All I can think is God help us. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/4764417.stm
It is madness! Europe has gone down the road of Sex education and has seen an massive increase in teenage pregancies and STDs. The US has opted for encouraging abstinance. As a result STD's and teen pregnancies have gone down.
The UK has consistantly belittled and criticised the US for this.
The UK needs to lose its liberal agenda and admit that rules and standards are necessary and good.
Pre-teen Pregnancy
Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by mnw, May 12, 2006.
-
We didn't have sex education when I was a kid. I don't know of anyone who had difficulty figuring it out, though.
What we didn't know about were STDs, how to prevent pregnancy, etc.
I'd like to see the pregnancy rates for areas where this information is given to students, as opposed to areas where it is not. -
One of the chief complaints against sex ed isn't the information given but the Moral Vacuum it is given in...
That is why such teaching should be done in the home and the church...
Those are the places where God's Morality are most easily taught...
Unfortunately, it's also the place that seems to have the least interest in touching such a "Dirty Subject"...
Yes, God help us All!
SMM -
Sex education should be left to parents, churches, and other private organizations. The government should stay out of this area totally.
-
Unfortunately, very little real education on disease and pregnancy prevention is done in the schools nowadays beyond "Just say no". A lot of misinformation is foisted off on kids by some of these programs.
Even if you're harsh enough to think, whoever has extra-martital sex deserves whatever they get, you should keep in mind that their spouses and children, "innocent parties" if you think that way, can get the diseases passed on to them. -
</font>[/QUOTE]Evidence? What programs are mis-informing? -
Sex Education by the government is massive and graphic in the UK. Some schools start teaching it to 10-11 year olds.
It does not work. -
After seeing the figures on this subject mnw, I agree. Abstinance is the only way.
Id like to know which programs are giving out misinformation too. -
The trouble is the lack of teaching of clear moral guidelines and the enotional cost as well as STDs. -
Ultimately it is the absence of clear moral absolutes. They can't say promiscuous sex is wrong, because there is no standard to go by.
They talk about STD's and the emotional cost sometimes, but the kids walk away thinking adults just want to ruin their fun.
Put God back in the lives of our children and the benefits will be too numerous to recount. And not least in the away of sexual purity. -
Your absolutely right. Right and wrong have left the building and been replaced by Pragmatism and Personal Choice. We can't tell kids its wrong to engage in sex outside of marriage because that is a moral judgment. We can only tell them that it is inconvenient to take care of children, have a condom and here's the number for the abortion clinic.
-
Key findings from Henry Waxman's special investigations report (linke - pdf) include </font>- Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives.</font>
- Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risks of Abortion.</font>
- Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science.</font>
- Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact.</font>
- Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors.</font></font>
- </font>
- Human Genetics. One curriculum states: "Twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual". In fact, human cells have 23 chromosomes from each parent, for a total of 46 in each body cell. The same curriculum also teaches: "Girls produce only female ovum, boys, however, have both male and female sperm". This too is inaccurate.</font>
- Infectious Disease. One curriculum defines "sexually transmitted infections" as "bacterial infections that are acute and usually can be cured" and defines "sexually transmitted diseases" as "infections that are viral in nature, chronic, and usually can not be cured, but rather controlled through treatment". In fact, these terms are used interchangeably in medicine, and the program’s definitions are not widely accepted.</font>
- Puberty. One curriculum tells instructors: "Reassure students that small lumps in breast tissue is common in both boys and girls during puberty. This condition is called gynecomastia and is a normal sign of hormonal changes." This definition is incorrect. In adolescent medicine, gynecomastia refers to a general increase in breast tissue in boys.</font>
- HIV. Another curriculum erroneously includes "tears" and "sweat" in a column titled "At risk" for HIV transmission. In fact, according to the CDC, "[c]ontact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."</font>
- Mental Health Several of the curricula that mention mental health concerns depict them as simple problems that can be fixed by abstaining from sexual activity.</font>
- CondomsAccording to the World Health Organization, the difference between typical and perfect use "is due primarily to inconsistent and incorrect use, not to condom failure. Condom failure " the device breaking or slipping off during intercourse " is uncommon."...The curricula fail to note that rates of important sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis and gonorrhea, have been dropping over the past decade.42 Contrary to the assertions in the curricula, the most recent data show that consistent condom use is associated with:</font>
- </font>
- Reduced acquisition of syphilis by women and by men;</font>
- Reduced acquisition of gonorrhea by women;</font>
- Reduced acquisition of urethral infection by men; and</font>
- Faster regression of HPV-related lesions on the cervix and penis, and faster clearance of genital HPV infection in women.</font>
The Guttmacher Institute (linkie) is a reliable source of information on sexual health issues, but not on moral absolutes. -
Ultimately, Personal Choice will always come into play when people decide what to do or not do...isn't that why we have free will?
Federally funded abstinence education programming must meet the federal definition of abstinence education (see Table 1). Among other requirements, the a-h definition mandates that funded programs teach abstinence only, until marriage--setting marriage as "the expected standard of human sexual activity" (Block Grant, 1997, p. 10).
<snip>
Link to Source: Michael Young, Ph.D., FAAHB: American Journal of Health Studies: Summer 2004: University of Alabama, Department of Health Sciences</font>[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure that public school teachers are not allowed to give the number for abortion clinics even if the student asks for it. As it is, many of these programs give false information about abortion, particularly risks in relation to carrying to full term. -
For thousands of years they had no "classes" on sex. Yet, somehow after thousands of years we are still here. In the UK the more Sex Ed they have had the more students are going out and having immoral sex.
Sex Ed classes do not disuade the majority, they just encourage already inquisitive minds.
But whether state run or private morals must be taught! And in fact, in every other sense they do teach morals. You cannot have an absence of moral code in any class. In every other class they do teach morals, but when it comes to sex ed all of a sudden schools are not for morals, that is for home and church.
-
The sex ed that a somewhat influential person in town wants to push for presentation in schools (and she believes it should start in kindergarten) isn't just disease prevention and information.
It includes such "information" as the RIGHT to feel good and have your physical needs met along with learning to separate sexuality from love and rid yourself of guilt association that comes from outdated societal norms that say unmarried sex is wrong. Included was tips on how to have a better...experience, and tips on how to know you're ready for it, which included "can you have it without feeling guilty? are you doing it for yourself instead of for your partner?"
Public sex ed isn't just free of moral involvement. Some of it may try, but there's no way to take morality out of life. A presentation of anything is going to be biased one way or the other, without some VERY difficult effort, and how much effort do you think the government is going to put on not offending those with moral standards? I'm thinking NOT MUCH. -
-
2) Just how much reasoning has to be provided to a teenager so that he/she understands that if he/she abstains that STDs and pregnancies won't have to be a concern? Or just how much reasoning has to be provided to a teenager so that he/she understands that if he/she desires to engage in immoral behavior that he/she should be certain that a condom is used? I doubt that any teenager can claim such ignorance on this subject. My parents or my church never said a word to me about this subject and I abstained until I was married at age 38.
This isn't rocket science. -