The problem with an Abstinece Education is it doesnt work!
Abstinence IS 100% effective at preventing STD's. But an Abstinence Education Isn't.
As weird as it seems, telling Kids NOT to have sex causes them to Get MORE STD's. How doees that work?
Abstinence educations (at least nowadays) are:
- Sex is Bad
- Sex causes STD's
- Condoms are BAD.
#2. Yes, It CAN cause STD's. One out of FOUR. In Poker, I would Bet on that! Maybe I am Reckless. But, If I was given thse chances, Considering Our Socio-Economic Area, I WoULD BET on those chances. ( not that I am going to be sexually active).
#3. Ummm... HUH? If the idea of this Republican-Funded Program is to stop STDs and Teenage Pregnancy, DOnt You WANT kids to USE a condom?
According to Cory, COndoms, when used properly, have a 97% sucess rate. thats REALLY GOOD. Lets think along the persons line of thought. If One out of Four sexually active teens has an STD, then 25/100 teens has an STD. If they ALL properly use Cndoms, only THREE get and STD. That means 28/100 Otherwise, Who knows...
Now, the 1/4 thing. ONE OUT OF FOUR DOS NOT HAVE AN STD! statistically speaking, of four RANDOMLY CHosen Kids from FOUR RANDOM SOcio-Economic Classes, Yes, One will have an STD. BUT If you have four frends who are active, It could be that One has an STD. ALL FOUR could have one. OR NONE! Or two. Or three.
The statisti is closer to:
100000/400000 Active Teens have STDs. NOT 1/4.
Actually If you think about it, The poulation of Active teens is smaler than the poulation of not active teens. Therefore, Most likely, All or None will have an STD. THE smaller the group, the more likely it is that ALL of them will have an STD.
Now Anywy, I am FINE with an Abstinece Education. I Am NOT fine with a condoms-are-bad Education. Also, I would appreciate some of the OTHER side of the issue.
Wh473v3r.
4 comments:
I totally blogged about this before you. Twice. Read it.
i am not fine with the abstinence only education... i think you can say dont have sex but you HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CONDOMS! something about how well they work... anyways good points
plus... any arguement that involves gruesome pictures automatically gets a 0 in my book. 0/100. in my eyes doing the picture thing to scare people isn't a valid arguement.
plus her stats are probably way off! 1. all of them looked like they were from the same study
2. THOSE STATS ARE ALMOST 10 YEARS OLD! THaT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMMOUNT OF TIME! they need up to date info...
condoms have an almost 100% effectiv e rate when used properly... so how about instead of teaching kids "DON'T DO IT! CONDOMS DON'T WORK!" we effing teach them how to used it... especially since like everyone totally blows off the whole don't do it part.
plus half this abstinence stuff is religiously based... i swear
-me
Eric's blog has a ton about it. The problem with this kind of education is that she preaches all of this crapola (not that I disagree with her message) but it's so extremist and so biased, and so flagrantly wrong, that everybody disreguards it as crap, just as we do everything in previous years in health class. If the only thing these classes accomplish is getting students to make fun of health class, it's not doing it's job. They should try a more moderate approach, and check their facts before. And barrett, yeah the grossout factor is kinda lame. You can do that to complement your argument, but that can't be the basis of your argument, which in this case it was. Besides, the pics weren't that gross. I see worse every day.
Oh and that "republican-funded" crap was unnecessary. The dems probably would've funded it too. They're even bigger on "improving education". I'm sure it looks great on paper, but sucks in real life.
Post a Comment