Ten Arguments Against Teen Abstinence

Continued from the article 10 Arguments For Abstinence - Pros and Cons of Abstinence, Part I Ten Arguments Against Abstinence Telling teens to be abstinent isnot realistic at all said Bristol Palin, daughter of 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, in her first interview after giving birth at 18.Abstinence means different things to different people, and some forms of abstinence can still spread sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Teens who abstain from vaginal intercourse but engage in oral sex, mutual masturbation or anal sex can still be infected by STDs. Any skin-to-skin contact including genital-to-genital, hand-to-genital or mouth-to-genital can spread disease.Abstinence only works if teens stick to their pledge. But according to researcher Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Taking a pledge doesnt seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior.Over the past five years, several major studies have found that abstinence-only education has no effect in stopping or delaying sex. According to Emerging Answers 2007, commissioned by the nonpartisan N ational Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners.Teens who break their vows of abstinence are much less likely to use contraceptives than those who do not pledge abstinence. A report published in the January 2009 issue of Pediatrics found that teens who break their pledge are less likely to get tested for STDs and may have STDs for longer periods of time than teens who do not pledge abstinence.Since teens who pledge abstinence are much less likely to use contraceptives if they break their pledge, their risk of becoming pregnant is significantly greater. A sexually active teen who does not use contraception has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.The declining in the rate of teen pregnancy nationwide is now recognized as due to increased use of contraception, and not abstinence. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Recent research concluded that almost all of the decline in the pregnancy rate between 1995 and 2002 among 18–19-year-olds was attributable to increased contraceptive use. Among women aged 15-17, about one-quarter of the decline during the same period was attributable to reduced sexual activity and three-quarters to increased contraceptive use.Abstinence sends the wrong message to girls and young women. Author and womens issues advocate Jessica Valenti argues, While boys are taught that the things that make them men — good men — are universally accepted ethical ideals, women are led to believe that our moral compass lies somewhere between our legs....Virginity and chastity are reemerging as a trend in pop culture, in our schools, in the media, and even in legislation. So while young women are subject to overt sexual messages every day, theyre simultaneously being taught — by the people who are supposed to care for their personal and moral development, no less — that their only real worth is their virginity and ability to remain pure.The states with the highest teen pregnancy rates and teen birth rates in the U.S. are either states that do not mandate sex education or HIV education or stress abstinence-only as the primary method of preventing pregnancy.Teens who realize that they may engage in sexual activity take responsibility for preventing pregnancy by choosing a method of contraception in advance. For sexually experienced females age 15-19, nearly all (99%) used some form of contraception at least once during sexual intercourse. Sources:Boonstra, Heather. Advocates Call for a New Approach After the Era of Abstinence-Only’ Sex. Guttmacher Policy Review. Winter 2009, vol. 12, no. 1.Bristol Palin: Abstinence for all teens not realistic. CNN.com. 17 February 2009.Sanchez, Mitzi. Teen Pregnancy: No Contraceptive? 90% Chance Of Getting Pregnant. Huffingtonpost.com. 15 February 2012.Vilibert, Diana. Jessica Valenti Debunks the Purity Myth. MarieClaire.com. 22 April 2009.

Main Characteristics Of The Three Analytical Frameworks...

In this essay, I will outline the main characteristics of the three analytical frameworks supply chain management (SCM), global commodity chains (GCCs) and global production networks (GPNs) and assess their strengths and weaknesses. The approaches differ and share similarities in their objectives, ideas, actors, perspectives, focus and conceptual tools. Firstly, Supply Chain Management approach is characterised in its focus on comparative advantage through cost and value advantage. It can be perceived as being too prescriptive in its insistence to evaluate the firm’s activities, how they interact to identify core competency areas or sources of comparative advantage, reach a ‘make or buy’ decision, where periphery activities are to be†¦show more content†¦The framework takes into account a limited number of actors including, the firm, suppliers and customers. However, although this carries a weakness for resulting in a narrow view with limited number of actors and too much focus on the firm, its strength lies in its deep focus into the firm which has laid the foundation on how firms operate, over which the GCC and GNP approach is built such as comparative advantage and flow of value. There is repeated emphasis on ‘interdependent relationship’ and coordination between parties within supply cha ins however â€Å"the authors appear to assume that everyone knows who is a member of the supply chain. There has been little effort to identify specific supply chain members, key processes that require integration or what management must do to successfully manage the supply chain.† (Lambert, Cooper ; 2000) Another important point outlined in this framework stemming from the comparative advantage concept is the alternative to vertical integration (Porter, 2004). To be a lead firm, it is not necessary to vertically integrate and to own all resources, it is more important to strategically position the firm to internalise core activities and externalise other activities. However, It is too focused on getting to the top of the chain and does not offer any insight to firms at the bottom of the chain on how to move up. Although, there is mention of varying bargaining power of firms with coalition partners influencing how gains are

12 Angry Men by Talita E. Sigillo Free Essays

Based on the movie  «12 angry men » In the movie  «12 angry men », one can explore a variety of fallacies and generalizations. Each juror except for one comes in with a verdict of  «Guilty », but by using critical thinking the reasons to support their claim are dismissed one by one. Except for Juror number three who is the last one to change his verdict. We will write a custom essay sample on 12 Angry Men by Talita E. Sigillo or any similar topic only for you Order Now He disregards all critical reasoning and sticks to his initial claim using multiple fallacies to support it. He is clearly prejudiced towards the defendant no mater the evidence brought forward to him. Only at the end does he realize that all this time he was seeing his own son in the eyes of this boy, a son that had  «disrespected » the father. Him. Following are only some of the multiple fallacies juror number three used to support his claim. One of the very first fallacies juror number three uses is  «begging the question.  » This is when one states an opinion as though it is a well known fact. When he first enters the room he claims  «everyone knows he is guilty!! and when asked by the critical thinker to explain the reasons for his claim the juror answers:  «everything Says he is guilty » by using this reason he again is  «begging the question » and simultaneously uses  «Circular reasoning » since he restates his claim as though it is reason. Moreover when analyzing the two testimonies, the critical thinker finds ways to prove that there is a reasonable doubt in the two witnesses testimonies. Again juror number three uses more than one fallacy to claim that he has no reasonable doubt.It was brought to their attention that the woman who testified that she had seen the boy kill the father couldn’t actually see someone clearly. This claim was supported with the following reason and train of thought: The glimpse of the murder was seen through her bedroom window, the window of the moving train, across the street and through the victim’s apartment window.  «Could, who the woman saw commit the murder, be someone else »? Juror number three claimed that the  «woman testified in court » and also said  «The woman said she saw him » and finally ended with  «the woman saw it! After reasonable doubt to the testimony is applied, juror number three used the above quotes as his reasons to support his claim tha t it was the boy that the woman saw, concluding with evidence that do not follow through with his claim and thus being  «non sequitor ». Juror number three still had a valid reason to believe the boy had committed the murder since the man’s testimony was that he heard the boy shout out the phrase  «I’m going to kill you!  » to his father and that the old man who testified in court, saw the boy running down the stairs and that he heard the body fall.Through critical thought and analysing the evidence piece by piece, it was pointed out that, since the murder took place during the passing of a train, the old man could not have possibly heard the body fall and that it took him too long to cross his room and open the door for him to have seen the boy after committing the murder. Still juror number three voted guilty saying he had no reasonable doubt that  «the boy said ‘I’m going to kill you’ and he killed him » at this point he was using circular reasoning, restating his claim as a reason.It was at this point that the critical thinker decided to prove his point to juror number three, he provoked him so much to the point that he said  «I’m going to kill you!!  » to the other juror who provoked him, it was brought to his attention that a lot of them could have  «criminal tendencies » like the boy, but having them did not mean acting upon them. It was then that juror number three started loosing control. All the reasons he was using to mask the truth about why he was convicting the boy had been questioned leaving him with no logical warrants to support his claim of guilty.When questioned again  «what proof do you have that the boy is guilty?  » he answers with a  «Red Herring » that he is  «entitled to his opin ion » By the end of the movie his true premise behind the verdict of guilty was came to the surface. Juror number three had a son that had gotten in an argument with him and had stopped talking to him. This, according to the values in which the juror was raised, was disrespect and disrespect was inexcusable towards the father. It was obvious, that he prioritized respect to the father above everything else, when he said  «It doesn’t matter what his father did it’s his father and you can’t say ‘I’ll kill you’ to you father!  » This value that he prioritized along with the incident with his son was what had clouded his judgement and affected his point of view. Juror number three was therefore unable to critically look at the evidence presented since he was prejudiced towards the boy. For Juror number three the boy was guilty to begin with for disrespecting his father witch is this Jurors highest value. How to cite 12 Angry Men by Talita E. Sigillo, Papers