Sex education has always been a kind of controversial topic. Should schools have it? If they choose to have it, what type should it be (abstinence only, contraceptive only, or a combination)? Should it focus more on the risks of pregnancy or STDs?

How did your school handle sex ed? Is there something they could have done to make it more effective? Or more interesting? Do you think abstinence-only is a good approach, or should contraceptives also be brought up?

Also, check out what's happening in TX:

Battle over Texas sex-ed textbooks
Second-largest buyer could influence rest of U.S.
Thursday, August 5, 2004 Posted: 2:17 PM EDT (1817 GMT)


DALLAS (Reuters) -- The lesson for Texas teens is that the only safe sex is no sex, and that may be a lesson that heads nationwide.

Texas educators are debating what will be taught in new sexual education textbooks for its high school students. The 15-member Texas Board of Education is considering and will likely approve four books, all of which extol the virtues of abstinence. Three make no mention of contraceptives at all while one makes passing reference to condoms.

Critics are crying foul, saying that a lesson of abstinence alone is dangerous because it could lead to more teen pregnancies and more teens becoming infected with sexually transmitted diseases.

The battle in Texas has national implications because the state is the second-biggest market for textbooks in the United States. Books approved by the state's school board are typically marketed nationally.

According to Centers for Disease Control figures, Texas has been among the top five states in the country for teenage pregnancies for several years.

When he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush pushed for an abstinence-based sexual education curriculum. He raised his concerns to a national level when he said in this year's State of the Union address: "We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases."

National surveys indicate that a wide majority of parents support a strong abstinence message to teens in sexual education.

The Texas Freedom Network, a group that regularly battles social and religious conservatives in the state, along with Planned Parenthood and others are asking the board not to approve the four textbooks under consideration.

Book tells teens rest prevents STDs
They say the books are lacking. For example, one textbook under review advises that a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence.

"The key thing here is that the textbooks do not contain a trace of information about family planning and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases other than through abstinence," said Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the Texas Freedom Network.

Critics want the board to ask the publishers to revise the books to include more information on contraceptives, but the board is expected to approve the books without changes since officials say discussion of contraceptives in their teachers' supplements is enough to meet state curriculum requirements .

"There are other contraceptive methods in addition to abstinence and you are just not going to find it in these textbooks," Quinn said. He charged the textbook publishers have engaged in self-censorship to appease social conservatives in the state at the expense of the health of Texas teen-agers.

The board will meet in September to discuss the books and will vote on whether to approve them in November. If approved, the texts are likely to appear in classrooms in August 2005 -- where they could be the standard text for about 10 years.

Local school districts are not required to use one of the new books but they receive state funding to buy them if they do.

The publishers of the books are Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Glencoe/McGraw Hill and Thomson Delmar Learning.

Some of the books currently in use in the state have more information about contraceptives than the books up for consideration, but once the new books are approved, they will for the most part replace all the current texts.

Board at center of religious and polical battles
The education board has been at the center of many political and religious battles over the years including a recent proposal by evangelical Christian groups to have the state's textbooks include items debunking evolution.

Despite opposition, the sex education textbooks under consideration are likely to get approval. State Education Agency officials said mention of condoms and contraceptives in the teacher's editions or in supplements to the books enable them to meet Texas curriculum standards.

Texas standards require sexual education books to "analyze the effectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods, including the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, keeping in mind the effectiveness of remaining abstinent until marriage."

Richard Blake, a spokesman for Holt, Rinehart and Winston said his company offers a supplement for students that goes into comprehensive detail about forms of contraceptives.

The supplement for students is free with the purchase of the textbooks. It is excluded from the main text in order to offer flexibility and meet the needs of school boards across the United States that have differing views on how to treat a subject many see as highly sensitive.

"Teachers and educators across the country, and not just in Texas, have told us they wanted it this way," Blake said.

What do you think?

<3 Mary

I swear I searched and didn't find ANYTHING. I thought there was a thread about this, but couldn't find it.

Sex education has always been a kind of controversial topic. Should schools have it? If they choose to have it, what type should it be (abstinence only, contraceptive only, or a combination)? Should it focus more on the risks of pregnancy or STDs?

How did your school handle sex ed? Is there something they could have done to make it more effective? Or more interesting? Do you think abstinence-only is a good approach, or should contraceptives also be brought up?

Also, check out what's happening in TX:



What do you think?

<3 Mary

I think schools should definitely have Sex Ed, as many parents are too uncomfortable to talk to their own kids about it. And it's something that, I believe, needs to be taught.

As for what type, I think it should be all of the above. Abstinence only would mean not talking about contraception, which means teens who decide to do it anyway (which is probably the majority, or at least many) may not know the proper methods of birth control or anything like that.

I think they should talk about STDs and pregnancy equally; however, I believe STDs is a more important issue, since a person may use a condom when having sex to prevent both, but many may rely only on birth control pills to prevent just pregnancy and not STDs.

In the schools I went to, they talked about both, but really made it sound like sex was bad, and what they focused on more was abstinence over anything else. I don't think sex should be treated as a 'bad thing', as it is natural and can be healthy when responsible about it. It's a person's own decision to wait, and that's great, but that decision shouldn't be enforced or made up of the thought or feeling that it's 'dirty' or 'immoral' or anything like that (I am only talking about that issue because, as I said before, I had to deal with it in school).

Book tells teens rest prevents STDs
They say the books are lacking. For example, one textbook under review advises that a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence.
I really don't think that's a good thing to put into a Sex Ed textbook, considering they don't mention anything else on what really prevents STDs.

Teaching strictly sexual abstinence instead of contraception delays the first sexual encounter by an average of about six months.

Teaching strictly sexual abstinence instead of contraception delays the first sexual encounter by an average of about six months.
I don't doubt that. :p

But yea, I think schools should have sex education. Sex is a part of life, and eveyrone needs to learn about it. Remember that married German couple that didn't know what sex was?

Also, if there is no sex education, many kids'll get wrong info and myths from other kids, like "you can't get pregnant if you keep your eyes open during orgasm" or some shit like that.

I've never had "the talk". I learned about sex from friends and :o Internet porn :eek: which "I stumbled on accidentally" :o And some of the stuff people say or I find online are completely WHACKED! So, Internet and friends <--- not your best choice of sex ed.

Plus if sex is never taught, then it becomes the "forbidden fruit". You hear about it, you hear how great it is, and since you never learn about it, the next spet is basically experimentation.

Most parents are uncomfortable talking about sex with their kids, likewise most kids won't feel comfortable talking about it with their parents. So schools should have sex ed.

I don't doubt that. :p

But yea, I think schools should have sex education. Sex is a part of life, and everyone needs to learn about it. Remember that married German couple that didn't know what sex was?

Also, if there is no sex education, many kids'll get wrong info and myths from other kids, like "you can't get pregnant if you keep your eyes open during orgasm" or some shit like that.

I've never had "the talk". I learned about sex from friends and :o Internet porn :eek: which "I stumbled on accidentally" :o And some of the stuff people say or I find online are completely WHACKED! So, Internet and friends <--- not your best choice of sex ed.

Plus if sex is never taught, then it becomes the "forbidden fruit". You hear about it, you hear how great it is, and since you never learn about it, the next spet is basically experimentation. And sex is fine if you know what you're doing and you're ready for a sexual relationship, but if you just do it to find out what it's like, well you're pretty much screwing yourself over.

Most parents are uncomfortable talking about sex with their kids, likewise most kids won't feel comfortable talking about it with their parents. So schools should have sex ed.

I think schools should definitely have Sex Ed, as many parents are too uncomfortable to talk to their own kids about it. And it's something that, I believe, needs to be taught.

As for what type, I think it should be all of the above. Abstinence only would mean not talking about contraception, which means teens who decide to do it anyway (which is probably the majority, or at least many) may not know the proper methods of birth control or anything like that.

I think they should talk about STDs and pregnancy equally; however, I believe STDs is a more important issue, since a person may use a condom when having sex to prevent both, but many may rely only on birth control pills to prevent just pregnancy and not STDs.

In the schools I went to, they talked about both, but really made it sound like sex was bad, and what they focused on more was abstinence over anything else. I don't think sex should be treated as a 'bad thing', as it is natural and can be healthy when responsible about it. It's a person's own decision to wait, and that's great, but that decision shouldn't be enforced or made up of the thought or feeling that it's 'dirty' or 'immoral' or anything like that (I am only talking about that issue because, as I said before, I had to deal with it in school).


I really don't think that's a good thing to put into a Sex Ed textbook, considering they don't mention anything else on what really prevents STDs.
[/size][/font][/color]
I completely agree with you.

Some, if not most, are going to do it anyway so they need to know about preventing pregnancy AND STDs. I also think that condoms should be available at school. I saw on TV one time that people think that is like giving them "permission" to do it. I don't think it is. If they want to do it they are going to, it would be better to have condom's readily available because odds are if they can't really get anywhere else to get one they'll just do it without one.

The better question is, isn't it the parents' place? As with so many other things (pornography, R-rated movies, etc.), shouldn't the school stay out of it and let parents do the teaching?

<3 Mary

The thing is...most parents WON'T.

If they did there wouldn't be so many pregnant CHILDREN running around.

Exactly. The same as my argument about the Child Online Protection Act. But nobody bought it then. Why is it different now?

Exactly. The same as my argument about the Child Online Protection Act. But nobody bought it then. Why is it different now?


Big difference.

COPA restricts me and what I share online.

Sex Education is taught in schools.

Plus if sex is never taught, then it becomes the "forbidden fruit". You hear about it, you hear how great it is, and since you never learn about it, the next spet is basically experimentation. And sex is fine if you know what you're doing and you're ready for a sexual relationship, but if you just do it to find out what it's like, well you're pretty much screwing yourself over.

I totally agree with you there.

We didn't have sex ed in school. all we had was the puberty video. and the funny thing about that was, they advocated to not use tampons because they would expand and kill you lol.

A combonation of all should be taught.

Why not teach kids the facts and consequences and let them make their own decisions? I think any kind of sex education should teach that preventative methods exist but should also teach that none of them can guarantee the prevention of disease or pregnancy. Unfortunately some people favor authoritative methods of teaching that don't promote the development of critical decision-making skills, and many such people promote ideas like "abstinence-based" education.

Why not teach kids the facts and consequences and let them make their own decisions? I think any kind of sex education should teach that preventative methods exist but should also teach that none of them can guarantee the prevention of disease or pregnancy?
This would be an ideal situation. The sad fact is, schools just don't do it. In my sex ed class (and I refuse to believe I'm in the minority), I was taught that condoms blocked all STDs and pregnancy with no failure rate, and that the pill was infallible as a means of preventing pregnancy. Schools are too inclined to give easy answers, and they don't give statistics, simply "yes" or "no" this method is effective. For those who aren't adults like us, the idea that something that is supposedly "effective" could have a failure rate is nonsensical. Schools need to be honest with kids, explaining that there is risk involved in any sexual encouter.


Unfortunately some people favor authoritative methods of teaching that don't promote the development of critical decision-making skills, and many such people promote ideas like "abstinence-based" education.
There is nothing wrong with "abstinence-based" education, but "abstinence ONLY" education leaves a lot to be desired. To me they're two different things. Should schools encourage abstinence? In my opinion, it's not bad if they do. But should they leave out options for those who don't choose it? Absolutely not. That's the PURPOSE of sex education.

Oh, and let me just say one thing as an abstinence advocate. I don't think sex is dirty. I think it's absolutely wonderful. But I also think that it carries risks, especially when it occurs outside of a committed, monogamous relationship. Our children need to be informed of these risks and how to avoid them. Abstinence is, of course, the surest way, but even the staunchest abstinence supporter would agree that not everyone will choose this.

So they need options and information. They need pictures of what STDs do to people. They need, perhaps, a person who was pregnant at a very young age to talk to them about the difficulties. They need reality. And our current sex-ed programs don't provide it. They need counseling on how to say no if they want to. They need access to the statistics that say that about half of high school graduates are still virgins. Not everybody is doing it.

But they also need counseling on how to behave if they want to say yes. They need information about condoms, and birth control. And yes, they need to know how to obtain these things without their parents finding out. They need to know the real risks associated with something before they decide to do it. And until our schools do that, I will be entirely dissatisfied with the way they handle sex education.

<3 Mary

I feel schools that parents and schools share a joint responsibility in teaching sex ed. Someone within the school should be readily available to answer questions and give advice, kind of like a planned parenthood but instead an actual position within the school district. This should go beyond what a school nurse does. Maybe even a qualified parent from the community who is required to be confidential.

Condoms should be made available as well. But only after A) proper usage instructions. B) The truth that nothing is 100% effective in the prevention of pregnancy or STD's, and C) a good, hard look at the consequences of what happens if you contract an STD or have an unwanted pregnancy have been explored.

I do feel very strongly that my childrens sex education begins at home with me, the parent. It starts early on by telling your kids about bad touches and that their bodies are private. Children not only need to be made aware of what is not ok for them to do but especially what is not ok for others to do to them. Molestation is a huge, often swept under the rug travesty that effects 1 in 4 children in this country alone. Most are too scared to tell, or ashamed.

At my daughter's preschool this year they did a week long workbook on bad touches and trusting adults. I was horrified at first that it had come down to this but after learning 3 of my daughters schoolmates were molested last year by family members, I realized the importance of this awareness even at 3 and 4 years old.

I have had a minor birds and bees talk with my older two. They know the basics. It was akward at first but after a group of 6th graders decided to do a little" playground theory" sex ed I had no choice but to set my girls straight on what doing it really was. I was so naive it was ridiculous and ended up in some very harmful situations because of it. This will not happen to my kids if I can help it.

When each of my daughters turns 13 ,they will be viewing a medical book with graphic images of STD's and the effects on the genitals. They will also be shown a video of an unmedicated child birth. This may seem a bit harsh but I want them to see sex is a huge decision. The consequences can be life-altering if one is not prepared or educated.

I'm 13, I'll be 14 October 1st, :eek: I'm growing up so fast! Ok, anyways, in my school, they basically just say "Sex is bad! Don't do it kids!" I think our Sex Ed system really stinks!

However, I'm lucky, there is a group called P.O.P it stands for Positive Oppertunitys Program. We are selected by grades-all around attitude. In P.O.P we talk about everything from Sex and Drugs, to respecting your family. Our P.O.P. teacher is there for us, she gives us her number (incase we need help, or find ourselves in a perdicament (spelling?).

But I do think that schools should really really really do both, it's important, and so I a thirteen year old girl, said so myself. Yet I'm going with Abstinence, I have plans for my life, and no one or no "activity" is getting in my way! By the way, I want to deliver babys! Ah, I forgot the technical term :p Oh well, ha ha.

So if we're going to be teaching sex-ed in schools, what grade should it be done in? This seems like something that could spark a lot of controversy with some parents. In some cases, there are elementary schoolers trying a few things, while also there are kids the same age who have basically never heard of it. I know a few people I went to school with who were fully active at 12. Personally, I think maybe 8th or 9th grade would be about right... Although it's an unfortunate reality that some kids will need it sooner.

So if we're going to be teaching sex-ed in schools, what grade should it be done in? This seems like something that could spark a lot of controversy with some parents. In some cases, there are elementary schoolers trying a few things, while also there are kids the same age who have basically never heard of it. I know a few people I went to school with who were fully active at 12. Personally, I think maybe 8th or 9th grade would be about right... Although it's an unfortunate reality that some kids will need it sooner.

I think once they start sexually maturing, for alot of kids that is around the end of 5th grade beginning of 6th. In our town that is when it should begin.
I know of several 6th graders who thought they were pregnant last year. I think this is just the saddest thing ever.

The biggest problem around here is that in 6th grade the girls go out with 8th grade boys, in 8th grade the girls go out with sophmore boys and so on and so forth.

Our teen pregnancy rate is very high. An acquaintance of mine has a daughter who is 15. She got pregnant the middle of last school year. The father is 18 and has had 4 girlfriends besides her pregnant since he started HS. 2 had abortions, one miscarried and the 4th had a baby a few months before this gal's daughter got pregnant. This woman had her daughter on the pill but the girl stopped taking them because they gave her an upset stomach. She didn't bother telling her mother the pill was making her sick so the mom was totally oblivious.

I think what really concerns me the most is if the pregnancy rate is this out of control, just how sky high is the STD rate? Obviously safe-sex is not the general rule amongest these kids.

You know, it USED to be that we lived our sexuality, and every child grew up in a family, or with people, where sex, pregnancy, and child rearing was a family-wide familiarity. Kids thought it normal that their parents touched in certain ways, and did things together and had babies. They pretty much grew up understanding that this is what adults do when they are in love or married. And, they pretty much knew the mechanics of it without having to go to "school". Of course, they were also getting married at 14, raising families at 16-18, and this was normal.

Enter "Modern Society", with the preoccupation for "better for my kids", and adding 4-10 years to the "childhood" of most people. Then throw in hormones that say NO. . we want to have kids NOW, add a bit of "The Church" and it's strictures, and some Government bureaucrats trying to "Fix the problem of teenage pregnancy" and you get this unholy MESS we have today.

Truth is, kids learn a LOT more about Sex by being on the streets than they do in the Classrooms. But we, and our trusty bureaucrats and government, don't want them learning it that way because they don't learn it "properly"

BS!!!

You want your kids to be sexually intelligent? Teach them through your own actions and by talking to them and honestly answering their questions. Many parents want their kids to wait, and preserve their "childhood years" of innocence. People, when the kids are asking what "Oral sex" is when they are 6-9 years old, it's time to start talking, and explaining, and being honest.

As for a formalized classroom version of "Sex Education". . .we don't need movies, but we DO need to scare the bejeezus out of kids to make them wake up and realize the severe problems associated with STD's, AIDS, Herpes, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Single parenthood should NOT be an option that is put forward. Neither should the total reliance on contraceptives, "Safe Sex" techniques, or condoms. The only safe sex is abstinence, and it's the only 100% fool-proof method of preventing pregnancy (not including Mr. Clintons choice of non-sexual practices. . . )

In the end, it comes down to the parents being PARENTS . .which seems to be said way too often these days, with no results being obtained.

Kris^
"Mediocrity" is doing it THEIR way.

Neither should the total reliance on contraceptives, "Safe Sex" techniques, or condoms. The only safe sex is abstinence, and it's the only 100% fool-proof method of preventing pregnancy (not including Mr. Clintons choice of non-sexual practices. . . )

While it is true that abstinence is the only effective form of preventing pregnancy, asking a group of hormone charged teenagers to keep their pants on until they are ready to have children is just not going to happen. They need to be taught. I'll agree with you though, there are many people out there who think that contraceptives will ensure they are child free.

That brings me to:
Single parenthood should NOT be an option that is put forward

So, if the child is born out of wedlock then it shouldn't be allowed to live? I know many single parents (maj. mothers) who have done an exceptional job of raising 1-2 children, and their families seem a lot closer then many of the those in 'normal' families. Society is to a point where single parenting is deemed acceptable, whether from divorce or wedlock it doesn't matter.

So, this brings us back to abstinence.

I have to agree with you though. It's a matter that should be dealt with by families if their child comes asking. Keep schooling education, but don't make it a replacement for the 'birds and the bees' talk. That's something that should be answered with a one on one basis, and with someone the kid trusts.

Dragon, while I do not agree with single parenthood, it happens, and I accept that. But, to put it forward, in a formalized classroom of a government mandated class, as being a viable option, well that just tells kids that "Big Brother" says its okay, and oh we'll even pay you welfare and give you money for food and medical stuff. . .NOT There are proponents of single parenthood and having the government support it (The N.O.W., the NAACP Excuse makers, and other extremist activists) that are making progress in getting this idea ingrained into the curriculum and actually promoted as an option.

The second you say that, you undermine every facet of responsibility that should be promoted by these classes. By saying its a bad idea. . maybe the kids will listen enough to think about it and decide that, yes, its not a good thing, and be a bit more careful to prevent it.

As for hormone charged kids. . it still goes back to parental guidance and talking things out. Call me a very understanding but arch conservative on this one. Family comes first when it comes to Sex, child rearing, and everything that goes with those things. The farther away some PC Government bureaucrat stays from our children, the better off most of us will be in the long run. It's OUR responsibility, not the Governments (or schools) . .and time that people accepted that without making excuses anymore.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

I have to say though, there are many children out there who will experiment sexually at a young age, with or without family support. It's for these kids that the government based education is helpful and does stop many unwanted pregnancies. Big Brother isn't saying that it is OK and that teens should be out having sex, he is saying 'we can't stop you. but we aren't going to let you suffer because of it'.

Teens are going to have sex. There is no escaping the fact, so BB has to stand in and make sure the population doesn't go to hell.

Abstinence is not 100% effective. Sperm travel.

Sorry, Dragon, I must respectfuly disagree with the premise that we NEED Government to step in and provide guidance for wayward children. America has not turned into quite that socialist a natioin. . yet. It's been proven, too many times, that when BB gets into the act, you lose a lot more than you will ever gain. Teenagers will have sex, and some will get pregnant. Making it profitable or even easy to live afterward is NOT the Governments place. Its a basic difference between Socialism and a lock of Socialism. I am not a socialist, I therefore refuse categorically to embrace a single Socialist stance on subjects such as these.

People make mistakes. . if they have to "pay" for the mistakes by rearing a child single handedly for 18-19 years. . so be it. The more people who realize how TOUGH it is to do that, the fewer will have to do it at all. When the Government steps in and provides "assistance" (basically a free pass) it sends the wrong message. . and the teenage birthright rises. . This has been greatly evidenced by the tremendous rise in teenage pregnancies ever sinceSex education was adopted by the US Public school system, AND since LB Johnsons misguided to make the "Great Society" through programs that made it profitable to have many children. Welfare, WIC, and other "programs" designed to aid indigent mothers, have actualy backfired, easily tripling the size of the dependency class for these programs in only a short time. There is only one way to reverse this, and that is to totally divorce BB from the entire "Sexuality/child rearing" segment of our society, which means no more Sex mis-education.

Socialism does not work. . .which is why I really prefer to get the Government, and BB as far out of everyones lives as possible. The first step is to get them out of our bedrooms and sex lives. The second is to get them out of our schools. That would be a definite win-win for everyone.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

Sorry, Dragon, I must respectfuly disagree with the premise thata we NEED Government to step in and provide guidance for wayward children.
I have to ask who 'we' are exactly. Does 'we' cover the 17 year old girl who gets pregnate because her parents were too negligent to inform of her on the facts of life? There are going to be families who will not inform their children of proper safe sex. Are their children at fault because they or their partner get pregnate, due to not knowing any other way? Take the government out of the equation re: sex education, then there is no safety net for these kids. It is the government's responsibility to take up the slack when parents don't raise their child properly, or inform them of things they need to know.

America has not turned into quite that socialist a natioin. . yet. It's been proven, too many times, that when BB gets into the act, you lose a lot more than you will ever gain.
Well, good thing I don't live in America. This is a topic that should be addressed on an international level. It comes to one thing, one day we are going to run out of room to live. At least BB stands in to try and make sure that that point in social evolution is further down the track then it could be if the population gets out of control. Where is your proof that if the BB stands in they mess it up? I completed highschool three years ago, and I was taught sex education from the age of thirteen until I was seventeen. As the time went on, more mature subjects were raised and concerned. But the first thing they taught was 'don't have sex'. Not in a 'it's fuckin' naughty' sense, but telling the students that it is something that it is something that could drastically change their lives, and at that age, it's always for the worse. Things that happen in 'Thirteen' didn't happen at my school, because the teachers and adults responsible for taking care of us gave us the answers we were looking for in a clear, unembarrased, concise, and most importantly, accurate manner.

Teenagers will have sex, and some will get pregnant. Making it profitable or even easy to live afterward is NOT the Governments place.
When was the last time you looked at the family benefits scheme, and from the aspect of a young single parent? The governments don't make it easy, they make it managable. When you are considering the life of a child here, that is something you need to be very delicate with. Although there will be a problem with population in the future, it doesn't mean we want those less fortunate to suffer.

People make mistakes. . if they have to "pay" for the mistakes by rearing a child single handedly for 18-19 years. . so be it. The more people who realize how TOUGH it is to do that, the fewer will have to do it at all. When the Government steps in and provides "assistance" (basically a free pass) it sends the wrong message.
Ask any student at my old school who attended sex ed classes if they think the 'free pass' as you call it is worth changing their lives forever and possibly endangering the life of their not-yet-concieved-child. That's not something isolated to one school. Every school follows a curriculum, and from that they must teach things a certain way. From that, they are given the information, guidance and mentoring to teaching their students how to apply a condom, or how to use contraceptive pills effectively, and how to deal with any possible STDs, infections, or other problems that may arise. They need to know the information, and if they hear it from both their parents and the government, then that's all the more better. There is no such thing as offering enough information when it comes to sex.

and the teenage birthright rises. . This has been greatly evidenced by the tremendous rise in teenage pregnancies ever sinceSex education was adopted by the US Public school system, AND since LB Johnsons misguided to make the "Great Society" through programs that made it profitable to have many children. Welfare, WIC, and other "programs" designed to aid indigent mothers, have actualy backfired, easily tripling the size of the dependency class for these programs in only a short time. There is only one way to reverse this, and that is to totally divorce BB from the entire "Sexuality/child rearing" segment of our society, which means no more Sex mis-education.
So. In short you are saying that we should our turn our backs on the life of a child. Irrelevant on whether the mother chose that just for your 'free pass', it's not the kids fault. Why punish them. Complete negligence (from both parents and governments) to a child is cruel and immoral.

Socialism does not work. . .which is why I really prefer to get the Government, and BB as far out of everyones lives as possible. The first step is to get them out of our bedrooms and sex lives. The second is to get them out of our schools. That would be a definite win-win for everyone.
You have 27 years more worth of life experience then I do, but I really think you need to look at this from the other angle. Sex can be a frightening thing for a teenager, as some cases it is not expected and sometimes unwanted. They need to know how to deal with it, and if their parents fuck up and don't tell them, at least BB will.

{edit} I thought I'd add this in. I don't support any political party, or any particular method of governmental system. I was on the consumer end of what is offered as sex education, and because of it I was prepared to deal with how to at least minimize the risk when it came to sex. To me, it was one of the most important topics we ever discussed at school.

Abstinence is not 100% effective. Sperm travel. Yeh, and there's that whole problem of virgin birth. We've got to put a stop to that.

Edit: Reference to immaculate conception (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm) changed to virgin birth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm). Thanks Jeebus!

Not many people know what the immaculate conception really was

Abstinence is not 100% effective. Sperm travel.
Give me one example, even anecdotally, of "sperm traveling," or pregnancy occurring without a sex act taking place (excluding Immaculate Conception, which you contend didn't happen).

Yeh, and there's that whole problem of immaculate conception. We've got to put a stop to that.
If you believe that happened, it's only happened ONCE. That makes abstinence by far the most effective method of birth control (99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% or so).

Not many people know what the immaculate conception really was.
Inform us, what was it? ;)

<3 Mary

I won't speak for the other two gentlemen, but for my part, my post was based on this (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=572).

I won't speak for the other two gentlemen, but for my part, my post was based on this (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=572).
Oops. Well, I figured that, but I'm trying to make a serious point here. *gives up*

So. In short you are saying that we should our turn our backs on the life of a child. Irrelevant on whether the mother chose that just for your 'free pass', it's not the kids fault. Why punish them. Complete negligence (from both parents and governments) to a child is cruel and immoral.


You have 27 years more worth of life experience then I do, but I really think you need to look at this from the other angle. Sex can be a frightening thing for a teenager, as some cases it is not expected and sometimes unwanted. They need to know how to deal with it, and if their parents fuck up and don't tell them, at least BB will.

I understand your concern, but just because someone opposes government education, welfare, etc., that does not make them cruel, although anti-government advocates often sound that way. It just means they prefer that these concerns are handled by voluntary organizations. While, as I said, I think kids should be taught the facts about both abstinence and prevention, I don't think only the State can provide this kind of education. Home schooling collectives and private schools can provide it as well.

I can think of at least two cases among people I have met.

If you search online it will demonstrate that medical experts will say that it is "possible, though unlikely."

First Link (http://www.drspock.com/faq/0,1511,8289,00.html).

Give me one example...pregnancy occurring without a sex act taking place
I can think of at least two cases among people I have met.

If you search online it will demonstrate that medical experts will say that it is "possible, though unlikely."

First Link (http://www.drspock.com/faq/0,1511,8289,00.html).
You're contending that a sex act didn't take place in this instance?

I understand your concern, but just because someone opposes government education, welfare, etc., that does not make them cruel, although anti-government advocates often sound that way. It just means they prefer that these concerns are handled by voluntary organizations. While, as I said, I think kids should be taught the facts about both abstinence and prevention, I don't think only the State can provide this kind of education. Home schooling collectives and private schools can provide it as well.
I don't think anybody's disagreeing with that. I think we're just saying that it can't necessarily be left up to the parent.

<3 Mary

You're contending that a sex act didn't take place in this instance?


The the local cases that I am familiar with I would say it likely only happened after they found out she was pregnant.

The link I provided is simply someone confirming that it is possible, though that such is not an effective means of getting pregnant.

The the local cases that I am familiar with I would say it likely only happened after they found out she was pregnant.

The link I provided is simply someone confirming that it is possible, though that such is not an effective means of getting pregnant.
Okay, Lly. Usually your posts are intelligent, lucid, and comprehensible. However, I can't decipher what you're trying to say in this one. Maybe I'm just not reading it right...? I've been known to do that.

What I was asking was: if the guy ejaculated near the woman's vaginal opening, wouldn't that imply that a sex act of some kind (i.e., a handjob or something) occurred? Or do people just randomly ejaculate on a randomly nude woman? If someone completely abstains from all sexual activity (AND doesn't get raped), I contend that there is no other means by which she can become pregnant.

Okay, Lly. Usually your posts are intelligent, lucid, and comprehensible. However, I can't decipher what you're trying to say in this one. Maybe I'm just not reading it right...? I've been known to do that.

What I was asking was: if the guy ejaculated near the woman's vaginal opening, wouldn't that imply that a sex act of some kind (i.e., a handjob or something) occurred? Or do people just randomly ejaculate on a randomly nude woman? If someone completely abstains from all sexual activity (AND doesn't get raped), I contend that there is no other means by which she can become pregnant.

"Abstinence" only necessarily encompasses not engaging in intercourse.

I guess, then, that I am suggesting that "abstinence-only" schools MUST advocate complete abstinence from all sexual activity. If they do not, they are ignoring the very real risk of STDs that oral sex (which is NOT intercourse) presents. I must say that such schools probably disapprove of such activity, and not just intercourse, and that they probably exclude activities such as manual and oral sex from the list of things you can still do while being "abstinent." If they don't, they're highly irresponsible.

Inform us, what was it? ;)

The Immaculate Conception was Mary's conception. So she was concieved/born without original sin. Most people think it is Jesus' conception.

The Immaculate Conception was Mary's conception. So she was concieved/born without original sin. Most people think it is Jesus' conception.
Right. And I daresay that most non-Catholic Christians don't even believe in the Immaculate Conception. I sure don't. To me, Mary was just an ordinary person who God chose for an extraordinary purpose. But let's not turn this into another religious debate, guys...please?

<3 Mary

Teenagers will have sex, and some will get pregnant. Making it profitable or even easy to live afterward is NOT the Governments place. Why not though? If you are not willing to step in there for a young teenage girl who gets pregnant, what about the child she bears? I suppose that child should suffer too, to make an example of what America life really is, right?

People make mistakes. . if they have to "pay" for the mistakes by rearing a child single handedly for 18-19 years. . so be it. The more people who realize how TOUGH it is to do that, the fewer will have to do it at all. When the Government steps in and provides "assistance" (basically a free pass) it sends the wrong messagePeople do make mistakes, but it is not our right or the governments right to punish them for such mistakes. That is a very shameful and extremely unnerving way of thinking, and I can only imagine where it would have taken us. Just like letting people learn from their own mistakes, people will also benefit and learn from a supporting hand. Right now we have a growing epidemic of social and economical gaps, that seems to be ever growing. The government has the option to either a.) leave those behind that cannot meet the financial requirements or b.) help pulls those that have the desire to make a better life for themselves, thus pulling up the economic decline. The first is definetly easier, but in the end you will probably end up paying more.

This has been greatly evidenced by the tremendous rise in teenage pregnancies ever since Sex education was adopted by the US Public school system,I wonder if that has anything to do with a drop in abortions, people going off to boarding houses till there child was born, and such. Why is tolerance for a child out of wedlock such a negative thing again? Nobody is saying it's ideal, but I can certainly think of a lot worst things that they could be doing.

Socialism does not work. . .which is why I really prefer to get the Government, and BB as far out of everyones lives as possible. The first step is to get them out of our bedrooms and sex lives. The second is to get them out of our schools. That would be a definite win-win for everyone.Having support and having them in your bedroom are two entirely differnent things. If they were holding a bearing over your sex life, they would be enforceing birth control on to young adults and teens. Instead they are merely offering assistance to those who do need the support. The people will not be living anything like what they would if they had the same opportunities as most other Americans, so they really aren't getting that great of a free ride afterall.

What helps prevent teen pregnancy?(cited from this (http://www.theodora.com/teddy/newyork/teenage.html) site, all end notes are listed below).
The primary reason that teenage girls who have never had intercourse give for abstaining from sex is that having sex would be against their religious or moral values. Other reasons cited include desire to avoid pregnancy, fear of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), and not having met the appropriate partner.13 Three of four girls and over half of boys report that girls who have sex do so because their boyfriends want them to.14
Teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to their parents are much less likely to become sexually active at an early age.15
Most people say teens should remain abstinent but should have access to contraception. Ninety-five percent of adults in the United States—and 85 percent of teenagers—think it important that school-aged children and teenagers be given a strong message from society that they should abstain from sex until they are out of high school. Almost 60 percent of adults also think that sexually active teenagers should have access to contraception.16
Parents rate high among many teens as trustworthy and preferred information sources on birth control. One in two teens say they "trust" their parents most for reliable and complete information about birth control, only 12 percent say a friend.19
Teens who have been raised by both parents (biological or adoptive) from birth, have lower probabilities of having sex than teens who grew up in any other family situation. At age 16, 22 percent of girls from intact families and 44 percent of other girls have had sex at least once.20 Similarly, teens from intact, two-parent families are less likely to give birth in their teens than girls from other family backgrounds.21

I've always believed that the more information you arm someone with, the better chance they have for forming a more healthy decision. Talking about both the pleasures and reciprocation of having sex will put them in a more stable position, where they can more easily depict the outcome of any possible ramifications of any sexual interaction they make. Along with STDs and pregnancy, it may also help to touch base with those who have gotten aids or are a young single mother raising her children. Sheltering children has never been a good thing.


I guess, then, that I am suggesting that "abstinence-only" schools MUST advocate complete abstinence from all sexual activity. If they do not, they are ignoring the very real risk of STDs that oral sex (which is NOT intercourse) presents. I must say that such schools probably disapprove of such activity, and not just intercourse, and that they probably exclude activities such as manual and oral sex from the list of things you can still do while being "abstinent." If they don't, they're highly irresponsible.Only a private schools definition of abstinence is not the true definition of the word. Abstinence is really just a vague word that can pertain to different types of sexual relations. It does not say what it intails, and it is usually based on a more moral level from what I can see. Personally, I would considering it the act of penetration, and nothing more.

Therefore, by Lly's definition, it is more definetly possible to get pregnant while practicing abstinence.

Fallen Angelia .. where to begin?

Lets establish a few consistencies. . . First off, whose responsibility is it for a pregnancy? The girl? The guy? Both? Once you establish THAT. . why should anyone else bear that responsibility? I certainly did not get her pregnant, neither did the Government (though they are certainly screwing the rest of us in this case) Secondly, WHY is it okay, at all, for a non-married woman to become pregnant? (okay. . we ALL have sex before marriage. .RIGHT??. . well, do we?) Third. .WHO has etablished programs that actually make it easy to live rather well in this case? (The Government?? gee. . that was a toughie)

So, adress this as not a social issue, but as a responsibility issue. This country (America) was founded on the idea of personal freedom and responsibility for ones actions. Why should I be responsible for a teenage mothers own lack of responsibility? Its MY money DAMMIT!! So, right there that means I despise the Government for stealing it from me and giving it to a person who should have KNOWN BETTER.

SHE was irresponsible, not me. . . Her lover is also irresponsible. . but that's still not me. . .So why do they need MY money in order to avoid their responsibilities? Life is tough, get used to it. . Go out, get a JOB, earn money, and support yourself and the child. And while you are at it, do a paternity suit and get the guy involved in raising the child he fathered. And if you can't do that why the heck are you having sex in the first place? Because it feels good, right? GEESH!!

I'm sorry, this is one of those times I just want to start screaming. .you KNOW better, yet you still do it. . That is the definition of stupidity. We all know where babies come from. WE all know that they cost a LOT of money to raise. . And we all know that a 14-20 year old girl, even with a guy around, does not make that kind of money. Which brings us back to individual responsibility. It also brings us back to abstinence. . and saying NO.

It seems that too few people have figured out this wonderful little Government scam that is going on. Everyone says "its for the children". . .its as if this is some sort of panacea that makes it ALL okay. . its okay to have a kid, its okay for the Government to give you money, and its okay for the Government to take MY money, by force (uh try this in a Bank .. you'll get 10-25 for it) in order to PROMOTE it. Promotion takes the shape of making it easier, in this case, not blatant encouragement.

So, how do we reduce teen pregnancies and unwanted children? Step one. . GET the Government out of our bedrooms (and out of how we raise our children) Step two, get them out of our schools. Step three. . end social welfare of all types. Step four..Teach abstinence and personal responsibility. Step five. . start making people get married when a child is conceived again, and holding Fathers responsible for the child as well.

After all, it's the PARENTS responsibility for the child, not societies. And in many cases, its also the Grandparents responsibility, because they should have taught THEIR children better.

It all comes down to Personal Responsibility for your actions ..

I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay for another persons mistakes.

But, if YOU want to, go right ahead. Take your paychecks and hand them over to a teenage mother. Then eat, live, and support your own family. . . Then we'll see how long your compassion lasts.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

So, right there that means I despise the Government for stealing it from me and giving it to a person who should have KNOWN BETTER. And I am unable to see how someone can "know better" without being educated on the matter. That includes discussing abstinence, along with available contraceptions and how they may still fail, myths about sex, etc. in schools. It may be a parent's responsibility for their own children, but most simply don't talk about it, and most of those that do just say "don't have sex" (just abstinence), which is just plain stupid - the majority of kids won't care about that and when they have sex anyway (no matter what the reason, and there are many more reasons than just "it feels good" as you say), the odds that they won't use protection or use it properly sky-rockets. We all have to deal with it in society where diseases may be spread around and the population toll rises.

Step five. . start making people get married when a child is conceived again, and holding Fathers responsible for the child as well. There goes all your talk about the government controlling people's lives go flying out the window - I found that a bit contradictory after reading all you had already posted. I do agree that the father should be held responsible for his child just as much as the mother, but people shouldn't be forced to get married. This kind of "punishment" for having a child by mistake is just incredulous to even think about. And for your argument on taxation for things that aren't your fault - where will people get the money for marriage, and then for divorce in a few years? Next thing you know they'll start taxing for that.

Secondly, WHY is it okay, at all, for a non-married woman to become pregnant? (okay. . we ALL have sex before marriage. .RIGHT??. . well, do we?)
No, we don't. Not all of us. I didn't; I waited. And I'm glad I waited. But anyway, I just wanted to discourage the "everybody's doing it" mentality. Just like school sex ed programs should be doing. The truth of the matter is, 50% of high school graduates have NEVER HAD SEX. High school kids don't know that.[/rant]

As to your point, I don't think it's any of your business whether unmarried women get pregnant or not. If you want the government out of our bedrooms, the least you could do is stay out of other people's. I can't believe you'd dare to criticize what might be the failure of contraception. So you're saying it's okay to have sex before you're married, but poop on you if you accidentally get pregnant?

Oh, and as for forcing people to get married if they get pregnant. That's ridiculous, and an infringement on personal freedom. Make up your mind: do you want the government IN or OUT of our personal lives?

Not meant to be harsh.

<3 Mary

i think it's really important to educate young people about the dangers AND pleasures of sex! there was way too many teenage pregnancies in my high school! people need to be taught how good it feels when you wait for the right person to come along!

i think it's really important to educate young people about the dangers AND pleasures of sex! there was way too many teenage pregnancies in my high school! people need to be taught how good it feels when you wait for the right person to come along!
I think that would be great, if kids actually knew what "the right person" was. But most people who have sex think their partner IS the right person, or they wouldn't be doing it.

You're right to an extent. Kids need to be taught about how wonderful sex is WITHIN boundaries. Their young minds can't assess risk like older people, and they won't be smart about it unless someone lays down the line about boundaries and dangers too.

We have a sex ed program at church that teaches abstinence until marriage, contraception, STD avoidance, and the joy of sex after marriage, as God intended. While this program is obviously inappropriate for people not of my faith, I do think our church is quite progressive in even mentioning that sex can be good. Even though the Bible talks explicitly about the joy of sex, many churches try to claim that sex is dirty and just don't talk about it. I think that's robbing our children of a healthy concept of sex, and may affect their ability to fully enjoy it later in life. It's a shame, really.

There's a famous quote somewhere about how if an alien landed in America, they would think that the whole world was about sex, that people did it whenever and wherever, and with whomever, 24 hours a day. That is, unless they happened to visit the church, at which point, they would wonder what ever became of sex. By not projecting a healthy, normal image of sex, religious people everywhere are forcing their children to receive their only sexual education from the unrealistically sexual outer world.

I guess my point is, we need to make sure our children receive sex education from all fronts. They're more likely to believe Mom, Dad, the church, the teacher, and the doctor, than they are to just believe mom or dad. I think sex education is vital, especially in our oversexed society.

<3 Mary

And I am unable to see how someone can "know better" without being educated on the matter.
Which brings us back on the topic of sex education!

People aren't born with knowledge, not even common sense. We get common sense from growing up with other people and learning from them. Kris, you say that teens should just know better, well, how exactly are they supposed to know about sex if no one ever teaches them? From friends? Or from the Internet? Both of which will pass on false information. Especially porn, which implies that there is no risk from having sex. The only reliable sources are parents, and schools; and we all know that all parents give their kids sex ed :rolleyes:.

Most school have some sort of sex education. But different sex ed programs have different effects. A lot of schools just say "all sex is bad, don't do it". My friend quoted a teacher, who said "if you have sex before marriage, then prepare to go to hell when you die" WTF kind of sex ed is that?!? Is that reliable information? No!! That's downright lying! And how many kids will actually not have sex because of that? "I love you! Let's make love! But wait, my teacher said I'm gonna go to hell if I do, so I can't." :rolleyes:

The "all sex is bad" teaching is not only a lie, it does the exactly opposite of what it should - it gives teens a reason to experiment with sex! When you run out of reliable sources for information, then the next logical step is to experiment, and see for yourself what it's like. In a way, sex becomes the "forbidden fruit"

A couple people said that schools should teach kids the pleasures of sex, as well as the risks, and let kids decide for themselves if they want to take the risk. I agree with that. And if all schools can do that, then what Kris said is right. Why should tax dollars go to people that should've known better, but are too stupid. However, not all schools are teaching sex ed, and a lot of schools that do have sex ed give false information. So right now, if the government stops giving financial support to pregnant teens, it's like not teaching people something, and then punishing them for not knowing it; ie. punishing everyone just so the ones that truly deserve it will receive the punishment.

And here's another question to consider: even if all school have proper sex ed, should the child suffer for their parent's mistakes?

ps. I think that above question is really worth debating. Do you think it should be put in a new thread since it's not really about sex education anymore, or should the debate happen here?

The truth of the matter is, 50% of high school graduates have NEVER HAD SEX. High school kids don't know that.[/rant]

I knew that. I just wanted to be in the cool half.

Fallen Angelia .. where to begin?How about we begin with you not talking down to me, for a start.

Lets establish a few consistencies. . . First off, whose responsibility is it for a pregnancy? The girl? The guy? Both? Once you establish THAT. . why should anyone else bear that responsibility?You kind of made my point for me.. being that the responsibility should lie on both the girl and guy, however it often ends up lying on just one. Being a one income family is hard, and why not help bring up the economical curve? The more you let these people fall under the curve, the more they are going to need the government's assistant. At what point do you find it acceptable to step in, if ever?

So, adress this as not a social issue, but as a responsibility issue. This country (America) was founded on the idea of personal freedom and responsibility for ones actions. Why should I be responsible for a teenage mothers own lack of responsibility? Its MY money DAMMIT!! So, right there that means I despise the Government for stealing it from me and giving it to a person who should have KNOWN BETTER.That is kind of the price you pay for living in a society that does not leave others behind to better themselves. Going by your theory, how could you ever see a society where more the 85% of your population is lower to middle class income, actually succeed? You'd end up with a huge social gaps between the very rich, and the the poor.

SHE was irresponsible, not me. . . Her lover is also irresponsible. . but that's still not me. . .So why do they need MY money in order to avoid their responsibilities? Life is tough, get used to it. . Go out, get a JOB, earn money, and support yourself and the child. And while you are at it, do a paternity suit and get the guy involved in raising the child he fathered. And if you can't do that why the heck are you having sex in the first place? Because it feels good, right? GEESH!!She could go get a job.. and work minimum wage for the rest of her life. Or she could get some sort of government assistance, go to college, and then make a better life for both herself and her child. This, btw, would also give her child a better chance of being successful in life as well. The more we leave people behind, the more people are going to need assistance in the long run.

It seems that too few people have figured out this wonderful little Government scam that is going on. Everyone says "its for the children". . .its as if this is some sort of panacea that makes it ALL okay. . its okay to have a kid, its okay for the Government to give you money, and its okay for the Government to take MY money, by force (uh try this in a Bank .. you'll get 10-25 for it) in order to PROMOTE it. Promotion takes the shape of making it easier, in this case, not blatant encouragement.Cool, and what does this have to do with the topic again?

So, how do we reduce teen pregnancies and unwanted children? Step one. . GET the Government out of our bedrooms (and out of how we raise our children)Equality of life should extend to children too, remember. Your life is no more valuable then that of a 2 year old. That 2 year old deserves just as many opportunities as the next child. That is what the government is working towards, and what I am fighting for as well. It's not so much the teenage girl, as it is the child.

Step two, get them out of our schools. Having daycares in school gives the girl the girl the opportunity to graduate and hopefully get a better paying job, maybe even attend college. Remember, even smart girls can get pregnant..

Step three. . end social welfare of all types.My single mother had to work 2 jobs to keep my family off of welfare, and I barely saw her. I suppose me and my brother deserved that though?

Step four..Teach abstinence and personal responsibility.The problem with just teaching abstinence, is that nobody actually wants to do that. Yes it should be taught as an option, but given that a lot of teenagers and young adults do have sexual hormones, it would make a lot more sense to look at way of protecting against pregnancy, rather then the entire act of sex.

Step five. . start making people get married when a child is conceived again, and holding Fathers responsible for the child as well.Unless you are going to tag a no divorce law on to that, I can't see how that could possibly solve anything. Like SangReal has already pointed out, any basic human rights would basically have to go right out the window, for something of that nature to ever fly.

After all, it's the PARENTS responsibility for the child, not societies. Actually no, it's everyone's responsibility to raise a child. Tell me you've heard the expression It takes a village to raise a child. We're are not vulture like creatures here, we're not typically out just to better ourselves and ourselves only, and I refuse to live as such.

It all comes down to Personal Responsibility for your actions .. Stop thinking like a spoiled little brat who doesn't want to share his candy.. seriously. Yes you worked for your money, but how hard did you work? Did you fight your way from the bottom, without a single hand to help you? Did your parents have so little you had to work just to help support them, all the while trying to get enough money saved for your own education, to some day better yourself? I doubt you have had to do any of that, and if you have I commend you. How many children out there are in that exact position, and just need that extra hand? It's about filling the social and economic gaps, not separating people even more.

I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay for another persons mistakes. Name all of your mistakes, and I guarantee someone else has had to pay. It's life, and it's about being human.

But, if YOU want to, go right ahead. Take your paychecks and hand them over to a teenage mother. Then eat, live, and support your own family. . . Then we'll see how long your compassion lasts.That is kind of what we are already doing, and most people do maintain their compassion, actually.

I am finding that most of the resistance to my stance of NO GOVERNMENT is coming from Socialized Nations ..Like. . dare I say it. . Canada, Australia, and Britain. Given their Government monopolies on Health Care, Government programs for Welfare and assistance, and "Socialized" teachings throughout their cultures, it only seems appropriate that people growing up under these constraints and lacks of Freedom would want others to be as they are. Your arguments for monetary assistance, child day-care (OH PHULEASE. . that really helps kids doesn't it), job training programs (again government funded) health care (the government dole again), and other rewards for out of wedlock pregnancies/births are all FIXES . .AFTER the child is born. . . .

The old saying "An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure" applies very well here. How much money would not be taxed, or spent, if these programs did not exist? How many lives would not be horribly altered if the teen pregnancies never took place? How much better for us ALL would it be if teen pregnancy was cut to 1/10 of what it is now?

Answers: HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of Dollars. . . Millions. . . and Tremendously better.

Given that scale of possibility, WHY is anyone promoting a continued socialization and government intervention/assistance on this subject? Why are we even consideringit? Because you were taught that it was "okay"? That you were lied to that it was a necessity? That you are made to feel guilty if you do not go along with the lie?

Do you actually TRUST your government?? Come on now . .think about that one really hard. Anyone who trusts their Government had better take another really long hard look at it. How many of these programs like day care, welfare, job training, etc etc etc make more money than they require to fund? None of them. So, here we go. .Government monopoly again, governmnet rules. .again. .government taxation. . again. . government taking over YOUR lives. . more and more each day. I keep waiting for the National ID number. . that is tattooed on your left arm. . . . It has happened before. . it can happen again.

You may not agree with my position about the necessity of marriage when pregnancy occurs. You'd rather "Marry" that girl to a government subsidy program instead? Yeah, let the Government take care of her. . . . she'll never get away from it till the child is grown, and that program encourages her to have more children usually. Thank GOD that here in the US they revamped the Welfare system/programs to help get people off of it. But, it would never have become the total disgrace it is today if it had never been formed in the first place.

Personal responsibility is the only way to properly take care of Sexual Education. . Starting at home with the PARENTS being responsible for the children they brought into this world. And, so that you don't think I'm speaking from a lack of experience here. . . My sister had an abortion at 16 because my mother (An RN of all things) could not talk about pregnancy and avoiding it, and how to handle all those hormones running amuck. . My mother was horribly, terribly irresponsible. . I despise her to this day for that. And I will never repeat HER mistakes. Unfortunately, that same sister has already proven herself doomed to make those mistakes again and again with her own children.


Someone is going to jump in and use this as an excuse for the government stepping in and "Educating" our children. I think it's the BEST reason for the Government to stay out of it. Perhaps if my Mother, and Sister, had to live with the product of their irresponsibility, they would have finally awakened to the necessities of life. They haven't. . my sister has been on/off Government assistance for 20 years. . my mother wrings her hands over it.. .after all, its not HER fault. . is it? I escaped that zoo. . because I took responsibility for my own life. My own families lives have been terribly altered. . because they knew the government would take care of them. .

It's pathetic. I don't wish that upon anyone.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

Quote: Stop thinking like a spoiled little brat who doesn't want to share his candy.. seriously. Yes you worked for your money, but how hard did you work? Did you fight your way from the bottom, without a single hand to help you? Did your parents have so little you had to work just to help support them, all the while trying to get enough money saved for your own education, to some day better yourself? I doubt you have had to do any of that, and if you have I commend you. How many children out there are in that exact position, and just need that extra hand? It's about filling the social and economic gaps, not separating people even more.::::::

As a matter of fact, I did start at the very bottom and worked my way up to where I am today ..NO assistance, no government subsidies, almost died a few times along the way, and BY GOD I stand on my own two feet and ask for NOTHING in return. I walked away from a broken, twisted home at the age of 18, 1 month after Graduating, and joined the Marines. . not a penny in my pocket. I learned my trade. . despite the limitations imposed by Military Service. I damned near died more than a few times during that service. I also went to college, without government assistance (The NEW GI Bill was in effect then. . ), learned, studied, got a total of 2 years credit under my belt, and when I got out I started at the bottom AGAIN. And in a year was at the top of my Trade, and I've been there ever since. My house. . paid for .. My cars ..the same. . Debt? Forget it.

It's MY money, and I earned every penny. Excuse me if I expect the same from everyone else in this world. But with Government in our schools, and our lives, and people promoting it because it's too HARD to make it without that Government help. . .it's just way to easy to roll over and give up. Or roll onto your back and become pregnant. . Big Brother will take care of you.

I refuse to accept that . . . I suggest you look very hard at my signature. . it says it all.

Kris^
mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

The old saying "An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure" applies very well here. How much money would not be taxed, or spent, if these programs did not exist? How many lives would not be horribly altered if the teen pregnancies never took place? How much better for us ALL would it be if teen pregnancy was cut to 1/10 of what it is now?

Answers: HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of Dollars. . . Millions. . . and Tremendously better.

Given that scale of possibility, WHY is anyone promoting a continued socialization and government intervention/assistance on this subject? Why are we even consideringit? Because you were taught that it was "okay"? That you were lied to that it was a necessity? That you are made to feel guilty if you do not go along with the lie? Here's a quick tip: EDUCATION provides KNOWLEDGE which will provide LESS pregnancies. Of course, this isn't what this argument is really about anymore. Admit it. It isn't about someone becoming pregnant. It's your grudge against the government.

As a matter of fact, I did start at the very bottom and worked my way up to where I am today ..NO assistance, no government subsidies, almost died a few times along the way, and BY GOD I stand on my own two feet and ask for NOTHING in return. I walked away from a broken, twisted home at the age of 18, 1 month after Graduating, and joined the Marines. . not a penny in my pocket. I learned my trade. . despite the limitations imposed by Military Service. I damned near died more than a few times during that service. I also went to college, without government assistance (The NEW GI Bill was in effect then. . ), learned, studied, got a total of 2 years credit under my belt, and when I got out I started at the bottom AGAIN. And in a year was at the top of my Trade, and I've been there ever since. My house. . paid for .. My cars ..the same. . Debt? Forget it.

It's MY money, and I earned every penny. Excuse me if I expect the same from everyone else in this world. But with Government in our schools, and our lives, and people promoting it because it's too HARD to make it without that Government help. . .it's just way to easy to roll over and give up. Or roll onto your back and become pregnant. . Big Brother will take care of you. It's good that you took responsibility over your own life. But did you know the military is a government-runned operation? They helped you out a lot in that.

My dad decided he didn't want to work anymore, and my whole family ended up homeless. He had always been abusive on top of that. Without government assistance, my family would have starved. My dad is one of those that you mention, he now relies on the government to provide his income. But not everyone is like that. Some people really need it to help them get back on their feet. Without government assistance, my mom never would have been able to leave the abusive bastard that is supposedly my father. I left when I was 17. Not that there was a structure to leave - unless you count a car. I got a job and, OMG I used food stamps god forbid, to be able to take care of myself. I'm sorry that I took away from YOUR money (though now that I have a job, I pay taxes too) so I could survive. I was also on MediCal because I have a lot of health problems and there's no way any regular person would be able to afford those bills. I'm sorry my little brother was at fault for your money being ripped away from you. Let's see if one of your kids ever need medical attention that you can't afford. If you lose your job for whatever reason and have NO money to put food in your family's mouths, you won't try to get some assistance? If not, then you have even more pride than my father did, not wanting to take a lower-class job. If so, then you'll turn to a government-assisted program. And that would make you a hypocrite, as you've been anyway throughout your entire double-post. If you'll never be in that situation, then congratulations, most people aren't as fortunate as you are.

You know what? I know what it's like. And I GLADLY support orginizations that help other people. No, it doesn't help everyone. Yes, most people take advantage of it. I know that, and I still support it. Because children, most of all, don't deserve it. And, as you've said, in this country there is a limited time you can be on Welfare, and they try to get you off of it as fast as possible.

Perhaps if my Mother, and Sister, had to live with the product of their irresponsibility, they would have finally awakened to the necessities of life. They haven't. . my sister has been on/off Government assistance for 20 years. . my mother wrings her hands over it.. .after all, its not HER fault. . is it?
Would they really have "awakened to the necessities of life?" Yes, they will know better. But only AFTER their lives are totally screwed over. They'll learn from their mistakes, but what good will that do NOW?

And also, will anyone else learn from it? I highly doubt that. The only people that know better will be the ones that already screwed themselves over. The rest of the population will go on as if nothing happened. How many people have to make one mistake to mess up their entire lives before you think the government should step in?

Expand and kill you?
I haven't heard of many women that.. err experienced death by tampon.

lmao.

I think sex ed is really important for kid's to have in schools, no matter how many time's say ''don't have sex until you married'' kid's are still going to have sex. They got that whole hormone thing going on, and many kid's i know are already having sex. (my friend in 7th grade got pregnant)

Whether a person want's to have sex is there business, and a personal desision, but kid's should know the risks of sex, like STD's, and should also know about condoms and birth control. Kid's are going to be having sex anyway, and it's good that they know how things work, and the options of protection.
/late as usual

Expand and kill you?
I haven't heard of many women that.. err experienced death by tampon.

lmao.

The only tampon related deaths I know of are those caused by TSS, Toxic Shock Syndrome. The little directions they put in the box have a warning about it.
I know someone who once forgot about the fact they had worn a tampon "just in case" and then remembered 4 days later about it. They had to go to the Dr.!!! My God! If that ever happened to me it would certainly qualify as death by tampon because I would die of embarrassment! :o :eek:

Kris^, every post you make is slapping me in the face. Why? Because I take a "no government" stance as well. I don't get upset with people who disagree with me. However, I get very upset when people who share my antistatism do such a poor job of defending it as to drive others further in the opposite direction. That's what you're doing! You're talking down to people, you're posting hypocrisy, and you're acting like the stereotype of the heartless conservative.

Everyone, Kris^ does not represent antistatism--he's expressing fascism. He apparently has no problem with militarism or such ridiculous intervention as forcing people to get married. He's a statist--he just opposes economic assistance from government.

If you want to understand what "no government" really means, read the articles and postings at anti-state.com or the works of people like David Friedman or Murray Rothbard. These people understand that a stateless, free-market society provides the greatest good for the greatest number, not the picture Kris^ is painting of people starving in the streets while onlookers obliviously walk by.

Have you ever considered speaking positively? Do you come here in an attempt to convince others, or to engage in mental masturbation?

I apologize to everyone for taking this thread even further off-topic, but I had to set a few things straight. I hope he likes his new title.

uh, Cruithne, Anytime the State steps in, there is a problem. It is not the STATE that should make marriage a necessity, but Societal norms. We've gotten so used to the State taking care of things. . you seem to have forgotten that before the State, we had accepted "Rules of engagement" which had to do with courtship, marriage, and knocking up the neighbors 13 year old daughter. It's society,not the gonvermnet, that needs to step up and fix itself, take responsibility for teaching it's children properly about Sex (and love and marriage and LIFE) Used to be, you knocked the girl up, you married her. The term "Shotgun wedding" comes to mind. . . now you just apply for welfare and go home.

We've become too "Civilized" for that now, right?

As for Fascism .. please, you insult me with your lack of grasp of my position. Nothing is further from the truth. The "State" is the last thing I want in anyones life. "Public School". . more correctly the "Government School" does more harm to a young persons mind than any other influence. IMO. Add "Sex disinformation" classes to that environment. . is it any wonder kids know almost nothing about the subject, and have more questions than answers when the course is finished?

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

Here's the problem.

Once you have an evil, such as public schools (and I will agree that it is an evil on a lot of levels), you need to make do with it and work from there. It is counterproductive to both children and adults to fight every change in policy simply because of a disagreement with the entire system.

Rather it is best to try to turn that system into one of "least evil."

Compare and contrast these questions:

Is it a bad thing that the government is teaching?
Since the government is teaching and not likely to stop, is it a bad thing that they teach sexual education?


Two entirely separate questions.

To be succinct. . . .

Yes

Yes

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

To be succinct. . . .

Yes

Yes

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

To be succinct, since you don't feel the need to elaborate neither do I:

Yes.

No. Not so long as the antecedent is fulfilled.

Kris, what about the people who are married and have children young but did not have much in the way of job opps due to poor economical conditons and small town politics that needed to use welfare until they could get on their feet? Is public assistance ok for those who are trying to do that whole family thing but can't seem to make ends meet?

I was married when I conceived my first child, techincally I was a teen pregnancy- 19, almost 20. We had no insurance, my husbands insurance had not kicked in at his new job yet. I got pregnant 3 weeks before his probation period was up, talk about timing. Medicaid paid for our child's birth and our second childs birth when 9 months after the first one came along I conceived WHILE using birth control!! He was a laid off at the time and we were doing everything besides not having sex to be safe. The only one of my girls that was planned is the youngest. We had medical insurance thru my husbands job that helped to cover her birth.

Anyway when the only job he could get paid $7 an hour we had no choice but to go on foodstamps. Welfare helped us out when no one else could. However, as soon as my husband started a better job that paid a living wage, welfare was a thing of the past. WE did not use it as a crutch. We had no choice. You have no idea how hard it was to have to use foodstamps! We had 2 small children, had I gotten a job my childcare would have cost more than what I was making. I was on WIC too. That program was a godsend. When you live payday to payday, having at least a few staples in the fridge for the kids is a necessity. Without those programs two married people very much in love just may have had to give their children up for adoption to someone who could have cared for them. We hit some very hard times, while that certainly was not your fault, I thank you kindly for those tax dollars :confused: . By the way, we certainly pay enough taxes now to more than make up for the time we were on Public Assistance. :rolleyes:.

Kris, it is an attitude like yours that makes scared young moms give birth in bathrooms and dump the babies in the garbage. No one is perfect. I don't give a shit how much abstinence is taught, if a person is curious about sex chances are they are going to explore that curiousity to some degree. I would much rather my child have the facts and know what they are up against instead of them just being told don't do it, its a sin, blah, blah blah.

Preaching at people is the quickest way to get them to do just the exact opposite of what you want them to do.

scared young moms give birth in bathrooms and dump the babies in the garbage.
Okay there... That's just, disturbing.. :eek:

You know, EtherealMom, I am this >< close to agreeing with you in your specific case. What would you have done without public assistance? In your case it rends my heart to think what would have happened if it had not been there for you. And being on the outside, looking in, a lot of people will say I'm not even qualified to comment. But, I'll ask one question, to establish my only point on this, and leave it at that. Would waiting 5 years to have your first child have made a difference in this situation? Take anything else I've said on this entire thread, and throw it in the trash, and just answer that one question truthfully. And, no, this is not an attack upon you. . just hindsight rearing its ugly head.

Its never easy to take an unpopular stand against something that actually benefits some people. That "something", however, is merely a small symptom of the disease. Take Llywelyns last statement .. "no, not as long as the antecedent is fulfilled". This stance still allows for Gov.co to be present, and holds no one accountable for the results. The only way to fix that problem is take our government schools and insist on accountability. The only way to do THAT is by establishing localized school-choice, probably through a voucher system, and ensure parental feedback (instead of gov.co mandates) has the highest priority. llywelyn is correct , ,we can't get rid of this boondoggle called the Education System. But we surely can have a say so in how it's manipulated at the local level, and how thoroughly the curriculum is taught. Anyone for an 11-month school year and half days on Saturday? If Gov.co is going to be involved (and I grind my teeth at the thought) it's time to hold it accountable for a proper education for our children, rather than merely getting by.

Since we've basically argued/debated this into a standstill and the subject IS Sex Education. . would someone like to take a crack at listing what proper Sex Education would entail? And how would we tell if the students had been properly "Educated" (given the focus of a lot of schools on "Testing". .not Learning) That is, after all, the crux of this entire debate.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

You know, EtherealMom, I am this >< close to agreeing with you in your specific case. What would you have done without public assistance? In your case it rends my heart to think what would have happened if it had not been there for you. And being on the outside, looking in, a lot of people will say I'm not even qualified to comment. But, I'll ask one question, to establish my only point on this, and leave it at that. Would waiting 5 years to have your first child have made a difference in this situation? Take anything else I've said on this entire thread, and throw it in the trash, and just answer that one question truthfully. And, no, this is not an attack upon you. . just hindsight rearing its ugly head.

Its never easy to take an unpopular stand against something that actually benefits some people. That "something", however, is merely a small symptom of the disease. Take Llywelyns last statement .. "no, not as long as the antecedent is fulfilled". This stance still allows for Gov.co to be present, and holds no one accountable for the results. The only way to fix that problem is take our government schools and insist on accountability. The only way to do THAT is by establishing localized school-choice, probably through a voucher system, and ensure parental feedback (instead of gov.co mandates) has the highest priority. llywelyn is correct , ,we can't get rid of this boondoggle called the Education System. But we surely can have a say so in how it's manipulated at the local level, and how thoroughly the curriculum is taught. Anyone for an 11-month school year and half days on Saturday? If Gov.co is going to be involved (and I grind my teeth at the thought) it's time to hold it accountable for a proper education for our children, rather than merely getting by.

Since we've basically argued/debated this into a standstill and the subject IS Sex Education. . would someone like to take a crack at listing what proper Sex Education would entail? And how would we tell if the students had been properly "Educated" (given the focus of a lot of schools on "Testing". .not Learning) That is, after all, the crux of this entire debate.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

If I would have waited five years that would have meant 1). My daughter would not be the person she is and 2) I would have had to have an abortion since she ,although not planned, was still very much on the way and created within a loving marriage. I have no regrets about having my daughter at the age I did. I believe everything happens for a reason. Call it fate, destiny, God's will. I've taken the good, bad, and very ugly but rolled with it nevertheless. So yes while we may have been a little more financially secure 5 years down the road if everyone waited to have children until they could afford them, the population would be a whole lot lower. ;)

I think I said somethings in earlier posts about what proper Sex Ed would be. Again, this is something that should start at home with parents who are concerned enough about their childrens well-being to approach the uncomfortable subjects because they care.

Sadly, this is not always the case so it is vitally important for schools to assist in sexual education, including distribution of information about AiDS, other STD's including HPV, unplanned pregnancy, and the basic biological facts about reproduction. Early on knowledge about molestation and bad touches is crucial.Not only by adults but peers as well. My own child had an experience with a bad touch on the playground a few years ago. She did not tell me until way after the fact so I could not do anything about it. Damn teachers on Recess duty need a few lessons in what to watch out for too. :mad:

Introduction into SEX ED should start in 4th grade, many kids are already sexually curious at this age and girls are maturing way faster these days. They need to see those dreaded puberty films, girls should have the demonstration pack of sanitary products and the booklet sent home with them. Boys need to understand what is going on with their bodies. I am not real familiar with the movie the boys are shown because I have never seen it.

Then in junior high assemblies about STD's, Unplanned pregnancy, and abstinence should be shown 3 times a year by theme or however many times parents and educators feel are necessary. I believe real stories can speak volumes. They need to have those who have been teen moms, on welfare, AIDS victims, etc to give true life accounts about what it is like to be 13 with a baby. What welfare is really about. How someone who had their entire life ahead of them contracted AIDS at 20. Seeing blown up pictures of genital warts on the overhead projector may be enough to put any kid on the abstinence track. A good old fashioned slide show by a doctor or qualified professional of various STD's on the genitals and mouth would have scared me into a chastity belt for sure.

This will probably be a very controversial suggestion but proper condom usage as well. There will always be those who are gonna do it no matter how many times they are told what can happen. For girls, birth control options as well should be discussed. It is especially important for girls to know what to do in a situation if they have been Date Raped. Once again many girls do not report this crime out of shame and fear.

The dangers of oral sex MUST be focused upon. I cannot tell you how many girls I have heard say this is not sex or is is safe because they cannot get pregnant. I saw a movie a few months back about a school where 75% of the students contracted an STD orally because of one initially infected student. I was stunned!

In high school there should be more of this same kind of thing only more indepth. Condom machines should be available in the bathrooms for grades 9-12. On the machines a friendly little message about proper usage, what they prevent but are not 100% effective against, and a reminder that waiting until you are really sure you are ready to face the consequences sex can bring would all be very helpful.

The key here is consistency. If you give someone a few months of algebra and then expect them to be math wizards all you're gonna get is confusion and failed tests. I think that if SEX ED starts early when children are very impressionable and continues throughout their school years for many it will give them the tools to make informed decisions about sex.

The government should give the funding to the schools to have these programs available. Most school districts simply do not have the extra money available to do this sort of intense education. A set of basic guidelines should be set up but schools and parents should have final say in what each assembly contains.

At the end of each year the government should send out a mandatory survey for students to fill out about what they have been taught. Programs like Head Start have what is called an Education Auditor visit the schools for a week to observe and make sure the guidelines set up by the government are being followed. Perhaps between a quarterly visit of such a person and the surverys afore mentioned it will be possible to monitor the effectiveness of SEX ED programs.

Preaching abstinence is not going to get thru to most kids but teaching responsibility, seeing first hand what the consequences of SEX are might. Having understanding adults( parents) involved in these presentations who want to help, not judge could really make a difference as well.

I have a quick question: Kris^, how come you were unable to answer my questions?

My parents were both abusive alcoholics, Shivercide. I still have many of the physical scars, and the mental scars will probably never go away. Both my brother and I joined the military to get away from it. And before you look upon Military Service as a Government subsidy, remember the guys over in Iraq right now . They joined for the same reason I did. To SERVE our country. $397.50/month was barely subsistence for your uniforms and necessities when I joined up, and inside of a year a lot of us were embroiled in yet another silly "Foreign strategy". Getting killed serving your country makes the Military a lot different from a subsistence/welfare check. Between my sisters, one got a college scholarship, the other became a drifter of sorts, and has never settled down. Its kind of ironic to note that the only one who ever got Gov.co assistance was the one who went to college.

There are exceptions to every stereotyping of people. .especially where government programs come in. Unfortunately the stereotyping associated with Welfare has a very deserved truth to it. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation Welfare families have made it so. Who is to believe that one determined person, such as yourself, is actually trying. . when so many others do not? Try convincing a DSS bureaucrat of that, though. For the people like yourself, and etherealme. . you are the proof it can be done, and deserve every recognition for it. Will that change my stance? No. It's still a matter of principle. With the taxes I pay each year, I guestimate I support at least 1 welfare family all by myself. I suppose that's why I work a 6-day week.

Perhaps you could convince Cruithne that I'm anti-gov.co. He swears I'm a Fascist. :D

Kris^
mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

Both my brother and I joined the military to get away from it.
And before you look upon Military Service as a Government subsidy, remember the guys over in Iraq right now . They joined for the same reason I did. To SERVE our country.
I found those two statements that I quoted above to be completely contradictory from one another. You joined the military because you had nowhere else to go. You even said yourself, to get away from your parents. There is nothing wrong with that, so there's no need to try and cover it up.

My support is behind our troops, in Iraq and elsewhere. I don't support that they should be over there, but I admire their bravery and am grateful for people willing to risk their lives for their country. You're the one that supposedly has a problem with the government, remember? The military is a part of the government.

Getting killed serving your country makes the Military a lot different from a subsistence/welfare check. Between my sisters, one got a college scholarship, the other became a drifter of sorts, and has never settled down. Its kind of ironic to note that the only one who ever got Gov.co assistance was the one who went to college.

There are exceptions to every stereotyping of people. .especially where government programs come in. Unfortunately the stereotyping associated with Welfare has a very deserved truth to it. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation Welfare families have made it so. Who is to believe that one determined person, such as yourself, is actually trying. . when so many others do not? Try convincing a DSS bureaucrat of that, though. For the people like yourself, and etherealme. . you are the proof it can be done, and deserve every recognition for it. Will that change my stance? No. It's still a matter of principle. With the taxes I pay each year, I guestimate I support at least 1 welfare family all by myself. I suppose that's why I work a 6-day week.
Who knows, maybe a person who needed government assistance to help get back on their feet will one day help humanity in some other way. Perhaps a very important way. Maybe a big way, maybe a small way. Maybe they won't do shit and instead will try to milk every government aid program available.

But you can't class ALL people on welfare or medical assistance programs as being people that will only take as much as they can get from it. The ones that really need it and use it constructively to get back on their feet shouldn't be left to starve in the streets just because of other selfish people.

People should not be depending on schools to teach their children about sex. Whatever happened to the birds and the bees? I do believe that a health class should be taught, and as a part of that curriculum, children should be taught the dangers of sexual intercourse, STDs and such. Tell them about condoms and other contraceptives. However, the school should be the one telling the kids when to have sex. The parents should be responsible for talking to their kids about the actual act of intercourse, oral sex, etc. in private so they can actually talk to their kids about it, instead of having him/her laugh at the teacher in the back of class. THEY need to be the ones saying, "Well, when two people love each other very much..."

People should not be depending on schools to teach their children about sex. Whatever happened to the birds and the bees? I do believe that a health class should be taught, and as a part of that curriculum, children should be taught the dangers of sexual intercourse, STDs and such. Tell them about condoms and other contraceptives. However, the school should be the one telling the kids when to have sex. The parents should be responsible for talking to their kids about the actual act of intercourse, oral sex, etc. in private so they can actually talk to their kids about it, instead of having him/her laugh at the teacher in the back of class. THEY need to be the ones saying, "Well, when two people love each other very much..."
A couple people already posted the exact same thing :p

Yes, parents will be the best choice for giving their kids sex education, BUT, how many parents actually do? A lot of parents don't even care about this and just let their kids learn about sex from school or whatever. And also, it's extrememly uncomfortable for both the parents and the kids to have a sex talk, so for parents to give their kids detailed teachings about sex and it's consequences, it's just not going to happen. We can't force parents to teach their kids about sex, so the next best thing is to have detailed and accurate sex education in schools.

Let's not forget that some parents may refuse to teach their children about it as they have strong issues on the nature of sex. However, if they refuse to let their children partake in sexual education at school, then they're going to have a huge shock when they do start having sex and end up with the unsurprising consequences...

Shivercide, from the age of about 6 I knew I was going to do one of two things with my life.. Be the first man on Mars (okay, I reside on Pluto at the moment), or join the Navy or Army. As it was I chose both of the latter. :) I was also going to become a pilot. . which I am. This was during Viet Nam, when being anti-military was extremely popular. That it got me away from my home (which had done zero to prepare me for the realities of life, including sex ) and in a very short time turned me int a very serious adult, is win-win-win in my opinion. And a slight correction on whether the Military is a part of Gov.co. . .The Military protects the Country, and does the country's bidding to protect the Nation and in times of War. It is NOT a social safety net, internal police force, nor Government service. It is, basically, a Branch of the Government, far removed from Societal interactions between the Government and population. It has two purposes (Quoting Mr. Limbaugh) Kill people. . Break things. Expecting anything else (such as picking up trash in Haiti. . . )is going against the military's focus. It carries a 2-6 contractual obligation for it's members, and is probably the most important "Job" that is associated with Gov.co.

My parents were as Livo has illustrated .. irresponsible, incapable, inept when it came to teaching their children what life, love, sex and children were really all about. The Government is even more inept in this area because Gov.co is based on compromise, not principles, these days. Perhaps you see where my point comes from now. Parents are bad at raising children, but Gov.co is even worse. As Llewyln has stated. ."which is the lessor of the two evils?" .ignorance from ineptitude at home, or disinformation, lies, half truths and a political agenda in the schools?

There is no such thing as the "Great Society", and ours is far from perfect. But it is NO Governments place to shape the societal evolution of it's citizens, to include their sexuality, moral values, principles, and how difficult life may become for them if they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Imagine the firestorm of debate teenagers are now having concerning the New Jersey Governor, and his resignation over a Homosexual affair while still married. A GOVERNOR has just told every child in America. . it's okay to cheat on your spouse, it's okay to engage in gratuitous sex, it's okay to have multiple sexual partners, it's okay to break the vows of marriage so you can have a little fun on the side. . .And we can all thank Mr. Clinton for his unforgettable lesson that oral sex is not really sex after all. . so it's okay. . isn't it. (and if you don't inhale, you really didn't smoke pot. . )

These are our Gov.co leaders showing our children that it's okay to not have good moral values, that "not having sex with that woman" is a perfectly good excuse for other forms of sexual intimacy, and that Homosexuality (no matter how you feel about it) is a perfectly okay alternative to the wife you swore your undying devotion to, and your oaths in either case mean nothing.

Do we really want "leadership" like that transferred into a school curriculum? The best lessons are by example. . unfortunately our children have just had two extremely bad and very high-profile examples of how NOT to do it. . but it's okay to do those things because THEY did it. I stand firmly against that line of thought, as will most responsible people, which is why it is imperative we oversee and hold accountable any Gov.co activity in this area.


***************************************

As for my own earlier question concerning what should be taught in Sex Ed Classes? Just my opinion. I certainly do not advocate them. Call this the Pragmatic approach. . . and parents should be taking a hard look at what is going on .. Sending Little Johnny and Susie off to learn the birds and the bees from Gov.co is NOT parenting.

Hygiene. . big time, and since boys are lazy, give them an extra dose of it
Abstinence. It's still the best way to prevent pregnancy and STD's
Disease prevention, and don't tell them a condom will do the job .. the failure rate of condoms is high enough to make this a dangerous suggestion.
Physical interactions (hey, how do these parts fit together and what IS an orgasm, anyway???)
Ways of saying NO. . (give the girls a quadruple dose of this class. . )
Ways of controlling your urges (Give the boys a QUINTUPLE dose of this class. . )
Why does homosexuality exist? What is it? Is it okay?
Very heavy instruction on STD's their causes and history, how to prevent them, how to treat them, what NOT to do if you have an STD, and the incurability of AIDS and Herpes. (yeah, they actually kill you. . so can syphillis)
Alternatives to sexual activity in close relationships.
How long to wait before having children, and how much does it REALLY cost.
A 2-month "carry the baby with you everywhere and keep it ALIVE" lesson using an electronic device (like that silly thing of a few years ago)
Marriage, what its REALLY all about . . (no Fairie tales here .. )

This should be a year (or more) curriculum, IMO, if it is to be done properly, not an add-on to phys-ed or gym classes, and should tie in closely with things like Home Economics (geehow do we eat???) micro-economics (how do we afford stuff???) and basic employment/life discussion seminars (with parental interaction) And while we are at it, let's openly discuss the Religious/spiritual side of it, and invite local leaders in to discuss their views on the subject.

You want open, informative, and thought provoking Sex Ed that actually teaches something, helps kids open their minds a bit, and shows the realities of life, along with giving them the best advice from a number of different sources? There ya go. . add things as you se