[quote]vroom wrote:
Aren’t we dancing around the issue of excluding the discussion of birth control via OTHER means, which is where the religious aspects start to arrive?[/quote]
‘Other means’ have been tried for over 20 years in the public school systems. Teen pregnancy is no lower now than then, and std’s are nearing epidemic proportions.
It may sound sophmoric - but abstinence works EVERY time it’s tried. No unwanted preg. No std.
Whatever happened to the concept of the parent taking responsibility for teaching their children?
The results of Govt taking charge are abysmal: Drop out rates are up. Teen abortion is up. School crime is way up. Teen suicide is way up.
Where is the logic in allowing the kids of our nation to be guinea pigs for social engineering?
Once again vroom -
How is it a religous issue to tell a hormone engorged 14 year old to keep his pants zipped?
"Thunder, I would counter that the claim you have specified is actually a moral agenda, not a political agenda. Where have I heard people speaking on the appropriateness of “moral issues” before?
If you wish to consider it a political claim, it certainly isn’t a party specific one."
Ok, so what? It’s moral. That’s perfectly ok. I am unimpressed with the sophistry. Moral, political, philosophical - they have a value-based agenda.
The real question - and Rainjack already answered it - is does the UCS article, regardless of its evaluation of the effectiveness of Bush’s policy. provide evidence that Bush is imposing his religious views through his public policy.
No. Abstinence is closely correlated with personal responsibility, something all government programs should endorse.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It may sound sophmoric - but abstinence works EVERY time it’s tried.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. If it did, then a person who practiced abstinence would never have sex. But people who practice abstinence sometimes do have sex, because people who DON’T practice abstinence have tools at their disposal like seduction and liquor and drugs and just plain old brute force.
And we tend to be a lot better with our tools than the abstainers are with theirs, because – like it or not – every single biological drive in their bodies agrees with us.
I’m not saying it’s okay to force people into sex, but it does happen, and it’s a lot more likely to happen to someone who isn’t putting out. (An argument could conceivably be made that abstinence is about power, not sex, and potentially that it is a form of rape.)
The UCS was formed in reaction to the events of the day; moreover, we should recall that new advocacy groups are rarely formed exclusively by moderates, but most such groups become more moderate over time. The vast majority of UCS members today would laugh out loud (and rightly so) at some of the opinions expressed at its inception. Most members today are simply smart men and women from across the political spectrum who care deeply about the truth
(as determined by accepted scientific methodologies) and its application to public policy.
For what it is worth, the American Legion was first organized largely for the purpose of overthrowing the U.S. government by force.
I would strongly advise against coming down to my post and talking smack about AL pushing a radical anti-american political agenda. The response you would receive would be rather less rational than what you would get at a UCS meeting.
Well, my take on the whole deal was that scientists noticed that the Bush administration was intefering with or otherwise manipulating studies to support their own agenda.
Having a problem with such behavior, assuming you believe it which I’m sure Bushies cannot, does not make your stance political. It isn’t sophistry to make the distinction.
If it isn’t a political issue, it deserves much more attention and consideration than it is getting. If indeed it is simply a bipartisan group of scientists who are troubled by such events, then it is troubling.
Because people feel that science should seek truth via accepted scientific principles and that perhaps science can be used to solve problems other than the creation of weapons of mass destruction does not make these people either democrat or republican.
However, the responses here are very political. The group has an agenda so it should not be trusted. The group has liberal leanings and hence is just attacking Bush out of politics. Some of the founders were radicals forty years ago, so the group is unimportant now. Oh, lest I forget, conservatives have denigrated the group because it is against some of the actions of the Bush administration, therefor it is politically biased.
Maybe it simply isn’t possible to be critical of something without having a political agenda? Perhaps everything is politically based? I suppose the sexual behavior of teens is based on who’s administration is in power so that they can create statistics to counter them?
Sure, abstinance is a tool, and nobody is claiming it should not be taught and proposed. But doesn’t this tool have a second verse? Isn’t abstinance something you do until you get married? I mean, nobody proposes we all go our entire lives without getting laid, do they?
The premise of your original post was that abstinence-only was being taught to the youth in school. To draw the agrument out and extend it to adults is not what is being argued and only convolutes this discussion.
Once your an adult, you should be expected to act like one, without anyone telling you what to do (until you get married…trust me).
Once again - how is this an imposition of religion on an individual’s life?
It’s not that the founders 40 years ago were radicals. It’s that the group consistently takes political stances on issues NOW, and that its membership NOW is largely composed of non-scientists. It was founded 40 years ago to promote liberal causes, and it apparently has never moved away from that agenda. This group is not just a bunch of bi-partisan scientists who have come together because they were worried about the Bush administration.
That said, that is a reason to examine their methodology and question their conclusions, not to reject them out of hand. However, look around on their website and see if you can find scientific papers in which they lay out their methodology and present facts in a clear, scientific manner – I didn’t spend too long on there, but I couldn’t find any.
It seems to me this is a political organization making political claims, and thus should be viewed as such - which means not accepting its claims at face value.
Take their studies with a grain of salt. As many studies as they have about abstinence programs not working, there are a hundred other studies from pro-abstinence groups showing that they do work. It’s agenda-based science.
The fact is, abstinence is the only 100% effetive method. It makes no sense to say abstinence itself doesn’t work because some people who practice it have sex. If they’re having sex, then they’re no longer abstinent, get it? You can’t be abstinent and have sex at the same time.
“It seems to me this is a political organization making political claims, and thus should be viewed as such - which means not accepting its claims at face value.”
Exactly the point. The scientists of the UCS aren’t making a scientific argument - they are making a political argument. And it should evaluated as such, not as a scientific finding or discovery or theory.
“Because people feel that science should seek truth via accepted scientific principles and that perhaps science can be used to solve problems other than the creation of weapons of mass destruction does not make these people either democrat or republican.”
Read exactly what you wrote. The scientists are suggesting what should be done with science. If I posted an article by a nuclear physicist who thought we should spend all our time and scientific knowledge on developing nuclear weapons advancement, would you take his word as purely scientific? You better not - he is a man with an agenda for science. And there’s nothing wrong with that - but that doesn’t automatically make his position more valuable just because he happens to be a nuclear physicist.
And, science is being used for a great many more causes than creation of ‘weapons of mass destruction’, so the idea that other scientific priorities are getting crowded out, frankly, is a foolish charge.
“Maybe it simply isn’t possible to be critical of something without having a political agenda?”
Of course it is possible. You could go straight to the effectiveness of the policy without passion or prejudice. It’s when you dabble in insinuation of sinister motives and innuendo that the arguments start smelling of something other than honest criticism.
More diversion Tacticts, Vroom posted an idea and backed it up. people poked holes in it and he (and others)couldn’t fill the holes so he changed where he was going with it. (several times) Is there not one liberal here that can see this happening right in front of you’re faces?
Vroom write,
It is just another example of the way that the Bush administration operates to support its own views and policies
This statement is quite funny considering the fact that you criticize an individual for the same actions which you yourself commit. What are you doing everytime you write in a forum like this. You are supporting and propogating your ideas and why?..because that is what is done in political forums and arenas. I think it to be ironic that you believe his statement is scandalous or merely a feable attempt to expouse a personal beliefbut than you immediately do the same in order to retort said statement because you are in disagreement with said statement.
Just curious, if a liberal were in office, and please do not think this is coming from a right wing stance since I sway neither direction, would you consider it to be propoganda or a desperate attempt to support ones own agenda if he were to support partial birth abortion or socialized medicine. The problem is you seem to have a difficult time understanding the purpose and the objective of politics. If you were able to understand them well you would quickly conclude that he is a republican and that is what he supports due due to a personal belief on national policy. What he believe is best for the people. That is no different than a liberal believing that a human embryo before reaching a certain weight can not be considered human therefore legalizing abortion. It’s all a matter of interperetations of reality but not necessarily reality itself. I wish not to argue any other issue but the one at hand so if you respond due not use my example to platform a new argument.
As far as the issue, I also find it to be duplicitous when individuals believe that abstinence is bad policy. For whom may I add? For you because you want to get laid? For the countless number of children born out of wedlock or a positive family environment. In a logical deductive argument it’s necessary to support conclusions with at least two premisis. Any person can have a conlucion but please give us the why.I find it far more amazing that we are even able to have a sexual partner let alone many sexual partners. There are many who find sexuality to be incredibly sacred and they covet that with their hearts. So why believe it to be bad policy or unnatural. Just because you believe it to be unnatural by no means states it as being empirically wrong but its subjectively disagreed with. Please learn to support your idea rather than expousing conclusive stements with no logicaly progressive thought. It makes you sound as though you are nothing more than a resounding liberal gong of persuasion. You are smarter than that.
Vroom write,
It almost makes me wonder if Bush is really in control or just lets underling cronies set up a neo-con agenda…
Again, I can’t quite understand this one. I have a hard time understanding why so many insist that the President of the United States is the leader of the free world. He is barely leader in this country. With the way this government is set up, what power does he have partisan of checks and balances, the senate, house, and the judiciary committees and courts. The president does nothing without the approval of congress unless there is an executive order which 99.9% of the time, his power is merely in proposing policies or signing them.The battle isn’t even for the presidency it’s for the majority in the house and senate. Why are we so arrogant and pompous to believe that we ae the leaders of the free world. Has anyone here ever lived in another country because I have. National policies have no impact on macro-political bodies. And please do not say thatwe support the world economy because all large countries with some shred of advancement contribute to the world market. What happened when the Yen when down a few years ago, what happened. What happened when the Deutche Mark went down, so also did our market. What happened when the Euro was implamented, it stabalized the world economy. So lets stop waxing superiority and concede to a syneristic economy where we are dependent on not just one but all.
After all of that, I believe Kerry to be inadaquate for office and it was shamefully inappropriate for his unwillingness to stand for the appropriate political response. It’s just another case of a politician frightened to ruffle the feathers by doing what was right for the people rather than, at the immediate time, what he felt was right for his political career.
lol, veg, you are a nut! I’m not attempting to divert, I’m attempting to resurrect a failing argument. Obviously nobody cares… so I’ve tried other things – unsuccessfully.
What the hell has this “scramble for purchase” got to do with liberal or conservative issues?
Matty, as a “powerless” individual I can say what I want. As a sitting administration, there is geniune power to influence policy and activity – both legitimate and illegitimate.
Science should not be subjected to partisan politics or have to be vetted by religious conservatives.
For example, many Christian Conservatives want Creationism taught in the schools Science classes. This would reflect their religious beliefs (God created the Universe in 7 days) rather than Darwinism (evolution), which has been accepted as a basic scientific principle for over 100 years.
What’s next? That thunder and lightning mean that God is angry?
Teaching abstinence is based on the religious beliefs of Christian Conservatives, it’s not based on public health studies or good science. If teaching abstinence wasn’t based on Christian Conservative values, then it wouldn’t have taken an administration grounded in Christian Conservative values to implement it, it would have been public policy years ago.
I believe it was Rainjack who claimed that teaching kids about contraception “didn’t work” and that teen pregnancy and STDs were at an all time high since schools began teaching about contraception. I would like to see some proof of this claim, that teaching contraception has been tied to a rise in teen pregnancy and STDs over the past 20 years.