The Republicans, especially President Bush, have been strong suporters of public schools teaching abstinance instead of realy sexual education with information regarding contraceptions. I believe that Palin's teenage daughter's pregnacy is a prime example of abstinance education not working. BTW Palin is a stuanch suppoprter of
during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:
Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
It seems obvious to me that Palin would have taught her children abstinance at home, as well as her kids learning it at shcool. Being surrounded by such strong abstinance support didn't stop her kid from shagging the High School Hockey Star.
Mabey she wanted to get pregnant, who knows? Or mabey her boyfriend didn't have the sence enough to pull out and aim for her face. But regardless, what's happned has happend, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it at this stage, and it's not use bashing Pailn for some stupid choice her daughter made.
I still don't understand why people critsize Sarah Palin for a choice her daughter made that was dumber then jumping on a bunch of crab infested rocks. getting pregnant at 17? Come on, even Britney Spears must know that's stupid. But still, how good a canidate Sarah Palin is has nothing to do with her daughter doing somthing stupid, and that's that.
Yeah, just look at Lige's post. You can teach all you want, but that'snot going to stop people from doing it, all it's doing is giving them more facts, witch makes them want to go out and do it more.
Yeah, just look at Lige's post. You can teach all you want, but that'snot going to stop people from doing it, all it's doing is giving them more facts, witch makes them want to go out and do it more.
Statistics have shown no major difference in the amount of sex kids have depending on the sex ed program, just a difference in the amount of teen pregnancies, abortions, and STDs.
A teen given a comprehensive sex ed program is 50% less likely to become pregnant then another teen who was given an abstinence only education and 60% less likely the a teen given no sex ed while at the same time not raising the chance that a teen will have sex ().
This other article from the APA talks about how both abstinence and comprehensive help in terms of these problems (as opposed to no sex ed) but that "only comprehensive sex education is effective in protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses at first intercourse and during later sexual activity" ().
Any way you look at it comprehensive sex ed is better then abstinence only by any measurable statistic.
Meh, I really hate making conclusions from statistics. Its blind reasoning. There are many differences in between those who have not been given a sex education and those who have. Why go straight to saying that it is the sex education that makes kids use safe sex.
Location, for example. Living in a place where no sex education is offered is likely a poor area. This can be the reason?
Also with location comes cultural differences. This can be one as well?
Also, those statistics can only show of the existing reality, therefore it can disprove the idea.
There are many ways to teach sex education. The statistics will only show a blind reflection of how the current method is doing.
There seems to be a major flaw with the statistics. Seriously if your thought abstinence instead of safe sex, how is it that u never have the simple idea in your head to use a condom? I'm pretty sure both teach the diseases and such...
Safe sex and abstitence classes are quite similar. What part of the safe sex class is it that suppusedbly that makes kids practice safe sex? Ehh telling them "its OK?"
It's really all there is to it. It's just a matter of protecting yourself from STD's and pregnancy (i.e. wearing protection, making sure you've been properly tested, etc). The discussion of sex could be overwhelming for some people since you're getting information left and right (sex ed classes, the local pastor, your parent(s)!), and it's hard to choose a "right" side.
There's absolutely no sure fire way to prevent kids from having sex, unless you lock 'em in a room. But the least people can do is give them the facts
I still don't understand why people critsize Sarah Palin for a choice her daughter made that was dumber then jumping on a bunch of crab infested rocks. getting pregnant at 17? Come on, even Britney Spears must know that's stupid. But still, how good a canidate Sarah Palin is has nothing to do with her daughter doing somthing stupid, and that's that
Her daughter's pregnancy is proof that at least on of her stances on issues is incorrect. She's a staunch supporter of abstinance only education and it doesn't work. IF Palin is made a wrong choice here, it show's that she can make wrong choices elsewhere.
A teen given a comprehensive sex ed program is 50% less likely to become pregnant then another teen who was given an abstinence only education and 60% less likely the a teen given no sex ed while at the same time not raising the chance that a teen will have sex (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h ⦠ed20m.html). This other article from the APA talks about how both abstinence and comprehensive help in terms of these problems (as opposed to no sex ed) but that "only comprehensive sex education is effective in protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses at first intercourse and during later sexual activity" (http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html). Any way you look at it comprehensive sex ed is better then abstinence only by any measurable statistic.
Thank you McShort. Meh, I really hate making conclusions from statistics. Its blind reasoning
Well at least with statistics you have some sort of evidence. What are you going to base your conclussions on otherwise??? Blind observation? And most scientific studies (good ones at least) factor in other issues such as income, location, etc.
