41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

daisypusher
Mountain Legend

08 Jan 2011 23:41 #121 by daisypusher

Replied by daisypusher on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

archer wrote:
daisypusher wrote: There needs to be equal rights as outlined above.

With equal rights come equal responsibility......that is all I, and others here, have been asking for.

:rofl In this case no responsibility to raise/support the child, since the baby can be dropped off by either party.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

ScienceChic
Mountain Champion

09 Jan 2011 15:16 #122 by ScienceChic

Replied by ScienceChic on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

The Viking wrote:
Science Chic wrote: If you subtract the number of induced abortions by non-residents and unknown residential origin, the rate is actually 35%. National figures (from May 2010, these NYC figures are from 2009) are at 22%. So it's 13% higher, and not as startling when taken in that context. The rates have also declined for the last decade. It's still too high a rate and more needs to be done to improve education and access to birth control.

Here's the actual report: http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/u ... report.pdf

Don't have time to get into a long discussion here but just need a couple of questions answered here. First of all, the babies of non-residents and women of unknown residential origin don't count as abortions? So those 6% pf babies killed are not even a statistic? And also, you say that 35% is 'not as startling when taken in that context'. More than 1 out of every 3 pregnancies are aborted and that is not that alarming? There is no way that 41% (we are not just dropping the 6% because their mothers residence is unknown, they were still killed) of the women getting pregnant in NY HAVE to have an abortion for health reasons or because they were raped. It is millions being aborted as a form of birth control. It is sick, wrong, and immoral to be ending the lives of 41% of all pregnancies because it is more convenient for them!

The premise of this article is that the abortions are attributed only to NYC; hence, it's residents. Adding in non-residents abortions artificially increases the rate attributed to NYC. My issue was with the sensationalist rhetoric of the article originally posted http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/07/41-pe ... e-aborted/

"New York City's abortion rate is 41 percent, more than double the national average, according to city health department statistics."

No, it is not more than double, it is 13% higher than the national average. Also from this article,

Thursday's press conference was organized by the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a nonprofit organization whose president, Sean Fieler, supports conservative and religious initiatives.

- now, keep that in mind with the data I'm going to present below and at the end ask yourself, "Is this group really going to make a difference with the manner in which they will attempt to tackle this problem?"

Now, look at my next sentence,

It's still too high a rate and more needs to be done to improve education and access to birth control.

Absolutely 34% is high and needs to be addressed, which is why I mentioned better access to birth control and education. Rather than standing on the sidelines and imparting moral judgments about the behaviors of those who get abortions, it would be much more effective to understand who gets them and why so that effective measures can be implemented to reduce abortion rates. Obviously those who get them don't consider the immorality or consequences of it or they wouldn't do it so let's move on - it may be a motivator for you, but it's not for them and if you want to deter them, imposing your moral stand on them isn't going to solve the problem you'd like solved.

If you read through the report I cited, you will notice that 51% of all live births are to foreign-born women. They don't call out the number of induced abortions by foreign-born women, but by inference of birth rate being half of the total, it's not unreasonable to assume that abortions are higher for foreign-born women too. Their cultural influences can be very different than here in the US, so that abortions are not as controversial where they were raised. Again, to reduce abortion rates in this group would require education and easier access to birth control - they likely don't want to be burdened with the cost of an infant while trying to make a living in their new country so what would make it easier to convince them to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption? And what would increase their adoption of, and consistent use of, contraceptives so that abortion doesn't become an issue. The majority of abortions is to women age 25-39; they should be better educated about the consequences of sex and have easier access to birth control so why do they have to resort to abortion? What intervention for this group would reduce abortion rates? The abortion rate for teens is higher than the national average - is that because NYC has a higher population of foreign-born children, or first-decendants of foreign-born people, a higher population of ethnic groups that tend to have higher pregnancy rates and hence abortion rates, or a higher population of poor people who tend to have more abortion, or a combination of all three scenarios? Effective interventions need to be tailored differently depending on each of these cases.

Education isn't as effective as it should be because the focus has mostly been on abstinence, which has been verified as being ineffectual. And that's if teens even get any sex education. While the teen abortion rate in NYC isn't as high as those age 25-39, early effective education does play a big part as those teenagers will get older.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html
Facts on Sex Education in the United States
December 2006
Sex Education: Teens’ Perspectives
• By 2002, one-third of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception.[9]

• More than one in five adolescents (21% of females and 24% of males) received abstinence education without receiving instruction about birth control in 2002, compared with 8–9% in 1995.[10]

• In 2002, only 62% of sexually experienced female teens had received instruction about contraception before they first had sex, compared with 72% in 1995.[11]

• Only one out of three sexually experienced black males and fewer than half of sexually experienced black females had received instruction about contraception before the first time they had sex.[12]

• One-quarter of sexually experienced teens had not received instruction about abstinence before first sex.[13]
Sex education teachers were more likely to focus on abstinence and less likely to provide students with information on birth control, how to obtain contraceptive services, sexual orientation and abortion in 1999 than they were in 1988.[14]

• In 1999, one in four sex education teachers taught abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STIs—a huge increase from 1988, when the fraction was just one in 50.[15]

• The majority of teachers believe that topics such as birth control methods and how to obtain them, the correct way to use a condom, sexual orientation, and factual and ethical information about abortion should also be taught by the end of the 12th grade. These topics are currently being taught less often and later than teachers think they should be.[16]

• More than nine in 10 teachers believe that students should be taught about contraception, but one in four are prohibited from doing so.[17]

• Eighty-two percent of adults support comprehensive sex education that teaches students about both abstinence and other methods of preventing pregnancy and STIs.[19]

• Only one-third of adults surveyed support abstinence-only education, while half oppose the abstinence-only approach.[20]

• Eighty-six percent of the public school districts that have a policy to teach sex education require that abstinence be promoted. Some 35% require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people and either prohibit the discussion of contraception altogether or limit discussion to its ineffectiveness. The other 51% have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens and permit discussion of contraception as an effective means of preventing pregnancy and STIs.[23]

• More than half of the districts in the South with a policy to teach sex education have an abstinence-only policy, compared with one in five of such districts in the Northeast.[24]Guess which region has the highest teen pregnancy rates? http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/10/21/u-s ... rn-states/

• Federal law establishes a stringent eight-point definition of “abstinence-only education” that requires programs to teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong and harmful—for people of any age. The law also prohibits programs from advocating contraceptive use or discussing contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.[26]

• There is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex education that teaches young people about both abstinence and contraception.[29]

• Despite years of evaluation in this area, there is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education delays teen sexual activity. Moreover, recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs.[30]

• Evidence shows that comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active. These findings were underscored in “Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior,” issued by former Surgeon General David Satcher in June 2001.[31]

If abortions are to be reduced, then access to birth control must be made easier and it must used consistently.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html
Facts on American Teens' Sexual and Reproductive Health
January 2010
CONTRACEPTIVE USE
•A sexually active teen who does not use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.[4]
•The majority of sexually experienced teens (74% of females and 82% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex.[1]

ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVE SERVICES
•Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia explicitly allow all minors to consent to contraceptive services without a parent's involvement (as of January 2010). Two states (Texas and Utah) require parental consent for contraceptive services in state-funded family planning programs.[5]

•Among those whose parents do not know, 70% would not use the clinic to obtain prescription contraceptives if the law required that their parents be notified.[7]

•One in five teens whose parents do not know they obtain contraceptive services would continue to have sex but would either rely on withdrawal or not use any contraceptives if the law required that their parents be notified of their visit.[7]

•Only 1% of all minor adolescents who use sexual health services indicate that their only reaction to a law requiring their parents' involvement in obtaining prescription contraceptives would be to stop having sex.[7]

ABORTION
•Twenty-seven percent of pregnancies among 15–19-year-olds ended in abortion in 2006. [9]

•The reasons teens give most frequently for having an abortion are concern about how having a baby would change their lives, inability to afford a baby now and feeling insufficiently mature to raise a child.[14]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
May 2010
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24%. [6]

Thirty percent of abortions occur to non-Hispanic black women, 36% to non-Hispanic white women, 25% to Hispanic women and 9% to women of other races. [6]

About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[6]

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]So what intervention(s) is/are going to be effective if these are the reasons given?

CONTRACEPTIVE USE
Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7351/1426.full
Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
BMJ 2002; 324 : 1426 doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1426 (Published 15 June 2002)

The interventions did not delay initiation of sexual intercourse in young women (pooled odds ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.30) or young men (0.99; 0.84 to 1.16); did not improve use of birth control by young women at every intercourse (0.95; 0.69 to 1.30) or at last intercourse (1.05; 0.50 to 2.19) or by young men at every intercourse (0.90; 0.70 to 1.16) or at last intercourse (1.25; 0.99 to 1.59); and did not reduce pregnancy rates in young women (1.04; 0.78 to 1.40). Four abstinence programmes and one school based sex education programme were associated with an increase in number of pregnancies among partners of young male participants (1.54; 1.03 to 2.29). There were significantly fewer pregnancies in young women who received a multifaceted programme (0.41; 0.20 to 0.83), though baseline differences in this study favoured the intervention.

Direction of future research
There is some evidence that prevention programmes may need to begin much earlier than they do. In a recent systematic review of eight trials of day care for disadvantaged children under 5 years of age, long term follow up showed lower pregnancy rates among adolescents.44 We need to investigate the social determinants of unintended pregnancy in adolescents through large longitudinal studies beginning early in life and use the results of the multivariate analyses to guide the design of prevention interventions. We should carefully examine countries with low pregnancy rates among adolescents. For example, the Netherlands has one of the lowest rates in the world (8.1 per 1000 young women aged 15 to 19 years), and Ketting and Visser have published an analysis of associated factors.45 In contrast, the rates are 93 per 1000 in the United States,46 62.6 per 1000 in England and Wales,47 and 42.7 per 1000 in Canada.48 (see below) We should examine effective programmes designed to prevent other high risk behaviours in adolescents.

Few sexual health interventions are designed with input from adolescents. Adolescents have suggested that sex education should be more positive with less emphasis on anatomy and scare tactics; it should focus on negotiation skills in sexual relationships and communication; and details of sexual health clinics should be advertised in areas that adolescents frequent (for example, school toilets, shopping centres).50 None of the interventions in this review focused on strategies for improving the quality of sexual relationships. Sexual exploitation, lack of mutual respect, and discomfort in voicing sexual needs and desires are common problems in adulthood. Interventions to help adolescents learn about healthy sexual relationships need to be designed and evaluations of these interventions that follow the adolescents into adulthood should be done.

Maybe following the Dutch lifestyle acceptance/model would produce some positive results...I find some of the influence changes very prophetic
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... archtype=a
CONTRACEPTION IN THE NETHERLANDS - THE LOW ABORTION RATE EXPLAINED
Author(s): KETTING E, VISSER AP
Source: PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Pages: 161-171 Published: JUL 1994
This article gives a review of the main factors that are related to the low abortion rate in the Netherlands. Attention is payed to figures on abortion and the use of contraceptive methods since the beginning of the 1960s up to the end of the 1980s. The strong acceptance of family planning was influenced by changing values regarding sexuality and the family, the transition from an agricultural to a modem industrial society, rapid economic growth, declining influence of the churches on daily life, introduction of modern mass media and the increased general educational level. The introduction of modem contraceptives (mainly the pill and contraceptive sterilization) was stimulated by a strong voluntary family planning movement, fear for overpopulation, a positive role of GPs, and the public health insurance system. A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services) as well as through wide acceptance of sterilization. The Dutch experience with family planning shows the following characteristics: a strong wish to reduce reliance on abortion, ongoing sexual and contraceptive education related to the actual experiences of the target groups, and low barrier family planning services.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Travelingirl
Mountain Legend

09 Jan 2011 15:33 #123 by Travelingirl

Replied by Travelingirl on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

Education isn't as effective as it should be because the focus has mostly been on abstinence, which has been verified as being ineffectual. And that's if teens even get any sex education. While the teen abortion rate in NYC isn't as high as those age 25-39, early effective education does play a big part as those teenagers will get older.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html

Sorry SC...quoting guttmacher is a joke. They're in tight with mega-abortion provider Planned Parenthood! Of course they're going to say abstinence education doesn't work...makes me question your sources.

The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

ScienceChic
Mountain Champion

09 Jan 2011 17:17 #124 by ScienceChic

Replied by ScienceChic on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

How so? They haven't been officially affiliated with Planned Parenthood for over 30 years now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute

the Guttmacher Institute became an independent, not-for-profit corporation in 1977.[3]

http://www.guttmacher.org/about/history.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/about/faq.html#4

How does the Guttmacher Institute maintain its objectivity?

The Institute's overall program is guided by a diverse, 42-member Board of Directors, who are knowledgeable in the fields of law, medicine, research, public education, government, finance and program administration. Numerous issue- and project-oriented advisory groups help the Guttmacher Institute to identify and address public policy questions that need to be answered and to ensure that its research meets the highest scientific standards and its findings and reports are relevant and useful. Articles in the Institute's domestic and international journals undergo blinded peer review. The Guttmacher Institute neither accepts direct project support from profit-making organizations that might benefit from its findings nor allows specific funding agencies to influence its agenda.

Regardless, what about this source?
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public ... ?task=view
Abstinence-Only Programs Are Dangerous, Ineffective, and Inaccurate.
The Society for Adolescent Medicine recently declared that “abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life.”[8,11]
8. Santelli J et al. Abstinence and abstinence-only education: a review of U.S. policies and programs. Journal of Adolescent Health 2006; 38(1):72-81.
11. Society for Adolescent Medicine. Abstinence-only education policies and programs: a position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health 2006; 38(1):83-87.
http://www.adolescenthealth.org/Overview/2264.htm

Founded in 1968, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (SAHM) is a multidisciplinary organization committed to improving the physical and psychosocial health and well-being of all adolescents through advocacy, clinical care, health promotion, health service delivery, professional development and research.

Since the 1950s, a group of healthcare professionals has taken on the challenge of learning more about adolescent health and improving the delivery of health services for adolescents by developing and promoting the field now known as Adolescent Medicine and Health.

Today, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (SAHM) is the only national organization (with members from 30 countries worldwide) dedicated exclusively to advancing the health and well-being of adolescents.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/orgs/HR1956.htm

The Society for Adolescent Medicine, established in 1968, promotes research and disseminates information on adolescent medicine to interested organizations and professionals. It holds one scientific meeting a year, identifies careers in adolescent medicine, and helps plan and coordinate professional education in the field. Physician referrals are available.

Primary journal publications:
According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers’ risk for STIs and pregnancy. The study concluded that 88 percent of pledge-takers initiated sex prior to marriage even though some delayed sex for a while. Rates of STIs among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar, even though pledge-takers initiated sex later. Pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they did have sex.[20,21]
20. Brückner H, Bearman P. After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health 2005; 36:271-278.
21. Bearman PS, Brückner H. Promising the future: virginity pledges and first intercourse. American Journal of Sociology 2001; 106(4):859-912.

Or this group:
Evaluations of the effectiveness of state-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs found no delay in first sex. In fact, of six evaluations that assessed short-term changes in behavior, three found no changes, two found increased sexual activity from pre- to post-test, and one showed mixed results. Five evaluations looked for but found no long-term impact in reducing teens’ sexual activity.[9]
9. Hauser D. Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact [Title V State Evaluations] Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2004.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/about-us/mission

Established in 1980 as the Center for Population Options, Advocates for Youth champions efforts to help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health. Advocates believes it can best serve the field by boldly advocating for a more positive and realistic approach to adolescent sexual health.

www.advocatesforyouth.org/about-us/partner-organizations

Analysis of data from Youth Risk Behavior surveys found that sexual activity among high school youth declined significantly from 1991 to 1997, prior to large-scale funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, but changed little from 1999 to 2003 with federal funding of such programs.[22]
22. Feijoo AN, Grayton C. Trends in Sexual Risk Behaviors among High School Students—United States, 1991 to 1997 and 1999 to 2003. [The Facts] Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2004.

Analysis of federally funded abstinence-only curricula found that over 80 percent of curricula supported by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services contained false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. Specifically, they conveyed:

* False information about the effectiveness of contraceptives;
* False information about the risks of abortion;
* Religious beliefs as scientific fact;
* Stereotypes about boys and girls as scientific fact; and
* Medical and scientific errors of fact.[23]
23. Special Investigations Division, U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs. Washington, DC: Author, 2004.

Prevention of HIV transmission via reducing intercourse is similar to reducing pregnancy, and this evaluation says the same thing: abstinence education is ineffective.
http://www.amfar.org/uploadedFiles/In_t ... ograms.pdf
Assessing The Efficacy Of Abstinence-Only Programs For HIV Prevention Among Young People

A federally-supported, 10-year evaluation of abstinence-only-until-marriageprograms found that theseprograms had no impact on youth remaining abstinent, age at first intercourse, number of sexual partners, or condom use. In fact, these programs appeared to have negative effects on knowledge: abstinence-only program participants were less likely to know that condoms can lower the risk of STIs, and more likely to report that condoms never protect against HIV.25 Rather, the scientific evidence to date suggests that investing in comprehensive sexuality education that includes support for abstinence but also provides risk reduction information would be a more effective HIV prevention strategy for young people both in the United States and globally.

But I would like to ask, travelingirl, what's more important: reducing abortion rates, pregnancy rates, and STD rates by instituting comprehensive sex education courses, or feeling morally better continuing to teach our children that sex is wrong unless married (which doesn't seem to stop them from doing it) and not reducing the above-mentioned problems?

http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education
What are the arguments?
What is the evidence?
March 2002

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Travelingirl
Mountain Legend

09 Jan 2011 17:59 #125 by Travelingirl

Replied by Travelingirl on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

But I would like to ask, travelingirl, what's more important: reducing abortion rates, pregnancy rates, and STD rates by instituting comprehensive sex education courses, or feeling morally better continuing to teach our children that sex is wrong unless married (which doesn't seem to stop them from doing it) and not reducing the above-mentioned problems

SC, where did you read that I have a need to feel morally better by teaching abstinence-only education? I've actually been talking about women taking responsiblity for their bodies BEFORE they have to make that "difficult decision to abort"...you know...the old, worn out archiac chant of so many irresponsible women. What makes you think I don't want to see "reduced abortion rates, pregnancy rates, STD rates"? Where the heck did you get that? I just disagree with the so-called sex education programs and doubt their shady statistics. Like I've said before, I've seen the fallout of abortion and it's awful. It's not about my moral feelings SC, it's about protecting women and the unborn.

I know how much you enjoy exhaustive research, so here's a little I found for you. Enjoy!!

The Silent Scandal: Promoting Teen Sex
With millions of dollars in sex-education programs at stake, it is not surprising that the groups that have previously dominated the arena have taken action to block the growing movement to abstinence-only education. Such organizations, including the Sexuality Information and education Council of the United States (SEICUS), Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), have been prime supporters of "safe-sex" programs for youth, which entail guidance on the use of condoms and other means of contraception while giving a condescending nod to abstinence. Clearly, the caveat that says "and if you do engage in sex, this is how you should do it" substantially weakens an admonition against early non-marital sexual activity.

Not only do such programs, by their very nature, minimize the abstinence component of sex education, but many of these programs also implicitly encourage sexual activity among the youths they teach. Guidelines developed by SEICUS, for example, include teaching children aged five through eight about masturbation and teaching youths aged 9 through 12 about alternative sexual activities such as mutual masturbation, "outercourse," and oral sex.[16] In addition, the SEICUS guidelines suggest informing youths aged 16 through 18 that sexual activity can include bathing or showering together as well as oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse, and that they can use erotic photographs, movies, or literature to enhance their sexual fantasies when alone or with a partner. Not only do such activities carry their own risks for youth, but they are also likely to increase the incidence of sexual intercourse.

In recent years, parental support for real abstinence education has grown. Because of this, many traditional safe-sex programs now take to calling themselves "abstinence plus" or "abstinence-based" education. In reality, there is little abstinence training in "abstinence-based" education. Instead, these programs are thinly disguised efforts to promote condom use. The actual content of most "abstinence plus" curricula would be alarming to most parents. For example, such programs typically have condom use exercises in which middle school students practice unrolling condoms on cucumbers or dildoes.[17]

And what about this:

Effective Abstinence Programs
Critics of abstinence education often assert that while abstinence education that exclusively promotes abstaining from premarital sex is a good idea in theory, there is no evidence that such education can actually reduce sexual activity among young people. Such criticism is erroneous. There are currently 10 scientific evaluations (described below) that demonstrate the effectiveness of abstinence programs in altering sexual behavior.[18] Each of the programs evaluated is a real abstinence (or what is conventionally termed an "abstinence only") program; that is, the program does not provide contraceptives or encourage their use.

Virginity Pledge Programs. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Michael Resnick and others entitled "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" shows that "abstinence pledge" programs are dramatically effective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers in grades 7 through 12.[19] Based on a large national sample of adolescents, the study concludes that "Adolescents who reported having taken a pledge to remain a virgin were at significantly lower risk of early age of sexual debut."[20]

And this:

Not Me, Not Now. Not Me, Not Now is a community-wide abstinence intervention targeted to 9- to 14-year-olds in Monroe County, New York, which includes the city of Rochester. The Not Me, Not Now program devised a mass communications strategy to promote the abstinence message through paid TV and radio advertising, billboards, posters distributed in schools, educational materials for parents, an interactive Web site, and educational sessions in school and community settings. The program sought to communicate five themes: raising awareness of the problem of teen pregnancy, increasing an understanding of the negative consequences of teen pregnancy, developing resistance to peer pressure, promoting parent-child communication, and promoting abstinence among teens. Not Me, Not Now was effective in reaching early teen listeners, with some 95 percent of the target audience within the county reporting that they had seen a Not Me, Not Now ad. During the intervention period, the program achieved a statistically significant positive shift in attitudes among pre-teens and early teens in the county. The sexual activity rate of 15-year-olds across the county (as reported in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey[21] ) dropped by a statistically significant amount from 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent during the intervention period. Finally, the pregnancy rate for girls aged 15 through 17 in Monroe County fell by a statistically significant amount, from 63.4 pregnancies per 1,000 girls to 49.5 pregnancies per 1,000. The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County than in comparison counties and in upstate New

And there's more...

Operation Keepsake. Operation Keepsake is an abstinence program for 12- and 13-year-old children in Cleveland, Ohio. Some 77 percent of the children in the program were black or Hispanic. An evaluation of the program in 2001, involving a sample of over 800 students, found that "Operation Keepsake had a clear and sustainable impact on...abstinence beliefs." The evaluation showed that the program reduced the rate of onset of sexual activity (loss of virginity) by roughly two-thirds relative to comparable students in control schools who did not participate in the program. In addition, the program reduced by about one-fifth the rate of current sexual activity among those with prior sexual experience.[23]

Abstinence by Choice. Abstinence by Choice operates in 20 schools in the Little Rock area of Arkansas. The program targets 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students and reaches about 4,000 youths each year. A recent evaluation, involving a sample of nearly 1,000 students, shows that the program has been highly effective in changing the attitudes that are directly linked to early sexual activity. Moreover, the program reduced the sexual activity rates of girls by approximately 40 percent (from 10.2 percent to 5.9 percent) and the rate for boys by approximately 30 percent (from 22.8 percent to 15.8 percent) when compared with similar students who had not been exposed to the program. (The sexual activity rate of students in the program was compared with the rate of sexual activity among control students in the same grade in the same schools prior to the commencement of the program.)[24]

Virginity Pledge Movement. A 2001 evaluation of the effectiveness of the virginity pledge movement using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health finds that virginity pledge programs are highly effective in helping adolescents to delay sexual activity. According to the authors of the study:
Adolescents who pledge, controlling for all of the usual characteristics of adolescents and their social contexts that are associated with the transition to sex, are much less likely than adolescents who do not pledge, to have intercourse. The delay effect is substantial and robust. Pledging delays intercourse for a long time.[25]
The study, based on a sample of more than 5,000 students, concludes that taking a virginity pledge reduces by one-third the probability that an adolescent will begin sexual activity compared with other adolescents of the same gender and age, after controlling for a host of other factors linked to sexual activity rates such as physical maturity, parental disapproval of sexual activity, school achievement, and race. When taking a virginity pledge is combined with strong parental disapproval of sexual activity, the probability of initiation of sexual activity is reduced by 75 percent or more.

Teen Aid and Sex Respect. An evaluation of the Teen Aid and Sex Respect abstinence programs in three school districts in Utah showed that both programs were effective among the students who were at the greatest risk of initiating sexual activity. Approximately 7,000 high school and middle school students participated in the evaluation. To determine the effects of the programs, students in schools with the abstinence programs were compared with students in similar control schools within the same school district. Statistical adjustments were applied to further control for any initial differences between program participants and control students. The programs together were shown to reduce the rate of initiation of sexual activity among at-risk high school students by over a third when compared with a control group of similar students who were not exposed to the program.[26] Statistically significant changes in behavior were not found among junior high students.

When high school and junior high school students were examined together, Sex Respect was shown to reduce the rate of initiation of sexual activity among at-risk students by 25 percent when compared with a control group of similar students who were not exposed to the program. Teen Aid was found to reduce the initiation of sex activity by some 17 percent. A third non-abstinence program, Values and Choices, which offered non-directive or value-free instruction in sex education and decision-making, was found to have no impact on sexual behavior.

Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality (FACTS). An evaluation performed for the national Title XX abstinence program examined the effectiveness of the Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality abstinence program in reducing teen sexual activity. The evaluation assessed the FACTS program by comparing a sample of students who participated in the program with a group of comparable students in separate control schools who did not participate in the program. The experimental and control students together comprised a sample of 308 students. The evaluation found the FACTS program to be highly effective in delaying the onset of sexual activity. Students who participated in the program were 30 percent to 50 percent less likely to commence sexual activity than were those who did not participate.[27]

Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI). Postponing Sexual Involvement was an abstinence program developed by Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, and provided to low-income 8th grade students. A study published in Family Planning Perspectives, based on a sample of 536 low-income students, showed that the PSI program was effective in altering sexual behavior.[28] A comparison of the program participants with a control population of comparable low-income minority students who did not participate showed that PSI reduced the rate of initiation of sexual activity during the 8th grade by some 60 percent for boys and over 95 percent for girls.[29] As the study explained:
The program had a pronounced effect on the behavior of both boys and girls who had not been sexually involved before the program.... By the end of eighth grade, boys who had not had the program were more than three times as likely to have begun having sex as were boys who had the program.... Girls who had not had the program were as much as 15 times more likely to have begun having sex as were girls who had had the program.[30]
The effects of the program lasted into the next school year even though no additional sessions were provided. By the end of the 9th grade, boys and girls who had participated in PSI were still some 35 percent less likely to have commenced sexual activity than were those who had not participated in the abstinence program.[31]

Project Taking Charge. Project Taking Charge is a six-week abstinence curriculum delivered in home economics classes during the school year. It was designed for use in low-income communities with high rates of teen pregnancy. The curriculum contains these elements: self-development; basic information about sexual biology (anatomy, physiology, and pregnancy); vocational goal-setting; Family communication; and values instruction on the importance of delaying sexual activity until marriage. The effect of the program has been evaluated in two sites: Wilmington, Delaware, and West Point, Mississippi. The evaluation was based on a small sample of 91 adolescents. Control and experimental groups were created by randomly assigning classrooms to either receive or not receive the program. The students were assessed immediately before and after the program and through a six-month follow-up.

In the six-month follow-up, Project Taking Charge was shown to have had a statistically significant effect in increasing adolescents' knowledge of the problems associated with teen pregnancy, the problems of sexually transmitted diseases, and reproductive biology. The program was also shown to reduce the rate of onset of sexual activity by 50 percent relative to the students in the control group, although the authors urge caution in the interpretation of these numbers due to the small size of the evaluation sample.[32]

Teen Aid Family Life education Project. The Teen Aid Family Life education Project is a widely used abstinence education program for high school and junior high students. An evaluation of the effectiveness of Teen Aid, involving a sample of over 1,300 students, was performed in 21 schools in California, Idaho, Oregon, Mississippi, Utah, and Washington. The Teen Aid program was shown to have a statistically significant effect in reducing the rate of initiation of sexual activity (loss of virginity) among high-risk high school students, compared with similar students in control schools. Among at-risk high school students who participated in the program, the rate of initiation of sexual activity was cut by more than one-fourth, from 37 percent to 27 percent. A similar pattern of reduction was found among at-risk junior high school students, but the effects did not achieve statistical significance. The program did not have statistically significant effects among lower-risk students.[33]

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... Id=1009703

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

ScienceChic
Mountain Champion

10 Jan 2011 10:28 #126 by ScienceChic

Replied by ScienceChic on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

travelingirl wrote:
Science Chic wrote: But I would like to ask, travelingirl, what's more important: reducing abortion rates, pregnancy rates, and STD rates by instituting comprehensive sex education courses, or feeling morally better continuing to teach our children that sex is wrong unless married (which doesn't seem to stop them from doing it) and not reducing the above-mentioned problems
SC, where did you read that I have a need to feel morally better by teaching abstinence-only education? I've actually been talking about women taking responsiblity for their bodies BEFORE they have to make that "difficult decision to abort"...you know...the old, worn out archiac chant of so many irresponsible women. What makes you think I don't want to see "reduced abortion rates, pregnancy rates, STD rates"? Where the heck did you get that? I just disagree with the so-called sex education programs and doubt their shady statistics. Like I've said before, I've seen the fallout of abortion and it's awful. It's not about my moral feelings SC, it's about protecting women and the unborn.

Easy TG, where did I say you specifically believe in it? The only reason to teach abstinence-only versus a comprehensive sex education program that includes abstinence is because of moral/religious values and since you expressed an opinion that the source I quoted is biased and against abstinence education, then you were implying that you yourself believe in abstinence only. I wasn't trying to make outrageous or offensive assumptions about you - I merely asked why not embrace a comprehensive sex education program if it gets better results toward a goal that many have expressed a desire to achieve - many fewer abortions (yes, you have made your desires clear and I said nothing in my question that questioned that stand of yours, most certainly I've stated over and over that abortion rates need to decrease as well - we are in agreement here)? Did you have any objections to the other sources I quoted? Questions about them? What did you think of the data? I'm just curious!

I in no way disagree that women and men need to take more responsibility before unintended consequences, and I would like to see effective programs implemented that achieve that goal. Obviously what's in place now isn't working well enough. There also needs to be a shift in attitudes and support - teen girls shouldn't feel that they need to abort because "a baby would mess up their life plans" - there should be enough support available that they can carry the baby, deliver, and give him/her up for adoption without it affecting their school or work. Better prenatal care and time off without it affecting their student or work status, for example. It's confounding to me that married couples would "accidentally" get pregnant and choose to abort - they are more likely to have financial means and be better informed about birth control so this situation shouldn't even occur - the question is, how to reduce this situation from arising?

I know how much you enjoy exhaustive research, so here's a little I found for you. Enjoy!!
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... Id=1009703

Thanks, but I already read this! (when researching something, to reduce unconscious bias one must consider/become familiar with all possible positions so as to become best informed and make the most logical conclusion, one must read and analyze even sources that are contrary to your own. There are many studies out there showing that abstinence works, however, I have found that they tend to be more flawed in their experimental design than studies analyzing comprehensive sex education; hence, my conclusion that comprehensive sex education programs are more effective than abstinence-only programs. And comprehensive sex ed programs include abstinence so it's a win-win). And if you compare Heritage's stats of delayed onset of sex, comprehensive sex education programs have better success. As an example, look at their studies of Virginity Pledge Movement and Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality - they aren't comparing their abstinence-only program to a comprehensive sex ed program, they are comparing it to "parental disapproval" only (i.e. no sex education at all) or non-participation in abstinence-only education. Of course abstinence-only is going to be better than nothing; but, it's not as good as comprehensive sex education - look at all the studies I quoted, do you really believe that all that data is wrong?

And none of the Heritage Foundation studies mention anything beyond delaying initiation of sex - so if the kids have sex, and are dropped from the study what happened next? Were they more or less likely to use protection/contraception? Comprehensive sex education programs cover those scenarios, and have positive impacts. What's to lose? If we want to protect women and unborn children, then we need to make birth control a more integral part of womens' and mens' lives - it needs to be something that is widespread and consistently used. I remember arguments way back when that people wouldn't want phones that they would have to remember to plug in themselves every night to recharge so they could use it the next day, and now it's something we don't even think about; birth control needs to go that way - it's something that is practiced by everyone without it being a big deal. Only when birth control use reaches close to 100% will abortion rates drop. And when birth control failures are not thought of selfishly as "inconveniences" but as an opportunity to provide for someone else and support makes it feasible to not affect the mother's lifestyle then abortions will decrease even further, until they are only occurring to save the mother's life, prevent a baby from suffering a horrible quality short life due to genetic deformity or disease, or due to rape/incest. That's what I'd like to see.

Thanks for your reply TG, I appreciate you taking the time to find things for me to read!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Travelingirl
Mountain Legend

10 Jan 2011 10:32 #127 by Travelingirl

Replied by Travelingirl on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

I think we need an avatar for beating a dead horse.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

LadyJazzer
Mountain Legend

10 Jan 2011 10:34 #128 by LadyJazzer

Replied by LadyJazzer on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Travelingirl
Mountain Legend

10 Jan 2011 10:36 #129 by Travelingirl

Replied by Travelingirl on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

Cinnamon girl - can you add that to the list?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

ScienceChic
Mountain Champion

10 Jan 2011 10:48 #130 by ScienceChic

Replied by ScienceChic on topic 41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

Well, thanks, that was nice to read. I get that I have issues with not wanting to leave something unresolved and only wanted to correct your misinterpretation of my question, but beating a dead horse? I didn't get back on the computer last night so this is the first chance I had to respond. Sorry to have bothered you. Have a great day anyway Beautiful Lady!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.182 seconds