Comments on: Abstinence Only program, delays sexual activity

By: Ruth Institute Blog » Maggie weighs in on the abstinence studies…

Ruth Institute Blog » Maggie weighs in on the abstinence studies… — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:23:58 +0000

[...] studies. (Regular Ruth readers already know something about this controversy. See our posts here, here, and here and our podcasts here .) The release of this new study in the Archives of Pediatric and [...]

By: Jennifer Roback Morse

Jennifer Roback Morse — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:57:56 +0000

for me it’s more of a grey area, between me, my partner and possibly god. this is a moral statement. it isn’t possible to teach anything about sex, without implicitly taking a moral position. my personal view is that the schools should not be involvde in this area at all. the family should be teaching this kind of stuff.

By: Jennifer Roback Morse

Jennifer Roback Morse — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:55:46 +0000

nerdy girl, i promise you, these programs are not teaching religion. there are plenty of people who believe that sex outside of marraige has negative consequences taht can’t all be prevented with contraception. what is so wrong with teaching that?

By: nerdygirl

nerdygirl — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:57:06 +0000

Well obviously a moral code that finds non-consensual sex to be immoral. Moral codes are a personal matter, and schools teaching sex ed is a public matter. I don't need to prove *my* moral code is better then *your* moral code. For you sex before marriage is a sin, for me it's more of a grey area, between me, my partner and possibly god. In any case, as stated before our constitution holds the phrase "Separation of church and state" the education system is part of the state. The state's responsibility is to uphold the law, and prevent the spread of disease. So yes, the state needs to teach contraception methods to teenagers, because it isn't there to teach religion. It shouldn't present religious beliefs as bad, just as personal decisions and faith. You wouldn't want the state pushing Islam or Buddhism on kids, so why is it okay to push Christianity? @Jennifer Roback Morse

By: nerdygirl

nerdygirl — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:34:16 +0000

Every action has a consequence. And this is something teenagers (and many adults for that matter) need to learn. The problem with most abstinence programs is that they fail to properly teach the actual consequences, instead relying purely on fear. This one worked because it taught consequences and not fear. As far as the government giving to unwed mothers, would you rather their children starve? Would that be more moral? Is it more moral for the old and chronically ill to just die then be given treatment? To irresponsibly add to another's burden is wrong. A teenager having unprotected sex is wrong. A teenager having protected sex is responsible.@Ari

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:14:08 +0000

nerdygirl : Besides, what happened to “Judge not, yest ye be judged”?

Ah, that old chestnut. Try reading and understanding the entire verse, in context, before spouting it out again as a substitute for an actual argument.

By: Ari

Ari — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:08:14 +0000

Nerdygirl:
I might be tempted to agree with you. But I’m not. Teenagers and other unmarried people having sex has consequences that extend outside the bedroom (or back seat or whatever). Not the least of which include pregnancy, STDs, etc. Other consequences include the changes made to societies by their changing attitudes towards sex (the coming Demographic Winter is chief on that list). So, how we teach young people about sex affects us all. Therefore, you can say it has moral consequences.

Furthermore, we have a governmental system that forcibly extracts money from the people who earn it to give to unwed mothers, to give to the sick, etc. Since that system is in place (and I see, unfortunately, no way of stopping that system) it is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL for people to add to the burden of that system by acting irresponsible whether it be sexually or otherwise. And you can count on teenagers to act irresponsibly. So, to teach them responsible behavior is absolutely essential.

By: Jennifer Roback Morse

Jennifer Roback Morse — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:49:19 +0000

Nerdy girl: these programs are specifically NOT talking about sex being morally wrong. they are making strictly consequential arguments. the difference amongst the types of programs is in whether they make the implied statement of moral approval by promoting contraception.
BTW: what is your moral code that says that all consensual sex is morally acceptable? Prove to me that your moral code is better. And please explain why should we teach that moral code, rather than some other.

By: nerdygirl

nerdygirl — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:06:12 +0000

Teenagers having consensual sex is only morally wrong if your religion says it is. Are we in a country with the promise of the separation of church and state to assume everyone is a christian and thus subject to it’s laws? Besides, what happened to “Judge not, yest ye be judged”?

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:22:36 +0000

“The problem isn’t teenagers having sex”

No, no moral twist there at all… Meh.

By: nerdygirl

nerdygirl — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:43:31 +0000

The problem isn’t teenagers having sex, the problem is teenagers having unprotected sex. That said, if this program included information about STI’s, it would (logically) included some mention of condoms.
What I find most interesting though is that sex was not portrayed as a negative. Most abstinence education programs pull a moral twist on abstinence, thus adding the forbidden fruit lure to sex. It would be interesting to compare this program to other abstinence programs.
Though keep in mind there’s this study http://www.livescience.com/culture/090916-religion-teen-pregnancy.html that shows a correlation between higher teen birth rates and overall religiousness of a state.