[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I can't figure you out. On the one hand, you don't like MORALS being taught along side sex education, unless they're YOUR morals.

What happened to your earlier suggestion about letting the parent teach the morals, and let the schools teach what goes where, like 2 + 2 = 4?

The problem is, as you have stated before, you think teaching them what goes where IS teaching them morals, AND it's cluing them in on something they would NEVER try if they weren't taught. BOTH of those propositions are actually quite silly.

excon

Again, the only person to discuss morals in this entire thread is YOU. I have stuck to facts and figures. YOU keep getting distracted by morals. And you cannot answer my points without getting lost in a moral argument because you cannot answer my points. There is no answer for them. You know I'm right.

You said that it is good for schools to tell kids what's what. I said that would be fine if they actually DID tell them what's what, but they don't. They leave out anything having to do with consequences. They therefore aren't giving kids the whole truth as you claim they do.

Instead of making some sort of argument about how they DO talk about consequences, you instead go off on some tangent about "my" morals, which I never talked about in the first place. Simply put, you have no response to my argument that sex ed in schools does not tell the whole truth, so you are trying to distract from that argument by engaging my morals.

I'm not going to let you.

Stick to the argument, or else admitt that you, as usual, can't counter my point and have no response.

If you don't answer that point, I will assume that you have no answer, and that I win. Again. As usual.

Elliot

[excon]

They leave out anything having to do with consequences. They therefore aren't giving kids the whole truth as you claim they do.

Hello again, El:

I know this is beyond your ability to grasp, but I'm going to give it another shot:

CONSEQUENCES connote something BAD happened to incur them. That's as moral a discussion as there is. I know you don't get it. I can't help that.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I know this is beyond your ability to grasp, but I'm gonna give it another shot:

CONSEQUENCES connote something BAD happened to incur these consequences. That's as moral a discussion as there is. I know you don't get it. I can't help that.

excon

Consequences are not MORAL. Consequences are the natural outcomes of an action taken.

If one sticks his finger in a light socket, the consequence is that he is going to be shocked. If one walks outside in the rain, the consequence is that he or she will get wet and MIGHT catch a cold. That consequence connotes no MORALITY. It simply is the effect of the action taken.

Consequences can be bad or good. The consequence of studying hard and working hard is success. The consequence of not studying for a test is failing the test.

You are confusing the term "consequence" with "punishment" and "reward". PUNISHMENT and REWARD connote issues of morality. Consequence does not. I have not discussed punishment or reward. I have stuck to the issue of consequences.

So... back to the point at hand. Having sex has natural consequences. Sex ed eliminates the discussion of those consequences. Therefore sex ed does not give kids the entire truth. This is not a moral issue, this is an issue of fact.

So, now that we know that consequences are not an issue of morality (people don't get pregnant or get STDs because they are good or bad, they get pregnant or get STDs because they had sex/sexual contact), and now that we know that sex ed doesn't teach about those consequences, it becomes clear, even to you, that sex ed leaves much of the truth out of their curriculum.

So again, stop trying to turn this into a moral issue. It isn't about morals. It's about teaching the truth, which sex ed doesn't do.

Elliot

[Alty]

Does anyone honestly think that not giving kids an education on sex will stop them from having sex?

Would you rather these kids not learn about birth control and condoms? They're going to do it whether you inform them or not. Someone is going to teach them, believe me. Not teaching them is like sending them out with a loaded gun and not teaching them how to aim and fire. I'd rather teach them then be sorry.

Sex is a natural thing. Teens are walking balls of hormones willing to screw anything that looks at them the right way. Personally, I'd rather they be armed with knowledge and protection.

Teaching your children morals is great, and hopefully it will sink in. But, are you with them 24/7? Are they in a bubble? If not, then you have to worry about what they're learning from their friends, their peers, because I can tell you right now, their buddy isn't going to say "Oh, wait until marriage, it will be so much better". No, they'll be saying "all the cool kids are doing it, don't you want to be cool?"

Don't you remember being a teen? I do.

[speechlesstx]

Does anyone honestly think that not giving kids an education on sex will stop them from having sex?

Would you rather these kids not learn about birth control and condoms? They're going to do it whether you inform them or not.

What a cop out. That's how we effect change for the better, just throw our freakin' hands up and surrender.

[ETWolverine]

Does anyone honestly think that not giving kids an education on sex will stop them from having sex?

Would you rather these kids not learn about birth control and condoms? They're going to do it whether you inform them or not. Someone is going to teach them, believe me. Not teaching them is like sending them out with a loaded gun and not teaching them how to aim and fire. I'd rather teach them then be sorry.

Sex is a natural thing. Teens are walking balls of hormones willing to screw anything that looks at them the right way. Personally, I'd rather they be armed with knowledge and protection.

Teaching your children morals is great, and hopefully it will sink in. But, are you with them 24/7? Are they in a bubble? If not, then you have to worry about what they're learning from their friends, their peers, because I can tell you right now, their buddy isn't going to say "Oh, wait until marriage, it will be so much better". No, they'll be saying "all the cool kids are doing it, don't you want to be cool?"

Don't you remember being a teen? I do.

I remember being a teen. I also remember being a virgin on my wedding night. So was my wife.

Going back to the argument I have been making, Altenweg, kids who have not had sex ed actually are less likely to have sex than kids who do.

Like I said before, back in the 30s-60s there were fewer kids having sex, fewer teen pregnancies and fewer cases of STD transmission.

Then along came sex ed in schools. We were told that there was a problem with kids having sex and getting pregnant, and that sex ed would keep them from having sex, getting pregnant and passing along STDs. Sex ed became the new solution to a problem we didn't even have yet.

As the years passed, more kids were getting pregnant, more teens were having sex, and more kids were getting STDs. Sex ed may not have been CAUSING the problem, but it most assuredly wasn't preventing it either, despite the promisses that it would. And so, pro-sex-ed people decided that they needed to take Drastic Action to prevent more teen pregnancies. They were going to hand out condoms to kids.

The result? Ever increasing numbers of kids having sex, getting pregnant, having abortions and getting sick.

The problem is that sex ed doesn't work.

As I have discussed in this thread before, sex ed alone cannot eliminate teen sex. The problem with sex ed is that it teaches kids the mechanics of sex, but doesn't teach them the consequences of sex. If you tell kids "this is how you have sex 'safely', and boy does it feel good", but never tell them about what STDs can do to you, what happens to an aborted fetus, what can happen to a girl who has a child out of wedlock, or any other consequences of sex (mental, emotional, physical) all you are doing is inviting them to have sex. Many of them will forget the condom in the heat of the moment. Many others will use the condom or the pill, but they will be the unlucky ones for whom they are in effective.

The problem with sex ed in schools is the lack of a "fear factor". Kids are never taught a healthy fear of the consequences of sex. So they end up having sex when they otherwise might not have.

You, like so many others, have argued that "teens have sex, there's no way to stop it". Why do you believe that? We have seen in recent years that the media campaigns against teen smoking, teen drinking and teen drug use have all resulted in significantly lower incidence of these bad behaviors. Why do you believe that a media campaign against teen sex wouldn't also have an effect? If it works for drugs, drinking and smoking, why wouldn't it work for sex? Why are we so sure that teen sex is a fait accompli, when we have evidence that there is something that will work to teach kids abstinence from sex just like it teaches abstinence from drugs, alcohol and tobacco?

We see that sex ed in schools isn't working. It is, in fact, failing miserably at its goal of stopping teen sex and teen pregnancy and teen STD, if the statistics are to be believed. Why are you continuing to support something that clearly doesn't work when you have another option to try?

Why are you so set on sex ed in schools?

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Elliot, Altenweg is so set on it because they're going to do it anyway. So instead of trying to change things for the better we just surrender. And if that ain't enough, the government has a backup plan. The 9th Circus Court just overturned an injunction that prevented the State of Washington from penalizing privately owned pharmacies for refusing to sell the "morning after" pill.

Let's force sex ed on our children against the wishes of parents, force private businesses to sell a specific item and overrule the first amendment in the process. Welcome to the left's concept of "rights" and "freedom."

[tomder55]

I believe the case will not end with the 9ths ruling .Anyway ;it only overturns the injuction .They did not make a decision on the case because it still has to be decided in district court .But given the track record of the loony 9th if the ruling is against the phramacy owner an appeal will be struck down.

This case could be destined for a SCOTUS decision. A store owner has the right to stock or not stock any legal item. This is even more important than the Freedom of Religion argument .Do store owners have the right to decide which products and services they provide ?

[excon]

Do store owners have the right to decide which products and services they provide ?

Hello tom:

We've had this discussion before. Sure a store owner has the right to decide which products to sell. However, if he wishes to be licensed by the state, the state can require him to meet the needs of the citizens of the state. If he doesn't wish to do that, he can certainly open up a dollar store. I don't think anybody will tell him what he can and can't sell there.

Does the state have the power to regulate the activities of the business's which it licenses? I would say yes. You, I guess not.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I believe the case will not end with the 9ths ruling .Anyway ;it only overturns the injuction .They did not make a decision on the case because it still has to be decided in district court .But given the track record of the loony 9th if the ruling is against the phramacy owner an appeal will be struck down.

I believe they are the most overturned circuit court. Surely this kind of nonsense won't pass muster.

[speechlesstx]

Hello tom:

We've had this discussion before. Sure a store owner has the right to decide which products to sell. However, if he wishes to be licensed by the state, the state can require him to meet the needs of the citizens of the state. If he doesn't wish to do that, he can certainly open up a dollar store. I don't think anybody will tell him what he can and can't sell there.

Does the state have the power to regulate the activities of the business's which it licenses? I would say yes. You, I guess not.

The state often tells businesses things it can't sell, since when do they have the power to tell a business what they MUST sell? Do they force doctors to perform abortions? There's nothing medically necessary that I'm aware of that would require FORCING a pharmacy to sell Plan B any more than there would be a medically necessary reason to FORCE a doctor to prescribe it. The "needs" of the citizens in this case can be met in other ways or by other willing providers so there is no necessity to enact such a requirement.

[N0help4u]

Schools and doctors hand them out like candy to kids.

[ETWolverine]

Does the state have the power to regulate the activities of the business's which it licenses? I would say yes. You, I guess not.

excon

Certainly the government has the POWER to regulate the activities of those businesses.

But does it have the RIGHT?

Different question entirely... and the answer depends on whether you are a conservative or a statist. A conservative would say that the government does not have that right, that control of industry is left in the hands of the people, not the state. The statist would argue that the government has not only the right, but the responsibility to control what businesses do, and the people have no freedoms of their own to make those choices.

Let's see if we can guess which of those two you go for, excon.

Elliot

[N0help4u]

Do they have the right to do a lot of things they have been doing?

[kaseyatim]

But who decides who the 3rd party is? The government? The same guys who screw up the mail and social security? Or should PARENTS make that decision for their kids?

THAT is my point.

As for your prior points, the stated goal of sex ed is to prevent teen sex, teen pregnancies and STD spread. YOUR goal is for kids to be safe and happy, but that is NOT what the goal of sex ed is. And sex ed has failed in its STATED GOAL.

Now... if you want to argue that the stated goal of sex ed is wrong, I'll be happy to discuss that issue with you. But that is NOT my point. My point is that sex ed has failed to do what it said it would do. The statistics on teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD spread prove that they failed.

You have argued that we can't stop teens from having sex, so we might as well make them safe and teach them the right way to do it.

I disagree with that.

For years people said that we can't stop kids from smoking, drinking and doing drugs. Then there came various government and private organizations that started advertising programs to keep kids from drinking, smoking and doing drugs. These programs have been very successful. Teen drinking, drug use and smoking are all down by HUGE numbers compared to what they were a decade ago. Drunk driving accidents are down too. Are they wiped out? No. But they are better than they were. We are seeing with teen drinking, teen drug use, and teen smoking, what affect we can have if we use the power of the media to teach kids the right thing.

So, if it works for teen drugs, drinking and smoking, why can't it work for sex? Why can't we have an anti-teen-sex advertising campaign similar to the anti-drug and anti-tabaco campaigns? If it worked and is continuing to work in those other areas? Why not teach abstinence in a media advertising campaign? Why have we given up teaching kids about not having sex when we don't give up on drugs and smoking and drinking?

Do you understand what I'm saying, kaseyatim? We have decided to do sex ed in schools because we supposedly can't stop kids from having sex. But we haven't even really tried to stop them. We haven't tried the same techniques to teen sex that we have to teen drug use and teen drinking and teen smoking. We've just given up for no good reason because it is a good excuse to allow sex ed in schools. Shouldn't we try something besides sex ed in schools to stop kids from having sex in the first place?

Elliot

As crazy as it may sound the teen chooses who that 3rd party will be , we cannot choose for them who they will listen to and understand better it may be a school counselor, dr. neighbor, family friend, parent whoever can get through to them could be third party.

I agree that we should have the ads to stop teen pregnancy that is a good idea and maybe you should tell that piece to someone who could make it happen, it only takes one voice to start a song you know. Although not to debate that the other ads haven't helped, but who is saying that teens have slowed down thamount of drugs they are doing who is reporting these statistics? The teens themselves admitting to it , or the drug dealers selling it to them or what I mean how many teens are going to honestly admit to doing drugs? And how many dope dealers are going to admit to selling to a teen?? That will be the ONLY place you will get TRUE statistics from!

I think the 1st priority would need to be to stop them from having sex but also have the information available to those teens who are not willing to be completely abstinent.. I do not think that sex ED should stop or be removed or is a bad it is very good for them to have more than one option of people who they feel comforatable going to. Some teens don't even have parents or if it is a young girl with only a father or a young boy with only a mother its hard to listen to one of the opposite sex I mean there is so many reasons that they don't talk to their parents just like you probably have certain people you won't talk to about certain things they are humans too... I have my ex-boyfriends little sister who talks to me about sex (virgin @ 16) and she know she can have full trust and confidence and I would never lead her in the wrong direction and I am not her parents, or school staff but I am just that 3rd party... do you get where I am going with the 3rd party business...

[kaseyatim]

And just Kasey is fine lol

[kaseyatim]

The state often tells businesses things it can't sell, since when do they have the power to tell a business what they MUST sell? Do they force doctors to perform abortions? There's nothing medically necessary that I'm aware of that would require FORCING a pharmacy to sell Plan B any more than there would be a medically necessary reason to FORCE a doctor to prescribe it. The "needs" of the citizens in this case can be met in other ways or by other willing providers so there is no necessity to enact such a requirement.

WOW subject changed I am lost!!

[kaseyatim]

Sex ed that doesn't tell kids that sex results in pregnancy? What sex ed is this??????

When I was in school they emphasized that *you can make a baby , even if its your first time and it only takes one time*

[tomder55]

Ex ;if I open a liquor store I can pick which brands of booze I sell . If I choose not to stock beer that may very well hurt my business . But I have the right to do so. The law in question would have me direct a patron to a store that sells beer which is absurd itself .

By not stocking the product I am not denying a person from obtaining the product ;just that they would not be able to purchase it from me.

Like I said ;this has broader implications than the whole religious issue .

[speechlesstx]

WOW subject changed I am lost!!!

We never seem to stay on track. But the point of my OP remains, pregnancies DOUBLED under this UK plan to curb teen pregnancy and the alleged success of the NY program it was modeled after hasn't been replicated anywhere else.