In his SOTU, the President said, "We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases."

Now, Id like to say, abstinence for anyone (single,/divorced parents) is the only way to avoid STD's, but not too many of us are going down that road. (Do as I say, not as I do?)

It seems abstinence is going to have its own special dedication in the proposed plan.

I am wondering how you teach abstinence? It seems one sentance is enough; Abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid STD's and pregnancy. A paper poster in health class would surely get this message across. How much more can be said?, if not using scare tactics, or explaining all the hows, whys and wherfores.

So, Im not sure how the conservatives that propose abstinence programs but are against sex education ( in Texas for example) are going to work out teaching one and not the other. If sex-ed wll have to be taught to back up the facts of this statement, which I think it will, why would a 'special' federally funded program on abstinance be needed? This could easily be included as part of a sex-ed class.
OR, if we look at it within context of the rest of the SOTU or Bush's past ineffective Texas anti- sex-ed policy, is a transparent attempt at stuffing religious dogma into young people, sex is bad, you could die, condoms are not a solution, dont have sex until marriage, keep teens in the dark about the whole thing, including the normal, natural workings of their bodies. Ignorance is bliss, sex is troublesome, lets ignore the problem and preach instead.

When I was in Texas, many, many people were against sex-ed being taught in schools, believing sex should be taught in the home, as if. Are they now going to agree to abstinence being taught?

I had sex ed class in 1979, 25 years ago! I considered it very valuable not only as a teen, but a young adult. The abstinence message was clear then but it was mostly for pregnancy. It mattered naught, we still experimented, however we were informed. For me this proposal is a cultural throwback to a time that cannot be recouperated, no matter what tactics are used.

I believe the President is out of touch with young people and the dilemmas they face. I also believe these archaiic ideas are a detriment to our youth who need progressive solutions within a context of some reality to the questions they face, and ultimately, teaching abstinence is sure to get a cold and laughable response from teens that have generally half naked Brittany's and Christina's and Nellie's as cultural icons. I believe the concept should be proposed, within a health class context.

Questions for debate:

What do you think about 'special' abstinence programs being taught in schools, and funding them with tax dollars?
Secondly, any thoughts on how abstinence can be taught, aside from and/or not including sex-ed?

I would rather see tax dollars go to improving school's infrastructure, texts, other supplies like computers or vocational programs, scholarships, and grants. Maybe if we keep their heads busy with rewards for achievement, we'd have a little less to worry about with their bodies. I am a proponent of sex-ed also, knowledge about ones reproductive systems, how they work, overall health and risk factors is very valuable information for making educated decisions for your future and recognizing other health problems one may face beyond the sex question.

To me, abstinence education/philosophy is great on paper, a complete failure in execution. If THE SCHOOLS are teaching abstinence, and there is not a corresponding education/support + a very good family structure at home, it is doomed to failure right off the pop. There are so many variables, that no more money needs to be spent, however, it is worth reinforcing in a low key way, what, hopefully, the parents are teaching.

This is just another diversion issue by the Right wing, very shameful.

I would say that funding abstinence programs in schools is a complete waste of valuable tax payer dollars. This whole proposal reeks of a cheap right wing attempt to grab conservative votes during an election year.

If the goal of the government is to reduce STD transmission in teens and feels this is a judicious use of tax payer dollars then a broad sexual education program should be funded instead.

Sexual education about the human body, STD's and responsibility coupled with discussion of all available methods of protection including condoms and abstinence is the only way to reduce STD transmission in teens. Frank sexual education has been proven to be effective since discussion/distribution of condoms was instituted.

To assume that teenagers will want to abstain from sex, regardless of how much you tell them that sex is bad, suggests that Bush is not only completely out of tune with the younger generation but is also blinded by his religious values.

Fact: Teens are going to have sex, approximately half of all high school students have reported having sex in numerous studies.

Fact: Condoms help to prevent the spread of most STDs with a high rate of effectiveness.

This is really what a lot of my post is about. If this is a conservative vote issue, what are conservatives thinking in relation to their childen and F. Funded abstinence programs? Is it a 'no' to sex ed and a yes to 'abstinence programs? Is either government (funded) responsibility?

I'd like to hear from them most of all, because I just dont get it on too many levels.

I thought the Presidents proposal was shockingly backward, yet has been unusually overlooked or bypassed by conservatives as a non issue so far. (Iraqi liberation being more mportant). I dont think it is. I think this is important regarding OUR childrens lives and futures.

I really want to know, is this a Conservative agenda? And if so, could any please explain why and how to go about it and if ANYBODY thinks it will work?

I don't support federal government funded abstinence programs in school. I am also against federal funding for sex education in schools. The federal government has no business dictating curriculum for schools.

This is a perfect example of why that is a bad idea. Once the federal government starts doling out funding, the system is obligated to teach by the government rules. Right now, that might be abstinence...next time, something else. Education should be funded at the local and state level, and no president should have a say, except as a parent free to take his own children to the type of learning institute he chooses.

Since I have very little say in the matter, I think the money (if, theoretically, it must be spent) should go towards whichever program works best to curb teen pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. As abstinence only education doesn't seem to work, I would prefer the funding go towards sex education.

It's a "religious right" agenda, not necessarily a "conservative" agenda. He was playing to his base for the coming election. Numerous other references in the SOTU were also sops to his religious base.

I look at it as another election-year proposal -- like going to Mars and putting a base on the moon -- that has little chance of getting very far unless it's just buried in the budgeting process for next year.

I would wager that the vast majority of people believe that sex education should include both safe sex information, as well as abstinence. It's a shame that the present administration has taken up the fear based curriculum of religious right groups. There are some underlying things that just aren't simply true. While I may be joking, these are actual items that I've read about.

1.)Every sexual encounter before marriage is a terrifying, emotionally scaring, STD causing event.

(2)If students ask about condoms or birth control, you point out that they will never work, and you will contract AIDS or syphillis...or both!!

3.)What religious institutions believe about sex is necessarily what is scientifically healthy.

4.)Sex is only for procreation, NEVER for enjoyment

5.)Homosexuality is to never be discussed, never to be addressed as a healthy form of sexuality.

6.)If you are gay, the only option for you is to NEVER be sexually active(since you can't marry)

If only George Senior and his wife would have practiced abstinence...

I think abstinence is a good idea, but it could probably be best achieved
in a more roundabout way, say, through regular sex education classes.
One of the best ways to do that would be using real-life examples of
teenage mothers, young men and women who have contracted diseases
by having unprotected sex, etc. This would give adolescents a realistic
perspective of the realities and ramifications of SEX, without beating
them over the head with the word ABSTINENCE.

When I was in high school we once had a guest speaker. She had
been a heroin addict. She spoke of her experiences, and such.
It affected my life, seeing this woman who had thrown her whole life
away for that drug. It kept me from experimenting with hard
drugs. If you bring in a young man or woman who has contracted
a life-threatening disease, through unprotected sex, you're liable
to get some kids practicing abstinence, even if you're not blatantly
offering it as the only way to go. But, to teach abstinence,
without including safe alternatives, would be detrimental
to every student in the class. These young adults need all the information,
then they can make the important decisions regarding sex.

I read this yesterday and your comments reminded me of what I read. Abstinence is important, and must be taught, but it is not the sum of all parts of sex education. Could it be that we have so many problems relating to pornography, personal interrelationships, and the like is due to the fact that we sugarcoat sex and other important personal subjects???


http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0049.html

I think abstinence certainly has a place within a wider programme of sex education, but using it as the ONLY comment public education makes on sex, pregnancy, STDs etc makes about as much sense as teaching kids that they should never have any contact with any other human beings or animals, living or dead, because that's the only way they can be sure to avoid all other forms of communicable disease.

It just seems to me that the developed countries that have the highest teen pregancy and STD rates (the USA and UK) are to ones that rely most on schools for their sexual education, no matter what form it takes, and which have the most prescriptions on what it is and is not supposed to cover.