• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds

Does abstinence only education prevent the above?

No. In fact it makes them more likely since abstinence only does not reduce the amount of sex teens have, but it does make it more likely that they won't use a condom.
 
I would love to see the Obama Administration STOP funding the abstinence program. It doesn't work. Let's make this about teaching children about sexually transmitted diseases and preventing pregnancy.
The funny thing is, that I could point you to a number of cases where just such an approach has worked, perfectly. Indeed, it is one of a minority contraceptive program that has a 100% effectiveness rate when the directions are followed.

Those of you of a suspicious bent, might also bear in mind that it is an approach that has little potential revenue involved for contraceptive manufactures, abortion providers or pharmaceutical companies. So there is at least the potential that these studies will be biased.
 
Does the federal government fund it? I thought it was the states.

States must teach abstinenece-only differently. My community is two-tier as well as absolutely voluntary, and the only money funding it is stemmed from the local sales tax. so, I don't really know what all the big fuss is about.
The Big Fuss, in my always humble yet brilliant and insightful opinion, is that the Leftist Movement has a vested interest in teaching people that they cannot control any aspect of their lives or behavior absent official guidance.
 
I see. So you're being intellectually dishonest.

Understood.

And if that's your standard I guess you'll be arguing that all sex education programs have failed, right?

:roll:

How is that being intellectually dishonest?

What I find interesting is Sarah Palin got pregnant and then married her husband. There she is promoting abstinence programs and her daughter gets pregnant? The irony is laughable.
 
How is that being intellectually dishonest?

What I find interesting is Sarah Palin got pregnant and then married her husband. There she is promoting abstinence programs and her daughter gets pregnant? The irony is laughable.

More "predictable" than laughable, I'd say.
 
So are you being intellectually dishonest or are you just ignorant.

This WaPo report about a study says nothing about broader abstinence programs. It simply says that, "Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence..."

That says nothing about the success or failure of abstinence programs. The WaPo article is extremely misleading when it reports, "The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins."

No, the study raises questions abut the effectiveness of abstinence-only pledges.

Class dismissed.

The abstinence only programs have, repeatedly, through research data, been shown to be completely ineffective at preventing teen pregnancies and STDs. In some cases there is no difference between the results of abstinence only programs verse comprehensive sex education; in others, those who received abstinence only sex education had more teen pregnancies and STDs. Abstinence only is a total failure, proven by the evidence.

Your class is dismissed.
 
Who is not laying down standards? No one is saying abstience should not be taught. Only that despite any "decision groups" that exist on the subject of sex, all should have a full understanding of the subject.

You can't make intelligent decisions if you are ignorant on the topic.

Sex education programs aren't all that comprehensive. They are "neutral" education and under no circumstances are they to allowed encourage or discourage sexual activity. The criteria is pretty much laid out for each state and so far no state has made any changes.


Giving teens a ring and saying sex is evil will only affect a very small minority that truly believe in abstinence, whatever their reasons.

Yeah...you didn't read my post did you? I actually agreed with that.


So no education for teens is better then one that works only on small groups?

The problem with overhauling it is that the conservative religious right don't want their children learning about sex. They believe that teaching equates to permission. If they ignore the topic then it doesn't exist.

No, you didn't read the post nor did you want to comprehend what I said.

Scapegoating the religious right while trying to ignore the need for a two teir program instead of a mediocre single teir program is just sad. The program needs an overhaul, not teachers who might on their own deviate occasionally to be more comprehensive on the subject.

But then its pretty sad that we've already written off underage teen abstinence. Granted, thats a parental issue but seeing abject parental failure is just not cool.
 
I would love to see the Obama Administration STOP funding the abstinence program. It doesn't work. Let's make this about teaching children about sexually transmitted diseases and preventing pregnancy.

Vowes don't stop the divorce rate, why should this be any diferent?
 
I don't believe Sex ed (or abstinence) should be taught in public schools because parents have no control over who is teaching there children or what is being taught to them. I understand there are structured programs that teachers are SUPPOSED to follow. However each teacher is human and will spin things the way they perceive will be a benefit to the ones being taught. This may not be the preferred viewpoint of the parents. Sexual Education is way too subjective to be taught in public schools.
 
I don't believe Sex ed (or abstinence) should be taught in public schools because parents have no control over who is teaching there children or what is being taught to them. I understand there are structured programs that teachers are SUPPOSED to follow. However each teacher is human and will spin things the way they perceive will be a benefit to the ones being taught. This may not be the preferred viewpoint of the parents. Sexual Education is way too subjective to be taught in public schools.
Thats what I was getting at. Sex should be left to the parents. I remember when I first attended a sex-ed presentation when I was in middle school. It was with my parents and they agreed with the general message of it; however, they still said they rather I stayed home and teach it to me, instead of through a program.
 
Thats what I was getting at. Sex should be left to the parents.

Being a parent doesn't require a teaching certificate, or any certification at all.
It is not in society's best interest that young people be sent into the world with inaccurate knowledge of sex, or with no information at all about it.
And this is what will happen, if everything is left 'to the parents' discretion".
Some parents simply have none.
Some parents suffer from mental retardation. Yes, i knew a guy whose parents are both mentally retarded, and he isn't.
Some parents belong to strange cults.
Some parents are mentally ill.

No. It cannot be left "to the parents".
It is a subject like any other, and should be taught that way: just the facts.

If parents wish to supplements these fact with some sort of morality training, that is the part they are free to do at home.
But their is no adequate excuse (including "who cares if it's taught in school? They'll learn it from their friends anyway. I did.") for public schools not teaching the basic scientific facts of anatomy and reproduction.
 
Being a parent doesn't require a teaching certificate, or any certification at all.
It is not in society's best interest that young people be sent into the world with inaccurate knowledge of sex, or with no information at all about it.
And this is what will happen, if everything is left 'to the parents' discretion".
Some parents simply have none.
Some parents suffer from mental retardation. Yes, i knew a guy whose parents are both mentally retarded, and he isn't.
Some parents belong to strange cults.
Some parents are mentally ill.

No. It cannot be left "to the parents".
It is a subject like any other, and should be taught that way: just the facts.

If parents wish to supplements these fact with some sort of morality training, that is the part they are free to do at home.
But their is no adequate excuse (including "who cares if it's taught in school? They'll learn it from their friends anyway. I did.") for public schools not teaching the basic scientific facts of anatomy and reproduction.
Thats...not what I'm talking about. Let school teach reproduction and biology and about STD's, but...these "sex ed" programs should be entirely left to the parents. they are all just a waste of money. And these "cults" and potential for "abuse" is pretty much null considering that they are already illegal.
 
Being a parent doesn't require a teaching certificate, or any certification at all.
It is not in society's best interest that young people be sent into the world with inaccurate knowledge of sex, or with no information at all about it.
And this is what will happen, if everything is left 'to the parents' discretion".
Some parents simply have none.
Some parents suffer from mental retardation. Yes, i knew a guy whose parents are both mentally retarded, and he isn't.
Some parents belong to strange cults.
Some parents are mentally ill.

No. It cannot be left "to the parents".
It is a subject like any other, and should be taught that way: just the facts.

If parents wish to supplements these fact with some sort of morality training, that is the part they are free to do at home.
But their is no adequate excuse (including "who cares if it's taught in school? They'll learn it from their friends anyway. I did.") for public schools not teaching the basic scientific facts of anatomy and reproduction.

So in light of the recent news stories about teachers having sex with their students, do you consider that "Just the Facts"?
 
Thats...not what I'm talking about. Let school teach reproduction and biology and about STD's, but...these "sex ed" programs should be entirely left to the parents. they are all just a waste of money. And these "cults" and potential for "abuse" is pretty much null considering that they are already illegal.

By teaching about STD's and reproduction they need to teach how to protect against them.

Unless you except a teacher to say, "...and that is what will happen to you if you ever get syphilis or herpes. Now to find out how to protect yourself from contracting these diseases you must go ask your parents."
 
By teaching about STD's and reproduction they need to teach how to protect against them.

Unless you except a teacher to say, "...and that is what will happen to you if you ever get syphilis or herpes. Now to find out how to protect yourself from contracting these diseases you must go ask your parents."
Ok while we're at it, lets teach children how to prevent against polio, flu, streptococcus, Cholera, smallpox, listeriosis, Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonellosis, Shigellosis, Botulism Brainerd Diarrhea, and Vibrio vulnificus, Amebiasis, Ascaris, Roundworms, Cryptosporidiosis, Cyclospora infection, Cysticercosis, Giardiasis, Toxoplasmosis, Trichinosis. Why teach one form of diseases but not the others that are just as dangerous and contagious? Why discriminate? That only way you get total accurate education in those diseases is if you learn them at a med school or some doctor told you or something.

I tell you what. I'll agree with you on teaching kids how to prevent STD's, if you agree for students to be taught how to prevent EVERY SINGLE DISEASE known to man.
 
Last edited:
I tell you what. I'll agree with you on teaching kids how to prevent STD's, if you agree for students to be taught how to prevent EVERY SINGLE DISEASE known to man.

It teaches kids how to prevent diseases and STD's that are predominate in society (i.e. what they can actually get).

Why would you want a teacher to teach about polio? They already got the shot.

The flu? They do that each and every year with teaching people to get vaccinate.

You are being ridiculous.
 
Ok while we're at it, lets teach children how to prevent against polio, flu, streptococcus, Cholera, smallpox, listeriosis, Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonellosis, Shigellosis, Botulism Brainerd Diarrhea, and Vibrio vulnificus, Amebiasis, Ascaris, Roundworms, Cryptosporidiosis, Cyclospora infection, Cysticercosis, Giardiasis, Toxoplasmosis, Trichinosis. Why teach one form of diseases but not the others that are just as dangerous and contagious? Why discriminate? That only way you get total accurate education in those diseases is if you learn them at a med school or some doctor told you or something.

I tell you what. I'll agree with you on teaching kids how to prevent STD's, if you agree for students to be taught how to prevent EVERY SINGLE DISEASE known to man.

Tell you what. When you can show that teaching the prevention of those diseases is as understandable and as easy to accomplish as learning how to prevent STD's and you stop making straw man arguments then perhaps your assertion above might make sense.
 
Ok while we're at it, lets teach children how to prevent against polio, flu, streptococcus, Cholera, smallpox, listeriosis, Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonellosis, Shigellosis, Botulism Brainerd Diarrhea, and Vibrio vulnificus, Amebiasis, Ascaris, Roundworms, Cryptosporidiosis, Cyclospora infection, Cysticercosis, Giardiasis, Toxoplasmosis, Trichinosis. Why teach one form of diseases but not the others that are just as dangerous and contagious? Why discriminate? That only way you get total accurate education in those diseases is if you learn them at a med school or some doctor told you or something.

I tell you what. I'll agree with you on teaching kids how to prevent STD's, if you agree for students to be taught how to prevent EVERY SINGLE DISEASE known to man.

While were at it why not teach them the year to year history of every single country and empire ever to exist in the entire world?

Why? Because there is limited teaching time and the curriculum must be focused to relevant information. STD's and reproduction are completely relevant and something 95% of the students being taught will have experience with. If a teacher is going to teach about STD's then they should also teach protection against them.
 
Tell you what. When you can show that teaching the prevention of those diseases is as understandable and as easy to accomplish as learning how to prevent STD's and you stop making straw man arguments then perhaps your assertion above might make sense.
I don't know, maybe because it saves lives? That is the motivation behind it all, isn't it? I mean, you do agree, all diseases can kill if not treated correctly. So, why not save more lives by having Hygiene ed classes, or Worm classes! It'll SAVE LIVES!
 
While were at it why not teach them the year to year history of every single country and empire ever to exist in the entire world?

Why? Because there is limited teaching time and the curriculum must be focused to relevant information. STD's and reproduction are completely relevant and something 95% of the students being taught will have experience with. If a teacher is going to teach about STD's then they should also teach protection against them.
99% of students also experiance influenza and chickenpox at one point in life.

Here, I'll throw you another bone: HYGIENE CLASSES.
 
99% of students also experiance influenza and chickenpox at one point in life.

Here, I'll throw you another bone: HYGIENE CLASSES.
These are all situations that are assumed to have been learned before the student reaches a grade level that has actual "health class". You might as well add a class teaching how to tie your shoes as well. Personally I have yet to meet a high school student who didn't know how to not get the flu or how to eliminate it or the same with chicken pox.

In the matter of reproduction and STD's though, the age of the students when these items are taught are when they are able to start reproducing and also more likely to get an STD.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom