Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vwcruisn, Nov 25, 2004.
What a great way to spend money we don't have
I agree with you about fiscal conservatism, but it's not any worse than spending money distibuting condoms or morning after pills.
I think this would be a much more effective use of the money. Telling a bunch of horny teens not to have sex is like telling the 5 year old to keep his hand out of the cookie jar. Its not going to work.
That's a great analogy. That's why america is so fat--we can't teach our chilren to keep their damned hands out of the cookie jar. We don't teach our children restraint, because that's too hard. and of course, when you let kids do whatever the hell they want to from when they're neo-natal, they're not going to listen to you when you tell them it's wrong, potentially emotionally damaging, potentially unhealthy, or whatever to have sex.
afaik, studies do not support the claim that abstinence funding leads to a decline in teenagers having sex.
assuming that will hold true, what's the point of spending money on that, as opposed to spending money on programs which are shown to be effective, such as sex education?
I'm not opposed to sex education. It's very important.
But not the kind where you basically tell them i know you're gonna get busy with all those other 16 year olds, and 14 year olds, and 13 year olds... so here's some condoms... remember, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't get pregnant or contract AIDS. Just like in the real world--it doesn't matter if you do anything wrong, as long as you don't get in trouble for doing it.
I thought this was a thread about Bush's Education Policy in general. My mistake.
I thought that abstinence education waswhat has been taught in schools who receive Federal funding. I fail to see the logic in throwing more money at it.
Is it to buy an excuse? "Oh, teen pregancies are up?, well it certainly wasn't our fault. We spent x billion dollars on the issue. We care. It must be the fault of x or y."
For the moment, I am concerned more about Fiscal Responsibility and prioritizing well, than the issue surrounding sex-ed itself.
When a Congress can manage to get provisions/bills passed like this, yet fail to get an Intelligence Reform or Budget bill worked out, I find that to be a big problem. I would hope most should, regardless of your political leanings.
that's definitely something i agree with. fiscal irresponsibility is probably the main reason i'm not a republican... tax cuts *and* government expansion... right...
Abstinence ed isn't going to work. What has a far better chance of working is education about the topic as a whole.
Kids don't want to be told what to do. When it comes down to it, kids will do whatever the hell they want. Your only hope is that you've taught them well, and they'll make a decision that they believe suits them best.
Better to teach about the financial burden of having kids. Young people have a warped conception of time (generally speaking.) Eighteen years plus is hard for kids to grasp when they have had no experience with dealing in such matters, the rest of the time it is simply a bad decision made in the heat of the moment.
It's hard to fight biology, whether you believe in it or not, puberty is an inevitability not a choice. I think it is better to prepare them for it rather than think that they are not going to do it. As adults who have been there, we should know this.
I'm convinced this "mandate" crap has given Bush every reason he needs to do whatever his insane conscience feels is best, regardless of facts contrary.
Throughout the years conservatives bashed liberals for being wasteful and overly sensitive, saying they made spendthrift governing decisions based on "feelings instead of facts." It sure is odd that the way Bush "feels" about a particular subject is now more than enough to go ahead and put us deeper into a deficit.
OK, this is NOT the sex education program that most researchers advocate. Or, for that matter, most parents or those on the left. For an example, look at the programs designed by the major universities in this country.
ALL of them put abstinence on the top of the list of ways to prevent pregnancy and STDs. ALL of them tell the kids that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.
And here is where we have a problem. This line of yours is very telling. You think having sex is "wrong." You are bringing morality into an area where EVERYONE has differring opinions on what is good and bad. Would you prefer that sex-education teachers told the kids that "sex is bad," that "God wants you to wait," or that "you are a bad person if you have sex outside of marriage."
There are two seperate issues here: morality and the facts of sex, STDs and pregnancy. I just don't think it is appropriate for a teacher to try to force their morality into the impressionable brains of their students. Let the teachers teach my kids about laws, science, math, reading, nature, and, yes, the facts about sex and STDs. Let the PARENTS give their kids lessons about morality, what is good and bad, etc.
I'm assuming you are Christian, right? Well what if your kids' teacher was a very traditional Muslim? Would you want that teacher to try and convince your kids that a woman who didn't wear a head covering outside of their house was a "bad person?" Would you want an Amish teacher trying to convince your kids that electricity was bad?
If you want your kids to get a religious education, complete with the enforcement of moral values, SEND THEM TO A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL! If not, then let the school teach your kids about FACTS and CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS and make yourself responsible for raising your kids in a moral and upright way.
And here's an even more controversial idea: talk to your own d*** kids about sex and morality. Why in the world would you want you kids only knowledge of sex and what is right and wrong to come from a classroom? And don't be naive to the fact that even before they got to that classroom, most kids will have heard about these things FROM OTHER KIDS! Do you think that other kids are a good and informed source for information regarding sex??
Talk to your kids EARLY about sex. And if you are a Christian who holds that sex should only be between a man and his wife, then tell your kids about that. Tell them it is a sin in the eyes of God, if you like. But, for their sake, also tell them about safe sex and the risks of condom use and other birth control. Then tell them that even if they don't make the best choices you will always love them and that they can talk to you about any problem that would come up. Because nothing says "get an abortion" like "we'll disown you if you have sex before marriage."
The problem with abstinence only education is that the extend of education is just that: it teaches them only to abstain. It withholds all the facts about sex. That means it's a lie.
It's EXACTLY like the failed drug education programmes.
If you lie to kids in the classroom, when they find out they were lied to, they disbelieve everything (true or not) that was taught along with the lie.
Yes, abstinence is taught at all Federally funded schools which are compliant. However, that is not the same as abstinence-only education, which is what many people (including Bush) would prefer to be taught in schools.
Bad idea. But I'm sure God would approve.
Excellent quote from the AP article
The problem I have with this news is that we can not have education of one without the other. Having been deeply involved with the AIDS crisis (at a point that it was known as GRID), you can not have one without the other.
Wish I could point to the exact studies, but I seem to remember that "economic" situations do contribute to a lack of abstinence and the use of "birth control".
In regards to the abortion issue (by your reference of the morning after pill); we need to limit the adoption of overseas children, and encourage the adoption of the children in our own country. We also need to do more in getting people that are "marginal", jobs that will give hope. It may mean paying more at the stores, but is that not better than the current system?
But you are missing that the "abstinence" funding is a replacement to sex education as I have read it. As I said you can not have one, without the other.
I know what you mean with the "time warp". In HS and a few years after I knew a number of reps from some of the camera companies. I returned to the industry 5 years ago. It was a company dinner that I ran in to one of the reps from some many years ago. My first comment was "so you are still alive?". For me it was that I looked at this guy as being "old" when I was in HS. It also gave me pause just how old I was.
There are a lot of other factors involved culturally as well. The majority of parents spend for too little time with their kids. Young people today are more likely to follow pop culture than ever before.
When everything in the country revolves around sex and sexuality, from music videos to marketing, it is hard to imagine how teaching abstinance is going to overcome puberty, new emotional feelings and massive amounts of peer pressure.
Especially when you consider what is expected of a sucessful man, sexual prowess is an integral part of that. Combine that with sports, a closed environment and plenty of free time you can pretty much guess what is going to happen. Especially if they are ignorant of it.
Some people actually believed that doing it standing up or in a swimming pool was effective birth control measures.
For a lot of men, hormones still over rule common sense sometimes, that's even worse as a teen.
Yeah, just don't it kid. Right.
In one important way: the two you mention are proven to at least be effective and do what they're supposed to.
i fail to see why this topic has to be discussed anyway
when did teaching abstinence prove to be effective ?
I'm a firm believer in what's called "comprehensive sex education". That's when birth control methods are taught along with abstinence. I think that it's important that kids be made aware that abstinence is by far the best birth control and STI-prevention method, as more than just a passing note. I also think that it's important to understand how sex works physically, emotionally (gasp!), and also spiritually (double gasp!). I had a health teacher my freshman year in high school who discussed the whole "health triangle" thing and said that he didn't think the whole "physical, emotional, and social health" thing doesn't cut it--he said that spiritual health is important too. Not surprisingly, I also got the best sex education from him I ever received in high school.
That said, I also think that parents these days are grossly negligent in the rearing of their children. We need a return to the solid parenting that comes from loving discipline (now THERE'S a dangerous word) and results in well-adjusted children who know and do what's right, in all areas from sex to cheating on financial reports.
Day care, TV and video games raise kids today.
Parenting is either a luxury (they can't afford it) or a nuisance (they won't sacrifice for it) for our parents today.
One parent needs to raise the kids while the other earns the income to keep the household afloat. Or both work part-time.
When each parent works 40-60 hours a week, they cannot raise their children.
Well said, pseudobrit. I was fortunate enough that my dad worked out of a shop out back of our house from the time I was a year old until I was thirteen or fourteen. When my little sister was still at home all day, dad would work during the day with her out there, and come back up to the house when I got home from school. When mom got home, we'd eat supper (that my dad cooked), and then dad would work about 7 to 11. Mom worked 8-4:30. Grandma also came by a lot when she and grandpa moved from California to the next town over.
I hope that when I raise a family, either one of us will be fortunate enough to work from home, or that my wife would be willing to stay at home or work part-time until the kids are in middle school or so. It's sad that a lot of the things our society in the U.S. values these days requires two full-time wage-earners in the household. It takes some sacrifices, but I know for a fact that it's possible to keep one parent at home full-time. I know of at least one family that does it, and their family even has nicer stuff than mine does--and both my parents work full-time.
Off-topic, I can't believe I said "rearing" in my post above. I was shocked when I read that quote by pseudobrit. Nothing wrong with saying it, just seemed out of character for me.
isn't there a movie where jim carrey was a guy who was raised entirely by television in the 1960s/70s...? seems like I remember something like that, but i can't place it.