|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 2, 2008 16:15:09 GMT -4
I think you are beating a dead straw horse, Jason has said several times that he doesn't support abstinence-only ed.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 16:20:36 GMT -4
That the former surgeon general says he was pressured to provide incorrect information is very disturbing. That is not what he claims in the article. He says he was refused a platform where he did not agree with the administration, not that he was pressured to endorse information he didn't agree with. And he seems a bit naive if he really believes the surgeon general "never releases political documents". Many people, for instance, feel that the document mentioned in the article condemning secondhand smoke released by Dr. Carmona's own office was motivated by politics rather than science. Also, what is meant by "abstinence only" in this story? Does that mean students receive no information on birth control methods? Or does it mean that abstinence is taught as the best method of birth control/protection from STDs? Without knowing exactly what is meant I can't really evaluate whether I feel Dr. Carmona was being asked to support a reasonable position and refused to, or whether he rightfully refused to endorse an extreme program.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 16:29:28 GMT -4
I think you are beating a dead straw horse, Jason has said several times that he doesn't support abstinence-only ed. You are correct - I would not support a sex education program that didn't include any information on birth control methods, which seems to be what is being discussed by "abstinence-only". I believe I've been consistent in saying I prefer a program that emphasizes abstinence and does not itself promote promiscuity by distributing condoms or other birth control methods. I don't think that's quite the same thing as the "abstinence only" programs that keep popping up in these citations by wdmundt.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 16:48:28 GMT -4
Regular sex education generally promotes abstinence and relevant information about human sexuality and birth control. The form of abstinence education supported by the current administration does not include the relevant information about human sexuality and birth control.
I'm not trying to nor want to beat a dead and/or straw horse -- I just don't want Jason to think that this government supports his version of abstinence education.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 17:08:52 GMT -4
Regular sex education generally promotes abstinence and relevant information about human sexuality and birth control. The form of abstinence education supported by the current administration does not include the relevant information about human sexuality and birth control. Source? Unless it's in the parts of the GAO report I haven't gotten to yet then nothing you've cited to this point has spelled out exactly what is and isn't taught in these programs.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 18:29:55 GMT -4
THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION According to federal law, an eligible abstinence education program is one that: A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, physiological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. Source: U.S. Social Security Act, Sec. 510(b)(2). All that is missing from the above is anything resembling actual sex education. ftp.hrsa.gov/mchb/abstinence/cbofs.pdf
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 18:52:30 GMT -4
Hmmm. That's a little more specific at least. Do you find any one point in particular to be scientifically inaccurate, as Dr. Carmona seemed to think? I note that it doesn't call this sort of program "sex education". Is "abstinence education" intended to be used in conjunction with some other "sex education" program that does provide the basics on how sex works and birth control methods or in place of such a program? If the program talks around sex the whole time without actually providing any education, as you say, then I agree that it's a generally flawed idea. But is that the way it actually works in practice?
I also note that the particular section was passed in 1998 - during the Clinton administration.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 18:56:08 GMT -4
By Congress.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 19:01:34 GMT -4
In the absence of actual human sexuality education, it is generally lacking in any sort of scientific content and is, as such, scientifically inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 19:35:24 GMT -4
From the U.S. Government Accountability Office: "...abstinence education grantees may not promote, endorse, distribute, or demonstrate the use of contraception, although they may provide information on contraceptives as it supports a message of abstinence." By this, they mean: "...abstinence education programs may contain information on the limitations of contraception to consistently prevent sexually transmitted diseases." www.gao.gov/decisions/other/308128.htmSo they can tell only what is considered to be bad about contraception.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 19:42:59 GMT -4
Well if that really is the attitude then I would have to disagree with the government on this issue.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 19:43:44 GMT -4
And signed by Mr. Clinton (or at least not vetoed by him).
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 19:46:47 GMT -4
In the absence of actual human sexuality education, it is generally lacking in any sort of scientific content and is, as such, scientifically inaccurate. So do you feel that abstinence would not in fact avoid pregnancies and STDs, or that there is no real damage done to a teenager who finds herself pregnant at 15? My point being - do you disagree with the points given, or just feel that other material should also be included?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 19:48:02 GMT -4
You think he would have vetoed the Social Security Act? That's where it was put - for that exact reason, I would guess.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 2, 2008 19:50:33 GMT -4
My point being that President Bush had nothing to do with it either way.
|
|