Re: O.T. kids say the darndest things

"Glen" <gNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%3Yfi.900$tj6.540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.aauw.org/issue_advocacy/actionpages/positionpapers/repro_abstinenceonly.cfm

Amusing little article, quite biased, quite one sided. It does not,
however, state where these faith based programs actually take place. Most
curious. We all know, however (I believe we all know it, at least) that
the type of programs they are advocating do exist. Maybe you would like
the idea of some individual talking to your fifteen year old daughter
telling her about condoms and having her practice putting them on
cucumbers (yes, this has been a part of the sex ed program in many
schools), but I don't want it for my daughter.

Yes, I want it for my daughter, son, and anyone they are going to date. Like
it or not, some 15 year olds ***. It's been that since the dawn of mankind.
If you want to opt out your daughter, go right ahead. I know of no system
that doesn't give you that choice. Why do you want to take away education
from everyone because you don't want *your* daughter to learn?

Condoms are safe sex in terms of disease? I think not! Safer than
unprotected sex, yes, but safe, NO! What is 100% safe? Abstinence.

That is SO stupid. Really. What makes you think that sex education classes
present condoms as being 100% safe? They don't. They teach students how
effective they are when used properly. They present them with information so
they can make reasoned choices, hopefully with the moral guidance of their
parents.

Have you considered how incredibly insulting it is to tell a kid that the
only way to prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to not have sex? Duh!
That's like telling them the only way to avoid getting killed jumping out of
an airplane is to not jump out an airplane. They are not idiots, so don't
treat them like idiots by telling them the obvious. Besides, it's wrong
anyway. Some STDs like herpes can also be spread without sexual contact.
It's not common, but it can and does happen. I guess that blows away your
100% safe claim, huh? Sounds like *your* sex education was lacking.

Furthermore, they don't teach abstinence for life, they teach abstinence
until marriage. Even if both parties abstain, they can still spread STDs
since it's possible to contract them at birth from an infected mother as
well as some nonsexual means. That, too, blows away your 100%. Note: Please
don't tell me it's not an STD if it can be transmitted in additional ways
besides sex.

Realistically, even if one party abstains, that person has no way of knowing
that the other person abstained. The FACT is that 75% of women and 83% of
men have had more than one sexual partner in their lifetime. So, if you're
daughter is one of the 25%, she's still far more likely to fall in love with
a guy who's already had a partner. Getting married won't prevent her from
catching an STD.

Even after she is married, she had better know about birth control. Unless,
of course, you expect her to push out a dozen babies before she's 35.

Abstinence until marriage by definition discriminates against homosexuals
since there are only a few places where they can marry. Like it or not, some
people are homosexual. It's been that way since the dawn of mankind.

I'd much rather you be honest about it and say that you promote abstinence
on moral grounds. What I find despicable is people disguising their agenda
behind bad science.


No, but I do like some of the anti-crime measures that are being taken in
some locales, where they use bait cars with remote controlled kill
switches and wait for the bad guys to steal them. It takes the scum off
the street.

What has that got do with the discussion?

I do not object to the gov't using electronic surveillance to catch
terrorists. Actually, I want them to. I believe that is better than
waiting until after they blow up another 3000 Americans.

Again, you seem ignorant of the issues. Nobody is objecting to electronic
surveillance. The objection is to surveillance without a warrant. There is a
system in place to handle time critical situations. They can start the
surveillance without first getting a warrant, but have to get court approval
within a certain period of time. This allows them to deal with imminent
threats, but keeps the checks and balances in place. The Bush administration
has done secret surveillance without ever getting a warrant. They refuse to
use this system. That doesn't bother you?


Again, an interesting article. An opinion piece, really. It tells all
about Jose Padilla and how he is being held without trial.

So, you were wrong. Again.


Maybe you havent heard:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,135780,00.html


"The defendants were members of a secret organization, a terrorism support
cell, based right here in South Florida," Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian
Frazier told the jury in his opening statement. "The defendants took
concrete steps to support and promote this violence."

Read further, Glen:

"Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, has been in federal custody since
his May 2002 arrest at O'Hare International Airport. He was initially
accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United
States and held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant at a Navy brig, but
those allegations are not part of the Miami indictment."

He was held for 3 /12 years without good cause. Without a lawyer. Without
any rights. That's fucked up. If they had a criminal case to start with,
then they should have charged him with that and put him in the system
without bail.

I don't know about you, but I am glad to see scum like this behind bars. I
like the fact that he was held, until the case was ready to precede.

Ah, presumption of guilt. Gotta love it.

As a side note, wasn't it HRW that condemned the trial of Saddam Hussein
as being unfair? Isn't it the same group that criticized Israel for
fighting back after terrorists entered Israel, kidnapped and murdered its
soldiers, and endured hundreds of rocket attacks, day after day. Wow, HRW
has earned a lot of credibility with me! (sarcasm intended)

It's obvious to me that you're just learning about this stuff for the first
time and are grasping at straws to prop up your argument. Now you're
dismissing the facts contained in an opinion piece by a group you don't
agree with. You've been parroting a party line without knowing even a
smidgen of what's really happening around you. Feel free to respond and have
the last word. I am tired of trying to argue with someone has somewhat
reasonable logic but little grasp of the facts and no desire to see things
another way.


.

Loading