Abstinence or Safe Sex?

British One · #21 19th February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by msjones21

British One, your analogy is bogus. You can't compare teens having sex to stealing cars. We need to teach teenagers that having sex can result in consequences such as pregnancy or becoming infected with a disease and that it's okay to say "no" to having sex, but telling them that sex is wrong/bad/evil/etc. and then refusing to teach them about contraception is just begging for more teen pregnancy and more STD infected young people.

Stealing a car also has consequences - you can kill or injure yourself joy riding in someone elses car. Also, prison is a pretty big consequence. The analogy works fine.

The bible has never yet found to be wrong in the way it says society should be run. God's way for living has always been found to be the right way - because He created us.

If the bible says 'don't have sex before marriage' then it is the right way to go. And if we teach our children that the bible is God's word, and is to be valued, children will understand and want to do what God wants them to do. I am living evidence that this course of action works. So are many of my mates. We were taught as small children that God knows the best way for us to live - and we have committed ourselves to living in that way. We weren't taught safe sex (although through talking stuff through school mates you work it out for yourself) and it has never bothered me.

Wilfred of Ivanhoe · #22 19th February 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by loveisallyouneed

Please! Contracting a deadly disease like AIDS cannot be compared to stealing someones property! This is a life or death situation, these are about life altering consequences like the creation of another humanbeing!

You have to understand that a lot of teens don't come from morally strong homes or parents who are concerened for them, what about those kids? We're punishing them by not giving them the proper information! It's like saying "You cannot jump in this pool, stay away, it's dangerous! If you decide to jump in anyway then you're just going to drown because I'm not going to teach you how to swim!"

Acutally, I like this analogy because there are more consequences than worldly ones. Jesus said not to fear he who can kill the body but cannot touch the soul. But fear he who is both able to kill the body and the soul.

I believe that Proverbs Ch. 6 & 9 deal with the spiritual consequences of sexual immorality.

BarbB · #23 19th February 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by loveisallyouneed

Both. For every teen that abstains, another won't.

Personally I think abstinence education would be more effective if they used a more graphic approach. Do they show these kids the gruesome pictures of things like syphillis or gonorrhea? What about pictures of AIDS patients? Guest speakers of women who went through the torment of abortion? Have them each take home those fake test babies for a month that cry in the middle of the night and record whether or not you're doing you're job as a parent.

It needs to be brutally honest, but in the meantime there also needs to be a safety harness in place for the teens that won't abstain.

We had terrible slide shows (before movies, kids!) with syphillis sores (always on the mouth, ha ha), all kinds of icky things. This was when we were 13 or so. Unfortunately most of us had forgotten by the time we were 18!

msjones21 · #24 19th February 2004, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Wilfred of Ivanhoe

So because not all teenages believe in God, God does not exist for those who do not believe? To quote a pastor friend, if I do not believe in Zebras, does that mean they do not exist? Belief, or disbelief, in something does not equate into Truth. God is God whether a particular person believes it or not.

Just because someone doesn't believe doesn't mean God doesn't exist, that is correct; however, if a student does not believe in God then we cannot rightfully impose Christian moral beliefs upon them in an environment that is legally obligated to remain unbiased in their practices and teaching. They aren't encouraging students to go out and "get busy". They are telling them that there are potentially severe emotional and physical consequences for having sex, but they are telling them "if you are going to take that risk at least eliminate the risk for the most part".

I think its sad that our country has strayed from the one true God and has embraced everyone elese's beliefs.

So teenagers weren't having sex back in later days? Please! Everyone on both sides of my family as far back as my great great grandmother got married because they were pregnant. Don't tell me that teens weren't having pre-marital sex back when women still wore pearls while cleaning house and everything was just lily white and wholesome. My family came from wealth, education, and morally strong, Christian families and they were still having sex and babies out of wedlock. It has nothing to do with the times we live in. Teens were having sex then and they're having sex now and believe it or not I feel that people are losing their virginity later in life now.

I know this is not popular, but when has the truth ever been popular? Did the pharasees embrace the prophets of God who came with hard sayings, or did they embrace the false prophets who only spoke nice things?

The truth is simply this...teens have been having sex since the beginning time and they will continue to do so. How does removing the knowledge and accessibility of how to protect themselves going to eliminate that?

Next issue: Why are our schools, which do not believe in God and God alone, need to tell kids about sex? What are parents for?

On that token I suppose schools should stay out of issues such as being drug free, the dangers of smoking, and the devestating effects of drinking and driving. After all, the parents should be the ones responsible for educating their kids...right? Some kids come from homes where there is not enough time for the parents to explain these things to them. Some parents and their kids do not have the type of open relationship in which either or parties feel comfortable discussing things of a sexual nature. That's like saying "let's take PE out of the schools because kids should be exercising at home!"

The point is that there is such a small group of students who are abstinent for religious reasons and many are not being taught at home or in the church that sex before marriage=bad so what do you teach the rest of the teens? If a parent is not comfortable with how the school is presenting the message on sexual relations then they are more than welcome to prevent their child from attending the classes. It is not mandatory.

I am all for explaining why not to have sex rather than just saying don't. Tell them about the spritiual and worldly consequences of sin. But stand up for the truth!

Spiritual consequences don't apply to everyone though! Here again, just because you and I know God does not mean these students will. Why should they be told sex is a sin when to them it isn't? It isn't even a sin to many Christians so now what do we do? What has been accomplished in the mission to teach teens that sex is evil? Absolutely nothing.

loveisallyouneed · #25 19th February 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by newlamb

We had terrible slide shows (before movies, kids!) with syphillis sores (always on the mouth, ha ha), all kinds of icky things. This was when we were 13 or so. Unfortunately most of us had forgotten by the time we were 18!

That's too bad! They need to show that film every year!

Seriously though, at my HS we had posters that had graphic images of what happens to lungs, skin, and teeth if you smoke a lot, when even had a man come in who had had a heart transplant because he was a former alcoholic, bring his enlarged, yellow heart in a jar!

If they can have posters like the one I described for smoking, maybe they should have them for an STD as well! Some parents may object, but there's also a lot of parents not out there doing their jobs making sure their kids aren't out being irresponsible!

Mac6yver · #26 19th February 2004, 11:55 AM

Both, it is the logical choice.

BarbB · #27 19th February 2004, 11:55 AM

Abstinence only does not have to be "don't have sex until you are married or you will go to h*ll". It must include why not to have sex, like self-esteem, consideration for your future spouse, disease, pregnancy, all done in a loving, not censorious manner. God doesn't even have to enter in, though I would prefer he does. But abstinence is not just a religious matter, it's a health matter!

loveisallyouneed · #28 19th February 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by newlamb

Abstinence only does not have to be "don't have sex until you are married or you will go to h*ll". It must include why not to have sex, like self-esteem, consideration for your future spouse, disease, pregnancy, all done in a loving, not censorious manner. God doesn't even have to enter in, though I would prefer he does. But abstinence is not just a religious matter, it's a health matter!

Exactly, and they need to have real life people who've dealt with those consequences come in and talk to these kids. They need to make this real to them, not just some cheesy book about birds and bees buzzing in a garden with cute little flowers!

Mac6yver · #29 19th February 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by British One

If we were to teach a child not to steal cars - would we first teach them all the safe ways to steal cars without getting caught? How to open a car door without the alarm going off, how to avade the police, how to start the engine without the key etc...

Of course we don't. We just say "don't do it" and we expect the child not too. So why is it different for sex? Why when we bring children/teenagers up, do we say "don't have sex with anyone until you're in a committed marital relationship, but if you do make sure you use a condom, make sure the girl is on the pill, make sure you have regular check-ups etc..." ???

Probably because having sex is not against the law.... If you do not see the difference there is more wrong with the world then I first thought.

Besides, how about this analogy:
Most parents teach their children not to drink until they are of legal age. However, most parents tell their children that if they do decide to drink that they should not drive and that they should call their parents if they ever need a ride. Mainly because it is better to have a drunk child who will actually call his parents for a ride, rather then a drunk teenager that is too scared to call home.

The argument for safe sex is very similar.

flicka · #30 19th February 2004, 12:00 PM

If anyone can point to a time or place where abstinence was practiced by everyone who wasnt married please do so. Otherwise please consider the consequences for those who dont abstain and realize that not knowing about safe sex can have terrible consequences. You cant seperate one from the other no matter how much you want to, thats a fact.