quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Reality is that many people succumb to the lures of sex.

Amend this to read almost all people who aren't:
*too socially inept to convince anyone to have sex with them
*too fugly to be found attractive by anyone
*or too psychologically scarred

and we'll be in agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That can be a nearly insurmountable desire, and our kids should be educated to deal with that reality.

Agreed, preaching that they should deny this biological imperative is unrealistic, unhelpful, unhealthy and unsafe. I'm advocating instead that they be taught safe outlets to appease the compulsion as well as safe and healthy practices of when and how to have sex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

We do have proof of the acceleration at the fringes of the universe, radio and light from distances indicating they were from the early years of the big bang show tremendous red shifts, which is proof. It is why continuous creation was blown out as a theory, the red shift from radiation from the early time of the universe disproved it...

Lauren;

We differ on epistemology. What is proof and what is evidence? The acceleration is an excellent interpretation of the excess red shift. If you wish to call that 'proof' I won't argue but I will remain wary, remembering the Ptolemaic interpretations of observations of movements in the night skies.

Vincent-

I get your point, but the phenomenon of light shifting into the red end of the spectrum is not just an observation, it has been tested in labs and has proven out as a fact. When a light source is moving away from the viewer, the spectrum is shifted into the red if it is moving away, and the more it is in the red zone, the faster it is moving away..what also has been observed with distant galaxies is not only do they move faster the further away they are, their rate of speed (the red shift) increases with the same light source when tracked over time (if I recall correctly), which means it is not just moving away from us, but accelerating. What that also indicates is that further away bodies must be accelerating as well, since if they weren't nearer objects would overtake them....though obviously, when talking on a galactic scale, or universe scale, we are talking billions and billions of years, so changes are going to be subtle I would guess.

You points is well taken, however, the concept of proof is a tough one, there might be an explanation that is different than what we believe....the ptolemaic system was a bit different, in that it didn't come from observations and was not a scientific theory at all, it was more about Greek philosophy that placed the earth at the center of the solar system (even in Greek and ROman times, people already were postulating the sun was the center)....and the RC took the ptolemaic system because it fit their beliefs, not because there were observations to prove it, so it was a philosophy point that had no backing at all..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If you aren't having sex, how is it not an effective form of birth control?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You: "Condoms when used correctly are 98% effective..."

Me: Abstinence, when used, is 100% effective.

*Sigh*

Apart from, as the thread title makes clear, the question is not whether abstinence is effective, but whether the teaching of abstinence as a form of sex education is effective.

If I acknowledge that (in the abstract) you're right and the former is 100% effective will you engage with the latter instead? Because this pedantic fucking about is getting a bit dull.

I think the question is actually different than you propose.

Is there a significant societal benefit to delaying sex?

I would say there is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
There is never societal benefit in ignorance, and a lesson on abstinence is not education at all, it is a sensibilization campaign, School purpose is to give young people the tools to be an adult, sex and birth control are part of adult life so school has a duty to theach how properly use them, otherwise they will have to try by attempts... and that's a risky way.

Who here, is supporting "abstinence only" education? Even the question of whether or not delaying sex has a societal benefit doesn't necessarily mean that "abstinence only" education is the best.
Abstaining from sex is still the most effective form of birth control. Sex education discussions should include, but not be limited to, that.

Not directly but in the end it is... there are also social and health benefits in walking, riding a bike and using public trasportation for short distances than always using a private car but you are not told about this during driving school classes... abstinence is a different concept than a taking responsible decision.
edit: also abortion is 100% effective in birth control, but it doesn't make it a good method.

Abortion costs a lot more than not having sex, too, but not having sex tends to not result in pregnancy. If you have proof otherwise that not having sex does result in pregnancy, then, by all means, put it out there.

I agree that sex education should include abstinence as a form of pregnancy and STD transmission prevention, but that sex education is not limited to that. Reality is that many people succumb to the lures of sex. That can be a nearly insurmountable desire, and our kids should be educated to deal with that reality. IMO, I want my kids to choose to abstain from sex until they are ready to deal with the consequences that having sex might bring, but I want them to be ready to be protected if they find that they can't abstain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

We do have proof of the acceleration at the fringes of the universe, radio and light from distances indicating they were from the early years of the big bang show tremendous red shifts, which is proof. It is why continuous creation was blown out as a theory, the red shift from radiation from the early time of the universe disproved it...

Lauren;

We differ on epistemology. What is proof and what is evidence? The acceleration is an excellent interpretation of the excess red shift. If you wish to call that 'proof' I won't argue but I will remain wary, remembering the Ptolemaic interpretations of observations of movements in the night skies.

Vincent-

I get your point, but the phenomenon of light shifting into the red end of the spectrum is not just an observation, it has been tested in labs and has proven out as a fact. When a light source is moving away from the viewer, the spectrum is shifted into the red if it is moving away, and the more it is in the red zone, the faster it is moving away..what also has been observed with distant galaxies is not only do they move faster the further away they are, their rate of speed (the red shift) increases with the same light source when tracked over time (if I recall correctly), which means it is not just moving away from us, but accelerating. What that also indicates is that further away bodies must be accelerating as well, since if they weren't nearer objects would overtake them....though obviously, when talking on a galactic scale, or universe scale, we are talking billions and billions of years, so changes are going to be subtle I would guess.

You points is well taken, however, the concept of proof is a tough one, there might be an explanation that is different than what we believe....the ptolemaic system was a bit different, in that it didn't come from observations and was not a scientific theory at all, it was more about Greek philosophy that placed the earth at the center of the solar system (even in Greek and ROman times, people already were postulating the sun was the center)....and the RC took the ptolemaic system because it fit their beliefs, not because there were observations to prove it, so it was a philosophy point that had no backing at all..

Lauren,

Yes, in the laboratory we have proved that light shifting further into the red spectrum is associated with an acceleration of the light emitting object and since the laws of physics are taken to apply equally everywhere in the universe it seems true that the farthest galaxies are flying away at a faster rate. But I dislike the word 'proof' here. Mainly, I dislike the word when applied to any Theory (Model) in science but especially in astrophysics. The concept of rapid acceleration pushed by dark energy at constant density seems very counterintuitive. I know I should not be surprised that it is, but it seems open to challenge.

You might wish to read more about Ptolemy and the Almagast I think you will find that the Planetary Theory was more scientific than philosophical.

quote:

. . . almost no one abstains from sex . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You: "Condoms when used correctly are 98% effective..."

Me: Abstinence, when used, is 100% effective.

*Sigh*

Apart from, as the thread title makes clear, the question is not whether abstinence is effective, but whether the teaching of abstinence as a form of sex education is effective.

If I acknowledge that (in the abstract) you're right and the former is 100% effective will you engage with the latter instead? Because this pedantic fucking about is getting a bit dull.

I think the question is actually different than you propose.

Is there a significant societal benefit to delaying sex?

I would say there is.

There is never societal benefit in ignorance, and a lesson on abstinence is not education at all, it is a sensibilization campaign, School purpose is to give young people the tools to be an adult, sex and birth control are part of adult life so school has a duty to theach how properly use them, otherwise they will have to try by attempts... and that's a risky way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I do believe the very concept that we have age appropriate movies pg-13 pretty much belies your assertion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
But you continue to argue that abstinence is effective at stopping pregnancy and the spread of STD's despite overwhelming evidence that it is not. The only way it is is if the people who claim to be abstinent are 100% perfect and honest. However when the same statement is made about condoms you are more than happy to bring up improper usage and people failing to actually use a condom when they claim they use it.
So why the double standard?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Abortion costs a lot more than not having sex

but it is 100% effective in birth control? if you have proves that a well perfrmed abortion resoulted in a birth please put it out there.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That can be a nearly insurmountable desire, and our kids should be educated to deal with that reality.

Agreed, preaching that they should deny this biological imperative is unrealistic, unhelpful, unhealthy and unsafe. I'm advocating instead that they be taught safe outlets to appease the compulsion as well as safe and healthy practices of when and how to have sex.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Reality is that many people succumb to the lures of sex. That can be a nearly insurmountable desire, and our kids should be educated to deal with that reality. IMO, I want my kids to choose to abstain from sex until they are ready to deal with the consequences that having sex might bring, but I want them to be ready to be protected if they find that they can't abstain.

That's where I don't agree with you, they should be educated to affection, to have an emotional healty relationship and to self determination, sexual maturity arrives before economical stability. I don't want for any person to be thaught to repress his feelings. I got shocked when I read that statistic where half of a group of 12-14 year olders had already engaged in sex, this has nothing to do with sexual education classes or abstinence teaching, they just don't have developped any other way to relate between themself and they try to act as adults without understanding what it means, this is just an example of social deprivation, probably for lack of positive models, and talking about abstinence has no effect on that.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you aren't having sex, how is it not an effective form of birth control?

It didn't work for Mary

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
But you continue to argue that abstinence is effective at stopping pregnancy and the spread of STD's despite overwhelming evidence that it is not. The only way it is is if the people who claim to be abstinent are 100% perfect and honest. However when the same statement is made about condoms you are more than happy to bring up improper usage and people failing to actually use a condom when they claim they use it.
So why the double standard?

Where have I brought up people failing to actually use a condom?

When you use a condom during intercourse, the risk of the condom breaking or it's not being used properly goes with the territory. You can choose to use a condom, and, through no choice of your own, the condom breaks, and you have an increased risk of pregnancy and/or STD transmission.

Compare that with abstinence. If you are abstaining from intercourse, there is nothing that goes wrong without your choice. I acknowledge there is still a risk of STD transmission because kissing isn't considered sex, and STD's can be transmitted via saliva.

So, please show me how abstaining from sexual intercourse results in more pregnancies than any other non-sterilizing form of birth control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
But you continue to argue that abstinence is effective at stopping pregnancy and the spread of STD's despite overwhelming evidence that it is not. The only way it is is if the people who claim to be abstinent are 100% perfect and honest. However when the same statement is made about condoms you are more than happy to bring up improper usage and people failing to actually use a condom when they claim they use it.
So why the double standard?

Where have I brought up people failing to actually use a condom?
When you use a condom during intercourse, the risk of the condom breaking or it's not being used properly goes with the territory. You can choose to use a condom, and, through no choice of your own, the condom breaks, and you have an increased risk of pregnancy and/or STD transmission.
Compare that with abstinence. If you are abstaining from intercourse, there is nothing that goes wrong without your choice. I acknowledge there is still a risk of STD transmission because kissing isn't considered sex, and STD's can be transmitted via saliva.
So, please show me how abstaining from sexual intercourse results in more pregnancies than any other non-sterilizing form of birth control.

Because, just like condom usage, practicing abstinence is not perfect. That is the point people have been making to you for many pages now.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
But you continue to argue that abstinence is effective at stopping pregnancy and the spread of STD's despite overwhelming evidence that it is not. The only way it is is if the people who claim to be abstinent are 100% perfect and honest. However when the same statement is made about condoms you are more than happy to bring up improper usage and people failing to actually use a condom when they claim they use it.
So why the double standard?

Where have I brought up people failing to actually use a condom?
When you use a condom during intercourse, the risk of the condom breaking or it's not being used properly goes with the territory. You can choose to use a condom, and, through no choice of your own, the condom breaks, and you have an increased risk of pregnancy and/or STD transmission.
Compare that with abstinence. If you are abstaining from intercourse, there is nothing that goes wrong without your choice. I acknowledge there is still a risk of STD transmission because kissing isn't considered sex, and STD's can be transmitted via saliva.
So, please show me how abstaining from sexual intercourse results in more pregnancies than any other non-sterilizing form of birth control.

Because, just like condom usage, practicing abstinence is not perfect. That is the point people have been making to you for many pages now.

quote:

How Effective Is Abstinence?
Used continuously, abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. It also prevents STDs.

quote:

How Effective Are Male Condoms at Birth Control?
Condoms are about 85% effective for birth control. With careful use, they are even more effective. Keep in mind that the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex (abstinence).

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)