"Has US abstinence policy failed?"

[Deadly_Nightshade]

US lawmakers are investigating whether to cut government funding for health education programmes that promote sexual abstinence until marriage.

 

The move follows a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Center for Disease Control, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease.

 

Opponents of abstinence education say the approach ignores the fact that teenagers are sexually active and fails to give them accurate medical information or advice on safer sex.

 

"We get sex-ed classes in school and that should be where teens get the right information - but that isn't happening," says 15-year-old Mildred, from Arizona, who volunteers as a peer educator with the pro-choice organisation Planned Parenthood.

 

"They don't touch on subjects like sexuality, STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), birth control - it's not allowed because of abstinence-only education. It leaves you on a cliff-hanger - and a lot of teenagers become sexually active in their middle school years."

 

"Teens are curious and they want to experiment and if they know what's out there and they have the correct information, they're going to know how to protect themselves and prevent an unwanted pregnancy and an STD," adds Maryland high school student Melissa.

 

"Putting up a wall and saying 'don't have sex' makes them more curious and wanting to know what it is. But if you tell them the straight facts they're going to know how to protect themselves. It's about taking care of yourself."

 

Teen pregnancy

 

Planned Parenthood estimates that two thirds of teenagers will have experienced sexual intercourse by the time they leave school.

 

And with some 750,000 teenage pregnancies a year, America has one of the highest teen birth rates in the developed world.

 

"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (

Edited April 26, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Humodour]

Wait, America seriously supports abstinence as a form of contraception?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Wait, America seriously supports abstinence as a form of contraception?

 

The religious-right and the neo-cons do, or at least the majority of them seem to.

[Meshugger]

Wait, America seriously supports abstinence as a form of contraception?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I just want to point that one out as well.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

[Guard Dog]

It just occured to me. The words sex, abstinence, education, or birth control do not appear in the US Constitution. Why is one dime of my hard earned money going to pay for this?

[alanschu]

It just occured to me. The words sex, abstinence, education, or birth control do not appear in the US Constitution. Why is one dime of my hard earned money going to pay for this?

 

 

Because people wanted it?

[Humodour]

It just occured to me. The words sex, abstinence, education, or birth control do not appear in the US Constitution. Why is one dime of my hard earned money going to pay for this?

 

That's probably one of the more poorly thought out arguments I've read recently.

[Pidesco]

Wait, America seriously supports abstinence as a form of contraception?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

my reaction as well.

[Kelverin]

This topic was already covered ad nauseum, just recently.

[Guard Dog]

Alanschu & Krezack, you need to remeber the US is very different than Canada or Austrailia. There are well defined limits on what the federal government may or may not involve itself in that are not supposed to be overstepped. Of course those limits are ignored so often these days they really don't exist at all. But that dosn't mean I can't be aggaravated that my hard earned money, 30% of which is confiscated by Uncle Sam is being spent on trying to keep teenagers from having sex. It sounds like a fools errand to me anyway. Besides who's screwing who is not the governments business anyway nor anyone elses.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

I have to agree with Guard Dog here. When the government gets into the personal life of its citizens things can go very wrong very quickly.

[Humodour]

Alanschu & Krezack, you need to remeber the US is very different than Canada or Austrailia. There are well defined limits on what the federal government may or may not involve itself in that are not supposed to be overstepped. Of course those limits are ignored so often these days they really don't exist at all. But that dosn't mean I can't be aggaravated that my hard earned money, 30% of which is confiscated by Uncle Sam is being spent on trying to keep teenagers from having sex. It sounds like a fools errand to me anyway. Besides who's screwing who is not the governments business anyway nor anyone elses.

 

But it is certainly the government's responsibility to minimise disease epidemics. As such, nobody should be complaining that their tax payer dollars are being spent on making sure the next person they **** won't give them HIV.

 

America has one of the highest (possibly highest) rate of AIDS and STDS of any Western country. It is close to Russia (1%) at 0.6%. It should be at 0.1%, and 0.2% at most!

[Sand]

If someone has unprotected sex with someone who has a STD then they get what they deserve. They got no one to blame but themselves. A bit of personal responsibility goes a long ways.

[Humodour]

If someone has unprotected sex with someone who has a STD then they get what they deserve. They got no one to blame but themselves. A bit of personal responsibility goes a long ways.

 

Yeah, ok. How about you go over to Africa and say that.

[Sand]

I live in the US. Let Africa sort out their problems and let the us sort out ours.

[Enoch]

It just occured to me. The words sex, abstinence, education, or birth control do not appear in the US Constitution. Why is one dime of my hard earned money going to pay for this?

Do we really need to turn this into another one of these threads? The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. It doesn't say that Congress can buy ICBMs or fighter jets or vaccinations for enlisted personnel going overseas, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the common Defence ... of the United States." It doesn't say that Congress can spend money on education or health care, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Yeah, you and the 5% of Americans who agree with you get offended by all this, but does it really have to be a part of every discussion of national policy?

 

 

And, yes, the abstinence-only conditions on federal education grants are a silly idea.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Enoch

[Gorgon]

The fact that federal power cannot meddle directly in primary education on the state level is not necessarily a good thing. One might lament the lack of an iron fist swooping down to mercilessly eradicate school prayer, creationalism and abstinence once and for all and kicking the right wing Christians out of education to find a political battleground somewhere else.

Edited April 26, 2008 by Gorgon

[Kelverin]

The fact that federal power cannot meddle directly in primary education on the state level is not necessarily a good thing. One might lament the lack of an iron fist swooping down to mercilessly eradicate school prayer, creationalism and abstinence once and for all and kicking the right wing Christians out of education to find a political battleground somewhere else.

Right, since of course only those on the right have political agendas

 

Where is the evidence that the "abstinence policy" is the reason for the increase in STD?

[Guard Dog]

It just occured to me. The words sex, abstinence, education, or birth control do not appear in the US Constitution. Why is one dime of my hard earned money going to pay for this?

Do we really need to turn this into another one of these threads? The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. It doesn't say that Congress can buy ICBMs or fighter jets or vaccinations for enlisted personnel going overseas, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the common Defence ... of the United States." It doesn't say that Congress can spend money on education or health care, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Yeah, you and the 5% of Americans who agree with you get offended by all this, but does it really have to be a part of every discussion of national policy?

 

 

And, yes, the abstinence-only conditions on federal education grants are a silly idea.

 

What can I say, I'm a one-trick-pony!

[Humodour]

I live in the US. Let Africa sort out their problems and let the us sort out ours.

 

Any sane government and people knows it is its responsibility to help prevent disease epidemics. It's a lunatic who argues otherwise.

[Gorgon]

The fact that federal power cannot meddle directly in primary education on the state level is not necessarily a good thing. One might lament the lack of an iron fist swooping down to mercilessly eradicate school prayer, creationalism and abstinence once and for all and kicking the right wing Christians out of education to find a political battleground somewhere else.

Right, since of course only those on the right have political agendas

 

Where is the evidence that the "abstinence policy" is the reason for the increase in STD?

Name a 'lberal' polticial agenda that has damaged primary education to the same extent as those mentioned.

[Kelverin]

The fact that federal power cannot meddle directly in primary education on the state level is not necessarily a good thing. One might lament the lack of an iron fist swooping down to mercilessly eradicate school prayer, creationalism and abstinence once and for all and kicking the right wing Christians out of education to find a political battleground somewhere else.

Right, since of course only those on the right have political agendas

 

Where is the evidence that the "abstinence policy" is the reason for the increase in STD?

Name a 'lberal' polticial agenda that has damaged primary education to the same extent as those mentioned.

Where is the proof that those you mentioned have damaged primary education?

[Gorgon]

So you contest that abstinence does not constitute effective sex-ed, that creationalism is a humbug science and that the division of church and state in a multicultural society makes it a bad idea to have the kids recite Christian prayers ?

 

I'm just trying to understand what level of crackpot i'm dealing with here.

[Guard Dog]

The fact that federal power cannot meddle directly in primary education on the state level is not necessarily a good thing. One might lament the lack of an iron fist swooping down to mercilessly eradicate school prayer, creationalism and abstinence once and for all and kicking the right wing Christians out of education to find a political battleground somewhere else.

Of course because a godless police state where an "iron fisted" government "mercilessly eradicates" all thought that does not conform to that sanctioned by the body politic is just what we want here in the US. I'm curious Gorgon, would it be enough for you to expel christians from school or would you go all the way to feeding us to lions too?

[Gorgon]

Ohh i'm pretty sure spending tax money on lions would be considered discriminatory.