Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dairygirl4u2c

Palin

Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c
[quote name='MilesJesu' post='1656913' date='Sep 16 2008, 05:17 PM']Dairygirl,

I could not remain silent on this post. You state:

"she insists on abstinance only education (which may have led to her daughter getting pregnant,,, i don't know. i tend to think this type of eduation is faulty. but i am an empiracally minded person and would think whatever position can be shown to best reduces pregancies is what should be taught)"

Your logic seems flawed.

Premise 1: Palin insists on abstinence only education.
Premise 2: Her daughter became pregnant.
Conclusion: Palin's position on abstinence only education contributed to her daughter getting pregnant.

The conclusion is flawed by the obvious fact that her daughter DID NOT apply abstinence only principles which is why she is pregnant. I think your assertion and and some talking heads on TV that perhaps a robust contraception education would have a different result is also flawed.

How does anyone KNOW that the young couple in question did not use some form of contraception? After all, a quick goolgle search shows that according to the young womans health org site:

Out of 100 Women Using Male Condoms, 14 become pregnant.

Out of 100 Women Using Withdrawal, 19 become pregnant.

Out of 100 Women Using Combination Birth Control Pills: 5 become pregnant.

Out of 100 Women Using Spermicides: 26 become pregnant

I think you get the point. Despite the talk otherwise, none of those talking about the issue knows what the young couple did EXCEPT not practice abstinence only. To assert that teaching abstinence only results in pregnancy is like asserting that teaching it is wrong to commit adultery results in adultery.

As for advocating any position that "reduces pregnancies should be taught" is a very problematic position. Is this to be advocated because pregnancies are a bad thing? That pregnancy is ... what exactly?

Peace,

MilesJesu[/quote]

are you saying you know she didn't use abstinance only?
i don't know if she did or didn't. my only point is that i wouldn't be surprised if she did no constraceptives and got pregntant, and the teaching of abstaninace only didn't help. if she did use ocntracpetives and got pregnant,,,, then it doesn't help my case granted.

but my point isn't her daughter specifically. it's that abstinance only teachings might be wrong. i make the decision on whether it's wrong based on which is more effective. i know fr. bruno said it causes more pregnancies when contraceptives are taught. if he cited something, i might believe him. people always seem to crown themselves the source of info on something based on mere high talk of their side. "psh, the other side is obviously wrong, X is true" etc wihtout much substance.

as to your stats..... i'm sure a lack of contraceptives would end in results that are close to 40 in 100 get pregnant, or whatever the noncontraceptive rate is. so i don't see your point in that regard, no i don't as you suggest that i do-- all i see is that contraceptives at best can be a bad method too, not necessarily worse. if you cited a study or soemthing, you'd have a point.

i think it's pretty obvious that no one thinks pregnancies are inherently bad even if they're teens it's not inhernelty bad. what's bad is teenagers getting pregnant when they should be adults etc. so your point in that regard i don't see.
if you were concerned about teaching something that is immoral,,,, well, i tend to think the ends can justify the means. if teaching contraceptives in regards to fornication reduces pregnancies for people that are going to fornicate anyway, then so be it. now,,, if it causes promiscuity/fornication to increase, then i may change my positions. i also tend to think a little exra fornication is worse than teen pregnancy,,,, it's a weighing effect as to how much is permissible etc. (if the person were going to fonicate had they had known of contraceptivs they were already fornicating in their heart anyway, is one reason why) these issues are so dependant on statistics and empiracal data that it's silly for people here to say "this is obviously true" or "this is obviously false".
true, good judgment can come into play here and there. but, soemtimes good judgment means knowing what you don't know, and withholding judgment until better data can come. it seems to me that teaching contraceptives is more beneficial than not, as of now, in my opinion, weiging the pros and cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
princessgianna
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1659683' date='Sep 19 2008, 10:12 PM']i'm pointing out the bad things about palin. that someone thinks voting for her is a mortal sin,,, is irrelevant to her bad points.

it's similar to people responding this way: "palin kicks puppies and beat old people" "yeah but she's prolife". "palin charges the natioal debt to her 50% interest rate credit card" "yeah but she's prolife".

i thikn there's something ot be argued about whether voting for her is a mortal sin or not. i'm not comfortable answering it in this thread, cause it's obviously intended to belittle ht points i'm making.
i see the point,,, that you thikn it's implied i say it's moral to vote for her. i don't thikn i'm trying to imply that. i'm just showing how she's not all that, at all. at least... if you want ot make the point that she's prolife... say "you have a point with X, but she's prolife". or say "i think she's prolife and that's all that matters ultimatley.... but as to your points, i disagree with it for Y"
that all that's being said is that she's prolife is totally getting to be irrelevant.[/quote]

You have to protect Innocent Life!!!!! Because if you don't have life nothing else matters!!!

Palin believes that every human is entitled to have a chance to live!!!! Personally there is not a single issue that is bigger at stake than this because humans are being refused the chance that every American is supposed to have ,the chance to live and the pursuit happiness.

there are several issues at stake and all of them are important but if you can't be for Life than you can't be for anything because you need Life for anything else to even matter!


Pax~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MilesJesu
[b]are you saying you know she didn't use abstinance only?[/b]

I think it is quite obvious that she did not use abstinence. If she were to combine the sexual act with any type of contraceptive, it would be definition, not be abstinence only. So yes, I am saying that we know she did not adhere to abstinence.

[b]i don't know if she did or didn't. my only point is that i wouldn't be surprised if she did no constraceptives and got pregntant, and the teaching of abstaninace only didn't help. if she did use ocntracpetives and got pregnant,,,, then it doesn't help my case granted. [/b]

But to assume that she did not use contraceptives after abandoning abstinence, goes beyond what anyone can truthfully claim and assert without a presumption of some sort.

[b]but my point isn't her daughter specifically. it's that abstinance only teachings might be wrong. i make the decision on whether it's wrong based on which is more effective. [/b]

This is where I think you jump on a slippery slope. Assuming that abstinence education is intertwined with the concept of Chasity, then on what grounds do you teach "safe sex." A proper discussion of Chasity would involve a discussion of the purpose of the marital act as being reproductive and unitive between a husband and wife. To teach contraception would be to divorce the unitive from the procreative. How do you envision this teaching? What would be the stated purpose of contraception and the purpose of the marital (now strictly sexual) act?

[b]as to your stats..... i'm sure a lack of contraceptives would end in results that are close to 40 in 100 get pregnant, or whatever the noncontraceptive rate is. so i don't see your point in that regard, no i don't as you suggest that i do-- all i see is that contraceptives at best can be a bad method too, not necessarily worse. if you cited a study or soemthing, you'd have a point. [/b]

My point was to show that in addition to the logic flaw employed by many talking heads about what the young couple did and did not do, the underlying assumption was that they abandoned abstinence but could have been "saved" from pregnancy if only they had been "properly" educated about "safe sex." The use of statistics was to highlight that in addition to the obvious conclusion that abstinence was abandoned, no one can say with certainty contraception was not used.

[b]if you were concerned about teaching something that is immoral,,,, well, i tend to think the ends can justify the means.[/b]

This is a very dangerous position to hold. The logical conclusion of such a belief system has repercussions way beyond sex education. The use of military force is one example that should be obvious.

cont...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jckinsman
Yes let's stick to the thead "the terrible things regarding Palin"
...........ummmmmmm

She is a likable woman.
What???? Did I say likable,that really makes me angry and I feel terrible that she is so darn likeable because ignorant people,like myself, may fall for that Palin Garbage. I myself never having met her and just reading the *national Inquirer KNOW THINGS,that are really really important and you Ignorant conservatives with your "one agenda voting" make me ill.

She feild-dresses moose. Yuk! Whats that all about???? VP's should not know those things!
Her daughter is pregnant.She did not inform her properly on where to go, to take care of that little problem.
She is possesed by satan,... But you already figured that out if you are a democrat,you are the only intelligent ones left on this earth.
She is republican.She invented the word.
She is Conservative. She understands the difference between both parties.
She is Pro-life.God isn't.
Her teeth are too white.That creeps me.
Obama's wife is better dressed,,oh wait ..........let's stick to the topic
Palin does not know how to dress like a presidential canidates wife,she only know's how to dress like a Vice-presidential elect. Very Conservative. How could we possibly trust a woman that does not show us her breasts???
She has way too many kids. Not 1.7 like the average. How could she possibly relate to us?
She is terrible for wanting to drill in alaska,is she not hearing al gore??? We are all doomed by her evil plots. You people are terrible for not listening to the terrible terrible-ness that she really is.

Is this better dariy girl? I thought so :saint:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MilesJesu
[b]if teaching contraceptives in regards to fornication reduces pregnancies for people that are going to fornicate anyway, then so be it. now,,, if it causes promiscuity/fornication to increase, then i may change my positions. i also tend to think a little exra fornication is worse than teen pregnancy,,,, it's a weighing effect as to how much is permissible etc. (if the person were going to fonicate had they had known of contraceptivs they were already fornicating in their heart anyway, is one reason why) these issues are so dependant on statistics and empiracal data that it's silly for people here to say "this is obviously true" or "this is obviously false".
true, good judgment can come into play here and there. but, soemtimes good judgment means knowing what you don't know, and withholding judgment until better data can come. it seems to me that teaching contraceptives is more beneficial than not, as of now, in my opinion, weiging the pros and cons. [/b]

This is a very common in today's society. It is called consequentialism. Waiting to see the consequences is fraught with dangers and contradictions. For example:

Case 1: There is a city of two, diverse ethnic/religous populations A and B. A member of group B is brutally murdered and tensions rise and are about to boil over resulting in many deaths and a great deal of destruction to property. In order to avert a violent clash with many deaths and monumental destruction to property they decide to accuse, convict and punish an innocent man belonging to group A.

According to your reasoning, the ends would justify the means. The innocent man is a means to the greater end of civil peace. 1 death is much prefered to hundreds, thousands, etc.

Case 2: A doctor, in an effort to obtain a cure for cancer which afflicts untold thousands, can do an experiment on you to find the cure. He/she doesn't tell you or give you the option because you might object. Unbeknownst to you the doctor performs the experiments and you die. But, the knowledge gained results in a cure for lung cancer and thousands of lives are saved.

According to your reasoning, the ends justify the means. I would propose to use the ABC's.
A = the Act itself (right or wrong?)
B = Because (the intention)
C = the Consequences

When these three align, then something is "good." A cost benefit analysis is suspect in the realm of moral decision making. I hope this is clearer than my earlier post. I have the unfortunate tendency to have things clear in my head, to myself, but fail to translate that to paper (or post)!

Peace,

MilesJesu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jckinsman
Cough,Cough.....

This is the "terrible things about Palin" thread and you are not sticking to the thread. Start a new thread if you want to talk in detail about things like this other wise fess up the "terrible things" I know you can find one??????
Don't her "pearly whites" creep ya just alittle????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
princessgianna
well i guess since she is soooooooooooooo pretty she can't possibly be a mom of a 5 month baby!

I KNEW IT ,SCANDAL!!!!! WE need to read those Magazines like US to find the Truth about PaliN!!!!!

EDIT: (tone is sarcastic!) Edited by princessgianna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]I think it is quite obvious that she did not use abstinence. If she were to combine the sexual act with any type of contraceptive, it would be definition, not be abstinence only. So yes, I am saying that we know she did not adhere to abstinence.[/quote]

i mean, obviously i was wrong there. she didn't use abstinance. mispeak, illogica statement on my part. i meant, are you sure she didn't use contraceptives. and you answered it.

i see your points from your post that i'm responding to, but it comes down to effectiveness, which you have not cited anything for. i realize i have not either,,,, but i'm free to use my own judgment absent more proof.

if not effectiveness, then it comes down to my values concerning consequentialism.

(also i don't believe contraceptives are necessarily inherently wrong.... but even if i did, i'd say that it's better to use them if you're going to fornicate anyway etc... so at any rate it's the last two point on effeciveness and consequentialism that matter most) Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
Doctors denounce abstinence-only education
Teens need access to birth control, pediatrician group says
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/[/url]
[quote]In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not.[13[/quote]

consider the lustful nature of people, esp teens. does it suprise you that they'd be just as sexually active? if just as sexually active,,, wouldn't it be wiser to ensure they are better informed etc?


[[i'm pretty sure you're misstating the effectiveness of the condoms etc, btw, but it's not that central of a point. cause no contraceptives is surely less effective. this study probably includes folks citing stuff such as you.
[quote]In 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman of California released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those arguing that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information about sexuality.[12] The claimed errors included:

* misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives
* misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available
* false claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
* treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact
* other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23).[12][/quote]]] Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
princessgianna
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1660079' date='Sep 20 2008, 12:36 PM']Doctors denounce abstinence-only education
Teens need access to birth control, pediatrician group says
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/[/url][/quote]

ok you can't get pregnant if you don't do it!

It is that simple! It is not rocket science!!!

It is like A+B=C A(you do something with) + B (and get the result of) = C(result!)

and if A does not do anything with B then it is impossible to get the result of C !!

why are people pushing kids to do sex before marriage it shows to the girl that a guy can take advantage of her and hurt her and then leave but its ok cause she's been "fixed" she becomes his toy!!!!!! this is not being fair to women!

abstinence has been proven that when you don't have sex then there is a 100% that you are not to going to get pregnant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOW I LIKE THOSE ODDS!!! :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]Case 1: There is a city of two, diverse ethnic/religous populations A and B. A member of group B is brutally murdered and tensions rise and are about to boil over resulting in many deaths and a great deal of destruction to property. In order to avert a violent clash with many deaths and monumental destruction to property they decide to accuse, convict and punish an innocent man belonging to group A.

According to your reasoning, the ends would justify the means. The innocent man is a means to the greater end of civil peace. 1 death is much prefered to hundreds, thousands, etc.

Case 2: A doctor, in an effort to obtain a cure for cancer which afflicts untold thousands, can do an experiment on you to find the cure. He/she doesn't tell you or give you the option because you might object. Unbeknownst to you the doctor performs the experiments and you die. But, the knowledge gained results in a cure for lung cancer and thousands of lives are saved.

According to your reasoning, the ends justify the means. I would propose to use the ABC's.
A = the Act itself (right or wrong?)
B = Because (the intention)
C = the Consequences

When these three align, then something is "good." A cost benefit analysis is suspect in the realm of moral decision making. I hope this is clearer than my earlier post. I have the unfortunate tendency to have things clear in my head, to myself, but fail to translate that to paper (or post)![/quote]

you cite those scenarios as self evidently in your favor. i'd cite them as more clearly in my favor.

A is going to blow up NYC. A knows how to stop it, admits it, refuses to tell. it's a common thought accepted premise, that it's okay to rough people up, like on cop shows. somehow though, when we talk about the morality of it, the actual practice and the theory fall to peices with people, esp religious folks- a lot of contradiction and hypocrisy. it's intuitively known that it's okay to rough that person up. (or take it to the next step, i'd argue,,, even to torture them)

or to lie to save a life, etc etc.

to adhere to convictions like the ends never justify ends is to allow millions to die for the sake of ideology, and imho blind ideology.

with the points about innocent life. i don't think you can say that a person has to necessarily conclude that a strict cost benefit analysis in terms of lives is what decides the matter. i don't think you can say that i have to necesarily agreew ith your hypotheticals. i think i probably do, if there's millions of lives at risk, but if there were say three lives at risk and one innocent person, i would say "generally speaking, the ends don't justify the means". i'm comfortable with taht statement btw. literally speaking, besides,,,,, you have to include the fact that he's innocent into the cost benefit analysis. hwo do you quantify that? that's pretty hard ot do.l... it's a matter of good jugment, common sense etc. i'm argue most of the time when you make exceptions to the end not justyfing the means.... it's based on common snese, not strict religious principles.

(i'm pretty sure that the ends means principle isn't even infallibly stated. ordinary magisterium, maybe, arguably. but i'm pretty sure not even that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
princessgianna
my point is you don't have sex then you can't become pregnant!

IT IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

it is that simple !!

AND with no unnatural side effects like when you are on the pill or something

plus we are not adding to the women are being mistreated men just using them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
i mean,,, i used to tend towards saying hte ends never justify the means. i felt like a fool though, and knew i was only trying to rationalize my religious principles. i mean,,, i admit i still feel a bit uncomfortable beating people up, torturing, allowing innocents to die. but,,, i don't feel nearly as uncomfortable as the alternatives. i think the only reason i might feel weird,,, whatever my stance,,, is because it is a tough situation, i can admit that.
but for me, to be honest and to me to be common sensical... there are exceptions to every rule (well, as long as the rule is stated vaguely enough like msot are)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
princessgianna
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1660086' date='Sep 20 2008, 12:57 PM']i mean,,, i used to tend towards saying hte ends never justify the means. i felt like a fool though, and knew i was only trying to rationalize my religious principles. i mean,,, i admit i still feel a bit uncomfortable beating people up, torturing, allowing innocents to die. but,,, i don't feel nearly as uncomfortable as the alternatives. i think the only reason i might feel weird,,, whatever my stance,,, is because it is a tough situation, i can admit that.
but for me, to be honest and to me to be common sensical... there are exceptions to every rule (well, as long as the rule is stated vaguely enough like msot are)[/quote]
it is wrong to beat people up (some exceptions apply to when it is your kids or the robber 4 example ) c ur point

ok well back to the main topic
the bad things about palin....hmm.....she looks so professional like she cares about how she represents her country!

(SARCASM!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...