Pre-Marital Abstinence

I. Refutations to opposing arguments 1. Since Pro accepts the definitions provided, then they should understand that the topic being debated is that and only that of abstinence pertaining to sex only. With that established, I am going to argue how the virginity pledge IS obviously harmful to the group it primarily pertains too. Now, Pro states that "If someone is choosing . .. their values. " The question I would like to raise is: whose values are actually being suited here? Is it the values of the person who's virginity is being pledged or is this really fulfilling the desire of someone else? Purity 'balls' are events where a daughter pledges her virginity to her father. They are presented as being things of celebration and innocence, for father and daughter to bond over. However, the underlying premise of the balls is that the girl has a responsibility to not only her father, but to another Father --- as in God the Father. Imposed upon them are the beliefs that their virginity is a sacred 'item' that must be preserved until marriage at all costs. But, instead of this being the responsibility of the GIRL to abstain from sex, this ball suggests that it is the FATHER'S and not the girl's responsibility. Who cares if the girl wants to have sex? As long as daddy says no sex until marriage, she cannot think for herself. Is this the DAUGTHER actually abstaining from sex or is it her father pledging his daughter's virginity for her? I believe the latter is the case in this circumstance of abstinence. Now, when the daughter goes to actually engage in the act of sex, wherever, whenever, and with whomever that may be, is her father going to be there? HOPEFULLY not. The act of sex SHOULD be a very close, personal thing between the daughter and a partner of her choosing (let's not even get into hetero or homosexuality here - as far the 'ball' is concerned, the daughter is almost the 'property' of her father until he hands her over to her husband) and her father really should have no say in the matter. So why is it, through this abstention, he chooses when she has sex when she chooses how? Therefore, it may not be through the person's choice, per-say, but the choice of someone else, thus not developing healthy decision making skills in said virginity pledger. . This is, of course, detrimental as far as mental (and personal) growth goes. [1] 2. I do concede the fact that 'barrier' methods of birth control are never 100% effective, but if used carefully and with much caution, they can be just as effective as abstinence in preventing pregnancy and STDs -- and, who says a couple must be married to be faithful and clear of STDs? IF the couple ONLY sleeps with each other, than there is no chance of either one of them contracting an STD. But, with abstinence, we would never find out if that was true. Abstinence and religion (primarily Christianity, it seems) go hand in hand, as evidenced by the entire 'purity ball' example. Now, on a completely serious note, why should this abstinence idea even be taken seriously when, in said religion, a virgin was impregnated by means other than sex -- a. k. a. the Virgin Mary. So honestly, if you are believing in Christianity, than abstinence isn't 100% effective either. And if used properly and with caution, condoms and the 'pill' can be just as effective as abstinence -- and you get the perks of sex too. It really all depends on the SOLE INDIVIDUALS mental readiness as to when they choose to have sex, not anyone else's. .. or at least that's the healthy reasoning. 3. My opponent states that her endorsement of abstinence does not equal a stance against sex ed. Unfortunately, the new 'sex ed' is steadily becoming abstinence only. Now, what are the downsides of this? Well, kids could then, understandably, figure that, since they took the pledge and aren't going to have sex until marriage, that they shouldn't even bother with birth control at all --- which, according to (. http://www.washingtonpost.com...) is primarily what happens in abstinence only education. The source says that, even though they take the pledge, said kids are still just as likely to have sex as kids who don't. Why is this detrimental? Because when the abstinence pledgers go to have sex, they know absolutely nothing about the importance of birth control. And that means an EXTREMELY, extremely, extremely likely chance of having yet another set of teen parents. And that means that their life just changed forever, no matter how they decide to deal with said predicament. Therefore, yes, that is detrimental to their overall health and does add to the category of 'increases teen pregnancies'. and all because of good 'ol abstinence. 4. Since my opponent mentions those hormones and supports the fact that they are not yet fully developed, than who's to say that the pledges are effective. Well, surprise surprise, thanks to things like said hormones and a thing called our society, abstinence pledged DON'T WORK. And since the kids have taken the pledge (as I mentioned above), then they may very well not know about birth control. .. .than the scenario mentioned before will occur. AS pro said, the raging hormones may override the good ones, and with no education of birth control OTHER than the now irrelevant abstinence, than, guess what --- as the before-mentioned source sates, a teen pregnancy will almost defiantly occur. Therefore, by taking the pledge, the pledger is then prohibiting themselves from potentially lifesaving information --- and that is information on birth control, such as condoms and the pill. As Pro has said, then the pressure may very well prove to be too much for our little abstinence-pledger, and then we will have yet another teen mother on our hands. And all thanks to abstinence! 5. Masturbation, according to abstinence's #1 sponsor, Christianity, is a sin. And according to the purity balls, some teens are reported to not even have kissed their partners till their wedding day, thus negating Pro's fifth contention entirely. 6. All of the statistics my opponent presents are exactly what I'm talking about: they SAY this, but there is still no guarantee that ALL of them won't go out and have sex. We just don't know! And when the pledges of abstinence are taken, I again say, that then they have a very limited amount of information pertaining to other methods of birth control, thus, if their will breaks EVEN one time, than we have another set of teenagers with a kid and their lives put on hold. Do you really want to take that risk with abstinence? Yes, abstinence DOES work in some cases, but then again, so do condoms and the pill. 7. Trust me, kids at my school are mocked all the time for their 'pledges', and one of the remarks constantly made is that, yes, that they (the pledgers) are taking the pledge because of their lack of social skills. .. almost because they are afraid to put themselves out there. However, according to society, in which sex is slammed into kids heads 24/7, being sexy and attractive is the cool thing to be -- i. e. . most of the female pop-stars out there today who are flamboyant with their sexuality. Or just look at music videos, let alone shows, on MTV and VH1. Sex is good, according to them. So, what do they want to be --- made fun of or 'cool'? 8. The entire premise mentioned in Pro's eight contention is based on abstinence that worked --- what if it doesn't (which is more likely the case)? Then where do they go from there? According to (. http://www.washingtonpost.com...) abstinence WON'T work. .. then you have a bigger issue over the heads of the teen couple --- a child. In conclusion, all signs point to abstinence not helping teens (since it doesn't work) and even may be, yes, detrimental to them overall. I await Pro's response! [1] - . http://www.purityball.com...