Sex Ed debate- Play nice

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff]I guess after getting the Political Caption thread off to a smashing start I may as well continue this whole thing because humor threads are for humor. But debate threads... yeah.

Okay so obviously I have an issue with abstinence only education- in my humble opinion it doesn't work. And [U][B]I'm not talking about Palin's daughter[/B][/U] I'm talking about states in general, the state of Massachusettes (I can't spell that place since I don't live there) has a policy of abstinence only education and you have a group of girls there making a pregnancy pact. Texas has an abstinence only sex ed policy and the teen pregnancy rate was going up.

It's like a catch twenty-two because public schools in the states are required to teach abstinence only sex ed in their schools or not recieve government funding. Which is really absurd.

Okay I'm not saying that it's only the school's responsibility to teach abouit the consequences of having unprotected sex or just sex in general to pre-teens and teens, but it's hard for some parents to talk to their children about sex. Some not all because it's a wonder I wasn't scarred by some of my mom's talks. But really you can't expect all people to just say no in a moment of passion. The sex ed curriculum should at least be required to include information about condom usage and birth control options. I'm not saying that school's should hand out those things- except maybe in college- but I'm saying that those options should be mentioned more frequently and with success rates not failure rates. Well informed is well prepared, right?

Oh yeah and before anyone starts flinging anything else at me- I'm pro-choice, but not pro abortion. That is all.[/color]

[Korey]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"] See, I live in Texas and even though we have an abstience only policy, we didn't learn diddly about sex-ed in our required Health class that we were required to take in order to graduate. Nothing, nada, zip.

While Sex education is important to educate people about sex, I don't think that telling kids "YOU CAN'T EVER EVER HAVE SEX UNTIL YOU'RE OF PROPER AGE." is the right way to go about it. I feel that educating kids on the dangers of unsafe sexual practices and so forth would benefit them more than just simply advocating abstinence. Whether we try to tell them to be abstinent or not, kids will react the same way adults do in throes of passion. Especially young teens who have never experienced this sort of thing in the past. So I believe the best we can do is educate them to practice sex in a safe manner if you are going to practice it and make sure the precautions are taken in order to prevent disease and accidental pregnancies.

[quote name=' "chibihorsewoman''] Oh yeah and before anyone starts flinging anything else at me- I'm pro-choice, but not pro abortion. That is all.[/quote]

I find that statement to be highly contradictory. Perhaps you can explain it better?[/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"']I find that statement to be highly contradictory. Perhaps you can explain it better?[/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]That's because you've probably been indoctrinated into reading "pro-choice" as "pro-choose-abortion"; whereas saying you are "pro-choice" is simply saying you belief that a woman has the right to choose, and says nothing about which way you [I]will[/I] choose.

Actually, the pro-choice stance is really a waste of words. Any time a woman becomes with child, she has to choose one way or the other (minor-age status aside, partially), and there is really no one else who can make the decision for her. Not even the Unborn has a say in its survival; it is completely up to the woman. In fact, 'right' has little to do with the issue at all, for the woman has no choice [I]but[/I] to choose one or the other.

---------

@ [COLOR="DarkRed"]CHW[/COLOR]:

If you claim that the program doesn't work, what do you believe is the intent of the program? Provide us this so that we may see if your concept lines up, and so determine if it is indeed failing at its goal.[/FONT]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]
I find that statement to be highly contradictory. Perhaps you can explain it better?[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]Yes I can. Being pro choice for me means that you don't oppose a woman's right to choose an abortion but you don't think you'd do the same thing. There are other options than just having an abortion, such as adoption. There are millions (maybe not- I haven't done research on that) of couples waiting to adopt a child and they spend a lot of money on lawyers waiting for someone to be willing to give their child up.

I don't find the statement contradictory in the least[/color]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]@ [COLOR="DarkRed"]CHW[/COLOR]:

If you claim that the program doesn't work, what do you believe is the intent of the program? Provide us this so that we may see if your concept lines up, and so determine if it is indeed failing at its goal.[/FONT][/QUOTE]


[color=#9933ff]Fair enough. From what I understand (I haven't been in school since 2000 and my daughter is only three going on four and wouldn't understand even the most basic sex talks except maybe the whole it's your body don't let anyone touch it) the abstinence only programs only teach students about abstaining from sex and the failure rate of condoms. There is nothing said about contraceptives or proper safe sex. It's just said that sex is bad and you shouldn't do it. Which in my humble opinion is stupidity in itsself. Yes sex is a big step. But It's not a bad thing- it's not a sin- and that's what many of these classes are saying.

Teaching abstinence only would be a wonderful idea if teenagers were all in bubbles and you could stop and think in the moment of passion wait, we shouldn't do this. But that's not the world we live in.

OKay so now I've said my piece, I know you're dying to explain to me exactly what you think about the whole thing since you've scolded me twice for not agreeing with abstinence only. Tell me, why do you think it works?[/color]

[The13thMan]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm pro-choice both in the political sense and the literal sense. A woman should be given the option to abort if she so decides. It's her body and all that jazz. Though, i do think it brings up the question of how much say should the father have in the matter. Some would argue just as much as the woman, others say it should be completely up to the woman. I don't know how fair this is... People say it's the woman's body. But that's just the birthing process. There's just as much DNA from the man as there is from the woman. It's still part of the man's body. Just... not in the same sense as it is for a woman. So i'm not quite sure where i stand on that matter. I guess the only advice i can give to a man who wants a baby is to make sure to impregnate a gal you know will be willing to birth your son. In other words, be in a healthy relationship.

When i say i'm pro-choice in the literal sense i mean that i think a person has the right to make a choice once he/she is of a decent age. Regardless of what the choices are. I also believe that that person should be as informed as possible before making the choice. But i also think it should be the person's choice when to make that choice, be it at an informed or uninformed state. This is why i think sex ed in schools should be completely optional to students given parental consent. I'm not sure how it is now... i think it's something like that already. I think the majority of responsibility for providing good information with regards to sex should be up to the parents. But i don't think that issue's been brought up here, so i'll avoid it for now.

I guess the main question in this thread is, "What material should be taught in sex ed classes in highschool?" I do agree that the abstinence only stance is naive and ultimately worthless for the typical teenager. But i don't think the option of abstinence should be completely ignored either. The reason i think sex ed fails as often as it does is because the people behind it are trying to make the choice of having sex or not for the teenager. They shouldn't be. They should instead simply be there to provide information so that said teenager can make an educated choice. Abstinence, safe sex, stds, everything should be taught. There should be no implication of whether it's alright to have sex or not. I partially think it's the infiltration of church into the schools that has influenced sex ed towards the abstinence end of the spectrum. It's a shame. I don't want to piss off any religious types, but i just hate it when religions try to make choices for other people, especially in public situations. [/FONT]

[Korey]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]Yes I can. Being pro choice for me means that you don't oppose a woman's right to choose an abortion but you don't think you'd do the same thing. There are other options than just having an abortion, such as adoption. There are millions (maybe not- I haven't done research on that) of couples waiting to adopt a child and they spend a lot of money on lawyers waiting for someone to be willing to give their child up.

I don't find the statement contradictory in the least[/color]

[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Fair enough. Perhaps it was in the way you worded it that threw me off, because you kinda were rather vague at first. Thanks for the clarification.

That being said, I do believe that sex education programs are only as good as the people that are teaching them. However, I do find that the best re-course for kids who have questions about sex is to simply ask an adult, not necessarily their parents. I actually went to my parents, more specifically my dad because one of my GF's was pressuring me into sexual activity and my Dad didn't give me the run around about how sex is bad and I shouldn't be having it. He told me that if I was gonna become active, to make sure that I always used a condom and that I had made doubly sure my partners didn't have STDs. 'Word of mouth only travels so far, son. If she loves you, a simple test to show it is no big deal' .

Where I think kids go wrong is that they think that they think that their parents or adults will judge them harshly for having questions about sex, but it is normally just overreacting on the child's part. I can't speak for those who have parents who are devout about sex after marriage, that's their deal and God bless them for that. I had sex when I was 16, and I am no less of a man now than I was back then. In fact, I might say that the experience was just a step in life. I am a Christian, but I don't think that love is really something that can be dictated so much. Such an abstract concept can't be governed by another abstract concept. [/FONT]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]While it's a woman's body, a baby born or not is it's own person. Being an insane knuckle dragging right wing totalitarian, I believe that human life starts at conception and don't need to tell you that it's "above my pay grade" to believe it completely. Maybe it's because I was raised Christian, maybe it's because six women in my family have gotten pregnant out of wedlock and chose to keep their baby or give it up for adoption every time. Call me crazy.

I believe abortion itself is a state's right's issue and I'm not going to advocate for the abolishment of the procedure. However I do have concerns about how some women are using it as its own form of birth control, some are given abortions without proper medical and psychological counseling beforehand, and babies that are sometimes born alive healthy or not are simply killed. Abortion is the most unregulated medical procedure in America today thanks to Planned Parenthood and American society's pathological fear of telling feminists and pro-abortionists that they need to be careful with how abortion is pitched.

Before you tell me that it's religious groups that are to blame, there are plenty of people who believe the same things Christians do without being crazy zealots for abstinence. They're referred to I believe as 'moral people.' I believe in holistic sex education. Yes, teach about STDs, teach about proper use of birth control methods and tell people about their effectiveness HONESTLY. But also remind them that it is only Abstinence that will ensure you never get a pregnancy or a disease or any other kind of lasting psychological trauma. People who write off abstinence as foolish to teach because teenagers and now even children [they're teaching it younger and younger, just ask my 10 year old brother] don't have self control are selling them and the future of America short.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]While it's a woman's body, a baby born or not is it's own person. Being an insane knuckle dragging right wing totalitarian, I believe that human life starts at conception and don't need to tell you that it's "above my pay grade" to believe it completely. Maybe it's because I was raised Christian, maybe it's because six women in my family have gotten pregnant out of wedlock and chose to keep their baby or give it up for adoption every time. Call me crazy. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I consider myself to be a moderate, but I also believe that dispite the fact that growth does indeed start right at conception (My grandma was pro-life and had one of those 10 day old embryo foot prints or whatever) I still believe that it is the woman's body and it's her right to choose what she does with it.

That said I can't see myself actually going through with an abortion. It's either becase I was raised Catholic or because I am a woman, or because I'm adopted and I do believe that everyone deserves a shot at life- unless ther are major risks involved (stretchmarks are [i]not[/i] a risk) like the mother's life. Or in cases of rape or incest. You do have to agree that carrying your rapist's baby to term would have some psychological damage[/color]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] I believe abortion itself is a state's right's issue and I'm not going to advocate for the abolishment of the procedure. However I do have concerns about how some women are using it as its own form of birth control, some are given abortions without proper medical and psychological counseling beforehand, and babies that are sometimes born alive healthy or not are simply killed. Abortion is the most unregulated medical procedure in America today thanks to Planned Parenthood and American society's pathological fear of telling feminists and pro-abortionists that they need to be careful with how abortion is pitched.[/color][/quote][/font]

[color=#9933ff]Hey when the state government stops cutting funding for daycare maybe then I'll decide to allow them to put their rules on my body, but for right now no.

But I do agree that some women do use abortion as a form of birth control and that is wrong in many ways. Once you've gone to the point where something is growing in you you've past the point of contraception- well except for emergency contraception- but that can only be used in the first 48 hours. That's why younger generations have to be taughter earlier about other methods of birth control besides abstinence.[/color]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Before you tell me that it's religious groups that are to blame, there are plenty of people who believe the same things Christians do without being crazy zealots for abstinence. They're referred to I believe as 'moral people.' I believe in holistic sex education. Yes, teach about STDs, teach about proper use of birth control methods and tell people about their effectiveness HONESTLY. But also remind them that it is only Abstinence that will ensure you never get a pregnancy or a disease or any other kind of lasting psychological trauma. People who write off abstinence as foolish to teach because teenagers and now even children [they're teaching it younger and younger, just ask my 10 year old brother] don't have self control are selling them and the future of America short. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I don't blame religious groups as a whole- I blame the current administration for their policy of only giving government funding to schools that teach an abstinence only curriculumn and for firing teachers who talk about anything not covered in that curriculumn.

It's not immoral to teach kids about sex and the fact that there are risks involved and it's not immoral to say that you don't have to abstain. It is immoral to prevent students from getting properly educated about contraception and safe sex practices.

Yes, abstinence is the only sure way to avoid getting STDs and HIV/AIDS (which BTW is not a pretty thing near the end- I've done hospice and recently lost one of my patients to AIDS) but condoms do a pretty good job at preventing STDs if used properly and the sure do prevent those pesky abortions along with contraceptives. I'm not going to tell my daughter in ten years to go out and get laid or whatever, but I'm not going to tell her that sex is a bad thing either.[/color]

[Raiha]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]

Yes, abstinence is the only sure way to avoid getting STDs and HIV/AIDS (which BTW is not a pretty thing near the end- I've done hospice and recently lost one of my patients to AIDS) but condoms do a pretty good job at preventing STDs if used properly and the sure do prevent those pesky abortions along with contraceptives. I'm not going to tell my daughter in ten years to go out and get laid or whatever, but I'm not going to tell her that sex is a bad thing either.[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Oh yeah, tongue kissing will give you a disease too. I kid.

But seriously, I never said that sex was a bad thing, but I don't think it's a good thing for people under the age of consent. It's also very irresponsible and short sighted to give the blame of the broken sex ed curricula today on the current administration. Teenagers have been getting pregnant since Moses walked the Earth and I'm pretty sure that Moses was around before George Bush ever took the oath of office. Personal choices can't be blamed on any given administration because they're just that. Personal choices. If their parents decided to not be parents and give their children the 'talk' or raise them to be aware of their own responsibilities then tough.

This may come as a shock to some, but teen pregnancy statistics are actually declining for a change. Whether this is due to Clinton, Bush, the previous Bush, Reagan, or those who came before, nobody can honestly say. It's a murky issue, and not one that I'll let you get by with casually passing off on Bush as so many today are wont to do. Don't believe me about the statistics? Just google "teen pregnancy decline." And then go look yourself. The first two links are rather informative.

I'm not going to tell my 8 year old sister that sex is bad either when she's old enough to listen, but I'm going to talk to her about sex because she'll have to hear it from someone besides my extremely religious parents. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']Fair enough. From what I understand (I haven't been in school since 2000 and my daughter is only three going on four and wouldn't understand even the most basic sex talks except maybe the whole it's your body don't let anyone touch it) the abstinence only programs only teach students about abstaining from sex and the failure rate of condoms. There is nothing said about contraceptives or proper safe sex. It's just said that sex is bad and you shouldn't do it. Which in my humble opinion is stupidity in itsself. Yes sex is a big step. But It's not a bad thing- it's not a sin- and that's what many of these classes are saying.[/color][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Cool. This gives me two pieces of information.

First, according you your perception (and mine as well), abstinence-only sex-ed is designed to [I]inform[/I] and [I]encourage[/I], [U]not[/U] to radically alter views of people who have already spent fifteen-odd years becoming acclimated to their current system. More specifically, the basic purpose would seem to be the enabling of teens to make a more informed decision about engaging in sex, and encouraging them to choose to wait until marriage. (Descry me now about the marriage institution at your leisure; I am stating observational data, not preaching.)

Thus to claim that the practice "doesn't work" is not completely correct, for perhaps those who went through the program took their information and made an informed decision (much as you did) that it was a waste of time. Also, how many of those girls do you think took the pact for what it was, and how many for some fun thing to do with no real meaning behind it, or how many didn't bother to concern themselves with meaning at all?

Second, it appears to me that this system might be ill-designed, since it is doubtful to me that the impression that "sex is a sin" is intended; I mean heck, that's not even a Christian view. However, further forays down this line of thought for me will inevitably lead to the ferocious conflict over marriage as an institution and its sacred quality, or no, and I'd rather not go there at the present. For now, suffice that I'm fairly certain we can all agree that sex (like basically [I]everything in the bloody world[/I][/exasperated rant at morons not currently being replied to]) is not inherently good or evil, but is an (intimate, in this case) act. So here I believe you are justified, if your perception is based off of the material, and not preconceived notions that those who advocate abstinence hold the same sinful view.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']Teaching abstinence only would be a wonderful idea if teenagers were all in bubbles and you could stop and think in the moment of passion wait, we shouldn't do this. But that's not the world we live in.[/color][/quote]
Err. I worry about telling children that they won't be able to think or make snap decisions in the moment. I also worry about the notion that the moment is inevitable; I have been quite successful in in my avoidance of it, to be honest.

(I have also scared someone who offered me liquor once, although I merely raised an eyebrow at him when he asked me if I was sure I didn't want it. People are funny sometimes.)

I don't believe that anyone is incapable of discernment at any time. I agree that often people simply [I]don't[/I] think about things, but the capacity remains, and therefore the option out.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']OKay so now I've said my piece, I know you're dying to explain to me exactly what you think about the whole thing since you've scolded me twice for not agreeing with abstinence only. Tell me, why do you think it works?[/color][/quote]
You are silly. (^_^) I'm just making sure you have your head on straight, so She Who Shall Not Be Named doesn't rip it off. Trust me, I'm far more patient.

Mostly.[/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]While it's a woman's body, a baby born or not is it's own person. Being an insane knuckle dragging right wing totalitarian, I believe that human life starts at conception and don't need to tell you that it's "above my pay grade" to believe it completely. Maybe it's because I was raised Christian, maybe it's because six women in my family have gotten pregnant out of wedlock and chose to keep their baby or give it up for adoption every time. Call me crazy.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I disagree. [/FONT]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]
I believe abortion itself is a state's right's issue and I'm not going to advocate for the abolishment of the procedure. However I do have concerns about how some women are using it as its own form of birth control, some are given abortions without proper medical and psychological counseling beforehand, and babies that are sometimes born alive healthy or not are simply killed. Abortion is the most unregulated medical procedure in America today thanks to Planned Parenthood and American society's pathological fear of telling feminists and pro-abortionists that they need to be careful with how abortion is pitched.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm not saying you said this, but i will point out that a person's poor use of abortion or the less than ideal practices of it are not valid reasons to abolish it. They are good reasons to improve on it and regulate it better. Which i believe is what you implied (if not directly said). If i read correctly.[/FONT]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]
Before you tell me that it's religious groups that are to blame, there are plenty of people who believe the same things Christians do without being crazy zealots for abstinence. They're referred to I believe as 'moral people.' [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Are you implying that those who do not believe in abstinence are immoral people?

My point about religion effecting the current abstinence only sex ed is that christians support it and probably had a hand in coming up with it. Certainly there must have been some non-christians that felt the same way. But stating that there were others does not abolish those that are or were. But, for the sake of not pissing people off, i will say that it's not the christians and instead are the people who hold christian values (christian or not). Better yet, it's the people who impose christian values. That's really what abstinence only sex ed is doing, imposing the values of abstinence.

Anyways, i read through all the posts, and i think a few of the points being made are irrelevant or are nonpoints. [/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

I didn't find your initial stance of pro-choice yet not pro-abortion confusing at all [B]ChibiHorsewoman[/B]. However I have friends who are the same way so I knew what you meant. They don't agree with abortion, but they don't agree with taking that choice away from the woman.

Anyway, on the topic in general, I think the concept of abstinence only education is doing kids a disservice. If they really understood what could happen with STD's and other problems with having sex that wasn't safe, it would probably reduce the teen pregnancies around here.

I would be fine with that kind of education only, if parents were willing to step up and fill the gaps. However, I don't see that happening. Admittedly I can only go on how my own parents were too chicken to explain and the parents of many of my friends were the same. Still, I'm all for having kids be fully informed about their choices instead of finding out the hard way they should have used a condom or simply not had sex to begin with.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]On abortion, I don't think [i]anyone[/i] is "pro-abortion". Even for those who are adamantly pro-choice, abortion is still obviously a major ordeal and a very harrowing decision.

I think that the debate is often framed in the wrong way when it comes to these questions.

I tend to think that most people who are pro-choice (and who may also be pro sex education) tend to see the world as it is, rather than as they'd like it to be. That's a really important point, especially in terms of how it shapes my own views.

On abortion, for example, I'm pro-choice. The reason is simple: whether or not abortion is legal, it is going to happen. There are going to be many different situations and there are always going to be people who will feel that it is their only option. If you make abortion illegal, you don't get rid of it at all - you simply drive it underground. You therefore put significantly more pressure on mothers and their families.

If abortion is legal, then I think you actually have the chance to [i]reduce[/i] it, or at least to place far less stress on families. For one thing, you make it medically safer. For another, you can offer counselling to the mother. And furthermore, you can actually go through various options and offer additional support. So rather than simply having a revolving door where abortions are a dime a dozen, you can actually help to prevent abortion by offering community support to women.

Backyard abortions, as they are known, don't offer any of this. They simply take a desperate situation and make it significantly worse. And under these circumstances, many women simply don't have access to choices that may actually allow them to avoid the abortion option in the first place.

So as I said, I think that this is about seeing the world as it is rather than as we'd like it to be. Would we love for there to never be a need for abortion? Of course. Who wouldn't? Problem is, that isn't realistic - it's just not the reality. What you have to do is look at the reality and find ways to deal with it and to minimise risks.

That kind of thinking is what shapes my view about sex education.

I think it's probably true that no parent would really "want" their teenage child to have sex. Apart from any STD risks, there's also obviously the issue of pregnancy.

So what do you do? Yes, by all means, you should have a frank discussion with your teenage kids where you explain your views on sex and what it means. And that would probably normally involve the idea that kids shouldn't really be having sex at a young age for a variety of reasons.

However, there are always going to be teenagers who have sex regardless. They will do it no matter what their parents or teachers preach - and it's not necessarily a bad, rebellious act. Often I think teenagers will do it within a relationship and because they view sex as the logical next step. Yes, they might not be mature enough to make that choice, but unless their parents can watch them 24/7, then they probably will make that choice anyway.

So, I think the answer is two fold. On the one hand you teach kids the simple facts - the risks and how to avoid them if they do have sex. But certainly, you can also stress that teenagers should avoid sex until they are ready (whether that is marriage or an earlier time is probably going to vary depending on what country you're in).

At least that way you're still expressing disapproval about having sex too early, but you're also providing a safety net for those who do have it.

And surely that's got to be the key goal to dealing with any social issue. There are things that no amount of soap boxing will eliminate. So in the absence of an ideal world, surely society's job is to minimise risks to the community wherever possible.[/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]This may come as a shock to some, but teen pregnancy statistics are actually declining for a change. Whether this is due to Clinton, Bush, the previous Bush, Reagan, or those who came before, nobody can honestly say. It's a murky issue, and not one that I'll let you get by with casually passing off on Bush as so many today are wont to do. Don't believe me about the statistics? Just google "teen pregnancy decline." And then go look yourself. The first two links are rather informative. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Try googling Teen Pregancy Rates so you'll pull up more than you want to hear. Adding the word 'decline' will of course result in articles that only cover a decrease in the rates which isn't accurate. [URL="http://www.webmd.com/news/20080711/teen-pregnancy-rates-edige-higher"][U]Article[/U][/URL]

Putting that aside, I'm a Christian myself and I find the idea of only teaching abstinence foolish. The best way to keep your kids safe is to make sure they are fully prepared for the possible consequences. And since the state of Utah isn't up to the task, it's fallen on parents who I hope are smart enough to actually present the facts. All of them, not just the one that will work the best.

I kind of lucked out in that respect though. o_O Aaryanna is a curious kid and used the library and the Internet to figure all that out when she was eleven. I had planned on having that talk with her when she turned twelve.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]First, according you your perception (and mine as well), abstinence-only sex-ed is designed to [I]inform[/I] and [I]encourage[/I], [U]not[/U] to radically alter views of people who have already spent fifteen-odd years becoming acclimated to their current system. More specifically, the basic purpose would seem to be the enabling of teens to make a more informed decision about engaging in sex, and encouraging them to choose to wait until marriage. (Descry me now about the marriage institution at your leisure; I am stating observational data, not preaching.)[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I would say the goal of abstinence-only education is to have the students abide by abstinence, turn away from physical relations (at least until marriage). This can either be religiously motivated or secular, but you'll generally find the proponents of abstinence-only sex ed are religious. To these people, the idea is that sex is an act reserved for marriage, that ones body is a temple and virginity is a plus, etc.

I don't really feel like digging up the links, but kids who had abstinence-only education had unprotected sex more often the first time. Not just that, but I would posit that abstinence-only education fails to acknowledge the hormonal element in teenagers. It's a teaching system based in religious conservative ideals from another era. It ignores pragmatism. You wouldn't tell someone to never drive, due to the risks involved. You'd tell them to buckle up, haha. (And yes, I know the analogy is not perfect :p)

I also think the Catholic Church's refusal to distribute condoms in regions plagued by HIV/AIDS is even more foolish. Instead, they advocate "natural family planning" and abstinence rather than approach the situation realistically, geared for success.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']I would say the goal of abstinence-only education is to have the students abide by abstinence, turn away from physical relations (at least until marriage).[/font][/quote]
[FONT=arial]I'd say that would be the [I]ideal[/I] goal, but you and I both know that it's not at all practical when it comes to minors who have already spent a great deal of time developing their own values based on their environments, [I]and[/I] who typically scorn any involvement from the State. The [I]reasonable[/I] goal, then, would be to inform and encourage.

Also, if you looked at the demographics of those who participate in the programs (assuming participation is voluntary), you would probably find that the only people who care are those who had previously held those beliefs, so again the program seems to be rendered partially ineffective.

[QUOTE][FONT="Arial"][I]This can either be religiously motivated or secular, but you'll generally find the proponents of abstinence-only sex ed are religious. To these people, the idea is that sex is an act reserved for marriage, that ones body is a temple and virginity is a plus, etc.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE]
Are you as amused as I am that the State seems to be taking a "religious value" stance? Whatever happened to the separation of the two?

Actually, I really don't care whether the State teaches this at all. It's nice that they seem to be taking the interest, but until we become a completely socialist state, the burden for such education will rest solely on the child's community, and [I]heavily[/I] on the child's parents. That's the only way in which such education will be at all effective?and again, we both know that even this effort doesn't yield 100% "success".

[QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"](And yes, I know the analogy is not perfect :p)[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
Understatement, much? :p I thought you wanted to stress the hormonal element.

[QUOTE][I][font=arial]I also think the Catholic Church's refusal to distribute condoms in regions plagued by HIV/AIDS is even more foolish.[/font][/I][/QUOTE]
Why should they? Logically, if everyone's already got it, no one needs protection.

Kidding, of course. But seriously, why the massive focus on why the established (Christian, anyone? Pattern, much?) religions aren't stepping outside of their own doctrines and aren't catering to the secular sector? Wouldn't it seem more logical for them to actually stand by their beliefs and offer the aid that lay within? And from what you've said, that's what they appear to be doing. Hunh.

It seems kind of foolish, then, to expect the Christian community to set aside their beliefs in deference to someone else's. I thought the whole concept of Relativism was to not let anyone force their beliefs on another. Why harass the Christians, then? Let them (let us, rather) preach abstinence, and find a secular group to preach contraceptives and birth control.[/FONT]

[James]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Putting that aside, I'm a Christian myself and I find the idea of only teaching abstinence foolish. The best way to keep your kids safe is to make sure they are fully prepared for the possible consequences. And since the state of Utah isn't up to the task, it's fallen on parents who I hope are smart enough to actually present the facts. All of them, not just the one that will work the best.
[/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I just want to quote this because I think it's so important. And I really want to say that I think this speaks so much to your accomplishments as a parent.

The fact that you recognize the inadequacies of your local education system and then seek to fill in those gaps as a parent is really commendable. So many parents seem to rely entirely on their child's teachers and then they are suddenly surprised when they realize they don't know their child as well as they thought.

Clearly Aaryanna is a thoughtful, mature person who already has a strong identity and seems very capable of dealing with the ups and downs that life will bring her in future. While I think each individual is different (and sometimes no matter how good the parenting is, a child can still get into a lot of trouble), I also think that this exemplifies your strong efforts and guidance.

Apart from the educational aspect I also think some parents are simply awkward about presenting these facts to their children. But really, for those who believe that school shouldn't be teaching kids about sex...surely then the responsibilities falls to the parents.

I think an ideal situation is where, on the one hand, you are more of a parent than a "friend" (i.e. you have strong boundaries and requirements), while at the same time being open and honest with your child. When I see examples of kids who can talk to their parents about anything (and ask any question), I always feel that those kids are going to have a slightly better shot at succeeding as adults in general.

When it comes to these discussions, I do think everyone has given due consideration to the topic. But I have to say, it's good to also read the perspective of a parent who is trying to balance traditional Christian views with the realities of the situation. I think it shows that you can really have both without compromising one or the other. And if the end result is that your child then trusts you and can speak to you at any time...then that is definitely a big achievement. :catgirl:

Also just to respond to a totally different point...

While I don't think that State sex education is the all-encompassing answer, the truth is that no single group (or even an entire society) is going to be able to eliminate teenage sex issues (like STDs and/or pregnancy).

My experience is somewhat different because I don't live in America. In Australia, most high schools do have sex education. The experience varies from state to state, but generally speaking sex education is part of a larger course on health (with reproduction obviously being a component of that).

The benefits of these health courses are significant. First and foremost, the actual science is obviously explained (i.e. "the birds and the bees" for anyone who missed it). And secondly, a number of other factors are discussed including both contraception and the inherent risks with unprotected sex.

As far as schools go, I don't think they are there to place a value judgment on sex. That kind of value judgment is really something that the community (and families especially) tend to be responsible for. Rather, the education people receive here revolves entirely around the raw facts. So students are simply armed with information, rather than ideology that swings one way or the other.

I think most parents in Australia probably have discussions with their children about this subject at some point. However, formal education about reproduction, birth control, safe sex, risks associated with unprotected sex and issues surrounding pregnancy tends to also fill in some of the gaps that parents themselves may leave (some of the facts about unprotected sex probably scare quite a few kids into abstinence anyway! Haha).

So in terms of things being relative, I think that works out pretty well. Schools certainly make value judgments about certain behaviors (like violence, bullying, dishonesty, etc). And I guess those are generally pretty universal. But when it comes to a far more private and sensitive subject? I think most parents would agree that they should be setting the moral standard (whatever that may be), rather than the school itself. Raw scientific data does not a value judgment make.[/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']

I kind of lucked out in that respect though. o_O Aaryanna is a curious kid and used the library and the Internet to figure all that out when she was eleven. I had planned on having that talk with her when she turned twelve.[/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]Looks like she got the jump on you- my mom took me for my first Gyno appt and to get my first oral contraceptives when I was 19 then told me just because she was doing this doesn't mean she was advocating having sex, she just wanted to make sure I was prepared.

Oh yeah Aaryanna_Mom.

I have at the very least two years before my daughter starts to ask questions like where do babies come from and then later sex stuff. She's already had to have the death talk because my dad accidentally ran over my cat. But aside from the usual well either when two peole think they're ready they either have sex and try to have a baby or if you don't think you're ready then don't I have no idea what to say to her. Any ideas?

[/color]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][quote name='Aaryanna_Mom;821064]I kind of lucked out in that respect though. o_O Aaryanna is a curious kid and used the library and the Internet to figure all that out when she was eleven. I had planned on having that talk with her when she turned twelve.[/QUOTE]I can't help it... I got sick of people telling me [B]"Babies come from heaven!"[/B] a;dfasjfdalksdf!!! >_> Not you of course but still. I like to get a[I] real [/I]answer when I ask someone something. XP[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial']I also think the Catholic Church's refusal to distribute condoms in regions plagued by HIV/AIDS is even more foolish. Instead, they advocate "natural family planning" and abstinence rather than approach the situation realistically, geared for success.[/font][/quote]If they did that, they wouldn't be a religion now would they? And in their view, teaching abstinence is gearing their kids up for success based on their beliefs. The day religions start handing out condoms is the day I'll wonder if hell suddenly froze over or something equally as dramatic. o_O

Anyway, I'm in favor of a more complete education while at the same time, I think parents shouldn't be expecting schools to teach their kids. Though said parents need to actually do so themselves. >_> Provided the kid hasn't already searched and gotten the answers. =P[/FONT][/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]I can't help it... I got sick of people telling me [B]"Babies come from heaven!"[/B] a;dfasjfdalksdf!!! [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]That comment just made me LOL a little. I have a book called [B]'Why Was I Adopted' [/B]that my parents read to me when I was about my daughter's age to explain why I was adopted. One explaination was that maybe the parents were in heaven and showed some goofy looking people sitting on clouds and reading tha paper.Of course the book also explained that adopted kids weren't found in a cabbage patch nor were they bought in a grocery store. Which for a while is what my mom told me. :animeswea

And back to the topic:

I think I lucked out with the sex talks- kinda. I was still in school during the Clinton administration so I escaped the laws passed about teaching abstinence only in school. Plus my parents may be Catholic, but my mother also survived being molested by a relative so she didn't want me to end up feeling scared the way she was so she always made it a point to tell me that I can talk to her about anything no matter what and she'd believe me. She also got into the whole what's the difference between boys and girls when I was in second grade and made sure that my brother and I knew about condoms and birth control. So even though my health teacher kinda forgot to talk about a few things aside from STDs I didn't go away from sex ed ignorant.

That may be one of the many failings of Abstinence only education. Parents assume that their children will still get the same comprehensive (or close to it) sex ed classes that they did and since they're probably a little emberassed to have the 'sex talk' (Why wasn't my mom? Damn did that get icky) they don't check to make sure that their kids know what they should know about sex.Meanwhile the school systems are doing the bare minimum or not even and teachers are hoping or expecting the parents to fill in the gaps. What you really seem to have here is a total lack of communication.[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=arial]I'd say that would be the [I]ideal[/I] goal, but you and I both know that it's not at all practical when it comes to minors who have already spent a great deal of time developing their own values based on their environments, [I]and[/I] who typically scorn any involvement from the State. The [I]reasonable[/I] goal, then, would be to inform and encourage.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Funny you say that, when abstinence-only education isn't practical anyway. Pragmatism dictates the discussion of safe sex in addition to abstinence. Abstinence-only education isn't reasonable. It's a childishly defiant way of looking at the world -- "Just don't have sex! You shouldn't have sex, so I won't tell you ways to make it safer." The reality is that [i]a fair percentage of teens are going to have sex[/i], and with that considered, it is realistic to at least teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, etc.

[QUOTE][FONT=Arial]Are you as amused as I am that the State seems to be taking a "religious value" stance? Whatever happened to the separation of the two?[/FONT][/QUOTE]
Well, I don't necessarily condemn the use of religion in guiding policy decisions. After all, many people derive their systems of morality from these institutions, so it's only logical that they would legislate in a manner that falls within the preordained pattern of thought. Then again, I also believe people should make their own personal philosophies, independent of a prescribed establishment (i.e. the Church).

[QUOTE][FONT=Arial]Actually, I really don't care whether the State teaches this at all. It's nice that they seem to be taking the interest, but until we become a completely socialist state, the burden for such education will rest solely on the child's community, and [I]heavily[/I] on the child's parents. That's the only way in which such education will be at all effective?and again, we both know that even this effort doesn't yield 100% "success".[/FONT][/QUOTE]
I have mixed feelings about that I guess. On one hand, parents should be responsible for their children and teach their kids about sex. On the other hand, these children are citizens and thus the government is tasked with their safety and well-being. So high HIV/AIDS infection rates are certainly within the realm of concern for them, and education on these topics isn't outrageous.

[QUOTE][FONT=Arial]Kidding, of course. But seriously, why the massive focus on why the established (Christian, anyone? Pattern, much?) religions aren't stepping outside of their own doctrines and aren't catering to the secular sector? Wouldn't it seem more logical for them to actually stand by their beliefs and offer the aid that lay within? And from what you've said, that's what they appear to be doing. Hunh.

It seems kind of foolish, then, to expect the Christian community to set aside their beliefs in deference to someone else's. I thought the whole concept of Relativism was to not let anyone force their beliefs on another. Why harass the Christians, then? Let them (let us, rather) preach abstinence, and find a secular group to preach contraceptives and birth control.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
The reason I pick on the (specifically) Catholic/Evangelical refusal to distribute contraception or talk of the benefits of contraception is because it runs counter to Christian values. Rather than protest out of principle while hundreds of thousands of people become infected everyday, distribute condoms in Africa. Not only does it help preserve family structures, it allows countries to get back on their feet, it reduces human suffering, and it is certainly a component to economic strength.

You can say "Christians should stick to their guns!" but that's fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account the magnitude of human suffering that could be reduced had the Church taken the [i]spirit[/i] of the Bible, rather than the shallowly-interpreted written text. Essentially, their refusal to distribute condoms is contradictory and hypocritical.

But hey, if you're cool with that, awsm.[/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[quote=Allamorph]Kidding, of course. But seriously, why the massive focus on why the established (Christian, anyone? Pattern, much?) religions aren't stepping outside of their own doctrines and aren't catering to the secular sector? Wouldn't it seem more logical for them to actually stand by their beliefs and offer the aid that lay within? And from what you've said, that's what they appear to be doing. Hunh.

It seems kind of foolish, then, to expect the Christian community to set aside their beliefs in deference to someone else's. I thought the whole concept of Relativism was to not let anyone force their beliefs on another. Why harass the Christians, then? Let them (let us, rather) preach abstinence, and find a secular group to preach contraceptives and birth control.[/quote]
[quote name='aaryanna']If they did that, they wouldn't be a religion now would they? And in their view, teaching abstinence is gearing their kids up for success based on their beliefs. The day religions start handing out condoms is the day I'll wonder if hell suddenly froze over or something equally as dramatic. o_O[/quote]
[quote=Retribution]The reason I pick on the (specifically) Catholic/Evangelical refusal to distribute contraception or talk of the benefits of contraception is because it runs counter to Christian values. Rather than protest out of principle while hundreds of thousands of people become infected everyday, distribute condoms in Africa. Not only does it help preserve family structures, it allows countries to get back on their feet, it reduces human suffering, and it is certainly a component to economic strength.

You can say "Christians should stick to their guns!" but that's fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account the magnitude of human suffering that could be reduced had the Church taken the spirit of the Bible, rather than the shallowly-interpreted written text. Essentially, their refusal to distribute condoms is contradictory and hypocritical.[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Retribution pretty much said it here, i think. I'll still throw in my two cents, though.

When a person sees a problem that they desire to fix what route should they take? The quickest, most effiecient route? Or an inferior one constrained by ideology? Perhaps 'quick and efficient' isn't quite proper in describing the distribution of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS. But it certainly is the better of the two, ideology aside. So then, why should we simply discard this obviously poor choice on the part of the christians simply because of what they believe? The bottom line is they chose the weaker of the two options and we, being the logical people that we are, should stand up and say something. Discarding it as just another silly thing that silly christians do is such a lame way to give up.

Of course, there are other common situations with different religions that pop up. Just ask yourself how you feel about some of these more immediately dangerous choices. A Jehovah's Witness that needs a blood transfusion, or else that person will die. Creationists trying to teach creation in the science classrooms. Evangelists bringing false hope to sick people with faith healing. Christian scientists that refuse any medical treatment for their sick and dying baby.

Actually, that last one is (in my opinion) by far the worst. Here's a link to a whole ton of cases where this actually happened:
[URL="http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html"]http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html[/URL]

And to save anybody the trouble of being pissed at me for making these harsh comparisons, let me just say, i know they're just that. Obviously a lot of those aren't as bad as christians not providing condoms. I was simply making a point and then got carried away. =D

But back to the topic of abstinence only sex ed. Regardless of where we place the blame for the flaws in this program, it is above all most important to see these flaws and set out a plan to fix them. It doesn't matter whether there are a bunch of religious people backing it up with ideology or a bunch of nonreligious secularites that simply think it's superior, we know better than they do and we'll fight them to the end on it. ...How dramatic. [/FONT]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]The reason I pick on the (specifically) Catholic/Evangelical refusal to distribute contraception or talk of the benefits of contraception is because it runs counter to Christian values. Rather than protest out of principle while hundreds of thousands of people become infected everyday, distribute condoms in Africa. Not only does it help preserve family structures, it allows countries to get back on their feet, it reduces human suffering, and it is certainly a component to economic strength.

You can say "Christians should stick to their guns!" but that's fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account the magnitude of human suffering that could be reduced had the Church taken the [i]spirit[/i] of the Bible, rather than the shallowly-interpreted written text. Essentially, their refusal to distribute condoms is contradictory and hypocritical.[/FONT][/QUOTE]Africa seems to be the catch phrase of why any and all religion should toss out their core beliefs systems when it comes to sex education. I've heard that argument so many times. Plus at the same time, you're veering off on a tangent here instead of sticking to the topic. Which is sex education for teens and pre-teens. People who by law are considered unable to give consent to having sex in the first place.

So to turn around and admonish any religion for not handing out condoms to someone who by law shouldn't be having sex in the first place is what's contradictory and hypocritical. It would be silly of them to encourage them by placing the means to avoid STD's in their hands and send them on their way. You know damn well that any parent of a kid who got pregnant or got an STD would then turn around and sue said religion for giving them the condom/contraceptive in the first place.

Tossing contraceptives in any form out there is like putting a one inch band-aide on a six inch gash. It might help a few people, but it doesn't address the real issue. Fleshing out the current circulation to be more complete is one step, and I'm in favor of that, but expecting [I]any[/I] religion to hand them the end means to do so is downright silly.

And once one is an adult, that's something they can decide themselves if they plan on using them or not. So really, the argument here isn't about handing it out, it's about a more rounded education and blaming religion does nothing to fix it.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Africa seems to be the catch phrase of why any and all religion should toss out their core beliefs systems when it comes to sex education. I've heard that argument so many times. Plus at the same time, you're veering off on a tangent here instead of sticking to the topic. Which is sex education for teens and pre-teens. People who by law are considered unable to give consent to having sex in the first place. [/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It may be a "catch phrase" but stating it so does not invalidate the point Retribution made. Neither does the amount of times that you have heard the argument.

I think it's unclear as to who these condoms are being passed out to. I read Retribution's posts and i didn't get the impression that these condoms would be handed out to people that can't have sex in any situation. Of course, this differs from state to state. My understanding is that in most states there is an age of consent, maybe 16 or 18, and a 2 or 4 year grace period. Say, a 15 year old can have sex with a 19 year old with a 4 year grace period, but not a 20 year old. I've also been told there's an age limit for a person to have sex at all, maybe 14 years old. Of course, i'm unclear on the laws in states other than my own so if you'd like to clarify for me then i welcome it. [/FONT]
[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']
So to turn around and admonish any religion for not handing out condoms to someone who by law shouldn't be having sex in the first place is what's contradictory and hypocritical. It would be silly of them to encourage them by placing the means to avoid STD's in their hands and send them on their way. You know damn well that any parent of a kid who got pregnant or got an STD would then turn around and sue said religion for giving them the condom/contraceptive in the first place. [/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I agree that it would be hypocritical to hand out condoms to people who cannot legally have consensual sex in any circumstance, but if they can then it would not be hypocritical in the sense that you meant there.

I don't know whether a parent would sue a "religion" for passing out condoms or not... but it doesn't matter. Doing so would be silly, and is a different problem. [/FONT]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']
Tossing contraceptives in any form out there is like putting a one inch band-aide on a six inch gash. It might help a few people, but it doesn't address the real issue. Fleshing out the current circulation to be more complete is one step, and I'm in favor of that, but expecting [I]any[/I] religion to hand them the end means to do so is downright silly. [/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm sorry, i don't understand what you mean by "fleshing out the current circulation to be more complete."

I don't think people are expecting religions to hand out condoms. I certainly know that i'm not. I'm just disagreeing with their methods, stating that i think they should pass out condoms instead of preach abstinence. I never expect much change from religions. I mean... the christian faith has been around for 2000 years and there still has been very little change. And really, the change only seems to come around when it's completely inevitable. How long did it take them to accept the world wasn't flat? [/FONT]
[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']
And once one is an adult, that's something they can decide themselves if they plan on using them or not. So really, the argument here isn't about handing it out, it's about a more rounded education and blaming religion does nothing to fix it.[/QUOTE]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I see placing the blame as the first step of addressing the problem. And addressing the problem is the first step to fixing it. So, yes, i think placing blame is productive so long as it doesn't stop there.

I do agree with you where you say it's more about educating people better. As Sir Francis Bacon put it, "Knowledge is power."[/FONT]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][CENTER]Insert stuff here.[/CENTER][/FONT][/QUOTE]I don't intend to really reply to your post and this obvious problem with your logic that really isn't logic explains it:

Religion hasn't changed in 2000 years according to your post. Interesting to know that you understand ALL religions well enough to be able to state that.

For starters, witch hunts and crusades are in the past. The Salem witch trials no longer happen. Women not only have the right to vote, they often do more than their husbands do and can even hold political positions of...

Wait I forgot, you said they haven't changed, silly me. Or is it silly you? Try to be a bit smarter with your comeback dear. Try and actually [I]learn[/I] about the religion that you are claiming hasn't changed in 2000 years. Because I have a serious news flash for you. The LDS church hasn't even been around for a Millennia let alone 2000 years.