When Does Life Begin?

real life wrote:

Can you show that earlier generations , where the primary (practically the only) instruction that young folks received about sex was abstinence until marriage, still had the same high teen pregnancy rates and STD rates as the most recent generations?

Go ahead.

Pick a time period in our history before the modern permissive view of sex, and let's compare.

You're not too good at the history thing, are you.

In many cultures, people didn't/don't pair permanently/marry until the woman could/can prove she was able to successfully have children. That means not only sex, but also pregnancy and successful delivery, before marriage.

Take a look at the stats on when women had children in previous generations. Many of us are the children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren of women who had their children as teenagers.

Delaying (first) childbearing until a woman is in her 20's or 30's is a fairly recent development. Gotta be rich (as a society) to wait to have your children.

Modern, permissive view of sex? That's definitely a misconception. Much of North America is more prudish now than the generations and generations that came before.

0 Replies

[quote="real life] Humanity has long experience with what does and doesn't work to prevent teen pregnancy and STDs.[/quote]

(I'm not even bothering with the whole STD thing)

Humanity had no interest in preventing teen pregnancy historically. Women needed to be pregnant early and often for communities to survive.

0 Replies

That's true. It was under control. However, you cannot say that it was under control BECAUSE of the abstinence-only approach.

Incidentally, how is it you support teaching of intelligent design in school, but don't support safer-sex education?

0 Replies

I'd also like to point out that safe-sex education was began IN RESPONSE to an increase in preg kids and stds.

It wasn't the other way around which shows that abstinence-only was failling long before.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Times have changes, and looking at life 50 years ago doesn't change or help. Generations ago, women didn't work either. They stayed at home with the kids.

They stayed home with kids who weren't much younger than the mothers were. Teen mothers.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

That's true. It was under control. However, you cannot say that it was under control BECAUSE of the abstinence-only approach.

To uphold your view:

'Abstinence-only doesn't work.'

you have to be able to show that it was under control IN SPITE of the abstinence-only approach.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Incidentally, how is it you support teaching of intelligent design in school, but don't support safer-sex education?

Again what are you talking about?

0 Replies

Quote:

you have to be able to show that it was under control IN SPITE of the abstinence-only approach

No, I don't. I can show that now, it is NOT under control WITH the abstinence-only approach.

However...

To uphold your view, you have to show that abstinence-only was the direct reason for the controlled situation.

Oh, and my point with the ID thing...

ID proponents claim that it should be taught with evolution so as to provide students with ALL the available information and let them draw their own conclusions. I say, apply the same logic to this situation. Teach them the "theory" of safe-sex to provide them with ALL the information.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Oh, and my point with the ID thing...

ID proponents claim that it should be taught with evolution so as to provide students with ALL the available information and let them draw their own conclusions. I say, apply the same logic to this situation. Teach them the "theory" of safe-sex to provide them with ALL the information.

I guess I could ask the same thing in reverse.

You favor the 'tell the kids all, and let them decide' approach with sex ed.

But you do NOT favor the same approach when it comes to presenting alternatives to evolution.

I could ask: How come?

____________________________________

As I say, I COULD ask that, but I won't.

I really think it's mixing apples with oranges.

0 Replies

I'll go ahead and answer. I have absolutely no issue with them learning of the creation story. However, I do not think it should be taught in a *science* class since it has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. In a religion class, go for it.

Of course, I also would expect to give all other religious theories their fair say as well.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I'll go ahead and answer. I have absolutely no issue with them learning of the creation story. However, I do not think it should be taught in a *science* class since it has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. In a religion class, go for it.

Of course, I also would expect to give all other religious theories their fair say as well.

No doubt you would argue that the religion class should be optional and not required for graduation as a science class might be.

So you are not really advocating ALL students being given both views.

----------------------------------------------------

So then, since the use of condoms is considered a moral issue, then would you favor it only being discussed in a optional religion class?

0 Replies

Hokie,

Back to topic. Did you ever decide EXACTLY when the unborn is a living human being?

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I'd also like to point out that safe-sex education was began....

Here's a great example of 'safe sex education'...........

........ignore the doctors and teach what's politically correct.

Quote:

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Posted: July 11, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

State ignores plea to teach sex factually

Allows district to tell students homosexuality is 'innate'

State education officials in Maryland have rejected a plea from 270 Montgomery County area physicians to require the local school board to include factual information about sex in a new curriculum that establishes homosexuality as "innate" and features a 45-minute lesson on how to use a condom.

The physicians and other opponents of the new home-grown curriculum first had asked the Montgomery County Board of Education, then the state board, to include a warning about anal sex that is critical to student safety - as issued by the Office of the Surgeon General and the National Institutes of Health.

The local board first rejected the request, and now the same response has come from the state board. The two boards also dismissed a long list of other concerns that had been raised about the sex education........

from http://wnd.com/avantgo/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56610

0 Replies

So many replies since my last visit. Damn!

First off, as for MO and the law change. I am personally for standards to be raised. I additionally thik that abortions patients should have more inpatient and outpatient care given. I approve of the change, except for one thing. It is a true republican move to make legislation and then not fund it. Given any other change for any industrial intrests, republicans will rush to give aide. Without our clinics being integrated into our hospitals, this move may have been premature.

Real Life wrote:

How it works is you raise your kids and let others raise theirs.

The irony kills me. RL, now you wish for government to stay out of your family decisions eh? Big problem here.

Real Life wrote:

It is a moral issue to many.

I hold no moral view on the use of condoms.

Too funny. You know what, I'll actually agree with you on one thing RL. Parents need to step up and teach their children about reproductive issues. If for only the reson that it builds a report with their child that they can discuss serious issues with them.

Real Life wrote:

Yes, and I'm not instructing someone how to drive when I show them how to steer the wheel and apply the brakes.

Maybe top 5, when it comes to your worst analogies ever.

Continuing with your own analogy, abstinance only would be the trial by fire method of teaching someone how to drive. The first time the are in a car, and able to see the controls is also the first time they drive a car. They wouldn't know about turn signals, which pedal is the brake, how to parallel park, they wouldn't understand the traffic lights & stop signs. Heaven forbid you put them in a stick shift.

So given two people to ride with, who would you choose: The driver who had been shown how to control the vehicle, or the driver who has never been in a car? Who do you think would get in an accident first?

You are fortunate that you don't choose to reply to my posts, it would be unbearbly embarrasing.

Real Life wrote:

You must think people are very gullible to believe your sales pitch.

The people who invest in this kind of thought seek out the vacume, they don't wait for the salesman to knock on the door.

Real Life wrote:

Can you show that earlier generations , where the primary (practically the only) instruction that young folks received about sex was abstinence until marriage, still had the same high teen pregnancy rates and STD rates as the most recent generations?

The idea of earlier generations and separating teen pregnancy from marital pregnancy is a challenge you should have never given to anyone.

As already stated in this thread, most girls would be married and bearing child in theri early teens. I thought you read the bible? This continued for a very very very long time. It is only in the last two centuries that you being to find unwed teenage girls. Try again.

Real Life wrote:

Pick a time period in our history before the modern permissive view of sex, and let's compare.

Done.

As for sex education that includes information about other sexualities, and the claim that homosexuality is innate Consider this: There are gay children they deserve sexual education too correct? Homosexuality exists in other animals other than humans correct? The burden of proof that homosexuality is a choice fall on the opponent to do list. There are plenty of reasons to teach otherwise.

Further, if we were to even have 100% proof that it was not innate, and that it was a choice, The burden would be even more great to estblish that it is a wrong choice.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I wonder what percentage of devout or born-again Christians become so as a direct result of the fear of their own homosexual urges....conciously or otherwise.

I'd love a dollar for every time I asked the question about someone... "Gay?" and had the response, " No, he's Christian."

I bet "real life" is real tidy around the house :wink:

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I wonder what percentage of devout or born-again Christians become so as a direct result of the fear of their own homosexual urges....conciously or otherwise.

I'd love a dollar for every time I asked the question about someone... "Gay?" and had the response, " No, he's Christian."

I bet "real life" is real tidy around the house :wink:

One of the unfortunate aspects of most Christian teachings is that they are very sex-negative. Not only homosexuality, but premarital sex, masturbation, birth control, sex instruction, pornography, celibacy, etc. All have their place for certain people at certain times. Christians seem to have a lot of guilt associated with sex. I don't favor promiscuity, or sex as compulsive pleasure-seeking. However, I think guilt about sex causes a lot of psychological pain for Christians.

0 Replies

Absolutely. Nice to agree with you for a change, IFF Very Happy

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I wonder what percentage of devout or born-again Christians become so as a direct result of the fear of their own homosexual urges....conciously or otherwise.

I'd love a dollar for every time I asked the question about someone... "Gay?" and had the response, " No, he's Christian."

I bet "real life" is real tidy around the house :wink:

You'd lose your money, Eorl.

My wife and kids consider me a terribly messy person. And they are right.

You're wondering about Christians becoming Christians because of homosexual urges? Laughing

This has got to be the weirdest thing you've ever said.

I know many homosexuals -- at work I have hired and been hired by homosexuals, in my neighborhood, and in my extended family. NONE of them that I have known profess to be Christians.

I wonder what some homosexuals think of your stereotype of them?

Meanwhile, you have completely ignored the topic. When last we heard from you, I had asked you to prove that you only support abortion because you are concerned about the woman:

If the unborn poses 0% risk to a woman and compromises NONE of her rights, do you agree that he/she has a right to life?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

One of the unfortunate aspects of most Christian teachings is that they are very sex-negative.

Teaching the difference between use and misuse isn't negative. It's the right thing to do.

You would teach the difference between use and misuse in many other areas of life. How come you can't understand that it applies to sex also?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

One of the unfortunate aspects of most Christian teachings is that they are very sex-negative. Not only homosexuality, but premarital sex, masturbation, birth control, sex instruction, pornography, celibacy, etc. All have their place for certain people at certain times. Christians seem to have a lot of guilt associated with sex. I don't favor promiscuity, or sex as compulsive pleasure-seeking. However, I think guilt about sex causes a lot of psychological pain for Christians.

There would be a lot less feelings of guilt if folks would be content to keep the codpiece closed.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:

One of the unfortunate aspects of most Christian teachings is that they are very sex-negative. Not only homosexuality, but premarital sex, masturbation, birth control, sex instruction, pornography, celibacy, etc. All have their place for certain people at certain times. Christians seem to have a lot of guilt associated with sex. I don't favor promiscuity, or sex as compulsive pleasure-seeking. However, I think guilt about sex causes a lot of psychological pain for Christians.
There would be a lot less feelings of guilt if folks would be content to keep the codpiece closed.

I don't think that the cod piece has to open for [many] Christians to feel guilty about sex. I think just having their own natural desires is enough to put them at odds with their beliefs/teachings. I think IFF was trying more to speak to this point.

Real Life wrote:

Teaching the difference between use and misuse isn't negative. It's the right thing to do.

You would teach the difference between use and misuse in many other areas of life. How come you can't understand that it applies to sex also?

I agree with you about the difference between use and misuse, I just question religion's licence to say which is which. Let's not forget the catholic church's effect on the black plague. people wouldn't bathe because it was vulgar to see themselves in nudity etc.

Real Life wrote:

I know many homosexuals -- at work I have hired and been hired by homosexuals, in my neighborhood, and in my extended family. NONE of them that I have known profess to be Christians.

I know many homosexuals as well, and many of them identify as being Christian, Muslim etc. Spirituality is a personal thing, and they have reclaimed it for themselves. Their are now many Gay Churches and youth groups, etc.

T
K
O

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know