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.
What “facts about reproductive biology” that are given in non-abstinence only classes are you talking about?
I wasn’t talking about “non-abstinence only” (whatever that is).
The fundamental difference in sex education programs is that the abstinence only programs do not promote condom use. The programs you support do promote the use of condoms.
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.
The point of doing sex education is to reduce pregnancies and STDs. Comprehensive works. Abstinence only makes it worse.
Barbarian observes:
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.
That is right. Those states are turning to programs that teach children how to use condoms.
If that was it, you wouldn’t see much effect. Instead, they teach how reproductive biology works. The truth turns out to be the most sensible thing to tell kids. Amazing, isn’t it?
It is becoming clearer that you support those programs (although getting this fact from you is like pulling teeth – you are dodging and covering-up your own position).
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.
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.
The comprehensive programs you’re talking about promote condom use to children. That’s what you’re supporting.
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.
No. It is quite possible to promote abstinence, while explaining to students how pregnancies and STDs happen.
Abstinence-only programs do precisely that.
If they did, they’d be as effective as comprehensive sex education, but that’s not what happens.
**Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person’s genitals “can result in pregnancy,” a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the “false, misleading, or distorted information” in the programs’ teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact. **
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.
It fits perfectly with her judgment that if a child fails and engages in sex, he or she needs to have a pregnancy or STD as a lesson.
I’ll conclude that you want schools to promote condom use among children.
It’s your M.O. You make up things and attribute them to other people.
Again, this fits well with your Darwinism.
Darwinism isn’t about ethics or morals. You might as well expect plumbing to be about ethics and morals.
It doesn’t fit with your claims of being an orthodox Catholic though.
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.
Eventually, there will be a conflict between your passionate Darwinian belief and your Catholic faith.
What’s happened Mary, is your hatred for Darwin has become more important than your faith as a Catholic. You find common cause with anti-Catholics who also hate Darwin, than you do with Catholics who accept creation as it is. The Church has no problem with evolution as scientists understand it.
In this case, you’ve compromised your faith by arguing in favor of condom-use with children.
One more false accusation; is anyone keeping count?
