Teen Birth Rate on the Rise

The nation's teen birth rate has risen for the first time in 14 years, according to a new government report.

The birth rate had been dropping since 1991. The decline had slowed in recent years, but government statisticians said Wednesday it jumped 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.

- Report: U.S. teen births rise

This, after years and years of federally funded abstinence only sex education classes?

I’m shocked. Shocked!

Since all of these teenagers must be listening carefully (as teenagers do) and abstaining consistently (as teenagers also do), the only possible explanation I can see is a rise in the rate of immaculate conception.

…and, some impending sanity from my home state of Ohio…

An Ohio school board is expanding sex education following the revelation that 13 percent of one high school's female students were pregnant last year.

- Sex Ed Changes At School With 65 Pregnant Teens

Brazil to subsidize birth control pills

SAO PAULO, Brazil - Just weeks after Pope Benedict XVI denounced government-backed contraception in a visit to Brazil, the president unveiled a program Monday to provide cheap birth control pills at 10,000 drug stores across the country.

(applauds) If this is the effect the Pope has on the countries he visits, I encourage him to tour widely and often.

"The church favors responsible parenthood, with parents using natural (birth control) methods," said Tempesta, who oversees the church in the northeastern state of Para.

- Brazil to subsidize birth control pills

As the joke goes, the Catholic Church allows women to use mathematics to prevent pregnancy, but neither physics nor chemistry. "Natural Family Planning" has always struck me as a ridiculously contrived loophole. I once heard it explained that the method leaves open the opportunity for God to "give" you a child, if he so wishes. I suppose that if I were to believe in an omnipotent deity who reputably once managed to impregnate a virgin, I'd likely trust that neither a condom nor a pill full of hormones would be likely to thwart him. Perhaps I’m over-estimating omnipotence.

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Abstinence education doesn't work, US report shows (again)

Abstinence-only education programs meant to teach children to avoid sex until marriage failed to control their sexual behavior, according to a U.S. government report.

Teenagers who took part in the programs as elementary and middle school students were just as likely to have sex as those who did not take part in them, the survey found.

- by Maggie Fox

Abstinence-Only Reasoning

Abstinence message goes beyond teens

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

So, essentially, to prevent 20 to 29 year olds from having children, we are going to spend money on NOT telling them how to prevent having children. What a brilliant plan!

"The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

Yes, and the only 100% effective way of preventing car accidents is to not drive. Life is about calculated risks. My calculated risks include various sorts of birth control. Thus far, I've had better luck with preventing pregnancy than preventing car accidents.

For last year's state grants, Congress appropriated $50 million. A similar amount is expected for 2007, but the money has not yet been allocated, according to the Administration for Children and Families. - Abstinence message goes beyond teens

(sighs)

This just raises the idoicy of abstitence only sex-education by a few more points.


****

On a more positive note:

New Jersey announced last week that it will not accept $800,000 in federal funds to teach abstinence-only sex education. Sex education programs in states that receive the federal funds are not allowed to teach students about contraception, must describe sex before marriage as “potentially mentally and physically damaging,” and must teach that “sex within marriage is ‘the expected standard of sexual activity’,” the Associated Press and Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy report. According to the Associated Press, New Jersey officials wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt that the requirements tied to the federal money violate the state’s sex education and AIDS education programs.

- NJ Says No to Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

Numerical Sin

The Cincinnati Enquirer
Without God, mayhem is possible
John F. Kippley

Without God, mayhem is possible. (nods)

Without God, ice cream is possible. (nods)

Without ice cream, art is possible (nods)

Without (almost any noun), (almost any noun) is possible (nods)

Possible is a pretty non-committal word, possibly?

Without logic, unwarranted conclusions are possible (double nod)

The discussion about the killings in Cincinnati does not seem to have raised the question, "What else should we expect?" That is, what is there in the education and upbringing of the murderers to cause them to think it is morally wrong to kill someone they don't like? Our public education system is one of practical atheism,

(blinks)

I'm pretty sure the schools, even with their bend toward 'practical atheism' (hah!) aren't teaching classes about the subjective nature of homicide. Perhaps I'm just not visiting the correct schools, however. I'm not above doing my duty, either way. In case any would-be murderers are reading this: it is morally wrong to kill someone you don't like (or even someone you do like). See? Now you don't have an excuse.

and as Dostoevsky had one of characters say, "If there is no God, I can do anything."

(ponders)

Really? I can't levitate.

Yes, I get it, got it, etc.... that's not what is being said. However... come on. Since I'm on a rewording kick, I shall reword the statement to read, "if I repent before I die, I can do anything."

Atheism doesn't give a free pass for immorality any more than religion automatically stops immorality. As an atheist, when I ponder whether or not to kill someone I don't like (or even someone I do like) the worry that I'll be struck by a lightening bolt (or end up in hell) doesn't even cross my mind. Yet I still don't kill the people! (I just torture small children- and only on weekdays)

This is aggravated by a widespread opinion that there is no punishment after death for unrepentant sinners. Some believe there is simply no life after death. Others believe that everyone goes to heaven no matter how many commandments he breaks or how unrepentant he is.

No matter how many? So I can break some? And it depends on my degree of repentance? I feel a function coming on!


f(x, y) where x = number of commandments broken and y = percent repentant.

f(x, y) = x - 8y + 3 while x <= 5

f(x, y) = x - 6y + 3 while 5 < x < 10

f(x, y) = No queston about it: you're going to hell! while x >= 10



If f(x, y) <= 5 you're going to heaven

If 5 < f(x, y) < 8 you're going to purgatory

If f(x,y) >= 8 you're going to hell



Let's say Johnny has broken 6 commandments and is 73% repentant. Since x (number of commandments broken) is between 5 and 10, we'll use the function f(x,y) = x - 4y + 3. The output of this function is found by starting with 6 (number of commandments broken), subtracting 6*.73 (adjustment for repentance) and adding 3 (original sin). This gives Johnny a sin function output of 4.62. Since 4.62 is less than five... he's going to heaven! (wild cheers)

Suzie on the other hand has been baaaaaad and doesn't really care. After deliberately misusing the name of god, not once, not twice, but niiiiiiine times and with a 10% repentance rating, Suzie is in trooouble. 9 - 6*.1 + 3 is a hefty score of 11.4. So, sorry Suzie, but you're going to HELL! (boo!!!)

See! Contrary to the opinion of most high school students, math IS relevant to every day life (death?). As noted here and here, however, god doesn't seem to be terribly good at math. He probably just uses the "heaven/hell" spinner Robertson gave him for Christmas a few years back. (waves hand dismissively) Oh well. I'd use a function. I'm definitely running in the next god-election.


*** *** *** ***

A quick note on the quoted article’s footnote:

John F. Kippley and his wife have spent 35 years promoting chaste natural family planning. The movement they founded and head, NFP International, is active throughout the United States and 20 other nations.

Natural family planning, eh? I've always seen natural family planning as the epitome of “traditional Catholic loop-hole"- a way to hold onto their DEEP SEATED CONVICTION that god abhors both latex and ortho-tri-cyclen and instead wants us to play Russian Roulette of the fertility variety (yet still have sex while attempting to avoid pregnancy). My oh-so-Catholic doctor is a very strong proponent of NFP. It’s not my kind of game though. Sorry, God. How about chess instead?

Sex-ed should include… well.. education

According a recent letter to the editor, the local abstinence-only program told students that condoms break one out of seven times during sexual intercourse, thus leading to pregnancy and STDs.

…confused blinking…

…confused blinking…

…confused blinking…

Condoms break one out of seven times? Erm, that’s crap.

Distorting the facts to scare students into compliance seems like a poor idea. It’s not just inaccurate condom facts (condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy if correctly used, by the way). HIV can be transmitted through tears and sweat?. Touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy? Half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus? Riiiggghhht.

Inaccuracies aside, perhaps abstinence-only education in general is a poor idea. Just telling teens they can’t engage in an activity at least as fun as most Play Station 2 games seems destined to fail. I had sex as a teenager, and I was one of the “good” kids. However, thanks to plenty of knowledge about contraceptives, I’ve remained STD and unwanted-pregnancy free. Students who take abstinence pledges have, in some studies, been shown to delay sexual activity. However, these same students are less likely to use contraceptives once they do start having sex than students who didn’t take abstinence pledges (for 88% of these students, this first time is still before marriage, irregardless of the abstinence pledge).
Other studies have shown no correlation between abstinence only education and the deference of sexual activity.

There are people out there who won't have sex until they are married. However, these are a) the minority and b) likely the people who have enough willpower to not have sex even if someone explains to them how a condom works. Perhaps some of the students who would have otherwise spent their prom night in the back of a car will be so inspired by their health teacher’s words of wisdom that they will swat away their dates’ roving hands. The rest will still be having sex, just without the knowledge they need to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Go ahead, parents and churches, explain to your children why they should wait until marriage to have sex (good luck- for many of them, you’ll need it). Education, however, seems as if it should be, well, educational. And accurate. And possibly even grounded in methods that have been proven effective, unlike abstinence only sex-ed.

Actually, I thought these sorts of programs would be mostly gone by now. I remember the big push by President Bush for abstinence-only programs about a year and a half ago…. and the subsequent studies that noted their ineffectiveness. I found it all quite funny back then. BUT WE ARE STILL FUNDING THESE SORTS OF PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF COMPREHENSIVE SEX-ED. For historical purposes, I’ve posted my… erm… "concerns" (okay, it's just a satire) about the entire fiasco below, as circulated about a year and a half ago. Apparently, important members of the government haven’t been closely reading and acting upon my opinions. I’ll overlook the discretion- this time.

Bush Approves Funding for New “Walking-Only” Drivers' Education Program

Our ever-enthusiastic president has once again shown his concern for legislating the safety of the American* people with the adoption of a new “walking only” drivers' education program to replace the more traditional, tell-all programs that are already offered.

“For years now, those liberals in Congress have been radical enough to support programs educating people about so called 'safe-driving' techniques and seat-belt use. But I said, no sir, not in my god-fearing country. This is not an administration of half measures and careful thought. The only way to prevent car accidents 100% of the time is by preventing driving altogether,” Bush stated at a press conference announcing the new policy.

Supporters tout the new program as the only way to really protect the nation's teenagers. The program will not mention seat-belt use, the previous staple for keeping drivers safe, except to cite its failure rates. The creators of the new program maintain that any further discussion of that and other 'safe-driving' techniques would “only provide our teenagers with unnecessary temptation.” While it is unclear to some as to how these new programs will affect the driving skills of students should they ever end up behind the wheel, proponents of the program have assured the public that these programs will indeed make the world a better place, citing numerous articles published in renowned journals such as, “Bush's Vision of a New Nation,” and, “The Right is always Right.”

Under the new law, states will only continue to receive federal funds for roadway maintenance if they implement these new programs within the next twelve months. While there have been limited protests by lawmakers in several ill-reputed blue states, Bush dismissed these concerns as “just another attempt by those Liberals to twist my policies to fit their leftist agenda.” One such liberal lawmaker even suggested that this new policy might amount to coercion by the federal government. “That is the same leftist garbage that they gave us about similar laws encouraging states to set a nationally approved state drinking age and offer only religio… I mean, federally approved sex-ed programs. After this excellent legislation, do we still have problems with underage drinking and promiscuity? I'll let the facts speak for themselves,” responded the president.

A source in the White House, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, revealed that the president had prayed carefully about the policy. “He told me that this policy would help bring us a bit closer to the way that God** intended us to be. After all, you don't hear about Adam and Eve using cars, now do you? If God had intended us to move around like that, he would have given us wheels instead of feet,” the source said. While Bush mentioned none of this in his speech, and in fact denied that this new program was based on any specific religion, rumors of the policy and it's positive religious** implications have been circulating among his excited followers for weeks.

“Well, I'm just so tickled pink that we have such a darling, God-fearing president in office,” gushed one fervent Bush supporter, “my darling little daughter, Peggy-Sue, wouldn't even think of doing anything as immoral as driving, but you never know what other teenagers might do if they are given too much information.”

* American referring, of course, to the country the United States of America, since we are, in fact, the only country in the entire continent worth mentioning

** God and religion referring exclusively, of course, to Protestant Christian denominations that are pro-life and anti-gay, in addition to having donated a significant sum of money to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004