Salanis wrote: ...................stuff 2a: Education in schools is much cheaper than the societal costs it preempts. Particularly since sex-ed isn't just about how to avoid having babies, but about how to minimize the spread of STI's. ....................more stuff
Noooooooooooo, never stop the STI's!
Dr. Hess wrote: Just a wild thought here, why not let the PARENTS teach their children about sex? Why is it the GOVERNMENT's job to teach the children about sex? What's next? Is the government supposed to teach the children right from wrong? Religion? Feed them? What exactly are the parents' responsibility here? Just push them out and walk away?
I've yet to hear anyone say that the parents shouldn't be teaching their children about sex. I'm pretty sure the only thing people are saying is that her methods aren't effective. Her daughter doesn't effectively know how to prevent pregnancy and her boyfriend doesn't know how to pull out. It is a bit ironic, but past that, who cares?
16vCorey wrote: her boyfriend doesn't know how to pull out.
Republicans will not pull out ahead of schedule!
http://www.instantrimshot.com/
It's difficult to tell when you're pullin' a funny, but, of course, "pulling out" is ineffective as a method of birth control. Ya'll know that, right? Lessee, condoms are something like 30% effective? "The Pill" is only 90+% effective. So, right there, there's a 10% to 70% chance of "oops," and that using methods currently taught in our wonderful do-all school system. I just bet that little Miss Future First Kid knew all about how to prevent pregnancy, including (and this may come as a shock to some of you) Not Having Sex.
Oh, and all that sex ed in school now has just been working great, huh? Ya'll wanna see the stats on teenage pregnancy? Start at google and go from there. And sex ed is all over the schools now. Sex ed has been working so well that it is right up there with welfare stopping poverty or more money to schools for better educated children. Yeah, let's just keep doing what's been working out so well this far. We'll call it "change" or "change for hope" and then people will faint and get all wobbly kneed about it.
MrJoshua wrote: Noooooooooooo, never stop the STI's!
STi > STI
Dr. Hess wrote: ...Lessee, condoms are something like 30% effective? "The Pill" is only 90+% effective. So, right there, there's a 10% to 70% chance of "oops," and that using methods currently taught in our wonderful do-all school system...
Far be it for me to correct medical statistics from a doctor, but Damn! overstate much? From a quick search, condoms are in the 80 - 98% effectiveness depending on use (which would of course be effected by, wait for it... education). The pill is shown as between 92 - 99.7% (depending on proper use, I think you can guess what would have an effect on that).
No expert on this either, but the last I heard, our glorious leader in an attempt to push his "family" values on the populous will not allow any government funding for any contraceptive education other than abstinence. I believe this is having the effect of reduced (or eliminated?) contraceptive education.
aircooled, "use", "effective use" is the kicker there. Now go look at the real world. I said 90+% on The Pill, and you found some statistics that said 92%. You're saying my 2% is "overstate much"? On the condoms, it depends on who's study you're looking at, but even 80% effective means that condom use is 20% ineffective and, using the god of randomness here, one out of five sexual encounters with condom use in your study could potentially result in a pregnancy. I'd say that was just about useless.
Here: If used effectively, a hammer and a block of wood are 100% effective in eradicating cockroaches. Just place the cockroach on the block of wood and strike with the hammer. Easy, simple. Now all you have to do is follow the instructions.
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination.
I fail to see how the argument that since we currently have the opportunity for kids to learn how not to become a statistic from both the parents and the school system, and have a signifigant rate of failure now, that taking away sex ed in schools is somehow going to miraculously improve those numbers. You would have to assume that a- someone taught the parents, 2- that the parents will teach, and c- that the kids will listen at all. After all, when I was 16 my mom was a moron. By the time I turned 21 I was amazed how much the old gal had learned in 5 years. 
Re: Effectiveness of contraceptive statistics
Aircooled quotes the numbers closer to what I've heard. My understanding is that the spread in the numbers is based on how well you follow the directions. So, the pill is 99.7+% effective when taken at the same time daily, as per the doctor, and is 92% effective if you sometimes forget to take it one day, and take it twice the next. I would say you're off on your numbers if you quote a number lower than the low end of effectiveness and use it as your hard number.
I haven't heard it explained whether those numbers are per-time, or the percentage over time. My impression is, that they're over time, since I've never had a girlfriend who was on the pill get pregnant, and I'm pretty sure I've had sex more than 100 times.
MGAMGB wrote: ...said the pot.
I am not sure I know what you are talking about here. The Dr. is right, he said 90%+ on the pill, but the one he missed big on was the condom, 30% is no where near 80%, which is what I was referring to (the other was added for completeness). How is stating an actual statistic (accepting the fact that there is variation) overstating?
And that 80% is WHEN NOT USED PROPERLY (which I agree is less than encouraging). Properly is 98%, that's pretty effective. It seems to me to be a good argument for education of some sort.
"With proper knowledge and application technique—and use at every act of intercourse—users of male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate." Hatcher, RA; Trussel J, Stewart F, et al (2000). Contraceptive Technology, 18th Edition, New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 0-9664902-6-6.
So what is that, averaging one pregnancy every 50 years?
Actually, rather than pontificate from one side or another, I am just enjoying the delicious irony of all of this!
Here we have on one said this whole rustic "American Values thing" going and it turns out that there are issues.
One can only wonder on the other side of the coin what we would have been hearing had the daughter of the Poster Couple for Immorality (Bill and Hillary) ended up in the same predicament?
Ironic, is it not that the Clinton's are somehow painted as abjectly without morals while, during her 15 seconds of fame, Miss Wasilla was held up as a gun-totin' member of the Prayerful All-American Majority?
Yet so far, Chelsea seems to have made the appropriate choices while the other poor child (like so many before her - and I do truly mean this - has made the wrong choice at the wrong time).
Irony - I love it! It is a shame it happened though. I would much rather have seen the young lady finish High School and go to college or get married because she wanted to, not because she needed to or felt she should or whatever.
That said I agree with Obama and the whole family deal needs to be off limits.
One wonders though why J. Mc's team is on their way to Alaska to vet the Palins now rather than before the pick...
aircooled wrote: - Edit (to add to Salanis's post): "With proper knowledge and application technique—and use at every act of intercourse—users of male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate." Hatcher, RA; Trussel J, Stewart F, et al (2000). Contraceptive Technology, 18th Edition, New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 0-9664902-6-6. So what is that, averaging one pregnancy every 50 years?
Per-Year. That makes sense. Thanks for that one.
Hess's 20% chance per-encounter with a condom is complete B.S. I'm pretty sure that, given the limited span of ovulation, you don't have a 20% pregnancy chance if using no form of contraceptive. 20% would be... 6 days/month. I don't know exactly how long the ovulation window is. Well... then we assume that there's 4 days/month that you won't be having sex with her. But then, not every encounter during the fertile days will result in pregnancy.
I just can't see how a condom could make you more likely to get pregnant than not using any birth control.
"Hess's 20% chance per-encounter with a condom is complete B.S... I don't know exactly how long the ovulation window is. "
So, you don't know, but you don't want to listen to someone that does? Sorry to get a bit harsh with you, but your arguing with me on human biology makes just as much sense as me arguing with Dave on what the best line is on a race track. I put my white coat on and people pay me money for my opinion and knowledge. I give it to you for free and you are too berkeleying ignorant to appreciate it.
Salanis, you're showing your left coast education system. If you'll read my post, I said "one out of five sexual encounters with condom use in your study could potentially result in a pregnancy." What part of that are you having trouble with?
You want more real facts (regarding humans, of coures)? One in four pregnancies does not end in a spontaneous abortion. Usually with the mother never knowing she was pregnant. On any given sexual encounter, there's about a 1 in 4 chance of a pregnancy happening. So, when a woman is fertile, there's about a 1 in 16 chance, give or take, of her becoming pregnant from a sexual encounter. Now, if there's a 1 in 5 failure rate with condoms (and I think it's much higher), then there's a 1 in 80 chance of having a term baby using condoms when fertile. That's still a lot, and the condoms aren't helping all that much.
Dr. Hess wrote: "Hess's 20% chance per-encounter with a condom is complete B.S... I don't know exactly how long the ovulation window is. " So, you don't know, but you don't want to listen to someone that does? Salanis, you're showing your left coast education system. If you'll read my post, I said "one out of five sexual encounters with condom use in your study could potentially result in a pregnancy." What part of that are you having trouble with?
Nope. I don't know for certain. That's why I prefaced my statement by admitting limits to my knowledge. I recall it being somewhere from 2-7 days long, but that's a pretty broad spread, in this context. I want to say it's 3-4 days.
Apparently I had trouble with the "could potentially" part. I read it as a 20% chance of getting pregnant, which is clearly absurd, since that's way higher than the chance of getting pregnant without using contraception.
In any case... the statistics you quoted run counter to all of the numbers I've read from any other medical source. Given that you have a strong political bias, aren't quoting sources, and are using pretty fuzzy numbers anyway... I'm inclined to not totally trust you on socio-political issues.
You "think" the failure rates of contraceptives are "much higher" but you have apparently not done a study. Every statistic I've heard quoted from studies indicates a much lower failure rate. I will still call B.S. that you give those numbers as "per-encounter". Especially since Aircooled looked up that those figures are on a per-year basis, and cited the source.
One other aspect of abstinance that we're all missing is the HUGE increase of STDs among teenagers. In my wife's office, they see increasing numbers of them, along with pregnancy, and it's alarming to be sure. Compared to just a few years ago, the numbers are staggering.
This isn't a right verses left, Christian vs. atheists, it's protecting your kids and teaching them right from wrong. Most people are far too concerned with who's doing what and which political party is correct than dealing with the real problem, which is disentegration of the family unit, and truly crappy influences on TV and internet. Most parents would prefer others talk to their teenagers about this instead of standing up and taking responsibility, like everything else in their life.
We're dealing with this issue right now (16yo and sex, not pregnancy), and its not brain surgery people, its being involved in your child's life. Sure it can still happen, but how many of us are lucky to have survived our teen years upbringing or not?
Last comment and I'll get down off the soapbox. As to the Republicans announcing this, if they hadn't, the Dems would have been screaming that it was covered up. It was a no-win situation and better to announce it early on. Both sides have plenty of crap and not a lot of substance yet, and the news networks would rather focus on a 17yo girl getting pregnant than a detailed energy policy from either of them.
Rant off, back to your regularly scheduled debate...
racerdave600 wrote: Last comment and I'll get down off the soapbox. As to the Republicans announcing this, if they hadn't, the Dems would have been screaming that it was covered up. It was a no-win situation and better to announce it early on. Both sides have plenty of crap and not a lot of substance yet, and the news networks would rather focus on a 17yo girl getting pregnant than a detailed energy policy from either of them. Rant off, back to your regularly scheduled debate...
Obviously they had to announce it. Pregnancies don't stay hidden. If they take the initiative, they get to control the topic.
My problem is, I see this as choosing Pelosi for a weird sort of conservative street cred. She has a son who's going off to Iraq, so that can be used to outmaneuver the Democratic "would you send your son/daughter of to Iraq to..." argument. A pregnant daughter who is keeping the child and getting married as a result of that will give her some major credit with social conservatives, a base that McCain really needs to activate now to build up momentum for the election.
I can't help but feel like who her kids are and what they're going through is a big part of why Pelosi was chosen for this role. It would not surprise me if Nancy and some Rep leaders strongly urged her daughter towards the path she's taking now. Or maybe I'm just wearing a tinfoil hat. Heaven knows I've accused Hess of being a conspiracy theorist.
My only gripe is the huge odds against the marriage lasting any length of time or at least long enough for the kid to be of age. I would not want her to have an abortion but its not my choice. She has chosen to have the child and I hope she is ready to commit the full 18 years, with a happy family for the child to grow up in.
Anyway its of no importance to the country. Maybe she's slutty or maybe she just made that magical one time mistake. Children get preggers all the time, its not hard to do, she's not special.
Dr Hess- You have got to stop buying your rubbers at Dollar Tree!
JohnSSC wrote: Actually, rather than pontificate from one side or another, I am just enjoying the delicious irony of all of this! Here we have on one said this whole rustic "American Values thing" going and it turns out that there are issues. One can only wonder on the other side of the coin what we would have been hearing had the daughter of the Poster Couple for Immorality (Bill and Hillary) ended up in the same predicament? Ironic, is it not that the Clinton's are somehow painted as abjectly without morals while, during her 15 seconds of fame, Miss Wasilla was held up as a gun-totin' member of the Prayerful All-American Majority? Yet so far, Chelsea seems to have made the appropriate choices while the other poor child (like so many before her - and I do truly mean this - has made the wrong choice at the wrong time). Irony - I love it! It is a shame it happened though. I would much rather have seen the young lady finish High School and go to college or get married because she wanted to, not because she needed to or felt she should or whatever. That said I agree with Obama and the whole family deal needs to be off limits. One wonders though why J. Mc's team is on their way to Alaska to vet the Palins now rather than before the pick...
Hey, you promised not to pontificate, but failed.
Use the "pontification condom" correctly and you'll be right 98% of the time.
Personally, in 18 years of sexual activity, never got someone pregnant w/ a condom or w/ spray n' pray. I must be obscenely lucky (or unknowingly sterile)
Anyway, here's my real contribution to the thread:
The irony of the whole situation makes my back ache. 
What are you guys talking about?
I'm not aware of Ms. Palin personally advocating abstinence, she is against abortion.
But even if she is, since when does a failure to abstain over-ride the wisdom of the idea of abstaining?
Self control is a good thing. Doesn't mean we all get to do it.
I didn't abstain. Wish I had. I would now suggest anyone consider it, or at least recognize it as an option, and know that it is a good option.
I'm a youth leader. I know a lot of teens who are choosing to abstain. I also know many who are not. And several who are pregnant.
SVreX wrote: I'm a youth leader. I know a lot of teens who are choosing to abstain. I also know many who are not. And several who are pregnant.
and for those teens that are not abstaining, would you withhold infromation about contraception?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.aspx
SVreX wrote: What are you guys talking about? I'm not aware of Ms. Palin personally advocating abstinence, she is against abortion. But even if she is, since when does a failure to abstain over-ride the wisdom of the idea of abstaining? Self control is a good thing. Doesn't mean we all get to do it. I didn't abstain. Wish I had. I would now suggest anyone consider it, or at least recognize it as an option, and know that it is a good option. I'm a youth leader. I know a lot of teens who are choosing to abstain. I also know many who are not. And several who are pregnant.
Just google "Palin" and "abstinence only" and you'll see that she is indeed for abstinence-only sex-ed.
Sex is an overwhelming, primal, biological urge--especially at 17. It consumes one's life at that age.
Saying "don't do it" is really easier said than done. It's not a case of a moral choice. The primal urge overrides the moral choice.
That was the case in Bristol (annoying name) Palin's case.
The last study I saw said condoms were 30% effective in preventing the spread of HIV. That was based on looking at "couples" and not some lab study of effectiveness "when used properly."
Regarding sex ed in general, I think it is a good thing to teach children old enough for it. However, the society we are in has created a lot of problems with this. Here's an analogy, which, of course, is way too hard for Salanis to understand, but I'm sure the rest of you will get it:
You take 15 year olds. You give each of them a squad automatic weapon (machine gun). Outside of school, the children are bombarded 24x7 with images of the great fun of firing a machine gun. Machine gun usage is used to sell everything from shoes to food. Every movie is based around the great joys of machine gun firing, especially at people. The internet has so much machine gun usage all over it that it is difficult to even research anything from cars to breakfast cereal without being exposed to large amounts of machine gun firing. Then, you mandate a class for them to take in school. In this class, they are shown how to load the magazine, insert the magazine, rack the bolt back, pull the trigger, and a brief mention of the safety, which may or may not work on this particular weapon (pretend it's a French SAW). No mention is made of the consequences of pointing the machine gun at people and firing, as that would be "teaching religion" or morality and the school wouldn't do that. There's even a group of people who like shooting other people with machine guns that think that teaching the children machine gun usage like this is just great, and they make sure that only machine gun usage is taught, without any consequences of shooting people or other alternatives like "keep your gun safe until you need it." What do you think the children will do?
That's the problem we have.
Dr. Hess wrote: The last study I saw said condoms were 30% effective in preventing the spread of HIV. That was based on looking at "couples" and not some lab study of effectiveness "when used properly." Regarding sex ed in general, I think it is a good thing to teach children old enough for it. However, the society we are in has created a lot of problems with this. Here's an analogy, which, of course, is way too hard for Salanis to understand, but I'm sure the rest of you will get it: You take 15 year olds. You give each of them a squad automatic weapon (machine gun). Outside of school, the children are bombarded 24x7 with images of the great fun of firing a machine gun. Machine gun usage is used to sell everything from shoes to food. Every movie is based around the great joys of machine gun firing, especially at people. The internet has so much machine gun usage all over it that it is difficult to even research anything from cars to breakfast cereal without being exposed to large amounts of machine gun firing. Then, you mandate a class for them to take in school. In this class, they are shown how to load the magazine, insert the magazine, rack the bolt back, pull the trigger, and a brief mention of the safety, which may or may not work on this particular weapon (pretend it's a French SAW). No mention is made of the consequences of pointing the machine gun at people and firing, as that would be "teaching religion" or morality and the school wouldn't do that. There's even a group of people who like shooting other people with machine guns that think that teaching the children machine gun usage like this is just great, and they make sure that only machine gun usage is taught, without any consequences of shooting people or other alternatives like "keep your gun safe until you need it." What do you think the children will do? That's the problem we have.
I'm sorry Dr. Hess, but I see the machine gun analogy as a strawman (also rediculous, but I'll ignore that for the sake of arguement). Sex Ed is not like handing a person a loaded gun, showing them how to use it and then sending them off with images of people happily firing at each other. First, adolescents already have the gun, its already loaded and they have enough instinct to figure out how to use it. Sex Ed (by parents or by school) is a way to tell them what might happen if they use it improperly, where there are shooting ranges to practice without risk (religious types might crucify me for that one) and what safety's they can put on the gun to prevent hurting innocent bystanders (god that sounds rediculous, but its the best comparison)
Also, is it possible in your studies of couples and condom effectiveness that the couples (and or their partners) lied to you about condom usage?
You'll need to log in to post.
