Pre-Marital Abstinence

1. In response to my contention that abstinence is in accordance with the values of many teens, Con's response was that many teenagers do not actually want to pledge abstinence, and instead they do so for the sake of other people. He proposed the example of the Purity Ball, for instance, where young girls symbolically pledge their virginity to their biological father and God the father. I'd like to make a few obvious points. First, where do young people's values come from anyway? In addition to their peers, it's usually their family and their faith who influence them. Therefore, Purity Balls represent what a young woman willingly chooses to value due to those influences. In other words, those values would exist with or without the Purity Ball. Second, you'll notice that Pro hasn't provided an example of young boys who pledge abstinence being "forced" to do so, or rather upholding the values of others. Indeed teens are capable of having their own values. Con cannot say that all teens who choose abstinence do so for the sake of others. When I was in high school, I pledged abstinence to a certain point (until I was ready) for my own sake and what I thought was best for me. Of course my decision was influenced; it is impossible to make an uninfluenced decision about anything. Anyway, extend my argument that abstinence is simply the right course of action for people who hold certain values. 2. Con states, "but if used carefully and with much caution, they [birth control methods] can be just as effective as abstinence in preventing pregnancy and STDs." I'd like to point out that this is mathematically 100% UNTRUE. Abstinence can and will only be the *ONLY* foul-proof method of birth control and protection from STDs! So, when Con writes, "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" this is completely and utterly false. There is no such thing "just as effective as abstinence." Second, Con asks why Christians would believe that abstinence cannot result in pregnancy when it supposedly happened to the virgin Mary. The answer to this is obviously that this was a miracle; it can happen again though only through divine miraculous intervention. God defies logic and thus can achieve the impossible though human statistics cannot. Finally Con argues that "It really all depends on the SOLE INDIVIDUALS mental readiness as to when they choose to have sex, not anyone else's." I completely agree with this statement. This statement made by Con supports MY case. I said that abstinence is an acceptable course of action until an individual is ready for sex. Here, Con is seemingly agreeing to this same position. 3. Con states, "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." Obviously whether or not some sex-ed courses are becoming abstinence-only has absolutely nothing to do with my position in this debate. During the Bush administration, Republicans did invest or support abstinence-only sex education. However, I am against that type of sex ed as I explained in the last round. Regardless, I still think that abstinence is the appropriate choice for some individuals and thus it is not detrimental. Another thing that doesn't make sense here is the conflicting logic Con gives about birth control. First he says that many take abstinence pledges and so they "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." Wait, wut? They are breaking their pledge, sure, but how or why does that translate to not using birth control? Just because they change their mind doesn't mean they should take the risk of unprotected sex. If Con is suggesting that teenagers use this backwards logic then I think it is quite obvious exactly why teenagers are not intelligent enough to be having sex and thus many should choose abstinence! 4. Con's 4th point is once again about a lack of knowledge from little to no sex education. As I said in the last point, I do NOT ENDORSE ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX EDUCATION. I believe sex education is important to those who have taken virginity pledges or not. My fourth point in the last round explained how and why teenagers do not have fully developed brains and rationality senses despite their raging hormones. Con's only counter to this was explaining that hormones sometimes supersede everything else. I agree. That's why sometimes taking abstinence pledges really reinforces one's values. Sometimes they don't work, admittedly, but this debate isn't about the merit of abstinence pledges -- it's about abstinence in general. Once again, teens are not fully developed and aware thus abstinence is the logical choice even if it's one that teens don't often make. 5. Con notes, "Masturbation, according to abstinence's #1 sponsor, Christianity, is a sin." To clarify, it is a sin for men according to the Bible to masturbate because the ejaculation of semen is the release of a potential sperm that could have impregnated an egg. Many theologians suspect that this was because the ancient people who wrote the Bible did not understand fertilization and actually thought that masturbation would "waste potential life." We know now that this is not the case, therefore many Christian sects acknowledge that masturbation is probably not a sin, just as people have realized eating shellfish isn't really a big deal either nor is wearing cotton and polyester at the same time or shaving your beard. Nevertheless, this applies to men only so women can still technically masturbate even according to literalists ;) And! Abstinence is not only a choice for Christian or religious individuals, negating this premise entirely. Also, Con mentions, "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." It should be noted that in no way is my point "negated entirely." I pointed out that many people choose to orgasm in other ways i.e. masturbation or heavy petting to remain abstinent but also receive sexual gratification. Con may have pointed out the OBVIOUS point of not *everyone* choosing these alternatives, but that in no way negates the many people who DO choose those alternatives. A famous example includes Jessica Simpson who remained a virgin until her marriage with Nick Lachey. However, the couple admits that they "dry humped" before marriage [1]. 6. My 6th argument gave a whole bunch of statistics about teens and sex. Con did not negate or argue against any of them. Instead, he just said that many people make uninformed decisions in choosing abstinence. I agree. However, Con also notes that this is the RIGHT CHOICE for some, which is my entire point. Abstinence is not "detrimental." It can be a useful tool and perhaps one that many more teens should consider. 7. My 7th point said, "Those who have sex at a young age may get a bad reputation, i.e. called a 'slut' - especially young women. Abstinence is a way to avoid a negative social stigma." Con's response was about how some kids are mocked and teased for their pledges. Again, kids can be very cruel and they will always find an excuse or reason to make fun of someone. However, that doesn't negate the reality that abstinence still offers many benefits and is the right choice for many people despite the reaction from their peers. 8. Con again states that many people take their abstinence pledges back and then don't know how to properly protect themselves from the risks of sex. He repeats this point over and over but I have already said I AM AGAINST ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX ED. Also, abstinence is 100% reliable for those who practice it! / Character Space [1] = Comment Section