I think you missed the point of why I quoted that particular paragraph. It's another point of view on why STD's and pregnancies were lower... and then rose when the AIDS scare lessened.
You are right...I did. Good point though.
Quote: from Forever Angel
I'm not quite sure why you continue to bring religion into our discussion. To me, sexual activity doesn't have much to do with religion. I do believe it's a purely personal decision. And I understand biological urges and needs.
The people who are pushing 'Abstinence Only' are religious. We secular, while moral, know this is bad policy. Do you deny the link between 'Abstinence Only' policy and the religious?
But I'm not sure where you got that 95% statistic
I quoted the study above. Here is another that reports much higher than what you have used below. SADD study
... The most recent data from the CDC (released in June 2007) compiled sexual behavior data from adults (aged 20-59) but asked a few questions about teenage sexual behavior. Results include: * 16% of adults reported first having sex before they were 15 years old. * 15% of adults said they abstained from sex until they were 21 years of age. Source •Nearly half (46%) of all 15-19-year-olds in the United States have had sex at least once.[1] •By age 15, only 13% of teens have ever had sex. However, by the time they reach age 19, seven in 10 teens have engaged in sexual intercourse.[2] •Most young people have sex for the first time at about age 17, but do not marry until their middle or late 20s. This means that young adults are at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for nearly a decade.[3] •Teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did in the past. Some 13% of females and 15% of males aged 15-19 in 2002 had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.[4] •The majority (59%) of sexually experienced teen females had a first sexual partner who was 1-3 years their senior. Only 8% had first partners who were six or more years older.[5] •More than three-quarters of teen females report that their first sexual experience was with a steady boyfriend, a fiancé, a husband or a cohabiting partner. Source I understand what you're saying, though. Simply telling kids not to have sex won't work.
The most recent data from the CDC (released in June 2007) compiled sexual behavior data from adults (aged 20-59) but asked a few questions about teenage sexual behavior. Results include: * 16% of adults reported first having sex before they were 15 years old. * 15% of adults said they abstained from sex until they were 21 years of age.
* 16% of adults reported first having sex before they were 15 years old. * 15% of adults said they abstained from sex until they were 21 years of age.
•Nearly half (46%) of all 15-19-year-olds in the United States have had sex at least once.[1] •By age 15, only 13% of teens have ever had sex. However, by the time they reach age 19, seven in 10 teens have engaged in sexual intercourse.[2] •Most young people have sex for the first time at about age 17, but do not marry until their middle or late 20s. This means that young adults are at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for nearly a decade.[3] •Teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did in the past. Some 13% of females and 15% of males aged 15-19 in 2002 had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.[4] •The majority (59%) of sexually experienced teen females had a first sexual partner who was 1-3 years their senior. Only 8% had first partners who were six or more years older.[5] •More than three-quarters of teen females report that their first sexual experience was with a steady boyfriend, a fiancé, a husband or a cohabiting partner.
•By age 15, only 13% of teens have ever had sex. However, by the time they reach age 19, seven in 10 teens have engaged in sexual intercourse.[2]
•Most young people have sex for the first time at about age 17, but do not marry until their middle or late 20s. This means that young adults are at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for nearly a decade.[3]
•Teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did in the past. Some 13% of females and 15% of males aged 15-19 in 2002 had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.[4]
•The majority (59%) of sexually experienced teen females had a first sexual partner who was 1-3 years their senior. Only 8% had first partners who were six or more years older.[5]
•More than three-quarters of teen females report that their first sexual experience was with a steady boyfriend, a fiancé, a husband or a cohabiting partner.
I understand what you're saying, though. Simply telling kids not to have sex won't work.
Here we agree.
IMHO...it's better to wait until you are in a mature and loving relationship...it breaks my heart to see how cheap and meretricious sex has become in our culture...
Nice, nice. (; Haha, I love how a topic about God ended up being marked as explicit. xD Funny.
Haha, I love how a topic about God ended up being marked as explicit. xD Funny.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:20 am on July 25, 2009 From that same article... Teenage birth rates are driven by rates of sex, contraception and abortion. In the 1990s, teenage sex rates dropped and condom use rose because teenagers were scared of AIDS, said Dr. John S. Santelli, chairman of the department of population and family health at Columbia University. Interesting that you quoted this. Sex and reproduction are basics of our biology. In Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs' sex is right along side eating, breathing and pooping. Religion takes this normal human function and seeks to politicize it. Religion wants to both control a woman's body as well as control societal sexual practices...these are personal matters. What part of 95% of Americans have sex before they reach 20 do you not understand? It is not about 'right' or 'left' or 'right' and 'wrong'...it is about doing the responsible thing and teaching/protecting our kids. 'Abstinence Only' policies are foolish and they increase human misery. Where does the morality of puritan behavior trump the immorality of increasing teen pregnancy/STD's? I'm obviously not a Christian, but even as an atheist I have studied the Bible enough to say that I know for a fact that Jesus did not teach sexual abstinence. He and Paul both were apocalyptic thinkers and both thought celibacy best (because they expected the end of the world to come soon). When you support sexual repression under the guise of religion you are not furthering the teachings of Christ, but the politics of Augustine and others that followed him. Sex is natural, good and is best practiced between responsible people who protect themselves from unwanted consequences. It is private and neither a political nor religious matter.
From that same article... Teenage birth rates are driven by rates of sex, contraception and abortion. In the 1990s, teenage sex rates dropped and condom use rose because teenagers were scared of AIDS, said Dr. John S. Santelli, chairman of the department of population and family health at Columbia University.
Teenage birth rates are driven by rates of sex, contraception and abortion. In the 1990s, teenage sex rates dropped and condom use rose because teenagers were scared of AIDS, said Dr. John S. Santelli, chairman of the department of population and family health at Columbia University.
Interesting that you quoted this.
Sex and reproduction are basics of our biology. In Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs' sex is right along side eating, breathing and pooping. Religion takes this normal human function and seeks to politicize it. Religion wants to both control a woman's body as well as control societal sexual practices...these are personal matters.
What part of 95% of Americans have sex before they reach 20 do you not understand? It is not about 'right' or 'left' or 'right' and 'wrong'...it is about doing the responsible thing and teaching/protecting our kids.
'Abstinence Only' policies are foolish and they increase human misery. Where does the morality of puritan behavior trump the immorality of increasing teen pregnancy/STD's?
I'm obviously not a Christian, but even as an atheist I have studied the Bible enough to say that I know for a fact that Jesus did not teach sexual abstinence. He and Paul both were apocalyptic thinkers and both thought celibacy best (because they expected the end of the world to come soon). When you support sexual repression under the guise of religion you are not furthering the teachings of Christ, but the politics of Augustine and others that followed him.
Sex is natural, good and is best practiced between responsible people who protect themselves from unwanted consequences. It is private and neither a political nor religious matter.
But I'm not sure where you got that 95% statistic...
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:11 pm on July 24, 2009 Quote: from LogicandReason at 3:02 pm on July 24, 2009 lol...My posit and the article I posted was about 'Abstinence Only' policies, pushed by Bush during his administration, and the rise in both teen pregnancy and STDs...all is documented.Can you tell me if "abstinence only" was the only thing being taught in all these states? This is from the NY Times: WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — The birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, according to a report issued Wednesday, the first such increase since 1991. The finding surprised scholars and fueled a debate about whether the Bush administration's abstinence-only sexual education efforts are working. The full story is Here
Quote: from LogicandReason at 3:02 pm on July 24, 2009 lol...My posit and the article I posted was about 'Abstinence Only' policies, pushed by Bush during his administration, and the rise in both teen pregnancy and STDs...all is documented.Can you tell me if "abstinence only" was the only thing being taught in all these states?
lol...My posit and the article I posted was about 'Abstinence Only' policies, pushed by Bush during his administration, and the rise in both teen pregnancy and STDs...all is documented.
This is from the NY Times:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — The birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, according to a report issued Wednesday, the first such increase since 1991. The finding surprised scholars and fueled a debate about whether the Bush administration's abstinence-only sexual education efforts are working.
The full story is Here
In this story the bible-thumping Southern states are blamed:
In a report that will surprise few of Bush's critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled. The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.
The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.
I've not been to Kansas often (thought a great place, nice people) but I would bet it pretty conservative...is it? What are your state's statistics?
Texas is full of bible-thumpers who scream for 'Abstinence Only' and the problem with teen pregnancy is rampant...
Is there some other group advocating this?
Quote: from LogicandReason at 11:25 am on July 24, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:00 am on July 24, 2009 Still bashing Christianity at every chance you can? Asking questions is bashing? Pointing out that their policies have unintended and bad consequences is bashing? Quote: from Forever Angel How did those 21 states manage to go against Bush? And what were the stats for the other 29 (or is it 36)? Argue with both reports and their data if you wish...i didn't write them. You may of forgotten that Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 and the Supreme Court ultimately decided that election. His margin of victory in the 2004 election was the smallest in four decades for an incumbent president. Yes, some states opposed him.I'm not arguing about the reports, simply pointing out inconsistencies. You have said, or at least didn't dispute, that it's Bush's policies (based on CHRISTIANITY) that caused(?) the dramatic increase in STD's and pregnancies... and now you say he didn't have that much power... I'm having a bit of a problem following your 'logic' or 'reason' here. Possibly it's just my bias...
Quote: from Forever Angel at 9:00 am on July 24, 2009 Still bashing Christianity at every chance you can? Asking questions is bashing? Pointing out that their policies have unintended and bad consequences is bashing? Quote: from Forever Angel How did those 21 states manage to go against Bush? And what were the stats for the other 29 (or is it 36)? Argue with both reports and their data if you wish...i didn't write them. You may of forgotten that Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 and the Supreme Court ultimately decided that election. His margin of victory in the 2004 election was the smallest in four decades for an incumbent president. Yes, some states opposed him.
Still bashing Christianity at every chance you can?
Asking questions is bashing? Pointing out that their policies have unintended and bad consequences is bashing?
How did those 21 states manage to go against Bush? And what were the stats for the other 29 (or is it 36)?
Argue with both reports and their data if you wish...i didn't write them.
You may of forgotten that Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 and the Supreme Court ultimately decided that election. His margin of victory in the 2004 election was the smallest in four decades for an incumbent president. Yes, some states opposed him.
I'm having a bit of a problem following your 'logic' or 'reason' here. Possibly it's just my bias...
Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:00 am on July 24, 2009 Quote: from LogicandReason at 8:45 am on July 24, 2009 The new evidence refocused the debate in the United States, helping to spur the development of teen pregnancy prevention programs across the country and prompt the enactment of new laws in 21 states ensuring minors access to confidential contraceptive services and the growth of comprehensive, school-based sex education programs. The incidence of teenage pregnancy, which peaked in 1991, began to drop. By 2005, it had declined by a whopping 36%.How does that match up with this? Quote: from LogicandReason at 8:15 am on July 23, 2009 While most developed countries in the world teach their children about sex, disease, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies...the US, under Bush continued to hide it's head in the sand and the results were disastrous. From the Guardian "Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body."Wasn't GW the President in 2005? The article reports that in states where sex education and contraception were taught/used, the problem declined by 36%...not where others banished 'sex education' and 'contraception' for 'abstinence only' programs. If only Augustine hadn't wrested sexuality from Christianity!
Quote: from LogicandReason at 8:45 am on July 24, 2009 The new evidence refocused the debate in the United States, helping to spur the development of teen pregnancy prevention programs across the country and prompt the enactment of new laws in 21 states ensuring minors access to confidential contraceptive services and the growth of comprehensive, school-based sex education programs. The incidence of teenage pregnancy, which peaked in 1991, began to drop. By 2005, it had declined by a whopping 36%.How does that match up with this? Quote: from LogicandReason at 8:15 am on July 23, 2009 While most developed countries in the world teach their children about sex, disease, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies...the US, under Bush continued to hide it's head in the sand and the results were disastrous. From the Guardian "Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body."Wasn't GW the President in 2005?
The new evidence refocused the debate in the United States, helping to spur the development of teen pregnancy prevention programs across the country and prompt the enactment of new laws in 21 states ensuring minors access to confidential contraceptive services and the growth of comprehensive, school-based sex education programs. The incidence of teenage pregnancy, which peaked in 1991, began to drop. By 2005, it had declined by a whopping 36%.
Quote: from LogicandReason at 8:15 am on July 23, 2009
While most developed countries in the world teach their children about sex, disease, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies...the US, under Bush continued to hide it's head in the sand and the results were disastrous. From the Guardian "Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body."
"Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body."
The article reports that in states where sex education and contraception were taught/used, the problem declined by 36%...not where others banished 'sex education' and 'contraception' for 'abstinence only' programs. If only Augustine hadn't wrested sexuality from Christianity!
Quote: from LogicandReason at 7:40 am on July 24, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel I'd say it was their responsibility, which it seems they abrogated, to explain "the birds and the bees" and the associated dangers. I agree...but statistics and data show that this is not being done. Christianity, as well as all other superstitions, has unintended consequences.
Quote: from Forever Angel I'd say it was their responsibility, which it seems they abrogated, to explain "the birds and the bees" and the associated dangers. I agree...but statistics and data show that this is not being done. Christianity, as well as all other superstitions, has unintended consequences.
I'd say it was their responsibility, which it seems they abrogated, to explain "the birds and the bees" and the associated dangers.
I agree...but statistics and data show that this is not being done. Christianity, as well as all other superstitions, has unintended consequences.
This is what I wrote in my book:
Six years later, Guttmacher published the first international comparison of adolescent sexuality, documenting major differences between the United States and Western Europe. The study showed that American and European teenagers initiated sex at the same age, but that European teens had longer relationships and fewer sexual partners, were much more likely to use contraceptives and had startlingly lower rates of pregnancy and abortion. Behind these differences were very different societal responses to the reality of adolescent sexuality. In Europe, teenagers were getting comprehensive sex education and had ready access to confidential contraceptive services, even as they were given the clear message that they should not get pregnant before they were ready to become a parent.
Unfortunately, increased support for adolescent services and sex education generated its own opposition in the form of the abstinence-only movement and a wave of junk science claiming a key role for abstinence in recent teen pregnancy declines. Guttmacher moved quickly to counter this growing threat to evidence-based policies with a series of analyses showing that declines in teen pregnancy were due mainly to improved contraceptive use, not less sex. As federal abstinence programs became increasingly hard line, targeting not only young adolescents but unmarried adults as old as 29, Guttmacher countered with research showing that
95% of Americans have sex before marriage and have done so for three generations.
I trust you read the article I posted on these forums Here.
I'm saying that "Abstinence Only" policies are proven to increase teen pregnancy/STD's....the data has been out there for a decade. Evangelicals are responsible for the majority of this. Go check out teen pregnancy in secular Norway or Sweden...almost non-existent.
742 users online 
223164 members 983 active today Advertise Here
742 users online 223164 members 983 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
