Must be something in the water

[starsforu2]

65 Girls At Area School Pregnant
School To Unveil Three-Prong Program

POSTED: 12:30 pm EDT August 23, 2005

CANTON, Ohio -- There are 490 female students at Timken High School, and 65 are pregnant, according to a recent report in the Canton Repository.


The article reported that some would say that movies, TV, videogames, lazy parents and lax discipline may all be to blame.


School officials are not sure they what has caused so many pregnancies, but in response to them, the school is launching a three-prong educational program to address pregnancy, prevention and parenting.

The newspaper also reported that students will face mounting tensions created by unplanned child-rearing responsibilities, causing students to quit school and plan for a GED. This will make it difficult for the Canton City School District to shake its academic watch designation by the state.

According to the Canton Health Department, statistics through July show that 104 of the 586 babies born to Canton residents in Aultman Hospital and Mercy Medical Center had mothers between 11 and 19.


The newspaper reports that the non-Canton rate was 7 percent. Canton was 15 percent.

LINK


Wow! My senior class was about the same size and I only remember 1 pregnant girl. I guess football isn't the only form of recreation in Canton, Ohio

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The newspaper also reported that students will face mounting tensions created by unplanned child-rearing responsibilities, causing students to quit school and plan for a GED. This will make it difficult for the Canton City School District to shake its academic watch designation by the state.

I think it's a shame if girls are encouraged to leave school because they're pregnant or a parent. We often hear people complaining about "single moms on welfare" but how can we expect a young mother to be able to support her child if her school doesn't even enable her to complete her education in order to get a decently paid job.

 

[BVS]

School officials are not sure they what has caused so many pregnancies, but in response to them, the school is launching a three-prong educational program to address pregnancy, prevention and parenting.

You don't know what has caused so many pregnancies? Probably unprotected sex...just a guess. Unless we have someone performing experiments.

Now you launch a sex ed program? Little late, and coming from someone who doesn't know how they occured may be a problem...

 

[starsforu2]

Imagine classroom props such as Woodies (wooden penises), dental dams (for oral sex) and female condoms (for anal sex). Imagine teachers using these for hands-on practice for 6th to 12th graders.

Too outrageous to believe, I said.

I was wrong. It's in the pipeline for Ohio public schools. I believed it only after reading copies of grant documents and hand-outs from training sessions, and talking with a Hamilton County teacher who attended and described the Woodies and other things we can't print in a newspaper.

Proposed Sex Ed Curriculum - 1998

I can't find the exact curriculum they teach right now, but I did find an article where groups were trying to block abstinence programs from beginning which would indicate that maybe they are teaching one where condoms are presented.

Which begs another question of mine: If condom 1st programs were proven to cause more sexual activity and higher rates of pregnancy and AIDS would you become an abstinence 1st advocate? Or would you stick to your guns because it's puritanical to expect kids not to experiment with sex.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I know quite a few girls who went to high school with me who got pregnant using condoms.
It really sucks for them because the kids have no dads and the girls are going to be stuck in nowhereville until they have a bunch of good luck.
There were 2 that I recall that had sex ed and still didnt use protection, assuming idiotically that they wouldnt get pregnant
How does that work?
Anyway, Im sure these kids having sex knew full well that not being protected could lead to pregnancy.
I knew that before I had sex ed, it was called society-ed. TV, music and riding the bus

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Which begs another question of mine: If condom 1st programs were proven to cause more sexual activity and higher rates of pregnancy and AIDS would you become an abstinence 1st advocate? Or would you stick to your guns because it's puritanical to expect kids not to experiment with sex.

The article you linked to is almost seven years old and referred only to some poorly defined proposal. It'd be interesting to see if the proposals were ever implemented.

And the fact is that abstinence only programmes do nothing to reduce teenage pregnancy or the incidence of STIs. Sex education should be focused on enabling young people to make informed, responsible decisions about sexual activity and abstinence only education fails to do this.

 

[BVS]

Which begs another question of mine: If condom 1st programs were proven to cause more sexual activity and higher rates of pregnancy and AIDS would you become an abstinence 1st advocate? Or would you stick to your guns because it's puritanical to expect kids not to experiment with sex.

First of all, I've never heard of a condom 1st program. Secondly how would promoting condoms cause higher pregnancy rates or STDs?

 

[starsforu2]

The article you linked to is almost seven years old and referred only to some poorly defined proposal. It'd be interesting to see if the proposals were ever implemented.

And the fact is that abstinence only programmes do nothing to reduce teenage pregnancy or the incidence of STIs. Sex education should be focused on enabling young people to make informed, responsible decisions about sexual activity and abstinence only education fails to do this.

I said Abstinence 1st, not abstinence only. ABC programs like the one in Uganda that has been so successful. I'd be curious as to which program Ohio is using.

 

[starsforu2]

First of all, I've never heard of a condom 1st program. Secondly how would promoting condoms cause higher pregnancy rates or STDs?

Because it assumes that the kids are going to have sex and in the process encourages it as a normal activity for 13, 14 or 15 year olds and ostensibly minimize the whole abstinence thing.

It's critics say that by handing out condoms you encourage more sexual activity than if you were to encourage the ABC method of sexual education.

It's the same arguments as raising the bar on education, drug policy etc. The liberal argument has been that they are going to do it anyway. The Conservative argument is, not necessarily and you shouldn't enourage them to do so by not discouraging it.

 

[namkcuR]

Abstinance is too extreme. When kids are told to wait until marriage for sex, what they are being told is that you should only have sex with someone you trust. This much I agree with. What I don't agree with is that you have to be married in order to have that trust. I do believe, however, that you can't determine that trust at age 14 or 15. 18, probably. 15, no.

And this points to problem with sex education. It's about more than just 'wear condoms, use protection, take the pill' It's about telling the students that they don't need to do it with every boy/girl they have a crush on. It's about telling the students to ask themselves two questions before having relations with someone: One, if you were to contract a serious STD, would your partner be there for you? And two, A)If you get pregnant, will your partner be there for the kid OR B)If she gets pregnant, do I want to be around? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you don't get in the sack. Period. It's not about marriage, it's not about rings on your fingers, it's not even just about condoms and birth control. It's about DO YOU TRUST THE PERSON YOU'RE GOING INTO? That is what students need to be taught and I don't think they are being taught that.

 

[u2bonogirl]

Abstinance is too extreme. When kids are told to wait until marriage for sex, what they are being told is that you should only have sex with someone you trust. This much I agree with. What I don't agree with is that you have to be married in order to have that trust. I do believe, however, that you can't determine that trust at age 14 or 15. 18, probably. 15, no.

And this points to problem with sex education. It's about more than just 'wear condoms, use protection, take the pill' :blah: It's about telling the students that they don't need to do it with every boy/girl they have a crush on. It's about telling the students to ask themselves two questions before having relations with someone: One, if you were to contract a serious STD, would your partner be there for you? And two, A)If you get pregnant, will your partner be there for the kid OR B)If she gets pregnant, do I want to be around? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you don't get in the sack. Period. It's not about marriage, it's not about rings on your fingers, it's not even just about condoms and birth control. It's about DO YOU TRUST THE PERSON YOU'RE GOING INTO? That is what students need to be taught and I don't think they are being taught that.

You have some points in there that I was thinking about earlier.
Its more than just teaching kids about how to use protection for their body, its also about protecting their emotional health and informing them of other consequences than just pregnancy.
Kudos

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I said Abstinence 1st, not abstinence only. ABC programs like the one in Uganda that has been so successful. I'd be curious as to which program Ohio is using.

What exactly would an abistinence first programme in US high schools teach? Is it that sex outside marriage is wrong? Is it that you shouldn't have sex until you reach a particular age? Is it that you shouldn't have sex unless in a relationship that's lasted a specific length of time?

 

[BVS]

Because it assumes that the kids are going to have sex and in the process encourages it as a normal activity for 13, 14 or 15 year olds and ostensibly minimize the whole abstinence thing.

It's critics say that by handing out condoms you encourage more sexual activity than if you were to encourage the ABC method of sexual education.

Well that's a ridiculous assumption. Every sex ed program that I've been involved with teaches that sex is a great responsibility and isn't for those that aren't ready for it. The whole "handing out condoms" things is such a misconception, the majority of these programs the student has to come and ask the student nurse. It's not like they are handing them out as you exit the bus.

But besides all that you haven't given one reason as to how it could possibly make pregnacy and STD rates rise.

 

[u2bonogirl]

Wouldnt it teach that its not always wise to just act on your impulse, and inform kids of consequences to consider before taking risks that theyre not ready to deal with?
Im just thinking of what somebody told me when giving me a sex talk. That sex can be a beautiful and enjoyable thing, but you can also ruin it for yourself and others by abusing it, and you can seriously derail the course of your life by getting pregnant or contracting something.
I was taught that the physical part of sex was only half of it and that its a greatly emotional thing as well. And that maybe in seeking sex I was actually trying to fill another hole
Whether it be acceptance or whatever.
Consequently I didnt have a mystified or narrow view of sex and I said no to a lot of people without fear of being a "prude"
yeah, Tara...you can shut up now

 

[u2bonogirl]

Well that's a ridiculous assumption. Every sex ed program that I've been involved with teaches that sex is a great responsibility and isn't for those that aren't ready for it. The whole "handing out condoms" things is such a misconception, the majority of these programs the student has to come and ask the student nurse. It's not like they are handing them out as you exit the bus.

But besides all that you haven't given one reason as to how it could possibly make pregnacy and STD rates rise.

because the more stupid people are having sex, even with condoms, the more are going to use it improperly or just become a statistic on a health clinic wall
to put it bluntly

 

[BVS]

because the more stupid people are having sex, even with condoms, the more are going to use it improperly or just become a statistic on a health clinic wall
to put it bluntly

But what's the alternative? If you don't teach it at all then you'll just have stupid people having sex but they don't know what condoms are even for.

Just from my experience, the friends of mine that got pregnant early were those from households that made their kids sit out on the public school sex programs and taught them absitinence...

 

[u2bonogirl]

Im not saying not to teach it
I was just giving you my point of view on how kids having condoms might lead to higher birth rates.
The time I most considered having sex as a young teen was when I had a condom in my posession and I wanted to use it

 

[starsforu2]

What exactly would an abistinence first programme in US high schools teach? Is it that sex outside marriage is wrong? Is it that you shouldn't have sex until you reach a particular age? Is it that you shouldn't have sex unless in a relationship that's lasted a specific length of time?

I don't think it's a bad idea to encourage kids to wait until they're married before having sex. I KNOW, it sounds so impractical. But ask yourself if you regretted waiting until you did have sex. If you are bummed out by the sex you missed, than I guess I'm wrong, but typically it hurts the individual more when you have sex too soon than having sex too late. You carry every person you've had sex with you for the rest of your life. You remember them. Even if you'd like to forget them -- You remember them more if you've got a kid, and maybe hate them more if they gave you an STD.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/BG1692es.cfm

Executive Summary: The White House Initiative to Combat AIDS: Learning from Uganda
by Joseph Loconte
Executive Summary #1692

September 30, 2003 | |



Earlier this year, the Bush Administration persuaded Congress to authorize $15 billion over the next five years to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the Caribbean. The U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 is a bold legislative effort. About 42 million people worldwide are dying of AIDS or are infected with the HIV virus that causes the disease. Of these individuals, 29 million live in Africa. In addition, Africa is home to a staggering 11 million orphans who have lost their parents to AIDS.

These facts carry political as well as moral implications: Failure to confront the pandemic in nations ravaged by AIDS is a recipe for economic decline and social chaos.

The Bush Administration is basing its AIDS initiative on the success of Uganda, which has experienced the greatest decline in HIV prevalence of any country in the world. Studies show that from 1991 to 2001, HIV infection rates in Uganda declined from about 15 percent to 5 percent. How did Uganda do it?

The best evidence suggests that the crucial factor was a national campaign to discourage risky sexual behaviors that contribute to the spread of the disease. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Ugandan government, working closely with community and faith-based organizations, delivered a consistent AIDS prevention message: Abstain from sex until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, or use Condoms if abstinence and fidelity are not practiced.

The effect was to create what researchers call a "social vaccine" against HIV: a set of cultural values that encouraged more responsible sexual attitudes and behaviors. Uganda's "ABC" approach is now widely acknowledged as being linked to the dramatic reduction in the nation's HIV/AIDS rate. Based on the best research data available, several lessons can be drawn from Uganda's experience:

High-risk sexual behaviors can be discouraged and replaced by healthier lifestyles.
Abstinence and marital fidelity appear to be the most important factors in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Condoms do not play the primary role in reducing HIV/AIDS transmission.
Religious organizations are crucial participants in the fight against AIDS.
The White House correctly insists that U.S. AIDS policy be based on these lessons and the best available research about effective prevention and treatment programs. "The Ugandan model has the most to teach the rest of the world," says Dr. Edward Green, a senior research scientist at Harvard and author of Rethinking AIDS Prevention. "This policy should guide the development of programs in Africa and the Caribbean funded under the President's initiative." Jeff Spieler, chief of the research division in the U.S. Agency for International Development's population office, says: "It just happens to be where the evidence is pointing."

Congress should follow the evidence as well. Although it has approved the President's initiative, Congress is still debating whether to follow Uganda's ABC approach. Lawmakers should be guided by good data, not ideology, in the upcoming appropriations and confirmation debates.

The President's AIDS initiative faces profound challenges. First, most of the African continent lacks the health care infrastructure required to treat HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases effectively. Second, many African governments are either unprepared to face their AIDS crisis seriously or too corrupt and unaccountable to mount effective treatment campaigns. Finally, international AIDS organizations and activists continue to ignore the success of Uganda while promoting flawed approaches to disease prevention.

To promote the most effective AIDS policy for developing nations, Congress should:

Endorse effective prevention policy by insisting that AIDS funding uphold the ABC program emphasis on abstinence and marital fidelity;
Ensure that programs for high-risk groups, such as commercial sex workers and drug addicts, make rescue and recovery a major program goal;
Empower non-governmental organizations (NGOs) while protecting their right to fight AIDS without compromising their moral and religious beliefs;
Sharply limit the U.S. contribution to international AIDS organizations until their policies reflect the best AIDS prevention and treatment programs available; and
Insist that the President's nominee for Global AIDS Coordinator fully endorse the ABC prevention model.
The Bush Administration's AIDS initiative is a bold and ambitious plan to tackle a pandemic that is ravaging the lives of millions of people across Africa and the Caribbean. The White House seems to understand that the favorite solution of Western public health elites--a "condom airlift" for the continent--would be a medical and moral disaster. It was precisely this approach that was roundly rejected by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. "We made it our highest priority to convince our people to return to their traditional values of chastity and faithfulness or, failing that, to use condoms," Museveni told drug company executives during a June meeting in Washington. "The alternative was decimation."

Critics of the Administration's AIDS policy for Africa should meditate long and hard on that alternative.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Wouldnt it teach that its not always wise to just act on your impulse, and inform kids of consequences to consider before taking risks that theyre not ready to deal with?

Was that in response to my question about "abstinence first"? If so, I don't see that there's any contradiction between advising young people that they should be cautious and responsible when making the decision to have sex and advising them that once they've made that decision they should take adequte precautions against pregnancy or STIs.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I don't think it's a bad idea to encourage kids to wait until they're married before having sex. I KNOW, it sounds so impractical. But ask yourself if you regretted waiting until you did have sex. If you are bummed out by the sex you missed, than I guess I'm wrong, but typically it hurts the individual more when you have sex too soon than having sex too late. You carry every person you've had sex with you for the rest of your life. You remember them. Even if you'd like to forget them -- You remember them more if you've got a kid, and maybe hate them more if they gave you an STD.

So teach people that they should think carefully before having sex and make an informed and responsible decision. That won't always mean not having sex outside of marriage, perhaps for some people it does, for others it doesn't.

 

[BVS]

Im not saying not to teach it

Well then you can see how I'm perplexed as to how educating someone will lead to higher rates?

So teaching them will lead to higher rates? But not teaching them is wrong?

 

[u2bonogirl]

Was that in response to my question about "abstinence first"? If so, I don't see that there's any contradiction between advising young people that they should be cautious and responsible when making the decision to have sex and advising them that once they've made that decision they should take adequte precautions against pregnancy or STIs.

Yes, that was in response to your question.
I guess there would be a different undercurrent to the teaching.
There would be one that says: look we know youre going to do it so do it safely and heres how.
And another that says: We know you really think youre ready but here are some things to consider before you make a decision. Heres why its better to just abstain right now.
And teach all the adeqate lessons on the body, and how it all works, and the methods of birth control and how to use them...stats....etc.

 

[Irvine511]

Was that in response to my question about "abstinence first"? If so, I don't see that there's any contradiction between advising young people that they should be cautious and responsible when making the decision to have sex and advising them that once they've made that decision they should take adequte precautions against pregnancy or STIs.

oh, stop. you're making sense and sounding thoroughly logical.



Irvine thinks he's getting FYM fatigue and can't bear to debate this one again yet can't not comment because it's too important that kids know how to protect themselves and could point to mountains of evidence that government-funded (!!!) abstinence-only programs grossly distort science and while they are successful in getting kids to delay intercourse for a year or two, when intercourse does happen it is less likely to be protected, and that pretty much everyone would discourage *anyone* 16 or younger from having sex and that the mere discussion of condoms and contraception is not a permission slip to go hump in the bathrooms after class.

 

[u2bonogirl]

Well then you can see how I'm perplexed as to how educating someone will lead to higher rates?

So teaching them will lead to higher rates? But not teaching them is wrong?

I'm not saying that educating will lead to higher rates. Im saying that a 13 or 14 year old boy or girl is more likely to go have sex if they have a condom.
Good education should actually make somebody think harder about the decision to sleep with someone

 

[BVS]

Good education should actually make somebody think harder about the decision to sleep with someone

I agree.

 

[starsforu2]

So teach people that they should think carefully before having sex and make an informed and responsible decision. That won't always mean not having sex outside of marriage, perhaps for some people it does, for others it doesn't.

I'm cool with that synopsis. You can't control behavior, but to a certain degree you can encourage behavior.

 

[starsforu2]

oh, stop. you're making sense and sounding thoroughly logical.



Irvine thinks he's getting FYM fatigue and can't bear to debate this one again yet can't not comment because it's too important that kids know how to protect themselves and could point to mountains of evidence that government-funded (!!!) abstinence-only programs grossly distort science and while they are successful in getting kids to delay intercourse for a year or two, when intercourse does happen it is less likely to be protected, and that pretty much everyone would discourage *anyone* 16 or younger from having sex and that the mere discussion of condoms and contraception is not a permission slip to go hump in the bathrooms after class.

Send me the link... I want to read it for myself. If I agree with the source I'll stop beating the drum.

 

[starsforu2]

Send me the link... I want to read it for myself. If I agree with the source I'll stop beating the drum.

Whoa, just reread your thread... I'm not for abstinence ONLY programs. Don't worry about sending me the link.

I just believe that peer pressure and instruction works. I think when the dominant philosophy is to wait, most do. Or more do than if the dominant philosophy is do it when you feel you're ready.

 

[stammer476]

They could always show the STD slides I had to watch my senior year. If that doesn't make you zip up your pants, nothing will.

 

[BVS]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/BG1692es.cfm

We start talking about the Uganda program about halfway down this page. The information is hugely misrepresented.

http://forum.interference.com/showt...perpage=15&highlight=uganda AIDS&pagenumber=3