I was listening to a talk station yesterday and there was a story about a lawyer starting a case about why abstinence should not be taught in school because it shows favortism to the Christian viewpoint. This guy is gotta be the dumbest lawyer I have heard of yet.
What about teaching abstinence just as a health concern? I mean does lawyer think wrapping that rascal is going to keep stop the spread of sexual disease among kids? How about teen pregnacy? I just couldn’t believe the gall and stupidity of this guy.
What is in it for him? I mean why would someone even try to push for something like this?
We need more information. Was the lawyer against the teaching of abstinence in principle, or was he against the teaching of abstinence through a church-sponsored program?
If you’re going to teach sex education in school, then abstinence should certainly be promoted. However, if the school is using a religion-based program to do so, then that should be opposed as a violation of church-state separation.
Do you have a cite? I would like to see what exactly is the point the lawyer is making. Talk radio is usually heavily slanted to the right or left and stories tend to get a bit of a spin based on the talk-jock’s political or religious viewpoint. I suspect the lawyer is looking at a particular case where abstinence is being taught with a sprecifically Christian slant in a public.
I’d like to see a cite for this before I buy that it is not just propaganda or a misreading of the actual facts of the case.
Personally, I am against failing to teach about birth control/STD protective measures due to teaching only abstience, because 1) better to know about it and not need it than to need know about it and have no clue, 2) even if one objects strenously to premarital sex, married teens/young adults should know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and how to protect themselves from STDs if they so desire and 3) the studies I have seen show that teaching both abstinence and comprehensive sex ed does not encourage more or earlier sexual activities, and has often been shown to delay onset of first intercourse and reduce the number of sexual partners. Purely anecdotally, it’s the kids I knew who were “sheltered” who had sex earliest and were overly cavalier with using protection.
Not teaching abstinence at all is silly. Tell the kids about the consequences of sex, how to protect themselves if they do have sex, and that if they want to be completely safe from STDs and pregnancy (barring rape or other means of transmission), they shouldn’t have sex.
I think in high school we got all the birth control info, and very detailed at that, but my teacher stressed that no method is full proof and that abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid STDs and pregnancy. And he was right. He didn’t say don’t have sex, he said, if you are going to have sex, make sure you take the proper precautions, look for the best birth control, etc etc…in other words, that it’s a big responsibility, and if you don’t feel ready to buy birth control, you probably aren’t ready to have sex.
Which I agree with. I’m sick of reading about ditzes who say, “But I’m too ashamed to buy condoms!” But you’re not too ashamed to get naked with some pimply teenaged boy and let him rub his genitals against your’s? I never understood that…how is buying condoms or asking for birth control more embarassing than that?
(NOT that sex is embarassing or wrong-but it can be awkward if one is new to it-and for the record, I have never had sex, so I suppose I can’t say, but I think this should be common sex-I mean sense! Gosh, I’m an idiot!)
Um, last time I checked, wearing a condom does help stop the spread of STDs and teen pregnancies. And it’s also been my understanding that most abstinence-only programs, particularly in high schools, fail.
Assuming he’s not another “scum-sucking bottom feeder” perhaps he actually cares about what children are taught; perhaps he’s even a parent himself. Perhaps he’s representing a client who is either of these. Maybe he’s a civil liberties lawyer. Without a cite, who knows?
Message from Mrs. Kunilou (the public school teacher)
Please educate your children about sexuality and their responsibilities yourself. Please do not ask the public schools to balance the demands of a parent who thinks sex outside of marriage is natural and good with one who believes sex outside of marriage is grounds for an immediate trip to eternal damnation. Please do not ask us to design a curriculum that balances “abstinence is the only thing that’s 100% safe” with “kids will do it anyway, so we might as well give them the facts.”
Thank you. You may now return to the original debate.
If the report is correct that the plaintiff is basing his opposition to the abstinence program (be it abstinence-only or abstinence plus protection) on the idea that it favors the Christian religion in particular, he’s nuts.
Abstinence before marriage is enjoined in a wide number of societies that aren’t a tenth of a percent Christian. Some African cultures take it to the grisly and barbarous extreme of genital infibulation.
There may be reasons why abstinence-plus-protection curricula are preferable to abstinence-only curricula (I’ve heard conflicting data on the subject), but the idea that abstinence-only teaching favors a specifically or uniquely Christian viewpoint is absurd.
Hey, not fair. I honestly tried to get more info from this talk show host but I was on hold forever and I was my cell phone. I will try to get him before he goes on the air tomorrow.
And esprix,
Condoms do help but they do not guarantee no sexually transmitted disease. The only thing that does that is abstinence. And if abstinence programs fail it is probably because the didn’t scare kids enough.
Take em to an aides hospitals let them see and talk to people on their death beds. Talk to a girl that had an abortion and how it messed her up emotionally. Let em see the effects of some the other nasty stds and I bet it would be more effectual program.
And how could anybody mind a teacher telling kids abstinence is the safest avenue of prevention of pregnacy, stds and emotional scars.
Yeah, I always find that terror is the best teaching tool. Let’s show kids pictures of bloody gory accidents to make them wear their seat belts! Let’s show someone who smoked pot in their bed all burned to a crisp to teach them not to toke! :rolleyes: Kids are not stupid. I know; I was one. If you get a rep for overestimating the dangers of something they won’t listen to you when it really is deadly serious. Give the kids solid facts; don’t try simply to scare them. The truth is serious enough to get their attention, and they will believe you if they don’t think you’re indulging in scare tactics.
Besides, if you can use “they didn’t scare kids enough” as reasons to excuse the failure of abstinence programs, you can use it to excuse the failure of more throrough sex ed programs. ::shrug:: Also, if a kid isn’t “scared enough” to stay away from sex in an abstinence-only program, he or she will have no idea how to protect themselves and will likely believe all sorts of myths (Coca-cola douches, party balloons work as condoms, etc). If a kid in a comprehensive sex ed program can’t keep from having sex, he or she will at least know how to protect him or herself as best he or she can.
Most wouldn’t. But let’s not speculate too much without any facts.
Firstly, I’ll do any scaring of my children, thanks. Not you.
Secondly, yes, condoms will stop the spread of STDs, which is what you denied and what Esprix was responding to. No, condoms are not 100% effective, and you’re correct that abstinence is. However, the use of condoms will stop the spread of STDs. It just won’t eliminate the diseases.
Well then why do want teachers teaching sex ed in school? Shouldn’t you do that too. And maybe you do(which is great) but lets face there is alot people that teach their kids squat. What about them?
Now is this true? You can’t catch them orally because of sore or cuts in the mouth? Really I hear conflicting reports on that.
Give me a break, I accidently his an “e” when I typing.
I am unaware of any evidence that states syphilis, gonorrhea, clamydia or the other most common sexually transmitted diseases can be “caught orally” through an open cut or sore in the mouth. Where did you hear this?
Are you talking about AIDS being transmitted this way? Esprix, what says the well-informed Gay Guy?
Frankly, teaching sex ed in school and “scaring” kids are two completely different things. Maybe sex is scary for you, but not for most people . It has been stated previously that kids aren’t stupid, and it’s dead right. Whether it is about sex, drugs, drinking or whatever, kids know when you are feeding them a line, and they tune you out, possibly missing something important. If they catch you lying to them, they may never believe you again.
My kids will get plenty of education in the home, but they should also be taught at least the basics in school. Why? Information and education are always good things, and the kid next to them might ask a question my kid didn’t think of.
“Yet Kirby’s comprehensive review leaves little ambiguity about the general lessons of research on educational programs to reduce teen pregnancy and STD rates. Based on the six peer-reviewed, published studies of abstinence-only programs, Kirby reports that, ‘None of these studies found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, and at least one study provided strong evidence that the program did not delay the onset of intercourse. Thus, the weight of the evidence indicates that these abstinence programs do not delay the onset of inter-course.’…Kirby found that research was far more conclusive- and favorable - on the broad category of programs that address both abstinence and contraception…”
As for more comprehensive sex ed programs:
“Evaluations of these programs strongly support the conclusion that sexuality and HIV education curricula do not increase sexual intercourse, either by hastening the onset of intercourse, increasing the frequency of intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners…Further, these studies indicate that some, but not all of these programs reduced sexual behavior, either by delaying the onset of intercourse, reducing the frequency of intercourse, or reducing the number of sexual partners…some, but not all, of the programs increased condom use or contraceptive use…” [Dr. Douglas Kirby]
Mithras the Sun-God
Was a jolly happy soul,
And he slew a bull
On solstice day
So the world would not get cold.*
It is not your place to deliberately try to frighten my children to get them to do what you want. Period. End of discussion.
Yes, sometimes STDs can be transmitted through oral sexual contact. Yes, abstinence is the only way to be 100% sure of not getting preganant (and almost 100% sure of not contracting an STD).
But the failure rate of condoms is so small, when they are correctly used, that nationwide use could wipe out STDs.
And nationwide use of condoms is much more likely than any pipedream of nationwide abstinence.
And it’s also been my understanding that most abstinence-only programs, particularly in high schools, fail.
. It has been stated previously that kids aren’t stupid, and it’s dead right. Whether it is about sex, drugs, drinking or whatever, kids know when you are feeding them a line, and they tune you out, possibly missing something important. If they catch you lying to them, they may never believe you again.