|
Let's talk recycle! It could not have been easier! I WANT ANSWERS AND I'M GOING TO GET THEM! Okay! Now I've really, really had it! To my friends, the undecided voters of Victoria The Problem with Political Polls ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX EDUCATION HUH? WHAT DID HE JUST SAY? THIS JUST IN! AND YOU WANT THIS YO-YO AS YOUR PRESIDENT? February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX EDUCATION
I had an interesting tete-a-tete with someone today on another newspaper's website. That person said that whatever sex education is taught in school is up to the State Board of Education, not the federal government. I am way too tired tonight to go research that so I'll just agree with it for now. What I am about to say right now has absolutely nothing to do with Palin as a mother and it has absolutely nothing to do with her daughter. As a parent, she has every right to decide how she will educate her children about sex. I respect that right. However, I do not think she has the right to decide how every child will get sex education. We all know that she is totally committed to "abstinence only sex education". Now we'll go back to the possibility of the federal government's involvement in this. Did you know that when "No Child Left Behind" was passed, it put pressure on school districts all over America to comply or forfeit education dollars? Now, school districts that wanted to could opt out and receive no federal funding if they had the resources to provide a quality education to students without accepting it. My thoughts are that if you have someone in a position of president or Vice President of the country who wants to tell you how our children should be taught about sex education and then has probably the power to line votes up in Congress to get "abstinence only sex education" in all schools or lose federal funding, what do you think a State Board of Education is going to do. It is going to roll over and play dead just like it has with the "No Child Left Behind" program. Here is a list of things I think we can all agree upon: 1. Teens "shouldn't" be having sex. 2. Parents should be teaching children sex education. 3. Abstinence is the safest form of birth control, but it is not the only form of birth control. 4. Not all parents talk to their children about sex . 5. Abortions are not an acceptable form of birth control. 6. Not all parents of pregnant teens have the means to support the child. 7. Taxpayers foot the bill for unwed mothers' children when the fathers won't or don't support them or in cases where the fathers are unknown. Now, let's just kinda break this down: 1. Teens not having sex is a myth. 2. Thinking teens will abstain from having sex is a myth. 3. Thinking ALL parents are going to teach their children about protected and unprotected sex is a myth. 4. Thinking a person in a powerful position in the federal government can't find a way to shove stupid legislation down our throats is a myth. Sarah Palin has told us what she thinks sex education should be in schools. I think that any intelligent, self-thinking American can see where an "abstinence only" sex education will lead us. How many of you think the welfare rolls are already swelled with children born of mothers who did not use protection? How many of you think prisons are full of people whose parents did not use protection? How many of you look at the number of abortions by mothers who did not use protection? By the way, Maryann, could you please give me your source for the statistics on abortions that you quoted. I'm not being difficult. I just want to know where they came from. Stop to think if "abstinence only" is the only thing taught in school, how many more children will be on welfare; how many more people will we, the taxpayers, support in prison and how many more abortions will there be; how many more abused and neglected babies will there be; how many more STDs will there be 'cause these hot little teens CAN'T abstain? As responsible parents, we need to teach our children how to protect themselves. We teach them not to speak to strangers. We teach them to look both ways before they cross the street. We teach them to say "no to drugs". Why don't we teach them about every method of birth control protection there is? If there are parents who can't or won't, then shouldn't part of a school curriculum do it? If for no other reason than to protect the unborn babies. Is it going to stop it all? NO WAY! But what can it hurt? Oh, and please. Those of you that just like to argue for the sake of argument don't come on there to tell me "No Child Left Behind" was a bill sponsored by 2 Democrats. I already know that and I already am not impressed by it. Thanks! 7 comments from 5 users
1
posted by
maryann
on Sep 9, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Hello Pat, I have to say that I've been thinking about this issue, and I do understand the difficulties at hand. I will give my personal views, and then an example or two from societies. I believe that the parents are the primary educators of the child, and that it is their business to be informing them about sex, according to their standards. I don't want some teacher with liberal/conservative views skewing the morals of my child. I as a parent in America still have rights, and I do intend to exercise them, especially on the local level. My children go to public school, though I am a huge proponent of home-schooling. I like to say that my children are homeschooled as well, especially in religion. Having said that, I know what is being taught in their science and health classes, because I ask the principals, and I know the teachers. If I had to choose between abstinence education vs. comprehensive sex education, I would pick the abstinence education, but even that is not taught in our school. My children will be taught at home about chastity, which is a more involved form of abstinence education which tells the teen why to not engage in sex. I have found abundant research that demonstrates that abstinence/chastity education has been greatly successful in delaying sexual activity, promoting fidelity with married couples, and preventing AIDS, as well as pregancies. The birth control pill has been around since the 60s, and artificial birth control has been legal for decades now- and we still have so many "unwanted" pregnancies. So many women us abortion as the back up birth control. If society has woken up yet to popping pills, condoms, and sterilizing themselves into oblivion to prevent pregnancy, then when will it? Teaching Writing, 'Rmatic, Reading and Recreational Sex won't help matters. I stand by the Guttmacher Institute's own statistics that 58-59% of women who go in for abortions reported having been on birth control. I provided the link in my previous post. "Protected sex" still has its flaws, as obviously women are getting pregnant and the children pay the price with their lives for the failed birth control. To me this says much- more sex means more conceptions, which for some women means more abortions. Another example of success of abstinence/chastity education is what has happened in Africa with its battle against AIDS. For years countries have been fighting the disease with education to use "safe sex," and the U.S. and other countries had spent millions on condom promotions, yet the AIDS rates were still climbing. Uganda chose a different path promoting abstinence and chastity. Countries that still are using "safe sex" education methods are still experiencing high rates of AIDS and societal destruction. http://www.ncregister.com/s... From the website Lifesitenews: "Uganda may be on its way to wiping out AIDS by using a strategy based on chastity and fidelity, according to findings in a Harvard University study. The Harvard study credits abstinence education with "significant effectiveness in reducing AIDS in Uganda," a newswire reports -- "with the HIV infection rate dropping 50 percent between the years 1992 and 2000." http://www.lifesitenews.com... One can certainly see that for a continent under siege with a sexually transmitted disease, that promotion of safe-sex, especially condoms, was not saving lives. The Ugandan model demonstrates that chastity does save lives.
posted by
marksremarks
on Sep 6, 2008 at 06:12 PM
pat wrote Abortions are not an acceptable form of birth controlakso I am very, very pro-choice; but abortion just 'cause you want one is disgusting to me.
pat suppose a couple is using birth control but she becomes pregnant anyway. If she decide under her right to pro-choice to have an abortion, would it be for birth control, jes cause, what would her reason be? But you completely agree that she should have an abortion if she wants one. At what time do you think life begins for a fetus?
Roy Mark posted by
Riverboat
on Sep 6, 2008 at 02:26 PM
"Here is a list of things I think we can all agree upon . . . Parents should be teaching children sex education." I can't speak for everyone, but I, for one, certainly agree with that. I also believe the government schools should not be teaching abstinence-only. Know what else? I don't thing the gov-schools should be teaching about birth control, condoms, etc. It's beyond their pay grade, as it were, and is the parents' responsibility. Yeah, I know. There are a lot of irresponsible parents out there. But why usurp the rights of the responsible ones to cover for the others? posted by
marksremarks
on Sep 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM
pat writes I am very, very pro-choice; but abortion just 'cause you want one is disgusting to me. Like I said, we'll talk tomorrow. pat that is what prochoice means That a woman has the right to choose abortion with no restrictions for what ever reason. That really sounded like a grade school level comment. posted by
pat
on Sep 5, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Actually, Ernie, I really was impressed with your reply. I had thought that I'd dig right into this with you and Maryann tonight; but I am just too tired and the brain is too muddled so tomorrow we'll all discuss this. Before I do, I want to try to find the Planned Parenthood statistics on abortions by women who were on birth control that didn't work. I am very, very pro-choice; but abortion just 'cause you want one is disgusting to me. Like I said, we'll talk tomorrow. posted by
maryann
on Sep 5, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Hello Pat, You and I both disagree with Palin on this issue. I don't fully agree with abstinence-only education, which from what I have heard tells teens not to have sex, but doesn't focus so much on the why of not having sex. I am familiar with the chastity-based education, which focuses on the biological, emotional, and common sense reasons not to have sex. Jason Evert is a proponent of this, as well as Christopher West, who has expounded on John Paul II's Theology of the Body, which is just now taking off in programs in the U.S. and in Europe. This is what I will research, as I said on the other blog, and I will get back with you, as I have mucho on my plato this weekend. I do have to say that "teens not having sex is a myth" is a fallacy. We're not animals guided by instinct and a wad of hormones. All I have to say is that in my family we have had success with this, with much parental involvement and education. Also under this parental guidance, we've also had members of the family NOT be successful at first with the way of life. We can fall, but we don't have to fail forever. As I mentioned to Ernie in the other blog, we should try to educate to a higher morality. (Although what's moral to you might not be moral to the other guy, so that's another problem.....!) It's a battle: you seem to think the government should impose its sex-ed morality on all, while you oppose others with a different plan. It would seem that nothing should be imposed on our children, especially when it doesn't have proven results, as some of the sex ed. programs across the country have shown. Hopefullly, you and I can have a meaningful discussion on this after I get some time to do a bit of research. From my earlier post on the other blog: "Hello Pat, My source is Human Life International, specifically, its director, Fr. Etenaer. You are welcome to look this up yourself at www.hli.org, if I recall correctly. He quoted Planned Parenthood's own statistics for the women who reported using birth control and came in to kill the babies after the birth control failed. This was in reference to Sean Hannity's assertion that birth control reduces abortions. Fr. Etenaer called him on the fact that if birth control prevented abortions, then why were so many women in abortion clinics who used birth control. (Found the link for you: http://www.hli.org/contrace...) These stats. do demonstrate that more women who were on b.c. came in for abortions than women who were not using any method of birth control. It seems like more sex, even with birth control, means more unplanned pregnancies, which means more abortions. Tell you what Pat, I like to research my material,and I will get a blog going on this topic in a week or two if you would like to discuss it with me in detail. Or I could visit yours in that time, but it might get covered up by lots of other topics by then. Between Rosaries for the deceased, dinner, a wedding tomorrow, CCD, and LIFE, I got a lot on my plate this weekend. You seem like a reasonable lady, and I think we could discuss this in some detail...... MA" posted by
ErnieCash
on Sep 5, 2008 at 09:15 PM
Geez, I wish I'd read this blog before BigJ's. Wouldn't have had to waste so many words on someone who probably won't understand half of the words and likely none of the meaning. Do me a favor and go over there and read my reply if you've a mind, Pat. I won't feel as useless if I know someone's read it that will understand it. :-) Ernie I know... I just can't bring myself to be as patient with him as you. Sorry.
1
|