Just Say No: Why Abstinence Is the Way to Go

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
On July 6, 2012, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a pro-abstinence staff report called “A Better Approach to Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Sexual Risk Avoidance.” This report details how Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA), abstinence, truly lowers the rates of sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) and unintended teenage pregnancies as opposed to comprehensive sex education (CSE), which only focuses on reducing these risks.
Click to expand...
lifenews.com/2012/07/30/just-say-no-why-abstinence-is-the-way-to-go/

I strongly agree with this. “Comprehensive Sex Education” does nothing more than encourage teenagers to be promiscuous and sometimes it even teaches them that if they get pregnant that they can “get rid of the problem” by getting an abortion. In other words, “Comprehensive Sex Education” only promotes sin.

Abstinence Only Sex Education, on the other hand, is based upon traditional values. It also teaches only method known to be 100% effective in preventing all STD’s and unplanned pregnancies. As the article has said, there have been peer reviewed studies done that show that Abstinence Only Sex Education is effective too. I am not sure where to find the actual studies but I am sure that if I searched around enough I could find them. I might see if I can dig up a few later and post them on here.

So, let’s discuss this. Which kind of sex education are you for? Or are you for no sex education at all? Please vote in my poll.
 
I clicked comprehensive, but I actually should have clicked a mixture of both. I feel safe sex should be addressed, but the dangers of promiscuity should also be an important thing to mention. There have also been a few abstience only programmes that have failed, and I feel that would be pretty dangerous. Abstience only education also doesn’t apply to homosexuality, so unless we took a religious approach to it and said it was sinful, it wouldn’t work.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
I clicked comprehensive, but I actually should have clicked a mixture of both. I feel safe sex should be addressed, but the dangers of promiscuity should also be an important thing to mention. There have also been a few abstience only programmes that have failed, and I feel that would be pretty dangerous. Abstience only education also doesn’t apply to homosexuality, so unless we took a religious approach to it and said it was sinful, it wouldn’t work.
Click to expand...
I agree with a combination approach although that approach appears to be giving students a mixed message, and I’m not sure how the two approaches might be integrated. Nonetheless, I believe students should be given information since there are so many misconceptions about sex and often times they are not getting information at home, sometimes because parents are either ignorant or embarrassed. On the other hand, I understand the view of those who believe sex education is the job of the parents, and schools should not be involved on any level.
 
Schools should teach a hard line of abstinence-only. If the kids want to learn more, have them go to a doctor / counselor / etc. Why is the burden of explaining condom usage placed on the schools, especially since we’ve seen that method can only add more issues for these kids…
 
meltzerboy said:
On the other hand, I understand the view of those who believe sex education is the job of the parents, and schools should not be involved on any level.
Click to expand...
I think the school’s involvement should be regarding the anatomy / risks (i.e. STDs) / physical processes of puberty. It is really part of health/wellness (which is now a large part of PE - I guess 180 days of dodgeball aren’t good for kids), so I see that part. However, branching into the other areas of sex get a little too personal for schools, at least in my opinion.
 
Abstinence only has been shown time and time again to fail. Kids who receive that education delay intercourse on average 6 months longer. But they have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy because when they do have sex they don’t protect themselves. They are also far more likely to experiment with unprotected oral and anal sex.

Let’s teach the facts of sex, and what protections are available and leave teaching values to parents.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Abstinence only has been shown time and time again to fail. Kids who receive that education delay intercourse on average 6 months longer. But they have higher rates of STDs and pregnancy because when they do have sex they don’t protect themselves. They are also far more likely to experiment with unprotected oral and anal sex.

Let’s teach the facts of sex, and what protections are available and leave teaching values to parents.
Click to expand...
Do you have any sources to back up your statements?

Peace,
Ed
 
Abstinence is the only way to go.

"ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION
Code: 
"Induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception (CDC).
"54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use (AGI).
"8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control (AGI).
"9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method (AGI).
"Oral contraceptives, the most widely used reversible method of contraception, carry failure rates of 6 to 8% in actual practice (NAF).
"Condom use confers protection against STIs, but it does not provide top-tier protection from pregnancy because of breakage, slippage, inconsistent use, and low continuation rates (NAF)."
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/abstinence-and-chastity/success-more-teens-are-abstaining-from-sex-than-in-the-90s/

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/abstinence-and-chastity/abstinent-teens-enjoy-greater-academic-success/

joesund.net/2012/02/abstinence-education-100-effective-100.html

catholictide.com/19/aids-africa-and-the-value-of-abstinence/?doing_wp_cron=1343770821

Peace,
Ed
 
well, i don’t know how to answer the poll…

i think almost everyone believes in sex education, right? don’t we all teach our kids something about sex? so i didn’t know how to answer the poll… 😦
 
meltzerboy said:
I agree with a combination approach although that approach appears to be giving students a mixed message, and I’m not sure how the two approaches might be integrated. Nonetheless, I believe students should be given information since there are so many misconceptions about sex and often times they are not getting information at home, sometimes because parents are either ignorant or embarrassed. On the other hand, I understand the view of those who believe sex education is the job of the parents, and schools should not be involved on any level.
Click to expand...
I also agree with taking a combination approach. And you’re right–the issue of sending mixed messages is a real drawback–but I think as young people come of age, they should appreciate that life isn’t quite black and white, and they have to the best decisions they can with sometimes conflicting values or information.
 
The mixed feelings occur when no clear message is given. Self-control until marriage and in marriage is the best way to go. To my fellow Catholics, don’t buy into the lie that most of you can’t control yourselves. A change in behavior goes to all health issues in general: eating balanced meals, skipping the snacks (most, not all) and exercise.

Self-discipline is required to get to work on time, self-discipline is required at school, and if we’re going to learn a trade or craft, then self-discipline is required.

About ten years ago, Time magazine published a special issue devoted to all the great medical advancements that would be coming out on the market around now and the next few years. Some amazing stuff. However, in the letters section of the following issue, a doctor from a major medical association told Time that while he enjoyed reading that issue, not once was the word behavior used. He went on to say that many of our current (at the time, and now) ailments could be avoided if we ate right, exercised, and avoided fast food. AND that even if all that medical equipment was available in the future, HALF of the population would still be at risk for major medical problems if we did not change our behavior.

But there’s no money in that. In fact, manufacturers of these wonder devices may loose some customers if we all just lost 5 pounds and got a little walking in. Laying on the couch for hours is not going to help you, unless you’ve added those healthy habits to your life, like a half hour of exercise, even walking, 5 days a week, and skipped the greasy stuff at wherever you buy your fast food.

Behavior - especially for young people - means hard and fast rules. As I was taught in the 1960s - no sex before marriage PERIOD.

Tell at least Catholic young people: you can avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy 100% if you don’t have sex, and that includes oral and anal. F A C T.

Tell them to respect their bodies and to respect others. To reject the lie that everybody’s doing it so you should too.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The mixed feelings occur when no clear message is given. Self-control until marriage and in marriage is the best way to go. To my fellow Catholics, don’t buy into the lie that most of you can’t control yourselves. A change in behavior goes to all health issues in general: eating balanced meals, skipping the snacks (most, not all) and exercise.

Self-discipline is required to get to work on time, self-discipline is required at school, and if we’re going to learn a trade or craft, then self-discipline is required.

…HALF of the population would still be at risk for major medical problems if we did not change our behavior.

Behavior - especially for young people - means hard and fast rules. As I was taught in the 1960s - no sex before marriage PERIOD.

Tell at least Catholic young people: you can avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy 100% if you don’t have sex, and that includes oral and anal. F A C T.

Tell them to respect their bodies and to respect others. To reject the lie that everybody’s doing it so you should too.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
But isn’t it also a fact that people were having sex outside of marriage in the 60s, just as people do today?

Like it or not, you must account for the person who falls outside of the “hard and fast rule” – what does he do?

Abstinence-only education can leave him at a practical disadvantage. Even if he fails to keep abstainant, he can reduce his risk of pregnancy or contracting an STI–but he won’t know unless he’s informed.
 
I picked both. The students should know safety precautions, STD info, etc if they do choose to have sex, but they should also know that not having sex at all is also an option.
 
I kinda think that sex is something best taught by parents. This way, no one has to worry about lines being crossed or anybody being offended. It also promotes responsible parenting. So many parents nowadays expect schools to do everything for them. As if they themselves had no role in their child’s education, discipline and upbringing.
jeannetherese said:
I’m confused-homosexuals cannot practice abstinence?
Click to expand...
Of course they can.
 
I chose neither. The Church is against sex ed, and I agree that having sex ed is injurious to children’s innocence. A lot of programs actually end up *encouraging *sexual activity outside of marriage.
 
Bezant said:
But isn’t it also a fact that people were having sex outside of marriage in the 60s, just as people do today?
Click to expand...
Yes, because the Sexual revolution started in the 60s. The Pill came out in the late 50s, and the USSC decided that forbidding abc to anyone would be unConstitutional.
Like it or not, you must account for the person who falls outside of the “hard and fast rule” – what does he do?
Click to expand...
Abstinence-only education can leave him at a practical disadvantage. Even if he fails to keep abstainant, he can reduce his risk of pregnancy or contracting an STI–but he won’t know unless he’s informed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, some people fall outside the hard and fast rule of robbing banks. Maybe we should bank-robbing ed so that they will not be left at a practical disadvantage of maybe being hurt or killed during the course of robbing a bank.
 
Bezant said:
But isn’t it also a fact that people were having sex outside of marriage in the 60s, just as people do today?

Like it or not, you must account for the person who falls outside of the “hard and fast rule” – what does he do?

Abstinence-only education can leave him at a practical disadvantage. Even if he fails to keep abstainant, he can reduce his risk of pregnancy or contracting an STI–but he won’t know unless he’s informed.
Click to expand...
Since I was there in the 1960s, our Catholic schools and the media respected and valued what we valued. There was a great sense of modesty, there was greater respect for authority and greater respect for your parents. The peer pressure then was to abstain. Even the kids in the public schools, because they still had fathers back then, understood this.

And there were fewer sexually transmitted diseases:

“Prior to 1960, there were only two significant sexually transmitted diseases: syphilis and gonorrhea. Both were easily treatable with antibiotics. In the sixties and seventies this relatively stable situation began to change. For example, in 1976, chlamydia first appeared…”

Source: leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/epid-std.html

And yes, there were a few that did not follow this rule. They had three options if the girl got pregnant: 1) They got married. Not as individual units but with their parents involved as well. 2) The baby was put up for adoption. 3) The baby was born and the mother ended up back home with her baby. I know one such lady.

And there was no sex education, but most guys knew what a “rubber” (condom) was.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top