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
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 117 (639942)
11-05-2011 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by hooah212002
11-05-2011 1:24 AM


Re: Serious question
"abstinence is the only sure fire way to not get pregnant or get STD's" is a factual one
No it is not. Of course we all know where babies come from.
But practicing abstinence often turns out to be a difficult and many kids fail the attempt to be chaste. Crashfrog has done an excellent job of explaining the point to Jon. I'd suggest reviewing that discussion.
Let's just say that you cannot cure homelessness by telling people to just own a house.
hooah212002 writes:
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.
I don't think you've come close to making this argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 1:24 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 2:03 AM NoNukes 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 117 (640031)
11-06-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002
11-05-2011 2:03 AM


Re: Serious question
Wait a minute...are you saying you can get pregnant even if you abstain from sexual intercourse?
Well, yeah. I mean, surely you can think for five seconds about some of the myriad ways a woman might get pregnant that don't involve voluntary vaginal intercourse. Surely you can take another five seconds to imagine ways in which STD's can - and have - spread that have nothing to do with having sexual intercourse. Remember all those kids with AIDS in the 80's, and how they got it?
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.
But you have told a falsehood - being abstinent won't "absolutely avoid" pregnancy or STD's. The failure rate of abstinence at preventing pregnancy and STD's is remarkably high - it's the least effective means to protect yourself from either.
Crashfrog has addressed Jon, whom has made points separate from mine.
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.
That's like determining if an airplane is safe based only on the cases where it didn't crash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 2:03 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:09 AM crashfrog 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 117 (640103)
11-07-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Serious question
No. I didn't consider those possibilities. I didn't even think about them.
Yes, I'm starting to get that impression.
So then whence your adamant position that "abstinence absolutely protects you from pregnancy and STD's"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:09 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 10:52 AM crashfrog 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 67 of 117 (640111)
11-07-2011 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 10:52 AM


Re: Serious question
Obviously, I've rethought that statement.
Fair enough, though there wasn't anything "obvious" about it.
But I'll take your word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 10:52 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2011 11:19 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 117 (640115)
11-07-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
11-07-2011 11:07 AM


Re: Serious question
Fair enough, though there wasn't anything "obvious" about it.
But I'll take your word for it.
Good grief dude. Take your foot off the guy's neck. He said he was sorry! Let him back up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 11:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 117 (640134)
11-07-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by hooah212002
11-05-2011 2:03 AM


Re: Serious question
hooah212002 writes:
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.
In my opinion, the argument you are trying to use will not work. There is nothing unconstitutional about teaching abstinence. If a teacher taught abstinence and never mentioned anything else there would be no constitutional issue.
If there is a constitutional issue at all, it would have to involve the requirement to rebut advice regarding use FDA approved contraceptives with religiously based rationale. But anyone can come up with something that would not be a problem.
Using the "abstinence never fails" logic is not unconstitutional, it's just stupid. And reasons like, "The legislature does not feel that kids are not emotionally ready for relationships that include sex" would probably would pass muster.
One dimension of the Dover trial is that there was plenty of evidence available to show that the "scientific" reasons for teaching ID offered by the defendants were not the real ones. Absent that evidence, who knows how things would have turned out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by hooah212002, posted 11-05-2011 2:03 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 3:07 PM NoNukes has 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 117 (640145)
11-07-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Serious question
No, I think you're quite correct - there's no plausible secular defense for "abstinence-only". It's a religiously-motivated moral panic, basically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 3:07 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 72 of 117 (640150)
11-07-2011 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Serious question
I was simply asking whether or not there is any secular reason to teach abstinence only education.
There is a secular reason to teach abstinence, where it is successfully implemented it is a fantastic way to minimise STDs and pregnancy.
There is no good secular reason to neglect to teach children about the existence of usage of contraceptives.
The only reason I've ever seen which could be construed as secular is that by teaching that sex can be made safe with proper use of condoms with the pill as a backup (for example) may cause risky behaviour (that is it might foster promiscuity).
Of course, whether or not promiscuity is a bad thing is a moral argument, and the main moral arguments raised against promiscuity have a religious base. Though I can imagine some secular arguments that might be tried.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 3:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 4:38 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 84 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 8:19 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2011 12:25 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 117 (640152)
11-07-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
11-07-2011 4:28 PM


Re: Serious question
There is a secular reason to teach abstinence, where it is successfully implemented it is a fantastic way to minimise STDs and pregnancy.
I don't think there's any such thing as "teaching abstinence", no more than you can teach "liking jazz" or "wanting to travel to Europe." Teens will either want to have sex or they won't, and what we should be teaching them to is how to express those preferences and defend them against peer pressure.
The problem, of course, with abstinence is that while you're doing it you don't get to have sex. People for whom that sounds like a good thing need to re-examine their priorities. Why is it necessary to accept the "moral panic" position that sexual activity by teenagers and young adults is something to be avoided at any cost? Many teens can and do have fulfilling, exciting sex lives. Many other teens can't or don't want to. One thing of which we can be absolutely sure is that those preferences are going to have absolutely nothing to do with what their parents, teachers, and other authorities want.
Teens will decide on their own whether to have sex or abstain. We should be equipping them with the tools such that those choices are safe and respected.

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 75 by Modulous, posted 11-07-2011 4:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 74 of 117 (640154)
11-07-2011 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by hooah212002
11-07-2011 3:07 PM


Re: Serious question
hooah writes:
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.
The only secular reasons I have seen are the: "I don't want my children having sex because I don't want them to ever grow up" or "No-one is going to sleep with my daughter ever!".
Parents want to pretend that teenagers are not sexually active (despite how sexually active they were).
Maybe the secular reasons for supporting the bill are "wishful thinking" and "denial"?

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 11-07-2011 3:07 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 75 of 117 (640156)
11-07-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
11-07-2011 4:38 PM


Re: Serious question
I don't think there's any such thing as "teaching abstinence", no more than you can teach "liking jazz" or "wanting to travel to Europe."
I disagree. I'm not proposing we teach teens to not to want to have sex:
Teens will either want to have sex or they won't
I'm suggesting we teach them what they should desire. Just that we explain openly and honestly what their options are.
...how to express those preferences and defend them against peer pressure.
And that one viable option is abstinence from having sex, so that they have that tool available to defend against peer pressure and as a valid expression of their preferences.
The problem, of course, with abstinence is that while you're doing it you don't get to have sex.
Yes, abstinence is psychologically difficult to pull off and its a hard sale, it certainly didn't fly with me when I was taught it. Which is why I agree that we should give information to teens for how to do it safely. This, incidentally, was my school's attitude to drugs as well: Don't do it, but here are some safety tips if you do (avoid re-using needles, have a sober person around to help avoid injury etc).
Why is it necessary to accept the "moral panic" position that sexual activity by teenagers and young adults is something to be avoided at any cost?
It isn't. I'm not proposing a 'moral panic' position, and I'm not proposing that sex be avoided at all costs. Just that we teach them that having sex is risky, that the best way to avoid the risks is to avoid the activity, but if they do carry out the activity teach them how to do it as safely as possible.
Teens will decide on their own whether to have sex or abstain. We should be equipping them with the tools such that those choices are safe and respected.
Agreed. But it's better that any decision they come to is a fully informed decision (or as fully as it is possible to be). Where they are advised that it is morally and socially acceptable to abstain as an aid against peer pressure etc (overt and otherwise).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 4:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2011 5:26 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 77 by frako, posted 11-07-2011 5:32 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024