Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 2:32 PM
83 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,077 Year: 24,918/28,606 Month: 2,219/1,786 Week: 434/647 Day: 39/79 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 117 (639916)
11-04-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jon
11-04-2011 6:24 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
In fact, I think teaching abstinence only is stupid and that a sex ed course could easily be highly effective without ever mentioning abstinence at all.

I'll meet you halfway - I think it's incredibly important to teach teens how to resist peer-pressure to engage in undesired sexual activity - to be abstinent if that's what they want.

But the notion that a school can teach teens to want to abstain from sex is idiotic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 6:24 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
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 responded
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2011 12:12 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Jon
Member
Posts: 4151
From: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Joined: 12-29-2005
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 117 (639925)
11-04-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
11-04-2011 8:22 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
What you're talking about is a reporting error and has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the method in question.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2011 8:22 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2011 10:00 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Member
Posts: 4151
From: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Joined: 12-29-2005
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 49 of 117 (639927)
11-04-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
11-04-2011 8:15 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
At least according to the article and according to other reporting I've read, the bill does away with the original requirement to teach contraception. Under the Republican bill, teaching abstinence only would be just fine.

And that's not what I read in the article at all.

When I get a chance, I'll have to see if I can dig up the current law and compare it to the present bill to see what is actually set out in them.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2011 8:15 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2011 11:17 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 12:51 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 50 of 117 (639928)
11-04-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jon
11-04-2011 9:30 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
What you're talking about is a reporting error and has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the method in question.

No, that's not accurate. I'm simply explaining to you the standard methodology for collecting statistics on contraceptive effectiveness. Noncompliance is a modality of failure and as such, it's included in the failure rate. Always has been.

There's really good reason for that! You can frequently improve the effectiveness of contraception by improving the compliance rate. That's a big focus of public health research. If it was just a matter of "reporting errors" then there could be no public health gains. But there have been.

All I'm saying is, if you're going to compare failure rates - and you were - then you have to tabulate the failure rates the same way - either you have to include noncompliance rates for abstinence or you have to discard noncompliance rates for condoms, hormonal BC, etc. You can't include the noncompliance rate in one area and discard it in another; that's apples to oranges.

There's no apples to apples comparison where abstinence is more effective than other forms of birth control. There's only the apples to oranges comparison you tried to make when you thought the rest of us were so stupid we wouldn't notice. You were wrong, and it's time to admit it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 9:30 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5511
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


(2)
Message 51 of 117 (639930)
11-04-2011 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jon
11-04-2011 9:35 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Jon writes:

And that's not what I read in the article at all.

No, you don't read that. Let me suggest that you are unrealistically trusting of Wisconsin's Senate Republicans.

The link below is to the text of the bill, SB237.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/.../related/proposals/sb237

The language of the legislation is preceded by a summary of what the bill would accomplish if enacted. Note in particular the description of the provisions of current law including curriculum item 6, required by current law, which I quote below:

quote:
6) the health benefits, side effects, and proper use of
contraceptives and barrier methods approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent pregnancy and barrier methods approved by the FDA to prevent sexually transmitted infections;

What does the bill claim to do with item 6?

quote:
This bill recommends, rather than requires, instructional topics for a school board that elects to provide an instructional program and restructures the recommended curriculum. The bill eliminates from the current law curriculum items 3 and 6, above, but retains discussion of pregnancy, parenting, and gender
stereotypes in other portions of the recommended curriculum.

Now what does the bill mandate?

quote:
The bill requires a school board that offers an instructional program to do all of the following in the same course and during the same year: 1) present abstinence as the preferred choice of behavior for unmarried pupils; 2) emphasize that abstinence is the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted infections; 3) provide instruction in parental responsibility and the socioeconomic benefits of marriage

Yep. The bill allows a curriculum that does not include FDA approved contraceptives, but that does emphasize abstinence as the only reliable method to prevent pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted infections.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 9:35 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5511
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 52 of 117 (639931)
11-04-2011 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by hooah212002
11-04-2011 8:51 PM


Re: Serious question
Is there a secular reason for abstinence being taught?

Yes, there is. The secular purpose is reducing the birth of out of wedlock children that have a high probability of needing economic support by the state.

The fact that practicing abstinence is not wholly effective does not prevent it from being a secular purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by hooah212002, posted 11-04-2011 8:51 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by hooah212002, posted 11-04-2011 11:34 PM NoNukes has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
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 responded

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

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5511
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 54 of 117 (639934)
11-05-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by hooah212002
11-04-2011 11:34 PM


Re: Serious question
So ALL non-married individuals should practice abstinence?

Teens and pre-teens. K-12. Adults can smoke, drink, and have sex responsibly. The risk that kids will goof up is higher.

Generally speaking, the SC has invalidated laws regulating sex and birth control under the 4th Amendment and not under the 1st amendment.

Perhaps not, but I was more asking what secular purpose there is to teach abstinence ONLY education.

That's not what you asked. I think I could cobble up a constitutionally valid purpose if I wanted, but it is not unnecessary to do so. The bill does not mandate abstinence only education. It just does not criminalize such a program. The only requirement is that lies about abstinence be a part of every sex education program.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by hooah212002, posted 11-04-2011 11:34 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 12:14 AM NoNukes has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by frako, posted 11-05-2011 12:23 AM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2011 1:07 AM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2011 12:17 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(2)
Message 56 of 117 (639936)
11-05-2011 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by hooah212002
11-05-2011 12:14 AM


Re: Serious question
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.

I think the problem is when a teacher preaches for 40 minutes how bad it is to have sex out of wedlock, ho it makes god cry, and in the last 5 minutes he says well these are your other options the condom, the pill ..... surgical alteration, well thats all folks see you tomorrow.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 12:14 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 12:35 AM frako has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
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 yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5511
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 58 of 117 (639938)
11-05-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Jon
11-04-2011 9:35 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Oh, and there is one other problem.

If the bill is enacted, then the statute will no longer makes any specific mention of any FDA contraceptive methods. So if you elect to teach the use of condoms in WI, then you risk being prosecuted by this @%!# loose cannon.

http://abovethelaw.com/...-says-sex-ed-is-sexual-assault-101

quote:
Wisconsin District Attorney Says Sex Ed is Sexual Assault 101
By KASHMIR HILL

Put those condoms and bananas away, teachers. Wisconsin district attorney Scott Southworth says that sex ed showing minors how to use contraception is sexual assault ed, and that teachers who participate are subject to criminal liability.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 9:35 PM Jon has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5511
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 59 of 117 (639940)
11-05-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by hooah212002
11-05-2011 12:14 AM


Re: Serious question
quote:
Your reasoning was about a burden on society. Adults having children out of wedlock would also be a burden on society.

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?

quote:
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?

Because despite passing Constitutional muster, the bill is bad policy that will cause more kids to end up with possibly incurable diseases and/or pregnant.

quote:
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"

What about the fact that the statement is not true, and is likely to result in more teens having unsafe sex? What about the fact that every Senator knew the likely result when they were voting on the bill? I know these points have been made here by multiple posters.

So again, what is the secular purpose behind abstinence only sex education?

Nobody is claiming that there is such a purpose. Teaching abstinence is constitutional. Teaching nothing is constitutional, and there is no constitutional right to have contraception taught. So teaching, and even lying about abstinence is constitutional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 12:14 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 1:24 AM NoNukes has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
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 responded

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

    
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014