Pro-life policies work.

A common pro-choice argument is that abstinence only sex education doesn't work. Several studies have proven this claim to be false.

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/study-shows-abstinence-education-works.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinence-works/story?id=9731048

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/02/science/la-sci-sex-ed2-2010feb02

 

Ya, kids always admit when they start having sex.......

 

Extract - Proponents of abstinence education hailed the study as proof they were right all along. Inveterate opponents of abstinence-only education said the Penn approach was different than its forerunners: less judgmental, never depicting sex outside of marriage as something inherently wrong.

That is not abstinence sex education as has been taught in most of the states that use abstinence sex education.

Already provided the actual study from the last time you posted this and it does not say what you are stating.

Extract From Actual Study Papers - It was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected. - http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=382798

Extract - But in this study, the teachers didn't take it that far. They purposely stayed away from religion, morality and marriage. For example, they did not preach waiting for sex until marriage or disparage using condoms... ...Traditional abstinence-only education, which emphasizes morality and waiting until marriage, has long been criticized and has lost funding for what many say is a lack of effectiveness. .

Again not standard abstinence teaching.

Extract - But Albert noted that this is only one study in one region. It "should not be interpreted as a signal that abstinence-only education works at all times and under all circumstances. That doesn't even pass the common-sense test." ... ... Catherine Camacho, deputy director for the California Department of Public Health's Center for Family Health, said previous research had shown that it made sense to include abstinence education as part of a comprehensive program.
"A comprehensive approach that does include abstinence is the most effective program," she said. "We have never disagreed with that. But we would prefer to call it abstinence-plus."

So yet again, even after 4 different links to the same study we find that it does not adhere to the standard abstinence only sex education practiced and bank rolled by the government, and personally the finally comment quoted above only adds further evidence to what I and others have been saying all along, that sex education should be comprehensive - comprehensive sex education INCLUDES teaching abstinence, just not in a religious, preachy manner.

A comprehensive sex education program includes, but is not limited to, the following;

1. Teaches that sexuality is a natural, normal, healthy part of life
2. Teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
3. Provides values-based education and offers students the opportunity to explore and define their individual values as well as the values of their families and communities
4. Includes a wide variety of sexuality related topics, such as human development, relationships, interpersonal skills, sexual expression, sexual health, and society and culture
5. Includes accurate, factual information on abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation
6. Provides positive messages about sexuality and sexual expression, including the benefits of abstinence
7. Teaches that proper use of latex condoms, along with water-based lubricants, can greatly reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including HIV
8. Teaches that consistent use of modern methods of contraception can greatly reduce a couple's risk for unintended pregnancy
9. Includes accurate medical information about STDs, including HIV; teaches that individuals can avoid STDs
10. Teaches that religious values can play an important role in an individual's decisions about sexual expression; offers students the opportunity to explore their own and their family's religious values
11. Teaches that a woman faced with an unintended pregnancy has options: carrying the pregnancy to term and raising the baby, or carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption, or ending the pregnancy with an abortion

This is a single study that even the authors themselves say should not be used as proof that abstinence sex education works, where as there are numerous studies that show the 'traditional' abstinence sex education teachings do not work.

 

Abstinence only tends to only work when your culture reinforces it in their society. That's simply not the case in America because sex is big business, in all it's forms across all media.

This is, unfortunately, a policy of yesterday. We need policies of tomorrow, that address the world we actually live in instead of harkening back to a time that simply doesn't exist here anymore.

 

Wow. From three liberal sources too. That's interesting.

 

Aren't you unwittingly making the argument here that the sexual revolution caused all of these problems in the first place? And we were actually better off as a society before it?

Uh oh.

 

How did the sexual revolution cause abortion to become legal? I thought abortion was only legalized because of a few supreme court judges.

 

I don't know about whether we were better off. That was an awful sexist and racist time to live in.

But I think it's fair to say that the sexual revolution of the 60s does play a role in how things are today, sure.

 

How so?

I'm asking that question because I'm not that familiar with what happened during the sexual revolution of the 60s (all I know was that Alfred Kinsey influenced it.)

 

I'd look it up on wikipedia. I wasn't alive then either so you're probably better off reading about it from people who were. In a nutshell, a lot of the informal social "restrictions" about sex were shattered. That was the decade of hippies and free love and all that. But that is not the whole story, not by a longshot. The sexual revolution was a response to centuries of sexist treatment of women. Consider that it was only 50 years before in 1920 that the 19th amendment prohibited the state's and federal government's ability to restrict voting by gender. There are women alive today who may remember not being legally allowed to vote. I bring up women spceifically, even though the sexual revolution involved both men and women but the way I figure it, men do the same things sexually now that they did back then and before the 60s, which is pretty much have sex without social stigma attached. Plus, everyone had just come from the 50s where the cold war threat of nuclear winter was apparently a near daily worry.

But there's a lot more to it. I'd really suggest finding somewhere to read in depth about it.

 

It is a huge subject that to focus on one particular part would not serve to educated of the whole, a good starting point would be here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights

 

You do realise that these are four articles about the same piece of research? The conclusion of the actual study isn't anything like as definitive as you make out. It's one set of results and not entirely straight forwards.

Making either definitive statements that abstinence-only sex education works or doesn't work is simplistic. There are countless variables in how sex education is presented and all sorts of ways of measuring the outcomes (none or which are perfect). If this question could be answered in a sentence and a couple of media links, there wouldn't be people investing in detailed research about it.

Also, talking about it in the context of pro-choice or pro-life is even more foolish than those terms are in general.

 

Sexual revolution = increased irresponsibility with sex = increased demand not to be held accountable for one's own decisions = legal abortion

Today is an awfully sexist and racist time to live in. The parameters are just drawn differently. Now you're the bad guy if you're white and male. And everybody else is apparently your victim. Even if you were born as recently as 2000. That's the cultural attitude today. People are no more enlightened now than they were then. They're still just as angry. They're still just as clueless. They're still just as prejudiced.

 

1-Who started the sexual revolution?

2-Where are you getting that idea from? I don't think that people are prejudiced towards white males nowadays. I never noticed that.

 

No, all people are not prejudiced against white males. What happened was that over time more and more non-white males, and females started accumulating all the rights and privileges that white males always had ...and SOME males got really scared and interpreted that as them losing rights or being picked on...

Males DID lose some rights...like the right to beat their wives with impunity and without punishment...

- - - Updated - - -

But this is getting off topic....

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

Sexual revolution = freedom of fear for woman = more equality for women = control over their own bodies and destiny.

 

Abortion has nothing to do with equality for women.

 

no most white males are not being discriminated against, all that happened is that women, blacks etc started to receive the same rights as white males and that made them feel that they had somehow lost their rights.

It is interesting to note that part of the rights so many right-wingers want to return to include the right to rape their wife within marriage (that didn't become fully a crime in the all the states until 1992 - and even now it is treated differently to non spousal rape in a few states) and the right to refuse services to someone based on their skin color or sexually orientation.

 

Never said it did (though it does) the statement made was in response to Unifiers fallacy.

 

Regardless of whether or not Unifier made a fallacy, you still argued that the sexual revolution brought equality to women. That's a fallacy. The sexual revolution of the 60s (started by Harry Hay) was about legalizing homosexuality, not about equal rights for women.

 

Since I WAS THERE AT THE TIME ( and YOU weren't) I can tell you that not ONE single person or thing started the sexual revolution of the 60's...it was an accumulation of things ...it was not black and white so that future generations would have an easier time figuring it out.

The ideas at the time DID help with women's equality, brought it to the attention of everyone, made it the big deal it was, showed politicans it's best to pay attention to what women wanted 'cause they vote, too. It helped women stuck in traditional sexist roles realize that they did NOT have to accept them.

 

1- Alfred Kinsey and Harry Hay started the sexual revolution.

2-Okay, so not allowing a woman to have an abortion is "sexist".

 

Oh , that's so cute how you got your little Internet generation "facts" off the Internet instead of taking the word of someone who actually lived through it....


And yes, you're correct, denying reproductive rights to women is sexist.

 

I got my facts from this documentary.

http://www.goodfight.org/store/resources_video_tstsfrar10.html

 

What makes you think pastor Joe Schimmel is an authority on the subject?