«

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Originally posted by BeefontheBone@Sep 7 2005, 06:38 PM
Personally I'm in favour of teaching contraception and safe sex rather than abstinence (the figures from many american studies incontavertably prove that teaching exclusively abstinence leads to increased rates of pregnancy and STDs among teenagers)

I think the problem there is that those figures don't really reflect the exclusive teaching of abstinence. In those cases, abstinence is being taught by a small number of authority figures with whom the "students" (the subjects of the studies) come into contact, whereas the exact opposite of abstinence is being taught by television, movies, print advertising, the majority of their peers, and just about everyone and everything else. So which message is more likely to be absorbed?

Originally posted by BeefontheBone@Sep 7 2005, 06:38 PM
If a zygote is a human life it can only be said to be one in potentia since there's no way to guarantee its survival, so by extension every sperm and egg in the body is equally a life in potentia, in which case any menstrual cycle in which you are not impregnated and every ejaculation outside a vagina can be considered as murder (mass murder in the latter case)

I don't think that follows, because neither an egg nor a sperm can ever become a full-grown human being on its own.

[blastradius14]

Something along the lines of it takes two to make a life yet none to take it away...

[PrejudiceSucks]

FPJ - This debate has gone very quickly, but harking back to your response to my answer, if a fifteen year old cannot handle the side-effects of pregnancy and sex, then why in a lot of countries in Europe is the age of consent at 14?

And how does a single year until you get to 16 suddenly make all of the difference?

It really varies person by person. Some people will never really mature (I have friends who act like eight-year old children who are really fifteen) and some people grow up very quickly. It is also varies on a person's personal experiences. Somebody who has never had a partner before and wants to see what sex is like is obviously more likely to have (or try to have, their partner may say no) sex with them. On the other hand some people become jaded very quickly to all kinds of pleasure and will not have sex as often.

I also believe that teaching abstinence is the reason why these people have sex early on. In a documentry on the Bible belt, in one town where the Christian schools taught that sex was, essentially, going to kill you even if it seems fun at the time almost half of the girls over the age of 14 were pregnant and there were only two members of the twelve-member cheerleading team who weren't pregnant.

The reason for this is that the only place that advised teenagers on sex and handed out contraception was burned down by over-zealous parents who firmly believed that no births should be stopped. Since there was no other entertainment in the whole area, people just had sex for fun.

Telling people, especially teenagers, that something is wrong, even if it's fun, just leads them on to see what the fuss is about. I've personally never smoked in my life, yet I've always wondered what it's like. I'll never do solvents, they kill a lot of people, but I'll always wonder why people do it. It's the same with drugs, sex, smoking and solvents. People are told that they shouldn't let peer pressure or their urges get the better of them, but to be honest it's more their own curiosity that drives them towards this.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks+Sep 8 2005, 10:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PrejudiceSucks @ Sep 8 2005, 10:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>FPJ - This debate has gone very quickly, but harking back to your response to my answer, if a fifteen year old cannot handle the side-effects of pregnancy and sex, then why in a lot of countries in Europe is the age of consent at 14?[/b]

I dunno, because some legislator wanted to have legal sex with his 14-year-old mistress? Age-of-consent laws are essentially arbitrary and have very little to do with reality. How many 14-year-olds do you know who would honestly be able to effectively raise a baby on their own? Keep in mind that this includes supporting this baby financially. Does that factor into age-of-consent laws? Of course not.

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks@Sep 8 2005, 10:06 AM
And how does a single year until you get to 16 suddenly make all of the difference?

It makes absolutely no difference at all. Did I imply that it does?

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks@Sep 8 2005, 10:06 AM
I also believe that teaching abstinence is the reason why these people have sex early on. In a documentry on the Bible belt, in one town where the Christian schools taught that sex was, essentially, going to kill you even if it seems fun at the time almost half of the girls over the age of 14 were pregnant and there were only two members of the twelve-member cheerleading team who weren't pregnant.

I addressed something like this in an earlier post. Sure, the teachers in the schools might be teaching abstinence, but what's everyone else teaching, and to whom are the kids more likely to listen? You said yourself that teenagers are likely to rebel against anything an authority figure tells them, so in effect, abstinence is not being taught at all.

<!--QuoteBegin-PrejudiceSucks@Sep 8 2005, 10:06 AM
Since there was no other entertainment in the whole area, people just had sex for fun.[/quote]
That's another problem. Kids have a really warped idea of entertainment. I find it hard - no, impossible - to believe that there was really nothing else to do besides have sex. They just didn't bother looking for anything else.

[Sebatianos]

That's what I'm talking about - 14 is way too young. If the society wouldn't be so sex oriented that number would get higher. Oddly enough - the between war perion (1918-1939) the average age for first sexual experiance was 18 1/2! There were many people even older then 20 that didn't even know - let alone experianced the details of it...

All the education for safe sex - with all the benefits it provided to society - also misleads and gives young people a false sense of security.
It's been proven and I think that everybody here (if being honest) have also experienced that - that the teen groups between the ages of 13 and 17 don't pay enough attention to the warning and only hear the parts that are beneficial to them - so safe sex = no kids... Anybody said anything about not being 100% safe? Nah can't happen to me!
Also the "pull out at the right time" thinking (which would not even come to be if not seen in porn movies) causes many problems.
In fact the wide availability of hard core porn causes many problems - mostly because that replaces sexual education in many cases - so the youngsters really believe that all of that is how sex is suppose to be (especially the male part of the population, which then preasures on the female part)...

[eolsunder]

As you can see by the topics, there are alot of people here on both sides also, some people like me in-between.

"Is very clear that you never got a baby..... isn´t so easy to abort. Nobody will abort for these reasons. No anwser to so simply and false argument. "

Sorry, you seem very young and Im 40 years old, and I have known lots of women (and girls when I was younger) that had abortions for many of the above reasons. I know women who had surgery to cut their little toe in half to fit into smaller shoes, so they won't have abortions because of weight or appearance? Please.

The reason that in some countries 14 year olds are like that (from the other post) is that its NOT because they might be mature enough to handle a baby when they are 14, but that they CAN have a baby when they are 14. Being physically mature enough and mentally are 2 different things. When I was a teenager I knew lots of 12 year old girls who played around with the guys, so yes, im sure even 12 year olds can have babies (and they do).

And an abortion is not currently a major surgery. 50 years ago yes it was, but current techniques and medicine make it a in and out surgery. And with the introduction of european RU486 pills and the ilk, its even easier in some cases. Sure, its a little traumatic im sure, but people are in the hospital longer for tonsils than for an abortion. Thats part of the problem, since they are getting easier to do with less trauma, I think they are becomming "cosmetic" more so than dangerous.

Is that a bad thing? heck no, any traumatic surgery or procedure that is made easier, safer and less dangerous is always good. But that also makes it less pressing.

[laiocfar]

I wasn´t saying that you are too young foe babies, I am too young for them.
Now, really, i wanna say that you are a guy so you can´t carry babies inside yourself. You talk of abotion just like another way contraception.

I know women who had surgery to cut their little toe in half to fit into smaller shoes, so they won't have abortions because of weight or appearance? Please.

It isn´t the same, only if talking about the pills like the Ru that make an abort in the first of second day. In Argentina 38/1000 abortions will damage the women, in 10% of then she will dies(i got the polls from here only). I made a work several years ago about this topic, i will look for some interesting information that i got.

t's been proven and I think that everybody here (if being honest) have also experienced that - that the teen groups between the ages of 13 and 17 don't pay enough attention to the warning and only hear the parts that are beneficial to them - so safe sex = no kids... Anybody said anything about not being 100% safe? Nah can't happen to me!
Also the "pull out at the right time" thinking (which would not even come to be if not seen in porn movies) causes many problems.

Double the sex education, force them to pay attention, beacause they have and must know that the teeneger´s pre-eyaqulation liquids are very fertile and you can get a baby by the "pull out at the right time".
U can´t scare kids about sex, you may warn them beacause if one of them ´ve sexual relations, a baby will destroy his life, the life of the baby, of their family.
It´s true that most of people gets his first sexual experience before 17-18, but can take risks

[blastradius14]

Originally posted by eolsunder@Sep 8 2005, 12:09 PM
The reason that in some countries 14 year olds are like that (from the other post) is that its NOT because they might be mature enough to handle a baby when they are 14, but that they CAN have a baby when they are 14. Being physically mature enough and mentally are 2 different things. When I was a teenager I knew lots of 12 year old girls who played around with the guys, so yes, im sure even 12 year olds can have babies (and they do).

The scandinavian Vikings were considered adults at 13 and usually had a family by then.

You didn't much elaborate on the mental part. Children are not supposed to have children! Their brains are not truely developed for such, and there is no way a 12 year old by normal circumstances would know how to raise a child. That's like 6th grade; a lot of guys still aren't interested in girls yet. In 6th grade, most guys want to start playing sport or and instrument. It's when they hit 8th grade when they want to play girls. So at this point the main portion of relationships with sixthgrade girls is with older guys.

The main reason for this is girls hit puberty slightly sooner than guys do.

Did you know that when a baby is created if there is a problem with the guy's half of the genetics it will make a female? It is due to the fact that women are the default structure. This is why alot of hemaphrodites structurally look more like women. There are guys that look like women who cannot do the same stuff physically as men, (not sex) like weight lifting and stuff. Thier bodies aren't made to buff up and steroids or other suppliments do not help them as much as normal women or normal men.

[TheChosen]

Abortion...abortion...i dont know what to say.

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by blastradius14@Sep 9 2005, 02:44 PM
The scandinavian Vikings were considered adults at 13 and usually had a family by then.

Well, but back then people also died a lot sooner, didn't they? So if they hadn't been considered grown-ups from a very early age, they would have spent something like two thirds of their lives as children...