It's vital that young people get the correct information, free from bias and meddling. There are so many fallacies out there (I've heard someone say "You can't get pregnant if it's your first time) that the right answers must be given loudly and strongly in an effort to combat them.
Here's the main thing. Abstinence does not work for everyone. Yes it is 100% effective if you follow it. But really how many young people actually wait until marriage. I know I didn't. I know 90% of my friends didn't. So basically under the US system we would all be without any information about condoms or about birth control. Well that seems like a recipe for disaster. Young people are going to have sex whether you preach abstinence or not. However if they don't know the facts then the outcome will be much worse, with higher instances of STI's and pregnacies.
Why can the religious right not realise that pushing your beliefs onto others is immoral and doesn't work?
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Why can the religious right not realise that pushing your beliefs onto others is immoral and doesn't work?
Hi, whilst it may be predominantly religious folk that promote abstinance, I really think that anyone with children that is against all forms of abortion would also fit into this category.
Simply put, until you've had a child (which is a HECK of alot of responsibility) it really is risky using contraceptives. If obcourse you have no problem with abortion the choices are easier, but if you oppose abortion, you should realise that keeping the child changes one's life.
If I can give my daughter just one piece of advice about men, it would be that the first man she sleeps with (out of marriage) will probably not be the last man she'll sleep with. If she fully understands that, well, go ahead. I think too many teenagers fall in love and think it will last forever when we all know it probably wont. To have a kid as the result isn't really what you want.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYa and "waiting until marriage" is hardly a cure for pregnancy. Or the clap etc.
It's vital that young people get the correct information, free from bias and meddling. There are so many fallacies out there (I've heard someone say "You can't get pregnant if it's your first time) that the right answers must be given loudly and strongly in an effort to combat them.
Here's the main thing. Abstinence does not work for everyone. Yes ...[text shortened]... religious right not realise that pushing your beliefs onto others is immoral and doesn't work?
It would be if everyone followed it. Of course being as people are people not everyone will follow it and it will solve nothing. And the fact that the divorce rate is almost 50% doesn't help matters either. But of course the Religious right never mention this fact.
I agree that if you are going to have sex you have to realise that there can be consequences. You or your partner could get pregnant, even if you took all the right precautions. Or one of you could end up giving the other one an STI.
If you can accept these possibilities and minimise the chances (get checked for STI's first and use condoms and possibly the pill as well) then fine. If you can't then fine as well.
Originally posted by pcaspianI think a lot of what you've said here is right on point.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
[b]
Why can the religious right not realise that pushing your beliefs onto others is immoral and doesn't work?
Hi, whilst it may be predominantly religious folk that promote abstinance, I really think that anyone with children that is against all forms of abortion would also fit into this category.
Simply p ...[text shortened]... er when we all know it probably wont. To have a kid as the result isn't really what you want.
[/b]
Would you mind clarifying this for me though?
Simply put, until you've had a child . . . it really is risky using contraceptives.
How does having a child decrease the risk of getting pregnant a second time while using contraception?
If you are assuming that once you have a child, you chance of getting an unwanted pregnancy decreases, then I'd have to disagree. I'm happily married with one child. My wife and I use contraception. I sure as hell don't want another kid anytime soon!
Why on earth would people deprive themselves from something so enjoyable??
It's beyond me.
Proper education and a breaking of all these pathetic taboos is what is needed.
It's human instinct to want to have sex. It becomes a part of human's drive at a certain age. There's no point to abstinence other than mind control.
Originally posted by shavixmirJeez...that last sentence there sounded pretty paranoid....
Why on earth would people deprive themselves from something so enjoyable??
It's beyond me.
Proper education and a breaking of all these pathetic taboos is what is needed.
It's human instinct to want to have sex. It becomes a part of human's drive at a certain age. There's no point to abstinence other than mind control.
The problem is that people seem to think that condoms are the answer to everything. They aren't. I read about a scientific study where they found approximately 10% of condoms fail. I find that a scary statistic., considering how much reliance is placed on them to prevent STD.
Originally posted by pcaspian
I really think that anyone with children that is against all forms of abortion would also [promote abstinence].
Simply put, until you've had a child ... it really is risky using contraceptives. If obcourse you have no problem with abortion the choices are easier, but if you oppose abortion, you should realise that keeping the child changes one's life.
Could you rephrase these another way? I am unable to make sense of
the idea that the risk of using contraception is diminished by having
a child.
Are you trying to say:
'If a person is personally pro-choice, then they don't innately feel a
need to use contraception because they can always have an abortion.'
If you are saying this, I disagree. I've never heard a proponent of
pro-choice state that a person shouldn't use birth control because
there's an abortion clinic on every corner. I don't think any person
in their right mind would encourage abortion as the primary form of
birth control, considering the physical and emotional impact it has
on the woman.
Similarly, it would seem intuitive to me that people who are opposed
to abortion would embrace birth control; no conceptions = no abortions,
no?
People may be opposed to sex outside of marriage, but the idea that
such people who engage in this practice shouldn't be educated about
the ways to prevent unwanted pregancies just seems to beg for a
confused teen to turn to the option of abortion.
I like the analogy I read on this site: While the best way to avoid
getting in a car accident is never to get in a car, this fact negates
neither the validity nor value of seat-belt education, for we know
that teenagers are going to get into a car. Statistically, 50% of
high schoolers have had sex by the time they graduate; to ignore
this fact by not teaching about birth control seems to invite rather
than discourage abortion.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioIf I could give this multiple recommendation, I would!
I like the analogy I read on this site: While the best way to avoid
getting in a car accident is never to get in a car, this fact negates
neither the validity nor value of seat-belt education, for we know
that teenagers are going to get into a car. Statistically, 50% of
high schoolers have had sex by the time they graduate; to ignore
this fact by not teaching about birth control seems to invite rather
than discourage abortion.
The only problem with Nemesio's post is that it's too logical. The abstinence-only crowd will never accept that. 🙁
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by KneverKnightThis is religious right meddling.
Controvery over US Federally funded abstinence program.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/02/abstinence.education.ap/index.html
Religious-right meddling exposed or typical left-wing arrogance?
Teaching abstinence to teenagers is like teaching fish NOT to swim.
Originally posted by nemesioI think the analogy is flawed - simply because not using a car is rarely a viable and sustainable option. There is always a risk of accident no matter which mode of transport you choose - cars, buses, trains, airplanes, boats, whatever. Given this fact and the necessity of transportation, a car is usually the optimal solution if one does a cost-benefit or risk-reward type analysis.
I like the analogy I read on this site: While the best way to avoid
getting in a car accident is never to get in a car, this fact negates
neither the validity nor value of seat-belt education, for we know
that teenagers are going to get into a car. Statistically, 50% of
high schoolers have had sex by the time they graduate; to ignore
this fact by not teaching about birth control seems to invite rather
than discourage abortion.
Nemesio
With teenage sex, however, there is never a necessity.