WF Peifer wrote:
"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ejvtjf$u0l$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Actually, we know they don't. If they worked now, they'd have worked
back
in the orphanage-on-every-corner days when that's about all there was.
"A study suggesting abstinence-only education courses do not curb teenage
sexual activity has reignited the debate over such programmes in the US.
Proponents of the abstinence approach argue the new study of teenagers at
29
high schools in President George W Bush's home state of Texas is seriously
flawed, as there appears to be no control group against which the impact
of
the course can be measured..."
"Peter Bearman, a sociologist at Columbia University in New York, US, says
the results fit in with previous work. "These kinds of programmes have
never
been shown to be effective," he says. "This is consistent with almost
every
other study that has ever been done."
The biggest problem is that no matter what sort of an "oath" teenagers take,
they WILL eventually fall off the abstinence wagon. And when they do, those
who've been through these "abstinence-only" programs know nothing about any
sort of contraception. Several studies have shown that teen pregnancy rates
are actually HIGHER where "abstinence-only" has been put in place.
Again, you need a control group, too.
The correlation that you are making might be flawed. I would guess that
areas that allow something as stupid as an abstinence-only program to
exposed to their children are also areas populated by people who
ignorant in general about everything.
Really, if the question is how to have sex without getting pregnant,
then even teenagers should be able to answer that without a classroom
course in the matter. And if they can't, then their reproductive organs
should be removed immediately...there are enough Repugs in this world.
.
