And as I have said this is where proper comprehensive education comes into play.  A properly run comprehensive sex-ed class would educate the students that the pill only protect against pregnancy (and even that has a failure rate) and that a condom is needed to prevent spreading STDs and making the risk of pregnancy that much lower.  Hell even the ads for the various BC pills don't claim to protect against STDs.  Education is key here.

Where are abstinence-only kids taught about proper uses of birth control?  If they are not taught properly then they may as well not be taught at all.  I have heard of some abstinence-only programs that actually instruct kids that condoms don't work at all.  If kids leave those classes with that mindset and they end up having sex anyway do you actually think they are going to bother attmepting to use a condom?  I'm not saying that it is the case for all abstinence-only programs, but it does happen.

Also maybe we are having a break down between us of what is involved in an abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex-ed program.  So what exactly is the curriculim involved in an abstinence-only program?  Whether it's in practice or not my idea of a proper comprehensive sex-ed program is along the following lines:
1) emphasize abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control and preventing pregnancy
2) Offer education on both male and female reproductive systems.
3) Offer education on child development from zygote to birth.
4) Offer proper education on the use of various contraceptives from the pill to condoms and everything in between highlighting their effectiveness again emphasizing that the only 100% effective method is abstinence.
5) Mock baby programs, egg, flour, mechanical crying, whatever as long as it is some form of mock parenthood.
6) Education on homo vs. hetero sexuals.

There is probably more to it than that but that is what I could think of off the top of my head based on what I was brought up on plus an addition or two.

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

You may have the wrong idea of what "comprehensive" means in the public school sex education of our children.   

From my experience, there are only 2 criteria for sex ed to be called "comprehensive"....that it's taught in grades K-12th and must include a smidgeon of abstinence education. Only the pro-contraceptive crowd design and teach comprehensive sex ed programs...which includes their version of an abstinence message. It never emphasizes abstinence until marriage as the gold standard, rather it emphasizes abstain from sexual activity until you're ready, it's consensual and you're using some kind of birth control product. I've seen a 46 minute sex ed video that when actually timed had only two sentences that took a couple of minutes on the abstinence message. A sex ed booklet has 102 pages and only one 4 line paragraph dedicated to the abstinence message.   

There is no such thing as a comprehensive sex ed class that teaches true abstinence ed....for the simple reason they are opposite messages....one teaches self control.....save sex until marriage...while the other teaches wait to begin sexual activity until you decide you're ready...and here's a condom or BC.

What is important to know now that years have gone by and the lessons are there for the learning is that putting young girls on BC is dangerous to their health. The patches and vaccines have even killed some while the pill is taking its toll messing up their reproductive system. Middle school and high school age children are put into positions of an adult decision making role that is developmentally out of their reach, and stress and confusion even depression can result. These kids aren't meant to be engaging in sexual activity...not emotionally, physically, physiologically or spiritually. There are negative outcomes and some are not repairable. We see the results all around us....depression, proliferation of STDs, infections, less academic improvement, and even suicide.

No.. .K-12th grades sex ed is designed to get them sexually active. They support sexual experimentation and advise them in co-ed settings how to use and acquire condoms, BC and abortion as options. Comprehansive sex ed is permissive education that broadcasts a false sense of security that can cause otherwise unpressured adolescent and preteens to sexually experiment with their bodies and leads towards promiscuity. The sex ed curriculum gives rise to the use of contraceptives whiech in turn gives rise to STDs, pregnancies  and abortion.  It's the dog chasing its tail...and Planned Parenthood is getting rich from it.

Abstinence education programs are also motivational programs which :

primary message is postivie behavior decisions are possible and societally expected. ONe lifetime partner is the healthiest choice...promotes a positive and possible lifestyle that highlights the importance of self-control, character and commitment. It's comprehensive in the sense it's discusses sexuality in relationship to whole person concepts, it does discuss the emotional, psychiological, physical and societyal consequences of early sexual activity.   

1...has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity....

2....teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard...

3....teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy, STDs and STIs, and other associated health problems.  

4...Teaches that mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.

5....teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences to the child, the parents and society.

6...teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to them.

7...teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency..places value on personal and societal health and well-being.

Lula, lula, lula...tisk tisk.  The program is not designed to get young students sexually active, that's just your warped opinion, in my opinion.  I truly believe, which may not be worth a hill-o-beans to you, that your religion is controlling your perceptions of reality, not guiding them in a positive manner.  The program simply supports the choices of youth, just like your abstinence-only programs.  Whereas you believe students can be trusted to make the "right choice" always, we realists believe that students today cannot be trusted to make the "right choice" always, so we had better make sure they're damn well prepared for what could come from sexual activity.  Abstinence is still advised, which has been mentioned by others in this thread, but it is certainly not the only course of action because there is other information the youth of today will need.  I certainly want my future children to know how to properly utilize a condom or other contraceptive properly.  That said, I would not rely entirely on the schools to teach my children about sexual activity and conduct.  Also, BC and abortion can be mentioned as options because they are currently options regardless of what you want to believe or support in that realm.

Thank you Kurtin, I couldn't have said it better myself.  As I have said I think that abstinence needs to be stressed in any sex-ed class, if it isn't then the sex-ed class is flawed and should be redesigned.  That said I am of the opinion that the students need to be taught about proper uses of birth control and STD prevention so that IF they become sexually active they at least have the information to make informed decisions.  Yes it would be preferable for kids to wait until adulthood to have sex, but that simply isn't realistic (especially in our culture today where kids encounter sex every day on tv, radio, movies, music, etc).  Education is key and to deny a kid the information on ways to avoid STDs and pregnancy is irresponsible, expecting them to figure out how to use bc and condoms on their own is extremely irresponsible.  As I have asked before, when do you start teaching your children to look both ways before crossing a street?  While they are still in the stroller, when they start walking, or when you deem they are ready to cross the street?  I know if I had kids I would be teaching them that from day one so that it becomes second nature.  The same should be done with sex-ed.  Teach them about it early (around 5th grade, maybe 4th) so that by the time they decide to become sexually active they already know the information and can protect themselves.

Where have you been for the past 40 years? Ever heard of the sexual revolution, Kurtin? Human sexuality wise...times have changed and public education along with it, especially after artificial birth control was introduced and "legal" abortion in1973. Every which way they can, adults in the media, the music culture, Hollywood, and public school sex educaters are all encouraging teen sex. I've seen some teachers manuals, videos and been told what they teach, so don't tell me they aren't designed to get kids sexually active. The sexual terms and descriptions they hear, discuss and read must be eschewed under penalty of perversion or just plain grossing you out. Ever wonder why kids don't bring any of their "papers" home for mommy and daddy to see?  

Well that's your choice.....but consider this....would you want your 11 year old daughter be given BC pills without your permission....or taken to an abortion clinic without your knowledge?  Would you want her to be shown how to utilize a condom by a male teacher who also teaches her science? What if she is immature and not mentally ready for all this sex info the school presents? How can classroom sex ed be right for each child in the classroom?

Who has the best interests of children at heart...the parent or the school committee who brings in any number of organizations who see children as a means to implement an agenda which believes that children have a fundamental right to know about sexuality and to be sexual? And while you're at it, check out who those are who are clamouring to lower the age of consent. 

I personally would never allow a stranger teach my children on the subject of very personal and intimate details of human sexuality.   

Kurtin posts:

 First, this isn't the first time I've been told the secular humanist sexperts and those who agree with them are the only realists amongst us...well, all I can say is look at the deplorable results....we've got an epidemic of sexually active teeny boppers and one in 4 are infected with a venereal disease. The problem is this doesn't seem to matter to any of those so-called realists.

Second, you're confirming what is already known...namely, that the reason given why school boards employ comprehensive sex ed to our prepubescent, adolecsent, preteen and teens is that they anticipate or assume that they "are going to engage in sexual activity anyway", and therefore must teach them to engage in sex "responsiblily"..by using birth control products. 

But  people like me challenge the notion that sexual activity is the "expected" or "assumed" norm of today's young people. Rather than teach a curriculum that gives rise to the use of birth control products, we believe it's far wiser to stress the value of chastity before marriage by teaching in depth the physical, emotional, and psychological benefits of saving sexual activity until marriage. And guess what...this idea isn't new....

A Nov. 1977 Reader's Digest article quoted Eunice Kennedy Shriver, "For more than 25 years I have worked with teenage girls in trouble. And I have discovered that they would rather be given standards than contraceptives....Nowhere do I hear a suggestion that teenage intercourse can be controlled, that teenagers themselves might want to control it. Society itself may be encouraging teenage sex, and then hypocritically comdemning its results."  

This is the bottom line....Sexual abstinence is the only fool proof way of saving our youth from lost innocence and the trauma of STDs, pregnancy, abortion and emotional and mental despair. It's only character based abstinence education programs that have the potential of helping parents, schools, students and the greater communities solve the most pressing problems that are youth are afflicted with today.

I can't speak for the sex-ed classes today but when I was going through sex-ed throuout the early 90s we were encouraged to show our parents the work that we had been doing in sex-ed and discuss the topics with them.  Did that mean that all kids did, no of course not, but we were certainly allowed to.  If the parents aren't seeing this stuff and they want to they need to take it up with the school, take an active role in your childs education and the world will be opened up to both you and your children.

Certainly I would prefer that my daughter would come to me for such information, but if she weren't comfortable doing so I would welcome a place that she did feel comfortable going.  Most sex-ed classes that I have ever heard about are voluntary and require a parent's permission to attend so if you don't feel that your child is mature enough to take the class you can simply opt them out, problem solved.

If it were my kids I would agree that they have a fundamental right to know about sexuality and to be sexual when the time is right.  It's a part of our culture and they need to be prepared for it and all the consequences that come along with it.  Again you can opt you children out of the program if you don't agree with it so what's the problem?

And that is your right.  But that doesn't mean that you should enforce that on all children.  Simply opt your kids out of the program and I would opt mine into it.

Here you go misinterpreting cause and effect again.  It isn't the fault of sex-ed that these statistics occur.  It is this reality that show the need for education so that the kids know about the risks that are out there so that they can be prepared for what they may face some day.  You are proving our point rather than your own.

I'm all for stressing the importance of waiting to have sex but there is an underlying reality that our culture sexualizes everything.  Our kids are exposed to sex every day of their lives and if we don't educate them on how to deal with that and how to protect themselves if they do end up having sex then we are doing them a disservice.  You wouldn't have a teenager drive before going thru drivers ed, so why would you deny the kids sex ed to educate and protect them from the consequences that sex presents?

I made those sections one, giant block-quote EL-DUDERINO (I'm not into the whole "brevity" thing ).  What you've typed in the above statements encapsulates our views of identifying with a culture geared toward sex and how to best approach this trend in the schools with today's youth.  On the one hand, you've illustrated the seemingly constant misrepresentations of the data on sexual education as a root cause of many unrelated problems.  People don't seem to recognize that correlation doesn't imply causation (I get increasingly fed up with having those arguments as I am a "math guy").  If we can open our eyes to reality and effectively prepare youngsters for the road ahead, why can't everyone else?  I see exactly where Lula is coming from with those opinions about only preaching abstinence only, but it's time to wake up and realize that isn't going to do jack-squat until something changes in our culture to eliminate that sex-element. We do advocate abstinence as an effective, and probably the best, practice for teens, but we can't leave them with nothing besides the message "don't have sex."  They have their churches and parents for that .

this version would be Absolutely right! Human sexuality other than some basic health, good hygiene, and biology stuff is all kids need to know from their schools. Get the schools out of the sex instruction and human resource business and doing what they are supposed to do...and that is teaching of facts and subject matter...starting with the basics,,,math, english and sciences.

I agree that parents should be the ones doing the sex-ed teaching, unfortunately far too many parents are either unwilling or uncomfortable doing so which leave the school as the best place for sex-ed (which should include everything I have mentioned before).  As long as parents always have the option to opt out of the school provided sex-ed and teach their kids on their own I don't see what the big deal is.

The big deal is the pressure that is put on the so called "good kids" who are abstaining.  Have you ever heard of the "bad company corrupts good character" principle? 

I agree with Lula.  Get it out of the school system altogether and teach only the physiology aspect of it. 

Then have a meeting with all the parents on a quarterly basis in the form of a meeting and let the parents know the ball is going back into their court.  Tell them it's their responsibility to give sex ed instruction to their own children.  Give the parents what they need to be able to approach their own kids if they're unaware or unsure what to do. 

Pull the PP clinics out of the schools and the BC with them and give the parents back the control.  Give the parents access to the BC for their kids to be doled out at home, not in the schools where the girls share the pills with each other. 

Welcome to peer pressure.  It's something that every kid has to deal with no matter what sex-ed class (or lack thereof) that they have.  Removing sex-ed from school isn't going to stop that pressure from being there.  A properly designed sex-ed class should give kids tools that they can use to resist peer pressure (I'm not saying that any current sex-ed class does this merely that they should do it).

And this goes back to my point that far too many parents are unwilling to deal with the whole sex issue.  Do you have any idea how hard it is to get parents to come in to parent teach conferences or back to school nights?  I know my own father only went to one back to school night per school that we were in and since my siblings and I went to the same elementary and middle schools that means he only went to 4 back to school nights.  He never went to the parent teacher nights unless a teacher specifically requested that he attend.  And my father was completely uncomfortable with the topic of sex so it was never discussed in our household.  If it weren't for sex-ed in school I would have been left up to my own devices to find information that would have been unreliable at best.

Yes parents should be the ones doing sex-ed for their kids but the reality is that too many won't so as a public health issue it is needed in schools.  If you involved in your kids lives I applaud you and you have every right to pull your kids out of sex-ed and do it on your own but that is no reason why it shouldn't be taught in schools and when taught in schools the kids should have access to good information on all topics related to sex, emphasis on abstinence, including bc and std prevention, etc.

And we will keep making your head as long as we can.A very long time.

And we will keep making your head as long as we can.A very long time.

I can see that by the way you phrased your statement here. 

Nice! 

KFC, 

Posted twice no less!....this is nearly priceless!  HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, my laughter has tears rolling down....

yeah.  He really made my point didn't he?

Too funny! 

I still dont think that the school has a place to do sex ed. Maybe water down when they are late middle school or High school. This is another example of taking the resposibility from the parents and making it the Gov resposibility. in fact its getting to the point where once the kid is born we should just hand the kids over to the state because all the parents are gonna be is financally resposible for the kids.... if we are lucky

I agree watertown. 

It kind of reminds me of that book (I saw the play years ago) "Brave New World." 

Having kids is a responsibility.  The responsibility for sex-ed is ours as parents, not the government's.  I opted my kids out of sex-ed.  And they did quite fine without the government interference.  Actually they did better than most of their peers involved in the program. 

I think both sides over-simplify certain aspects of abortion and stem cell research.
Even if the intent were to create "perfect" human beings, I think this can be viewed more in-depth.  Can you imagine how much more productive a person could/would be in life if they were not afflicted by mental disorders, crippling birth defects and the like?  At the same time, who says it's right to go in and plan out an entire person's well-being without their permission?  Disregarding the religious slant on humans playing God.

As for abortion, I suppose I shall put my two cents in.
Church and State are seperate by design.  This means that when we work towards the ideal put before us by the Constitution, religion and the related morals should not be affecting legislation and the government we put faith in.  there is one really good, main reason for this.  Not everyone follows the same belief, or interprets the Bible/Qu'ran/religious text in the same way.  The seperation is VITAL for an unbiased system of government.  This is neither left nor right-winged, it is part of the foundation of our country, set down in writing to protect us from ourselves and our beliefs.
As such, the laws regarding abortion will, in principle be free of the religious views of both the author and those who pass it into law.  Abortion is a matter of biology, psychology and likely a myriad of other categories of scientific research and development.  The fault of scientific opinion?  New discoveries, and amendmants to past discoveries are made constantly.  To use a fluid system based on scientific would be to rely on the unstable and constant flow of newfound discoveries we, flawed beings, try to achieve.
In reality, right and wrong are determined by the majority, which are often influenced by a "higher power" of some kind.  The subjectivity of this notion causes issues that are deep-rooted with a society apt to ignore the idea of remaining objective in progression. 
I believe the system we have in-place for abortion is a good in-between.  While people can't abort at any stage, and without proper education on the subject, they are not immediately assaulted by another's morals.
In essence, it's a moot point if you drag your religion into the politics surrounding your beliefs and theories.

I guess you'd like the first heart transplant to be tried on a human?  The first kidney transplant?  You'd rather sacrifice humans than pigs or dogs?  Rather live with 17th-century healthcare?  Help yourself to the plague, TB, scrofula, gangrene.  The whole 'animal-testing-is-cruelty' argument is silly, considering the routine slaughter of animals for food.  And that's not a problem; the only modern difference is that we've organized the slaughter for the masses rather than small groups hunting & slaughtering for themselves.  Life is hard, sometimes it sucks, and if animal research serves to improve the health and longevity of humans, so be it, and bless the animals' souls if you consider them to have them.

Well maybe if your "staunch" Baptist parents allowed you to pay the consequences in a different way and give birth to the child you would have been too busy and tired to even think about having sex especially with the "reminder" spitting up on you every day.   

I've told you before....I don't care if I had 10 children who ALL went astray......truth is truth.  I would still stand by my belief that abstinance is the ONLY right way to go.  There are always exceptions to every rule.  For every wayward child going to the altar pregnant  that I've seen personally.......I've seen many more that did not because they took the vow of purity publicly. 

Maybe if we stop cramming pills into our kids and paying attention to them the world would be a better place.  Parenting isn't easy but I'm afraid too many parents opt for the easy way out only to have it bite them later.