While I believe abstinence is always the best approach, if the device genuinely decreases unwanted pregnancies while also decreasing abortions, I kinda agree with 2WL. I'm not sure why it's blocked.

Abstinence doesn't work. There is no question about that. No matter what threat one might use - disease, babies, Jesus in many cases - abstinence is not sex ed and does not educate about how to be safe, which, as 2WL pointed out, is far more effective.

Agreed with bo, abstinence does not work. Human's are naturally curious. Tell them not to do something and they tend to be more inclined to do it.

If it worked then people wouldn't smoke, do drugs, drink, etc. If that program actually works, at anything even close to a reasonable cost, then I see no reason why politicians should block it aside from the normal reason they do anything; idiocy.

Religious activists have convinced politicians that abstinence is the only way to go. They would rather have a higher pregnancy rate and the abortion debate than use any other method to stop pregnancies.

Abstinence does work. People simply choose to not remain abstinent. It's not correct to say abstinence doesn't work, because it's the only 100% guarantee we have for someone not getting pregnant.

Abstinence programs, however, are a different story. They will never be as effective as programs that promote pre-marital sex.

This is true for any program comparison. People that have health problems and are told that they can either watch what they eat and remain healthy, or they can eat whatever they want if they take a pill that has side effects, a vast majority of people will undoubtedly take a pill because no one wants to inhibit their desires, no matter how destructive.

Now, I didn't mean to derail the thread.

Taking a contraceptive is not destructive. Contraceptives are used to combat a number of other issues as well that many people, women in particular, have to deal with.

You made my point, Tru, while incorrectly asserting yours. When you say people choose not to abstain, you are admitting that abstinence "education" is merely a forced curriculum among youth that don't care. They don't want to abstain. They want what they want. Real sex ed, which teaches the anatomy of sex, the potential consequences, both positive and negative, of sex, and the ways to be safe were one to choose not to abstain is the effective method to decrease both the abortion rate and teen birth ratw, and 2WL already made that point. It makes sense to say "this is wrong from most adults' perspectives, but if you choose to do this anyway, we want you to know that condoms, contraceptives, and other professional resources are available to you" than to say "it's not okay, never do it, and we don't want to teach you about potential safety nets that could protect you because we think you are a failure if you do it and deserve the consequences you make for yourself, plus we don't care about the kid you create that inevitably ruins your life."

I never disagreed with any of that. People took my statements and changed them to look for a point of contention.

Now, the only point I disagree with you is when you say that extra-marital sex is unharmful/not destructive. This goes back to spiritual issues which many don't understand.

My earlier point wasn't that abstinence programs are effective. My statement is that abstinence itself as an act IS effective--meaning that anyone who chooses abstinence is choosing the best possible route for themselves, free of any and all negative consequences.

Fair, I misinterpreted that.

I would still like you to work with me and simply say that while premarital relationships can be destructive, so too can abstinence. Physically, maybe not, but mentally, socially, and spiritually, there is no doubt that abstinence, particularly when it prevents one from engaging in meaningful relationships with those around them, can be destructive.

Also, I'm at Buffalo Wild Wings and on webDip and I just realized how pathetic that is. Bye :D

"anyone who chooses abstinence is choosing the best possible route for themselves"

That's a pretty big assumption. Why should abstinence be assumed to be the best choice for everyone involved in this program? Don't ignore the fact that this program wasn't aimed specifically at teens - it was open to anyone below a certain income level, which includes both married couples, bf/gfs, and plenty of adults who have every right to have sex and not get pregnant. This isn't a population purely made up of high schoolers who are still at an age where they can be preached to about abstinence.

"It's not correct to say abstinence doesn't work, because it's the only 100% guarantee we have for someone not getting pregnant."

I always find it funny why Christians claim that abstinence is 100% effective.

"Also, I'm at Buffalo Wild Wings and on webDip and I just realized how pathetic that is."

Yeah, Buffalo Wild Wings is pretty awful.

Lol, look at being at b-d7bs this way:

You're with people you love doing the things you love.

Btw, I don't believe abstinence is destructive. I believe it's the best possible choice a person can make. I do agree with you on everything else, as well as 2wl. I can't fathom the idea of fighting a program that is accomplishing big goals on both sides of the fence.

The biggest flaw I have with our partisan system is that republicans and Democrats both are willing to argue foolishly with someone from the opposite party just because someone from the opposite party suggested it. It's why I refuse to call myself republican and prefer to say I'm independent.

Abstinence from Buffalo Wild Wings is the only 100% guarantee we have for someone not eating at Buffalo Wild Wings.

unless that Buffalo Wild Wings was born without sin.

"The biggest flaw I have with our partisan system is that republicans and Democrats both are willing to argue foolishly with someone from the opposite party just because someone from the opposite party suggested it. It's why I refuse to call myself republican and prefer to say I'm independent."

Ah now that I can agree with. Abstinence can be destructive When people live in a society (China or India) or circumstances (too poor to feed another child) that prevent them from having children (plural), should they be required to stop having sex even if they are married? Should their relationship be limited because of their circumstances?

In that situation programs like this are far more health then abstinence. As they safely allow the wed couple to have a full relationship without worry of bringing punishment or hardship upon their families.

Now I understand that you are against non marital sex because of your religion, which I respect, but you do have to understand that massive percentages of the worlds population are not constrained by that belief. Hence abstinence isn't an actual solution either. So saying it is a non-harmful solution that is 100% effective actually is harmful because it isn't an actual solution for those groups. The actual solutions are being rejected by those of a specific religion because they are trying to impose their religions solution/beliefs upon others. Which is violating the separation of church and state, as well as being disrespectful to other peoples views and beliefs.

Like I said, I take no issue with your religions beliefs, just issue with lawmakers trying to use religious beliefs as justification in lawmaking decisions. Which *seems* though may not be, the reason programs such as this are being blocked by republican lawmakers.

Just my 2 cents though.

And sorry to be crude Tru, but there are 290,000 or so rape victims in the US each year. OR one victim every 107 seconds. Abstinence does not help them, and since I know your views probably prevent an abortion, then abstinence isn't a solution, whereas these programs are. Rather sad to have to think in these terms, but they are the facts of the society in which we live.

Now given, that is .1% of the US population, so you can say that Abstinence is 99.9% effective...if that makes a difference.

Most importantly, homosexuals should freely engage in all sorts of sex because pregnancy is not an issue.

I am awaiting your response to the above, Tru, hoping that you can somehow answer the actual points they all made rather than cherrypicking as most do on this site and responding to them adequately in affirmation of your position. Either that, or, if you would like to maintain that abstinence is 100% effective, please explain Jesus. Did sex make Jesus? Was Jesus made by spontaneous combustion? Do tell if you can't do the first thing.

Castration is also 100% effective, but you don't see that being presented as an alternative.

They try on eight day old males. The only reason circumcision exists is because the foreskin makes sex more pleasurable and the various clergy wanted to change that.

@jmo: I believe you'll find that a vast majority of the world's population has the institution of marriage, or a system similar to it that promotes monogamous relationships. Once a person is married, all rules regarding abstinence cease because sex is something granted within the bounds of marriage. How you handle that is your own choice. My wife and I use birth control measures and there's nothing wrong with it because we are married. My statements are made for those outside the bounds of marriage.

Rape is also entirely different. Abstinence refers to the choice to not have sex. When that choice is removed, things change. That said, I'm not sure how your rape case is valid. Now, to go out on a limb, if a female chose to have this form of contraception in the event she is raped, there's nothing wrong with that, Biblically. It's no different than taking out a life insurance policy.

@bo: I don't "cherry pick", I take no offense to the questions as long as there's no hostility involved. I actually enjoy a good discussion that allows me to share Christian views. Jesus wasn't conceived via sex. Different scenario entirely.

Yes, it is hard to get pregnant if you abstain from sex but as a policy, it is completely unrealistic. "Abstinence Only" is the conservative equivalent to "Give Peace a Chance." A nice thought and would be swell thing in a perfect world, but as a precaution, why don't we have some more realistic options for people to fall back on.

I agree with that, which is why I agreed with 2wl. I'd much rather see abortion rates decline over pretty marital sex rates.

@TN: Then keep fighting the good fight against ridiculous abstinence-only sex-ed programs. Providing facts, even though you denigrate them as "programs that promote pre-marital sex", is the right thing to do. It has taken a couple generations, but abortion rates are at the lowest since Roe v. Wade, despite the 'best intentions' of the religious right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html

@bo,

"while premarital relationships can be destructive, so too can abstinence. Physically, maybe not, but mentally, socially, and spiritually, there is no doubt that abstinence, particularly when it prevents one from engaging in meaningful relationships with those around them, can be destructive."

In what world can abstinence prevent one from engaging in meaningful relationships with those around one? If there is such a society (I know of none), it has some pressing problems that are far worse than anything on offer in the Colorado legislature.

@abge,

"I always find it funny why Christians claim that abstinence is 100% effective."

Lol. Nice one. But in fairness, the claim was "is," not "was" or "always has been." The incarnation was a unique event.

@jeff kuta: I would encourage you to go back through my posts and reread what I've been posting and double check you're reading everything the correct way and the entire post instead of simply reading part, pulling out what you want it to say.

I'll abstain from that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My post implied you were...

Bo is.truly too stupid.to understand what abstinence is.isn't he?