Teenage 'virginity pledges' are ineffective

what a load of crap, we were MENT to have the majority of our children die in infancy. Not to mention the number of women who were MENT to die during child birth

Do YOU want to go back to that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was sensible improvements that lowered deathrates, that was supposedly so responsible for the global "population explosion."​

Past problems, now more apparently solved, do not imply "how it was meant to be." Death is a villian ultimately conquered, in the Bible.

Who wants to have children, only to see them die? With the prospect that most babies will grow up to have still more babies of their own, that's all the more reason to enjoy having large families. More "return on investment." Even if it does tend to bring dramatic population increase, for a few small-minded secular worrywarts to worry about.

Ever hear, "The more the merrier?" Human families are often meant to be large. Death is terribly inefficient, but a chief cornerstone of the false religion of evolution.

Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, God commanded humans. Wouldn't that mean to let human numbers then accumulate? I don't think it's so much an obvious endgoal, as a process, as in fill the earth "fuller and fuller" with humans, for as long as God allows us to enjoy that wondrous ability. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more, a lot more. Even life in a highrise with a view of other highrises, also full of people, can't be all that bad. It was part of "the futuristic look," as envisioned in the cartoon, The Jetsons.

At my Church, it seems like there's always somebody who's just had a baby.

"Our baby population is growing by leaps and bounds, with no end in sight." I spied in our Church bulletin

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ah yes, the bible.

Thanks for bringing it up, you do realise that the bible ITSELF is unnatural?
Ie, there is not one other species on earth that can read\write with the possable exception of chimps who can be TAUGHT. There for writing is unnatural, and there for the bible is unnatural

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even growing huge cities are "natural" in a profound sense, if they serve to better support the natural increase of humanity.​

Just like how there must be a purpose for that which populates the planet being extremely pleasurable, there must also be a purpose for intelligence.

God gave humans intelligence, to put it to some good use, such as worship God, learning to read and write, spreading information, building cultures and civilization, and of course, more easily enlarging our numbers.

Natural increase, what could be a more natural use of intelligence?

 

MENT to? Women were MENT to die during child birth?! That sounds a lot like old Catholic church doctrine. Punishment for the original sin.

 

The "huge" world population size, was inevitable to happen. God's chosen destiny for humans.​

What people were actually meant to do, is naturally increase. Probably why it has long been called, natural increase. It was normal, natural, to-be-expected.

Mothers had babies, then they had more babies.

Of course large families were well and good, before all the socialist taxes, what family couldn't use a few more "farmhands" or a few more boys to chop all the firewood needed for winter?

And for the poor, large families of course help make life less dreary.

I believe more respecting the natural flow of human life, encouraging more naturally growing large families, would be among the best ways we could get slightly more "back to nature," even within the populous world sometimes-overcrowded big cities.

 

there will still be overpopulation. must be half the population of the world does not use condoms and tbh, that is a lot of non-biodgradeable condoms being flushed. a woman can only have so many abortions (i think it is around 2 to 4) before she can no longer have children. still the world will get overpopulated anyway because most of women, most likely, dont get abrotions either.

i still think it is mainly the woman to choose. female contraception is kind of unfair to have the female medicated and then there is medication being flushed. so many issues but one size does not fit all.

if you say, drought or hunger is killing children you have to remember that in those situations they would not normally get abortions or female contraceptives. then people will say you are population shaping as well.

 

would be nice to discuss this without the feigning feminism and pseudo feminism because this should be discussed maturely.

and frankly, asguard treats women like a new toy truck.

 

Didn't the Bible say something about a great falling away, before the endtimes?​

Looking at some of our sad statistics, is our "modern" age really doing so much better, than the Dark Ages?

How about we take the guard rails off bridges, so that people can have a choice? No, that's not responsible parenthood. Why would good parents invite their children to go out and fornicate like the pagan world? Hope for the best? That's a strategy? Even praying for the best, likely would work better than that "strategy."

And how is a whole abstinence-only movement, judged by some narrow virginity cult, of which most of the people commenting around here, probably know little or nothing of?

How is pushing promiscuous sex upon them, any better for them?

Younger marriage is for some teenagers, probably not all teenagers. How many times must I clarify this? Some likely are ready enough. Or shall we start beating up, upon every country and culture that still has many teenage marriages, because they supposedly are not as Western-conceit sophisticated as we think ourselves to be?

We already have a ridiculous divorce rate, from our rebellious "Free Love" 1960s. Wasn't that about when "the pill" came out, and so immoral sex supposedly didn't matter anymore? Doesn't look to me, like what we are doing, is working so well. And yet people mock at what apparently, used to work better?

Funny our ancestors didn't seem to know that either. Why, we are just so smart! Not. Did you really think I hadn't heard the "baby every year" myth? Sure, a few people are that fertile, but some of them seem to like having so many children, such as the Duggars. Aren't they on their 18th child at last count? Most normal people do tend to take a year or two or more to get pregnant, and don't maintain peak fertility until the day of menopause. Doesn't it occur to people, that quite many people simply don't like to use "birth control?"

And so Marxist dictators have nothing to do with hunger in Africa? That that dictator maniac Muggabe, having seized white people's farms, driving out business, leaving them in the hands of incompetents, has nothing to do with their economy falling apart?

So what are you saying? That anybody into virginity anymore, is just a bunch of backwater hillbilly retards, who don't know what virginity means anyhow? Nobody of any intelligence, would bother trying to tame their carnal passions, and direct them appropriate towards commitment and marriage?

First of all, any claim that virginity is ineffective, sounds right off like a Planned Parenthood publicity stunt, as they don't believe in morality anyway. Second, I would be curious, if it's having problems, where is it working better, and why. Now if you don't share my concerns, perhaps you are looking for excuses for maintaining the sinful status quo rather than actual reasons?

Why live in the real world, when it's so depressing? Why not live in a video game?

Leave it to Beaver? Ha! It's a long time ago I remember getting that TV show, that is, in the real world.

Are you reading out of some "Safer Sex" playbook? How about "never once thought to teacfh her about moral chastity, about how to modesty dress, and how to watch out for bad boys seeking their own selfish jollies." Condoms don't make such activities safe, nor okay.

Education has become a proganda tool of the Left, and what do they really teach in school anymore towards being a good Stay-At-Home Mom? Do they still have cooking and home economics classes, or whatever classes they would be?

I think most people have more of an idea than that. It's more a matter of giving in to temptation, weak families, not giving much consideration of one's future.

What I said was there's room in society for more teenage pregnancies. Now where did you get unmarried 13-year old out of that? I was thinking more like married 16 or 18-year-olds. And as to "room" I mean like it's a big country, we could easily take the additional population growth.

Children having children. Sounds like Planned Parenthood propaganda. I am not trying to reduce the number of births, I want for their to be formed more commited stable families to raise all the children that are or are soon to result.

That is among the acceptable options. Are you trying to make things difficult by reducing people's options? That doesn't mean that my children will want to marry as teenagers. But if they were to ask me, I would fairly consider it. Why not, in such a supposedly "open" society where almost anything imaginable, seems to go?

Self-control is a virtue. And whatever happened to chaperones anyway? And not staying out all night, getting drunk, inviting temptation?

Why are you demeaning teenagers, as if they are not adults? Just because some Americans seem to be retarded in their maturity level, doesn't mean we all are. I was never so irresponsible growing up, as so many teenagers these days are. I was frugal, didn't smoke, didn't drink, and didn't even have a car until I was 24. I used to deliver pizza for a while, and just couldn't believe all the people out in the parking lot, drinking, on a weekend night, around college campus. Huh? Don't people like to sleep at night?

A lot of teenagers these days, have their own cars. Let's see, to take proper responsibility for a car, one must have a valid driver's license, tags, paid-up insurance, current registration, money for maintenance, money for gasoline, drive safely, know how to change a spare tire, not be yacking excessively on their cellphone or texting at all while driving, allow enough time to get there safely, avoid distraction, etc. So a teenager that can master all these things, should not be entrusted with a precious child until they are at least 45? And to think parents have been sponging off of them, trying to get some free babysitting out of them, to have a night out for themselves? /SARCASM

Are you talking of complications of pregnancy or of abortion? Still in many countries, a "girl" who reaches puberty is married by age 15 or so. It stands to reason, that the babies are going to start coming out, from many humans, at close to puberty. What is it they say, that 95% of world population growth, now comes from the developing countries, where most of the people of the world live. I don't agree with Big Pharma's rampant contraceptive pushing, so let the babies come as they come. To be fair, shouldn't it be pointed out, that many women's bodies are actually quite ready, or nearly ready to handle growing babies, from about the time that pregnancy becomes possible. Also, I suspect that the pregnancy itself, may help hasten any last-minute biological maturity issues. The body is actually rather resilient, when it comes to growing pregnancies, but here in the West, we like to make many (costly?) checks, just to be sure.

Leaking urine? I thought most all pregnant women have to urinate frequently, not that there's anything wrong with their bladder, but just that a baby that keeps pushing upon their bladder, doesn't help bladder capacity any.

Of course if you listen to all the "advice" of the "family planners," don't have babies too young, don't have babies too old, don't have babies too close together, you might just get the idea, that wouldn't they be most satisfied, if few people had any babies at all? Seems like they have a handy excuse, to cover every base.

Way back to Old Testament stuff. Gee, could that have something to do with there not being all this tax-and-spend socialist Big Brother government Social inSecurity stuff, and so women needed family or a husband to make them financially secure? I'm just not so sure of the relevance of such an old custom of whatever you seem to be referring to.

So what do you suggest? I toss my Bible out, because you find some fragment of something from long ago, that you don't understand or like?

So you are going to tell them to breed less, every time they have a drought or poor harvest? Large families should only be the exclusive priviledge of the Western contraceptive-pushing elitists, who coincidently, seem to have the most pathetic excuses not to have more children?

Did you know that food is used as a weapon in war? Did you know many governments monkey around with the economy? Did you know, that many famine victims maybe were doing okay foodwise, only a few years ago? Did you know that only people with money, can easily buy food when their crops fail? Did you know that much of the world's economies, is based upon fiat paper currency and debt, not something more stable like actual gold or silver? Did you know there are cabal conspirators, plotting against the interests of the world, and yet they already have plenty of money to meet their own needs, so why are they so greedy as to manipulate entire economies? Did you know that having fewer children, makes it easier for the elitists to play people for fools and pawns and slaves?

Of course you didn't know, or you wouldn't ask me so many ridiculous questions.

Did you know that not long ago, people believed that people live two lives, one short and painful, and one eternal and free of pain? We are in the former now. But some of the pagan secularists, have been really clever at weaving some ridiculous story, that if we would just put the right "smart" people in charge, they will just kindly solve all our problems for us, eliminate this distant memory of a "God," Big Brother government will just magically make most all serious problems go away, and we can just build some utopian world government paradise on earth and forget about heaven.

If we could solve all the serious corruption problems, have economies that don't seek to exclude most of the people from most economic activity, we would still be left with 100% of the people eventually dying (of old age if not sooner). For all our "progress," what becomes of it all? As to the question of eternity, we still need God.

You know, we might just make a little more progress towards feeding most everybody, were it even much a stated priority. But why bother, when the "magic condom" promises to solve everything? But then, when has "family planning" ever delivered upon its "promises?" It seems to make everything it touches, worse. Divorce rates, through the roof, since the magic "pill." More "planned" families only led to more abortions. Government-monopoly schools aren't even safe anymore, since they kicked God out, stopped having prayer in school, the year 1962 or 1963 I think it was.

 

Who said anyway, that the world must never have any "growing pains?"​

I read somewhere the claim of a coming global "baby blast," if the half of people using contraception, can't be increased soon to 75%. Gee, do the "family planners" just never cease their attacks upon the family? How much must they prevert God's means of procreation of the human race?

Even 1 abortion can destroy a mother's ability to get pregnant again, and isn't that awful to abort the only baby she will ever have? There are other serious, and under-reported side-effects of contraceptive methods, not to mention costs, and condoms should never be tossed down the toilet, stopping up sewer systems. The trash can is far more suitable, or better yet, don't use condoms at all, as pregnancy probably wouldn't have occurred that time, and people not married shouldn't be having sex anyhow.

Like I often say, I don't believe in population "control" of humans, there's ample places we can find or make, to put lots more people. I believe in welcoming the natural flow of human life, and if that leads to a baby blast, so much the better, as it's all the more people alive to experience life.

 

Contraceptives have not helped advance women's rights.​

Actually, isn't that a common problem with a lot of men, ever since the popularization of contraceptives? Making women to be more of men's throwaway plaything.

Adding ammunition for feminists' irrational hatred of anything to do with men, well except for anonymous sperm from some sperm bank? Nice that women still need us for something?

I wonder how many women would admit right off, that they would love to nap a man as a mate, who considers them a "keeper," and wants to have with them, "all the children God gives." 2 or 3? Don't everybody raise your hands at once? Millions? 100s of millions? Over a billion? Isn't it about time for a contraceptive backlash, of people who are fed up with the whole idea of being expected to "plan" their families?

 

heres an idea Pronatalist, stay out of my bedroom. What do you think gives you the right to tell my partner and i we cant have sex because we think your bible is a load of crap. For starters we have made a concious choice NOT to have children UNTIL WE CAN AFORD IT. Not to mention that PB has a close to zero chance of conciving without a fertility pill. Lastly the pill is used for ALOT more than contraception, for instance the one PB uses is specifically chosen to help with the symptoms of polycystic ovarian syndrome

 

It's what they want

A traditional song:

In the village of Kilgore there's a maiden young and fair.
Her eyes, they shone like diamonds, she had long and golden hair.
When the country man came riding up to her daddy's gate,
Mounted on a milk-white stallion, he came at the stroke of eight.

Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, step it out Mary if you can!
Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, show your legs to the wealthy man!

"I have come to court your daughter, Mary of the golden hair;
I have land and I have money, I have goods beyond compare.
I will buy her silk and satin and a gold ring for her hand.
I will buy her a mansion, she'll have servants to command."

Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, step it out Mary if you can!
Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, show your legs to the wealthy man!

"But, Sir, I have a soldier and I've pledged to him my hand.
I don't want your goods nor money, I won't have your house nor land."
But her father spoke up sharply, "You will do as you are told,
You'll be married on a Sunday, and you'll wear his ring of gold."

Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, step it out Mary if you can!
Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, show your legs to the wealthy man!

In the village of Kilgore there's a deep stream running by.
They found Mary there at midnight; she had drowned with soldier boy.
In the cottage there was music, you could hear her father say,
"Step it out Mary my fine daughter, you know it's the wedding day."

Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, step it out Mary if you can!
Step it out Mary, my fine daughter, show your legs to the wealthy man!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(via Boiled in Lead)​

They don't care. That is, many of the abstinence advocates don't care whether or not their methods work. They're in this for themselves, as simply as can be.

 

bells, tiassa. Why teach about abstance at all?
sure teach about what sex means to you and how sociaty views it so that people dont treat it as a hug, teach about free choice, but in the end WHEN someone choses to have sex is up to them. It should be more like the way we teach about achole consumption, ie if your going to consume everyone you can things will probably go wrong but in the end its your chose when to do it

 

one abortion maybe but i am pretty sure that 2 to 4 and you have no chance. that is what a woman told me. i respect as woman'sright to decide.

this whole debate is strange because why would people get angry if someone chooses to stay a virgin? i cannot tell people what to do and dont see why this would be an issue?

 

who is going near your bedroom?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This and that

Because the fact that abstinence-only education doesn't work does not mean there is no place for abstinence in the curriculum.

Teaching about condoms, birth control, and other devices is not a guarantee against disease or unplanned pregnancy any more than a needle exchange for junkies is a guarantee against the spread of HIV. In either case, you can generally avoid certain problems associated with such behaviors by not taking part.

The idea of abstinence has a place in sex education, but ought not be a curriculum unto itself.

• • •​

In truth, sir, I'm going to need a little more to go on before I understand your question.

 

tiassa i have to say i disagree. Giving infomation is one thing, trying to impose moral judgements is something else.

Give the adolessants the risks and the infomation to protect themselves by all means then leave the decision up to them. Put it this way, how do you think the medical proffession deals with these issues? With the exception of child abuse and in some areas where certian diseases are reportable they will give the infomation and leave the decisions up to the person.

By all means tell them why sleeping with every person you meet PROBABLY isnt a good idea but do it in a CLINICAL rather than a MORAL way.