Free Birth Control for 11-Year Olds
-
oilFactotum wrote:
No. In other words abstinence only sex education has no effect. Comprehensive sex education does work.
No, the study showed that abstinence education had the exact same affect as telling 11-year olds how to get it on (i.e. no net effect). So that begs the question...Why are you so eager to teach 11-year olds how to get it on when it has no beneficial effect? Are you some sort of pervert?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
the study showed that abstinence education had the exact same affect
That is simply false. The only studies I have seen compare abstinence only sex education with no sex education and in those studies there is no difference.
-
I didn't mean that you felt like sharing. I meant that you assumed most of us had sex at a young age:) After all, we are all computer nerds right? ;P
------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
Doctor Nick wrote:
After all, we are all computer nerds right?
thats no excuse, im talking about a bit younger age in the previous post, but we had Computer Engineering nights at different bars across downtown when i was in college. if you didnt have a social life, we drug you out and did everything we could to give you opportunities to have one. also, its fun watching a computer geek try to talk about 802.11 standards in conversation with a girl they just met. :laugh:
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
the study showed that abstinence education had the exact same affect
That is simply false. The only studies I have seen compare abstinence only sex education with no sex education and in those studies there is no difference.
oilFactotum wrote:
That is simply false. The only studies I have seen compare abstinence only sex education with no sex education and in those studies there is no difference.
Your ignorance (which is amazingly vast) does not denote falsity. The study[^] in question compared "sex education" vs. "abstinence education" and there was no discernable difference between the two. Essentially sex education, regardless of its type, does not have any effect on either the frequency or "safety" of teenage sex. So that begs the question...Why do you want to teach 11-year olds how to get it on? Are you some sort of pervert?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
oilFactotum wrote:
That is simply false. The only studies I have seen compare abstinence only sex education with no sex education and in those studies there is no difference.
Your ignorance (which is amazingly vast) does not denote falsity. The study[^] in question compared "sex education" vs. "abstinence education" and there was no discernable difference between the two. Essentially sex education, regardless of its type, does not have any effect on either the frequency or "safety" of teenage sex. So that begs the question...Why do you want to teach 11-year olds how to get it on? Are you some sort of pervert?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
i want to see numbers that show statistics regarding stds among student who underwent the differnt educations, or was that included in this study. i think thats one of the most important statistic that should have been weighed...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
That is simply false. The only studies I have seen compare abstinence only sex education with no sex education and in those studies there is no difference.
Your ignorance (which is amazingly vast) does not denote falsity. The study[^] in question compared "sex education" vs. "abstinence education" and there was no discernable difference between the two. Essentially sex education, regardless of its type, does not have any effect on either the frequency or "safety" of teenage sex. So that begs the question...Why do you want to teach 11-year olds how to get it on? Are you some sort of pervert?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
compared "sex education" vs. "abstinence education"
I am constantly amazed at you ability to shamelessly make completely unsupported claims. Family life services is not comprehensive sex education. Your statement is false. Read the title to the article: "Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs".
-
i want to see numbers that show statistics regarding stds among student who underwent the differnt educations, or was that included in this study. i think thats one of the most important statistic that should have been weighed...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
i want to see numbers that show statistics regarding stds among student who underwent the differnt educations, or was that included in this study. i think thats one of the most important statistic that should have been weighed...
Considering the fact that they used condoms and had sex at the same rate, I would imagine that their STD rates were similar.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
compared "sex education" vs. "abstinence education"
I am constantly amazed at you ability to shamelessly make completely unsupported claims. Family life services is not comprehensive sex education. Your statement is false. Read the title to the article: "Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs".
oilFactotum wrote:
I am constantly amazed at you ability to shamelessly make completely unsupported claims. Family life services is not comprehensive sex education. Your statement is false. Read the title to the article: "Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs".
Where did I say otherwise, captain super-duper-genius? The study indicated that abstinence and promscuity education had the same net result. Read above a few posts and I said that education cannot deter sexual promiscuity and that it is a purely cultural issue (that arose out of nearly half a century of the left-wing agenda). So now, here we are, giving birth control to 11-year old kids because leftists are too dumb to realize that it was exactly that mentality that ultimately led them to have to do so in the first place. But hey...I guess it works for pervs who enjoy the idea of 11-year olds having sex.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
i want to see numbers that show statistics regarding stds among student who underwent the differnt educations, or was that included in this study. i think thats one of the most important statistic that should have been weighed...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
Bear in mind that the study does not compare comprehensive sex education and abstinence only sex education.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I am constantly amazed at you ability to shamelessly make completely unsupported claims. Family life services is not comprehensive sex education. Your statement is false. Read the title to the article: "Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs".
Where did I say otherwise, captain super-duper-genius? The study indicated that abstinence and promscuity education had the same net result. Read above a few posts and I said that education cannot deter sexual promiscuity and that it is a purely cultural issue (that arose out of nearly half a century of the left-wing agenda). So now, here we are, giving birth control to 11-year old kids because leftists are too dumb to realize that it was exactly that mentality that ultimately led them to have to do so in the first place. But hey...I guess it works for pervs who enjoy the idea of 11-year olds having sex.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
The study indicated that abstinence and promscuity[sic] education had the same net result.
And again that is false. The study made no comparison between comprehensive sex education and abstinence only sex education.
Red Stateler wrote:
I said that education cannot deter sexual promiscuity and that it is a purely cultural issue
That is false and you have provided nothing to support your claim.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The study indicated that abstinence and promscuity[sic] education had the same net result.
And again that is false. The study made no comparison between comprehensive sex education and abstinence only sex education.
Red Stateler wrote:
I said that education cannot deter sexual promiscuity and that it is a purely cultural issue
That is false and you have provided nothing to support your claim.
bla bla bla. It only took you two posts to descend into absolutely absurd denial. How pathetic. I picture you rocking back and forth in the corner of the room, covering your ears while yelling.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
bla bla bla. It only took you two posts to descend into absolutely absurd denial. How pathetic. I picture you rocking back and forth in the corner of the room, covering your ears while yelling.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Looks like I win again. You are incapable of defending your own postions.
-
bla bla bla. It only took you two posts to descend into absolutely absurd denial. How pathetic. I picture you rocking back and forth in the corner of the room, covering your ears while yelling.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
My I suggest both you and Red have a read of this 49 page report from Aberdeen University. You may agree or disagree the views of this document, but have a read of it anyways. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/dugaldbairdcentre/projects/hrsummaryevaluation.pdf[^]
-
led mike wrote:
Their proposal is an attempt to address problems, you apparently oppose it so what is your alternative proposal. Or are you suggesting they "do nothing"?
Their "proposal" only expands the source of the problem further. The idea that promiscuity is acceptable was one that arose from feminism and the free-love movement. Since then, marriage has been increasingly rejected while teen and out-of-wedlock birthrates accelerate. To simply provide the means to block an 11-year olds ejaculate from reaching its destination sends a message from authority figures that the sex is OK to begin with and one must not worry about potential pregnancy (so long as you take the steps to ensure both promiscuity and to attempt to restrict pregnancy). The cause (and ultimately solution) of the problem lies not with expanding the notion of acceptable promiscuity, but by restricting it at a cultural level. Unfortunately, half a century of cultural erosion is a difficult thing to undue.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Once again... nice prose but no substance. Last time we went down this track it took me 3 days and I can't remember how many posts asking you what you think should be done before you finally provided an answer, and it was a good one. Why are you so reluctant to offer your ideas of what should be done?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
You fix it.
Their proposal is an attempt to address problems, you apparently oppose it so what is your alternative proposal. Or are you suggesting they "do nothing"?
These "solutions" address the symptoms not the problem.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Sorry, I missed that. So, maybe they should rather give them fertility drugs, encouraging them to have less sex.
Or cut off their willies!
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Why blame the naturally hot-blooded young men, when we all know it's the fault of the young, promiscuous whores?
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
not talking about unwed, im fine with that
You're OK with out-of-wedlock births? :~
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
You're OK with out-of-wedlock births?
You not? :~
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
fat_boy wrote:
Obviously the kids are sexually mature, they wouldnt be having kids else, so, well, just give them the damn condoms and info on how to use them.
Sexually mature does not denote the necessity of sexual activity. It's rather appalling for an authority figure to send a message to an 11-year old that it's OK to have sex by providing birth control. Even if you get past the perverted notion of 11-year olds having sex, one can rest assured that they won't correctly use the provided birth control...Because they're 11.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Sexually mature does not denote the necessity of sexual activity
Who said it did?
Red Stateler wrote:
It's rather appalling for an authority figure to send a message to an 11-year old that it's OK to have sex by providing birth control.
Thats NOT the message.
Red Stateler wrote:
Even if you get past the perverted notion of 11-year olds having sex, one can rest assured that they won't correctly use the provided birth control...Because they're 11
11 year olds, if mature enough to have sex, is not perverse. What IS perverse is society's attitude to wards sex. Tell me, just how incorrectly CAN a condom be used?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
The saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" is very relevant. They may well be sexually mature, but they are not emotionally mature, and they certainly don't have the necessary parenting skills. Just give to each and every teenager (boy and girl) one of those forever crying toy babies. They will very soon decide not to go along the route to teenage pregnancy as this doll will definitely need to be pacified several times during the night. They will soon realize that this is no joke. And parents must make sure that the teenage child gets the message this doll is giving them.
-
These "solutions" address the symptoms not the problem.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay