5 ms·

It’s not, because like compliance with taking say a contraceptive pill, people don’t manage to abstain. They get caught up in the heat of the moment, or pressur

It’s not, because like compliance with taking say a contraceptive pill, people don’t manage to abstain. They get caught up in the heat of the moment, or pressured, or a thousand other things. When you compare to other methods of birth control, it’s not effective for teens.

nonethewiser 4y ago
Abstinence is a 100% effective. Note that I explicitly acknowledged that kids will have sex sometimes and think they should use condoms if they do.
- buffington 4y ago
  No one is arguing with you over you repeatedly pointing out that abstinence is 100% effective, because you're correct. It is 100% effective. Using it as an argument against providing free condoms to high schoolers is just annoying and not constructive. It's like arguing that cars don't need seatbelts by saying "we don't need seat belts, after all, not driving is a solution that's 100% effective in preventing vehicle collision injuries." True, but not even remotely useful as an argument for whether or not cars should have seatbelts.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Where did I argue against using condoms? I explicitly supported it. If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me?
    - buffington 4y ago
      I've seen two comments where you mention condoms in this thread. Perhaps there are more, but I have not seen then, nor replied to them. The relevant sentences from those two comments: > teaching abstinence as the ideal doesn’t mean you have shun condoms. Ok. > Abstinence is a 100% effective. Note that I explicitly acknowledged that kids will have sex sometimes and think they should use condoms if they do. This is the only comment I've seen where you've acknowledged that kids will have sex, and that they should you use condoms. If you've said it elsewhere in this thread, I haven't seen it. While it's true you haven't argued against condoms, it's hard to imagine you support schools providing free condoms when your response to the idea is consistently "abstinence is 100% effective." > If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me? What I am opposing is the repetition of "abstinence is 100% effective." Why is stating this important to you? Are you suggesting it as an alternative to handing out condoms? Are you suggesting that abstinence education is preferable?

nonethewiser 4y ago

Abstinence is a 100% effective. Note that I explicitly acknowledged that kids will have sex sometimes and think they should use condoms if they do.

buffington 4y ago
No one is arguing with you over you repeatedly pointing out that abstinence is 100% effective, because you're correct. It is 100% effective. Using it as an argument against providing free condoms to high schoolers is just annoying and not constructive. It's like arguing that cars don't need seatbelts by saying "we don't need seat belts, after all, not driving is a solution that's 100% effective in preventing vehicle collision injuries." True, but not even remotely useful as an argument for whether or not cars should have seatbelts.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Where did I argue against using condoms? I explicitly supported it. If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me?
  - buffington 4y ago
    I've seen two comments where you mention condoms in this thread. Perhaps there are more, but I have not seen then, nor replied to them. The relevant sentences from those two comments: > teaching abstinence as the ideal doesn’t mean you have shun condoms. Ok. > Abstinence is a 100% effective. Note that I explicitly acknowledged that kids will have sex sometimes and think they should use condoms if they do. This is the only comment I've seen where you've acknowledged that kids will have sex, and that they should you use condoms. If you've said it elsewhere in this thread, I haven't seen it. While it's true you haven't argued against condoms, it's hard to imagine you support schools providing free condoms when your response to the idea is consistently "abstinence is 100% effective." > If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me? What I am opposing is the repetition of "abstinence is 100% effective." Why is stating this important to you? Are you suggesting it as an alternative to handing out condoms? Are you suggesting that abstinence education is preferable?