Obama's Federal Budget Eliminates Funding for Abstinence-Only Education

[RobbyS]

Hi Abbadon,

I suspect that all this debate is really beside the point. The facts are pretty straightforward. Giving young people accurate information about teh benefits of abstinence as well as the use of contraceptives is our best hope for reducing unwanted pregnacy and the incidence of sexually trasnmitted disease. But all that is irrellevent to the Catholics. The bottom line is that kids aren’t supposed to be having sex. If there were fool-proof contraceptives that could prevent pregnancy and STDs with 100% efficiency, Catholics would still oppose informing people about these contraceptives because they don’t believe contraceptives should be used at all. So the arguments that they make about the ineffectivesness of available methods are disingenuous. That’s not the issue for them at all. They believe that they know the truth about the way things are and the way things ought to be as found in a 2000 year old book, and all the modern day evidence in the world about what works and what doesn’t is mere appearance compared to the ultimate reality that they have special access to through their church.

Best,
Leela

Well, that 2000-year old book is more like 4000 years of history, and if you read it you would discover that it says that people today are perrty much like they were then. And it is absolutely disingenuous to say that passion can be controlled by condom use. It is, after all, despite what it says on the dispensors in rest rooms, not designed for disease control, but for birth control. In slightly over 100 years we have gone from the extreme of saying that lust can be suppressed/sublimated easily to saying that it ought not to be
suupressed at all and that sublimtion is the same as depression. “Let it alll hang out” is that famous slogan of the '60s. This goes, ironically, against the posture of Planned Parenthood which is that sexual pleasure can be managed by mechanical means. In other words, society is saying that we should have sex whenever we feel like it but that
if we use the pill, or diaframes, of condoms or foal, etc. then there will be no bad effects no matter how often we do it or with whom we do it. And we have come to depend on getting “fixed” by the doctor if things do go awry. If our sexual appetitites wans, as it does in the case of most people we get a pill to enhance out ability to “perform.” If we have kids we don’t want, we kill them. If we can’t have kids, we go to doctors who will make themfor us in the lab. The contraceptive mentality that the pope talked about is simply shorthand for all this stuff, and personally I think it represents a kind of collective madness and utter irrationality.

 

[manualman]

Hi Abbadon,

I suspect that all this debate is really beside the point. The facts are pretty straightforward. Giving young people accurate information about teh benefits of abstinence as well as the use of contraceptives is our best hope for reducing unwanted pregnacy and the incidence of sexually trasnmitted disease…

Then please, pray tell, explain to us ignorant bumpkins why the rate of unwed pregnancy and STDs has increased exponentially in the last 40 years since your ‘superior scientific approach’ has largely supplanted traditional morals based approach to sexual public health.

You can’t and I’LL tell you why. Your approach reduces human sex to mechanical functions and tears the divine beauty that God built into human sexuality right out. The mechanics and the science all works just fine, but since humans are so much more than that, their behavior confounds those who believe human behavior is fixed. The fact is that when you introduce condoms, sex becomes different and people behave differently (precisely why so many secular people dislike them, actually). Until folks like you begin to understand that, STD rates will continue to be huge no matter how many condoms you throw at kids.

 

[rwoehmke]

Then please, pray tell, explain to us ignorant bumpkins why the rate of unwed pregnancy and STDs has increased exponentially in the last 40 years since your ‘superior scientific approach’ has largely supplanted traditional morals based approach to sexual public health.

In forty years what has happened is that the whole attitude toward pre-marital and adulterous sex has undergone a sea change in our culture. Forty years ago almost everyone agreed that these were immoral actions and that good people did not partake of the forbidden fruit. In today’s culture to “score” is considered a good thing. It no longer meets the opprobrium of most of society; most no longer feel guilty when they partake of the illicit fruits of the flesh and no abstinence only program is going to work when the vast plurality of all ages feels free to sleep around and hook up. All we do is use condoms, pills, penicillin, and abortion to avoid the physical ills that come about through our spiritual sickness.

Another factor is the vastly increased use of pornography and the flavor of our literature, movies, and television programming. Sick is in, baby! The genie is out of the bottle and it will be very difficult if not impossible to put it back in until God’s laws are once again respected by the vast majority…

 

[Leela]

“Then please, pray tell, explain to us ignorant bumpkins why the rate of unwed pregnancy and STDs has increased exponentially in the last 40 years since your ‘superior scientific approach’ has largely supplanted traditional morals based approach to sexual public health.”

Do you have any statistics to support your assertion that teen pregnancy has gone up?

From what I have read, the most religious states in the US have the highest pregnancy rates. Those “New England liberals” come out best of all.

The same trend applies when you break it down by county. Also, the least religious countries in the world have the lowest teen-pregnancy rates.

I don’t think it is because countries or states or counties have kids who are having less sex. They are probably just making better choices as far as birth control.

But again, I don’t think the issue is pregnancy or STDs. If there were a sure fire way to innoculate children so that they would not get pregnant or contract any STD, you would still oppose educating children about such preventative measures. My point is not that you are wrong to oppose children having sex, I’m just saying that your arguments are disengenuous when you talk about abortion, pregancy, and STDs with regard to sex ed. Your concern is about “divine beauty”, “forbidden fruit,” and people breaking “God’s laws.” I’m saying that you shouldn’t be concerned about such things, just that STDs, etc. are beside the point.

 

[Leela]

“Then please, pray tell, explain to us ignorant bumpkins why the rate of unwed pregnancy and STDs has increased exponentially in the last 40 years since your ‘superior scientific approach’ has largely supplanted traditional morals based approach to sexual public health.”

Itried to find some data. According to the CDC, the rates for teen pregnancy, bith, and abortion all show a fairly steady decline from the 70’s onward.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/infosheets/infosheet_teen_preg.htm

This site doesn’t have pregnancy rates for the 60’s and 70’s, but I’ve seen still higher rates from those decades which would fit the trend of decline.

The “exponential increase” seems to be a myth.

 

[Thales]

From what I have read, the most religious states in the US have the highest pregnancy rates. Those “New England liberals” come out best of all.

The same trend applies when you break it down by county. Also, the least religious countries in the world have the lowest teen-pregnancy rates.

I don’t think it is because countries or states or counties have kids who are having less sex.

I bet your right about this but, it doesn’t really say much. I don’t deny the effectiveness of birth control and other contraceptives. I actually think they work very well in what they try to do. I don’t agree with what they do, but that’s beside the point. For example: If you had 100 girls and 90 of them were sexually active all taking some kind of birth control and the failure rate was1% or 2%, you may end up with 1 pregnant teen out of the 90. The other 10 girls are good Christians trying to abide by Christian teaching. 5 remain abstinent, while the other 5 have a few sexual encounters but, being Christian aren’t using any sort of birth control. Out of these 5, 3 end up pregnant. From this you get your statistics. Ninety girls having sex 100’s or 1000’s of times with many different men and not too many pregnancies with a few girls having sex a few times with more pregnancies. I don’t know about you but I’d rather not have my teenage children having sex with all kinds of people just because they can without getting pregnant.

 

[Leela]

Hi Thales,

I bet your right about this but, it doesn’t really say much. I don’t deny the effectiveness of birth control and other contraceptives. I actually think they work very well in what they try to do. I don’t agree with what they do, but that’s beside the point. For example: If you had 100 girls and 90 of them were sexually active all taking some kind of birth control and the failure rate was1% or 2%, you may end up with 1 pregnant teen out of the 90. The other 10 girls are good Christians trying to abide by Christian teaching. 5 remain abstinent, while the other 5 have a few sexual encounters but, being Christian aren’t using any sort of birth control. Out of these 5, 3 end up pregnant. From this you get your statistics. Ninety girls having sex 100’s or 1000’s of times with many different men and not too many pregnancies with a few girls having sex a few times with more pregnancies. I don’t know about you but I’d rather not have my teenage children having sex with all kinds of people just because they can without getting pregnant.

But the issue isn’t about our personal children. We both hope to instill a sense of dignity that would keep them from “having sex with all kinds of people.” We know that other parents aren’t able to teach their kids as well as we can. And we know that kids will screw up whatever we try to teach them. The issue is whether there is a social benefit to teaching children about contraceptives or if it is actually harmful to do so. If someone believes that all contraceptive use is immoral even within marriage, then it is pointless to argue with that person about sex education since there is another debate that would have to happen first.

At least we agree that contraception works pretty well. The difference between us is that I am more concerned about teen pregnancy and you are more concerned with teen promiscuity while we both have a healthy concern for both problems. I don’t think sex ed that includes discussion of sexually transmitted disease and contraception increases promiscuity. Do you?

At least there are two of us who can disagree without demonizing one another.

Best,
Leela

 

[manualman]

I guess you guys haven’t been reading recent threads about condoms, AIDS and Africa. Try this link by a decidedly NOT catholic-biased author: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

While he goes to great lengths to point out this his opinion is restricted to Africa and AIDS, he actually makes a larger point. Sure, he covers his heine by lauding condoms effectiveness in Thai brothels, but surely we can all agree that America’s teen population is NOT equivalent to Thai hookers? Such a demographic has no potential for risk compensation since they, by definition, are having frequent sex with multiple partners. In that case the fixed behavior assumption is VALID. But it isn’t for regular teenagers in the real world.

I can fondly recall my own public high school ‘sex ed’ indoctrination in the 1980’s. The message boiled down very succinctly: Sex has risks, including pregnancy and STDs. The best way to protect yourself is to to abstain. But if you choose not to, at least protect yourself by practising ‘safe sex’ (which then was defined in much detail).

Such an approach is doomed to fail for the same reasons African AIDS/condom campaigns fail: risk compensation. Public schools cannot make moral value statements, so that whole portion of sexuality is simply banned from discussion. So what you have left is the physical risks versus raging teen hormones. That’s admittedly a tough fight in its own right. But when you further proceed to tell kids that this here condom will prevent the physical downsides, you’ve utterly destroyed any chance that kid is going to make the healthy choice. Why would he?

People like to think that a 99% protection rate is a good thing. That may be true if one only rolls the dice a couple of times. But once a teen becomes sexually active, he isn’t likely to just quit. Luckily, I know a bit of statistics. If that kid has 99% protection but has sex with an infected partner 20 times, he has an 18% chance of being infected. Now 1 in 5 of kids has an STD. Doesn’t sound so ‘safe’ anymore, does it? Nice work.

Throw in the fact that teenagers are likely to fumble things and get semen on the outside, a boy sensing that his partner is only barely willing and likely to get cold feet if he stops to ‘put it on’ and the probability that said kids will store the thing poorly (say in his wallet for 6 months) and I betcha actual protection rates are far worse.

STD’s are simply not a new thing in the world. Prior to antibiotics, syphallis and gonorrhea had horrific potential. The reason they didn’t devastate the world like AIDS has was that most people had a morality that dovetailed nicely with the BEST public health policy available: abstinance until marriage.

Please note that I don’t think it is necessary to HIDE the existence of condoms from kids. I just think genuine education requires that kids be told the TRUTH that sexual promiscuity is nearly the same thing as Russian Roullette. Some try to play the game and call it ‘safe’ by taking SOME of the bullets out of the revolver first. But the smart move is to not pull the trigger unless you are SURE there are no bullets in the gun. Abstinance until marriage is THE only way to do that.

 

[manualman]

"Itried to find some data. According to the CDC, the rates for teen pregnancy, bith, and abortion all show a fairly steady decline from the 70’s onward.

cdc.gov/nchs/data/infosheets/infosheet_teen_preg.htm

This site doesn’t have pregnancy rates for the 60’s and 70’s, but I’ve seen still higher rates from those decades which would fit the trend of decline.

The “exponential increase” seems to be a myth.

I’ll presume you misread me and aren’t trying to pull a fast one. I didn’t say ‘teen pregnancy.’ I said “unwed” pregnancy. I’m certain I’ve read reports unwed pregnancy being up nearly a factor of 10. Historic teen pregnancy rates are distortions if they include pregnancies to married 19 year old girls. The marriage rate of people right out of high school has plummeted in recent decades, so such data gives a false impression comapring 1960’s data to 2000’s.

 

[Leela]

I’ll presume you misread me and aren’t trying to pull a fast one. I didn’t say ‘teen pregnancy.’ I said “unwed” pregnancy. I’m certain I’ve read reports unwed pregnancy being up nearly a factor of 10.

Really? I assumed you meant teen pregnancy rates since that is what sex ed is supposed to address. Sex ed classes in high school have nothing to do with 30 year old woman having babies out of wedlock. I don’t see the connection at all between unwed pregnancy and abstinence only education.

I
Historic teen pregnancy rates are distortions if they include pregnancies to married 19 year old girls. The marriage rate of people right out of high school has plummeted in recent decades, so such data gives a false impression comapring 1960’s data to 2000’s.

Do you have any data to back this up? I had thought people tend to marry later today than 4o years ago.

 

[manualman]

Really? I assumed you meant teen pregnancy rates since that is what sex ed is supposed to address. Sex ed classes in high school have nothing to do with 30 year old woman having babies out of wedlock. I don’t see the connection at all between unwed pregnancy and abstinence only education.

Do you have any data to back this up? I had thought people tend to marry later today than 4o years ago.

We’re talking past each other!

You’ve got a good point that such data includes older women. I didn’t think about it that way. I was thinking that what people learn in high school sex ed class shapes their thinking for a good 10 years beyond that. Didn’t occur to me that not all unwed pregnancies were OOPS pregnancies. Forgot about the “Murphy Brown” factor.

But your second point echoes mine. 40 years ago a lot more women married right after high school. If a married 19 year old woman has a child, I don’t think it’s appropriate to put her in the same statistical category as a 16 year old girl. That’s what happens if you just compare 1960 “teen pregnancy rate” with 2009 “teen pregnancy rates.” The former has much more married women in it than the latter. Whether you or I think it is smart to get married at such an age is irrelevent to the topic.

 

[Erich]

According to the CDC, the rates for teen pregnancy, bith, and abortion all show a fairly steady decline from the 70’s onward.

The very first link that comes up googling [teen abortion rate] says:

Government estimates indicate that teen abortion rates increased during the 1970s, stabilized during the 1980s at around 43 per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19, then decreased steadily to 24.0 per 1,000 by 2000. Recent declines have been especially large among teens ages 15 to 17.

So, the decline you’re talking about is only from the 1990’s onward. Even the Guttmacher Institute doesn’t date the decline any earlier than 1988.

 

[Thales]

My earlier comment gave an example of how the rates of teen pregnancy are not an accurate reflection of teen promiscuity based on the prevalence of effective contraceptives. Please, don’t anyone mistake my acknowledgment of the fact contraceptives being effective for preventing pregnancy as approval of their use.

From: Leela
“At least we agree that contraception works pretty well. The difference between us is that I am more concerned about teen pregnancy and you are more concerned with teen promiscuity while we both have a healthy concern for both problems. I don’t think sex ed that includes discussion of sexually transmitted disease and contraception increases promiscuity. Do you?”

Yes, I do care more about promiscuity. It is the heart of the matter. If abstinence was practiced we would have no need for contraceptives. Anyway, promiscuity creates more problems that STD’s and teen pregnancies (which I’m hesitant to necessarily call a problem). I can’t see how it doesn’t damage the way men and women relate to each other. Have you ever heard a 50 year old woman say she was glad about the number of men she has slept with? That she may have lost her virginity to someone who vaguely remembers her. How comfortable is it for a married couple to know about how many people each other has been with before their marriage? Promiscuity is deffinitely* the* problem.

I’m building a case against promiscuity here, not necessarily saying it is increased by sex education. I think it is by the availability and ease of contraceptives, but simply by sex ed, I’m not sure. The two end up going hand in had though. If you remove the negative consequences of an action, especially something that creates pleasure, you’d be a fool to think people wouldn’t do it more. I guess I do think sex ed increases promiscuity. Logic at work.

Someone can probably get statistics on promiscuity rates and compare them to time at which sex ed became prevalent in public schools. Would it be better if the government didn’t fund any sort of sex ed? I would rather my children get one consistent message about the subject from me and my wife rather than some teacher or counselor.

 

[Leela]

We’re talking past each other!

You’ve got a good point that such data includes older women. I didn’t think about it that way. I was thinking that what people learn in high school sex ed class shapes their thinking for a good 10 years beyond that. Didn’t occur to me that not all unwed pregnancies were OOPS pregnancies. Forgot about the “Murphy Brown” factor.

But your second point echoes mine. 40 years ago a lot more women married right after high school. If a married 19 year old woman has a child, I don’t think it’s appropriate to put her in the same statistical category as a 16 year old girl. That’s what happens if you just compare 1960 “teen pregnancy rate” with 2009 “teen pregnancy rates.” The former has much more married women in it than the latter. Whether you or I think it is smart to get married at such an age is irrelevent to the topic.

Okay. I see what you are saying now.

BUt do note that the decline in teen pregnancy rates on the link I provided had separate graphs for 18-19 year olds and this for 15-17 year olds:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I hope we can agree that this decline in teen pregnancy rates is a good thing.

 

[manualman]

I hope we can agree that this decline in teen pregnancy rates is a good thing.

Reduction in the rate of unwed teen pregnancy rates is a good thing, I agree.

But I still don’t believe it is related to expanded contraceptives. I’ll have to look it up, but I’m pretty sure the promiscuity rate among teens peaked in the 1970’s and then declined through the 1980’s as the shocking effects of the 70’s became readily apparent. It may be going up again more recently, but I don’t have the data readily at hand.

From my own experience as a teen though, I stand by my conviction that preaching ‘safe sex’ to a demographic that already has problems perceiving their own mortality is NOT going to have a positive impact on the promiscuity rates in that demographic.

 

[Thales]

I hope we can agree that this decline in teen pregnancy rates is a good thing.

Not necessarily. Promiscuity is the problem. Most unwanted pregnancy is a symptom of promiscuity. A decline in pregnancy is only meaningful if it tracks with a decline in promiscuity.

These trends of decline also follow with the increase of abstinance only programs.

guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html (see the bar chart Shifts in Formal Sex Education)
• In 2002, only 62% of sexually experienced female teens had received instruction about contraception before they first had sex, compared with 72% in 1995.[11]
• More than one in five adolescents (21% of females and 24% of males) received abstinence education without receiving instruction about birth control in 2002, compared with 8–9% in 1995.[10]

 

[Abbadon]

Promiscuity is the problem…

“Unwanted” pregnancies and STD’s are all just the aftermath of promiscuity yes? What if you could be promiscuous without any adverse effects? No side effects in health, no STD’s and no chance in pregnancy. Would promiscuity still be the problem?

 

[Thales]

Promiscuity is the problem…

“Unwanted” pregnancies and STD’s are all just the aftermath of promiscuity yes? What if you could be promiscuous without any adverse effects? No side effects in health, no STD’s and no chance in pregnancy. Would promiscuity still be the problem?

I think it would in the relation between men and woman. Along with the health issues and pregnancy, you have to consider the emotional and relational affects of sexual activity. It has been shown sexually active teens are three times more likely to be depressed. For girls the number who are depressed are far higher than with boys.

“A full quarter (25.3 percent) of teenage girls who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 7.7 percent of teenage girls who are not sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, sexually active girls are more than three times more likely to be depressed than are girls who are not sex*ually active.”
heritage.org/research/abstinence/cda0304.cfm

• Sexually active teens are also nearly 3 times more likely to attampt or commit suicide.
• 63% of boys and 72% of girls say they regret there past sexual activity or that they wished they’d waited longer to have sex.

“That human sexual relationships are predominantly emotional and moral rather than physical in character…”
heritage.org/research/abstinence/cda0304.cfm

It shouldn’t be glossed over the great extent of problems created and in turn need to be overcome just for the liberty of a few moments of personal pleasure. Millions (probably billions)of dollars in research for new more effective contraceptives, education, distribution, and wide spread acceptance of abortion. Is it worth it? Will we try next to find a way to separate emotion from sex? Maybe future sex ed or some new pill will include convincing children that sex is purely physical and does not effect their relationships.

 

[cdanison]

Exactly, Abstinence should be apart of any good sexual education program.

WE also need to work on our “Hollywood” images who condone sex, and unwed babies. Our magazines, movies, TV and all medias scream “SEX”. Our kids are inundated with poor role models. So many are of our young people are unchurched and those who are church goers fall under peer pressure.

Connie

 

[Abbadon]

I think it would in the relation between men and woman. Along with the health issues and pregnancy, you have to consider the emotional and relational affects of sexual activity. It has been shown sexually active teens are three times more likely to be depressed. For girls the number who are depressed are far higher than with boys.

“A full quarter (25.3 percent) of teenage girls who are sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. By contrast, only 7.7 percent of teenage girls who are not sexually active report that they are depressed all, most, or a lot of the time. Thus, sexually active girls are more than three times more likely to be depressed than are girls who are not sex*ually active.”
heritage.org/research/abstinence/cda0304.cfm

• Sexually active teens are also nearly 3 times more likely to attampt or commit suicide.
• 63% of boys and 72% of girls say they regret there past sexual activity or that they wished they’d waited longer to have sex.

“That human sexual relationships are predominantly emotional and moral rather than physical in character…”
heritage.org/research/abstinence/cda0304.cfm

It shouldn’t be glossed over the great extent of problems created and in turn need to be overcome just for the liberty of a few moments of personal pleasure. Millions (probably billions)of dollars in research for new more effective contraceptives, education, distribution, and wide spread acceptance of abortion. Is it worth it? Will we try next to find a way to separate emotion from sex? Maybe future sex ed or some new pill will include convincing children that sex is purely physical and does not effect their relationships.

Interesting very interesting. Correlation is not causation remember. this sounds like a very interesting study. I would be curios to see if there are similar results in more sexually liberal and less religious countries, like western Europe. Or is it that there is a culture war and the casualties are the children. Definatley a very complex situation…