Teen Pregnancy Rate Hits 15-Year High

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Im not arguing eskimo. Im simply stating that
1. So what if theres a temp rise. The trend is LOWER overall; and
2. I agree AB only (which NO public school teaches exclusively BTW) doesnt prove or disprove any of these findings;
and 3. OT, but it IS possible to find any study to support any position you have.

So...because 2 is true, 3 is irrelevant in the discussion.

But OTHER evidence shows that abstinence only education doesn't work. Evidence shown in those studies. Since this thread is about abstinence only education, studies that show it doesn't work are directly relevant to the discussion.

Seeing how public school dont teach AB only exclusively, I really cant see how these "studies" can be relevant.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that no public school teaches abstinence only education exclusively. Can you provide some sort of evidence for this?

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can not consider the studies on abstinence only education not relevant to a discussion on abstinence only education. That's just confusing.

I googled a number of ways and couldnt find anything (i.e. public school teaches abstinence only exclusively" or "public schools only teach abstinence only". Do you honestly believe there are public school that teach AB and nothing else? I honestly find this ludicrous. Im open to be wrong, but even in the most conservative areas I dont see NOT including things like condoms, BCP, etc. Not to mention abortion.

As a side note, I did find this interesting article.. Having been there MANY times I can verify the validity of this article (anecdotal? Maybe). Every person I have talked to about this subject confirms it also. A few snippets:

The Filipino abstinence-based approach, typified by Dr. Rene Bullecer and his Coalition for an AIDS-Free Philippines, has kept the Philippines relatively free of HIV infection. The adult HIV infec­tion rate was a mere 0.1% in 2001, though the Philippines has a low con­dom use rate.

In every single country where contraceptives became widely available, abortions increased. This is because women will still get preg­nant unexpectedly. When they have the mentality that a new birth is unwanted, they turn to abortion as back-up for con­traceptive failure. For instance, 54% of American women who had an abortion were using contraception when they be­came pregnant; one in three women has had at least one abortion in their lifetime. Yet the contraceptive prevalence rate in the United States is over 90%."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting IMHO. And to clarify, do I believe AB only should be the sole topic of sex-ed? No, I do not. But to exclude it would be wrong also. After all, it *IS* an option. And dont we want to present as many options as possible?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Im not arguing eskimo. Im simply stating that
1. So what if theres a temp rise. The trend is LOWER overall; and
2. I agree AB only (which NO public school teaches exclusively BTW) doesnt prove or disprove any of these findings;
and 3. OT, but it IS possible to find any study to support any position you have.

So...because 2 is true, 3 is irrelevant in the discussion.

But OTHER evidence shows that abstinence only education doesn't work. Evidence shown in those studies. Since this thread is about abstinence only education, studies that show it doesn't work are directly relevant to the discussion.

Seeing how public school dont teach AB only exclusively, I really cant see how these "studies" can be relevant.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that no public school teaches abstinence only education exclusively. Can you provide some sort of evidence for this?

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can not consider the studies on abstinence only education not relevant to a discussion on abstinence only education. That's just confusing.

I googled a number of ways and couldnt find anything (i.e. public school teaches abstinence only exclusively" or "public schools only teach abstinence only". Do you honestly believe there are public school that teach AB and nothing else? I honestly find this ludicrous. Im open to be wrong, but even in the most conservative areas I dont see NOT including things like condoms, BCP, etc. Not to mention abortion.

As a side note, https://www.pop.org/main.cfm?i...0&r4=0&level=2&eid=899">I did find this interesting article.</a>. Having been there MANY times I can verify the validity of this article (anecdotal? Maybe). Every person I have talked to about this subject confirms it also. A few snippets:

The Filipino abstinence-based approach, typified by Dr. Rene Bullecer and his Coalition for an AIDS-Free Philippines, has kept the Philippines relatively free of HIV infection. The adult HIV infec­tion rate was a mere 0.1% in 2001, though the Philippines has a low con­dom use rate.

In every single country where contraceptives became widely available, abortions increased. This is because women will still get preg­nant unexpectedly. When they have the mentality that a new birth is unwanted, they turn to abortion as back-up for con­traceptive failure. For instance, 54% of American women who had an abortion were using contraception when they be­came pregnant; one in three women has had at least one abortion in their lifetime. Yet the contraceptive prevalence rate in the United States is over 90%."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting IMHO. And to clarify, do I believe AB only should be the sole topic of sex-ed? No, I do not. But to exclude it would be wrong also. After all, it *IS* an option. And dont we want to present as many options as possible?

But all comprehensive sex ed programs stress abstinence? They just tell you how to be responsible about sex in addition.

As far as schools only teaching abstinence only education, I'm pretty sure that a lot of (public) ones do exactly that. It's not like schools have multiple sex-ed programs very often.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But all comprehensive sex ed programs stress abstinence? They just tell you how to be responsible about sex in addition.

Neither one of us know do we? Sex ed typically starts at what...middle school? You honestly think they would teach AB only (primarily) for 4 months? Come on man. Neither one of us know. What I *do* know, is when I was married to my first wife who was a teacher (her father was a district sup also) all I heard was how the "safe sex" geared the sex ed classes were becoming. In SIXTH GRADE. Maybe you think this AB only super conservative agenda is pervasive, I disagree. The bottom line is neither one knows. Do we?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As far as schools only teaching abstinence only education, I'm pretty sure that a lot of (public) ones do exactly that. It's not like schools have multiple sex-ed programs very often.

Got any supporting evidence?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But all comprehensive sex ed programs stress abstinence? They just tell you how to be responsible about sex in addition.

Neither one of us know do we? Sex ed typically starts at what...middle school? You honestly think they would teach AB only (primarily) for 4 months? Come on man. Neither one of us know. What I *do* know, is when I was married to my first wife who was a teacher (her father was a district sup also) all I heard was how the "safe sex" geared the sex ed classes were becoming. In SIXTH GRADE. Maybe you think this AB only super conservative agenda is pervasive, I disagree. The bottom line is neither one knows. Do we?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As far as schools only teaching abstinence only education, I'm pretty sure that a lot of (public) ones do exactly that. It's not like schools have multiple sex-ed programs very often.

Got any supporting evidence?

Well I know my own experience in school. Of course that's about 10 years out of date, but the comprehensive sex ed I received was based around abstinence first, safe sex second. And yeah, my sex ed started in 6th grade too actually... which I think is a good thing. Considering I know a lot of people who had sex for the first time when they were 14, I think that's about the right time.

As far as everything else goes, the wiki entry for sex education in the US is pretty informative as to what the curriculum is like, and I think it supports what I've been saying.

Here.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But all comprehensive sex ed programs stress abstinence? They just tell you how to be responsible about sex in addition.

Neither one of us know do we? Sex ed typically starts at what...middle school? You honestly think they would teach AB only (primarily) for 4 months? Come on man. Neither one of us know. What I *do* know, is when I was married to my first wife who was a teacher (her father was a district sup also) all I heard was how the "safe sex" geared the sex ed classes were becoming. In SIXTH GRADE. Maybe you think this AB only super conservative agenda is pervasive, I disagree. The bottom line is neither one knows. Do we?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As far as schools only teaching abstinence only education, I'm pretty sure that a lot of (public) ones do exactly that. It's not like schools have multiple sex-ed programs very often.

Got any supporting evidence?

Well I know my own experience in school. Of course that's about 10 years out of date, but the comprehensive sex ed I received was based around abstinence first, safe sex second. And yeah, my sex ed started in 6th grade too actually... which I think is a good thing. Considering I know a lot of people who had sex for the first time when they were 14, I think that's about the right time.

As far as everything else goes, the wiki entry for sex education in the US is pretty informative as to what the curriculum is like, and I think it supports what I've been saying.

Here.

Im not sure why it supports your view. It supports mine also. I see there are some states where abstinence "should be stressed", but it is certainly not the only sex-ed taught. In fact, this study reports every state's requirement (as of 1999 of course), and NOT ONE state is required to offer abstinence as the only curriculum. Which proves MY point.

Some interesting things in the actually study though (if you click a few links you get to the actual study)...

Among teens aged 15-17 who have not had sexual intercourse, 83 percent
say that ?worry about getting/getting someone pregnant? was the main
reason they had not had sex.

Another 74 percent said they ?made a conscious
decision to wait,? and 73 percent said they were ?worried about STDs.?

is this not the result of abstinence only education? Is pregnancy and STD's not a concern? Is abstinence the only 100% way to avoid them? Yes, yes, and yes. Call it fear mongering if you want, I look at it as these students made the right choice. They are valid reasons to NOT have sex. Are they not? If I decide to not play golf in my spikes in a thunderstorm, is it because the news has fear-mongered me that I could get electrocuted? Or is it just common sense?

As far as your anecdotal evidence, mine is much more comprehensive. Like I said, Ive gotten facts from both a teacher AND an administrator. That covers well over 20 schools. The comment? Abstinence gets less than 2 hours of discussion. The other 3 months is spent learning about abortion, birth control, safer sex, STDs, and children's rights should they become pregnant.

Way to go sex ed!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Im not sure why it supports your view. It supports mine also. I see there are some states where abstinence "should be stressed", but it is certainly not the only sex-ed taught. In fact, this study reports every state's requirement (as of 1999 of course), and NOT ONE state is required to offer abstinence as the only curriculum. Which proves MY point.

Some interesting things in the actually study though (if you click a few links you get to the actual study)...

Among teens aged 15-17 who have not had sexual intercourse, 83 percent
say that ?worry about getting/getting someone pregnant? was the main
reason they had not had sex.

Another 74 percent said they ?made a conscious
decision to wait,? and 73 percent said they were ?worried about STDs.?

is this not the result of abstinence only education? Is pregnancy and STD's not a concern? Is abstinence the only 100% way to avoid them? Yes, yes, and yes. Call it fear mongering if you want, I look at it as these students made the right choice. They are valid reasons to NOT have sex. Are they not? If I decide to not play golf in my spikes in a thunderstorm, is it because the news has fear-mongered me that I could get electrocuted? Or is it just common sense?

As far as your anecdotal evidence, mine is much more comprehensive. Like I said, Ive gotten facts from both a teacher AND an administrator. That covers well over 20 schools. The comment? Abstinence gets less than 2 hours of discussion. The other 3 months is spent learning about abortion, birth control, safer sex, STDs, and children's rights should they become pregnant.

Way to go sex ed!

I never said that states REQUIRED abstinence only, just that from my experience and everything I know about schools, it is unlikely for a school to have two separate programs for sex-ed running, one comprehensive and one abstinence only. Schools pick one and go with it.

Abstinence education is a part of comprehensive sex ed, not to mention pregnancy fears and such are the topic of god only knows how may TV programs, etc. I don't see why abstinence only education would get the credit for pregnancy fears any more then comprehensive education would... and comprehensive education is certainly the far more responsible choice for administrators. Depriving kids of knowledge on how to protect themselves is awful.

 

[Vic]

What's the argument here? You have a situation where, supposedly all else being equal, the teen pregnancy rate spikes up. So what changed? Like it or not, there's your answer.

You know, reading threads like this makes me realize that my respect for other people is invariably based off their ability to accept that "or not" part.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I never said that states REQUIRED abstinence only, just that from my experience and everything I know about schools, it is unlikely for a school to have two separate programs for sex-ed running, one comprehensive and one abstinence only. Schools pick one and go with it.

It *is* likely schools will have a comprehensive program. If fact, all do. The difference is where the emphasis is.

And no. Schools dont pick one and go with it. No school picks abstinence "only" with nothing else and goes with it. This was what you were trying to imply earlier. All schools offer a comprehensive approach, it's just what the emphasis is on. Your link and links to the study show that.

Originally posted by: Vic
So what changed? Like it or not, there's your answer.

Which is?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It *is* likely schools will have a comprehensive program. If fact, all do. The difference is where the emphasis is.

And no. Schools dont pick one and go with it. No school picks abstinence "only" with nothing else and goes with it. This was what you were trying to imply earlier. All schools offer a comprehensive approach, it's just what the emphasis is on. Your link and links to the study show that.

No, they really do pick abstinence only. I'm really not sure why you're arguing this? I mean that's the whole point of school districts picking this approach. My link shows that abstinence is part of comprehensive sex ed. The other parts of comprehensive sex ed are not part of abstinence only education. (hence the name)

 

[halik]

Why would you expect anything different? States that do absitnence only education always end up with the highest pregnancy rates (Texas being in the top 5). If you implement the same idiotic policy nation-wide, that's what happens....

Another Dubbya fuck up... you fools voted him in twice.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: ChrisFromNJ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380323,00.html

The teen pregnancy rate is up for the first time since 1991, while the percentage of teens who smoke has hit a 10-year low, according to a report released Friday by the National Institutes of Health.

Between 2005 and 2006, the number of teenage girls between the ages 15 to 17 having babies rose by more than 5,700 to 138,920, from a record low of 133,138, according to an annual report on the health and well-being of children and teens published by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.

The 4 percent increase in the teen pregnancy rate is cause for concern among health professionals.

?This is one of the key indicators for the health of the teen population,? said Edward Sondik, director of the National Center for Health Statistics, during a conference call with the media. ?Not only does this affect teen health at this point, but their health and well-being for the next 20 to 40 years, and the health and well-being of their children.?

About 22 out of every 1,000 girls ages 15 to 17 became pregnant in 2006, compared to 21 out of every 1,000 in 2005. The pregnancy rate hit an all-time high of 39 births per 1,000 teens in 1991 and then steadily declined until 2006.

If this is not another example of the stunning failure that is abstinence-only education, I don't know what is.

I had a feeling that's what this thread was about.

It's hilarious to blame abstinence based sex education for this. It's like blaming MADD for drunk driving accidents.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It *is* likely schools will have a comprehensive program. If fact, all do. The difference is where the emphasis is.

And no. Schools dont pick one and go with it. No school picks abstinence "only" with nothing else and goes with it. This was what you were trying to imply earlier. All schools offer a comprehensive approach, it's just what the emphasis is on. Your link and links to the study show that.

No, they really do pick abstinence only. I'm really not sure why you're arguing this? I mean that's the whole point of school districts picking this approach. My link shows that abstinence is part of comprehensive sex ed. The other parts of comprehensive sex ed are not part of abstinence only education. (hence the name)

I think Im not making myself clear.

Im not denying abstenence only isnt being taught. I agree and am not denying your statement "My link shows that abstinence is part of comprehensive sex ed. The other parts of comprehensive sex ed are not part of abstinence only education." I havent denied that in previous posts. My point is, school districts pick AO as PART of sex-ed, not as an exclusive choice. My point is, there isnt a district where public school are not including things like birth control and abortion in their curriculum.

Which means, kids are exposed to more than just AO education, which is a good thing. The more choices a kids have, the better they are. And, as Ive previously said, AO *IS* an option so why exclude it? To say AO doesnt work is like saying condoms are 100% effective. The fact is, AO is the only thing that IS 100% effective. But kids are getting other options too.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: halik
Why would you expect anything different? States that do absitnence only education always end up with the highest pregnancy rates (Texas being in the top 5). If you implement the same idiotic policy nation-wide, that's what happens....

Another Dubbya fuck up... you fools voted him in twice.

Another partisan hack comment. Did GWB intoduce AO education? rofl

Dumbass.

 

[BassBomb]

Different up in Canada, (especially the age)

Up here I would say its about 25% (at least at my school) around age 17. But once its post secondary it shoots up obviously, but then they are no longer kids

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I think Im not making myself clear.

Im not denying abstenence only isnt being taught. I agree and am not denying your statement "My link shows that abstinence is part of comprehensive sex ed. The other parts of comprehensive sex ed are not part of abstinence only education." I havent denied that in previous posts. My point is, school districts pick AO as PART of sex-ed, not as an exclusive choice. My point is, there isnt a district where public school are not including things like birth control and abortion in their curriculum.

Which means, kids are exposed to more than just AO education, which is a good thing. The more choices a kids have, the better they are. And, as Ive previously said, AO *IS* an option so why exclude it? To say AO doesnt work is like saying condoms are 100% effective. The fact is, AO is the only thing that IS 100% effective. But kids are getting other options too.

No I'm understanding you, but what you are saying is wrong. Take this study for example. In a survey of 800 odd district superintendents:

35% (or 23% of all U.S. school districts) teach abstinence as the only option outside of marriage, with discussion of contraception either prohibited entirely or permitted only to emphasize its shortcomings (an abstinence-only policy).

THAT is what abstinence only is. I think you are confusing 'abstinence plus' which is teaching abstinence as the best option, but then mentioning other things with 'abstinence only' education which does not allow the others to be taught. You can't have a 'partial abstinence only' system. It either is, or it isn't. 23% of US schools are doing exactly what you're saying no school district is doing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: halik
Why would you expect anything different? States that do absitnence only education always end up with the highest pregnancy rates (Texas being in the top 5). If you implement the same idiotic policy nation-wide, that's what happens....

Another Dubbya fuck up... you fools voted him in twice.

Another partisan hack comment. Did GWB intoduce AO education? rofl

Dumbass.

Oh and it is another Bush fuckup. While he didn't make up AO education, he did make it so you could only use federal funding for sex ed that was abstinence only... instead of the kind of sex-ed that was proven to work. Ideology over science yet again.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I think Im not making myself clear.

Im not denying abstenence only isnt being taught. I agree and am not denying your statement "My link shows that abstinence is part of comprehensive sex ed. The other parts of comprehensive sex ed are not part of abstinence only education." I havent denied that in previous posts. My point is, school districts pick AO as PART of sex-ed, not as an exclusive choice. My point is, there isnt a district where public school are not including things like birth control and abortion in their curriculum.

Which means, kids are exposed to more than just AO education, which is a good thing. The more choices a kids have, the better they are. And, as Ive previously said, AO *IS* an option so why exclude it? To say AO doesnt work is like saying condoms are 100% effective. The fact is, AO is the only thing that IS 100% effective. But kids are getting other options too.

No I'm understanding you, but what you are saying is wrong. Take this study for example. In a survey of 800 odd district superintendents:

35% (or 23% of all U.S. school districts) teach abstinence as the only option outside of marriage, with discussion of contraception either prohibited entirely or permitted only to emphasize its shortcomings (an abstinence-only policy).

THAT is what abstinence only is. I think you are confusing 'abstinence plus' which is teaching abstinence as the best option, but then mentioning other things with 'abstinence only' education which does not allow the others to be taught. You can't have a 'partial abstinence only' system. It either is, or it isn't. 23% of US schools are doing exactly what you're saying no school district is doing.

Fair enough. As I stated previously I am open to being wrong in my thinking, if proven wrong. So I stand corrected 🙂 No problem. I was just looking for a link (I didnt find one).

🙂

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: halik
Why would you expect anything different? States that do absitnence only education always end up with the highest pregnancy rates (Texas being in the top 5). If you implement the same idiotic policy nation-wide, that's what happens....

Another Dubbya fuck up... you fools voted him in twice.

Another partisan hack comment. Did GWB intoduce AO education? rofl

Dumbass.

Oh and it is another Bush fuckup. While he didn't make up AO education, he did make it so you could only use federal funding for sex ed that was abstinence only... instead of the kind of sex-ed that was proven to work. Ideology over science yet again.

No. Title V was introduced in 1997. As introduced and passed by Clinton,

The Title V program requires the states to fund education that:
A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and other associated health problems;
D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity
(E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child?s parents and society;
(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

No. Title V was introduced in 1997. As introduced and passed by Clinton,

The Title V program requires the states to fund education that:
A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and other associated health problems;
D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity
(E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child?s parents and society;
(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Ahh you're right about the whole 1997 thing. Stupid triangulation.

Most of the provisions of title V aren't that bad, (except B seems a little silly, and E is horrible.)

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: halik
Why would you expect anything different? States that do absitnence only education always end up with the highest pregnancy rates (Texas being in the top 5). If you implement the same idiotic policy nation-wide, that's what happens....

Another Dubbya fuck up... you fools voted him in twice.

Another partisan hack comment. Did GWB intoduce AO education? rofl

Dumbass.

Oh and it is another Bush fuckup. While he didn't make up AO education, he did make it so you could only use federal funding for sex ed that was abstinence only... instead of the kind of sex-ed that was proven to work. Ideology over science yet again.

linkie

linkie

Partisan hack my ass, I lean republican.. but that's got nothing to do with the fact that I don't want my government using federal money to push jesus.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: halik
Why would you expect anything different? States that do absitnence only education always end up with the highest pregnancy rates (Texas being in the top 5). If you implement the same idiotic policy nation-wide, that's what happens....

Another Dubbya fuck up... you fools voted him in twice.

Another partisan hack comment. Did GWB intoduce AO education? rofl

Dumbass.

Oh and it is another Bush fuckup. While he didn't make up AO education, he did make it so you could only use federal funding for sex ed that was abstinence only... instead of the kind of sex-ed that was proven to work. Ideology over science yet again.

linkie

linkie

Partisan hack my ass, I lean republican.. but that's got nothing to do with the fact that I don't want my government using federal money to push jesus.

Abstinence is a "religeous" thing? Are you fucking kidding me? If youre not, you've bought the bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

And if you mean it's Bush's fault for taking the torch Clinton lit, I guess youre right.