10 years ago, I would have debated you on this, and denied the truth of your statement.  After waiting 40 years to finally get republicans in power to "show us how to do it right", I am just disillusioned, and agree with you.  When given the chance, republicans just showed how similar they are to democrats.  Not how different.

Now Shades, let's not go to that extreme.  It's not so much I think you're "out to get me" just that you are so argumentative (in not a nice way) towards me no matter what I say.   I would love to have you stick around but only if you're willing to attack the issues and not the persons.   I love to debate and work the issues but I really don't wish that we go after one another.  Obviously you and I are on the opposite sides of the fence and we hold exact opposite views about things.  So be it.  We don't have to let that get the better of us. 

Pretty good Ock and I do agree with you (mark this down) mostly but just have a few comments. 

Regulating?  How about calling it what it is?  Murder.  So does the government regulate when it comes to calling murder a crime?   Remember government was the one who came up with Roe v Wade.  It never went to the people.  We never had a say on this issue as a society.  The judges rules.  So if anything they regulated Roe V Wade right from the bench. 

Survival of the fittest?.....I have no problem with that....there is a scripture that says "if they do not work, they do not eat." 

LW

I deleted your comment because I'm tired.

I'm tired of you constantly bashing my son every chance you get.  He doesn't deserve your sharp, mean-spirited tongue.  You don't even know him. 

He's a good kid.  He's a wonderful father and husband and is doing a wonderful job in serving our country as a LT in the Air Force.  I think enough is enough. 

I've let the things stand you have said against him in the past, even commenting on where you've got it wrong, but enough is enough.  It serves no purpose only showing yourself in a bad light.   

If you would like to stick with the issus and re-phrase your comment without the bashing of my son, I won't delete you. 

El-D

First off I don't think there are "many" schools out there teaching abstinence only sex-ed. There are some but they are not popular.  I absolutely believe they work...but when one girl gets pregnant like Palin, all the liberals start shouting out..."see it doesn't work."  They don't like to discuss how many young people are walking around with STD's though.  That's taboo.  Let's not talk about that. 

When was the last time you sat in on a sex-ed class in a local HS or gone to a health fair?  Do you know they pass out condoms like candy?  In fact they encourage the kids to try licking the flavored condoms that are now available.  They entice these kids.  Seen it done with my own eyes. 

 I know a teacher who teaches sex-ed in a  large public school.  She's a Christian and has told me the horror stories of what these kids were taught before she came on board.  She HAS TO teach BC but is doing her best to discourage the kids from diving into a sexual relationship.  NOT all teachers believe this.  They actually encourage the kids in many ways by the way they are presenting the facts to them......"well it's going to happen because you're human and hormonal so when you feel the urge or think you're ready, make sure you go to the health clinic first." 

They always say to the kids "when you're ready."  Well the kids don't know what that means.   What does "ready" mean?   16? 17? 18?

An abstinence program teaches it's best to wait until marriage.  So even if these kids later don't abstain t until marriage they are  more likely to be much older when they first engage in sexual behavior  because they had always assumed sex was for after marriage as they had been taught.  The rest will go on their honneymoons virgins.......it does happen still IN SPITE of the pressure to engage in sex at an earlier age today. 

Most Child Pschyologists are in agreement that teens lack  clear cognitive judgment.  Their cognitive skills are not fully developed as young teens. 

They make stupid decisions mostly based on hormones, peer pressure or emotion.  They have not connected actions with consequences like an adult would.  That's why we see teens engaging in all sorts of risky behaviors.  That's why those programs that have the kids bringng home pseudo crying babies for a week are a good idea.  Makes much more sense than handing them a condom and saying "oh well, you're going to do it anyway" so just in case you do, put this in your wallet. 

We are teaching them NOT to have self control and discipline.  And this will transfer to all areas of their lives. 

again, you're wrong LW.   I think I answered you fairly and honestly. 

Keep it to the issue and leave the personal attacks behind  and you'll be just fine. 

This argument has gotten very interesting. Though I am Catholic, i don't really have a stance on abortion. On the one hand I think killing babies out of convenience is wrong. Lets face it, we all know this will be a main reason to use abortion regardless how some here will argue about the rape factor. I agree rape victims should have the right to chose to remove this child created out of an act they did not do by choice if they wanted to. But to abort a child just because you were too stupid (or pretended to be) to understand that sex, even with protection (BC or condoms) could still lead to a possible preganancy should actually be considered child abuse, child endangerment and people should be punished for such ignorance. I know and understand that sex is part of human nature, but to use abortion as a convenience to being unfortunate to get pregnant when you didn't want to is just disgusting.

On the other hand, I also believe that people have the right to do what they want with their bodies (yes, even drugs. Dope up and kill yourself for all I care if you that stupid). I do, however understand the purpose of the laws that prohibit things such as drug use because it could also put the lives of other people in danger.

So I am a bit torn on this issue and in the end it's not an issue that will sway me to one politician or another anyways because as much as I care about life and children, it's not an issue (to me) that affacts this nation in a political sense. Pro-life or pro-choice, to me, either way will not be the deciding factor as to making this country a better place for everyone. But that's just me. I am more concerned with the economy and our issues with countries who would love nothing more than to see this country fall to pieces so they can run free and do as they please against us.

There are many out there.  And there are studies that have been done that prove that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't do any better at preventing teen sex than comprehensive sex-ed, which brings me back to my analogy about teaching a child to look both ways before crossing the street.  Shouldn't you give the kids the information to hopefully help them make smarter decisions if you can?

The last time I was in a sex-ed class was when I was in high school health back in 1993-1994.  I had some form of sex-ed starting when I was in 5th grade and going up to 9th.  And while we didn't do that mechanical crying babies we did do flour babies and egg babies.  As for condoms being handed out, again I would rather the kids have easy access to condoms so that they can use them if the need arises rather than being without and risking STDs and pregnancy.

The studies that I've read of late don't show this to be the case.  In fact they say that abstinence-only programs don't do anything to prevent teens from having sex.  What they do is not provide the teens that end up having sex information to help them prevent the spreading of STDs and pregnancy.

We are in agreement here.  Teens make some really dumb decisions.  But would you rather them have incorrect or no information on a subject so that their dumb decisions are that much more stupid, or would you rather they have some good information so that they can help prevent the spreading of disease and pregnancy?  Again I go back to my analogy, when do you start teaching your child to look both ways before crossing the street?  When they start walking so that by the time they are old enough they already know to look both ways, or do you wait until you deem them ready to cross the street and run the risk of them getting hit by a car if they attempt to cross before you deem it's ok?

As I have said I advocate comprehensive sex-ed which includes a lot of harping on the fact that abstinence is best, but also provides them with the education so they can make better decisions than they would without the information.  I'm all for sending kids home with flour babies, or egg babies, or those mechanical crying babies.  Anything to teach these kids about the consequences of their actions so that they can make better more informed decisions.  Merely telling them not to have sex isn't enough.

I don't give in to threats LW.  Go ahead and bash me on your thread as you've threatened to do and as you've done before.   If that makes you happy so be it.  I've asked you to stick to the issue here and leave the personal attacks behind.    

Do what you want on your own thread. 

El-D

I understand what you're saying and I also understand why you think it's best.  Sounds good in theory but it doesn't work that way with the kids. That's why more and more kids are engaging in sex earlier and earlier.   They see this as you advocating premarital sex. I think many parents are panicking and thinking there is no other alternative and there is.  So rather than take the time with their kids they throw BC at them thinking that's the  easy/best solution. 

 As a mom of three boys, had I brought them up with that attitude they would have seen this as permission and would not have graduated without succumbing to the "boys will be boys" expectation.  Two of my boys have waited until marriage as a gift for their wife to be.   I know other families with kids that have chosen abstinence. 

We have challenged the kids along the way giving them things they can say during those peer pressure moments.  We  have seen a diff in those taught abstinence and those not taught to wait.   So I know abstinence works. 

As a coach, parent  and Pastor's wife, I've seen the diff in how the kids who have parents who are teaching them abstinence conduct themselves sexually around the opposite sex than their counterparts.  In today's culture there are very few churched kids anymore so these kids do stand out and are thought to be a bit odd.   My son wore Christian Tee Shirts all during HS.  He was made fun of some but they accepted him because he was very popular and athletic being the Captain of his school sports and a good student.  

it really depends on who is behind the studies.  There are some very impressive abstinence studies out there that show that abstinence does work.  I know it does because I've seen it work in many families I'm surrounded by.  I also know these same families may have a child that resists that teaching for whatever reason but their siblings stay the course.  The percentage in such families is much higher than those not teaching abstence at all. 

well that's not exactly how it works.  We just don't wag a finger and say "don't do that."   This is an ongoing process and an expectation they grow up with.  It starts with them in grade school talking with them about what is appropriate and what is not with boys and girls of the opposite sex.  You keep the conversation going thru the years so they understand what's at stake. 

My brothers and I grew up in the 70's with the expectation that we were not to be engaging in inappropriate behaviors and we didn't.  We were also watched by our parents carefully so they had a handle on our whereabouts most of the time.   We all graduated from HS as virgins.  So in my family that was a 100% that abstinence works.   

I agree. 

That's simply not true.  As I have said there are numerous studies that show that neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex-ed prevent teen sex more than the other.  But at least in comprehensive there is the chance that the kids involved might make more intelligent decisions since they have information to go off of.  To deny them the information is like randomly pulling wired out of a time bomb, sure you might pull the right one but you may just as easy have it blow up in your face.  But you do hit on a very important aspect here, the parents.  The school can provide all the education in the world but at the end of the day the parents have the most influence over their children.  If they choose to simply ignore the topic of sex you end up with problems.  If the parents have an open dialog with their children at least the kids will know that there is someone else there to listen if they need it.

And as far as comprehensive sex ed working or not, from my recollection there was only one girl in my entire graduating class of a couple hundered kids that was pregnant.  I have no idea how many kids had sex, but I know that only one was ever pregnant.

If you agree with that statement then you agree with comprehensive sex education.  That's what those mock babies are part of.  Comprehensive sex education isn't just handing out condoms or teaching the kids about birth control, it's teaching the kids about the consequences of having sex like STDs.  At some point you need to start treating kids as intelligent human beings and provide them with the information they need to make good decisions, even when they are making bad decisions.  It makes no sense to deny the kids information on a topic when that information could mean the difference between a kid having sex and coming away with an STD and/or pregnancy and a kid just having sex.

Honestly where do you expect the kids to learn about sex if not from a comprehensive sex education program?  From the entertainment industry?  Because that's where they will pick it up from and that source in unreliable at best, flat out wrong at worst.

Merely providing information isn't giving them permission to have sex, it is educating them so that when they do have sex (whether it's before or after marriage) they do so with some amount of intelligence to prevent spreading diseases and unintetional pregnancies.

See where the spotlight is?  I resteth my caseth.

Developed a lithp?

Well if they are abstaining they're not going to get pregnant either.  How many were abstaining and how many were having sex but you had no idea because they were on BC?  Pregnancy isn't the only problem here.  How many of these girls had STD's?  How many had abortions?   You would have no idea.  But this is a huge problem right now.  Huge.   I think from an emotional and physical viewpoint an abortion or STD is far more harmful than giving birth and keeping the child at 17 or 18. 

But you're assuming that kids being taught abstinence don't have any information.  They do.  Kids talk.  My parents didn't have to tell me we could get "rubbers" at the drugstore.  We knew that.  They didn't have to tell me where we could get booze either. They find ways of obtaining what they need if they are so led.  Teaching them abstinence doesn't mean they are without knowledge.  It's setting an expectation for them higher than the culture is and giving them something to hang onto.

I have a friend who just sent her son to a  very large Christian College.  He recently called home and was very excited with his big news....."mom did you know that there are guys here who have dated the same girl for three years and have NOT HAD SEX?"  

See he came from a large HS and was not told this.  He just took for granted once you get a girlfriend then it was "normal" for the sexual behavior to commence.  He had no support outside his mom because the HS and the culture all around him were telling him something totally different.  He felt very liberated and encouraged with this news and his mother felt vindicated.  Now this is a kid who had the full comprehensive sex-ed in HS.  Talk about NOT having knowledge.

How about this to screw up your logic?  My girlfriend got pregnant at 15 and kept the baby.  By the time she was 19 she had two abortions after the birth of her baby.  She knew the facts.  Many girls going to the clinic go more than once to erase their mistake.  Years later, when their cognitive brains are not so clouded by hormones they realize what they have done and many have a hard time dealing with it.  Some can never have children again.  There's much more at stake here than just a pregnancy. 

I think you're very naive and have NOT raised teens yourself yet.  Wait until this gets more personal when it's up close and personal in front when you're dealing with your own teens.  You will realize that the government's sex ed classes are working against what you are teaching them at home. 

 How much history do you know about PP?  Why are they in the schools to begin with?  What has happened over the years since they kicked down the doors to our schools? 

This is big business pure and simple.  Many have admitted so over the years.  Much money is made on account of our kids.  They are not practically or quietly but very proudly and unabashedly  throwing BC at our kids.  These are their future customers.  The BC and abortion industry is a huge business.  Look at the bottom line and follow the money trail.  I think you'd be very surprised. 

PP knows very well that teaching comprehensive sex-ed to our kids strengthens their business. It's like waving candy in front of toddlers.  They get more abortion and BC business everytime they entered a school. This has been admitted, so it's not a secret. 

KFC POSTS:

Me too!

EL DUDERINO #60

I've been fighting against so-called comprehensive sex education for 15 years. The concept of institutionalizing 13 years of explicit sex instruction in grades K through 12th is asinine. immoral, child abuse and a total waste of tax money. Public sex instruction through programs designed by the state, school boards, teacher's unions, or radical ideologues invades children's natural right to privacy and strips away their natural state of innocence of chastity and modesty.

More specifically to answer your question ELDUDERINO, we can understand what is so wrong with sex ed programs from looking back to the years when there was none and comparing what is happening now in schools throughout our land. I firmly believe that the difference between then and now is becasue we were given moral and ethical standards in school. Back then, educators, parents and children all respected one another and the primary function of education was teaching of facts and subject matter. Morals and good character was taught along with reading, writing and arithmetic. Sadly, tragically, public schools have become human resource centers.  

Both history and statistical evidence show that there was no horrific student violence toward other students and teachers, no police presence or video cameras requried in schools, no epidemic of students infected with venereal diseases. Then our schools weren't plagued with drug abuse, teenage promiscuity and pregnancies. The students weren't stressed out, depressed or committing suicide. Today, any objective person can only conclude that the staggeringly high numbers and instances of these pathologies in our student population are casualties of 13 years of classroom sex instruction innocuously disguised and packaged as Family life or Health Education.

This is quite possibly, the most ludicrous statement I have seen on JU.  You apparently lack an objective view or an understanding of comprehensive sociological studies of adolescence.  Sex education is the problem??  It may be a source of unfortunate occurences in the schools on occasion, but to be the source of all that you claimed?  Give me a break.  Open your eyes and take a look at the rest of this culture.  Hopefully that action will help remove some of your obvious, extreme bias toward the situation of educating the youth in society today on the precautions and dangers of sexual activity.

KFC POSTS:

Absolutely true...comprehensive "safe sex ed" instruction is permissive in nature and attitude...the instructors teach: do it.....1... when you are ready....2 as long as it's consentual....3...be safe doing it...3 have the BC or condom handy.

 Comprehensive classroom sex instruction becomes progressively more explicit each year of schooling. Do you realize that the sex ed programs, the curriculum, the sexually explicit materials, booklets, videos, the condoms, Birth control and services are provided either by SIECUS  or by a coalition of financially vested advocacy organizations such as area clinics or Planned Parenthood?  The goal isn't to discourage teens from having sex, but to prevent them from having children. The strategy...teach students how, when where to acquire and use birth control including emergency contraceptives pills and abortion. This is done all too often without parental knowledge or permission. In fact, in some cases, parental involvement is seen as interference.

Abortion is discussed as an aspect of birth control however, students are never told or shown the unpleasant realities of what abortionists actually do to kill the baby and remove him from the womb. If the school doesn't have its own clinic, many state laws permits teachers, counselors, or school nurses to refer minor girls to a family planning clinic for their services including referral or even for obtaining a abortion without parental notification or permission.

Who "gains" when minor age boys and girls become sexually active and when the "safe sex" approach doesn't work? It would be Planned Parenthood and the area clinics wouldn't it? Can you see what's happening here? These very organizations who provide condoms, contraceptives and abortion, design the curriculum, issue the guidelines, have a whopper of a financial vested interest in keeping kids sexually active through so -called comprehensive sex ed.