Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[reggieM]

Barbarian observes:
That is correct. The evidence shows that kids who are told that abstinence is the only safe practice, and are also given the facts about reproductive biology, are much less likely to become parents in their teens, or to contract an STD.

Barbarian states above that there are other “facts about reproductive biology” that are not given in abstinence only programs.

So, I asked:

What “facts about reproductive biology” that are given in non-abstinence only classes are you talking about?

Barbarian could not answer that. Instead, he said:

I wasn’t talking about “non-abstinence only” (whatever that is).

He rejects abstinence-only programs. Now he claims that he was not talking about programs that are more than abstinence education. He states frankly that he supports “comprehensive sex education programs” instead of abstinence programs.

No. They merely tell kids how pregnancies actually occur, and they tell them how STDs occur. In fact, they tell them everything in comprehensive sex education, but they still tell them that abstinence is best. And the great thing is, it works.

If they tell them “everything” then they tell them about condom use. That’s what sex education classes do. That happens in classrooms all across the country. They promote the use of condoms with the children – this is how they “tell them everything”. These are the programs you’re supporting - these are the programs you’re comparing with abstinence programs.

The point of doing sex education is to reduce pregnancies and STDs. Comprehensive works. Abstinence only makes it worse.

This is what you support; “Comprehensive sex education”

You’re really upset that I didn’t defend Planned Parenthood’s approach. So you’re just making the accusation, anyway. It’s not working for you.

I’m making the accusation because it is true. Your failure to admit this is either based on your ignorance or you’re just lying to cover up your view. You show the characteristics of a person who is lying. You’re refusing to answer the direct question and you’re trying to re-define the terms.

Comprehensive Sex Education
sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/comprehensive.htm
Comprehensive sex education refers to sex education that offers information on abstinence as well as information on contraception methods providing protection from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
To help create responsibility regarding sexual relationships, including addressing abstinence, resisting pressure to become prematurely involved in sexual intercourse, and encouraging the use of contraception and other sexual health measures.

Abstinence vs Comprehensive Sex Education
ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
Other studies have demonstrated long lasting
positive effects on behavior from comprehensive
sex education programs. Coyle and colleagues studied an intervention called Safer Choices. Ninth graders in San Jose, California and Houston, Texas were involved in multiple
activities, including sex education curriculum.
There was also a parent education component.
**The program **emphasized abstinence, but taught that condom use makes sex safer. **Students also received training on skills to **avoid sex or **use condoms **if they did have sex.

Calif. Board Of Education Adopts Comprehensive Sex Education Curriculum
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100898.php
High schools are required to provide students with “medically accurate” information about condoms and other forms of birth control

The US Government Health and Human Services study
acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/abstinence/06122007-153424.PDF
revealed some startling components of the “comprehensive” sex education programs for teens as young as 13 include lessons include:

• Advocating showering together as a no risk activity.
• Promoting methods for sexual stimulation.
• Conducting sexual role-play on how to help a partner maintain an erection.
• Describing how to eroticize condom use with a partner.
• Suggesting teens wear shades or a disguises when shopping for condoms

so adults and parents won’t recognize them.

No. Mary confuses “safe sex” programs with comprehensive sex education. I challenge her to show even one “safe sex” program that works as well as a comprehensive program that emphasizes abstinence.

Again, you’re either a liar or you’re far more ignorant than I thought. In any case, you’re a false Catholic. Anyone reading this should be warned, since what you promote is quite sinful and dangerous.

Um, no. You’re the one who’s telling me that condom training is better than comprehensive sex education (which says abstinence is best). You’re the one bringing it up.

God will judge whether you are a liar or not. But anyone should be able to see how you’re afraid to admit your own position here.

Kids aren’t stupid; they have other sources of information, such as the internet. And if you lie to them, they blow you off completely. That alone could account for the large increase in pregnancies and STDs found in kids who had “abstinence only” education.
The truth matters. This is one of the reasons why it matters.

You’re publicly advocating the promotion of condoms among children in schools.

It’s your M.O. You make up things and attribute them to other people.

It’s up to you. It’s time for you to just lie outright, or recant your view.

Darwinism isn’t about ethics or morals. You might as well expect plumbing to be about ethics and morals.

Given what I’ve seen from you – you’ve surrendered your right to speak about Catholic morals.

When you suggested that it was good for kids to get pregnant or have STDs, if they fail to remain chaste, that’s all the evidence we needed about “orthodox Catholicism” from you.

If there is anyone on CAF who cannot see what you’re doing, I invite that person to message me privately.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

That is correct. The evidence shows that kids who are told that abstinence is the only safe practice, and are also given the facts about reproductive biology, are much less likely to become parents in their teens, or to contract an STD. The numbers are so striking that many states are now refusing federal money that requires “abstinence only.” The toll on children is much too high.

I know in my state the ‘abstinence education’ money was accepted but it did not go to programs in the schools. Instead the state used it for radio spots and local public channels. The result was that very few teens were ever exposed to abstinence only education. So anything out there saying it didn’t work in my state is talking about money and education that was not in the schools.
The schools all have comprehensive sex education. I invited the woman from the state who is in charge of health and Human services to give a talk toparents in our school district. She explained that comprehensive sex education ( the tye I showed you was posted on the Planned Parenthood sites) is onle abstinence based. That means that every once in a while they throw in a sentence like “abstinence is the safest way to avoid unplanned pregnancies”…but it hardly promoted chastitiy. These programs define abstinend as “birth control”. So there is an implied sense that the only reason to be abstinence is to avoid pregnancy but that it is just one of many choices along with condoms, birth control pills, etc.

These programs ARE safe sex programs!!! The mask their agenda and try to appear to otherwise. If anything barbarian has been taken in by their propaganda, thought out by Planned Parenthood affiliates.

From an article showing what true abstinence does work and why comprehensive sex fails to support abstinence:

"The largest social change occurring within this same time frame that could have contributed to this significant decline in teen sexual activity was the substantial growth in abstinence education programs.5 Among those who cite the relationship is Peter Brandt of Colorado-based Focus on the Family: "The federal Title V abstinence program is having a tremendous impact."6

Similarly, a study conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based research group Child Trends suggests that teen pregnancy and birth rates declined in the 1990s partially as the result of increased abstinence (reduced levels of sexual activity). For example, the study found that the percentage of teens who reported ever having sexual intercourse declined for both males and females from 1988 to 1995.7 Furthermore, the greater availability of contraception and abortion during the past 25 years did not prevent an increase in teen pregnancies and births, especially those out of wedlock.8"

heritage.org/research/Family/BG1576.cfm

No. Mary confuses “safe sex” programs with comprehensive sex education. I challenge her to show even one “safe sex” program that works as well as a comprehensive program that emphasizes abstinence.

Mary:
If comprehensive sex ed is not Planned Parenthood ‘safe sex’ education, then why were most of the programs on the Planned Parenthood wed site I posted previously listed as ‘comprehensive sex’ ed. The answer is simple: they are safe sex. They just give the appearance of being 'abstinence based:
heritage.org/research/Family/BG1576.cfm
“Because “safe sex” instruction has become increasingly unpopular with parents, promoters of such instruction increasingly camouflage most safe-sex programs with the terms “abstinence plus” or “abstinence first.” In reality, these programs contain little information on abstinence, promoting instead contraceptive use and implicitly condoning early casual sexual activity.”"

Barbarian:
No. It is quite possible to promote abstinence, while explaining to students how pregnancies and STDs happen.

Certainly but not when you also say you can use a condom and feel it is protecting you,with any sort of certainty from disease and pregnancy, which is what comprehensive sex ed does.

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That is correct. The evidence shows that kids who are told that abstinence is the only safe practice, and are also given the facts about reproductive biology, are much less likely to become parents in their teens, or to contract an STD. The numbers are so striking that many states are now refusing federal money that requires “abstinence only.” The toll on children is much too high.

I know in my state the ‘abstinence education’ money was accepted but it did not go to programs in the schools. Instead the state used it for radio spots and local public channels. The result was that very few teens were ever exposed to abstinence only education.

Which state was that? The education programs were required to be used in public schools, under the terms of the grants.

So anything out there saying it didn’t work in my state is talking about money and education that was not in the schools.
The schools all have comprehensive sex education. I invited the woman from the state who is in charge of health and Human services to give a talk toparents in our school district. She explained that comprehensive sex education ( the tye I showed you was posted on the Planned Parenthood sites) is onle abstinence based. That means that every once in a while they throw in a sentence like “abstinence is the safest way to avoid unplanned pregnancies”…but it hardly promoted chastitiy.

Probably true. The stated goal of the program is to reduce pregnancies and STDs. And they work. Whether or not that’s a good thing is a matter of values, I suppose. If you want to know if they uphold chastity and Christian values, the answer is that they don’t. The evidence abundantly shows that schools can’t do a good job of that; parents and churches can. This is another case of “please raise my child for me” on the part of parents who expect schools to do what they are unwilling to do.

These programs define abstinend as “birth control”.

Most effective form known.

These programs ARE safe sex programs!!!

In the sense that baldness is a hairstyle, I suppose.

The mask their agenda and try to appear to otherwise. If anything barbarian has been taken in by their propaganda, thought out by Planned Parenthood affiliates.

As you know, Planned Parenthood teaches safe sex, not comprehensive sex education. I hope we both reject PP’s program. Do you?

**Peter Brandt of Colorado-based Focus on the Family: "The federal Title V abstinence program is having a tremendous impact."6
**

His fellow Coloradians don’t think so:
**Colorado officials this year are rejecting nearly $500,000 from the federal government for programs that teach “abstinence-only” sex education, saying the teaching tactic is ineffective when it comes to preventing teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases…“There are clearly a group of adolescents who are sexually active,” said Ned Calonge, chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “Abstinence is the best way to avoid teen pregnancy, but that isn’t to say that abstinence-only education has shown to be effective.”

Calonge said the state will be passing up about $488,000 from the federal government this year.

“We don’t believe that we should spend federal tax dollars on something that is likely ineffective,” he said. …A study ordered by Congress that was released last April showed that students who took part in sexual-abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes.

And they first had sex at about the same age as other students - 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.**
concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NEWS03/801080345/1013

Even free money isn’t enough to persuade the state to put it’s children at risk. Good for them.

Similarly, a study conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based research group Child Trends suggests that teen pregnancy and birth rates declined in the 1990s partially as the result of increased abstinence (reduced levels of sexual activity).

Before “abstinence only.” Imagine that. How could this be? Because if you tell kids the truth, they tend to act on it. And if you tell them all the truth, and say that abstinence is the best way, they listen. Lie to them, as many of the “abstinence only” programs did, and they tune it all out.

Barbarian observes:
No. Mary confuses “safe sex” programs with comprehensive sex education. I challenge her to show even one “safe sex” program that works as well as a comprehensive program that emphasizes abstinence.

If comprehensive sex ed is not Planned Parenthood ‘safe sex’ education, then why were most of the programs on the Planned Parenthood wed site I posted previously listed as ‘comprehensive sex’ ed.

For the same reason the rulers of East Germany called it the “German Democratic Republic.” It wasn’t a democracy in any sense, but they wanted people to think it was.

Barbarian:
No. It is quite possible to promote abstinence, while explaining to students how pregnancies and STDs happen.

Certainly but not when you also say you can use a condom and feel it is protecting you,with any sort of certainty from disease and pregnancy, which is what comprehensive sex ed does.

There’s no point in lying about it; the kids know better. They have other sources of information, Mary. And one of the big goofs was lying to them about condoms. Count on it; they catch you in a lie, they shut you out.

Notice that your source admits that even though comprehensive education mentions condoms, the real cause of declines in pregnancies (and STDs) was abstinence.

Exactly what I think is proper, and what you claim to think is right. So why are you objecting to the programs that do what you claim to want?

Insisting that they lie about the effectiveness of condoms is not just wrong; it’s counter-productive. Unless of course you still think that kids who fail and have sex should get pregnant or incur an STD.

But that’s not Christian thinking.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That is correct. The evidence shows that kids who are told that abstinence is the only safe practice, and are also given the facts about reproductive biology, are much less likely to become parents in their teens, or to contract an STD.

Barbarian states above that there are other “facts about reproductive biology” that are not given in abstinence only programs.

Yes.

What “facts about reproductive biology” that are given in non-abstinence only classes are you talking about?
Barbarian could not answer that. Instead, he said:

Barbarian replies:
I wasn’t talking about “non-abstinence only” (whatever that is).

(Reggie declines to say what they are)

Not surprising. I imagine you’re talking about things like “safe sex” programs.

He rejects abstinence-only programs.

So do about half the states now. The reason is, studies have shown that they don’t work. In fact, after nearly a decade of “abstinence only”, pregnancies and STDs are up among the young.

Now he claims that he was not talking about programs that are more than abstinence education.

I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Reggie making it all up again.

He states frankly that he supports “comprehensive sex education programs” instead of abstinence programs.

Nice try. I support “abstinence”, not “abstinence only.” Why? Because they don’t work. And they don’t work, largely because the “abstinence only” programs lie to students. Why would you expect the outcome to be any different?

No. They merely tell kids how pregnancies actually occur, and they tell them how STDs occur. In fact, they tell them everything in comprehensive sex education, but they still tell them that abstinence is best. And the great thing is, it works.

If they tell them “everything” then they tell them about condom use.

They should give them factual information about condom failure rates. But they should not lie about that. They should tell them what the hazard is.

Again, lying about such things, or pretending they don’t exist, will not work. Not ever.

Barbarian observes:
The point of doing sex education is to reduce pregnancies and STDs. Comprehensive works. Abstinence only makes it worse.

Barbarian observes:
You’re really upset that I didn’t defend Planned Parenthood’s approach. So you’re just making the accusation, anyway. It’s not working for you.

I’m making the accusation because it is true.

Reggie, everyone can read here that I rejected that program. Who are you hoping to fool?

You show the characteristics of a person who is lying.

Reggie, “lying” includes saying things about people that are not true. Didn’t you know that?

You’re refusing to answer the direct question and you’re trying to re-define the terms.

No, I’m just not giving you the opinion you want from me, so you’re trying to find a way to make an opinion for me. You have to argue against the points I’m making, not the ones you want me to make.

Barbarian observes:
No. Mary confuses “safe sex” programs with comprehensive sex education. I challenge her to show even one “safe sex” program that works as well as a comprehensive program that emphasizes abstinence.

Again, you’re either a liar or you’re far more ignorant than I thought.

We know that you make accusations you know aren’t true, (see above) so that isn’t much of an issue, Reggie.

In any case, you’re a false Catholic.

(only those who agree with Reggie are real Catholics)

Anyone reading this should be warned, since what you promote is quite sinful and dangerous.

Abstinence is sinful and dangerous? Telling the truth is sinful and dangerous? I think I now understand why you think I’m not a “real Catholic.”

Barbarian observes:
Um, no. You’re the one who’s telling me that condom training is better than comprehensive sex education (which says abstinence is best). You’re the one bringing it up.

God will judge whether you are a liar or not.

All of us. But you’ve left abundant evidence for yourself in the words you wrote out in anger.

But anyone should be able to see how you’re afraid to admit your own position here.

My position is that the truth matters. It matters to God and it should matter to you. A Catholic should never fear the truth. God is truth.

Barbarian observes:
Kids aren’t stupid; they have other sources of information, such as the internet. And if you lie to them, they blow you off completely. That alone could account for the large increase in pregnancies and STDs found in kids who had “abstinence only” education.

You’re publicly advocating the promotion of condoms among children in schools.

No. I believe they should be told the risks of using them, and I do not advocate lying about the risks.

Barbarian observes:
It’s your M.O. You make up things and attribute them to other people.

It’s up to you. It’s time for you to just lie outright, or recant your view.

Sorry. I get to decide what I think. You aren’t nearly clever enough to pull off something like that, Reggie. Ask yourself; if you need so desperately to misrepresent what I told you, maybe there’s an important lesson here?

Barbarian observes:
Darwinism isn’t about ethics or morals. You might as well expect plumbing to be about ethics and morals.

Given what I’ve seen from you – you’ve surrendered your right to speak about Catholic morals.

High on the list is telling the truth, Reggie. And (look above) you could do better.

Barbarian observes:
When you suggested that it was good for kids to get pregnant or have STDs, if they fail to remain chaste, that’s all the evidence we needed about “orthodox Catholicism” from you.

If there is anyone on CAF who cannot see what you’re doing, I invite that person to message me privately.

It’s rare that doing His work is enhanced by doing it in secrecy. Darkness is not His way.

 

[reggieM]

These programs ARE safe sex programs!!! The mask their agenda and try to appear to otherwise.

That is certainly true. If he was “taken in” by these programs, it indicates that he found them attractive. Since he has defended them directly here, I wouldn’t call it merely a case of being mistaken about the nature of those programs.

He supports these programs which promote condom use among children. That is perfectly clear.

 

[reggieM]

No. I believe they should be told the risks of using them, and I do not advocate lying about the risks.

This is a pathetic display of trying to avoid the responsiblity of your own actions.

Comprehensive sex education programs promote and encourage the use of condoms among children (along with other “safe sex” practices as the U.S. Governman report I posted proved).

You’re trapped by your own logic. You proclaim how much more successful comprehensive prorgrams are versus abstinence. The difference in the two is in comprehensive programs, children are taught to use condoms.

I’m frightened by your dishonesty which is on obvious display right here.

 

[reggieM]

…your refusal to see it is amazingly dishonest.

I don’t think we can be amazed any more by his dishonesty. I have followed his arguments long enough. I would really like to hear from anyone who defends what Barbarian has done in this discussion.

A priest in my diocese supported what Barbarian does (to a far lesser degree) and he was officially removed from public ministry.

 

[reggieM]

The Barbarian;4174576:

If comprehensive sex ed is not Planned Parenthood ‘safe sex’ education, then why were most of the programs on the Planned Parenthood wed site I posted previously listed as ‘comprehensive sex’ ed.

The answer is simple: they are safe sex. They just give the appearance of being 'abstinence based:

Comprehensive sex ed programs include teaching on the use of condoms. As stated, they are supported by Planned Parenthood. The most prominent organization in the US which develops sex ed curricula is SIECUS. They’ve defined “comprehensive sex education” to include teaching on birth control and “safe sex” practices.

Abstinence-plus programs supposedly give emphasis to abstinence but the “plus” is that they encourage condom use for children.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The bottom line is clear; two people here would rather see more children pregnant and infected with STDs, than tell them the truth about reproductive biology. One even suggested it was a good thing if that happened.

And yes, they should know the failure rate of condoms and other forms of birth control. Teaching kids to put on condoms is not only wrong, it’s pointless. Does anyone here think they can’t figure that out, unless someone teaches them in public school?

And that’s all that has to be said. Lying to students is not merely sinful; in the case of sex education, it has dreadful consequences.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Comprehensive sex education programs promote and encourage the use of condoms among children (along with other “safe sex” practices as the U.S. Governman report I posted proved).

No. Comprehensive sex education programs in public schools say that abstinence is the only truly safe practice. They don’t lie to students about sex, which seems to infuriate Reggie. But lying is not only evil, it’s counterproductive.

You’re trapped by your own logic. You proclaim how much more successful comprehensive prorgrams are versus abstinence.

Another false accusation, Reggie? Comprehensive programs work better than “abstinence only.” Abstinence is what comprehensive programs teach. And it works. Fewer STDs, fewer pregnancies. And that’s a good thing, even if you don’t think so.

**“There are clearly a group of adolescents who are sexually active,” said Ned Calonge, chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “Abstinence is the best way to avoid teen pregnancy, but that isn’t to say that abstinence-only education has shown to be effective.”

Calonge said the state will be passing up about $488,000 from the federal government this year.

“We don’t believe that we should spend federal tax dollars on something that is likely ineffective,” he said.

A study ordered by Congress that was released last April showed that students who took part in sexual-abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes.

And they first had sex at about the same age as other students - 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Colorado is now among 14 states passing up money from the block grant program for abstinence-only education known as Title V, which provides $50 million annually for such programs. **
concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NEWS03/801080345/1013

As long as your unorthodox ideology is more important to you than the truth, you’ll be infuriated by anyone who mentions it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

The bottom line is clear; two people here would rather see more children pregnant and infected with STDs, than tell them the truth about reproductive biology. One even suggested it was a good thing if that happened.

And yes, they should know the failure rate of condoms and other forms of birth control. Teaching kids to put on condoms is not only wrong, it’s pointless. Does anyone here think they can’t figure that out, unless someone teaches them in public school?

And that’s all that has to be said. Lying to students is not merely sinful; in the case of sex education, it has dreadful consequences.

---

Seems to me the gospel last Sunday was clear, if you do not correct a brother who is doing wrong you become guilty for their sin. Barbarian, that hold true for adults teaching teens as well, if they do not say having sex outside of marriage is wrong, based on scientific evidence of all the disease and psychological damage to the parties involved, not to mention risks associated with future life style possibilities, then you are guilty for thier actions and the results. Abstinence based education purposely avoids saying some chices are WRONG… and imply all choices are equal.

Another situation where use of bad science is leading to death…

"“Abstinence education is a complete approach to teaching teens about sexuality,” he said. Rep. Sali claimed that since Congress began funding Community Based Abstinence Education, abstinence education has been credited for part of the decline in teen pregnancy.

Rep. Sali expressed shock about manuals labeled comprehensive sex education, saying he was “stunned” to see that Center for Disease Control-approved curriculum encouraged young people to shower together or cuddle naked, “along with other behaviors I would frankly be embarrassed to discuss before this Committee.”

These behaviors, he said, were considered abstinent behavior in the “most widely used ‘comprehensive’ sex education curricula.”

from:
Congressman praises abstinence education, decries CDC-approved curriculum
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12455

I know I talked to teens in our schools which used comprehensive ‘abstinence based’ education and they were told that condoms can be purchased in different flavors and textures…and they had the demonstration of applying a condom over a cucmber, all typical comprehensive sex materials.

Sounds more like a sales manual for condoms!

I would be angry if I was a scientist and I saw the schools doing this because they wanted a scietifically based sex ed. Value free…HARDLY!

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Seems to me the gospel last Sunday was clear, if you do not correct a brother who is doing wrong you become guilty for their sin.

I did tell you it was wrong to wish that a child who has had sex becomes pregnant, or contracts an STD. I don’t know what else I could have done.

Barbarian, that hold true for adults teaching teens as well, if they do not say having sex outside of marriage is wrong, based on scientific evidence of all the disease and psychological damage to the parties involved, not to mention risks associated with future life style possibilities, then you are guilty for thier actions and the results.

But you just said you didn’t want comprehensive sex education, and now you’re advocating it. You seem unable to make up your mind.

Abstinence based education purposely avoids saying some chices are WRONG… and imply all choices are equal.

“Abstinence only”, maybe. Could be that’s why it’s failed to protect our children.

I’ve heard the stories. For example, one program said that one could not get HIV from sharing a shower or from hugging. The weirdos took that and presented it as: "curriculum encourage

This kind of thing is why the states are now withdrawing from the programs; they do far more damage than good.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

But you just said you didn’t want comprehensive sex education, and now you’re advocating it. You seem unable to make up your mind.

NO! because it gives a mixed message…on one page it says abstinence is the “best choice” and on the next it say “you have the right to choose and you don’t have to listen to your parents or other adults” and then it teaches kids where and how to get contraceptives. That is basically pretending you are doing the job of telling something is wrong and then giving then the how to manual and telling them where to go to do it. That is comprehensive sex education, and maybe they call it 'abstinence based" because their state law says somewhere in the curriculum they have to teach abstinenc but it is not abstinence education.
“Abstinence only”, maybe. Could be that’s why it’s failed to protect our children.

According to biased sources at least…

I’ve heard the stories. For example, one program said that one could not get HIV from sharing a shower or from hugging. The weirdos took that and presented it as: "curriculum encourage
This kind of thing is why the states are now withdrawing from the programs; they do far more damage than good.

You don’t get it…these are the comprehensive sex ed programs not the true abstinec programs which must say the standard for behavior is no sexual activity until marriage. That would include having showers together not just intercourse…
But comprehensive sex programs that are ‘abstinence based’ may give those messages and they DO give those messages. What a great way to discredit all abstinence education! The enemy is so devious…

Babrbarian, you are the one who is confused on the nature of the programs. And I think the education groups, teacher unions being known to be liberal in general and friendly to Planned Parenthood, perhaps have purposely made these terms and programs confusing for parents to soret through and understand.

I told you the school in my district has comprehensive sex education and it has those mis messages in it! I know from first hand experience…

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But you just said you didn’t want comprehensive sex education, and now you’re advocating it. You seem unable to make up your mind.

NO!

You keep flipping back and forth. I suspect you want to present comprehensive as a clone of the Planned Parenthood approach, and the contradictions in such an argument keep tripping you up.

because it gives a mixed message…on one page it says abstinence is the “best choice” and on the next it say “you have the right to choose and you don’t have to listen to your parents or other adults”

That’s a pretty bad thing. Do you have a checkable source for that one?

Barbarian observes:
“Abstinence only”, maybe. Could be that’s why it’s failed to protect our children.

According to biased sources at least…

Barbarian observes:
I’ve heard the stories. For example, one program said that one could not get HIV from sharing a shower or from hugging. The weirdos took that and presented it as: "curriculum encourage
This kind of thing is why the states are now withdrawing from the programs; they do far more damage than good.

You don’t get it…these are the comprehensive sex ed programs not the true abstinec programs which must say the standard for behavior is no sexual activity until marriage. That would include having showers together not just intercourse…

Someone’s been leading you with half-truths. I’ve seen that part of the text. It was to reassure kids that they didn’t have to worry about getting HIV from using school shower rooms. Of course, unscrupulous people manufactured a different story. The Devil’s greatest tool is a portion of the truth.

Babrbarian, you are the one who is confused on the nature of the programs.

I know you want to believe it. But they fooled you on the “shower together” thing. Most likely, they lied to you about other things as well.

I told you the school in my district has comprehensive sex education and it has those mis messages in it! I know from first hand experience…

Well, that’s a checkable claim. What school district is that?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Well, that’s a checkable claim. What school district is that?

You wouldn’t be able to find out even if I gave you my school district. They make it practically impossible to see exactly what materials they use. I know from talking with kids who were in the classrooms.

Project Reality did a study of the content of Comprehensive Sex Education programs and you can read it online at this web address. it shows how many more times ‘safe sex’ and use of condoms are mentioned in comparison to abstinence. In fact the number of mentions of condoms can be hundreds of time more than abstinence in some of these programs. Go see for yourself:
projectreality.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Analysis-1.pdf

The curriculum listed on the school website for our school district is Reducing the Risk" which is decribed below from the above website:

"9. Reducing the Risk
Author:R. Barth, 2004, In collaboration with: ETR Associates, creator/publisher of health
education materials
Distributed by: ETR Associates
Target Audience: 9-10th Graders
• There are 90 references to abstinence; 254 references to protection and 183 mentions of condoms
• “At some time in their lives, most people will decide they are ready to have sex but not to become a parent.”
• “If a condom is used correctly together with foam every time a couple has sex, the combined method will work almost all the time to prevent pregnancy.”
• Includes condom shopping assignment
• **Effectiveness: no impact **on frequency of intercourse, no impact on initiation of first sex at 6 months, no impact on contraceptive use at first intercourse,

Provide us a quote showing the ‘shower’ lesson is only about same sex gym classes…show us exactly what your curriculum says and if you can provide for us the name of the comprehensive sex education curriculum your school uses.

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian asks which school district Mary is speaking of)

You wouldn’t be able to find out even if I gave you my school district. They make it practically impossible to see exactly what materials they use.

So how do you know what you’re talking about? It’s O.K. I was just checking to see if you could substantiate your claims. Guess not. What state is this in? In every state I know, the curriculum must be open to the public by law.

Provide us a quote showing the ‘shower’ lesson is only about same sex gym classes…show us exactly what your curriculum says and if you can provide for us the name of the comprehensive sex education curriculum your school uses.

Even better, since you brought it up, show us that it meant what you claim it does.

But let’s see what’s on the net:
**HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host, except under strictly controlled laboratory conditions. HIV does not survive well in the open air, and this makes the possibility of this type of environmental transmission remote. In practice no environmental transmission has been recorded.

This means that HIV cannot be transmitted through spitting, sneezing, sharing glasses, cutlery, or musical instruments.

You also can’t be infected in swimming pools, showers or by sharing washing facilities or toilet seats. **
avert.org/howcan.htm

There is a significant and frightening possibility of infection in school showers, if the department is no scrupulous about cleaning and disinfection. Mainly staphylococcus, which is a growing problem. Most schools I know about test periodically, and if there’s even a slight positive, close the locker room until extensive disinfection is done and a test is negative. Since HIV is much, much less hardy than staph, that pretty much rules out infection.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

(Barbarian asks which school district Mary is speaking of)

So how do you know what you’re talking about? It’s O.K. I was just checking to see if you could substantiate your claims. Guess not. What state is this in? In every state I know, the curriculum must be open to the public by law.

I went through this with the school The curriculum is a rough outline of what students learn nin doesn’t show all the handouts. I went to the school and sat there and looked through a mountain of material, more than you could use in a classroom, and the answer was the teachers could choose from any of the materials. You are naive about dealing with schools. They understand how to hide what they are doing in the classrroom.

I had a copy of REDUCING THE RISK at my house I was able to look at the different lessons. Me and other mothers met and we talked tyo students in the classes. That is how I know what was in the program. I don’t knoweverything said in the classroom. But you also have said parents can’t be blocked from classrooms and they have been in Massachusetts for example. That is not my state…but an example state.

The schools and Planned Parenthood have lots of lawyers, parents have none because they can’t aford them generally.

Listen, even the curriculum committee at our school district has no parental vote on it. They have parent representatives who can listen to what is being said, but they cannot vote.

That would seem to be illegal to me as well. I don’t know if it is or not, I just know it is a reality and unless a lot of parents unite to fight it, as a lone parent you will get nowhere.

Even better, since you brought it up, show us that it meant what you claim it does.(Barbarian provided a quote about how HIV is passed, and that it not passed through the air)

What are you talking about? I don’t think HIV is passed through the air, but I don’t think it should be suggested to teens to shower together either…

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

barbarian I went to the “Avert” org website and I found it an awful resource for young people. I did not promote abstinence in any way.

That quote I sw was :"Using condoms during sex is the best way to prevent the sexual transmission of diseases, including HIV. "

thought you agreed these programs should be saying abstinence is the best way and actually only safe way to prevent STDs and HIV…well, that certainly wasn’t the message given.The AVERT site even said oral sex was a low risk activity. The site was awful from a Catholic point of view…If that is the curriculum your school uses and you approve of it, then there is no use discussing this further because that curriculum was a Planned Parenthood one, no question about it. That program would be offensive to anyone with any healthy, normal moral compass .

In Christ, maryJohnz

 

[reggieM]

The site was awful from a Catholic point of view…

Indeed.

If that is the curriculum your school uses and you approve of it, then there is no use discussing this further because that curriculum was a Planned Parenthood one, no question about it.

Thank you – that is correct. It should be obvious to anyone and there’s nothing to debate or discuss beyond that. The rest is just twisting the truth and serving an evil purpose.

That program would be offensive to anyone with any healthy, normal moral compass .

Exactly right.

 

[The_Barbarian]

barbarian I went to the “Avert” org website and I found it an awful resource for young people. I did not promote abstinence in any way.

You asked for evidence that the “you can’t get HIV from showering together” wasn’t about sex. There it is. Now, I’m sure you’ll be willing to show us the comprehensive program that says it is, since you made that claim. I’ll ask again, in a bit, if you miss this.

BTW, although the Avert people don’t follow comprehensive sex education, they do tell the truth. As you know, most of the “abstinence only” programs lie to children about various things, and this is the most likely reason that they are not effective.

I wouldn’t follow Avert’s particular take on sex education any more than I’d follow “abstinence only.” But they don’t lie, which is an improvement on many of the programs.

I’m pleased that you don’t approve of it, either. Your earlier comments on Planned Parenthood gave the impression that you favored that approach.

BTW, you were going to tell me which state your school is in; if you do so, I can probably get you the curriculum in detail (that you claim the school won’t let you see).

Just tell me the state, and I’ll be able to help you get that information so you can pass it on to us. I really want to see the evidence for your claims.

How about it?