I’ll bite.
No, it doesn’t work because teens who receive abstinence-only education are more likely to get pregnant than those who have received more comprehensive sex education do. Google “abstinence-only pregnancy rates” for several pages of cites.
Kids will continue to have sex regardless. The question is whether they will do so recklessly or responsibly.
I don’t doubt that you are right in this regard, but I think factors other than abstinence only education figure into it. For one thing, I would guess that kids who receive abstinence only education likely don’t get birth control pills and other forms of contraception as readily as kids who receive more liberal types of sex education. Many parents feel that sex education in the school environment actually serves to stimulate and encourage sex among its students, and so given this perceived increase in the likelihood of sexual activity , they are more apt to make sure their kids (daughters mostly) have access to, or are outfitted with, birth control.
I would also imagine that, for a variety of reasons, abortion is more prevalent among kids receiving more open sexual education.
And further, I’m always suspicious of these types of surveys. Given that in many places (if not all – I’m out of touch with the current legals) kids can get abortions without parental approval, HIPAA laws make it difficult to obtain medical information about anyone, and that kids themselves aren’t likely to be forthcoming with negative information, I’m dubious as to how accurate the results of these studies are.
And further, there is the question of agendas on the part of the people interpreting and promoting the studies. Here, in Der Trihs’ cite, we have a woman from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy – an organization that is clearly not a part of the anti-abstinence crowd – declaring that when it comes to abstinence and its effectiveness, the results are flat. This statement is backed up by “an official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States”, which is undoubtedly a pro sex ed organization also. So, how is a person to discern whether they’re getting the straight scoop or whether things are being interpreted so as to advance a particular agenda.
However, Der Trihs’ cite says that kids from abstinence only programs do not show any less usage when it comes to condoms, and that they actually showed slightly better awareness of how to prevent STDs, so it looks like in a couple of areas abstinence only holds its own with more open types of sex ed.
Which brings us to your next point:
Exactly. And it’s my belief that kids from neither group will do so responsibly, especially the younger ones. A multiplicity of desires are involved, as are peer pressure and pleadings or demands from the male side of the equation, and all of these make it extremely unlikely that, on the spur of the moment…which is often when things like this take place…kids are gonna behave responsibly. If they were behaving responsibly they wouldn’t be having sex in the first place.
This is all apart from the point I was going to make to Der Trihs, though. Basically his cite claims that abstinence only doesn’t work because kids still have sex. I have heard this same argument before, and on subjects like capital punishment as well. The argument claims that capital punishment doesn’t work as a deterrent because people still get murdered while it’s in effect, and that kids still get pregnant despite abstinence only education.
My response to both is to ask then if we should then do away with traffic fines because people still speed, tailgate each other and run traffic lights? Or when it comes to drugs, should we do away with prescriptions because people are still gonna obtain drugs illegally? Etc., etc., etc.
The question isn’t whether a particular effort stops the undesirable activity cold; it’s whether it reduces it significantly enough to be manageable and to prevent most people from doing it. And given that the rates of pregnancy, abortion and STDs among teenagers today are what they are, I don’t think anyone can argue that sex ed itself is any more successful than abstinence only, and that if anything it likely makes things worse by, in effect, sexualizing kids even more than they are already. It is also my opinion that it tends to give tacit approval to kids to engage in sex because they’re being told by adult authority figures, essentially, “Don’t do this, but if you do, be sure to use birth control.”
Less than they used to be you mean ? As I recall unwed pregnancy peaked in the 50s.
Liberal VS conservative, IMO really NEEDS to stop if the US is going to function normally. And I’m sorry, but libertarianism is just ultra-cynical judgmental behavior that seems to be some sort of strange conservative mutation in response to free-market politics crashing into the Hudson. But either way, I think both liberals and conservatives need to stop bickering and DO SOMETHING TOGETHER, besides falling into these ridiculous pre-ordained good guy/bad guy rolls. I think self-identifying with political categories in and of itself shows a serious lack of imagination, much less a willingness to roll with the changes.
One problem with that argument is that they have different, largely opposing goals. And another is that conservatives, at least of the modern American type aren’t cooperators; they’d prefer to see the country go down before cooperating or compromising. And yet another is that when the other side ARE the “bad guys”, then compromise with them is both foolish and unethical.
But Der Trihs, these are just politicians, malleable to the will of the public. The “bad guys” you speaks of are really just the ones who are most afraid of the ideas you stand for. Their goals, while apposing your own, should still be the will of the people they represent, be it your average working stiff or a CEO, conservative or liberal. Obviously the Bushian policies we’ve suffered through are the result of corruption and greed, and I agree with you that compromising with that is wrong, but look at what is going on in Washington right now: compromise. Is this the fault of the people? No, it is the politicians who ultimately decide what gets passed. My point is that this two-party sporting event is a useless and outdated way to govern, but this is just my opinion, and I don’t know of a better way and I want my country to prosper so I suck it up and vote, but I think we should be open to new ideas…not sure how any of this is related to this thread however so that is the end of my rant.
And so you see the conundrum, eh, PCFiend? To conservatives, liberals have bad ideas, and, once implemented, they are almost impossible to reverse. To liberals, conservatives are the bad guys and their every belief and desire must be called out for the evil that it is and thwarted (but only after lots of name-calling and assigning of false motives) so as to maintain the higher moral imperative.
Well, that, and to promote communism and stuff. 
There truly is a culture war going on in this country. It’ll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
It already over. You lost.
No, no, we all have.
Actually, I spent a couple hours this morning describing to PCFiend how conservatism, after largely losing out to liberalism over the most of the last hundred years and most certainly since the counter-culture revolution of the late sixties, has seen a resurgence beginning with with the rallying point of William F. Buckley in the fifties and sixties and coalescing around Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan starting in the eighties, and how the advance of liberalism has been largely halted since that time, but I it ran pretty long and ultimately I deleted it as too inflammatory.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have been so concerned.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/williamkristolbio.htm The typical conservative and liberal discussions were changed in the last couple decades. Some conservatives ,like Kristoll , Wolfowitz, and Cheney saw America as uniquely positioned to remake the globe into something benefiting a small group of Americans. They felt we had the power to remake the middle east and they were jumping at the chance to attack Iraq. It was not about removing an evil dictator.
At home they saw an opportunity to consolidate money and power into a few hands. That would be a positive because only they saw how much better the world would be if they controlled it.
They were not the conservatives of Americas past. They were elitists and power and money grabbers disguising themselves as ultra conservatives and lovers of America. They were thinking of themselves. It would be hard to find a more discredited group in history nowadays. Rumsfield,Kristoll.Wolfie,Cheney and Bush are now seen for what they are. Their childish idea that the rich, corporations and wall street would be able to regulate themselves with the public interest in mind is scary stupid. But they got their way . if we can survive this mess, we can go back to the old dem and repub wars ,which differ less in ideology but more in technique, we will be better off.
Could I get a cite on this?
This too. Could you please provide a cite where some representative of the Catholic priesthood publicly defended having sex with children?
Regards,
Shodan
And even if it did – which I doubt – it would still hardly prove the efficacy of modern sex ed in schools. Birth control is ubiquitous these days and abortions are easily obtained. Plus HIPAA laws are very restrictive. There’s no way to accurately determine the number of unwed pregnancies in either the fifties or now (or even if we’re talking about the same demographic; were women of eighteen or nineteen and out of school counted in the fifties’ statistics? Etc.)
Still, like I said upthread, when you look at the numbers that exist now regarding teen pregnancies and abortions and the 25% STD rate among teenage girls, it’s pretty hard to claim that sex ed in schools is doing a very good job of stopping teen pregnancy and disease.
But then the school system is fighting an uphill battle in this regard anyway because liberalism has fostered an environment in this country where kids are inundated with sexual images and music and attitudes all the time. I was talking to somebody just the other day about my one of my neice’s thirteenth birthday party eight years ago. The kids brought their own music and before long, sweet little twelve and thirteen year old girls (and boys) in this sleepy midwestern whitebread suburb were dancing like strippers to “Back That Azz Up” and “Can I Get A Fuck You” (and with no apparent idea that adults would find it objectionable). Such is the environment liberalism has created in this country these days, and then people wonder why kids are getting pregnant right and left and coming down with STDs.
Your own link said *"Trenholm said, was that kids receiving abstinence instruction **did not use condoms less often *than other kids, a possibility that critics occasionally raise. They also showed slightly better knowledge about the prevention of sexually transmitted disease."
So, it may not prevent kids from haing unmarried sex, but the guive the same results and maybe even better in some cases.
Re: effort to hide and protect: Any more than other organizations?
3)Re: Widespread rape and abortion. I’m sure it happens sometimes, but you said widespread and I would like some info on that. (“Raping young and attractive nuns”, good title for a porn film)
Also, what Shodan just said.
Untrue.
Some kids will have sex, and some will not. No one would deny this. The percentages, however, rise and fall. See this graphic for recent trends. Please note the decrease coincides with the growth of abstinence education in the 1990s.
There is no doubt a practical limit to how many teens will be persuaded to be abstinent, and one could argue that we’ve reached it. But saying there’s a limit to what abstinence education can do is a very different from suggesting it does no good at all.
I used to have fairly liberal political and economic views. My religious beliefs were also more liberal in times past. Since then, I’ve become very much conservative.
So if we construe “conservatives” to include people who were formerly more liberal, then there is certainly a precedent for rethinking one’s ideas.
Seconded. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
He became a progressive. You can still find them around, but they don’t call themselves conservatives.
This would seem to be more a function of fear of AIDS and Herpes or some other factor than an increasein Abstinence Only education and the graph does not indicate what you claim. The graph shows a general decline beginning around 1990. However, joint Federal/State Abstinence Only programs were not funded until 1996, (at which point there is a slight upward trend), with 49 states participating. However, most states began to see the programs as money drains and dropped out. The feds then instituted a Federal only program around 2000, (at which point the numbers trended upward, modestly, again).
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc and all that.
Well, not quite. Most of these are for women in their 20s. Your cite says
I suspect lots of the unwed pregnancies are quite deliberate.
DerTrihs maybe meant teenage pregnancies? I don’t know if he’s right, but that is declining