abstinece-only sex education

google for: "two std 1960"The Epidemic of Sexually Transmitted Diseases The only safe sex is no sex Also with articles such as:
Abortion ” Deadly Politics My boldCannibalism: Eyewitness accounts from inside the booming trade in fetal body parts
The End of Humanity?Links on the first page of results.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Nice to see you are still hanging around holmes. I think this is an important point and I never really thought about it that way. We really DO treat STDs different than any other disease because we treat it on a social level stronger than we do on a medical level. Although treating some STDs like we might an outbreak of bird flu does not quite sit well with me. We have no problem putting a quaranteen on people with some kind of fatal flu even though it is their personal medical information yet a potentially malicious person could keep their HIV, HPV, Herpes status secret under the guys of dr patient confidentiality.I guess the problem is that STDs are easy to hide PLUS protected under medical confidentiality law. That being said I don't necessarily think an HIV registry is the right way to go either.What route do you think is acceptable for dealing with the problem more as a contagion and less like a sociopolitical problem?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

The WE here are the laws that protect medical information at the federal level. The only time that your medical information can be officially released by medical practicioner that holds it is by patient consent or judicial order for purposes of a legal investigation or control of a catastrophic epidemic. HIV, HPV, Herpes, etc don't fall under either category.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Message 11Great job. Honestly.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Message 12

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think my position is somewhere betten you and holmes on this. I think kids should be taught that forced sex is illegal and that they do have a right to say no. This in fact should be done from elementary school on up because sexual exploitation does not just affect those who have gone or are going through puberty.One comment of your stands out though. Where has the legal precedent defined the "if you love me" as coercion in a rape case? I am not saying it hasn't. I would just like to see some backup for it.If it has though, then I that is really crap. While the area between psychological coercion and peer pressure is pretty gray, we shouldn't be assigning victim status that coincides with gullability. The base of the slippery slope that this leads to is a "legal pandemic" where the courts are going to be dragged into (and even scarier making rulings on!!) every intracacy of an imperfect physical and emotional relationship.I say this of course with deepest regards for whatever trauma you may have undergone in your life. Every circumstance is going to be different of course. I hope I don't offend you.Edited by Jazzns, : grammar

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I would be really curious to see where you get this from. I am highly skeptical that someone could actually be convicted for rape if their partner changes their mind "mid stream" and didn't say anything. Assuming of course that there are not some other circumstances we don't know about. That would be the only situation that I think MIGHT merit labeling it rape. If there had been a history of violence or otherwise coersion then there is a potential case. Although I would argue that it would be rape from the getgo not just because he/she changed their mind in the middle. There has got to be some kind of social contract that is signed once you say, "take me baby!" At that point the onus would be on the "victim" to say stop or else it is not rape.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

In the sense of having a good relationship this is probably true but as a litmus test for coercion this is a horrible way to go about determining consent. What if, in the case of a female, she does want to stop but she is still lubricated? Does that mean she really means yes? The opposite is also true, there are plenty of times I am sure that a girl might dry up but still really WANT to keep going. I know that it most certainly is true for guys. Just because they can't get it up does not mean that they are being coerced into sex.If you ever get the chance I would still like to learn where you got these ideas of what constitutes coercion. You have to have some original source for these ideas because it is hard to think that someone would imagine where those two:1. "If you love me..."
2. "I changed my mind during but didn't say anything..."would be legally considered coercion without some kind of example in trial history or something.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)