I think this is right on target.
I have nothing against advocating abstinence. But first, I doubt that the public school curriculum is the best place to do that. (People who won't give any other domestic job to "gummint" want to give this one to the government?) Further, the definition of an abstinence program seems to be one that denies contraceptive information to teenagers. If I were a rebellious teenager I certainly would resent the fact that important information was being withheld from me, that I wasn't being told the whole truth.
Sadly enough, if there are any guys out there like some of the ones I grew up with, wearing a chastity ring is tantamount to putting the logo of a certain discount store on one's back. The one with the red circles, you know.
9 comments:
Thanks for the mention there. I watched a documentary a year ago about a campaign to lobby congressmen to get federal money for the "purity ring". An evangelical congressman mulled over the idea of supporting it, saying his "constituency would like that sort of thing". How profound. Definitely not a worthwhile endeavor - but I recall they did get a $2M grant! Our tax dollars at work...
Victor,
You are missing some things here.
1) I agree that the purity ring program would be best taught in the church, not at school. However, I do wish for a culture shift that would make abstinance a real choice even for the unchurched.
2) I don't agree that teaching abstinance means denying information about contraception. On the contrary, these programs are probably better at informing teens about the limitations of contraceptions. I am no sure who denies information more: abstinance programs that limit information about contraception or contraception programs that limit information about absintnace?
3) You stumble badly when you suggest that a purity pledge is counterproductive. My daughter had a ring and it worked great for her.
Unfortunately the programs the Bush administration has supported are abstinence only programs. There is no question of which is more restricting in the information provided. Yes, they may provide information about contraception, to the extent that it furthers the (ineffective) abstinence agenda.
I fully agree with Mike.
looks like the bots have adapted.
VR: "... (People who won't give any other domestic job to "gummint" want to give this one to the government?) ..."
You *do* have a habit of building strawmen, don't you?
First don't mock tarjay, its great.
I agree with Jim Jordan more than Victor. Jim Jordan seems to argue that it’s just a bad idea. It is. Victor seems to be saying there is something wrong with government doing this or that schools *must* teach about contraception. The only problem I have with schools doing this is it’s a bad idea for the reasons Jim Jordan gave.
There were no "purity pledges" when I was growing up ... and, of course, the public schools tended even then to disparage the very concept of abstinence.
Nevertheless (and I am male), being raised in a "fundamentalist Christian" home (my parents were converts from non-religion) ... not that my parents made a big deal about it ... I decided that I would wait until marriage.
Now, in the event, I did not wait until marriage. However, I did wait until adulthood.
AND, this is the important part ... it was a conscious decision to give up my virginity. I could never deceive myself that it "just happened."
ZOMG: IN THIS THREAD - INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY!!!
Post a Comment