The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Contraception: Nothing Fails Like Abstinence

“The acceptability of birth control has always depended on a morality that separates sex from reproduction. In the nineteenth century, when the birth control movement began, such a separation was widely considered immoral. The eventual widespread public acceptance of birth control required a major reorientation of sexual values”—Linda Gordon, The Moral Property of Women

THE PROBLEM

Contraception should not be a difficult subject to approach, but obviously, religion blinds some to the realities of life such as sex and all the benefits and consequences that surround it. Under the current abstinence-only program funded by the government, teachers cannot discuss contraceptive methods except to talk about their failure rate. More than two decades of effort and millions of tax dollars focused on refraining from sexual intercourse until marriage, went up in smoke after studies showed what most innately know—abstinence programs are about as effective as no program.

ABSTINENCE

Some believe the abstinence-only programs could attain their goals, despite numerous studies showing most Americans have sexual intercourse before marrying. With persuasion from the “religious lobby” in national decision-making, abstaining from sex became part of nationwide political talk track, but research showed it was nothing but talk. After more than 20 years and millions of dollars focused on abstinence from sexual intercourse until marriage, the vaunted religion-fueled programs turned out as a waste of money. Today’s realty shows that by the sophomore year, 16 percent of high school students have had four or more sexual partners and by graduation, two thirds of teens are sexually active. Selective memory and fantasy drive most religion-based efforts despite statistics showing the programs having a neutral impact at best.

The conservative Christian view on teen premarital sex is simple and straightforward. It is wrong and sinful. And the unyielding nature of this approach explains why such Christians lobby incessantly against public school sex education that teaches contraception, despite all the studies now demonstrating that "abstinence-only" programs serve not to decrease but increase the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STD).

For example, a September 2009 study in the Sexuality Research and Social Policy Journal reported that most abstinence programs fail to delay sexual initiation, while more comprehensive programs show a positive impact, including postponing sexual activity and increasing contraceptive use. Complementing these findings is a January 2007 study published in the American Journal of Public Health which concluded that declining teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. were primarily attributable to improved contraception (and not to abstinence-only education).

This is an excerpt from the soon to be published "The 80% Solution: Getting Christians to Behave as Such." Since I am in the final editing phase and unbelievably "birth-control" is an issue in the GOP nomination process only stresses that "The Inquisition" is never far away. The Republican and Christian obsession with sex is mind boggling. Of course, so is their ignorance of their own actions.

Tags: Abstinence, Birth, Contraception, Failure, GOP, Inquisition, Pills, Pregnancy, Republicans, STDs, More…Sex

5 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Michael OL on February 20, 2012 at 10:20pm: I do wonder whether the fundamentalists themselves "abstained" when they were teens; or if, like St. Augustine, they lived like unbridled libertines while young, only to have their "epiphany" conveniently in middle-age.

But the overall point is that fundamentalist aversion to sex is not merely about kids, teens and youth becoming "prematurely" sexually active; it's to curb all sex unconnected with reproduction. If their message were to have been strictly limited to teen sex, it might have resonated with the less-extreme social movements which while not fundamentalist, are still uncomfortable with the idea of sexually-active kids. Instead, the fundamentalist creed is rabidly anti-sexual in entirety. And while this is obvious to the atheist community, it begs wider dissemination amongst moderate religionists.

The Puritan aversion to pleasure is especially ironic, foremost for Calvinist Puritans. In their world view, human deeds are utterly insignificant towards "salvation", and all humans are incorrigibly evil. OK, that's pretty grim, but then why bother with avoiding pleasures? If we're so evil anyway, then why not go all the way? Why bother trying to "be good"? Oh wait... logic and religion... my bad....

Comment by Sentient Biped on February 20, 2012 at 9:33pm: I wonder about the psychological underpinning of radical christian support for failed abstinence programs. Since the abstinence-only approach results in higher pregnancy rates in more christian areas, it could almost be thought of as a bizarre way to increase christian fertility. Sort of like being catholic or LDS, creating more babies for christianity. I know that's not really true of course. The radical christian puritanism regarding sex, seems to me just plain meanness - an excuse forbid one of life's sweetest pleasures. Just because they can.

Comment by Donald R Barbera on February 20, 2012 at 7:51pm: Michael, no one abstains from sex despite thinking to the contrary. Roman Catholics should be experts with the celibacy and their opposition to birth control. The problem for them is carrying out the will of an organization that apologized to one of the fathers of science more than 300 years after the fact. The world can't wait three hundred years for the Catholic Church to enter the 19th century.

Comment by Donald R Barbera on February 20, 2012 at 7:41pm: Loren, I'm on my way. What is wrong with these people? I sure didn't want any kids when I was a teenager or in college. I didn't want any more after I had mine. As a young man the we has we're condoms--pretty flimsy protection--literally. I had plans. I would have taken the pill myself if they had it for men. Are men really this insecure or is this more political BS? It is difficult to take it seriously, BUT

Comment by Michael OL on February 20, 2012 at 7:34pm: The religious fundamentalist position isn't merely that teenagers should abstain from sex, but that anyone who is unmarried should abstain from sex. And further, that married partners who are not interested in producing another child, should also abstain from sex. So if you are 35 and still unmarried, the fundies expect you to remain a virgin. And if you're 40, happily married but concerned that at that age, pregnancy would no longer be a good idea - then you should also abstain from sex.

So from the fundamentalist viewpoint, reducing teen pregnancy or venereal disease isn't the main objective. The main objective is to ensure virginity of future brides. An approach that demonstrably reduces adverse health impact on teens and young adults is not necessarily the best approach for fundamentalists, because its objectives are not their objectives.

Comment by Loren Miller on February 20, 2012 at 7:13pm: Abstinence-only programs blow chunks for efficacy. Rick Perry got his nose rubbed in that while he was running for president, as regards the abstinence programs running in Texas and their positively abysmal track record.

Meantime in Cleveland, Ohio, Connie Schultz of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on two teenagers in Parma, a western suburb, who themselves noted the inadequacies of such narrowly focused sex education and had the guts to go before the school board to make their case.

I invite you to read her op-ed piece on that meeting here. It is well worth your time.