Oh, I’m not suggesting we quash free speech, or complaint about idiotic things done by our elected officials.
But…
“This is an idiotic and foolish decision!” = just fine
“They have no business doing that!” = on the edge, depending on what’s meant
“They have no right to do that!” = not a fair criticism
In other words, asserting that the action taken is somehow illegitimate is a far cry from merely characterizing it as unwise or foolish.
First, I don’t think anyone’s said they don’t have the right to do that.
But even if they did, so what? Nobody’s said they don’t have the legal right to do that. Someone can argue that they don’t have the moral right to do that without suggesting that the government needs to be overthrown.
When I say the government has no business in my bedroom, I’m not making a constitutional argument. I’m making a moral argument, of the sort that’s used to sway opinions in a democracy and change the power structure.
Same thing here. They’ve got no business mandating the teaching of false information, even if it’s legal for them to do so.
Daniel
How rigorous an argument is that? Someone may come along and claim that they have not only the moral right but the responsibility to teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral, and potentially injurious to spirtual, moral, and physical health.
You claim they have no moral right to make these claims.
How may a neutral observer evaluate two competing claims of moral authority?
By attempting to reasonably extrapolate the consequences of giving the claimants such authority, based in part on the records and past behaviour of the claimants, and then deciding which set of consequences is the most desirable.
So, do you, Bricker, wish to give the government the moral authority to dictate the what does or does not constitute “good” sexual behaviour, given their previous track record in this area (i.e. factually incorrect sex-ed programs just for starters)? Is it so unreasonable to look at the past record of governments in this area and conclude that the government should not be peddling this crap?
What’s so amazing about this policy is that it continues in place despite considerable evidence that it doesn’t even work.
I started a thread about this time last year in which i linked to an AP report (no longer available online) that sais, among other things:
And, as i said back then, if 88% of those who pledge abstinence are still having pre-marital sex, then maybe what they need is some goddam sex education.
I sometimes think that the point of abstinence-only sex ed isn’t to prevent teens from having sex, but just to make sure they feel guilty when they do.
No, it’s not unreasonable at all.
But then, I want to look at government’s past record on administering welfare programs and reach the conclusion that the government should not be trying to redistribute wealth.
Are we willing to apply the yardstick you’ve mentioned across the board?
I’m sure you think you’ve just achieved a “gotcha” moment, however if I may be so crass as to quote myself:
“By attempting to reasonably extrapolate the consequences of giving the claimants such authority, based in part on the records and past behaviour of the claimants, and then deciding which set of consequences is the most desirable.”
Emphasis added. So yes, Bricker, I would be willing to apply that yardstick across the board. As long as it’s the complete yardstick, which also considers the consequences of eliminating social welfare programs in addition to the past record of governments in implementing them.
Now to drag this back kicking and screaming to the topic at hand: are you, Bricker, trying to argue that the consequences of advocating abstinence until marriage for everybody are so desirable that they outweigh the previous track record of the government in the area of sex-ed programs?
By doing what’s happening in this thread–hashing it out through discussion. People will present evidence and anectdotes and reason from premises. They will appeal to our emotions. We won’t reach a “correct” answer across the board, but it’ll help people decide what they believe and how to vote.
Don’t you remember what happened the last time someone in a position to do something like that floated that idea?
I think my first post in this thread suffered from some notional tunnel vision…I had read the OP as complaining that districts were being FORCED to accept this abstinence-only curriculum, and my post focused on that.
Given the actual question RT asked, I agree with him. The whole program is unwise and anti-factual. Which shouldn’t really surprise anyone given that it’s a Republican pet project, given as a major sop to their Religious Right constituency.
After going to a private Christian highschool (where abstinence was the ONLY way)… it doesn’t surprise me to see how many classmates end up with children within 5 years of graduating. Unplanned children. Often because they weren’t properly informed about forms of protection other than abstinence. IMO abstinence is avoidance… not any type of contraception or protection and it shouldn’t be taught that way. Schools, teachers, government - whoever is going to claim to provide factual sexual education - need to realize that most people don’t make it to marriage with their virginity and it’s rediculous to only give half-truths.
I wonder how many of the men and women at the head of these organizations were virgins when they got married? Who didn’t fool around when they were teenagers? And as adults?
They can use all the scare tactics they want BUT I think that at very least they need to say “If you’re gonna do it, protect yourself and use a condom.”
Also… I think in this age of fear factor, rotten.com and the variety of gross-out tv shows and movies. Why not show show photos of herpes infected genitals and what happens to people who have AIDs? I think people would be more likely to think twice about using protection after seeing some of those things.
But not teach that abstinence is the only way.
-Mrs. Johnson
That’s always the “real” question, isn’t it? How effective is abstinence-only sex “ed?”
I don’t know any numbers, nor can I point anyone towards a good cite. However, I am sure that someone 'round these parts will be good enough to link to so study comparing different kinds of sex-ed programs.
**mhendo ** already talked about that in post # 45.
Coming from one of the neighborhood weirdos…that’s comedy gold!
:smack:
Thanks. I (obviously) missed that.
Although mhendo’s post does not go into detail beyond one article, the thread linked to does.
I have a serious problem with the government giving out funds for teaching that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.” This is just not true.
Suppose the federal government withheld funds from school districts that didn’t teach that George Washington was eight feet tall and had a third eye in the middle of his forehead? It is not the business of government to promulgate lies.
You can debate whether the federal government ought to be supporting education at all, since many people feel that is a local or state matter. That is a perfectly valid argument. But you can’t accept that the federal government can do it without the requirement that they at least attempt competence.
Interesting article.
Of course, since it’s from Planned Parenthood, some conservatives might dismiss it out of hand. But sometimes you have to go with the evidence you have, not the evidence you’d like to have.
Certainly wasn’t true IME. Since I didn’t get married until I was 37, I had quite a lot of “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage” as an adult, which is the part that especially bugs me that the gummint’s established a policy on, and it had very positive “psychological and physical effects,” from my perspective.
Certainly the psychological effects of not having had such intimacies as the government now warns against until I was 37 would have been pretty substantial, in a negative sort of way.
A very wise Human Sexuality professor of mine explained his lack of those pictures in class in a very distinct way. We had all seen them at some point before. We were probably preteens or teenagers. We thought it was so gross or so awful, and at the time also thought we were invincible. Therefore, some develop a distance from it and a “That will never happen to me” mentality. It was actually more meaningful to hear the effects of the disease beyond the visual symptoms.
Actually, for teenagers, I find it more effective to tally up the cost of a child versus the income they’re getting at Burger King and they quickly find out that condoms are a heck of a lot cheaper, whether you tell them about the condoms or not.