« Just some comments on articles from the USA Today. RE: "Consenting Adults, Taxes, Cell Phones, Bingo Terrorism and Hairdressers. | Main | "Not in my state: sample letter." Or, "Condoms and Tomfoolery" »
October 28, 2005
ACLU, Abstinence-only-until-marriage, and stupidity.
There are libraries open to the general public in every city across this country. If this is not sufficient, in America today we have internet access which is almost nationwide in its availability. That is, people are able to discover whatever knowledge they seek if they are only but willing.
Now although this is so, the people at the ACLU would have the American people believe a lie. Apparently they have discovered a principle in nature of which even Darwin himself never conceived. And though they assert this principle quite forcefully, I take issue with the underlying fallacy of what is being crammed down the collective throat of my countrymen. (I had almost said ‘what is being suggested,’ but both you and I know that this statement would then be false.)
”ACLU announces nationwide action aimed at combating dangerous Abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula in the states.” (Emphasis mine.)
You may well suppose that I intend to mock the alliteration. This is false. I enjoy alliteration. What I intend to mock is the preposterous perfidy of the pronouncements promulgated by the people of the ACLU. (I told you, I enjoy alliteration.) But what is the ACLU saying that is so absurd? Their principle is only this.
Not having sex is less safe than having protected sex.
On what planet this may be true, I know not. On our planet it is certainly false. And it is false for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it goes against every principle of science; that it goes against every history book; or, that it makes a mockery of common sense. According to their title, referenced by the provided link, it is not merely unsafe to practice self-control, it is downright dangerous!
Now in our age, while it is unacceptable to espouse anything on the basis of religious beliefs, it is highly reasonable to assert an opinion based upon science. Thus the reader can easily imagine my horror at the realization that I was teaching my children a thing contrary to nature. Have I not been unreasonable, not to say unscientific to tell my children that self-control is a good thing?
I suppose the problem is this. Up until now, I have understood the universe to be so ordered that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. Apparently I am mistaken. (Not, mind you, in the use of the word ‘ordered,’ though the reader may substitute evolved if they so prefer.) A simple illustration will suffice. I strike the keys of my keyboard and instantly letters appear on the screen. Let us use another illustration, however, for sake of clarity.
A fireman may be called a coward; he may be called negligent in his duties; he may even be called a Benedict Arnold if he dares to refrain from entering a burning building. One thing he may not be called is unsafe. And this is precisely a parallel situation to the subject of sexual intercourse. For make you no mistake, sex is a dangerous pastime. Of the numerous evils attendant upon it, I shall not at this time speak. I have told you already; there are libraries to which you may go to verify the opinion which I am giving.
The manner in which the allegory of the fireman is parallel to that of sex is simply this. A fireman is much safer in a fire with his protective gear than without. And this no one can deny. But what is equally undeniable is that nature does not require anyone to risk their life in the saving of another. It is natural for a human to breathe. (I am no scientist, but I find this action to be quite necessary for my continued happiness.) Similarly, I find that eating is also an action which, when left unattended, has quite dire and unavoidable consequences. But these things must be done. Now a fireman must enter a burning building when called upon to do so. But the clear and obvious difference is that he chooses to be employed in a vocation which is quite risky.
Sex is not a requirement to one’s continued existence. It is, however, a choice. But it is a choice which, inherent to nature and its nature, has consequences. Although the ACLU would have us believe that abstinence-only-until-marriage is “dangerous,” this is, in fact, a lie. For although it is easily seen that one who abstains from entering burning buildings may bring reproach on their character, they will certainly preserve their bodies from burning. In like manner a child who abstains from sexual intercourse will preserve their bodies safe from the harm of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. For it is clear that when no intercourse has taken place, a disease which is transmitted in this manner cannot be acquired.
The only thing which is dangerous in the story cited is the philosophy of the ACLU and their ilk. For what consequences pertaining to STD’s will come to the person who refrains from illicit sexual exercises? Oh, that’s right; that person remains free from disease. This, dear reader, is what I teach my children. And though just now we do not go into great detail about matters pertaining to sexual intercourse—my children being yet quite young—the principles of purity and self-control are, indeed, being inculcated in the fertile minds of my young ones.
Shall I teach my children that abstinence is ‘dangerous?’ By what law of Nature? Make you no mistake; there are natural laws that govern every aspect of your life. To disobey these laws is to imperil your very existence. And one need not be a religious zealot, nor religious at all, to declare that illegitimate sex is more dangerous than purity. One must be, however, certifiably insane to declare that abstaining from a potentially harmful pastime is less safe than taking a calculated risk by engaging in such.
Again, shall I teach my children that abstinence is ‘dangerous?’ I could with just as reasonably teach them that driving 150 mph, so long as they wear their seatbelt, is safer than not driving at all. But its not.
Carl
Posted by plumberman029 at October 28, 2005 01:50 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/26931
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ACLU, Abstinence-only-until-marriage, and stupidity.:
Comments
I think you have missed the point or at least the point of the argument here. The ACLU is not saying that abstinence is dangerous they are saying that abstinence-only education is and by abstinence-only they mean curriculum's that only teach abstinence and not the use of contraceptives. They seem to be saying that such teaching does not lead to teenagers having less sex but to teenagers being less aware of how to use contraceptives (this according to an unnamed study). Nowhere in the article that you link to does it say that they believe abstinence is dangerous. I'm not agreeing with either party here but nearly pointing out the flaws of your side of the argument. If you wish to make a valid argument perhaps you should research material on how abstinence-only education has lowered the number of teenage pregnancies and STD's verses sex-education that teaches both abstinence and the use of contraceptive.
Posted by: James at October 28, 2005 02:42 AM
What is sad, is that our schools have taken over what should be the parents responsibility to teach thier children morals at home and making the decision at home as a family as to what they will teach thier kids about sex.
Posted by: Leah at October 28, 2005 09:08 AM
"Nowhere in the article that you link to does it say that they believe abstinence is dangerous."
Except in the very title.
Posted by: Carl at October 28, 2005 09:44 AM
"If you wish to make a valid argument perhaps you should research material on how abstinence-only education has lowered the number of teenage pregnancies..."
About programs I care not a whit. Not one whit. What I can tell you about abstinence is this though: it has a zero pregnancy rate.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Carl
Posted by: Carl at October 28, 2005 09:47 AM
"Nowhere in the article that you link to does it say that they believe abstinence is dangerous."
Except in the very title.
Posted by: Carl at October 28, 2005 09:44 AM
...
variable 1: Title of article = ACLU Announces Nationwide Action Aimed at Combating Dangerous Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curricula in the States.
variable 2: Object of variable 1 = Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curricula (keyword: Curricula).
variable 3: Abstinence (defined as to not have sex)
variable 2 does not equal variable 3 I think we can both agree so until you somehow rational that they are in fact equal your above statement is in fact false.
"About programs I care not a whit. Not one whit. What I can tell you about abstinence is this though: it has a zero pregnancy rate."
...
If you care not about the programs then why do you care that the ACLU takes a negative view of them?
my summary: You really have mostly missed the point of the the entire article or perhap have chosen to mis-interpret it. I'm not taking sides on the issue really just pointing out that your entire argument has no ground because the article is not about abstience (the act of abstaining from sex) but instead, it is about a curricula.
Posted by: James at October 28, 2005 10:21 AM
Leah,
What is even more sad is that parents have, willingly in most cases, handed over the responsibility to the schools. They have done this not only in the area of sex education but in almost all areas of parenting, even down to the responsibility of feeding the kids breakfast and lunch.
I would parents realize that these things are their responsibility and quit sitting back, allowing other people(including the ACLU) to make these kinds of decisions for their kids.
Posted by: sara at October 28, 2005 10:41 AM
I agree with James; the danger being referred to is in the curriculum, not the abstinence.
I agree with Carl's sentiment, though.
Posted by: podge at October 28, 2005 11:29 AM
I agree most of all with Leah, parents really need to take more resposibility in what they thenselves teach their children many debates could be solved this way.
Posted by: James at October 28, 2005 11:46 AM