Abstinence vs. Condoms in our schools..

Actually, there were (I think) several cases of 8-10 year olds recently, though I don't know how many of the offspring survived, just saw the story and went my usual "meh" then forgot about it.

Those are isolated cases, if I'm not mistaken, and not in line with the general trend. The youngest recorded mother in history is Lina Medina, who gave birth at five years of age (though she began menstruating when she was less than a year old), but I believe the average age of menarche remains about 12.5...though that might be for whites. Blacks and Latinas experience earlier menarche.
 
Let's see. I was 14 in 1957. Many of the girls I knew in various rural towns in Oregon and Washington were married before they were 18, and had 'early' deliveries, usually about six months after marriage.


And that kind of life would have been my idea of "life in hell," being a mother to one or more kids at such a young age. No thanks! Which is why I made it a point to avoid sex entirely in my teen years, I wanted to ENJOY my high school experience, with the goal of completing my H.S. education, get my diploma and go on to the next educational stage.

Being a young mother would have ruined all of that, and I would have hated my life from that point onward. That is why I feel abstinence from all sexual activity (other than masturbation, which is solo for the most part) is an advantage for teens, they have NO worries about unwanted pregnancy or STDs.
 
Last edited:
However, to avoid teaching social policy more parents have to take the responsibility, otherwise we have the problems we are now facing but in larger proportions. Teen pregnancies while not increasing in percentages are increasing in numbers do to the increase in the number of teens. This poses a problem to us all, taxpayers mostly as it is a huge drain on the system. So it does need to be addressed at this time.

Addressed with an understanding of the reality of the people involved, not on an ideological or religious basis. The idea is to keep children from having children. In full knowledge of what always has been and will be with the humans involved, many will express their sexuality at an early age. They need to be taught preventive measures.

I have seen the results of the teaching of abstinance only, and it simply does not work. That is reality.

How did you get the idea that I support teaching abstinence only?


I didn't. I was just adding my two bits to what you had already said.
 
Let's see. I was 14 in 1957. Many of the girls I knew in various rural towns in Oregon and Washington were married before they were 18, and had 'early' deliveries, usually about six months after marriage.


And that kind of life would have been my idea of "life in hell," being a mother to one or more kids at such a young age. No thanks! Which is why I made it a point to avoid sex entirely in my teen years, I wanted to ENJOY my high school experience, with the goal of completing my H.S. education, get my diploma and go on to the next educational stage.

Being a young mother would have ruined all of that, and I would have hated my life from that point onward. That is why I feel abstinence from all sexual activity (other than masturbation, which is solo for the most part) is an advantage for teens, they have NO worries about unwanted pregnancy or STDs.

However, the facts are that all too many do not choose abstinence. In view of that fact, we need to teach how to avoid pregnancies.
 
Addressed with an understanding of the reality of the people involved, not on an ideological or religious basis. The idea is to keep children from having children. In full knowledge of what always has been and will be with the humans involved, many will express their sexuality at an early age. They need to be taught preventive measures.

I have seen the results of the teaching of abstinance only, and it simply does not work. That is reality.

How did you get the idea that I support teaching abstinence only?


I didn't. I was just adding my two bits to what you had already said.

Oh ... okies, just wondering since it seemed ... well ... yeah. I do agree with you though.
 
Let's see. I was 14 in 1957. Many of the girls I knew in various rural towns in Oregon and Washington were married before they were 18, and had 'early' deliveries, usually about six months after marriage.


And that kind of life would have been my idea of "life in hell," being a mother to one or more kids at such a young age. No thanks! Which is why I made it a point to avoid sex entirely in my teen years, I wanted to ENJOY my high school experience, with the goal of completing my H.S. education, get my diploma and go on to the next educational stage.

Being a young mother would have ruined all of that, and I would have hated my life from that point onward. That is why I feel abstinence from all sexual activity (other than masturbation, which is solo for the most part) is an advantage for teens, they have NO worries about unwanted pregnancy or STDs.

However, the facts are that all too many do not choose abstinence. In view of that fact, we need to teach how to avoid pregnancies.

Yes, I also believe it's important to teach how to avoid unwanted pregnancies for teen girls and potentially incurable and deadly STD's for both teen girls and guys. I agree that that many do not choose abstinence, and that other methods need to be taught, including the use of condoms. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer. :eusa_angel:
 
.

I have seen the results of the teaching of abstinance only, and it simply does not work. That is reality.[/QUOTE


I taught sex ed for years in NYC. What people do not understand is that sex ed teachers encourage abstinence, as we don't want our students getting pregnant or getting STDs. That being said, teens often think teachers and parents "just don't get it". THese could be the best kids and the most moral but believe sex is OK because "they are in love". Why would anyone want these teens not to know how to prevent pregnancy and disease? Shame on them for denying their children information that is so important to them.
 
The idea is to keep children from having children.

That isn't a biological possibility, I'm afraid. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that human evolution would not have endowed adolescents with the ability to reproduce if it was inherently maladaptive?

It's a good thing that a human's ability to reproduce takes place at such an early age considering that even in the times of the Roman Empire, the average lifespan was only 20 to 25 years. As recently as 1900, life expectancy globally was only 30 years.

However, due to longer life expectancy and education, we don't force adolescents into adulthood at 12 to 14 years of age.
 
It's a good thing that a human's ability to reproduce takes place at such an early age considering that even in the times of the Roman Empire, the average lifespan was only 20 to 25 years. As recently as 1900, life expectancy globally was only 30 years.

However, due to longer life expectancy and education, we don't force adolescents into adulthood at 12 to 14 years of age.

So if the average human lifespan were to be extended to 150, you'd support an age of majority of 30 or 35?

And of course there's little interest in "forcing" anyone into adulthood. What there is an interest in, however, is offering autonomy and independence to those prepared to make use of them, inasmuch as so many under the legally designated age of majority are capable of doing so. This is best expressed by John Holt's declaration of, "I propose...that the rights, privileges, duties, responsibilities, of adult citizens be made available to any young person, of whatever age, who wants to make use of them."
 

Forum List

Back
Top