Conservatives and public school education on sex and birth control

[constanze]

@Nava

You’re mixing two methods there: calendar, which is based on assumptions about a woman’s cycle which are highly unlikely to be true, and basal-temp, which actually works but many people find it “too clinical”. There’s several others along similar lines, some of which work better than others.

I have only heard of using the calendar method together with temperature for higher accuracy, although a common criticism is that a lot of things - like stress - can throw everything off, because bodies are not machines.

A different Group that uses calendar/ temp method for the opposite reason are normal couples who are trying to get pregnant, but having Trouble, so they look first at the fertile days for best chances, before going to a doctor to look deeper. Hence eco stores selling booklets and Special temperature Tools.

A marriage can be fertile without the spouses themselves being. It can even be fertile without either spouse being (for example, because one spouse had children from previous relationships), and weddings in which the wife is infertile due to advanced age take place routinely(1).

The official reasoning I have heard for that is that God can always work a miracle - like with Sarah - to make improbable things happen, but if something is impossible, it’s not allowed. (Why God’s miracles can’t also do the impossible, as the miracles in the Bible often are, is not explained).

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@puddleglum

Abstinence education is a form of sex education. It attempts to teach kids the dangers of sex and convince them to be abstinent. Comprehensive sex education attempts to teach kids the dangers of unprotected sex and convince them to use condoms everytime. They are both equally effective.

No evidence provided, of course. That said, what we’re looking for is the overarching trend in the peer-reviewed literature (unless you’re going to disregard that, in which case I have no idea what we’re looking for), so individual studies are not particularly helpful. Again, I turn to the organizations whose job it is to know these things. And they all say that you’re wrong.

[Tranquilis]

@puddleglum

You must not have read the studies. The first one says "As they are currently carried out, education programmes alone probably have no effect on the number of young people infected with HIV, other STIs or the number of pregnancies,” said Dr Amanda Mason-Jones from the University of York, the lead author of the review, "

Followed immediately by this paragraph:

The review showed that in those studies which provided incentives, such as free school uniform or small cash payments to young people who stay in school that, while there was no definitive change in the number of HIV infections, one showed a reduction in other STI infections, and overall there was a significant reduction in adolescent pregnancies, although more high-quality evidence is needed to confirm this.

Which contradicts your message.

The second one says “We concluded that abstinence-only programs do not appear to reduce or exacerbate HIV risk among participants in high-income countries”

Which only demonstrates that not all forms of education are equal - which should hardly be a revelation.

You accuse others of cherry-picking, but you’ve been busted on that, and you continue the circular argument, the black-or-white stance, and the hasty generalization. Basically, you’ve chosen your ground and will not be moved. Kinda like Dr. Suess’ Zax. And about as sensible.

[constanze]

There’s another problem with “abstinence-only” teaching: what happens after marriage? So lets say you manage to scare or convince teens to hold off sex until they are 18 and can rush to get married. And then?

Either you gave them a full, factual information on how sex happens: not just “insert penis into vagina and make babies, anything else we don’t talk about” but “if you masturbate, you can find out where your personal erogenous zones are, because they differ from person to person” and “it doesn’t have to hurt the girl the first time, if the guy uses the right technique and patience” and so on; plus “now that you are married, but both want to go to college, or only the woman can find a job, so you don’t want kids right away: here’s how you use a condom, the pros and cons; here’s how you use a pill, the pros and cons etc.”

Because otherwise, who will give facts, not scaremongering, to the 18 year olds once they are legally married, but don’t want to boink out babies every year for health reason, or just want to enjoy sex (if it is a gift from God in a marriage context) instead of it being fun for the guy, boring for the woman?

Is the pastor going to tell them during the pre-marriage course (though that is not obligatory in all churches)? Where does he get the qualification to teach about biology and medicine?

If not the pastor, where else? Does the couple know they need help and facts, or have they been told “Sex inside a marriage is wonderful” and don’t understand why it doesn’t work for them without any information or experience?

In some societies, a teenager reaching puberty had sex with an experienced adult to learn how to have successful, satisfying sex and because an older partner was more patient. Obviously that model has problem points, too, but both partners being inexperienced in practice and lacking theoretical information is not a good recipe for all other areas.

When we teach driving, we have found that having an experienced driver on the passenger seat for the first year (learners permit) reduces greatly the accident rate, because letting a young person (and being above 18 makes legal but not yet wise) with very little experience do something that can be dangerous can end badly.

But with sex, some people believe that ignorance makes it better. On what rational basis?

[constanze]

One of the many signs that the “pro-life” movement is largely really about being “anti-women”: Maternal death rate in the US General, and in Texas especially, multiple times higher than in other western countries

Opinion | America’s Shocking Maternal Deaths (Published 2016)

The article doesn’t directly Point towards closing or defunding of Planned Parenthood clinics which provided preventive care to poor women, but still, one would expect a bit more concern about preventable deaths from a so-called “pro-life” movement.

To the OP: The Problem many People outside the Pro-Life movement have is understanding the reason for the cognitive dissonance between the professed Claim “no abortions” and the steps taken that would lower unwanted pregnancies - better education, better Access to contraceptions etc. - is that they take the Claim of being “pro-life” at face value in the first place.

However, if you look at the history of the anti-abortion movement in the US from the Catholics to the fundie evangelicals, you see it wasn’t about abortion, but about being more righetous than the rest. Here Local News 2: Look at me! I’m a hero! I’m Corrie Ten Boom times William Lloyd Garrison! | Fred Clark is the latest article by a former evangelical growing up in These circles. See also here The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal | Fred Clark on how quietly (almost like in 1984) one Translation in several Bibles was changed to a different one not because of scholarship (which is activly detested in those circles) but to better Support the growing anti-abortion trend.

So at the top you have People with influence because they own a megachurch, or sell many books, or are on Radio, who see a Chance to get their followers in line and get them to donate Money.
On the Basis, you have the followers who may sincerely believe what the People at the top, or their local Pastor parrotting it, tells them about the greatest evil, the biggest amount of babies killed and what not. Since many in These circles are conditioned to authoritarin obedience anyway, they don’t activly notice the contradictions between positions, and since they get their informations from the same closed bubble, they don’t know that a lot of the “Facts” and numbers they are being told and repeat are made up or distorted.
Until one politican during legislative session starts talking about the “female Body shutting down contraception during rape” or during Hearings, telling women they don’t Need the pill if they have less sex (ignorant of the medical uses outside birth control) and so on.

[puddleglum]

@constanze

One of the many signs that the “pro-life” movement is largely really about being “anti-women”: Maternal death rate in the US General, and in Texas especially, multiple times higher than in other western countries

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/opinion/sunday/americas-shocking-maternal-deaths.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

The article doesn’t directly Point towards closing or defunding of Planned Parenthood clinics which provided preventive care to poor women, but still, one would expect a bit more concern about preventable deaths from a so-called “pro-life” movement.

To the OP: The Problem many People outside the Pro-Life movement have is understanding the reason for the cognitive dissonance between the professed Claim “no abortions” and the steps taken that would lower unwanted pregnancies - better education, better Access to contraceptions etc. - is that they take the Claim of being “pro-life” at face value in the first place.

However, if you look at the history of the anti-abortion movement in the US from the Catholics to the fundie evangelicals, you see it wasn’t about abortion, but about being more righetous than the rest. Here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2017/05/08/local-news-2-look-im-hero-im-corrie-ten-boom-times-william-lloyd-garrison/ is the latest article by a former evangelical growing up in These circles. See also here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/ on how quietly (almost like in 1984) one Translation in several Bibles was changed to a different one not because of scholarship (which is activly detested in those circles) but to better Support the growing anti-abortion trend.

So at the top you have People with influence because they own a megachurch, or sell many books, or are on Radio, who see a Chance to get their followers in line and get them to donate Money.
On the Basis, you have the followers who may sincerely believe what the People at the top, or their local Pastor parrotting it, tells them about the greatest evil, the biggest amount of babies killed and what not. Since many in These circles are conditioned to authoritarin obedience anyway, they don’t activly notice the contradictions between positions, and since they get their informations from the same closed bubble, they don’t know that a lot of the “Facts” and numbers they are being told and repeat are made up or distorted.
Until one politican during legislative session starts talking about the “female Body shutting down contraception during rape” or during Hearings, telling women they don’t Need the pill if they have less sex (ignorant of the medical uses outside birth control) and so on.

The pro-life movement does not control health care in this country. If you read the article much of the reason that Texas has a high maternal death rate is because opiod overdose. Since Planned Parenthood does not do drug rehab, it has nothing to do with increase in maternal mortality.
You would think that if pro-choice people were really pro-women and not anti-life they would care more about mothers dying from drug overdoses.

[constanze]

Here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html and here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/11/a-paradigm-shift-my-aha-moment-on-abortion.html are two articles about a woman growing up believing that preventing abortion to save lives was important, and how she realized that the main movement in the US was not really interested in reaching that Goal, using scare tactics and lies to Police behaviour instead:

But I never, ever heard things like fighting poverty, working toward a comprehensive social safety net, advocating for comprehensive sex education, or working to make birth control more widely-used or effective put forward as strategies for reducing the number of abortions that took place. In contrast, every pro-lifer I knew was politically conservative and in opposition to things like welfare, mandated paid maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and even things like Head Start. In addition, the emphasis of the pro-life movement was on promoting abstinence.
…
During all my time in the pro-life movement I had never actually seen numbers on abortion rates in other countries. Never. The only times we discussed abortion globally was to condemn the World Health Organization for funding abortions in other countries and to support the Mexico City Policy prohibiting U.S. money from being used to fund overseas abortions, and also to condemn China’s policy of forced abortions. That was it. I had never seen numbers comparing rates in the various countries, had never seen a listing of the restrictiveness of the laws in each country, etc. In fact, because I had been led to believe that birth control increases the abortion rate by increasing the amount of sex that takes place and through its failure rate resulting in the conception of babies almost certain to be aborted, I assumed that sexually liberal Western Europe, with its legalization of abortion, would have a really high abortion rate (I knew Western Europe had legal abortion because that was on the list of evils about Western Europe that I heard as a political conservative, alongside socialism).
…
What these numbers told me was that the legality of abortion was not the primary factor effecting the rate of abortions. There were other factors at work. Why was it that sexually liberal Western Europe, where abortion was legal, had the lowest abortion rate in the world? And why was it that Africa and South America, where abortion was banned in nearly every country, had the highest abortion rates? I realized immediately that these questions were crucially important if one wanted to bring down the abortion rate. It was an epiphany moment. And yet, these were questions I had never heard asked in the pro-life movement.

She does Point out that individual pro-lifers might be motiviated towards saving life and accept what works in reality - but in most cases the message the combined Actions send is “sex should have the consequence of STD or pregnancy because we want to punish sin” instead of “being responsible about sex means using birth control and condoms against unwanted pregnancies and STDs”

[Patx2]

I am a conservative, and I was raised Catholic, although I do not practice now. My teenager has been receiving sex education in the public schools since probably 5th grade and I’m fine with it. Knowledge is power and I want her to be as knowledgeable as possible. As far as teaching about birth control? Yes, please do because the more information she has the better off she will be to make a decision if need be. Do I hope she waits until she’s married to have sex? Of course, but that’s a mom thing not a Catholic thing. Even once she’s married she might very possibly be making a choice about birth control, so bring the knowledge on.