School in Maine gives out birth control pills.

[Mokele]

It isn't the actual sex that bothers people, but rather, it's the ramifications.

 

IME, it actually *is* the sex that bothers most people. The US, particularly the religious segment of the population, has a very puritanical view towards sex, even safe sex.

[antimatter]

IME, it actually *is* the sex that bothers most people. The US, particularly the religious segment of the population, has a very puritanical view towards sex, even safe sex.

 

Well, right, that's one of the groups I mentioned, the religious fanatics. Aside from them it's just the consequences people are worried about it.

[MM6]

I'll get the article we I find it.

 

I believe that this only promotes sexs. It's basicilly saying you won't get pregant so go have sex. What are your opinoins on this topic.

 

Open discussion

 

Here's the short answer:

 

I don't care what you "believe." Is there solid evidence that this promotes sex?

 

News flash: kids are having sex whether you like it or not.* At least they can have some of the same options for safety and birth control as any other age group having sex. That would include condoms, too.

 

 

*Nationwide, 6.2% of high school students had had sexual intercourse for the first time before age 13. Overall, the prevalence of having had sexual intercourse before age 13 was higher among male (8.8%) than female (3.7%) students.

 

Reference:

 

http://www.sadd.org/stats.htm

[Moontanman]

lol. well it all depends. if your doing it for love and with the person your trully want to be with then no i do see it as wroung. but as for puting yourself on the street and having sex with every person you meet. ya its a bad thing

 

ACM, why do you think that allowing teens to have access to birth control means putting your self on the street and having sex with every person you meet? Do you think people who have access to birth control loose their minds when they use birth control? BTW I checked into the whole giving out BC pills and it just doesn't happen, not even in college. birth control pills are by prescription only, you have to see a doctor and at least have a physical, they are not given out at random by a school nurse or anyone else.

[MM6]

I don't understand some of you here (severian, antimatter) that say kids should learn that there are consequences for their actions and that they need to take responsibility for them (fine), but then using that as an argument against using birth control pills (non-sequitur).

 

Knowing that you're going to have sex and having the guts and self-direction (responsibility) to go to the school nurse for birth control pills as to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (consequence), and then take those pills as directed (responsibility), seems to me like a kid who understands responsibility and consequences.

[Mr Skeptic]

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152

 

Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use.

 

Time for the lynching to begin. If they made any mistake, they're in for it big time.

 

It seems the study relied on self-reporting only, which I'm guessing is a mistake.

[iNow]

It seems the study relied on self-reporting only, which I'm guessing is a mistake.

And how else, exactly, do you propose they determine who did and who did not have sex?

 

Seriously, why is the method of self-report even in question here?

[Mokele]

It's worth noting that the authors themselves, in a letter published alongside this article, cautioned explicitly against using one result to prop up a method that's been shown to fail in so many other situations.

 

I see no reason to suspect it's flawed, and can think of good reasons why it might be accurate (increased religiosity of those in lower income levels, relatively young age of the kids involved).

 

Remember, this study only compared abstinence-only to no sex ed, and showed that there can be an effect in some circumstances. It's very, very likely that comprehensive sex ed classes would have had an even better result.

 

Also, this wasn't "real" abstinence-only sex-ed - it was a form of it delivered by the researchers which, while it omitted things, didn't actually have false or misleading information, which is very often the case with the programs produced by social conservatives.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also, this wasn't "real" abstinence-only sex-ed - it was a form of it delivered by the researchers which, while it omitted things, didn't actually have false or misleading information

 

Heh.