Posted on 01/05/2006 6:54:35 AM PST by Millee
"And since when are 'conservatives' in favor of a policy that only stands to increase the size of the Welfare state?!
"
Conservatives are not in favor of that policy. It's just a small group of the religious conservatives who are in favor of that policy. Sensible people of all political beliefs recognize that there is a problem and that education is the answer that will minimize that problem. Why we're listening to a small minority on this subject is beyond me.
The trend could be because of video games, or more mothers staying home, or abstinence education, or putting the condom on banana education...but it seems to me, common sense demands that abstinence be taught and encouraged.
"You are kidding right? The reason the rates are high is becuase they are encoruaged to be whores, and not old at all about things likew HPV."
no, the reason the rates are high is because kids aren't being taught basic fundamentals about sex.
You can make the argument that the increase of sexual diseases caused by oral sex is due to Clintax/Lewinslutsky....or to the fact that "abstinence-only" kids are taught that "It's not sex if there's no intercourse". Good luck definitively proving either!
"Laz Willing To Teach Teen Girls"
Hah! Laz can't handle teen girls. (image of Laz collapsed, clutching chest)
"Seems to me that those VD horror story films were a pretty good argument for abstinence all by themselves...."
Agreed. But now in many schools, it's just "Don't do it!!" with no films showing the consequences.
I think a trip to the local AIDs wing of a big-city hospital would do much to lower teenage sexual activity, same as a trip to the Gen Pop of a Federal Prison would probably curb much teenage crime.
And teaching them ways to have sex is rather stupid. They already know how to have sex. Funny, we have been teaching them all about condoms for years and they STILL get pregnant and STILL get STD's. The problem is not ignorance. The problem is that we don't try to teach them self-control. The guy is going to get sex whether he wears a condom or not because the girl isn't going to say "No" because she doesn't know how to say "No". Why should he bother with a condom? He already knows she can get pregnant.
We teach them abstinence for the same reason we teach them not to smoke.
Pssstt... Laz, STD stands for "Sexually Transmitted Disease" not "Stud".
He's bluffing. He's always had trouble with older women.
"Since some teens will engage in gang activity, despite all of our wishes and attempts to get them not to do so,
Since some teens will engage in hate crimes, despite all of our wishes and attempts to get them not to do so,
Since some teens will engage in suicide, despite all of our wishes and attempts to get them not to do so,
Since some teens will engage in reckless driving, despite all of our wishes and attempts to get them not to do so,"
And some Muslims will engage in terrorism, despite all of our wishes, attempts, and tax money spent on the WOT to get them not to do so.
Almost every public school policy is to teach kids to use condoms and accept promiscuous behavior. Almost no schools teach abstinance only, save for a few in the boon docks, where STD epidemics are not happening. Quite the opposite.
I thought it stood for "Sexy Tinky-Dinky".
"Sex ed starts in what, first grade now? "
That's ludicrous.
"How much more education will they need? My parents didn't have sex ed in school yet the STD rate and pregnancy rates were much lower. I wonder why that is?"
My intial guess would be the invention of the Pill.
"And who says it's is the federal government's job to teach my kids about sex? I thought that was my job."
I agree. But unfortunately MANY parents are failing to have these talks.
I'd personally rather do what it takes to prevent teen pregnancy from occurring rather than being forced to pay for these unfortunate children when they join the Welfare state.
That's right. Educating them on the safe ways to do terrorism is rEduculous. Better to teach them not to do it.
"Maybe it should be the parents' responsibility to educate their children about sex. Novel theory, no?"
Of course it is the parent's responsibility. My parents gave me correct, complete information about sex, including information about pregnancy and STDs (venereal disease in those days). Was I sexually active in high school? Yup. Did I get any girl pregnant or get or transmit any STDs? Nope. Why was that?
Wouldn't it be nice if parents actually did that? Wouldn't it be nice if parents did a lot of things with regard to their children? I sure wish that was the case.
So, let's look at your daughter, assuming you had one. She's 16, and madly in love with the All-State baskeball forward at her school. He's a nice boy, from a nice family that even attends your church. You're happy your daughter is dating a nice boy, instead of one of the hoodlums at her school.
Well, as things go, your daughter ends up having sex with this nice boy. It happens, mlcnnnn, even in the best of families. She gets pregnant. You're opposed to abortion, so she carries the child to term and either keeps it or gives it up for adoption.
It's a common story. It happens in the best of families. It is an avoidable situation...at least the pregnancy part.
Well afterall, AIDS is the "greatest epidemic in world history."
STDs?? Phooey!
"but it seems to me, common sense demands that abstinence be taught and encouraged."
If it's taught alongside birth control options and how to avoid getting an STD, I'm all for it. For example, Most kids aren't taught the health hazards of oral sex and think that it's OK because of Willy Clintax's "It's not sex" or because abstinence-only says "It's not sex unless it's intercourse".
Nothing has ever prevented parents from doing that. Many won't take the responsibility.
But she knew how to get pregnant when she did it. She made a decision to ignore the risk and do it anyway. Why? She wasn't taught to say "No".
"Wrong. Most kids can't get condoms in high schools. The actions of liberal in California aren't reflective of schools across America.
"
Actually, even in California, condoms are not passed out in schools. Kids can just buy them at the supermarket or drug store. No problem. Back in my day in CA, in the early 60's, you could not even buy them if you were under 18, and they were sold "for the prevention of disease only." Very strange.
Fortunately for me and my long-time high school girlfriend, I had a good friend who was over 18 and who was happy to help out.
"As long as they understand child support is for 18 years, there should be no problem."
Show me a single teenager on the planet that can fathom the concept of 18 years in the future.
Then show me a single teenager that could afford child support on the minimum wage jobs that they qualify for.
Do that and I'll show you some beautiful beachfront property I'm selling in Kansas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.