Teenage pregnancies almost halved thanks to sex ed

[PreachersWife2004]

Abstinence. Absolutely positively 100% effective!*



* some conditions and exclusions may apply.

Oh yes, let's start a new birth control campaign. "USE BIRTH CONTROL! For those times when you're raped!"

Seriously, let's stick to the topic.

Then don't claim abstinence as a panacea to the problem of teenage pregnancy.

NO ONE here has said any such thing. Not me, not Tall, not anyone arguing for abstinence.

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. The problem with abstinence is that people don't tend to stay abstinent. It really does run counter to an incredibly strong urge. There's no issue with teaching abstinence. It's teaching abstinence to the exclusion, and in some cases, misinformation, of other forms of contraception that is the problem.

Some may argue that even if we were really good at staying abstinent (we aren't), that girls should be aware of and be able to easily obtain different types of birth control such as IUDs to prevent against pregnancy in the case of rape.

So perhaps the idea should be that we work on convincing teens that abstinence is worth sticking to. Instead, we just brush it off and say "yeah, it's impossible anyway so don't worry about it. Here's some condoms and birth control. Run along." I have yet to see an effective sex ed class that speaks to the emotional HARM that happens, especially to teen girls, but also teen boys, from teen sex. Our bodies might be physically ready for some of this stuff, but most kids' minds and hearts are not. They are focused on the physical consequences of sex - the possibility of pregnancy. And then if they do get pregnant, they have the convenience of an abortion, not realizing the mental issues/harm that come from that.

How confused kids must be these days! We don't allow them to play in their backyards or walk to the park by themselves, but yet we encourage them to do other adult things like have sex. And then we wonder why they're picking up guns and shooting at each other, or planning to kill a classmate for their Slenderman video game friend.

Let them be kids, let them be teens, and don't encourage them to have sex. DISCOURAGE it, and don't throw in the towel just because you think they're going to have sex anyway. Many of them might actually be waiting for someone to tell them it's okay to NOT have sex.

 

[Belk]

Oh yes, let's start a new birth control campaign. "USE BIRTH CONTROL! For those times when you're raped!"

Seriously, let's stick to the topic.



NO ONE here has said any such thing. Not me, not Tall, not anyone arguing for abstinence.

So this is not you arguing that abstinence is 100% effective?

Abstinence practiced faithfully and correctly will yield exactly ZERO pregnancies.

Because it sure looks to me that you are arguing for abstinence only education and completely ignoring the glaring problems that it does NOT result in zero pregnancies and has been shown to result in more pregnancies then comprehensive sex ed.

 

[Belk]

No. It said rape cases are irrelevant to this discussion of sex ed. Neither form of sex ed will change people raping other people. So excluding rape cases, abstinence is 100% effective.

Is it really some kind of shocker that not having sex is the best way to prevent pregnancy? All forms of contraception have failure rates even if used properly.

No. It is no way a shocker. What is a shocker, at least to me, is that it has been shown that comprehensive sex ed is results in lower pregnancy rates yet for some reason a lot of conservative leaning people object to it.

 

[Tallguy88]

No. It is no way a shocker. What is a shocker, at least to me, is that it has been shown that comprehensive sex ed is results in lower pregnancy rates yet for some reason a lot of conservative leaning people object to it.

Ok, well that's not a response to any claim I made or position I've taken. See post 2 in this very thread.

 

[Belk]

Ok, well that's not a response to any claim I made or position I've taken. See post 2 in this very thread.

Then on that point we agree.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So this is not you arguing that abstinence is 100% effective?

Because it sure looks to me that you are arguing for abstinence only education and completely ignoring the glaring problems that it does NOT result in zero pregnancies and has been shown to result in more pregnancies then comprehensive sex ed.

Abstinence doesn't take into consideration rapes. Abstinence means you CHOOSE to refrain from sex. Rape takes that choice away. We are not talking about rape when we speak about teaching about abstinence. A girl or a guy who practices abstinence will not get pregnant (or impregnate a girl) from practicing abstinence, but a girl or a guy practicing safe sex with birth control or a condom could still get pregnant or impregnate a girl.

Do you see now? Or will you insist on playing a game of semantics?

 

[Belk]

Abstinence doesn't take into consideration rapes. Abstinence means you CHOOSE to refrain from sex. Rape takes that choice away. We are not talking about rape when we speak about teaching about abstinence. A girl or a guy who practices abstinence will not get pregnant (or impregnate a girl) from practicing abstinence, but a girl or a guy practicing safe sex with birth control or a condom could still get pregnant or impregnate a girl.

Do you see now? Or will you insist on playing a game of semantics?

I do not think it a game of semantics to point out your claim of zero pregnancies incorrect. I will grant you that in the discussion of birth control rape is mostly a non sequitur. However my comment was not simply directed at the rape side of things. Abstinence only education has statistically shown to not be as effective in reducing teen pregnancy as comprehensive sex ed. Your response in the thread to this so far has been to claim the we are "Throwing in the towel" when the truth is that the abstinence only approach is not as effective.

 

[RDKirk]

I do not think it a game of semantics to point out your claim of zero pregnancies incorrect. I will grant you that in the discussion of birth control rape is mostly a non sequitur. However my comment was not simply directed at the rape side of things. Abstinence only education has statistically shown to not be as effective in reducing teen pregnancy as comprehensive sex ed. Your response in the thread to this so far has been to claim the we are "Throwing in the towel" when the truth is that the abstinence only approach is not as effective.

The problem with abstinence preaching from a Christian viewpoint is that Christ never intended Christians to be abstinent for 10 to 20 years after sexual maturity. Abstinence--especially for that long--was not an early Christian practice or intention. Rather, Paul said pretty clearly, "It's better to marry than to burn [with passion]."

Western Christians are caught in a false dilemma doctrine. The reason Western Christians preach one to two decades of abstinence is for one reason: Money. "Get your degree first, get a good job first, get financially stable first." Of course, none of that is actually biblical. Scripture says: "It's better to marry than to burn [with passion]." Scripture also says, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

So the dilemma is false because scripture is actually pretty clear which way Christians ought to be leaning--toward early marriage.

But of course, early marriages without a firm economic foundation usually lead to marital problems....
....and that's always been the case. What Western Christians really don't want to do is allow their children to marry early and then--like early Christian parents did--continue to provide support as an extended family.

And of course, we've taught our children the Western cult of individuality so that nobody wants to work to the mutual benefit of everyone in an extended family.

Demanding ten to twenty years of abstinence is unbiblical, but it's the workaround that Western Christians have brought upon themselves.

 

[Belk]

The problem with abstinence preaching from a Christian viewpoint is that Christ never intended Christians to be abstinent for 10 to 20 years after sexual maturity. Abstinence--especially for that long--was not an early Christian practice or intention. Rather, Paul said pretty clearly, "It's better to marry than to burn [with passion]."

Western Christians are caught in a false dilemma doctrine. The reason Western Christians preach one to two decades of abstinence is for one reason: Money. "Get your degree first, get a good job first, get financially stable first." Of course, none of that is actually biblical. Scripture says: "It's better to marry than to burn [with passion]." Scripture also says, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

So the dilemma is false because scripture is actually pretty clear which way Christians ought to be leaning--toward early marriage.

But of course, early marriages without a firm economic foundation usually lead to marital problems....
....and that's always been the case. What Western Christians really don't want to do is allow their children to marry early and then--like early Christian parents did--continue to provide support as an extended family.

And of course, we've taught our children the Western cult of individuality so that nobody wants to work to the mutual benefit of everyone in an extended family.

Demanding ten to twenty years of abstinence is unbiblical, but it's the workaround that Western Christians have brought upon themselves.

I will admit that as a non Christian I find the idea of early marriage problematic. I know I was not mature enough for marriage until I hit my thirties.

 

[Landon Caeli]

There's nothing to celebrate in reducing teenage pregnancies... I was 17 when my wife became pregnant with our first daughter. We've been married for 19 years now.

...I'm very happy with my family, and we have been blessed to live a very prosperous life.

 

[revanneosl]

Abstinence-based sex education results in more pregnancies & more abortions. It's really just as simple as that.

 

[Nithavela]

I will admit that as a non Christian I find the idea of early marriage problematic. I know I was not mature enough for marriage until I hit my thirties.

But imagine all the goats you could earn for your parents.

 

[Nithavela]

There's nothing to celebrate in reducing teenage pregnancies...[...]

Yes, more suffering because you did fine! That's the spirit!

 

[TheDag]

The problem with abstinence preaching from a Christian viewpoint is that Christ never intended Christians to be abstinent for 10 to 20 years after sexual maturity. Abstinence--especially for that long--was not an early Christian practice or intention. Rather, Paul said pretty clearly, "It's better to marry than to burn [with passion]."

Thats some very nice cherry picking there. Yes Paul did write it is better to marry than burn with passion. However just before that he said it is best to remain single. So your claim that we should be aiming for early marriage as being scriptural is false based on that passage when one reads it in context.

 

[TheDag]

Then don't claim abstinence as a panacea to the problem of teenage pregnancy.

In the context of the conversation and based on the OP rape has no bearing at all. Just accept it and move on. Doing otherwise is being childish to be honest.

 

[RDKirk]

Thats some very nice cherry picking there. Yes Paul did write it is better to marry than burn with passion. However just before that he said it is best to remain single. So your claim that we should be aiming for early marriage as being scriptural is false based on that passage when one reads it in context.

I was rather expecting the people in this particular forum to know their doctrine well enough to understand--and it's certainly been thoroughly taught for many, many years--that from what Paul said and what Jesus said, celibacy is a spiritual gift that most people do not have.

Why accuse someone else of "cherry picking" and then be guilty of misquoting?

Paul did not say it was best to remain single. Paul said: "I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

 

[RDKirk]

I will admit that as a non Christian I find the idea of early marriage problematic. I know I was not mature enough for marriage until I hit my thirties.

That did not happen until the Boomer generation. It's not an inherent homo sapiens deficiency to take three decades to mature.

 

[Tallguy88]

That did not happen until the Boomer generation. It's not an inherent homo sapiens deficiency to take three decades to mature.

My grandma was 12 when she got her first marriage proposal, from a guy who was 19. She declined because she recognized she was too young to be a good wife. But that sort of thing wasn't unheard of back then. I think she was 19 when she did end up marrying.

 

[KCfromNC]

So perhaps the idea should be that we work on convincing teens that abstinence is worth sticking to.Instead, we just brush it off and say "yeah, it's impossible anyway so don't worry about it.

This has been tried multiple times and places, and the research says it is a failure. You may wish otherwise, but facts are facts. Trying harder isn't going to change it - any more than trying harder will change the fact that I can't fly.

Here's some condoms and birth control. Run along."I have yet to see an effective sex ed class that speaks to the emotional HARM that happens, especially to teen girls, but also teen boys, from teen sex.

Considering you think that sex ed consists of saying "Here's some condoms and birth control. Run along." I'm skeptical of how hard you've looked.

And then if they do get pregnant, they have the convenience of an abortion, not realizing the mental issues/harm that come from that.

Generally none, you mean? Again, that pesky research about reality thing gets in the way of believing whatever one wants.

How confused kids must be these days! We don't allow them to play in their backyards or walk to the park by themselves, but yet we encourage them to do other adult things like have sex.

I don't know what you're teaching kids, but on the topic of the thread the research shows that sex ed does nothing of the sort.

 

[Paulos23]

A girl or a guy who practices abstinence will not get pregnant (or impregnate a girl) from practicing abstinence, but a girl or a guy practicing safe sex with birth control or a condom could still get pregnant or impregnate a girl.

While true, how long will they practice abstinence? That is the problem I have with the claim that abstinence is 100% effective. It is while it is practiced, but how long will they be able to keep their hormones under control? That 100% only applies to those that are practicing it, but for the teen population as a whole, they can't keep practicing it for long. In fact, the minute they stop practicing it they get dropped from the statistic to keep that 100%, when in reality it is more like 40% can keep with practicing abstinence. The rest need to have something to fall back on to lower the chance of pregnancy.