Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[Ben Kenobi]

This does not match up with my experience. I went to a public school in liberal CT and abstinence was definitely presented as the best way to avoid: a) pregnancy; b) disease; and c) emotional issues you may not be ready to deal with.

Late 60's early 70's? They are referring to programs in the 90's and the 00's, which are different now. Heck, I wouldn't even use my experience in the 80's and early 90's as representative of the programs today.

[Asher]

I'm saying they are joined at the hip, PP and the AGI. Always have been. "Family Planning" and "reproductive services" are euphemisms for contraception and abortion.

Only to people who view it as such. In Calgary sex ed in high school is part of CALM (Career and Life Management), and that segment of the course is called Family Planning. They frequently stressed abstinence as the only 100% sure-fire way to not get STDs or get the girl pregnant.

You're just ridiculously biased.

[Arrian]

If you think Heritage is neutral, Ben, then you can go buy the Brooklyn Bridge yourself.

Not too many people are actually neutral on this issue. I read your Heritage link, and I've given it consideration. I know they have an agenda, but hey, they also presented a lot of data.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Ben, I graduated from highschool in 1994.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

It's actually a pretty damn good study.

http://www.nber.org/~kling/surveys/AddHealth.html

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 17 other federal agencies sponsored the study. NICHD contracted with the Carolina Population Center, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and with the National Opinion Research Center at The University of Chicago. The Principal Investigator was J. Richard Udry, UNC Chapel Hill.

[Asher]

It's actually a pretty damn good study.



National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 17 other federal agencies sponsored the study. NICHD contracted with the Carolina Population Center, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and with the National Opinion Research Center at The University of Chicago. The Principal Investigator was J. Richard Udry, UNC Chapel Hill.

It sounds great when you omit the most pertinent parts.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the HIV/AIDS epidemic required a deep understanding of sexual risk-taking that social scientists could not provide; however, adolescent sexuality research was controversial. In May 1991, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD) approved a five-year national study of adolescent sexual risk-taking, which unleashed a firestorm of controversy. For instance, Senator Jesse Helms contended that the survey constituted "support for homosexuality and sexual decadence" (Boonstra 2001).
This political pressure on the Bush administration was so strong that only months after the initial grant was announced, Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan withdrew the grant on the grounds that the survey would "inadvertently convey a message that would be counterproductive to our efforts to discourage casual sex among teenagers."
The United States Congress's 1993 National Institutes of Health reauthorization banned future research aimed exclusively at adolescent sexual behavior, but proposed in its stead a more comprehensive study of adolescent health which would examine many health risk-taking behaviors in addition to sexual risks, including violence and the use of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs.
Add-health is directed by J. Richard Udry (UNC, Chapel Hill), with fieldwork done by National Opinion Research Center (Waves I and II) and Research Triangle Institute (Wave III). It is funded by NICHHD and 17 other federal agencies, for $25 million (Boonstra 2001). The study was designed by Udry and Peter Bearman.

It's an organization that invariable reflects the whims of the prevailing administration. It's extremely vulnerable to political pressure.

[Arrian]

It's actually a pretty damn good study.

No offense, Ben, but if I linked a study that conflicted with your views and simply stated "well, it's a pretty damn good study" you'd wave it away.

I'm not waving it away. It does not change my overall view (that sex ed should be multi-faceted), but it reinforced my belief that abstinence, backed up by both the sex ed class and the parents (key), is a crucial part of sex ed.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, I graduated from highschool in 1994.

Now why did I think you were older? Hmm, ok. My apologies.

I realise Heritage foundation isn't neutral, but I'm quoting the data not their analysis for the most part, and their data is taken from the Longitudinal study run out of UNC-Chapel hill.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, but if I linked a study that conflicted with your views and simply stated "well, it's a pretty damn good study" you'd wave it away.

That's not how I treated Loin's study. Once I looked over the data I realised I was wrong, and said so. I actually told Loin thanks for finding it, because it is good info to have.

[Arrian]

Now why did I think you were older?

My great wisdom, of course

No apology necessary.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

You admitted you were wrong about something? I'll have to go back a few pages and read that. Kudos for that.

I came back into this rather late, in reaction to your argument that contraceptives don't work well, so I missed a chunk of the thread (the middle).

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

I honestly don't see why teens shouldn't be having sex, as long as it is consensual and safe. If you're old enough to drive, get married, or join the military you're old enough to ****.

[Lorizael]

Teens shouldn't be having sex because teens are humans, and humans are by and large stupid.

[chequita guevara]

We've managed so far without your help.

[Lorizael]

I'm closing this thread because it's past 500 and has more or less changed subjects. Here's a new thread.