How Planned Parenthood affected my youth

[wylecoyote]

Rip, buddy.

Typical use... ok, let's talk about "Typical use"..

You quote from the Planned Parenthood site-- "Out of 100 women, 15 will get pregnant with typical condom use."

So it looks like condoms only work 85% of the time, yes?

No. Wrong. Those hundred women may have sex a hundred times each (twice a week) over the course of that year... and pregnancy occurs only 15 times? That's really low... let me run the numbers for you.

So lets say each woman has sex once a week. This is a conservative starting point.

52 weeks in a year, 100 women thats...carry the four... 5200 sexual encounters. 15/5200 is... 0.002. 0.002 percent failure rate. That means 99.998% of the time, condoms worked. And that's typical use.


REMEMBER RIP -- The Absitnence user-failure rate, as reported by the governmental Center for Disease Control and Prevention, is 45%. Forty-five percent, Rip! That mean's it's only successful 55% of the time!

0.002% vs. 45% for failure rates. 99.998% vs. 55% for success rates.

Whose side are you on?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Riprorin
According to Planned Parenthood, "Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use."

You will never have 100% perfect use.

Rip, again, you ignore the fact that if they don't use condoms, things are worse! More people become pregnant, more abortions (that hurt everyone), and more STD's! Are you saying that since condoms have some risk of failure, that you shouldn't use them at all? I think wylecoyote made a good point when he said of abstinence only students, "they don't use protection because "it isn't effective" and so they get pregnant/STDs. "

Isn't that the issue? I mean, there are plenty of studies that say that the education (abstinence or safe sex) doesn't change the amount of people who are having sex. Why not teach them the way so fewer of them will get pregnant, have abortions, or get STD's?

I've presented you with some information. If you want to play Russian Roulette, that's your choice.

If your care about your health and well-being, do your own research.

I really don't see what more I cn add to this discussion.

 

[kage69]

So basically you are all about brainwashing kids with your ideology.

That has got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen Rip post!

 

[wylecoyote]

I responded to your argument about playing Russian Roulette... You certaintly have a lot more to add to this discussion.... defend your point of view.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Riprorin
According to Planned Parenthood, "Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use."

You will never have 100% perfect use.

Rip, again, you ignore the fact that if they don't use condoms, things are worse! More people become pregnant, more abortions (that hurt everyone), and more STD's! Are you saying that since condoms have some risk of failure, that you shouldn't use them at all? I think wylecoyote made a good point when he said of abstinence only students, "they don't use protection because "it isn't effective" and so they get pregnant/STDs. "

Isn't that the issue? I mean, there are plenty of studies that say that the education (abstinence or safe sex) doesn't change the amount of people who are having sex. Why not teach them the way so fewer of them will get pregnant, have abortions, or get STD's?

I've presented you with some information. If you want to play Russian Roulette, that's your choice.

If your care about your health and well-being, do your own research.

I really don't see what more I cn add to this discussion.

Hey, how about not ignoring wylecoyote's post up there about the 99.998% vs the 55% success rates. Don't you want less abortion? It has been shown by just about every respected (non-biased) group that has done a study on abstinence vs safe sex education that the groups from safe sex education have lower pregnancy, STD, and abortion rates. How can you argue for abstinence only education based on the fact that more people come out pregnant from that program?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
wylecoyote ...

If there's one thing I noticed on this board, it is that people like Rip and others who strongly support what they believe will not change their minds presented with facts. (Whatever political affiliation they have).
Rip is probably looking for something else from one of his base sites (pro-life,etc.) to find "research" that supports his own beliefs.

It is difficult to change the opinion of anyone, let alone a very conservative man. He will probably never believe that safe sex education is better than abstinence only education as he will link it to other factors. It is truely sad, but alas, that is how things work in this world. That was a great post spelling out the case for safe sex education; well done.

NJDevil -- the thing you fail to realize is that Rip isn't here so much to discuss these topics as he is here to proselytize to the members of this board. At the same time, he gets the added attention typical of his flame-bait threads. Once you understand he isn't here to propose issues, add his two cents and then discuss with the rest of us, it becomes pretty clear what Rip really is. Do I need to spell it out?

 

[ciba]

As a teenager, sex education touched on abstinence for all of five minutes. While I certainly don't think abstinence education serves well as a major tool of birth/std control, I think a little more discussion would have done kids who got pregnant through one night stands a little good.

As for the abortion issue, it is something I strongly disagree with. For one thing, there are many parents who have to go outside our borders to adopt a baby/child. I wonder how many asian babies have been adopted in the last thirty years?

One story that stuck with me all the way from middle school was of a teacher who visited her son (in the peace corps) while he worked in a village in cameroon. One thing she noted was that there were no orphans. It was the village's responsiblity to take care of all their kids. Women who could not get pregnant picked up much of the parental slack. Why can we not take care of our own?

For me, I don't think abortions are promoted as a method of last resort. Many people see them as a way out from the peer and parental problems associated with pregnancy.

I think more time should certainly be spent on abstinence. I also think planned parenthood will do well to be more active in promoting adoptions.

Of course a lot of this involves educating parents as to how to deal with pregnancy. In a lot of cases, it's been fifteen years since they've dealt with the hormone roller coaster.

On a brighter note, I speak from personal experience with respect to "crazy" pregnant women. My wife is at 35 weeks. 🙂

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Riprorin
According to Planned Parenthood, "Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use."

You will never have 100% perfect use.

Rip, again, you ignore the fact that if they don't use condoms, things are worse! More people become pregnant, more abortions (that hurt everyone), and more STD's! Are you saying that since condoms have some risk of failure, that you shouldn't use them at all? I think wylecoyote made a good point when he said of abstinence only students, "they don't use protection because "it isn't effective" and so they get pregnant/STDs. "

Isn't that the issue? I mean, there are plenty of studies that say that the education (abstinence or safe sex) doesn't change the amount of people who are having sex. Why not teach them the way so fewer of them will get pregnant, have abortions, or get STD's?

Here's a model:

Question:
By teaching abstinence, aren't you ignoring the need for education about contraceptives for those teens who are sexually active?

Answer:
Prevention efforts can be categorized into three levels:

Primary- The focus of root causes of the epidemic,
Secondary- Moving sexually active teens out of sexual behavior whenever possible, and
Tertiary- or the last line of defense of risk reduction- providing temporary risk reductive measures.

FRIENDS FIRST is a primary prevention strategy. Discussion regarding information about birth control is utilized in secondary and tertiary efforts. It is our recommendation that when birth control is discussed at these other levels that it meet the following criteria:

Should be presented in the public schools in a context of marriage and family to encourage committed relationships.
Secondary and tertiary prevention should be conducted one-on-one using full disclosure of contraceptive failure rates within a medical cessation model for sexually active teens, and providing the ideal of abstinence until marriage, and fidelity within marriage as the only truly safe sex.
Factors such as adult-teen relationships and past sexual abuse should not be blindly condoned by irresponsibly distributing contraceptives with the message of "just use a condom or make sure you're protected."

The question is not "if", but when, how and by whom. Adults have the responsibility to tell teens the truth. Condoms are not fool proof and do not always provide adequate risk reduction for diseases spread by skin-to-skin contact such as Human Papilloma Virus, Herpes or Syphllis. Multiple partners are the primary risk factor spreading disease. If teens make other choices, they will be responsible for the consequences. We must be ethical in our response to the younger generation, and not perpetuate unhealthy, uncommitted adult or teen sexual relationships.

Link

 

[wylecoyote]

First of all rip, you have once again stepped around the most glaring, important and crucial element of this current discussion--


Once again, you state, "Condom's are not fool proof". Neither is abstinence education! You're getting hung up on abstinence as the only effective method ON PAPER. In the real world, abstinence fails 45% of the time. Fails. You say yourself, "You will never have 100% perfect use. " Which is why abstinence fails.

Abstinence user-failure rates are 45%.

The failure rate of typical condom use is less than 1%.

You decide you pick out questions that you can respond to, but not answer the most important ones. Please respond to my earlier post regarding your "Russian Roulette" comment.

You present an interesting model, but one that I see cater's to religious ideologies rather than how our bodies are actually hard-wired. How they naturally are.

Kids will have sex. They won't wait till marriage, and if they do, they get married so they can have sex. Our bodies are biologically wired to start having lots and lots of sex early and often.

You need to understand this. Then we can move forward in the debate.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Executive Summary: Government Spends $12 on Safe Sex and Contraceptives for Every $1 Spent on Abstinence

As usual, misguidedly throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it.

Kids aren't getting to little sex-ed, they're getting too little abstinance training.

Hey, there's plenty of time to go without once you're middle aged and married.

Sex, the expression of sexuality, it's the natural province of the young. Just remember your salad days before you going raging on young people for expressing their sexuality.Best be carteful here,your intense interest in the sexual practices of the young makes you risk sounding a lot like a bitter middle aged man who's pissed that he's stuck with a mortgage,kids and a boring,fat middle aged wife as his only allowed sexual outlet.

My wife's thin and my mortgage is paid off. 😀

This is exactly what the author was talking about. Teen sex sounds fun and glamorous - that is, until you end up with unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, or a STD.

You are a middle aged man with an inordinate amount of interest in the
sexual practices of teenagers. The very group that ought to worry parents more than
Planned Parenthood.

Geekbabe, are you accusing me of being a pedophile?

I'm saying that sexuality is the natural province of the young, don't you remember being young Rip? Kids feel that they're immortal,things like HIV won't happen to them,it's part of being young.

The best we can do as parents is to try to impart our beliefs on our children and hope that if they feel they cannot turn to us/talk to us that there is a place they can turn to and that they at least use condoms.

I think Planned Parenthood is a fine organization that's prevented a lot of misery and suffering.Condoms can be life saving and as a parent I'd far prefer that info about condoms and free access to them be available to my kids.You are so rigid and almost rabid in your stances that I'd be worried that your kids would be afraid to come to you if they found themselves in trouble Rip.

 

[wylecoyote]

I applaud you for that post Geekbabe.

 

[DealMonkey]

Agreed. Geekbabe has a great point: Would anyone go to Rip if he was your dad and you were having a sex-related issue? Good post.

 

[dpopiz]

The problem is that he "wants his children to be raised to obey the god *HE* knows"....how about instead letting the kid decide what if any god he knows and letting the kid decide what's best. The problem is trying to CONTROL people, as religions always do. (hey I never said religions don't also do lots of good stuff)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
First of all rip, you have once again stepped around the most glaring, important and crucial element of this current discussion--


Once again, you state, "Condom's are not fool proof". Neither is abstinence education! You're getting hung up on abstinence as the only effective method ON PAPER. In the real world, abstinence fails 45% of the time. Fails. You say yourself, "You will never have 100% perfect use. " Which is why abstinence fails.

Abstinence user-failure rates are 45%.

The failure rate of typical condom use is less than 1%.

You decide you pick out questions that you can respond to, but not answer the most important ones. Please respond to my earlier post regarding your "Russian Roulette" comment.

You present an interesting model, but one that I see cater's to religious ideologies rather than how our bodies are actually hard-wired. How they naturally are.

Kids will have sex. They won't wait till marriage, and if they do, they get married so they can have sex. Our bodies are biologically wired to start having lots and lots of sex early and often.

You need to understand this. Then we can move forward in the debate.

You hit on an interesting point that Rip is indeed ignoring.

Let's say abstinence only eduation is much more effective than it actually is and 90% of the people getting such education do not engage in sexual activity. That leaves 10% who do. However, since that 10% was not taught any other forms of birth control, they are vulnerable to STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

 

[wylecoyote]

Rip, you posted earlier a link to an "executive summary report" supporting abstinence education. In fact, this misleading and cleverly-titled "report" was done by two people at "at the Heritage Foundation". The Heritage Foundation is a website.

A website that "promotes conservative public policies" (from their "about us" page). This is not an un-biased, scholarly, non-partisan organization that conducts scientific studies. In fact, this "executive summary report" is laughable in it's methods-- having read it, I can't see how it can be even considered close to scholarly.You continually try to support your arguments with these heavily-biased ideological illegitimate sources.

That aside...

You still haven't responded directly to my argument regarding abstinence-only education and counter-argument regarding your "Russian Roulette" post. I would really like you to respond to these.

For your reference, the posts I'm referring to I posted at 6:53 p.m. and 7:25 p.m. today, the 17th.

I appreciate your opinion and look forward to continuing this debate.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: dpopiz
The problem is that he "wants his children to be raised to obey the god *HE* knows"....how about instead letting the kid decide what if any god he knows and letting the kid decide what's best. The problem is trying to CONTROL people, as religions always do. (hey I never said religions don't also do lots of good stuff)

All the god talk in the world won't do much to help protect an impulsive 14 yr old who gives into her b/friend's urgings "just once" that condom in her purse that she got as a free handout from PP might though.

Given a choice between a romantically heartbroken daughter who used a condom and a heartbroken pregnant, or hiv + daughter who didn't guess which option I'd choose.

Young people do impulsive things, young people give into peer pressure, young people think they are immortal, they indulge in magical thinking,they won't get pregnant if they do it "just this once" they think they can tell by just by looking at somebody's appearance if they've got an STD.

Being young means making mistakes, I would prefer to not see those mistakes kill or ruin a teenager's life.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: dpopiz
The problem is that he "wants his children to be raised to obey the god *HE* knows"....how about instead letting the kid decide what if any god he knows and letting the kid decide what's best. The problem is trying to CONTROL people, as religions always do. (hey I never said religions don't also do lots of good stuff)

All the god talk in the world won't do much to help protect an impulsive 14 yr old who gives into her b/friend's urgings "just once" that condom in her purse that she got as a free handout from PP might though.

Given a choice between a romantically heartbroken daughter who used a condom and a heartbroken pregnant, or hiv + daughter who didn't guess which option I'd choose.

Young people do impulsive things, young people give into peer pressure, young people think they are immortal, they indulge in magical thinking,they won't get pregnant if they do it "just this once" they think they can tell by just by looking at somebody's appearance if they've got an STD.

Being young means making mistakes, I would prefer to not see those mistakes kill or ruin a teenager's life.

I'll sum that up in my own words if I may...young people are stupid. I was stupid at that age (some might argue I'm still stupid, but I'm an adult and stupid on my own now). Most of you were probably stupid at that age. Stupid enough to think I could beat the odds when it came to sex if not having sex was my only option? No doubt. But if all it took was a condom in my wallet (not a good palce to keep them, btw) and I didn't have to avoid sex? That's a little different.

 

[ShellGuy]

Somebody please show me where

McIlhaney notes that adolescents and young adults are at the highest risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STD), in part because of their still immature reproductive systems

is fact... I have a hard time thinkin that if you are older it is harder to catch an STD. Yes being young and not fullyknowing how to use a condom or something may help that number but come on. True the only safe sex is no sex or sex with your self.. LOL.. But lets be honest the majority of people out there in the USA today don't wait till they have rings on their fingers to have sex.. So why not say ok if you want to have sex then this is the safest way to do it.. And if that fails and you know it has here is the morning after pill..


Will G.