In Texas, the bastion of abstinence only sex education - the teen pregnancy rate is the 5th highest in the US. And, undoubtedly an additional side effect of the non-educational "sex education" campaign, is that Texas also has the 2nd highest teen birthrate. And these numbers have shown no quantifiable downward trend, as has been exhibited in states such as Virginia and Washington, where I can only assume, better sex education systems are in place (someone please confirm this for me).
Yet more Texas based sexual health report wonderfulness... Not only is the teen pregnancy rate seen as increasing significantly, but associated STD problems are also on the increase as a result of a lack of sex-education.
AMCHP 2005 ANNUAL CONFERENCE- DELIVERING RESULTS, IMPROVING PREGNANCY & BIRTH February 19-23, 2005 wrote:The Chlamydial infection rate in our population in Lubbock , Texas , that are seeking pregnancy testing is 21 percent. The pregnancy rate varies up and down a little bit. This slide is a little bit old, I can tell you because we’ve had a rash unfortunately of people under the age of 16 in the last three months. We’ve seen that rate climb from 18 percent pregnancy rate up to a 33 percent pregnancy rate under the age of 16. And in the group that is both pregnant and has Chlamydia, we see it at 23 percent. So we have a problem. We have an emerging problem that even the CDC is not aware of because the CDC doesn’t collect pregnancy data on anybody under the age of 15. We also know that we have a problem in that these patients if they are pregnant once during their early teens, chances are they will get pregnant again. So hopefully through the education we can lower the pregnancy rate, we can lower the Chlamydial infection rate and get these young ladies to having healthy babies if they’re going to have children at all before they hit age 18, we’d like to have an impact there as well.
All of this could be spared for the use of just a few fucking condoms.
Cheers for those links, Ando. My dial-up at home doesn't allow me to find such articles in any decent time. Now I have to see how he reacts to the black & white fallacy claimof evil and these reports on abstinence not working.
Darth Wong wrote:The linchpin of his argument is the premise that anything which detracts from the theoretical maximum "goodness" of an act is evil. Naturally, the best way to attack his argument is to attack this premise.
Or tell him that, given that it is evil not to use a good thing to its full goodness, and that wasting nutrition/food (a good thing) and that feces contains undigested food, it must logically be evil for him not to eat his own shit.
Darth Wong wrote:The linchpin of his argument is the premise that anything which detracts from the theoretical maximum "goodness" of an act is evil. Naturally, the best way to attack his argument is to attack this premise.
Or tell him that, given that it is evil not to use a good thing to its full goodness, and that wasting nutrition/food (a good thing) and that feces contains undigested food, it must logically be evil for him not to eat his own shit.
Ghetto Edit: Or tell him that, given that it is evil not to use a good thing to its full goodness, then wasting nutrition/food (a good thing) must be evil, and since feces contains undigested food, it must logically be evil for him not to eat his own shit
Huh. One of the people on that board has almost the same username as me.
Oh, right, the contraceptive argument. Well, we don't always have our eyes see. We close them we sleep, we squint if it's too bright out, and that's perfectly all right.
And to say that keeping reproductive organs from reproducing is evil is just poorly-thought out. If that's true, women should be pregant or trying to get pregnant from when they reach puberty to menopause. Hell, that argument works against abstinence just as well.
Justforfun000 wrote:What board is this on? I want to respond to him there!
First of all his logic is flawed because then the body would be evil for having wet dreams because it's a "waste" of reproductive sperm. OF course the natural universe could give a flying fuck whether or not you ejaculate 500 times and impregnate once. It's simply evolutionary capability to further the species.
Er, its flawed, but logical and factual insofar as it affirms Christian dogma. The body is a bag of sin born in sin.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:On another board, we have two new Catholic posters who seem to be very active in the science forum of the board debating ethics and morality as well as the way the universe works. Recently, a little snippet on contraception as an offshoot of one topic caught my eye.
The board's name is of no concern to you. The last thing I want is a perfectly civil place where mostly teens post to be invaded by people here. It is to do with a children's book of Harry Potter scale fame and I am one of the handful of over 18s that posts there. I just wanted some insight as to what people thought of this Catholic belief in contraception.
Justforfun000 wrote:What board is this on? I want to respond to him there!
First of all his logic is flawed because then the body would be evil for having wet dreams because it's a "waste" of reproductive sperm. OF course the natural universe could give a flying fuck whether or not you ejaculate 500 times and impregnate once. It's simply evolutionary capability to further the species.
Er, its flawed, but logical and factual insofar as it affirms Christian dogma. The body is a bag of sin born in sin.
An argument based on a false premise that doesn't even work consistently is hardly logical at all. You can't have an logical argument if it's foundation is inherently flawed.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
You might like to ask him to justify the statement
“The reproductive organs in humans are meant to be used for reproduction as the name suggests.”
That may be true for most other mammals and indeed animals but our sexual organs also have very important social functions in strengthening the emotional bonds between couples, a function which is useful even when conception is impossible.
It seems to me at least that CSRansom is arguing that it would be “evil” for a fertile person to marry an infertile person as this would render “the sexual act impotent” you could ask him if any of the following scenarios are “evil”
1. for a fertile man to marry and have sex with an infertile or post menopausal woman.
2. for a fertile woman to marry and have sex with an infertile man.
3. for a fertile man to have sex with his wife when she’s already pregnant.
4. for a fertile man to continue to have sex with his wife after she’s gone through the menopause.
5. for an infertile man to marry and have sex with an infertile woman.
In all those scenarios the sexual partners would be fully aware that conception is impossible but still go ahead and have sex because they find it helps keep their marriage strong. You could also put a twist on things in scenarios 1&2 by stating that the fertile partner deliberately married someone who was infertile because they didn’t want children but fully intended to love and stay faithful to their partner.
The Dark wrote:Bonobo monkeys are rather...interesting creatures. They participate in cunnilingus, fellatio, masturbation, bisexuality, incest, sex in different positions, and group sex. Lesbianism is very common among bonobos, although it seems to be a social bonding ritual, not an exclusive sexuality. Bonobos are known for having sex more than eight times a day (I'm sure it's just for reproduction, though ) and are extremely polyamorous.
As I said in biology class in high school once or twice..."I wanna be descended from THEM!"
You might like to ask him to justify the statement
"The reproductive organs in humans are meant to be used for reproduction as the name suggests."
That may be true for most other mammals and indeed animals but our sexual organs also have very important social functions in strengthening the emotional bonds between couples, a function which is useful even when conception is impossible.
Never mind that; he first has to demonstrate that there was conscious intent behind the physical features of the human body, and that it is evil to do anything contrary to or detracting from that intent. The same rebuttal applies: the ovulation process was "meant" to be used for conception, so failing to have sex on the day of ovulation if EEEEEEVIL according to his logic.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off. He's a tight-ass. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord. Worship that? Never. "
Al Pacino's kickass speech during the Devil's Advocate
You might like to ask him to justify the statement
"The reproductive organs in humans are meant to be used for reproduction as the name suggests."
That may be true for most other mammals and indeed animals but our sexual organs also have very important social functions in strengthening the emotional bonds between couples, a function which is useful even when conception is impossible.
Never mind that; he first has to demonstrate that there was conscious intent behind the physical features of the human body, and that it is evil to do anything contrary to or detracting from that intent. The same rebuttal applies: the ovulation process was "meant" to be used for conception, so failing to have sex on the day of ovulation if EEEEEEVIL according to his logic.
I agree that that’s the most glaring failing in his argument and that his case fails on that alone, sometimes though I find it useful to come at things from other angles as well in order to appeal to readers who are less rigorously rational than they tend to be here. I guess it’s because I spend too much time politicking in rl so I’m used to having to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Never mind that; he first has to demonstrate that there was conscious intent behind the physical features of the human body, and that it is evil to do anything contrary to or detracting from that intent. The same rebuttal applies: the ovulation process was "meant" to be used for conception, so failing to have sex on the day of ovulation if EEEEEEVIL according to his logic.
Of course this approach will probably fly right over their head, because they aren't really trying to argue that sex is wrong to do, it's just wrong to do in any way shape or form that isn't according to THEIR beliefs. They start from this premise and simply throw in vague biological statements like "It's not meant for this purpose" when they haven't the slightest fucking clue what the full purpose is of ANY biological funtion in the body. The version in their head is probably as applicable as comparing Monopoly to the Real Estate Market.
Not to mention that even the word "purpose" is a little bit misleading because it implies a design or set of rules that some authority laid down to follow. Nature may use this term, but it's not really ideal because it's suggesting the "why" of existence because of the association of that word with a reason for being that way. I mean I know it's still sort of the same thing, but agh, difficult to get this point out...I think most of you would understand where I'm going with this. The word purpose in that instance would be better defined as simply function and ability, but the only "Why" behind it might simply be because that's the way things evolved.
What's tough is getting in people's head that if you DON'T believe in God, there is no such thing as a true "why", and therefore using any function of your body for something different then the norm would not be "evil" in and of itself.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
) and are extremely polyamorous.
