Actually, HRS, I find suggesting that I've had a bad education and Fractelle should "have sex with many different people" far more insulting than calling an argument "twaddle". The fact remains that you insult anyone who asks you to demonstrate where you statistics come from. Again, can I ask you to refrain from insults and to prove your points.

As Robert points out, condoms are less effective in the real world than they are in theory. Comprehensive sex education classes teach this, along with the different diseases condoms protect you from, and those that they don't protect you from. But there is a corresponding difference between how effective abstinence is in theory — 100% — and how effective it is in reality.

Many studies show that abstinence-only education produces children who have sex around the same time and with the same frequency as children who have no education. That is, in the "real world", encouraging children to be abstinent doesn't affect whether they have sex AT ALL. Children who have comprehensive sex education, on the other hand, often delay having sex until they are older.

Abstinence programs have been disastrous in some African countries, like Uganda, where they're pushed up the HIV rates dramatically. See an good discussion here: http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/05/abstinence_uganda_hiv_rates_su.php

R0bert

You have just made a woman feel real good, your advice to HRS:

"You seem to think that using a condom requires extensive and regular training. Perhaps you should buy a condom and try putting one on. It's not that complex when done sober - perhaps practice with a suitably shaped piece of fruit if it seems difficult. I expect the process is more difficult when you are tanked with booze, thats probably where most of the failures occur and definately not the time to be learning. It also helps to put environmental awareness aside, don't recycle other peoples condoms or reuse your own. A new one for each sexual encounter (and I don't know the etiquet for threesomes)."

The above has given me the best laugh I've had in ages, thank you.

But there was further hilarity to be had with HRS' response:

"I don’t know what fruit has to do with it...."

Kinda says all there is to say about HRS' understanding of sexuality, knowledge of contraception and imagination.

Cheers to all for making my day.

Celivia Part 1.
You said "Pro-choicers value personal freedom and choice more than the anti-choicers do, while anti-choicers value the life of embryos more than freedom of women and don’t find it as problematic if women lose their freedom over their own body."

Every action has a reaction - positive or negetive or sometimes conflicting - such as sex. Like smoking, drugs, driving too fast, murder. Maybe a positive feel at start, maybe an adverse reaction down the track. Yes, women choose to have sex (most times), so they should take the consequences (like a baby!), not abort. As abortion ALSO has consequences of it's own (risk of breast cancer, injury, illness, future reproduction, death, psychological sequelae etc. "Abortion, Information and the Law"- Doctors Legal Safeguards group (yes this is a real document given to Doctors who perform abortions in hospitals where I live!)). And what is freedom anyway? No one has the freedom to do what they please, when they please - can you imagine the chaos if we did? Are we really looking for a society like that?

Celivia Part 2
You said "You also confuse embryos/fetuses with babies.
No ‘baby’ has ever been aborted- embryos/fetuses are. Unborn babies don’t exist; they are not babies/persons until they’ve been born.
Before about the 26th week of gestation, the foetus has no developed human brain. It’s impossible without a complete nervous system to have consciousness of anything." (actually the brain at 26 weeks is fully developed as a newborns - Dr M Stoppard). Tell me, what'll you say to those babies that are born from 21 weeks? When they're adults, will you tell them they had no right to live, think, breathe, vote, make choices, or show "personal freedom", because technically their brain wasn't/isn't developed until 26 weeks - they weren't even a human being? Sigh! I know you are not that heartless. You are after all, a person that was given a chance at life. Pity about the primary school a day that is wiped out of Australia.

Robert,
So someone has to practice using a condom before they get it right, and it takes about 10 attempts to get it right. That is high risk, and it doesn’t say much for a reliance on condoms.

“I asked 800 sex educators if they knew that a person carried the HIV virus, would they have sex depending on a condom for protection. No one raised their hand.”
http://www.iefinternational.org/ppt/06_FLE.swf?id=14,20,0,0,1,0

Rather says it all.

Many societies do not die out. Proof of that is the fact that you are here and alive. The societies that do last invariably practice marriage, which significantly reduces the number of different sexual partners that people have. That pair bonding is the natural way of reducing STD’s, and occurs in many species in the natural world. Look out your window if there are any birds that are prepared to nest near your house.

I think you are aware of the high rates of child abuse that are occurring in certain types of families. Have you ever considered the rates of STD’s, abortions and teenage pregnancies that are also occurring in those same families?

Veronika,
Having sex below the age of consent is illegal, and should remain illegal, and this law cannot be replaced by a condom.

As a part of your sex education, perhaps you should search for information on communities that have very high rates of STD’s, and then correlate this with their rates of marriage or their rates of extra-martial sex. You will find a number of such communities in Australia.

Fractelle,
So you like to talk about people and not to them?

Are you a gossip feminist?

HRS has shown that her ideals are formed by the church, and part of her belief system. As such they cannot be swayed by facts or reason.

Further discussions can only be circular.