[Dialogue] What's dangerous about abstinence-only sex education

[W. J.]

At the risk of stepping into a debate about medicine and behavioral science, I must point out that Don Elliott has ignored the science by asking "...what's dangerous about abstinence?" as a rhetorical question, as though nothing could be dangerous about 'just saying no' etc.
   
  The appropriate question is, what's dangerous about abstinence-only sex education? The scientific answer is clear: teenagers are denied risk-reduction information and a depth understanding of human sexual behaviors that will help them once they cease being abstinent. To perpetuate that level of ignorance and force teenagers to get half truths 'on the street' can lead to very risky sexual behaviors for which they are totally unprepared. Plus, the stigma induced around breaking the 'virginity pledge' leads teenagers into shame-based avoidance of help from competent medical advisors.
   
  So, Don, here's what you need to spell out for us all: if you were teaching teenagers an abstinence-only model [the only way you can get federal funding, BTW], what would you NOT tell them and why?
   
  Marshall Jones
   
  BTW, in case you guys didn't know what Don already knows, there's an pharyngeal chlamydia epidemic among females in middle school that most pediatricians are clueless about and thus ill equipped to diagnose. And since it is largely asymptomatic, it can spread quickly and silently.
   
  For example, Kent County, MD ranked last in population but ranked 9th in chlamydia rates. "There  were documented cases among at least 60 high school age males in Kent, Caroline, and Queen Anne's counties. One female in Caroline County named 33 contacts, a Kent County female named 19, and a Queen Anne's female named 11. Contact among the three groups was evident."
  http://www.cha.state.md.us/olh/pdf/hip/Kent.pdf
   
  I guess you can figure out what these girls and boys were doing while remaining 'abstinent.'
   
  
dpelliott at aol.com wrote:
  I am pro-choice.  In reading the statements in this document, I do not see anything that is not true.
It cannot be denied that abortions can have complications, including emotional consequences.  The "sad", and "some people" using more drugs and alcohol thing, is too nebulous to be denied.  Attacking these rather inconsequential statements makes NARAL look like crazed fanatics.  Get a life.


Now these were real issues worthy of attack.

In the past, the Bush administration was forced to remove medically inaccurate material from the National Institutes of Health's website that falsely linked abortion to breast cancer, a claim roundly rejected by medical researchers and breast-cancer prevention advocates. 

For three years, the Bush administration's political appointees interfered with the Food and Drug Administration's decision on the Plan B® emergency contraceptive, delaying the eventual approval of the back-up form of birth control for over-the-counter sale. Bush and his anti-choice congressional allies have continuously increased funding for dangerous and ineffective abstinence-only programs.

Don Elliott

Ineffective, yes, but what's dangerous about abstinence?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070712/7938fb0e/attachment-0001.html