Men - What do you propose to do to effectively reduce the abortion rate?

I see, you advocate leaving life decisions up to minors and just sitting back and saying 'they are going to do it anyway.' That is not only lazy but irresponsible IMO. We are not talking about 'information' here granny we are talking about promoting teen-age sex by default.

Yes it does.

Other studies show the opposite. I provided you with a link. Read it. There you go again with the 'they're going to do it anyway' excuse.

 

Most teenagers don't get pregnant either. What's your point?

 

The only embarrassment is yours for linking to a radical-liberal-commie-socialist site.

 

Pregnancy to murder wasn't your comparison. You were comparing having sex to murder.

 

You dont like sites that expose right wing lies. I get it.

 

Parsing I see...OK...what if there were more murders than having sex? Would you then advocate giving 'tools' to make murder 'safe?' Can you understand the use of an example? Try discussing the issue at hand instead of trying to obfuscate.

 

The link I provided was from the radical, left-wing Huffington Post....You 'get' nothing and want to run and hide from the truth.

 

I see you advocate the "If I don't see it, it ain't happening" approach. Pretend that teens don't know how to have sex, so they won't think about it.

They are going to do it anyway. The best you can hope for is to delay initial sexual encounters for a few years. Ignorance will not protect teens from pregnancy or disease.

 

"They're going to do it anyway," is a reference to teenagers having sex, not getting pregnant. Speaking of obfuscating...

 

I wonder if you realize how hysterical that statement is....probably not

You tried that already, you failed...try something else. Otherwise you're really done here.

 

I see I taught you a word...LOL

 

I see you glossed over these two studies..."LOL":

In fact, a recent study in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that “adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.”

In addition, a study conducted by Mathematic Policy Research on behalf of Congress found that abstinence-only programs “show no significant impact on teen sexual activity” and “no differences in rates of unprotected sex.”

 

A study in 2010 by Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine followed 6th and 7th graders in separate groups. One group focused on abstinence the other taught contraception and safe sex.

2-years later, "Half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex."

The teachers emphasized abstinence and explaining the ramifications of having sex too soon. There was no moralizing or religion involved. Also the curriculum was not 'abstinence-only' however the emphasis on abstinence was successful.

Kids may be rebellious but they understand fact and logic. The parent/teacher influence is critical and, in this case, curriculum more closely mirrored the kids' familial values. Therefore it was successful.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinence-works/story?id=9731048#.Tr9p4VawV6Q

NOTE: When you provide a quote please provide the link.

 

I see nothing wrong with teaching kids both, and letting them make up their own minds.

 

The study involves two groups of 11 and 12 year olds who 2 years later when they are 13 and 14 years old---half of one group is having sex and one-third of the other group is having sex and you are calling the one-third group a success because it's less than one-half??? These kids shouldn't even be out of their parents' or teachers' sight. If that's the best you can hope for with abstinence teaching, bring out the chastity belts.

 

"About half" and "about a third" according to students who had to self-report sexual activity to their teachers. Reliable?

It wasn't abstinence-only and wouldn't even have qualified for funding because it didn't condemn condoms, other birth control, or sex outside of marriage. So why is it even called an "abstinence-only" class?

In the heat of the moment, fact and logic go by the wayside. That's why kids need the knowledge to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. It's grasping at straws to use this study which relies on a relatively small group of young students self-reporting sexual activity to their teachers to claim "success."

 

I was thinking the same thing - obvious flaws in the study methodology

 

Sorry, I can't agree. Underage minors don't have the life-experience to make up their own minds in a life-enhancing manner. The study I cited shows that emphasizing abstinence worked best.

 

So? What do you suggest? NOT telling kids to wait? What is wrong with you people anyway?

 

Show me YOUR proof then. Otherwise, you're pretty much done.

I wasn't aware we were discussing 'abstinence only.' Seems some of you people care more about your political POV than the kids. I presented a viable study that included abstinence teaching. It seemed to be somewhat successful...All you want to do is find flaws.

Again, we have a study that PROVES that including abstinence had a beneficial effect in stopping some kids from having sex before they are ready. And again, it seems to me all some of you care about is your political POV.

 

Oh, for Pete's sake, every sex ed class is going to teach about abstinence. Every sex ed class is going to teach kids that the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is abstinence. But we KNOW that kids won't practice that forever and they need to know about contraception. Abstinence-ONLY classes don't work. Comprehensive sex ed does.

 

Emphasis on abstinence works...As I already proved. The study I referenced (and linked to) proves that 'comprehensive' sex ed does not work, it's best to emphasize abstinence. That doesn't mean abstinence only. Try reading posts before replying.

 

According to that study's own researchers,

http://www.livescience.com/8080-abstinence-programs-children-work-study-finds.html

You also posted this...

Sounds like you are advocating abstinence-only to me. Try keeping up with your own posts. You're waffling.

 

Yes I read all that...so what? You are willing to negate any success in convincing young children to hold off having sex? The study shows that abstinence is well accepted by kids as long there is no stigma attached.

The liberal media and radical homosexual elements have succeeded in vilifying the teaching of abstinence which has had the effect of negatively stigmatizing kids who advocate it for themselves.

It is shameful the way some folks want to withhold emphasizing the teaching of abstinence. Just shameful.

 

Your study doesn't prove there was any significant difference. It was a whopping 15% difference, based on the self-reporting of 11 to 14 year-old children. Your measure of "success" is neither reliable nor significant.

Wrong. Actual results have vilified the teaching of abstinence-only. Are you aware that 25 states have now--as of 2008--rejected funding for abstinence-only programs because they have proven ineffective? Study after study have confirmed that abstinence-only programs do not delay or reduce teen sexual activity.

Here is a link to actual reports from participating states:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=623&Itemid=177

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080916143912.htm

It's been pointed out to you that comprehensive sex ed includes the teaching of abstinence. It is more shameful that some folks continue to push for programs that waste billions of dollars and damage children for the sake of their ideology and in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence that they are ineffective and unethical.