• 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!

Obama Eliminates Abstinence-Only Funding In Budget

Statistics seem to show that the more schools tell children how not to get pregnant, the more teen pregnancies there are.

You got data on this?

States with the highest amounts of abstinence only funding tend to have higher STD and pregnancy rates then states with comprehensive sex ed.

States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):

1. Nevada (113) $851,532
2. Arizona (104) $5,185,998
3. Mississippi (103) $5,742,594
4. New Mexico (103) $5,433,732
5. Texas (101) $14,289,087
6. Florida (97) $13,101,054
7. California (96) $6,367,902
8. Georgia (95) $12,282,363
9. North Carolina (95) $2,348,973
10. Arkansas (93) $4,030,124

SIECUS - Funding by State Fiscal Year 2008
Top 10 States With Highest Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Rates
50-State and National Comparisons | The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy -

Wyoming got none and had teen pregnancy rate of 77.
North Dakota got a measly $88k and had a low of 42.
New Hampshire got a measly 92K and had 42

States with have the most money of the program tend to have the highest birth rates per thousand of teenagers. Pennsylvania is one of the few exceptions.
 

And that state received one of the higher amounts of abstinence only funding.

Georgia, Florida and Texas, the three states receiving the most money are in the top ten for teen pregnancy.

Maine, Wyoming, and Vermont, which received nothing or very little have the lowest.

Huh.

Based on the data, it is not rational, reasonable or intelligent to back these programs when they do not work.
 
You got data on this?

States with the highest amounts of abstinence only funding tend to have higher STD and pregnancy rates then states with comprehensive sex ed.

States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):

1. Nevada (113) $851,532
2. Arizona (104) $5,185,998
3. Mississippi (103) $5,742,594
4. New Mexico (103) $5,433,732
5. Texas (101) $14,289,087
6. Florida (97) $13,101,054
7. California (96) $6,367,902
8. Georgia (95) $12,282,363
9. North Carolina (95) $2,348,973
10. Arkansas (93) $4,030,124

SIECUS - Funding by State Fiscal Year 2008
Top 10 States With Highest Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Rates
50-State and National Comparisons | The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy -

Wyoming got none and had teen pregnancy rate of 77.
North Dakota got a measly $88k and had a low of 42.
New Hampshire got a measly 92K and had 42

States with have the most money of the program tend to have the highest birth rates per thousand of teenagers. Pennsylvania is one of the few exceptions.
Re-read my post.
My argument was not for abstinence-only sex ed.
My argument was against all sex ed.
People are arguing about the most effective way for schools to teach kids how to not get pregnant, whether it be contraceptive education or abstinence education. What is curiously missing from the argument is the option for schools to not try to tell kids how or when to have sex at all.
 
Last edited:
Why create strawmen?

Facts aren't strawmen. The federal government isn't allowed to spend any funds on public education.

So if you have sex and get pregnant then you want the baby? Your reasoning is non-existent. People having unprotected sex stems from a lack of education.

Doesn't matter if they want it or not. It's amazing, though, how lack of free money from taxpayers and lack of the murder option puts an end to sloppy sex practices, from both parties.

As long as schools and states keep taking federal funding then yes. Education is a federal issue.

Sure it is. It's an unconstitutional federal issue.

You figured that part out, yet? That means it should be stopped.

Completely.

What simpleton strands of thought you have. Whether or not you like it, strangers a.k.a. tax payers DO bear the burden.

Only because strangers are threatening them with violence.

Thus why it is in the federal government's best interest to stop the problem at the root by ensuring that kids get a proper sex education so that tax payers do not have to pay for their unwanted pregnancies later.

You're arguing in circles. You're arguing that it's the government's problem because the government breaks it's own laws and also threatens it's citizens with various forms of extortion if they don't pay, whereas instead the argument should be it's not the taxpayers' problem so the government shouldn't be putting out any taxpayer money to cover it.
 
My argument was not for abstinence-only sex ed.
My argument was against all sex ed.

Fair enough. What's your comparison data? How can we say that teaching kids not to get pregnant equates to more pregnancies when we don't have a benchmark to compare it to? I suppose you could argue homeschooling, but that seems like far too small of a sample. A school district where no sex ed was taught for several years would be a decent comparison.
 
Fair enough. What's your comparison data? How can we say that teaching kids not to get pregnant equates to more pregnancies when we don't have a benchmark to compare it to? I suppose you could argue homeschooling, but that seems like far too small of a sample. A school district where no sex ed was taught for several years would be a decent comparison.

Believe it or not- and I did not realize this until recently- sex ed was largely nonexistent before the 1960s. After that teen pregnancies and abortions skyrocketed. Granted, it could be the evolution of culture itself that caused this, I don't know. But in the face of the same story happening with drug education, I think it's worth seeing what happens when the responsibility to tell kids how to act is taken away from schools.
 
Doesn't matter if they want it or not. It's amazing, though, how lack of free money from taxpayers and lack of the murder option puts an end to sloppy sex practices, from both parties.

Sub-Saharan African nations have few (if any) social programs, and abortion is illegal or largely unavailable in most of Africa. Yet the birth rates are sky-high. Hmm. :doh
 
Believe it or not- and I did not realize this until recently- sex ed was largely nonexistent before the 1960s. After that teen pregnancies and abortions skyrocketed.

I'm not so sure I buy this. Publicly and more importantly, publicly reported teen pregnancies and abortions skyrocketed. For years during that time period rich families would have their daughters have illegal abortions and pay for it under the table. Not to mention that if you got pregnant, you often got married.

Granted, it could be the evolution of culture itself that caused this, I don't know. But in the face of the same story happening with drug education, I think it's worth seeing what happens when the responsibility to tell kids how to act is taken away from schools.

Perhaps, but removing sources of accurate sex ed seems like a bad idea now especially given the current circumstances. Removing the education without changing the underlying problems just gives you a bigger problem.
 
No question. The Liberal Republican Congress and Liberal President that was Bush pushed such irresponsible programs and funding. It is irresponsible to provide factually untrue information as well as omit vital information to our children to allow them to make good decisions. Their irresponsibility stems from the utter incompetence in the abstinence only programs pushed by the Liberal Republican party in the last decade.

By all means, the liberals in Congress and the White House have passed on their irresponsible nature to the nation's children by funding what amounts to programs of lies.
Looks like you used your gun to create a self-inflicted wound. :roll:
 
With all the societal messages from people like yourself saying "go ahead, just be safe about it?"

I was a virgin till I met my first wife and got married. I had parents that stressed the dangers, while handing me boxes of condoms. Guess what, if they had left it at "just have sex, be safe" I might have made a big mistake.


Abstinence education needs responsible adults/parents not enabling "friends".

I agree with you somewhat MrV. I grew up with parents who urged me to remain a virgin until I was married. I, in turn urged my son to remain a virgin until he was married. To me that's something that's normal.

One of the things my mom said to me that is the absolute truth is: Once you do it, it's easier to say "yes."

I lost my virginity when I was 16, told my mom and I went on the pill. My son lost his virginity when he was 14 so Gary and I started buying him condoms.

I think urging abstinence is a part of good parenting but once the horse is out of the barn, it's time to be pragmatic.

I don't think that abstinence only should be taught in schools. It doesn't make sense to keep kids stupid about what's out there. A lot of kids don't have parents who will urge them to remain abstinent or support them (with safety) when they don't.

Our kids have to know about the risks, the protection and the options, including abstinence.

There's a lot of nasty **** out there. I didn't grow up with the risk of AIDS. It scares the crap out of me. If Gary left me I'd wave sex goodbye and get a couple more cats for company.

:2wave:
 
I don't buy the "they'll do it anyway" failed line of thinking. My wife now? Was 24 when we met, and a virgin.

Abstinence requires PERSONAL INTEGRITY. Any dog can hump, a mature human knows how to control themselves.

You all pushing to end Abstinence education... you have very little faith in people, I believe we CAN do better, but not by giving up. You all have given up.


Teenagers are not mature people.

You want to compare a 35 year old to a 15 year old? This is about the immature, hormone raging teenagers.
 
And how would they KNOW about safe sex is they were ONLY taught abstinence? How would you even know about a condom? Your peers? Well what if your peers also told you that drinking gatorade before hand prevents pregnancy's too? How would your know that wasn't true if nobody of authority ever taught your the difference? You want the gov't to stop teaching sex ed completely and leave it all to the parents?

Guess what, nothing is currently stopping ANY parent from teaching their children anything they want about sex but they aren't doing it. What on earth makes you think that they will all of a sudden start just because the gov't cuts it in school? Don't you know the kind of myths and ignorance that was rampant during the 40's about sex? Nobody taught them.


Thank you, Indy. This is exactly where I'm coming from too.

:2wave:
 
Sub-Saharan African nations have few (if any) social programs, and abortion is illegal or largely unavailable in most of Africa. Yet the birth rates are sky-high. Hmm. :doh

Hmmmm....subsaharan africa isn't a modern industrialized society.

Look instead, if you were going to be honest, not that we expect that much, to the 1950's in America, where girls said "no". Gee, teen pregnancy wasn't such a huge problem then, why is it now? Are today's girls more stupid?

Oh, that's right. In the fifties, the children grew up in a culture where being sluttish wan't just a fashion statement, it wasn't accepted at all by their parents.
 
I would say that today's parents are too damn lazy, too damn self-centered, and they've created spoiled little monsters who are even worse than they are.

The parents have to actually spend time with their children, and (gasp!) talk to them, and by that I mean in spurts somewhat longer than the commercial breaks on American Idol. Not only that...the parents have to set an example of how to live.......oh, crap, that can't work, can't expect the parents to go out of their way or anything, hell, let's have total strangers be robbed of their hard earned money so parents too damn lazy to do the right thing by their own children don't have to be bothered with their unwanted grandchildren, right? Isn't this what the socially negligent gimmenow liberal masters of America want? Don't they always say "don't worry, your government nanny will fix things, just hand over your money"? Hmmmm....

What's the consequence of the government once again refusing to do what the Constitution doesn't allow it to do?

Well, well, knocked up females don't get "their" check. More importantly, females not yet knocked up would no longer have that check to count on. Don't say it wouldn't have an effect, there's a world of difference between "not much money", and no damn money at all. Knees would be slamming shut all over America if the free knocked up money was turned off. Hopefully the guys will get out of the way in time, because Extenz won't help their situation.

What else would happen if the government said, "yo! Parents of young sluts! it's your grandkid, we're either going to be hitting you with full child support bills or not helping you at all"? Well, there'd be some serious talks about "get on the damn pill, bitch", between momma and the young slut. And since the paternal grandparents would be sharing that bill, fathers would be telling their teen boys stories about the glory of past presidents, or, as some would say, What's a Lewinsky. That, and "tie a knot in it, kid".

Remember, with DNA, paternity isn't a question of "if" anymore.

Yeah, there's no real need to teach abstinence. Simply start restoring a sense of personal responsibility to the American cultural, by making the persons responsible for creating a baby to be responsible for that child.

I fail to see how the elitists expect to have a country left to rule and rape if they succeed in their goal of creating a country comprised of nothing but overgrown children.
 
Hmmmm....subsaharan africa isn't a modern industrialized society.

Look instead, if you were going to be honest, not that we expect that much, to the 1950's in America, where girls said "no". Gee, teen pregnancy wasn't such a huge problem then, why is it now? Are today's girls more stupid?

Oh, that's right. In the fifties, the children grew up in a culture where being sluttish wan't just a fashion statement, it wasn't accepted at all by their parents.

Sorry Scarecrow, but Leave It To Beaver was not a documentary. The teen birth rate has DECLINED considerably since the 1950s.

gr050107f1.gif

Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, "Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000," National Vital Statistics Report, 2001, Vol. 49, No. 10.

pwned-facekick_medium.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sorry Scarecrow, but Leave It To Beaver was not a documentary. The teen birth rate has DECLINED considerably since the 1950s.

gr050107f1.gif

Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, "Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000," National Vital Statistics Report, 2001, Vol. 49, No. 10.

Wow. Babies were allowed to be born in 1950, and YOU'RE claiming victory because today's society KILLS them instead?

Oh, and gee...look....of the 90 teens that in the fifties that were pregnant, only ...ummm....14% were unmarried...that means...13 girls were unwed and knocked up....let's see..

,,,,in 2000, there were 49 teens pregnant, and 80% of those were unmarried, meaning 39, or ...let's see..

39/13 = 3 Wow. Today's policies led to a 300% increase in unwed teen pregnancies.

Let me guess, you found two pretty pictures, didn't understand the funky ones with the lines, but were impressed with the fat guys, so you posted them both, not realizing that for some of us, not you, numbers aren't strangers.

You're happy over a 300% increase in unwed pregnancies. Great.


Oh. And the curve represents "birthrate", so the number of unwanted pregnancies is vastly greater when one considers that in the 1950's people couldn't rush out and murder their little problems before they were born. How many teen abortions were performed in 2000, do you think? The figure overall for annual abortions is near a million, right? How does that break down to teens/1000?
 
Last edited:
Sorry Scarecrow, but Leave It To Beaver was not a documentary. The teen birth rate has DECLINED considerably since the 1950s.

gr050107f1.gif

Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, "Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000," National Vital Statistics Report, 2001, Vol. 49, No. 10.

pwned-facekick_medium.jpg

Every statistic I have seen on the matter points to a dramatic increase in teen births since the 1960s.

2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt
Nonmarital Births:
birth1.gif


For unmarried teens ages 15-19:
birth2.gif


Of course, this is to say nothing of rising abortion rates, which by nature lower birth rates.
 
Wow. Babies were allowed to be born in 1950, and YOU'RE claiming victory because today's society KILLS them instead?

Oh, and gee...look....of the 90 teens that in the fifties that were pregnant, only ...ummm....14% were unmarried...that means...13 girls were unwed and knocked up....let's see..

,,,,in 2000, there were 49 teens pregnant, and 80% of those were unmarried, meaning 39, or ...let's see..

39/13 = 3 Wow. Today's policies led to a 300% increase in unwed teen pregnancies.

Let me guess, you found two pretty pictures, didn't understand the funky ones with the lines, but were impressed with the fat guys, so you posted them both, not realizing that for some of us, not you, numbers aren't strangers.

You're happy over a 300% increase in unwed pregnancies. Great.


Oh. And the curve represents "birthrate", so the number of unwanted pregnancies is vastly greater when one considers that in the 1950's people couldn't rush out and murder their little problems before they were born. How many teen abortions were performed in 2000, do you think? The figure overall for annual abortions is near a million, right? How does that break down to teens/1000?

Wait, this was my initial reaction when I first looked at the data too. But then I realized that the age range for the data was 15-19!!! Jesus Christ! Only 10% of girls over the age of 19 were unmarried?!? And some were in the age range of 15! How on earth could that be a good thing? I fully support the lowered teenage pregnancies and to hell with the higher rate of unwed mothers. To me the damage of forcing that many young teenagers into marriage just to avoid the shame of having a child out of wedlock is ridiculous and is drastically worse than the impact the unwed mothers will have on society.
 
Every statistic I have seen on the matter points to a dramatic increase in teen births since the 1960s.

2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt
Nonmarital Births:
birth1.gif


For unmarried teens ages 15-19:
birth2.gif


Of course, this is to say nothing of rising abortion rates, which by nature lower birth rates.
Well, also, don't we need to take into account the time period? in the 1950's, especially in the rural areas, it wasn't THAT uncommon for young girls to get married early. For example: My great great Aunt was married at 18 to a man who was 36. We call that: "weird", and "borderline-pedophelia"; however, back in that time period, it was called "A happy couple", so of course we would expect wed pregnancies to be a little higher prior to the 60's and 70's.
 
Liberals promote irresponsibility.

Conservatives promote ignorance.

Now that we have dispensed with the idiotic partisan hackery, do you have anything of substance to add to the thread?
 
I agree with this move.

I support including abstinence in sex education, and I also support educating youth on modern advents in protection in order to support their choices. Basically, any education that supports choices in this department, I am in favour of.

As a personal anecdote... when I was 12 I received my first sex ed class and to be honest the whole idea of sex scared me. I clinged adamently to the abstinence idea because I was just too young to really understand the gravity of sex. Then as I got older and good old hormones kicked in, my interest in sex peaked and I pretty much tossed the idea of abstinence out... and it was at that time that the idea of protective methods somewhat automatically kicked in.

It's possible to have a sex life that is healthy, based on your choices in partners, having committed relationships, and choosing your intimate moments carefully. For people who are moderate in their sexual lives, having knowledge about self-protection is utterly essential. Abstinence only education does not provide that and I do not support its ignorant, morality-based agenda.
 
I agree with this move.

I support including abstinence in sex education, and I also support educating youth on modern advents in protection in order to support their choices. Basically, any education that supports choices in this department, I am in favour of.

As a personal anecdote... when I was 12 I received my first sex ed class and to be honest the whole idea of sex scared me. I clinged adamently to the abstinence idea because I was just too young to really understand the gravity of sex. Then as I got older and good old hormones kicked in, my interest in sex peaked and I pretty much tossed the idea of abstinence out... and it was at that time that the idea of protective methods somewhat automatically kicked in.

It's possible to have a sex life that is healthy, based on your choices in partners, having committed relationships, and choosing your intimate moments carefully. For people who are moderate in their sexual lives, having knowledge about self-protection is utterly essential. Abstinence only education does not provide that and I do not support its ignorant, morality-based agenda.
 
Wow. Babies were allowed to be born in 1950, and YOU'RE claiming victory because today's society KILLS them instead?

I knew you were going to say that. Look at the graph.

gr050107f1.gif


Nearly ALL of the birth rate decline since the 1950s occurred BEFORE Roe v Wade. It's been pretty much level since then. Try again.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, and gee...look....of the 90 teens that in the fifties that were pregnant, only ...ummm....14% were unmarried...that means...13 girls were unwed and knocked up....let's see..

And that has what to do with abstinence? Your argument was that abstinence-only education (and a society that approved of abstinence) meant fewer teen pregnancies. Now you're changing your argument. Do you really think this "make it up as you go along" style of debate is effective?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom