With the release of his report claiming that abstinence education curricula teach "false and misleading information," California Congressman Henry Waxman has reignited the debate over federal funding of sex education programs. In his 26-page report, the Democratic representative presents some valid criticisms of abstinence program materials. Such factual inaccuracy is inexcusable; it fails our students and undermines the value of these programs.
Unfortunately, Waxman’s report is also plagued with false and misleading information. His denial of the well-established correlation between teen sex and increased risk of attempted suicide as well as his refusal to acknowledge the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs undercuts the report’s integrity. By presenting inaccurate material as established fact, Waxman has merely given his critics justification for dismissing his findings.
But the debate between “comprehensive” and “abstinence-only” sex education programs is itself a misguided focus on a false dilemma. Both approaches are primarily concerned with indoctrination toward a particular viewpoint and inoculation against the effects of certain behavior. Neither is concerned with providing a true education. The abstinence advocates, for example, want teens to “just say no” while the comprehensive crowd want students to “just wear a condom.” Both are more concerned about “effectiveness” than with teaching teens how to think for themselves about human sexuality.
For a program to be about education, though, rather than just effectiveness requires that it incorporate critical moral reasoning. This element is curiously missing from both approaches to sex education. While not exhaustive, the implementation of this feature would require focusing on the following areas:
Teleology – Before they learn “techniques”, teens should be taught the purposes and roles that sex plays in the lives of humans. Is sex mainly for pleasure? For procreation? For both? Is sex a gift from a benevolent Creator or merely evolution’s way of tricking us into passing on our genetic material? Discovering the answers to these types of questions should precede any discussion of method. Why teach the purpose of contraceptives before the teen even knows the purpose of sex?
Values clarification – The use of “dilemma ethics” in the classroom has rightly raised concerns about moral relativism masquerading as “values clarification.” But while students should never be told that all values are equal, they should be taught how to determine which moral values should be applied to questions of sexual ethics. Once the purpose of sex is clarified, the student should be able to determine what virtues correspond to sexual behaviors. If we are nothing but gene transmitters, should monogamy be valued? If one of the purposes of sex is procreation, must we accept responsibility for any children that might be conceived as a result of our behavior? Students should be able to clarify which values take precedence in situations involving sexual ethics.
Because values are determined by communities rather than just by individuals, teens must be free to openly discuss how their associative groups – whether religious or secular – answer these questions. Students should be encouraged to acknowledge their parents and churches views on the subject and determine how it affects their decisions. They should be allowed to explore how their religious or secular beliefs relate to such topics as abortion or homosexuality. Rather than being pushed into debating such controversies, though, teens should be taught how to translate these beliefs into consistent ethical behavior.
(Christians often rightly complain that the public schools usurp the proper role of parents and the church. So why don’t we teach sex ed. in Sunday School? How are our children supposed to gain a Biblical understanding of sexual ethics when we don’t provide it? And if we claim it’s solely the parent’s responsibility to pass on such knowledge then why do we even have SS?)
Information Aquisition – Rather than being passive receptors of data, students should be taught how to acquire information about human sexuality on their own. They need to be taught how to discern whether a source is reliable, what agenda the source might have, and where to find the information that they seek. The Waxman report is a prime example of why such an approach is needed. While attempting to correct errors in the education materials, the Congressman merely replaces it with inaccurate data that aligns with his own agenda. Teens should be provided with the critical thinking skills necessary to make their own determination of whether the data they receive is trustworthy.
Students should also have the freedom to decide for themselves how much information they need. Other than “the basics”, teenagers should not be forced to learn about extraneous sexual topics. Why should a modest young Jewish girl be forced to learn how to put on a condom or be exposed to intimate details about anal sex? Modesty is not a vice and should not be treated as one. (I’m not a prude or especially demure about sexual topics. But I must admit that there are certain “sexual practices” that I wish I'd never heard about.)
The converse is also true. Mature teens should be able to find reliable information about issues that peak their interest. Restricting access to such knowledge will not stymie their curiosity but merely cause them to turn to unreliable sources such as their peers – or teachers. (Neither group is particularly dependable.)
During my freshman year of college, for example, I made a comment to the effect that the sex lives of the average homosexual was hardly different than that of heterosexuals. Though my professor did not consider homosexuality to be immoral, he politely pointed out that I was mistaken and suggested I perform some independent research on that topic. A few hours in the library dispelled my illusions and taught me a valuable lesson about believing the conventional wisdom passed along by well-meaning adults who are trying to instill a sense of “tolerance.”
Critics of this method will likely point out the many ways it could fail to be “effective.” The intellectually lazy will not do the work necessary to find accurate information while the ethically challenged will find rationalizations for their morally suspect behavior. Focusing on critical moral reasoning, they could argue, may not reduce the rates of teen sex, pregnancy, or STDs. Such a complaint is certainly valid, though it applies equally to the current curricula.
But if our goal is to provide an education then we must do more than give lip-service to this worthy goal. We must actually offer a program that has a chance of fulfilling the duties of an education. Just because some students will not take advantage of such guidance does not mean that it should be withheld from everyone. The foundation of any sex education program must be to teach students how to apply critical moral reasoning in order that they may make informed decisions. Anything less is merely well-intentioned propaganda and doesn't deserve the noble honorific of education.
(HT: Lean Left)
1
Teaching kids to think? Wotta concept. Good post Joe, though I think the bulk of the responsibility for moral education should be handled by the parents.
posted on 12.06.2004 6:26 AM2
When I was in school sex education was simply a biological description of the sexual act, the pregnancy/birth process, sexually transmitted diseases and physical changes that occur during puberty (in the early grades version). Why are we diverging from this? Why are we pushing abstinence or no abstinence when there is barely enough time allocated to cover even the basic biological data I listed above? Comprehensive should be to give the kids all the information--and certainly no misinformation. I'm sure all the hysteria from the religious right won't go away if they taught it the way I described above. The curriculum I listed above was from Catholic diocosen schools that started in 4th grade and went up through 10th--so don't give me B.S. that I'm lashing out at Christians.
The gross distortions highlighted in the waxman report show the level these groups will stoop to try and scare children about healthy sexual activity. I'm surprised they didn't try and resurrect age old wives tales of e "hairy palms" and blindness as a result of masturbation.
posted on 12.06.2004 6:54 AM3
His denial of the well-established correlation between teen sex and increased risk of attempted suicide as well as his refusal to acknowledge the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs undercuts the report’s integrity.
This is a misreading of the report, which doesn't deny a correlation. What it does deny is that poor mental health is a causally simple problem that can be fixed through abstinence. The report points out that at least one curriculum claims that virtually everything under the sun (loneliness, depression, suicide, etc) "can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage."
Their very first claim is off-base (and dishonestly so). Impressive as usual, Heritage Foundation!
The substance of the post: teaching kids to work through values and how to get info are great ideas. The stuff on teleology folds neatly into values, don'tcha think?
4
The most egregious error highlighted in the report, in my mind, is the following (from the introduction):
One curriculum teaches that women need “financial
support,” while men need “admiration.” Another instructs: “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.”
A. WTF is this doing in any sexual education class?
B. Haven't we, as a society, grown out of believing this sort of thing?
5
Public education as administered by the state would be better implimented without a subjective bent. Nothing is truly values-free, (perhaps mathmatics?) but teaching America's children about the ins and outs (forgive me) of sex should be the job of those children's parents.
6
Sex amongst teens isn't the problem, it's the symptom. Here is a (somewhat lengthy) discussion that gets closer to the heart of the matter. Fixing sex education is just a band-aid.
posted on 12.06.2004 9:12 AM7
Regarding your comments about teaching sex ed in church Sunday schools, many churches do teach the values side of this issue through their youth programs. Our youth groups talk frequently about the whole gamut of issues under the unbrella of "male-female relationships from a biblical perspective."
Your points are good, and I do think you're right to say that there are essential educational issues missing from most public school approaches. I doubt that schools feel free to inject values into the discussion, however. That's a hotter potato than sex!
As Christian parents of public-school children, we got involved, examined the sex ed curriculum, and discussed these things with our children, correcting what we saw as error as we came to it. Our children have developed healthy sexual ideas because we took personal responsibility for teaching them.
posted on 12.06.2004 9:59 AM8
His denial of the well-established correlation between teen sex and increased risk of attempted suicide...
Post-hoc ergo propter hoc implication there, Joe?
...his refusal to acknowledge the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs ...
What I've read is that they're not really that effective.
The abstinence advocates, for example, want teens to “just say no” while the comprehensive crowd want students to “just wear a condom....
An over-simplification, of course...
Teleology Like the parable of the man wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, answering these questions will not lead one to any better behavior, because the key issue is not the answer to these questions, but the practice of responsible behavior.
Because values are determined by communities rather than just by individuals...
As it is individuals who are responsible for practicing responsible behavior, despite the fact that communities, religions, "sexual identity groups" might assert a certain set of values, it is the individual who alone has responsibility, and hence authority and power over his own value system, and therefore the only meaningful value system is that which the individual practices, with all succeeding consequences good or bad. Of course, it is our responsibility to teach the consequences.
Students should also have the freedom to decide for themselves how much information they need. Other than “the basics”, teenagers should not be forced to learn about extraneous sexual topics. Why should a modest young Jewish girl be forced to learn how to put on a condom or be exposed to intimate details about anal sex?
There is one issue that's involved here, and it cuts to the problem with abstinence programs: studies I've seen show that when students who go through these programs become sexually active, they tend not to practice safer sexual activities. As a public health issue, I would submit this trumps ideology, but at the same time, there are others with a responsibility to ensure this information is known besides teachers.
9
When I was first married, it soon became clear that my wife did not know the same terminology about sex as I did. Mr. moderate asks why divert from basic biology, I will simply say, her lack of understanding of the terms did not affect her involvement. Further her understanding of her values about sex were better than mine. (I screwed up (so to speak)a few times) Not coincidentally, she is the product of private Christian education and I of the basic biology model. Basic biology leads to increased interest which can lead to early problems requiring decisions that should not be made by (pick the age) 13 year olds without parental involvement.
posted on 12.06.2004 10:37 AM10
Not coincidentally, she is the product of private Christian education and I of the basic biology model.
Funny, my education, including sex education, was in private Catholic (a form of Christianity the last I checked) institutions and it highlighted biology only. Perhaps that was because religious values were taught in religion class and moral values were pervasive across all scholastic areas. The basic biology model didn't seem to provide quite a firm basis to give us proper information on the risks and rewards of sex.
posted on 12.06.2004 10:47 AM11
When I was first married, it soon became clear that my wife did not know the same terminology about sex as I did...I will simply say, her lack of understanding of the terms did not affect her involvement.
What terminology were you taught in class that she shouldn't have known by the age of marriage, in terms of the bioligical aspects of sex? We're not talking about teaching sexual techniques, we are talking about teaching children the true facts about sex. If you lie to them about basic statistics, like what was highlighted in the Waxman report, you lose credibility on the issue entirely.
posted on 12.06.2004 10:49 AM12
Joe writes
"The abstinence advocates, for example, want teens to “just say no”
True.
"while the comprehensive crowd want students to “just wear a condom.”"
False. And you know it. The comprehensive sex ed courses include teaching the incontrovertible benefits of abstinence (e.g., 100% effective against pregnancy and most sexually transmitted diseases).
Why lie, Joe?
posted on 12.06.2004 10:50 AM13
"Funny, my education, including sex education, was in private Catholic (a form of Christianity the last I checked) institutions and it highlighted biology only."
Same here. I got an accurate and detailed review of the biological aspects of sex in a Catholic church program and at school.
I had plenty of sex. No unwanted pregnancies (thanks to the pill, condoms and other techniques that I perfected). And no STDs (it helps to avoid picking up people in bars for one night stands).
Married at 35, when I knew what I wanted out of life and I knew what kind of person could stand with living with me.
posted on 12.06.2004 10:55 AM14
I agree teaching false information is probably not a good idea. However, I'll deviate from my fellow skeptics above and note that if I were the parent of a 12 year old girl, I think I might not mind if she somehow got the idea that just waving to a boy could get her pregnant or sick :)
posted on 12.06.2004 10:55 AM15
Larry Elder actually had a better justification for why teen pregnancy rates are going down: welfare reform. Now teen girls have to support their children so they have to be very thoughtful in their sexual choices. Yes, the man must be held responsible for his end, but there's nothing like telling a teen girl: your ass ain't getting a free check from the public dole if you can't control your sex drive.
posted on 12.06.2004 11:13 AM16
JPE: This is a misreading of the report, which doesn't deny a correlation. What it does deny is that poor mental health is a causally simple problem that can be fixed through abstinence. The report points out that at least one curriculum claims that virtually everything under the sun (loneliness, depression, suicide, etc) "can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage."
Their very first claim is off-base (and dishonestly so). Impressive as usual, Heritage Foundation!
I will admit that Waxman’s use of “weasel words” allows him some room to maneuver. I think it’s obvious that he intends to convey the impression that there is no link between a teen’s mental health and sexual activity. If not then he should have made it clear that when teens engage in sex it should be viewed as a possible sign that they are suffering from depression or some other ailment. But such an admission would have hurt his agenda, wouldn’t it?
Mumon: What I've read is that they're not really that effective.
Perhaps you should read this study which credits abstinence rather than increased condom usage as the cause of declining rates of teen pregnancy:
Larry: False. And you know it. The comprehensive sex ed courses include teaching the incontrovertible benefits of abstinence (e.g., 100% effective against pregnancy and most sexually transmitted diseases).
Why lie, Joe?
Good grief, Larry. Do you have to work at being annoying? My claim was an example of hyperbole. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in English class.
And if comprehensive sex ed classes really do teach that the benefits of abstinence are “incontrovertible” then why do they need to teach condom use? You wouldn’t tell teens that not joining a gang was an incontrovertible good but, since kids will join anyway, let’s give them lessons on how to to be "safe thugs."
17
'I think the bulk of the responsibility for moral education should be handled by the parents.'
unfortunately this is not the case in many homes, it is up to the schools to teach it.
i am seeing a call for abstinence as well as safe-sex. this makes sense. many kids are still going to have sex early on, whether it is good for them or not. then, the safe-sex end needs to kick in. this only makes sense.
posted on 12.06.2004 11:40 AM18
I'm not that far removed from High School Sex Ed (I'll be 22 in a couple months), and I remember the way the class went:
"The only 100% safe method is abstinence. Now, let's move on from that and talk about everything else under the sun..."
Yeah, kids are gonna have sex and they ought to at least know how to reduce some risk. But modern sex does nothing to actively promote abstinence as a smart, valid choice. It usually gets one or two sentences utter in haste (almost shamefully), and then 3 weeks on what to do before during and after sex. There is no balance. No positive case for abstinence.
The other problem with sex ed is that teenagers are stupid. You can show them all the sex ed in the world and they will still do stupid stuff because they are stupid. My teens are not far behind me and I can tell you: I was stupid. I made bad choices all the freaking time. So, just because we're forcing kids to put condoms on bananas doesn't mean they're going to do it at the next rave. Teen sex usually has alcohol and drug use near by, and we all know how much alcohol and drugs contribute to safety and good judgment.
I'm sort of in favor of just doing a bare bones sex ed thing that goes:
"1. If you don't have sex, you won't get knocked up or HPV or AIDS (needle sharing notwithstanding)
2. If you do use sex, and you don't wear a condem, you're an idiot.
3. This is what your crotch looks like when it's full of STDs.
4. This is how much a baby costs.
5. Seriously, don't mess around with this stuff.
6. Now we're going to learn about math and science and history and leave the rest of this crap to your parents."
God forbid the schools spend less time teaching something that parents should be in charge of teaching.
posted on 12.06.2004 12:07 PM19
P.S. "Use sex"? I don't know why I said that. I meant "have sex".
But you shouldn't "use sex" either. Maybe that can be point 2(a).
posted on 12.06.2004 12:08 PM20
Joe:
Here's what I could piece together:
1. Your cited reference is not available for free on the net. (I guess you knew that too.)
2. The plug for abstinence here comes about evidently from trends present before Bush took office. One can conclude, (source)...
Sexual behaviors significantly improved from 1991 to 1997, but showed little change from 1999 to 2003 after the implementation of federally funded Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives in 1998. This paper does not prove that a causal relationsh ip exists between the implementation of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and the end of significant improvement in adolescent sexual risk-taking behaviors after 1999. However, future research should assess the relationship between abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and the leveling off of earlier declines in teens’ sexual risk behaviors.
Abstinence only programs also seem to generate harm, as I've noted above.
This I think illustrates the difference between the (politically) faith-based and reality based communities: it appears that the (politically) faith based community wants to exclude certain things a priori because they just don't believe in them, even if they work.
posted on 12.06.2004 12:09 PM21
Phil,
You have the right idea. Provide them accurate information about the cons of promiscuous sexual activity. Again, that fell under the "biology only" sexual education program that we had when I was in Catholic private school. Ignoring showing the kids the real potential side effects is just as bad as pretending that saying "don't do it" is going to be effective in getting kids to stop having sex. Don't forget, widespread pre-marital sex predates sex education and the sexual revolution.
posted on 12.06.2004 12:18 PM22
Joe, you may think you were engaging in hyperbole but to the extent you weren't, the point of your post is diminished considerably.
I have to laugh at this:
An Analysis of the Causes of the Decline in Non-marital Birth and Pregnancy Rates for Teen from 1991 to 1995, Joanna K. Mohn, MD, Lynne R. Tingle, PhD, Reginald Finger, MD, MPH
Lynn Tingle???? Reginald Finger????? Where's Leslie Thrust, Ph.D. and Richard Shafter, MD?
Surreal.
posted on 12.06.2004 12:31 PM23
Joe:
I will admit that Waxman’s use of “weasel words” allows him some room to maneuver. I think it’s obvious that he intends to convey the impression that there is no link between a teen’s mental health and sexual activity. If not then he should have made it clear ...Ah, now if you would only apply that same kind of critical thinking to other things like, say, President Bush's case for war in Iraq, just as an example that springs to mind. Weasel words. Room to maneuver. An obviously-intentional-but-not-outright-stated conclusion. Things that should have been made more clear.
Notice any similarity there?
posted on 12.06.2004 12:36 PM24
LL:
Man, that's funny. I didn't even notice their names!
posted on 12.06.2004 12:38 PM25
"(Christians often rightly complain that the public schools usurp the proper role of parents and the church. So why don’t we teach sex ed. in Sunday School? How are our children supposed to gain a Biblical understanding of sexual ethics when we don’t provide it? And if we claim it’s solely the parent’s responsibility to pass on such knowledge then why do we even have SS?)"
Yup. Frankly the people that need Sex Ed the most are usually the parents, rather than the children. Sex is always a taboo in families for discussion. Realistically the only thing parents ever seem to say about sex is "Don't". They forget to mention a few little things, such as how good sex feels. They don't discuss the emotional and moral context.
I really don't think that parents are the right choice to discuss sex with their own kids. They just don't have the emotional distance required.
I always thought my high school did it right. The sex ed was jointly taught by a secular teacher and a priest. The teacher methodically would teach the biology, and describe most common sexual practices, including all types of birth control. The priest would handle the "moral" aspects. Homosexuality was discussed, as it should be, because it exists. The priest was always there to provide the moral context of the Church. And it was helpful that the priest was not a fire and brimstone type.
You left the class feeling informed, as you should. You were aware that you had choices in front of you that had consequences. You didn't feel "lectured to", so you didn't have the usual rebellious reaction that a teenager would have.
posted on 12.06.2004 12:41 PM26
LL:
The first name "Mohn" could be pronounce like "moan" which makes it even funnier. Is that an actual paper cited by the Heritage foundation or is this once again a case of a fake news story being propagated accidentally as fact by an overzealous group?
posted on 12.06.2004 12:47 PM27
Mumon: . Your cited reference is not available for free on the net. (I guess you knew that too.)
Sorry, I didn’t realize the link was broken. The article can be found here:
http://www.physconsortium.com/pdfs/afh_journal_paper.pdf
Sexual behaviors significantly improved from 1991 to 1997, but showed little change from 1999 to 2003 after the implementation of federally funded Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives in 1998. This paper does not prove that a causal relationship exists between the implementation of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and the end of significant improvement in adolescent sexual risk-taking behaviors after 1999.
I’m not sure that I follow your logic. If an increase in abstinent behavior is credited as the cause in reduction of sexual risk-taking behavior and the levels remain the same after the implementation of abstinence education programs, then shouldn’t this be viewed as a sign that the programs work? After all, the 16 year-olds in 1997 are not the same group of 16 year-olds in 2003.
Abstinence only programs also seem to generate harm, as I've noted above.
How do they generate harm?
This I think illustrates the difference between the (politically) faith-based and reality based communities: it appears that the (politically) faith based community wants to exclude certain things a priori because they just don't believe in them, even if they work.
I think you have it backwards. Abstinence programs are 100% effective if followed 100% of the time. The same can’t be said for “safe sex” education. The problem is in assuming that since teens are nothing but hairless primates who will continue to have sex regardless of what education they receive, that we must protect them against their own bad decisions. The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t work. I suspect that fewer than 1 out of every 10 teens who becomes pregnant is not aware of condoms or other contraceptives. They absorbed the “wink-wink-nudge-nudge-go-ahead-and-have-sex” subtext that the comprehensive programs provides but didn't bother with the rest.
Patrick: I really don't think that parents are the right choice to discuss sex with their own kids. They just don't have the emotional distance required.
While I fervently believe that sex ed. is the parent’s responsibility, I agree that parents aren’t always the ones who can best broach the subject with their kids. I suspect that most adults who believe that it should be left to parents would even now have a difficult time having such a frank discussion about sex with their own parents.
Moderate: Is that an actual paper cited by the Heritage foundation or is this once again a case of a fake news story being propagated accidentally as fact by an overzealous group?
I’ll admit that the Beavis and Butthead level of humor required to find “Tingle” and “Finger” funny eludes me, though it doesn’t surprise me that you and Larry thought it giggle worthy. What does surprise me, though, is that you think I would cite a reference that I had not actually seen myself. I would never have posted it unless I could have at least found an abstract for the citation.
posted on 12.06.2004 1:13 PM28
Mr. Moderate -
Yeah, I'm a christian but I'm also a realist and a practical guy. Do I want people to make what I consider moral decisions? Of course. But, perhaps moreso, I don't want a bunch of pregnant 16 year olds running around with chlamydia. I'm in favor of what works and I'm against agenda-driven education, no matter whose agenda it is.
Just give the kids the facts and let them and their parents figure it out. You don't need any trickery or misleading info to convince most kids that having a baby that costs thousands of dollars a year sucks. You also don't need any magic tricks to convince a kid that he doesn't want his junk to be covered in sores. That's a no-brainer for anyone.
So, all you gotta say is "Hey, if you don't have sex, you don't gotta worry about kids and sores. If you do have sex, use a condom and not the rhythm method or the sponge. This is what herpes looks like. You decide if you want to roll the dice. Moving on..."
How easy is that? And how can anyone argue with what was said? There's no agenda there, no trickery, just fact fact fact. Seems like everyone should be fine with that. But what do I know?
-Phil
posted on 12.06.2004 2:13 PM29
Joe:
Clearly any increase in abstinence was not due to the federally funded abstinence only programs- otherwise, as I noted above, there would have been continued drops. In other words, abstinent behavior was not correlated with the federally funded programs.
How do they generate harm?
Check out your own link from "Lean Left."
Abstinence programs are 100% effective if followed 100% of the time.
But that's not reality- we know that 100% can never be reached, and so we are, I think, morally impelled to address that with something better than "Just say no" (which never worked for the drug problem). Look, it may insult your pride (or not) but the fact is, the biology of teens is geared towards reproduction, an evolutionary inheritance from when people didn't live long. Like it or not, humans are the bunny rabbits of primates; our sexual biology is unique amongst primates.
You're correct in assuming that most students have heard about condoms, I opine, but the question is how to get them to be more widespread amongst those who would be sexually active.
The concept Joe, is "harm reduction." Social conservatives generally don't like it. Is it because deep down you feel that people who engage in activities which are less harmful but still pleasurable are "getting away" with something?
2.
30
I don't quite buy the weasel word theory. At least one abstinence program was promoting abstinence as something akin to a 19th century health tonic, which cures gout, relieves rheumatism, balances the humors, and adds pep!
The claim that there's a causal link between sex and depression is just undersupported.
posted on 12.06.2004 2:39 PM31
Mumon,
Clearly any increase in abstinence was not due to the federally funded abstinence only programs- otherwise, as I noted above, there would have been continued drops. In other words, abstinent behavior was not correlated with the federally funded programs.
I still don’t follow your logic. If you are continually getting a new demographic group moving into the “teen” category then you are not going to see a continuous drop. The most you can hope for is a small decrease in the numbers over long periods (10+ years) of time.
Check out your own link from "Lean Left."
I did. They provide no empirical evidence that abstinence-only programs harm students.
But that's not reality- we know that 100% can never be reached, and so we are, I think, morally impelled to address that with something better than "Just say no" (which never worked for the drug problem). Look, it may insult your pride (or not) but the fact is, the biology of teens is geared towards reproduction, an evolutionary inheritance from when people didn't live long. Like it or not, humans are the bunny rabbits of primates; our sexual biology is unique amongst primates.
Okay, so then let’s be responsible and encourage teens to marry young. That way we can reduce their chances of STDs and other harmful effects of sexual activity and still provide an outlet for their sexual frustrations. My guess, though, is that you will find such an idea unappealing.
You're correct in assuming that most students have heard about condoms, I opine, but the question is how to get them to be more widespread amongst those who would be sexually active.
Here’s how: make it possible for sex while wearing a condom feel the same as without one. Until that happens you will never find a significant increase in condom usage among teens.
The concept Joe, is "harm reduction." Social conservatives generally don't like it. Is it because deep down you feel that people who engage in activities which are less harmful but still pleasurable are "getting away" with something?
Trust me, they don’t get away with anything. It’s like gambling in a casino. If you play long enough then the odds favor the house. The same goes for risky behavior. Eventually some form of harmful effect results from the behavior.
32
Here’s how: make it possible for sex while wearing a condom feel the same as without one. Until that happens you will never find a significant increase in condom usage among teens.
Nah, couldn't be. I remember being a teenager, and I was kind of scared of condoms. The trick is in getting people used to the idea and teaching them to use 'em right (to reduce the error rate - a problem with some abstinence programs is the systematic conflation of wrong-use error rates and right-use error rates, by the by).
Personally, I think emphasizing abstinence is a great idea, but not at the expense of correct information, and not at the expense of other forms of sex ed.
posted on 12.06.2004 2:52 PM33
Joe:
I'd say that misinforming kids is harmful. I'd also say (and this can be verified in a number of places) the fact that "abstinence only" students, when they become sexually active tend not to use a condom, is indicative that there is something missing in these programs- the kids are being misinformed from these, and it is our responsiblity to ensure that kids are properly informed.
...make it possible for sex while wearing a condom feel the same as without one. Until that happens you will never find a significant increase in condom usage among teens.
Actually, you're close to a real answer: change the words "feel the same as" to "be what comes into awareness more often than."
That is how AIDS rates of increase originally declined in the gay population. Unfortunately, like advertising for Coca Cola, that awareness needs to be properly stimulated, not thwarted.
I agree that harm results from risky behavior if engaged in often enough, which begs the question: if we can use any means to reduce harm, that individuals can use, ought we not use it?
If contraception were more widely used, would not abortion rates decline? Like in places like Belgium the Netherlands, which has the lowest abortion rates in the world?
34
Most of the arguments out here sounds like ya'll are grabbing for the wrong end of the snake. Joe has it right in pointing out that the problem is largely in poor teleology and values education. That is where you will get traction towards finding a solution. You won't get where you want to by splitting hairs about condoms vs abstinence. If you teach the kids values and how to think, you won't have to fine tune your propoganda to maximize it's effect.
posted on 12.06.2004 4:06 PM35
"So, all you gotta say is "Hey, if you don't have sex, you don't gotta worry about kids and sores. If you do have sex, use a condom and not the rhythm method or the sponge. This is what herpes looks like. You decide if you want to roll the dice. Moving on...""
No, you say use a condom AND use the Rythm method AND use the sponge. And beware quackery, such as nonoxnyl 9 in lubricants.
"That is how AIDS rates of increase originally declined in the gay population. Unfortunately, like advertising for Coca Cola, that awareness needs to be properly stimulated, not thwarted. "
There is not only less AIDs' awareness programs being done in the gay community, in many places it's become illegal to spend public funds for them. Also, the ones that are done are often poorly targeted. 50% of new Gay Aids infections are among Black Americans, not the stereotypical WeHo boy image of "Gay" that Will & Graces give you.
There are also major ad campaigns run by drug companies in gay publications that encourage unsafe sexual practices. No, Really!
Hmmm. This sounds like a good rant topic for my Blog, stay tuned...
posted on 12.06.2004 4:07 PM36
Sorry. To ward off the spelling gremlins. That should read "maximize its effect".
posted on 12.06.2004 4:07 PM37
Mark O:
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "values."
Joe wrote:
Teleology – Before they learn “techniques”, teens should be taught the purposes and roles that sex plays in the lives of humans. Is sex mainly for pleasure? For procreation? For both? Is sex a gift from a benevolent Creator or merely evolution’s way of tricking us into passing on our genetic material? Discovering the answers to these types of questions should precede any discussion of method. Why teach the purpose of contraceptives before the teen even knows the purpose of sex?Values clarification – The use of “dilemma ethics” in the classroom has rightly raised concerns about moral relativism masquerading as “values clarification.” But while students should never be told that all values are equal, they should be taught how to determine which moral values should be applied to questions of sexual ethics. Once the purpose of sex is clarified, the student should be able to determine what virtues correspond to sexual behaviors. If we are nothing but gene transmitters, should monogamy be valued?
To me, though the issue is better raised by Tarma Dode in her article "Liberating Sefl-Righteousness" (unfortunately, you'd have to buy Tricycle to read her work on this.)
She basically gives a guided meditation on a sexual feelings, issues, etc. Rather than starting from dogma such as "man has a soul," or is "created by a god," she asks questions in the context of going to a prostitute: What are your feelings? How do you feel towards the prostitute? Do you realize that many, many people do this each day? This is how she earns money. Is this how you want to share your body?
You don't need to go to a prostitute of course, to understand her point: you make your own life, and is this what you want to make of your life?
If that question is kept in one's awareness, a lot of misery could be avoided.
posted on 12.06.2004 4:43 PM38
How easy is that? And how can anyone argue with what was said? There's no agenda there, no trickery, just fact fact fact. Seems like everyone should be fine with that. But what do I know?
Is that not what I suggested? I agree I hate agenda driven sex education. That goes for the abstinence only crowd as well. Study after study are showing that comprehensive sex education--not just abstinence education and not just discussions of contraceptive devices--is what works best. So I agree, why don't we use what works--comprehensive sex education (like the kind I described and had when I was in school).
posted on 12.06.2004 4:44 PM39
I’ll admit that the Beavis and Butthead level of humor required to find “Tingle” and “Finger” funny eludes me, though it doesn’t surprise me that you and Larry thought it giggle worthy. What does surprise me, though, is that you think I would cite a reference that I had not actually seen myself. I would never have posted it unless I could have at least found an abstract for the citation.
Oh woe is me. God forbid some find the coincidence humorous. Don't take it personally, I thought the error might be on the Heritage foundation not on you. Are you saying that you checked every reference of every document you've ever sourced? If so then you don't read a lot of such documents or you are again engaging in hyperbole. Which is it?
posted on 12.06.2004 4:48 PM40
Joe has it right in pointing out that the problem is largely in poor teleology and values education.
So you'd think that those states that have the "best" values (this group would consider that synonymous with the strongest social conservative base) would have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy. Obviously they would be more chaste and achieve a higher proportion of teens who abstain. Unfortunately we have little stats like this:
http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/index.php?p=146
Notice the states with the lowest rates--all blue and two of those vile people that support gay civil unions and/or gay marriage (Vermont and Massachusetts). Look who rounds up the top 15? Almost all of those are those bastions of conservatism. Coincidence?
posted on 12.06.2004 5:09 PM41
Joe has it right in pointing out that the problem is largely in poor teleology and values education.
Ugh. No. Teleology ain't the answer. It's just too counterintuitive and speculative to form the basis for a workable public policy. Ever meet people that are Natural Law junkies? They're like Trekkies: you really don't meet casual fans of either.
posted on 12.06.2004 6:58 PM42
The correlation is between poverty, poor education and high tean pregnancy.
The conservative solution is to remove safety nets and public schools for the poor. That will force them to compeat in the marketplace, instead of rewarding them for being lazy, as is the case today with our Congress which includes nearly 50% Liberals. Those who don't compeat well will soon find themselves out of luck. This is the law of capitalims.
posted on 12.06.2004 7:04 PM43
jpe : I can just see two teens about to do the deed saying out loud, "Wait! What about the design or purpose of this natural phenomenon!"
In a sense, Joe's right- we should teach something else but what needs to be taught is not teleology or values, but awareness, and knowledge of consequences.
posted on 12.06.2004 7:14 PM44
Mr. Moderate wrote "Unfortunately we have little stats like this:
http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/index.php?p=146
Notice the states with the lowest rates--all blue and two of those vile people that support gay civil unions and/or gay marriage (Vermont and Massachusetts). Look who rounds up the top 15? Almost all of those are those bastions of conservatism. Coincidence?"
No, not a coincidence. Your chart actually shows teen *parents*, not teen pregnancies. It is not a coincidence that the red states choose life.
posted on 12.06.2004 9:06 PM45
It is interesting. When you, out of a concern for the moral choices of parents and students, teach subjects in school as if no value judgments are possible and all choices must be derived fromt he conscience of the individual, the indirect message seems to be that no value judgments are possible because everything is up tot the whim of the individual. Who would have thought?
posted on 12.06.2004 9:51 PM46
mumon,
I know you'd like to think I have a particular agenda in mind when I wrote "values", but I didn't. I really had in mind the core values like honesty, respect, and responsibility (and so on), no controversy there. Your basic Boy Scout list, i.e., trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, ... And if the kids are taught to think on their own and have values then this whole condom/abstinence argument will be moot.
Mr Moderate,
Are you trying to help make my point for me? :) Better education in general, not specific curriculum content is the point I'm trying to make.
To toot my own horn for a minute, over on my blog last week I was mulling over the idea that almost none of the specific content of our curriculum matters. We just have to teach good learning skills, and students will turn out better than if we try to teach them propaganda, a specific set of "facts", and a boat load of touchy feely crap.
posted on 12.06.2004 10:06 PM47
If you want to avoid misinformation, they you had BETTER teach kids about the dangers of STDs and the failure rate of condoms. And in doing so, you had better not softpedal the message!
Is this fearmongering? Maybe... But only because they had better darned well have some fear drummed into them!
posted on 12.06.2004 10:14 PM48
gedi
"No, not a coincidence. Your chart actually shows teen *parents*, not teen pregnancies. It is not a coincidence that the red states choose life."
Barf.
You actually think the difference in teen birth rates is due to higher abortion rates in blue states????
Is that because evangelical fundie types are so much more caring and understanding when their 14 daughter says she's been impregnated by her boyfriend, the 22 year old meth addict who lives in the trailer park over by the water tower?
No, I think not.
posted on 12.06.2004 10:19 PM49
Larry,
Not aborting a baby directly correlates to having a baby, in most instances.
I do not think this is the only factor. It is *a* factor, yes.
God bless, Larry.
posted on 12.06.2004 11:26 PM50
Joe
here is the bottom line: these programs tell lies to children about a matter of their health. This isn;t a matter of the stupid notion that teens should not be given any information beyond absitnence, this is a matter of being told lies in place of truth. There is absoultely no way that can be considered moral, whatever flaws Waxman's report may or may not have had (and, frankly, the things you have highlighted seem to involve a creative reading of the report).
That alone should be enough to remove these programs frm the ciriculum. You want absitenance only education; fine let's have that fight. But these peope are engaging in the scummiest kind of misinformation and the most immoral of tactics in order to advance their cause. That is the important point in Waxman's report, and one that I would have hope you would have agreed with.
posted on 12.07.2004 12:26 PM51
gedi:
Sorry, Charlie, but even when you talk specifically about teen pregnancy rates, the top six offenders are all red states. Nine of the worst ten teen pregnancy rates belong to red states. So even after you adjust for higher teen abortion rates in the blue states, the red states are still among the worst for teen pregnancy rates. Assuming these states are more likely to have conservative models of sex education, that doesn't bode well for the efficacy of those models.
See here, Table 2, page 8.
posted on 12.07.2004 12:41 PM52
Gedi says:
"...and two of those vile people that support gay civil unions and/or gay marriage (Vermont and Massachusetts)."
Gedi,
When gay people such as myself describe anti-gay religious zealots as prejudiced and as being outright bigots, it's statements like yours above that prove the point.
The citizens of MA and VT, by the acts of compassion and respect they have shown for their fellow Americans who are gay or lesbian, have proved themselves to be much more in tune with morality and good values than you could ever hope to be. Lets hope for your sake that they keep you in their prayers.
posted on 12.07.2004 1:02 PM53
Patrick,
It is perhaps my fault. I quote poorly. However, I did not mention anything about our homosexual brethren and sisters. I am sorry if someone else's post offended you.
posted on 12.07.2004 1:07 PM54
tgirsch,
Thanks for the link. Abstinence programs are not my argument. His chart was for teen parents and he was trying to argue that the sex ed programs were better in blue states. Frankly, there are so many divided red and blue that we should be looking at red, blue, and purple. That way we can argue over even more useless statistics.
It is no surprise that communities with substantial African American populations such as New Jersay (60%), New Jersey, Massachussets, and D.C. all over (50%) of teen pregnancies end in abortion.
Couple this with the extraordinarily large (209 per 1000) African American abortions, and we can see the left's campaign of genocide on the African American community. Thank you planned parenthood.
Makes me sick to my stomach...
posted on 12.07.2004 1:22 PM56
When gay people such as myself describe anti-gay religious zealots as prejudiced and as being outright bigots, it's statements like yours above that prove the point.
I think that came out of the new parser dropping the italics on the quoting when gedi quoted my original message highlighting the fact that so called red (aka "moral" states to the religious right) have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. I was being sarcastic, especially in light of the histeria the religious right likes to propagate about how accepting gay relationships destroys the fabric of the family and leads to moral decay. Since they equate abstinence (along with a revulsion to any sexual behavior outside that accepted by the bible) with morality I found it especially poignant that two of the lowest states are also those who's governments have been so much further ahead in recognizing gay relationships.
posted on 12.07.2004 1:40 PM57
Frankly, there are so many divided red and blue that we should be looking at red, blue, and purple. That way we can argue over even more useless statistics.
Now this is true. The "sea of red" is really a sea of purple. However most of the red states near the top are also the ones with disproportionate representation of social conservative Christians.
posted on 12.07.2004 1:42 PM58
Maybe on topic, but not responding to any particular thread or post:
Yesterday in a news paper I saw it reported that STDs are up a significant percentage (this year compared to last? or was it this year compared to X years ago?). The kicker is the explanation: better reporting. Maybe that is true. Yet I suspect that the newspaper folks would not dare to say STDs were up due to increased non-monogamous sexual activity. That explanation is a non-starter, and unwelcome to boot.
59
It is no surprise that communities with substantial African American populations such as New Jersay (60%), New Jersey, Massachussets, and D.C. all over (50%) of teen pregnancies end in abortion.
Couple this with the extraordinarily large (209 per 1000) African American abortions, and we can see the left's campaign of genocide on the African American community. Thank you planned parenthood.
Remember that Margaret Sanger & Planned Parenthood either grew out of or were strongly influenced by the Eugenics Movement, an intellectually fashionable movement of the time to Improve the Race. "Only Perfect Seed Must Be Sown." "Life to The Fit, Extinction to The Unfit."
Birth control was to breed inferior racial stocks (i.e. not "Anglo-Saxon" or blond Nordic) out of existence; from the beginning, PP had a lot of its offices in the black community.
I think Sanger got a commendation from the NSDAP, who later would apply Eugenics in a more direct manner within their Third Reich.
Understandably, PP plays down this part of their founder and their history.
posted on 12.07.2004 2:06 PM60
Understandably, PP plays down this part of their founder and their history.
If you want to bring up the Nazis, how about the Bush family history with the Nazis?
posted on 12.07.2004 2:28 PM61
Eric:
Yet I suspect that the newspaper folks would not dare to say STDs were up due to increased non-monogamous sexual activity. That explanation is a non-starter, and unwelcome to boot.Could be. Or it could be that the nationwide move away from comprehensive sex education programs is factoring in. Could be a combination of the above. In fact, it could be that the increase in STDs is tied to an increase in non-monogamous sexual activity, which in turn is tied to the shift away from honest, open, comprehensive sex ed.
All assuming, of course, that the report is valid.
posted on 12.07.2004 2:31 PM62
gedi:
Abstinence programs are not my argument.Which is odd, because abstinence programs are, in fact, the topic at hand. What, then are you arguing? Just whatever you feel like? ;)
Ah, race-baiting, now, are we? Never mind the fact that correlation does not necessarily equal causation; your accusation that planned parenthood is today somehow a racist organization is a bald-faced lie.It is no surprise that communities with substantial African American populations such as New Jersay (60%), New Jersey, Massachussets, and D.C. all over (50%) of teen pregnancies end in abortion.
Couple this with the extraordinarily large (209 per 1000) African American abortions, and we can see the left's campaign of genocide on the African American community. Thank you planned parenthood.
Anyway, you need to look at the numbers: Contrary to your obvious prejudices, New York (13.6%) and New Jersey (15.9%) actually have modest African-American populations. Compare these to the shining example of Louisiana (32.5% African-American, 15-16% of teen pregnancies end in abortion) and you'll see that your logic simply does not follow. The other elephant in the room that you fail to mention is that based simply on population density, it's a lot easier to get to an abortion clinic in New York or New Jersey than it is in South-friggin-Dakota or Utah.
posted on 12.07.2004 2:53 PM63
OK, let's get a grip. Firstly, abstinence-only programs are a joke. As a student in a Catholic school, we were taught that sex before marriage is wrong, condoms aren't affective from spreading disease and the only way to stay disease-free and not get pregnant was to not have sex. Well, guess what - teenagers have sex. And because they are filled with the notion that condoms don't work, why use them? Out of 250 girls in my class, 20 were pregnant or mothers by the time I graduated - and we were not in a poor, urban area.
These types of thoughts are taught nationwide - a former Miss America was known to go into high schools with a tennis racket & ask for a volunteer. The volunteer threw beebees at the racket, which Miss America attempted to swat. She likened the racket to condoms trying to keep disease (the beebees) out. Lovely!
And to say that parents should be given the role of teaching their children about the birds & the bees is ludacris. The nation is full of abusive, negligent and non-existent parents. That's like saying we're going to dismantle our departments of social services and leave it to good faith that all parents will treat their children properly.
Planned Parenthood is a god-send. To call them nazis whose agenda is to wipe African-Americans off the face of the earth is sickening. They are located in urban areas b/c they are a foundation based to provide much-needed reproductive benefits to the poor and alone. Frankly, rich people can afford their own doctors, so why would they go to Planned Parenthood? Planned Parenthood puts offices were they are needed, just like you put a gas station on a busy street.
64
Ken,
Absolutely. Planned Parenthood was all on board eugenics, which not so coincidentally is tied in with turn of the century evolutionary thought as well.
Jenn,
"Planned Parenthood is a god-send. To call them nazis whose agenda is to wipe African-Americans off the face of the earth is sickening. They are located in urban areas b/c they are a foundation based to provide much-needed reproductive benefits to the poor and alone."
Only if your god is Molech and requires child sacrifices.
tgirsch,
African American abortion rates are double those of whites in Louisiana. In New Jersey the African American rate is nearly 6 times higher than whites. Can you find me a single state where the white abortion rate is higher than black? If this isn't precision killing, I don't know what is.
posted on 12.07.2004 4:58 PM65
I wrote, "Abstinence programs are not my argument."
tgirsch wrote, "Which is odd, because abstinence programs are, in fact, the topic at hand. What, then are you arguing? Just whatever you feel like? ;)"
Good point. Thank you. My apologies. I shouldn't have responded to the politically baited statement.
posted on 12.07.2004 5:00 PM66
Absolutely. Planned Parenthood was all on board eugenics, which not so coincidentally is tied in with turn of the century evolutionary thought as well.
Gedi, DON'T turn this into a Creation-vs-Evolution catfight. I've seen that blow up threads into Beavises and Buttheads screaming at each other to where "Evolution" can invoke Godwin's Law faster than "Hitler".
That said, Eugenics was one of those "new ideas that are really old mistakes" (Chesterton). Fortunately for the rest of us inferiors, the NSDAP firewalled the idea to the max and acted on it to the point that it discredited the whole idea for a generation or more. Unfortunately, the Shoah is now passing out of living memory (except as a subtitute/replacement Torah for Jews who have forgotten the original) and with genetic engineering and biotech, that old mistake once more becomes a Fresh New Idea -- "What could possibly go wrong?".
Re "Mr Moderate":
We actually got about 60 posts into the thread before someone got to "BUSH IS HITLER!" Amazing.
Note my use of "NSDAP"; I am referring to the original historical political cult, even though their more common name has come to mean "Republican" or "anybody who tells me I can't do whatever I wanna".
posted on 12.07.2004 5:21 PM67
We actually got about 60 posts into the thread before someone got to "BUSH IS HITLER!" Amazing.
Ken, I noticed you didn't follow the link. It has nothing to do with GWB nor does it have anything to do with comparing any of the Bush's to Hitler. It is a discussion of the business relationships that Prescott Bush had with Nazis during and after WWII. I brought it up because someone else tried to tie PP with Nazis. I'm simply showing that the same sort of relationship is documented for the Bush family of that era. Try not reacting without reading next time.
posted on 12.07.2004 5:31 PM68
It's interesting that there is no one here addressing one thing that could help tremendously in the prevention of teen pregnancies and STDs: a real effort to get teens to focus more on their future than their here and now.
Having goals, dreams, ambitions. Having a good dose of these, injected by a teacher, a parent, or someone else, and encouraging the development of that ambition and goal, will do wonders for that teen. Precisely because it would involve so much time and resources, and even years, that teen should keep those dreams in mind before engaging in promiscuity, drugs, or whatever. Never underestimate the power of a good and decent goal. That should keep someone's mind away from those things that could hamper the fulfillment of those goals. Sex ed? Fine. Teach them the biology of it first, then the theories of population growth and control, and then teach preventive methods and the cultural and societal aspects of it. But always teach that it is worth to focus on your future, because, as I saw in a poster, that's where you will spend the rest of your life.
I have happened to have seen many girls in my high school who got pregnant and had babies (even girls in my honors classes). It was a sad spectacle. But when the one girl who used to be my best friend fell for a good-for-nothing guy and got pregnant as a result, and this close to graduation, that shook me beyond anything. It taught me that no one should give up their goals in life for one 20-minute moment of pleasure. Needless to say, I left for a different region and attended college, got my degrees in Liberal Arts and Information Systems, and married a good guy. We now live in a nice house, with a few cats, a big back yard, and lots of love. No children yet.
Maybe I learned my lesson way too well...
posted on 12.08.2004 6:40 PM69
gedi:
African American abortion rates are double those of whites in Louisiana. In New Jersey the African American rate is nearly 6 times higher than whites. Can you find me a single state where the white abortion rate is higher than black? If this isn't precision killing, I don't know what is.Nationwide, there are roughly twice as many abortions given to white women than to black women every year. There are roughly 2.4 times as many abortions for white women than for hispanic women. If you combined all the abortions given to white, black, and hispanic women, 52.4% of them are given to white women, compared to 25.8% to black women and 21.9% to hispanic women. If that's your idea of "precision," remind me to never buy a precision instrument from you!
As for finding you one state where whites have a higher abortion rate than blacks, it's in Table 4 of the above-mentioned article. Colorado (20 abortions per 1,000 white girls aged 15-19 vs. 16 abortions per 1,000 black girls aged 15-19, despite much higher pregnancy rates in African-American teens); there are also several states where the African-American population is too low to report (e.g. Maine, Idaho).
posted on 12.09.2004 3:38 PM70
tgirsch wrote, " If that's your idea of "precision," remind me to never buy a precision instrument from you!"
You are being ingenuous in order to hold to your position. The country is still made up of 80% whites. In 2000, table 1, the abortion rate among white women was 29.3%. Among black women, the number is 41.8%. Nationwide, this is a 1.4 to 1 ratio.
Quote: "Colorado (20 abortions per 1,000 white girls aged 15-19 vs. 16 abortions per 1,000 black girls aged 15-19, despite much higher pregnancy rates in African-American teens); there are also several states where the African-American population is too low to report (e.g. Maine, Idaho)."
You found 1.. out of 50. Shhh.. If you listen intensely enough, you can hear planned parenthood scrambling to catch the next plane to Denver right now.
posted on 12.10.2004 12:03 AM71
.. not that we shouldn't help the 29.3% of white women having abortions choose life.
posted on 12.10.2004 12:06 AM72
And, might I add, there were 92,830 abortions from white women in 2000. There were 84,460 from black women. This is roughly 1:1 in a nation with 6.3 million white women age 15-19 and 1.5 million black women age 15-19, a 4.2:1 ratio.
Ethnic cleansing by any other name would still be.. genocide.
posted on 12.10.2004 12:12 AM73
Abstinence programs that teach errors to kids are morally repugnant. That they fail to encourage abstinence, as Waxman's report points out, is only confirmation that they are morally bankrupt.
Tell the kids the truth about sex, and especially about how to prevent pregnancy and disease. Moral decisions require good information.
posted on 12.21.2004 4:25 AM