Abstinence Education in Tomahawk

[jimbo71]

Regarding abortions, I understand an unborn fetus does have DNA. Can you have DNA without being a human being? Oh yes I know animals have DNA!But would having DNA establish that a fetis is in fact a living entity? :confused:

[aphephilia]

Just a little more plagiarism for everyone:

" (1) Human adults cause (2) human gametes which cause (3) human zygotes.

One of the biological characteristics of human skin cells, cancer cells, reproductive cells/gametes/eggs/sperm, zygotes, and adults, is the presence of DNA which is uniquely human, and is labeled "human DNA" in contrast to DNA which is non-human and, therefore, is labeled "non-human DNA."

Thus, biologically, to be "human" is to have--be biologically based upon/be caused by--human DNA.

Inre human reproduction, the human reproductive cells known as gametes have human DNA; human adults and human zygotes likewise have human DNA.

Thus, all three human life forms--the human adult, the human gamete, the human zygote--are "human" because they biologically contain/are based upon/are caused by human DNA.
Human adults/borns and human zygotes/unborns have the full complement of human chromosomes."

[Nimble]

Yes and this is why in some theological and philosophical circles the question of what makes humans special hinges not so much on whether they belong to a particular species such as homo sapiens but other criteria that might constitute personhood and thus some special status. Higher primates, marine mammals, extraterrestrial beings, etc. might also belong to this criteria.

We could introduce human DNA into a tomato plant. Would this mean that we could not eat tomatoes anymore? Would they have a constitutionally protected right to life, liberty, and not being made into Ketschup?

Well I'll stop before the forum thinks Aphephilia's brother has returned.

[Kerry Tobin]

Baby,

If you are going to post constant links please provide a brief description of what the link is and what your thoughts on it are.

Thanks,

Kerry

[Haley]

Biology has little to do with the abortion debate. It hinges on whether or not a person believes that life begins at conception. If they do, then it's murder, and if they do not, it's not murder. You cannot make laws based on unprovable beliefs (although people have tried... sigh), and that's that.

This, however, is not about abortion, but about sex ed, which is one of the factors in lowering abortion. It's proven--the better sex education is, the lower the aborton rate is. I'm not saying the rate would be zero, but some is better than a lot, right? Hillary Clinton said it best: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare

[jimbo71]

Abraham! methinks the return of "Kotter" to the Leader Forum would add a little more spice don't you think?

[Jeff Boettcher]

Mr. Kottah kept folks on their toes by trashing their posts with his version of logic. Ignore or challenge. Kottah kept the pot stirred & folks replied. But if you ignore the annoying folks, they will go away eventually. Pick your poison.

[Jeff Boettcher]

Kerry,
When does Kottah's probation end? We've got Baby, Haley, Fushia, & jokers like me still posting. Time to stir the pot for real.

Jeff

[Brian]

Umm, he never really left, Jeff.

[Kerry Tobin]

Jeff,

Kottah had been warned a couple of times, still posted personal information about another user and then his actions after being banned have ensured he will not be welcome back at this site...

A couple of others have been warned, then banned and invited back after a short period of time over the years...

Brian,

While we don't monitor that closely we have yet to see any actual evidence that he is back...

[Nimble]

I just want to point out to all that my absence for most of last year was not due to a ban from the forum. I could have been gone due to a number of things: busy with an illegal, immoral war (started by an incompetent leader), studying in a monastery, abducted by space aliens, attending to my vast corporate empire in China, or on a secret mission of some sort.

I hope nothing interesting or important happened or was said in my absence.

[Marty]

So, what I gather here, is in order to have any kind of concern for teenagers and have a speaking engagement on it, you must first be an aitheist, give all sides - so the moral responsibility is not put upon the teenagers - and that means that anything goes and no one is responsible for their actions. Wasn't that what the 1960's were all about?

[Haley]

No. I simply think that in order to prevent teen pregnancy, society must make sure that teens are fully aware of their options. It's been proven that withholding contraceptive information from teens raises the teen pregnancy rate. This is common sense.

If you want to teach kids morals regarding sex, then make it an optional item not taught in a state-funded school. Simple as that. The state cannot teach one set of morals, because there are countless moral paths among people.

[Dopey Dwarf]

.

[Haley]

Personally, I would rather make mistakes and learn from them than live a life aiming for immediate perfection. In my experience, there is no way to find a good relationship without having made a few mistakes and having had a big breakup or two in the past.

Sex before marriage may be fulfilling; likewise, sex inside marriage may be terrible. One cannot think that all relationships abide by one code. Regardless of society's wishes, adolescents are sexual beings as well. We, as role models, are responsible to make sure adolescents have information to protect their bodies. By denying them contraceptives, we are permitting the risk of injury in both adolescent minds and bodies.

You cannot teach a moral. Abstinence-only education attempts to do just this. I am not against the inclusion of abstinence in a sex education course, but to teach only abstinence is highly irresponsible and illogical.

[Marty]

Haley, I can understand where you are coming from. Young love is the sweetest kind of love there is. I remember my first kiss, and how good it felt to have someone cherish me. I guess I was fortunate that it never went further, because we had the understanding before hand that we both were waiting for marriage. And I guess the times are past when parents take responsibility for their kids' actions (like shot-gun weddings and such), after all, how can they expect to be responsible for their kids when they can't even be responsible for themselves - in some cases.
And I think you are right that morals can't be taught in schools. But someone has to take the responsibility for this, and as parents don't seem to, they put it upon the schools to do so - as with everything else anymore.
Personally, I don't think sex education belongs in school at all. That is a family matter where the parents take the problem at hand. But, we do teach morals in school. Otherwise, schools wouldn't have any rules to provide safety to the students and teach them to behave - morals are a behavior pattern and nothing else. Our culture depends on morals, otherwise we are nothing but a pack of animals.

[Marty]

If you wonder how I mean that morals can't be taught in schools, I mean that if you notice behavior problems with students, it's because there isn't a good foundation at home to have moral responsibility towards the respect to children's peers, or the fact that other children are there to learn.

[Haley]

Marty, I agree! Parents should be teaching sex ed, not the schools. Then again, often parents have some pretty messed up perceptions of sex as well. Some people would be scared to know that if I were to have children of my own, I would never allow the school to teach them sex education. (But then again, I would probably choose to homeschool them altogether.)

The reason, however, that I don't agree with teaching morals in a school is that schools tend to teach one set of morals (and we know which set the schools like to use most!). The problem with this is that there are so many sets of morals and values, and it is impossible to generalize. (Yet another reason why I would probably homeschool my kids... )

[tinman]

I think the last couple sentences fall into the category of "too much information."

[aphephilia]

So how many "little black books" did you get your name in, baby?

[Haley]

Baby, your experience is meant just to show us all how "terrible" virgins must have it. It also shows us a reason why abstinence-only programs are a waste of time--by getting all these young people to proclaim proudly their sexual status, they will only find themselves to be more of a target by all these college guys (reinforcing a stupid gender stereotype, of course...)

(And Baby: Needless to say, if you befriended the hornball college guys to make yourself feel better, of course you'll wind up as a target. I don't know who you were friends with, but I never once felt myself a target amongst my male friends.)

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/sexed/index.html
This is pretty interesting! Yes, it is a pro-choice website, but it doesn't address abortion.

[tinman]

Baby, please do us all a favor and keep your sexual escapades, or lack thereof, to yourself. If there were a smiley face that looked nauseous, I'd have included it.

<small>[ April 04, 2005, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: tinman ]</small>

[Jeff Boettcher]

Tinman,
Don't waste your keystrokes. Baby is determined to "enlighten" us all.

<small>[ April 04, 2005, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Boettcher ]</small>

[Nimble]

What can I say? I am almost speechless.

The forum could get banned by one those "decency" groups.

[Haley]

Because, you know, the sleazy escapades of one college co-ed represents every college co-ed.

Ugh.