So if Mr. Klein is to be believed, teaching kids abstinence is worse (leads to more pregnancies) that teaching them to use contraceptives? Sorry... I'll wait for Mr. Kelin to post his evidence via the American Academy of Pediatrics' findings... Where is the evidence of abstinence that did not lead to pregnancy, since he seems to be citing only the assumed evidence that it did? For this story, it is tempting to use an analogy which is somewhat related and I wonder if you'll see the interesting parallel: therefore since gun restrictions to minors does not apparently stop minors from using guns, perhaps schools should be teaching minors safe gun handling?
The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, STD's is by educating the teens on the full consequences of their actions. The "it can't happen to me" mentality is stupid and should be dispelled as often as possible. People learn from their mistakes, well some do, and to avoid them having to make the mistakes we need to educate them by showing them others who have made those mistakes. Education is the best way togo. Providing contraception is needed as well. You may think that kids will be too afraid to do it, but human nature will override that fear pretty damn quick. Besides, not everyone in this country is a Christian or share in those beliefs, quick trying to force your religion's morals on everyone.
If someone took it upon themselves to teach the youth that a gun is not a toy, that once you pull that trigger you cannot unpull it. You cannot take the bullet back, and you cannot return that person to life, then yes I think it would have a postive impact on our youth. They need to understand what a gun is, what it is used for.
Bravo. ITN, you seem to have missed the word "only" in your analysis. Abstinence should be taught as the most effective way to avoid stds and pregnancy, but unless you have confidence that education will take care of every last case of teen pregnancy or disease, then there should be additional education. I honestly believe that many adults forgot what it was like to be a teen. You can go out with your friends with no intentions of even hooking up with anyone, and before you know it the stars align and you've got a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. If you leave those kids with nothing more than a faint memory of a lecture on the evils of sex, you may run into some problems.
I'll teach my kids abstinence as the only way to ensure that the various pitfalls associated with sex are avoided. I'll also teach them that if they do explore, to do everything they can to control STD contraction and birth. All of that teaching will in the context of a lifetime of sharing with them that there are all kinds of love, and lots of ways to express it; hopefully, all of that will lead to a set of kids that choose their romantic partners slowly and carefully within an agape life-context. It may in fact, however unlikely, end up leading to my daughter being a mom at 17. I hope not, but if that happened, we'd deal with that too, towards love and family and excellence of endeavour. I appreciate and support this group of pediatricians' stance on the matter.
You know, Chicago1871, my previous reply on this issue neglected to bring in the money angle! OF COURSE Pediatricians would deny abstinence education: JUST THINK OF ALL THOSE PEDIATRICIAN visits that doctor's bill for prescribing birth control! It is in the pediatrician's interest to deny abstinence and that has nothing at all to do with whether or not it works! Like so many other things, it's all about $...
dumber.by.the.post. who said anything at all about denying abstinence? ITN, you really need to get laid. by a woman. a real one. not a fake one like that crazy coulter b!tch
hmmm... so let's break it down... so the church (let's go with the catholic one just for giggles) has been telling people for 2000 years (I know it's a little less) that abstinence is the only way. Have they been sucessful in their goal of eliminating sex before marriage in those 2000 years? ahhh reality
I'm not (at all) a pro-gun advocate, but this is exactly true. I went to Middle/High School in South Carolina. Hunter safety was a required course. It teaches kids to respect guns and treat them responsibly. And to shoot straight so in case you need to do a drive-by your aim is good and you stop killing innocent by-standers, but I humorously digress I think sex-ed does the same thing if taught properly and not gingerly trying to tip-toe past the stupid puritans on the PTA. You want abstinence taught, try a novel concept and teach it at home before sex-ed starts, but just in case you fail in your teachings, or gawd-forbid your kid makes an error in judgement one night, it sure would be nice to have some of that "protection" knowledge in his/her head. See, I was thinking it's in the Church's best interest (and they are the ones spouting the abstinence trash mostly) to have more births, since this is how they win the wars against the other religions, by having more people .... hmmmmmm.
Why is it always the looney right that says just teach abstinence and the equally looney left that thinks abstinence is some plot to make their kids go to church and that sex-ed and condoms are they only way to go Why can't you use both approaches
I don't think people are saying that teaching abstinence is bad. I think people are saying that teaching only abstinence is bad.
We're talking about teenagers, the group that has always been defined by "it can't happen to me" since the dawn of time. But the rest of your post I basically agree with.
I went to Catholic school and it had a very good and very balanced sex education curriculum as part of our biology class in freshman year. So pick a different church.