Abortion

[Cephus]

Good thing I'm here then--on the right and making responsible decisions based on facts. Facts are to come ahead of feelings or even faith for true Christians!

You have an imaginary friend and you pretend you make decisions based on facts? Seriously?

 

[JoStories]

Good thing I'm here then--on the right and making responsible decisions based on facts. Facts are to come ahead of feelings or even faith for true Christians!

What facts exactly? You are pro-life and that stance is often not evidenced by facts. Such as the fetus having rights or being a child at conception. Those are not facts. And they are not law. So again, what facts exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course, it depends on how it's done. If you're just doing God-talk nonsense, of course it isn't going to work. If you lay out the facts in detail, you'll have better luck. But nobody wants to tell kids that having sex can and often does lead to unwanted, life-ruining pregnancies and life-destroying sexually transmitted diseases.

What you've described is almost the exact type of sex education I received in middle school. They taught us about the basics but the rest of it was DON'T DO IT unless you want to die of AIDS or syphilis.

Of course in high school it became more comprehensive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree. You have many people on the right who only want to spew God-nonsense and many on the left who don't want to interfere with the rampant sexual escapades of teens. Both sides have an agenda. Making responsible decisions based on unbiased facts is not it.

What? I don't find this to be the case.

 

[Cephus]

What? I don't find this to be the case.

I do. Everything that I see the left doing is an attempt to facilitate safer sex, assuming that there's nothing you can do to dissuade teenagers from having irresponsible sex. They assume that it's a lost cause, therefore they're going to do everything they can, from handing out free condoms, etc. to say "you're going to do it anyhow, so here's how to do it better".

 

[SomeRandom]

I do. Everything that I see the left doing is an attempt to facilitate safer sex, assuming that there's nothing you can do to dissuade teenagers from having irresponsible sex. They assume that it's a lost cause, therefore they're going to do everything they can, from handing out free condoms, etc. to say "you're going to do it anyhow, so here's how to do it better".

Yes, you generally teach match safety to children instead of letting them play with fire. It's called being pragmatic. Teens have raging hormones, teenagers are often rebellious, many are going to engage in risky behaviors due to the part of brain which assesses risks being immature during adolescence. It's not so much a lost cause as it is being realistic. If you just tell someone,child, teenager or adult alike, not to do something, chances are they're going to do it anyway. It's why banned books have such a long lifespan. You've made it forbidden so people automatically want it.
So you teach them how to be safe about it. How to prevent STDs, how to recognize STDs, encourage them to get tested, to talk to medical professionals, explain the different contraception methods and teach them about consent, peer pressure and to be comfortable with their own bodies.
Ignoring the problem just asks for trouble. Some teens are going to have sex. That's just a fact of life. If they're ignorant of safe sex, chances are STDs and teen pregnancy is going to be a thing.

Handing out condoms and teaching about safe sex is not done so we don't "interfere with the rampant sexual escapades of teenagers" it's done so if someone does have sex, they will hopefully be cautious, prevent STDs and unwanted teenage pregnancy. It's so young girls are aware of their bodies, it's so guys are aware of where the lines are for consent. It's to foster an environment of frank discussion, so teen couples are more likely to talk about their relationship instead of just diving in head first. You don't send people onto the road without teaching them road safety. You don't allow workers to go into their place of work without teaching them workplace health and safety. You don't allow chefs to prepare meals without teaching them both food and personal safety.

It's the same reason the Government where I live hand out free syringes to people. We want to curb the rate of AIDS among drug users. They're not lost causes, it's just better to actually do something about it, than just wagging your finger at them and then being surprised when they test HIV positive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, you generally teach match safety to children instead of letting them play with fire. It's called being pragmatic. Teens have raging hormones, teenagers are often rebellious, many are going to engage in risky behaviors due to the part of brain which assesses risks being immature during adolescence. It's not so much a lost cause as it is being realistic. If you just tell someone,child, teenager or adult alike, not to do something, chances are they're going to do it anyway. It's why banned books have such a long lifespan. You've made it forbidden so people automatically want it.
So you teach them how to be safe about it. How to prevent STDs, how to recognize STDs, encourage them to get tested, to talk to medical professionals, explain the different contraception methods and teach them about consent, peer pressure and to be comfortable with their own bodies.

This is not done so we don't "interfere with the rampant sexual escapades of teenagers" it's done so if someone does have sex, they will hopefully be cautious, prevent STDs and unwanted teenage pregnancy.
It's the same reason the Government where I live hand out free syringes to people. We want to curb the rate of AIDS among drug users. They're not lost causes, it's just better to actually do something about it, than just wagging your finger at them and then being surprised when they test HIV positive.

Exactly. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people are going to have sex at some point in life. Everyone is better off being well equipped with knowledge and information when that time comes than not knowing anything about our own bodies or about contraception, STDs, pregnancy, peer pressure, and everything else that goes with it. I don't see that as the promotion of teen sex - it's simply preparation for life.

The local school boards where I live have recently decided to overhaul the sex ed programs to include teaching elementary school kids the proper names of their body parts and teaching them about different kinds of families, including those that have same-sex parents. As you can imagine, a lot of people are all up in arms declaring that the government is teaching their kids how to have gay sex and how to masturbate and a whole bunch of other stuff that is really just a bunch of over-reactive nonsense. They've already been teaching basic biology to fourth and fifth graders for decades without a peep from anyone, so I can't really figure out what all the fuss is about.

 

[SomeRandom]

Exactly. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of people are going to have sex at some point in life. Everyone is better off being well equipped with knowledge and information when that time comes than not knowing anything about our own bodies or about contraception, STDs, pregnancy, peer pressure, and everything else that goes with it. I don't see that as the promotion of teen sex - it's simply preparation for life.

The local school boards where I live have recently decided to overhaul the sex ed programs to include teaching elementary school kids the proper names of their body parts and teaching them about different kinds of families, including those that have same-sex parents. As you can imagine, a lot of people are all up in arms declaring that the government is teaching their kids how to have gay sex and how to masturbate and a whole bunch of other stuff that is really just a bunch of over-reactive nonsense. They've already been teaching basic biology to fourth and fifth graders for decades without a peep from anyone, so I can't really figure out what all the fuss is about.

Well I think sex ed is getting younger and younger here as well. But it's usually done to help confused kids who are being sexually abused to be able to better recognise signs of manipulation and coercive techniques. In other words so some kids may be able to feel more comfortable coming forward to report abuse to the relevant authorities.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I think sex ed is getting younger and younger here as well. But it's usually done to help confused kids who are being sexually abused to be able to better recognise signs of manipulation and coercive techniques. In other words so some kids may be able to feel more comfortable coming forward to report abuse to the relevant authorities.

Right, and I think it serves that purpose. I am one of those kids and found it incredibly embarrassing to come forward to tell anyone because I wasn't sure if maybe I'd done something wrong and because it's difficult as a child, to talk about abuse of the intimate parts of your body with adults. If this curriculum helps to bring such discussion more into the open then I think it will help kids to feel more comfortable in coming forward to report abuse. And that's a good thing.

 

[Cephus]

Yes, you generally teach match safety to children instead of letting them play with fire. It's called being pragmatic. Teens have raging hormones, teenagers are often rebellious, many are going to engage in risky behaviors due to the part of brain which assesses risks being immature during adolescence. It's not so much a lost cause as it is being realistic. If you just tell someone,child, teenager or adult alike, not to do something, chances are they're going to do it anyway. It's why banned books have such a long lifespan. You've made it forbidden so people automatically want it.
So you teach them how to be safe about it. How to prevent STDs, how to recognize STDs, encourage them to get tested, to talk to medical professionals, explain the different contraception methods and teach them about consent, peer pressure and to be comfortable with their own bodies.
Ignoring the problem just asks for trouble. Some teens are going to have sex. That's just a fact of life. If they're ignorant of safe sex, chances are STDs and teen pregnancy is going to be a thing.

Handing out condoms and teaching about safe sex is not done so we don't "interfere with the rampant sexual escapades of teenagers" it's done so if someone does have sex, they will hopefully be cautious, prevent STDs and unwanted teenage pregnancy. It's so young girls are aware of their bodies, it's so guys are aware of where the lines are for consent. It's to foster an environment of frank discussion, so teen couples are more likely to talk about their relationship instead of just diving in head first. You don't send people onto the road without teaching them road safety. You don't allow workers to go into their place of work without teaching them workplace health and safety. You don't allow chefs to prepare meals without teaching them both food and personal safety.

It's the same reason the Government where I live hand out free syringes to people. We want to curb the rate of AIDS among drug users. They're not lost causes, it's just better to actually do something about it, than just wagging your finger at them and then being surprised when they test HIV positive.

So essentially, you're just pretending that people will act irresponsibly instead of teaching responsibly, which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[SomeRandom]

So essentially, you're just pretending that people will act irresponsibly instead of teaching responsibly, which is what I've been saying all along.

No, what I'm saying is just teaching people not to do something is short sighted and ignores reality. People, young and old, will rebel. No matter how strict of an upbringing you have. Especially teenagers, who will try out their peer's morals. Which is perfectly normal behavior and practically essential to them becoming independent people.
And how the hell does placing emphasis on personal and your partner's safety standards when having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend equal not being responsible?

I mean look at history. The 1700s were very strict about social etiquette. But then again, you had the libertine movement. The 1800s were very rigid and proper. So you had the Decadents/Aesthetics like Oscar Wilde. The 1900s had the Suffragettes, who were often seen as almost obscene. The 1940s to 50s saw Greasers and the Rock and Roll rebels. 1960s and 70s were the Hippies, 80s hardcore Punk. 90s saw grunge and other counterculture movements and now you have those hipster types. People will rebel, they will reject societal standards to a certain degree (some more than others) for a multitude of reasons and they will come up with their own way of doing things. Especially among the youth.

You can't come at teenagers like they're children. They are on the cusp of adulthood and they need to be taught things about the world around them. One of those things in today's world is how to have safe sex. It doesn't matter if you're marrying your partner, you will need to know that sort of stuff to be on the safe side. I mean god help the poor ******* who was denied comprehensive safe sex and then raped, for example. How are they supposed to know the symptoms of an STD? How are they supposed to know that orgasms are biological functions and do not need consent? How are they supposed to know that what their friend told them on the playground about not being able to get pregnant if you pull out is factually inaccurate if they didn't have some authority correct such a misconception?

It's far far better to have experts (or at the very least trained teachers) teach teenagers about sex than them learning it from pornography and what their friends are telling them!!
Comprehensive Safe Sex, apart from you know that whole teaching thing that schools are supposed to do is actually more like a fail safe. No one is saying that there aren't teenagers who will remain abstinent till marriage. But there will be teenagers as well as adults who will do what their biological instincts are crying at them to do. That is part of being a human. So you teach people how to be safe BEFORE they are sexually active. Hence why you teach it to young teenagers in the first place! Teach it to them in Uni and it may be too late for some.
It's this thing called being practical.
Then of course comprehensive sex ed also covers things like consent, frank discussions about sexuality in order to promote healthy viewpoints of sex, consent, puberty, different ways to contract STDs, realize coercive tactics and how to avoid them, how to protect oneself at a party and a million and one other things that are pretty common in adolescence in general.
I mean hell, I remember being in year 9 and we had this class called "Life Skills" or LISK for short. It taught us things like how to spot the signs that your drink has been spiked, what to do if a friend is passed out (roll them on their side so they don't choke on their vomit) always watch your drink in public or at private parties, never drive drunk etc etc. This wasn't teachers telling us that we should go out and party, they were arming us with knowledge so that IF we ever were in such a situation we might make a better informed decision than if we didn't know of such things and made a decision in ignorance.
Or are you suggesting we promote ignorance and then feign shock when something bad happens due to said ignorance?

 

[Cephus]

No, what I'm saying is just teaching people not to do something is short sighted and ignores reality. People, young and old, will rebel. No matter how strict of an upbringing you have. Especially teenagers, who will try out their peer's morals. Which is perfectly normal behavior and practically essential to them becoming independent people.
And how the hell does placing emphasis on personal and your partner's safety standards when having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend equal not being responsible?

I mean look at history. The 1700s were very strict about social etiquette. But then again, you had the libertine movement. The 1800s were very rigid and proper. So you had the Decadents/Aesthetics like Oscar Wilde. The 1900s had the Suffragettes, who were often seen as almost obscene. The 1940s to 50s saw Greasers and the Rock and Roll rebels. 1960s and 70s were the Hippies, 80s hardcore Punk. 90s saw grunge and other counterculture movements and now you have those hipster types. People will rebel, they will reject societal standards to a certain degree (some more than others) for a multitude of reasons and they will come up with their own way of doing things. Especially among the youth.

You can't come at teenagers like they're children. They are on the cusp of adulthood and they need to be taught things about the world around them. One of those things in today's world is how to have safe sex. It doesn't matter if you're marrying your partner, you will need to know that sort of stuff to be on the safe side. I mean god help the poor ******* who was denied comprehensive safe sex and then raped, for example. How are they supposed to know the symptoms of an STD? How are they supposed to know that orgasms are biological functions and do not need consent? How are they supposed to know that what their friend told them on the playground about not being able to get pregnant if you pull out is factually inaccurate if they didn't have some authority correct such a misconception?

It's far far better to have experts (or at the very least trained teachers) teach teenagers about sex than them learning it from pornography and what their friends are telling them!!
Comprehensive Safe Sex, apart from you know that whole teaching thing that schools are supposed to do is actually more like a fail safe. No one is saying that there aren't teenagers who will remain abstinent till marriage. But there will be teenagers as well as adults who will do what their biological instincts are crying at them to do. That is part of being a human. So you teach people how to be safe BEFORE they are sexually active. Hence why you teach it to young teenagers in the first place! Teach it to them in Uni and it may be too late for some.
It's this thing called being practical.
Then of course comprehensive sex ed also covers things like consent, frank discussions about sexuality in order to promote healthy viewpoints of sex, consent, puberty, different ways to contract STDs, realize coercive tactics and how to avoid them, how to protect oneself at a party and a million and one other things that are pretty common in adolescence in general.
I mean hell, I remember being in year 9 and we had this class called "Life Skills" or LISK for short. It taught us things like how to spot the signs that your drink has been spiked, what to do if a friend is passed out (roll them on their side so they don't choke on their vomit) always watch your drink in public or at private parties, never drive drunk etc etc. This wasn't teachers telling us that we should go out and party, they were arming us with knowledge so that IF we ever were in such a situation we might make a better informed decision than if we didn't know of such things and made a decision in ignorance.
Or are you suggesting we promote ignorance and then feign shock when something bad happens due to said ignorance?

I'm doing nothing of the sort, I'm saying teach the facts and don't assume people will be stupid and throw our hands up. Don't teach stupid mythology and don't pretend that it's a waste of time to even try.

 

[columbus]

I'm saying teach the facts and don't assume people will be stupid and throw our hands up.

That is exactly what @SomeRandom is advocating. Teach the facts.
You are the one who equated that with approval of irresponsible sex.
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm doing nothing of the sort, I'm saying teach the facts and don't assume people will be stupid and throw our hands up. Don't teach stupid mythology and don't pretend that it's a waste of time to even try.

I never said anything about mythology. I said it's better to teach kids the facts about Biology, life situations, safe sex and proper social interaction before they have to encounter said situations. That is teach young kids these things early so you don't end up with kids already bloody pregnant.

You're the one saying that teaching safe sex and making contraceptives easily and readily available (hint hint teens are often lazy)is done so we don't interfere with the sexual escapades of teenagers.
I'm saying teach these things because it's better to be safe than sorry. That is it is better to cover your bases just in case you have that one teenager in a class who chooses to have sex. At least if they make that choice they are acutely aware of the consequences and will hopefully take steps to protect themselves and their partner. Even if no teens in the class have sex at least they will have proper knowledge to have sex safely when they have sex later in life.

 

[Cephus]

That is exactly what @SomeRandom is advocating. Teach the facts.
You are the one who equated that with approval of irresponsible sex.
Tom

Part of the facts are teaching responsibility. It isn't just teaching how to do it, it's also teaching why you probably shouldn't.

 

[columbus]

Part of the facts are teaching responsibility. It isn't just teaching how to do it, it's also teaching why you probably shouldn't.

I agree.
I'm generally considered a prude.

What I mean is usually called "comprehensive sex education". One of the better ways I know about was the computerised doll my niece got sent home with for a weekend. It cried and squirmed and squirted at normal intervals (for a baby), and she had to do whatever it took to care for it, or she lost grade points.
She was in her late twenties and married for three years before she would go through that again.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

Part of the facts are teaching responsibility. It isn't just teaching how to do it, it's also teaching why you probably shouldn't.

While also accepting that many people will be irresponsible regardless.

That's what responsible sex education involves and tends to be. If you are going to have sex then do so responsibly, and facilitate people's ability to have safe sex

 

[SkepticThinker]

So essentially, you're just pretending that people will act irresponsibly instead of teaching responsibly, which is what I've been saying all along.

How did you get that from what was said?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, what I'm saying is just teaching people not to do something is short sighted and ignores reality. People, young and old, will rebel. No matter how strict of an upbringing you have. Especially teenagers, who will try out their peer's morals. Which is perfectly normal behavior and practically essential to them becoming independent people.
And how the hell does placing emphasis on personal and your partner's safety standards when having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend equal not being responsible?

I mean look at history. The 1700s were very strict about social etiquette. But then again, you had the libertine movement. The 1800s were very rigid and proper. So you had the Decadents/Aesthetics like Oscar Wilde. The 1900s had the Suffragettes, who were often seen as almost obscene. The 1940s to 50s saw Greasers and the Rock and Roll rebels. 1960s and 70s were the Hippies, 80s hardcore Punk. 90s saw grunge and other counterculture movements and now you have those hipster types. People will rebel, they will reject societal standards to a certain degree (some more than others) for a multitude of reasons and they will come up with their own way of doing things. Especially among the youth.

You can't come at teenagers like they're children. They are on the cusp of adulthood and they need to be taught things about the world around them. One of those things in today's world is how to have safe sex. It doesn't matter if you're marrying your partner, you will need to know that sort of stuff to be on the safe side. I mean god help the poor ******* who was denied comprehensive safe sex and then raped, for example. How are they supposed to know the symptoms of an STD? How are they supposed to know that orgasms are biological functions and do not need consent? How are they supposed to know that what their friend told them on the playground about not being able to get pregnant if you pull out is factually inaccurate if they didn't have some authority correct such a misconception?

It's far far better to have experts (or at the very least trained teachers) teach teenagers about sex than them learning it from pornography and what their friends are telling them!!
Comprehensive Safe Sex, apart from you know that whole teaching thing that schools are supposed to do is actually more like a fail safe. No one is saying that there aren't teenagers who will remain abstinent till marriage. But there will be teenagers as well as adults who will do what their biological instincts are crying at them to do. That is part of being a human. So you teach people how to be safe BEFORE they are sexually active. Hence why you teach it to young teenagers in the first place! Teach it to them in Uni and it may be too late for some.
It's this thing called being practical.
Then of course comprehensive sex ed also covers things like consent, frank discussions about sexuality in order to promote healthy viewpoints of sex, consent, puberty, different ways to contract STDs, realize coercive tactics and how to avoid them, how to protect oneself at a party and a million and one other things that are pretty common in adolescence in general.
I mean hell, I remember being in year 9 and we had this class called "Life Skills" or LISK for short. It taught us things like how to spot the signs that your drink has been spiked, what to do if a friend is passed out (roll them on their side so they don't choke on their vomit) always watch your drink in public or at private parties, never drive drunk etc etc. This wasn't teachers telling us that we should go out and party, they were arming us with knowledge so that IF we ever were in such a situation we might make a better informed decision than if we didn't know of such things and made a decision in ignorance.
Or are you suggesting we promote ignorance and then feign shock when something bad happens due to said ignorance?

 

[SomeRandom]

Part of the facts are teaching responsibility. It isn't just teaching how to do it, it's also teaching why you probably shouldn't.

Yeah that's generally included under the umbrella term "Comprehensive Safe Sexual Education." Do you think we just teach the positions of sex like the Karma Sutra or something?