Pre-teen Pregnancy

mnw · May 12, 2006

All I can think is God help us. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/4764417.stm

It is madness! Europe has gone down the road of Sex education and has seen an massive increase in teenage pregancies and STDs. The US has opted for encouraging abstinance. As a result STD's and teen pregnancies have gone down.

The UK has consistantly belittled and criticised the US for this.

The UK needs to lose its liberal agenda and admit that rules and standards are necessary and good.

The Galatian · May 13, 2006

We didn't have sex education when I was a kid. I don't know of anyone who had difficulty figuring it out, though.

What we didn't know about were STDs, how to prevent pregnancy, etc.

I'd like to see the pregnancy rates for areas where this information is given to students, as opposed to areas where it is not.

SpiritualMadMan · May 13, 2006

One of the chief complaints against sex ed isn't the information given but the Moral Vacuum it is given in...

That is why such teaching should be done in the home and the church...

Those are the places where God's Morality are most easily taught...

Unfortunately, it's also the place that seems to have the least interest in touching such a "Dirty Subject"...

Yes, God help us All!

SMM

KenH · May 14, 2006

Sex education should be left to parents, churches, and other private organizations. The government should stay out of this area totally.

Daisy · May 18, 2006

Originally posted by KenH:
Sex education should be left to parents, churches, and other private organizations. The government should stay out of this area totally.
Click to expand...

I disagree; as a public health issue, the government does have a valid interest.

Unfortunately, very little real education on disease and pregnancy prevention is done in the schools nowadays beyond "Just say no". A lot of misinformation is foisted off on kids by some of these programs.

Even if you're harsh enough to think, whoever has extra-martital sex deserves whatever they get, you should keep in mind that their spouses and children, "innocent parties" if you think that way, can get the diseases passed on to them.

rbell · May 18, 2006

Originally posted by Daisy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KenH:
Sex education should be left to parents, churches, and other private organizations. The government should stay out of this area totally.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, very little real education on disease and pregnancy prevention is done in the schools nowadays beyond "Just say no". A lot of misinformation is foisted off on kids by some of these programs.
[/QUOTE]Evidence? What programs are mis-informing?

mnw · May 18, 2006

Sex Education by the government is massive and graphic in the UK. Some schools start teaching it to 10-11 year olds.

It does not work.

emeraldctyangel · May 19, 2006

After seeing the figures on this subject mnw, I agree. Abstinance is the only way.

Id like to know which programs are giving out misinformation too.

Daughter · May 19, 2006

Originally posted by KenH:
Sex education should be left to parents, churches, and other private organizations. The government should stay out of this area totally.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying but not all parents give good sex education, or in my own case ANY sex education at all!

The trouble is the lack of teaching of clear moral guidelines and the enotional cost as well as STDs.

mnw · May 19, 2006

Ultimately it is the absence of clear moral absolutes. They can't say promiscuous sex is wrong, because there is no standard to go by.

They talk about STD's and the emotional cost sometimes, but the kids walk away thinking adults just want to ruin their fun.

Put God back in the lives of our children and the benefits will be too numerous to recount. And not least in the away of sexual purity.

James_Newman · May 19, 2006

Your absolutely right. Right and wrong have left the building and been replaced by Pragmatism and Personal Choice. We can't tell kids its wrong to engage in sex outside of marriage because that is a moral judgment. We can only tell them that it is inconvenient to take care of children, have a condom and here's the number for the abortion clinic.

Daisy · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by rbell:
Evidence? What programs are mis-informing?
Click to expand...

Specifically, out of 13 programs, the 11 were found to be misinformational, though not all to the same degree: 'Choosing the Best Life', 'Choosing the Best Path', 'A.C. Green's Game Plan', 'WAIT Training', 'Choosing the Best Way', 'Sexual Health Today', 'Me, My World, My Future', 'Friends First/STARS', 'Why kNOw', 'Navigator' and FACTS. The other two good ones are: 'Managing Pressures Before Marriage' and 'Sex Can Wait'.
Key findings from Henry Waxman's special investigations report (linke - pdf) include 

Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives.

Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risks of Abortion.

Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science.

Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact.

Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors.



Human Genetics. One curriculum states: "Twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual". In fact, human cells have 23 chromosomes from each parent, for a total of 46 in each body cell. The same curriculum also teaches: "Girls produce only female ovum, boys, however, have both male and female sperm". This too is inaccurate.

Infectious Disease. One curriculum defines "sexually transmitted infections" as "bacterial infections that are acute and usually can be cured" and defines "sexually transmitted diseases" as "infections that are viral in nature, chronic, and usually can not be cured, but rather controlled through treatment". In fact, these terms are used interchangeably in medicine, and the program’s definitions are not widely accepted.

Puberty. One curriculum tells instructors: "Reassure students that small lumps in breast tissue is common in both boys and girls during puberty. This condition is called gynecomastia and is a normal sign of hormonal changes." This definition is incorrect. In adolescent medicine, gynecomastia refers to a general increase in breast tissue in boys.

HIV. Another curriculum erroneously includes "tears" and "sweat" in a column titled "At risk" for HIV transmission. In fact, according to the CDC, "[c]ontact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."

Mental Health Several of the curricula that mention mental health concerns depict them as simple problems that can be fixed by abstaining from sexual activity.

CondomsAccording to the World Health Organization, the difference between typical and perfect use "is due primarily to inconsistent and incorrect use, not to condom failure. Condom failure " the device breaking or slipping off during intercourse " is uncommon."...The curricula fail to note that rates of important sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis and gonorrhea, have been dropping over the past decade.42 Contrary to the assertions in the curricula, the most recent data show that consistent condom use is associated with:



Reduced acquisition of syphilis by women and by men;

Reduced acquisition of gonorrhea by women;

Reduced acquisition of urethral infection by men; and

Faster regression of HPV-related lesions on the cervix and penis, and faster clearance of genital HPV infection in women.

...Other curricula advise that condoms have not been proven effective in blocking the transmission of HPV and that "no evidence" demonstrates condoms’ effectiveness against HPV transmission. According to the CDC, however, evidence indicates that condoms do reduce the risk of cervical cancer itself, a fact which both curricula omit. These curricula also say nothing about the importance of Pap smears.



Here's a bit of one, fairly comprehensive article:

In my view, there are several problems with the ah definition. For example, part "a" of the definition indicates that abstinence education "has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity." The first question is, how can a program meet the "a" part of the definition (exclusive purpose) and then also meet the seven other parts of the definition? The answer; it can't.

The second problem is with access to information. If the program has abstinence as its exclusive purpose, then information about contraceptives should not be a part of such programs. Several programs funded with "a-h" monies do, however, include information about condoms and other methods of birth control. The emphasis, however, is on the (overstated) failure of these methods in preventing sexually transmitted disease and/or pregnancy.

<snip>

That is a major message of many abstinence programs funded under a-h, "be abstinent, because condoms don't work." My concern is that most people will not choose abstinence, but many will believe the misinformation about condom effectiveness. Consequently, because they now believe that condoms don't work, they will not protect themselves from sexually transmitted disease.

<snip>

The "b" part of the definition indicates that abstinence education programs are those that teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children; the "d" part of the definition expands the marriage standard from school age children to everyone, regardless of age, teaching "that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity." This is problematic for two reasons: (1) again, we don't know the behavior, or behaviors from which we are expected to abstain and (2) the definition imposes a value or standard to which the vast majority of adult Americans have not adhered and simply do not support.

Another concern is accuracy of information. Part "c" of the definition indicates that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems. The fact is that (1) abstinence is not a guarantee of protection from sexually transmitted disease, since diseases, such as HIV, can also be transmitted via contaminated blood; (2) non-married people who are non-infected, who only engage in sex with people who are also non-infected, will neither transmit nor receive an STD from engaging in sex with such individuals.

Part "e" of the definition also raises concerns regarding accuracy. Part "e" indicates that one should teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects....One must acknowledge that sexual activity (however it is defined, and whether inside or outside of marriage) may have harmful psychological and physical effects. Acknowledging that something is a possibility, however, is quite different from making a blanket assertion that such outcomes have a reasonable expectation of occurrence or that they will probably occur.

<snip>

Three current federal programs fund abstinence education programming. There is direct federal funding of a number of Adolescent Family Life (AFL) demonstration projects from the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (OAPP). OAPP must use the a-h definition and has indicated that programs do not have to emphasize all eight aspects of the definition, but must not be inconsistent with any aspect of the definition. Abstinence education funding is also block granted to states from the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health. Again, projects must not be inconsistent with any aspect of the a-h definition....The third program is also from the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (SPRANS Abstinence Education Grants). This program provides direct abstinence education funding to community groups. Grant applicants must demonstrate that their proposed program will meet all eight aspects of the a-h definition. These tend to be sizable grants, as much as $800,000/year for a three year project period.
In addition to the direct funding of abstinence education programs the a-h definition has had a broader influence on the educational landscape. Some states are indicating that all school-based educational programs about sexuality must teach abstinence only and have adopted the a-h definition. Many school districts in other states have also adopted an abstinence only education policy.

<snip>

A big issue related to the use of many abstinence education curricula is medical accuracy. Our young people want and need accurate information, but many abstinence curricula spread misinformation. They often include a number of other errors of fact, provide incomplete and misleading information, and promote a negative view of sex.

Information about condoms. A common area of concern is condom use. Many abstinence curricula do present information about condom use, but ignore the clear weight of the evidence that demonstrates that condoms are effective in preventing pregnancy, reducing the transmission of HIV, and reducing the risk of transmission of most other STDs. Instead they concentrate on providing information designed to discredit the use of condoms, including overly exaggerated failure rates. The message is that AIDS kills and condoms and contraceptives don't work in preventing AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, or pregnancy.

Several programs talk about two failure rates for condoms; a high failure rate for pregnancy typically seen among adult condom users and an even higher rate (sometimes more than twice as high), typically seen among teen users. I have yet to see, however, an abstinence curriculum that offers an explanation for these differences. It might be of value to explain the concept of method failure versus user failure. After all, it is important for those who use condoms to know that if they expect condoms to work they must use them correctly, and use them every time. Curriculum authors could explain that failure rates are typically higher among teens, because teens are less likely to use condoms consistently and correctly. Instead, the authors give condoms a high failure rate, and often indicate higher rates for teens, and offer no explanation.

When Contraceptive Technology (Hatcher et al., 1998) states that condoms have a three percent failure rate for preventing pregnancy, the authors clearly explain that by this they mean that three percent of the couples who consistently and correctly use condoms to prevent pregnancy have a pregnancy at the end of a year of use. If one conservatively figures an average coital frequency of 83 acts per year, this is a failure rate due to failure of the method on an order of 0.04 percent of the times a condom is used. When abstinence curricula indicate a failure rate, they simply indicate a percentage figure, leaving students to possibly interpret a 36 percent failure rate to mean that of every 100 acts of intercourse using a condom, 36 will result in a pregnancy.

Michael Young: American Journal of Health Studies
Click to expand...

The Journal of Adolescent Health Position Paper (linkie) for the Society for Adolescent Medicine is coherent and thorough discussion of the problems with Abstinent Only Education.

The Guttmacher Institute (linkie) is a reliable source of information on sexual health issues, but not on moral absolutes.

Daisy · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by mnw:
Sex Education by the government is massive and graphic in the UK. Some schools start teaching it to 10-11 year olds.

It does not work.
Click to expand...

In what way does it not work? Are the kids coming out as ignorant about sexual health as they were before they were taught?

Originally posted by mnw:
Ultimately it is the absence of clear moral absolutes. They can't say promiscuous sex is wrong, because there is no standard to go by.
Click to expand...

That's right, moral absolutes are the province of parents and churches, not schools, partly because all parents and churches don't agree on moral absolutes. Howver, in the US, too much of AOE is based moral standards rather than health standards.

They talk about STD's and the emotional cost sometimes, but the kids walk away thinking adults just want to ruin their fun.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that the same kids who won't listen to adults about health issues because of 'fun' will listen about moral issues?

Put God back in the lives of our children and the benefits will be too numerous to recount. And not least in the away of sexual purity.
Click to expand...

Again, that is for parents and religious leaders, not schools, to accomplish.

Originally posted by James_Newman:
You['re] absolutely right. Right and wrong have left the building and been replaced by Pragmatism and Personal Choice.
Click to expand...

There is a lot to be said for Pragmatism when it comes to health.

Ultimately, Personal Choice will always come into play when people decide what to do or not do...isn't that why we have free will?

We can't tell kids its wrong to engage in sex outside of marriage because that is a moral judgment.
Click to expand...

Who is "we"?

We can only tell them that it is inconvenient to take care of children, have a condom and here's the number for the abortion clinic.
Click to expand...

That is flat-out wrong, as in factually incorrect. The mandate for the federally fund program is very much morally based:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Table 1. The federal a-h definition of abstinence education

Abstinence education means an educational or motivational program which:

(a) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

(b) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;

(c) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

(d) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

(e) teaches that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

(f) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents and society;

(g) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and

(h) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity

(Block Grant, 1997)

Click to expand...

The issue relative to abstinence education is not simply that programs are encouraging young people to postpone sexual involvement. The issue is two-fold: (1) the restrictive, problematic federal welfare reform definition of abstinence education and (2) the funding of abstinence education curricula which are ineffective and provide inaccurate information. This combination translates into abstinence education programming which often deliberately provides inaccurate information in a misguided attempt to scare young people into choosing abstinence.
Federally funded abstinence education programming must meet the federal definition of abstinence education (see Table 1). Among other requirements, the a-h definition mandates that funded programs teach abstinence only, until marriage--setting marriage as "the expected standard of human sexual activity" (Block Grant, 1997, p. 10).
<snip>
Link to Source: Michael Young, Ph.D., FAAHB: American Journal of Health Studies: Summer 2004: University of Alabama, Department of Health Sciences[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure that public school teachers are not allowed to give the number for abortion clinics even if the student asks for it. As it is, many of these programs give false information about abortion, particularly risks in relation to carrying to full term.

mnw · May 21, 2006

In what way does it not work? Are the kids coming out as ignorant about sexual health as they were before they were taught?
Click to expand...

Unfortuantely they do not simply say, "If you have unprotected sex you can get diseases, this is what they are and what they do to you." They also cover how to have sex and even alternatives for, um, shall I say conventional sex. (Sorry mods if this is over the line...I'm trying to word it carefully)

For thousands of years they had no "classes" on sex. Yet, somehow after thousands of years we are still here. In the UK the more Sex Ed they have had the more students are going out and having immoral sex.

Sex Ed classes do not disuade the majority, they just encourage already inquisitive minds.

That's right, moral absolutes are the province of parents and churches, not schools, partly because all parents and churches don't agree on moral absolutes. Howver, in the US, too much of AOE is based moral standards rather than health standards.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Schools should teach morals. Another question may be the viability of state run schools, but that's another thread.

But whether state run or private morals must be taught! And in fact, in every other sense they do teach morals. You cannot have an absence of moral code in any class. In every other class they do teach morals, but when it comes to sex ed all of a sudden schools are not for morals, that is for home and church.

Do you believe that the same kids who won't listen to adults about health issues because of 'fun' will listen about moral issues?
Click to expand...

Perhaps not in isolated cases. But if morals are taught as the over all framework of a school within the community then yes, I believe it would work.

Again, that is for parents and religious leaders, not schools, to accomplish.
Click to expand...

I can take the other issues as opinions, but here I must say you are completely wrong. Any group that gets your kid for at least 40 hours a week better be incorporating some moral code. You cannot teach any subject without imposing some rights and wrongs. Schools cannot use the get out clause of "We just do academics."

Gina B · May 21, 2006

The sex ed that a somewhat influential person in town wants to push for presentation in schools (and she believes it should start in kindergarten) isn't just disease prevention and information.
It includes such "information" as the RIGHT to feel good and have your physical needs met along with learning to separate sexuality from love and rid yourself of guilt association that comes from outdated societal norms that say unmarried sex is wrong. Included was tips on how to have a better...experience, and tips on how to know you're ready for it, which included "can you have it without feeling guilty? are you doing it for yourself instead of for your partner?"

Public sex ed isn't just free of moral involvement. Some of it may try, but there's no way to take morality out of life. A presentation of anything is going to be biased one way or the other, without some VERY difficult effort, and how much effort do you think the government is going to put on not offending those with moral standards? I'm thinking NOT MUCH.

Daisy · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by mnw:
Unfortuantely they do not simply say, "If you have unprotected sex you can get diseases, this is what they are and what they do to you." They also cover how to have sex and even alternatives for, um, shall I say conventional sex. (Sorry mods if this is over the line...I'm trying to word it carefully)
Click to expand...

So you're saying sex ed doesn't work because the kids are learning about sex?

For thousands of years they had no "classes" on sex. Yet, somehow after thousands of years we are still here. In the UK the more Sex Ed they have had the more students are going out and having immoral sex.

Sex Ed classes do not disuade the majority, they just encourage already inquisitive minds.
Click to expand...

Can you back that up? Do you have any studies to say that ignorant kids have less immoral sex than educated ones?

I disagree. Schools should teach morals. Another question may be the viability of state run schools, but that's another thread.

But whether state run or private morals must be taught! And in fact, in every other sense they do teach morals. You cannot have an absence of moral code in any class. In every other class they do teach morals, but when it comes to sex ed all of a sudden schools are not for morals, that is for home and church.
Click to expand...

I make a distinction between teaching morals and absolute morals.

Perhaps not in isolated cases. But if morals are taught as the over all framework of a school within the community then yes, I believe it would work.
Click to expand...

That really wasn't my question. I asked if the same kids who won't listen to adult lectures about health because, as you said, that would spoil their fun, will listen to adult lectures about morals.

I can take the other issues as opinions, but here I must say you are completely wrong. Any group that gets your kid for at least 40 hours a week better be incorporating some moral code. You cannot teach any subject without imposing some rights and wrongs. Schools cannot use the get out clause of "We just do academics."
Click to expand...

Um, again, that wasn't the question, which for this, was should the schools be teaching about God and religion. I know the rules are different in the US and the UK - you guys have a State Religion while we most definitely do not.

KenH · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by Daisy:
1) as a public health issue, the government does have a valid interest.

2) Unfortunately, very little real education on disease and pregnancy prevention is done in the schools
Click to expand...

1) No, there are private health interests.

2) Just how much reasoning has to be provided to a teenager so that he/she understands that if he/she abstains that STDs and pregnancies won't have to be a concern? Or just how much reasoning has to be provided to a teenager so that he/she understands that if he/she desires to engage in immoral behavior that he/she should be certain that a condom is used? I doubt that any teenager can claim such ignorance on this subject. My parents or my church never said a word to me about this subject and I abstained until I was married at age 38.

This isn't rocket science.

Daisy · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by KenH:
1) No, there are private health interests.
Click to expand...

Containing the spread of disease is defintely a public health issue.

2) Just how much reasoning has to be provided to a teenager so that he/she understands that if he/she abstains that STDs and pregnancies won't have to be a concern? Or just how much reasoning has to be provided to a teenager so that he/she understands that if he/she desires to engage in immoral behavior that he/she should be certain that a condom is used? I doubt that any teenager can claim such ignorance on this subject.
Click to expand...

Many of these AOE programs are teaching children that condoms don't work.

My parents or my church never said a word to me about this subject and I abstained until I was married at age 38.
Click to expand...

You're a rare man. Slightly more than half of all teenagers don't wait until they are 20, let alone until they are married.

Pre-teen Pregnancy

mnw New Member

The Galatian New Member

SpiritualMadMan New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Daisy New Member

rbell Active Member

mnw New Member

emeraldctyangel New Member

Daughter New Member

mnw New Member

James_Newman New Member

Daisy New Member

Daisy New Member

mnw New Member

Gina B Active Member

Daisy New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Daisy New Member

Useful Searches

Pre-teen Pregnancy

mnw New Member

The Galatian New Member

SpiritualMadMan New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Daisy New Member

rbell Active Member

mnw New Member

emeraldctyangel New Member

Daughter New Member

mnw New Member

James_Newman New Member

Daisy New Member

Daisy New Member

mnw New Member

Gina B Active Member

Daisy New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Daisy New Member