Have you stopped having sex yet? - The federal government has spent $1.3 billion to promote abstinence

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

...

These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080423/sc_nm/abstinence_usa_dc

[dalegg 143]

well, it has been scaled back considerably lately.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Bush is a genius! It's working!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well it figures that Bush would still be banging on about this - him and the hardcore religious right. They'd rather stick their fingers in their ears, ignore the advice of every health group going and piss away yet more public money on abstinence-only programs that don't work.

Hey - who cares how much it costs, stroking pious egos is money well spent

Has US abstinence policy failed?

Planned Parenthood estimates that two thirds of teenagers will have experienced sexual intercourse by the time they leave school.

And with some 750,000 teenage pregnancies a year, America has one of the highest teen birth rates in the developed world.

"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

"We've been wasting money on programmes that don't work and we're seeing the consequences every single day."

State governments receive federal money they must match to fund abstinence programmes.

At least 17 states have opted out of the system and others have suspended funding while Congress investigates whether such programmes work.

Critics say there is no evidence that they delay sexual activity and teenagers who have taken a vow of virginity are less likely to use protection if they break their promise.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Well it figures that Bush would still be banging on about this - him and the hardcore religious right. They'd rather stick their fingers in their ears, ignore the advice of every health group going and piss away yet more public money on abstinence-only programs that don't work.

Hey - who cares how much it costs, stroking pious egos is money well spent

Has US abstinence policy failed?

Planned Parenthood estimates that two thirds of teenagers will have experienced sexual intercourse by the time they leave school.

And with some 750,000 teenage pregnancies a year, America has one of the highest teen birth rates in the developed world.

"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

"We've been wasting money on programmes that don't work and we're seeing the consequences every single day."

State governments receive federal money they must match to fund abstinence programmes.

At least 17 states have opted out of the system and others have suspended funding while Congress investigates whether such programmes work.

Critics say there is no evidence that they delay sexual activity and teenagers who have taken a vow of virginity are less likely to use protection if they break their promise.

You got kids?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not yet.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Not yet.

Enough said!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not yet.

Enough said!

The article is "enough said".

$1.3 billion wasted on something that doesn't work.

[mawilson 2,133]

The article is "enough said".

$1.3 billion wasted on something that doesn't work.

I'm sure it does work to some extent.

[Amby 490]

I didn't want to have sex for awhile when I saw pics of nasty snatches and penises covered in boils. ick!

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I didn't want to have sex for awhile when I saw pics of nasty snatches and penises covered in boils. ick!

Yeah, we had quite a good junior high/high school health teacher in my town in Commie Massachusetts. None of this judgmental (and ineffectual) abstinence stuff, just big film-strip images of IUDs, crabs, and graphic descriptions of herpes symptoms.

Of course, the teenage boys in my town, with their bad skin and crackly voices, weren't exactly tasty either. I guess sometimes it's easy to Just Say No! (right, Nancy? oh wait, that was drugs. now that's a different story!)

[GabiandVi 34]

There is a huge movement among teenagers to abstain, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with the 1.3billion spent. Having said that, those programs do work. It's a kind of brainwashing that we have all fallen under. How many North Americans, Australians, and Brits would consider throwing trash on the ground? I didn't realize how effectively I had been brainwashed to be horrified by this until I lived abroad. Teenagers are much more likely these days to assign a designated driver than they did when I was a kid. For a while, new smokers among teenagers dropped too. I think that has reversed in recent years. These attitudes are a result of a huge campaign.

Meanwhile, when I taught in the US, I discovered some young boys would not have sex with girls on birth control, because then they couldn't prove their manhood by getting the girls pregnant.

I don't know how the abstinence campaign has been run, but if it isn't couched in moral terms but rather pracitical terms, including pictures of genitalia with seeping sores, it might actually work. No birth control is 100% effective and there are a lot worse things than pregnancy that can result from having sex. I don't see anything wrong with teaching abstinence along with teaching about birth control methods. But it seems that most people on both sides of this fence believe it is either all or nothing. All birth control, no abstinence, and vice versa.

AS for the moral aspect of abstinence, I do think it is the church crowd that has had results in promoting abstinence, but for reasons other than the seperation of church and state, I don't believe those sort of morals should be taught in schools. I don't think they carry any weight removed from familial approval and disapproval, etc.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I don't know how the abstinence campaign has been run, but if it isn't couched in moral terms but rather pracitical terms, including pictures of genitalia with seeping sores, it might actually work. No birth control is 100% effective and there are a lot worse things than pregnancy that can result from having sex. I don't see anything wrong with teaching abstinence along with teaching about birth control methods. But it seems that most people on both sides of this fence believe it is either all or nothing. All birth control, no abstinence, and vice versa.

I don't believe the majority of America is like that. The most vocal, perhaps, but I think the average person sees abstinence and birth control on equal footing.

We need to remember that special interest groups and politicians all have something to gain by promoting one or the other. Politicians in particular play off the fear that your child might get pregnant or become infected with an STD. The interest groups need to push their agenda as well or they'll have no reason to exist. This works in reverse too -- some politicians and interest groups are overzealous in their efforts to push birth control when maybe some teenagers might choose abstinence.

I think part of the problem with handing over condoms or allowing the birth control pill to be prescribed is that it's exceedingly difficult for parents (especially, it seems, those who have daughters) fully understand that their child is growing up and wants to be with a member of the opposite sex. The parents in question see themselves as "protecting their kid from the unintended consequences of sexual intercourse."

In some ways, they're right. It's not uncommon for a newly-made teen mother to dump her child off at her parents (the child's grandparents) and go out with her friends to party, shirking her responsibility as a parent. Having a child could also bring about lots of undue stress (especially if a single parent) and possibly postpone further education. Even if pregnancy didn't occur, there's always the risk of STDs, most of which can be removed with antibiotics, except for herpes and HIV/AIDS.

However... if someone really wants to have sex, they will. You can't lock your teen away in a tower. They'll eventually find a way to have sex and in that case, it's probably better off that you know they'll be using protection. I know I'd feel better if I thought my teen had access to and was using condoms and -- if female -- the birth control pill, rather than sneaking around behind my back and possibly having sex completely unprotected. But that's my opinion. I'm sure some people would see that as "encouraging" sexual behavior too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's nothing wrong with abstinence - only when its taught to the exclusion of other forms of sex education.

[greeneyedgirlfl 0]

There's nothing wrong with abstinence - only when its taught to the exclusion of other forms of sex education.

Absolutely!