Pre-Marital Abstinence

Pro states that ". .. In other words . .. refute my argument at all whatsoever. " Your argument is that this would be happening anyway, correct? Whether or not they were involved at all in purity balls? I only have one question to refute this: exactly, how do you KNOW that it would be happening anyway? Do you have PROOF of this? The argument that Pro is talking about basically says "They would be doing it anyway, with or without the peer pressure. "Unfortunately, this is all speculation. We really do have NO idea what these young women would be choosing to do with their lives, virginity, anything if it were up to them. Why? Well, they've already been pressured by their family, faith, and possibly friends into doing something that is DESIGNED for failure. But don't take my word for it. Just ask the professional researchers who conducted a study and found that it doesn't work it all. That isn't speculation. That is fact. And the facts show that abstinence just plain DOES NOT work. Therefore, I say, the conclusion can be reached that it is, in fact, detrimental. [1] Now, Pro says that "Every single person is influenced by . .. values influencing another. " Oh yes. The media. See, we ALL know that the MEDIA is SO pro-abstinence. I mean, everyone is running around with purity rings on, right? Wrong. The media is DRENCHED in sexual imagery. [2] According to this source, the media has a large part in prompting teens who are exposed to these sexual images to yes, surprisingly, have sex. Now, with good old abstinence as a teenager's guide, when they are exposed to all of this blatant sexual propaganda and those "raging hormones" Pro keeps referencing do indeed OVERPOWER their week pledges, those sex-having teens are going to be clueless about condoms and will have no idea what they are doing THANKS to said abstinence [1]. See, it goes like this: Sex-drenched media + clueless, abstinence-loving teen = pressure Pressure + clueless teen = sexual desire Sexual desire + raging hormones = sex Sex + Abstinence + sex-drenched teen = UN-protected sex Unprotected sex = child (this is a fact) Therefore, Abstinence ≠ effective birth control AND therefore, Abstinence = detrimental. And, on top of that, even if people practice abstinence, THAT doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do, just like being a total sexual junkie isn't good either. See, the whole point of my argument is not to promote going out and sleeping with everyone that comes by. No. It's just to say that everyone should have their own control over what they do, NOT be pressured into abstinence by their so called "loving family" and be set up for failure. They should have the decision on when to have sex or not, not some cheep plastic ring. Teens should be educated on the dangers and be aware of the facts, but by pressuring abstinence on their sweet little heads, it actually causes them to have MORE sex, not less. All that should happen is that they should be educated and then THEY should make the choice, not their friends, their God, or their family. This literal BABYING that abstinence is says that they have to be dependant on their family. Well, as I said before, their FATHER isn't going to be in the bedroom, their CLERGYMAN isn't going to be there, and I personally don't think God wants to watch that. Daddy isn't going to be calling out tips from the sideline, you know? And abstinence literally is somewhat of a retardant when it comes to sex because. Teens most likely will be uneducated about the dangers and, with abstinence, you will probably have sex BEFORE you were really ready. And ABSTINENCE is the thing to blame. So, I say we must not encourage sex, but let all teens make the decision themselves. NOT their faith, family, or friends. and DEFNINETLY not the failure known as abstinence. And whether you take a 'pledge or not, the only difference is you aren't wearing a ring. NONE of the before-mentioned pressures will just magically go away. They're still there. And, more likely than not, that person who is abstaining will STILL have sex, just a a pledger would [1], so really, WHAT is the difference? I personally see none since the result is the same: failed birth control method. A. K. A. , abstinence. Oh, and me saying that abstinence doesn't work at all is pretty much the truth. I source [1] as my "FALSE"method of pointing out the obvious. And yes, that does count as "Facts or evidence". And, as far as intellect is concerned, it DOES affect them if they do not know how to stay safe. THAT's how. That PROBABLY leads to another couple of teen parents. Again, this all stands from the smoke-and-mirrors birth control method that we call "Abstinence" which is really a misnomer: the only thing you are abstaining from is being safe by partaking in it, more often than not. and yes, again, this IS detrimental. But this isn't speculation, people. This is a fact. Just ask Bristol Palin! Palin, you see, who just happens to be the daughter of former Gov. Sarah Palin, vowed abstinence. So, I guess she stayed 'pure' till marriage, right? NOT exactly. She became a teen mother as SO many others that pledge abstinence [3]. And experts, according to this report, say that all these good old abstinence pledges will be abandoned WITHIN. FIVE. YEARS. Effective? No. Detrimental? Yes. Failure? Most definitely. It says Palin re-pledged to remain abstinent, but by then the damage was done: another child trying to be a mother by having faith in an unrealistic goal. And that goal was abstinence. Therefore, even if she keeps this pledge, it already failed once - who says it won't fail again? And as I said before, the damage is already done! She's only 19! And abstinence, is to blame. Then Pro goes on to speculate how abstinence is one hundred percent effective, which is actually the only BLATANT LIE here. There is a reason why people use condoms - if used properly and with other methods of birth control, it CAN be, for that couple that uses it, AS effective (actually MORE effective) than abstinence in preventing STDs and pregnancy. Oh, and you get the benefits of sex as well. There is also: Spermicide, the Pill, diaphragm, today sponge, patches, NuvaRing, etc. And these CAN be as good as abstinence IF used properly AND if you are educated. That's why they exist in the first place! Oh, and the major difference between these things and abstinence (besides they work and abstinence doesn't) is that abstinence is an idea, not a thing. These material things are what determine whether you get pregnant or contract and STD or not. There are, therefore, many levels of prevention if these things are used in unison to prevent pregnancy and STDs, where as with abstinence, you cannot both be abstinent and use a condom at the same time. It breaks the pledge if you have sex AT ALL, so if the ONE barrier falls, you are in for some trouble. Because, then, even though they won't get pregnant if they break the vow, it will still make them feel as if they are a failure (even though the only thing that fails was the idea of abstinence itself) and THAT would disappoint their family, thus making them the black sheep who broke the pledge and committed a sin, thus ripping apart their relationships and mental health! That's horrible! Especially when it's the hypocrites that put the poor kid there in the first place are the ones shunning them. And the only thing full of "LOL" here is the argument by Pro that this works in the slightest. It doesn't. Abstinence = Failure. Failure = Detrimental. Abstinence = Detrimental. Thank you! Vote CON! [1] - . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] - . http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] - . http://abcnews.go.com...