Yesterday, President Obama struck a blow to the abstinence-only community, cutting ALL of their funding streams in his new 2010 budget. Obama made it clear that our government should no longer fund these failed programs that promote misinformation, misogyny, discrimination and, of course, juggling and cinder block wielding abstinence clowns.
And the response from these abstinence-only organizations has ranged from angry to completely unhinged.
[…]
I’m sure you’re asking yourself, “what evidence”? The independent government-funded Mathematic study revealing the failure of abstinence-only programs? Rigorous reviews from both Advocates for Youth, and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, have identified which sex education programs are effective – and not one abstinence-only program made the cut. So the NAEA has been in panic mode.Their strategy has been two-fold: (1) rebrand themselves as something other than abstinence-only (they’re now “holistic” and comprehensive), and (2) ignore and dismiss all independent studies showing their failure and pretend that research shows that abstinence-only works.
[…]
Fortunately, President Obama didn’t buy the spin. But this isn’t stopping the NAEA, as they immediately sent out an action alert to contact Congress and force them to sneak funding for abstinence-only programs back into the budget, using the same rhetoric.
There’s a certain irony about a right-wing group complaining about the elimination of government funding for something that many on the right feel should be a subject dealt with only by parents.
#19, Cow-Patty,
Are you going to rebut Jag’s statistics or just huff and puff?
If you don’t like his, find your own, preferably valid ones.
I can see some fundies having kittens over this. The end of abstinence-only does NOT mean abstinence can’t be mentioned, it just means that it is not enough on its own – but that subtlety will be lost on some, so we can expect to see comments such as “Obama tells kids to go screw each other”. Will Rick Perry see this as another reason so suggest Texas secede from the Union?
# 25 Thomas said, “No has ever gotten pregnant from the proper use of an intact and undamaged condom.”
False.
In 50 years the majority of the people in the EU will be of recent Middle Eastern descent because of effective birth control programs carried out by and against people of native European descent.
Turns out such programs are self genocide. Not enough babies and you can halve a population in a single generation. That being the case I’m not sure I want to copy their highly successful programs. It amounts to winning a Darwin award for you entire society/ethnic group.
50 years, and most of the land will be set aside for farming, as another 2+ billion people TRY to live.
If we survive the loss of Metals and the Asteroid misses the planet, over fishing the seas..Only thing left will domesticated animals and BUGS..
Paddy-RAMBO
>>The ones who don’t want abstinence taught
>>have $ to lose (Planned parenthood is afraid
>>of losing abortion clients)
I knew I was making a mistake sticking up for you on that other thread. You’re congenitally unable not to be a douche bag.
Planned Parenthood barely breaks even (if they even do that) on their abortions. They get most of their money from grants and individual donors or foundations (like the Bill and Melinda Gates one). And most of what they do is unrelated to performing abortions.
THe reason people don’t want abstinence “taught” is because it doesn’t fucking work. You end up like Palin’s kid; knocked up with no husband. That’s what the Right Wing Radicals have to offer. An unending cycle of promiscuity, poverty, and heartache.
Mission acocmplished.
#34 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>False.
How did that work? Cold fusion between the spermatozoa and the ovum? Did the little guy pull apart the rubber molecules and swim between them?
I would exhort you to post a link to evidence that pregnancy can follow the proper use of an undamaged condom, but your drive-by style of “post bullshit and run” would make that an excercise in futility.
This should make everyone happy. On one hand, it satisfies me that we are taking a bit of religion out of government. On the other hand, it should satisfy the anti-choice crowd by making a real move to reduce abortion. Win-win!!
Now I’ll go back and read what Alfred has to say …
LDA,
Even I’m not for government that big. Why waste money on what is proven not to be effective? I’m sure we have other places to spend the money.
#3 – LDA,
And one more point, it’s all about religion. Sex is bad is a Christian belief. Many believe otherwise. I happen to like it.
#34
> # 25 Thomas said, “No has
> ever gotten pregnant from the proper use
> of an intact and undamaged condom.”
> False.
Wasn’t that articulate? In every case where someone has gotten pregnant even with the use of a condom, they either used it improperly, the condom was defective or they did not give the surveyor the whole story.
Clearly, you did not get the point so perhaps I’ll try phrasing it a different way. There are a large number of people that got pregnant after only being trained in abstinence-only programs. Clearly, abstinence can fail when not applied properly, just like a condom.
#34, Cow-Patty,
Can you point out a specific, documented case of someone becoming pregnant after the proper use of a condom?
I didn’t think so.
About time
Stop biting your cock davey boy
#43 – Thomas,
Clearly, abstinence can fail when not applied properly, just like a condom.
ROFL!! Yes, of course. Abstinence also relies on sexually deviant behavior, since having sex is a normal part of life.
I’ll grant that there is a right time for people to begin having sex, and it likely isn’t age 12. However, I would also state that the time is different for different people.
Further, since we obviously fail to stop teen sex, why not at least arm kids with enough information to behave responsibly. I seem to remember it being shown that proper sex ed actually delays sexual activity in teens a lot more effectively than abstinence only.
(google break)
http://tinyurl.com/39cgcu
Note that the whole idea of actually studying the effects of sex ed and working to make it better and more effective at accomplishing particular goals is completely antithetical to the entire religious unscientific bent of abstinence only training.
I need to point out something to SOME of you.
The laws for marriage, have changed over the years..
Q: when was the LAST 12-14 year old married in the USA? less then 30 years ago.
Q: why would females go into estrus at a young age?? Hmmm?
Q: why would males soon fallow females into MANhood?
Q: where in the bible does it give an AGE for marriage?? everyone uses 1 man 1 woman for many solutions..but GIVE me an answer. this FROM a time that 13 year olds MARRIED..
Q: are you going to follow a 4000 year old hebrew law?? OR make up your own?
REMEMBER you are making the LAWS, they can be ANYTHING WE WANT..
Which would you rather have..
a 12 year old thats been out in tractors and other vehicles OUT on the farm, getting a drivers license, or a PERSON thats never been behind the wheel of a barbie electric, on their 16th birthday??
otherside–
WHICH would you rather have..a 21 year old thats LEARNED how to please a lady, or some FUMBLE fingers that has problems finding his ZIPPER?? And a GIRL thats hymen is as HARd as a ROCK in winter, having sex for the first time??
WE CODDLE our children, TO MUCH. THEY MUST LEARN. one way or another, they will make mistakes. WHEn do you want that mistake?? 14? 15?? 16??? 21??
Life is hard, life is complicated…But I would rather take CARE of my child BEFORE they are on their OWN…YES I can take care of the kid WHEN they are at SCHOOL, and beyond..
But at AGE 21, THEY AINT AT HOME…I CANT SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. they AINT listening..ITS THEIR LIFE after age 18-21.
REALITY is the best and ONLY teacher.
#49 – ECA,
I’m not sure of all of your points there. I can add a bit though.
1) A diet high in fat is probably the reason for girls going into estrus much earlier.
http://tinyurl.com/rxzr7h
2) AFAIK, the bible does not advocate one man one woman. It advocates one man for a given woman. However, the man may, because of the thoroughly sexist nature of the bible, have many wives.
This is not just a Mormon thing.
King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. For the sake of the women, I can only hope that not all of the eunuchs were eunuchs. Even at 3 a day, the women would average sex about once a year.
The other aspect of the abstinence-only programs is that they NEVER cover STDs…because it’s irrelevant, right? Kids who participate in an A-only program have a rate of STDs just as high as kids who had no classes whatsoever. That says a lot about these programs…the kids choose anal or oral sex rather than vaginal, yet have no clue about the inherent dangers nor how to protect themselves.
Kids who take comprehensive sex-ed tend to get scared of the STDs, and when presented with the reality of pregnancy and using birth control, they avoid all types of sex longer than kids in A-Only programs, and most importantly their pregnancy rate is much lower.
Lots of research on this subject, there’s no real debate left on this subject…A-Only is an abject failure.
# 43 Thomas said, “In every case where someone has gotten pregnant even with the use of a condom, they either used it improperly, the condom was defective or they did not give the surveyor the whole story. ”
Wrong, go consult with your family physician.
# 27 Olo Baggins of Bywater
“I don’t follow what you’re saying…”
Simple
– State dictates (school) = bad news
– Parents choose no education (school or home) = bad news
– Parents choose abstinence only (school or home) = better than none
– Parents choose both (school or home) = best option
Also I applaud your contribution to your kids school including opt-in.
# 27 Olo Baggins of Bywater
“I don’t follow what you’re saying…”
Simple
– Parents choose no education (school or home) = bad news
– Parents choose abstinence only (school or home) = better than none
– Parents choose both or combination (school or home) = best option
Also I applaud your contribution to your kids school including opt-in.
#48
As someone aptly put earlier, abandoning abstinence-only programs does not mean abandoning abstinence education. It simply means that providing abstinence as the only option is ineffectual.
#52
You still don’t get it. By definition, if a condom is working and used according to design specifications it cannot fail. If it breaks or leaks, it is defective or was used improperly. Similarly, if abstinence is used according to design specifications, it cannot fail. I’m not saying condoms are 100% effective under normal conditions (although it is in the high 99% range). I’m saying they are 100% effective under their design conditions.
The fundamental issue is that under normal conditions, there is a higher rate of abstinence failure than condom failure.
#52 – Paddy-O,
# 43 Thomas said, “In every case where someone has gotten pregnant even with the use of a condom, they either used it improperly, the condom was defective or they did not give the surveyor the whole story. ”
Wrong, go consult with your family physician.
Have you no brain in your head?
If the condom is used properly and does not break and pregnancy occurs, by definition, the condom is defective. It probably has a microscopic hole just big enough for a sperm or two to squeeze through.
How else?
Did the sperm quantum tunnel through the condom? If so, why to just on the other side, instead of halfway across the observable universe?
Oh, and in case you hadn’t noticed, I know it only happens very rarely but … people lie about sex.
# 53 LDA said, on May 11th, 2009 at 6:08 am
– Parents choose abstinence only (school or home) = better than none
I don’t think there is any data to support the claim that abstinence only is better than none. If there is, please post some links … from reasonably unbiased sources … preferably peer reviewed or citing a peer reviewed paper.
LDA, Scott is right…the A-only programs are reasonably effective while the teen is in the class but the effectiveness of A-only a year later is same as or sometimes worse than nothing.
Otherwise we agree.
Cow-Patty,
I’m still waiting for you to post a documented incident of someone becoming pregnant by properly using a condom. Asking a family physician is not an answer.
Oopps, you never do answer the tough questions.
#58 – Olo Baggins,
the A-only programs are reasonably effective while the teen is in the class
Funny. I somehow expected that you’d cut the sentence right there, meaning that they’re typically not actually having sex in the classroom.
I hadn’t even heard that the classes were effective for 10 minutes after the class, though I don’t deny that they might be. I’d be curious to read an article that says they are effective even that long.
It’s nice to know that the feeling of “It doesn’t work, so we are not going to throw more money at it,” is alive in Washington.
Let’s just hope that idea is applied broadly.
#59 Yes, and the death rate is astonishingly high when someone is shot “properly”. I think that you should look at a method as a whole, as in of the people that intended on using condoms, what is the pregnancy and std rate? But hey, why reduce these things to statistics. One person getting an std is too many, right?
Here’s an analogy of the principle; how do you prevent nuclear annihilation? As the movie War Games so eloquently pointed out the answer is to ‘not play’.
Because we’ve forgotten what personal freedom is we get into an argument of the merits of a truism. We should be free to annihilate ourselves if we want or decide whether to fund the teaching of a valuable principle. I mean, I can certainly live in a society that doesn’t have funded abstinence programs; or one that does. But no, instead the left actually attacks the ‘principle’ as if it wasn’t true.
Scott…at the bottom of the link I posted earlier are some reports, the only good thing noted by researchers is that the kids pressure each other while attending the class (during the day) to avoid sexual activity (at night). It’s psychological education, not informational.
http://avert.org/abstinence.htm