Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Some non-thinking on abstinence-only education
A columnist from the local student rag let fly this idiocy recently.
--Democrats are now actively funding abstinence-only education, which contributes to ignorance, the spread of STDs, teen pregnancy and death.
Actually, if you actually follow the guidelines of abstinence, it's 100% successful in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.
The problems start when you STOP ABSTAINING.
By contrast, if you use a condom or something, then you have a, what? Let's be generous - 90% success in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc. You start getting lower %s when when you STOP USING CONDOMS.
So you can go with 100% if yes and a lot lower results if no.
Or you can go with 90% if yes and the same lot lower results if no.
This isn't that hard, but it is common sense and logic, which are not liberals' strong points.
--the idea that sex is a repulsive, despicable and dangerous act
Show me anyone who says that sex is REPULSIVE. Or DESPICABLE.
It certainly IS dangerous, kind of like fire, if used outside of its intended context. Fire's great for my fireplace or my stove, but not in the middle of my bedspread. Like sex. No interaction with this obvious fact from Grogan.
--Should we just ignore the high school students that identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual?
Depends on what you want. Are you trying to prevent unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc? If so, abstinence has a 100% success rate.
Why is Grogan moving the goalposts in the middle of his column?
--People are going to have sex before marriage
So why are you complaining about abstinence-only education?
People are also going to have unprotected sex. I guess that means that condom ed is hopeless and shouldn't be done, since some ppl won't wear 'em.
Wow, this column was a crappy and sappy expression of love for and blind faith in liberalism. Thanks for sharing, but leave the thinking to someone else, dude.