Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr. Retard · 04-28-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

"diminished tax base" that is a new argument against abortion!

Something tells me that potential citizens killed off by abortion weren't exactly going to end up with lots of taxable income. Maybe it's the whole "their parents would seriously prefer not to have to raise them" thing.

Dr. Retard · 04-28-2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JCS
Is the urge for sex just a simple yes or no option? Do humans really have that much control over their biology? If education can circumvent our inborn desire to do the nasty can education circumvent other parts of our biology, such as growing old or being tall instead of short?

IMHO abstinence is a ignorant concept that just ignores our biology by just simply wishing it away.

As a lot of forumers, I'm sure, would be the first to tell you: there's always masturbation.

Loren Pechtel · 04-28-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ultron
Parents need to teach abstinence, too. Condoms don't prevent STD's, only pregnancies, to any extent.

Condoms go a long way towards preventing STD's. Look at the STD rates in the legal brothels here. *VERY* low. There has never been a case of a customer infected by a legal prostitute, either.

Loren Pechtel · 04-28-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ultron
Yes but viruses are small enough still to go through the condom easily. It's not as "safe" as some think.

And Rush isn't as smart as some think.

Yes, the pores of a condom are bigger than a virus. Irrelevant. Viruses can't crawl.

Viruses move only as part of the medium they are in. All it needs to do is be sufficient to keep in water and no virus is going to get through.

Simple test: Take a condom and fill it with water. Dry it off and leave it for a while. See if it leaks. (Note: You can't do this for too long, eventually air pollution will eat the condom. I've heard of an example from LA, some condoms left out, unrolled, on Friday afternoon. Monday morning most wouldn't hold air.)

P.S.: Think of Gore-Tex. It's watertight but *NOT* airtight.

Loren Pechtel · 04-28-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ultron
I see what you're saying but the problem is these kids are still playing a game of russian roulette with less bullets. Abstinence should be the first thing taught. If you're going to teach everything, they should in the very least be taught in context.

Teaching abstinence has little long-term effect. Teaching *ONLY* abstinence has a detrimental effect--when people do start having sex they are less likely to be protected.

Scare tactics like your myth that condoms don't stop viruses tend to backfire. If people really believe they don't stop them then when they do have sex they are likely to not bother with condoms because they think they won't do any good anyway.

MortalWombat · 04-28-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ultron
I don't mean to say it doesn't reduce the risk at all, but the viruses like HIV are much smaller than the pores in condoms and can get through. I thought I was being clear. I'll get some more coffee.

While you're at it, you can peruse the following paper: Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention from the National Institutes of Health.

Excerpt:

Quote:

Conclusions
The methodological strength of the studies on condoms to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission far exceeds that for other STDs. There is demonstrated exposure to HIV/AIDS through sexual intercourse with a regular partner (with an absence of other HIV/AIDS risk factors). Longitudinal studies of HIV- sexual partners of HIV+ infected cases allow for the estimation of HIV/AIDS incidence among condom users and condom non-users. From the two incidence estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%. These data provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.

Clutch · 04-28-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

And Rush isn't as smart as some think.

Who thought Rush were smart? Heck, Peart's a libertarian!

Sorry. I got a mean, mean stride...

simian · 04-28-2003, 01:47 PM

3 items, there were several commenting on each, so I can't really quote any one poster.

1) As for abortion and the "lessened tax base" - I started hearing this in the mid-80s. I really began hearing it when the labor market was really tight. I suspect that line of reasoning has died down right now.

2) Abstainence only is 100% effective? Bullshit. How many people have relied on abstainence as their form of birth control then their "urges overcame them"? "Oh but that is not abstainence" you say - again I say bullshit - the fact they were unable to use it when it counted tells me it failed - or condoms are also 100% effective - if it breaks/leaks, then it is no longer a condom.

3) Latex condoms not being effective against viruses. I think that has been more than adequately covered, but as an aside, how many doctors do you think are concerned about HIV coming through their gloves? Presumably the same latex as condoms, even if it is thicker.

Simian

JonathanChance · 04-28-2003, 01:53 PM

All this talk of scare tactics reminds me of the talk on condoms we had in my Freshman high school health class in 1994. IIRC, the teacher used statistics on condom failure rates that had not been accurate since Ronald Regan's First term as a scare tactic. From what I have heard from family friends, they still use those same fucking statistics to this day.

And yes, six of the seven members of this school board are either Fundie Baptist, WELS Lutheran, or Catholic.

:banghead:

You know, If I wasn't transferring next year, I'd run for school board myself!

Ultron · 04-28-2003, 02:22 PM

Abstinence is only effective when you use it, just like forms of birth control. I never argued otherwise. Geez.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-28-2003, 01:47 PM	#38
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	3 items, there were several commenting on each, so I can't really quote any one poster. 1) As for abortion and the "lessened tax base" - I started hearing this in the mid-80s. I really began hearing it when the labor market was really tight. I suspect that line of reasoning has died down right now. 2) Abstainence only is 100% effective? Bullshit. How many people have relied on abstainence as their form of birth control then their "urges overcame them"? "Oh but that is not abstainence" you say - again I say bullshit - the fact they were unable to use it when it counted tells me it failed - or condoms are also 100% effective - if it breaks/leaks, then it is no longer a condom. 3) Latex condoms not being effective against viruses. I think that has been more than adequately covered, but as an aside, how many doctors do you think are concerned about HIV coming through their gloves? Presumably the same latex as condoms, even if it is thicker. Simian

04-28-2003, 01:53 PM	#39
JonathanChance Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Stevens Point, WI Posts: 538	All this talk of scare tactics reminds me of the talk on condoms we had in my Freshman high school health class in 1994. IIRC, the teacher used statistics on condom failure rates that had not been accurate since Ronald Regan's First term as a scare tactic. From what I have heard from family friends, they still use those same fucking statistics to this day. And yes, six of the seven members of this school board are either Fundie Baptist, WELS Lutheran, or Catholic. :banghead: You know, If I wasn't transferring next year, I'd run for school board myself!

04-28-2003, 02:22 PM	#40
Ultron Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: here Posts: 738	Abstinence is only effective when you use it, just like forms of birth control. I never argued otherwise. Geez.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.