Teen Birth Rates Higher in Highly Religious States
- Thread starter JolietJake
- Start date
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I did. And most of my friends did.
Most do anyway, if only from lack of opportunity. But a good percentage have had sex by the time they graduate high school.
And abstinence-only doesn't just tell kids not to do it, they probably teach about STDs and makin babies and then say that they shouldn't do it. And even teaching them to use a condom isn't that big of a deal since it's really not that hard to figure out, but when it's stigmatized or not taught about as being an option then when the kids eventually start
ing none of them will have any contraceptives on them since they're not supposed to have them and they're not available. Then you end up with more surprise babies and STDs.
And abstinence-only doesn't just tell kids not to do it, they probably teach about STDs and makin babies and then say that they shouldn't do it. And even teaching them to use a condom isn't that big of a deal since it's really not that hard to figure out, but when it's stigmatized or not taught about as being an option then when the kids eventually start
ing none of them will have any contraceptives on them since they're not supposed to have them and they're not available. Then you end up with more surprise babies and STDs.thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Well you can only go so far to straddle the line between educating and supporting. I mean, you could make a strong case that supplying "clean drugs" or needles for teens will ultimately reduce the spread of disease, but most would probably not think that's a good idea.
It's not that hard to straddle the line. You can teach that no sex is the only 100% safe sex, teach the consequencies of pregnancy, show a lot of gross out STD photos etc., while also teaching how condoms, birth control pills work etc. so those who will decide to have sex anyway at least have all the info.
It's not an all or nothing, one or the other, proposition.
It's not an all or nothing, one or the other, proposition.
[quote name='docvinh']Huh? The priority of school is to educate students. They should be taught both abstinence and birth control because they are both viable strategies. If the majority of voters voted to ban math, you seriously would be okay with that?[/QUOTE]
Am I the only one who remembers when schools focused on the three 'Rs?
The decision to have sex is a moral decision. This needs to be taught at home - or, at the very least, with the direct consent of the parents/guardians of the children. The same goes for drugs (legal and illegal), political philosophies, etc...
Am I the only one who remembers when schools focused on the three 'Rs?
The decision to have sex is a moral decision. This needs to be taught at home - or, at the very least, with the direct consent of the parents/guardians of the children. The same goes for drugs (legal and illegal), political philosophies, etc...
Any one can teach the pros and cons of sex and the basics of contraception. Easy enough to a have a teacher become certified to teach sex ed and learn everything they need to teach the basics to high school kids etc. It's not rocket science.
The problem is many parents are just useless, and many who do care aren't comfortable discussing those things with their kids. I just don't see the big deal, especially if parents can opt their kids out of the course. Studies have shown repeatedly that abstinence only doesn't work.
The problem is many parents are just useless, and many who do care aren't comfortable discussing those things with their kids. I just don't see the big deal, especially if parents can opt their kids out of the course. Studies have shown repeatedly that abstinence only doesn't work.
I agree - many parents are useless.
However, in my opinion, such discussions led by a school official shouldn't be an "opt-out" situation - it should be an "opt-in". Additionally (and here comes the libertarian whine), tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for this. You want your kid to learn about sex from a stranger? Pay the stranger yourself.
However, in my opinion, such discussions led by a school official shouldn't be an "opt-out" situation - it should be an "opt-in". Additionally (and here comes the libertarian whine), tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for this. You want your kid to learn about sex from a stranger? Pay the stranger yourself.
Yeah, can't agree with either of those.
With opt-in, the kids who need it most don't get it as their useless parents just toss the consent form etc.
And I have no problem with it being covered in school on tax payer dollars. Especially if it's just taught in required health courses, in which case no extra funding is needed as it's just built into curriculum in a required course, and parents can opt out if they want.
But I'm also about as far as you can get from being libertarian without being a communist, so we'll have to agree to disagree on a lot of these kind of issues.
With opt-in, the kids who need it most don't get it as their useless parents just toss the consent form etc.
And I have no problem with it being covered in school on tax payer dollars. Especially if it's just taught in required health courses, in which case no extra funding is needed as it's just built into curriculum in a required course, and parents can opt out if they want.
But I'm also about as far as you can get from being libertarian without being a communist, so we'll have to agree to disagree on a lot of these kind of issues.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Am I the only one who remembers when schools focused on the three 'Rs?
The decision to have sex is a moral decision. This needs to be taught at home - or, at the very least, with the direct consent of the parents/guardians of the children. The same goes for drugs (legal and illegal), political philosophies, etc...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, I didn't grow up in the time of the one room schoolhouse. I agree there should be consent though, but I think opt-out is fine. Parents who specifically don't want their kids learning about sex can make sure their kids don't get that information.
The decision to have sex is a moral decision. This needs to be taught at home - or, at the very least, with the direct consent of the parents/guardians of the children. The same goes for drugs (legal and illegal), political philosophies, etc...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, I didn't grow up in the time of the one room schoolhouse.
I agree there should be consent though, but I think opt-out is fine. Parents who specifically don't want their kids learning about sex can make sure their kids don't get that information.I want my tax dollars to go to educating the people that are going to make up the population of the place I'm living.
We're overlooking the real issue here. The parents aren't looking to teach their kids themselves, they're looking to prevent anyone from teaching their kids about sex, including themselves.
Don't act like the "officials" teaching teens about sex are these blank faces in suits that they can't connect with. The people teaching sex ed are professional and understand how the body works far better than most parents do.
We're overlooking the real issue here. The parents aren't looking to teach their kids themselves, they're looking to prevent anyone from teaching their kids about sex, including themselves.
Don't act like the "officials" teaching teens about sex are these blank faces in suits that they can't connect with. The people teaching sex ed are professional and understand how the body works far better than most parents do.
[quote name='SpazX']My sex ed teachers were always nurses. Who gets a gym teacher to teach this?[/QUOTE]
Really? Our High School Health Classes were taught by one of the Gym Teachers/Football coaches.
Perhaps that's why I have such a different view than the rest of you.
Really? Our High School Health Classes were taught by one of the Gym Teachers/Football coaches.
Perhaps that's why I have such a different view than the rest of you.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']I did. And most of my friends did.[/QUOTE]
Now I know what you'reing problem is. The blue balls destroyed the reasoning part of your brain. And thanks for completely changing what I said, dick.
Why does it matter who teaches sex ed if there's a consistent curriculum.
1. Show the male and female anatomy.
2. Explain how babies are made and born.
3. Explain abstinence as the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy and STDs
4. Explain that condoms, diaphragm, IUD, shots, vaginal contraceptive films will lower the chance of pregnancy to nearly 0% when used correctly but that condoms are the only sure-fire way to prevent STDs.
5. Question and answer.
Can anyone say that this doesn't cover most of the bases and give teens at least a basic sexual education?
It comes down to this. Why are conservatives so scared of condoms? Do they scare you enough that you don't want children exposed to them? Scared that your daughters or sisters might choose to get a IUD? Does the depo shot give you AIDS like some radicals might want you to believe?
You say that it's OK to educate kids but then say it's perfectly fine to omit anything that doesn't fit your specific moral code. How does that make sense? Can't you teach morality at home and church and let school teach biology?
I also think it's funny that conservatives rail against the welfare mothers and how they drain the system. Maybe a free condom or two might've helped at least one person? Think we might have at least a few less unplanned pregnancies if they even had a five minute talk about condoms and other forms of contraception. You can't have it both ways.
Now I know what you're
ing problem is. The blue balls destroyed the reasoning part of your brain. And thanks for completely changing what I said, dick. Why does it matter who teaches sex ed if there's a consistent curriculum.
1. Show the male and female anatomy.
2. Explain how babies are made and born.
3. Explain abstinence as the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy and STDs
4. Explain that condoms, diaphragm, IUD, shots, vaginal contraceptive films will lower the chance of pregnancy to nearly 0% when used correctly but that condoms are the only sure-fire way to prevent STDs.
5. Question and answer.
Can anyone say that this doesn't cover most of the bases and give teens at least a basic sexual education?
It comes down to this. Why are conservatives so scared of condoms? Do they scare you enough that you don't want children exposed to them? Scared that your daughters or sisters might choose to get a IUD? Does the depo shot give you AIDS like some radicals might want you to believe?
You say that it's OK to educate kids but then say it's perfectly fine to omit anything that doesn't fit your specific moral code. How does that make sense? Can't you teach morality at home and church and let school teach biology?
I also think it's funny that conservatives rail against the welfare mothers and how they drain the system. Maybe a free condom or two might've helped at least one person? Think we might have at least a few less unplanned pregnancies if they even had a five minute talk about condoms and other forms of contraception. You can't have it both ways.
Two things...
[quote name='depascal22']
Why does it matter who teaches sex ed if there's a consistent curriculum.
[/quote]
If it doesn't matter, then let the parents teach the material they approve of.
[quote name='depascal22']
Why does it matter who teaches sex ed if there's a consistent curriculum.
[/quote]
If it doesn't matter, then let the parents teach the material they approve of.
And this is where you mess up. Condoms are not a "sure-fire way to prevent STDs". They do greatly help reduce the chance of transmission. You're a medical professional and you made this claim? And you expect random government school personnel with a handbook to give children the right information?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Good point, Bob. Let me change it then since I'm really going to be teaching sex-ed at 3AM. I didn't realize I had to have lesson plans ready for the non-existent class I'm teaching right now. Well, I might be teaching class because I'm not sure if you've even seen a woman naked so listen up. Because claims made on a gaming website have a huge effect on the educational community. My "claims" are now set in stone and this medical professional made a small error while off shift. The world will now proceed to end.
Condoms are the only way to prevent STDs if you're having sex. They don't work 100% of the time but they are better than using nothing at all.
And you didn't even read the entire quote that you replied to in the first one. If there's a consistent curriculum, it doesn't matter who teaches it. The key is getting ALL the information out.
Why do parents have to approve basic biologic concepts? Should we stop teaching the Krebs cycle because parents don't approve? Again, if parents want to teach that the Earth is the center of the Universe, isn't it the school's responsibility to teach children the truth? And don't even claim that these aren't basic truths.
What if I didn't want my child to take civics because I think America and free market capitalism are against my moral codes? Should a school be able to fail my child because of that?
We're not saying that schools should tell kids to go have sex. We're about educating kids about all aspects and not just the ones that fit certain religious doctrines.
Condoms are the only way to prevent STDs if you're having sex. They don't work 100% of the time but they are better than using nothing at all.
And you didn't even read the entire quote that you replied to in the first one. If there's a consistent curriculum, it doesn't matter who teaches it. The key is getting ALL the information out.
Why do parents have to approve basic biologic concepts? Should we stop teaching the Krebs cycle because parents don't approve? Again, if parents want to teach that the Earth is the center of the Universe, isn't it the school's responsibility to teach children the truth? And don't even claim that these aren't basic truths.
What if I didn't want my child to take civics because I think America and free market capitalism are against my moral codes? Should a school be able to fail my child because of that?
We're not saying that schools should tell kids to go have sex. We're about educating kids about all aspects and not just the ones that fit certain religious doctrines.
I have no issue with teaching children the biological aspects of human reproduction in a science or health class.
And while I disagree that it's (only) about religious doctrine, I'll ask this - why not teach kids about "all aspects" of the creation of the Earth and Life? Why not teach them about magic space man in the sky, if we're going to teach them "everything"?
And while I disagree that it's (only) about religious doctrine, I'll ask this - why not teach kids about "all aspects" of the creation of the Earth and Life? Why not teach them about magic space man in the sky, if we're going to teach them "everything"?
There's no place for religion in schools due to separation of church and state. We've hammered that down already. If you don't like it--amend the constitution.
There is a place for teaching kids everything they need to know to live a healthy life. And that includes getting all the details about sex--contraceptives, stds, how reproductive systems work etc. that they need to know to live a healthy life once they become sexually active--be that in their teens, in college, or whenever. And the fact is the vast majority of parents are never going to go into that kind of detail on the topic with their kids, like a trained sex ed teacher will. If they have the talk, explain condoms etc. it's just not going to be as thorough both because they probably don't have all the knowledge on STDs etc. and they're just not comfortable talking sex with their kids and would rather someone else do it.
No one ever NEEDs to know religious doctrine. It's a completely optional thing that people should seek out on their own, in their private time. And it can't be pushed with tax payer dollars due to separation of church and state.
Correct info about contraceptives and STDs is something everyone needs to know, and is information schools should be giving IMO in efforts to keep unwanted pregnancies down and lower the spread of STDs.
There is a place for teaching kids everything they need to know to live a healthy life. And that includes getting all the details about sex--contraceptives, stds, how reproductive systems work etc. that they need to know to live a healthy life once they become sexually active--be that in their teens, in college, or whenever. And the fact is the vast majority of parents are never going to go into that kind of detail on the topic with their kids, like a trained sex ed teacher will. If they have the talk, explain condoms etc. it's just not going to be as thorough both because they probably don't have all the knowledge on STDs etc. and they're just not comfortable talking sex with their kids and would rather someone else do it.
No one ever NEEDs to know religious doctrine. It's a completely optional thing that people should seek out on their own, in their private time. And it can't be pushed with tax payer dollars due to separation of church and state.
Correct info about contraceptives and STDs is something everyone needs to know, and is information schools should be giving IMO in efforts to keep unwanted pregnancies down and lower the spread of STDs.
Crazystars
CAG Veteran
The religious fundamentalist states have always had higher teen pregnancy rates they wont allow real sex ed to be taught and theyve always had the highest divorce rates. The ultra liberal poster child blue state of Massachusetts actually has the lowest levels of both teen pregnancy and divorce. The fundies have always just been hypocrites and liars.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Como?
States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):
Nevada (113)
Arizona (104)
Mississippi (103)
New Mexico (103)
Texas (101)
Florida (97)
California (96)
Georgia (95)
North Carolina (95)
Arkansas (93)
States ranked by rates of live births among women age 15-19 (births per thousand):
Mississippi (71)
Texas (69)
Arizona (67)
Arkansas (66)
New Mexico (66)
Georgia (63)
Louisiana (62)
Nevada (61)
Alabama (61)
Oklahoma (60)
************************************
There are some conservative southern states there (I'd argue income level matters more), but it doesn't exactly prove your statement, buddy. If your statement were true, where is Utah?
[quote name='Crazystars'] The fundies have always just been hypocrites and liars.[/QUOTE]
I guess you'd know.
States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per thousand):
Nevada (113)
Arizona (104)
Mississippi (103)
New Mexico (103)
Texas (101)
Florida (97)
California (96)
Georgia (95)
North Carolina (95)
Arkansas (93)
States ranked by rates of live births among women age 15-19 (births per thousand):
Mississippi (71)
Texas (69)
Arizona (67)
Arkansas (66)
New Mexico (66)
Georgia (63)
Louisiana (62)
Nevada (61)
Alabama (61)
Oklahoma (60)
************************************
There are some conservative southern states there (I'd argue income level matters more), but it doesn't exactly prove your statement, buddy. If your statement were true, where is Utah?
[quote name='Crazystars'] The fundies have always just been hypocrites and liars.[/QUOTE]
I guess you'd know.
bread's done