Sex Ed debate- Play nice

[Sara]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Actually, the pro-choice stance is really a waste of words. Any time a woman becomes with child, she has to choose one way or the other (minor-age status aside, partially), and there is really no one else who can make the decision for her. Not even the Unborn has a say in its survival; it is completely up to the woman. In fact, 'right' has little to do with the issue at all, for the woman has no choice [I]but[/I] to choose one or the other.[/FONT][/QUOTE]There are legislators who would be happy to take that choice away.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Africa seems to be the catch phrase of why any and all religion should toss out their core beliefs systems when it comes to sex education. I've heard that argument so many times. Plus at the same time, you're veering off on a tangent here instead of sticking to the topic. Which is sex education for teens and pre-teens. People who by law are considered unable to give consent to having sex in the first place.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Sure, it's tangential, but that doesn't diminish my points truth. So if you have an actual rebuttal, I'd love to hear it.

I brought up this issue because I feel it's based on the same ideology that is pro abstinence-only education. The Catholic belief is that life begins at conception, that sex is a holy union of essences, and contraceptives diminish the inherent beauty and worth of the act. They believe that sex should be had with the potential to beget life, and to use contraceptives is an abuse of this act.

This is why they don't believe in teaching kids the benefits/risks of condoms. This is why they don't distribute condoms in regions plagued by HIV/AIDS. You can say it's a non-sequitur but it's a very-much related issue.

To me, Christianity is tossing out its core belief system by refusing to help people the most effective way possible. It's a pharisaical sort of argument that abides strictly to dogma without taking into account what the intent of those laws are. The core of Christianity is more or less "love your neighbor as you love yourself," "help others in need," etc. It seems hollow and worthless when the Church says "We refuse to hand out condoms to prevent the spread of disease because [i]we're against using condoms[/i]" when in reality, [i]lives would be saved[/i]. I'm not sure about your interpretation of the texts, but I think Jesus would rather save lives and families than have people die over a dogmatic dispute.

I don't expect condoms to be the only method of saving lives, but I would expect aid groups to use all tools available to them in order to better the lives of others. Not using condoms based on principle alone is both disgusting and hilarious. Cheers.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial]Funny you say that, when abstinence-only education isn't practical anyway. Pragmatism dictates the discussion of safe sex in addition to abstinence. Abstinence-only education isn't reasonable. It's a childishly defiant way of looking at the world -- "Just don't have sex! You shouldn't have sex, so I won't tell you ways to make it safer." The reality is that [i]a fair percentage of teens are going to have sex[/i'], and with that considered, it is realistic to at least teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, etc.[/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Heh. First off, let's deal with that little misconception you have about the beast called Abstinence.

The Abstinence school of thought does not condemn sex, nor does it say not to engage in it. It says that sex should be abstained from [I]until one has their partner[/I], and it in no way restricts the act to two people for all time. I mean, how else could remarried divorcees have kids?

From a Pragmatist standpoint, abstinence is the single most practical solution. If one does not engage in sex indiscriminately and instead waits until marriage (again the m-word!), the chances that one will contract a venereal disease are quite slim, and rest solely on one's partner having done the same. Thus, the consequences for waiting (or abstaining, which I know you know is the root of the practice) are almost none.

Condoms and contraceptives only become the most practical solution [I]after[/I] a person has (defiantly, I might add) proclaimed that they will [I]not[/I] wait, but dick around however they please. At that point, they have taken the risks onto themselves, so why they should complain to those who advocated abstinence is beyond me; it was their choice not to take the most pragmatic route.

(Incidentally, one can make the 'defiant' argument on both sides and not be wrong. I suggest you leave off of it, as it has no bearing on our actual debate, and is, in fact, profiling. I will do the same.)

As far as the realistic angle goes.....

[QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]...The reality is that [i]a fair percentage of teens are going to have sex[/i], and with that considered, it is realistic to at least teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, etc.

[CENTER]/~/[/CENTER]
The reason I pick on the (specifically) Catholic/Evangelical refusal to distribute contraception or talk of the benefits of contraception is because it runs counter to Christian values. Rather than protest out of principle while hundreds of thousands of people become infected everyday, distribute condoms in Africa. Not only does it help preserve family structures, it allows countries to get back on their feet, it reduces human suffering, and it is certainly a component to economic strength.

You can say "Christians should stick to their guns!" but that's fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account the magnitude of human suffering that could be reduced had the Church taken the [i]spirit[/i] of the Bible, rather than the shallowly-interpreted written text. Essentially, their refusal to distribute condoms is contradictory and hypocritical.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE]
Essentially, the reality is both that the Church is preaching in accordance to their beliefs, and a large number of people are not going to listen. And this is the way of the world.

The continual preaching of Abstinence by the Church, then, is to continually remind people of the easiest way to avoid the diseases in the first place. All one has to say is "repeated momentary pleasure versus nastiness down below" and take the higher road. However, as you said [I]and[/I] I agree, a large amount of people will not do this.

(And I agree with [COLOR=DarkRed]A_M[/COLOR]; bringing up Africa is essentially a cop-out. Why is it no one ever brings up the problems in Azerbaijan? Why is Africa so damned important? :p I call foul on the grounds of attempting to pull heartstrings with the intent to distract from the argument.)

Looking at your last paragraph: do you honestly believe that the intent of Christianity is to prevent suffering? Good grief, man, I thought you understood things. Christianity preaches surcease [I]from[/I] suffering, not prevention of it. We believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. To give people the means to avoid consequences of what we believe is a sin is not pragmatic, but enabling. We would then be encouraging them to engage in an activity that we believe is not right. Translated: "You're doing the wrong thing, and there will be problems because of it; but it's dangerous to go alone—take this!" That is preaching one direction, and turning around and assisting the exact opposite.

[I]That[/I], my friend, would be hypocrisy.

[QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]I have mixed feelings about that I guess. On one hand, parents should be responsible for their children and teach their kids about sex. On the other hand, these children are citizens and thus the government is tasked with their safety and well-being. So high HIV/AIDS infection rates are certainly within the realm of concern for them, and education on these topics isn't outrageous.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE]
On that we agree. And so you argue that the Church should still encroach upon the State's territory?

Like I said before, the [I]secular[/I] community should be responsible for educating people on [I]secular[/I] options. It is not the responsibility of the Vatican to do so, and why you think so still eludes me.

So once again:
[list][*]Abstinence is the most practical solution from an objective standpoint.
[*]Abstinence also happens to be a moral stance by the Church.
[*]Claiming that a group of people should encourage an activity they frown upon is rather silly.[/list]

One last thought on that selection:
[QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"]Not only does it help preserve family structures, [B]it allows countries to get back on their feet[/B], it reduces human suffering, and [B]it is certainly a component to economic strength[/B].[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
How is economic security any business of the Vatican? Church and State, anyone? If you don't want us in your affairs, don't tell us we should be in your affairs.

Or run the risk of having the hypocrisy argument tossed right back at ya. :animesmil

[B]Edit:[/B]
[quote name='Sara']There are legislators who would be happy to take that choice away.[/quote]
Uhh . . . yes. Yes there are.[/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial](And I agree with [COLOR=DarkRed]A_M[/COLOR]; bringing up Africa is essentially a cop-out. Why is it no one ever brings up the problems in Azerbaijan? Why is Africa so damned important? :p I call foul on the grounds of attempting to pull heartstrings with the intent to distract from the argument.)[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]No, it's really not. It's the single most salient example of this debate being played out IRL. If you can't handle the failures of abstinence-only education when observing the situation there, that's your problem. When debating, one is called to bring examples/evidence in support of one's point... that's my Exhibit A.

[QUOTE][font=Arial]Looking at your last paragraph: do you honestly believe that the intent of Christianity is to prevent suffering? Good grief, man, I thought you understood things. Christianity preaches surcease [I]from[/I] suffering, not prevention of it. We believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. To give people the means to avoid consequences of what we believe is a sin is not pragmatic, but enabling. We would then be encouraging them to engage in an activity that we believe is not right. Translated: "You're doing the wrong thing, and there will be problems because of it; but it's dangerous to go alone?take this!" That is preaching one direction, and turning around and assisting the exact opposite.[/font][/QUOTE]
The intent of Christianity is to love your neighbor, to help them in any way possible, and yes, to lend a hand in alleviating the suffering of your fellow man. That's why Christian missions go places and give medical aid, that's why Christians open up soup kitchens and homeless shelters.

This debate is similar to giving free, clean needles to people, no questions asked at medical clinics. While that's (much more) controversial, the idea is that if people are going to do harmful activity X, we should at least attempt to make it safer.

[QUOTE][font=Arial]On that we agree. And so you argue that the Church should still encroach upon the State's territory?[/font][/QUOTE]
The State doesn't have exclusive domain over this issue.

[QUOTE][font=Arial]So once again:
[list][*]Abstinence is the most practical solution from an objective standpoint.
[*]Abstinence also happens to be a moral stance by the Church.
[*]Claiming that a group of people should encourage an activity they frown upon is rather silly.[/list][/font][/QUOTE]
You see, the Church is selecting which of its moral stances it wants to uphold when preaching abstinence-only in regions affected by HIV/AIDS. The Church also has another moral stance, which is to attempt to help others in need in the most effective way. What essentially must be done is a reevaluation of which moral stances are above others. Is the principle of abstinence more important than stopping astronomical infection rates? Christians are called to do both, but which is closest to what Jesus himself would do?

[QUOTE][font=Arial]How is economic security any business of the Vatican? Church and State, anyone? If you don't want us in your affairs, don't tell us we should be in your affairs.[/font][/QUOTE]
Economic security is not the primary aim in distributing contraception to (let's say) African nations, but it is a very big consequence. I just want you to understand the gravity of the situation, what is at stake, and how drastically lives could be improved through the distribution of condoms. I thought that would be worth more to Christians than the principle of upholding some law. I'm surprised that you don't see how pharisaical the entire dispute is.[/font]

[Sara]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial](And I agree with [COLOR=DarkRed]A_M[/COLOR]; bringing up Africa is essentially a cop-out. Why is it no one ever brings up the problems in Azerbaijan? Why is Africa so damned important? :p I call foul on the grounds of attempting to pull heartstrings with the intent to distract from the argument.)[/FONT][/QUOTE]Your glib attempt at humor does not lend you credence in this discussion.

20% of all adults in the nation of South Africa are infected by HIV/AIDS. That is [i]one out of every five people[/i]. In Nigeria, HIV/AIDS has caused the average life expectancy of women to drop [i]eight years[/i] from what it was in 1991. HIV/AIDS is a huge, crippling epidemic in many African countries.

Uganda, twenty years ago--at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic--initiated a three-tier program telling people how to prevent HIV infection: [quote]The programme promoted the ABC approach (abstain, be faithful, use condoms), ensured the safety of the blood supply and started HIV surveillance.[/quote] The program, arguably, worked. The current prevalence of HIV/AIDS is estimated at just 5.4%. Uganda's fight against AIDS is considered a success story. Let me say that again: [i]a country where one out of every twenty adults has HIV/AIDS is [b]considered a success story.[/b][/i] [[url=http://www.avert.org/aidsinafrica.htm]Source[/url]]

By contrast, HIV/AIDS prevalence in Azerbaijan is estimated at 0.1%. [[url=http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/in_action/azerbaijan/hiv1/]Source[/url]]

[i]That's[/i] why Africa's so damned important.

[CENTER]-------[/CENTER]
I guess my thoughts on Sex-Ed come down to this:

Should religious organisations distribute condoms? I think it would be great if they [i]did[/i], but not doing so is their prerogative. If you're convinced that giving someone "this right here" piece of information will cause someone to sin, to hurt themself, or to hurt others, then I think by your own standards you've got a moral obligation [i]not[/i] to give them "this right here" piece of information.

If, on the other hand, you think that giving someone "this right here" piece of information could save that person expense, heartbreak, their physical well-being, or their [i]life[/i], I'd say you've got a pretty big moral obligation to distribute "this right here" piece of information as quickly and as widely as you can.

I respect the right of others not to distribute "this right here" piece of information on their religious or moral grounds.

But you can be darn sure that I'd like the same respect for my decision--based on [i]my[/i] religious and moral beliefs--to distribute said information as much as I can.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I don't intend to really reply to your post and this obvious problem with your logic that really isn't logic explains it:

Religion hasn't changed in 2000 years according to your post. Interesting to know that you understand ALL religions well enough to be able to state that.

For starters, witch hunts and crusades are in the past. The Salem witch trials no longer happen. Women not only have the right to vote, they often do more than their husbands do and can even hold political positions of...

Wait I forgot, you said they haven't changed, silly me. Or is it silly you? Try to be a bit smarter with your comeback dear. Try and actually [I]learn[/I] about the religion that you are claiming hasn't changed in 2000 years. Because I have a serious news flash for you. The LDS church hasn't even been around for a Millennia let alone 2000 years.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]So your single rebuttal to all the points that i have made thus far is to attack a statement i made after misunderstanding it? Bravo, i do say, bravo!

When i asked the question how long it took the church to accept a well proven scientific theory i was not being cynical or joking. It was to show that i understand that my statement is false when taken completely literally, as you have. Of course there have been changes, changes in the technicalities of different situations, but not the actual core behavior. Christians (and many of other faiths) are still as arrogant and stubborn as ever. Refusing to pass out condoms when it's painfully obvious that it would be better (all the proof is there) is an amazing testament to just how right i am.

If my post is so rife of fallacious logic then please point it out. Otherwise i will not and cannot debate with you anymore. If i did, it would be just as one sided as getting down on my knees by my bed and praying to the good lord himself. And we both know i don't waste my time with [I][U]that[/U][/I].
[/FONT]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='The13thMan;821242][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]If my post is so rife of fallacious logic then please point it out. Otherwise i will not and cannot debate with you anymore. If i did, it would be just as one sided as getting down on my knees by my bed and praying to the good lord himself. And we both know i don't waste my time with [I][U]that[/U][/I]. [/FONT][/QUOTE]Your statement that I refuted was this:[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"']I mean... the christian faith has been around for 2000 years and there still has been very little change. And really, the change only seems to come around when it's completely inevitable. How long did it take them to accept the world wasn't flat? [/FONT][/quote]My point still stands, you were implying that religion didn't change (or had very little change) unless they had no choice and that's not true. I was pointing out that the change was more than just a "little". Just as my point is coming from the stance that only religious people would object to a more complete education is inaccurate. If you want me to actually take you seriously, don't be so general with your declarations.

As for this sentence here, I'll explain it: [quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm sorry, i don't understand what you mean by "fleshing out the current circulation to be more complete." [/FONT][/QUOTE] I'll start with the word Fleshing from that sentence you don't understand:

fleshed, flesh·ing, flesh·es

v. tr.

1. To give substance or detail to; fill out: fleshed out the novel with a subplot.

If the current sex education is incomplete, then the idea is to make it more complete. Next word, circulation:

cir·cu·la·tion

?noun
1. an act or instance of circulating, moving in a circle or circuit, or flowing.
2. the continuous movement of blood through the heart and blood vessels, which is maintained chiefly by the action of the heart, and by which nutrients, oxygen, and internal secretions are carried to and wastes are carried from the body tissues.
3. any similar circuit, passage, or flow, as of the sap in plants or air currents in a room.
4. the transmission or passage of anything from place to place or person to person: the circulation of a rumor; the circulation of money.

In this case I was using number for, the current circulation of information in regards to sex ed which right now is abstinence only.

And finally the word complete:

com·plete

?adjective
1. having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full: a complete set of Mark Twain's writings.

So the meaning is that they need to do more than just teach abstinence only so kids are fully prepared. I trust that makes the meaning of my sentence clearer for you. Though I suppose the word curriculum would have worked better than circulation in that paragraph.

[The13thMan]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I love that you whipped out the dictionary to school my ***. I sincerely ask for a clarification on something that you said and you condescend to me. How typical. =P

You still think that the christian faith has changed a reasonable amount since its creation... ok, why? Keep in mind that 2000 years is a long long time.

...Actually, nevermind. I really don't want to argue this point with you. It would be completely fruitless and i haven't got the time. [/FONT]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I love that you whipped out the dictionary to school my ***. I sincerely ask for a clarification on something that you said and you condescend to me. How typical. =P

You still think that the christian faith has changed a reasonable amount since its creation... ok, why? Keep in mind that 2000 years is a long long time.

...Actually, nevermind. I really don't want to argue this point with you. It would be completely fruitless and i haven't got the time. [/FONT][/QUOTE]


[color=#9933ff]Hmm...:o sounds like you just dont want to reply since you've been PWNed...

As for Christian faith it depends on the denomination and the follower's own personal beliefs as much as the religion itsself. But that discussion is for a different thread.

*steering back to topic* I stil say that Comprehensive sex education in schools is a necessary evil that should be mandated because right now one in every four teenagers will be diagnosed with an STD (or STV if you prefer) So obviosly there needs to be more done than to just talk about STDs, and abstinence aren't enough. Schools need to be made to teach comprehensive sex ed in health classes for all ages.

Of course as I've said before it's not soley the school's responsibility to teach students about sex. Parents should also be involved in it as well. I'd say that would be one of the main reasons that there's a rise in teen pregnancy and STDs[/color]

[TimeChaser]

Weighing in on this argument, I believe comprehensive sex education is important. I am offended when the abstinence-only community lie or twist the truth about the effectiveness of birth control.

I don't think teaching kids about how to stay safe when they have sex will encourage them to go out and have it, but I do think that when they do, it will serve them much better than if we didn't teach them anything at all about protection and contraception.

By misrepresenting the benefits of safe sex practices, this is guaranteeing the further spread of STDs and teen pregnancy. Abstinence-only comes out of this puritan desire to strictly regulate people's private sexual lives, and cares nothing for the suffering of others.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I believe that human life starts at conception[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Sorry, I just had to bring this up because I have recently become aquainted with some scientific facts that clearly refute this.

You say you believe life begins at [I]conception[/I]. A [I]three-day-old[/I] embryo is a collection of 150 cells (a blastocyst). By comparison, a [I]fly's brain[/I] has over 100,000 cells.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='TimeChaser']

Sorry, I just had to bring this up because I have recently become aquainted with some scientific facts that clearly refute this.

You say you believe life begins at [I]conception[/I]. A [I]three-day-old[/I] embryo is a collection of 150 cells (a blastocyst). By comparison, a [I]fly's brain[/I] has over 100,000 cells.[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I have to agree with you on that. A fetus can't survive on it's own until near the end of the 2nd trimester around five months when they can breathe on their own and could continue to grow in an incubator. I'm not advocating abortion. And I'm not saying that premature babies face a lot more health issues and have under developed lungs as oposed to full term baby, but I'm saying that at five or six months of age the fetus actually resembles a human baby and not a tadpole or- as my newly pregnant co-worker explained it- a kidney.

That's all I have to add on the subject... kinda.

Seems that North Dakota has a vote on the ballot next month to be the first state to officially ban abortion except in the cases of rape or incest- I have to go back and check if the health of the mother is a factor. Anyone have an opinion on that?[/color]