have to admit that if parents really want AO education, then I guess it's the 'right' thing to do, even though it is a grave disservice to the students.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
A new study by the Heritage Foundation tracked teenagers over four years and compared teens who took an abstinence pledge with those who didn't.

The study found, after three separate periods of analysis spaced years apart, that pledgers were one-third less likely than non-pledgers to have sex before the age of 18.

Were they pledgers because they were not likely to get any to begin with? 😀

The Heritage study also revealed that teens who kept their pledge to abstain from sexual relations were 50% less likely to have out-of-wedlock births than non-pledgers and were less likely to have a sexually transmitted disease.

I would think that those who actually KEPT their pledge would have ZERO wedlock births and no STD's, not just 50% less.
Something is fishy here.

A January 2004 Zogby International poll shows parents overwhelmingly support abstinence education for teenagers.

Out of the 1,004 parents surveyed across the nation, 96 percent said abstinence is best for teens. The vast majority of American parents want their children's sex education classes to emphasize abstinence until marriage, according to poll, which was commissioned by Focus on the Family.

Link

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

Abstinence education != abstinence.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

Yeah, great to see the Radical Religious Right Repugs spending money like water on things that they have no business spending money on and it doesn't do sh!t, way to go FLL's.

I'd rather my spend money on abstinence programs than for federally funded abortions, AIDS and STD treament, welfare for single mothers and other social problems associated with unwanted pregnancies.

Ayup, I'm not brainwashed (yet) so I know the "Compassionate" part of the "Conservatism" is pure Bullsh1t so I already know you wish death on those afflicted via "sins of the flesh" no matter how they get infected.

As for single mothers that keep popping out babies and expecting public assisteance, I agree, they should be forced into working and contributing to Society other than increasing population count.

Still absolute bullsh1t as far the money being spend on this "abstinence" crap, how bout castrating boys and tying the tubes on girls, that will get a good bang for your buck.

 

[illustri]

abstinence education = ehh s'ok
abstinence + sex education = :thumbsup:
abstinence only education = crap

 

[chess9]

Abstinence makes the hard grow longer.

-Robert

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: KirbsAw
Only one way to make sure kids don't have sex....make sure they're ugly 😉

no, it's to spay/neuter them.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: chess9
Abstinence makes the hard grow longer.

-Robert

Old age makes the grow longer take longer. Just wish the hard grow longer would last,,, longer. 😉

 

[TuxDave]

No wonder this study seemed so familiar and its results so different from what I last recall.

Study: Abstinence pledges not reducing rates of STDs
New study raises questions about abstinence pledges

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: KirbsAw
Only one way to make sure kids don't have sex....make sure they're ugly 😉

Ain't that the truth. Either that or brainwash them, with a little something I like to call Jesus.

We're wasting tax dollars all over the place, so I'll take this news with a chuckle.

Besides, plugging a virgin is a satisfying experience. This should make sure the supply stays somewhat steady.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
No wonder this study seemed so familiar and its results so different from what I last recall.

Study: Abstinence pledges not reducing rates of STDs
New study raises questions about abstinence pledges

hey, facts don't belong here, heathen.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: TuxDave
No wonder this study seemed so familiar and its results so different from what I last recall.

Study: Abstinence pledges not reducing rates of STDs
New study raises questions about abstinence pledges

hey, facts don't belong here, heathen.

:evil: *cackle*

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

Yeah, great to see the Radical Religious Right Repugs spending money like water on things that they have no business spending money on and it doesn't do sh!t, way to go FLL's.

your stats show pretty convincingly that those problems don't just go away given abstinence-only education.

The Heritage study also revealed that teens who kept their pledge to abstain from sexual relations were 50% less likely to have out-of-wedlock births than non-pledgers and were less likely to have a sexually transmitted disease.

I'd say a 50% is pretty significant. How would you like a 50% raise? I'd bet that would make you happy!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Bravo! Good to see tax dollars spent to reinforce parents wishes for their children rather than to undermine them.

Yeah, great to see the Radical Religious Right Repugs spending money like water on things that they have no business spending money on and it doesn't do sh!t, way to go FLL's.

your stats show pretty convincingly that those problems don't just go away given abstinence-only education.

The Heritage study also revealed that teens who kept their pledge to abstain from sexual relations were 50% less likely to have out-of-wedlock births than non-pledgers and were less likely to have a sexually transmitted disease.

I'd say a 50% is pretty significant. How would you like a 50% raise? I'd bet that would make you happy!

I'd say 50% remaining is a pretty significant chunk, too. Also it's pretty obvious that not all of the kids in the study 'kept the pledge'😉

What I would like to know is what the pregnancy and STD rates were for kids who took, but didn't keep the pledge. Are they ending up at greater risk than kids who get safer-sex ed?

Preventing sex is only the primary goal from a religious or moral standpoint; it certainly isn't an absolute. Therefore preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs has to be the goal when judged from a societal standpoint.

Your study doens't seem to show what sort of education the control kids received. Did they receive abstinence only, but refuse to sign a pledge? Did they receive safer-sex ed? Or did they receive nothing? The answer to that question is important.

Edit: As a matter of fact, if I got a 50% raise I'd still be slumming at my current job, so it wouldn't thrill me 😉

 

[Riprorin]

I'll bet you wouldn't turn that 50% raise down!

Here's more info on the study:

Link