Reductio ad Absurdum
-- 1) a form of logical argument where a point is carried to an extreme and unlikely (but logically sequential) conclusion in order to dispute that point.
-- 2) if you are author J.K. Rowling, reductio absurdum is most likely a spell Harry Potter uses to make Lord Voldemort small and silly.
The federal government offers money to schools and other organizations that will teach "abstinence-only" sexual education. These programs "teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex." Recently, the government expanded the scope of this education beyond teenagers, and the program now includes people up to 29 years of age. ARTICLE
According to the article, this expansion came about because unmarried women in the 19-29 age group have more children than unmarried women in any other age group. A spokesperson at the Department of Health and Human Services says, "The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children.' [...] The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."
If I can digress to a COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPIC, I'm really worried about being shot one night. Kansas City is a rough town, and I may end up getting shot while minding my own business. In fact, people in my age group are more likely to be shot than anyone! It would be nice if the city would increase police presence, tell me where the bad neighborhoods are, or cut down on the factors that encourage violence, but there's really only one fool-proof way to be 100% sure I won't be shot.
We need to destroy all guns. We can't just get all the guns in Kansas City, either. Someone might get crafty and import one from somewhere far away like Topeka. So we have to destroy all guns in the world. Otherwise, there would still be a chance I would get shot.
That's why I support abstinence-only sex ed. If you tell people in nasty, clinical details about sexually-transmitted diseases, that will probably just encourage them to have sex and collect them all, like some sort of pus-filled Pokemon. Can't have that. If we tell them how and why birth control works, then we may have to explain uncomfortable things. And if you tell them about birth control methods, they may use them. That might lead to less young unmarried people having babies! Who wants that?
Because the federal program is expanding to try to cut down on the number of unmarried mothers, I suppose that means it's relatively OK for all those gay people to have sex. After all, no danger of children there! But I'd really prefer they'd be abstinent and just stick to oral sex. In 1999, 30% of a survey group of health care teachers believed that performing oral sex fell within the bounds of abstinence. And since abstinence is 100% preventative of disease (as mentioned above), I'm sure there's many other good explanations for the many reported cases of pharygeal (throat) gonorrhea among some groups "not typically thought to be sexually active." No doubt some infected pudding cups.
Most importantly, I think it's the responsibility of the government to teach people about abstinence until they turn 30. Mostly because people who have waited 29 years to have sex and who are considered "responsible adults" in the eyes of the law are the MOST likely to suddenly abandon their pledge and have impulse sex, leading to excess unmarried childbirth.
Of course, all bets are off if you're married. Then go wild with kids. That's what government assistance is for. But be careful here in Kansas. We consider ourselves guardians of the sacred adult bond that is marriage. We want only rational, mature individuals getting married. That's why in May, our legislature passed a statute that prohibits marriage of anyone under 18.
Well, unless you have a note from your parents. Then you can marry at 16 and 17. That's the limit though!
Oh, unless a judge thinks it's in your best interest. Then you can marry at 15. But 15, that's the real limit. Seriously! Marriage is for rational, mature adults of 15 or older!
-- 2) if you are author J.K. Rowling, reductio absurdum is most likely a spell Harry Potter uses to make Lord Voldemort small and silly.
The federal government offers money to schools and other organizations that will teach "abstinence-only" sexual education. These programs "teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex." Recently, the government expanded the scope of this education beyond teenagers, and the program now includes people up to 29 years of age. ARTICLE
According to the article, this expansion came about because unmarried women in the 19-29 age group have more children than unmarried women in any other age group. A spokesperson at the Department of Health and Human Services says, "The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children.' [...] The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."
If I can digress to a COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPIC, I'm really worried about being shot one night. Kansas City is a rough town, and I may end up getting shot while minding my own business. In fact, people in my age group are more likely to be shot than anyone! It would be nice if the city would increase police presence, tell me where the bad neighborhoods are, or cut down on the factors that encourage violence, but there's really only one fool-proof way to be 100% sure I won't be shot.
We need to destroy all guns. We can't just get all the guns in Kansas City, either. Someone might get crafty and import one from somewhere far away like Topeka. So we have to destroy all guns in the world. Otherwise, there would still be a chance I would get shot.
That's why I support abstinence-only sex ed. If you tell people in nasty, clinical details about sexually-transmitted diseases, that will probably just encourage them to have sex and collect them all, like some sort of pus-filled Pokemon. Can't have that. If we tell them how and why birth control works, then we may have to explain uncomfortable things. And if you tell them about birth control methods, they may use them. That might lead to less young unmarried people having babies! Who wants that?
Because the federal program is expanding to try to cut down on the number of unmarried mothers, I suppose that means it's relatively OK for all those gay people to have sex. After all, no danger of children there! But I'd really prefer they'd be abstinent and just stick to oral sex. In 1999, 30% of a survey group of health care teachers believed that performing oral sex fell within the bounds of abstinence. And since abstinence is 100% preventative of disease (as mentioned above), I'm sure there's many other good explanations for the many reported cases of pharygeal (throat) gonorrhea among some groups "not typically thought to be sexually active." No doubt some infected pudding cups.
Most importantly, I think it's the responsibility of the government to teach people about abstinence until they turn 30. Mostly because people who have waited 29 years to have sex and who are considered "responsible adults" in the eyes of the law are the MOST likely to suddenly abandon their pledge and have impulse sex, leading to excess unmarried childbirth.
Of course, all bets are off if you're married. Then go wild with kids. That's what government assistance is for. But be careful here in Kansas. We consider ourselves guardians of the sacred adult bond that is marriage. We want only rational, mature individuals getting married. That's why in May, our legislature passed a statute that prohibits marriage of anyone under 18.
Well, unless you have a note from your parents. Then you can marry at 16 and 17. That's the limit though!
Oh, unless a judge thinks it's in your best interest. Then you can marry at 15. But 15, that's the real limit. Seriously! Marriage is for rational, mature adults of 15 or older!
Perhaps also the current administration should consider some form of public assistance for possible virgin births by school aged girls and even women ages 19-29 that may occur in the future. I have a feeling if an abstinence-only sex ed curriculum becomes prevalent within the next few years, we're gonna have a lot of them.
ReplyDelete