Ladies, how do you feel about this?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Safe and effective birth control combined with sound sex education would be a great start, with NO moralizing from the government or churches or schools or planned parenthood.

just finishing your post. nice point though

'thinly veiled' PAs.

Education is the business of schools. Moralizing is not.

YES!!

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[missg8tordivr 0]

Personally I think that it should be the choice of the mother and/or father, depending on the situation. Would I get one myself....If the situation was severe enough, than it is something that I may go through with, or may be forced to go through if it were life threatening.

Each situation is different. There is never going to be a time where accidents, or rapes don't happen which result in pregnancies. So to ban abortion because specific religions think that is it a sin.....is unreasonable argument to me. Not everyone has the same beliefs.

Now, if an abortion is something that cannot be avoided in the extreme cases or is made as a personal decision, that is something that person has to live with their entire lives. To make that decision and loose a child like that must be extremely hard, mentally and physically.

***
F LORIDA!

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Safe and effective birth control combined with sound sex education would be a great start, with NO moralizing from the government or churches or schools or planned parenthood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


just finishing your post. nice point though

'thinly veiled' PAs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Education is the business of schools. Moralizing is not.

You mention 'churches' in your list of places where moralizing doesn't belong. Since when did church become a place to not learn about morality?

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 2,400]

>You mention 'churches' in your list of places where moralizing
>doesn't belong. Since when did church become a place to not learn
>about morality?

Good point. Indeed one could argue that's their primary function.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Safe and effective birth control combined with sound sex education would be a great start, with NO moralizing from the government or churches or schools or planned parenthood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


just finishing your post. nice point though

'thinly veiled' PAs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Education is the business of schools. Moralizing is not.

You mention 'churches' in your list of places where moralizing doesn't belong. Since when did church become a place to not learn about morality?

Chris

In the context of sex education in schools, churches should butt out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

In the context of sex education in schools, churches should butt out.
...

Correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm about to assume, because I haven't read all the posts leading to this statement. Are you saying we should revoke freedom of speech from churches if it conflicts with what is being taught in public schools?

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

In the context of sex education in schools, churches should butt out.
...

Correct me if I'm wrong in what I'm about to assume, because I haven't read all the posts leading to this statement. Are you saying we should revoke freedom of speech from churches if it conflicts with what is being taught in public schools?

Not at all, but churches should refrain from trying to influence the political process. It IS a condition of their tax exempt status, after all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not at all, but churches should refrain from trying to influence the political process. It IS a condition of their tax exempt status, after all.

Someone remind the Mormons of this. They were the biggest backers of California's no gay marriage initiative.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Not at all, but churches should refrain from trying to influence the political process. It IS a condition of their tax exempt status, after all.

Someone remind the Mormons of this. They were the biggest backers of California's no gay marriage initiative.

The question had it backwards anyway. No-one suggested muzzling churches. If they want to teach abstinence, that's fine. Churches should, however, stop trying to prevent proper birth control information being taught in schools.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The question had it backwards anyway. No-one suggested muzzling churches. If they want to teach abstinence, that's fine. Churches should, however, stop trying to prevent proper birth control information being taught in schools.

A church is a building. The 'church' is an organization or any of several organizations. But people that belong to churches have the same rights as any guy that works for another organization, like a university or a big tech company.

So you are really saying no free speech or political participation is allowed by "individuals of a church" for items you disagree with - especially if they organized based on their common religious interests? Who said 'muzzle?' You did. Whether you can admit that is another thing. That's the main reason I don't support the far left. Because their versions of rights always seems to fall along these lines of thought - big brother is scary - when the far right attempts it, you can see it coming from a mile away, but the left is absolutely insidious when they do it.

I'd prefer that parents teach proper birth control, or if the community wants to include this in school curriculum that's fine too. Anything above that level should butt out. But I don't think that any person or organization within a community should be muzzled for any reason. I think we can handle the discourse without taking away anybody's individual rights to speak their mind or organize in support of those positions.

The church should not have any tax exempt status, neither should universities, nor private businesses either. They's all shown to also be way too politically inclined to get these types of breaks.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

The question had it backwards anyway. No-one suggested muzzling churches. If they want to teach abstinence, that's fine. Churches should, however, stop trying to prevent proper birth control information being taught in schools.

A church is a building. The 'church' is an organization or any of several organizations. But people that belong to churches have the same rights as any guy that works for another organization, like a university or a big tech company.

So you are really saying no free speech or political participation is allowed by "individuals of a church" for items you disagree with - especially if they organized based on their common religious interests? Who said 'muzzle?' You did. Whether you can admit that is another thing. That's the main reason I don't support the far left. Because their versions of rights always seems to fall along these lines of thought - big brother is scary - when the far right attempts it, you can see it coming from a mile away, but the left is absolutely insidious when they do it.

I'd prefer that parents teach proper birth control, or if the community wants to include this in school curriculum that's fine too. Anything above that level should butt out. But I don't think that any person or organization within a community should be muzzled for any reason. I think we can handle the discourse without taking away anybody's individual rights to speak their mind or organize in support of those positions.

The church should not have any tax exempt status, neither should universities, nor private businesses either. They's all shown to also be way too politically inclined to get these types of breaks.

Are you denying that organized religions (aka "churches") have repeatedly attempted to prevent the teaching of birth control information in schools?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are you denying that organized religions (aka "churches") have repeatedly attempted to prevent the teaching of birth control information in schools?

Nope - seems that what their members stand for and they've organized. Are you saying those members don't have the right to organize in expression of their political viewpoints. Perhaps you think they should be denied the right to vote too? Maybe they'd pick someone based on the personal beliefs. Can't have that happening....

Are you also denying no other non-religious organization has it's own goals for what's taught in schools - above and beyond reading, writing, math, history and science?

I also find it hypocritical when an individual takes a position and then is automatically rejected because it corresponds with their religious views. Yet it seems to be the trendy thing to do nowadays.

I'm not religious, but I support their right to put forth their viewpoint.

Again, it's just muzzling those that aren't PC.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are you denying that organized religions (aka "churches") have repeatedly attempted to prevent the teaching of birth control information in schools?

less confrontational here

Of course they have. I'd prefer they don't, but not if that means taking away the rights of their members. I'd also prefer that only local community makes these decisions also, but that doesn't happen either. It's hard to support the rights of those we disagree with, isn't it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

The question had it backwards anyway. No-one suggested muzzling churches. If they want to teach abstinence, that's fine. Churches should, however, stop trying to prevent proper birth control information being taught in schools.

Okay I see both sides of the "birth control in schools" issue. For one depending on the age of the child, sex is illigal to consent to , so schools should not expose kids to protection until they reach a age that they can consent to it. We are not taught how to get away with breaking the law in schools. Also I think that absintence should always be encouraged even if sex education is taught in school.

I personally feel it is MY JOB as the parent to teach my children about the issues with pre-marital sex. I would not consent to sex education to my children if they are not at a age where they can comprehend the action. Many schools start as young as third grade in this education and if they are teaching anything more then what body parts are where I would be mad, no third grader should learn about condoms or what body part they can put on someone else's body part.

Teaching kids about sex is a ongoing process that should be tailored to their personal needs and thought processes, the schools are not designed for such a thing. Parents and the childs church have a better understanding of the child as a person vs an educator because of the different type of relationships between the three organizations.

Churchs have a right to voice their opinions, and I agree with their stance. However I think more families should take the stance that sex education starts at home. That being said if my child decided to go against my wishes of them NEVER (sigh I dont want to be a Grandma) having sex, if they were a minor I would help them obtain protection. Its not a matter of getting pregnant it is now a matter of life and death. If my child got someone pregnant, I would do everything I could to support both my grandchilds parents as well as work with the other grandparents to be, to ensure that our grandbaby has a chance to live. It will not be an ideal situation granted, and it will be hard for all involved. I would not accept my child aiding in murder, but I would help them find solutions that lead in life, even if it meant that we never got to see the baby and he or she was put up for adoption. If my child decided to abort I do not know how I would react. I would never stop loving them of course but I would always feel as if a piece of me and more importantly them, died.

Then again that is why my children are raised the way they are. They are raised to respect life. They are not raised to think that it is a choice they get to make to abolish anyones life, even a life that the medical field or govt cant decide is in fact a life.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[Lindsey 0]

There is nothing wrong with churches organizing to push their political viewpoints (or their religious viewpoints in the political arena), but rather the onus is on public schools and organizations to NOT cave to the pressure of these religious entities....

Separation of church and state doesn't require churches to keep their viewpoints within their own walls, even though sometimes I personally think it would be better....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Then again that is why my children are raised the way they are. They are raised to respect life. They are not raised to think that it is a choice they get to make to abolish anyones life, even a life that the medical field or govt cant decide is in fact a life.

And there is the other side of the coin. There ARE those out there on the other extreme that believe you are wrong and that the schools should do the teaching of YOUR kids DESPITE your wishes. I think that's much worse than what Kallend thinks the religious organizations are doing.

Funny how the fetus is the parent's property right up to 'delivery', but then you should have ZERO say the instant after while big brother raises your kid for you. I can't rationalize those two positions against each other either. Just shows that the weirdos in either end of the party spectrum really can't hold a coherent set of thoughts or values.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lindsey 0]

The schools teaching your kids does not keep you from teaching them too. There are lots of things that my child learns in school that I disagree with. But he comes home to me, and we have OUR discussions. He understands early on that many things in life aren't black and white, and that sometimes we have to use our OWN minds and let our own beliefs evolve. I have no problem with my child learning to think for himself or developing beliefs that are different from mine. He's a bright kid, and I value his having the confidence to develop that kind of autonomy.

Funny how the fetus is the parent's property right up to 'delivery', but then you should have ZERO say the instant after while big brother raises your kid for you.

That's just silly. There probably is some subset of the population that thinks like this, but I think it's really, really small. The only thing a comment like that achieves is to get an emotional response. I sure wouldn't want our social policy to be dictated by people's emotional extremes.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,400]

>There ARE those out there on the other extreme that believe you
>are wrong and that the schools should do the teaching of YOUR kids
>DESPITE your wishes.

I think that's true. They should teach about what happened in Germany even if the parents do not believe the Holocaust happened. They should teach biology even if the parents do not believe in evolution. They should teach about how disease is spread even if the parents want to do that themselves. They should enforce civil behavior towards teachers and other students even if 'raising a child' is primarily the parent's job. And they should teach how birth control works even if the parents don't want them to.

>Funny how the fetus is the parent's property right up to 'delivery',
>but then you should have ZERO say the instant after while big
>brother raises your kid for you. I can't rationalize those two
>positions against each other either.

Taking the abortion thing out of the equation, when a child is born is has few rights; the parent speaks for them in nearly everything. Can the child vote? Decide on their own medical treatment? Enter into contracts? Refuse medical care? Can they have the parent arrested if they spank the child? Nope.

As it grows up it starts to be more independent. At age 6, if you spank a kid for running in the street then force them to stay in their room, not many people will care. At age 17, that might just get you a visit from child protective services.

So I have no problem understanding why something that would not be permissible when a child is first born becomes permissible 13 years later.

[Nightingale 0]

The problem with not teaching proper birth control in schools is that many kids will only get the abstinance message from schools and parents (remember that big push for "abstinance only" education?). The problem here is that some kids are going to have sex anyway. If they don't know about birth control, they usually end up pregnant, which can be a problem for society as a whole. When students are not educated about ways to prevent pregnancy, they hear stuff like this from their friends:

# You can't get pregnant if it's your first time.

# Jumping up and down immediately after intercourse will prevent conception.

# Douching with Coca-Cola or 7-Up will kill whatever sperm the process doesn't wash away.

# It's impossible to get pregnant if you have sex during your period.

# After intercourse, a hot bath or a heating pad on the stomach prevents conception.

# As long as neither party takes off their underpants, no babies will result.

# Taking 20 Aspirin right after will halt conception from taking place.

# Provided you do it standing up or with the girl on top, the sperm will never reach the egg.

# As long as he pulls out before he ejaculates, the girl can't get pregnant

# Sneezing after sex prevents pregnancy.


Although the list is from a website, I heard most of this from other students when I was in high school. Of course, everything on the list is totally false. Of every 100 women whose partners use withdrawal, 19 will become pregnant during the first year.

Basically, what it comes down to is: do you want your child (and her friends and potential boyfriends) to get accurate information from a teacher, or do you want her to hear "you can't get pregnant if you jump up and down" or some other nonsense from her friends in the locker room? She WILL hear incorrect information from her friends, guaranteed.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Are you denying that organized religions (aka "churches") have repeatedly attempted to prevent the teaching of birth control information in schools?

Does that mean schools will be getting out of the morals business? No more "esteem" classes and back to actually TEACHING?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[stoneycase 0]

Quote

You haven't been paying attention. I am in favor of the ABSOLUTE right of the woman to make the decision for herself without interference from you, me, or the government.

agreed. everyone's life is different, hell, you could almost make the argument that everyone's "reality" is different (i.e. what they wake up to, how their day goes, etc etc.). therefore, to me, there is no justification in removing *any* aspect of a woman's right to choose. the position is pro-choice, not pro-death. options people, it's all about options. i would think, that given the planet we all reside on, folks would come to the conclusion that life is not b&w.

i don't have a daughter atm, but the government, the church, my neighbors, my senator, and my president, have absolutely no business taking away her right to choose because of their own moral dilemma.

there was a bumper sticker i used to like that echoed this sentiment, it looked similar to this:

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The problem with not teaching proper birth control in schools is that many kids will only get the abstinance message from schools and parents (

I submit that MOST parents are uncomfortable talking or TEACHING their children about sex or bitth control in the first place. About the only thing they get from their parents and church then is abstinence.. and that works.. OH SO well.

As you pointed out.. they then get their sex education from their frinds.. and Hell I heard most of those you listed when I was in school. I bet my mother heard all of those too. She came from the old abstinence background.. and that did not work out too well for her either. Her first cousin Judy.... well she was a grandmother at age 29 and a great grandmother before she was 50.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> At age 6, if you spank a kid for running in the street then force them to stay in their room, not many people will care. At age 17, that might just get you a visit from child protective services.

and at 55, you will have to pay her for it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I sure wouldn't want our social policy to be dictated by people's emotional extremes.

totally agree, and these are the people making the rules

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lisamariewillbe 1]

I personally have never heard any of those growing up, except for the withdrawl method, to be honest the stats you posted on 19% is not bad considering.

The STD issue seems to be more important aspect to teach then avoiding a baby. Lets see either "You have sex you may get pregnant" or "Have sex and it may KILL you with a horribly fast spreading disease that not only deforms the way you look on the outside but kills you on the inside" etc etc seems more important when talking about absintence vs un-protected pre-marital sex.

When talking about "this will prevent babies and STDs" NOTHING is 100% except to abstain. There is nothing wrong with a parent, church or the school informing people of that and pushing for waiting until physically ready as well as being ready in the mental aspects of a sexual relationship.

There was a time when sex was safer. That isnt now, and our biggest concern shouldnt be that babies are being produced, our biggest concern as parents and educators should be that LIFE is shortened when making bad choices. That for every person we sleep with, we are also sleeping with every person they slept with, and every person that person slept with.... Id rather be a grandma at 40 then to stand next to my sons coffin because he dies young due to a STD.

Quote

If they don't know about birth control, they usually end up pregnant, which can be a problem for society as a whole

Our population numbers are not as bad as so many people like to think. To say that teaching abstinance as the only form of protection prior to marriage or a long term commited relationship leads to a problem for society is wrong. What leads to a problem is that kids these days are raised thinking they can do what they want and that parents only offer suggestions instead of requirements. Whats a problem is that we have kids who are exposed to sex and the education aspect of it from a early age. We have problems with kids in so many aspects of life because parents are push overs now a days. We have kids joining gangs, doing drugs and all the while the parents are sitting with their thumbs up their ass and not doing anything to intervine. We have kids who run the house because the parents do not take a stand, we have parents who ruin their kids because they want to be "a friend" as opposed to "the parent. My house MY RULES. My kids want to have sex while living under my house, they will already have been exposed to protecting themselves from STDs they will have already seen the data on the effects of them and they will make their own decsion based on how I have raised them with the standards of MY HOME, NOT what schools and society deem "proper". The decsion will not be about preventing babies though. Id rather protect their life first. That being said, I will never be un-approachable, I will do all I can to make sure they trust me with every aspect until they are fit to make decsions without my help.

Im ranting and going way off topic. In my sex ed class as a kid, I spent one day learning of potential STDs and a week learning about protection against babies. Thats crap in my opinion.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this