<p>Unwanted pregnancy is certainly an issue especially considering that type of health education currently in the schools does not always give accurate information about contraception- counting on teens and unmarrieds to “just say no” rather than recognizing that the drive to bond in a sexual relationship is at least as strong as the drive for food or shelter.
When high school student are told that condoms are ineffective, when they are told that life begins at conception and to have an early pregnancy terminiation is immoral- where are they likely to get correct information?
While I do not remember getting much information in high school ( none) re birth control, at least I was not getting WRONG information.Thank goodness Planned Parenthood was available, to educate and provide guidance and health care to teens and people without health insurance.</p>
<p>I think what is wrong with the religious view…is that is it believed to be coming from God or one of his anointed leaders. It is a formal and authoritative view…even if many in the religion don’t necessarily “buy” it all. But individuals can have varying views for each situation. As a rational, thinking individual there is room to ponder and accept certain things and not others or even change your mind. Coming from religion it is set almost in stone and it comes down whole with no room for questions or change. That is why we don’t want it imposed on us in all it’s cement- whole. No questioning allowed, no changes allowed, no outside thought allowed!</p>
<p>abstinence is simply a lost cause for those who dont include it in their religious beliefs. i think the problem is that religious fundamentalists simply feel uncomfortable talking about contraception when they find it opposed to their beliefs. this is unfortunate, because it is a far better alternative to encouraging abortions.</p>
<p>I didn’t mock them…its just seems hypocritcal to say, well, its not sex (and yeah Clinton was wrong), see how good we are and how strong we are, when in fact, they are doing quite a bit, the everything but…</p>
<p>And often there are STDs that get spread because, well, if we ain’t gonna get pregnant from our actions, then we don’t need no protection…which is just plain wrong</p>
<p>when they [high school students] are told that life begins at conception and to have an early pregnancy termination is immoral- where are they likely to get correct information?</p>
<p>You imply that it is absolutely incorrect (a divine decree, as such) to say that life begins at conception. As far as I can tell, there are only two definite biological points in the life of any human beingconception and death. Every change between these two points is simply a relative change, i.e. from embryo to fetus, child to adult etc.; that is, the way we view life. Only the beginning and end of life are absolute stages in human development. Before conception, the biologically living and functioning organism in question did not exist. After death, the same biologically living and functioning organism no longer exists; beyond this, it seems to be no more than a point of view.</p>
<p>When high school student are told that condoms are ineffective</p>
<p>How effective are they? Drivers Education is also effective though with similar and limited results 
Of course, one has to drive to function before marriage but one is not required to drink before they are 21 or have sex before marriage.</p>
<p>Coming from religion it is set almost in stone and it comes down whole with no room for questions or change.</p>
<p>That makes me wonder why there are so many different faiths in this country and world, and why people sometimes move from one to another or none at all. Apparently, people have found a number of ways of looking at God or even Holy Scripture, from the Bible to the Quran to the Bhagavad-Gita; there are in fact too many interpretations of God and scripture to number, wouldnt you agree?
That any one of them would argue the moral or political issues of the day from there own point of view seems to me to be no different than any one else arguing from their beliefs or point of view (as no one, that I am aware of, argues from anything else but beliefs, some just share theirs with God and some simply understand God and human nature differently than others
sort of like in the way Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Secular/Atheists and Agnostics all want what they perceive to be the best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz would say).</p>
<p>pregnancy doesn’t even begin at conception- pregnancy begins at implantation
LEGAL birth control devices such as IUDs prevent implantation not conception
condoms if used properly are pretty effective against pregnancy and very effective against STDs</p>
<p>We have a moral obligation to prepare students for adult life- one of those obligations is to give them accurate health care information.
<a href=“Abstinence-Only Sex Education vs. Comprehensive Sex Ed--birth control teens public high schools Shelby Knox interview teachers - Beliefnet”>Abstinence-Only Sex Education vs. Comprehensive Sex Ed--birth control teens public high schools Shelby Knox interview teachers - Beliefnet;
<p><a href=“http://www.scarleteen.com/forum/Forum8/HTML/000888.html[/url]”>http://www.scarleteen.com/forum/Forum8/HTML/000888.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2003/if_20031125p265_ed.asp[/url]”>http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2003/if_20031125p265_ed.asp</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.latimes.com/features/health/kids/wire/sns-ap-teen-pregnancy,1,5177831.story?coll=sns-ap-healthkids-headlines[/url]”>http://www.latimes.com/features/health/kids/wire/sns-ap-teen-pregnancy,1,5177831.story?coll=sns-ap-healthkids-headlines</a></p>
<p>*A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.</p>
<p>The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated teen pregnancy policy.</p>
<p>“Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy,” said Dr. Jonathan Klein, chairman of the academy committee that wrote the new recommendations.</p>
<p>Teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases, said Dr. S. Paige Hertweck, a pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville who provided advice for the report.*
Who should decide what health information the students of the United states recieve- medical doctors or conservative religous leaders?</p>
<p>The question, it seems, is not when pregnancy begins, it is when we have a genetically programmed distinct member of the species, and then when we dont, at death.</p>
<p>I think no one wants unplanned pregnancies. That is pretty clear. When teens are not given accurate information regarding how to stop unwanted pregnancies, it is pretty clear that those teens end up pregnant, with STDs, and then don’t know what to do.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.alanguttmacherinstitute.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html[/url]”>http://www.alanguttmacherinstitute.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html</a></p>
<p>pretty good article</p>
<p>“Even so, these findings suggest that the best strategy for continuing the declines in teenage pregnancy levels is a multifaceted approach. Programs and policies should aim at encouraging teenagers–particularly those at the youngest ages–to postpone intercourse and at supporting sexually experienced youths who wish to refrain from further sexual activity. At the same time, it must be recognized that most young people become sexually active during their teens, and sexuality education and information should also prepare them to adequately prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection if and when they do have sex. Services should be in place that will help them to behave responsibly–to ensure that they use contraceptives and to help them improve the effectiveness with which they practice contraception. That means providing adequate education and information about sexual behavior and its consequences, as well as confidential, affordable and accessible sources of contraceptive services and supplies, and support for research and development of new contraceptive methods that young people will find acceptable and easy to use effectively.”</p>
<p>FS, it is those with a narrowly defined religious view that are trying to put their stamp of authority of what is and is not allowed onto everyone. It is not a question of differing views being religiously based or not. It is a question of attempting to impose a narrow sectarian outlook to which I object. What does it take for you to understand that you may not impose your beliefs upon me?</p>
<p>I think the Puritan view of sex was pretty interesting. Unprotected premarital teen sex, for women, basically required. Premarital pregnancy as proof that God would make the marriage fruitful. No pregnancy casts doubt on whether the marriage was meant to be. 1/3rd of all women pregnant before marriage. Whether you’d call these “planned” or “unplanned” would make for an interesting discussion.</p>
<p>Seems to have cut down on STDs, which were rampant in Virginia, but much more rare in Puritan Massachusetts.</p>
<p>What’s further interesting now is that, in the U.S., both men and women are sexually mature roughly three years earlier than they would have been 100 years ago. But neither our social mores nor our educational systems seem to have accounted for physiological changes.</p>
<p>(If God wanted folks to become sexually mature later, I’m sure She could have arranged it.)</p>
<p>Very interesting article, thanks for posting it.</p>
<p>Pregnancy, though it is still the greatest concern (along with AIDs & STDs), is of course only the most obvious aspect of teenage sexuality (or, for that matter, un-wed/un-committed sexuality in general). There are also the issues involving, suicide, depression, self-image, and an evolving set of ethics or morals which in fact occupy more of WHO WE ARE or what it is TO BE A PERSON and even to FORM PERSONALITY than pretty much any other aspects of our lives, including jobs, careers, colleges, possessions, friends, associates, or wealth.
Contraception addresses none of these but the issue of disease and pregnancy, and those only in part.</p>
<p>Abstinence (obviously, a disparaging word in these parts) is more than just birth control or disease prevention; it is also about the formation of the will and the person. There is much in this life to be desired, but we do not necessarily need to have all of it to live a full, complete and good life
look at Gandhi, Mother Theresa, John Paul II, Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, Thoreau, Lao Tzu etc. You dont have to, as they say, have it all, after-all.
…</p>
<p>“(If God wanted folks to become sexually mature later, I’m sure She could have arranged it.)”</p>
<p>or, she might like to see if those little rascals are capable of a modicum of self-control after all, spiritual poverty and all that mumbo-jumbo…it is certainly a mystery to the “why not have it all” crowd, I’m sure.;)</p>
<p>“What does it take for you to understand that you may not impose your beliefs upon me?”</p>
<p>It’s done everyday all the time to everyone. As there are an infinite number of things that could be allowed or not allowed–in a democracy–the regulated majority decides which things seem more appropriate and very often those who hold the minority opinion don’t like it and say that it is irrational or unfair to impose these beliefs on others, some even refer to the views of their opponents in these matters as narrow religiously-based opinions; I suppose, for lack of a better way to define them. Some, like Thoreau in his civil-disobedience, feel that those who believe strongly enough should sacrifice something of themselves for their views. Interesting idea.</p>
<p>I believe the statistics were from individuals above the age of 19 as an article relates it to a particular group that focuses on what emeraldkity4 would consider ‘shocking’. But so what? What if it did include those that are under the age of 19? Compared to heterosexuals, 73% having sex before the age of 19 may not be so bad. But the point is NOT to compare heterosexuals and homosexuals; the point is to compare a person that holds “traditional” beliefs to one who doesn’t and compare how positive an influence their personal relationships have on them. To make it simple, the percentage of individuals with “traditional marriage” standards, (not “fairly traditional marriage” standards) having sex with males under the age of 19 would be drastically lower than 73%, depending on the legal age of marriage in different areas
And that explains the importance of a “traditional marriage standard”, and the importance of the concept of marriage. The concept protects. </p>
<p>And to citygirlsmom, the fact that there are other activities that may hurt does not justify this particular one that hurts. And I believe your attitude is what creates a society that can influence a child in such a way to make abstinence difficult and even seem abnormal. Some people like to justify problems so they personally don’t need to be responsible for correcting it. Why not? It makes them seem open-minded, it justifies them for some of there own mistakes, and it allows them to simply ‘think’ and not ‘do’. But I am personally very disappointed to see a person so concerned with society to have such a pessimistic attitude, as I have believed you not to be one of them. </p>
<p>And to the Dad, you also seem to have the same seemingly ‘liberal’ attitude as citgygirlsmom. Do you want to advocate your message so you can be free from the responsibility of protecting your own children? Well, I think it is sad to see a father who obviously cares about education and society to have such an attitude. And also, why can I not protect according to my will? Christians may soon lose our rights to protect our children, and here I beg you not to impose the same narrow non-religiously-based view on us.</p>
<p>HEY! Are we still talking about the kids at Parick Henry? I got to page three and got tuckered out so I jumped to page seven and now we’re on sex and pregnancy. How’ d that happen?</p>
<p>All I want to say is that many of these kids might be exemplary - especially in terms of study skills, drive, and organization. But they make me NERVOUS. Why? Because I suspect these kids have led such sheltered, structured, overly-programmed lives that there is probably no room for and they have little skill experiece in or skill at handling chaos, change, differences – the essences of life and of human kind. </p>
<p>QUIOTE:
"The predominant view among Patrick Henry students is that you choose your life path, not that things happen to you, she said. A lot of people here, if they lose controleven for a secondthey have a breakdown. </p>
<p>I want leaders and politicians who are compassionate, tolerant, and wise; who are capable of embracing all of our differences and, despite them, are are able to work with them and/or around them.</p>
<p>I think of the “strict” religious righters and their rigidity and tendency to judge everyone unlike them (especially the “liberals”) so harshly…and yet, how many of them mess up, too - the Rush Limbaugh with drugs, the Newt Gingriches with adultery, and Bennetts with gambling and other excesses. And those who are against homosexually because of the Bible suddenly find they have siblings or children who are homosexual - now what? Can they condemn those they love to hell the way they so breezily do others?</p>
<p>I’m just not sure that kids ike these will make the kind of politicians that will prove to be good leaders for ALL of us…</p>
<p>Hi crash, I encourage to read through the entire thread. you will find many interesting things to suit your concerns.</p>
<p>
Very few politicians will ever prove to be good leaders for ALL of us…Maxine Waters and Ted Kennedy come immediately to mind. If there’s a place for their ilk in our democratic stewpot, there’s a place for the Patrick Henry students, too.</p>
<p>“And I believe your attitude is what creates a society that can influence a child in such a way to make abstinence difficult and even seem abnormal”</p>
<p>Well, maybe because it IS abnormal. Even for Christians. Now, and even throughout the ages. It certainly was abnormal for the Puritans, and thought of as somewhat aberrant. It was relatively abnormal for Catholic priests - up until two centuries ago, priests living in families was a relatively normal occurrence in continental Europe, the concern being that the kids wouldn’t be allowed to inherit. </p>
<p>It is true, though, that the Victorians talked a good game.</p>
<p>bNeg - will do.
Driver - intertesting the two examples you selected…I was thinking more along the lines of FDR, Churchill, even Eisenhower and Truman…</p>
<p>Excuse me, but my attitude is what is causing kids in Texas to do everything BUT…yeah, that is me, I am ALL POWERFUL…</p>
<p>Here goes, there are programs that talk about abstinance, and these kids in the program pledging to abstinance. Great all well and good Meantime, many of these “virgins” are having oral sex, anal sex, all kinds of physical contact, spreading disease, while claiming abstinance because no pregnancy will result.</p>
<p>My point is that if you just say DO NOT DO IT, well, these kids are often almost doing it, with risking behavior because they don’t think they need any kind of protection.</p>
<p>This is reallity. This is happening. Now, I would much rather kids wait until the ideal situation to have sexual relations, but I know that many will not. Its the menality that if your actions are such that you can’t get pregant, then well, its not really sex. That is my worry.</p>
<p>And while so many kids are walking around with little silver rings, pledging to abstinance, when those kids who have learned little about safety, have sex, and believe me they do, they don’t use contraceptives. </p>
<p>And my point was that these kids claiming abstinance are STILL doing almost all of the activities that can cause hurt, disease, etc, with very little information. </p>
<p>And if you want to discuss traditional marriage what is that? many people in marriage do not have sex, have kids, many in traditional marriage have affairs, many drink, many beat their children and wives, many get divorced three and four time (yeah lots of Christians too), so obviously the tradtional marriage has many of its own problems without the fear of a few gays getting married making it any worse.</p>
<p>And during the swell times of the 50s it is just amazing how many premature babies there were that weighed just as much as full term ones.</p>
<p>My attitude is don’t do stupid things, don’t be pressured by society or your friends to have sex, do drugs, drive to fast. Learn all the facts. Have information. Respect yourself and others. </p>
<p>So don’t you dare accuse me of having the attitude that things abstinacne is abnormal and causing all these problems.</p>
<p>Well, he can accuse me. I think “abstinence is abnormal”. Not the preaching of it (people preach all kinds of strange and interesting things), but the practice of it. Abnormal historically and abnormal now.</p>
<p>My statement is not one about “morality”. Pure statistics.</p>
<p>(The preaching of it just causes pain, guilt, and disease. So does preaching lots of other things, too.)</p>