An Ounce of Prevention

So here’s a little follow-up on what has been my most commented on post to date.

Sid, awesome frequent commenter, blogger and co-producer of Archangel, had this to say, “I think another avenue of attack on abortion is addition to reducing the number of unwanted children (through adoption), we could also work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.”

Pinakidion aka John aka Bear aka my best friend from High School said this, “Part of that infrastructure (caring for children that would otherwise be aborted) would also be much more pregnancy prevention programs.”

These are great points. If we’re interested in reducing the number of abortions, then key to that would be reducing pregnancies in the first place. For some reason this seems to be a controversial idea, or at least the most logical ways to do this are.

First – All schools should be teaching abstinence. This has zero to to with my faith or morals and everything to do with the fact that it is the only one-hundred percent proven effective way to avoid diseases and little copies of yourself.

Second – Condoms should be made readily available to everyone, everywhere, for free. Other forms of birth control (like the various pills) should be (and I think are) already available at various health care providers. Given that there are possible medical ramifications with using those, I don’t know that there should be bowlfuls of those at the school nurse’s office (I know, I know, schools don’t have nurses any more, they should), but have freakin’ condom dispensers in the boys and girls bathrooms of every public high school everywhere. Knowledge in the use and proper storage of them should also be disseminated (hah).

Does this send mixed messages? I can see where you might think so. The fact is though that teens are continuing to have sex. The numbers of those having sex are going down and it looks like the numbers who use condoms are going up which are both good trends. I’d like to see that continue. I think education and access are keys to that.

This, “Ninety percent of publicly funded family planning clinics counsel clients younger than 18 about abstinence and the importance of communicating with parents about sex.” should increase to 100%.

This, “Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia explicitly allow all minors to consent to contraceptive services without a parent’s involvement (as of August 2006).” should be all fifty states.

If we require parental consent, teens use more risky methods. That’s bad. We should still be encouraging them to talk to their parents though, especially because all the birth control in the world doesn’t help with the emotional/spiritual questions and implications.

It’s very simple. In other developed countries the pregnancy rate among teens is lower. In those other countries they are less worried about the supposed moral implications of their teens having sex and more worried about the very real physical implications. It’s not an either or thing. We can work on teaching moral implications, but we also need to do whatever we can to prevent the physical implications.

  • Mags

    Nice post. One comment:

    Abstinence isn’t 100%. A girl or woman can choose abstinence and still be the victim of a sexual assault that results in pregnancy.

    And abstinence-only sex education does not increase abstinence, according to studies commissioned by Congress. The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists,the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association have all urged schools to adopt a comprehensive sex education approach (of which abstinence is a part).

    The biggest issue around abortion, from where I sit, is ultimately it’s about controlling a woman’s sexuality. The reason why I started to call myself pro-choice after being pro-life for decades is because many of the same folks on the pro-life side have decided to proclaim The Pill an abortificant, and advocated to have it and other forms of birth control treated like methods of abortion.

    When you ask if there should be exceptions to the no-abortions rule for rape and incest, virtually every anti-abortionist will say yes. And if you press about why, they’ll almost always say, “because it’s not the woman’s fault; she shouldn’t be punished for it.”

    And that, right there, is the REAL reason for the anti-abortion drive. It’s not to save babies. It’s to punish “sluts”. It’s to force women to “face the natural consequences of their actions” — ie, to keep them from having sex.

    There are no natural consequences to sex anymore; women aren’t slaves to their own bodies. Science has set them free. And certain people in this country hate that vehemently. They’ve lost a lot of power over women, and they want it back.

  • http://sidfaiwu.com/blog sidfaiwu

    “An Ounce of Prevention” or “The Prevention of an Ounce”? }:)
    Thanks for the this post, it’s good stuff. You’re certainly not afraid of making your views known about the controversial subjects of our day. One question, when you said, “All schools should be teaching abstinence,” do you mean abstinence only or as a part of a more general education? I think you’d find that even the most ardent sex-ed supporter wants abstinence taught as a viable and only sure-fire method for pregnancy and STI avoidance. It’s not the fact that people want abstinence taught, it’s the fact that that’s the only knowledge that some want taught.

  • Scott

    re: education I sid “have freakin’ condom dispensers in the boys and girls bathrooms of every public high school everywhere. Knowledge in the use and proper storage of them should also be disseminated“. So education on birth control is also important. Though I guess this statement may seem to only be talking about education on the barrier method. I think abstinence taught as part of a much larger curriculum is the way to go.

  • http://www.edwardgtalbot.com Edward G. Talbot

    Can’t disagree with you on any of this, Scott. It’s not hard to predict which side of the political spectrum would, though :) I got in a twitter argument (it remained respectful, though) about abstinence the other day, and I learned a little bit about how difficult it is to really communicate on the issue. I definitely did not do a great job making myself clear, even though it’s an issue I’ve thought about quite a bit.

  • Mags

    Nice post. One comment:
    Abstinence isn’t 100%. A girl or woman can choose abstinence and still be the victim of a sexual assault that results in pregnancy.
    And abstinence-only sex education does not increase abstinence, according to studies commissioned by Congress. The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists,the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association have all urged schools to adopt a comprehensive sex education approach (of which abstinence is a part).
    The biggest issue around abortion, from where I sit, is ultimately it’s about controlling a woman’s sexuality. The reason why I started to call myself pro-choice after being pro-life for decades is because many of the same folks on the pro-life side have decided to proclaim The Pill an abortificant, and advocated to have it and other forms of birth control treated like methods of abortion.
    When you ask if there should be exceptions to the no-abortions rule for rape and incest, virtually every anti-abortionist will say yes. And if you press about why, they’ll almost always say, “because it’s not the woman’s fault; she shouldn’t be punished for it.”
    And that, right there, is the REAL reason for the anti-abortion drive. It’s not to save babies. It’s to punish “sluts”. It’s to force women to “face the natural consequences of their actions” — ie, to keep them from having sex.
    There are no natural consequences to sex anymore; women aren’t slaves to their own bodies. Science has set them free. And certain people in this country hate that vehemently. They’ve lost a lot of power over women, and they want it back.

  • Mags

    My apologies, the part about abortion in my post really isn’t on topic here.

  • Scott

    @ Ed – Well you didn’t do yourself any favors by trying to do it 140 characters at a time. ;-) I fail to see why this is a political issue, though I know what you mean. Gets back to the whole religious right conversation.

  • Scott

    @Mags – Sure, assault isn’t prevented by any of this and I’m certainly not calling for abstinence only education. That’s silly.
    I disagree that the biggest issue is controlling a woman’s sexuality. For some folks it’s that way I suppose. For those that I know who are staunchly anti-abortion it isn’t about the mother at all, it’s about the baby, but those folks don’t want any exceptions.
    I really don’t understand your last paragraph. A baby is a natural consequence to sex, at least potentially. Of course science has given us better ways to prevent that consequence and thus, as you say, women are free at least more so than their ancestors.
    However when pregnancy does happen, I don’t know that science has benefited us. Any time a child is conceived I believe that regardless of the situation it should be brought to term. In my mind that is the moral decision.
    It is my belief that with freedom and power comes responsibility. I think what a lot of people can’t stand is a lack of taking responsibility for their decisions. If you decide to have sex at all and something happens and it produces a baby then you are responsible for that. You knew it was a possibility no matter how remote.
    If having sex wasn’t your decision (rape or incest) then you’re not responsible in that sense. I don’t believe that having an abortion in that case is the moral decision either.
    In both cases (whether the mother is “responsible” or not) I think that abortion should be legal.
    And this isn’t really OT since it’s the follow up to the abortion thread.

  • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

    Even though the Pope may disagree, I agree with you on this Scott:

    “It’s not an either or thing. We can work on teaching moral implications, but we also need to do whatever we can to prevent the physical implications.”

    Kids need education about sex.. keeping them innocent and in the dark about this stuff does not help them.

    From personal experience I think this is more about parent’s discomfort with the topic and not so much about keeping kids innocent.

    It begs the question: At what age should a parent talk to their kids about sex?

  • http://sidfaiwu.com/blog sidfaiwu

    Hello Kansas Bob,
    “At what age should a parent talk to their kids about sex?”
    Why should there be an age limit at all? What’s wrong with a child growing up knowing what sex is, it’s risks, rewards, and possible consequences. It’s not about what age a child is, but about how to communicate it on a level they can understand. We’re not going to teach a two-year-old calculus, but we do teach them to count.

  • Kansas Bob

    Ditto that Sid.. it is kind of what I was trying to say.. we just need to get comfortable with discussing sex with our kids no matter what the age.

«
»