He can't say that... can he?Follow

I have to agree, in theory. It would be better for teens to wait. But we all know that isn't gonna happen. Teens sneaking off to have sex isn't new. It has been around since at least when the first hayloft was built. And the whole "save yourself for marriage" method of teaching hasn't been able to overcome teen hormones in the multiple centuries it has been tried. I'd rather they be informed on how to protect themselves from disease(and teen pregnancy, which often, though not always, leads to parents not completing school and reaching their full potential, which leads to more people on welfare, etc) when they do so. Lack of knowledge about protection will not stop teens from having sex.

If sex education will help prevent people from having to use government money for their completely preventable STD treatments or to support that baby that they really shouldn't have had in the first place, well I have to say @#%^ it, let's teach those stupid kids that there's an alternative to "have unprotected sex and pray very hard that there's no baby or disease".

Edited, Apr 8th 2010 8:09am by Poldaran

There has to be a Godwin's equivalency somewhere, yeah?

How young? My oldest is 19. I'm sure you're paying for his food stamps or something.

And my youngest is 8. I think he needs some new Nikes. Get on that, will ya?

Back off, *****.

That's a bit inaccurate. IIRC the last time we had this debate, the studies showed that "abstinence education" pretty much turns into a wash. Fewer students have sex, but a higher percentage of them don't use condoms and/or birth control. Results in terms of STDs and teen pregnancy is about the same either way.

One is not "better" than the other. What this really is a question of is whether or not the parents or the state has more "rights" with regard to what to teach minors about sex. I'll repeat the same sort of argument as that with gun control. Barring some significant statistics showing benefits from one form of education versus another, shouldn't we err on the side of parental rights?

Look. I'm all for teaching teens about safe sex. Don't mistake this for my own position on the issue. But similarly to my position on the whole "gay kids at a prom" deal, I don't believe that I have have the right to force some other school district to do things the way I would choose to do them. If the citizens of that community want their kids taught abstinence, then that's their choice, isn't it? Another way to look at this is that there is nothing stopping the parents who want their kids to receive more comprehensive education to add to the education with their own. But you can't do it the other way around, can you? The parents who don't want their kids instructed in how to put a condom on can't undo that education.


Why not let different communities decide what they teach? I'm not sure how you are harmed by this. Does the very fact that someone, somewhere, is teaching their kids something you don't agree with (technically, not teaching them something you want them to learn) bother you that much? I'm pretty much in the "let other people do what they want" camp on this one...

So you're saying there should be no sex education? I'm just trying to get where you're coming from here. It seems odd to take that position, as NO ONE in the original article is (besides the DA saying "Well, don't teach it until it's only about abstinence"... but he still wants it taught). The law of the state says that if sex ed is taught, it must be comprehensive. That makes perfect sense, and honestly, nothing there goes against what you're saying. Schools don't need to teach it, but if they do teach it, it needs to be comprehensive.



I agree, you do not. However, public schools need to follow the laws of their state. IF they teach sex ed, right now it needs to be comprehensive.



If it is that important that their children not be taught sex ed, they are free to take their kids out of school for those days, to switch schools, or to home school. More realistically, if they care that much they are probably part of the PTA, which will have a large effect on what is taught at the school... including the non-mandatory sex ed program. They are free to have their say. No one is saying silence the parents (how could you? I mean, we might WISH we could make them stop being moronic, but obviously we can't); they're saying that if sex ed is taught, it should be taught according to the laws.




And again, they are. Please reread the original article. Here, I'll quote it for you:




And, amazingly enough, that's exactly what's happening.

The results were:

-and-

then you went on the yell about data over and over when you had never even read the actual study and then declared that the data din't matter and then said you knew more about the topic than Nexa because she only had a degree in it and you had... umm...

Anyway, that was a hilarious thread. I thank you for reminding me about it.

Edited, Apr 8th 2010 6:10pm by Jophiel

Again, Guttmacher has found that the vast majority of the decrease in pregancy rates is due to contraceptive use. Even the portion not due to contraceptive us is largely attributed to changing cultural conditions in minority groups and not due to abstinence education programs in schools. Saying it's better not to teach the kids about contraceptives is asinine.

Edited, Apr 8th 2010 6:33pm by Jophiel

Here is a quote from a different thread Gbaji that I think is relevant to what you just said.



Betcha you cannot guess who said that. Seriously Gbaji, you have direct evidence stating that teaching teens how to use contraceptives decreases the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Give up already and acknowledge that you were misinformed.