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.

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.

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 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 .

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.

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.

KFC, 

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

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 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.

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.