Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Pure in heart abstinence only education

24567…10

Comments

  • #52
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Nodin wrote: »
    What they teach is the same as church doctrine. Were they not in tune with catholic teaching, they'd be disowned by the church. I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you're trying to be slippery on this. They clearly preach catholic sexual ethics, as laid down by the Church.

    im not being slippery, i think all over exaggerating the importance of the iona institute


  • #53
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    The mere mention of the iona institute massively overinflates its importance.


  • #54
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    expectationlost wrote: »
    im not being slippery, i think all over exaggerating the importance of the iona institute

    I have made no statement on it's importance. My remarks are fairly clear in what they refer to. They re-iterate church doctrine on sexual ethics. You've offered no real refutation of this, just this weaseling '"only the church...." nonsense


  • #55
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    I think some of the confuddlement about 'the Church' is the pervasive notion that 'the Church' equals the lads in cassocks over in Rome who make up all the rules and tell everybody else what is/isn't okay. For a great many Catholics, that notion is abhorrent. Catholics of the regular decent-human-being variety have been battling with formal ecclesial structures for decades (since Vatican II) to get the understanding changed, so that the people in the pews actually get more of a say about what 'the Church' believes. They haven't been successful yet, and I don't know if they ever will be.

    Yes, I know. Some of the people in the pews are as bad as the boys in cassocks. And sure some of the people in the pews make up their own zealous organisations like the Iona Institute and Pure in Heart and God-knows-how-many-other-abomindable organisations that seek to impose their very limited views on everyone else, and invest a good amount of time and money and zeal in doing it, because they're convinced they're righter than anybody else. That is true, and quite sad. BUT. It is also true that they are not the only kind of Catholic out there, and to suggest that the reprobates ARE the Church, is to ignore a significant (but effectively powerless) portion of the Catholic population who are not all like that and do not agree with aspects of Church teaching.


  • #56
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    AerynSun wrote: »
    I think some of the confuddlement about 'the Church' is the pervasive notion that 'the Church' equals the lads in cassocks over in Rome who make up all the rules and tell everybody else what is/isn't okay. For a great many Catholics, that notion is abhorrent. Catholics of the regular decent-human-being variety have been battling with formal ecclesial structures for decades (since Vatican II) to get the understanding changed, so that the people in the pews actually get more of a say about what 'the Church' believes. They haven't been successful yet, and I don't know if they ever will be.

    Yes, I know. Some of the people in the pews are as bad as the boys in cassocks. And sure some of the people in the pews make up their own zealous organisations like the Iona Institute and Pure in Heart and God-knows-how-many-other-abomindable organisations that seek to impose their very limited views on everyone else, and invest a good amount of time and money and zeal in doing it, because they're convinced they're righter than anybody else. That is true, and quite sad. BUT. It is also true that they are not the only kind of Catholic out there, and to suggest that the reprobates ARE the Church, is to ignore a significant (but effectively powerless) portion of the Catholic population who are not all like that and do not agree with aspects of Church teaching.

    Could they not join a different club who's rules they agree with?


  • #57
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    lazygal wrote: »
    Could they not join a different club who's rules they agree with?

    That's the eternal struggle for the 'good ones': hang in there and try to change the original thing for the better of all, or walk away and leave the original thing go even more haywire than it already is because there's nobody left to 'temper' it. Loads of good people are hanging in there, and fair play to them. And some of us drew a line and walked away before the cynicism ate us alive.

    Still. I think a broader recognition of the complexity of the issues and a willingness to support the good ones who are trying to change things would go a long way towards effecting much-needed change. Telling the good Catholics that they're all the same as the rotten ones... just pushes them into a deeper silence and an even more disempowered place than they're already in.

    That's just my 2c anyway.


  • #58
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Eternal struggles never end well. Walking away is probably the smarter option.


  • #59
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Sarky wrote: »
    Eternal struggles never end well. Walking away is probably the smarter option.

    Is the highlighted text not one word too long?

    Or is the sound I am now hearing that of a joke sailing way over my head? :)


  • #60
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    pauldla wrote: »
    Is the highlighted text not one word too long?

    Oh yeah! So it is! Still though...Not sure the 'ordinary catholic' rising up against the vatican management are going to get anywhere anytime soon. They would have to actually rift from the church (and follow Fr. Iggy, or similar), ignoring the fact that he'd be excommunicated immediately and gradually bringing the 'catholic faithful' over to the New Irish Catholic Church. NIC for short. I like it. Do it, people. You have my blessing. :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Obliq wrote: »
    Oh yeah! So it is! Still though...Not sure the 'ordinary catholic' rising up against the vatican management are going to get anywhere anytime soon. They would have to actually rift from the church (and follow Fr. Iggy, or similar), ignoring the fact that he'd be excommunicated immediately and gradually bringing the 'catholic faithful' over to the New Irish Catholic Church. NIC for short. I like it. Do it, people. You have my blessing. :cool:

    Exactly. They should resurrect the Celtic Catholic Church of old. And go back to celebrating Easter at the old time, too. :)


  • #62
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    pauldla wrote: »
    Is the highlighted text not one word too long?

    Or is the sound I am now hearing that of a joke sailing way over my head? :)

    It might be. But it might not, too. Feel free to schism over it instead of arguing about it forever. :)


  • #63
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Sarky wrote: »
    It might be. But it might not, too. Feel free to schism over it instead of arguing about it forever. :)


    No need, in this instance I am content to be the Rushdie to your Hitchens.


  • #64
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    AerynSun wrote: »
    That's the eternal struggle for the 'good ones': hang in there and try to change the original thing for the better of all, or walk away and leave the original thing go even more haywire than it already is because there's nobody left to 'temper' it. Loads of good people are hanging in there, and fair play to them. And some of us drew a line and walked away before the cynicism ate us alive.

    Still. I think a broader recognition of the complexity of the issues and a willingness to support the good ones who are trying to change things would go a long way towards effecting much-needed change. Telling the good Catholics that they're all the same as the rotten ones... just pushes them into a deeper silence and an even more disempowered place than they're already in.

    That's just my 2c anyway.

    With all due respect, I think the 'good ones' are actually doing more harm than good by 'hanging in there'. By identifying as Catholic (via the census etc.) they are inflating the Church's numbers which are used by the 'bad ones' to **** all over everyone else (Catholic or non-Catholic) in relation to education, marriage rights, reproductive rights etc.


  • #65
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    Galvasean wrote: »
    With all due respect, I think the 'good ones' are actually doing more harm than good by 'hanging in there'. By identifying as Catholic (via the census etc.) they are inflating the Church's numbers which are used by the 'bad ones' to **** all over everyone else (Catholic or non-Catholic) in relation to education, marriage rights, reproductive rights etc.

    The trouble is: being Catholic isn't simply a matter of identifying with the lager Church body. That's only the political aspect of a far more complex overarching spiritual / faith reality. And for most of the 'good ones', the spirituality is the thing that appeals, NOT the politics. And sure many of them are in deep denial about how insidious the politics are/is (grammar has gone to the Bushmills, I'm afraid!), and being Catholic can't be extricated from the political reality no matter how little enthusiasm people have for that aspect.

    That's the reason I bailed: coming to the insight that the politics is an unavoidable part of the deal, and needing to make my non-agreement count for something. But on nights like Christmas Eve, there's a part of me that is sad about the spirituality that I've lost for having walked away. Wouldn't I just love to be able to go to church and sing 'O Holy Night' and believe that the world could ever be like that! But nope... once you've taken the red pill there's no easy plugging back into the Matrix. Do feel for the ones who haven't yet realised what the machine is really like, and tiny bit envy them their cosy Christmas where God is in his heaven and all is right with the world...

    Anyhoo... cheers to the rest of us, may the bottom layer of our Maslow's hierarchy of needs be sorted even if our upper layers aren't :D


  • #66
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    AerynSun wrote: »
    The trouble is: being Catholic isn't simply a matter of identifying with the lager Church body. That's only the political aspect of a far more complex overarching spiritual / faith reality. And for most of the 'good ones', the spirituality is the thing that appeals, NOT the politics. And sure many of them are in deep denial about how insidious the politics are/is (grammar has gone to the Bushmills, I'm afraid!), and being Catholic can't be extricated from the political reality no matter how little enthusiasm people have for that aspect.
    The point being, those spiritual means could be perfectly well, indeed better, answered in another congregation than the Catholic one. On a spiritual level the Catholic church doesn't offer the kind of wishy-washy christians that most Irish Catholics really are, that the CoI or smaller churches offers. I have this perennial discussion with my mother. Politically, theologically and spiritually, her views are not of the Catholic church, it offers her nothing but cognitive dissonance when she tries to follow its teachings.
    That's the reason I bailed: coming to the insight that the politics is an unavoidable part of the deal, and needing to make my non-agreement count for something. But on nights like Christmas Eve, there's a part of me that is sad about the spirituality that I've lost for having walked away. Wouldn't I just love to be able to go to church and sing 'O Holy Night' and believe that the world could ever be like that! But nope... once you've taken the red pill there's no easy plugging back into the Matrix. Do feel for the ones who haven't yet realised what the machine is really like, and tiny bit envy them their cosy Christmas where God is in his heaven and all is right with the world...

    Anyhoo... cheers to the rest of us, may the bottom layer of our Maslow's hierarchy of needs be sorted even if our upper layers aren't :D
    I'm sad for it in the same way I'm sad for the naivety and surety of my child- and teenhood. That's about it. Looking at it in any kind of logically consistent way just makes me feel it's all a bit creepy. Sure, it'd be comforting to have a powerful father figure watching my every move, but at the same time it's very disempowering.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Cabaal wrote: »
    and as we know, abstinence means you can still use gods loop hole

    NSFW
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HbaqlcmDCA


    Be a good question to ask them :pac:
    You're trivialising a very serious issue ... the disaster that under-age teenage promiscuity is causing in terms of STDs, sterility when they later marry and want a baby ... and lets call it what it is ... statutory rape amongst and of children!!!

    Is this 'counsel of defeat' all that Secularism can offer our teens?

    The Abstinence Programme is working in America ... and here is what it's like for the misfortunate British teens who are part of the 'pseudo-liberal' society you guys seem to want to foist on the rest of society.



    Britain makes contraception freely available to under-age teens ... and yet there are 100,000 teen pregnancies per year and one in five UK teens with Chlamydia ... to say nothing about Syphilis and (life-long) HIV ... or the serious psychological damage that sex abuse between under-age children causes.:(

    Christians offer a viable alternative ... children aren't feral animals ... they are thoughtful moral actors who need the responsible support of adults to not destroy their lives by engaging in promiscuity and other risky behaviour ... and to move teen peer-pressure from engaging in casual sex ... to simply saying 'NO' to drink, drugs ... and under-age promiscuity.

    Under-age drink, drugs and sex are all destructive and in combination they are disasterous!!!



    A basic principle of education is to avoid 'learning the hard way' ... by not making the same mistakes that other people have already made!!!

    That is why we legally proscribe under-age drinking ... and under-age sex ... and supporting the former whilst making a joke of the latter is utter hypocracy ... and grossly irresponsible!!!:(

    ... and that is why the Abstinance programmes are such an outstanding success amongst under-age teens in America ... and fully supported by many responsible parents.

    We need to change behaviour when it comes to under-age sex ... and Abstinance programmes work ... while the apparent alternative of throwing your 13 year-old a packet of condoms and putting her on the pill, and letting her off to engage in under-age sex abuse with God knows who (with God knows what STD) ... while relying on micro-thin latex not bursting or being used incorrectly by a drunken teen ... is outrageous IMO.


  • #68
    freyners
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭freyners


    I want to laugh but its so depressing someone can actually believe that crap when even a cursory search on the internet proves otherwise


  • #69
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    ... and lets call it what it is ... statutory rape amongst and to children!!!.

    Hysterical crap.
    J C wrote: »
    ...
    Is this 'counsel of defeat' all that Secularism can offer our teens?.

    It's not a war.
    J C wrote: »
    ...
    The Abstinence Programme is working in America ... .

    Not in the US or in Africa.


    .
    J C wrote: »
    ...

    We need to change behaviour when it comes to under-age sex ... and Abstinance programmes work ... while the apparent alternative of throwing your 13 year-old a packet of condoms and putting her on the pill, and letting her off to engage in under-age sex abuse with God knows who (with God kows what STD) ... is downright criminal IMO.

    The scandanavian approach works. Yours doesn't.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26sex.htm

    http://www.dutchdailynews.com/teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low/


  • #70
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    You're trivialising a very serious issue ... the disaster that abstinence only "education" is causing in terms of STDs, sterility when they later marry and want a baby

    I fixed your post for you. Abstinence only education is a cause of teenage pregnancy.
    ... and lets call it what it is ... statutory rape amongst and of children!!!

    Leading to baby murder as well I suppose? Yeah you shouting idiotic slogans at the top of your voice (with really weird punctuation) doesn't make them any less idiotic. Though it does make you look stupid.
    Is this 'counsel of defeat' all that Secularism can offer our teens?

    No, a secular eduaction offers policy based on evidence, and not the empty rhetoric of a group of beardy old paedophiles 2,500 years dead.
    The Abstinence Programme is not working in America as the areas where it is implemented have seen teenage pregnancy spiral in the last decade, after a sharp decline resultant of educational policies which actually educated students

    Fixed this part too.

    And do you know what, I've got things to do which are more useful to humanity than correcting your insane ramblings, like scratching my testes. So I'll leave it at that.


  • #71
    freyners
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭freyners


    Nodin wrote:


    The scandanavian approach works. Yours doesn't.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26sex.htm

    http://www.dutchdailynews.com/teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low/

    I realise correlation does not equal causation its fascinating that according to the second link you posted Nodin, the highest pregnancy rate is in the Antilles, where the Christian faith is a lot more prevalent than Mainland Holland


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    Hysterical crap.


    It's not a war.


    Not in the US or in Africa.


    The scandanavian approach works. Yours doesn't.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26sex.htm

    http://www.dutchdailynews.com/teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low/
    I have no problem with Sex Education ... but it needs to deliver results in terms of reduced teen pregancy and STD rates ... and 100,000 teen pregnancies and one in five British teens with Chlamydia isn't delivering anything but untold misery and misfortune!!:(


  • #73
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    I have no problem with Sex Education ... but it needs to deliver results in terms of reduced teen pregancy and STD rates ... and 100,000 teen pregnancies and one in five British teens with Chlamydia isn't delivering anything but untold misery and misfortune!!:(


    This may come as a complete shock, but there's more to the world than Britain. Evidently - presuming that what you say is true - they're doing something wrong. The Scandavians offer sex education that works, and its not "abstinence" based.


  • #74
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    freyners wrote: »
    I realise correlation does not equal causation its fascinating that according to the second link you posted Nodin, the highest pregnancy rate is in the Antilles, where the Christian faith is a lot more prevalent than Mainland Holland

    I think that fits nicely with the reality of things. Abstinance only programmes create young people that are not ready for the realities of life. People have sex. These idiotic programmes prevent young people from knowing how to do it safely.

    Hyperbole aside, JC, as usual, hasn't got a fcuking clue what he is talking about. This is most likey due to the fact that he couldn't recognise evidence if it walked up to him on the street, bent him over and sodomised him.

    Young people will have sex. My preference is for them to leave it until they are older, but I want them to be knowledgable enough to be able to do it safely. Running round shouting "thou shalt not have sex" challenges creationism for levels of retardedness.

    MrP


  • #75
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I fixed your post for you. Abstinence only education is a cause of teenage pregnancy.
    We're not talking about 'Abstinance only education' which is some kind of 'straw man' invented to disparage a successful sex education programme.
    What we're talking about is Abstinance Pledges where teens pledge to abstain from sex ... of course they have all of the sex education of their promiscuous peers when it comes to contraception and sex in general ... and most will use it when they are older and in stable relationships.
    What we're talking about is changing behaviour from teen peer pressure to engage in all kinds of risky behaviour in relation to sex, drink and drugs ... and change it to teen peer pressure to abstain from sex drink and drugs.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Leading to baby murder as well I suppose? Yeah you shouting idiotic slogans at the top of your voice (with really weird punctuation) doesn't make them any less idiotic. Though it does make you look stupid.
    More 'straw men' ... under age sex is statutory rape and sex abuse ... whether it is prosecuted, depends on the circumstances and the ages of the parties concenred ... but it can be equally damging for the girl involved as any other under-age sex abuse. These are children that we're talking about!!!
    ... children that can't legally smoke or drink ... for the very same reason, that they don't have the maturity to do so!!!

    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    No, a secular eduaction offers policy based on evidence, and not the empty rhetoric of a group of beardy old paedophiles 2,500 years dead.
    More hoary old adhominems.
    Of course Christian Abstinance Pledges are actually based on the New Testament imperative to respect onself and ones fellow Human Beings!!!
    .. and the 100,000 teen recipients who become pregnant each year in Britain and one in five with Chlamydia adds up to a big 'fail' for everyone involved !!!

    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Fixed this part too.
    If secularists were as good at 'fixing' the problem of under-age sex, drugs and drink you might have a point!!
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    And do you know what, I've got things to do which are more useful to humanity than correcting your insane ramblings, like scratching my testes. So I'll leave it at that.
    As you are not addressing the issue in a civil manner ...
    you have lost the argument already.


  • #76
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,614 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Abstinence only sex education? Oh good. One of my pet peeves. An incredibly naive and simplistic approach to this issue that comes across as being more about inducing guilt and proselytizing than dealing with a complex topic. When I was in secondary school we got sex ed through science class (if seeing a video of a woman giving birth when you're 13-14 doesn't make you cringe I don't know what will), more in R.E. class (just the facts, ma'am), some chastity advocates who brought some levity to the situation and an outside expert who covered everything again. I can't think what else could have made what we got more comprehensive - some LGBT content, I guess, but that's a can of worms that'll obviously turn people gay.

    Let me be clear, though. I'm in favour of people saying 'no', if that is what they want on what they are feeling. However, 'no' should not be taught solely on a 'this is wrongz!!!11111!' basis, which is the vibe that tends to come from the abstinence only camp. Everyone should have the right to say no with confidence, and crucially, the person hearing the no should be taught to respect it. If they don't and keep piling on the pressure it means they're a dick.

    As for abstinence only working...
    Abstinence from sexual intercourse is an important behavioral strategy for preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy among adolescents. Many adolescents, including most younger adolescents, have not initiated sexual intercourse and many sexually experienced adolescents and young adults are abstinent for varying periods of time. There is broad support for abstinence as a necessary and appropriate part of sexuality education. Controversy arises when abstinence is provided to adolescents as a sole choice and where health information on other choices is restricted or misrepresented. Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs. Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot marry, and most initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviors as adolescents. Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic. A recent emphasis on abstinence-only programs and policies appears to be undermining more comprehensive sexuality education and other government-sponsored programs. We believe that abstinence-only education programs, as defined by federal funding requirements, are morally problematic, by withholding information and promoting questionable and inaccurate opinions. Abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life.

    Source
    Abstract
    Purpose
    The role that sex education plays in the initiation of sexual activity and risk of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) is controversial in the United States. Despite several systematic reviews, few epidemiologic evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs on a population level have been conducted.

    Methods
    Among never-married heterosexual adolescents, aged 15–19 years, who participated in Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth and reported on formal sex education received before their first sexual intercourse (n = 1719), we compared the sexual health risks of adolescents who received abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education to those of adolescents who received no formal sex education. Weighted multivariate logistic regression generated population-based estimates.

    Results
    Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively).

    Conclusions
    Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.

    Source

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • #77
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I think that fits nicely with the reality of things. Abstinance only programmes create young people that are not ready for the realities of life. People have sex. These idiotic programmes prevent young people from knowing how to do it safely.
    OK lets look at the facts...

    Quote Wikipedia:-
    In 2010, the teenage birth rate in the United States reached a historic low: 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19.[16] More than three-quarters of these births are to adult women aged 18 or 19.[16] In 2005 in the U.S., the majority (57%) of teen pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 27% ended in an induced abortion, and 16% in a fetal loss. [17]

    The U.S. teen birth rate was 53 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 in 2002,[5] the highest in the developed world.[8] If all pregnancies, including those that end in abortion or miscarriage, are taken into account, the total rate in 2000 was 75.4 pregnancies per 1,000 girls. Nevada and the District of Columbia have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S., while North Dakota has the lowest.[18] Over 80% of teenage pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended;[19] approximately one third end in abortion, one third end in spontaneous miscarriage, and one third will continue their pregnancy and keep their baby.[20]

    However, the trend is decreasing: in 1990, the birth rate was 61.8, and the pregnancy rate 116.9 per thousand. This decline has manifested across all racial groups, although teenagers of African-American and Hispanic descent retain a higher rate, in comparison to that of European-Americans and Asian-Americans. The Guttmacher Institute attributed about 25% of the decline to abstinence and 75% to the effective use of contraceptives.[18]

    ... so Abstinence Pledges are working and they directly account for 25% of the dramatic reduction in teen births over the past ten years (down from 53 to 34 per thousand teen births)

    ... and that is not even taking into account the fact that more than 75% of teen births in America are to adult women aged 18-19 who may be in stable relationships and have benefitted from an Abstinence Pledge before they became pregnant.
    ... or the effect that Abstinence Pledges are having on ensuring more responsible and effective use of contraception when teens wait to engage in sex in more stable relationships ... rather than in drunken high risk 'one night stands' in some back alley.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Hyperbole aside, JC, as usual, hasn't got a fcuking clue what he is talking about. This is most likey due to the fact that he couldn't recognise evidence if it walked up to him on the street, bent him over and sodomised him.
    Name calling is a sign of a lost argument, Mr P.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Young people will have sex. My preference is for them to leave it until they are older, but I want them to be knowledgable enough to be able to do it safely. Running round shouting "thou shalt not have sex" challenges creationism for levels of retardedness.

    MrP
    Young under-age teens don't necessarily have to have sex ... and many don't ... just like they don't have to drink or use drugs.

    ... and Abstinance Pledges are working spectacularily well at changing teen behaviour for the better in America ...
    ... while treating young people like feral animals (who supposedly have no control over their sexual behaviour) have failed spectacularily!!!:)


  • #78
    freyners
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭freyners


    Never mind, silly comment


  • #79
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    freyners wrote: »
    Never mind, silly comment
    The issue of changing teen behaviour to reduce the damaging effects of under-age sex, should be one that unites Secularists and Christians ... but it obviously doesn't, if we are to judge by the remarks in the last 10 posts.


  • #80
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,614 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Abstention is not the silver bullet advocates think it is. Policing people's personal, social and health behaviours based on a narrow range of ideas 'just don't do it!!' can never be the answer.

    Oops.
    Other scientific data also challenge the federal government’s efforts to promote abstinence-only strategies. The limited evaluations of abstinence-only sex education programs provide no evidence that they are successful in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse.22 Although abstinence is theoretically highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in actual practice abstinence intentions often fail.14,23 Abstinence programs may undermine the promotion of other prevention behaviors. For example, a longitudinal examination of the virginity pledge movement showed that pledgers did delay initiation of sexual intercourse; however, they were less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and were less likely to seek STI screenings.24

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716232/

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • #81
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    Abstention is not the silver bullet advocates think it is. Policing people's personal, social and health behaviours based on a narrow range of ideas 'just don't do it!!' can never be the answer.

    Oops.
    I agree with you on this one ... that there is no 'magic bullet' solution ... but we should use all means at our disposal to reduce this very serious issue for our vulnerable children ... who often think they know more than they actually do.

    Behaviour modification and the encouragement of peer pressure towards self-control are key issues in sex education and indeed the effective use of contraception.
    Just throwing a pack of condoms and a box of pill at the problem while mouthing pious platitudes about 'staying safe' isn't working ... and when you really think about it ... how could it?

    ... and you need to remember that a Secularist's child who is peer-pressured into unwanted and unwise sexual activity is just as vulnerable ... and just as hurt by the experience, as any other child!!!

    That is why I thought that (at least some Secularists) would have common ground with me on this issue ... but the universal dismissal of Abstinence Pledges and their trivialisation on this thread says otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    We're not talking about 'Abstinance only education' which is some kind of 'straw man' invented to disparage a successful sex education programme.
    What we're talking about is Abstinance Pledges where teens pledge to abstain from sex ... .

    O look...the desperate goal post shift...


  • #83
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    O look...the desperate goal post shift...
    There is no shift ... it's you guys who are completely 'off-side' on this one.:)

    Blows whistle ... and heads for a well deserved Christmas drink!!!:)


  • #84
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    Quote:
    Other scientific data also challenge the federal government’s efforts to promote abstinence-only strategies. The limited evaluations of abstinence-only sex education programs provide no evidence that they are successful in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse.22 Although abstinence is theoretically highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in actual practice abstinence intentions often fail.14,23 Abstinence programs may undermine the promotion of other prevention behaviors. For example, a longitudinal examination of the virginity pledge movement showed that pledgers did delay initiation of sexual intercourse; however, they were less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and were less likely to seek STI screenings.24
    Oops.
    ... and what is wrong with young people who have waited until they were in a monagamous relationship being 'less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and ... less likely to seek STI screenings' ... when they needed neither as started having sex in a monogamous relationship when they wished to have a child and had no chance of having an STD because they hadn't 'slept around'???

    That's the objective of Abstinence Pledges ... to avoid STDs and the need to test for them, in the first place!!!
    ... and to allow people to have normal sexual relations leading to pregnancy, when they are ready to have children ... and not to have a life-long STD that prevents both unprotected sex and pregnancy.


    You guys seem to classify success as some kind of 'pseudo-liberal failure' ... and failure as 'success'!!!:eek:


  • #85
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,614 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Well, how I interpreted was that they almost didn't know what contraceptives were for, or how to use them. Sounding like they're not literate in terms of sexual health. That's hardly a positive, then? If people want to wait, I'm not going to judge or berate them for it.

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • #86
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,614 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    I mentioned my own school based sex education experiences earlier. It didn't seem to set half (any?) the class off out sleeping with this and that. I don't recall any one being pregnant - there were rumours, of course. It's not that throwing condoms or the pill at it is the answer alone. That must be part of a broader context of emotional maturity, confident decision making (again let me highlight including say no), having good friends and role models (usually within your peer group is better, not celebrities - I think we can all agree on that). We all took the alcohol pledge around the time of confirmation in primary school, but it came across as stupid and simplistic and most ignored it in secondary school. I think the more mystique we create around an issue like this or sex the more we drive it underground. FWIW, I think there are some occasional, responsible portrayals of this delicate issue in popular culture - Friday Night Lights, iirc. I think also it would be worth discussing problems with pornography in the classroom context to get the message across that it should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I think there are experts who could come from an external source to a school. The online version of this stuff was not accessible when I was that age and it's the elephant that's in the room.

    This should not be an issue that is split into religious or non-religious camps. However, the US based advocates of abstinence seem to beating a particular drum that I certainly can't march to. Handwringing, bent on a particular path from people who might (usually) otherwise favour small government and yet this simplistic approach is top of their agenda for sex education and social control?

    We are all too quick to pathologise youth. We don't listen to them enough.

    But, hey ho. It's Christmas.

    xmastree.gif

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • #87
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    Well, how I interpreted was that they almost didn't know what contraceptives were for, or how to use them. Sounding like they're not literate in terms of sexual health. That's hardly a positive, then? If people want to wait, I'm not going to judge or berate them for it.
    You guys seem to be stuck in the 1950's on this and many other issues.

    There are no young people today who don't know about contraception ...
    and all about the biology and physics of sex.
    However, there are many young people who are being peer-pressured into unwise sexual activity ... and the Abstinence Pledge is just one initiative to help change under-age sexual behaviour (and peer pressure) in an appropriate and responsible direction.


  • #88
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,614 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Seriously? You think they are all clued up and most guys know about a girl's menstrual cycle? Do some Googling of teenage based discussion forums and you may find some are more hungry for information than they are for sex.

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • #89
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    This should not be an issue that is split into religious or non-religious camps. However, the US based advocates of abstinence seem to beating a particular drum that I certainly can't march to. Handwringing, bent on a particular path from people who might (usually) otherwise favour small government and yet this simplistic approach is top of their agenda for sex education and social control?
    It shouldn't divide us ... but if it does then we, as Christians, have every right to implement Abstinance Pledges for our children and to have every assistance from the state in doing so.
    The Black Oil wrote: »
    We are all too quick to pathologise youth. We don't listen to them enough.
    I agree that we need to listen to our young people more than we do ... but we also need to talk to them ... and offer them useful and responsible life advice.
    As adults we're supposed to know more than children about living a happy and successful life ... although, judging by some of the more irresponsible views expressed on this thread, this would not seem to be the case for all of the adults posting here!!!
    The Black Oil wrote: »
    But, hey ho. It's Christmas.

    xmastree.gif
    I agree ... Happy Christmas Black Oil.


  • #90
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    Seriously? You think they are all clued up and most guys know about a girl's menstrual cycle? Do some Googling of teenage based discussion forums and you may find some are more hungry for information than they are for sex.
    ... all sex education programmes that I'm aware of comprehensively cover such 'nuts and bolts' issues ... Could it be that these guys are just bad at Biology ... as it is somewhat unlikely that they slept through the sex ed classes that discussed periods and other items of anatomical interest!!!:)

    The biggest issue is not one of information (although there may be limited exceptions) ... the big issue is one of risky and age-inappropriate sexual behaviour ... and this needs to change for the sake of all of our children.

    It sounds like such change will come first from Christian-ethos schools ... as the Secularists on this thread seem to be more interested in 'rubbishing' it.

    ... and now I'm definitely going to re-join in the Christmas festivities and have that drink!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    This should not be an issue that is split into religious or non-religious camps. However, the US based advocates of abstinence seem to beating a particular drum that I certainly can't march to. Handwringing, bent on a particular path from people who might (usually) otherwise favour small government and yet this simplistic approach is top of their agenda for sex education and social control?

    Actually the religious right don't give two ****s about the size of the government, as long as its a murderous, autocratic theocracy.


  • #92
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Actually the religious right don't give two ****s about the size of the government, as long as its a murderous, autocratic theocracy.
    Just as well I'm not of the religious right (or left) then, I guess!!!:)


  • #93
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    This is why people like J C are dangerous. He'll happily promote and endorse things like abstinence-only education, contributing to teenage pregnancies, STIs and a few abortions here and there, and then turn around and blame the symptoms instead of the cause, which is himself.


  • #94
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    This is why people like J C are dangerous. He'll happily promote and endorse things like abstinence-only education, contributing to teenage pregnancies, STIs and a few abortions here and there, and then turn around and blame the symptoms instead of the cause, which is himself.
    ... Did you not read the quote I posted where 25% of the fall in American teenage pregnancy over the past 10 years was objectively determined to be due to Abstinence Pledges?
    ... and, like I have said, this isn't even taking account of the fact that 75% of teen births in America are to adult women aged 18-19 who are likely to be in stable relationships and have benefitted from an Abstinence Pledge already before they became pregnant as adults.
    ... or the effect that Abstinence Pledges are having on ensuring more responsible and effective use of contraception when teens wait to engage in sex in more stable relationships ... rather than in drunken high risk 'one night stands' in some back alley.

    The proof of which approach is most dangerous is in the results ... and your 'pseudo liberal' programmes are resulting in 100,000 teenage pregnancies in the UK with one fifth of teenagers infected with Chlamydia ... while Abstinence Pledges are independently credited with making a substantial contribution to reducing teenage under-age sex in America.

    ... and I'm not endorsing 'Abstinence only' programmes ... I'm endorsing Abstinence Pledges and any other peer-pressure influencing behaviour that leads to reduced dangerous (and illegal) under-age sex.
    I'm also fully supportive of age-appropriate sex education, including the advantages/disadvantages of all contraceptive methods.
    ... while you guys seem to be happy to sacrifice childrens childhoods and their future health and fertility on the altar of your pseudo-liberal pretensions ... even when such an approach has been evidentially proven to be a disaster!!!

    ... and I'll tell you one thing ... you may sacrifice your own children to such folly ... but Christians will ensure that their children aren't party to the inevitable results when sexually feral children are produced by indoctrinating them into under-age sexual immorality ... in the name of 'liberalism' ... and self-fulfilling ideas like 'they're going to drink, have under-age sex and do drugs anyway'!!!
    The reality is that they're largely not going to do these things, if adults and society at large does all in its power to discourage and prevent such behaviour .. rather than condoning and 'licencing' it.

    We don't make drink, cigarettes and illegal drugs available on demand to our children on the basis that "they're going to do it anyway" ... so why should we tell under-age children that they are going to engage in sex anyway ... and then give them the 'green light' to do so???


  • #95
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    [QUOTE=J C;88162227..........
    ... while you guys seem to be happy to sacrifice childrens childhoods and their future health and fertility on the altar of your pseudo-liberal pretensions ... even when such an approach has been evidentially proven to be a disaster!!!

    .....[/QUOTE]

    Remember this post?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88154764&postcount=69


  • #96
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nodin wrote: »
    Remember this post?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88154764&postcount=69
    I do ... and unfortunately the Dutch situation isn't as good as the teen birth figures might indicated ... the low Dutch teen birth rate is partially achieved on the back of a 65% Dutch teen abortion rate.

    ... and the incidence of Dutch teenage STD rates continue to rise.

    http://www.youthpolicy.nl/yp/Youth-Policy/Youth-Policy-subjects/Sexual-Health/Fact-and-figures

    While the situation in Holland is significantly better than in the US, there is no room for complacency as the American rates are coming down and are now at an historic low (in part due to Abstinence Pledges)
    http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm
    ... while Dutch STD rates are increasing
    http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/stds-rise-netherlands


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    J C wrote: »
    I do ... and -netherlands

    None of which discounts the fact that the non-abstinence scandanavian model provides better results than abstinence programs.

    Please don't come back re-iterating now debunked nonsense about abstinence, pledges, or any of that nonsense. It's clear what works.


  • #98
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Nodin wrote: »
    None of which discounts the fact that the non-abstinence scandanavian model provides better results than abstinence programs.

    Please don't come back re-iterating now debunked nonsense about abstinence, pledges, or any of that nonsense. It's clear what works.

    While I am by nature and conscience totally against anything which promotes chastity amongst young women, if we are talking about promoting healthy lifestyles which guard against the proliferation of sexually transmitted disease then the idea of abstinence is far from nonsense. While the use of condoms and other preventatives is all very well (and should be promoted for high risk groups especially), their efficacy is proven to be far from what is desirable in the long term.


  • #99
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    While I am by nature and conscience totally against anything which promotes chastity amongst young women, if we are talking about promoting healthy lifestyles which guard against the proliferation of sexually transmitted disease then the idea of abstinence is far from nonsense. While the use of condoms and other preventatives is all very well (and should be promoted for high risk groups especially), their efficacy is proven to be far from what is desirable in the long term.

    It's a nonsense. And pointless, when its possible to have safe sex.


  • #100
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's a nonsense. And pointless, when its possible to have safe sex.

    To you and me perhaps it is pointless; indeed if the idea is to have the freedom to bang as many people as possible then it is an odious idea; but there are sections of society for which the idea of a conservative attitude towards sexuality is a real concern and if abstinence and conscientiousness works for them then who can say it is a bad thing, given that the promotion of "safe sex" through the use of condoms etc. is a dismal failure.


  • #101
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    catallus wrote: »
    To you and me perhaps it is pointless; indeed if the idea is to have the freedom to bang as many people as possible then it is an odious idea; but there are sections of society for which the idea of a conservative attitude towards sexuality is a real concern and if abstinence and conscientiousness works for them then who can say it is a bad thing, given that the promotion of "safe sex" through the use of condoms etc. is a dismal failure.


    Given the low rates of pregnancy in states I've mentioned earlier I'm not seeing how it's a "dismal failure".

    If religious folk wish to abstain, that's their own business. They should still be informed of all options however.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement