Continuation on the Reproductive Rights Topic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What a massive deflection.

Let me count the ways you are wrong.

First, ALL sex isn’t being discussed, kids having sex is. No one has said anything about sex in general, this is a massive subject change and straw man.[/quote]

No teaching kids about sex is being discussed. No one is telling them to have sex, in fact it’s discouraged. The knowledge they are given will EVENTUALLY come in handy.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Second, sex is not inevitable, even if taken generally.[/quote]

This is extremely naive. Almost everyone has sex at some point before they die.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Third, many people would argue adultery is inevitable and that human monogamy is unnatural, even if that were the case.[/quote]

They’d be wrong about it being inevitable. Many people carry on monogamous relationships and never cheat. Almost everyone has sex in their lives at some point.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Ah, but we get some light in your last statement. You described the situation in terms of an opinion of what someone would want. And your statement is purely subjective. There are many people who want to cheat as evidence by how many people do it. So, no, there are tons of circumstances people want to be able to cheat, and even many that I wouldn’t blame the person cheating.[/quote]

There are many people who want to murder as evidence by how many people do it. So, no, there are tons of circumstances people want to be able to murder.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But here is the thing, preventing divorce is good, your wife and her lover get to be happy, you remain happy in ignorance, a marriage is saved, where is the downside? Where is your measurable quantifiable “damage to society”? [/quote]

There are downsides. It weakens relationships, it builds deception not only with your partner but with the children. But it wouldn’t even matter if you taught this class anyways. Anyone already interested in cheating would take your class. Cheating is not inevitable, sex is.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The bottom line is that you don’t want me teaching someone you love how to avoid the consequences of something YOU don’t WANT them doing. But according to what you’ve said in this thread, that makes you irrational and pro divorce.[/quote]

I wouldn’t blame you if they signed up for your class. I would blame them.

422

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What a massive deflection.

Let me count the ways you are wrong.

First, ALL sex isn’t being discussed, kids having sex is. No one has said anything about sex in general, this is a massive subject change and straw man.[/quote]

No teaching kids about sex is being discussed. No one is telling them to have sex, in fact it’s discouraged. The knowledge they are given will EVENTUALLY come in handy.

[/quote]
So they arenâ??t using this info earlier?

You are talking in absolutes. You are wrong. There are plenty who donâ??t, though some may be physically incapable. But your distinction is arbitrary anyway. So, what if they will eventually, they could always be taught when they are ready.

As wrong as you are about sex being inevitable. People are going to cheat. Nothing you are going to do is going to stop cheating in our population. Period. It is inevitable.

Exactly. People are always going to do it and ruin their lives. And yet, there arenâ??t programs to teach them how to get away with it.

No, Iâ??m saying it statistically prevents divorce. It preserves relationships. You are saying that divorced is a stronger relationship than not divorced?

And no, you are wrong. No choice is inevitable. I can think of multiple examples of people going without sex. I cannot think of a single relationship without some degree of cheating.

Ah, but here is a big difference in the hypothetical, children can’t decide what to learn or not learn for themselves. An adult is capable of that decision and it’s responsibilities, a child is not. You cannot blame a child for learning what they are taught. You can blame who is teaching them.

423

  1. The information has no bearing on when they will have sex. Studies show sex ed does not increase sexual activity nor does it get teens to have sex earlier. So if they use it earlier, why does that matter? The information itself is not getting them to have to have sex earlier.

  2. I’m speaking in general terms. And where would they be taught if not in high school?

  3. Yes cheating in society is inevitable, but most people do not cheat. That’s like saying we shouldn’t have laws against murder because people are going to murder even if we do. Almost everyone capable of sex has it before they die. Are you really going to argue against that?

  4. There aren’t programs to get away with it because there are demonstrable benefits against teaching that sort of thing and little to no upside.

  5. Divorce is better than prolonging an unhealthy relationship sure. What do you mean “some degree of cheating?”

  6. Okay?

424

[quote]therajraj wrote:

  1. The information has no bearing on when they will have sex. Studies show sex ed does not increase sexual activity

[/quote]
Second time you’ve claimed this and I’ve asked where you got it.

The info on how to commit adultery doesn’t get them to commit more of it. It just keeps marriages together. People are going to cheat with or without the class.

Where the majority of an education and parenting should come from? School is the only place you ever learned anything?

Pretty much everyone cheats. You really think cheating is uncommon? You are really going to argue against that?

It would prevent people from going to jail. Less people imprisoned is a good stat.

Besides, I have good stats for my adultery classes.

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery : 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Being unfaithful isn’t just physical. There are many ways to betray the trust of marriage. You do it.

[quote]

  1. Okay?[/quote]

It means that your counter argument is invalid…

425

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, you don’t seem to be getting it. Damage is a value judgment. It’s an opinion. Them having that knowledge is damage in my opinion. You cannot prove a value judgment by definition. Nor can you disprove it.[/quote]

If you agree that sexual health material is causing neural repercussions or “damage” you have to show how it is.

Good for you, I think it’s damaging not to teach children about sexual health education. Since damage is my opinion, I don’t have a to prove it right?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But, more importantly, I think the demand is being placed on the wrong side of the argument here. PP is actively going out and spending tax dollars to do these things to children. The people doing this to children (using my money) should not only need to prove it’s not hurting kids, but that there is some definite benefit to the kids that justifies the expense.

You got any proof on that?[/quote]

But it’s showing that it prevents teen pregnancies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...80319151225.htm

Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.
The likelihood of pregnancy was 30 percent lower among those who had abstinence-only education compared to those who received no sex education, but the researchers deemed that number statistically insignificant because few teens fit into the categories that researchers analyzed.

http://advocatesforyouth.org/.../1487?task=view

Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6
Researcher Douglas Kirby for the National Campaign to End Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy examined studies of prevention programs which had a strong experimental design and used appropriate analysis. Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects.
40 percent delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use.
30 percent reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence.
60 percent reduced unprotected sex.

And you have no basis for your “damage” and provide this cop out answer that Damage is simply a value judgement.
[/quote]

426

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

40 percent of American children ar now born out of wedlock. A majority of Hispanic babies are born to unmarried mothers. As are 70 percent of black children. Entire new categories of crime have arisen in the wake of the familial collapse, like the legions of daughters abused by their mom’s latest live-in boyfriend…millions of millions of American children ar raised in transient households and moral vacuums that make not just social mobility but even elemental character formation all but impossible.’ - Mark Steyn [/quote]

And places where comprehensive sex education is not taught and abstinence-only is instead, teen pregnancy rates are much higher than the national average.

So Why are you blaming comprehensive sex education for this?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

'High school students and college-age adults have been complaining to District officials that the free condoms the city has been offering and not of good enough quality and are too small and that getting them from school nurses is “just like asking grandma or auntie.”

So DC officials have decided to stock up on Trojan condoms, including the company’s super-size Magnum variety, and have begun to authorize teachers or counselors, preferably male, to distribute condoms to students if the teachers complete a 30-minute online training course called ‘WrapMC’ - for Master of Condoms.

“If people get what they don’t want, they are just going to trash them,” said T. Squalls, 30 who attends the University of the District of Columbia. “So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want”’ - Washington Post

[/quote]

http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf

Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent
sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of
pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education. �??�??�?�© 2008 Society for
Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.[/quote]

427

[quote]therajraj wrote:
"The American Psychological Association,[16] the American Medical Association,[17] the National Association of School Psychologists,[18] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19] the American Public Health Association,[20] the Society for Adolescent Medicine[21] and the American College Health Association,[21] have all stated official support for comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive sex education curricula are intended to reduce sexually transmitted disease and out-of-wedlock or teenage pregnancies.

According to Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases by Douglas Kirby, PhD, ?a large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex and HIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity ? they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and do not increase the number of sexual partners."

"A report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services has found the “most consistent and clear finding is that sex education does not cause adolescents to initiate sex when they would not otherwise have done so.”[22] The same report also found that:

Family life or sex education in the public schools, which traditionally has consisted largely of providing factual information at the secondary school level, is the most general or pervasive approach to preventing pregnancy among adolescents…Adolescents who begin having sexual intercourse need to understand the importance of using an effective contraceptive every time they have sex. This requires convincing sexually active teens who have never used contraception to do so. In addition, sexually active teens who sometimes use contraceptives need to use them more consistently (every time they have sex) and use them correctly. [22]

Comprehensive sex education curriculums offer medical data that is presented in an age appropriate manner. A wide spectrum of topics is covered in these programs, which include abstinence, contraception, relationships, sexuality, and the prevention of disease (Siecus). The main focus is to educate youth so that they can make an informed decision about their own sexual activity and health. Studies have shown that the comprehensive programs work for youth population across the spectrum. Inexperienced, experienced, male, female, the majority of ethnic groups, and different communities all benefitted from this type of curriculum."

Everything is sourced.[/quote]

428

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, you don’t seem to be getting it. Damage is a value judgment. It’s an opinion. Them having that knowledge is damage in my opinion. You cannot prove a value judgment by definition. Nor can you disprove it.[/quote]

If you agree that sexual health material is causing neural repercussions or “damage” you have to show how it is.

Good for you, I think it’s damaging not to teach children about sexual health education. Since damage is my opinion, I don’t have a to prove it right?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But, more importantly, I think the demand is being placed on the wrong side of the argument here. PP is actively going out and spending tax dollars to do these things to children. The people doing this to children (using my money) should not only need to prove it’s not hurting kids, but that there is some definite benefit to the kids that justifies the expense.

You got any proof on that?[/quote]

But it’s showing that it prevents teen pregnancies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...80319151225.htm

Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.
The likelihood of pregnancy was 30 percent lower among those who had abstinence-only education compared to those who received no sex education, but the researchers deemed that number statistically insignificant because few teens fit into the categories that researchers analyzed.

http://advocatesforyouth.org/.../1487?task=view

Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6
Researcher Douglas Kirby for the National Campaign to End Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy examined studies of prevention programs which had a strong experimental design and used appropriate analysis. Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects.
40 percent delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use.
30 percent reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence.
60 percent reduced unprotected sex.

And you have no basis for your “damage” and provide this cop out answer that Damage is simply a value judgement.
[/quote]
[/quote]

None of that says the total amount of sex went down. Plus it’s a survey about the sex life of teens. Maybe sex education just doesn’t change their poll answers.

But I’ll still play. Dito for the adultery class. It doesn’t increase the amount of adultery people say they are committing on surveys.

429

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Second time you’ve claimed this and I’ve asked where you got it.[/quote]

Posted it again.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The info on how to commit adultery doesn’t get them to commit more of it. It just keeps marriages together. People are going to cheat with or without the class.[/quote]

Prove it.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Where the majority of an education and parenting should come from? School is the only place you ever learned anything?
[/quote]

?

Judging by the fact places where sex ed is not taught have the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies, people who aren’t taught in school never learn or learn when it’s too late.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Pretty much everyone cheats. You really think cheating is uncommon? You are really going to argue against that?[/quote]

Uncommon? No. But saying almost everyone commits adultery (I’m talking sexual contact)? Yes.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It would prevent people from going to jail. Less people imprisoned is a good stat.[/quote]

And you want murderers in Jail. The stat would be artificial and actually have no benefit but to look good on paper.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery : 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”[/quote]

LOL - don’t bother quoting the Bible to a non-believer. The Bible also says bats are birds.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Being unfaithful isn’t just physical. There are many ways to betray the trust of marriage. You do it.[/quote]

I’m talking about adultery involving sexual contact, if you think looking upon a woman lustfully is adultery then we’re not going to get anywhere.

430

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, you don’t seem to be getting it. Damage is a value judgment. It’s an opinion. Them having that knowledge is damage in my opinion. You cannot prove a value judgment by definition. Nor can you disprove it.[/quote]

If you agree that sexual health material is causing neural repercussions or “damage” you have to show how it is.

Good for you, I think it’s damaging not to teach children about sexual health education. Since damage is my opinion, I don’t have a to prove it right?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But, more importantly, I think the demand is being placed on the wrong side of the argument here. PP is actively going out and spending tax dollars to do these things to children. The people doing this to children (using my money) should not only need to prove it’s not hurting kids, but that there is some definite benefit to the kids that justifies the expense.

You got any proof on that?[/quote]

But it’s showing that it prevents teen pregnancies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...80319151225.htm

Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.
The likelihood of pregnancy was 30 percent lower among those who had abstinence-only education compared to those who received no sex education, but the researchers deemed that number statistically insignificant because few teens fit into the categories that researchers analyzed.

http://advocatesforyouth.org/.../1487?task=view

Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6
Researcher Douglas Kirby for the National Campaign to End Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy examined studies of prevention programs which had a strong experimental design and used appropriate analysis. Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects.
40 percent delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use.
30 percent reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence.
60 percent reduced unprotected sex.

And you have no basis for your “damage” and provide this cop out answer that Damage is simply a value judgement.
[/quote]
[/quote]

None of that says the total amount of sex went down. Plus it’s a survey about the sex life of teens. Maybe sex education just doesn’t change their poll answers.[/quote]

I didn’t say that. I said the information doesn’t encourage them have sex earlier nor does it increase their sexual activity.

431

again:

http://www.planetwire.org/…Ed_Kohler.pdf

Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent
sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of
pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education. �??�??�?�© 2008 Society for
Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.

432

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Second time you’ve claimed this and I’ve asked where you got it.[/quote]

Posted it again.

[/quote]
responded to it.

It is a hypothetical. Besides, I would have to do the class for a long time to get those stats (same as sex ed). Somebody’s kids had to be first. Somebody’s spouse will have to be too.

?

Judging by the fact places where sex ed is not taught have the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies, people who aren’t taught in school never learn or learn when it’s too late.

[/quote]
I could say that for tons of other parenting practices that we don’t remove from parental control.

What a reasonable percentage is to call it “inevitable” is subjective. Why is your judgment better than mine? And adultery isn’t just physical, so limiting it to physical contact is arbitrary once again. I could teach your wife how to emotionally cheat and hide it from you.

BAM! Exactly! You walked right into this like I hoped you would. Teen pregnancies going down is a stat that looks good on paper, but sex ed can still be contributing to the moral collapse of our society.

Stats are only what you make of them. It’s a subjective judgment without proof. You can only evaluate stats on the subjective criteria you put forth.

How about quoting the culture that invented the word or quoting something that defines my opinion? You need not believe for those things. Not that part of an unrelated verse about bats invalidate good advice and truth somewhere else. Are you disagreeing with the quote? Cause all you posted entirely ad hominem.

So, phone sex, not adultery, got it. You are okay with me teaching your wife to be emotionally unfaithful then, as long as she doesn’t have sex? She could go out on dates with other guys if she don’t go home with’em? really?

It’s your marriage I guess, but the adultery that weakens relationships, as per your post earlier, starts long before there is physical contact.

433

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, you don’t seem to be getting it. Damage is a value judgment. It’s an opinion. Them having that knowledge is damage in my opinion. You cannot prove a value judgment by definition. Nor can you disprove it.[/quote]

If you agree that sexual health material is causing neural repercussions or “damage” you have to show how it is.

Good for you, I think it’s damaging not to teach children about sexual health education. Since damage is my opinion, I don’t have a to prove it right?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But, more importantly, I think the demand is being placed on the wrong side of the argument here. PP is actively going out and spending tax dollars to do these things to children. The people doing this to children (using my money) should not only need to prove it’s not hurting kids, but that there is some definite benefit to the kids that justifies the expense.

You got any proof on that?[/quote]

But it’s showing that it prevents teen pregnancies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...80319151225.htm

Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.
The likelihood of pregnancy was 30 percent lower among those who had abstinence-only education compared to those who received no sex education, but the researchers deemed that number statistically insignificant because few teens fit into the categories that researchers analyzed.

http://advocatesforyouth.org/.../1487?task=view

Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6
Researcher Douglas Kirby for the National Campaign to End Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy examined studies of prevention programs which had a strong experimental design and used appropriate analysis. Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects.
40 percent delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use.
30 percent reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence.
60 percent reduced unprotected sex.

And you have no basis for your “damage” and provide this cop out answer that Damage is simply a value judgement.
[/quote]
[/quote]

None of that says the total amount of sex went down. Plus it’s a survey about the sex life of teens. Maybe sex education just doesn’t change their poll answers.[/quote]

I didn’t say that. I said the information doesn’t encourage them have sex earlier nor does it increase their sexual activity.[/quote]

but… you posted a poll… you weren’t claiming what you posted? The link didn’t support your statement then.

434

Okay sir.

We’re on page 18. I’ve discussed this with Sloth, you, SM, Cortes and now you again.

I’m ready to call it a day. I was with Cortes actually.

Good day.

435

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Okay sir.

We’re on page 18. I’ve discussed this with Sloth, you, SM, Cortes and now you again.

I’m ready to call it a day. I was with Cortes actually.

Good day.[/quote]

HAH! alright. I must say, that though I think you are dead wrong, you are one of the better guys to debate with. No name calling, or outlandish straw men. Though I still never got you to answer my question.

436

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< How am I doing so far?[/quote]Not very well. You haven’t told me what any of that is.
[/quote]

You want me to explain to you what “surrender” is?[/quote]I want to explain to me what you think it looks like when some one is surrendered to Christ.
[/quote]

I have no idea.

What does someone who’s surrendered to Christ look like?
[/quote]LOL! I’m always gonna be your buddy Ephrem. You are a blast man LOL! I’m not even razzin ya now. Seriously. You started this dialog didn’t ya? Wasn’t that you implying with inescapable emphasis how unchristlike I was being? Now you’re tellin me you have no idea what that is? I’m gonna be gone for a couple hours. You know I’d never ignore you.
[/quote]

Look, let’s play What Would Jesus Do?, mkay?

Would Jesus ridicule someone who believes differently? Would Jesus be proud of accomplishments he had nothing to do with? Would he address people in the same manner you have?

Now, I don’t hold you to those standards but I’m surprised you don’t hold yourself to those standards.

437

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
More repressed stupidity:

Abstinence-Only Sex Education Bill In Utah Prohibits Teaching Contraception

It doesn’t prohibit teaching contraception. It prohibits the government from teaching it to kids. There is a HUGE difference. The government not doing something is not equivalent to banning it.

Example: The government doesn’t buy me a gun, so it has banned me owning guns, right?

To insinuate that government education is the only education possible is just sad. [/quote]

Have you even read the article? Why are they teaching abstinence-only instead?

438

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
More repressed stupidity:

Abstinence-Only Sex Education Bill In Utah Prohibits Teaching Contraception

It doesn’t prohibit teaching contraception. It prohibits the government from teaching it to kids. There is a HUGE difference. The government not doing something is not equivalent to banning it.

Example: The government doesn’t buy me a gun, so it has banned me owning guns, right?

To insinuate that government education is the only education possible is just sad. [/quote]

Have you even read the article? Why are they teaching abstinence-only instead?
[/quote]

Swing and a miss.

“The government not doing something is not equivalent to banning it.”

439

Yet the government is [i]actively[/i] preventing teachers from teaching sex education in favor of abstience-only programs.

To all intents and purposes that’s a ban.

440

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Yet the government is [i]actively[/i] preventing teachers from teaching sex education in favor of abstience-only programs.

To all intents and purposes that’s a ban.[/quote]

No… teachers can teach what they want, they just can’t use their position to teach anything they want in school.

Public teachers also can’t teach Christianity in school, so… the federal government banned the teaching of Christianity?

Surely no one will be educated about Christianity since it is banned from the classroom… (sarcasm)