Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 41 of 117 (639909)
11-04-2011 7:43 PM


Gotta love Wisconsin: you can go get hammered in a bar on the snowmobile trails when you're 12, but god forbid they give you a good sex education.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 47 of 117 (639919)
11-04-2011 8:51 PM


Serious question
Is there a secular reason for abstinence being taught? I mean in gneneral, not this case in particular. Because it seems to me that the ONLY reason anyone even thinks to teach abstinence is "no sex before marriage", which has purely religious motivations. We can look at where this mindset is taught already and see that they are largely religious areas of the country. We can also see that those areas have FAR higher teen pregnancies and abortions (links when I get home).

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2011 11:26 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2011 12:12 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 53 of 117 (639932)
11-04-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
11-04-2011 11:26 PM


Re: Serious question
reducing the birth of out of wedlock
So ALL non-married individuals should practice abstinence? What secular purpose does marriage have to do with it?
The fact that practicing abstinence is not wholly effective does not prevent it from being a secular purpose.
Perhaps not, but I was more asking what secular purpose there is to teach abstinence ONLY education. I suppose I should have been more clear on that....

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2011 11:26 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 12:07 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 55 of 117 (639935)
11-05-2011 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
11-05-2011 12:07 AM


Re: Serious question
Adults can smoke, drink, and have sex responsibly. The risk that kids will goof up is higher.
Your reasoning was about a burden on society. Adults having children out of wedlock would also be a burden on society.
That's not what you asked.
You will notice I said I should have been more clear.
The bill does not mandate abstinence only education.
You will notice I wasn't asking about this bill in particular, but abstinence being taught in general.
However, in light of this bill, one can only wonder WHY this is an issue? If it is not mandatory to teach abstinence only, why is the issue a concern? Surely sex education teachers could, along with teaching contraceptive methods, tell children "the only truly effective way to NOT have unwanted pregnancies or get STD's is to NOT have sex" while at the same time informing them of the risks.
So again, what is the secular purpose behind abstinence only sex education?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 12:07 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by frako, posted 11-05-2011 12:23 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 1:07 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2011 12:17 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 57 of 117 (639937)
11-05-2011 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by frako
11-05-2011 12:23 AM


Re: Serious question
That sounds like a religious problem, not a secular one. But I could see how allowing teachers to teach beliefs instead of facts could get in the way and how this bill could allow it.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by frako, posted 11-05-2011 12:23 AM frako has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 60 of 117 (639941)
11-05-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
11-05-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Serious question
I addressed this. We don't supervise adults in the same way we supervise children. Unless you are suggesting that we force adults to go to sex education classes, I'm not sure what your point is about adults. Having children out of wedlock is a burden, so we teach everybody not to do it when they are in school. What contradiction do you see?
I've had a few drinks since I raised the question, so I forget my initial reasoning. However, I assure you it was good.
What about the fact that the statement is not true, and is likely to result in more teens having unsafe sex?
What? No, it won't. As long as you ALSO tell them about the risks of having sex, the statement: "abstinence is the only sure fire way to not get pregnant or get STD's" is a factual one. We know, and can prove, that this statement alone causes great harm, but this statement along with proper sex ed has great potential.
Nobody is claiming that there is such a purpose.
I never said anyone DID claim this. That is why my subheading was "serious question". I was trying to indicate that I was asking a serious question that perhaps hasn't been addressed. If we can pinpoint that abstinence only education is strictly religious in nature, I think we've taken a few steps forward in killing this monster.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 1:07 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 1:54 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 62 of 117 (639943)
11-05-2011 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
11-05-2011 1:54 AM


Re: Serious question
No it is not. Of course we all know where babies come from.
Wait a minute...are you saying you can get pregnant even if you abstain from sexual intercourse?
But practicing abstinence often turns out to be a difficult and many kids fail the attempt to be chaste.
No shit, sherlock. If you tell kids the risks that go along with having sex, safe sex and the like, then tell them that the only way to absolutely avoid those problems is to abstain, you've not told a falsehood.
Crashfrog has done an excellent job of explaining the point to Jon. I'd suggest reviewing that discussion.
Crashfrog has addressed Jon, whom has made points separate from mine.
I don't think you've come close to making this argument.
That was my initial question, though. QUESTION being the key word. If the QUESTION can't be answered in a straightforward manner, then that means that abstinence only education is religious in nature and has no business in public school.
If the two of us, who are on the same side of this discussion, cannot see eye to eye, how can we further it? The people on the other side of the discussion have NO problem being in agreement, why can't we?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 1:54 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2011 10:58 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2011 2:29 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 64 of 117 (640076)
11-07-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
11-06-2011 10:58 PM


Re: Serious question
No, I think you'll see that Jon was making the same mistake you were; that is, determining the failure rate of abstinence based only on the cases where abstinence didn't fail.
No. I didn't consider those possibilities. I didn't even think about them.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2011 10:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 10:32 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 66 of 117 (640107)
11-07-2011 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
11-07-2011 10:32 AM


Re: Serious question
Yes, I'm starting to get that impression.
What do you mean? I admitted to it, so how are you "getting that impression"?
So then whence your adamant position that "abstinence absolutely protects you from pregnancy and STD's"?
Obviously, I've rethought that statement. You should note that it is obvious I am the furthest thing from a proponent of abstinence only education.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 10:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 11:07 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 70 of 117 (640136)
11-07-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
11-07-2011 2:29 PM


Re: Serious question
In my opinion, the argument you are trying to use will not work.
I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was simply asking whether or not there is any secular reason to teach abstinence only education. I'm not trying to defend it or bring up the constitutionality of it, just asking. It is just my opinion that the only reason to teach it is religiously motivated unless there are actual secular reasons to teach it that I am unaware of.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2011 2:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 3:49 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:28 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 74 by Panda, posted 11-07-2011 4:55 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2011 7:34 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 84 of 117 (640177)
11-07-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:28 PM


Re: Serious question
I said abstinence only.
The reason I press on about asking whether or not there are any secular reasons to teach it is to find out just how pervasive religion is in our government, then we can use this to point out the dangers of letting religion take an even stronger hold of our government. Hopefully anyways.....

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 9:40 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 112 of 117 (640734)
11-12-2011 11:26 AM


In other, related, news
Wisconsin Republicans seek to criminalize all abortion as well as contraception
The measure — LRB 2859/1 — seeks to amend the state’s Constitution to apply personhood rights to preborn children at all stages of development, according to a press release from Pro-Life Wisconsin. Supporters of the proposal believe it would prompt a legal challenge that could overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a legal right to abortion.
I regret the day I moved to this state. Slowly pushing reproductive freedom back to the stone age.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2011 12:15 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2011 8:42 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 114 of 117 (640743)
11-12-2011 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
11-12-2011 12:15 PM


Re: In other, related, news
I've no clue, but with some digging I'm sure I could find out. However, whether or not it is constitutional is not as big of a deal as the fact that there are people in high office that want to do enact policies like this.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2011 12:15 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2011 8:52 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024