absitnence isn't 100%. That is just another peice of propaganda. The effectiveness of abstinence can't be measured with the same yardstick that all the other forms of birth control use. Every single other form of birth control has its effectiveness measured by how many pregnancies it prevents per instances of intercourse. Abstinence shouldn't even be on the same list as birth control because abstinence's effectiveness is arbitrarily set at 100%. The 100% claim is another instance of cheating with statistics for propaganda purposes.

I think that if someone wants to practice abstinence then they should. But I just don't think it's for me. I don't think I'm going to get married, so I'm not going to die a virgin. (Wow, that sounded really bad...)

But, as for Bush's sex-education abstinence program...It's such a bad idea. Teenagers, are going to have sex. No matter what you tell them, there are always going to be teenagers having sexual intercourse. And when they do, they should be equipped with plenty of knowledge of how to go about it and what to do. A program that explains methods of birth control pills, condom use, etc. but at the same times stresses abstinence is the only 100% percent way to prevent the spread STIs and pregnancy would be the best way to go.

Moral/religious arguements in support of a government based program are insufficient in general. Not to mention the whole separation of church and state thing, but courts have upheld that a purely moral/religious arguement is insufficient reason to have a law if people are harmed by it.

I think we should practice abstinence. I think we should have sex when we are married. That's what God wanted it to be for.

Andrew

I live in FL where absitence-only sex-ed is supposed to be taught. I think it is an absoltuly ridiculous idea. Kids who are going to abstain from sex are going to abstain from sex, they don't need to learn that. However those who are going to have sex need to be aware of the risks, birthcontrol, and std's. The majority, perhaps 60-75% of my friends are sexually active, and it is important that they learn sexual information from school.

I live in NC as well, where the sex ed program has an abstinence-only policy. I personally know about different forms of birth control and I practice abstinence for several different reasons, including information that I have learned about teenage pregnancies and STDs. However, who could say that everyone who took the same family life classes at my school know this information? I'm not sure that everyone does. And it is totally unfair to them to leave that class and not understand different forms of birth control. Not everyone wants to practice abstinence which I understand and have nothing against since it is a personal choice. So those people should be informed by the school (because they may not be able to get the information at home) about birth control. By teaching all forms of birth control, details about STDs and pregnancy, the school could probably prevent many of these occurences. As of now, there are five girls in the senior class of my high-school who are pregnant. It would be wonderful if that number would go down every senior class. In three years, when I'm a senior, it would be great if no one had to walk up on that stage to get their diploma pregnant. Teaching abstinence and forms of birth control in sex ed classes would help tremendously.

What upsets me the most about the pro-abstinence arguements is the total disregard for truth in their zealous search for propaganda tools. Take a fact sheet from my health class on birth control - listed at the top is abstinence at 100%. But the fact is is that it is caculated differently. They cheat, distort, and lie. Every single other method of birth control is calculated by how many pregnancies happen per instances of intercourse. Abstinence cannot meet this criteria so instead of saying that it can't be calculated, they cheat and say it is 100%. Personally I'd like to see the top of the list populated by the combination of the pill and condoms.

first of all abstinence "used to be waiting til marriage to have sex" which this is true. BUT now they teach it is waiting till you are ready to have sex.thats what children are being taught now in schools. so the teachers are falling in to line with society andarent helping the kids get any stronger about the feelings on waiting to have sex. as far as this thing with bush goes about banning contraceptives "PLEASE!" Bush as far as i am concerned i do not believe this law will be passed through congress. he's hurting us now, and thats only going to make the world worst. giving every1 std's people are not going jus going t stop haveing sex. and we as americans have rights too. how long have condems been around lets be serious. you think the teenage pregnancy rate is high now you just wait. as far as the morning after pill with people getting raped i am against abortion in any case though. but i believe that everyone has to make their own descisions. and bush isnt helping any teens by takingaway that and i dont think congress is going to allow that to happen if they are smart. Lord be with them. any reply on this feel free.

Abstinence is a smart idea, but not necessarily until marriage...but until you're like old and stable enough to raise a baby because some ppl never marry, but there will always be ppl who want to have sex at 13 or 14 and wound up getting pregnant so condoms and other protection are good ideas. Bush shouldn't BAN condoms and other types of protection because its not only teens who need it. What if a married couple wanted to have sex but they didn't want children??? Bush says abstinence until marriage, then this wouldn't be against his opinion. He says that he also wants to ban abortion, which is a more legitimate ban than the protection one, but the two bans together will create unwanted children. He should keep focused on eliminating abortion rather than protection, because 1 kills and the other doesnt. And what about rape victims??? Aren't they entitled to the morning after pill, because they dont deserve to be stuck with the burden of a child???

quote:

---

I think that schools should teach ALL froms of birth control and STD prevention. ABsinence should be included becuase it is the only birth contrel and std prevention that works 100% of the time. They shouldn't make it seem as if this is the ONLY option.

---

My school teaches ONLY abstinence until marriage, and the new, "abstinence only" sex-ed policy statewide(I live in NC) is really messed up, because then teens who think abstinence is "boring" and want to have sex before they are married are uninformed of protection, and are more likely to get pregnant or catch STDs from unprotected sex. I agree.

i think people should have sex when they are ready and aslong as they use protection and if protection is forgotten then the morning after pill should be avaiable

I think the US SHOULD let teens and adults use condoms... If not then there will be more and more STD's AID's and Pregneceys in teens in the us... I know if me and my boyfriend have sex.. we will use a condom no matter what Bush says! My boyfreind wears a condom or hes stayin away from my body! ...

HEY I THINK EVERY SINGLE PERSON SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THEY R MARRIED TO HAVE SEX CUZ WE R JUST KIDS WE DONT KNOW YET WAT IS GOING TO B IN THE FUTURE N IF U R GOING TO HAVE SEX OF COURSE .. THAT U NEED !! TO U PROTECTION CUZ THAT HOW AIDS N HIV ETC . HAPPENS BUT I REALY !! THINK THAT EVERY BODY SHOULD WAIT TO HAVE SEX N SCHOOLS ALSO SHOULD TEACH US STUDENT ABOUT TAHT SEX STUFF BUT YEAH THATS WAT I THINK !! ........

quote:

---

As for my source, I do not need a degree to know somthing.

---

I never said that you do. That Yancey jackäss, however, studied communications and English. Now, I'm really going out on a limb here, but I don't think he probably recieved the kind of education in biology/zoology that he needs to write about this subject with any credibility.

quote:

---

That's a biological difference that makes birth control more necessary, not less.

---

I said nothing about birth contol in that post I was talking about the comment that humens are just animals which I do not agree with. Your post are so inteligent I find it hard to believe you are incapible of reading then entire post. Once again please do not take my post out of context.
As for my source, I do not need a degree to know somthing.

Nope, I didn't watch that documentary. And just to clear this up, I don't usually spend my free time researching hot monkey love.

Bush is a terrible president, not that that goes without saying... but that is a different topic for another time. How can you be against birth control? How old is this guy? Birth control is amazingly effective if used properly and most americans, teen or not, use daily. (Well, most anyway). To be against birth control is like being against safe sex. Abstaining from sex is all well and good, but not everyone can wait until marriage, and not everyone wants to be a virgin until they're 30.

There was a documentary on MSNBC a few days ago that showed info on bonobos. did you watch it?

-arianhorn

quote:

---

Humens experiance sex as a personal incounter and not just a niological one

---

And how do you know that other species aren't similar in this respect? Bonobos, for instance, don't have sex solely for reproductive purposes.

quote:

---

almost all animlas have a space of time where the female it reciptive (in heat), humen females can be reciptive any time

---

That's a biological difference that makes birth control more necessary, not less.

quote:

---

We are the only speices that commonly had intercouse face to face, and have full body conntact

---

Oh, hey, you just got served by bonobos again...

"Bonobos become sexually aroused remarkably easily, and they express this excitement in a variety of mounting positions and genital contacts. Although chimpanzees virtually never adopt face-to-face positions, bonobos do so in one out of three copulations in the wild. Furthermore, the frontal orientation of the bonobo vulva and clitoris strongly suggest that the female genitalia are adapted for this position."

Also, I still maintain that your source has absolutely no credibility.

Sources:

Bonobo Sex and Society, Scientific American, March 1995.

I only included where I got the information from so no one would tell me I copyed it. Regardless the information I present is correct. If you think that this information is wrong then dispute that, not the source. I was only saying that we are not like other animals. please do not take my post out of context. I was replying to one comment made by one preson and your response had nothing to do with what either person wrote.

If you're going to try to justify dogma through science, at least attempt to use a work by someone who has something that even vaguely resembles an education in science.

quote:

---

Philip Yancey's Life

(stuff about his childhood)

As Yancey researched, pondered, and explored deep questions about faith, he wrote—taking millions of readers with him as he passionately crafted best-selling books, such as Disappointment with God and Where is God When it Hurts? (He currently has more than 13 million books in print.) More recently, he has felt the freedom to explore central issues of the Christian faith, penning award-winning titles, such as The Jesus I Never Knew and What's So Amazing About Grace? However in his book, Rumors of Another World, he does not want to focus on toxic churches and abusive religion. "I admit that I’m at times a reluctant Christian, plagued by doubts and 'in recovery' from bad church encounters. I’ve explored these experiences in other books, and so I determined not to mine my past yet again in this one. I’m fully aware of all the reasons not to believe. Yet Rumors is my attempt to discover for myself why I do believe."

"I write books for myself," he says. "I write books to resolve things that are bothering me, things I don't have answers to. My books are a process of exploration and investigation. So, I tend to tackle different problems related to faith, things of concern to me, things I wonder about and worry about." Yancey writes with a journalist's eye for detail, irony and honest skepticism. Yancey spent most of his adult years in Chicago, writing for a wide variety of magazines including Reader's Digest, Saturday Evening Post, National Wildlife and Christianity Today. He’s interviewed diverse people enriched by their personal faith like President Jimmy Carter, Habitat for Humanity Founder Millard Fuller and humanitarian Dame Cicely Saunders. He earned graduate degrees in Communication and English from Wheaton College and the University of Chicago.

So, just how does a man who's been through all Yancey has, draw close to the God he once feared? He spends about an hour each morning reading spiritually nourishing books, meditating, praying, and enjoying God's presence. This morning time, he says, is spent simply "aligning" himself with God for the day. Then in the afternoon he reads the Bible, about a chapter a day. "I try to make it less of a study and more of, 'What can I discern about God speaking to me?'"

"I tend to go back to the Bible as a model, because I don't know a more honest book." Yancey explains. "I can't think of any argument against God that isn't already included in the Bible. So, for those who struggle with my books, I just say, 'Then, you really shouldn't be reading them.' But some people do need the kinds of books I write. They've been burned by the church or they’re very upset about certain aspects of Christianity. I feel called to speak to those living in the borderlands of faith."

---

Now, just in case you didn't catch this the first time around...

quote:

---

He earned graduate degrees in Communication and English from Wheaton College and the University of Chicago.

---

Yeah, great. He has graduate degrees in Communication and English, both of which I'm sure involved a rigorous education in science which clearly entitles him to make educated statements about biology/zoology/whatever else animal sexual behavior vs human sexual behavior falls under.

quote:

---

humen intercourse is a relationship and not simply and act.

---

Human intercourse can be a relationship, and it can be an act. That's the difference between a couple that's physically and emotionally intimate and a drunken one night stand.

Source: Philip Yancey's Life