One in Four Teen Girls Has STI
by
Suzanne Hadley
on Mar 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Watch any teen show (think The CW) and sex among teens is presented as commonplace. However, the consequences of sex -- unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and emotional fallout -- are not. And yet the reality of sexual activity among teens is bleak. Citizenlink reports:
One in four teen girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That adds up to more than 3 million girls.
Among girls who admitted having had sex, the rate was 40 percent, The Associated Press reported. Human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, is the most common STI in teen girls ages 14 to 19, the CDC found.
In light of this finding, you'd think the CDC would take the opportunity to at least mention the benefits of abstinence before marriage. It seems like the responsible thing to do. However, not only are they not mentioning abstinence-until-marriage as a valid solution, but experts at the CDS mock the idea.
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said bad public policy is to blame for the STI epidemic.
"Current public health policies are clearly failing to reduce the spread of STDs among young women," she said. "Public health officials need to admit their failures that have led to kids paying the price. Funding irresponsible sex-ed programs, ones that encourage kids to be sexually active, 12 times higher than funding abstinence programs unsurprisingly results in more kids being sexually active."
How foolish -- and very sad -- that the only surefire protection against STIs -- abstinence from sexual activity before marriage -- is overlooked and even mocked but the gatekeepers of disease control. And we all have to pay for the irresponsibility. Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, explains:
"In addition, after the government funds education to assist kids in becoming sexually active, the taxpayers have to pay $15.5 billion more per year for health care to take care of STIs."
1. Christina had the following to say on Mar 12 at 3:15 PM:
Funding irresponsible sex-ed programs, ones that encourage kids to be sexually active, 12 times higher than funding abstinence programs unsurprisingly results in more kids being sexually active.
Sounds to me that she's upset in how much funding is still going to education that encourages kids to be sexually active.
Really, the sexually active crowd teaches the kids how to use condoms and birth control. Obviously, its worked in preventing unwanted pregnancies, as the teen pregnancy rate has decreased while abortion rates among teens have also decreased (I'll have to find this report, but I read it not that long ago).
Apparently not doing such a cool job in the disease apartment.
Suzanne, I'd encourage you to re read the statements. Are they really saying what you think they are? Cuz I got a completely different spin on it. Just want clarification for the both of us.
In addition, after the government funds education to assist kids in becoming sexually active, the taxpayers have to pay $15.5 billion more per year for health care to take care of STIs
Sounds like she's upset that the government would use tax money to encourage a life style that's going to result in more costs...
2. S had the following to say on Mar 12 at 3:41 PM:
What is the CDS?
3. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Mar 12 at 3:43 PM:
We're now sanitizing the term so much now that it's no longer even called a "disease" but an "infection"?!
At this rate we will call it an STA (Sexually Transmitted Annoyance)
4. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 12 at 4:10 PM:
These assertions by Miss Wright would be more meaningful if she could give us a comparison of the rates of STI's among students in schools where abstinence only is taught vs the rate in those where it is not.
In the meantime she's offering nothing more than mere opinion.
5. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 12 at 4:27 PM:
"In addition, after the government funds education to assist kids in becoming sexually active, the taxpayers have to pay $15.5 billion more per year for health care to take care of STIs."
Another wonderful use of our tax payer dollars taken in the name of compassion. Of course sending a "few" million to Planned Parenthood so they can kill the fetuses that result from this sexual activity is also necessary, right?
|
6. JB had the following to say on Mar 12 at 4:34 PM:
Actually, the empirical evidence shows that comprehensive sex education is more effective than abstinence-only sex ed in promoting healthy behaviors. Comprehensive sex ed delays the onset of sexual activity, reduces the number of partners, and increases condom use over abstinence only sex ed. The reason abstinence only isn't supported is because it doesn't do as good a job promoting public health.
Also, I wonder what these STI numbers would look like if we instituted universal HPV vaccinations. They'd probably go down a lot.
7. Kevin had the following to say on Mar 12 at 5:24 PM:
I don't want to disagree with your post, since I think it's a severe problem plaguing american teens; but I seem to understand that quote differently than you have.
quote: "Public health officials need to admit their failures that have led to kids paying the price. Funding irresponsible sex-ed programs, ones that encourage kids to be sexually active, 12 times higher than funding abstinence programs unsurprisingly results in more kids being sexually active."
It sounds to me that instead of mocking abstinence, this quote is promoting it. It sounds to me as if funding sex-ed programs that "encourage kids to be sexually active" is listed as a failure, ending with the obvious point that such programs result "in more kids being sexually active." The failure, as I understand it, is that these programs are funded 12 times higher than programs promoting abstinence (which by inference would be the supported type, rather than mocked).
I fully recognize that I may be misinterpretting it, but for the sake of objectivity I'd like to point out this possible interpretation.
8. Nicole had the following to say on Mar 12 at 5:26 PM:
So what do others think about the Gardasil vaccination? (Not as a solution to the STI epidemic of course, but in a general sense.)
9. Sara had the following to say on Mar 12 at 5:38 PM:
Hi Suzanne
Sobering statistics to say the least, but I think it doesn't necessarily follow that because abstinence is the best way to keep from getting infected, we therefore ought to have abstinence education. It reminds me of an op-ed article
from the Times awhile back. (Don't let the "When Preaching Flops" title put you off!)
There seems to be lots of evidence that formal abstinence education doesn't actually increase abstinence!
10. Tope had the following to say on Mar 12 at 8:12 PM:
I'm all in favor of abstinence before marriage. However, isn't it true that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't actually yield lower rates of sexual activity or STIs? In fact, everything I've read suggests that students who receive comprehensive sex ed (about condoms, etc.) are less likely to contract STIs than students who receive abstinence-only sex ed. So it's not quite as simple as Wendy Wright suggests.
11. Jane had the following to say on Mar 12 at 8:50 PM:
but isn't abstinence only education federally mandated?
12. Nelson had the following to say on Mar 12 at 9:26 PM:
Hmm, I don't see the part where they mock abstinence.
I thought the quote say that funding for sex-ed programs were 12 times higher, and were carried out irresponsibly, therefore results in more kids being sexually active
13. Emily had the following to say on Mar 13 at 6:15 AM:
I was intrigued by the title when I read about this story in the paper. Then I looked closer. The sample size of the study is 838 girls ages 14 to 19, and that small sample is supposed to be representative of all girls that age in the country?
Second, it states that these girls were voluntary participants in a government health survey, and were tested for Chlamydia, Trichomoniasis, Human Papilloma virus, and genital Herpes. This means the government paid for these girls to have a pap smear. That is how these infections are screened. I'm inclined to wonder where exactly these "nationally representative" health records were taken from. I am a nurse, and I have seen the women and girls that accept government funded pap smears. Often, it is because they cannot afford one themselves.
Third, many of the so-called experts (doctors from NYC, Planned Parenthood, not the researchers themselves, but people who were presented the "findings" at a conference) that weighed in on the subject were blaming abstinence only sex ed as the reason all these girls had an STD. Condoms do not protect from many STD's, simply based on the area they are able to cover. Another not very touched on component--one sentence in the article--is attitude. "Teens say they can't make decisions in the dark, and adults aren't preparing them to make responsible decisions." I would be more interested to see focus on parental roles in shaping their children's moral compass. And what about the role of alcohol and drugs? If you can't remember what happened last night, how do you know you used protection? Regardless of how "educated" you are?
There are still more questions that need to be answered about the study data before we can evaluate its validity. What are the demographics of the study participants? What were the criteria for inclusion to and exclusion from the study? What is the margin of error they accepted for their statistical analyses? Is the cause they attribute the STD rate to actually the the cause or even the main cause? Clinicians are perfectly capable of cherry-picking data to yield the results they're looking for. Figures may not lie, but remember, liars do figure.
Until I can read the study myself, I will not blindly accept something the Associated Press has distributed with only expert's quotes, and without even the title of the study so I could look it up easily.
14. obewan had the following to say on Mar 13 at 6:53 AM:
I don’t' see abstinence education as the solution in itself. Kids need to be taught about birth control too because birth control can FAIL.
Condoms that break can kill if the AIDS virus is present. Kids without the proper education can be tempted or lulled into a false sense of security if they are fooled into thinking that a condom can allow them to cheat the system. I think that despite our best efforts they will continue to have sex in some statistical percentage.
Good parenting, good youth groups, and ACCURATE education are the only hope we have of reducing the prevalence of this problem.
15. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 13 at 7:13 AM:
I would be interested to know what the breakdown is compared among teens who are not involved in a church versus those who are.
In addition, it would be helpful to see how this dynamic is expressed among evangelicals versus non-evangelicals.
At any rate, the overall stat is sobering. I would suggest that we ought to revisit the whole government-as-sex-educator paradigm.
While conservatives will often chime in regarding abstinence-based sex education and liberals will counter with the "they're going to have sex anyway" line, both sides miss the point: the most important educator that the child has is his or her parents.
If you want your kids to have conservative values--as I will want mine to have--then be a grownup and take the initiative for yourself. Teach your kids about the value and importance of covenant, how it applies to marriage, and the role of sex in its expression of that covenant, and why it is sacred. If you don't like your public schools, then take your kids out and either put them in private schools or home school them.
Similarly, if you want your kids to have a liberal understanding of sexuality, then be a grownup and take the initiative for yourself. If you think kids should have condoms, then buy them with your own money--that is not my job as a taxpayer--and show your kids how to use them. If you think homosexuality is ok, then teach that to your kids yourself.
Ultimately, it ought not be the role of public schools to be the promoter--or underminer--of traditional values.
That, parents--irrespective of your political or religious bent--is your job.
16. Louise had the following to say on Mar 13 at 7:34 AM:
Actually, the only 100% way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from all sexual activity with another person, regardless of one's marital status.
17. Christina (in green) had the following to say on Mar 13 at 7:46 AM:
Boundless went on vacation this week...
They've been oddly light and slow with comments >.< You guys doin ok?
18. Ashley had the following to say on Mar 13 at 9:00 AM:
I wholeheartedly agree that abstinence is the best way to go... but unfortunately those programs, for the most part, do not work. Even with other sex education though, they never get to the heart of the issue. Why are teens having sex in the first place? Addressing this problem in such a way as this only deals with symptoms of a widespread problem. I have worked closely with teens the past several years, and for the most part, they often lack the psychological and physiological development to make judgement calls especially in those particular "moments". The only way to deal with this problem is address the problem at its root: the deeply rooted hurts and insecurities that teens have, that push them towards intimate relationships in the first place.
19. a sassy sister had the following to say on Mar 13 at 9:45 AM:
This post actually raised more questions than answers for me, such as:
Is it possible that the reason why CD's scoff at certain sexual education classes(abstinence only courses) and deem them ineffective because they see their teaching methods as an attempt to scare and or shame teens into not having sex?
How do you teach abstinence only education without at least hinting to a Biblical worldview of knowing your sexuality through God's design, especially in public schools?
Is it possible that a big reason that the issues that teens face (not just STI's and AIDS) stem not simply from the breakdown of the family structure, but also because too many parents and teens TALK AT EACH OTHER instead of TALKING TO EACH OTHER? I've seen very few parents talk to their kids about sex openly, honestly, and without judgment, usually reverting to two extremes(expecting them to already be sexually active and facilitating it by offering condoms/birth control or simply telling/implying to teens that sex outside of marriage is bad without really going into detail about God's purposes for sex and their sexuality)
Also, I believe this is a problem because many teens see the hypocrisy of their parents when it comes to sex (i.e. single mother telling her daughter not to bring any babies home while she has a regular cycle of boyfriends sleeping over). You cannot expect teens to be chaste if their parents are not living chaste lives.
20. Suzanne had the following to say on Mar 13 at 10:21 AM:
Kevin,
Thanks for that clarification. You're right, that quote is not mocking abstinence. The statement about mocking was the end of a thought/observation, and the quote moved into the consequences of such mocking. You are correct that the quote is advocating abstinence. I'm sorry I didn't make that a more clear transition.
21. Suzanne had the following to say on Mar 13 at 10:23 AM:
Sara,
That's an interesting observation. But if sex-ed programs increase sexual activity and thus disease, what would you suggest as an alternative?
22. Denise Morris had the following to say on Mar 13 at 10:34 AM:
Hey Mike,
Just to clarify, I think there's a medical difference between "disease" and "infection." I think you can have an infection without it being a disease. Something would be called a disease when there are symptoms.
I was told awhile back (perhaps in journalism and learning ap style) that using STI is just more correct. A quick Google search will give you more info.
23. Diane had the following to say on Mar 13 at 11:11 AM:
One important, and overlooked, statistic from the article might shed more light on the education debate:
[HPV] is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls -- nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.
What might this say about the inconsistent education throughout the US?
24. Rose had the following to say on Mar 13 at 11:12 AM:
I've seen studies saying that abstinence only education means teenagers delay having sex by about 1 1/2 years but are less likely to use birth control when they do have sex.
I'm not sure what would be effective.
I live in the UK and we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe.
As far as I can remember sex education consisted of "always use a condom" but then I thought I'm never going to have sex why do I need to listen.
There was an interesting study recently comparing Dutch and American attitudes to sex. It was saying that Dutch parents believed teenagers could really be in love and thought it was ok for them to be having sex if they were in a committed, loving relationship whereas even American parents who accepted their teenagers would have sex didn't want to discuss it and would rather they sneaked around then have their boyfriend stay overnight.
25. Loris had the following to say on Mar 13 at 11:19 AM:
I think recommending the Gardasil vaccine for preteens is silly. Children that age are already bombarded with more sexual information than they can handle, why add to it with a vaccine that has not been very widely tested on teenagers?
26. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 13 at 11:59 AM:
I'm all for abstinence, and any medical professional would be out of their mind to argue that abstinence is not the best way to prevent getting an STI. However, these medical professionals also recognize that telling kids to be abstinent does not mean that they WILL be abstinent. Moreover, the professionals know that teens who are taught only abstinence education will be less likely to carry a condom, and will be less likely to use protection when they do have sex.
So comprehensive sex education, which teaches that abstinence is the best way to go, but if you are going to have sex you must use protection, means that when teens inevitably have sex, they'll be protected from pregnancy, STIs, etc. Comprehensive sex education does NOT encourage teens to be sexually active.
I've never understood the argument against comprehensive sex education, quite frankly.
27. John Shen had the following to say on Mar 13 at 12:07 PM:
I think the quote was meant to give support to Suzanne's claim by showing a Christian writer with a similar viewpoint, not a quote from the public health lobby promoting safe sex practices. So here's a quote from the other side.
New York Times is carrying this article on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html?ex=1363060800&en=5f2acd6bf262aab8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
From the article:
“High S.T.D. infection rates among young women, particularly young African-American women, are clear signs that we must continue developing ways to reach those most at risk,” said Dr. John M. Douglas Jr., who directs the centers’ division of S.T.D. prevention.
The president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, said the new findings “emphasize the need for real comprehensive sex education.”
“The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure,” Ms. Richards said, “and teenage girls are paying the real price.”
28. Motte had the following to say on Mar 13 at 1:53 PM:
Christina (in green):
You are very observant.
Yes, we've sort of been on vacation this week. Ted and I both took Monday off and I've only been at work for half days Tuesday and Wednesday. So the posts have been sparse and the comment publishing has been sporadic.
We should be at full speed next week. And I'll have a podcast blog tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm really enjoying the conversation sparked by Denise's and Suzanne's dating series.
Thanks for your patience.
29. Becca had the following to say on Mar 13 at 2:47 PM:
Thanks for your comments, Sara, and for the link to the article. As a teen, I was a "good girl" who sat in more abstinence seminars than I can count on one hand (as I suspect many of you did too). I had a stable family but one that did not discuss sex often. I found myself making some bad decisions in college regarding sexuality and asking why all those talks hadn't worked. After reading Lauren Winner's book Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity, I am thoroughly convinced that we are attempting to scare and manipulate teens out of sex instead of teaching them a healthy view of sexuality. More importantly, who should be doing this? The PARENTS! My parents left it up to teachers and youth leaders because they did not know how to handle my questions, and it didn't keep me away from partaking in inappropriate sexual behavior. Perhaps we should be providing seminars on parenting instead and giving them the proper materials on addressing this area instead of the teens.
30. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 13 at 3:29 PM:
Amir, sadly, it seems that evangelicals are just as likely as non-evangelical peers to have sex at earlier ages, as is summarized in this review of the book Forbidden Fruit. It looks like we as evangelicals need some stronger discipleship of teens-- the only group that stuck with their pledges to be abstinent is the 16 percent group that describe religion as "extremely important."
As far as government vs. parents go, we can wish that all parents will teach it but in reality a lot won't (and they may pass on misinformation and myths about how to avoid pregnancy or STIs if they do.) In my opinion, schools ought to give as much information as they can and let teens decide with that, since if they are going to have sex (and most non-Christians and Christians are) I'd rather that they do so knowing what they're getting into.
31. kaj had the following to say on Mar 13 at 3:53 PM:
re: Gardasil:
Disclaimer: I am not a physician, or any other health care worker. My words should be used only as directed (:
I am definitely too old to receive the vaccine.
I have talked to some high school girls who did have to get the vaccine (mandated by the school they attended...and I don't remember if it was a public school or not), and they said the shots are painful!
For the record, I'm pro-abstinence, pro-purity, pro-seventh commandment.
I will say that I think there is too much hype over Gardasil, and I disagree that it should be a "mandatory" vaccination for going to school, compared to vaccines for, say, tetanus, whooping cough, or measles.
(Caution: irony ahead. You have been warned!)
If a school makes it mandatory for teen girls to get the Gardasil vaccine, fair is fair: make the guys get vaccinated with these painful shots too, because males can be affected by HPV as well in, um, other parts...
32. Autumn had the following to say on Mar 13 at 4:10 PM:
We talked about this in class today. I think that it's a sad statistic, but possibly not very representative of all teenage girls in America. They only tested a small number, and while the companies that do things like this have some system for making their results accurate, i'm sure, it seems like it might have been better for them to test more people.
what we came up in class today was this:
1.) Teens are still going to have sex, no matter what kinda of sex-ed they have. If they want to, they will. Perhaps smaller numbers will, depending on the kind of sex-ed offered. And even though I'm an advocate of abstinence, abstinence-only classes have been shown to be less successful than comprehensive sex-ed classes.
2.) There's a vaccine for HPV. We thought that all girls in public schools should have to get it by the end of their sixth grade year. As sad as it is that America has come to this, by not requiring girls to get this vaccine, we would be doing more harm than good.
33. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 13 at 5:59 PM:
Matthew:
With all due respect, the premise that more government sex education is the answer is utter hogwash.
For one thing, promiscuity rates didn't start spiking until government started getting into the sex education business.
For another thing, it is quite the conflict of interest that the nation's largest abortion provider is also the largest sex education provider.
Whoever suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, was on the money.
Sadly, that is what we are facing as we keep insisting on relying on the government to be the sex educators.
Parents need to do this themselves, and government ought to stop interfering with parents, in particular those who are traditional-values oriented.
Conservatives get it wrong when they insist on making government implement their sex education curriculum. In so doing, they are supporting the same big government apparatus that the secularists support, and run the risk of relying on government to do with the people ought to be doing for themselves.
Liberals are even more insidious: they have handed us this failed system, and tell us that the answer is more of the very thing that gave us what we have now.
I'd express further sentiments, but our good friends at Boundless would have to censor me.
34. Patricia had the following to say on Mar 13 at 6:24 PM:
That's clearly a distressing number. Personally, it doesn't seem to me the evangelical approach to promoting abstinence is working, though. As someone put, evangelicals are just as likely to have sex-just slightly later. I'm more in favor of a comprehensive approach to sexuality. Growing up, it seems like the only message was "don't do it" and was told to "save" myself for marriage. While is is true...I think we should emphasize the positive side of not having sex and a promotion of chastity as a lifestyle both before and after marriage. Given the high rate of infidelity and porn use among married men and women, chastity is not just a message for young unmarried people but a message everyone in our sex saturated culture benefits from. I really like the Catholic approach-Christopher West is one American speaker who promotes the "theology of the body" to non-theologians.
35. Danette had the following to say on Mar 13 at 8:57 PM:
As far as the Guardasil is concerned.... isn't it only effective in preventing infections of particular strains of HPV- a sexually transmitted disease- that MAY cause cancer? It's not a shot that prevents cervical cancer... and when I have kids- they won't be getting it, because they'd also better not be having sex with some kid that has HPV, either.
Of course.. I'm also of the opinion that the only people that should have Hepatitis B vaccinations are people who are at risk for contracting it through their line of work or medical issues. (i.e. likely to need blood transfusions, in the hospital, nurses, doctors, CNAs, etc.) because making kids think they're "protected" from all of these sexually transmitted diseases isn't going to do a bit of good, besides give the kids license to think they can have sex whenever they want to, because they're safe... or make the good kids feel a bit confused, as they get even more affirmation of a promiscuous lifestyle, to war against the knowledge that it's not how God wants us to live.
But... yeah.. guardasil does not prevent cancer... it prevents a STI that can CAUSE cancer.
http://www.gardasil.com/index.html
GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18:
• Cervical cancer
• Cervical abnormalities that can sometimes lead to cervical cancer
• Genital warts
HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and HPV Types 6 and 11 cause 90% of genital warts cases.
So.. really- what should be said here, is that your chances of getting cervical cancer or genital warts are 70 and 90% less, respectively, if you're abstinent until marriage, and your spouse doesn't have HPV.
36. Anna had the following to say on Mar 14 at 4:39 AM:
I live in London (England), so obviously I'm talking about a totally different setting...but we have the same problem here.
I'm 18, and in 6th Form (college). This week, we had to attend a session called 'Save Sex' - this is a really new initiative in England, unlike in the USA where I get the impression that it's more acceptable to teach stereotypically Christian views in schools.
At this session, we learnt that the Government has said that the instances of STIs in young people (16-25) have reached epidemic proportions.
Interestingly, we also found out that the Government is no longer calling protected sex 'safe sex'. As part of a new Government initiative, it has to be called 'safER sex', to try and get rid of the idea that as long as you use a condom, you'll be safe!
Many people at school were surprised to hear that HPV is not only transmitted through sex. Like some other STIs, you can catch it through skin on skin contact involving the groin area of one or both partners. So perhaps it is not enough to teach abstinance from SEX itself, but also from many (or all?) types of sexual activity?
I have noticed that there tends to be a lot of confusion about which 'activities' are considered sex, and which aren't.
Refreshingly, this was the first talk I've been to at school that spoke about the emotional aspects of sex, as well as the physical aspects - though this raised some more worrying statistics... apparently in British young people, the average length of a sexual relationship is 3 WEEKS. (I guess this is skewed by lots of one night stands...but that doesn't make the statistic any less shocking!)
Sorry if I've repeated anything that's already been said...I didn't have time to read all the comments, but I thought it might be interesting to add the opinion of a foreigner who is also on the receiving end of some of these school talks!
37. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 14 at 5:48 AM:
Matthew,
I can't let this go by, I read it yesterday, and intentionally walked away. I read it again this morning and it's still the same problem.
You and I have had a rather heated discussion in the Planned Parenthood link over who has the right to determine what happens with the private citizens tax dollars, you vigorously defended the position that government should take Motte's, mine and every other American's tax money to pay for health care.
Now you say,
As far as government vs. parents go, we can wish that all parents will teach it but in reality a lot won't (and they may pass on misinformation and myths about how to avoid pregnancy or STIs if they do.) In my opinion, schools ought to give as much information as they can and let teens decide with that, since if they are going to have sex (and most non-Christians and Christians are) I'd rather that they do so knowing what they're getting into.
Fine, you stated that it was your opinion. But just for the record so that you and everyone else reading that comment understands your position,
so·cial·ism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
so·cial·ist
1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
Your belief system is one in which the rights of the individual (parent/citizen) are subservient to the state. You are a socialist.
38. Leah had the following to say on Mar 14 at 8:45 AM:
Christina- I could be wrong, but I think the woman from Concerned Women for America is NOT the CDS officials Suzanne was saying mock abstinence. I think the CWA woman was "backing up" Suzanne, so to speak.
39. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:11 PM:
farmer tom,
Howdy. Hope all is well.
I read, intensely, your comment to Matthew. And, quite frankly, it didn't make much sense. I really didn't see how Matthew advocating schools teaching comprehensive sex education fit into the definition of socialism that you provided. Sex education has nothing to do with "means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Care to explain how you get this idea?
On a side note, can I ask where you got that definition?
40. Nate had the following to say on Mar 14 at 1:14 PM:
I work for a small public university and this post reminded me of something that a student employee told me. In his PE/health class they told him that there were 4,000 cases of STI treated at Student Health last year. This blows me away there are only 5,463 women on campus. This means of the women that are sexually active almost all have at least one or more STD.
41. Fran had the following to say on Mar 14 at 2:57 PM:
As an undergrad college gal, (in my opinion) the majority of women do not practice abstinence. The university I attend has a sex education week; abstinence really is mentioned on a side note. The culture today seems to place sexual activity outside of marriage as a positive activity. Abstinence seems to be viewed as lack of experience.
42. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 14 at 4:29 PM:
Andrew,
all definitions came from Dictionary.com
Matthew want to take Motte's, Ted's, and every other American's money to finance his "programs". Whether it be sex ed, sex health care (birth control), or Planned Parenthood when the first two fail. Funding of the programs I just listed is done with state distribution, of capital,. Take from Motte, Ted and me, and pay for a sex ed program for degenerate young people.
It's very simple really, either you believe in personal responsibility, and personal liberty, or as in Matthew's case, you believe that government (society) is better able to do whatever it is that (society has decided) needs to be done.
That is socialism.
43. S had the following to say on Mar 14 at 5:49 PM:
Based on the statistics, it doesn't sound like personal responsibility is working out so well
44. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 14 at 6:26 PM:
Farmer Tom,
You said "It's very simple really, either you believe in personal responsibility, and personal liberty, or... you believe that government (society) is better able to do whatever it is that (society has decided) needs to be done."
How do you square that line of reasoning with things such as gay marriage? By that logic aren't homosexuals at liberty to marry if they so choose? Or is the government better able to define marriage and deny them that right? If the latter, why is the government then not allowed to provide sex education? Which, by the way, doesn't denigrate anyone.
45. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 14 at 10:20 PM:
farmer tom,
The definition of socialism is correct, but you're narrowing it down. As you stated, socialism is:
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
Key part being "community as a whole." Socialism is far more widespread than just sex education, or even socialized medicine. Socialism is a near-abolishment of the free market, which we have neither in the States or in Canada.
I think we can agree that some socialized things are good: police, firefighters, libraries, etc?
46. Kevin had the following to say on Mar 15 at 7:11 AM:
This news about STD's is really sad. I mentioned it on my blog.
47. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 15 at 2:19 PM:
to Amir:
Your premise, with all due respect, that promiscuity and STI's weren't an issue until the government started teaching sex education, is simply not correct. There are millions of people around the world infected with an STI/STD who never got any government education. Many STD's have been public health problems for centuries, since before public education. Social mores changed far before the government started teaching sex ed-- this is far more why rates went up in the past few decades. It's pretty clear from the research that only the teenagers with an strong religious component in their life (hopefully that means they love Jesus, go to a Bible-believing church, and seek to obey His word) are going to abstain.
In an ideal world, it would be great if parents would teach their children about sex (and then help them remain abstinent so that fewer than 90% of evangelicals have sex before marriage.) The problem remains, though, that many parents won't teach their kids. I don't think that comprehensive public school sex ed is *the* answer, but it's better than nothing. I'll ask you the same thing that I'm going to ask farmer Tom: How do we educate kids and prevent infections if their parents don't teach them and they don't go to church?
to farmer Tom:
If you think that by calling me a name you can somehow shame me into changing my position, you are incorrect.
Did you ever read my last comment on the Planned Parenthood post? I told you that I had asked you to leave aside the question of government and focus on the church. You refused to answer that question and kept slandering me. Now you want to do so again, instead this time you're going to use "socialism" instead of "covetousness" as a dirty word.
Instead of throwing around terms, I would appreciate it if you explained how you think we ought to educate children about preventing STI's if their parents don't teach them and they won't come to church.
48. Anonymous had the following to say on Mar 16 at 10:00 PM:
As a representative of the 14-19 year old age group, I can truly say that the results of this survey absolutely does not surprise me---just for those of you who were doubting its validity.
I live in a very average American suburb and graduated high school a year ago. The number of friends & fellow classmates that I know of (it was a medium sized class in a small town, so everyone knows everyones business) who have contracted STDs is insane. Especially on college campuses, it runs rampant.
As of last fall, I too am part of a statistic. I went to a public high school & my parents werent too involved in sex-ed chats, even though we're a 'christian family'.
I just wish to God that someone would have encouraged me to have had enough sense to remain abstinent. One stupid, brief mistake has cost me so much. Medical bills with no health insurance, shame, embarassment, potentially not being able to bear children (a HUGE LOSS for me, i've always been very involved in kids ministry & have such a love for little ones), the ongoing threat of developing cervical cancer, the disappointment in my family eyes having to tell them my situation since I could no longer afford my treatments and also issues its going to cause with my future husband.
If I can only persuade one of you to advocate abstinence education, i'll be happy.
49. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Mar 17 at 11:04 AM:
Denise,
Interesting. It seems the primary difference as between a "disease" and an "infection" as you stated is that the former is symptomatic and/or causes discomfort while the latter does not.
In that case, AIDS would only be an infection until it manifested itself which seems strange since we hear the term "disease" much more often with it.
Thanks for bringing up the difference. I still think though that using the term "infection", even if accurate, makes it sound less serious than it actually is.
50. Eliza had the following to say on Mar 17 at 5:02 PM:
Mike,
My understanding of AIDS is that it is referred to as "HIV positive" before it manifests symptoms. So the language would reflect the difference between disease and infection.
51. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 18 at 5:09 PM:
to farmer Tom:
If you think that by calling me a name you can somehow shame me into changing my position, you are incorrect.
Why is it a discussion with you Matthew requires every word to be defined?
Dictionary.com
name-call·ing
–noun
the use of abusive names to belittle or humiliate another person in a political campaign, an argument, etc.
examples of name calling,
Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
or
Matthew 23:33 (Whole Chapter)
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wordnet
slander
noun
1. words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
2. an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
I did not slander you. I said you desire to pay for health care with other peoples money, that you covet someone else's money to do good with.
covet
verb
1. to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.
2. to wish for, esp. eagerly:
Covetousness is an action. I accused you of an action, your desire to spend someone else's money. I did not call you a name or slander you. Slander must be falsely spoken.
I went back and reread the entire thread about funding Planned Parenthood. I never argued that the church should not be involved in charity work. I did argue that paying for health care is a personal responsibility. If your church wants to set up a free clinic for treating the indigent, good for them. If you want to treat patients for free, fine. But the moment that you try to make paying for someone else's health care mandatory, you have crossed into territory which I believe is wrong. The early church gave out of love, not by command. Any attempt to force a person to provide food, clothing and health care for someone else is a direct violation of 2 Thessalonians 3:10:
10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
Your food, clothing and health care are your own responsibility. If your church attempts to help, fine, but you fail to understand Scriptural principle if you believe that forcing one person to support another is Biblical.
Furthermore, as evidenced by this thread, you clearly would give the God given responsibility of parents to train their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord over to the government by having the secular humanist indoctrination centers teach human sexuality to young skulls full of mush. Matthew, if parents fail to train their children correctly, then hold the parents accountable, don't pawn the responsibility off onto someone else (the schools).
If you fail to train your kids to abstain from sexual activity, and your kid get pregnant then guess what, it's your fault and you get to pay. Your kid gets an STD, you failed to teach them correctly and guess what, it' your fault and you get to deal with the consequences.
Passing the buck to the school system because parents are failures is a cop out and part of the problem. Until our society returns to personal responsibility for ones self and ones children, we will continue to have unwanted STD's and pregnancies at the rate we currently do. When it becomes a matter of financial responsibility for parents to cover the costs of failing to properly train their children, we will see immediate improvement in the behavior of the children.
Matthew, God created the family, marriage, the husband and wife, children relationship first. It is the most important of all human institutions, more important than the church , far more important than human government. The solution to most problems of the human condition, whether it be mental, physical or spiritual, are best addressed by the family. Only after this has been done, should the problems we taken to the church. And when the family has failed, and the church is not involved, then and only then is government involvement necessary. And the government should do it's best to encourage the family and church to do their jobs.
52. Michele Samuelson had the following to say on Mar 19 at 10:09 AM:
To Anonymous 46: I'll be praying for you.
Someone close to me has had three serious scares with possible cervical cancer in the last five years.
She's 24 years old.
She lost her virginity at 15. She was always careful, in the sense that condoms were involved. So she was saved from obvious STDs and pregnancy.
But, HPV is not an STD. You don't catch it from someone. And, when you have sex before you've finished developing, you open yourself up to greater risk. The ONLY way to avoid it, 100%, is abstinence.
I don't think sex education should be limited to abstinence, but I think it should be the primary part of the discussion. And, I do not believe in mandatory HPV vaccination - what kind of world is this that we must assume all our girls will have premarital sex as teenagers and inject them before they fully understand what they're being "protected" from?
53. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 20 at 8:53 AM:
farmer Tom,
The government has tried to hold parents accountable: haven't you seen all those billboards encouraging parents to talk to their kids about sex? There's still a failure in the parents' personal responsibility. Many parents have abdicated their responsibility in this sphere. I, like you, think that family is the most important institution in society and I wish that every parent would teach their kids about sex and then help them remain abstinent. That would be so much better than anything else. But it doesn't look like that's happening. So what do we do now to hold them accountable?
54. ursela had the following to say on Jun 29 at 11:27 PM:
I agree. Encouraging children to have sex before marriage is wrong and is obviously resulting in life-threatening diseases. Has anyone besides me ever even thought of this: when most kids are given sex-ed, when they are encouraged to have sex, they are between the ages of 12-14, at which point it is ILLEGAL to have sex.