1/ Eliminate the hazard. - That will be interesting. What do you do - reversable vasectomies for boys at about 6 years old?
2/ Substitute with a lesser hazard. - Teach teenagers to use oral sex!
3/ Use engineering controls to reduce the hazard - Chastedy belts all round.
4/ Administrative controls such as workplace procedures - Quality sex education.
5/ Personal Protective Equipment. - Condoms

Any other suggestions? Abstenance works well for number one when it actually works but the failure rate is too high to trust it to eliminate the hazard.

If the hazard can't be removed, substituted or engineered out of existance then the last two become vital and history has made it clear that we need them.

R0bert

HRS, I didn’t appreciate the way you turned our discussion into personal insults about my education, so I’m reluctant to answer this, but you misread my last post.

The information you gave me is for health and safety for a university, and obviously inappropriate for preventing pregnancy. I’m unsure if you’re joking or not, but not only is it relevant, it is also not the proof I asked for. The information you can’t verify is:

"The US government spent 12 times more money on promoting contraception and safe-sex education than it spent on abstinence sex education, and yet the rate of teenage pregnancy increased."

"Having the father in the house is 7 times more effective than any sex education class or contraceptive ever developed for reducing teenage pregnancy..."

"The record keeping and general research being carried out into abortion is probably the worst of any medical research being carried out in Australia..."

You say that you “can provide lots of links and sources of information to answer your questions”. I don’t think you can.

Veronika: << You say that you “can provide lots of links and sources of information to answer your questions”. I don’t think you can. >>

I see that Timkins/HRS is amusing himself with yet another forum member who is erroneously taking him seriously. I agree with Veronika that he won't provide any reliable evidence to support his spurious claims, because that would spoil his pathological game.

Veronika (and others who don't know), "HRS" is a sock puppet account for former user "Timkins", who was banned from OLO some time ago for his tiresome antics. Look up "Timkins" under Users in the menu in the top left of this page and you'll see what I mean.

Robert,
I’ve seen such arguments many times in industry. If a company is focused entirely on personal protective equipment and training, its accident rate will not significantly decline. Eventually they are given improvement notices from the government.

The companies that try for something better than personal protective equipment and training will eventually achieve a greater reduction in accidents, and are less likely to receive an improvement notice.

In the case of abortion, many abortion clinics and other groups are focused entirely on condoms and sex education, where the so called sex education inevitably becomes “you can have lots of sex, and at a younger age, as long as you use a condom”.

They place no emphasis on abstinence, and condoms are not very effective at reducing abortion or STD’s, with some belief that condoms are not much more effective than using nothing at all.

A number of STD’s are now incurable, and the only medication available is morphine. The belief that someone can safely have lots of sex with different partners, as long as they use a condom, is a false and highly dangerous belief, particularly if children are brainwashed with that belief.

Veronika,
I think you should first gain some practice in searching for information yourself, and then you can ask me for further information, and I will gladly supply it.

With all the talk about “safe sex”, it becomes important to identify what is involved in risk reduction.

Search through any code of practice involving safety, and you will normally find a hierarchal list of recommended control measures to reduce risks and hazards. I have yet to see any code of practice that places training and personal protective equipment at the top of the list.

In terms of safe sex, training is sex education classes, and personal protective equipment is condoms. They occur at the bottom of the list in reliability.

HRS, I'd agree that condoms don't provide absolute protection. They can fail and if used the wrong way the risks are much higher. My impression is that quality sex education is not telling kids to have sex with lots of people and all will be well as you seem to be implying. I do think it's a load of bollocks that condoms are no better than no protection at all - please show me the links to independant research which backs up that idea.

The reality is that regardless of call for abstenance people have been having sex outside of marriage through out history. The stats I've seen on the issue suggest that cultures which teach sex education with a wide range of strategies including PPE rather than putting the primary focus on abstenance have lower rates of unplanned pregancies and lower abortion rates.

Teaching people to have genuine respect for themsleves and others, to know what their options are and allowing them to feel in control of their choices works better than promotion of body taboo's and attempts to limit options.

R0bert

HRS/Timkins

Proof is required for your claims:

"In terms of safe sex, training is sex education classes, and personal protective equipment is condoms. They occur at the bottom of the list in reliability."

Evidence?

"Having the father in the house is 7 times more effective than any sex education class or contraceptive ever developed for reducing teenage pregnancy"

Provide statistical evidence - and not from some Male supremacy site.

"Certain groups want abstinence until marriage. That is acceptable, because that is how societies were able to contain STD’s. We don’t know much about societies that practiced the opposite, because they died out so quickly"

Which societies are these that died out so quickly? Names, dates, places. Evidence of STD plague required here.

And finally your most absurd claim of all:

"While the cross is central to Christianity, abortion definitely appears to be central to feminism, and I somehow doubt that feminists really do want to see a decrease in the abortion rate."

Why would anyone want to continually have abortions? Answer, no-one does. This is as lacking in substance as it is a complete fantasy on your part.

I have no intention of responding to you at all unless you provide
IRREFUTABLE PROOF for ALL of your above claims.