either they hear correct info from a teacher or they hear incorrect quasi-mythology from other kids. i'm for education. but in a world where parents aren't spending as much time as they should guiding their children, there's no telling what will go through a kid's head. but that needs to be laid squarely upon a parent's shoulders.
So not only are you against abortion but adoption too? A lot of people do not like children. Why is that so fucking hard for people to understand? SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT KIDS. AT ALL. EVER. They don't care about growing old alone. The rest of us who do want or have kids want them to have the best possible stuff we can give them, and to have a decent, happy life. Not spoiled, but provided for, at least, and maybe be able to buy them that bike they want for their birthday or a new video game at Christmas. It's not too much to want to be able to do right by your kids and if it's too much to give them their own room then I guess my kids are spoiled brats. Your post really made me very angry. *breathes deeply*
You'll be giving them lessons, too? Remember, it's now called "safer" sex, a begrudging acknowledgement that anything but lifelong monogamy is inherently risky. Giving kids graphic demonstrations and drilling them in sexual role playing games totally negates any kind of message encouraging abstinence. I don't mind mentioning condoms as a partial protection against STDs, but they should not be offered as a panacea, with the message that "normal" kids will "inevitably" be sexually active. (Imagine if we handed out cigarettes to kids and showed them how to properly use a filter, while pretending to discourage smoking.) The fact is that many kids today are successfully choosing abstinence. "Comprehensive" (how to) sex education is a dismal failure, as explained in one of the articles I cited.
I had my tubes tied the morning after my 7th baby was born. If I had to vote today for pro-life or pro-choice then I vote pro-choice. If people really don't want kids then yes have the abortion instead of giving them away like unwanted trash or keeping them only to neglect or abuse them later. I always think it is dumb that alot of political races have people argue about this issue so much as if its the most important issue in the whole world. Why is it that pro-life people have no problem about sending people into war to die all the time but hate to see women walk into an abortion clinic to have unborn kids die.
If you want to raise your kids that way, that's your choice. However, I suspect that most parents would be outraged to learn their kids are being exposed to graphic sexual depictions and simulations in the classroom. "Educators" who exhibit such presumptuous arrogance should think twice before complaining when their sanctimonious appeals for more money are soundly defeated by voters.
I agree. I think my mom showed me all this stuff. Mught as well learn it from your parents then doing it wrong or not doing it at all because you dont kn ow how while in the act. My mom gave me birth control and access to condoms. I am glad she was so open and she knew I was doing it anyways so she might as well just protect me.
I'm very grateful that the women who gave birth to our 2 adopted sons felt differently. If they viewed their offspring as "unwanted trash," they would have had them thrown in abortionists' dumpsters! That's a pretty broad (and worthless) generalization; not all pro-lifers are right-wing hawks. Also, abortion has ended over 35 million lives in this country alone since 1973, more than we've lost in all our wars combined.
I lived in Kingman,AZ for about 6 years, and that area has schools full of teenagers that are pregnant or have some kind of STD. Sex-ed isn't allowed in the schools there. Unfortunately the teenagers are dropping out of school for a number of reasons in AZ. They can get all the sex-drugs- & rock-n-roll they want on the street, but they need school and a good sex-ed class also. Not all parents feel comfortable talking about sex with their kids or are too busy with their own selfish lives of sex & drugs to see what their kids are doing.
At least they will be prepared when they decide to start having sex, whether they are 15 or 19! Married, or single. Because if they want to prevent pregnancy and disease, they are going to need to know this stuff no matter how old they are. I hope to have an open relationship with my children so they feel they can talk to me about important issues such as this. Eh, perhaps they would. As for funding, I am also not happy that our government has spent my tax money funding abstinence-only programs, either. So it goes both ways, yes?
If the parents have half a brain they'll admit the reality that many young people are going to have sex no matter how much abstinence is preached, simple as that. "Comprehensive" sex-ed is sex-ed coming to terms with reality. What's important is that the kids who are going to have sex are taught how to minimize the risks, instead of them being completely in the dark. I suspect many parents would probably be outraged to learn some of the stuff their kids did on the sly... But adolescents will be adolescents. Just because their parents disapprove of something doesn't mean it won't happen, or even that it's necessarily wrong. I actually don't believe that so many parents would be outraged about the current trends in sex-ed, but I guess it varies. I just think the angry ones are more vocal. My dad had no problem with it. Even if some are outraged, I don't see that as a good reason to eliminate comprehensive sex-ed - it is the youths who would lose out.
Huck, Regarding the issue of when a fetus becomes sufficiently human to merit legal protection...of course a fertilized egg is human in a narrow medical sense. The question I have in mind is less scientific and more philosophical. A fertilized egg has no brain, heart, sensory perception, or sense of self. Now I won't necessarily argue that this conclusively means it doesn't deserve legal protection but I will argue that it seems reasonable to me that we might distinguish the moral acceptability of ending the life of the fertilized egg and ending the life of a human who has a sense of self, feels pain, any of the other distinctions one could make between a microscopic few cells and a fully grown human, (or child, or even more advanced fetus). In any case, my point is that many, probably most people, even many abortion opponents, probably don't literally think that the aborting of a microscopic embryo is equal in its moral acceptability or degree of tragedy to the death of a human outside the womb. I would say that among these many people are quite a few people of great intelligence, ethics, and morality. Most people I think intuitively feel that abortion becomes less and less acceptable as the fetus matures. While absolutists-and if I understand your position correctly this would include you-might argue that the two day old fetus is just as deserving as protection as the eight-month old one, that position does not, I believe, reflect the moral sensibilities of society. You may argue that these moral sensibilities are somehow illogical or wrong (I would disagree with you) but when you assert that the law should reflect your moral philosophy rather than the broader sensibilities of society you seem to me to be in a rather weak position. When pro life folks argue that the Consitutional protection for abortion stands on weak ground and the issue should be decided in the political arena, I think they have a decent argument. When they equate abortion to murder, when they label doctors who perform abortions as evil baby killers, when they denounce abortion and everyone who disagrees with their position abortion in the most absolute and graphic rhetoric they can muster, they speak with an astounding moral arrogance that I believe only hurts their cause.
People keep flatly asserting that "comprehensive" sex education reduces teen pregnancy and STDs. I've cited evidence to the contrary, which no one has even dealt with.
First, the term "fertilized egg" is accurate for only the first 24 hours or less. Remarkable embryonic growth occurs in just the first week, prior to implantation. Second, it is entirely arbitrary to use size or developmental stage as a basis for determining personhood. This is one reason that it has proven virtually impossible in practice to restrict abortion. It also explains why someone like Peter Singer (who advocates infanticide) would be awarded the bioethics chair at a prestigious institution like Princeton. Perhaps, but their position is philosophically incoherent. See: http://www.lifeprinciples.net/ModelTeachText.html I believe this is largely due to ignorance. I don’t think that most people could easily shrug at this kind of violence: http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/pictures.html Current law doesn’t reflect these moral sensibilities, since abortionists are given total discretion to kill the unborn at any age. Good. I wish more "pro-choicers" were honest enough to acknowledge the dubious basis of Roe v. Wade. I can respect someone like you who sincerely grapples with the issue, but not an abortionist who profits from human bloodshed. That might seem like "graphic rhetoric," but it is quite accurate.
The fact is that abstinence-only programs have not been proven to work either. For instance, when Bush was govenor of Texas he signed a law mandating abstinence-only be taught in schools. Since then, teen pregnancy has not fallen as much in Texas as in the rest of the United States, and Texas is in the top five states for highest teen pregnancy rates.
What is your evidence for this? As this article explains in detail, the only proven way to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs is to curb sexual activity: http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=28 Obviously, more research is needed on the effectiveness of abstinence education, but the preliminary results look promising: http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=627 In any case, it seems clear that "comprehensive" sex education is not the panacea that its proponents purport it to be.
Here are some teen pregnancy statistics, by state. Nothing is. Of course, it would all be much simpler if everyone just taught their own kids, but a lot of parents can't or won't talk to their kids about sex issues, so the schools must feel obligated. One question. These sites promote abstinence until marriage. What if someone never gets married?
