By homechool mom

December 26, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe that teaching abstinence and teaching about sex from a scientific standpoint are mutually exclusive. Scientifically speaking, the only way to make sure that you will avoid ALL STD’s and pregnancy is to abstain. Yes, of course there is the moral side of it also, but science and religion can go hand in hand. I also believe that those numbers are inflated. I knew many that chose abstinence just in my youth group alone (I’d say, just looking at my friends in yout group, roughly 60% were making vows to abstain, and sticking by them) Different studies will draw different conclusions and you can find studies that support the use of abstinence programs.

By Terri

December 23, 2006 3:47 PM | Link to this

Rick - what definitions of sex and abstinence are the studies assuming the respondents are using?

By Ms. Cornelius

December 23, 2006 12:04 AM | Link to this

I completely stand for the idea that one shouldn’t have sex until one can financially and emotionally dal with any and all unintended consequences of said actions. However, students of the appropriate age still need information about how pregnancy and those other consequences happen. I would like to see our students find out that a baby is not just a plaything, contrary to what the Talking Heads once famously sang, nor is it a “right” or “possession.” It is a high-maintenance human being who can suffer and who doesn’t care at all about whatever plans its parents may have had. Many parents do not talk to their kids about this topic.

By Rick

December 22, 2006 6:22 PM | Link to this

Be cautious of your sources ‘95 percent’ premarital sex survey is connected to Planned Parenthood Baptist Press ^ Posted on 12/22/2006 11:45:32 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger One of the most popular news stories circulating in recent days is a study by the Guttmacher Institute in New York that says 95 percent of Americans have had premarital sex. But there’s more to the story than is being reported. “It would be more forthright for the Guttmacher Institute to mention in its reports that it is the research arm for Planned Parenthood,” Richard Ross, founder of the True Love Waits abstinence movement, told Baptist Press. “Corporate profits and staff salaries at Planned Parenthood depend on abortion services. “Helping Americans abandon any sense that sex belongs in marriage is essential to boosting the demand for those abortion services. Knowing of the tie between Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher could help readers watch for any possible bias creeping into research,” Ross said. Comments from the study’s author, Lawrence B. Finer, indicate his motivation may be to suggest that programs promoting abstinence until marriage are not worth American taxpayer dollars. “This is reality-check research,” Finer said in a news release Dec. 19. “Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades. The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12-29-year-olds. “It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active — which nearly everyone eventually will,” Finer added. However, Finer’s assertion does not square with other studies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data in 2003 showing that the percentage of teens who report that they have had sex decreased from 54 percent in the early 1990s, to 46 percent, a reversal from a few years earlier when a majority of teens did not practice abstinence. The rise in abstinence behavior coincided with increased federal funding of abstinenece programs. A study that same year in Adolescent & Family Health concluded that abstinence was the catalyst for a drop in the teen birth rate from 1991-95 (the latest data available). Researchers found the number of pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls (ages 15-19) decreased from 115.8 in 1991 to 101.1 in 1995, at the same time, the number of unmarried teen girls who were abstinent — defined as never having had sex or not having had sex in the past year — increased from 53 percent to 56 percent. The study credited abstinence as the catalyst in 67 percent of the teen birth rate drop — discrediting a Guttmacher study that claimed contraception was the major factor. The Bush administration has given abstinence programs hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, and Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told the Associated Press the abstinence approach is useful. “One of its values is to help young people delay the onset of sexual activity,” Horn said. “The longer one delays, the fewer lifetime sex partners they have, and the less risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease.” Pat Fagan, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, told USA Today the Guttmacher study is “an attack on abstinence” and its release at the end of the year is “part of a major Congressional battle about to start in January and February … to get rid of abstinence funding.” Though it has already been released online, the study called “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003” will be published in the January/February issue of “Public Health Reports,” a journal of the U.S. Public Health Service. Finer concluded in his study that because people are sexually active before marriage and are waiting longer to get married, young adults have an especially great need for accurate information about how to protect themselves against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, the news release noted. But Ross, a professor of student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, disagrees with Finer’s willingness to concede the defeat of abstinence. “The logic that accompanies this new report seems to be this: When behavior becomes normative, it becomes morally acceptable,” Ross told BP. “I wonder if the folks at Guttmacher would apply that logic to other behaviors among the young. For example, most research indicates that almost all children and youth tell lies from time to time. Should schools and families just accept that as a fact of life and stop calling the young to truthfulness? “Similarly, most research indicates that almost all children and youth sometimes cheat at school. Should we instruct schools to stop trying to ‘legislate morality’ by punishing cheaters?” Ross said. “Of course there is much about the human condition that is far less than perfect. The question is, Do we just accept every new level of human coarsening as normative and even moral or do we do strive to lead people toward the very best?” Ross said that since the year True Love Waits became a national movement in 1993, teenage sexual behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions and live births before marriage have declined for 12 consecutive years. “The fact that many Americans have been immoral during that period does not negate the fact that there are many among the young who are responding beautifully to a clear, positive call to morality and purity,” he said.

By Mary

December 22, 2006 1:20 PM | Link to this

Gerald, I am not sure why you think we are arguing. It seems to me that science, math, medicine and economics can give as many reasons to have or not have sex as religious values. Rick, I wonder who all those girls are having sex with and why the boys do not stick around to help raise the children. The boys/fatherhood statistics should always be included when we discuss what the girls are doing. Boys are supposed to have values, too. I agree with some of the comments that the school environment and socialization are creating some of the problems. Schools are like a giant incubator with little adult supervision - sort of like “Lord of the Flies”.

By Mike

December 22, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Thank you, Scott, for reiterating the point of your original post. I think the comment thread strayed a little from your original question. The conscious, major defunding of scientifically based sex-ed in favor of abstinence that we have seen over the last six years will likely result in the opposite effect desired by everyone. The only effective tool is hands-on parenting urging abstinence but not ignoring the fact that, in all likelihood, abstinence may well not occur. Having all the knowledge necessary to make informed, mature choices is what is owed to our children. If we knowingly allow our children to wallow in ingorance we are doing them a tremendous disservice.

By Scott Elliott

December 22, 2006 9:45 AM | Link to this

I absolutely agree that each family should impart its own religious and moral lessons about sex to their kids, including advising them that they should abstain from sex until marriage. But the numbers don’t lie. Nearly all of them will ignore that advice. Homeschooling or strict religious instruction guarantees nothing. What I’m suggesting is that ONLY teaching them to abstain and not giving them any other practical information about how sexual reproduction works and how to protect against disease and avoid pregnancy until you are ready is foolish. I think we should be doing both. Teaching sex ed from a scientific perspective does not encourage kids to be immoral. Even for those who abstain, the information is valuable and will be useful to them later in their married life. And for the vast majority of the rest of kids, it might just help them avoid life-altering mistakes.

By homeschoolmom

December 22, 2006 6:18 AM | Link to this

Becky, I have to agree with you. My sons aren’t bombarded with sexual images everyday (we are very careful about what we allow them to see), they don’t spend their day hearing crude jokes from classmates (okay, my 4 yr old would be too young for that anyway, but still), and we always talk about Gods design for marriage and the importance of abstinence. I am tired of the people that say, ‘Kids are gonna do it anyway, might as well make it safer.’ Give kids some credit. Treat them like animals that can’t control their urges and that’s what you’ll get.

By Becky

December 21, 2006 8:37 PM | Link to this

This topic simply adds to the list of reasons to homeschool. As long as people are set in their hearts to go their own way and do their own thing, they have no reason to practice self-control. The shame is that a person’s behavior hardly ever affects them alone. I’m not only teaching my children but I am training them in the way they “should go”. This means even when they don’t like it and/or understand it, they will still do it because it is required and expected of them. Stop going your own way and start going the right way, and yes, this is God’s way. Can’t help but preach. It’s what he’s called his children to do.

By Rick

December 21, 2006 6:37 PM | Link to this

Tim, I concur with your comment. Scott, in my lifetime I have seen an erosion in the chastity rates. Our youth (and adults) are inundated with sexual images in movies and advertisements. They have sex education that, in essence, gives them permission to have sex. Recently, a study came out demonstrating that there had been a huge increase in the percentage of girls 14 to 18 having sex. My point: gain a broader historical perspective. Our society has evolved greatly in this matter, and liberals, of course, are delighted. So don’t just throw up your hands and say, “Well, I guess this is the way it will be forever.” It can change and studies have shown that abstinence education can be effective.

By Gerald

December 21, 2006 4:19 PM | Link to this

For the previous comment. Nothing was mentioned about religion in this blog post yet you conclude that is the only reason abstinence would be taught. For all of the reasons that you listed — about over population, costs to raise a child through college, cancer and sexually transmitted disease rates of sexually active, multiple partners, etc. — the one guaranteed way to control all of these is through the practice of abstinence. And another note: We tell our kids to stand up straight, to use clean language, and to share, yet we all slouch, have slips of the tongue, and act selfishly; does this mean that we should stop teaching these values to our children? Of course not. You have a foolish argument.

By Tim

December 21, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

I think it interesting that we can teach dumb animals like dogs and cats not to urinate in the house, but we don’t think that intelligent people can learn self control and respect. Maybe these statistics are the results of self-fulfilling prophecy.

By Mary

December 20, 2006 10:21 PM | Link to this

A lot of science, and little preaching, is probably appropriate for sex education. Afterall, if 95% Americans had premarital sex, all the preaching and stigma (and scarlet letter) apparently did not work on past generations. Maybe the science will have more of an effect, also discussions about over population, costs to raise a child through college, cancer and sexually transmitted disease rates of sexually active, multiple partners, etc. Deal with the science and facts in sex ed, as well as some ethical issues. Leave most of the preaching and the religious aspects of premarital sex to the family and churches.