Abstinence Promoted as Birth Control Method

Is abstinence a valid method of birth control?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on December 4, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Bookie]

Why do schools have to teach this sort of thing anyway? Shouldn't their attention be on academics, so that kids have better things to do with their lives then shag each other?

Abstinence is the only 100 sure way to prevent the crap that comes with sex, and should be taught as such. Other prevention methods should be taught too, I guess, because kids will always be stupid. I think that the information should be available for those who want it, but for people like me it doesn't matter one bit, and for those who are already sexually active, they learn more from their friends than their teachers anyway.

Make sex less stigmatized, return general irresponsability back to the realm of That Which Is Looked Down Upon By Society, and maybe then this stuff will get better.

Then again, people have been banging with those they weren't supposed to since the begining of time, so I don't know why anyone thinks anything will work.

[o Talith o]

Hmm... yes, abstinence is 100 percent effective. Except when you don't follow it.

The average percent of abstinence working is equal the to average percent of people who try to practice it and fail.

You're right, though... abstinence is a method of sex, not birth, control. And if it fails, there's nothing else to stand in the way.

Teach abstinence if you wish. It probably won't help. Better to teach ways of accessing and properly using more commercially available methods of birth control.

Guanobaron: Yes, that would be helpful. But I don't think you'll find a school in the country willing to teach that. And how would you grade them? ... without getting a sexual harassment suit?

[Archangel Calyphrael]

I think everyone's forgetting that even ABSTINENCE can fail -- rape. Just to point that out.

And Dias, you could have them write lemons about it.. wink

[Mistress Tarasque]

The point of "birth control" is anything that will prevent a pregnancy. Shooting a woman in the abdomen after having sex is birth control. It's also a really bad idea. Not having sex is birth control because it prevents pregnancy. Saying that abstinence "failing" is stupid. Abstinence doesn't fail. People fail. That's like saying love fails or honesty fails. It's an ideal. A plan. If you deviate from that plan, it's your own fault. That aside, when you do have sex (thus, the abstinence "failing" wink how can you say that it does not affect the chances of a pregnancy? If you don't have sex, you have almost a 0% chance of pregnancy, leaving wiggle-room for immaculate conception. Just in case. If you do have sex, that chance jumps. Depending on when the woman ovulates, and certain other factors (including your own potency) that can be a whopping 100%. I'd say that affects something.

Or perhaps another argument would make more sense to you. Maybe numbers just don't work for you. I can work around that. Math wasn't ever my favorite subject. Let's try English, shall we? Success of abstinence is to "failure" thereof as use of a condom is to lack thereof. Abstaining from sexual activity is a choice, not a chance. If you're going to compare it to using a condom, make an accurate comparison. Having sex is a choice. Using a condom is a choice. The former cannot fail, while the latter can. It seems to me that the concept with which you struggle is not abstinence at all. It's responsibility. All birth control is applying responsibility to the satisfaction of desire. If you don't see the connection, it's the fault of your irresponsibility and you should probably stick to virginity.

[Kurd Jam]

FufuLynn

The most effective way not to get pregnant or get any STD's is to not have sex. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.

This is not saying others have to or follow this, but its the truth, deny it not.

The problem, however, is that abstinence only programs do not prepare kids for the moment they do decide to have sex; which makes them pretty much worthless for these programs do not really educate kids about the various ways to prevent the risks that come along with sex.

[VeronaS3]

I believe it's considered a method of birth control cause, if you don't have sex, you wont have a chance to getting pregnant and having babies. Simple as that.

But when a person does start to have sex, they DO need to know the other methods of birth control, cause most people now a days don't really wait until marriage. Heh, it's just becoming apart of society.

'Course there are already too many poeple on this planet. Hm.

[Sotek]

FufuLynn

The most effective way not to get pregnant or get any STD's is to not have sex. Its not a difficult concept to grasp.

This is not saying others have to or follow this, but its the truth, deny it not.

And if you are having sex (and abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't affect the rate of sex[/]b), there's a lot of things you can do to try to minimize the consequences.

If you don't know them, you won't.

[Princess Squirrel]

Yet, parents(not schools for the love of God. We're paying tax money for them to educate them [which they can't do already] not teach them that as long as you wear a condom go be a hussie.) should teach their kids that crap, as embarrassing as it is. But yah, abstinence may not be a "birth-control method" IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO NOT GET PREGNANT. Condoms, the pill, spermicides, diaphrams, and all the rest are not 100% effective. So schools should teach the facts ("birth-control methods" not sureproof, abstinence is) and parents should be the ones to teach their kids the "putting on condoms et.c" crap.

[exmeromotu]

Actually now... you have a very very little percentage of getting pregnant with out technically habing sex. (spelling?)

[Sotek]

princess_squirrel

Yet, parents(not schools for the love of God. We're paying tax money for them to educate them [which they can't do already] not teach them that as long as you wear a condom go be a hussie.)

Y'know, they're not teaching that.

Teaching someone how to avoid negative consequences is HARDLY saying it's okay to do that.

Besides, what if you get married and don't want children immediately? Will you continue to abstain?


If you know how to recover from a skid in your car, are you really more likely to get into a situation wherein you need to?

[God of Failure]

Most organizations teach abstinence only because they are government funded, and if they teach anything else, then they run the risk of losing funding, aswell as many other many other nasty consequences.
More info on that Here.

As to why it's taught in schools, That's the most convenient location. A lot of parents have trouble having the talk with their kids. And if it were held at any other place, parents might have trouble getting their kids there.

[thatusernameisalsotaken]

prototype27

It really bothers me to see abstinence promoted in schools as a method of birth control. Specifically touted about as the "most effective" method of birth control. Yet there's rarely any programs on how to properly use a condom, or the pill, or spermicides, or any of the actual birth control methods. Instead, our children are instructed to simply save sex for marriage.

There are several problems with this situation. First, abstinence is simply not a method of birth control. It's a method of sex control. Don't have sex, can't make babies. When it succeeds, it's 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. When it fails, it does nothing to affect the chances of pregnancy. Therefore, it's unfair to evaluate it as a birth control method only when it succeeds. Since abstinence is paraded in our public schools as a completely effective birth control method, this means that when abstinence fails (as it often does, due to one thing or another,) then the previously abstinent individual will most likely not have any other way to prevent a pregnancy.

I'm not saying that if it's at all physically possible to go out and shag anything in sight, but I am facing reality in realizing that yes, people want to have sex, yes, people will probably end up having sex, and that yes, people need to be prepared for it. Proper birth control education is vital in this respect. Kids need to be educated by either parent or government (it really doesn't matter which) that abstinence is certainly an option, and a good option, but there are also other ways to prevent pregnancy. They also need to be shown how to properly use these methods of birth control.

I'm also not saying that it's impossible to remain abstinent. Many people do, and that's fine by me. However, many people don't. The added incentive of the holy institution of marriage can help some, but for atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions whose codes do not prohibit sex outside of a life-bonded situation, then abstinence is saying, "This feels great, but don't do it because it's bad." There's very little reason on why sex is seen as "bad" in this case, especially since there are so many other methods of birth control out there. There is always the issue of STD's, of course, but that's an issue even in a marriage.

Personally, I agree that sex is best enjoyed in a long-term monogamous relationship. However, other people do not and most likely will never agree with this. Furthermore, even in such a relationship, a child may be unwanted at a certain point in time. Thus, it is important that individuals are properly educated in the existence and proper use of non-abstinence birth control methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I apologize in advance if I'm making an arguement that someone else has made.

There's a big problem in the point that you make here. Even though you suggest otherwise, you're trying to make it seem like birth control methods other than abstinance are 100% effective. They're not. Theres a slim and very slight chance with each of them that they won't work.

Here's a few good reasons why they 'parade' it in public school.

- The public schools know for a matter of fact that abstinance is the only 100% guaranteed method of birth control. To teach anything else is to put too much trust in the intelligence of other people.

- Saying that abstinance is the most sure fire way but there are other ways too is basically saying. "Now, I'm not exactly telling you to go out and have all the woopie your teenage bodies can handle, but here's a condom, just to make the decision easier." You can't teach about the other birth controls without giving the kid the impression that it's okay to have sex.

- These public schools respect religion, and respect the student's family who might be religious. If a student's parents want their kid to go out and make snoo-snoo until their heads pop, then it's their responsibility to teach the kid about condoms and birth control and whatever. The public schools say 'don't go out and have sex at all, sex is bad' because it would be an okay message for any parent, I imagine.

Bottom line, I think it's good that the schools are teaching abstinance, but it's up to the parent to include condoms and birth control pills in the talk about the birds and the bees.

~Ronin~

[Sotek]

Ronin Hellbringer

- The public schools know for a matter of fact that abstinance is the only 100% guaranteed method of birth control. To teach anything else is to put too much trust in the intelligence of other people.

And to not teach anything else is criminally irresponsible. Abstinence-only sex ed has no effect whatsoever.

Quote:

- Saying that abstinance is the most sure fire way but there are other ways too is basically saying. "Now, I'm not exactly telling you to go out and have all the woopie your teenage bodies can handle, but here's a condom, just to make the decision easier." You can't teach about the other birth controls without giving the kid the impression that it's okay to have sex.

This is simply incorrect.

Comprehensive sex-ed programs do not result in an increase in sex, but they do result in a decrease of STDs and a decrease in teen pregnancy.

Thus, you are wrong.

Quote:

- These public schools respect religion, and respect the student's family who might be religious. If a student's parents want their kid to go out and make snoo-snoo until their heads pop, then it's their responsibility to teach the kid about condoms and birth control and whatever. The public schools say 'don't go out and have sex at all, sex is bad' because it would be an okay message for any parent, I imagine.

Except, of course, that it doesn't accomplish a single thing.

Why not just end sex ed altogether? That would be cheaper and have precisely the same consequences.

Quote:

Bottom line, I think it's good that the schools are teaching abstinance, but it's up to the parent to include condoms and birth control pills in the talk about the birds and the bees.

No, it's stupid for the schools to teach abstinence and nothing else, because it has no effect at all.

[o Talith o]

princess_squirrel

Yet, parents(not schools for the love of God. We're paying tax money for them to educate them [which they can't do already] not teach them that as long as you wear a condom go be a hussie.) should teach their kids that crap, as embarrassing as it is. But yah, abstinence may not be a "birth-control method" IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO NOT GET PREGNANT. Condoms, the pill, spermicides, diaphrams, and all the rest are not 100% effective. So schools should teach the facts ("birth-control methods" not sureproof, abstinence is) and parents should be the ones to teach their kids the "putting on condoms et.c" crap.

Yeah, but if you use condoms, the pill, spermicides, diaphrams (spelling?), and all of that, you've got a pretty damned good chance of avoiding pregnancy.

Also, abstinence is NOT the only way to avoid pregnancy. A vasectomy will prevent males from impregnating anyone, and a woman getting her tubes tied will work, like, 100% of the time (except for that one 50-year-old lady whose tubes "came untied." wink

Abstinence-only sex-ed says this, and nothing more:
If you don't have sex, you won't have kids.
Wow. DUH. Tell kids that if you want, but you've got to tell them something more than that.

Ronin Hellbringer

The public schools say 'don't go out and have sex at all, sex is bad' because it would be an okay message for any parent, I imagine.

My parents don't agree with that. And I imagine that several other parents wouldn't. I know that if I ever became a parent, I wouldn't drill that into my kid. It's moronic. It will result in one of two things: your child fanatically refusing to have sex until they want a child, and then even not enjoying it, or it would make sex some sort of secret, forbidden mystery that they want to investigate themselves because you won't talk to them, and their schools only teach abstinence ( >.> )

I say it's better that the schools teach all possible methods of birth control. If the parents don't like it, well, they'll learn to live with it. They can try to instill their own beliefs into their children as much as they want, but there's no harm in letting the kids know the alternatives, even if they obstinately believe that birth control is wrong. It exists, and pretending it doesn't only causes more STDs and teen pregnancy.

Hmm... poorly written fanfics as sex-ed...

[thatusernameisalsotaken]

You sure like to use that bold, don't you...

Sotek

And to not teach anything else is criminally irresponsible. Abstinence-only sex ed has no effect whatsoever.

Wether it has no effect is questionable, but at least it doesn't take away a parent's right to teach his kid what he wishes, according to which ideal he sees fit.

Quote:

This is simply incorrect.

Comprehensive sex-ed programs do not result in an increase in sex, but they do result in a decrease of STDs and a decrease in teen pregnancy.

Thus, you are wrong.

Wow, and so quick to tell me I'm wrong, too. Assumption is the mother of fallacy, my friend.

Anyway, the responsibility to teach kids about condoms and such is the parent. The message this topic presents varies by the way it's presented, so if done properly could suggest still that you shouldn't have sex. I could imagine this would be extremely hard to do, though.

But no matter how you look at it, sex is a choice, not some random occurance that can't be helped.

Quote:

Except, of course, that it doesn't accomplish a single thing.

Why not just end sex ed altogether? That would be cheaper and have precisely the same consequences.

Telling students not to have sex is better than saying nothing at all.

Quote:

No, it's stupid for the schools to teach abstinence and nothing else, because it has no effect at all.

The only reason it wouldn't have an effect, is if the person in question chooses not to listen. In the case of this person in question, a further education in condoms and pills would make no more difference.

You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that the schools should not be teaching something to students that the students' parents would object to them being taught. It's the PARENTS responsibility to make sure his/her child knows the concequence of certain actions.

Maybe the parents now need an education on how to better raise their children? In a perfect world, of course, in this one, afraid not.