Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Unto The Breach. Join us! http://s6.zetaboards.com/Unto_The_Breach/register/ If you are already a member log in below |
| Teaching Abstinence is good, but; Do we have to stretch the facts? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2004, 09:46 AM (275 Views) | |
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 09:46 AM Post #1 |
Knight of the Realm
|
Wow! the following article about a program touted by Bush that intentionally mileads by teaching myths will not result in trust in the system by young adults.
|
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Dec 5 2004, 11:04 AM Post #2 |
Abbot Monk, Vintner & Steak Knife Keeper, Purveyor of Stamps
|
I believe we should give the President high praise for his efforts in putting the message of abstinance in front of these young minds. If there was some misleading information that was taught, I believe the good of the overall message far outweighs the bad. Parents and guardians should be the ones teaching morfals and issues of sexual obstinance. Although I don't like the government intruding into our lives , this is an example of well intention on the part of the president. As far as any misleading information tainting the trust our young adults have in the system--maybe the program scores a bonus beyond its intent.--- Merry christmas Fr. Mike Xmastree |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 11:09 AM Post #3 |
Knight of the Realm
|
??? Please elaborate on how teaching our youth to distrust adults and the "system" is a "bonus." It kind of reminds me of my wife being told many years by a college dorm "mother" that holding hands outside just before closing led directly to unwanted pregnancy. I don't think she ever trusted that "dorm mother" again, for anything. |
![]() |
|
| Citizen Eric | Dec 5 2004, 12:26 PM Post #4 |
Eric the Brave
|
I wish we could find a balance between that and the "condoms and cucumbers" sex ed courses we read about from time to time. It seems that no side can just present the facts, and not put their own philosophy into the course. I bet the 31% figure quoted in Colo's post had something to do with the use of lambskin condoms, and their inability to stop things at the molecular level. I understand that physically, the HIV molecule is smaller than the "holes" within the surface of the lambskin condom, so the disease sometimes passes through like water through a sieve. |
![]() |
|
| reboots | Dec 5 2004, 12:46 PM Post #5 |
Cobbler of the Realm
|
Going back to my youth I recall that when the hormone storm hit me abstinence was the very last thing on my mind. I would rather doubt that teaching abstinence has much effect on the behavior of teens. Also I doubt if many of them would be influenced by the scare tactics that are used in the article that has been quoted. After all they live in the information age where there is an abundance of sources and they can read all that they want to. The internet is a prime source of information for curious minds. |
![]() |
|
| SPIKEFISH | Dec 5 2004, 01:24 PM Post #6 |
|
Unregistered
|
Pretty open-ended article. No references used except from Waxman's corner. I'm fairly sure that a lot of the "report" was taken out of context, for partisan reasons. Six short paragraphs, with no by-line, does not appear to be a very good source of information. Any report in the Washington Post is definitely suspect. |
|
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 02:34 PM Post #7 |
Knight of the Realm
|
It appears that SPIKEFISH would choose to attack the messenger, but not the message. |
![]() |
|
| Psycmeistr | Dec 5 2004, 02:36 PM Post #8 |
Keeper of the Realm
|
From what I heard the teenage pregnancy rate is on the decline. Could it be that abstinence programs are working? |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 02:39 PM Post #9 |
Knight of the Realm
|
From what I heard the teenage pregnancy rate is on the decline. Could it be that sex education programs are working or could it be that parental guidance is working? Or could it be that none of the above are causal links to the effect? |
![]() |
|
| SPIKEFISH | Dec 5 2004, 03:01 PM Post #10 |
|
Unregistered
|
Crawdad, I didn't attack you! I only stated that such an article was very incomplete and probably partisan, and that the sources were suspect. Namely, the sources were Waxman and The Washington Post. |
|
|
| kiwi_too | Dec 5 2004, 03:05 PM Post #11 |
Sir Perceval, Ruler of the Realm
|
Lowell, I applaud the Pres. or anyone who promotes abstinence. I do not condone lying in any way to get that point across. I would hope that the old fashioned scare tactics would be done away with in lieu old the new found scare tactics. The truth. Aides, hormones make touching lead to more, RESPECT of self and partner, short term emotional losses and long term emotional gaines, pregnancy (the facts) short and long term effects on relationships. Maybe the program needs updated. |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Dec 5 2004, 03:40 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Village Lamplighter
|
If parents were doing their jobs would we need yet another federally funded program? The problem, as I see it is not the program, but the lack of parental responsibility. I guess, however, we will never be able to count on the parents doing their jobs in this area. Why should they when the schools and federal government are attemptimg to do it? More government waste to subsidize parental failure? :dunno |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Dec 5 2004, 03:45 PM Post #13 |
Knight of the Realm
|
I realize that you didn't attack me, you attacked the messenger - the article. |
![]() |
|
| kiwi_too | Dec 5 2004, 04:37 PM Post #14 |
Sir Perceval, Ruler of the Realm
|
Jim, I like your point. Maybe parents could use a FREE seminar on the issue. Not all parents are well informed with the right info nor do they necessarily agree. This would be a great program (parents) in the church. I know our ministers, including youth minister, have seminars and parent support groups to help. |
![]() |
|
| SPIKEFISH | Dec 5 2004, 04:54 PM Post #15 |
|
Unregistered
|
Crawdad, Darn right I attacked the article. It was completely unsubstantiated. |
|
|
| slobote | Dec 5 2004, 04:55 PM Post #16 |
Realm Ferrymaster
|
I think adolescent hormones, far outweigh the program of abstinence in our youth of today. Thirty years ago maybe, now the internet has opened a whole new world of sexual pleasures. Pandora's box has been opened. slobote |
![]() |
|
| reboots | Dec 5 2004, 04:58 PM Post #17 |
Cobbler of the Realm
|
Link |
![]() |
|
| Admin | Dec 5 2004, 05:14 PM Post #18 |
Keeper of the Castle
|
That is a interesting report. I did a quick scan and could see a lot of misleading statements all through it. Remember, Mr. Waxman is a politician of the most partisan type. The staffers who wrote the report depend on Mr. Waxman for their jobs. That report is not and can never be considered on the level of a scientific study report. It is a political hack. |
![]() |
|
| OzarkPreacher | Dec 5 2004, 05:58 PM Post #19 |
Sir Lancelot
|
I would like to see a link to the actual information the author claims is misleading. I'm not putting much faith in a articel that provides no solid information to back up their claims. |
![]() |
|
| Mainecoons | Dec 5 2004, 06:06 PM Post #20 |
Keeper of the Royal Cattery
|
Where do these curricula come from? Feds or local? |
![]() |
|
| MrsS | Dec 6 2004, 11:15 AM Post #21 |
Frau of the Realm
|
This is true...not only for the US but most of societies. There are always parents not caring much about their children`s education. And very often those children overtake their parent`s pattern of behavior...in this particular case they get their children at a young age...and mostly unplanned. So, sexual education in schools is a good thing to prevent those early and unwanted pregancies...but, for heaven`s sake not by trying to teach them abstinence. This hasn`t worked in the darkest middle-age and less than ever nowadays. |
![]() |
|
| Psycmeistr | Dec 6 2004, 12:24 PM Post #22 |
Keeper of the Realm
|
The problem is, nowadays the consequences of not practicing abstinence can be literally deadly. Would you want that for your kid? |
![]() |
|
| MrsS | Dec 7 2004, 10:44 AM Post #23 |
Frau of the Realm
|
What do you mean by that? :dunno |
![]() |
|
| Psycmeistr | Dec 7 2004, 10:51 AM Post #24 |
Keeper of the Realm
|
I mean by the threat of AIDS. Sexual promiscuity carries with it the real possiblity of contracting not just a debilitating or "inconvenient" disease (i.e., syphillis, gonorreah) but a deadly disease. Put it this way, even if condoms are proven to be 80% effective in preventing disease or unwanted pregnancy, are you going to give your kid a condom and say, "Go at it", knowing that there is a 20% chance of failure? If a kid is offered a car with brakes that fail 20% of the time, are you going to let the kid drive that car?! |
![]() |
|
| MrsS | Dec 7 2004, 11:20 AM Post #25 |
Frau of the Realm
|
I really hope condoms are better than 8o%...they are seen as a possibility to get AIDS in Africa under control. |
![]() |
|
| PIAN0buff | Dec 7 2004, 11:51 AM Post #26 |
Wandering Minstrel
|
A friend of mine has 4 children (plus one who was still born) - all of which were conceived while they were using contraception. |
![]() |
|
| MrsS | Dec 7 2004, 12:10 PM Post #27 |
Frau of the Realm
|
FOUR times? I think they must have done something wrong.... :dance |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Ye Olde Unto the Breach · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 1:31 PM Jul 11 |
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy








