this is just one of many other articles stating a slightly different opinion than the one you have linked too
maybe rather than believing all the religious propaganda that is spoon fed to you through websites such as "catholic.com" you should look further into things, and maybe ask some more questions
yes abstinence is the best form of birth control and best way to prevent std's those facts are obviously not being contested but lying to young people about what "sex" will do to you is not right either
is it right in the eyes of god to lie in this situation? is this one of those many situations your church has decided doenst apply?
No one is advocating lying to teens about sex. If some people teach stupid things then that's their fault. But if you yourself admit that abstinence is the best form of birth control and the best way to prevent std's isn't that the best way for our teens to learn about keeping themselves healthy? It just seems logical to teach them that instead of, "here, have sex, take a risk, try a condom, some of the time they help." ?? THAT isn't fair to our youth. They deserve the entire truth.
how could anyone deny abstinence as the best form of those thing?, to deny it would be absolutely ridiculous! OBVIOUSLY not having sex will result in not getting a sexually transmitted disease, or getting pregnant... but the fact is, teenagers will have sex, and the people teaching abstinence education ARE NOT telling the whole truth. so as you said, it isn't fair to our youth, they do deserve the entire truth
also nobody has ever lied to a teenager and told them that a condom is 100% effective in fact im certain the box even says 98% effective right there on the box so where is the lie there?
"maybe rather than believing all the religious propaganda that is spoon fed to you through websites such as 'catholic.com'..."
Would you please point out the propaganda? I have actually visited the site, and I have yet to see something that could be labeled as propaganda. Have you even read the link in the original blog post, or did you dismiss it simply as propaganda because the word "catholic" was in the link? There is no propaganda in the article (I've read it).
"... you should look further into things..."
I would suggest that you do the same, rather than simply believing what the liberal media and liberal organizations spoon feed you. For instance, a short search turned up an original study from Harvard that outlines different information:
Here is the link to a page that talks about the study and a follow-up study that was initiated in a seemingly suspicious manner (I wonder if that study is the one reported in your link...):
I would suggest not taking everything at face value and simply look for things that agree with your position, discounting everything that disagrees; I wouldn't call this "[looking] further into things." Also, going to the source is much more credible than quoting from a news source that obviously wants to agree with a certain position. I've already seen one error along the lines of "correlation proves causation" in the first article. Can you spot it? :) It's always important to look behind stats, especially when reading news articles speaking about what they mean.
"is it right in the eyes of god to lie in this situation?"
Two things. One, the people involved may simply be misinformed, in which case it would be better and more charitable to inform them of the truth rather than simply assuming that they're purposefully lying to everyone. Two, of course lying is never right in the eyes of God, but it's a simple fact that Catholics definitely don't have a monopoly on lying (and especially not on misinformation). :P Many people are misinformed, and some people blatantly lie. This happens because people are human and make the wrong choice individually. I don't condemn out-of-hand or judge people who support opposing positions and who I find to be misinformed.
From the second article: "The report concluded that ... the 11 [other curricula] ... contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins."
It would be interesting to see what the author thinks to be unproved claims, subjective conclusions, etc. about those issues. I've seen the ones who condemn the Church for being against science (which the Church isn't) deny outright things that science proves (including, but not limited to, when life begins). But again, inaccurate information is unfortunate, but not limited to Catholics or abstinence supporters. Besides, there is a difference between what some misinformed Catholics teach and what the Catholic Church teaches, just as I know that there are a great many misinformed supporters of condoms, abortion, etc., who say silly things and from whom I'm sure others in the movement would want to distance themselves.
The second article also attempts to use statements like "When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say" to disprove statements like "Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse". There is a very wide difference between theoretical and practical effectiveness, and I've read studies that show not only that the actual failure rate among certain groups and age ranges can in fact be 30% or more, but also that a very large percentage of the highest risk groups often don't use condoms at all.
Also from the second article: "Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model."
That may be correct, but it also applies to the people who wrote the articles that you posted. It is interesting to note, however, that the one primarily responsible for the Harvard study was a strongly left-wing supporter of the C in ABC until his study of Uganda.
"yes abstinence is the best form of birth control and best way to prevent std's..."
Doesn't it seem most logical, then, that encouraging the most effective method (without misinformation, granted) would be more effective than encouraging people to indulge themselves and attempting to provide band-aids for mistakes or "surprises"?
"is this one of those many situations your church has decided doenst apply?"
Well, you haven't shown that the Church teaches lying is ok in this situation or even that the Church lies about this issue, but you have done a good job in showing your bias and how quick you are to judge. I'm curious, what are the other "many situations" that you mentioned?
There are people who will always have sex, just as people that will always do any given act, no matter the consequences. Should we encourage everyone in everything they do simply because some group of people will always do it? That isn't very logical. Encouraging sex and simply making it easier is only going to lead to more sex and more problems resulting from such actions, since sex can be such a powerful drive. Endulging in it won't curb the desire, just as endulging in drugs won't stop someone from taking them. You can curb the desire to have sex without repression. This is simply a fact. Not trying simply because "some people will always do it" is a bit on the silly side, don't you think? Such a fatalistic attitude is hardly beneficial.
"also nobody has ever lied to a teenager and told them that a condom is 100% effective..."
I would use the term misinformed, and in that light... I've seen a popular site that shows doctors counseling people that condoms are 100% effective if used correctly. They even say that the boxes are wrong, or that people read them incorrectly. This is just one example, but then, only one is needed. However, it is important not to rush to judge that people are lying about everything. I don't assume those doctors are blatantly lying. As well, I'd be careful to make blanket statements like "no one has ever lied to [person x] about [issue y];" can you guarantee that no person has ever lied about this? Are there any other things that you think no one has ever lied about? Generalizations such as this don't help to prove issues.
The other points in the later two posts are addressed in my original post, so I won't address them again here.
I do not entirely disagree that abstinence should be taught to young people as an OPTION, but youth deserve to be taught about all the options that they have. For example, using the pill and condoms together is extremely effective, and according to many studies result in 1% of people getting pregnant.
Studies show that U.S. teenage birth rate has been in steady decline since 1991. By 2002, teen birth rates were 30 percent lower than in 1991. Analysis of the period from 1988 to 1995, when the largest decrease occurred, found that approximately one-quarter of the decline in the teen pregnancy rate was because teens delayed sexual activity, while three-quarters was due to increased use of long-term contraceptives.
Sex education is almost universal in northern Europe. Contraceptive services are widely available for free or at low cost to teenagers there. Yet there is little difference between the percentage of European and American teens who are sexually active or the age at which they become sexually active. Rates of unintended pregnancy and STDs among teenagers, however, are much higher in the U.S. than in Europe. One study found that the higher rates of contraceptive use alone do not fully explain the differences in pregnancy and STD rates. It found that U.S. teens are more likely to have multiple partners, which contributes to the spread of STDs. And European teens are more knowledgeable of how to use contraceptives, less fearful of the side effects, and more motivated to avoid unintended pregnancy.
In a report published this year, researchers at Columbia University found that 88 percent of youth who signed virginity pledges had sex before marriage. And they discovered that once they broke their pledge, they had more sexual partners in a shorter period of time and were one-third less likely to use contraceptives than those who did not take the pledge. Moreover those who had taken pledges were less likely to recognize or be tested for sexually transmitted diseases and therefore more likely to pass them on to sexual partners.
I do believe in sex before marriage, and I have engaged in it. I am not pregnant, nor do I have any kind of STDs I am a healthy person I can also say that in highschool I was educated on all forms of birth control, yes including abstinence, and I am grateful for that. I had options, and I knew the risks.
The original topic was the possible effectiveness of a wide focus on abstinence-only education in Uganda on the abortion rate, and while the studies quoted are interesting to look at, they don't have anything to do with the original topic. There would only be a connection if abstinence-only education in the other quoted studies was on the same level as what it seems to have been in Uganda. That being said, I'll still comment on individual parts for the sake of discussion.
"... using the pill and condoms together is extremely effective..."
I don't know anyone who would argue with that, though this has to do with theoretical versus practical application. Of course, there is still only one thing that is 100% effective. Providing someone the means of indulging themselves with a lower risk of undesired consequences still serves to encourage the behavior that leads to the undesired consequences in the first place while inspiring a mentality of irresponsibility. One may attempt to argue that using preventative methods properly is being responsible, but that statement is only an attempt to mask the original irresponsible behavior.
"Analysis ... found that approximately one-quarter of the decline in the teen pregnancy rate was because teens delayed sexual activity..."
I'm not sure what the point of such a study is if not to show the lack of emphasis on education based on abstinence and self-control and that the focus on abstinence should be larger, since it is 100% effective in preventing teen pregnancy. Weak attempts at promoting abstinence, of course, don't count, since it takes a bit more than a short, casual attempt (a small blip in the later formative years of individuals) to provide an effective and lasting message.
"In a report published this year, researchers at Columbia University found that 88 percent of youth who signed virginity pledges had sex before marriage."
This isn't surprising given the constant bombardment of sexual messages beginning from the earliest years in a person's life and the lack of emphasis on self-control and abstinence, especially once a person leaves home to head to universities.
"I do believe in sex before marriage, and I have engaged in it."
You are in my prayers. :)
"I am not pregnant, nor do I have any kind of STDs I am a healthy person"
I'm glad that you are healthy.
"I can also say that in highschool I was educated on all forms of birth control, yes including abstinence, and I am grateful for that. I had options, and I knew the risks."
A small amount of information on abstinence on the side of everything else pointing in the other direction can only be expected to have an impact on someone who is already strongly pointed in the direction of abstinence. This is the only thing that your situation demonstrates.
For one who doesn't believe in God (not to say that you fit in this category), prayers are either ineffective (if they are right) or beneficial (if they are wrong). For one who believes in God, prayers would only be beneficial, as God obviously wouldn't answer a negative prayer or a prayer that isn't for one's greater good. Therefore requests for someone to cease praying for them (and especially angry opposition to prayer for others, which I have seen) don't seem to make sense...
Also, I have said simply that I will pray for you without qualification. You can only expect the greater good to come from these prayers, unless you openly choose to reject any potential aid from God (whether or not you believe in His existence), in which case you can expect nothing to happen; we do, after all, have the free will to reject God and His gifts.
"I am happy with my life and find nothing wrong with it."
What I hope for is the best for every individual. Individuals seem to be able to experience emotional happiness no matter what they are doing and find nothing wrong with things that may or may not, in fact, be wrong; basing everything on opinion and emotion is never the best way to go about life.
I am finding it really hard to come up with some kind of response to you on this one. I find your prayers for me to be condescending, as well as your approach to my happiness. I am prepared to take full responsibility for anything I have done. I have not harmed anyone with my actions, and everything I have done in my life has made me who I am, a person I am proud to be. I would also like to add that the founding principle of liberal democracies, like the US, is that everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another. That is the principle in which I live my life.
"I find your prayers for me to be condescending, as well as your approach to my happiness."
On the point of condescension, don't worry, I pray only for what is best for people in any given moment, and not for what I personally would want for them.
"I have not harmed anyone with my actions..."
People only seem to look at immediate effects. On a basic level, there is no way for one to tell that they're causing no harm with sex unless they only have sex with one person who has never had sex with anyone else.
I have read a couple of interesting things (that I would have to verify, as I can't remember the source) dealing with the body (especially the female body) being structured to be with only one person. One of the things that I read was that, after having sex the first time, the female's body becomes more hostile to the sperm of other people, which could make pregnancy in the future more difficult.
The other thing that I remember was the body becoming attached to the other person after sex due to the brain releasing some sort of chemicals that, unfortunately, I can't remember. This is supposed to be a biological method of aiding in the longevity of relationships for the purpose of the support of children. This makes breaking up (at least, at first) that much more painful, and having multiple partners damages the body's ability to become attached in such a way to a single person in the future.
On a deeper level, sex before marriage can only encourage indulgence and irresponsibility. It isn't difficult to see who would make a better and more lasting parent between the one who doesn't truly value sex or self-control and the one who is able to control themselves and only focus on one single person throughout the course of their lives. The first person will indulge themselves and then leave when they get bored or someone else provides them with more of a spark. There are good reasons that divorce rates are so high, and unstable families lead to unstable children and later to unstable adults. Such a thing can't be healthy for anyone involved, and especially not for society.
Besides, I know that I, personally, at least, would prefer the attitude of "I have saved myself for you and have been and will always be devoted to you alone" rather than "I've been with quite a few other people, but you're my current fling, and I like you more (for the moment); just don't bore me, or I'll leave to be with someone else. Oh, and by the way, I don't think I have diseases, but..." I would personally be more proud of the first, but to each his (or her) own, I guess.
"I would also like to add that the founding principle of liberal democracies, like the US, is that everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another. That is the principle in which I live my life."
Ah, so you are against abortion in all forms, but it is simply the ideal approach to ending abortion that is different between us. Besides, there are things that don't seem to be immediately detrimental to others that are nevertheless dangerous for society.
I would really like to read this study that says that a womans body is hostile to all other men's sperm. It sounds ridiculous to me, and makes no sense. If it was the case a lot of women would find it a lot more difficult to conceive.
Also I would like to say that I never once stated that I am against abortion. I am 100% pro-choice. I think that everyone deserves to make the choice to have a child or not.
Also, there is nothing that proves that relationships between people who have had other sexual partners provide unstable households. I am pretty certain my parents were not eachothers firsts, and they have been married for almost 25 years now. Me and my sister turned out just fine, we are stable and successful people who are on their way to finishing university educations.
This point was merely raised for the purpose of discussion and not to be used as primary evidence, since I wasn't sure where I would have read it. If I find something and you're still interested, I will post it.
"Also I would like to say that I never once stated that I am against abortion. I am 100% pro-choice."
"I would also like to add that the founding principle of liberal democracies, like the US, is that everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another. That is the principle in which I live my life."
These two quotes contradict each other. Either you're pro-life, or you can't say that you live your life by the principle that "everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another." I merely took you at your word.
"Also, there is nothing that proves that relationships between people who have had other sexual partners provide unstable households."
I have never stated that all such relationships will cause unstable homes, and I would never try to prove such a thing. The best that you could have would be studies that show higher correlation.
That said, having multiple partners damages a person's (especially a woman's) ability to form lasting bonds with future partners, at the very least. This doesn't guarantee anything, but it does make it more difficult for a couple to stay together, because the natural bond would be weaker.
Such behavior also establishes a pattern of behavior that won't instantly end when someone finds "the one", as problems established before marriage won't instantly disappear within marriage. Another example was given in my previous post. Again, this doesn't guarantee an unstable household, but it certainly helps to increase the possibility of one. I am one who cares enough about himself and others not to take such a risk (although I also have other reasons for not doing so).
"I am pretty certain my parents were not eachothers firsts, and they have been married for almost 25 years now."
I'm glad that it's working out for you, but personal subjective experience (i.e., projection) doesn't prove anything.
14 comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48464-2005Feb23.html
this is just one of many other articles stating a slightly different opinion than the one you have linked too
maybe rather than believing all the religious propaganda that is spoon fed to you through websites such as "catholic.com" you should look further into things, and maybe ask some more questions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
yes abstinence is the best form of birth control and best way to prevent std's
those facts are obviously not being contested
but lying to young people about what "sex" will do to you is not right either
is it right in the eyes of god to lie in this situation?
is this one of those many situations your church has decided doenst apply?
No one is advocating lying to teens about sex. If some people teach stupid things then that's their fault. But if you yourself admit that abstinence is the best form of birth control and the best way to prevent std's isn't that the best way for our teens to learn about keeping themselves healthy? It just seems logical to teach them that instead of, "here, have sex, take a risk, try a condom, some of the time they help." ?? THAT isn't fair to our youth. They deserve the entire truth.
how could anyone deny abstinence as the best form of those thing?, to deny it would be absolutely ridiculous! OBVIOUSLY not having sex will result in not getting a sexually transmitted disease, or getting pregnant...
but the fact is, teenagers will have sex, and the people teaching abstinence education ARE NOT telling the whole truth.
so as you said, it isn't fair to our youth, they do deserve the entire truth
also nobody has ever lied to a teenager and told them that a condom is 100% effective
in fact im certain the box even says 98% effective right there on the box
so where is the lie there?
"maybe rather than believing all the religious propaganda that is spoon fed to you through websites such as 'catholic.com'..."
Would you please point out the propaganda? I have actually visited the site, and I have yet to see something that could be labeled as propaganda. Have you even read the link in the original blog post, or did you dismiss it simply as propaganda because the word "catholic" was in the link? There is no propaganda in the article (I've read it).
"... you should look further into things..."
I would suggest that you do the same, rather than simply believing what the liberal media and liberal organizations spoon feed you. For instance, a short search turned up an original study from Harvard that outlines different information:
http://www.ccih.org/resources/ABCplus/research/abc/case-studies-of-ABC.pdf
Here is the link to a page that talks about the study and a follow-up study that was initiated in a seemingly suspicious manner (I wonder if that study is the one reported in your link...):
http://www.abstinenceafrica.com/library/index.php?entryid=1912
I would suggest not taking everything at face value and simply look for things that agree with your position, discounting everything that disagrees; I wouldn't call this "[looking] further into things." Also, going to the source is much more credible than quoting from a news source that obviously wants to agree with a certain position. I've already seen one error along the lines of "correlation proves causation" in the first article. Can you spot it? :) It's always important to look behind stats, especially when reading news articles speaking about what they mean.
"is it right in the eyes of god to lie in this situation?"
Two things. One, the people involved may simply be misinformed, in which case it would be better and more charitable to inform them of the truth rather than simply assuming that they're purposefully lying to everyone. Two, of course lying is never right in the eyes of God, but it's a simple fact that Catholics definitely don't have a monopoly on lying (and especially not on misinformation). :P Many people are misinformed, and some people blatantly lie. This happens because people are human and make the wrong choice individually. I don't condemn out-of-hand or judge people who support opposing positions and who I find to be misinformed.
From the second article: "The report concluded that ... the 11 [other curricula] ... contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins."
It would be interesting to see what the author thinks to be unproved claims, subjective conclusions, etc. about those issues. I've seen the ones who condemn the Church for being against science (which the Church isn't) deny outright things that science proves (including, but not limited to, when life begins). But again, inaccurate information is unfortunate, but not limited to Catholics or abstinence supporters. Besides, there is a difference between what some misinformed Catholics teach and what the Catholic Church teaches, just as I know that there are a great many misinformed supporters of condoms, abortion, etc., who say silly things and from whom I'm sure others in the movement would want to distance themselves.
The second article also attempts to use statements like "When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say" to disprove statements like "Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse". There is a very wide difference between theoretical and practical effectiveness, and I've read studies that show not only that the actual failure rate among certain groups and age ranges can in fact be 30% or more, but also that a very large percentage of the highest risk groups often don't use condoms at all.
Also from the second article: "Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model."
That may be correct, but it also applies to the people who wrote the articles that you posted. It is interesting to note, however, that the one primarily responsible for the Harvard study was a strongly left-wing supporter of the C in ABC until his study of Uganda.
"yes abstinence is the best form of birth control and best way to prevent std's..."
Doesn't it seem most logical, then, that encouraging the most effective method (without misinformation, granted) would be more effective than encouraging people to indulge themselves and attempting to provide band-aids for mistakes or "surprises"?
"is this one of those many situations your church has decided doenst apply?"
Well, you haven't shown that the Church teaches lying is ok in this situation or even that the Church lies about this issue, but you have done a good job in showing your bias and how quick you are to judge. I'm curious, what are the other "many situations" that you mentioned?
"... but the fact is, teenagers will have sex..."
There are people who will always have sex, just as people that will always do any given act, no matter the consequences. Should we encourage everyone in everything they do simply because some group of people will always do it? That isn't very logical. Encouraging sex and simply making it easier is only going to lead to more sex and more problems resulting from such actions, since sex can be such a powerful drive. Endulging in it won't curb the desire, just as endulging in drugs won't stop someone from taking them. You can curb the desire to have sex without repression. This is simply a fact. Not trying simply because "some people will always do it" is a bit on the silly side, don't you think? Such a fatalistic attitude is hardly beneficial.
"also nobody has ever lied to a teenager and told them that a condom is 100% effective..."
I would use the term misinformed, and in that light... I've seen a popular site that shows doctors counseling people that condoms are 100% effective if used correctly. They even say that the boxes are wrong, or that people read them incorrectly. This is just one example, but then, only one is needed. However, it is important not to rush to judge that people are lying about everything. I don't assume those doctors are blatantly lying. As well, I'd be careful to make blanket statements like "no one has ever lied to [person x] about [issue y];" can you guarantee that no person has ever lied about this? Are there any other things that you think no one has ever lied about? Generalizations such as this don't help to prove issues.
The other points in the later two posts are addressed in my original post, so I won't address them again here.
I do not entirely disagree that abstinence should be taught to young people as an OPTION, but youth deserve to be taught about all the options that they have. For example, using the pill and condoms together is extremely effective, and according to many studies result in 1% of people getting pregnant.
Studies show that U.S. teenage birth rate has been in steady decline since 1991. By 2002, teen birth rates were 30 percent lower than in 1991. Analysis of the period from 1988 to 1995, when the largest decrease occurred, found that approximately one-quarter of the decline in the teen pregnancy rate was because teens delayed sexual activity, while three-quarters was due to increased use of long-term contraceptives.
Sex education is almost universal in northern Europe. Contraceptive services are widely available for free or at low cost to teenagers there. Yet there is little difference between the percentage of European and American teens who are sexually active or the age at which they become sexually active. Rates of unintended pregnancy and STDs among teenagers, however, are much higher in the U.S. than in Europe. One study found that the higher rates of contraceptive use alone do not fully explain the differences in pregnancy and STD rates. It found that U.S. teens are more likely to have multiple partners, which contributes to the spread of STDs. And European teens are more knowledgeable of how to use contraceptives, less fearful of the side effects, and more motivated to avoid unintended pregnancy.
In a report published this year, researchers at Columbia University found that 88 percent of youth who signed virginity pledges had sex before marriage. And they discovered that once they broke their pledge, they had more sexual partners in a shorter period of time and were one-third less likely to use contraceptives than those who did not take the pledge. Moreover those who had taken pledges were less likely to recognize or be tested for sexually transmitted diseases and therefore more likely to pass them on to sexual partners.
I do believe in sex before marriage, and I have engaged in it.
I am not pregnant, nor do I have any kind of STDs
I am a healthy person
I can also say that in highschool I was educated on all forms of birth control, yes including abstinence, and I am grateful for that.
I had options, and I knew the risks.
The original topic was the possible effectiveness of a wide focus on abstinence-only education in Uganda on the abortion rate, and while the studies quoted are interesting to look at, they don't have anything to do with the original topic. There would only be a connection if abstinence-only education in the other quoted studies was on the same level as what it seems to have been in Uganda. That being said, I'll still comment on individual parts for the sake of discussion.
"... using the pill and condoms together is extremely effective..."
I don't know anyone who would argue with that, though this has to do with theoretical versus practical application. Of course, there is still only one thing that is 100% effective. Providing someone the means of indulging themselves with a lower risk of undesired consequences still serves to encourage the behavior that leads to the undesired consequences in the first place while inspiring a mentality of irresponsibility. One may attempt to argue that using preventative methods properly is being responsible, but that statement is only an attempt to mask the original irresponsible behavior.
"Analysis ... found that approximately one-quarter of the decline in the teen pregnancy rate was because teens delayed sexual activity..."
I'm not sure what the point of such a study is if not to show the lack of emphasis on education based on abstinence and self-control and that the focus on abstinence should be larger, since it is 100% effective in preventing teen pregnancy. Weak attempts at promoting abstinence, of course, don't count, since it takes a bit more than a short, casual attempt (a small blip in the later formative years of individuals) to provide an effective and lasting message.
"In a report published this year, researchers at Columbia University found that 88 percent of youth who signed virginity pledges had sex before marriage."
This isn't surprising given the constant bombardment of sexual messages beginning from the earliest years in a person's life and the lack of emphasis on self-control and abstinence, especially once a person leaves home to head to universities.
"I do believe in sex before marriage, and I have engaged in it."
You are in my prayers. :)
"I am not pregnant, nor do I have any kind of STDs
I am a healthy person"
I'm glad that you are healthy.
"I can also say that in highschool I was educated on all forms of birth control, yes including abstinence, and I am grateful for that.
I had options, and I knew the risks."
A small amount of information on abstinence on the side of everything else pointing in the other direction can only be expected to have an impact on someone who is already strongly pointed in the direction of abstinence. This is the only thing that your situation demonstrates.
please don't pray for me
I do not want it, I am happy with my life and find nothing wrong with it.
"please don't pray for me"
For one who doesn't believe in God (not to say that you fit in this category), prayers are either ineffective (if they are right) or beneficial (if they are wrong). For one who believes in God, prayers would only be beneficial, as God obviously wouldn't answer a negative prayer or a prayer that isn't for one's greater good. Therefore requests for someone to cease praying for them (and especially angry opposition to prayer for others, which I have seen) don't seem to make sense...
Also, I have said simply that I will pray for you without qualification. You can only expect the greater good to come from these prayers, unless you openly choose to reject any potential aid from God (whether or not you believe in His existence), in which case you can expect nothing to happen; we do, after all, have the free will to reject God and His gifts.
"I am happy with my life and find nothing wrong with it."
What I hope for is the best for every individual. Individuals seem to be able to experience emotional happiness no matter what they are doing and find nothing wrong with things that may or may not, in fact, be wrong; basing everything on opinion and emotion is never the best way to go about life.
I am finding it really hard to come up with some kind of response to you on this one.
I find your prayers for me to be condescending, as well as your approach to my happiness.
I am prepared to take full responsibility for anything I have done.
I have not harmed anyone with my actions, and everything I have done in my life has made me who I am, a person I am proud to be.
I would also like to add that the founding principle of liberal democracies, like the US, is that everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another.
That is the principle in which I live my life.
"I find your prayers for me to be condescending, as well as your approach to my happiness."
On the point of condescension, don't worry, I pray only for what is best for people in any given moment, and not for what I personally would want for them.
"I have not harmed anyone with my actions..."
People only seem to look at immediate effects. On a basic level, there is no way for one to tell that they're causing no harm with sex unless they only have sex with one person who has never had sex with anyone else.
I have read a couple of interesting things (that I would have to verify, as I can't remember the source) dealing with the body (especially the female body) being structured to be with only one person. One of the things that I read was that, after having sex the first time, the female's body becomes more hostile to the sperm of other people, which could make pregnancy in the future more difficult.
The other thing that I remember was the body becoming attached to the other person after sex due to the brain releasing some sort of chemicals that, unfortunately, I can't remember. This is supposed to be a biological method of aiding in the longevity of relationships for the purpose of the support of children. This makes breaking up (at least, at first) that much more painful, and having multiple partners damages the body's ability to become attached in such a way to a single person in the future.
On a deeper level, sex before marriage can only encourage indulgence and irresponsibility. It isn't difficult to see who would make a better and more lasting parent between the one who doesn't truly value sex or self-control and the one who is able to control themselves and only focus on one single person throughout the course of their lives. The first person will indulge themselves and then leave when they get bored or someone else provides them with more of a spark. There are good reasons that divorce rates are so high, and unstable families lead to unstable children and later to unstable adults. Such a thing can't be healthy for anyone involved, and especially not for society.
Besides, I know that I, personally, at least, would prefer the attitude of "I have saved myself for you and have been and will always be devoted to you alone" rather than "I've been with quite a few other people, but you're my current fling, and I like you more (for the moment); just don't bore me, or I'll leave to be with someone else. Oh, and by the way, I don't think I have diseases, but..." I would personally be more proud of the first, but to each his (or her) own, I guess.
"I would also like to add that the founding principle of liberal democracies, like the US, is that everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another.
That is the principle in which I live my life."
Ah, so you are against abortion in all forms, but it is simply the ideal approach to ending abortion that is different between us. Besides, there are things that don't seem to be immediately detrimental to others that are nevertheless dangerous for society.
I would really like to read this study that says that a womans body is hostile to all other men's sperm.
It sounds ridiculous to me, and makes no sense. If it was the case a lot of women would find it a lot more difficult to conceive.
Also I would like to say that I never once stated that I am against abortion. I am 100% pro-choice. I think that everyone deserves to make the choice to have a child or not.
Also, there is nothing that proves that relationships between people who have had other sexual partners provide unstable households. I am pretty certain my parents were not eachothers firsts, and they have been married for almost 25 years now. Me and my sister turned out just fine, we are stable and successful people who are on their way to finishing university educations.
"I would really like to read this study..."
This point was merely raised for the purpose of discussion and not to be used as primary evidence, since I wasn't sure where I would have read it. If I find something and you're still interested, I will post it.
"Also I would like to say that I never once stated that I am against abortion. I am 100% pro-choice."
"I would also like to add that the founding principle of liberal democracies, like the US, is that everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another.
That is the principle in which I live my life."
These two quotes contradict each other. Either you're pro-life, or you can't say that you live your life by the principle that "everything is ethical so long as it does not harm another." I merely took you at your word.
"Also, there is nothing that proves that relationships between people who have had other sexual partners provide unstable households."
I have never stated that all such relationships will cause unstable homes, and I would never try to prove such a thing. The best that you could have would be studies that show higher correlation.
That said, having multiple partners damages a person's (especially a woman's) ability to form lasting bonds with future partners, at the very least. This doesn't guarantee anything, but it does make it more difficult for a couple to stay together, because the natural bond would be weaker.
Such behavior also establishes a pattern of behavior that won't instantly end when someone finds "the one", as problems established before marriage won't instantly disappear within marriage. Another example was given in my previous post. Again, this doesn't guarantee an unstable household, but it certainly helps to increase the possibility of one. I am one who cares enough about himself and others not to take such a risk (although I also have other reasons for not doing so).
"I am pretty certain my parents were not eachothers firsts, and they have been married for almost 25 years now."
I'm glad that it's working out for you, but personal subjective experience (i.e., projection) doesn't prove anything.
Post a Comment