Monday, May 5, 2008

If you take birth control you will get a disease or die!!!1!

Abstinence-only education? This bitch is going down.



And she's going to be in town... oh snap!

Oct. 19 -
Oct. 20
Pam Stenzel

Catholic event
Springfield, MO
Sister Jeanne Goessling SSND 417-883-3440

3 comments:

LArtsy said...

Oh she is SO going down! I've got my ass kicking boots on and ready.

wgb said...

Did you actually watch the video? It is abstinence education, but she is not primarily anti-birth control. She is anti sex outside monogamy. If you are going to complain or protest, you ought to have the arguments right.

Also have your statistics right. If her statistics are wrong, go after her. If she has her numbers right, come up with another argument. Do you think people should not know the facts about STDs?

JT said...

wgb,

Thanks for contributing. I'll do my best to keep my arguments as cogent and concise as possible.

Whether or not the video is "primarily" anti-birth control, she still is vehemently anti-birth control and it is an enormous portion of her lectures. How does the fact that she ties her (factually bankrupt) disdain for birth-control into the topic of abstinence make our taking note of it wrong?

I do think people should know the facts about STDs - I think you and I would likely be in complete agreement about that. However, I find that people like Stenzel are almost always at odds with the AMA and APA, our most prestigious medical bodies, regarding the facts of contraception and STDs.

For instance, in her book Sex Has a Price Tag, Stenzel says "Condoms aren't safe. Never have been, never will be." This is a very substantial inaccuracy, and it is a mistake that can have a very damaging effect if young people believe it. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention says that "Condom failure rate is 2 percent when used consistently and correctly, and condoms are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV and can reduce transmission risk of gonorrhea, chlamydia and other STDs."

What worries me is that it seems transparently clear that Stenzel is merely engaging in the dissemination of Catholic dogma, without a regard for what many of the facts may be in the light of science.

Generally, we are in the habit of deferring to experts who understand these subjects, especially in medicine. It's not so much that Stenzel is often in diametric opposition to these experts, but we would need an explanation for why she feels justified in doing so. "God tells me so" does not constitute such a reason.

Thanks again for the contribution.

Best,

JT