|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: abstinece-only sex education | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
google for: "two std 1960"
The Epidemic of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Prior to 1960, there were only two significant sexually transmitted diseases: syphilis and gonorrhea. ... Some people believe that if teens can be taught how to use contraception and condoms effectively, that rates of pregnancy and STD infection will be reduced dramatically. But the statistics and common sense tell us otherwise. ... Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic disciplines and historic Christianity. In addition, Probe acts as a clearing house, communicating the results of its research to the church and society at large.
The only safe sex is no sex
n 1960, there were two sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that caused the greatest concern among medical doctors: gonorrhea and syphilis. ... Despite years of sex education in schools that liberal educators insisted would inform adolescents about safe sexual behaviour ... So how can parents protect their teens? Dr. McIlhaney says the answer is to tell them the truth: "Warn them that 'safe sex" as an unmarried teen or young adult simply doesn't exist." Also with articles such as:Abortion ” Deadly Politics Abortion is deadly domestic violence, too, but abortionists, abortion advocates and other people, such as feminists that promote the "pro-choice" option, don't look at it that way, even though that form of violence claims about 55 millions lives in the world each year.
My bold Cannibalism: Eyewitness accounts from inside the booming trade in fetal body partsThe End of Humanity? Links on the first page of results. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Nice to see you are still hanging around holmes.
Instead we want to continue pursuing this epidemic unlike any other epidemic we have ever faced before in history... simply because it has sexual stigma. I think this is an important point and I never really thought about it that way. We really DO treat STDs different than any other disease because we treat it on a social level stronger than we do on a medical level. Although treating some STDs like we might an outbreak of bird flu does not quite sit well with me. We have no problem putting a quaranteen on people with some kind of fatal flu even though it is their personal medical information yet a potentially malicious person could keep their HIV, HPV, Herpes status secret under the guys of dr patient confidentiality. I guess the problem is that STDs are easy to hide PLUS protected under medical confidentiality law. That being said I don't necessarily think an HIV registry is the right way to go either. What route do you think is acceptable for dealing with the problem more as a contagion and less like a sociopolitical problem? Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
The WE here are the laws that protect medical information at the federal level. The only time that your medical information can be officially released by medical practicioner that holds it is by patient consent or judicial order for purposes of a legal investigation or control of a catastrophic epidemic. HIV, HPV, Herpes, etc don't fall under either category.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Message 11
Great job. Honestly. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Message 12
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I think my position is somewhere betten you and holmes on this. I think kids should be taught that forced sex is illegal and that they do have a right to say no. This in fact should be done from elementary school on up because sexual exploitation does not just affect those who have gone or are going through puberty.
One comment of your stands out though.
holmes writes: And I'm just aghast that you'd equate a person saying "if you loved me" with rape. That has absolutely NOTHING in common with rape. You are simply preparing a whole class of new "I, victim" pathologies.
brennakimi writes:
it is legal coercion and thus rape. Where has the legal precedent defined the "if you love me" as coercion in a rape case? I am not saying it hasn't. I would just like to see some backup for it. If it has though, then I that is really crap. While the area between psychological coercion and peer pressure is pretty gray, we shouldn't be assigning victim status that coincides with gullability. The base of the slippery slope that this leads to is a "legal pandemic" where the courts are going to be dragged into (and even scarier making rulings on!!) every intracacy of an imperfect physical and emotional relationship. I say this of course with deepest regards for whatever trauma you may have undergone in your life. Every circumstance is going to be different of course. I hope I don't offend you. Edited by Jazzns, : grammar Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
brennakimi writes: Jazzns previously writes: Where has the legal precedent defined the "if you love me" as coercion in a rape case? I am not saying it hasn't. I would just like to see some backup for it. If it has though, then I that is really crap. While the area between psychological coercion and peer pressure is pretty gray, we shouldn't be assigning victim status that coincides with gullability. actually. i haven't got any case law. i should look into it (lazy). but it is also legally rape if you change your mind during sex and don't tell your partner. I would be really curious to see where you get this from. I am highly skeptical that someone could actually be convicted for rape if their partner changes their mind "mid stream" and didn't say anything. Assuming of course that there are not some other circumstances we don't know about.
i don't necessarily agree with that, but i do know that there may be times when you change your mind and don't feel safe stating such. That would be the only situation that I think MIGHT merit labeling it rape. If there had been a history of violence or otherwise coersion then there is a potential case. Although I would argue that it would be rape from the getgo not just because he/she changed their mind in the middle. There has got to be some kind of social contract that is signed once you say, "take me baby!" At that point the onus would be on the "victim" to say stop or else it is not rape. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
i think it's more that in a proper situation you are aware of your partner's needs and desires and it's generally VERY obvious when someone changes his mind. a girl will often dry up and a guy well.. guys are funny. they'll start looking away or something. the point is that if you're interested in what the other person is thinking, you'll know they want to stop. In the sense of having a good relationship this is probably true but as a litmus test for coercion this is a horrible way to go about determining consent. What if, in the case of a female, she does want to stop but she is still lubricated? Does that mean she really means yes? The opposite is also true, there are plenty of times I am sure that a girl might dry up but still really WANT to keep going. I know that it most certainly is true for guys. Just because they can't get it up does not mean that they are being coerced into sex. If you ever get the chance I would still like to learn where you got these ideas of what constitutes coercion. You have to have some original source for these ideas because it is hard to think that someone would imagine where those two: 1. "If you love me..."2. "I changed my mind during but didn't say anything..." would be legally considered coercion without some kind of example in trial history or something. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024