Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[Ben Kenobi]

Statistical anomaly?

It's not just a one year blip.

Factors affecting teen pregnancy other than safe sex education?

That's my hypothesis. It could be employment ratios for teens.

Do you have another explanation for the numbers? And what about the fact that states with a greater emphasis on safe sex education (Vermont, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Massachusetts) have a lower teen pregnancy rate than states with little sex education or only abstinence-only programs (Nevada, Airzona, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas)?

You could just as easily state that cold states are less likely to have teens getting it on than warm ones. Another possibility are marriage laws, which would have an effect on teen pregnancies, especially if they can get married at 16.

This paragraph fails to refute my claim. My claim was: reducing teen pregnancies is a goal of sex education; teen pregnancies have been reduced; therefore sex education has been effective.

Except you haven't proven that the reduction was caused by sex education. You've postulated there is a correlation, without providing an empirical means by which to gage sex education. One could just as easily say that the reduction is predicated by increasing driver's license restrictions, which is something we have noted here.

In order to refute this claim, you can either contend that (a) reducing teen pregnancies is not a goal of sex education or (b) the reduction in teen pregnancy is not a result of sex education. Rambling on about abortion as birth control does not address the point.

I'm making the argument that sex education is more than just preventing pregnancy, to me it's more important to prevent the abortions too. If pregnancies are down and abortions are up, that to me is a failure in sex ed. You can go on about how it succeeded, but to me, it's honestly failed.

My girlfriend has had multiple male sexual partners before me, has always used protection, and has never gotten pregnant. If contraception is ineffective, this would suggest that either she is infertile or all the male partners she's been with (including me) have been infertile.

It is a possibility.

I also engaged in protected sex before my current girlfriend and it never resulted in pregnancy. This suggests that either I am infertile or my first girlfriend was infertile.

And I know folks who have done the same as you and your friends who have ended up pregnant.

So what's more likely - that every person I've ever known who has used protection has also coincidentally been infertile and that every person I've ever known who doesn't use protection was only fertile while not wearing protection, or that protection is an effective contraceptive?

We can go back and forth on anecdotal evidence. The question I have for you is would you have known if they were pregnant and chose not to tell you? I'm not convinced of that.

Really? Then how come the rates of reported cases of Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Herpes, and HIV/AIDS have been decreasing since the 90s (according to the CDC)?

Again, for sake of argument, and both arguments, I compare both with '72 rather than the cherry picked dates of the 90s. If sex education were truly effective, we would not still be seeing rates much higher than when sex education was still starting. We can and do.

And you have to include HPV in that equation as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't worry about birth control, you can always have an abortion

Actually, my classes studiously avoided teaching us anything about unborn children, and were basically "wear a condom everytime". A total waste of classtime. The only good one was entirely outside of it, where everyone had cups that they could mix with each other, and one of them was acid, and the rest a base. When they dropped an indicator into everyone's cups, you could see which ones turned red, everyone who shared a cup with the infected person. Got the point across very clearly.

[Asher]

Actually, my classes were basically "wear a condom everytime". A total waste of classtime.

Amazing stuff.

[Felch]

We had a presenter who offered us chocolate with the threat that some of the chocolates were laxatives. I was one of the only three kids in the class who took the chocolate. As far as I know we all got lucky.

[Straybow]

[Q=loinburger;5676634]So you use the definition that something that may at one point have conscious/sentient/sapient/whatever thought is a person. I don't use this definition for reasons already given.[/Q] No, I'm saying that lack of evidence of sapience is not a reason to redefine a human as a nonperson. We don't remove life support from a dying person because we've decided he/she is a nonperson.

We say that the person who has no reasonable hope of recovery from catastrophic brain trauma (after a suitable period allowing swelling to subside, a chance for the brain to recover on its own, etc) can be removed from life support. If the brain damage leaves him or her unable to maintain cardiovascular function then he or she will die.

It becomes a stickier case when there is enough brain there to maintain cardiovascular function but little else (Terri Schiavo). Again, the decision is not made by ruling the patient a nonperson.

[Straybow]

Religious sidebar

[Q=Ben Kenobi;5675726]Mark 12:26-7

And as concerning the dead that they rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Which we also see as in the transfiguration. The saints are alive in heaven and we may pray with them just as we do our brothers and sisters here on earth. [/Q] Except when Peter said he wanted to commune with Moses and Elijah, God spoke in an audible voice, "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear him."

In other words, our relationship is not with the dead who live in spirit with God, but with Jesus whom God sent.

God didn't say, "Hear Jesus for now, and I'll tell you about communing with departed saints later. The Bureau of Saintly Intercession won't be established until Christ ascends and initiates His intercessorial role, and appoints a slate of Bureau directors and administrators. Then the Church can nominate departed members for beatification and sainthood as part of the advice-and-consent powers."

[David Floyd:] But even if they are in heaven right now, like you say, then I doubt that they hear you. Well, I don't doubt it, I'm sure they don't. They're still not omnipresent.

I'm not arguing they are omnipresent. I am arguing that they can hear you. I'm also arguing they can even come down to earth as they did during the transfiguration. How it works, I don't know. I know God can hear you, perhaps God makes it so that the saint in heaven can hear prayer requests.

Except when Moses and Elijah came down at the transfiguration God didn't let Peter, James, and John commune with them. Jesus didn't go there to commune with Moses and Elijah, they communed with Jesus to show that he was the one who would fulfill God's plan.

Not to mention of course that talking with spirits is more related to occultism then to faith. Ask Saul who talked to Samuel.

Yet the holy spirit is in you. You don't really talk to them, you pray with them.

Except, again, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is sent to give to us what has been given to Christ, not what has been given to Peter or Mary. When alive Peter had authority on Earth. Now he does not. He's retired and has no role in the exercise of God's work on Earth until the resurrection.

[Straybow]

[Q=Felch;5675813]People read the Bible and walk away with different lessons. The Tree of Knowledge didn't make people amoral, it gave them the Knowledge to make moral decisions.[/Q] No, it gave Adam and Eve the deception that their decisions had the same moral authority as God's. That is the lie the serpent was selling to Eve. It is the delusion we battle with as we speak against those who casually kill the unborn and think they do no sin because they have a "right" to decide.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except when Peter said he wanted to commune with Moses and Elijah, God spoke in an audible voice, "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear him."

In other words, our relationship is not with the dead who live in spirit with God, but with Jesus whom God sent.

That was the precise point in Matthew, Elijah and Moses are alive with YHWH, and Christ had spoken with them, just as he would with any of us here. The point of the transfiguration is that Moses and Elijah were well and truly living and this was demonstrated before the disciples. They were not dead, and they are alive. God is a God of the living, of Moses and Elijah who are living, not of the dead.

Except when Moses and Elijah came down at the transfiguration God didn't let Peter, James, and John commune with them. Jesus didn't go there to commune with Moses and Elijah, they communed with Jesus to show that he was the one who would fulfill God's plan.

Yes, but they did witness Moses and Elijah alive, and returned to earth in the transfiguration. They communed with Christ, which was their purpose, but it is significant that Christ permitted them to witness the transfiguration.

Except, again, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is sent to give to us what has been given to Christ, not what has been given to Peter or Mary. When alive Peter had authority on Earth. Now he does not. He's retired and has no role in the exercise of God's work on Earth until the resurrection.

Peter and Mary are alive just as Moses and Elijah are alive in Christ. The point of what Jesus was saying was to the sadducees who denied the resurrection, that a man could die and be alive in the Lord.

[Lorizael]

It's not just a one year blip.

That's my hypothesis. It could be employment ratios for teens.

You could just as easily state that cold states are less likely to have teens getting it on than warm ones. Another possibility are marriage laws, which would have an effect on teen pregnancies, especially if they can get married at 16.

Except you haven't proven that the reduction was caused by sex education. You've postulated there is a correlation, without providing an empirical means by which to gage sex education. One could just as easily say that the reduction is predicated by increasing driver's license restrictions, which is something we have noted here.

There's temporal correlation and geographical correlation. When sex education is introduced, regardless of the time period or location, teen pregnancies drop. In states that have little to no sex education or abstinence-only programs, regardless of time period or location, teen pregnancy rates are high. See this article that just came out. This data is everywhere, you know.

I've shown a lot of data suggesting a very strong correlation between sex education and teen pregnancy; please show some data that shows an opposite correlation.

I'm making the argument that sex education is more than just preventing pregnancy, to me it's more important to prevent the abortions too. If pregnancies are down and abortions are up, that to me is a failure in sex ed. You can go on about how it succeeded, but to me, it's honestly failed.

Couldn't you also say that it is a partial success, because it has achieved at least two of its objectives (reduced teen pregnancies and reduced spread of STDs)? Also, can you present another program that has demonstrated a greater ability to meet the objectives of sex education?

It is a possibility.

And I know folks who have done the same as you and your friends who have ended up pregnant.

We can go back and forth on anecdotal evidence. The question I have for you is would you have known if they were pregnant and chose not to tell you? I'm not convinced of that.

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that contraceptives do not prevent pregnancy? There's an overwhelming amount of data to prove that they do. You need to word you claims better, because what you're suggesting is absolutely ridiculous.

You're suggesting that everyone who has ever used a condom was either infertile or lied about being pregnant. You really think that's more reasonable than the idea that condoms are effective at preventing pregnancy? Remember, when I say effective, I mean "capable of being successful." I do not mean, "OMG 100% THE TIME NO PREGNANCY AND 150% LARGER PENIS."

Again, for sake of argument, and both arguments, I compare both with '72 rather than the cherry picked dates of the 90s. If sex education were truly effective, we would not still be seeing rates much higher than when sex education was still starting. We can and do.

And again, I think it's useful to begin looking at data in the 80s and 90s because that's when sex education was changed to reflect the need to prevent the spread of STDs. Before that the focus was on moral behavior and the like.

And you have to include HPV in that equation as well.

HPV is exceedingly rare.

[Felch]

Actually, "The American Social Health Association reported estimates that about 75-80% of sexually active Americans will be infected with HPV at some point in their lifetime." For most people though, the infection is asymptomatic.

Straybow, you may be right, but I don't really care about Genesis. It's mostly nonsense.

[Lorizael]

I should say that cervical cancer (and other issues) from HPV are exceedingly rare. My bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's temporal correlation and geographical correlation. When sex education is introduced, regardless of the time period or location, teen pregnancies drop. In states that have little to no sex education or abstinence-only programs, regardless of time period or location, teen pregnancy rates are high. See this article that just came out. This data is everywhere, you know.

Even in areas with 'abstinence only', the rates are far lower than they were in '72. This to me says there's something else going on. Perhaps it's the minimum wage law drastically lowering teen employment? That's been consistant through the years as it gets ratcheted higher and higher.

I've shown a lot of data suggesting a very strong correlation between sex education and teen pregnancy; please show some data that shows an opposite correlation.

You've explained away data which contradicts your thesis as a 'statistical anomaly'. I see a very weak correlation, especially considering the fact that your data shows no means to evaluate sex ed on an empirical basis.

Couldn't you also say that it is a partial success, because it has achieved at least two of its objectives (reduced teen pregnancies and reduced spread of STDs)? Also, can you present another program that has demonstrated a greater ability to meet the objectives of sex education?

1. We don't know whether it was sex ed that achieved the reduction in teenage pregnancy.

2. STDs have not been reduced.

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that contraceptives do not prevent pregnancy?

If you miss a pill, your cycle can start up again. If you use a condom, they can break or leak. Contraceptives in the lab are one thing, contraceptives in real life practice are another.

You're suggesting that everyone who has ever used a condom was either infertile or lied about being pregnant.

No, I'm suggesting that you have no data to suggest that you are fertile, and two, that you can't be sure your friends would tell you if they got pregnant and had an abortion. Thus the evidence you have doesn't establish what you are trying to prove.

You really think that's more reasonable than the idea that condoms are effective at preventing pregnancy? Remember, when I say effective, I mean "capable of being successful." I do not mean, "OMG 100% THE TIME NO PREGNANCY AND 150% LARGER PENIS."

I'm suggesting they are less effective than claimed, and that people can and do get pregnant while using contraception, and that this is one of the more significant factors behind abortion.

And again, I think it's useful to begin looking at data in the 80s and 90s because that's when sex education was changed to reflect the need to prevent the spread of STDs. Before that the focus was on moral behavior and the like.

Which seems to be rather effective at preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

HPV is exceedingly rare.

HPV infection. Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year. At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

I don't call that rare. I call that endemic.

[DaShi]

For those who choose to be sexually active, condoms may lower the risk of HPV, if used all the time and the right way. Condoms may also lower the risk of developing HPV-related diseases, such as genital warts and cervical cancer. But HPV can infect areas that are not covered by a condom—so condoms may not fully protect against HPV.

.

[Arrian]

If you miss a pill, your cycle can start up again. If you use a condom, they can break or leak. Contraceptives in the lab are one thing, contraceptives in real life practice are another.

You think this is an argument? Of COURSE you have to use them right for them to work as well as they can. The thing is that every couple I know that has used birth control (the pill, typically), has avoided pregnancy, until they wanted kids, at which point they stopped using birth control. At that point, boom, most of these couples got pregnant w/o much ado (two needed some help). I had sex with my prior gf for years - no pregnancy. I had sex with my wife for ~10 years - no pregnancy. She went off the pill and 2 months later - pregnant. DUDE, this is absurd.

It works, Ben, and works better than most things in this world work. That they are not perfect nor impervious to human error doesn't tell us much. It's a big fat duh.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

I need to take a break from this and actually do some work. *sigh*