TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush's "abstinence only" sex ed policies hurt AIDS & pregnancy prevention experts say
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Bush's "abstinence only" sex ed policies hurt AIDS & pregnancy prevention experts say

quote:

�The Bush administration wants to spend millions more dollars on abstinence-only programs that put teenagers at higher risk for HIV. In Texas, these programs don't just censor information, they actively promote misinformation about condoms. And they deprive adolescents of one of the most important tools that they need to protect themselves from HIV.� Rebecca Schleifer HIV/AIDS researcher at Human Rights Watch

From Human Rights Watch:

quote:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/us0918.htm United States: Restrictive Sex Ed Impedes AIDS Prevention "Abstinence-only" programs censor HIV/AIDS information (New York, September 18, 2002) - Programs teaching teenagers to "just say no" to sex before marriage are threatening adolescent health by censoring basic information about how to prevent HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today. The forty-seven page report focuses on federally funded "abstinence-only-until-marriage" programs in Texas, where advertising campaigns convey the message that teenagers should not use condoms because they don't work. Some school-based programs in Texas do not mention condoms at all. Federal health agencies share the broad scientific consensus that condoms, when used correctly, are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV. Yet the U.S. government currently spends more than $100 million each year on "abstinence-only-until-marriage" programs, which cannot by law "promote or endorse" condoms or provide instruction regarding their use. The Bush administration is advocating a 33 percent increase in funding for these programs. "The Bush administration wants to spend millions more dollars on abstinence-only programs that put teenagers at higher risk for HIV," said Rebecca Schleifer, HIV/AIDS researcher at Human Rights Watch. "In Texas, these programs don't just censor information, they actively promote misinformation about condoms. And they deprive adolescents of one of the most important tools that they need to protect themselves from HIV." U.S. federal government organizations that set public health standards, including the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control, all agree that providing complete and accurate information to adolescents about the proper use of condoms to reduce the risk of HIV transmission is an essential part of the limited anti-HIV arsenal. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has included among its objectives increasing the proportion of adolescents who "use condoms if sexually active." This policy clearly puts these federal government organizations at odds with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' divisions that run the abstinence-only programs, which cannot by law provide this advice. Texas' programs provide no such information. In McLennan County, which has one of the state's highest rates of teen pregnancy, the federally funded "Truth for Youth" radio and television ad campaign suggests that parents who advise their children to use condoms may actually be putting their children's lives at risk. Adolescents and adults who have heard these ads report that they don't use or don't trust condoms because they heard on television or radio that they don't work. Another federally funded program in Temple, Texas plans to include an exercise that compares pieces of latex condoms with plastic of different thicknesses that is designed to teach that condoms are not effective because they are thinner than many kinds of plastic, and easily broken by fingernails. Teachers in Laredo's abstinence program don't mention condoms at all. Texas' commitment to abstinence-only programs has infected other sources of HIV/AIDS prevention information by restricting access to experts on HIV/AIDS prevention and by crowding out other sources of HIV prevention information. An HIV/AIDS educator in McLennan County was told that she could not speak to students in an abstinence-only classroom about prevention of HIV by using condoms. Many recipients of federal HIV prevention money likewise provide limited or no information about condoms in their HIV prevention trainings. Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are particularly harmful to gay and lesbian adolescents. The programs must teach that marriage is the only appropriate context for sexual activity and further that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." Federal law limits marriage to heterosexual couples. And, same-sex couples can't legally marry in any U.S. state. "Teaching gay and lesbian youth that there is no safe way for them to have a sexual relationship-even when they become adults-only reinforces the hostile environment that many of them already experience at school," said Schleifer. "Denying them access to relevant and potentially life-saving information about how to have a safe sexual relationship only makes this situation worse." Human Rights Watch's report focuses on Texas to illustrate problems posed by abstinence-only programs nationwide. Texas receives a substantial share of federal abstinence-only funding, and its programs command nationwide influence. Two of its programs are among the eleven chosen for an evaluation of federally funded abstinence-only programs. Human Rights Watch found that federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in Texas interfere with fundamental rights guaranteed by international law, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Because AIDS is a fatal disease that yet has no cure, the government's failure to provide complete and accurate information about HIV/AIDS prevention may also impede the right to life. Human Rights Watch calls on the U.S. government to repeal abstinence-only-until-marriage legislation and to enact in its place legislation supporting comprehensive sex education that would include information and instruction about HIV/AIDS prevention, including the use of condoms for this purpose.

We're putting our children at risk by perpetuating ignorance, and with the scourge of AIDS, we're not just putting them at risk of altering their lives forever with unintended pregnancy, we're putting them at risk for an early death. As I've said before, I feel these policies that often go so far as to spread misinformation to young people seeking answers is tantamount to criminal negligence.


The blistering Texas study:

http://hrw.org/reports/2002/usa0902/

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200401/abstinence.asp

Summation (click on link for full story):

quote:

Over half a billion tax dollars have poured into abstinence-only sex education nationwide since House Republicans wrote it into the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. The legislation offers matching grants to districts that adopt its strict guidelines: promoting abstinence from sex until marriage, with contraception discussed only in terms of failure rates. Instructors agree not to tell youngsters how to reduce risk of disease and pregnancy if they are sexually active�a population that numbers half of high-school-age kids. In many if not most programs, the issue is presented in terms of God and morality. Critics call abstinence-only sex education "fear-based" and dangerously incomplete. Traditional "comprehensive" sex education teaches that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and disease but includes information about birth control as well. While abstinence-only is growing rapidly, funding for comprehensive sex education has remained static, despite its proven ability to reduce teen birth rates. Nationwide, the birth rate among 15- to 19-year-olds dropped 26 percent in the last decade. (If abstinence education played a part, no rigorous study has yet shown it. The drop is commonly attributed to concern about AIDS and better contraceptive use.) But 13 states, all in the South, still have teen birth rates that, as one report put it, "rival the rates of nations such as Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Mexico." Overall, the United States leads the industrialized world in teen pregnancy and birth rates; nearly half a million children are born to teen moms each year�11.5 percent of all U.S. births.

As a young person, I think it's completely asinine to tell young people "don't have sex," and then proceed to withhold information from them that could potentially save their lives or prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion (such as proper condom usage) if they do choose to have sex. Not everyone is religious, and we shouldn�t hold every young person in a public school to the same religious standard. We shouldn�t impose our religious beliefs on these people, and deny them knowledge. Obviously abstinence is the best way to prevent STD and unwanted pregnancy, but make no mistake, the rate of abortion will go up and not down if our country�s teen and unwanted pregnancy rate(s) slows in it's decline or even reverses from the implementation of these idiotic policies.

Some kids live in poor areas and don�t have the resources such as the Internet or even proper libraries to read about contraception. I believe it�s immoral to deny a young person common lifesaving knowledge that they would learn in any other Western country that uses comprehensive sex ed, and I believe we should be following Canada, England, Sweden, France, and other countries� examples that have less than 50% our teen pregnancy rate.

I was lucky to have gone to school in a school district with reasonable school officials, and to learn comprehensive sexual education.

:clap:



Thoughts?

Gotta love those faith-based initiatives .

That's nothing compared to Bush cutting funds for AIDS awareness programs in Africa because of their promotion of safe-sex devices like condoms. Something like 1 in 5 adults have AIDS there now (don't quote me on that completely). It's insane how out-of-hand it has gotten there, yet Bush believes it's appropriate to slash those programs that don't promote abstinence. Considering the GOP Congress failed to give the money Bush promised to give for AIDS in Africa last year, things are only getting worse.

Yeah, he's a real humanitarian, isin't he?

This really doesn't come as any suprise to me, because Bush is an avid Christian and one of the Christian beliefs is that it is a sin to have sex before marriage. If Bush would have said anything else, I would have been astounded. It's basically tested an proved that the abstinance programs don't work and are not going to start working any time soon. We need to drastically cut the funding of these programs in order to put that money into other social problems. The worst thing that could happen is that Bush is re-elected and somehow gets this to pass and allotes more funds for these endangering programs. Germany has the right idea with the "Mach's mit" posters. These have condoms made into various figures (for example a gummi bear) and uses the command form of Machen which means to do. We need contraception programs that explore all aspects, even abstinance, of contraception, i.e. birth control, condoms, abstinance.

look the medical facts side with bush on this one; absetinence prevents disease 100%.

Aside from aids and pregency there is little a condom can do, people should realize that...

I see now problem in making people aware of that.. whether they chose to listen or not is another thing.

quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 This really doesn't come as any suprise to me, because Bush is an avid Christian and one of the Christian beliefs is that it is a sin to have sex before marriage. If Bush would have said anything else, I would have been astounded. It's basically tested an proved that the abstinance programs don't work and are not going to start working any time soon. We need to drastically cut the funding of these programs in order to put that money into other social problems. The worst thing that could happen is that Bush is re-elected and somehow gets this to pass and allotes more funds for these endangering programs. Germany has the right idea with the "Mach's mit" posters. These have condoms made into various figures (for example a gummi bear) and uses the command form of Machen which means to do. We need contraception programs that explore all aspects, even abstinance, of contraception, i.e. birth control, condoms, abstinance.

I think it should be clear by now that Bush cares nothing about human rights or human health, and I don't see how that makes him a Christian. Anyways, yes we know comprehensive sex ed works because we can look at the statistics from Germany for example and compare them to the US. Even within the US, there is a dramatically lower rate of teen pregnancy and STDs in states that teach proper sex ed versus those that teach Bush sex ed. The rates of STDs in Louisiana for example are off the charts. The people there don't neccesarily have more sex than say California, but they have less access to life saving knowledge and contraceptives than people in California have.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus look the medical facts side with bush on this one; absetinence prevents disease 100%.

That's almost completely beside the point because comprehensive sexual education teaches that abstinence is the most effective and only sure way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Then, unlike Bush�s favored plans, they also teach about contraceptives without telling the kids lies about how ineffective they are.

I don't think you read the articles I posted.

quote:

Aside from aids and pregency there is little a condom can do, people should realize that...

That's all a condom can do, but it's still a lot.

The best thing is actually for both partners to go in for an STD screening. If you love each other, then you'd both want each other to be healthy. When Clinton was president I remember they used to have clinics that would do free STD screenings, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bush cut their funding or something by now.

quote:

I see now problem in making people aware of that.. whether they chose to listen or not is another thing.

It's about giving people the knowledge they need in life to make healthy decisions. I see now a problem in making people aware of that. But hell, if they choose not to be even swayed by the cold, hard facts, there's no help for them. Most people are reasonable though.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz The best thing is actually for both partners to go in for an STD screening. If you love each other, then you'd both want each other to be healthy. When Clinton was president I remember they used to have clinics that would do free STD screenings, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bush cut their funding or something by now.

I think you're getting too worked up on this issue. I think the basis for Bush's statements is that we a society shouldn't encourage our children to be in a hurry to lose their innocence and engage in activity that could produce more welfare babies, as well as actions that will destroy their chances at a better life in the long-run, simply because a teenage mother most likely must sacrifice her education, and thus her own career potential due to a mistake she made on one carefree night when she was determined to lose her innocence.

Do I think the youth of America will listen to Bush and stop having sex? D'uh, that's an easy no, but the President is trying to pass a message of morality and is trying to give a clear black/white distinction to people. He's trying to send a message to the youth not to throw away their life because they want a nice tingle between their legs on a crazy night when they're 14.

Not sure how to correctly say it, but while I'm not for abstinence (because it will never work), I am not against the President suggesting abstinence. Over time, fewer single mothers and babies that have problems b/c they were born to unfit mothers, as well as fewer tax-payer funded abortions will benefit the whole society as the overall burden will be less.

There is nothing wrong with showing the pros of abstinence--he's not taking away anyone's right to choose. Given that birh control is still prone to not being 100% successful, why would the President suggest anything otherwise? Relax. Get on the Internet and rub one out for free.

People under 18 will always have sex, but I think the message is that they shouldn't have to worry about the baggage that comes along with sex. Why should they be rushed to grow up? Why don't the youth of America cherish their youth?

Shakka, can you state whether you support these programs or not? It seems to me that promoting abstinence is not a bad thing, as you say, but it is completely wrong to go so far as to withhold information to prevent STD's and pregnancy, because, to quote you:

quote:

People under 18 will always have sex

Who's withholding information? Hell, I think it should be the parents' duty to teach their kids about safe sex and what not. Not to mention the fact that most kids have access to the Internet (The Information Superhighway I might add), as well as a dearth of available literature from libraries, universities, doctors' offices, etc... I don't see how the government needs to be such a big factor, and for that matter why they shouldn't teach abstinence(Hell, in China the government sets child quotas and the penalties for disobeying are severe).

I think in the end it just shows how uninvolved parents have become in raising their kids, family values are shit, the divorce rate here is over 50%. Suddenly people care because the government doesn't want kids (I read this to be people under 18) running around having sex. I say fine! Keep the idiots from creating more idiots.

Too many people want the government to take care of everything for them. Tell them what to eat, tell them what to smoke, tell them where to work, take care of them when they're old, pay for their health insurance, etc. They just want to be sheep taken care of by a big almighty goverment that assures them that they'll never have to worry about everything and that they will always be taken care of. If you leave too many responsibilities to the government to decide, you may not be happy with what they decide. This is why personal responsibility is such a crucial ideal to instill in people.

Shit--it doesn't f'ing matterto me what the government wants to teach kids about sex--I plan to be the primary teacher of that information to my kids, and if they come home from school asking me why the school is telling them to practice abstinence, then it's obviously time to sit down and have an honest and open conversation with my kid about the facts of life. It's not like Bush is up there saying, "If you don't practice abstinence until yer 18, yer gonna go ta Hell!". You guys make me laugh.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Who's withholding information? Hell, I think it should be the parents' duty to teach their kids about safe sex and what not. Not to mention the fact that most kids have access to the Internet (The Information Superhighway I might add), as well as a dearth of available literature from libraries, universities, doctors' offices, etc... I don't see how the government needs to be such a big factor, and for that matter why they shouldn't teach abstinence(Hell, in China the government sets child quotas and the penalties for disobeying are severe). I think in the end it just shows how uninvolved parents have become in raising their kids, family values are shit, the divorce rate here is over 50%. Suddenly people care because the government doesn't want kids (I read this to be people under 18) running around having sex. I say fine! Keep the idiots from creating more idiots. Too many people want the government to take care of everything for them. Tell them what to eat, tell them what to smoke, tell them where to work, take care of them when they're old, pay for their health insurance, etc. They just want to be sheep taken care of by a big almighty goverment that assures them that they'll never have to worry about everything and that they will always be taken care of. If you leave too many responsibilities to the government to decide, you may not be happy with what they decide. This is why personal responsibility is such a crucial ideal to instill in people. Shit--it doesn't f'ing matterto me what the government wants to teach kids about sex--I plan to be the primary teacher of that information to my kids, and if they come home from school asking me why the school is telling them to practice abstinence, then it's obviously time to sit down and have an honest and open conversation with my kid about the facts of life. It's not like Bush is up there saying, "If you don't practice abstinence until yer 18, yer gonna go ta Hell!". You guys make me laugh.

good post... parents should be the ultimate teacher when it comes to sex ed. the government should not be held responsible to teach children all the different ways to live their life, the government will want to teach children the way that is most benificial to the society at large, and hence abstenance. it is for society's greater good that pre-18's dont start popping up children for the reasons stated above. at the end of the day no rights have been trampled on, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach the kids morality and how the world works.

I apologize for any repitition here, I only skimmed the article and your responses because I get really angry and rather upset when I read about it. Bush's moronic policies on sex education have appalled me since his inauguration and it's nice to see that I'm not the only one.

Sexual health is very important to me and Bush's archaic and ignorant views on sexual health have no place in modern society. The idea that not providing instruction on condom use and promoting abstinence will prevent people from having sex is such a non sequiter that I don't know how he came up with the idea in the first place. Sure, condoms are not 100% effective, but even 80% (I'm lowballing the efficacy rate here) is significantly better than the 0% you get without condom use. And does anyone think that people are having less sex because of these policies?

Shakka, do you think the 14-year-olds are going to listen to Bush over the tingle in their legs? (ok, that made me giggle) I think abstinence education is great, but abstinence only is awful. The problem is that Bush is using financial leverage to prevent safe sex practices from being taught in federally funded programs. The only thing these programs are allowed to teach is abstinence -- that's the problem. People are being taught not to use condoms because they're not effective. Please tell me you see the problem here.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Who's withholding information?

Read the original post more carefully. In reference to teaching that condom use can reduce the risk of contracting HIV:

quote:

This policy clearly puts these federal government organizations at odds with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' divisions that run the abstinence-only programs, which cannot by law provide this advice.

Sounds like withholding to me. And yes, this country is going to shit as far as parents raising their kids, responsibility, etc. but does that make a government policy of disseminating misleading information ok? I think you're missing the point here.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil The problem is that Bush is using financial leverage to prevent safe sex practices from being taught in federally funded programs. The only thing these programs are allowed to teach is abstinence -- that's the problem. People are being taught not to use condoms because they're not effective. Please tell me you see the problem here.

Using financial leverage? Hardly--he's just not going to waste funding on a program that promotes teenage sex. That means what exactly? That schools will no longer be handing out free condoms, telling teens that the government says it's ok to go ahead and start shacking up, potentially creating another high-school dropout, single mother, or abortion? I have to say, I can agree with this on principal alone.

Younger people obviously don't like the policy because they don't like the thought of the government entering their bedroom (I don't blame them!). I repeat my position that it's fine for the government to promote abstinence--the parents should get more involved again and teach their kids about life. That's what parenting is all about!

Politically, this is an easy way to save money on the budget and thus help trim the deficit. If you're funding a program that promotes a negative result, you're really not helping the problem, ultimately you're just wasting money at an increasing rate. On principal I think it's a sensible idea, provided the people care enough.

Yeah, you tell 'em kid... Hey, WTF do you need a condom for?

Lol!
{{{smoke}}}

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Using financial leverage? Hardly--he's just not going to waste funding on a program that promotes teenage sex. That means what exactly? That schools will no longer be handing out free condoms, telling teens that the government says it's ok to go ahead and start shacking up, potentially creating another high-school dropout, single mother, or abortion? I have to say, I can agree with this on principal alone.

Federal guidelines stipulate that any sex ed program that teaches safe sex will not receive federal funding. How is that not financial leverage? Do you think telling kids that "if you're going to have sex, this is the safe way to do it," is tantamount to governmental approval of sex and promoting pregnancy? I assume you're suggesting that the high-school dropout, etc. bit comes from pregnancy. But that's something else condoms prevent. I recall a few studies indicating that teenagers who are educated on safe sex are wait long to become sexually active and are less prone to unplanned pregnancies when they do. I'll post the link when I find the study, I'm having no luck now.

quote:

Younger people obviously don't like the policy because they don't like the thought of the government entering their bedroom (I don't blame them!). I repeat my position that it's fine for the government to promote abstinence--the parents should get more involved again and teach their kids about life. That's what parenting is all about!

I repeat my position: abstinence education is great, but not exclusively abstinence education. Parents should be more involved, but they're not. Should the government not bother trying to bring up to speed children whose parents don't get involved with their education?

quote:

Politically, this is an easy way to save money on the budget and thus help trim the deficit. If you're funding a program that promotes a negative result, you're really not helping the problem, ultimately you're just wasting money at an increasing rate.

Trim the deficit by increasing STD infection rates? By not teaching teenagers how they can save themselves from contracting HIV? I don't see how encouraging safe sex practices is a negative thing. You said yourself that people are going to have sex anyway.

quote:

On principal I think it's a sensible idea, provided the people care enough.

Communism was a great idea, in principle. And that's an awfully hefty provision you have there.

Go back and reread some of my earlier posts. It's not that I have any problems whatsoever with teaching kids about safe sex--I simply don't think it's the government's responsibility to do so--God knows how much money simply gets thrown away every year on these programs that probably teach kids something they know alrady, or should be getting from home in the first place.

Young people will protest the decision because they tend to view the governent as being repressive.

i think the christian priests are doing a great job in teaching our kids about sex, they even give the kids practical lessons!

maybe we also need Micheal Jackson to help teach the kids?

quote:

Originally posted by tathi i think the christian priests are doing a great job in teaching our kids about sex, they even give the kids practical lessons! maybe we also need Micheal Jackson to help teach the kids?

ya whats up with that, micheal jackson going to the brotherhood of islam (or whatever its called, i forget now ) he would have been wiser to convert to being a catholic priest

but anyways as shakka says, i too belive the more education a child gets about sex the better, i just dont think it's wrong for the government to favor abstenance.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I think it should be clear by now that Bush cares nothing about human rights or human health, and I don't see how that makes him a Christian.

Actually, it's rather well known that Bush is a Christian, and in fact, feels uncomfortable in company that doesn't have faith. It is a widely known fact that the president prays before each speech and uses comments such as �It was God�s plan� when he referred to his mission to make the world safe for democracy, and �You believe in the Almighty, and I believe in
the Almighty. That�s while we�ll be great partners� (click here for that article) Gregg Easterbrook, an extensive writer about the modern search for meaning, suspects that �Bush takes the view (which may prove right) that the ultimate argument will be between people who believe in something larger than themselves, and people who believe that it�s all an accident of chemistry" (quote from the same article). But, on to the actual argument here... (I love how I get sidetracked here)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka People under 18 will always have sex, but I think the message is that they shouldn't have to worry about the baggage that comes along with sex. Why should they be rushed to grow up? Why don't the youth of America cherish their youth?

I'm sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only become more popular within the last few decades that people under 18 were having sex. It was not always. With pop stars and movies that are being shown now a days, there's no hope for a child to get to age 12 without knowing what a blow job is, for example. If the "youth" is going to know about sex one way or another, at least educate them on the dangers and hazards of having it, and the correct ways to protect themselves. Whether it be from school or from parents, they need to understand the potential health hazards they create for themselves when acting like an adult while still a child from somewhere.

quote:

I think in the end it just shows how uninvolved parents have become in raising their kids, family values are shit, the divorce rate here is over 50%. Suddenly people care because the government doesn't want kids (I read this to be people under 18) running around having sex. I say fine! Keep the idiots from creating more idiots.

It's also the influence of schools, peers, television, movies, the internet...

I agree that parents need to take more responsibility, but I know for a fact I learned all the bad things at school. I learned about the real information about sex from peers at the high school I went to. (I'm amazed at what children know these days.... I didn't know half the stuff they know now at almost twice the age they are at!) It's not necessarily just the parents fault. My family was very involved, very loving. Along with many other families around this area. But, you learn the "stuff" about life at school. You can't always blame the parents when a lot of the problems come from our schools. I agree that parents should be the ones teaching their children about abstinence and safe sex, however.

quote:

Go back and reread some of my earlier posts. It's not that I have any problems whatsoever with teaching kids about safe sex--I simply don't think it's the government's responsibility to do so--God knows how much money simply gets thrown away every year on these programs that probably teach kids something they know alrady, or should be getting from home in the first place.

I repeat. A lot of parent's do teach their children about sex. Unfortunately, it's the outside influences (aka the internet, tv, peers, etc) that give the youth a more provacative, sex appeal side to the whole issue. I think it's ridiculous that some of the ads on billboards on a regular highway!!!!! promote strip clubs/prostitution! I mean, come on, this is getting ridiculous.

As daffodil said, teaching the youth abstinence is good. Teaching only abstinence is bad. I was educated quite well on sex, the hazards, abstinence, etc etc etc, and it made me wait longer to have it, for fear of pregnancy, HIV, STDs, etc. Giving the youth a good education on the risks of engaging in sexual activities at such a young age, at any age, with one or multiple partners, is direly needed. If it has to come from school, let it. They need to know somehow.

anuneventrade, daffodil - what's this jew crew all about and can i be a part of it?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy anuneventrade, daffodil - what's this jew crew all about and can i be a part of it?

We are going to take over the world!!!!!!! MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.......



Damnit.. I just revealed the top secret plans....

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade We are going to take over the world!!!!!!! MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA....... Damnit.. I just revealed the top secret plans....

i hate to burst your bubble, but most people for the past 2000 years have already known that we are going to take over the world still it's best we play it off and keep it on the down-low....

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i hate to burst your bubble, but most people for the past 2000 years have already known that we are going to take over the world still it's best we play it off and keep it on the down-low....

rock and roll izzy i'm not jewish, but i'm jew crew anyway.

safe sex 4eva!! seriously, it's absurd that federally funded programs can't teach safe sex without losing their money.

If I was misunderstood before, sorry. I think that abstinance should definatly be taught along with the other forms of contriception. Also, the parents should definatly have a big role in the education of their children, but as anun. stated, the outside forces are really the ones that matter. Also, what if the parents are say, devote Christians for example, and believe only in Abstinance and Abstinance alone? Where are the kids suppose to learn about methods such as condoms etc... And don't make the arguement that the kids will also be devote christians and not have sex anyways, because we all know that would not be even skimming the truth.

I think the government should play some role, especially with Sex Education in the school. I still remember my sex education when I was in 5th grade, and it has stuck with me ever since.

Waste funding, we are wasting the funding on the abstinance programs that are proven not to work (see link in second post I believe). And I don't see how it promotes sexual activity is contraception is taught. Along with contraception, I still learned about the diseases on a shock basis. I'm still a virgin, but definatly not against sex. IMHO I think that the government should definatly play at least some role in the sex education process, because if we rely specifically on the parents, I would expect to see even more of a rise in the STD/HIV/Pregnancy rates. And this is coming from someone who lived in one of the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates.

quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 Also, what if the parents are say, devote Christians for example, and believe only in Abstinance and Abstinance alone? Where are the kids suppose to learn about methods such as condoms etc... And don't make the arguement that the kids will also be devote christians and not have sex anyways, because we all know that would not be even skimming the truth.

So you think that the government should be able to willfully supercede the powers of the parent's and teach their kids about sexual behavior? They may not be making the best parenting decisions in your eyes, but does that mean you should give the government power to come into your house and raise your kids for you? Do you realize the implications of this? Have you read A Brave New World? My argument isn't concerned about what parent's choose to teach their kids, it's more that it's the parents' duty and right to raise their kids how they see fit. It's simply not a place where I want the government meddling.

Think about it like this: You have an uncle who likes to have fun with you, whom you view as a role model. This uncle, however, has a more lax mindset than your parents. He doesn't mind so much when you get in trouble. Your parents, on the other hand, try to teach you a stricter set of morals and a better code of values. You do something wrong and you tell your parents that your uncle said it was OK, but they don't feel the same way. Now imagine that the uncle is the government--giving you a bit more leeway to fuck up, while your parents are trying to teach you otherwise. It would be much better for the government to err to the side of saftey and not play the role of the uncle who gives ill advice. Then if the parents supercede that and give their children a bit more education and understanding of things, there won't be a contradiction in beliefs. Maybe that wasn't the most well written example, but hopefully you get my point--it is better for the government not to step too far into people's private lives by just taking the stand that abstinence for our youth is their policy while leaving the real teaching of such personal matters to the parents. Again, when people don't want to take responsibility, this is the kind of result they get.

quote:

I think the government should play some role, especially with Sex Education in the school. I still remember my sex education when I was in 5th grade, and it has stuck with me ever since.

I remember sex-ed in 4th grade. I thought it was a joke--though I still distinctly remember it. Someone asked the teacher what a blow job was, everyone laughed because we already knew, it was just funny to put the guy on the spot. He was much more interested in teaching us about how the pituitary gland works. I think I was taught about the pituitary gland for 8 years straight--I think some money was probably wasted in there teaching the same material year after year.


Think about it. If you have a sexual question/issue, who would you prefer to turn to for advice--your government or your parents? Seems to me that the government is trying to take the safest, least controversial stand on this issue and leave the ultimate decision to the parents. I don't understand why you are so up in arms!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.