Abstinence speaker pushed religion in school, dad charges (condoms cause cancer?)

IN SHORT - CONOMS KILL

No question about that.

When does an "adult "pass their prime?

FAILURES OF THE MEMBRANE OF THE CONDOM

1) Permeability of the latex membrane for microparticles, STD agents and HIV
In 1977 D.Barlow v advanced the hypothesis of the existence of some pores in
the latex membrane of a condom in order to explain why this did not appear to protect
against non-gonococcal urethrites and genital infections with Condylomata acuminata.
This hypothesis has been revived in order to account for HIV infections acquired during
sexual intercourse "protected" by use of a condomvi.
S.G.Arnold et al. (1988) vii have examined latex gloves from four manufacturers using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray analysis. They found that all of the gloves had pits 3-15µm wide and up to 30µm deep on both interior and exterior
surfaces. Irregular particles (30-50µm) containing silicon and magnesium were embedded in the latex deeply enough to cause pits themselves.
__________

REF: -
Freeze-fractured
1 Pontifical Council for the Family, Rome. Current adress: 18 via della Traspontina, Roma, 00193, Italy.
2 English translation by D.E.Parry from the revised original article « Le "sexe sûr" et le préservatif face au défi du Sida», Medicina e Morale, n°4, 1997, pp.689-726.
2 sections of all gloves showed cavities throughout the matrix and tortuous channels
(5µm) penetrating the entire thickness of the glove.
__________
Such irregularities in latex membrane surface and structure do not seem to be encountered in condoms, at least when they are new, and have not been exposed to heat, oxygen, or ozone. However, under scanning electron microscopy, the surface of a latex condom membrane is not uniformly smooth: it appears made of smooth areas separated by puckers and dimples scattered across the specimen (viii). There are hollows and irregular projections on this surface, with irregular, dense inclusions (ix).
Although numerous pores are visible in scanning electron microscopy of natural condoms (x,) no
evidence of breaks, fissures or pores have yet been reported in the few published
transmission electron microscope studies of latex condoms (xi).
Some authorities have concluded that latex membranes of condoms, despite their nonhomogeneous structure and the irregularity of their surface, could be considered free of microscopic pores, of a size down to that of the smaller virus.
However, these results have been put in question.
First, as Rosenzweig et al.(xviii) say it, all the aboved mentioned electron microscopic studies of condoms have been "predominantly anecdotal". These later authors, in their own study of thirty samples from fifteen non-lubricated Trojan condoms, did find that a large proportion of these samples have visible surface abnormalities, with only 30% of all condoms tested completely free of detectable defects under all magnifications. 50% of the samples
revealed a surface abnormality interpreted as either cracking, melting or both.
Second, in vitro studies about the grade of impermeability of condoms membranes to microorganisms, using a condom plunged into a culture medium, are few, and limited to small sample sizes. Confidence intervals constructed around reported failure rates indicate that "true" permeability rates could be quite high, and
new data suggest that some condom do leak HIV and that leakage is not necessarily
related to whether or not they are made of late (xxix).
Moreover, experience with STDs shows the need for prudence in extrapolating results obtained in vitro to situations in (vivoxx).

Third, optimism about condoms membrane integrity has been shaken after closely controlled condoms, coming from known manufacturers, had shown a permeability to microspheres of greater size than that of HIV (6 condoms out of 69)xxi.
Carey et al.(xxii) observed the passage of polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm diameter (
HIV diameter is from 90nm to 130 nm) across 33% of the membranes of the latex
condoms which they studied (29 over 89 nonlubricated latex condoms). More recently,
Lytle et al., while criticizing the "exaggerated conditions" of the in vitro, polystyrene
3 microspheres test carried out by Carey et al., found that 2,6% (12 of 470) of the latex
condoms did allow some virus penetration, with no difference between lubricated and
nonlubricated condoms (xxiii).
It has been said that since HIV in semen is associated with white blood cells
(and, may be, also with spermatozoa) and since neither spermatozoa nor white cells
can pass through these very small hypothetic "pores" in the latex, then HIV itself cannot
pass. So these "pores", even if they do exist, could not therefore be of such
importance. But this is deceptive. In fact HIV is present in sperm in two forms:
associated with white blood cells and as free virus particles (xxiv); And C.J.Miller et al.
have demonstrated that cell-free virus preparations are capable of producing HIV
infection by the genital routexxv.

Given their size, such free viruses from semen could transit through the smallest defect of the membrane of a condom and reach, in the
organism of the sexual partnerxxvi, CD4 in Langerhans, lymphocytes and macrophages
cells. They may also potentiate indirectly the infectivity of HIV-1 in semen, regardless of
HIV-1 source (xxvii).

If we now consider the efficiency of the condom when used as a prophylactic
against STDs, we find a significant failure rate which appears roughly inversely
proportional to the size of the pathogenic agentlxvi.
N.J.Fiumaralxvii reckons that the condom, which is in theory useful against STDs,
is, in practice, inefficient. J.Pemberton et al. (1972)lxviii, while examining 2,093 STD
cases diagnosed in Belfast found a lower percentage of syphilis and gonorrhea among
condom users, but a higher proportion of non-gonococcal urethrites and idiopathic
STDs.
W.M.McCormack et al.lxix, studying a group of 140 students who were carriers of
urethral T-Mycoplasmas following sexual relations, found 14.3% colonization among
those students who always used a condom.
D.Barlow (1977)lxx, for a total of 3,543 diagnoses of gonorrhea in a six-month
period among 3300 patients, found that condom users (247) only had slightly fewer
STD cases (259) compared to non-users.
Non-specific urethrites (mainly due to
Chlamydia trachomatis and Ureaplasma urealyticum, 200nm in diameter), were found
in this series with the same frequency for both users and non-users of condoms.
Infections with Condylomata acuminata (genital warts) were more frequent (5%) among
condom users than among non-users (4.6%).
Cohen et al. (1992)lxxi, made a study in which those patients who had contracted
an STD received instruction in condom usage. In the nine months after this instruction,
19.9% of the males and 12.6% of the females returned with a fresh STD, some
returning several times. In fact, STD reinfection rate increased even among females
after this instruction.
A study made in a genitourinary clinic in London (Evans et al. 1995)lxxii showed that an increase in the use of condoms from 1982 to 1992 from 4% to 21% did not have an effect on the number of viral STDs observed during this same period. The
same authors found that increasing condom use with regular partners correlated with
decreasing incidence of gonorrhea, chlamydial infections, and trichomoniasis in women
having regular partners, but did not show that trend with non-regular partners.
Moreover, condom use was ineffective in the prevention of non-gonococcal urethritis,
candidosis, genital herpes and genital wartslxxiii.
J.M.Zenilman et al. (1995) lxxiv, studying the self-reported use of condoms, and
the occuring sexually transmitted diseases in a cohort from a high-risk population,
comprising 323 males and 275 female, found, surprisingly, that 15% of the men who
were "always" condom users had incident STDs, compared with 15.3% of the "never
users"; 25.5% of the women who were "always" users had incident STDs, compared
with 26.8% of "never" users.
This obvious lack of correspondence between the selfreported "always" condom use and an effective prevention of STDs left these authors
rather perplexed, and they questioned the quality of self-reporting. However, a recent
study of M.Shew et al.(1997)lxxv on condom use among adolescents found that selfreported
condom use was valid, at least in this sample, although consistent condom
use did not eliminate STDs (one STD for 20 respondents for one in five when no
condom was used).
K.M.Stone et al.(1986)lxxvi, in a review of statistical differences on prevention of
STDs, recommended condom use in "at risk" sexual relations, while at the same time
indicating the limits of the protection thus obtained: one simply finds "less risk" of
acquiring an urethral gonorrhea gonococcal urethrite, a urethrite from Ureaplasma
urealyticum, or other venereal diseases among condom users than among non-users.
The condom, in the cases examined by K.M.Stone, seems particularly effective against
gonococcal urethrites, while not protecting against non-gonococcal urethrites.
J.Sanchez et al.lxxvii, in a one-year survey of the prevalence and determinats of
STDs among 435 female sex workers attending the Centro antivenereo of Lima (Perú),
found that consistent condom use during the past year was associated with somewhat
decreased risk of gonorrhea and with VDRL titer>=1:4, but not with a decrease in
chlamydial infection.

This study did not show statistically significant relationship of longterm consistent condom use with antibody to either Herpes simplex virus type 2 or H.ducreyi infection.

Carcinogens present in almost all latex products
By: Noecker
Date: 7/1/2003 12:43:20 PM

It is not widely known through the regular consumer channels that the vast majority if not all latex products are manufactured in a method that adds nitrosamines to the product.

Nitrosamines are widely known to be carinogenic in nature.

The latex industry has known that there are nitrosamines present in their products, but have never warned their customers.

Additionally, there is now available methods to manufacturing latex gloves, condoms etc. that is free of nitrosamines. This process is economical and ready to be implemented.

The latex product industry has never been proactive in their research and development to protect their customers from harm.

Is there anybody that has more information on the legal consequences of such negligence? Are there any medical studies that have examined whether there is a causal relationship between the increase cases of cervical caner and the increased usage of condoms?
Has there been any other studies about links between the nitrosamines and any other type of cancer?

If anyone can assist me with answers to these questions I would greatly appreciate it.

http://www.prairielaw.com/messageboards/message.asp?channelId=31&subId=&mId=353957&mbId=64

Ping to self for later pingout.

>>Wells demanded the school give equal time to rebut the "misinformation" his son heard: that condoms lead to cancer, that birth control pills are only 20 percent effective, that sexually transmitted diseases are spread by skin contact alone, that third-trimester fetuses can be aborted, that video games lead to homicide, that human papilloma virus can be transferred through condoms and that teens can achieve "second virginity" through abstinence.<<

I don't see where there is anything inherently religious in this message ... it full of falsehoods and it's foolish to let this person speak to kids in any kind of official capacity but I don't see where the religious angle comes in... That makes it sound like you have to be religious to believe this disinformation and that is not true.

I figured I was past my prime when people started thinking I was my baby's grandmother.

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!

The Invisible Killer
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

* is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

Frequently Asked Questions About Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)

What is Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and saccharine), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.

Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.

A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.
Why haven't I heard about Dihydrogen Monoxide before?
Good question. Historically, the dangers of DHMO, for the most part, have been considered minor and manageable. While the more significant dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are currently addressed by a number of agencies including FDA, FEMA and CDC, public awareness of the real and daily dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide is lower than some think it should be.
Critics of government often cite the fact that many politicians and others in public office do not consider Dihydrogen Monoxide to be a "politically beneficial" cause to get behind, and so the public suffers from a lack of reliable information on just what DHMO is and why they should be concerned. Part of the blame lies with the public and society at large. Many do not take the time to understand Dihydrogen Monoxide, and what it means to their lives and the lives of their families.

Unfortunately, the dangers of DHMO have increased as world population has increased, a fact that the raw numbers and careful research both bear out. Now more than ever, it is important to be aware of just what the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are and how we can all reduce the risks faced by ourselves and our families.
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant,
* in nuclear power plants,
* by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
* by elite athletes to improve performance,
* in the production of Styrofoam,
* in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
* as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
* in abortion clinics,
* as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
* as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
* in cult rituals,
* by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
* by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
* by pedophiles and pornographers (for uses we'd rather not say here),
* by the clientele at a number of homosexual bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
* historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
* in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
* by the Serbian military as authorized by Slobodan Milosevic in their ethnic cleansing campaign,
* by many terrorist organizations,
* in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
* by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software SDKs,
* in animal research laboratories, and
* in pesticide production and distribution.

What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:

* as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
* in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
* in spray-on oven cleaners,
* in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
* in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
* as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
* in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
* in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
* in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
* as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.

One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.
What is the link between Dihydrogen Monoxide and school violence?
A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways.
How does Dihydrogen Monoxide toxicity affect kidney dialysis patients?
Unfortunately, DHMO overdose is not unheard of in patients undergoing dialysis treatments for kidney failure. Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose in these patients can result in congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema and hypertension. In spite of the danger of accidental overdose and the inherent toxicity of DHMO in large quantities for this group, there is a portion of the dialysis treated population that continues to use DHMO on a regular basis.
Are there groups that oppose a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide?
In spite of overwhelming evidence, there is one group in California that opposes a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. The Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is a group that believes that the dangers of DHMO have been exaggerated. Members claim that Dihydrogen Monoxide, or the less emotionally charged and more chemically accurate term they advocate for it, "Hydrogen Hydroxide," is beneficial, environmentally safe, benign and naturally occurring. They argue that efforts to ban DHMO are misguided.

Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is supported by the Scorched Earth Party, a radical and loosely-organized California-based group. Sources close to the Scorched Earth Party deny any outside funding from government, industry or pro-industry PACs.

Has the press ignored this web site and the Dihydrogen Monoxide problem?
For the most part, the press has not reported on the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide as much as some would like. Although many private individuals have put up web sites in a major grassroots effort to spread the word, major publications have not.

Recently, attention has been paid to the subject thanks to an incident in Aliso Viejo, California. This so-called Aliso Viejo Incident was widely reported in the media, although the director of DHMO.org, Dr. Tom Way, was called a "prankster." Once the Associated Press started circulating the story, it became fact, and the valuable information being provided by the DHMO.org website was deemed to be "rubbish" rather than an honest and unbiased recounting of facts about a dangerous, life-endangering chemical compound.

If you are a member of the press, you may access our online Press Kit. See the main page for access information. This resource is for members of the press only.

Is it true that using DHMO improves athletic performance?
Absolutely! With the numerous allegations of amateur and professional athletes using anabolic steroids and/or blood doping to enhance performance, virtually no attention has been paid to the performance enhancing properties of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is perhaps the sporting world's dirtiest of dirty little secrets that athletes regularly ingest large quantities of DHMO in an effort to gain a competitive edge over an opponent.

One technique commonly used by endurance athletes in sports such as distance running and cycling is to take a large amount of DHMO immediately prior to a race. This is known within racing circles to dramatically improve performance.

Sports-medicine physicians warn that ingesting too much Dihydrogen Monoxide can lead to complications and unwanted side-effects, but do acknowledge the link to improved performance. DHMO is not currently considered a banned substance, so post-race urine tests do not detect elevated or abnormal levels of DHMO.
Can using Dihydrogen Monoxide improve my sex life?
This is a popular myth, but one which is also actually supported by a number of scientific facts. Dihydrogen Monoxide plays an instrumental role in the centers of the brain associated with increased libido and orgasm. So, much as with endurance athletes, moderate intake of DHMO prior to engaging in sexual activity may enhance performance, although the same caveats apply.
What are the symptoms of accidental Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose?
You may not always recognize that you have been a victim of accidental DHMO overdose, so here are some signs and symptoms to look for. If you suspect Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose, or if you exhibit any of these symptoms, you should consult with your physician or medical practitioner. The data presented here is provided for informational purposes only, and should in no way be construed as medical advice of any sort.

Watch for these symptoms:

* Excessive sweating
* Excessive urination
* Bloated feeling
* Nausea
* Vomiting
* Electrolyte imbalance
* Hyponatremia (serum hypotonicity)
* Dangerously imbalanced levels of ECF and ICF in the blood
* Degeneration of sodium homeostasis

A recently noted medical phenomenon involves small amounts of DHMO leaking or oozing from the corners of the eyes as a direct result of causes such as foreign particulate irritation, allergic reactions including anaphylactic shock, and sometimes severe chemical depression.
What is a chemical analysis of Dihydrogen Monoxide
Recently, German analytical chemist Christoph von Bueltzingsloewen at the Universitaet Regensburg identified what may be key reasons why the dangers of DHMO are ever present. According to von Bueltzingsloewen, the chemical separation of dihydrogenoxide from the hazardous oxygendihydride is extremely difficult. The two similar compounds curiously occur in nearly equimolar distribution wherever they are found. It is not clear how the two contribute directly to the dangers inherent in Dihydrogen Monoxide, although von Bueltzingsloewen believes that a synergetic mechanism, catalyzed by traces of hydrogenhydroxide, plays a major role.
What can I do to minimize the risks?
Fortunately, there is much you can do to minimize your dangers due to Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure. First, use common sense. Whenever you are dealing with any product or food that you feel may be contaminated with DHMO, evaluate the relative danger to you and your family, and act accordingly. Keep in mind that in many instances, low-levels of Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination are not dangerous, and in fact, are virtually unavoidable. Remember, the responsibility for your safety and the safety of your family lies with you.

Second, exercise caution when there is the potential for accidental inhalation or ingestion of DHMO. If you feel uncomfortable, remove yourself from a dangerous situation. Better safe than sorry.

Third, don't panic. Although the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are very real, by exercising caution and common sense, you can rest assured knowing that you are doing everything possible to keep you and your family safe.
How can I find out more about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
We would be happy to tell you more about DHMO! Send us email, and we'll gladly attempt to keep you up-to-date on current developments in the study of Dihydrogen Monoxide, its uses and misuses.

There are a number of sites on the world wide web that contain more information on DHMO and related topics. It should be noted that we do not endorse these sites, nor do we control their content or political bias.
Links to related information
DHMO web sites

* Anti-Dihydrogen Monoxide Coalition (Ames, Iowa)
* Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (Headquarters)
* Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (Netreach)
* Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide (DHMO supporters)
* Material Safety Data Sheet

Environmental & Safety Information

* SafetyBiz.com - Safety Engineer Jay Preston, expert in safety services and accident prevention
* Clean Air Engineering - promoting environmental responsibility and economic prosperity

Back to DMRD main page

URL: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

What's wrong with promoting abstinence-only?

1. It's totally unrealistic;

2. Its supporters KNOW that it is totally unrealistic, and resort to telling outrageous lies in order to convince people of the merits of their argument, as we see in the example of the speaker in this article.

It's very realistic. People abstain from things they desire every day. Most people actually have some self-control.

The Biblical morality is the reason for self-control. the self destructiveness of something is not a faactor for many(most) youth. They think they are immortal, anyway, and these things are promised for a future that is remote, like more than a week from now. That is the same as "never."

Actually these things are not lies. Condoms if used perfectly properly have a failure rate of only 10-20% but the proper-use rate is not so great and the actual failure rate is much higher than the ideal-use rate. Latex has constituent chemicals that are FDA-rated as carcinogens. Using Liberal/Enviro calculation the resulting cancer is directly related to the amount of carcinogens present so they thus cause cancer. Using real analysis, the link between the carcinogens and the product under study would show a dose threshhold. Some STDs are, indeed, transmissible via skin contact.

The point is that the speaker twisted the information to create a deliberately misleading (and I would say false) set of conclusions.

Not only is this academically dishonest, it isn't helpful.

When I was growing they told us in school that pot was an addictive narcotic that caused all kinds of short term problems. Well kids were already smoking pot and knew the school was lying.

so lots of the kids figured the school couldn't be trusted on anything they said about drugs...so they ignored all the warnings with very negative consequences.

Well said. The link between condoms and cancer is a proven fact and even the FDA clearly admit that.

The lack of (liberal) mass media coverage in no way changes that.

A fact is a fact and does not need to be on the prime time news to be so.

Condoms kill.

ping?

Abstinence-only supporters are the most self-righteous group of puritans you could ever run across. We ought to take them and the freaks "debating" evolution in Kansas and consign them to an island somewhere.

I wonder if this is a joke (i.e. someone being sarcastic). Abstinence is the only sure way not to get STD's. Kids really aren't "ready" to make sexual decisions during the growing up years anyway. Those are adult decisions, much like we view drinking and smoking through establishing certain ages. I do happen to be a teacher, by the way.

What's wrong with promoting abstinence-only? 1. It's totally unrealistic;

It worked for my family. It just takes a little self-control.

I was a 23 year old virgin when I married a wonderful 22 year old virgin woman. For the past 34+ years we have made the CHOICE to remain faithful to each other. This required stifling the IMPULSE to do something that may have seemed very desirable at the moment. This included 2 to 3 years apart while I was on duty overseas, some of it on shore patrol in Olongapo City, the Philippines.

This reminds me of the story about the teen and his grandpa. The boy asked what his grandpa had used back then for birth control because we have all the problems today. The grandfather replied, "Wedding rings." Good for you and may you enjoy another 50 years of marriage bliss.

My parents also taught me that sex was a natural and beautiful thing but not something reserved for "serious relationships only" unless their was an engagement ring on my finger and a promise of marriage:-)

Great for you!! My parents also discouraged us from drinking, smoking, and drugs along with what you mentioned above. None of us kids have ever done any of that and have all been faithful to our spouses (and no hanky-panky before marriag either). Then again, they set the example too.

On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone compliment this principal. I hear so much negative directed towards education here that it was nice to see something somewhat positive for once. And yes, I am a teacher who just happens to love his job.

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. May God have mercy on your soul."

What you said to him was probably accurate, but the statement is meant to get a rise out of someone so we need to be careful that we don't stoop to the same level.