agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Answering the problem of evil (vs good) Atheism Darwinist rhetorical tactics Evolutionary materialism's amorality

Answering AK: “who determines who is in the right? From my reading of your words, you obviously do not brook the possibility that you may be wrong.”

Spread the love

Where, of course, the very first self-evident, plumbline truth I have stressed is this: error exists.

(The crucial diagnostically decisive error of cultural relativism here being exposed by the reference to WHO determines, rather than WHAT defines and determines the truth and the right.)

It is one thing when we of UD say that we deal with a pattern of thought, talking points and behaviour; it is another thing entirely when we see it in action, live from the horse’s mouth.  Let me clip from the continued discussion in the correcting hyperskepticism thread:

KF, 244:>>

I have limited time, so let me clip the following from 229 and respond, as it seems to go to the heart of the matter.

(Oh, BTW, what is needed to “reduce” holocaust of living posterity in the womb is to recognise and move away from a culture that dehumanises targetted members of our race and enables the nihilism of might and manipulation make ‘right’/ ‘truth’/ ‘rights’/ ‘justice’ etc, which then helps us return to sanity. Retaining the culture of holocaust while trying to salve consciences by a substitute target of “reduction” from what the rate of holocaust might otherwise have been is self-undermining. And BTW, steeping the young in the techniques of vice while giving false hope that they can greatly reduce risk of pregnancy and/or STD’s by techniques that require an exactitude and consistency of habits that teens are unlikely to have, will likely INCREASE incidence through greatly heightened exposure levels.)

Okay, let me clip and comment:

>> [KF:] The case of that young child abused and murdered to feed someone’s perverted appetites is highly instructive.

[AK:] Actually, it is not. We all know that there are some twisted individuals who take advantage of others. The secret is to not let those horrendous events dictate how you perceive others. If you will forgive me an observation, you appear to be ruled by your misadventures rather than to be informed by them.>>

RESP:

1: You seem to have forgotten one little part, the issue was that this horror show that played out one afternoon while I was a student was a case where I could SEE the reaction of many people, which across the time it took me to complete my dinner, had already formed search and rescue parties then found the body of the child, showing their patent reaction to self-evident evil.

2: That is a key part of my realisation on how instructive it was, I could actually SEE how ordinary people responded and acted. Thus, it was a clue to see how self-evident evil manifests itself, and thus how we may understand how to deal with it.

3: And above I have already indicated that the child has neither strength nor eloquence to fight or persuade. The right is inherent in the child as a living human being, not in the power structures, agendas and views of the society. Indeed, to try to deny this while standing over a small, violated and shattered body is self-evidently absurd. That is already highly instructive. However, you seem to have failed to take notice.

4: Let me clip how I have further drawn out the lessons elsewhere:

1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.

(This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)

2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit. [–> and remember, we are standing by some bushes, over a small, broken, abused, lifeless body. Even now, as the father approaches what remains of the child he sent off to school that morning.])

3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.)

4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.

5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.

6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT — so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*)

7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.)

8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.

9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.

10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle’s terms as cited by Hooker: “because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like.”) Thus also,

11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.

(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an institutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)

12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.

>> [KF:] However, to claim a right, one must first be in the right and this means there can be no right to compel another to uphold or enable you in the wrong (which instantly exposes a lot of what is going on nowadays).

[AK:} But, again, who determines who is in the right? From my reading of your words, you obviously do not brook the possibility that you may be wrong. Which makes it very difficult to have a constructive conversation with you. For example, I admit that I could be wrong in my views about abortion, homosexuality and same sex marriage. Are you willing to admit the same?>>

5: Instantly, you obviously have failed to read or take seriously the force of my discussion on the first self evident truth: error exists.

6: I summarise. The very attempt to deny that error exists instantiates a manifest case of error. Thus it is undeniable on pain of instant patent absurdity, that error exists is true. Which is what self-evidence indicates (and not the strawman caricature of closed minded dogmatism you would substitute). From this, truth exists as what accurately describes reality. This truth is warranted to undeniable certainty so strong form knowledge exists as truths that are warranted, true belief. Perforce, weak form knowledge exists as credibly true, well warranted, reliable belief. Thus schemes of thought, arguments, ideologies and worldviews that deny or undermine such are immediately irretrievably falsified. And, their name is legion.

7: Further, such SETs serve as plumbline tests for our yardstick beliefs, exposing crooked yardsticks. Where, if we measure by a crooked yardstick, what is actually straight [“true”], square, on the level, accurate and upright — yes the terms overlap from carpentry and masonry to weightier matters — cannot pass the test of conformity to crookedness. (Now you know why agit prop strategists want to get us to make crooked yardsticks into our standard.)

8: A plumbline is naturally, undeniably upright and straight, so it restores the due balance. Which is why those who are locked into ideologies of crookedness so stoutly resist, deny or studiously ignore them. Only, to reveal the utter absurdity of their behaviour and thought.

9: The issue of the right then, is not set by the power or mere opinions or rulings of an individual or collective WHO, that is the appeal to might and manipulation make right. Which is the instantly absurd appeal to nihilism.

10: WHAT makes the truth and the right is the nature of the claim, which is tested by plumbline principles and test cases that demonstrate what is sound from what is unsound. The truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. This holds for history, accounting, arithmetic, philosophy, theology, politics, journalism, education, justice and morality alike.

11: What is just duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where, a right is a properly binding moral claim to be respected and protected in a certain particular, based on our inherent dignity and quasi-infinite worth as a living human being. Even the dead have a due right to respect.

12: And as rights must be universalisable, we cannot have a right to demand that others do the wrong or uphold and enable us in the wrong. That would be to impose evil under false colours of rights, often by agit prop and lawfare that perverts justice. Which is exactly what has been going on, starting with the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb. (This is a plumbline case of establishment of evils under false colour of law in our day. But until the crooked yardsticks have been given up, that will not be acknowledged. And, perforce for the avalanche of other perversions of justice and sound society which are ever so fashionable in our time.)

13: So, what is evil? The frustration, perversion, privation or abuse of the good that blocks its due fulfillment of its purpose, which in key cases is naturally evident.

14: The purpose of rationality is to know and do the true, the right, the prudent. So, deception, corruption of education and media, lying, slander and more are evils. The robbing of that child of innocence, violation of body, robbing of life itself are patent evils.

15: And though it is hard for the deluded to acknowledge now, abuse of organs of digestion and excretion in insanitary, unhealthy, disease spreading ways is perversion of proper purpose of those organs and of the proper familially grounded fulfillment of our sexual nature. Likewise, perversion of marriage and sexual identity under false colours of law.

16: Worse, abusing powers of law to compel people of sound conscience to enable such evils under threat of bankruptcy and loss of livelihood; that is early stage tyranny. He who would rob me of innocent livelihood or daily bread would rob me of life. He who would rob me of conscience would rob me of my soul and its proper end.

17: The utter, increasing moral blindness and endarkenment of our day are quite plain.

18: But the point above can be twisted through the Euthyphro dilemma, so called. But the fatal flaw lies in the root of that argument: it addressed pagan gods who are not the root of reality so such could never bridge IS and OUGHT. They are categorically distinct from the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, who is the root of reality. God is essentially good and truthful, so he will neither do nor say evil, such would be alien to and at utter odds with his being. So, too, when he speaks, he speaks truth, as that too is his nature. and when he judges, he judges by the truth and the right which are inextricably part of his nature.

19: So, the so-called dilemma is misdirected.

20: Further, the real question is, does this God exist? Where, inherently, he would be the necessary being root of existence. So, the question, then is, is such a candidate being impossible, having core characteristics that are mutually contradictory like the case of a square circle.

21: God is a serious candidate necessary being, unlike a flying spaghetti monster (which, being material and composite, CANNOT be anything but contingent; the parody explodes, poof). So, the would-be atheist’s challenge is to show that God is impossible of being. As, a serious NB candidate will either be impossible or actual. As, NB’s are framework to any world existing.

22: And while it was formerly fashionable to trot out the problem of evils, that has collapsed since it was seen as parasitical on the problem of good and on the impact of Plantinga’s free will defense. Once creating freedom allows for a higher order of good, there is a sufficient reason to permit freedoms that can by definition be abused thus resulting in evil. Thus, as that is possible, the claimed contradiction evaporates.

23: We have addressed the core of the matter. Now, let us apply:

>> [KF:] It also means that might and manipulation do not make right, truth, justice etc.

[AK:] Nobody has suggested that it does. But consensus and social agreement can certainly make rules by which we can live and prosper by. >>

24: Just the opposite is the case, just look all around and consult the history of the past 100 years. Nihilism, radical relativism, subjectivism and emotivism — they are all of a piece — have been rampant and have predictably ended in chaos. To the point where they are rhetorically indefensible.

25: Of course, appeal to social “consensus” is a disguised form of just said appeal, cultural relativist from. Let me clip, again, from Lewis Vaughn:

Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping:

. . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement

Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts.

Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values.

Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible.

Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

>>

Food for further thought. END

 

 

54 Replies to “Answering AK: “who determines who is in the right? From my reading of your words, you obviously do not brook the possibility that you may be wrong.”

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Answering AK: “who determines who is in the right? From my reading of your words, you obviously do not brook the possibility that you may be wrong.”

  2. 2
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB, KF has placed me in moderation over on his other thread, but since this thread is KF responding to me, I figured it was OK to respond to you here.

    AK,

    Let me state the facts again. Comprehensive and early sex education, combined with unrestricted access to contraceptives, is proven to significantly reduce both the teen pregnant rate and the abortion rate.

    StephenB,

    How, where, and by whom was this proven? According to all my sources, which include the pro-choice atheists that you ignored, it is a false claim. Even the Guttmacher Institute has given up on this idea.

    Here are a few papers that suggest that you are wrong.

    Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends [The Lancet Volume 388, No. 10041, p258–267, 16 July 2016]

    Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S [PLoS One. 2011; 6(10)]

    Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy [Journal of Adolescent Health 2007]

    Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained. [Patient Educ Couns. 1994 Jul;23(3):161-71.]

    New Clarity for the U.S. Abortion Debate: A Steep Drop in Unintended Pregnancy Is Driving Recent Abortion Declines [Guttmacher Policy Review Volume 19 2016]

    Steep Drop in Unintended Pregnancy Is Behind the 2008–2011 U.S. Abortion Decline [Guttmacher 2016]

    Dire Demographics: Population Trends in the Russian Federation [Rand Monograph Report]

    Understanding the Decline in Adolescent Fertility in the United States, 2007–2012 [Journal of Adolescent Health November 2016]

    Epidemiologic Surveillance of Teenage Birth Rates in the United States, 2006–2012 [Obstetrics & Gynecology: June 2017]

    And yes, to give fair reading to alternative studies,

    The effect of spending cuts on teen pregnancy [Journal of Health 2017]

    However, I might add, that another study conducted in Sweden showed an increase in teen pregnancy with cuts to sex education.

    Adolescent sexual health in Sweden. [Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Oct;78(5):352-6]

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, I have placed no one in moderation anywhere, I simply do not have that power — to begin with. If a UD Moderator level person has intervened it is not me and this is the first I have heard of such. KF

  4. 4
    Allan Keith says:

    My apologies KF. I had a lot of links in that comment. This may have automatically put it into moderation.

  5. 5
    StephenB says:

    AK @2, Most studies go the other way. That is why it is important to consult with a mega study that incorporates the whole picture and addresses inter-study discrepancies. Correlation does not equal causation.

    From Michael Castleman:

    “Teen Pregnancies Fall But School Sex Ed Doesn’t Work. Huh?”

    “…So we have *two studies showing that comprehensive teen sex education classes produce a slight decrease in teen sex and pregnancies (13 percent of trials), and 13 that show no persuasive benefit (87 percent).*

    “…Since 1990, teen pregnancies have plummeted 62 percent. How is this possible? Because parents have become more willing to discuss sex with their children—and the kids listen.”

    “Credit for fewer teen pregnancies goes not to school sex ed, but to parents.”

    And, of course, I provided plenty of evidence to show that access to birth control increases the abortion rate. Over 50% of abortions are performed on those who ARE ALREADY ON BIRTH CONTROL. Case closed.

    More importantly, sex education in schools not only doesn’t work, it destroys young minds and turns children into animals. What they are exposed to cannot even be shown on television, as ugly as that culture is.

  6. 6
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB@5, This isn’t exactly a scientifically rigorous study of the affects of comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives on teen pregnancy and abortion rates. At most it is an opinion piece using cherry picked, and not always relevant studies, to support it.

    From article

    “Credit for fewer teen pregnancies goes not to school sex ed, but to parents.”

    Unfortunately this is a bald unsupported assertion by the author. Wishful thinking perhaps?

    Just to make sure that I wasn’t missing anything, I looked at the first handful of papers that were referenced.

    Culturally Responsive Adolescent Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevention Program for Middle School Students in Hawaii, This study simply was based on a survey of students for their knowledge, not on any impact on pregnancy and abortion rates.

    Impact of Two Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Interventions on Risky Sexual Behavior: A Three-Arm Cluster Randomized Control Trial
    The conclusion from this article is “We provided additional evidence for the continued efficacy of RTR and the first rigorous study of LN, which embeds sex education into a larger curriculum on healthy relationships and violence prevention.”

    Teen Pregnancy: Trends and Lessons Learned,” Guttmacher Policy Review
    This paper concluded that the decline in pregnancy rates was due to use of more effective birth control.

    Text Messaging, Teen Outreach Program, and Sexual Health Behavior: A Cluster Randomized Trial,
    This study was not about comprehensive sex education. It was about the effectiveness of a text messaging campaign. Not surprisingly, there was no significant affect.

    Healthy Futures Program and Adolescent Sexual Behaviors in 3 Massachusetts Cities: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    This study concluded that there was no significant reduction in sexual activity. This is no surprise. They did not look at pregnancy rates. But “There was some evidence of delaying sexual initiation by the end of Nu-CULTURE, for girls and Hispanics, but not for boys.”

    Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States: 2008-2011
    From the paper: ” the incidence of unintended pregnancy declined by more than 25% among girls who were 15 to 17 years…” It also stated that “Our analysis did not address factors that might explain the decline between 2008 and 2011, but several possible factors should be considered.”

    Scalability of an Evidence-Based Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program: New Evidence from 5 Cluster-Randomized Evaluations of the Teen Outreach Program,
    Again, this paper did not look at pregnancy or abortion rates. Only at sexual activity. But we already know that comprehensive sex education and access to birth control do not significantly change the frequency of sexual activity.

    Preventing Pregnancy in High School Students: Observations From a 3-Year Longitudinal, Quasi-Experimental Study
    Admittedly, this paper did not show any affect of sex education on pregnancy. However, there is no requirement to teach about contraceptives in sex ed in Texas. As well, teens may not get birth control pills or IUD without parental consent, thereby taking the most effective forms of birth control off the table.

    Impacts of an Enhanced Family Health and Sexuality Module of the HealthTeacher Middle School Curriculum: A Cluster Randomized Trial.
    This study did not look at pregnancy or abortion rates.rates.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, I think the auto-mod cutoff may be seven links. KF

  8. 8
    Allan Keith says:

    KairosFocus,

    AK, I think the auto-mod cutoff may be seven links. KF

    Thank you. It actually makes sense, to avoid spammers.

  9. 9
    StephenB says:

    SB: “Credit for fewer teen pregnancies goes not to school sex ed, but to parents.”

    Unfortunately this is a bald unsupported assertion by the author.

    It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on observed facts. Parents are communicating better with their children. Inasmuch as that is a significant changing variable, it is likely a legitimate cause for the change.

    Just to make sure that I wasn’t missing anything, I looked at the first handful of papers that were referenced.

    I will just pick the low hanging fruit:

    Teen Pregnancy: Trends and Lessons Learned,” Guttmacher Policy Review
    This paper concluded that the decline in pregnancy rates was due to use of more effective birth control.

    Do you know what they mean by “more effective?” Let me help you out here.

    Guttmacher studies include the use of IUDs and other forms of (LARC) interventions. These methods are called “birth control” but they are really abortifacients. They kill the fetus before it is implanted, but they call it birth control. Naturally, an early abortion will obviate the need for a later abortion, but they try to make it appear that “access to birth control” prevented the abortion. Get it?

    You continue to miss the point. You must use a meta-analysis to understand the dynamic. Here is another example. Feel free to disagree with any conclusion that is not congenial with your secularist bias.

    “Sex education does not reduce teen pregnancy or STIs.”

    “An international review has found that sex education does not reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy or incidences of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).”

    A comprehensive Cochrane review of studies from around the world combined the data from more than 55,000 young people, aged on average between 14 and 16.

    The review follows a suggestion from Education Secretary Justine Greening in September, to make sex education mandatory in all schools.

    ***Reviewed measurable outcomes***

    “The review restricted its focus to studies featuring measurable biological outcomes, from records or tests of pregnancy and STIs.”

    Data was collected from England, Scotland, South Africa, Chile, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Malawi.
    Dr Amanda Mason-Jones, a lead researcher at York University, commented: ***”Previous studies have focused on self-reported outcomes only – this is the first review and meta-analysis to look at only measurable biological outcomes.”***

  10. 10
    jdk says:

    In 2, AK writes, “StephenB, KF has placed me in moderation over on his other thread.”

    Why? Can you explain your offense?

  11. 11
    Allan Keith says:

    Jdk,

    Why? Can you explain your offense?

    It appears that it was due to the number of links I included in my comment. Not KF’s fault. But it does call into question BA77’s posts. 🙂

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    JDK, if you look above, you will see your answer. It is likely he submitted a post beyond the UD link threshold; I think that that’s about seven. I learned about that the hard way some years back. KF

  13. 13
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on observed facts. Parents are communicating better with their children. Inasmuch as that is a significant changing variable, it is likely a legitimate cause for the change.

    I called it a bald unsupported assertion by the author of the article because it was an assertion that wasn’t supported by anything he presented.

    I will just pick the low hanging fruit:

    I wasn’t aware that researchers arrange their references from “low hanging fruit” to “jaw dropping evidence”. My examples included all of the first half of the references. Surely at least one of them would be compelling.

    Do you know what they mean by “more effective?” Let me help you out here.

    Guttmacher studies include the use of IUDs and other forms of (LARC) interventions. These methods are called “birth control” but they are really abortifacients. They kill the fetus before it is implanted, but they call it birth control.

    Then your god is the biggest abortionist on earth.

    An international review has found that sex education does not reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy or incidences of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

    No. You also have to ensure that kids attend school, one of the major concerns from this study, and that they have access to effective birth control.

    Here is the conclusion arrived at by the same paper.

    There is a continued need to provide health services to adolescents that include contraceptive choices and condoms and that involve them in the design of services. Schools may be a good place in which to provide these services. There is little evidence that educational curriculum-based programmes alone are effective in improving sexual and reproductive health outcomes for adolescents. Incentive-based interventions that focus on keeping young people in secondary school may reduce adolescent pregnancy but further trials are needed to confirm this.

    Your sources aren’t proving to be the “gotcha” sources that you think they are. Maybe you should spend a couple minutes and actually read the articles. And I assure you, they don’t require more that a couple minutes to show that they don’t support your dogma.

  14. 14
    StephenB says:

    Allan Keith

    I wasn’t aware that researchers arrange their references from “low hanging fruit” to “jaw dropping evidence”.

    “Low hanging fruit” is a metaphor that means I will pick only the choice examples since you seem to be using a lot of space to distract from the main point: The policy of killing a young fetus on the grounds that it is not an old fetus is immoral and irrational. Since you take that position, I expect you to provide an argument for it. Yet you have dodged the issue eight times.

    My examples included all of the first half of the references. Surely at least one of them would be compelling.

    The ratio of compelling to non-compelling has already been established by the study. 87% (no effect) to 13% (mild effect).

    Guttmacher studies include the use of IUDs and other forms of (LARC) interventions. These methods are called “birth control” but they are really abortifacients. They kill the fetus before it is implanted, but they call it birth control.

    Then your god is the biggest abortionist on earth.

    The rate at which young fetuses die naturally in the womb is not as high as you think. In any case, the author of life is entitled to decide how many of his creatures will live and for how long. You and your anti-God abortion lovers are not.

    SB: An international review has found that sex education does not reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy or incidences of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

    No. You also have to ensure that kids attend school, one of the major concerns from this study, and that they have access to effective birth control.

    Yes, that is what they found. Their finding is their finding, even if it displeases you. Birth control is a separate but related matter. Any study that presumes to “measure” a composite of birth control and sex education is doomed from the start. Even if they could isolate the variables, it would require a follow up of ten years or more to know what the impact would be. As it is, we know that sex education plays no role and that access to birth control (Not abortifacients in the name of birth control) lead to abortion.

    Here is the conclusion arrived at by the same paper.

    There is a continued need to provide health services to adolescents that include contraceptive choices and condoms and that involve them in the design of services. Schools may be a good place in which to provide these services. There is little evidence that educational curriculum-based programmes alone are effective in improving sexual and reproductive health outcomes for adolescents. Incentive-based interventions that focus on keeping young people in secondary school may reduce adolescent pregnancy but further trials are needed to confirm this.

    Do you have even the slightest conception of how many variables are contained in that statement. If only this, if only that, if only something else. That part of the report is designed to provide the requisite statements about how more work needs to be done, etc, etc. All reports have it. The definitive statement of the findings are found above. Nice try, though.

    Your sources aren’t proving to be the “gotcha” sources that you think they are. Maybe you should spend a couple minutes and actually read the articles. And I assure you, they don’t require more that a couple minutes to show that they don’t support your dogma.

    Not at all. The problem is that you pick and choose which facts you choose to accept and which ones you chose to ignore. More importantly, you don’t understand which facts matter most. As I pointed out earlier, between 60 and 70% of those who secure an abortion are already on birth control. CASE CLOSED.

    Obviously, you don’t understand how devastating that fact is to your thesis. Or perhaps you do understand it and have decided it would be best to ignore it. Its a good game strategy, but not a very honest one.

    Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to address the subject that you continue to dodge. What is your argument in defense of killing a young fetus while allowing an old fetus to live.

  15. 15
    StephenB says:

    Please ignore my premature post above. It is impossible to read. My comments are below:

    Allan Keith

    I wasn’t aware that researchers arrange their references from “low hanging fruit” to “jaw dropping evidence”.

    “Low hanging fruit” is a metaphor that means I will pick only the choice examples since you seem to be using a lot of space to distract from the main point: The policy of killing a young fetus on the grounds that it is not an old fetus is immoral and irrational. Since you take that position, I expect you to provide an argument for it. Yet you have dodged the issue eight times.

    My examples included all of the first half of the references. Surely at least one of them would be compelling.

    The ratio of compelling to non-compelling has already been established by the study. 87% (no effect) to 13% (mild effect).

    SB:Guttmacher studies include the use of IUDs and other forms of (LARC) interventions. These methods are called “birth control” but they are really abortifacients. They kill the fetus before it is implanted, but they call it birth control.

    Then your god is the biggest abortionist on earth.

    Nice evasion. Let’s forget the dishonesty involved in referring to an abortion procedure as method of “effective” birth control, and distract from the issue by raging against God, right? (The rate at which young fetuses die naturally in the womb is not nearly as high as you think). In any case, the author of life is entitled to decide how many of his creatures will live and for how long. You and your anti-God abortion lovers are not.

    SB: An international review has found that sex education does not reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy or incidences of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

    No. You also have to ensure that kids attend school, one of the major concerns from this study, and that they have access to effective birth control.

    Yes, that is what they found. Their finding is their finding, even if it displeases you. Birth control is a separate but related matter. Any study that presumes to “measure” the effects of birth control and sex education simultaneously is doomed from the start. Even if they could isolate the variables, it would require a follow up of ten years or more to know what the impact would be. As it is, we know that sex education plays no role (except to pervert young minds and turn children into animals) and that access to birth control (Not abortifacients in the name of birth control) lead to abortion.

    In spite of what they claim, the aim of secular educators is not to reduce abortions. It is to sexualize children and make them slaves to their passions so that they can be easily controlled. I assume that you go along with that program.

    Here is the conclusion arrived at by the same paper.

    There is a continued need to provide health services to adolescents that include contraceptive choices and condoms and that involve them in the design of services. Schools may be a good place in which to provide these services. There is little evidence that educational curriculum-based programmes alone are effective in improving sexual and reproductive health outcomes for adolescents. Incentive-based interventions that focus on keeping young people in secondary school may reduce adolescent pregnancy but further trials are needed to confirm this.

    Do you have even the slightest conception of how many variables are contained in that statement. If only this, if only that, if only something else. That part of the report is designed to provide the requisite statements about how more work needs to be done, etc, etc. All reports have it. The definitive statement of the findings are found above. Nice try, though.

    Your sources aren’t proving to be the “gotcha” sources that you think they are. Maybe you should spend a couple minutes and actually read the articles. And I assure you, they don’t require more that a couple minutes to show that they don’t support your dogma.

    Not at all. The problem is that you pick and choose which facts you choose to accept and which ones you chose to ignore. More importantly, you don’t understand which facts matter most. As I pointed out earlier, between 60 and 70% of those who secure an abortion are already on birth control. CASE CLOSED.

    Obviously, you don’t understand how devastating that fact is to your thesis. Or perhaps you do understand it and have decided it would be best to ignore it.

    Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to address the subject that you continue to dodge. What is your argument in defense of killing a young fetus while allowing an old fetus to live.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, the net effect above is tangential to the main point of the OP. Perhaps the exchange — though instructive — belongs back in another thread. Or, perhaps, the difference between a focus on WHO determines the right to why WHAT indicates the right is crucial can be worked in. For instance, acts by the powerful who dominate institutions can lead to establishing holocaust under colour of law, but the underlying manifest injustice of holocaust and bloodguilt tells. For further illustration, the focus on some excuse to make for greater “freedom” under colour of law to kill the younder child in the womb but restrict more tightly the killing of older children in the womb is showing how a seemingly plausible compromise serves to enable and entrench slaughter of living, unborn posterity. KF

  17. 17
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    “Low hanging fruit” is a metaphor that means I will pick only the choice examples…

    Yes, I cherry-picked the first nine references in the article you provided as the knockout punch for sex ed and contraceptives.

    The policy of killing a young fetus on the grounds that it is not an old fetus is immoral and irrational.

    Who is advocating killing a fetus just because it is young? I am advocating for drawing a line past which abortions should not be allowed. If you cannot tell the difference, the problem is yours.

    The ratio of compelling to non-compelling has already been established by the study. 87% (no effect) to 13% (mild effect).

    Maybe you should try reading the primary sources that your article referenced rather than take for gospel what the author of the opinion article wrote. He claimed that the decrease in pregnancy was do to parents talking to their kids, with not a single one of his references concluding this. And most of the primary references did not look at rates of teen pregnancy or abortion, so your 87% no effect has no relevance to what I have claimed. The primary references looked at things like rates of sexual activity amongst teens. But we already know that sex ed and access to birth control has little effect on frequency of sexual activity. What it does is significantly increase the use of more effective birth control, thereby significantly reducing unwanted pregnancy, thereby significantly reducing abortion rates.

    The rate at which young fetuses die naturally in the womb is not as high as you think.

    Between 10 and 20% of known pregnancies. The actual number will obviously be higher.

    Any study that presumes to “measure” a composite of birth control and sex education is doomed from the start. Even if they could isolate the variables, it would require a follow up of ten years or more to know what the impact would be.

    Is that why you chose an article that referenced short duration and small sample size studies. Besides, why do you have to isolate the variables? My claim was that the combination of comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives results in lower rates of teen pregnancy. We know what regions/countries offer both and which ones don’t. And the ones that do have lower teen pregnancy rates. Now, trying to narrow it down to the best combination will take more effort.

    Do you have even the slightest conception of how many variables are contained in that statement.

    Yes. There are racial variables, economic variables, etc. But they still boil down to providing comprehensive sex education and access to birth control. Nobody said it was easy. But it is still more effective than telling kids not to have sex and not telling them about birth control.

    Not at all. The problem is that you pick and choose which facts you choose to accept and which ones you chose to ignore.

    If by pick and choose you mean that I examined the first nine references in your cited opinion piece, only a couple of which addressed the impact of sex ed and access to birth control on teen pregnant rates (and those supported my claim), then I guess I picked and chose. Would you like me to look at the remainder of the references? I would hate to be accused of cherry picking.

    As I pointed out earlier, between 60 and 70% of those who secure an abortion are already on birth control. CASE CLOSED.

    And what percentage of those knew that you have to squeeze the reservoir tip of a condom after putting it on? How many know that if you use a condom you should use a second method as well? How many knew that condoms are much less effective if they are not stored properly? How many know the proper way to store condoms? How many were on the pill? How many were on the IUD? How many knew that you can’t start having sex right after starting to use the pill? How many minor teens know that you can get the pill and IUD without parents permission? (Except in Texas, of course).

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, you may or may not recall my note on how exacting contraceptives are and how poorly matched they are to teen proclivities. SB highlighted the empirically observed logical consequence, you are simply inadvertently confirming the point: false confidence + higher exposure –> higher overall risk and incidence of undesired outcomes. The statistical findings SB reports are unsurprising, in the end (save to those who overlooked the exposure effect). The same BTW holds for exposure to the dozens of STDs out there including HIV/AIDS, especially where there are highly promiscuous nodal individuals in sexually interacting social networks to act as key carriers. Remember, many teens cannot remember to take out garbage or homework assignments or special class arrangements with teachers. Recall, Piaget and many others point to the ongoing biologically tied mental maturation processes through the second and into the third decade of life. I note, firearms safety instruction is simpler than contraceptive techniques. That says a lot, given that most of those holding out hope that contraceptives are the solution also likely oppose firearms and would view say a unit on firearms safety in schools with utter horror. A lot more living human beings are killed by abortions — the annual toll is slightly less than common low end estimates for WW2 (and over double WW1, which was seen as killing more that the cumulative for wars to date) — than by gun accidents or even willful use of guns. KF

    PS: And SB is precisely correct that IUDs in particular effect very early abortions by somehow interfering with implantation in the womb. Those numbers likely are not reckoned in conventional abortion statistics but will be high enough to count. There was a similar problem with formulations of oral contraceptives, and I should mention the effect of missing a day or two.

  19. 19
    StephenB says:

    SB: The policy of killing a young fetus on the grounds that it is not an old fetus is immoral and irrational

    Allan Keithe

    I am advocating for drawing a line past which abortions should not be allowed.

    Precisely. You are saying that there should be a line and that every fetus on the old side of that line may not be aborted and that every fetus on the young side of that line may be aborted. Yet you provide no argument or principle that could justify drawing such a line.

    As you know, I have argued that there should be no line at all because all fetuses, young and old, are entitled to live on the grounds that they are humans with inherent dignity and the attendant DNA. In other words, it is *what* they are, not *where* they are in the developmental process that defines their right to live.

    By contrast, you have provided no argument or principle to explain why you draw your line or where you put it. You did mention standards related to “self-awareness” and “perception,” but you did not explain why the fetus should be required to meet those standards in order to be protected from the abortionist.

  20. 20
    StephenB says:

    SB: As I pointed out earlier, between 60 and 70% of those who secure an abortion are already on birth control. CASE CLOSED.

    And what percentage of those knew that you have to squeeze the reservoir tip of a condom after putting it on? How many know that if you use a condom you should use a second method as well? How many knew that condoms are much less effective if they are not stored properly? How many know the proper way to store condoms? How many were on the pill? How many were on the IUD? How many knew that you can’t start having sex right after starting to use the pill? How many minor teens know that you can get the pill and IUD without parents permission? (Except in Texas, of course).

    How many of them know some of those things but refuse to put them into practice because they were never taught the value of self control? For that matter, how many of them know that the true purpose of sex is to procreate and unite husband and wife in a bond of self-giving love. That would be knowledge worth having, but of course the government-loving, family-hating barbarians who run the public education system will have none of it.

  21. 21
    StephenB says:

    SB: The policy of killing a young fetus on the grounds that it is not an old fetus is immoral and irrational.

    Allan Keith:

    Who is advocating killing a fetus just because it is young?

    That would be you.

    I am advocating for drawing a line past which abortions should not be allowed. If you cannot tell the difference, the problem is yours.

    If you draw a line that protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus, then you are advocating the killing of a fetus because it is too young (too undeveloped) to deserve protection, which means that you advocate the killing of a fetus because it is young. I you cannot understand that, then the problem is yours.

  22. 22
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    If you draw a line that protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus, then you are advocating the killing of a fetus because it is too young (too undeveloped) to deserve protection, …

    Then you have a different definition of “advocate” than I and the rest of the world do.

  23. 23
    StephenB says:

    Advocate: *to publicly recommend or support.*

    Clearly, you support a policy which protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus. There is no question about it. And, as been made clear, it is an arbitrary policy that is not grounded in principle.

  24. 24
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    Clearly, you support a policy which protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus.

    Clearly, you are incapable of reading for comprehension.

    I have proposed an approach that has been shown to reduce teen pregnancies and abortions. I have been countered with an abstinence only, bury your head in the sand approach.

    My approach acknowledges the nature of humans. We are sexual animals. Let the teens rutt like sheep but make sure that they have the knowledge and tools necessary to do so with minimal risk. Acknowledge the fact that they are capable of making informed decisions. Something they can’t do if they aren’t informed.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, again, the reduction of mass killing is not moving beyond mass killing. In addition, it is clear that the early vs late stage distinctions from the beginning have been essentially arbitrary. The effect has been to make mass killings seem more palatable thus to enable what is going on. KF

    PS: You have clearly simply disregarded the exposure effect and the issue of proclivities vs technical requirements. actual education should reflect this, linked ethical issues and more. As the orphan manipulation scandal in a Caribbean island highlights, ideological indoctrination and steeping in the techniques of vice leading to desensitisation and de facto grooming are real issues.

  26. 26
    Allan Keith says:

    KairosFocus,

    AK, again, the reduction of mass killing is not moving beyond mass killing.

    Using that logic, the hundreds of people that Israel has honoured for saving Jews during the war were pointless. Forgive me if I use s harsh word, but that is pure BS.

    In addition, it is clear that the early vs late stage distinctions from the beginning have been essentially arbitrary.

    There is nothing arbitrary about it. In fact, it is the opposite of arbitrary. During early pregnancy, the embryo/fetus does not have the capability to perceive pain or to be self aware. Later in pregnancy, the fetus does.

    The effect has been to make mass killings seem more palatable thus to enable what is going on. KF

    Nonsense. All we are doing is applying our understanding of human development to make difficult decisions.

    PS: You have clearly simply disregarded the exposure effect and the issue of proclivities vs technical requirements.

    .
    I know you hate the word, but “nonsense” is the most appropriate word to use.

    Human “proclivities”, as you call them, are things that society has tried to control for centuries. Unsuccessfully, I might add. It is time to acknowledge that these “proclivities” can’t be controlled, and that there is nothing morally wrong with them. But it is incumbent on us to make sure that our kids are equipped to deal with these “proclivities”. That includes comprehensive sex education at an early age and access to the most effective birth control available. You may be uncomfortable with the fact that teens have sex, but they do. My parents did, my wife and I did, and my kids did. And I fully expect my grand kids to. And, I might add, that none of us had unwanted pregnancies. Largely because we were provided the knowledge and tools to prevent them.

  27. 27
    StephenB says:

    SB: Clearly, you support a policy which protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus.

    Allan Keith

    Clearly, you are incapable of reading for comprehension.

    On the contrary. I read you loud and clear. It is a simple matter of recognizing your euphemisms and penetrating you linguistic fog. You advocate the killing of young fetuses. It is as simple as that. Your response is to equivocate on the meaning of the words “advocate” and “young.” Incredible.

    I have proposed an approach that has been shown to reduce teen pregnancies and abortions.

    I have refuted that claim several times. Any study that doesn’t isolate variables and provide at least a five-year follow up cannot prove that comprehensive sex education reduces pregnancies, abortions, STDs, or anything else. Those who claim otherwise are lying.

    I have been countered with an abstinence only, bury your head in the sand approach.

    Nope. You are confused. *Abstinence only* education doesn’t work any better than *comprehensive sex education.* The only thing that really works is virtue training. You can’t persuade people to abstain without teaching them about the virtues and benefits of self control and delayed gratification. The barbarians who run our schools don’t want children to learn about things like that. The want to sexualize them as early as possible so that they can make slaves out of them, rendering them easy to control.

    My approach acknowledges the nature of humans.</blockquote

    On the contrary. Your approach separates those whom you perceive as human (the protected fetus) from those whom you perceive as subhuman (the doomed fetus).

    We are sexual animals.

    No. We are human beings who also have an animal nature. We can function as animals, but we are also called on to rise above our animal nature and cultivate moral virtues, something that animals cannot do. Humans cannot be happy acting as if they were mere animals.

    Let the teens rutt like sheep but make sure that they have the knowledge and tools necessary to do so with minimal risk.

    I am sure that you are fine with unsupervised children having sex on a school bus, but fortunately not everyone shares your values. As I have already made clear, there is no way to minimize the risk for this kind of behavior.

  28. 28
    StephenB says:

    Allan Keith to kairosfocus

    There is nothing arbitrary about it. In fact, it is the opposite of arbitrary. During early pregnancy, the embryo/fetus does not have the capability to perceive pain or to be self aware. Later in pregnancy, the fetus does.

    Your line is definitely an arbitrary standard. I have made that point clear by showing that *you have provided no principle to justify its existence.* You could just as easily have drawn the line at the capacity to reason, or to exist outside the womb, or to say “mama.” In truth, your standard is based on your personal whim about which human beings may be allowed to live and which ones may be eliminated. This is the same philosophy that has led to the death of hundreds of millions of people and Kairosfocus is right to call you on it.

  29. 29
    StephenB says:

    On the matter if sex-education, the take home message is this:

    Sex education programs have no effect on the number of unwanted pregnancies or unwanted abortion. Studies that claim otherwise are based on SELF REPORTING methodology and are, therefore, unreliable. People don’t like to admit that they have failed, especially on sensitive matters of this kind.

    When studies feature objective measurable biological outcomes, the results show that sex education in schools fails to reduce either unwanted pregnancies or abortions. Those are the facts.

    What comprehensive sex education does do is pervert the minds of young people by subjecting them to gender identity confusion, indoctrinating them with pro-homosexual messages, and confusing them with a pro-government, anti-family world view.

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, first I request that you refrain from descent into the vulgarities. Second, this thread’s discussion manages to divert a thread of its own value and by being cut off from the proper thread for discussion, is in isolation from relevant context. Even there much of the exchange is diverted from something else but we live with that. Third, the primary issue is holocaust. Reduction of holocaust does not solve holocaust, however valuable attempts to rescue were seventy years ago. (I note that rescue attempts today are subjected to vicious distortion and denigration etc today, also.) I repeat, the point is that human beings, our living posterity in the womb, are being killed under false colour of law at the rate of about a million per week, globally. As fair comment, at no point have you seemed appropriately responsive to that stark fact. The fact reflects a culture of willfully imposed death as a solution to various ills or even inconveniences, and indicts our whole civilisation. That issue is therefore rightly focal and is to be faced. As SB has recently pointed out, many of the fatal compromise “rate reduction” offers or alternatives on the table turn out to be based on questionable research, do not squarely face the key issue, and indeed turn out to be enabling of ongoing holocaust; some clearly constitute indoctrination, steeping in the techniques of vice and grooming of the young. At best they would be secondary measures that help to ameliorate, but amelioration is not the solution to great and utterly corrupting evils, as was learned from the abolition of slavery. We must instead face ourselves as a civilisation and what we have become then move on beyond the culture of willfully imposed death as solution. And to that end the first thing remains as the antislavery motto taken from Philemon long since put it: am I not a man and a brother/a woman and a sister? And that is a WHAT determines what is right and who is in the right [the unborn child is a member of our race and therefore has a right to life to be protected], not a WHO determines — the error corrected in the OP. KF

  31. 31

    KF @ 30: “AK, first I request that you refrain from descent into the vulgarities.”

    You are an angel, KF, but I am afraid that your kindness (and love) is not enough to stop AK from descending into anything. He is an a/mat. He enjoys the descent… and hopes to take you down with him. Your restraint is admirable.

  32. 32
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    Clearly, you support a policy which protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus.

    No. I support a policy that protects the older fetus and significantly educes the incidence of aborting the young fetus.

    StephenB,

    The only thing that really works is virtue training. You can’t persuade people to abstain without teaching them about the virtues and benefits of self control and delayed gratification. The barbarians who run our schools don’t want children to learn about things like that. The want to sexualize them as early as possible so that they can make slaves out of them, rendering them easy to control.

    Aside from the fact that the benefits of abstinence ar a large part of comprehensive sex education.

    As I have already made clear, there is no way to minimize the risk for this kind of behavior.

    Sciene and evidence notwithstanding.

  33. 33
    StephenB says:

    SB: Clearly, you support a policy which protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus.

    Allan KeithNo. I support a policy that protects the older fetus and significantly educes the incidence of aborting the young fetus.

    [a] I have proven that sex education does not reduce unwanted pregnancies or abortions. The only studies that indicate otherwise are based on the illusion of self-reporting methodology. When objective biological outcomes are measured, it becomes obvious that comprehensive sex education is useless in that context. I know you choose to ignore that fact, but it is a fact.

    [b] Even if sex education did reduce abortions, which they don’t, you would still support the killing of young fetuses that were *not part of that alleged reduction* because *you don’t think they deserve to live.* If they don’t meet your standards of self-awareness and perception, you are fine with killing them. Nice try, though.

  34. 34
    StephenB says:

    Once again, an outside source seems to affect my post @ 33, which caused it to be posted prematurely before I could correct the errors. So here we go again.

    SB: Clearly, you support a policy which protects the old fetus and dooms the young fetus.

    Allan Keith

    No. I support a policy that protects the older fetus and significantly educes the incidence of aborting the young fetus.

    [a] Comprehensive sex education does not reduce abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Mega-studies based on measurable objective biological outcomes have made this clear. Studies based on self-reporting methodologies, which you cling to, are unreliable for obvious reasons.

    [b] Even if comprehensive sex education did reduce abortions, which it doesn’t, you would still support the killing of young fetuses that are not part of that alleged reduction because they don’t meet your arbitrary standards of “self awareness” and “perception.” As I say, once we penetrate your linguistic fog, your position becomes clear.

  35. 35
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    Comprehensive sex education does not reduce abortions or unwanted pregnancies.

    I have never said that comprehensive sex education alone reduces unwanted pregnancies. I have repeatedly said that comprehensive sex education in conjunction with unrestricted access to effective birth control, reduces unwanted pregnancies. Either one alone will not work. You keep cherry-picking the studies that only look at one of these.

  36. 36
    Mung says:

    Even abstaining from sex doesn’t guarantee you won’t get pregnant. Right Allan?

  37. 37
    Allan Keith says:

    Mung,

    Even abstaining from sex doesn’t guarantee you won’t get pregnant. Right Allan?

    Well, it didn’t work for Mary. 🙂

  38. 38
    Mung says:

    Exactly. 🙂

  39. 39
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB, just to give you a real example of the benefit of comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives, just compare Germany and the US.

    Germany has comprehensive sex education starting in primary school. Parents are not allowed to opt out. They also have “masturbation workshops” and mandatory classes on “Body Play.” (I have no idea what these entail). Condoms are freely available and any girl over 14 can get a prescription for birth control without parental consent. And the prescriptions are at no cost.

    The US has a dog’s breakfast of sex education . Everything from abstinence only programs to comprehensive sexuality education. Access to birth control is also different from state to state. Some requiring parental consent, others not.

    The teen pregnancy rate in Germany is approximately 10/1000 and the abortion rate is <5/1000. The US, on the other hand, has a teen pregnancy rate of just above 50/1000, and a teen abortion rate of around 20/1000.

  40. 40
    StephenB says:

    Allan Keith

    I have never said that comprehensive sex education alone reduces unwanted pregnancies. I have repeatedly said that comprehensive sex education in conjunction with unrestricted access to effective birth control, reduces unwanted pregnancies. Either one alone will not work. You keep cherry-picking the studies that only look at one of these.

    And you keep making unsubstantiated claims. You have provided no evidence to support them. I studied four or five of your reports, and they do not integrate comprehensive sex education with the availability of birth control either as elements of correlation or as causal factors.

    Indeed, they do the very thing you say they shouldn’t do–they discuss the impact of one or the other, but not both at the same time. Don’t you read your own reports?

    Even if they did integrate them, the results would not be legitimate because of the problem of self reporting, which I have alluded to several times. That is why I separated the two issues: Birth control availability leads to increased abortions and comprehensive sex education is useless, except to pervert young minds.

  41. 41
    StephenB says:

    Meanwhile, my points about your position on abortion are correct and fairly stated. It is your position that young fetuses do not deserve to live because they lack the capacities of self-awareness and perception. That position is based solely on your arbitrary whims and is not grounded in any rational principle.

  42. 42
    StephenB says:

    The teen pregnancy rate in Germany is approximately 10/1000 and the abortion rate is <5/1000. The US, on the other hand, has a teen pregnancy rate of just above 50/1000, and a teen abortion rate of around 20/1000.

    According to the Guttmacher institute, a pro-abortion organization, the US abortion rate is 14.6 per 1000.

    Meanwhile, the number of abortions in Germany are vastly underreported because they call their abortifacients birth control. We have been down this road before.

    Beyond that, it is a waste of time to compare one country with another. Too many variables. Some countries have an abortion rate 100 times that of other countries. It is the trend within a single country that must be measured.

  43. 43
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    According to the Guttmacher institute, a pro-abortion organization, the US abortion rate is 14.6 per 1000.

    the 14.6/1000 is for women between 15 and 44. The higher rate is for teens.

    Meanwhile, the number of abortions in Germany are vastly underreported because they call their abortifacients birth control. We have been down this road before.

    Then the same would apply for the US abortion rates as the morning after pill is available over the counter without prescription or age restrictions.

    Beyond that, it is a waste of time to compare one country with another. Too many variables. Some countries have an abortion rate 100 times that of other countries. It is the trend within a single country that must be measured.

    I wasn’t aware that the sex drive of teens in Germany was different than the sex drive of teens in the US.

  44. 44
    StephenB says:

    SB: It is a waste of time to compare one country with another. Too many variables. Some countries have an abortion rate 100 times that of other countries. It is the trend within a single country that must be measured.

    I wasn’t aware that the sex drive of teens in Germany was different than the sex drive of teens in the US.

    Apparently, you didn’t grasp what I just said. There are hundreds of factors that play in to an increase or decrease in the abortion rate. In order to do a good study, you must isolate variables within a single country, which is hard enough to do without going global.

    Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to provide those scientific studies that demonstrate the abortion reducing impact of integrating comprehensive sex education with access to birth control. You have made the claim, but you have not provided a scientific or rational defense for it. When I explain that the studies you allude to don’t integrate those strategies, you ignore the point.

  45. 45
    Seversky says:

    StephenB @ 5

    And, of course, I provided plenty of evidence to show that access to birth control increases the abortion rate. Over 50% of abortions are performed on those who ARE ALREADY ON BIRTH CONTROL. Case closed.

    I don’t think so. How do you know that the number of abortions performed on women already on birth control isn’t simply a reflection of the known failure rates of the various methods of contraception employed?

    More importantly, sex education in schools not only doesn’t work, it destroys young minds and turns children into animals.

    Did you have sex education classes when you were at school?

    What they are exposed to cannot even be shown on television, as ugly as that culture is

    All that shows is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of TV censorship. They can show all manner of violent fist-fights and uncounted numbers shot dead in gun-battles but heaven forbid anyone catch a glimpse of uncovered breasts or genitals. That would really bring about the collapse of Western civilization.

  46. 46
    StephenB says:

    seversky

    How do you know that the number of abortions performed on women already on birth control isn’t simply a reflection of the known failure rates of the various methods of contraception employed?

    Precisely. Sooner or later, birth control will fail. For many, abortion is the next logical step. That is why birth control, logically and statistically, leads to increased abortions. Please explain that to Allan.

  47. 47
    Allan Keith says:

    StephenB,

    Sooner or later, birth control will fail.

    It makes you wonder anyone would ever use birth control.

    That is why birth control, logically and statistically, leads to increased abortions.

    Since ready access to birth control doesn’t change the frequency of teen sexual activity this must mean that the 90+% effectiveness claimed for properly used birth control is actually less that zero percent effective. You might want to check your math.

  48. 48
    StephenB says:

    Allan

    Since ready access to birth control doesn’t change the frequency of teen sexual activity this must mean that the 90+% effectiveness claimed for properly used birth control is actually less that zero percent effective. You might want to check your math.

    According to your friends at Planned Parenthood, condoms, used perfectly, are about 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, “so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.”

    After two years, this means 28% have a pregnancy. After three years, it’s 39%. After four years, it’s 48%. After five years, it’s 56%. Sooner or later, the failure rate will catch up with a majority of users. Typically, abortion is their back up strategy. That is why 60-70% of abortions come from those who are already on birth control. Evidently, you still do not understand the significance of that statistic.

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    AK, there is an issue of the impact of cumulative exposure, in a context where the odds of success down a chain are continually falling. Say, x is odds of a bad outcome in a given period. Odds of success period 1 is S = (1 – x). On a reasonable assumption of a stable pattern, odds of success in Periods 1 and 2 will be S^2. For n cumulative periods, S^n. As S is a fractional number S^n is a decreasing value as n rises. With logs, log S_n = n log S. So, n = log S_n / log S. Set S_n = 1/2 and x = 0.15. Then, n will be 4.27. Four to five relevant periods. BTW, this shows why it is so hard to engineer a highly reliable, long-lasting complicated system. KF

  50. 50
  51. 51
  52. 52
    Allan Keith says:

    StephpenB,

    According to your friends at Planned Parenthood, condoms, used perfectly, are about 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, “so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.”

    After two years, this means 28% have a pregnancy. After three years, it’s 39%. After four years, it’s 48%. After five years, it’s 56%. Sooner or later, the failure rate will catch up with a majority of users. Typically, abortion is their back up strategy. That is why 60-70% of abortions come from those who are already on birth control. Evidently, you still do not understand the significance of that statistic.

    Aside from your improper use of statistics, condoms are not the best or only form of birth control. The pill is more effective, as is the IUD. Abstinence is even better (unless you are Mary). The proper use of each of these strategies is taught in comprehensive sex education, with a very strong emphasis on abstinence. Another aspect of the education is to teach about the use of multiple methods, not relying on just one.

    You still have not addressed the elephant in the room. And that is the fact that teens, regardless of how much you scare them, are going to have sex. This was true 2000 years ago, 200 years ago, 20 years ago and today. The >50/1000 teen pregnancy rate in the US is proof of this. Should we just ignore these people? Or should we ensure that they have the knowledge and tools to minimize their risks?

  53. 53
    StephenB says:

    Aside from your improper use of statistics, condoms are not the best or only form of birth control.

    My use of statistics was proper and my numbers are correct. However, since you challenge my numbers, go ahead and use statistics in the “proper” way and disclose the true numbers.

    I say that an 85% effectiveness rate will produce the following results: After two years, this means 28% have a pregnancy. After three years, it’s 39%. After four years, it’s 48%. After five years, it’s 56%.

    ***What numbers do you come up with by using statistics in the proper way?***

    The pill is more effective, as is the IUD.

    Well, of course, they are more effective. They often function as abortifacients. As I explained earlier, early abortions are infallibly reliable at preventing later abortions and creating the illusion that birth control reduces abortion rates. It is usually not necessary to kill the same fetus twice.

  54. 54
    StephenB says:

    You still have not addressed the elephant in the room. And that is the fact that teens, regardless of how much you scare them, are going to have sex.

    Naturally, this is your viewpoint because you believe that children and teens are animals and should be subjected to pornographic sex education from the earliest age possible. And, of course, you celebrate the cultural sewer that makes it more difficult for teens to exercise the virtues of prudence, self control, empathy, and delayed gratification.

    Still, there are plenty of teens who do want to live a meaningful life and are perfectly capable of refraining from sex for the very best of reasons: they shouldn't be doing it. The problem is that there are too few among us in this sex-saturated culture who have the courage and the kindness to tell them the truth about the purpose of sex and how its use or misuse will effect their capacity for present and future happiness.

    The insincerity of those who say, "teens are going to have sex anyway," is made obvious by the fact that they don't use that same argument with other kinds of destructive behavior. They don't say, "kids are going to smoke anyway, so put a filter on their cigarettes," or "teens are going to take drugs and alcohol anyway, so get them a designated driver." All rational people understand that this is not a good argument.

    The >50/1000 teen pregnancy rate in the US is proof of this. Should we just ignore these people? Or should we ensure that they have the knowledge and tools to minimize their risks?

    Bad logic. The teen pregnancy rates in the United States have absolutely nothing to do with the human capacity for behaving morally and responsibly.

Leave a Reply