Anyone see 60 minutes today? Federal funding for abstinence programs

[Train]

How is teaching kids abstinence religious in nature?

Just because religions back abstinence that means abstinence is a strictly religious idea? Thats retarted. Thats like saying we should stop prosecuting murder because not murdering people is a faith based initiative. And we cant go spending money on a religious idea now can we?

The "blame everything on religion" has gone way overboard, and will now wash out whatever point the anti religious (excuse me, "secular") were trying to make in the first place. Just the other day someone blamed "religous zealots" for trying to keep alcohol away from kids in school, yet religion had nothing to do with it. In the words of a certain forum member, "It goes on and on..." ...yes it does.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Train
How is teaching kids abstinence religious in nature?

Nobody said it was. However, groups which solely teach abstinence and refuse to teach about condoms and other important forms of pregnancy and STD prevention are invariably religious organizations. The group in the 60 minutes piece is religious in nature. Feel free to point to a counter-example.

 

[Spike]

For me the sex-ed in school was worthless, they taught lots about how sex worked but almost nothing about consequences. I attended an additional class at my Church that went more in depth on diseases (complete with pictures, disgusting) and that worked wonders on me. I took a pledge of abstinance and years later married my wife as a virign (yes, she was too).

I am not saying that this is the case with all schools sex-ed, I just found mine lacking in it's depth. I completly believe that absitance is the best choice in the matter and yes, it should be "taught" even though it seems obivous. Remember, this is the same country where we have warning lables on fireworks. C'mon, it's gun powder and a fuse, do you really need any more warning than that? (I LOVE fireworks I just think it's silly to put warning lables on them).

By stressing abstiance we can hopefully inform kids that you don't have to have sex to be "cool". My sister-in-law (sophmore in college) is getting worried because she has never "gone all the way" yet. Thats crazy that you could actually be worried about that, especially since she has never even had a very serious boyfriend. I believe abstiance along with condom use needs to be taught. Abstiance serves to teach a country obsessed with 3 minute drive through lines some patience, especially patience in a very important category.

-spike

 

[Crimson]

Don't worry about consequences, the democrats will make sure you can just abort it.. or get loads of government money for keeping it.

 

[sandorski]

I think we all agree, AO sucks, but Abstinence is good.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Condoms are not 100% effective against STDs? Yes, BUT they are 99% effective. These arguments (@ gen87) are akin to the "evolution is just a theory" arguments. Pure ignorance and rubbish.

Condoms are only as effective as their successful application...condoms are 99% effective when used properly...however, while many teens are being taught to use condoms, they are not receiving proper education on how to properly use them. My high school sex education class recommended using condoms to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs, but we were never taught how to put on a condom.

Furthermore, many teenagers wrongly assume that simply wearing a condom during intercourse will protect them from contracting STDs...how many teens understand the risks associated with oral sex?

Abstinence is the only 100% fullproof way to prevent pregnancy and the risk of disease...I see nothing wrong with teaching teenagers that they should respect sex for what it...holding out for the right person is certainly not a bad thing to teach kids.

On the flip side, teenagers will engage in sex...with that in mind, they should receive a proper education such that they make informed decisions with regards to the risks inherent to unprotected sex.

I think there is room for abstinence and safe sex education in the same classroom...ideally, teenagers should not be having sex, and should be encouraged to wait for that special someone...but for those that choose not to wait, it is essential that they have the knowledge to take the necessary precautions.

 

[glenn1]

Nobody said it was. However, groups which solely teach abstinence and refuse to teach about condoms and other important forms of pregnancy and STD prevention are invariably religious organizations. The group in the 60 minutes piece is religious in nature. Feel free to point to a counter-example.

So what's your point? The validity of an idea is completely independent of the viewpoint of the person that holds it. A viewpoint isn't more wrong or more right because a religious person holds it, just as it's not more or less correct if an atheist were to hold the same viewpoint. You're essentially being acting in a bigoted fashion towards religious folks, and pointing them out as a group whose opinion about something is "more wrong" because of their religiosity.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Train
How is teaching kids abstinence religious in nature?

Just because religions back abstinence that means abstinence is a strictly religious idea? Thats retarted. Thats like saying we should stop prosecuting murder because not murdering people is a faith based initiative. And we cant go spending money on a religious idea now can we?

The "blame everything on religion" has gone way overboard, and will now wash out whatever point the anti religious (excuse me, "secular") were trying to make in the first place. Just the other day someone blamed "religous zealots" for trying to keep alcohol away from kids in school, yet religion had nothing to do with it. In the words of a certain forum member, "It goes on and on..." ...yes it does.

I believe the issue wasn't wanting to keep alcohol out of schools, but the extreme measures being taken to do so. What sort of container are kids supposed to use to carry water? It is well beyond unreasonable to prevent students from having any sort of liquid, and the ony type of container that couldn't be injected successfully would be pressurized aluminum cans, which aren't resealable, and to the best of my knowledge can't even be purchased with water in them.

If kids are getting drunk at school, let the teachers notice and do something about it, don't make it hard to have a sip of water during class!

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Nobody said it was. However, groups which solely teach abstinence and refuse to teach about condoms and other important forms of pregnancy and STD prevention are invariably religious organizations. The group in the 60 minutes piece is religious in nature. Feel free to point to a counter-example.

So what's your point? The validity of an idea is completely independent of the viewpoint of the person that holds it. A viewpoint isn't more wrong or more right because a religious person holds it, just as it's not more or less correct if an atheist were to hold the same viewpoint. You're essentially being acting in a bigoted fashion towards religious folks, and pointing them out as a group whose opinion about something is "more wrong" because of their religiosity.

So what's your point? I couldn't care less if a group is religious or not. However, teaching sex-ed while intentionally leaving out options available which can significantly reduce instances of STD's and unwanted pregnancies is, at the very least, IRRESPONSIBLE.

Religious organizations do this b/c they are promoting their religious agenda at the expense of our youth. The fact that the Federal government would support these organizations (whose "education" runs contrary to comprehensive federally financed studies on these very issues) with funds is outrageous but expected given the current administration. Tell me you don't see a problem with this?

What's next? Federal funds earmarked for teaching Creation? Oh wait..

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Don't worry about consequences, the democrats will make sure you can just abort it.. or get loads of government money for keeping it.

Right on, what a great country we live in!

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: sat4fun
Recent studies state that one that pledges abstinence is four times more likely to engage in oral sex, and six times more likely to engage in anal sex.

Look at the bright side, they are grooming a generation of party girls. Three input girls will become the norm.

ROFL!

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Don't worry about consequences, the democrats will make sure you can just abort it.. or get loads of government money for keeping it.

curses!
you are so close to unveiling my plan for manditory abortions!

 

[0roo0roo]

fat koreans server is up

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: sat4fun
Recent studies state that one that pledges abstinence is four times more likely to engage in oral sex, and six times more likely to engage in anal sex.

Look at the bright side, they are grooming a generation of party girls. Three input girls will become the norm.

Got a link to these statistics?

 

[Jhhnn]

I think that the whole notion of AO is obviously religious in nature. Why else would anybody adhere to such foolishness when it's completely obvious that Nature intended young adults to have sex? The truth is that most teens will have sex many times more than once prior to their 20th birthday, bet on it. It's in our genome, our character as a species, plain and simple. It's been that way for millenia, and is still that way in many parts of the world, where girls are married as young as 13, and a 21 year old virgin is an old maid...

This whole AO bit denies the younger generation the benefits of knowledge quite valuable in married life, as well. People want, and have the right, to plan their families insofar as that's possible. Withholding information about various forms of contraception serves the whole idea of education not at all, and spreading deliberate falsehoods is even more destructive...

The Right is all too eager to adopt non-logic in topics of sex, but vigourously oppose them in other realms. They can argue that abstinence is the only way to be completely safe wrt pregnancy and std's, but sensibly reject the same kind of thinking wrt firearms- if there were no guns, then nobody would accidentally get shot, either... Just as we'll never be rid of firearms, we'll never be rid of sex, either... not everybody has a gun, but we're all sexual creatures...

 

[MisterCornell]

So abstinence is a religious only thing? What a dumbass concept. Maybe they should legalize murder too, because the Bible says "THou shall not kill", and to make murder illegal would be incorporating religious doctrine into state law.

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't say abstinence is a religious only thing, MisterCornell. I said Abstinence Only is obviously a religious thing.

Your analogy to murder is totally specious- even atheists oppose murder, perhaps moreso than religious folk.

 

[0roo0roo]

ugh no. abstinence for silly reasons is religious. lying to people in a deluded effort to save their souls is religious. law isn't based on whether its in the bible, it isn't based on being opposite to the bible, it should be based on reason. holy books contain a myriad of disgusting and outdated ideas, so don't bring up one of the 10 commandments when the rest are pretty damn silly.

 

[zendari]

They should definitely not only teach abstinence, but also proper contraception use and monogamy.

 

[Rainsford]

Man do I love arguments against contraceptives. "They aren't always effective." Well duh, nothing is "always effective". My seatbelt isn't going t save me if I get hit by an 18-wheeler going 90 mph, but I still wear it.

Oh, and I love this quote: "I don't think it'll protect her. It won?t protect her heart. It won?t protect her emotional life. And it?s not going to protect her". Yes, dumbass, but it will protect her from STDs and getting pregnant 99% of the time. I really don't get these arguments. Kids are going to have sex, it is going to happen. There is nothing anyone can do about it, so shouldn't we be doing everything possible to make sure they are at least doing it safely?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: sat4fun
Recent studies state that one that pledges abstinence is four times more likely to engage in oral sex, and six times more likely to engage in anal sex.

Look at the bright side, they are grooming a generation of party girls. Three input girls will become the norm.

Got a link to these statistics?

Here ya go: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm

 

[surreal1221]

Oh boy. . . funding abstinence programs, but not funding the FAA enough money to hire enough air traffic controllers. . . thanks Bush.

 

[MisterCornell]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I didn't say abstinence is a religious only thing, MisterCornell. I said Abstinence Only is obviously a religious thing.

Your analogy to murder is totally specious- even atheists oppose murder, perhaps moreso than religious folk.

I know people from many religions who don't believe in pre-marital sex. I know non-religious people who aren't into pre-marital sex.

Giving a message to kids that they should abstain, but at the same time if they want to have sex they should do A, B, C and D, sends a mixed message, one that obviously has not been too successful.

Condoms fail and lead to a lot of abortions each year, as well as the transmission of STDs. Why lie to people about that?

 

[Jhhnn]

From MisterCornell-

"Condoms fail and lead to a lot of abortions each year, as well as the transmission of STDs. Why lie to people about that?"

Vatican Roulette, prayer, and wishful thinking fail a lot more often. Nobody on the pro-education side has even suggested that condoms are completely effective, or that such representations should ever be made.

We all need to remember that sexual arousal is not a completely rational state of mind, particularly in Teens. We also need to remember that such will occur, and will lead to most teens having sex prior to marriage. That's a given, unless we want to chaperone teens continuously, which isn't necessarily possible or desirable. That's reality. So the question becomes one of tailoring education to make the best of said reality, or to tailor education to fit some fantasyland based view of what we think the world should be. The former obviously offers a lot greater % of favorable outcomes than the latter, despite non-rational religious protestations to the contrary.

Nor is any of this intended to deny the practical benefits of abstinence, or that such is, indeed, 100% effective at preventing std's and unwanted pregnancy. There are a variety of reasons to encourage abstiinence- social, educational, financial, you name it. OTOH, it's pretty difficult to preach against the wages of sin when those negative outcomes aren't obvious and prevalent, which is apparently the objective of AO Preachments. The pillory must have somebody in it if it's to be an effective deterrent for the rest... the more suffering sinners, the easier it is to convince others not to sin... victims are required, even if they've been tailor made to get the point across...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: sat4fun
Recent studies state that one that pledges abstinence is four times more likely to engage in oral sex, and six times more likely to engage in anal sex.

Look at the bright side, they are grooming a generation of party girls. Three input girls will become the norm.

Got a link to these statistics?

Here ya go: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-18-sex-study_x.htm

Also in a thread here. It contains a link to a Washington Post article.