Liberals just don't make any sense to me. I've tried. I'm surrounded by them as many family members are Liberals. They seem to be quite opionated but they lack substance. They don't go deep and it's frustrating trying to reason with them. They believe what they believe cuz they believe it to be true. When you try to get to the foundation of what they believe you find......there is no foundation. Heck, they don't even have a slab!
Lately, as in the last day or two, I've noticed the stepping up of attacks on Palin by the left. I'm not surprised. They're running scared. From what I understand Alaska is teaming with the Liberal media right now trying to get the latest dirt on Sarah. Don't they realize how foolish they look? Don't they get the more they trash her, the more they look bad?
Then there's big mouth Biden. Yep. The word on the street was it was only a matter of time before Biden opens his mouth and gets himself in trouble.
Biden is suggesting that Palin would be a better advocate for disabled children if she supported stem-cell research like he does. Is he even hinting at the fact that she might be unfit because she gave birth to a Down Syndrome baby when she didn't have to?
At a town hall meeting recently in Missouri he took a jab at Palin for opposing human embryonic stem cell research. He said:
"I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy – because there's joy to it as well – the joy and difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect," Biden said. "Well guess what, folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem-cell research?"
Well, this statement fits right in with Biden's values and morals. So no surprise there. The problem is he just doesn't get it that people like the Palin family have principles and morals they live by. They have a firm foundation on which they stand that does not sway or shift with every gust of wind. I'm sure it makes no sense to Palin to have untold numbers of children aborted in order to ensure her child was born perfect in every way.
If Sarah were told there was a cure for her unborn Down Syndrome baby by using embryonic stem cells, I'm sure she wouldn't do it. It's the same fortitude as standing up behind your pregnant teenage daughter by not advocating abortion during a very delicate time. When push comes to shove she's going to stand tall because her roots go deep. She stands by what she says and the Dems just don't understand this, because they have no substance behind their beliefs. It's all based on what's good for them at the moment. They don't mean what they say. They just say it. And it changes with the wind. They have no foundation on which to stand. They sway to and fro like those big tumbleweeds in the desert.
So here we have Biden accusing Palin of being a half-hearted pro-lifer when he's in trouble with his own Catholic Church because he advocates abortion. Biden whole heartedly supports abortion and embroyonic stem-cell research, both of which are strictly opposed by the denomination he is affiliated, showing his hypocrisy while he points a very shaky finger at Palin. He has no foundation to stand on. None. Yet he opens his mouth and speaks on his very sandy soapbox thinking he's making perfect sense.
I just don't get it.
Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.
10 years ago, I would have debated you on this, and denied the truth of your statement. After waiting 40 years to finally get republicans in power to "show us how to do it right", I am just disillusioned, and agree with you. When given the chance, republicans just showed how similar they are to democrats. Not how different.
Now Shades, let's not go to that extreme. It's not so much I think you're "out to get me" just that you are so argumentative (in not a nice way) towards me no matter what I say. I would love to have you stick around but only if you're willing to attack the issues and not the persons. I love to debate and work the issues but I really don't wish that we go after one another. Obviously you and I are on the opposite sides of the fence and we hold exact opposite views about things. So be it. We don't have to let that get the better of us.
Pretty good Ock and I do agree with you (mark this down) mostly but just have a few comments.
Regulating? How about calling it what it is? Murder. So does the government regulate when it comes to calling murder a crime? Remember government was the one who came up with Roe v Wade. It never went to the people. We never had a say on this issue as a society. The judges rules. So if anything they regulated Roe V Wade right from the bench.
Survival of the fittest?.....I have no problem with that....there is a scripture that says "if they do not work, they do not eat."
LW
I deleted your comment because I'm tired.
I'm tired of you constantly bashing my son every chance you get. He doesn't deserve your sharp, mean-spirited tongue. You don't even know him.
He's a good kid. He's a wonderful father and husband and is doing a wonderful job in serving our country as a LT in the Air Force. I think enough is enough.
I've let the things stand you have said against him in the past, even commenting on where you've got it wrong, but enough is enough. It serves no purpose only showing yourself in a bad light.
If you would like to stick with the issus and re-phrase your comment without the bashing of my son, I won't delete you.
El-D
First off I don't think there are "many" schools out there teaching abstinence only sex-ed. There are some but they are not popular. I absolutely believe they work...but when one girl gets pregnant like Palin, all the liberals start shouting out..."see it doesn't work." They don't like to discuss how many young people are walking around with STD's though. That's taboo. Let's not talk about that.
When was the last time you sat in on a sex-ed class in a local HS or gone to a health fair? Do you know they pass out condoms like candy? In fact they encourage the kids to try licking the flavored condoms that are now available. They entice these kids. Seen it done with my own eyes.
I know a teacher who teaches sex-ed in a large public school. She's a Christian and has told me the horror stories of what these kids were taught before she came on board. She HAS TO teach BC but is doing her best to discourage the kids from diving into a sexual relationship. NOT all teachers believe this. They actually encourage the kids in many ways by the way they are presenting the facts to them......"well it's going to happen because you're human and hormonal so when you feel the urge or think you're ready, make sure you go to the health clinic first."
They always say to the kids "when you're ready." Well the kids don't know what that means. What does "ready" mean? 16? 17? 18?
An abstinence program teaches it's best to wait until marriage. So even if these kids later don't abstain t until marriage they are more likely to be much older when they first engage in sexual behavior because they had always assumed sex was for after marriage as they had been taught. The rest will go on their honneymoons virgins.......it does happen still IN SPITE of the pressure to engage in sex at an earlier age today.
Most Child Pschyologists are in agreement that teens lack clear cognitive judgment. Their cognitive skills are not fully developed as young teens.
They make stupid decisions mostly based on hormones, peer pressure or emotion. They have not connected actions with consequences like an adult would. That's why we see teens engaging in all sorts of risky behaviors. That's why those programs that have the kids bringng home pseudo crying babies for a week are a good idea. Makes much more sense than handing them a condom and saying "oh well, you're going to do it anyway" so just in case you do, put this in your wallet.
We are teaching them NOT to have self control and discipline. And this will transfer to all areas of their lives.
again, you're wrong LW. I think I answered you fairly and honestly.
Keep it to the issue and leave the personal attacks behind and you'll be just fine.
This argument has gotten very interesting. Though I am Catholic, i don't really have a stance on abortion. On the one hand I think killing babies out of convenience is wrong. Lets face it, we all know this will be a main reason to use abortion regardless how some here will argue about the rape factor. I agree rape victims should have the right to chose to remove this child created out of an act they did not do by choice if they wanted to. But to abort a child just because you were too stupid (or pretended to be) to understand that sex, even with protection (BC or condoms) could still lead to a possible preganancy should actually be considered child abuse, child endangerment and people should be punished for such ignorance. I know and understand that sex is part of human nature, but to use abortion as a convenience to being unfortunate to get pregnant when you didn't want to is just disgusting.
On the other hand, I also believe that people have the right to do what they want with their bodies (yes, even drugs. Dope up and kill yourself for all I care if you that stupid). I do, however understand the purpose of the laws that prohibit things such as drug use because it could also put the lives of other people in danger.
So I am a bit torn on this issue and in the end it's not an issue that will sway me to one politician or another anyways because as much as I care about life and children, it's not an issue (to me) that affacts this nation in a political sense. Pro-life or pro-choice, to me, either way will not be the deciding factor as to making this country a better place for everyone. But that's just me. I am more concerned with the economy and our issues with countries who would love nothing more than to see this country fall to pieces so they can run free and do as they please against us.
There are many out there. And there are studies that have been done that prove that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't do any better at preventing teen sex than comprehensive sex-ed, which brings me back to my analogy about teaching a child to look both ways before crossing the street. Shouldn't you give the kids the information to hopefully help them make smarter decisions if you can?
The last time I was in a sex-ed class was when I was in high school health back in 1993-1994. I had some form of sex-ed starting when I was in 5th grade and going up to 9th. And while we didn't do that mechanical crying babies we did do flour babies and egg babies. As for condoms being handed out, again I would rather the kids have easy access to condoms so that they can use them if the need arises rather than being without and risking STDs and pregnancy.
The studies that I've read of late don't show this to be the case. In fact they say that abstinence-only programs don't do anything to prevent teens from having sex. What they do is not provide the teens that end up having sex information to help them prevent the spreading of STDs and pregnancy.
We are in agreement here. Teens make some really dumb decisions. But would you rather them have incorrect or no information on a subject so that their dumb decisions are that much more stupid, or would you rather they have some good information so that they can help prevent the spreading of disease and pregnancy? Again I go back to my analogy, when do you start teaching your child to look both ways before crossing the street? When they start walking so that by the time they are old enough they already know to look both ways, or do you wait until you deem them ready to cross the street and run the risk of them getting hit by a car if they attempt to cross before you deem it's ok?
As I have said I advocate comprehensive sex-ed which includes a lot of harping on the fact that abstinence is best, but also provides them with the education so they can make better decisions than they would without the information. I'm all for sending kids home with flour babies, or egg babies, or those mechanical crying babies. Anything to teach these kids about the consequences of their actions so that they can make better more informed decisions. Merely telling them not to have sex isn't enough.
I don't give in to threats LW. Go ahead and bash me on your thread as you've threatened to do and as you've done before. If that makes you happy so be it. I've asked you to stick to the issue here and leave the personal attacks behind.
Do what you want on your own thread.
I understand what you're saying and I also understand why you think it's best. Sounds good in theory but it doesn't work that way with the kids. That's why more and more kids are engaging in sex earlier and earlier. They see this as you advocating premarital sex. I think many parents are panicking and thinking there is no other alternative and there is. So rather than take the time with their kids they throw BC at them thinking that's the easy/best solution.
As a mom of three boys, had I brought them up with that attitude they would have seen this as permission and would not have graduated without succumbing to the "boys will be boys" expectation. Two of my boys have waited until marriage as a gift for their wife to be. I know other families with kids that have chosen abstinence.
We have challenged the kids along the way giving them things they can say during those peer pressure moments. We have seen a diff in those taught abstinence and those not taught to wait. So I know abstinence works.
As a coach, parent and Pastor's wife, I've seen the diff in how the kids who have parents who are teaching them abstinence conduct themselves sexually around the opposite sex than their counterparts. In today's culture there are very few churched kids anymore so these kids do stand out and are thought to be a bit odd. My son wore Christian Tee Shirts all during HS. He was made fun of some but they accepted him because he was very popular and athletic being the Captain of his school sports and a good student.
it really depends on who is behind the studies. There are some very impressive abstinence studies out there that show that abstinence does work. I know it does because I've seen it work in many families I'm surrounded by. I also know these same families may have a child that resists that teaching for whatever reason but their siblings stay the course. The percentage in such families is much higher than those not teaching abstence at all.
well that's not exactly how it works. We just don't wag a finger and say "don't do that." This is an ongoing process and an expectation they grow up with. It starts with them in grade school talking with them about what is appropriate and what is not with boys and girls of the opposite sex. You keep the conversation going thru the years so they understand what's at stake.
My brothers and I grew up in the 70's with the expectation that we were not to be engaging in inappropriate behaviors and we didn't. We were also watched by our parents carefully so they had a handle on our whereabouts most of the time. We all graduated from HS as virgins. So in my family that was a 100% that abstinence works.
I agree.
That's simply not true. As I have said there are numerous studies that show that neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex-ed prevent teen sex more than the other. But at least in comprehensive there is the chance that the kids involved might make more intelligent decisions since they have information to go off of. To deny them the information is like randomly pulling wired out of a time bomb, sure you might pull the right one but you may just as easy have it blow up in your face. But you do hit on a very important aspect here, the parents. The school can provide all the education in the world but at the end of the day the parents have the most influence over their children. If they choose to simply ignore the topic of sex you end up with problems. If the parents have an open dialog with their children at least the kids will know that there is someone else there to listen if they need it.
And as far as comprehensive sex ed working or not, from my recollection there was only one girl in my entire graduating class of a couple hundered kids that was pregnant. I have no idea how many kids had sex, but I know that only one was ever pregnant.
If you agree with that statement then you agree with comprehensive sex education. That's what those mock babies are part of. Comprehensive sex education isn't just handing out condoms or teaching the kids about birth control, it's teaching the kids about the consequences of having sex like STDs. At some point you need to start treating kids as intelligent human beings and provide them with the information they need to make good decisions, even when they are making bad decisions. It makes no sense to deny the kids information on a topic when that information could mean the difference between a kid having sex and coming away with an STD and/or pregnancy and a kid just having sex.
Honestly where do you expect the kids to learn about sex if not from a comprehensive sex education program? From the entertainment industry? Because that's where they will pick it up from and that source in unreliable at best, flat out wrong at worst.
Merely providing information isn't giving them permission to have sex, it is educating them so that when they do have sex (whether it's before or after marriage) they do so with some amount of intelligence to prevent spreading diseases and unintetional pregnancies.
See where the spotlight is? I resteth my caseth.
Developed a lithp?
Well if they are abstaining they're not going to get pregnant either. How many were abstaining and how many were having sex but you had no idea because they were on BC? Pregnancy isn't the only problem here. How many of these girls had STD's? How many had abortions? You would have no idea. But this is a huge problem right now. Huge. I think from an emotional and physical viewpoint an abortion or STD is far more harmful than giving birth and keeping the child at 17 or 18.
But you're assuming that kids being taught abstinence don't have any information. They do. Kids talk. My parents didn't have to tell me we could get "rubbers" at the drugstore. We knew that. They didn't have to tell me where we could get booze either. They find ways of obtaining what they need if they are so led. Teaching them abstinence doesn't mean they are without knowledge. It's setting an expectation for them higher than the culture is and giving them something to hang onto.
I have a friend who just sent her son to a very large Christian College. He recently called home and was very excited with his big news....."mom did you know that there are guys here who have dated the same girl for three years and have NOT HAD SEX?"
See he came from a large HS and was not told this. He just took for granted once you get a girlfriend then it was "normal" for the sexual behavior to commence. He had no support outside his mom because the HS and the culture all around him were telling him something totally different. He felt very liberated and encouraged with this news and his mother felt vindicated. Now this is a kid who had the full comprehensive sex-ed in HS. Talk about NOT having knowledge.
How about this to screw up your logic? My girlfriend got pregnant at 15 and kept the baby. By the time she was 19 she had two abortions after the birth of her baby. She knew the facts. Many girls going to the clinic go more than once to erase their mistake. Years later, when their cognitive brains are not so clouded by hormones they realize what they have done and many have a hard time dealing with it. Some can never have children again. There's much more at stake here than just a pregnancy.
I think you're very naive and have NOT raised teens yourself yet. Wait until this gets more personal when it's up close and personal in front when you're dealing with your own teens. You will realize that the government's sex ed classes are working against what you are teaching them at home.
How much history do you know about PP? Why are they in the schools to begin with? What has happened over the years since they kicked down the doors to our schools?
This is big business pure and simple. Many have admitted so over the years. Much money is made on account of our kids. They are not practically or quietly but very proudly and unabashedly throwing BC at our kids. These are their future customers. The BC and abortion industry is a huge business. Look at the bottom line and follow the money trail. I think you'd be very surprised.
PP knows very well that teaching comprehensive sex-ed to our kids strengthens their business. It's like waving candy in front of toddlers. They get more abortion and BC business everytime they entered a school. This has been admitted, so it's not a secret.
KFC POSTS:
Me too!
EL DUDERINO #60
I've been fighting against so-called comprehensive sex education for 15 years. The concept of institutionalizing 13 years of explicit sex instruction in grades K through 12th is asinine. immoral, child abuse and a total waste of tax money. Public sex instruction through programs designed by the state, school boards, teacher's unions, or radical ideologues invades children's natural right to privacy and strips away their natural state of innocence of chastity and modesty.
More specifically to answer your question ELDUDERINO, we can understand what is so wrong with sex ed programs from looking back to the years when there was none and comparing what is happening now in schools throughout our land. I firmly believe that the difference between then and now is becasue we were given moral and ethical standards in school. Back then, educators, parents and children all respected one another and the primary function of education was teaching of facts and subject matter. Morals and good character was taught along with reading, writing and arithmetic. Sadly, tragically, public schools have become human resource centers.
Both history and statistical evidence show that there was no horrific student violence toward other students and teachers, no police presence or video cameras requried in schools, no epidemic of students infected with venereal diseases. Then our schools weren't plagued with drug abuse, teenage promiscuity and pregnancies. The students weren't stressed out, depressed or committing suicide. Today, any objective person can only conclude that the staggeringly high numbers and instances of these pathologies in our student population are casualties of 13 years of classroom sex instruction innocuously disguised and packaged as Family life or Health Education.
This is quite possibly, the most ludicrous statement I have seen on JU. You apparently lack an objective view or an understanding of comprehensive sociological studies of adolescence. Sex education is the problem?? It may be a source of unfortunate occurences in the schools on occasion, but to be the source of all that you claimed? Give me a break. Open your eyes and take a look at the rest of this culture. Hopefully that action will help remove some of your obvious, extreme bias toward the situation of educating the youth in society today on the precautions and dangers of sexual activity.
Absolutely true...comprehensive "safe sex ed" instruction is permissive in nature and attitude...the instructors teach: do it.....1... when you are ready....2 as long as it's consentual....3...be safe doing it...3 have the BC or condom handy.
Comprehensive classroom sex instruction becomes progressively more explicit each year of schooling. Do you realize that the sex ed programs, the curriculum, the sexually explicit materials, booklets, videos, the condoms, Birth control and services are provided either by SIECUS or by a coalition of financially vested advocacy organizations such as area clinics or Planned Parenthood? The goal isn't to discourage teens from having sex, but to prevent them from having children. The strategy...teach students how, when where to acquire and use birth control including emergency contraceptives pills and abortion. This is done all too often without parental knowledge or permission. In fact, in some cases, parental involvement is seen as interference.
Abortion is discussed as an aspect of birth control however, students are never told or shown the unpleasant realities of what abortionists actually do to kill the baby and remove him from the womb. If the school doesn't have its own clinic, many state laws permits teachers, counselors, or school nurses to refer minor girls to a family planning clinic for their services including referral or even for obtaining a abortion without parental notification or permission.
Who "gains" when minor age boys and girls become sexually active and when the "safe sex" approach doesn't work? It would be Planned Parenthood and the area clinics wouldn't it? Can you see what's happening here? These very organizations who provide condoms, contraceptives and abortion, design the curriculum, issue the guidelines, have a whopper of a financial vested interest in keeping kids sexually active through so -called comprehensive sex ed.
OCK POSTS #75
I wonder OCK what you think of Ryzard Legutko opinion of liberalism? He wrote this in the Winter 2008 Issue of Modern Age.
First, liberalism has an extremely modest position in the entire history of human experience: “To put it simply: liberalism as a theory is not interesting.” Legutko notes that it is extremely difficult to think of any outstanding thinker or writer who can be characterized solely as a liberal. Great minds have always attempted to achieve wisdom by taking strong positions on ultimate questions, but “the liberal ignores those questions because he considers them either irrelevant or…dangerous.”
Second, “liberals always place themselves in a higher position than their interlocutors, and from that position they have an irresistible urge to dominate.” While claiming to want a society in which people are free to make their own decisions, “they always usurp for themselves…the role of the architectonic organizer of society; thus they always want to dominate by performing the roles of the guardians of the whole of the social system and the judges of the procedural rules within the system.”
Third, liberals confuse two distinct claims about freedom: the claim that freedom of action should not be impeded by arbitrary will, and the claim that what free people want is a liberal order. “By identifying these two beliefs [as one and the same] liberals assume that whoever wants freedom must necessarily want liberalism, and whoever wants liberalism must necessarily want freedom. Armed with this assumption liberals assess the progress of freedom by the yardstick of acceptance of their own system.”
Fourth, while preaching the superiority of pluralism, liberals actually propagate an intensely dualistic vision of the world, dividing all persons into two camps: pluralists and monists. Pluralists are liberals. Monists are “ayatollahs, Adolf Hitlers, Christian fundamentalists, Catholic integrists, Islamists, conservatives and many more.” The result is not only ideologically convenient; it also degrades thought and leads to “sweeping judgments, positive or negative, about everything in the past, present, and future.”
Fifth, fearful of potential enslavement lurking everywhere, liberals embrace all “modern ideological mystifications, which are often created in bad faith and from evidently erroneous assumptions.” Ideologies such as Communism are a good example but liberals are routinely co-opted by all who adopt their “rhetoric of liberation”. In a liberal order, every group learns “to make a convincing case that it is a victim of a particularly sinister form of discrimination.” Liberals can only encourage more of this, leading to ever greater social chaos.
Legutko concludes that, practically speaking, liberalism breeds “ideological commissars who have acquired remarkable abilities to silence their critics. For whoever disagrees with them is a potential candidate to become a new Adolf Hitler.” Indeed, if you emancipate man from God, he inevitably becomes his own worst enemy. What’s wrong with liberalism? Riszard Legutko has it exactly right.
Do you really want your childs source of sex education to be other kids or the entertainment industry? I don't know about you but I would much rather they get the correct information from reputable sources, there peers are anything but reputable. Getting information from there peers is what leads to false information like you can't get STDs from oral sex getting around.
And Abstinence is part of comprehensive sex education as well. I don't understand why you think that comprehensive sex ed doesn't encourage abstinence. If there are programs out there that ignore abstinence then they need to be stopped because abstinence needs to be highlighted as the only 100% effective method to avoid STDs and pregnancy.
This doesn't screw with my logic at all. The girl obviously wasn't taught properly. She wasn't told what the consequences of her actions would be. I'm not saying that all comprehensive sex-ed programs out there are flawless, but they're certainly better than abstinence only because at least in comprehensive they are given information that they can use to make better decisions, it doesn't mean that they will always make good decisions.
No I haven't raised any teens. But I sure as hell am going to make sure they have access to all the information they need and I sure as hell would stress the importance of abstinence to avoid STDs and pregnancy. Ultimately it doesn't matter what they are taught in schools because the parents have more influence over their children then they realize, I know that from personal experience. Also sex-ed tends to be an optional curriculum in schools that parents can opt their children out of if they disagree with the program. I know I had to bring home a permission slip every year before sex-ed started and kids who didn't have permission to take the course had to go to the library during that class time. So again the parents have more influence than they sometimes realize.
Talk about misrepresenting statistics. You know obessity has increased since sodas have been invented, maybe they are to blame for the epidemic of obessity, lets get rid of them and see what happens. Maybe it's the influx of sex into everyday life that is causing the problems you noted rather than the sex education. You the medias choice to focus on Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy vs actual news. Or maybe how pervasive sex is in our every day lives. Times have changed, you can't blame it all on comprehensive sex education. At least with sex ed the kids are given some knowledge to protect them from STDs and pregnancy. And knowledge is power.
That is just flat out wrong. Parental permission is always needed for a child to enter into any sex-ed whether it be abstinence-only or comprehensive. It has been that way at least since the late 80s when I started receiving sex-ed.
I have never heard of schools having their own abortion clinics, that is news to me. And the only way they could refer the kids to a clinic to get an abortion without parental notification is if the state law allows abortions to occur without parental notification. If the state requires notification then there is no way for the school to get around that. If you want parental notification on the books then you need to talk to your state representatives.
There is another alternative - since they are "your child", how about you? (the generic you as a parent).
That being said, most parents do not do it. As long as the program has an opt out provision, I see no problem with it. I personally do not see teaching Kindergarten students about sex, and would rather teach them myself at the appropriate time. But if parents dont care or want the school to, let them.
Finally a voice of reason. I too wouldn't agree with Kindergarders getting sex-ed, but by 5th grade I wouldn't have a problem with it (that's when I started to get it). The bottom line is that too many parents are either unwilling or afraid to talk to their kids about sex which leaves the education up to the public schools. You are more than welcome to opt your child out of the program if you disagree with it, but please do something to educate your children in those cases. Ignoring an issue doesn't make it go away.
who is advocating ignoring anything? I'm not. Luls's not.
Teaching your child abstinence is NOT ignoring any issue. It's an alternative to the sexualization of our kids.
You cannot hand condoms out to kids in sex-ed and tell them at the same time "not to do it" with a straight face.
I pulled my kids out of the program because they were "encouraging" the kids to have sex. Yes. That's what I call it.
One of my friends who had older children first warned me about it. She had daughters and sat down with her eldest daughter before she entered HS. She told the daughter what she would see and encounter when it came to the permissive attitude regarding sex in the HS. She taught her daughter not to follow the crowd and told her the benefits of waiting. She also told her once she crossed that line she could never go back and encouraged her to wait until her wedding as the best gift she could give her future husband.
This daughter had a close knit group of girlfriends. One by one, she watched them "fall" into the net of expectation that all kids in HS have sex. She saw them go from guy to guy. Once they crossed that line....it's a "so what" attitude. This girl, wo was taught abstinence, was the only virgin in her group of girlfriends when they marched at graduation. She remained that way until she married after dating the same boy for four years.
Abstinence does work. It's NOT 100% effective anymore than any other form of BC or sex ed program....but it does work. The more kids who are taught the benefits of abstience the more kids will have support to wait at the very least until they are much older and in a committed relationship. Kids tend to follow other kids. If they have some good role models to listen to they may also make that decison to wait. But when these role models do come about professionally as some have done in the past, they are mocked and ridiculed something fierce.
They are NOT given the tools for waiting in comprehensive sex-ed. They are given BC and a green light. Abstience is nothing more than an afterthought if it EVEN gets mentioned at all. Usually it's "when you're ready, do this."
I never said that you or LuLu were ignoring the issue. I was making a general plea that if you (as in the general you meaning everyone) opt your (again the general your) child out of sex ed please do something to educate your child about sex whether it be abstinence or comprehensive. I may disagree with what method you may choose to educate your child with, but if you are doing it at home then you can do whatever you want.
Yes you can. You can say something along the lines of: "I hope you never have to use these until you're married but if you do choose to have sex before marriage please use a condom."
I have the utmost respect for that approach. The problem is that too many parents choose to ignore the topic of sex altogether and leave their kids to fend for themselves. If those kids are then opted out of the sex ed in schools then they have nowhere else to turn but to extremely unreliable sources and problems occur. I would much prefer that sex ed wasn't needed in schools, but until ALL parents are willing to talk to their kids about sex it will be needed.
And that should be the cornerstone of any sex ed class. Comprehensive sex ed should teach the kids that abstinence is the best practice, but for a school to ignore teaching kids about proper use of birth control methods is irresponsible in my mind. My sister ended up with abstinence-only education (I don't know why my school district changed it's tune by the time she got to sex ed but they did) and when she was in college she ended up sharing birth control pills with her roommate and they both thought they were protected against pregnancy. Luckily when I found out about this I was able to inform her correctly before anything happened.
At least from the comprehensive sex ed programs that I've heard about this is simply NOT true. They are informed that abstinence is extremely important, and if there is a so-called comprehensive sex ed class that doesn't encourage absistenence then it is not truly comprehensive in my mind and should be discontinued in favor of one that does encourage abstienence. I completely disagree that offering students access to birth control gives them a green light to having sex. I think that is a point that you and I will never agree on (add it to the list).
I suspect I am older than you - Mine did not start until the 7th grade. And yea, by then I had gone through puberty and had some BAD misconceptions (I was raised by my mother and no she did not talk to me about it). 5th Grade (or even 4th for some) is not too young to start with the basics, but I made sure my children knew. IN our state, they would send home the curriculm, and we could review it. So we read it and then educated our own on it, and had them get some extra recess (actually Library) time. But I did not see any problems with it here (but then that started about 17 years ago for us - and ended about 8 years ago when I sat my youngest down - but he had most of the facts from his siblings by then).
I agree. One, if not the main, reason why is because there is a war going on between the two factions. The contraceptive "safe sex" ed lobby made up of organizations like the NEA, SIECUS, Alan Guttmacher, and Planned Parenthood fight tooth and nail against sharing tax payer money which would fund abstinence only education programs.
EL DUDERINO POSTS:
The only fact that the comprehensive sex ed side can rightly claim can be taken from a direct quote from Donna Leiberman, NY head of CLU reproductive rights effort, who over 10 years ago, admitted in a debate, "Every scientific study of sex education programs that has ever been done shows that the only effect of sex education is increased use of contraceptives among teengagers."
EL-D,
The studies are out there....
One of the largest and most comprehensive studies of teen sex education was conducted by Dr. Stan Weed of the Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City. It shows why abstinence is the most successful method of preventing physical and emotional complications resulting from pre-marital sexual activity.http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061304.html
Last April, the Heritage Foundation also released a detailed on Abstinence education saying it's "crucial to the physical and psycho-emotional well-being of the nation's youth,".
The report, "Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence", examined 21 studies of abstinence education programs, and concludes that statistics show that abstinence programs are effective in deterring teens from becoming sexually active, thereby reducing the risk of STDs, teen pregnancy, etc.
The Heritage Foundation authors, Christin C. Kim and Robert Rector, demonstrate that a majority of abstinence programs have reported a statistically significant decrease in levels of sexual activity for students who participate in them.
Of 15 sex-ed programs that primarily taught abstinence, 11 reported positive findings, while of 6 "virginity pledge" programs, 5 reported positive findings.
One abstinence program, Reasons of the Heart, reported that only 9.2 percent of virgins who went through the program were sexually active a year later, compared with 16.4 percent of those virginal teens who didn't go through the program.
Another program, called Heritage Keepers, reported, "One year after the program, 14.5 percent of Heritage Keepers students had become sexually active compared with 26.5 percent of the comparison group," making students from the abstinence program about half as likely to become sexually active as those not in the program.
A third program, Best Friends, found that "Best Friends girls were nearly 6.5 times more likely to abstain from sexual activity" than those not in the program. It was also found out, "They were 2.4 times more likely to abstain from smoking, 8.1 times more likely to abstain from illegal drug use, and 1.9 times more likely to abstain from alcohol."
Abstinence programs, observes the report, are admirable in that they are not only about sexual behavior, but "also provide youths with valuable life and decision-making skills that lay the foundation for personal responsibility and developing healthy relationships and marriages later in life."
The report complains that while an enormous amount of effort is being put into teaching "comprehensive" sexual education, very little effort is put into teaching abstinence. "Today's young people face strong peer pressure to engage in risky behavior and must navigate media and popular culture that endorse and even glamorize permissiveness and casual sex," write Kim and Rector. "Alarmingly, the government implicitly supports these messages by spending over $1 billion each year promoting contraception and safe-sex education - 12 times what it spends on abstinence education."
Instead, says the report, "In the classroom, the prevailing mentality often condones teen sexual activity as long as youths use contraceptives. Abstinence is usually mentioned only in passing, if at all."
The Heritage Foundation's report concludes urging that, "When considering federal funding for abstinence education programs and reauthorization of Title V abstinence education programs, including maintaining the current definition of 'abstinence education,' lawmakers should consider all of the available empirical evidence."
To read the Heritage Foundation report, see:http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1897.cfm
Classroom sex ed programs really got underway in 1970 right after Congress passed its Title X funding program. They were established under the general Health curriculum. It wasn't long after that Alan Guttmacher told supporters that in order to achieve "the perfect contracepting society" Planned Parenthood in addition to offering contraceptive products, would have to establish "contraceptive education for all youth so that at the approprieate time in thier lives contraception will be accepted as naturally as breathing." Then came Roe v Wade in 1973. And thus a whole new ball game as far as sex ed was concerned...general health education became "reproductive health education" and all the sex educaiton programs are nothing other than marketing programs designed to sell sex to kids. Granted they aren't in all schools across the nation, but they are working on it.
Guttmacher told the Washington Star newspaper, "Then how can the Supreme Court decision be absloutely secured? The answer to winning the battle for elective abortion once and for all is sex education." And there it is...straight from the horse's mouth, sex ed is all about selling birth control products to children and indoctrinating them that when it doesn't work, abortion does.
If abstinence is only mentioned in passing then it is my opinion that it is NOT a comprehensive sex-ed class. My feeling on the subject is that comprehensive sex-ed should stress the importance of abstinence while educating the students on the proper use of contraceptives, STDs, pregnancy, etc. Abstinence is a vitale part of any sex-ed class and needs to be stressed, if it isn't then it the class is worthless.
I honestly don't care about the rate of teen sex as much as I do about the rate of the spread of STDs and teen pregnancy. As you cite early the comprehensive sex-ed classes do increase the use of contraceptives which is extremely important. If students coming out of abstinence only programs don't know how to use contraceptives properly than those that are sexually active are more likely than comprehensive sex-ed students to spread STDs and get pregnant. And isn't the entire point of sex-ed to decrease the rate of spreading STDs and teen pregnancy?
now here we have common ground El-D. But I don't think you understand where we're coming from. Lula and I have had teens go thru HS. We know what they're teaching and abstinence is NOT hardly mentioned at all. I think partly because now there seems to be an invisible line drawn that says that you have to be on one side or the other.
Because of the either not mentioned or hardly mentioned abstinence in the sex-ed programs across the country, parents like me were/are taking their kids out of the program altogether.
I've already covered this when I said there are those girls who think they're safe with the pill and then have sex with whomever making themselves very vulnerable to STD's. Kids tend to be very gullible and have a hard time thinking they would be contracting anything like an STD from a nice kid they met in class or maybe knew their whole lives. They never think it'll happen to them.
Basically anyone who is sexually active especially with mulitple partners is at a higher risk for an STD. A kid taught abstinence is much more likely to wait longer before their first sexual encounter and we all know that one who practices abstinence is 100% safe. And just because they are taught abstinence doesn't mean they don't have a clue about BC.
El-D you keep assuming or insinuating that one taught abstinence is an idiot when it comes to BC.
Well it depends on who you're speaking to. My belief is we are to teach our kids to abstain because morally speaking it's the right thing to do. Physically it's the right thing to do. Emotionally it's the right thing to do and spiritually it's the right thing to do.
For some the entire point is to sexualize our kids because there's a great financial reward to be gained. For the most part, our kids have the highest amount of disposable income than anybody. When you put teens and sex together there's gold in them thar hills and the PP clinics and such know exactly what they're doing. Cell phone companies do the same thing. Go to the kids. It's a huge market.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
