search results matching tag: condoms

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (168)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (27)     Comments (611)   

hpqp (Member Profile)

Republicans are Pro-Choice!

hpqp says...

I also disagree with @VoodooV's gun analogy, but for a different reason: some people would really, really like to be in a situation where they'd get to "use" their gun, whereas I challenge anyone to find me a single woman who would want to have an abortion. Abortions are a necessary "evil": not "evil" in the conservative-religious sense, but in the sense that no-one wants to have one, but sometimes it is the only ethical choice to make.

In a perfect world, everyone would be able to turn on and off the reproductive aspect of sex at will, and maybe medicine will allow us that one day. But until then abortion is a necessity, and not only for cases of rape, incest or ripped condoms. I won't address the troll, but @ReverendTed, do you truly think a woman who - because of emotional manipulation/coercion (e.g. "I don't feel anything with a condom"), or for lack of education, intelligence, or presence of spirit (e.g. drunk) - has unprotected sex, should be "punished" (so to speak) with a life-long responsibility of a human life, despite being perhaps emotionally, financially and/or psychologically incapable of raising it properly? A fate which would moreover punish an innocent child for its whole life (something the non-solution of adoption only makes worse btw)?

When a biker who was not wearing a helmet falls and opens his forehead, do you tell him "tough luck, should've worn a helmet, no doctors for you"? Or, closer to the subject at hand, shouldn't STDs be left untreated? You chose to have sex, you didn't take all the precautions, now live with the itchy consequences! Seriously, having to get an abortion because you were not careful is ample punishment enough. Not because you're "murdering" a human being or other such manipulative BS (although many are pressured into feeling that guilt) but because it is an invasive and disagreeable medical procedure (not to mention the psychological aspects, e.g. the possibility of regret).

This has been said ad nauseam before: if you want there to be less abortions, there needs to be more education (including sex ed, but not only) and easy access to contraception. Speaking of contraception, I look forward to the day they invent a version of the pill for men (soon?); why should women bear all the birth control responsibility?

As for the question of when a ball of cells becomes a human being, I've addressed the subject elsewhere on the Sift (whose search function is effin' up on me right now; I'll post link when I find it).

Republicans are Pro-Choice!

ReverendTed says...

>> ^RFlagg:

I am confused by the people blaming the woman for getting pregnant and saying she chose to have sex... so did the guy, who also chose to have sex without adequate measures to prevent the pregnancy. Why is the guy always absolved of guilt when a woman gets pregnant? "Oh she got pregnant just to trap him." Really? He chose to have sex too, he chose to have sex without wearing protection and pulling out and insuring she was up to date on her birth control. Is abortion the best outcome? No, but it has to remain a valid choice, especially in cases of incest and rape... and any ass who would deny it when the mother's life is in danger should just be denied any sort of medical care (even Tylenol) for the rest of their lives. The best way to counter abortion is to do the things Republicans hate, increase education (and I'm not just talking sex education here, though that should be included, but education as a whole) and increase access to affordable health care, including contraception for both parties.
A few points to clarify my position.


- I don't think this is about choosing to have unprotected sex. It's about choosing to have sex. Few methods of birth control are infallible. Condoms break, people forget to take a pill. The choice to engage in sexual intercourse is a choice which carries consequences. Contraceptives decrease the risk of pregnancy, dramatically, but the risk still exists.
- I don't consider this an issue of blame or guilt. It's about responsibility. It's not a woman's "fault" she got pregnant. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of her choice, which, again, it is her right to make.
- The male in this picture is also free to choose whether to have sex. Is it fair that he can up and split, because he is not physically carrying a developing human being? No, it's not fair, but it's the reality of the situation. Even so, the courts acknowledge that he must take responsibility as well. Jerry Springer made a sideshow out of paternity testing.

- Which raises a counterpoint I'd never considered before - should a man be allowed to compel a woman to have an abortion, because he does not feel capable of supporting the child? If the woman carries and delivers the child and he abandons them, the courts will hold him responsible for child support, even if he strongly advocated the pregnancy be terminated.

Boise_Lib (Member Profile)

The Evolution of the Apologist

messenger says...

The difference between religion and science is that science updates its knowledge based on evidence. That's how we make fun of religion: pointing out they do not update their knowledge based on evidence. Your question is about why we make fun of religion. The answer is that for a set of knowledge that is contradicted by evidence, we believe religion has undue influence, and we seek to reduce that influence. One example is that abstinence-only education programs correlate with rises in sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Abstinence-only education is religiously motivated. Science would recommend giving people condoms and educating them on how to use them, reducing both unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

People can read and believe whatever they want. When it starts to matter is when people who believe false things gain real political power and create laws that harm people based on the false information. Another's right to act on their faith ends when it begins to unduly affect the lives of others.>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

UK Threatening to Raid Ecuador Embassy to Get Julian Assange

gwiz665 says...

He would probably just disappear.
>> ^Mauru:

Sometimes, I catch myself thinking it would be a good thing if Assange faced a US court. The entire shabam would go up in smoke, a healthy prime-time debate about medial responsibilities, transparency and the judicial process of/with political prisoners in/around the united states would spawn...
...which far outweighs the personal freedom of one person...
-that's ususally the part where I wake up and shake the confetti out of frontal lobe.
BTW: Hey let's go invade an embassy so we can get some dude convicted of not using a condom in another country.

UK Threatening to Raid Ecuador Embassy to Get Julian Assange

thumpa28 says...

That was one of the charges, the consent one was a bit more serious. But yeah why not? It would be a very visble soapbox for him to shout his beliefs. The only problem of course is that it doesnt outweigh the freedom of Assange in his mind.

And of course theyre not going to invade an embassy. Thats what happens when you leave someone trying to grandstand in charge of the country when you go on holiday.

>> ^Mauru:

Sometimes, I catch myself thinking it would be a good thing if Assange faced a US court. The entire shabam would go up in smoke, a healthy prime-time debate about medial responsibilities, transparency and the judicial process of/with political prisoners in/around the united states would spawn...
...which far outweighs the personal freedom of one person...
-that's ususally the part where I wake up and shake the confetti out of frontal lobe.
BTW: Hey let's go invade an embassy so we can get some dude convicted of not using a condom in another country.

UK Threatening to Raid Ecuador Embassy to Get Julian Assange

Mauru says...

Sometimes, I catch myself thinking it would be a good thing if Assange faced a US court. The entire shabam would go up in smoke, a healthy prime-time debate about medial responsibilities, transparency and the judicial process of/with political prisoners in/around the united states would spawn...
...which far outweighs the personal freedom of one person...
-that's ususally the part where I wake up and shake the confetti out of frontal lobe.

BTW: Hey let's go invade an embassy so we can get some dude convicted of not using a condom in another country.

UK Threatening to Raid Ecuador Embassy to Get Julian Assange

messenger says...

Assange is facing the music. He knew that the US government would understand what a threat he poses, and use any means necessary to screw him over, which they are already doing, whether they succeed in extraditing him at all. The functioning of Wikileaks is effectively stopped, and he hasn't been a de facto free man for years now. He knowingly made that choice.

As for the justice of the thing, Assange didn't break any American laws. He isn't even being extradited for a crime, at the moment. He hasn't been charged with anything by anyone in any country. Officially, the extradition is because the Swedish police want to question him about whether he used a condom during consensual sex. If someone wants to extradite him for Wikileaks activity, then the US should come up with a criminal charge and follow the normal process. We all know that once they've got him on US soil, they'll just pull a Bradley Manning on him and torture him indefinitely without laying real charges for years. His trial will make OJ look like a sideshow. For that reason alone, even if he had committed a crime, claiming asylum would be legitimate based on the US's own record of criminal behaviour in dealing with people this case.

I'm sure this is also about his threat to blow the doors wide open about fraud at Bank of America. If that kind of behaviour continued, it would certainly mean the demise of significant campaign contributors to both major parties.

I have a feeling I would hate Assange if I ever met him, but that shouldn't affect his right to freedom when he hasn't committed any crime. Anyone who risks his own life and freedom to expose horrible acts in order to force governments and corporations to behave more honestly is a hero.>> ^Hybrid:

I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

What does 'Pussy be Yankin' mean?

Mormons Bury Kitten Alive In Concrete

Porksandwich says...

>> ^bobknight33:

I was not presenting any logical connection between the two. I was presenting the fact that there is moral outrage for the cat incident but when a woman has an abortion the is no love lossed for the destruction of life.

>> ^Gutspiller:
>> ^bobknight33:
Riddle me this.
What morally worse a cat deliberately stuck in fresh concrete or a woman having an abortion?
Both are deliberate acts. Most "open minded" folks will see the utter disgust with the cat but wont think twice on the abortion.

Your logic seems flawed comparing having an abortion to putting a cat in cement.



I guess we can ask the next question in the series.

Why will someone go virtually unpunished for cementing a kitten, but face murder for cementing a baby? You're a fucked up person either way, yet it's OK to do this twisted shit to animals although it's clearly not in line with what society wants......and the laws don't reflect it.

While as with abortion, contrary to what some people want..the law supports what society generally wants and leaves it up to the individuals involved in the pregnancy to make the choice themselves instead of taking the choice away. Cementing something alive should clearly not be a choice someone can make and go unpunished or be lightly punished, yet in the case of animals..it is. And it happens in much worse ways to more animals every day, lack of food, lack of water, being chained to a tree with no shelter...lots of dogs end up dead because they twist themselves up in their chain during storms and no one comes out to free them for days and days. Dog dies, person just gets another one.

So if we can torture things like that, some fetuses being killed instantly by deliberate choice seems like a very minor thing in the overall picture. At least it's quick. Hell we don't even torture criminals on death row...they keep trying to make it quicker and less painful...despite what the criminal did of their own free will and probably deserves some suffering for.


And aside from killing, the really humorous part is the same people against abortions are also against child welfare and welfare in general and talk about population control to fix hand outs. Just don't control it in ways they disapprove of, like the pill....condoms.....or basically anything. Then don't get abortions. And then get harped at all your life because you can't follow those simple illogical steps laid out before you. It's a big case of "do as I say, not as I do", religion suffers from it and it tends to carry over...that mental disconnect that when THEY use protection/pill/whatever it's different than OTHERS doing those things...and when THEIR daughter needed an abortion because <whatever> it doesn't make their values any less stupid because OTHERS reasons just aren't as good as their reasons. But they won't openly admit that shit to other people, because.....well they know it's wrong. Forgiveness and all is the motto, yet it's rarely ever practiced...another one of those disconnects. Funny that.

Circumcision vs. HIV: the truth about the studies (Health Talk Post)

RH Reality Check: Contraception Access For Youth

swedishfriend says...

Music and arts are probably more important than math or history when it comes to developing critical and creative thinking skills. Healthy sex is as important as eating and sleeping and are all very important to memory function, logic, problem-solving, etc. You seem to think sex is so different from other human activities but it isn't. Categorizing things into social and non-social doesn't apply here since a major function of schools is to teach kids social skills so that they can be productive members of society.

99% of success in life depends on social skills. Right now the best and the brightest are not accomplishing anything because they are too shy or messed up by their history to use their abilities to the fullest.

Oh and condoms are a tool used in forging the mind. Sex is one of the most powerful forces that drives our beings so of course tools and knowledge regarding this major part of our lives is important.

Your version of schooling has never been and hopefully never will be. Please check out some of the research that is out there. There has been much talk the last few years about the serious problems caused by removing music and art programs from schools for example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sex isn't something that is happening in school

Translation: I NEVER HAD SEX IN SCHOOL! ...or since

Blah, way to be a jerk and not stay on topic.
I shall be a little more clear with what I am saying as I think my message got lost in peoples spin on doing the hibbidy dibidy all the live long day.
Books, teachers, science labs, paper, pens, are part of the education process provided by the state. Having sex in the middle of the class is not. While sex education is a must, having sex in school is not on the curiculum as far as the state should be involved in. IE, condoms are not a pen, a book or any other tool used in forging the mind.
Like some have pointed out (tackfully unlike the nice person above), sex is part of the natural social evolution of a person. Right, but that isn't the focus of the classroom. Schools are for classes and expanding your mind, that is what the state is supposed to be providing. I have problem no problem with my taxes going to books and pens and things that are developing the young minds of tomorrow. But I have a problem with my tax dollars sponcering another childs sex life and/or other social, non-education things (recreational sex is not educational sex . I would be just as against schools providing some sort of free music program on the government dime on the logic that music is needed for a well devolped social mind.
I also don't preach ignorance or being unprepaired, I am just against paying for it on the government ticket. Schools shouldn't be in the business of providing anything but education. If someone can show me how a condom is an education device, besides maybe just learning how to put one on, then I will be convinced, otherwise, it is the school system trying to be more than it is roled to be. This isn't a night club, this is a school. Sex may happen on campus, that is not what I was saying at all, what I am saying is that is the subject of social interaction and not the domain of the school to provide materials for out of our tax budget. Once again, if someone can show how a condom is like a pen (hahaha don't go there), then I'll be more adpt to listen, but so far it seems like "ehh why not" kinda arguments? Perhaps I misunderstood yall as much as yall did me
And if they are just giving them away, then it should be avalible for all citizens everywhere, not just kids...and I would be against funding my fellow americans sex needs in the same way I am against this
Thanks everyone for your respectful comments...minus one

edit: And did no one else think that the video was totally biased? The lady arguing for the side of schools not providing for that thing had some very unconvincing speaking methodology

Robot Butcher Slices and Dices

Sockification - A sock sorting Robot



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon