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
Pure in heart abstinence only education
Options
Comments
-
Not true ... people who take Abstinence Pledges do delay sexual activity ... and when they do start to have sex they are more likely to do so to get pregnant because they are in mature stable safe relationships that don't require constant STD testing.Brian Shanahan wrote: »Do you know what is a hell of a lot less effective than contraception catallus [sic]? Abstinence only education, because those "educated" by this means are no less likely to have sex (and at the same age) but are far less likely to either use contraception when having sex, or know the consequences of having sex.
Quote:-
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
... and Abstinence has been independently credited with accounting for 25% of the decline in teen pregnancies in America over the past 10 years ... and if Abstinence Pledges were more widespread (and the pseudo-liberals weren't so obsessed with using pills and condoms) ... and treating under-age children like sexually feral animals, that have to be chemically 'spayed' ... further progress would undoubtedly have been made in reducing the horriffic levels of STDs out there amongst our teenagers.
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]
I don't want any child becoming pregnant or getting an STD ... and the pseudo-liberal approach is resulting in both exploding teen pregnancies and STDs.Brian Shanahan wrote: »If you seriously want to see more teens having children, I hope you're willing to go out and adopt the children of parents unable to take care of them, because it is the likes of you and JC who are causing the problem, catallus [sic].
... and you guys have the audacity to blame the people who abstain from sex outside of a monogamous relationship (and encourage others to also do so) for causing the explosion in teen pregnancy and STDs!!!
... this has just about the same 'logic' as blaming the road safety authorities messages on safe behaviour on our roads for being the cause of road accidents!!!
It is the 'pill in one hand and the condom in the other' mentality that is 'licencing' the current disasterous waves of promiscuity. Like I have said, contraception has a definite role to play within a mature monagamous relationship ... but it is distinctly inappropriate and downright dangerous as the sole means of changing the irresponsible sexual behaviour of a minority of teenagers many of whom are under-age!!
Abstinence Pledges treat our children as thinking, morally-sensitive Human Beings, while the 'contracepting mentality' treats them as feral animals unable to control their lusts to the point of pressurising each other into unwise and illegal sex ... and therefore requiring chemical sterilisation backed up by condoms ... none of which are effective in preventing the transmission of several types of STD ... and both of which have failure rates that undoubtedly are making a significant contribution to the explosion in teen pregnancy and STDs.
... and do you know what? ... many of the children behave, just like their parents expect them to behave ... and how they are taught to behave in their respective school systems!!!0 -
Abstinence Pledges treat our children as thinking, morally-sensitive Human Beings, while the contracepting mentality treats them as feral animals unable to control their lusts to the point of pressurising each other into unwise and illegal sex ... and therefore requiring chemical sterilisation backed up by condoms ... none of which are effective in preventing the transmission of several types of STD ... and both of which have failure rates that undoubtedly are making a significant contribution to the explosion in teen pregnancy and STDs.
... and do you know what? ... the children of both sets of parents behave, just like their parents expect them to behave ... and how they are taught to behave in their respective school systems!!!
"chemical sterilisation"............?
I've shown earlier that the Scandanavian approach works. Yet here you are trotting out this cack again, and trying to conflate abstinence pledges with abstinence only education at the same time.0 -
I'm not sure if you're aware of how polite debate works on the internet, or at least, how it works here in A+A.
For the avoidance of doubt, if a poster makes some claim of fact, then he or she may be asked to justify the claim and that's what Nodin has done here. But instead of answering the question and justifying the claim in good faith, you've reacted aggressively and failed to justify anything. In the cases like this, where a poster who's made a claim has failed to justify it, and especially where continued requests to justify it are met with continued aggression and misdirection, people are free to conclude that the poster in fact can't justify it, and that the claim of fact therefore lapses.
That's what's happened here. And while you're still free, of course, to justify your claim, at this point, it's looking unlikely that you will.Indeed, they are. You're not doing much for your credibility, or for the credibility of your point of view, by telling the forum that instead of answering a fair question, you're packing your bags and running away.
I am only too aware of how "debate" pans out here; I justified myself more than once."chemical sterilisation"............?
I've shown earlier that the Scandanavian approach works. Yet here you are trotting out this cack again, and trying to conflate abstinence pledges with abstinence only education at the same time.
For who, Nodin? Doctors? Really, you need to take your head out of the sand and just face up to the fact that there are other legitimate ways of guiding people.0 -
I am only too aware of how "debate" pans out here; I justified myself more than once. .
Much like the way you backed up your claim, it seems. In a way that's invisible to all but yourself.For who, Nodin? Doctors? Really, you need to take your head out of the sand and just face up to the fact that there are other legitimate ways of guiding people.
I'm only aware of one that produces low teenage pregnancy rates and a healthy attitude to sex.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What do you mean by a 'healthy attitude to sex' for an under-age child?
...the thing is, they don't stay children, but what is instilled in them at that age can be very formative.
Don't try the old 'under age sex' lark, by the way. I'm not going to bite.
Now- "chemical sterilisation"....what does this refer to, if you'd be as good....0 -
Brian, I'm trying to talk here in a serious manner. Seriously.
Well then, instead of replying to me with two word dismissals engage in the topic. I made a statement of fact, that absitinence only "education" was more likely to cause unwanted pregnancies than the use of contraceptives, a well evidenced fact. If you had engaged in the debate you'd have known this, because you'd have read up on the evidence quite a few people posting in this thread have provided and realised that the position you held (i.e. that abstinence only was worth something as regards sexual education) was baseless, and actively harmful to the health of teens.
Do you see why I get annoyed by the likes of you? You make baseless statements, dismiss the opposition without engagement, and then when you are called on it you go on a hissy fit, accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing.
The facts are laid out, the argument is clear. Either try to debate it properly or don't bother replying in this thread.0 -
I agree that children don't stay children forever ... and safe (or indeed dangerous) habits can be formed and stay with them for life ... and that is another good reason for Abstinence Pledges ... and why they can have life-long benefits in terms of health and safety ... long after the Abstinence Pledge has served its purpose and they are happily married and raising their own family....the thing is, they don't stay children, but what is instilled in them at that age can be very formative.
We are largely talking about under-age children here ... when we are talking about Abstinence Pledges ... and tragically, these are also the most likely age group to be peer-pressured into inappropriate and unsafe sex - and all you guys seem to be offfering them is a packet of condoms and a prescription for the pill !!!Don't try the old 'under age sex' lark, by the way. I'm not going to bite.
... and while they still are children, we should be instilling behaviours (and creating a peer environment) that will help to protect them from sexual predators of all ages, including predators within their own age group!!!
It refers to either short-term or longer term chemically induced infertility ... which is distinctly inappropriate for under-age girls as it doesn't protect against STDs, can lead to fertility difficulties in later life, when they may want to have a baby ... and encourages peer-pressure to engage in illegal and seriously damaging sexual behaviour.Now- "chemical sterilisation"....what does this refer to, if you'd be as good....0 -
You are so disingenuous it hurts sometimes.0
-
I agree that (.........)and a prescription for the pill !!!
.
The title of the thread is "Pure in heart abstinence only education". If you want to start a thread about Pledges, feel free.... and while they still are children, we should be instilling behaviours (and creating a peer environment) that will help to protect them from sexual predators of all ages, including predators within their own age group!!!.
Do please explain.It refers to either short-term or longer term chemically induced infertility ...
.
The pill. The pill is not "chemical sterilisation" and to present it in such terms is ignorant scaremongering at its worst. Totally in keeping with your general tone, however.0 -
Advertisement
-
It refers to either short-term or longer term chemically induced infertility ... which is distinctly inappropriate for under-age girls as it doesn't protect against STDs, can lead to fertility difficulties in later life, when they may want to have a baby ... and it encourages peer-pressure to engage in illegal and seriously damaging sexual behaviour.
No, it doesn't. Chemical castration refers to administering medication to remove sexual desire, or to render one incapable of sexual intercourse.0 -
What's disingenuous about the "abstinence" proponents is that they hide their religious motivations. They pretend that they are advocating abstinence for health reasons, this is not their primary reason for doing so.
For many religious (esp. Christian) people, sex is a moral issue. Unmarried people having sex is wrong. Contraception may be wrong. However, lurking in the background is abortion. A contraceptive failure may well lead to an abortion, which is (to many Christians) the ultimate evil.
Abstinence is the only solution that satisfies their moral agenda.
However rather than come straight out and say "don't have sex, because my religion says so", they hide behind health issues instead.0 -
Abstinence Pledges are the Born Again Christian equivalent of the Roman Catholic 'Pure in Heart' programme. Christians may differ on some of the details, but they support the general principles behind both programmes. The benefits of both types of programme can therefore be profitably discussed on this thread ... unless you guys are sectarian as well as Atheists.The title of the thread is "Pure in heart abstinence only education". If you want to start a thread about Pledges, feel free.
Sexual predators are to be found in all age groups after puberty ... and under-age children are most likely nowadays to be a victim of a sexual predator within their own age group.Do please explain.
The pill and implants provide temporary chemically-induced sterility. This is a fact.The pill. The pill is not "chemical sterilisation" and to present it in such terms is ignorant scaremongering at its worst. Totally in keeping with your general tone, however.
Low-dose pills operate on the very edge of sterility ... and forgetting to take just one pill at the wrong time of the month or even an upset stomach can restore fertility ... with an unwanted pregnancy, very often the result!!!
You may be confusing chemical sterilisation with chemical castration which, as Kylith has helpfully pointed out, is the administeration of medication to remove sexual desire, or to render one incapable of sexual intercourse.0 -
Abstinence Pledges are the Born Again Christian equivalent of the Roman Catholic 'Pure in Heart' programme. Christians may differ on some of the details, but they support the general principles behind both programmes. The benefits of both types of programme can therefore be profitably discussed on this thread ... unless you guys are sectarian as well as Atheists..
It has nothing to do with sex education.Sexual predators are to be found in all age groups after puberty ... and under-age children are most likely nowadays to be a victim of a sexual predator within their own age group...
A 15 year old wanting sex with a 15 year old is not a sexual predator.The pill and implants provide temporary chemically-induced sterility. This is a fact.
Low-dose pills operate on the very edge of sterility ... and forgetting to take just one pill at the wrong time of the month or even an upset stomach can restore fertility ... with an unwanted pregnancy, very often the result!!!
You may be confusing chemical sterilisation with chemical castration which, as Kylith has helpfully pointed out, is the administeration of medication to remove sexual desire, or to render one incapable of sexual intercourse.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying that your characterisation of the pill is ignorant hysterical scaremongering nonsense and yet another example of why anyone who shares your mentality should have no input into any sex education policy.0 -
The real disingenuity is to supposedly try to reduce under-age sex by providing the means, the opportunity and the encouragement along with the highest possible peer group pressure to engage in under-age sex ... to our teenagers!!!You are so disingenuous it hurts sometimes.
... and then claiming that anybody, who points out the inherent flaws in such an a approach, is causing the teen pregnancy and STD explosion.:eek:0 -
The real disingenuity is to supposedly try to reduce under-age sex by providing the means, the opportunity and the encouragement along with the highest possible peer group pressure to engage in under-age sex ... to our teenagers!!!
... and then claiming that anybody, who points out the inherent flaws in such an a approach, is causing the teen pregnancy and STD explosion.:eek:
It's been shown that explicit sex education works. Your notion doesn't. It's really that simple.0 -
The immoral agenda of the 'pseudo-liberal' is certainly a factor in their so-called 'sexual health' programmes which are overtly designed to facilitate promiscuity.What's disingenuous about the "abstinence" proponents is that they hide their religious motivations. They pretend that they are advocating abstinence for health reasons, this is not their primary reason for doing so.
For many religious (esp. Christian) people, sex is a moral issue. Unmarried people having sex is wrong. Contraception may be wrong. However, lurking in the background is abortion. A contraceptive failure may well lead to an abortion, which is (to many Christians) the ultimate evil.
Abstinence is the only solution that satisfies their moral agenda.
However rather than come straight out and say "don't have sex, because my religion says so", they hide behind health issues instead.
Because they see no issue with living sexually-immoral lives themselves, they see no problem with everybody else behaving promiscuously ... apparently, including under-age children who should not be engaging in sex, in the first place!!
Abstinence has both health and moral benefits ... and these benefits are significant for all under-age children, irrespective of whether monogamy is practiced by their parents or not.0 -
It all depends on what you mean by 'explicit' and 'works'.It's been shown that explicit sex education works. Your notion doesn't. It's really that simple.
If by 'works' you mean 100,000 UK teen pregnancies per year and one in five of them with Chlamydia, then I wouldn't like to know what you would define as 'failure'!!
If by 'explicit' you mean providing comprehensive sex information, including the serious disadvantages of each method of contraception, as well as any benefits ... and the moral, psycho-sexual and serious health downsides of promiscuity, then I'm all for it.
If it is just a 'how to do it - and don't get caught' type of amoral sex promotion programme, then it will certainly do more harm than good in reducing harmful sexual practices amongst our teenagers.0 -
The immoral agenda of the 'pseudo-liberal' is certainly a factor in their so-called 'sexual health' programmes which are overtly designed to facilitate promiscuity.
Because they see no issue with living sexually-immoral lives themselves, they see no problem with everybody else behaving promiscuously ... apparently, including under-age children who should not be engaging in sex, in the first place!!
Abstinence has both health and moral benefits ... and these benefits are significant for all under-age children, irrespective of whether monogamy is practiced by their parents or not.
The problem is that moralistic preachiness should not be mixed with sexual health education. If you want to tell kids and young adults that having sex is morally wrong do it from the pulpit, not in a health education program.
Your use of the terms "sexually immoral" and "promiscuous" shows that you are viewing this in what many would consider to be an old-fashioned moral perspective. Young people today will make up their own minds about what is right and wrong, and they will have sex, whether you like it or not. You simply cannot expect to be able to force them to share your morals when it comes to sexual behaviour.
We have an obligation to give young people the information they need to inform their decisions, without trying to force those decisions to conform to a specific religious moral viewpoint.0 -
You know, you do have some valid points, but the obfuscation and contextomy you engage in does much to muddy them and alienate the other posters here.If by 'works' you mean 100,000 UK teen pregnancies per year and one in five of them with Chlamydia, then I wouldn't like to know what you would define as 'failure'!!
So, context for the figures:
Teenage mothers, per capita, are at the lowest number in the UK since the 50s.
I'd call that a success.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moral 'preachiness' works in reducing dangerous driving and tax evasion ... and it can equally reduce dangerous sexual behaviour amongst our teens as well !!!The problem is that moralistic preachiness should not be mixed with sexual health education. If you want to tell kids and young adults that having sex is morally wrong do it from the pulpit, not in a health education program.
I am not forcing them to do anything ... I am appealing to their logical minds and pointing out the (moral and health) downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour. They will have to live with the consequences of irresponsible driving and sexual behaviour ... why should they only be warned of the downsides of dangerous and morally iresponsible driving behaviour?Your use of the terms "sexually immoral" and "promiscuous" shows that you are viewing this in what many would consider to be an old-fashioned moral perspective. Young people today will make up their own minds about what is right and wrong, and they will have sex, whether you like it or not. You simply cannot expect to be able to force them to share your morals when it comes to sexual behaviour.
We must give them all of the information required to many fully informed decisions in relation to sex ... and that includes full disclosure of information on the downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour.We have an obligation to give young people the information they need to inform their decisions, without trying to force those decisions to conform to a specific religious moral viewpoint.0 -
In a sense this is partly true, however tax evasion and dangerous driving are considered as "bad things" by most people, regardless of religious persuasion. When it comes to sex, this is not the case.Moral 'preachiness' works in reducing dangerous driving and tax evasion ... and it can equally reduce dangerous sexual behaviour amongst our teens as well !!!I am not forcing them to do anything ... I am appealing to their logical minds and pointing out the (moral and health) downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour. They will have to live with the consequences of irresponsible driving and sexual behaviour ... why should they only be warned of the downsides of dangerous and morally iresponsible driving behaviour?
We must give them all of the information required to many fully informed decisions in relation to sex ... and that includes full disclosure of information on the downsides of dangerous sexual behaviour.
I agree that the risks associated with sex should be explained, but with a view to young adults learning how to evaluate those risks, and how to minimise their exposure to them.
I disagree with the use of exaggered and hyped descriptions of the risks as a sneaky way of scaring young people off having sex. For one thing, it's dishonest, and worse, by over-stressing the risks it can lead to a lack of trust by young people in the information being provided. Young people can smell a moralistic undertone a mile off, and that may lead them to discount genuine risks as "ah, they only say that so you'll be afraid to have sex".0 -
It all depends on (...........)teenagers.
We've been over this before
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88154856&postcount=73
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88154764&postcount=690 -
Under-age pregnacies and abortions are soaring ... I'd call that a very serious failure!!Sulla Felix wrote: »You know, you do have some valid points, but the obfuscation and contextomy you engage in does much to muddy them and alienate the other posters here.
So, context for the figures:
Teenage mothers, per capita, are at the lowest number in the UK since the 50s.
I'd call that a success.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4839713/Teenage-abortions-hit-record-as-under-16-pregnancy-rate-soars.html0 -
Under-age pregnacies and abortions are soaring ... I'd call that a very serious failure!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4839713/Teenage-abortions-hit-record-as-under-16-pregnancy-rate-soars.html
From the article:The number of under 16s getting pregnant leapt by 6.4 per cent, the figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
Meanwhile the overall rate for all girls under 18 rose for the first time since 2002.
An increase of 6.4% isn't exactly "soaring", in my view anyway.
Also note that there hasn't been an increase since 2002, which would suggest that for over ten years the approach taken has been effective.0 -
We are talking about under-age sex and promiscuous behaviour (and very often a combination of the two) ... so are you saying that Atheists are so immoral that they wish to promote and see nothing wrong with under-age sex and promiscuity?In a sense this is partly true, however tax evasion and dangerous driving are considered as "bad things" by most people, regardless of religious persuasion. When it comes to sex, this is not the case.
This is perhaps the 'kernal' of the issue ... you guys seem to believe that under-age and/or promiscuous sex is OK ... but Christians don't ... another good reason to retain Christian-run schools for our children ... and let you guys 'experiment' with your childrens futures, if that is what ye wish to do.
We can both agree on that.I agree that the risks associated with sex should be explained, but with a view to young adults learning how to evaluate those risks, and how to minimise their exposure to them.
... just like they show graphic images of the results of dangerous driving and moralise about the risks to other road users and yourself ... 'because they want you to be afraid of driving'!!!:eek:I disagree with the use of exaggered and hyped descriptions of the risks as a sneaky way of scaring young people off having sex. For one thing, it's dishonest, and worse, by over-stressing the risks it can lead to a lack of trust by young people in the information being provided. Young people can smell a moralistic undertone a mile off, and that may lead them to discount genuine risks as "ah, they only say that so you'll be afraid to have sex".
Come on guys, you can do better than this!!!
Please give young people some credit ... they are morally responsible and intelligent people who should be provided with all of the information on sex ... and not just the information to 'sell' promiscuity and contraception as the supposed 'norm' for under-age children, who shouldn't be engaging in sex (promiscuous or otherwise) in the first place.0 -
We are talking about under-age sex and promiscuous behaviour (and very often a combination of the two) ... so are you saying that Atheists are so immoral that they wish to promote and see nothing wrong with under-age sex and promiscuity?
.........
The old 'why do you want under age sex' line again? Dear o dear....0 -
On the back of an already very high figure it certainly is going in the wrong direction ... despite more condoms and pills being made ever more freely available as the supposed only 'solution' !!From the article:
An increase of 6.4% isn't exactly "soaring", in my view anyway.
Also note that there hasn't been an increase since 2002, which would suggest that for over ten years the approach taken has been effective.
... and yet ye see no link!!!!
There are none so blind as s/he who will not see!!!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
In areas where government policy isn't being fully or properly implemented. In every area in which it has been, numbers are falling. That's from your very own link.Under-age pregnacies and abortions are soaring ... I'd call that a very serious failure!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4839713/Teenage-abortions-hit-record-as-under-16-pregnancy-rate-soars.html
Again, your constant painting of this nuanced and subtle issue in only the starkest black and white does nothing for your cause.0
Advertisement