PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     Abstinance and abortion
       putting our kids i an unfair spot

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am concerned with the idealism of the republicans in this country.

They think that children should be taught abstinence ONLY. don't teach them about condoms, or birth control of any kind.

It is proven that this only puts off sexual activity for a short while, but ultimately leads toa  higher rate of STD's and teen pregnancy, due to lack of knowledge of how to prevent it/

Now the kids are pregnant and the same people who wouldn't teach them how to avoid getting pregnant are telling them that they can't get an abortion either.

The government leadership is creating a generation of teenage parents who are ruiining their lives.

Many will argue that the kids shouldn't have had sex in the first place, but this is how things are. the number of teens having sex is never goign to decrease no matter how much you shove abstinance down their young throats

Does anyone else see that americas youth is being put betweena  rock and a hard place.

 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 3:44 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
CatholicSeminarian

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i love how you completely dismiss the best possible solution as a "failure".  Yes your right buddy...abstinance should completely not be taught and we should hand out all the condems and pills we can to people to let them go on their uncontrollable ways of sexual activity.   makes complete sense.  WOW...thats all i can say.  Before pretending like you know what you are talking about, go back to school.  this is completely moronic.


-------
JDL
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 4:29 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You agree with the abstinence only idea

Teens WILL have sex, there is no way the government will EVER do more than slow sexual activity down by a year or so through this idiotic campaign. So what they are doing is creating a generation of teens who start a year late and get pregnant and STD's at a much higher rate then those taught about safe sex..

the idea is don't have sex, but if you do, be safe....

I did NOT say that they should not teach abstinance, What I dismissed is abstinence ONLY... keep the only in mind...

If you think this is wrong then you must live in some strange backward world where you think that kids are going to stop having sex if you tell them to... They need to know how to avoid getting pregnant and ruin their lives..

Before calling me moronic you have to look at what I actually said

"They think that children should be taught abstinence ONLY. don't teach them about condoms, or birth control of any kind."

I didn't say to ignore abstinence, again I said to teach abstinence PLUS.. I think you are the one who needs to go back to school

(Edited by SJChaput 1/20/2005 at 4:48 PM).
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 4:46 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
CatholicSeminarian

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Getting pregnate and "Ruining their lives"??? hahaha...i know their lives are ruined arnt they?--wow--  Listen, more than anything would I like to see people out of marriage stop engaging in sex.  And i am realistic in knowing that we are not going to stop this anytime soon.  But do you realize that by bringing birth control and abortion and "the amazing Pill" into the equation we are only enabling them to do so?  We are saying, sure go ahead, and we have made the best possible way for all of you to do it, so you dont have to "ruin your lives"--i cant stop laughing at that one.  Second of all, a baby is not a mistake.  Anytime people have a kid after they have sex, that really doesnt mean anything went wrong...think about it.  It means SOMETHING WENT RIGHT!  If people are going to have sex, well then, they might creat somehting that bilogically makes sense in the act they are performing!  And also, the "Be safe" thing?  I just dont get that term.  "Be safe" people!  We dont want to bring that inconvience into this world!  Be safe from the person you are choosing to engage in SEXUAL INTERCORSE with.  Sorry, the "be safe" thing, uh huh.  Heres the deal, abstinance only is possible some day.  It is possible with good loving and caring parents that raise their child with morals and an understanding of the way things SHOULD BE.  We can sit here and argue about all these "safe" ways all day.  But to get to the bottom line, if you dont want a kid, if you dont want an std, and if you WANT a good and wholesome marriage someday, lets teach these kids to save themselves for their spouse.
I rest my case


-------
JDL
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 7:55 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is proven that this only puts off sexual activity for a short while, but ultimately leads toa  higher rate of STD's and teen pregnancy, due to lack of knowledge of how to prevent it/


Where?  Can I please see something datas on this?

Teens WILL have sex, there is no way the government will EVER do more than slow sexual activity down by a year or so through this idiotic campaign. So what they are doing is creating a generation of teens who start a year late and get pregnant and STD's at a much higher rate then those taught about safe sex..

Slippery slope.  Just because they are taught abstinence doesn't mean they will have sex a year later, nor neither does it mean that if they do, that the pregnant and STD rate will go up.

--dooie


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 8:22 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There IS nothing wrong with having sex if you are safe. I had sex when I was a teenager, and I continue to have unmarried sex and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

But you admit yourrself that we can't stop the kids from having sex, so what are we going to do, if they are going to have sex anyway we should not prepare them to defend themselves.

The kids who are taught abstinence only will have sex anyway, as you agree, and then when they do they don't know about condoms and theyt don't know how to protect themselves from STD's, so it is in this that they get pregnant, while when they were going to have sex anyway, it is only beneficial to tell them how to do it safely.

After all that is knowledge that everyone should have access to.


Abstinence only does not work, it does not deter teens from having sex and not teaching safe sex is harmful to the kids
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 03:56 AM on January 21, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You simply made a claim:  Abstinence only, does not work.  

Then all you do is made an assertion:  Kids will have unsafe sex and this will lead to more STDs and unwanted pregnancies

What you need here is concrete evidence and data that abstinence only does not work.  In a society where it has not been tried out, one cannot claim that something would not work unless it has been tested.  Gold is not claimed gold until it is tested so therefore claiming and proving are two different things.

--dooie

(Edited by got_dooie 1/21/2005 at 09:51 AM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 09:49 AM on January 21, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can I point out that I am a teenager. And an athiest one, so teaching someone in a similair position to me, that it is imoral to have sex before mariage, because god says so, so you need to be abstinant, simpily doesn't work. I will and have had sex before marriage, but because of the sexual education system we have in england I did it and will do so again safely... And can I point out that the term safe sex isn't a referance to protection from a child, its protection from STD's. People have sex for fun, and thats nether going to change, so people need to be told how to do it safely, but abstinace should be taught as well and than the teenager can make there own descision on whether or not to be abstinant.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:04 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now I do not want to attack you too much as I understand that your education is still limitted, therefore I will make two comments.  

1.  1 teen does not speak for the whole teen population in his/her own country much less the world.

2.  Safe sex is meant for preventing STDs yet is is also for the means of preventing pregnancy...no one in ther right mind would argue against that...


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 4:29 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

exactly so if they are going to have sex anyway, in order to prevent pregnancy and STD's we have to teach them how

1st. it has been tried, in 35 percent of schools they teach abstinence only

2nd. The American Healther Association denounces Abstenence only

(Edited by SJChaput 1/21/2005 at 5:31 PM).
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 5:18 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Abstinence-Only Education: Facts

Since 1996, nearly $1 billion in federal and state matching funds has been committed to abstinence-only education (Boonstra, 2004). Because of the requirement that states match federal funds for abstinence-only programs, state dollars that previously supported comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education — which includes but is not limited to abstinence-education — have been diverted to abstinence-only programs (Schemo, 2000).

The vast majority of American parents support comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education. Seventy-five percent of parents want their children to receive a variety of information on subjects including contraception and condom use, sexually transmitted infection, sexual orientation, safer sex practices, abortion, communications and coping skills, and the emotional aspects of sexual relationships. Given the choice, only one to five percent of parents remove their children from such responsible sexuality education courses (AGI, 2003; KFF, 2000; Kirby, 1999).

Fewer than half of public schools in the U.S. now offer information on how to obtain birth control, and only a third include discussion of abortion and sexual orientation in their curricula. A large, nationally representative survey of middle school and high school teachers published in Family Planning Perspectives reported that 23 percent of teachers in 1999 taught abstinence as the only means of reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy, compared with two percent in 1988. The study's authors attributed the change to the heavy promotion of abstinence — not sound educational principles (Darroch, et al., 2000; Wilgoren, 1999). Currently, 35 percent of public school districts require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people and either prohibit the discussion of contraception or limit discussion to its ineffectiveness (AGI, 2003).

Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work. There is little evidence that teens who participate in abstinence-only programs abstain from intercourse longer than others. When they do become sexually active, though, they often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives. Meanwhile, students in comprehensive sexuality education classes do not engage in sexual activity more often or earlier, but do use contraception and practice safer sex more consistently when they become sexually active (AGI, 2003, Jemmott, et al., 1998; Kirby, 1999; Kirby, 2000; NARAL, 1998).

The U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world, and American adolescents are contracting HIV faster than almost any other demographic group. The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is at least twice that in Canada, England, France, and Sweden, and 10 times that in the Netherlands. Experts cite restrictions on teens' access to comprehensive sexuality education, contraception, and condoms in the U.S., along with the widespread American attitude that a healthy adolescence should exclude sex. By contrast, the "European approach to teenage sexual activity, expressed in the form of widespread provision of confidential and accessible contraceptive services to adolescents, is... a central factor in explaining the more rapid declines in teenage childbearing in northern and western European countries" (Singh & Darroch, 2000).

Every reputable sexuality education organization in the U.S., as well as prominent health organizations including the American Medical Association, have denounced abstinence-only sexuality education. And a 1997 consensus statement from the National Institutes of Health concluded that legislation discouraging condom use on the ground that condoms are ineffective "places policy in direct conflict with science because it ignores overwhelming evidence... . Abstinence-only programs cannot be justified in the face of effective programs and given the fact that we face an international emergency in the AIDS epidemic" (NIH, 1997).


 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 5:19 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now I do not want to attack you too much as I understand that your education is still limitted, therefore I will make two comments.  

Don't patronise me, I'm not some inner-city uneducated 12 year old.

1.  1 teen does not speak for the whole teen population in his/her own country much less the world.

I was useing an inductive arguement from my own and friends experiance as an 17 year old, which is reasonably similair to that of the rest of england. What I was trying to say was that to teach younger and older teenagers about having sex safly is effective, where as teaching abstinance isn't entirly effective.

2.  Safe sex is meant for preventing STDs yet is is also for the means of preventing pregnancy...no one in ther right mind would argue against that...

I was refering to a comment made by CatholicSeminarian.

And also, the "Be safe" thing?  I just dont get that term.  "Be safe" people!  We dont want to bring that inconvience into this world!  Be safe from the person you are choosing to engage in SEXUAL INTERCORSE with.  Sorry, the "be safe" thing, uh huh.


He seemed to ignour that contraceptives stop the majority of the spread of STD's and only took safe sex as a term of pretection from pregnancy, and it is both things.



-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 8:00 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was useing an inductive arguement from my own and friends experiance as an 17 year old, which is reasonably similair to that of the rest of england. What I was trying to say was that to teach younger and older teenagers about having sex safly is effective, where as teaching abstinance isn't entirly effective.


Personal experience is not a valid arguement, as a matter of fact it is a fallacy.  One as bright as you should know that.

--dooie


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 9:33 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think citing experience is altogether a bad way to make a point.

after all who better to attest to the someonething than someone who is affected by it directly.

Is it someone who has writtena  study who has never actually dealt with the subject first hand or someone who has or is currently enthralled in the subject at hand

(Edited by SJChaput 1/22/2005 at 05:19 AM).
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 10:08 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So would your personal experiances as an observer give us an insight into the differnt effects of differnt methods of teaching teenagers sex?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 07:16 AM on January 22, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So would your personal experiances as an observer give us an insight into the differnt effects of differnt methods of teaching teenagers sex?


No I don't use personal experience to impose certain points that I want to make.  Rather, in situtations such as these, I try to back up my points with empirical data, not experience.

As far as this post is concerned, I am going to admit that abstinence only cannot work.  The problem I see isn't that teenagers will have more sex, have more pregnancies, or transmit more STDs.  Rather I am admitting that it will not work simply because with the previous generation promoting sex as an objective fun, the coming generations will not take what they learn, but rather will take what they see.

"The truth is that, in 1960, there were only two major sexually transmitted diseases, and, to date, there are now over 30. According to the National Institute of Health, the condom is only somewhat effective for HIV prevention 85 percent of the time and is only effective with preventing the spread of gonorrhea in males. With every other STD, there is absolutely no clinical evidence for prevention. Condoms do absolutely nothing against human papillomavirus and herpes. HPV - which causes genital warts in 30 of its 100 strands - is the most common STD, and it kills more women every year because it causes 98 percent of all cervical cancer. Again, the condom does not stop the spread of this disease whatsoever. Around 20 percent of the U.S. population over age 12 has herpes II. Last year's numbers for HPV were 6.2 million cases and 1.6 million cases for Herpes II. In the United States, there are 45 million people infected with various STD's, and 48 percent of those are 25 years old or younger -? that's roughly 21.5 million people!

Since 1990, teen sex rates have dropped in direct connection with the time period of the influx of abstinence education. More than half of teenagers are now NOT engaging in sexual intercourse, down about 10 percent from 1990. We do not teach that abstinence is the only option. Rather, we say abstinence is the only 100-percent effective way to eliminate risk?. The truth is that good abstinence curriculum gives kids the real facts, and in that way they can make informed decisions about involvement in sexual activity. According to my friend, they hear statements such as "I never knew this before" and "Why haven't we been taught this before?" very often after their presentations."

So you can see that abstinence only will reveal teens to what they will not miss out as a result of not being sexually active.

--dooie


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:27 PM on January 24, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from got_dooie at 4:29 PM on January 21, 2005 :
Now I do not want to attack you too much as I understand that your education is still limitted, therefore I will make two comments.  

1.  1 teen does not speak for the whole teen population in his/her own country much less the world.

2.  Safe sex is meant for preventing STDs yet is is also for the means of preventing pregnancy...no one in ther right mind would argue against that...


im a 17 year old girl from Australia and, lo and behold...i, and about, ohh...99% of my school would agree with Peter87.

and of course safe sex refers to avoiding pregnancy...well, what's it gonna be? contraception or an aborted child? take your pick...you can't have it both ways my friend
hammingaround@hotmail.com
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 08:18 AM on April 15, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

im a 17 year old girl from Australia and, lo and behold...i, and about, ohh...99% of my school would agree with Peter87.

and of course safe sex refers to avoiding pregnancy...well, what's it gonna be? contraception or an aborted child? take your pick...you can't have it both ways my friend


First of all, 99 percent of your school could very well be about 99 kids.  Second of all, speaking so, where's the hard evidence?  Don't speak out as if you know what sex even is.  Read "theology of the body," it might reveal you to some points and insights you might've missed and blinded by your own biased opion of the world.  You set up an either-or fallacy argument.  Nice attemp, but you're gonna have to do better than that if you want to make me consider your arguments


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:18 PM on April 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do we even know what sex is? I'm sorry but you do not need to read theology to know and understand what sex is.
If you do statistics you will find that a sample of 99 people will give you rather acurate results, with about + or - one standard error.
What we are trying to say is that most teenagers (in australia and britain at least) belive that sex before mariage isn't a bad thing and that we are greatful for being taught contraception rather than abstinance, becuase abstinance has its founding in religion and as an agnostic I don't find any relivance in the teaching of religions. Thus teaching abstinance to non religious people is going to be highly uneefective where as allowing people to have sexual relations before marriage but teaching them on how to do it safely is much more effective.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 8:22 PM on April 15, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i second that.

and i really wish that some people would be mature enough to realise that most teenagers today are far more in touch with the world and its issues than many would like to think. Our opinions are just as valid as anyone elses. Just remember that, cos i have a lot of opinions...

---
Being 17 doesn't = naive...i think "open-minded" is the term you're looking for.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:55 PM on April 15, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.