The best bit was where he said catching 15 kids on steroids, in all of fucking Texas, is how sucesssful he wants abstinence education to be. In other words if just 15 teens manage to get through school with out popping out a kid, it's a job well done.

I hate to say it, but he probably knows full well that abstinence-only education is ineffective. However, for political purposes, it is achieving the goal of placating the ultra-religious morons that think sex is evil.

Anybody with the tiniest shred of common sense can look at the statistics and figure out that hormones + peer-pressure will defeat religious nonsense frequently and thoroughly. Just look at Bristol Palin.

*zing>> ^hpqp:

Pity his parents didn't succeed on the path of abstinence.

Pity his parents didn't succeed on the path of abstinence.

Abstinence works just fine - it's not having sex! Of course it works. If you don't have sex, you won't have kids. Duuurrhhh.

Abstinence education is another matter entirely, because when that fails, then it's not abstinence.

How does Perry think all these people got here. It is because people like sex and at some point abstinence breaks down for nearly everyone. Lets face it sex feels very good where abstinence is like an painful charlie horse in the jewels. Religious thoughts are out the window when it gets heated. A lot of humans on this planet are evidence of this.

The only way to truly prevent unwanted pregnancy is to give young people all the knowledge and tools we can regarding sex.

He keeps arguing that abstinence works when the question is whether abstinence education is working. I doubt this is an accident; he's in damage-control mode, trying to misdirect.

Like so many Christians, he's also forgetting that one of the core tenants of his religion is that, on rare occasions, abstinence doesn't work.

Perry is right. Abstinence does work when it is applied.

The question should be -- is avoiding teen pregnancy a goal? Or is the goal to try to prevent teen sex?

He just kept repeating -- we don't want teen sex.

Papier cul.

There are always exceptions to every rule. Consequentialism is how everyone lives and functions. Everyone. Even someone as categorical as Ayn Rand, even the most staunch religionist is also a consequentialist. No one is purely categorical - they don't exist.

Abortion is a terrible thing, no reasonable people disagree with that. A fetus is far from a human. It's not conscious, it does not (depending on size) have any nervous system whatsoever. If the situation calls for it, people should be allowed to have abortions safely and cleanly. Ideally, the baby would have been stopped before conception with a condom or other contraceptive, but contraceptives are not foolproof, and some times the woman has no choice (rape, daterape, Elizabeth Hurley, etc).

The solution to abortions is not to ban them, but to educate people such that they are only used as a very last solution. If religious people just spent their efforts on education about contraceptives instead of trying to destroy abortions clinics and preaching about abstinence, the number of abortions would fall drastically.

It's interesting that the areas with the most religious people, is also the ones with the most abortions - corrolation yes, causation, perhaps?

>> ^RedSky:

1 in 3 women in the US have an abortion in their lifetime? If that's true, I'm honestly a bit taken aback.


What they mean is 1 in 3 women who were taught abstinence only sexual education.

Oh, I know EXACTLY the sorts of people who will gather in their church hall, dim the lights and watch this and laugh hysterically at all the references to their faith and abstinence and saving yourself, because it's all 'in jokes' that they can 'get'.

And they'll all go home saying to each other how wonderful it was to see such a 'wholesome' film, and wasn't that part with the feet just so 'gross, I mean ew'.

*sigh*...

We need more of this shit though, they can waste their time, money and energy making crap like this which will be laughed at by all and sundry.

Pathetic.

they are absolutely prime fodder for destructive ideologies.

but i've seen mentally ill atheists take after their bosses with machetes after watching too much anime. i've seen mentally atheists flip out while watching eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.

like at @GenjiKilpatrick said, it usually takes a catalyst for mental illness to turn into violence. but that catalyst doesn't HAVE to be religion. and in the absence of religion something else takes its place.

religions aren't something invented out of thin air. they have existed in every culture i can think of. most of them are really really similar. in the more ancient ones you can trace their dogma to serving an actual purpose benefiting human survival in the region (see cow worshipping hindis, or desert dwelling religions abstinence from pork). they obviously serve a purpose. and they change and evolve over time.

of the billions and billions of devout people throughout time how many of them have brutally slaughtered their children? i know you can list several. but thats out of BILLIONS. i'm not seeking to diminish the atrocities committed in the name of religion. i'm saying correlation does not = causation.

i'll wager my paycheck that there were warning signs leading up to this event. and i'll also wager my paycheck that the people who saw the warning signs were uneducated (about mental disorders) and i'll equipped and scared. declaring religion the cause of these kinds of horror stories doesn't lend itself to prevention very well. perhaps we need to take a better look at our mental health apparatus and not-nearly-adequate outreach, education and support system.

one thing i do think churches could do (and i know many churches that have) is adopt church counseling programs.. staffed by actual trained psychologists and counselors, not seminary graduates. to treat their members and give families an accessible, trusted place to turn to when they start seeing some destructive warning signs.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Crazy people often do more violent things than eat skittles. I don't see the connection between her crazy actions and religion. Linking this to religion is just like linking school shootings to violent video games. No, nothing that's being mass consumed drove this person from being the nice neighbour to slaughtering people. Stop looking for the fault in the things you don't like and accept the fact that some people are just crazy.

Of course there are connections. Just look at Islam. Christianity isn't as bad but people kill and maim others based on their reading of the Bible.
There's always the "just crazy" view. And I accept that to an extent. But I suspect people like that are prime fodder for destructive ideologies and supernatural thinking.
And she had access to a well established cult that served to radicalise her to a point where her family were no longer physically safe.

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <


That would be addressed in the general millieu of primary and secondary education. Sex ed is way more than just putting a condom on a banana. Sometimes a sex ed class is its own separate thing and other times it's just a subsidiary part of a home ec class or something.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not that they don't know what condoms are. There are millions of people in the world who know what condoms are and still don't use them (or use them properly); the key is in teaching why to use them.

The girl does say that there should be classes that teach the girls about protection and about not getting pregnant so I imagine it is a bit of both.

@Reefie As for the comment about the 1 child per family as per China, I don't even know where to start. First there's the massive problems associated with the policy in China; ie. the 4-2-1 problem (one child not able to help support 2 parents and 4 grandparents), the increase in infanticide, the huge gender disparity, etc. Then there's the fact that its results have been exaggerated; better economic status and better healthcare are more effective at controlling birthrates than the one-child policy, plus China's most dramatic decreases in birth-rate occurred before the policy under the voluntary "late, long, few" policy. And finally there is the fact that most "Western" countries are facing a population decline already - with so few people being born to the Baby Boomers that there will not be enough people to support their pensions. I'm not sure what the suggestion had to do with this video, but it doesn't really have a place in any realistic discussion about population.


>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <

>> ^bareboards2:
I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.
>> ^Skeeve:
In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <


Sounds very much like why my youngest sister got herself pregnant. That plus the benefits situation in the UK can help someone generate an income for the next 16 years, longer if the children stay at home while attending uni or other forms of further education. You're right that teaching these teenagers about condoms might not fix the problem, but teaching them what it's like to raise a child might be a good way to put them off - let's have all teenagers (boys and girls) work in old folks homes for a few months so they get first-hand experience of nappy-changing, bathing, feeding, and overall the responsibility of having to look after another person.