Battle over Texas sex-ed textbooks

[Ugg]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/08/05/texas.textbooks.reut/index.html)

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

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

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

What is up with this BS! It sounds like some 50s kind of approach to sex. Suicidal is all I can say.

[zimv20]

that's odd -- i've always said, "get plenty of rest so you can **** longer"

[Neserk]

LOL... that is too funny.

I have no problem with speaking about abstinece. But not to the exclusion of condomns and the pill.

[SuperChuck]

For some people, solving problems like teen pregnancy is less important than a political agenda.

[takao]

haha absolutly priceless... definatly 50ties revival

[LethalWolfe]

that's odd -- i've always said, "get plenty of rest so you can **** longer"
LOL


I agree w/the rest of the posters. I a firm believer in education so people can make informed decissions. Preaching abstinence is fine, just make you *educate* (that is the point of schools right?) the students so if they don't choose abstinence they know about safe sex and all the myths surrounding STD's and pregnancy.


Lethal

[Leo Hubbard]

This is one of the things I don't like about the Republicans. But you don't pick your leaders on single individual issues, if one were to do that I would vote for nobody, because nobody is perfect. Parents can teach their own kids sex education, so any policies created by the Republicans about abstinance is mute as long as parents take care of their own.

I am not saying this isn't an important issue, just that there is a world full of important issues and this is just one of them.

[skunk]

But you don't pick your leaders on single individual issues, if one were to do that I would vote for nobody, because nobody is perfect.
This makes no sense whatsoever.

[IJ Reilly]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

He hasn't made nearly everybody's ignore list for nutthin.

[LethalWolfe]

This makes no sense whatsoever.


It could have been stated better but it makes sense.

Voters vote for the candidate they agree w/the most even though they probably do not agree w/the candidate on every issue. If you resereved your vote for a candidate you agreed w/100% then you probably would never vote because the odds of of seeing eye-to-eye w/the candidate on every single issue are pretty slim.


Lethal

[Leo Hubbard]

This makes no sense whatsoever.
If you only voted for a candidate whose issues matched all of yours 100% than you would only be able to vote for yourself.

The fact that I disagree with Republicans on several individual issues isn't going to mean I am not going to vote for them. This is one of the issues I dissagree with the Republicans about.

[Leo Hubbard]

It could have been stated better but it makes sense.

Voters vote for the candidate they agree w/the most even though they probably do not agree w/the candidate on every issue. If you resereved your vote for a candidate you agreed w/100% then you probably would never vote because the odds of of seeing eye-to-eye w/the candidate on every single issue are pretty slim.


Lethal
Exactly. Thanks.

[skunk]

"But you don't pick your leaders on single individual issues, if one were to do that I would vote for nobody, because nobody is perfect." That's what you said. If you were to pick your leader on a single issue, it wouldn't matter if they were perfect, as long as they agreed with you on that single issue. Ergo, you are making no sense.

[Leo Hubbard]

"But you don't pick your leaders on single individual issues, if one were to do that I would vote for nobody, because nobody is perfect." That's what you said. If you were to pick your leader on a single issue, it wouldn't matter if they were perfect, as long as they agreed with you on that single issue. Ergo, you are making no sense.
I didn't realize I was in debate class.

[LethalWolfe]

"But you don't pick your leaders on single individual issues, if one were to do that I would vote for nobody, because nobody is perfect." That's what you said. If you were to pick your leader on a single issue, it wouldn't matter if they were perfect, as long as they agreed with you on that single issue. Ergo, you are making no sense.


You know what he meant. It was worded poorly but it was pretty obvious what Leo was trying to say. This is a pretty stupid thing to bust someone's balls over (even someone you don't like).


Lethal

[mouchoir]

A little victorian eh? That's highly irresponsible and could lead to more texans.

(just playing rat!)

[iGav]

Parents can teach their own kids sex education, so any policies created by the Republicans about abstinance is mute as long as parents take care of their own.

In an ideal world they would as part of their responsibilty as parents not only to their children but also society. Reality however is somewhat different.

Judging by the fact that Texas is in the top 5 for teenage pregnancies for several years, we could consider that maybe Texan parents aren't doing an especially good job of teaching their children then.

And with the possibilities of Educational Textbooks containing such 'factual based gems' as...

a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence.

it would seem that the situation in Texas isn't going to change anytime soon. :rolleyes: