Interesting discussion on the Palin's Daughter is Pregnant Topic.... I know this is Politics but it ties in with the discussion of Palin's message being discussed:

One item came up which was lost in the shuffle and I wondered what people thought of Palin's ideology of preaching or teaching "abstinence" in the schools.

I can understand that schools might have a role in teaching common sense information when it comes to sex - in a high school setting, (if their parents were in agreement and they freely choose to take the class), it could be an extra for interested people. Some parents might appreciate having a professional
health counsellor come in and teach or have a Q&A say maybe once a month so the kids could ask questions they may be embarrassed asking their parents. I would also suggest they offer birth control methods and if the parents disagree - the kids will still learn from their friends who do take the class. It's pretty hard to
stop information being gathered.

I can't agree that the concept of abstinence is going to be something teens can promise as a group - nature is pretty cruel when it comes to teens because they are inexperienced and yet have strong desires they don't know how to handle.

I doubt any teen starts off looking to impregnate or get pregnant with a partner. It really complicates their little world but they don't have much sophistication when it comes to handling the issue which is going to come up regardless of the parent's lifestyle, religious beliefs, or teachings.

Do we want teens cutting their young lives short by making a new life? Telling them "no" isn't going to work. "No" may be religiously correct but it's not reality based. Hoping it won't happen isn't reality based. Ignoring the problem isn't reality based. If we are to give teens a solid base from which to
operate and make informed decisions, some kind of education has to be delivered. School would seem the best setting.

It has been found that teens who have a good relationship with their parents are less likely to experience a pregnancy. Good communication between parents and their children is the key to ensuring children make the right decisions when it comes to their sexual activity.

Source: Pregnancy-info.net

Do we want teens cutting their young lives short by making a new life?

Absolutely NOT.

That is why they need to be educated --in the public schools-- in safe sex practices. Condoms and all manner of other contraceptive devices should be made readily available.

Telling them --"Well, just don't do it!"-- is as inhuman, as irrational and as preposterously ineffective as it was a hundred years ago......or a thousand.

Absolutely NOT.

That is why they need to be educated --in the public schools-- in safe sex practices. Condoms and all manner of other contraceptive devices should be made readily available.

Telling them --"Well, just don't do it!"-- is as inhuman, as irrational and as preposterously ineffective as it was a hundred years ago......or a thousand.
However, teaching kids that the only guaranteed way to avoid both STD's and unwanted pregnancies is abstinence, would be ideal in a sex education class.


These kids are going to do their own thing whether anyone likes it or not. Give them all the facts, but dont use the fact that "they're gonna do it anyway" as a means to say it's ok to have sex before maturity.

Sex should retain a stigma in the very young, as a detterent against the above. It may not work in all cases, but it does for some. If we keep telling these children through our actions and words that sex isnt a big deal, what's the detterent? It's like in the 50's when kids were told it was cool to smoke, imo.

However, teaching kids that the only guaranteed way to avoid both STD's and unwanted pregnancies is abstinence, would be ideal in a sex education class.

"Ideal".....?!?!?!? Hardly.

Advocating 'abstinence' is IMO anti-human. Thus, I oppose it.


These kids are going to do their own thing whether anyone likes it or not. Give them all the facts, but dont use the fact that "they're gonna do it anyway" as a means to say it's ok to have sex before maturity.

Provided they use the proper protection, it is ok that they have sex as far as i'm concerned.

Sex should retain a stigma in the very young, as a detterent against the above.

I guess that would depend on what *very young* is.

But to cause there to be a **stigma** associated with normal consensual sex --ever, for any reason-- is abominable; a nonsensical, superstitious carryover from the anti-human Puritan mores of the past.

Sex is a part of the human make up, just like eating or breathing or excreting are all parts of the human biological make up. The sooner the human race --especially the backward thinking religious people in this country-- begins to treat it that way the healthier our attitudes toward it will be.

If we keep telling these children through our actions and words that sex isnt a big deal, what's the detterent?

Again, it depends on what age you're talking about.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with high school seniors having sex, provided they use precautions against pregnancy and disease.

"Ideal".....?!?!?!? Hardly.

Advocating 'abstinence' is IMO anti-human. Thus, I oppose it.





Provided they use the proper protection, it is ok that they have sex as far as i'm concerned.Well, you are entitled to that opinion. I just happen to not agree with it.




I guess that would depend on what *very young* is.

But to cause there to be a **stigma** associated with normal consensual sex --ever, for any reason-- is abominable; a nonsensical, superstitious carryover from the anti-human Puritan mores of the past.I think age is just a number. Some 16 year olds are mature enough to handle the physical/emotional toll that sex takes on them. Most are not though.

It just seems to me that you are not fighting FOR anything here, FT, only AGAINST your fears of religious dogma. It seems to be a recurrent theme in your posts.


Sex is a part of the human make up, just like eating or breathing or excreting are all parts of the human biological make up. The sooner the human race --especially the backward thinking religious people in this country-- begins to treat it that way the healthier our attitudes toward it will be.See above...




there's nothing inherently "wrong" with high school seniors having sex, provided they use precautions against pregnancy and disease. How about unwanted pregnancies and std's? There is no 100% protection against either. Well, except for abstinence.....

It just seems to me that you are not fighting FOR anything here, FT, only AGAINST your fears of religious dogma.

Partially true......I am motivated by my abject loathing for the young among us being indoctrinated with the repressive religious idiocy that informs them that sex is "evil".

Anti-human?

Just because the natural urge is there.. it should be allowed?

I guess the next time I'm hungry, there should be no problem in me stopping by the grocery store and just eating things in the aisle without paying for them. That is what a natural human would do. He was hungry, he is now full.

Partially true......I am motivated by my abject loathing for the young among us being indoctrinated with the repressive religious idiocy that informs them that sex is "evil".I agree that sex isnt evil. It's natural and fun. However, these kids need to understand there are consequences from having sex, especially as a young child.

Would you be more likely to rob a bank if you know that on the chance that IF you were caught, you could abort the prison sentence?

If at least 75 percent of all teens are going to experiment to the point of possible pregnation, would it
be sensible in our society to give all teens birth control such as injections of a lasting nature?

I have no idea if there is such a product, but what if teens were guaranteed not to conceive or
impregnate, would that be a solution or would it only be giving our permission for them to
practice sex with each other?

What about passing along disease even though pregnancy doesn't occur?

What about those who aren't going to have sex anyway - should they be excluded from the prevention
program?

What about those who still get pregnant or impregnate because they thought they
were being protected (and it didn't work for them).

Another issue for which I have no stats is the fact that teens practicing unhindered sex with no intention of permanent bonding because of love or child bearing, become accustomed to physical sex having very little import in their lives - and often this lasts past their teen years into adulthood - which further removes the
pleasure sexual intimacy is intended for couples in the right setting. Seems almost robotic.

I agree that sex isnt evil. It's natural and fun. However, these kids need to understand there are consequences from having sex

I agree 100%.

That is why I advocate them being educated about sex, safe sex, contraception, etc. The best place to accomplish that is in the schools.

But the superstitionists among us fight that sort of education tooth and nail, and have been doing so for centuries.

I agree 100%.

That is why I advocate them being educated about sex, safe sex, contraception, etc. The best place to accomplish that is in the schools.

But the superstitionists among us fight that sort of education tooth and nail, and have been doing so for centuries.I do not think that people who disagree with you specifically do not want people "educated about sex, safe sex, contraception, etc. The best place to accomplish that is in the schools." They just do not agree with some of the methods, and the complete carte blanche that the more liberal minded want to extend pertaining to sex among minors.

I do not think that people who disagree with you specifically do not want people "educated about sex, safe sex, contraception, etc.

This has nothing to do with **people who disagree with me**.

This is about the fact that there IS a large segment of American society who superstitiously oppose any and all teaching of sex, safe sex, contraception, etc in the schools.

This leads to all manner of dysfunctional attitudes in our society regarding people's views on sexual matters. This is one of the most Puritanical, repressive societies among all first world nations.

And it is due almost entirely to superstition/religion and the centuries long repression -in matters of sex-- that they have fostered and enforced.

I did it and it wasn't that damn hard. Actually, in the long run, I think I'm better off for steering clear of that kind of drama in high school.

There IS the theory that if a kid doesn't know how to build a bomb, he won't make one. You are just an enabler for that one psycho kid to do what he wants.

There IS the theory that if a kid doesn't know how to build a bomb, he won't make one. You are just an enabler for that one psycho kid to do what he wants.Having teenage sex can hardly be described as making a bomb. But to carry on with the analogy, if you are sitting on blasting caps and TNT, you'd best know what the hell you are doing.

Does that mean you are doomed to build the bomb? Your side of the analogy is good, we ARE "armed" with the natural things in order to have sex. However, we are also armed with actual "arms" attached to our bodies, and we can control ourselves to not reach out and grab a smokin' hot girls breasts... the WANT and DESIRE are there... but self control prevails.

Decka,

If you put two heterosexual 16 year olds (one male, one female) in a room with all the makings of a bomb, the odds are very much against their actually making a bomb if they don't know how to build one already. Unfortunately for your analogy, nature equips them both with all they need to make a baby -- and the odds are very good that is exactly what they will do.

I think you underestimate the kids Sedan. If they didn't know it was the makings of a bomb, just some blank rolls (TNT), some wire and some equipment.. they'd probably mess with it and end up blowing their faces off. So you either do one of two things. You educate them on how to use the bomb safely, or you just don't put kids in a room with a bomb. However, the bomb doesn't have the pleasure factor or the addictive factor, not to mention the social appeal. Meanwhile, kids can't just not have genitals...

Oh god, this analogy's gone on too far. The only consequences of consensual sex are babies and disease. Baby consequences are taken care of by being careful. Disease consequences are taken care of by knowing who you're having sex with. Emotional "consequences" only exist because of the social and religious stigma that sex is the worst thing you could possibly do; kill a bitch, just don't fuck her before you're married. I think really the biggest thing is that kids will do it anyway, and no amount of whining about self control will get them to stop. There is no self control when it comes down to being in a room alone together naked. There is no self control on the track to that room. Nature did that for us. If we had self control about sex, where would we be as a species? Even here at all? Religion just wanted us to pick wisely before popping out the next generation of possible dumbasses. We're at the point now that sex =/= baby if you don't want it to. People know that and we can't go back.

Anti-human?

Just because the natural urge is there.. it should be allowed?

I guess the next time I'm hungry, there should be no problem in me stopping by the grocery store and just eating things in the aisle without paying for them. That is what a natural human would do. He was hungry, he is now full.
.....As-long-as you wait (at least) 1 year....obviously.....

"Palin said her daughter intends to raise her child and marry the baby's father, identified in news reports as Levi Johnston, 18, of Wasilla, a high school hockey player whom Bristol has dated for about one year."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/mccain-fought-teen-pregna_n_123132.html

A Marriage, Made In Heaven, no doubt. :rolleyes:

So what about the liberals in South Beach who get married and divorced 3 times a year?

There IS the theory that if a kid doesn't know how to build a bomb, he won't make one. You are just an enabler for that one psycho kid to do what he wants.
That analogy is invalid. Building a bomb takes skill and knowledge. Having sex is something we're wired to do—teens who have no idea what the hell an ovary or a cervix are are still plenty capable of fucking and passing on their defective genes just as easily as the kid with sex education. In fact, the former is certainly more likely to produce a child while a minor than the latter, mainly because condoms, birth control pills etc. just fucking work.

They work most of the time...

You are probably right that once you get into the nuts and bolts, the analogy doesn't hold up.

However, I hold more hope for self control than other people do I guess. I think we have the power to choose not to have sex.

They work most of the time...
Which is more than enough. Teen pregnancy is rampant right now, any dent is a good dent, and abstinence only education only increases teen pregnancy, not prevent any.

However, I hold more hope for self control than other people do I guess. I think we have the power to choose not to have sex.
Maybe you don't have testicles like the rest of the half of the world. But not having sex when you could have sex just doesn't seem like much of a choice any sane person would make.

They work most of the time...

You are probably right that once you get into the nuts and bolts, the analogy doesn't hold up.

However, I hold more hope for self control than other people do I guess. I think we have the power to choose not to have sex.
Better question: Why on Earth should we make that choice?

Because if we don't, a small percentage of us gets roasted by the now family value oriented democrats and republicans for having sex before marriage even if precautions are used.

Because if we don't, a small percentage of us gets roasted by the now family value oriented democrats and republicans for having sex before marriage even if precautions are used.
Why the fuck would I care about that?

Hear Hear... I think Palin says those exact words LOL.

Anti-human?

Just because the natural urge is there.. it should be allowed?

Yes.

Exactly. That would be the human approach, as opposed to the superstitious approach.

I guess the next time I'm hungry, there should be no problem in me stopping by the grocery store and just eating things in the aisle without paying for them. That is what a natural human would do. He was hungry, he is now full.

Once again, horrible analogy. (please; give up on analogies. You have no talent for or concept whatsoever for formulating a coherent one)

A far more apt analogy would be --if the church took the same attitude toward one natural human function -eating- as it does toward another natural human function -sex- .......

........ The next time you're hungry, you must deny yourself food.....because some self appointed priest or minister of the public morality has deemed that for you to eat is "evil" for some reason and must not be done by a human being until a legal contract is signed that you will eat only in the presence of one particular person for the remainder of your life.

You would die without hunger.. you wouldn't die without sex.

:thumbs: