« 18 too young to fight and vote? | Main | Vote to keep abortion rights »

September 14, 2008

Teens need birth control info

As a mother of a teenage daughter the same age as Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter, I have to ask, “How did that abstinence talk work for you?” I am pro-choice, and my daughter and I had “the talk.”

Anyone who believes that sex education is not important and that young adults will not engage in sexual activity because we told them not to is not being realistic. Back in the day, when a woman was pregnant, she married because she had to.

Palin is not a role model for my daughters. My girls are aware of the need for contraceptives, birth control and the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.

Laura Maliwat
Lee’s Summit

Comments

Engineer

Dan
Reading this exchange makes me think that there surely was some error in the recently reported story that girls have caught up with boys on math concepts.

TinyAlice

A 100% chance of having a chance?

Sigh.

Fortunately, the chance of Abstinence Education making a comeback in the presence of overwhelming evidence it doesn't work is 0.0%

Dan Beyer

As I replied to the question if the Abstinence Only educated had a failure rate of 50%, only 50 of the 100 would have a chance of getting STDs and/or unplanned Pregnancies versus 100% of the non-Abstinece Only educated having a chance of doing the same. My point was you'd have better odds with Abstinence Only education.

TinyAlice

By the way, I'd really appreciate it if you keep any answer you have to that question personal and internal.

TinyAlice

"So a 50% rate of the chances of getting STDs and unwanted Pregnancies are worse than a 100% chance?!"

"By the way, do we really want to teach teen boys that it's all right that they have no true control of their sexual urges?!"

That seems relatively straightforward, Mr. Beyer. Your belief that Mr. Farah's actiosn are or are not acceptable in the eyes of God will depend, of course, on whether you personally are a Bible-believing Christian.

Dan Beyer

TinyAlice why don't you go back and read my posts. You have it completely opposite of what I said.

TinyAlice

This site is taking dangerous drugs. In English, the previous post should read:

"1. 100% of teenagers having sex don't get STDs nor experience unwanted pregnancies. That's simply silly.
2. Whether it jibes with HIS experience, some teenage girls actually approach teenage boys for sex. As any mother of such can attest, controlling THEIR urges can frequently involve the use of firehoses and electroshock therapy.
3. The source of Dan Beyer's "research," Joseph Farah of WorldNewsDaily, a strong proponent of traditional family values, has in fact put away his first wife, and will thus be denied the sight of God in the afterlife."

TinyAlice

I'm not going to be the one to break the news to Mr. Beyer. Someone else is going to have to do it:

1. 100% of teenagers having sex don't get STDs and nor experience unwanted pregnancies. That's simply silly.
2. Whether it jibes with HIS experience, some teenage girls actually approach teenage boys for sex. As any mother of such can attest, controlling THEIR urges can frequently involve the use of firehoses and electroshock therapy.
3. The source of and WorldNewsDaily, a strong proponent of traditional family values, has in fact put away his first wife, and will thus be denied the sight of God in the afterlife.

Life is pain, innit?

Dan Beyer

That's not what Abstinence Education is. Why don't you research it first before making mistaken assumptions about it.

devin

"So a 50% rate of the chances of getting STDs and unwanted Pregnancies are worse than a 100% chance?!"

OK, I'll spell it out for you. If kids are taught sex is awful, they shouldn't take precautions and practice it safely because it's so horrible, and they aren't even told what safe options are available, then the more than 50% who have sex anyway (and most evidence suggests it's FAR more than 50%) will be doing so in a completely unprotected way. OR, we teach kids that sex can have a number of physical and emotional consequences, and we teach them ways to minimize (though not fully eliminate) the risks of both when they and a willing partner want to engage in sexual activity. With the second approach, the number of sexually active kids might rise by 10-30% of the population (though some evidence indicates abstinence education makes no significant statistical difference at all), but those who are engaged in unprotected sex will drop by about 50%. The second approach seems like a clear winner to me.

I like your analogy, Dan. I've had many friends through the years whose parents had the rule that if they'd been drinking, they could call for a ride home, anytime, anywhere. None of those kids became raging alcoholics or made tragic, life-altering decisions because of their indulgence in alcohol. There are lots of things in life that can be very enjoyable at the right time and place, but dangerous in the wrong setting. And the "right time and place" is usually a subjective thing that each person has to work out for themselves. Shielding young people from these things until they're exposed to them in uninhibited fashion as an adult doesn't seem to be very helpful in working out this dilemma. Anybody who has known a few PKs or MKs (preacher's or missionary's kids) during their college years can probably verify this ;-)

Marctnts

Dan is partially right. There is only one 100% effective way to prevent STD's and pregnancy, abstinence.

That being said, kid's will always make their own decisions. I don't see how teaching kids how to protect themselves, should they decide to engage in sexual activity, translates into an endorsement of that activity.

When I was a teen, my parents often told me "Don't drink, but if you do, don't drive or ride with someone who has. One mistake would be bad enough, we don't want to see you make another, especially one that could kill you."

Dan Beyer

By the way, do we really want to teach teen boys that it's all right that they have no true control of their sexual urges?!

Dan Beyer

So a 50% rate of the chances of getting STDs and unwanted Pregnancies are worse than a 100% chance?!

Dan Beyer

Sex Education as defined as understanding the great responsibilities and of the great risk that it entails by treating sex as a very special thing that should be respected rather than just another biological act that you have no control over.

devin

Start with flawed assumptions and logic will lead you to flawed conclusions, Dan.
So you think those who receive abstinence-only sex ed will have pre-marital sex only 10% of the time?? Are you serious?? Have you not seen the numerous studies indicating that less than 50% of those signing the famous "purity pledges" in churches actually keep the pledge.

As someone who was subjected to more no-sex-til-marriage messages, sermons, sunday school classes, etc. than I can remember--and yes I signed a couple of those famous pledges--I can tell you that approach doesn't do one bit of good in dealing with decisions about sex in the real world. Of the dozens of people I know who took the pledges--most of whom were sincere and many still say even now they think waiting until marriage is best--I only know of one who actually kept it. And of course the rest of us generally didn't use any protection when we did have sex because we had counted on our ability to resist "temptation" when the moment arose.

I could chalk my experiences up to anecdotal evidence and dismiss my own observations...except virtually every study done draws similar conclusions. These programs simply don't work.

T. Hanson

Dan,
You are on the side of no sex ed for anyone, yet very against abortion. That is fine, but to make sure there is no unwanted pregancy why don't you support a 50, 50 approach?

Cover both bases for those that do want to engage in sexual relations and those that want to wait?

Dan Beyer

Take 100 teens and teach them only Safe Sex Education. Say 10% of them don't practice Safe Sex. Even so, ALL will have chances of STDs and unplanned pregnancies.
Take another 100 teens and teach them to wait to have sex when they are married and ready. Say 10% of them fail to practice abstinence only. Only the 10% will have chances of STDs and unplanned pregnancies.
Which one is the more logical plan?

Dan Beyer

That's NOT what Abstinence Education is about T. Hanson. Maybe you ought to find out what it's about before you make mistaken assumptions about it.

Mark Robertson


"Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners," said Obama mimicking Alan Keyes' distinctive style of speech,"which-I didn't know what to tell him."(laughter)
"But it's the right thing to do." Obama continued,"to provide age appropriate sex education, science based sex education in schools."(ABC News, July 18th, 2007)
The fact is Obama voted to teach sex education to kindergarteners in Illinois Senate Bill 99. The bill failed along party lines. The bill specifically mentions comprehensive sex education, and even though it mentions "age appropriate," who decides what that means, and who polices what it taught?
It's insane to even introduce sex to kindergarteners in any way. It's way too much for them. I've got a rash idea, how about letting kids be kids. Thankyou.

Mark Robertson
Independence

T. Hanson

Dan and Rogue are right. If you say nothing about sex to your children they won't do it. It works 100% of the time and the proof is in the families of our leaders.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright