posted on November 17, 2004 12:52:48 AM new
From FOX News:
The birth rate among American girls ages 10 to 14 has fallen to its lowest level since 1946, the government reported Monday.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the number of births among girls in this age group dropped 38 percent from 1994 to 2002 alone, even though the number of girls 10 to 14 climbed 16 percent during the same period.
CDC researchers attributed the decline to sex education.
"The message is getting across to them. Teens are behaving more responsibly when it comes to sex," said Fay Menacker, at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
The birth rate among girls this young has been declining since 1994, when 12,901 babies were born to mothers ages 10 to 14.
Isn't sex education sometimes frowned upon by the social and religoius conseravtives?
posted on November 17, 2004 05:30:39 AM new
You might be right. Note that the study is on birth rate, not pregnancy rate as the thread title suggests.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on November 17, 2004 05:38:13 AM new
Nope, I just checked a few places and it looks like the abortion rate for women under 20 is declining also. I couldn't find a stat for the particular age group 10-14 though...no time right now, I have to get out to the pasture because the pregnancy rate around here is skyrocketing, and they're all hollering for hay!!
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on November 17, 2004 08:11:26 AM new
replaymedia - Of the girls in this age group only....40% gave birth....40% had abortions and the other 20% aborted naturally.
So...yes, abortions are a big part of why there are fewer births in this age group.
I've done a little searching on the CDC and although the numbers in this age group appear to be declining for various reasons, children are having sex at younger and younger ages. And, of course, it all depends on how each of us define what 'sex is'. Many teen sites show oral sex has been on the increase....as are the numbers of oral STDs. Middle school aged children are also using mutual stimulation as a form of avoiding vaginal intercourse.
So now the educators appear to be focusing on teaching the teens that while oral sex is a good way to prevent pregancy.....it still is not a safe way to avoid getting STDs.
posted on November 17, 2004 12:15:22 PM new
"So now the educators appear to be focusing on teaching the teens that while oral sex is a good way to prevent pregancy."
posted on November 17, 2004 12:17:36 PM new
I have followed a disturbing trend among young men. No, not under 14, but it is indicative of the thinking of our young people today. I have met many young men that consider any emotional attachment to a female their own age as leaving themselves open to fiscal assault. Meet a nice young thing, do what comes naturally, BAM, get slammed with an onerous deduction on your earnings for a couple of decades. Who needs that? They have watched and learned from the experiences of their fathers and other male relatives. They avoid any emotional attachment like the plague. If a member of their 'posse' gets twitter-pated they do interventions. They will purposely disrupt the relationship to sour the gal on Mr. Right. For sexual relief they have parties with 'dancers' that provide 'entertainment'. Better a brief financial expense than a long drawn out one. No, not all young men are like this. But this is a life style and a segment of society that is growing.
The male child is being warned from an early age that he will lose his allowance and his possessions if he dallies....
__________
The Democrats were rejected by a majority of Americans
posted on November 17, 2004 03:11:20 PM new
Linda said: "as are the numbers of oral STDs."
OK, I'm gonna admit ignorance here. I thought ALL the usual STDs could be transmitted orally as well (Fluid to fluid). Yes or no?
And parklane, I don't think what you are saying is anything new. My parents gave me that speech when I was a young teen. "If you wanna play, youre gonna pay."
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on November 17, 2004 05:02:18 PM new
Yes, replay, you're correct in the way you understood it to be. But a lot of the young teens aren't.
It appears that while the educators have worked to educate them on how to prevent pregnancies and vaginal/penis infection...the point that STDs can be transmitted through oral sex didn't get through to the teens. And now the educators are saying more 'discussion' needs to point out they can be and are also transmitted this way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on November 17, 2004 06:15:47 PM new
"Isn't sex education sometimes frowned upon by the social and religoius conseravtives?"
Is this your sentence Yeager? If so why do you think this, why would they frown on something so important.
_________________
To Quote John Kerry in his concession speech. "But in an american election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans
posted on November 18, 2004 04:34:46 AM new
Sex education in schools are a joke and seem to be starting earlier and earlier...
parklane has hit upon a valid point, most boys are figuring out there is a monetary loss if you make that girl pregnant... at least some are learning that and this could be the reason...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
Many teen sites show oral sex has been on the increase....as are the numbers of oral STDs. Middle school aged children are also using mutual stimulation as a form of avoiding vaginal intercourse.
