Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on March 31, 2008, 11:25:26 PM
-
An interesting study:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23782717/
Apparently, abstinence-only education seems to be less effective at preventing/delaying sex than a normal comprehensive sex-ed education. This sounds consistent with what I'd expect, but I suspect there may be some here that find this information troubling/perplexing.
Using data from a 2002 national survey, researchers found that among more than 1,700 unmarried, heterosexual teens between 15 and 19 years old, those who'd received comprehensive sex ed in school were 60 percent less likely to have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant than teens who'd had no formal sex education.
Meanwhile, there was no clear benefit from abstinence-only education in preventing pregnancy or delaying sexual intercourse, the researchers report in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
-
That sounds about right. The "Don't do it" method worked for me too. Anything I was told not to do but was not given any decent information about I immediately tried to see what all the fuss was about!
This method also worked for:
Don't smoke
Don't drink
Don't do drugs
Don't shoplift
Don't read/watch pr0n
Don't play with explosives
:lol
-
Abstinence only parents are the kind that blush when talked about it and forbid anyone from educating the kids. They might get downright mad if someone tries. They just forbid it - which teenagers will not obey anyway.
It's not surprising.
-
My parents style worked.
They said "do whatever you want, but if you get some girl pregnant we ain't paying for S***"
and, AFAIK, I never got anyone pregnant.
-
Nowadays they need one of these anyway:
(http://www.tvdance.com/shop/-00-images/halloween-costumes/5417.jpg)
-
Im flattered, really, but its not quite that big :D
-
The study found that teens who'd been through abstinence-only programs were less likely than those who'd received no sex ed to have been pregnant. However, the difference was not significant in statistical terms, which means the finding could have been due to chance.
Statistical insignificance a result of chance.
While comprehensive sex ed did not clearly reduce the STD risk, there was a modest, but statistically insignificant reduced risk of engaging in sex. The abstinence-only approach had no effect on either factor, the researchers found.
Statistical insignificance is proof.
-
This should be obvious to everyone by looking at history...
Now that we have sex education by the indocrtrinization centers... we only have about 80% of the girls getting pregnant and only 1 in four with STD's.
Back 40 years ago or so when there was no sex education at the centers... why it must have been like... what? 90 or 100% with everyone dripping and oozing with STD's.
Did you guys ever think that the schools and the lefties have screwed things up so bad that no program of any kind will work at this point?
I say live and let live.. no ones sex life is any of my business but.. children?
lazs
-
80% of school girls getting pregnant? Which cavity are you pulling these looney numbers from?
-
sooo.. would you say that more or less little girls are getting pregnant now than 40 or 50 years ago before sex education in the socialist schools?
How bout them nasty STD's huh? bad deal there.. one in four is the latest study.
lazs
-
It's quite a bit less, actually:
(http://hallert.net/images/birthrate.GIF)
(http://hallert.net/images/birthrate2.GIF)
This is from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
kthxbai
-
Gosh durn libruls and their gosh durn numbers!
-
Facts pffftttt! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
-
Umm, you guys do know how to read, right? I have to assume that you do because this is a message board, but you guys are trying your darndest to prove that you don't.
First off, what Chairboy quotes says that Sexual Education is better than NO sexual education. It mentions nothing about Abstinence, but read into it what you want.
The rest of the article goes on to say that the findings between everything else are not statistically significant to have a valid conclusion.
The ONLY conclusion is that Sex Ed is better than Sex Ed. Nothing was concluded about Abstinence programs.
-
What's sex? :rofl In the high school i went to, this was 1977-1981 time frame, they had a pretty simple moto. "Sex Ed is better than Sex With Ed". There opinion being teach them and let them know what the consequences where. I think also that telling a child/teen straight out not to do something but not explaining why is just plain stupid. You want to scare kids into wearing condoms show them the same STD film they showed us in the marines. I've got a strong stomache and i almost hurled.
-
Umm, you guys do know how to read, right? I have to assume that you do because this is a message board, but you guys are trying your darndest to prove that you don't.
First off, what Chairboy quotes says that Sexual Education is better than NO sexual education. It mentions nothing about Abstinence, but read into it what you want.
The rest of the article goes on to say that the findings between everything else are not statistically significant to have a valid conclusion.
The ONLY conclusion is that Sex Ed is better than Sex Ed. Nothing was concluded about Abstinence programs.
Try to follow along, we were commenting on lazs' "statsfromtherectum" vs. the chart above.
-
I know of some algebra teaching is most ineffective. Perhaps it is the teaching itself that is ineffective, not the subject.
-
well... chairboy.. sorry to rain on your "religion is the root of all evil" parade but..
The "orifice" I pulled these stats out of were the federal government.. a particularly stinky one...
The rates for 15-19 year olds was... 80%... oddly enough.. this with abortion and sex education.. overall rates are at about 35% with negro rate at 68%
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5109&department=BLI&categoryid=femfacts
You will also see that the rates during the 40's 50's and even sixties when there was no sex education or even legal abortion was at a high of (gasp) 5%
Now it is 7 times that? how is that not an indictment on our sex education and abortion experiment?
lazs
-
Where did I mention religion? I think you're trying to make a red herring to draw attention away from the evidence I posted that showed a trend downwards in pregnancy rates among teens after you made an unsupportable statement that 80% of teens these days were pregnant and dripping w/ STDs.
Stay on-topic if ya can....
-
You will note that the white illigitimacy rate in 1950 was about 2% Same for the 60's it is now 28% for whites.
Now.. this seems like one hell of a lot more easy to read trend than your "maybe it is maybe it isn't who knows" study..
I don't think anything but abstinence was being taught in the 50's or 60's.
so, explain to me how I was wrong and how much better off we are since abortion and sex education have steadily increased...
explain how a rate that is 7 to 20 times higher is a solution.
lazs
-
The "orifice" I pulled these stats out of were the federal government.. a particularly stinky one...
I'm not thinking CWA = Federal Government...
CWA is built on prayer and action.
We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 29-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.
Mission Statement
The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.
Vision Statement
The vision of CWA is for women and like-minded men, from all walks of life, to come together and restore the family to its traditional purpose and thereby allow each member of the family to realize their God-given potential and be more responsible citizens.
Statement of Faith
We believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired, inerrant Word of God and the final authority on faith and practice.
We believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death, rose bodily from the dead on the third day and ascended into Heaven from where He will come again to receive all believers unto Himself.
We believe all men are fallen creations of Adam's race and in need of salvation by grace through personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
We believe it is our duty to serve God to the best of our ability and to pray for a moral and spiritual revival that will return this nation to the traditional values upon which it was founded
-
Nice catch, Indy!
Lasz, 2%, eh? I'm sure that in your world, there wasn't any change in the number of super young 'sisters' to girls of birthing age (who, btw, had the rheumatic fever or some other illness that kept them at home from school just before their 'sister' showed up) either. Fascinating.
-
chair... read the freaking link.. it is federal government.
IT SAYS THAT THE RATE TODAY IS 80% OF TEENS BETWEEN 15 AND 19.
It also says that the entire rate is 34% and that it was less than 4% in 1950..
Now.. I can't help you if you won't or can't read.
lazs
-
chair... read the freaking link.. it is federal government.
IT SAYS THAT THE RATE TODAY IS 80% OF TEENS BETWEEN 15 AND 19.
It also says that the entire rate is 34% and that it was less than 4% in 1950..
Now.. I can't help you if you won't or can't read.
lazs
Can't read?
What your link says is "among teens 80% of all births are illegitimate". Quite a bit different than your original claim that 80% of teens got pregnant. So the real story here is that the stigma of having children out of wedlock has basically been erased at the same time as the reduction in teen pregnancy. Amazing.. huh?
-
Lazs2, there's a big difference between that and your original claim. Your thoughts?
-
chair... read the freaking link.. it is federal government.
Lazs, I'm still reading the site. I still don't see anything about it being the federal government. All I see is a bunch of stuff about activism, how they're involved with legislation, etc. The opening page has a tag for Terri Schiavo and "Support Our Troops, Let them Win!". It's pretty obvious they're a special interest group, and not the government. Furthermore; there's no statement at all about where their numbers come from or how they were obtained in the article you linked. Not much difference from reading a site like.. oh.. say... Greenpeace.
-
sheesh.. the site merely quoted the federal study and you guys know it.. I just grabbed the first site that quoted...
There are a lot of em but here is the actual federal one
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/greenbook2003/AppendixM.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_10.pdf
It simply says that the rate is 80% for 16-19 year olds
" According to the latest National Vital Statistics Reports of the federal government, 34 percent of all births in the United States now are to unmarried mothers. Of course, it will surprise no one that nearly all births to girls below 15, and 80 percent of those to girls between 15 and 19, are out-of-wedlock. But even among women between 20 and 24, 52 percent of births are now illegitimate.
Those figures are for all races and ethnicities. As the federal report notes, however, in a decided understatement: “Birth rates for unmarried women vary widely by race and Hispanic origin.” Among African Americans, 68.2 percent of births are illegitimate, versus 23.0 percent for non-Hispanic whites. For American Indians, 59.7 percent of births are illegitimate; for Asians and Pacific Islanders, 14.9 percent; and for Hispanics of all races, 43.5 percent.
Of course, “Asians and Pacific Islanders” and “Hispanics” are artificial categories, and this is reflected in the wide range of illegitimacy rates among their respective subgroups. Thus, only 9.0 and 10.3 percent of Chinese and Japanese births, respectively, are out-of-wedlock, versus 20.0 percent for Filipinos and 50.4 percent for Hawaiians; and the percentage of illegitimate births for Puerto Ricans (59.1) is double that of Cubans (29.8), with Mexicans (42.1) and Central and South Americans (44.8) falling in"
Do I have to look up the studies that now say that one in four teenage girls have an STD?
can you bother to look up the rates for 1940 1950 and sixties? before sex education at school and abortion for all?
the rates were never more than from 1.7% to about five.. they are 7 times that now.
lazs
-
You said 80% of teenage girls were PREGNANT. Your links don't support that.
-
what? my original claim was 80% of the "girls" were having out of wedlock babies.. the study shows that between the ages of 15 and 19 that it is... wait for it... 80%
Now how is a 20-40 year old woman.. a girl? I said girls.. 15-19 are the ones under the influence of the socialist schools and.. what everyone would accept as being young girls.
The rate.. the overall rate.. for negros is 68% more than two thirds of every birth.
The rates are as mt... and I... point out... 34% overall but... that is up from 1.7% in the time they didn't teach sex education 7-20 times higher.. the rate for up to 24 or so year olds is 54%... so.. I guess that sex education really works... once you reach about 40 or so eh?
The trends are clear. it is going in the exact direction of my original post just as I said.
What about my original post do you think does not agree with the data?
lazs
-
Now that we have sex education by the indocrtrinization centers... we only have about 80% of the girls getting pregnant and only 1 in four with STD's.
lazs
See ^
-
Mt.. Ok.. I will concede that I said getting pregnant..
I meant that 80% of the births were illigitimate.. that is compared to less than 2% in the 50's The trend is still pretty darn clear.
having a baby out of wedlock does not say to me that your sex education is working out well.
lazs
-
You seem to have gotten a little lost, here's your original claim that has been well refuted:
Now that we have sex education by the indocrtrinization centers... we only have about 80% of the girls getting pregnant and only 1 in four with STD's.
lazs
I provided data that showed your claim that 80% of the girls are getting pregnant and the underlying assumption that more teens were pregnant these days was wildly inaccurate.
EDIT: Aw nuts, you already conceded it while I was posting. Never mind.
-
In response to your new argument, I'd argue that out of wedlock births reflects more on societal acceptance versus basic nuts & bolts knowledge of how sex works, and sex ed is the latter, not the former.
-
Back in the 50's and even the early 60's they would have never hit the stats. They would have been ill and suddenly appeared with a new cousin or sister, or if over 16yrsof age married in the time honoured shotgun ceremony to their overeager Mr "I just want to put it in for a minute" :lol
-
Ok chair.. if 80% of the births are illigitimate.. wouldn't you say that someone made a mistake?
I can see your point that it argues to acceptance or.. lack of shame to be more accurate.. but.. doesn't that speak to the issue? how good is sex education that ends up having 80% of it's students who get pregnant be a mistake? you are not seriously saying that the births were planned are you?
lazs
-
sd.. that may or may not be true but these are the best numbers we have.
lazs
-
The other side of the coin is:
There has been no real change in the number of teenage pregnancies, just a shift in the way they have been handled. The left wing "let us do everything for you and it will all be good" crowd are sensationalising the statistics because our society has become less offended by the notion of children being born out of wedlock.
-
This should be obvious to everyone by looking at history...
Now that we have sex education by the indocrtrinization centers... we only have about 80% of the girls getting pregnant and only 1 in four with STD's.
lazs
Your exact words. Quoted. And debunked.
Steer on, Capt. Dumas!
-
Ok chair.. if 80% of the births are illigitimate.. wouldn't you say that someone made a mistake?
I can see your point that it argues to acceptance or.. lack of shame to be more accurate.. but.. doesn't that speak to the issue? how good is sex education that ends up having 80% of it's students who get pregnant be a mistake? you are not seriously saying that the births were planned are you?
lazs
Hey Lazs... your comprehension skills need to be sharpened.
The link you posted was that 80% of teens who got knocked up were knocked up out of wedlock. Pretty standard comprehension skills there, gramps. Makes sense when you figure most 15-17 year olds don't get married at that age. And the ones that do had shotgun weddings in the 8th month....
It did not, as you claim, say that 80% of girls 15-17 got pregnant...
Again... critical thinking.
P.S. "Negro" is no longer acceptable in modern society. No more than slangs intended for uses with other races. It is sad that older folks such as yourself still don't realize this. Please stop referring to blacks as "negros".
-
He does it to push buttons, ignore it. He can say what he likes, it reflects more on him than anyone else.
-
P.S. "Negro" is no longer acceptable in modern society. No more than slangs intended for uses with other races. It is sad that older folks such as yourself still don't realize this. Please stop referring to blacks as "negros".
What is the United Negro College Fund's position on this?
-
What is the United Negro College Fund's position on this?
They also think Lazs is wrong.
-
Gosh durn libruls and their gosh durn numbers!
Here are the reported stats in the abstract of the article. I wasn’t going to pay for the PDF for all the results.
Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively). Kohler, P., (2008). Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, vol 42, 4, 344-351.
The only reported OR that was statistically significant and compelling was the first one that adolescents who got comprehensive sex ed were less likely to report pregnancy at a p value of .001 and an OR of .4. The rest of the reported ‘results’ is gobblygook and un-interpretable. No one should be interpreting the abstinence-only ed not reducing the likelihood of vaginal intercourse with an OR of .8 and a p value of .4 as ‘significant’ or compelling. I’m not impressed with the study one way or the other just looking at the abstract data.
-
I thought the article was funny scatcat. I particularly like the way they turn on and off the statistical insignificance switch. Quite a few people seem to be so chalked full of rhetoric they didn't seem to notice.
-
My parents style worked.
They said "do whatever you want, but if you get some girl pregnant we ain't paying for S***"
and, AFAIK, I never got anyone pregnant.
That or "The day you get get a girl knocked up is the day you move out."
-
Here are the reported stats in the abstract of the article.
Well you surely wasted a lot of time there. I was refering to the chart posted by Chairboy right above my post. But thanks anyway.
-
You do realize, though, that the article linked at the start of this thread says one thing: it doesn't matter what you try to teach kids in regards to sex ed. None of it seems to make a difference.
-
probly true mini but...
I did say "got pregnant" I really did mean "80% of the births were illigitimate" and that was not an overall figure.. it was for the teens.. overall it is 34%
There is a lot of factors involved.. a lot of data from different spots to look at but.. the illigitimacy rate in 1950 was about 2% overall.. this is 17 times less than our modern rates... the only sex education taught in 1950 was abstinence.
In 1950.. there was no real effective birth control.. the ones available were messy and difficult to get and use.
Today.. there are a myriad of almost 100% effective methods that require little or no effort to get and use.
Abortion was illegal in 1950.. no one knows how many illegal abortions were performed but.. real figures show that less than 200 women died from illegal abortions a year. medical practice was not as good and the abortions were done by anything from self to some hack to the family doctor.. estimates from this say that about 100,000 to whatever were done in the 50's
Today it is 1.2 million and easy to get.
The birth rate for 15-19 year olds is about the same but.. they were married in the 50's and had very little in the way of good birth control and no legal abortion.
The divorce rate was a little over 11% in 1950.. it is getting near 60% now.
I culled all this from a lot of sites. it all points to a trend.
The 1950's kids were more moral and smarter about sex and it's responsibility.. How can you not think otherwise?
There was nothing but abstinence teaching. now...
Today, they are taught every aspect of sex and given the 99.9% effective birth control on demand. yet... they can't keep from having a baby out of wedlock.. they are either too stupid or not taught well enough to realize that today is no better than 1950 in one respect.. having a baby at 15 out of wedlock is a sure path to a life of poverty for the vast majority of people. The stats show it.
So.. how have things improved with sex education?
Birth rate is the same.. even with 1.2 million abortions and free and effective birth control and step by step instructions..
The illigetimate rate is now 17 times higher overall and probly as much as 30 or 40 times higher for the teens...
even if they marry... they are 5 times more likely to not be able to make it work. the divorce rate is 5 times higher.
The only way they could get sex education to work to 1950 abstinence only levels is if they sterilized about 3/4 of the kids taking it.
lazs
-
Illegitimate is a meaningless word and is based solely on the religious connotation of marriage. You have no idea how many of those births are to couples in a committed relationship outside of the standard definition of marriage.
So throw out your "illegitimate" numbers and you are left with a teen birth rate that is at least 44% lower now (2003) than 30 years ago (1972).
-
You do realize, though, that the article linked at the start of this thread says one thing: it doesn't matter what you try to teach kids in regards to sex ed. None of it seems to make a difference.
I realize.
-
The rest of the reported ‘results’ is gobblygook and un-interpretable. No one should be interpreting the abstinence-only ed not reducing the likelihood of vaginal intercourse with an OR of .8 and a p value of .4 as ‘significant’ or compelling.
uhhh, that's the point.
They looked at the odds of intercourse in teens that had abstinence only sex education and compared it to the odds of intercourse in teens that had no sex education. The odds ratio, after adjusting for other significant predictors of engaging in vaginal intercourse, was 0.8 with a 95% confidence interval of .51–1.31. Since an OR of 1 means intercourse was just as likely in each group and the p value was calculated at 0.4 (not significant), you conclude there's no difference between the groups (more accurately, you can't reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference).
To use your words, there was no significant or compelling difference between abstinence only education and no education.
-
I thought the article was funny scatcat. I particularly like the way they turn on and off the statistical insignificance switch. Quite a few people seem to be so chalked full of rhetoric they didn't seem to notice.
They aren't changing the significance threshold level of the p values, they are the calculating p values for the various tests and reporting the results. Now that computers allow easy computation of exact p values, it's better to report the actual value rather than as a range (e.g., p > .05 or p < .05).
-
The survey may be doing that, but did you read the article at all? In particular, the points I qouted? You wouldn't guess the "no real variances were seen regarding type of sex-education" from the title of this thread or that article.
-
mt.. I really hope you are not trying to tell me that the 80% of 15-19 year olds (being careful here) who get pregnant....
Want to have illegitimate children? that somehow this will work out for them? it is a proven fact that this is the road to financial ruin.. it destroys your chances.
Out of wedlock births do indeed mean something today.. they scream "I am an idiotic loser". The stats show it.. sure.. some hippies and lesbians do ok with what you would call "meaningless" out of wedlock births but they are not 15-19 year olds.
even those who somehow make out ok.. they have a vastly more difficult row to hoe.
I also hope you are not telling me that an almost 60% divorce rate is success... or that abortion on demand and almost 100% effective and free birth control has worked in light of these children having babies numbers...
Not to mention the 1 in every four little girls with STD's.. that is pretty disgusting and an indictment on "sex education".
Seems that even the studies can't show much of any positive results even in todays brain dead school system.
lazs
-
Lazs the birth rate for teens is DOWN 44% in 30 years. I'm not sure if sex education had anything to do with that, but neither are you!
-
sooo.. would you say that more or less little girls are getting pregnant now than 40 or 50 years ago before sex education in the socialist schools?
How bout them nasty STD's huh? bad deal there.. one in four is the latest study.
lazs
Look at the average per capita, and you might be surprised. Also, there is an inherent increase in risk with population growth of most diseases. Just saying! :aok
-
What is this sex, everyone speaks of ????????????
:uhoh ;) :P
-
The survey may be doing that, but did you read the article at all? In particular, the points I qouted?
Yes I read the article by Kohler published in J Adolesc Health. Did you?
I didn't see you quote anything from that article although to be honest with all of Lazs2's backpedaling posts I may have missed it. If you could point it out that would be great.
-
Lazs the birth rate for teens is DOWN 44% in 30 years. I'm not sure if sex education had anything to do with that, but neither are you!
What are the stats on teen abortion rates over the same period? Might as well look at that too.
-
Well you surely wasted a lot of time there. I was refering to the chart posted by Chairboy right above my post. But thanks anyway.
No time at all, five minutes with google search for the article.
-
uhhh, that's the point.
They looked at the odds of intercourse in teens that had abstinence only sex education and compared it to the odds of intercourse in teens that had no sex education. The odds ratio, after adjusting for other significant predictors of engaging in vaginal intercourse, was 0.8 with a 95% confidence interval of .51–1.31. Since an OR of 1 means intercourse was just as likely in each group and the p value was calculated at 0.4 (not significant), you conclude there's no difference between the groups (more accurately, you can't reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference).
To use your words, there was no significant or compelling difference between abstinence only education and no education.
{High Nerd Mode Engaged}
Myelo, you are absolutely correct in saying I should not have concluded there is no difference between the groups. It is more correct to state I could only fail to reject the null hypothesis and is more accurate than your suggestion “can’t reject the null hypothesis”. But now that we got that cleared up, I’m glad we agreed ;)
{High Nerd Mode Disengaged}
BTW, you scare me Myelo.
-
Abstinence... Just like that Just say no idea. Neither has worked well. The promoters of the abstinence programs forgot what it was like to be young and horny. The idea that if kids are taught sex ed that they will have more sex so lets not teach them anything is also ridiculous. Do we really think that politicians should be telling us how to raise our kids? Politicians need to clean up their own act first.
Look at how things have changed since the 1970s. More households have both parents working. More households have one parent. In short the kids get shortchanged on many levels. In our effort to give kids everything we didn't have we often forget to give them what they need and that's a stable home.
Its easy to blame TV and liberals for the breakdown in a kids value system. If something outside your home has more of an influence on your child than you do, you failed years before they went to junior high school. A parent can make a difference but have they have to be there. Even when they are not.
I have two daughters. Both college educated. Both successful. Can I say what was the key? Probably not. Luck of the draw to a certain extent. Though I suspect having a stress free home and a strong mother helped a lot. When they talked we listened. Sometimes we didn't agree but we always communicated. They always knew they could talk to us and be heard. We stressed education so they knew what their goals were early on. Sure glad I didn't wait for guidence from congress.
-
Yes I read the article by Kohler published in J Adolesc Health. Did you?
I didn't see you quote anything from that article although to be honest with all of Lazs2's backpedaling posts I may have missed it. If you could point it out that would be great.
Once again, you are referring to something completely different than what was initially linked. Read the MSNBC article again. I'm talking about how stats and error is interpreted, not the stats themselves. The stats really showed nothing significant, yet there's several claims that it did.
BTW... I wasn't trying to agree with lazs on this one. Just pointing out the fallacy of the article linked and the title of this thread.
-
Another win for Abstinence Only education, a recent survey in Florida showed that teens believed that if they drank a small quantity of bleach, it would prevent HIV, and that a shot of Mountain Dew prevents pregnancy.
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.
The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.
State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida's abstinence-only sex education, Local 6 reported.
http://www.local6.com/news/15773787/detail.html
<golf clap>
-
BTW, you scare me Myelo.
But it's your love, not fear, that I crave.
-
most absentee parents blame the govt when they can't raise their kids properly... of course it's not their fault.
so... raise your hand if your kid has had an illegitimate child.... just so we know.
-
Another win for Abstinence Only education, a recent survey in Florida showed that teens believed that if they drank a small quantity of bleach, it would prevent HIV, and that a shot of Mountain Dew prevents pregnancy.
I'm willing to bet that abstinance-only education verses full-on sex education pregnancy stats are meaningless compared to the ratio of hispanic and black polulations to white populations. Given that, Florida has about the same teen pregnancy rate as California (which does have full-on sex ed).
All of the states leading the pregnancy rates have a high population of hispanic or blacks. DC leads things, by a long ways (not an abstinance only district). Georgia, Mississippi, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas are all up above Florida in teen pregnancy rates with one stand out in the group: nevada (coming in 2nd behind DC). But then Nevada is just fluffied up enough to have some very different explanations than the rest of the states.
-
mt.. 30 years puts us right at when abortion became legal in all states and not long after very effective birth control was passed out like candy and still...
50' and 60's tho...The birth rate remains about the same now as when kids grew up and got married and raised a family (10% divorce rate vs almost 60%) It was desirable to have a family.. people had more kids per family only about 2% were illegitimate.. now.. it is 34% with the kids most fresh out of our sex education classes.. 15-19 year olds.. running 80% illegitimate rate now.. and one in four having STD's.. with.. 1.2 million abortions a year to take up some of the slack for the dumb sluts.
Now... I don't know how you can spin an 80% illegitimate rate and 1 in 4 kids having STD's as being a desirable thing.. a success. Are you saying that the vast majority of these kids are making a well thought out choice based on the sex education they received.. to have illegitimate kids and to get a STD? I mean.. if sex education was any good.. they could avoid either with no sweat right?
lazs
-
mini.. yes.. rates of both STD's and for illegitimate births for blacks and hispanics are far higher. the rate for STDs is more than double and the rate for illegitmate is 68% of all negros with whites being 34% overall. For teens it is just ugly no matter what race..
lazs
-
Another win for Abstinence Only education, a recent survey in Florida showed that teens believed that if they drank a small quantity of bleach, it would prevent HIV, and that a shot of Mountain Dew prevents pregnancy.http://www.local6.com/news/15773787/detail.html
<golf clap>
Nice smoke screen Chairboy, this article is bogus and likely misleading. There were absolutely no references to the author’s or the publication of this ‘survey’ making it difficult at best for folks to verify its claims.
-
mini may be really the one on the right track.. that it makes not much difference. I find it amusing that both sides claim that their system does not work unless they have total control.. abstinence only works only if there is no sex education and sex education only works if it is universal and complete.
My point is that.. of the two ideas.. only one has had total domination and been tried for decades.. abstinence.. and it had lower abortion rates and less STDs and far fewer unwanted births with a very low divorce rate.. kids raised by two parents.... sex education has a long way to go to even get to the 50s results.
lazs
-
mt.. 30 years puts us right at when abortion became legal in all states and not long after very effective birth control was passed out like candy and still...
Now... I don't know how you can spin an 80% illegitimate rate and 1 in 4 kids having STD's as being a desirable thing.. a success. Are you saying that the vast majority of these kids are making a well thought out choice based on the sex education they received.. to have illegitimate kids and to get a STD? I mean.. if sex education was any good.. they could avoid either with no sweat right?
lazs
Maybe sex education that goes beyond "abstinence only" should be a required subject in our public schools. Oh wait a minute, you think it already is!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574940/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574940/)
Blame is most often placed on inadequate sex education, from parents and from schools focusing too much on abstinence-only programs. Add to that a young person’s sense of being invulnerable.
“This is pretty shocking,” said Dr. Elizabeth Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at Montefiore Medical Center’s Children’s Hospital in New York.
“To talk about abstinence is not a bad thing,” but teen girls — and boys too — need to be informed about how to protect themselves if they do have sex, Alderman said.
-
mt... sex education is almost universal in our school systems if you judge what "sex education" is by 1950 standards. It is only "shocking" to these docs that 10 year olds aren't being given live demos.
Now it is the difference between graphic sex education at young ages and abstinence sex education.. in the 1950's it was the difference between almost universal "no sex education of any kind" and maybe a bit of abstinence education.
I say leave all sex education of any kind out of the schools. That is the parents job. I am saying it worked fine before.
lazs