How odd. On the other hand, lately, maybe not.
The governors of these states need to be pressured to eliminate all sex education from public schools. It is not their place to teach such things.
So your solution for children who have parents who don’t care to inform them , or don’t belong to any religion, should learn of this information how would you say?
I had a girlfriend in college who went to a public school that had no sex education. Of course, her parents never bothered to teach her anything either. Everything she knew, she learned from friends (quite a bit of it was wrong). She couldn’t even name many of her own body parts.
stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=213148 and coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm may give you a fuller picture.
That is up to those children’s parents to decide, when, if, and how. Not my place to decide, nor the government’s, nor the public schools’.
How would you feel if you heard about states that were rejecting an abstinece only model for spousal abuse?
Spousal abuse is a crime of violence. Rape is a crime of violence. Teens having consensual sex is not a crime of violence (an issue of stupidity, perhaps, or poor judgment, but not violence). Sex education that includes information on how and why one uses a condom is not the equivalent of a “how to better rape” session. Bad analogy.
Sure it is. It is a crime of emotional and spiritual violence.
Exactly. Much worse than physical violence. Although one could argue it is also physical violence.
Some would like to say there is a such thing as a committed relationship apart from that of marriage, which is another lie.
Gotcha…I agree. I think abstinence only is siimply inadequate and not likely to achieve what we desire in the long run. More information is usually always better than limited information.
Gotcha, the interests of children do not matter. If their parents are incapable or unwilling to teach any sex education, the kids can just get it as best they can, right or wrong. An interesting, if somewhat emotionally detached belief.
You enunciate a purely Catholic point of view, and while many might agree, this is not the way the world at large looks at sex. I submit it would be most improper to force everyone to live by Caholic norms. You seem willing to allow much pain and much damage in order to preserve your Catholic beliefs unsullied by talk of contraception. While you personally have every right to believe as you do, we haven’t become a theocratic state quite yet.
Sure they do.
Yes, that is their parents’ call how, when, and if to teach such things. Would you say you have the right to decide for my children what they should be learning about sex education? I say no.
You would be surprised at what is in the interest of the state to regulate. I think a very good argument could be made that the state has a vested interest in their citizenry being adequately informed on the basics of sexual alternatives/and health measures. Its the state who trumps your rights as a parent, not I’.
The part about spirtual violence is certainly Catholic teaching ( which dosen’t make is any less true)
No I wouldn’t be. Fortunately it is not in the interest of the state to decide what my children should know about such things, nor how to teach it to them.
No the state does not have a vested interested in teaching immoral alternatives even in the interest of health.
Actually, no the state does not trump my rights. It is my decision how to raise and educate my children on these matters.