EvC Forum: abstinece-only sex education

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: abstinece-only sex education

fallacycop

Member (Idle past 5542 days)

Posts: 692

From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil

Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 49 of 306 (312219)
05-15-2006 10:02 PM

Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
05-15-2006 2:03 PM

Faith writes:

It may be true that the attempt to keep sin to a minimum in a culture only provokes worse sins. The Law is said in scripture to provoke violations of it. Just the way things are.
But I also think that can't be the concern of leaders and teachers of youth. Their job has to be to stand for what's right and teach the kids what's wrong.

and also

Faith writes:

This is the real reason for the health problems already created by the sexual freedom of the last few decades -- it's judgment, the kind of judgment that is built into the sin in this case

This kind of view actually scares me. You are basically saying that, despite the fact that it may heart human beings, the government should stay the course and keep the abstinance only programs because of some outdated view of what's right or wrong.

based on what? some lalaland-rules extracted from a lalaland-book? just to validate your own provincian views of morality? how can anybody be so self-centred, is my question to you.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 4 by Faith, posted 05-15-2006 2:03 PM		Faith has not replied

fallacycop

Member (Idle past 5542 days)

Posts: 692

From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil

Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 85 of 306 (312779)
05-17-2006 10:41 AM

Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
05-16-2006 1:46 AM

MORALS

Faith writes:

Well, what you are proposing is what is going to be done anyway. The culture isn't going to change back overnight. But if people keep saying "moralizing doesn't work" it CERTAINLY isn't going to change. Young people like to think philosophically, idealistically and morally. No reason why it couldn't work if people could get their heads together about it.
But I'm sure people are going to keep saying that it doesn't work. Nobody really gets why it's a moral issue any more.

Even if we decide to base this discussion in a moral point of view, your position is still lacking.

You are advocating that the government stay the course in a program that has been shown to hurt young people for the personal satisfaction of having your personal beliefs validated by said program paid by the taxpayers money. If you think you have the moral higher ground in that subject, think again.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 62 by Faith, posted 05-16-2006 1:46 AM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 86 by CK, posted 05-17-2006 10:48 AM	fallacycop has not replied
	Message 89 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 11:27 AM	fallacycop has replied

fallacycop

Member (Idle past 5542 days)

Posts: 692

From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil

Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 119 of 306 (313001)
05-17-2006 10:16 PM

Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
05-17-2006 11:27 AM

Re: MORALS

Faith writes:

Shown to hurt young people? Oh, you mean you teach them that abstinence is the right policy and they ignore you and your policy and have the problems you told them they'd avoid by practicing abstinence and that's "hurting young people?"

Don't you get it? The problem is not in the word "abstinence". The problem is in the word "only". That means witholding information that can potentially save their lives. THAT is hurting young people. Yes indeed.

Faith writes:

As for what I advocate, I haven't advocated anything, I've been objecting to casting the problem in "scientific" as opposed to moral terms, and to the scientific mentality as such that deals with everything instrumentally and mechanically and ends up supporting an amoral position -- and to my mind actually inhumane

And my point is: Even by taking a moral stance to the program, the only right thing to do is to drop it. A government program that hurts young people is an imoral program.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 89 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 11:27 AM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 2:10 AM		fallacycop has replied

fallacycop

Member (Idle past 5542 days)

Posts: 692

From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil

Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 127 of 306 (313120)
05-18-2006 8:15 AM

Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
05-18-2006 2:10 AM

Re: MORALS

The claim is that the abstinence-only position INCREASES the incidence of sexual behavior. How is that the result of withholding information? Obviously the accusation is that the philosophy of abstinence is to blame for this result.

No such acusation! The point is that the more information they have, the better prepared they are to make good choices. In other word, the best that can be done is to trust them with the ALL the information, and let them make their own choices and mistakes. It's their lives afterall.

And my point is: Even by taking a moral stance to the program, the only right thing to do is to drop it. A government program that hurts young people is an imoral program.

Again, the only proof that young people are being hurt is that they ignore the teaching of the program. I find this accusation absurd that it's the program's fault that they do so.

Revert to answer above. The program is witholding information that would help them make better choices for their lives. By doing that, it reduces the chances that they will make good choices and, therefore, is hurting them. That makes the program an imoral thing

This message is a reply to:
	Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 2:10 AM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 137 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 12:22 PM		fallacycop has replied

fallacycop

Member (Idle past 5542 days)

Posts: 692

From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil

Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 143 of 306 (313210)
05-18-2006 1:24 PM

Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
05-18-2006 12:22 PM

Re: MORALS

Faith writes:

I am responding to the OP, sticking within the parameters laid down for the thread. Nobody said one word about the program itself except that it promotes abstinence only.

I'll take from it then that you do not realize that abstinance only programs do indeed withold information (That IS the meaning of the word only in this context). I'm glad to be able to better inform you of that fact, then.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 137 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 12:22 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 145 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 1:36 PM		fallacycop has replied

fallacycop

Member (Idle past 5542 days)

Posts: 692

From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil

Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 147 of 306 (313220)
05-18-2006 1:48 PM

Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
05-18-2006 1:36 PM

TRUST

Faith writes:

It may be off topic considering the OP as defined, but if not please spell it out specifically. What interests me on this thread is the worldview that is behind the whole mess as defined in the OP, the fact that with one hand they are mixing up this toxic brew in massive cauldrons while with the other trying to cure people of its effects. I suspect that as long as the Sexual Freedom Philosophy is running the show, NO program is going to be able to cope with its effects.

The whole thing is about trust, Faith. Only by trusting them and giving them the whole information, they will trust us back and actually take our opinions and points of view into cosideration. And that increases the chance that they will make better informed safer wiser decisions. The abstinence only programs break that chain of trust, and that's why they won't work

This message is a reply to:
	Message 145 by Faith, posted 05-18-2006 1:36 PM		Faith has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

6 online now:	AZPaul3, LamarkNewAge, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Taq
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,453 Year: 3,710/9,624 Month: 581/974 Week: 194/276 Day: 34/34 Hour: 14/2