Abortion

[McBell]

All, what planet are you on today?

I reside in the really real world on planet Earth.
You should come visit sometime.

"Good girls" and even "good guys" just didn't into the 60's. The fact that are parents and grandparents but not our great-grandparents are degenerates is no excuse.

bull ****.
no one talked about it back then.
It did happen.

Will anyone here define what a "mixed message" is and then explain how giving condoms out while also talking about the benefits of abstinence is a univocal message?

abstinence only is a proven failure.
You even evidence it yourself by pointing out that not talking about sex at all is more effective than abstinence only.

 

[SomeRandom]

Will anyone here define what a "mixed message" is and then explain how giving condoms out while also talking about the benefits of abstinence is a univocal message?

Will anyone here explain what a mixed message is and then explain how giving companies first aid boxes whilst also talking about the benefits of following safety rules is an univocal message??

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not in Sex Ed class, but surely you know that school counselors and nurses offer contraception and leads to abortion providers.

School counselors offer leads to abortion providers? Not sure about that. I know that they do give out contraception, as they should. Safe sex is always advisable over unsafe sex. If people don't support abortions (and I think most don't) they should support contraception which logically and demonstrably will significantly cut down on the number of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. (The latter of which directly benefits society by reducing disease). Abstinence only education does not accomplish this.

Nor am I ignoring the reality of human sexuality, although we all managed to exist here though there weren't sex ed classes for thousands of years.

Yeah and people suffered and died from a whole host of sexually transmitted diseases all along the way. And many, many women died during childbirth, leaving their families and children behind to take care of themselves.

What I am saying is tell kids to keep it in their pants. Why? Because we don't say, "Gosh, people can't help but drink and drive, so here's some free booze and car keys for 12 year olds." Basta! Enough!

You can ignore reality if you want, but it doesn't help anything.

Your comparison to drinking and driving, I think, is inadequate. Drinking and driving aren't natural biological functions. We have laws against driving drunk because we know it is demonstrably harmful not only to the person doing it, but to others as well. We teach safe and protected sex, because it is safer than unprotected sex, it cuts down on unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, and it cuts down on rates of sexually transmitted diseases.

As someone else already pointed out, what you are basically saying is that we shouldn't teach first aid because it encourages people to harm themselves. Surely you can see how silly that sounds.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Please understand how offensive your concept is to a religious person.

Do you deny Christianity teaches a tween got knocked up without sex? Isn't that, like, a major plot point? I am a religious person. Until recently, before I just got tired of Christianity being raped by ignorant fundamentalists, I was okay with calling myself a Christian. My point is that pro-life says the argument is religious but everything the bible says about babies, even Famous Ones, says nothing like it. Here is what the bible tells you about kids:

1. You exist after you are born and breathe your first breath.
2. If a man is paranoid and thinks his wife cheated on him, abortion was a legitimate method of "proving" her infidelity (and if she is "guilty", he gets to stone her, so two birds ...).
3. If you kill a pregnant woman, you get the death penalty. If you just kill the embryo/fetus, you get a small fine.
4. Even post-birth babies are regularly killed by order of God, so obviously He ain't as into you as you like to think (Jesus noted something like this when people assume they can sit next to the Host but then are sent to the cheap seats).
5. Joseph was thinking of quietly divorcing Mary when he found out she was pregnant because IT WAS THE LAW FOR HER TO BE STONED. That she was pregnant meant NOTHING. Babies are only to be saved if they are relevant to the plot. Everyone else is mere cannon fodder.

The duplicating cells have a soul and are in the "much more" care of God. The problem is you are both saying only empirical things exist, and then using empiricism to justify this rationale.

Where is cellular ensoulment in the bible? It is clear that you only count after you've taken your first breath. We celebrate BIRTHdays, not ENSOULMENT days or CONCEPTION days.

Not in Sex Ed class, but surely you know that school counselors and nurses offer contraception and leads to abortion providers. Nor am I ignoring the reality of human sexuality, although we all managed to exist here though there weren't sex ed classes for thousands of years.

What I am saying is tell kids to keep it in their pants. Why? Because we don't say, "Gosh, people can't help but drink and drive, so here's some free booze and car keys for 12 year olds." Basta! Enough!

So, your logic is that teens are irresponsible, but you think they are wise enough to become parents? I mean, it's been mentioned, more or less, that what you call someone taught abstinence only is "momma".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I reside in the really real world on planet Earth.
You should come visit sometime.


bull ****.
no one talked about it back then.
It did happen.


abstinence only is a proven failure.
You even evidence it yourself by pointing out that not talking about sex at all is more effective than abstinence only.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Abstinence teaching is more effective, especially when combined with appropriate sex ed, than letting kids learn about sex on their own.

 

[BilliardsBall]

School counselors offer leads to abortion providers? Not sure about that. I know that they do give out contraception, as they should. Safe sex is always advisable over unsafe sex. If people don't support abortions (and I think most don't) they should support contraception which logically and demonstrably will significantly cut down on the number of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. (The latter of which directly benefits society by reducing disease). Abstinence only education does not accomplish this.


Yeah and people suffered and died from a whole host of sexually transmitted diseases all along the way. And many, many women died during childbirth, leaving their families and children behind to take care of themselves.

You can ignore reality if you want, but it doesn't help anything.

Your comparison to drinking and driving, I think, is inadequate. Drinking and driving aren't natural biological functions. We have laws against driving drunk because we know it is demonstrably harmful not only to the person doing it, but to others as well. We teach safe and protected sex, because it is safer than unprotected sex, it cuts down on unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, and it cuts down on rates of sexually transmitted diseases.

As someone else already pointed out, what you are basically saying is that we shouldn't teach first aid because it encourages people to harm themselves. Surely you can see how silly that sounds.

I'm not talking about first aid. First aid is the opportunity to heal an accident. I'm talking about telling young people a consistent message that their emotional and intellectual planes (and their income) do not align with their ability to reproduce and that truly safe sex is committed marital sex.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'd reply but I'm having trouble parsing your comments. Can you restate them more succinctly, please?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Abstinence teaching is more effective, especially when combined with appropriate sex ed, than letting kids learn about sex on their own.

I'm confused as to what you're talking about now. Are you now advocating teaching abstinence alongside comprehensive sexual education??

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not talking about first aid. First aid is the opportunity to heal an accident. I'm talking about telling young people a consistent message that their emotional and intellectual planes (and their income) do not align with their ability to reproduce and that truly safe sex is committed marital sex.

And comprehensive sex ed is the opportunity to prevent an accident.

Surely you understand the first aid analogy. Using your line of argument, we should not teach first aid because it sends a mixed message about safety.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'd reply but I'm having trouble parsing your comments. Can you restate them more succinctly, please?

Who are you referring to?

 

[leibowde84]

Will anyone here explain what a mixed message is and then explain how giving companies first aid boxes whilst also talking about the benefits of following safety rules is an univocal message??

Well put.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not talking about first aid. First aid is the opportunity to heal an accident. I'm talking about telling young people a consistent message that their emotional and intellectual planes (and their income) do not align with their ability to reproduce and that truly safe sex is committed marital sex.

That's what they taught us in my school. Didn't do much good. Kids do lots of stupid stuff. One of those things is unsafe sex. And, it is absurdly cruel to expect anyone to not have sex unless they get married.

 

[viole]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Abstinence teaching is more effective, especially when combined with appropriate sex ed, than letting kids learn about sex on their own.

Under these preconditions (abstinence, proper sexual ed) , how do you think kids will learn about sex by their own?

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

bull ****.
no one talked about it back then.
It did happen.

It happened. But a lot less than now.
I was alive and aware in the "olden days". People did not feel entitled to sex the way they do now.
It was mainly social pressure, not legal restrictions. People who were incompetent to start a family and raise children were expected to do as they were told by their elders.

Now, people who are not competent enough to use birth control feel entitled to procreative sex. Then they feel entitled to family and government support, because child care is a huge responsibility and they are not "ready" for that.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Kids do lots of stupid stuff. One of those things is unsafe sex.

Kids would have less opportunity to do stupid stuff if they had a full time parent. Somebody who was monitoring them almost all the time. And was backed up by a bunch of other full time parents. People who could see what your kid was up to, even if s/he was was out of your sight, and would tell you about it.
Tom

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's what they taught us in my school. Didn't do much good. Kids do lots of stupid stuff. One of those things is unsafe sex. And, it is absurdly cruel to expect anyone to not have sex unless they get married.

Absurdly cruel to ask kids (my kids, others' kids) to not engage in emotionally and physically charged behavior before they are ready? I can see "naïve" but cruel? Cruel?

The cruelty lies with boys who break young girls' hearts forever and vice versa. No.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Under these preconditions (abstinence, proper sexual ed) , how do you think kids will learn about sex by their own?

Ciao

- viole

I don't understand your question. Please rephrase it.

 

[viole]

I don't understand your question. Please rephrase it.

My question is: what will kids do to learn about sexuality by themselves, in your opinion, once they learned about abstinence and received a proper sex ed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

My question is: what will kids do to learn about sexuality by themselves, in your opinion, once they learned about abstinence and received a proper sex ed?

Ciao

- viole

Some kids, as always, will do good things, others, bad things. It is up to the parents to lead the kids via clear, direct messages.

 

[McBell]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Abstinence teaching is more effective, especially when combined with appropriate sex ed, than letting kids learn about sex on their own.

You have been presented in this very thread links to studies that show you are just plain flat out wrong.
Your denial of the facts do not make the facts go away.