F
fix
Guest
So, if the school says one should consult with Planned Parenthood if one is pregnant to explore abortion options that would be an example of objective facts that are not related to morality either?
Act urgently to try to stop problematic sex-ed program in Maryland
- Status
R
rayne100
Guest
This is not the issue at hand. The O.P. was regarding the current MD lesson plan for approval. This cirriculum does not state any such thing, it is a diversion from the original argument.
This curriculum, does not teach anything about what happens after you are pregnant, that is a seperate issue altogether.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
But is it really the school’s job to take over the parents’ responsibility? Yes, sometimes parents do fail, but I don’t personally think it happens as often and as catastrophically (sp??) as the people responsible for this would like us to believe.
If the school is more responsible for our children then are their parents, and these sex-ed programs are working, why are there so many problems with STD’s, pregnancy, etc.?
F
fix
Guest
It is the same reasoning. You claim morality is somehow excluded. By your own admission techniques are taught that would help ensure bad acts occur.
Let us use the condom example. You say that the school would simply provide facts about condoms without any moral guidance. That presupposes condom use is morally neutral and that the children do not perceive they should use them even though they are presented as a means to an end.
Why are they presented in the course in the first place? Because they are to be seen as a useful way to engage in illicit sex without fearing any bad consequence. The entire enterprise is a morality course. It is simply mislabeled in hopes no one puts up any opposition.
R
rayne100
Guest
Actually it used to happen quite frequently which is why it was originally instituted in the first place.
Now if that has changed, then I suppose people should proove that and ask that it be stricken altogether.
However, if it has not changed, then there presents a health hazard.
R
rayne100
Guest
Look, we can keep arguing like this over and over agian, I do not think that you will change my mind and I know I will not change your mind.
the simple fact is that not everyone holds the same religious and moral beliefs that you do. You cannot impose your beliefs on everyone else. In a secular world, these practices are morally nuetral, in a religious world they are not.
Your job as a parent is to impart your beliefs to your child, the schools job is to educate students of health risks and precautions.
If you find it offensive, then do not opt your child in and make sure that you educate your child according to your beliefs, if you do not then there is no issue.
F
fix
Guest
I am sorry you view this as different compartments that have no real life consequences. In the *real world *right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who holds to what erroneous opinion. As I pointed out the state has made mistakes before and is now. That something is allowed does not make it right. The state has no business teaching anyone how to further a bad act. This line of reasoning is played out right now not only in this case, but in the arguments for same sex unions, assisted suicide, gay adoption, and many other areas. The reasoning is as you state. That reasoning says religion is some private idea that has no place outside the home and that the state needs to impose utilitarian ethics on the population. That simply replaces one so called religion with another. It is not about objective facts. It is a strict philosophy that discounts all other views. It is what the Pope calls the dictatorship of relativism.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
I disagree that this was the reason sex-ed was implemented. IMHO there has been a not-so-subtle effort at undermining and eroding the parental influence for some time.
But here’s some info regarding the explosion in STD’s and so forth, it seems to me the health hazard is the current structure of these sex-ed programs:
leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/epid-std.html
“Prior to 1960, there were only two significant sexually transmitted diseases: syphilis and gonorrhea. Both were easily treatable with antibiotics.”
“Some people believe that if teens can be taught how to use contraception and condoms effectively, that rates of pregnancy and STD infection will be reduced dramatically. But the statistics and common sense tell us otherwise. At Rutgers University, the rates of infection of students with STD varied little with the form of contraception used. For example, 35 to 44% of the sexually active students were infected with one or more STDs whether they used no contraceptive, oral contraceptive, the diaphragm, or condoms. It is significant to note that condoms, the hero of the “safe sex” message, provided virtually no protection from STDs.”
heritage.org/Research/features/issues/issuearea/Abstinence.cfm
“A recent Zogby poll found that 85 percent of parents believe that teaching about abstinence should be emphasized as much as, or more than, teaching about contraception.”
“In 2002, federal and state governments spent $12 on family planning, “safe sex,” and contraception promotion programs for every $1 they spent on abstinence programs.”
V
Valke2
Guest
That’s easy. Throw yourself at your partner and miss.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
This undermining of the importance of abstinence education is why there won’t be any real significant progress in the fight against the steady progression of sexual activity and disease among children.
Throw them at the mercy of the state regardless of consequence as long as it fulfills my own personal and political agenda.
A
Aleii
Guest
Great wording. Completely agree.
R
rayne100
Guest
I don’t see it as discounting anything. The do mention abstinence many time as the only and most effective way to prevent such things. If you think that ther needs to be more of an emphasis on abstinance, then put something together and present it as an addition to the program. I seriously doubt any parent would object to their child staying abstinent no matter what beliefs you have (if any), however I do believe that parents would have a problem with the religious aspect that is most often used as a reason for abstinence.
So in short, put something together that goes into more detail regarding abstinence, that does not use religion as a proponent and present it. Seriously, nothing will change until something changes…
R
rayne100
Guest
Thank you
F
fix
Guest
Sex education does not belong in public schools.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Abstinence isn’t entirely a religious concept. There are many behavioral studies that show children are just not emotionally ready or mature enough to engage in sexual activity, and the consequences of this behavior in children so young are both emotional and physical. Of course, that is only because it just shows the progression of natural law, but religion doesn’t have to be a part of it at all.
Abstinence education is more than just saying the sentence, “The only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and STD is abstinence”. Think about the education that goes in to teaching kids to resist peer pressure in regards to drug use and you can see there is just much more that can be taught.
It’s just unfortunate that the majority of those who advocate an unbalanced sex-ed curriculum also have a high bias against traditional Christian ethics and therefore have “knee jerk” reactions to the separation of “church and state” within the public schools, which IMHO is a ludicrous position anyway, but that is where we are at in society today and probably a topic for another discussion.
R
rayne100
Guest
I agree with everything you just said, that’s why I was proposing that someone put together those facts, that lesson plan and present it as well. Again, I would be interested in what you would put together. I hope you all understand that I am not against teaching abstinence in our schools, just that no one has yet presented a lesson plan that teaches abstinence without bringing religion into it.
I also believe that we must teach the facts about both abstinence and preventative measures. I think it is foolhardy to teach and abstinence class and think that all students will follow this example. It is an ideal and one I would strive to meet, however I also do not want my child or anyone elses child coming home with an STD.
F
fix
Guest
As this article shows the entire debate is misdirected. So called sex ed should not be part of school. It is the job of parents. Why would we want school officials to discuss such things with our children? Of all the aspects of life certainly this one does not need to be politicized and used as an agenda to subvert young minds.
As for diseases the answer for prevention is not more instruction in immorality. The answers are obvious they are just lost on a population that is led along by para experts and has formed their conscience based on relativistic notions of truth.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
The bottom line is that sex education will always be evil. Information about condom usage, for example, remains evil if it comes from a teacher or a parent. Children have the absolute right to be free from such corrupting influences. As no one needs to know anything about the sexual act until one’s wedding night, it seems to me that sustaining ignorance about such things is a valuable tool in developing the moral strength of our youth.
R
rayne100
Guest
That’s great logic…
I suppose we should wait till a child freaks out that she is bleeding from a private area before she learns about menstration too !
Actually while we’re at it, lets not mention anything about where baby’s come from, and go back to telling kids that mommy is just fat and the stork brings them.
F
fix
Guest
Why ignorance? Why not truth? The problem is our culture takes a utilitarian view of life. We want solutions. If pregnancy or disease is the problem the the solution must be a condom regardless of what is true and good or bad and evil.
We do not seem to care about what is important and we only care about achieving a certain end while giving lip service to what is right. Also, teaching the use of condoms seems to further the idea illicit sex can be done without peril to the body or soul. It is no solution.
- Status