Only Abstinence Education Offers 100 Percent Guarantee for Safe Sex

Life News ^ | 5/9/08 | Kevin Roeten

[wagglebee]

LifeNews.com Note: Roeten is a very conservative Catholic who likes the facts over readily displayed emotions. He is an editorial columnist who has frequently been published in numerous Internet and newspaper forums.

It’s been discovered. Nobody thought having “safe sex” was possible in every case. Each year 2.6 million teenagers become sexually active—a rate of 7000/day. With high school, nearly half report having engaged in sexual activity and 1/3 are currently active (Kim/Rector//Heritage Foundation).

As it turns out, teen sexual activity is extremely costly for teens and for society as a whole. From 1985-1990 alone, the federal government spent $120 billion on teenage childbearing. Teens who engage in sexual activity risk all kinds of costly and detrimental outcomes not limited to STD infections, emotional and psychological harm, lower educational attainment, and unmarried childbearing. All of these have direct impact on Medicare, Medicaid, government spending----and the budget.

It is known that STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) infect -- about 12 million Americans per year, with 65,000 plagued with an incurable form (CDC). STDs are a direct cause of infertility in both men and women .

Nearly half of all pregnancies as well as 1 million teen pregnancies (95%) are unintended (CDC), and there are approximately 40,000 new HIV infections per year. An estimated 1.3 million babies die every year through abortion, and 84% of all US abortions are performed on unmarried women (US Dept of Commerce; GPO/1998). Teens who have babies out of wedlock are more likely to end up at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. All of these numbers have huge economic implications for the country.

But society has found something that works 100% of the time. They found something on which you can completely depend---much better than condoms which may work part of the time. And that’s if you use them right.

The answer is easy, even though many don’t want to hear it--- “abstinence until marriage”. It breaks the unwritten rule of sex on demand. It clearly illuminates the slavery to our desires so many of us face. And it emblazons the oft repeated saying, “Why buy the cow, if the milk is free?”

Self-control is like an immune system. People who abhor sexual-control think they are breaking free, but in reality are breaking down. Control yourself and you will not be repressed—you will be free.

Our children are not animals incapable of controlling themselves and “will do it anyway”. Yet “comprehensive” sex-ed teaches them that they're just that.

But recently, a new study by the research firm Mathematica found that in the five programs that they studied, abstinence-instructed kids showed no statistical change in sexual behavior.

But what was actually learned was this study looked at only five programs out of more than 900 in place. It was also determined this program targeted children 9 to 11 who were not evaluated until four years later. Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence (Kim/ Rector) found 16 of the 21 studies completed so far reported positive results, while 5 studies did not report any significant positive results.

Zogby (5/8/07) found that 83% of parents think it is important for their child to wait until marriage to have sex. The Journal of Adolescent and Family Health concluded that a 66% decrease in teen pregnancy was due to teens choosing abstinence. The CDC showed a 53% decrease. But abstinence programs federally funded over the last 11 years still have many critics.

But several dozen Congressional abortion advocates have signed a letter to the House Appropriations Committee asking to cut all funds for abstinence education (Ertelt/LifeNews). According to the CDC, there has been a 13% decrease in the % of teens who have ever had sex between 1991 and 2005. Some 17 states have rejected this funding.

It’s interesting to note that our government has spent $12 on the comprehensive sex-ed/Planned Parenthood approach for every $1 spent on true abstinence projects. PP would love to zero-fund its competitors, especially since abstinent kids don’t spend any time in their clinics.

As parents, our offspring are worth everything. We want to keep them from developing STDs, AIDS, HIV, going through abortions, lower educational development, slavery, you name it. We have “abstinence until marriage” which guarantees freedom from the above. And we know simple abstinence education gives significantly better chances from those pitfalls.

Now what would make a parent shy away from 100% chance of surviving an experience with some of the worst occurrences that exist?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Lest I misinterpret your post, wheather you like it or not, OUR government sets the tone for our moral standards. E.G. BJ Clinton, how do you define sex.

It was and is the Christian/Judeo values that established this great nation and it is the subsequent attacks on those values that are destroying this nation. IMHO

[Las Vegas Ron]

You’re post is so full of double negatives, well, It’s no wondner your mind is boggled

[Las Vegas Ron]

And as long as young people see Conservatism as being an advocate of a strong National Defense, lower taxes, less government regulation, liberty, and a firm personal morality (as opposed to a government enforced morality) the trend will continue over to our side (although it hasn't tipped 50% as of yet).

I think you just revealed yourself....bit of trolling, Eh?

[SnakeDoctor]

I re-read my post — and I don’t see no double negatives. But, it is confusing.

H

[Las Vegas Ron]

But, it is confusing.

Thanks, am glad to know it's not just me

[allmendream]

Revealed myself to be a Conservative for a strong National Defense, lower taxes, less government regulation, liberty and a firm personal morality as the foundational ideology that will attract young people to OUR SIDE! Why yes I did.

Did you reveal yourself to be in need of remedial reading comprehension?

[Marysecretary]

that’s right! No sex, no diseases and unwanted babies, or abortions. Sounds pretty simple to me.

[Las Vegas Ron]

It was your comment of the "Government forced morality, our side that kind of through me"

Are you saying that Government should not set societal morales?

[allmendream]

Government coercion is the opposite of morality.

If you abstain from drinking because you feel it makes you act ungodly you are being moral. If you abstain from drinking because it is not sold except illegally, and the punishment for its possession is draconian you are not being moral you are being pragmatic.

Government sets laws. We all set our own morality based upon our own freedom of conscience. A law against murder is not an attempt to enforce morality but social justice. A law against eating meat on Fridays would be an attempt to enforce morality.

[Campion]

A law against murder is not an attempt to enforce morality but social justice.

That's a distinction without a difference. How do you know what "social justice" is, apart from morality? How do you know it ought to be "enforced" by anything?

[Las Vegas Ron]

"Government coercion is the opposite of morality.

Couldn't agree more, however, my point was that "our leaders set the tone for our nations morals. George Washington recognized that the powers given to the Presidency as well as the Government should only be in the hands of Godly moral men...for he saw the immanent abuse of power.

If you abstain from drinking because you feel it makes you act ungodly you are being moral. If you abstain from drinking because it is not sold except illegally, and the punishment for its possession is draconian you are not being moral you are being pragmatic.

Completely contradictory to your premise. Isn't the Government law against drugs the same as Prohibition? Is it pragmatic, moral or is it in your best interest not to be coerced by the government?

We all set our own morality based upon our own freedom of conscience.

Malarkey. If that was true we would have polygamy, incest ritual killings,Adam and Steve, Heather has two Mommy's.....OH wait

[Brad’s Gramma]

You can educate the kids about abstinence all day long, but some of them are still going to do it. That's just fact, and people who pretend it's not going to happen are silly.

So why bother, right?

/sarcasm

[DManA]

I kinda veered onto the subject of MONOGAMY, but go ahead have your fun. :-)

[fightinJAG]

No, it’s not “abstinence education” that guarantees safe sex.

It’s abstinence.

[TheGunny]

Well, we could keep going the way we are. Thats working well huh?

[itsahoot]

I oppose bringing the government into it.

Then I suppose you will be picketing your local school, opposing the current sex education being imposed on your children, by the government.

Or do you just oppose abstinence education?

[itsahoot]

Secondly, how, exactly, do you role model abstaining from something that

Well if you are a girl, people will notice.

You may have noticed that there is a direct correlation between government schools teaching their enlightened sex education, and teen pregnancy?

Jocylen Elders wanted to teach body licking and masturbation in school, what is your suggestion?

[DManA]

I oppose government schools.