The Political Discussion Thread

[Ukko]

depends on how you define "silly feelings" I guess....many define a simple common sense belief that our sexual gifts are our greatest and most powerful gift and should therefore not be used in lieu of a simple handshake to confirm a purely platonic friendship....to be "silly feelings"

Many are not bound by religious views about sex and sexuality and understand that sex education is an important subject and needs to be taught in schools.

[mad_gater]

Many are not bound by religious views about sex and sexuality and understand that sex education is an important subject and needs to be taught in schools.

yeah...an education that teaches the fallacy of "Hey you can go out and have sex with anyone you darn well please as long as it's consensual and you use these rubber thingies (or pop these pills) that have more of a chance of failing on you that if you just said 'no' and as long as you encourage the woman to go and murder her unborn child to take care of any "problem"....that's the crap that gets taught in schools these days....if that constitutes having "silly feelings" about sex then I'm glad I have them...someone has to....divorcing the use of reason from moral clarity leads to nothing good........you wind up being like a ship lost at sea without a rudder and no port in sight

[Ukko]

yeah...an education that teaches the fallacy of "Hey you can go out and have sex with anyone you darn well please as long as it's consensual and you use these rubber thingies (or pop these pills) that have more of a chance of failing on you that if you just said 'no' and as long as you encourage the woman to go and murder her unborn child to take care of any "problem"....that's the crap that gets taught in schools these days....if that constitutes having "silly feelings" about sex then I'm glad I have them...someone has to....divorcing the use of reason from moral clarity leads to nothing good........you wind up being like a ship lost at sea without a rudder and no port in sight

Im not even going to bother now. I'll let someone else respond to that nonsence. I may come back to it.

[mad_gater]

well in return about the only impression I'm getting through making that stuff mandatory is t he concept of "only ze Great and Glorious State knows how to teach your children how to use their sexual abilities"....

maybe it's different in England.....but here in the states our kids get taught the crap I mentioned...the crap that seems to encourage our teens to act like wild animals in their use of our greatest and most powerful gift....and should your choice of man-made contraceptive fail....the resultant "problem" of a new human life can be "dealt with" at the nearest House of Murder....'scuse me....Planned Parenthood clinic

[VampyreWraith]

I went to a catholic elementary/middle, and high school. We had sex ed. In 7th grade it was part of our health class; the boys and girls were seperated for certain parts of the lesson. It was basically the mechanics of the human reproductive system, and we learned about pregnancy, various stds, about disease and pregnancy prevention methods and abstinence. I was mostly very techincal, but we talked about feelings a bit too. Sex ed was part of our health class in high school too(junior yr); it was more in depth than the one in 7th grade. In senior year, we had sex and sexuality as choice for one of our religion classes; it went through more of the emotional aspects, and how the catholic faith views sex; we also had the condom and bananna demonstration, discussed abstinence, and got to see an abortion video where they showed an actual abortion.

[mad_gater]

I went to a catholic elementary/middle, and high school. We had sex ed. In 7th grade it was part of our health class; the boys and girls were seperated for certain parts of the lesson. It was basically the mechanics of the human reproductive system, and we learned about pregnancy, various stds, about disease and pregnancy prevention methods and abstinence. I was mostly very techincal, but we talked about feelings a bit too. Sex ed was part of our health class in high school too(junior yr); it was more in depth than the one in 7th grade. In senior year, we had sex and sexuality as choice for one of our religion classes; it went through more of the emotional aspects, and how the catholic faith views sex; we also had the condom and bananna demonstration, discussed abstinence, and got to see an abortion video where they showed an actual abortion.

cool....exactly how I would teach a sex ed class...radically different from the way a Planned Parenthood cronie would teach a class like that

here in the States the PP cronies are cryin' foul because there's a movement to cease taxpayer funding of their institution........it's because they know that they're goin' about what they do all wrong and they further know that it was by having government force money from the taxpayer on their behalf that allowed them to keep spreading their fallacies for this long.....now that the people have wised up and are calling for cessation of taxpayer funds to PP....the PP cronies are runnin' scared

they claim that it will hurt women's access to decent basic reproductive care which is a bunch of hogwash...our Catholic clinics can do that very same job and do it better than in the fallacious way PP does

as for PP....I'd hardly call encouraging our children through use of man-made contraceptives to run around and have sex like wild animals and murdering the new lives that result when these man-made constructs fail providing basic reproductive care....so I think they deserve to be defunded

[VampyreWraith]

I don't know what planned parenthood has been teaching lately, or if all its representitives teach the same thing in all areas of the US; so I can't really comment on that. If they are mis-using public funds, that should be investigated and their funding taken away if necessary. I live in Queens, NY; thats where I went to school (I graduated HS in 1998) A Planned parenthood rep spoke at my high school in either my junior or senior year. It wasn't in class, it was more like a lecture type thing in the gym with everyone in my yr in attendance. All I remember them talking about is different forms of contraception and abstinence, I think they had some young women talk about abortion; one had an abortion, one didn't and kept the baby and another girl didn't have an abortion but gave the baby up for adoption. I remember the lecture was supplemented with a talk from one of the teachers at my high school who was the head of the right to life club, and he talked about abortion from a pro-life perspective; the school principal (a franciscan brother) also talked about abstinence.

I guess I should mention, I'm a moderate democrat. I was raised catholic, but I consider myself agnostic now. I have nothing against any religion, I agree with some of the concepts taught by various religions, but don't agree with any one religion's philosophy in it's entirety. I'm pro-choice, but I wouldn't have an abortion myself.

[squirrely1]

I do see both sides here on the issue of Sex Education but I have to agree more or less that it should either be an elective course that the parents have to approve or agree to their taking OR you make it as part of a Human Health course and you "touch" on the sex education issues along with all the other health subjects. Because to me sex boils down to an elective behavior that we as humans choose or not choose to participate in. It is not a given that all people will end up having sex. I know hard to believe.....but true. That percentage may be small but to assume that you MUST educate all people on sex because they will have it some day and they need to know this information is really not completely accurate and should not be mandatory for that purpose alone. Sex is a choice...it is a behavior....and it is highly individual and personal and the way in which it is taught could be highly offensive to some people. For instance I'm with MG in that I would not want my children being taught to use condoms or other contraceptives if you are going to have sex. That automatically may be perceived by young people that you are giving implied consent to have sex. I know you are not....but you have to realize you are talking to hormonal young people who some may take that as an excuse to do it. "Oh well my health teacher said as long as I use a condom" Yeah NOT!! As a parent I would rather the emphasis be on abstinence and ways in which to try to abstain rather than just talking up ways to avoid getting HIV or pregnant. That assumes from the get go that the kids will be having sex and they just need this information .....well because. Heck schools don't even make drivers education mandatory.....so why would they make sex education mandatory? Yeah so I think this should be an elective and one that the parents have some say in how the material is taught.

[mad_gater]

I do see both sides here on the issue of Sex Education but I have to agree more or less that it should either be an elective course that the parents have to approve or agree to their taking OR you make it as part of a Human Health course and you "touch" on the sex education issues along with all the other health subjects. Because to me sex boils down to an elective behavior that we as humans choose or not choose to participate in. It is not a given that all people will end up having sex. I know hard to believe.....but true. That percentage may be small but to assume that you MUST educate all people on sex because they will have it some day and they need to know this information is really not completely accurate and should not be mandatory for that purpose alone. Sex is a choice...it is a behavior....and it is highly individual and personal and the way in which it is taught could be highly offensive to some people. For instance I'm with MG in that I would not want my children being taught to use condoms or other contraceptives if you are going to have sex. That automatically may be perceived by young people that you are giving implied consent to have sex. I know you are not....but you have to realize you are talking to hormonal young people who some may take that as an excuse to do it. "Oh well my health teacher said as long as I use a condom" Yeah NOT!! As a parent I would rather the emphasis be on abstinence and ways in which to try to abstain rather than just talking up ways to avoid getting HIV or pregnant. That assumes from the get go that the kids will be having sex and they just need this information .....well because. Heck schools don't even make drivers education mandatory.....so why would they make sex education mandatory? Yeah so I think this should be an elective and one that the parents have some say in how the material is taught.

yeah.....not to mention that some of those birth control pills can act as abortifacients (sp?)

[VampyreWraith]

I think parents should have the right to decide what they want their children to learn and when they want their children to learn it. There are a lot of different cultures and religions and some of them have different standards for what they want their children to learn outside of the basics of reading, writing, math and science. If parents choose to not allow their children to learn certain things at school, it usually means that they actually care about the topic and will teach their children on their own terms.
My kids go to public elementary school here in nyc and their school sends home notices parents need to sign when they are going to cover certain topics( drugs/sex/alternative lifestyles). They cover those topics in elementary school but it's age appropriate and just to talk about the danger of drug use, HIV/AIDS, pedophiles, and the different family units that children my have. Parents can choose whether or not the kids participate in that part of the curriculum and they can call the parent coordinator if they want to discuss what exactly their kids are going to be taught.

[squirrely1]

I think parents should have the right to decide what they want their children to learn and when they want their children to learn it. There are a lot of different cultures and religions and some of them have different standards for what they want their children to learn outside of the basics of reading, writing, math and science. If parents choose to not allow their children to learn certain things at school, it usually means that they actually care about the topic and will teach their children on their own terms.
My kids go to public elementary school here in nyc and their school sends home notices parents need to sign when they are going to cover certain topics( drugs/sex/alternative lifestyles). They cover those topics in elementary school but it's age appropriate and just to talk about the danger of drug use, HIV/AIDS, pedophiles, and the different family units that children my have. Parents can choose whether or not the kids participate in that part of the curriculum and they can call the parent coordinator if they want to discuss what exactly their kids are going to be taught.

Well that's good to know

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

I never said parents couldnt have a role in the education there children. No one on here said that. Just that sex education is an important subject and should be taught in schools.

I'd have to agree, no one here has said that parents don't have a role in the education of their children, but it is a great straw man, isn't it?

One thing that keeps standing out for, across many pages of this particular argument, is a sense of ownership. Maybe that's an interesting topic to move on to?

As parents/guardians, we clearly have responsibility for our children, but how far should that extend? At what point do the rights of the child separate from the demands of the parent? In the "Western" world, we prize individuality above so many things but I see a lot of examples where parents have shown more "ownership" type behaviour where their children are concerned, and this particular debate is no different. So, do parents "own" their children? Or do children "own" themselves?

My particular view is that parents do not own children, that children own themselves and that we are to care for them until they can care for themselves. In regards to the current debate, teaching a kid only what I would agree with is depriving them of what they should know. By controlling information, parents practicing this form of ownership limit the choices and actions of their offspring.

So, your view:
Do parents "own" their children? Do children "own" themselves?

[shipper hannah]

yeah.....not to mention that some of those birth control pills can act as abortifacients (sp?)

Technically, it is true that taking a large amount of birth control pills could work for emergency contraception if this is done within a few days after intercourse, but by the time a pregnancy test comes back positive it'll be too late for that. Large doses of birth control pills used as emergency contraception may stop ovulation or make the uterus inhospitable to implantation, but this will have no impact on an already-implanted zygote.

But that would never be advised, anyway.

[s09119]

I've been working at Boston City Hall for a couple months now as an assistant to one of the City Councillors, and we had a hearing on implementing comprehensive sex ed in public schools this week, actually.

The Council is almost unanimously in favor of putting a unified district policy in place, and I found their approach to be the most-sensible proposal. As Councillor Pressley pointed out, to claim that sex ed would teach kids how to have sex is nonsense... ignoring the fact that kids clearly already know how to have it just fine. The curriculum should, of course, stress that it's best to wait until one's older to engage in sexual activity from the get-go. But knowing that a lot of high schoolers aren't going to heed that advice, follow-up should be given on how to have sex safely (ie. using condoms, information on how and where to be tested for STDs, etc.). And, obviously (IMHO), provide condoms from the health center either at reduced or no charge.

But that's the generic stuff we already have here. What I found most interesting was the proposal that part of the course dwell on subjects such as how to build healthy relationships, what the signs are of an unhealthy or abusive relationship, and other interpersonal advice related to sex ed. In addition, they're pushing for small but robust segments on sexual orientation/gender identity. Taken in full, I found the hearing very enlightening and promising in the ideas the people have for sex education, especially when Boston students overwhelmingly demand greater such courses to prepare them for the real world.

That said, there were the detractors. A pro-life group testified that handing out condoms to kids would just lead to more sex (studies have debunked this claim), and then went on to argue that since condoms can't protect 100% and aren't effective against a small minority of STDs (such as HPV), they shouldn't be used at all. Furthermore, they claimed that to force sex ed teachings like "use condoms" on Catholic students would be a violation of freedom of religion (which it wouldn't be, seeing as Pope Benedict has begin to reverse the Church's stance on condoms as of late). And a local Christian lobbying group stepped up to say that this took away the rights of parents to choose their children's religious, political, and social beliefs (an argument I found confusing and a little insulting, personally).

At the end of the day, the simple logic wins out for me; kids are going to have sex no matter what. I waited until college, but it had nothing to do with an abstinence class and everything to do with the fact that I wanted to wait for someone I loved, and I'm very glad I did. But when high schoolers are going to be having sex one way or another, it's best to give them the tools and information they need to do it safely, protecting themselves and their partner.

[squirrely1]

I am definitely against supplying kids with condoms or other forms of contraceptives. To me that only makes it easier for them to do it and actually may give them the idea that it is implicitly condoned. I would be furious as a parent if I knew a school was issuing condoms to my child. That would be like handing out breath mints at the school prom knowing they are going to "possibly" try to drink and drive. NO we tell the kids DON'T DRINK .....and DRIVE! Preferably DON'T DRINK AT ALL because along with that behavior comes consequences PERIOD! Just like with sex. Don't Drink and Drive.... Don't have Sex in High School....that should be the message. Because young people are not able to adequately care for a young child when they are still a child themselves. So I think alot of times the school's intentions are well meaning however, the focus on sex education only really brings it more to the forefront of the student's minds and then they think on it more and well there you go I just think it needs to be taught ALONG with other health studies and not made into such a big issue...and not to assume they are going to engage in that but to mainly focus on their own bodies and how to keep themselves healthy and safe. (ie: Eat healthy, exercise, don't drink, smoke or do drugs and don't have sex too young). So a specific Sex Education course that only focuses on that...you are just asking for trouble IMO.