Young Evangelical Christians not locked in for Republicans

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Another great post Dis--sums up the issue perfectly, IMO.

It often surprises people to know that I as a "pro-choice" person am not therefore "pro-abortion." In fact, my wife and I both agree that for us, abortion would not be an option, even in the event of a very inconveniently timed pregnancy--it just wouldn't sit right with us. However, we also recognize that it's a thorny issue, and one where people look for truth in different places, be it religion, science, ethics, etc. And it's a place where we have to trust in the ability of people to make their own moral judgments--and individual morality is the last place government should be sticking its nose into. A government that legislates personal morality is a dictatorship--part of democracy is embracing choice even on difficult questions.

I don't want to get into the abortion debate full bore--seems to me we've all been over it a few times anyway. But in my view the only wrong answer on the abortion issue is any answer that pretends it's a simple problem with an easy solution. It's not--like life it takes place on a messy middle ground where we each have to decide for ourselves what our moral standpoint really is.

Unfortunately, I may have already gotten into it. I live in an abortion controversy hotbed here in Wichita. It's insane what radical pro-lifers will do to get their point across. Some of the stuff they do is immoral IMO.

I'll say this about the abortion debate...I think that the arguments the extremes of both side of the issue make are absolutely STUPID. I think the fact that pro-choicers view bans on partial birth abortions as an infringement on personal rights is assinine. I think the fact pro-lifers won't stop until every abortion is illegal is assinine.

Nothing infuriates me more than abortion lobbyists, from either side!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Teen pregnancies and abortions are lower than they have been in 30 years. Now I'm not positive, but I think there is more sex education in school now than there was in 1978. Do you have evidence to back up your claim that sex ed. leads to more abortions?

Reported teen abortions are down but, you don't know how many abortions have taken place. Most left leaning States don't require manditory reporting of abortions. Those businesses that profit from these deaths are not going to provide information volintarily, either. The more likely the State is to promote agressive sex ed; the more likely they are to not require manditory reporting.

England has a state run medical system. Because of this the country can easily access accurate stats. This is what they have found:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...time-high.html

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/t...s-7324883.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Reported teen abortions are down but, you don't know how many abortions have taken place. Most left leaning States don't require manditory reporting of abortions. Those businesses that profit from these deaths are not going to provide information volintarily, either. The more likely the State is to promote agressive sex ed; the more likely they are to not require manditory reporting.

England has a state run medical system. Because of this the country can easily access accurate stats. This is what they have found:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...time-high.html

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/t...s-7324883.html

So since abortions are on the rise in England that means sex education increases abortions? That sounds like pretty selective "evidence" and it doesn't tell even a fraction of the story over there. I don't know what the reason is, if it's true, but it ain't because they learn how to put a rubber on a banana.

Like I said earlier, abortions and teen pregnancy are down in North America. Sex education is, for lack of a better term, "up". How do you explain that?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So since abortions are on the rise in England that means sex education increases abortions? That sounds like pretty selective "evidence" and it doesn't tell even a fraction of the story over there. I don't know what the reason is, if it's true, but it ain't because they learn how to put a rubber on a banana.

Like I said earlier, abortions and teen pregnancy are down in North America. Sex education is, for lack of a better term, "up". How do you explain that?

Like I explained earlier: You don't have consistent reporting of abortions in the USA. There are states that by law require all abortions be reported to the state but, there are several where reporting is voluntary. Those who make their living aborting babies are not likely to report things that might put their business in a bad light. In England they reported a decline in teen pregnancy while abortion rates climbed; Go figure.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Like I explained earlier: You don't have consistent reporting of abortions in the USA. There are states that by law require all abortions be reported to the state but, there are several where reporting is voluntary. Those who make their living aborting babies are not likely to report things that might put their business in a bad light. In England they reported a decline in teen pregnancy while abortion rates climbed; Go figure.

When you talk of abortion rates in the UK rising, to what "rate" are you referring? Do you mean the total number of abortions performed (either the raw number or per capita) or the percentage of unwanted pregnancies that are ended in abortion? They're not the same thing, and the context of your posts doesn't make it clear which rate you mean.

As I said in an earlier post, the total number of abortions being performed in Canada is going down, but the percentage of teenage pregnancies that are terminated is going up. If you want to put abortion clinics out of business, the best way to do it is to eliminate the demand for that service by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And the best way to do that is to provide comprehensive sex education that teaches how to acquire and properly use contraceptives.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is no evidence that sexual education curbs pregnancies. There is much evidence that abortion rates go up though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23782717/

Your definition of "no evidence" and mine must conflict at some deep, incompatible level. If you said "there is no evidence that abstinence-only sexual education curbs pregnancies", then you might have a case.

I'd say the current US gov't focus on "abstinence-only" education is another example of how religion plays far too important a role in public policy; as far as the State teaching morality goes, how exactly is teaching abstinence OK and yet teaching contraception is not? Seems to me, advocating abstinence is a moral issue no less than advocating contraception, so if you want to be consistent, there should be NO sex education at all in schools. Or any other type of education, for that matter, where moral lessons might be drawn - like history, literature, or even science.

Expecting schools to teach nothing about morality that conflicts with a parent's view is asinine. Should the schools not teach that, for example, segregation was wrong? After all, what if you are a racist and want your kids to be racists - where does the government get off trying to change that? Whether we like it or not, schools have a profound impact on how children think and act, and by rejecting sexual education you are trying to socially engineer just the same as those who want it embraced. Thing is, at least they are honest about their intentions, whereas the evangelicals try, as usual, to subvert the political process with disingenious hypocrisy as if they are really concerned about protecting the rights of parents, rather than their "right" to force everyone else to pay service to their antiquated notions of sexual morality.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

When you talk of abortion rates in the UK rising, to what "rate" are you referring? Do you mean the total number of abortions performed (either the raw number or per capita) or the percentage of unwanted pregnancies that are ended in abortion? They're not the same thing, and the context of your posts doesn't make it clear which rate you mean.

• Teen pregnancies in the last 10 years up to 2006 have seen a fall from-8,900 to 7,800.
• But at the same time out of these pregnancies, an increased number of the same ended in abortions with the rates rising to 60 percent from the earlier 49%.
• Maximum abortion rates are seen in the age group of 20-24, with teens and late twenties not far behind. However the rate slumps down sharply after 30.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As I said in an earlier post, the total number of abortions being performed in Canada is going down, but the percentage of teenage pregnancies that are terminated is going up. If you want to put abortion clinics out of business, the best way to do it is to eliminate the demand for that service by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. And the best way to do that is to provide comprehensive sex education that teaches how to acquire and properly use contraceptives.

How about teaching them about contraceptives and STDs at home. The State could provide the current information to parents with recommended talking points. I'm not against the information as much as the delivery. Abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation all have moral implications within our society. It is naive to think the state can deliver the facts on these things without influencing the child's moral view of these acts. It is my contention that it is the parents privilege and obligation to teach their offspring their values; Not the states.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by jammies

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23782717/

Your definition of "no evidence" and mine must conflict at some deep, incompatible level. If you said "there is no evidence that abstinence-only sexual education curbs pregnancies", then you might have a case.

Your survey sample size was very small. 1719 Teens in all. Only 390 teens were taught abstinence alone. Only 168 with no sex ed at all. 111 teens who were taught birth control were excluded because supposedly there education didn't include abstinence education. 18 teens who had either gotten pregnant or said they used birth control the last time they had sex were excluded because they also reported they never had had vaginal sex. 318 homosexuals were excluded even though most sex ed includes homosexual practices and risks.

Bottom line: The survey sample is too small to say much definitively. I question the exclusion of the 111. On a survey this small a handful of teens could drastically change the outcome. I doubt this would have even been published if it wasn't such a politically charged issue.

[WesternCanadaKing]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

• Teen pregnancies in the last 10 years up to 2006 have seen a fall from-8,900 to 7,800.
• But at the same time out of these pregnancies, an increased number of the same ended in abortions with the rates rising to 60 percent from the earlier 49%.
• Maximum abortion rates are seen in the age group of 20-24, with teens and late twenties not far behind. However the rate slumps down sharply after 30.



How about teaching them about contraceptives and STDs at home. The State could provide the current information to parents with recommended talking points. I'm not against the information as much as the delivery. Abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation all have moral implications within our society. It is naive to think the state can deliver the facts on these things without influencing the child's moral view of these acts. It is my contention that it is the parents privilege and obligation to teach their offspring their values; Not the states.

Because parents have all the facts and the same knowledge as someone who makes it their living to know it, right? The amount of misinformation and BS that would start circulating because of this would be astronomical.

Abstinence-only education is ridiculous. I went through it back in grade 8 in Las Vegas. They told us that condoms only work 70% of the time. That any birth control will only work 80% of the time AT BEST. If you have sex you'll get STDs and have children and lose your future. I remember them saying that if you're abstinent until marriage, it'll be like giving your spouse a new 'shoe' thats never been worn before. But the American education system is basically just spoonfeeding complete garbage (grade 7 history, the French waited until they knew the Americans were going to win before they decided to help!)

In contrast to that, the sex ed I got here was really informative. We had a woman come in from some teen sex place in Calgary, and she answered questions truthfully. And thats the way it should be, just straight up what the facts are, nothing else.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...I'm not against the information as much as the delivery. Abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation all have moral implications within our society. It is naive to think the state can deliver the facts on these things without influencing the child's moral view of these acts. It is my contention that it is the parents privilege and obligation to teach their offspring their values; Not the states.

Originally Posted by WesternCanadaKing

...the sex ed I got here was really informative. We had a woman come in from some teen sex place in Calgary, and she answered questions truthfully. And thats the way it should be, just straight up what the facts are, nothing else.

I have to say, that that was my experience as well. I grew up as an evangelical—and still consider myself one on some level—and I went to public school in Calgary all the way through Grade 12. In the Canadian hot-bed of conservative politics and values my experience with sex education was that it was balanced, non-threatening, and informative. I was taught abstinence in the same context (and this was a message that I had already been immersed in since pre-pubescense), but it was never presented as the ONLY viable sexual choice. My experience was that the presentation was most certainly not value laden and laced with strong "moral implications". My views and those of my parents were respected, but it was understood that those views were not shared by all of my classmates.

Years later, now that I am a grown adult with children of my own, I only hope that the public school system here will pay my kids the same courtesy that the CBE did for me and my family in the eighties: to ensure that they are well informed. In an ideal world, I would love to be in a position to present my kids with all the facts, and I would consider it as a priviledge. I will do what I can to educate them at home, but I am simply not well equipped enough to talk honestly and factually about birth control, abortion, and homosexuality (I remain unconvinced that there are any moral implications to masturbation). If my kids have access to those with a better handle on the information than I do, would it not be morally reprehensible for me to deny them that?

[Thor]

Abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation all have moral implications within our Religion

Fixed.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Bottom line: The survey sample is too small to say much definitively. I question the exclusion of the 111. On a survey this small a handful of teens could drastically change the outcome. I doubt this would have even been published if it wasn't such a politically charged issue.

And you are basing this on what? Your extensive training as a statistician and a scientist? Thing is, you said "no evidence", and whether or not you can raise some (in my opinion spurious) objections to the methodology of this study is irrelevant - this is evidence, although the question of whether it is irrefutable evidence is another matter entirely.

It appears that you are deliberately excluding data that tells you something you don't want to hear. I purposely chose this particular example by guessing (correctly) how you would respond to it - since it cannot be explained, it must be denied. Why not start from the premise that you *might* be wrong and evaluate the issue on that basis, instead of assuming you already know the truth and anything that doesn't conform to it must, therefore, be false?

I actually found quite a few links which were interesting when I went to research the subject, including one that linked an INCREASE of STDs to sex education, which is definitely a point against it, and another article that mentioned a study in Britain where teens were encouraged to stop at oral sex rather than full intercourse as being effective in reducing teen pregnancy, which is ambiguous in its implications. However, the one thing I DIDN'T do was immediately dismiss every study that didn't tend to support my point of view - but it was still pretty clear that the weight of evidence was on the side of sex education being an effective method to reduce teen pregnancy, and also that it was unlikely to increase the level of teen sexual activity. There was very little to support the opposite position.

Lastly, I notice you didn't address the question of why it is OK to teach abstinence in schools, when that is also clearly a moral issue. Do you or do you not believe the State has no business teaching morality? Or are you fine with it as long as it coincides with your morality?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

"But these voters say views on abortion and homosexuality won't define them in November. The environment and social justice are moving to the forefront of their discussions."

I think CNN is out to lunch if they think abortion is going to cease being a dominate issue. Sounds like a bit of spin in the hope that by reporting it it will somehow happen. Evangelicals aren't thrilled with having McCain as the Republican Candidate and you will see a few stay home. You've already seen a huge drop in republican donations. Others will go libertarian but, most will vote McCain to keep out Obama because of the abortion issue.

Perhaps this is actually because more young voters who also define themselves as Christian, also have more liberal views than older voters who also defince themselves as Christian? Perhaps they recognize that these issues, while they'll never truely go away, are none of their business and focus more on the "judge not lest ye be judged" portion of Christ's teachings? And perhaps they also realize that these issues are best decided in the privacy of the home rather than in a public arena? I'm just saying...

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I think anyone who makes abortion a primary voting issue of theirs has an exreme misunderstanding of what the most important issues facing the US are. I'm no fan of abortion as a personal stance, but I don't think I have any business telling someone else what they can and can't do. We have to stop legislating morality and start voting on issues that matter to everyone.

I don't think abortion, given its state in this country, should ever be a primary voting issue.

I think perhaps you're on to something and maybe young Christians also realize this? There are more important issues in the world for governments to get involved in.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Please inform Planned Parenthood and the ACLU that the war is over. They can close up shop and go home. Also please inform Congress that they need not stall and stop free votes when President Bush nominates someone to the courts.

This fight will never be over. Human lives are never a wasted effort.

But maybe the fight needs to take a smaller stage? Who is the President of the United States to any young female citizen of the United States that he should be able to tell her under what circumstances alone should she be able to abort? Whether or not another person kills their unborn child is (or should be) of minor consequence to you! I'm telling you this as a fellow Christian... it's not our place to judge! It's not the governments, either!

Conservative Christians have a big problem with the government(or their agents) teaching moral values and moral norms to their children. They see that as a prerogative of the parents. If sex education could be taught without touching morality there would be less of a problem. That won't happen. At the very least the instructor will communicate their moral views to the students.

Then they have a right as a citizen to put them in a different school. These are the choices we make. And you know what, it's not like Sex Ed sneaks up on parents in school... if they wanted to talk to their children about sex, they have every opportunity to do so before the school does. I'm positive schools give out notices of when sex ed starts in school... I had to give my parents one. So perhaps they should stop deflecting blame, and start doing the parenting themselves? Just a thought.

There is no evidence that sexual education curbs pregnancies. There is much evidence that abortion rates go up though.

This has been discussed, however I thought I'd hint on it as well... How much of that is that it's just the abortions done in clinics of some sort are going up? That doesn't tell me whether closet abortions are going up as well, because if they're going down, then aren't we just evening out?

Anyway, as usual you have derailed another thread, CB... This particular thread is about how young christians aren't voting republican. It may or may not have anything to do with their feelings on abortion, there's only one story out right now. However, it probably boosts Obama's numbers, hearing something like this.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by jammies

And you are basing this on what? Your extensive training as a statistician and a scientist? Thing is, you said "no evidence", and whether or not you can raise some (in my opinion spurious) objections to the methodology of this study is irrelevant - this is evidence, although the question of whether it is irrefutable evidence is another matter entirely.

Ok I concede: This is evidence. I'm not a trained statistician but, I do think it is easy to see the flaws in the survey. 390 kids were surveyed who were taught abstinence only in a country of 300 million people. I don't know how many teens there are in that number but, the survey was obviously quite small. The 111 teens that were excluded was bothersome as well. Why not include them? They were taught contraception. Your well enough aware politically to know that both sides are good at creating statistics to bolster there positions. It always pays to take a skeptical look at what they come up with.

Originally Posted by jammies

I actually found quite a few links which were interesting when I went to research the subject, including one that linked an INCREASE of STDs to sex education, which is definitely a point against it, and another article that mentioned a study in Britain where teens were encouraged to stop at oral sex rather than full intercourse as being effective in reducing teen pregnancy, which is ambiguous in its implications. However, the one thing I DIDN'T do was immediately dismiss every study that didn't tend to support my point of view - but it was still pretty clear that the weight of evidence was on the side of sex education being an effective method to reduce teen pregnancy, and also that it was unlikely to increase the level of teen sexual activity. There was very little to support the opposite position.

The question then becomes: Do you believe the side that has produced the most favorable reports or do you weigh the value of the evidence as best you can and conclude from there?

Originally Posted by jammies

Lastly, I notice you didn't address the question of why it is OK to teach abstinence in schools, when that is also clearly a moral issue. Do you or do you not believe the State has no business teaching morality? Or are you fine with it as long as it coincides with your morality?

I don't support the teaching of Sex Ed in school including the teaching of abstinence. I would like the state(or province) to provide current information to the parents with lessen plans. If questions come up that the material doesn't cover you can always ask your family doctor.

I don't buy the notion that sex is so complicated that you need a degree to teach it. Because of the evolving information on contraception and STDs current facts are a must but, beyond that the mechanics of sex doesn't change. Social issues would and should be discussed along with the facts.