near as i can figure he must be a freaking idiot

[Clint]

You don't need a condom to have sex. It's not a key to a car. That's the whole point; you don't need one to have sex but you should use one and have access. Your opinion that your morality should be enforced on everyone else is not good enough. It's not worth teenagers getting pregnant and possibly ruining their lives. They could have been doctors or lawyers, but at 14 with a kid it's hard to concentrate on your home work, isn't it? Sure, they can get abortions, but that leaves the risk of some emotional trauma. Of course they could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but then there's just another kid that could be bounced from foster home to foster home.

There is also a part of me that feels that if someone is stupid enough to have sex without a condom, if they get pregnant they really deserve it when they're practically free when you buy them, and they ARE free from health teachers and health clinics. My friend thought she'd be OK if her BF pulled out, and that they didn't need a condom. Luckily she didn't get pregnant, although if she had she could have expected to whine about it to someone other than me. Maybe that makes me a bad friend, but it certainly makes her stupid.

With a condom, however, all of that would be avoided 99.9% of the time. And that's just pregnancy. That doesn't touch on disease. I was ASTONISHED when I heard on TV that one out of five peole have herpes or HPV (or something like that.). I had NO idea. Now I'm even more afraid of sex, even with a condom lol. If more people used condoms, then maybe it wouldn't be so high.

 

[Capensis]

I agree with Clint. I was also surprised when I heard that on that commercial.

 

[Capslock]

By the way, all the data shows that "abstinence-only" education is a total failure. It increases STD rates and teen pregnancy by maintaining a state of ignorance among kids. It's just a well-intentioned, but very bad idea. Kids need information, not unrealistic scolding. The drive to have sex is universal, and we need to accept that some people under 18 are going to have sex. We should at least arm them with proper and true information.

Capslock

 

[Outsiders71]

Outsiders71 is right - many of the founding fathers were religious, some though were quite opposed to organized relgion. Regardless, ideas in the Bible ARE used in the founding of our society. But, I need to point out that those ideas are ones with a rational basis that even us atheists share - like not killing or stealing. The specific ideas unique to Christianity dealing with saviors and such are not there, for a reason. The founding fathers wanted to protect Christians, Jews, infidels, everyone equally. But it's absolutely true that ideas in the Bible did influence the founding fathers, and make their way into the Constitution. It's just that they were really good ideas on their own merits, God didn't need to deem them so - they stand on their own!

Capslock

Thanks for the additional input. I just wanted to add that yes they may stand on their own but I think it is important to recognize where they came from and give credit to its source . These ideals that are forefathers borrowed were revolutionary, and not found in any other country at the time.

 

[xvart]

Now lets try to think outside of the box a little here. Tell me how it is beneficial for people who aren't able to support themselves, let alone a baby, to engage in sexual activities that provide the risk of having said baby. Please do also factor in the major possibility of the father not supporting the baby or the mother and the effects it will have on that mother's life. Also take in effect the kind of upbringing that child will have.

Because teenagers are going to have sex. Teaching them responsible sex is a much better way to curb STDs, teen pregnancy, etc. Of course teens shouldn't be having sex! No one is arguing otherwise. But telling people not to do something, and that's then end of the conversation, is not going to work. It will work for some, but not for everyone, and I would say not for the majority, but I have no evidence to back that up.

Give me two traditional communities. One teaches responsible sex and one teaches abstinence only. I guarantee that the sexual activity rates among teenagers will most likely be statistically significantly equal while the unwanted teen pregnancy and STD rates will be higher in the abstinence only community.

edit:

By the way, all the data shows that "abstinence-only" education is a total failure. It increases STD rates and teen pregnancy by maintaining a state of ignorance among kids. It's just a well-intentioned, but very bad idea. Kids need information, not unrealistic scolding. The drive to have sex is universal, and we need to accept that some people under 18 are going to have sex. We should at least arm them with proper and true information.

Capslock

exactly.

xvart.

 

[rattler]

one thing to take into consideration on "teen sex"...........100-150 years ago and throughout history before that.... it was normal to be married and starting a family at 14-16.......nothing biologically has changed with ppl in that time period....just sociologically...in western countries.......

 

[xvart]

one thing to take into consideration on "teen sex"...........100-150 years ago and throughout history before that.... it was normal to be married and starting a family at 14-16.......nothing biologically has changed with ppl in that time period....just sociologically...in western countries.......

Interesting. I had never thought of that before, Rattler; but, it does make sense. Thanks for bringing that up.

xvart.

 

[Outsiders71]

You don't need a condom to have sex. It's not a key to a car. That's the whole point; you don't need one to have sex but you should use one and have access. Your opinion that your morality should be enforced on everyone else is not good enough. It's not worth teenagers getting pregnant and possibly ruining their lives. They could have been doctors or lawyers, but at 14 with a kid it's hard to concentrate on your home work, isn't it? Sure, they can get abortions, but that leaves the risk of some emotional trauma. Of course they could have the kid and put it up for adoption, but then there's just another kid that could be bounced from foster home to foster home.

There is also a part of me that feels that if someone is stupid enough to have sex without a condom, if they get pregnant they really deserve it when they're practically free when you buy them, and they ARE free from health teachers and health clinics. My friend thought she'd be OK if her BF pulled out, and that they didn't need a condom. Luckily she didn't get pregnant, although if she had she could have expected to whine about it to someone other than me. Maybe that makes me a bad friend, but it certainly makes her stupid.

With a condom, however, all of that would be avoided 99.9% of the time. And that's just pregnancy. That doesn't touch on disease. I was ASTONISHED when I heard on TV that one out of five peole have herpes or HPV (or something like that.). I had NO idea. Now I'm even more afraid of sex, even with a condom lol. If more people used condoms, then maybe it wouldn't be so high.

I agree with some of what you said but you're missing what I'm trying to say. I'm not basing this on just my faith or beliefs or morality for that matter. From a logical standpoint, it makes no sense for a couple to engage in sex (I guess particularly heterosexuals) if they are not able to maturely and financially deal with the consequences of it. So why is it wrong then to encourage and promote waiting until you're able to deal with it? Obviously not everyone is going to want to wait but more can be done to show kids the consequences of sex.

 

[phissionkorps]

I think it's fair to say that it is not accurate to claim the Bible influenced the forefathers when laying the groundwork for our country. Just because you see a pattern does not mean there is a pattern.

x2 again. The christian's argument is that if there's no god, where does morality come from? It's innate within us. People have existed for 100-250,000 years. Do you REALLY think they survived and had functioning society for 98,000-248,000 years, and thought murder, ****, etc were all perfectly ok, until they got the ten commandments and realized, "uh oh, we've had it wrong this whole time!". That's ridiculous....humans wouldn't have been able to exist for so long if we thought all that stuff was perfectly fine. Those things were outlawed long before the abrahamic religions came into being. If our laws are based so heavily on the bible, why isn't anyone arrested for coveting their neighbor's wife or cattle?
We live in the only nation that not only guarantees us freedom of religion, but freedom FROM religion, and that is what the founding fathers put into the Constitution. They wanted people to be free from any and all religion, not to "instill christian values in everyone" or some other such nonsense. Read Thomas Jefferson: Author of America for a much needed history lesson. Of the founding fathers that did believe in a god, almost all of them were deists. Also, you can look it up and see what religion most of those people were, but that's kind of a zeitgeist thing. A good number of them were atheists, but back in those days, it was dangerous to announce a lack of faith, so many people did not.

God didn't need to deem them so - they stand on their own!

Agreed. Human society has outlawed those things since the beginning (10s of thousands of years before the abrahamic god). We didn't need "god" to come in and go "yeah, btw, you're doing it right". We already knew.

If I show my dog his leash, he wants to go for a walk. If I hand someone keys to a sports car that's parked in a massive parking lot, they're going to try to find it and drive it.

Faulty logic. The dog "psyche" is nothing like that of a human's. Dogs work through conditioned response, while (clearly only some) humans have rationality and reason to work off of. As to the second example, the person won't go driving around if you mention the side effects are AIDS, herpes, and the worst STD of all: a kid!

Btw, the pill is 99.7% effective....which more or less = 100%. I've been hitting it nasty since I was 14, and I've never had a condom break, never gotten a girl pregz, etc. If a girl takes the pills like she should, and isn't on antibiotics, it more or less will not fail. 99.7% efficacy + 90something% efficacy for condoms = you're safe from pregnancy. Period. What is with all these fools that think if semen gets in a girl ONE TIME she's going to get pregnant? It doesn't work like that, and there are many more couples than you think that are trying to have kids and can't, or it takes a month+ to get it right.

many would argue even greater odds that the activity is going to take place regardless if a contraceptive is available.

Prove it. I've turned girls down before because a condom wasn't available.

I'm sorry but could you show me where I said for religious reasons I don't believe condoms should be taught?

I never said you said that. Read before you try to misrepresent me yet again. However, "abstinence only" finds its greatest support in the religious right.

Maybe before you partake in discussions on this forum you should remove your blatant hatred to anyone who isn't as Atheist as yourself.

No thanks, I'm quite happy with things as they are. Humanity would undoubtedly be far better off and able to advance to our full potential without the superstitious unfounded poison that is religion. Not to mention, there'd be much less senseless killing!

 

[xvart]

So why is it wrong then to encourage and promote waiting until you're able to deal with it?

Because giving someone adequate knowledge and a condom is not "encouraging" them to have sex. It's educating them so that if they do decide to have sex, we are encouraging them to do it safely and responsibly.

And, the whole point that has sort of been glossed over is about the supplemental education about the fiscal, social, etc. responsibilities of having a child or getting an STD. Abstinence only education doesn't worry about this because none of that matters because kids shouldn't be having sex and won't have sex (except it doesn't work).

It's a dual approach. Teach about the consequences of sex while teaching how to behave responsibility instead of not teaching anything.

xvart.

 

[Clint]

You're 100% correct. The thing is, we are not Vulcans. Sex isn't a logical act. The times where it is done with the purpose of producing a child are the minority. It's fun. People do it because it's fun, not because they want kids. It feels fantastic, but if you're a virgin (I mean no offense, if that's your decision that's cool with me) then you can't really know that. Unless you've had the safest sex of all, in which case you better go pray for forgiveness for that, too, but the truth is they can't compare. It's like a Happy Meal versus a five course meal prepared from scratch laid out on silver, with 50 year old wine.

Promoting waiting until you deal with the consequences, IE a baby, is not the same as promoting waiting until you're married. You can be emotionally mature enough to deal with a kid before you are married. What if you decide that your way of dealing with the consequences is to have an abortion? That's perfectly acceptable, However, with condoms, there's really no need to worry.

In school, health classes do not encourage you to become a doctor. Math classes do not encourage you to become a mathematician. Science classes do not encourage you to become a chemist and English classes do not encourage you to become a writer. They are things you MUST know in this world. What you do with the information you learn is your own business.



I don't think you ever answered my comprehension question

 

[xvart]

but if you're a virgin then you can't really know that.

The point here would be that teenagers are all virgins at one point and don't know. SO I would add to the supporting instincts and human psyche position. We are sexual beings, period, whether we've had sex already or not.

xvart.

 

[Clint]

Good point! We are curious. Which brings me to another point. Tell a teenager not to do something, and that only makes them want to do it ten times more. A neutral attitude towards sex will not do this like one that promotes it as something so great, they can't have it for themselves would. And of course no adult will tell teenagers to go out and screw around, because that's just creepy. Of course not caring that the hell they do is another matter.

I know if I ever learn some patience and have a kid, I'm going to give them condoms whether they like it or not! Kids will be kids. Same with alcohol. My rents say if I'm ever in trouble and need a ride because I'm high or drunk or whatever, they'll pick me up without questions even if I'm underage. Of course they don't want me to get drunk or high, whether I need a ride or not, but they realize this isn't an ideal world. If they didn't, I'd never call them and could get in worse trouble. Of course I'd never be in that situation stranded, but some would.

 

[Finch]

On the dems, they are pushing for votes so hard now that Clinton came for a rally in our town at noon a few days ago. My town does not top... um i forget the population, but it was interesting. Not that crowded there (...) but it was neat. Might see Obama too as he will be speaking in a nearby town in the coming weeks.

JLAP has become clint, I see. Nice!

 

[rattler]

thats interesting Finch......cause Hilary does not give a rip about rural America......theres a guy i know pretty well, he is in my state senate, he is a democrat but for the most part he gathers all the info on an issue and than decides how he will vote, and most of the time i agree with how he votes but he drives me nuts in that he always supports the democratic candidate regardless of weither their ideals match up.....anyways up until a year ago he was a big Hilary fan, until he got a chance to sit down with her during some big dinner. he actually basically got to talk to her one on one for most of 2 hours......going into the dinner he was one of her biggest supporters, after it he is one of her biggest critics......why? cause she is very big at dumping money into the cities and social programs for the ghetto areas and such and thinks those of us in fly over country arent worth her time other than to press the flesh and get votes and generally cant wait to get the hell away from those of us in rural America.....

 

[Ozzy]

Rattler, I think that pretty much describes all the candidates.

 

[swords]

very big at dumping money into the cities and social programs for the ghetto areas and such

My god, you people are from another world!
You people talk of black (ghetto) and poor persons if they weren't even humans. Are you against any program that helps anyone other than rich white christians?

I sure hope not one of you proud people ever has to ask for any sort of help from the government cos you really don't deserve it if you don't believe anyone else does.

 

[Finch]

I know she doesnt get a rip about rural people but when a candidate you might vote for visits your town you go, that does not happen every day around here you know. I dont see why money into cities is like "dumping" it, but there is a very real rural need for things too. And you should hear what obama think about rural America- bitter gun toting xenophobes. He said that, too.

 

[rattler]

That's what I thought, but I'm still worried.

My god, you people are from another world!
You people talk of black (ghetto) and poor persons if they weren't even humans. Are you against any program that helps anyone other than rich white christians?

I sure hope not one of you proud people ever has to ask for any sort of help from the government cos you really don't deserve it if you don't believe anyone else does.

for all intents and purposes swords i live in basically a rural ghetto and am on one of the poorer indian reservations in the country........ive sat and watched millions of dollars given away in handouts and see the kind of people that come from such a system. what we need most in this country is a complete revamping of the welfare system and other than a couple of candidates that are out of the running no one has the balls to do it....why? cause thats a huge portion of the democratic parties voter base and hell even the idiot republicans know they will never win an election on such a platform.......

..........hell according to the government im below poverty line but yah know what i live pretty darn good compared to most cause its cheap to live here and we will take the purse strings being tight over hand outs..........i have sat for 26 years and watched the majority of the ppl in the welfare system be nothing but leeches....fully capable of working but only hold a job long enough so they can get on welfare again......we have about the highest unemployment rate in the state but stores are closing down cause you cant find someone who will actually work for what they are worth....business owners cant afford to pay someone $10 an hour to run a till....you cant make enough money on the merchandise to handle that......we are paying a gal several dollars more than i make cause she is a hard worker and we dont want someone to hire her out from under us and im skilled labor and she aint.....most of the good employees in the town are constantly getting sniped by the various employeers that can afford to pay someone that much for even unskilled labor.....

you want me to care about those that are on hard times through no fault of their own? i do......but the system is so full of parasites right now that it needs to go and maybe figure out something new to take its place......but that aint going to happen under Obama or Clinton or McCain.......all of them are politicians first and foremost......all else is a distant second.........its just going to be the same ol crap, just some one different feeding it to you....

 

[rattler]

I know she doesnt get a rip about rural people but when a candidate you might vote for visits your town you go, that does not happen every day around here you know. I dont see why money into cities is like "dumping" it, but there is a very real rural need for things too. And you should hear what obama think about rural America- bitter gun toting xenophobes. He said that, too.

and Hilary was all of a 3 hour drive from me....Obama 2 and a half.......wouldnt have gone to see them if they were in my town.....wouldnt bother for McCain either........