What do you think about sex ed?

[Paulie]

I have a hard time understanding how it's a public issue. Your kid's sex life is no one else's business, other than perhaps the parents of whatever child your kid is sexually involving themself with. All a parent can do is make sure their child is best educated to deal with the potential situation of another child trying to impose sexual influence over them.

At what point does it ever become a public issue? You're responsible for your child. Why do we cop out because SOME parents just don't live up to their responsibilities?

Everytime we conjure up some kind of public standard on otherwise private matters such as this, we enable even more parents to skip out on their responsibilities.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, since the evangelicals are the ones that are yelling the loudest about sex education in the schools, but have the highest incidence of teen pregnancy, perhaps your idea just isn't working. Not only that, since this happens to be among the lowest earners in the population, all too much of the public money goes to supporting the children born to them out of wedlock.

 

[Old Rocks]

Abstinence as the best method, yes, that should be taught, but how many kids do you know do what they say they do? I never did, none of my friends ever did, hell, my mother admitted she never did either.

LOL. No generation has done so for about 200,000 years.

 

[Paulie]

Well, since the evangelicals are the ones that are yelling the loudest about sex education in the schools, but have the highest incidence of teen pregnancy, perhaps your idea just isn't working. Not only that, since this happens to be among the lowest earners in the population, all too much of the public money goes to supporting the children born to them out of wedlock.

Merely invoking the fear of god into your children in your attempts to maintain responsible control over their sexual behavior is not exactly what I would consider "education".

That type of control results in rebellious behavior. God isn't the answer to EVERYTHING. In this case, all that should be necessary is sitting them down and teaching them what YOU know.

My experiences with sex-ed in school consisted mostly of a bunch of stupid ass giggling during lectures, with the end result being that no one really listened to what was said anyway.

That is an intimate moment that should be shared between parent and child, where a trust is established and an understanding is come to between both parties.

The school is more often than not ill-equipped to handle that kind of subject when it involves 20 or 30 adolescent, hormone raging high school kids. It's too generic of an atmosphere to have any kind of real impact.

If you can't even confront your own kids about sex, you had no business having any in the first place.

 

[goldcatt]

At what point does it ever become a public issue? You're responsible for your child. Why do we cop out because SOME parents just don't live up to their responsibilities?

Because guess who ends up paying for those kids and their kids? We, the Public. Which gives us an interest in trying to avoid it.

 

[Paulie]

At what point does it ever become a public issue? You're responsible for your child. Why do we cop out because SOME parents just don't live up to their responsibilities?

Because guess who ends up paying for those kids and their kids? We, the Public. Which gives us an interest in trying to avoid it.

I disagree, because the root of the problem is not the irresponsible sexual behavior. The root of the problem is subsidizing it via our tax dollars in the first place.

Chicken/egg. Stop rewarding that behavior with tax dollars, and then deal with reconstructing the social structure in the country to where parents ultimately end up being forced back into PARENTING again.

Remember when parents used to do that? These days, you can't even smack your kid on the hand without someone screaming "abuse!". And with some parents, it's like god forbid I say something that hurts them emotionally, I might scar them for life.

Discipline, along with positive encouragement, and compassion and earned trust from both sides, works wonders.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A lot of evangelicals don't believe in birth control of any form. The sex is natural, and any children that result...so be it.

This is especially true in mormons. Many mormon familes have several children.

There was a show on TLC or some similar channel that was about a mormon family that had like 5 kids, all of which had autism of one degree or another. The ages were varied, from one all the way up to 14. So this means that by the time they had the second child, it was confirmed that there was a problem with autism, but yet they continued on for YEARS still having unprotected sex, resulting in 3 more autistic children.

To me, willingly continuing to bring children into the world that are all but guaranteed to have a serious disorder like autism is about as irresponsible as it gets. At what point do your morals about birth control cross the line?

Anyone who bring 5 kids in to this world, autistic or not, is being very selfish.

I'll let my dear old mom know that, since I'm the sixth kid she had!

My best friend has Asperger's, and is an absolute delight and treasure to everyone who knows him. I'm offended and disgusted by anyone so self-righteous and arrogant that they can actually suggest that it is somehow more "selfish" or "irresponsible" to have a handicapped child than to have one who isn't, or that ANY child's birth could fall under the heading of "immoral".

You want to breed humans like pedigreed dogs, Dr. Mengele, you go right ahead. But if you're looking to create the perfect race, I wouldn't suggest starting with YOUR genetic output.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The only problem I have with sex-ed in school is that it should be taught by parents. Why do we need the schools to teach our kids something like that, when as parents we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves? We as parents already know about sex, hence having the children that we have. So we're well capable of passing on the knowledge.

The majority of kids learn sex through their peers anyway, whether there's sex-ed or not.

Parents are typically reluctant to want to talk about that subject with their children, and are all too willing to concede the responsibility to schools if it means one less difficult parental responsibility to have to handle.

To me, it's no different than the parents who forgoe putting in the work to teach their children how to read because they'll just be learning it once they start kindergarten anyway.

Why even HAVE kids if you don't want to teach them as much as possible?

Well, in all honesty, a shocking number of parents are as utterly unequipped, information-wise, to teach about the human reproductive system as they are to teach about physics and calculus. My God, just read an abortion thread on this board sometime, and see how many allegedly educated adults right here don't know the basics of human biology. I once knew a guy who actually believed that a woman's system worked like a man's, ie. that eggs were produced for fertilization when she had an orgasm, the way sperm is, and that if she didn't have an orgasm, she couldn't get pregnant.

So I can see why basic anatomy and health need to be taught in school. They really are academic topics. It's when you start teaching morality and value judgements that it all goes manky.

 

[Arawyn]

Anyone who bring 5 kids in to this world, autistic or not, is being very selfish.

I'll let my dear old mom know that, since I'm the sixth kid she had!

My best friend has Asperger's, and is an absolute delight and treasure to everyone who knows him. I'm offended and disgusted by anyone so self-righteous and arrogant that they can actually suggest that it is somehow more "selfish" or "irresponsible" to have a handicapped child than to have one who isn't, or that ANY child's birth could fall under the heading of "immoral".

You want to breed humans like pedigreed dogs, Dr. Mengele, you go right ahead. But if you're looking to create the perfect race, I wouldn't suggest starting with YOUR genetic output.

Exactly my opinion. But I did notice other poster's *singular use intended* use of projection to make it apply to me.

 

[Arawyn]

A lot of evangelicals don't believe in birth control of any form. The sex is natural, and any children that result...so be it.

This is especially true in mormons. Many mormon familes have several children.

There was a show on TLC or some similar channel that was about a mormon family that had like 5 kids, all of which had autism of one degree or another. The ages were varied, from one all the way up to 14. So this means that by the time they had the second child, it was confirmed that there was a problem with autism, but yet they continued on for YEARS still having unprotected sex, resulting in 3 more autistic children.

To me, willingly continuing to bring children into the world that are all but guaranteed to have a serious disorder like autism is about as irresponsible as it gets. At what point do your morals about birth control cross the line?

By the tone I detect in your post.....only the healthy, mentally and physically, are worth bearing? .....

Yeah eugenics.....

The most beautiful people, spiritually, I have seen born on this planet are less than the world's view of perfection.....and the most evil and corrupt come from what this world deems to be perfect.

You obviously missed the point, AND my tone.

I wasn't referring to abortion, what I was saying is why would you continually conceive more children when it has been confirmed that you are guaranteed to have autistic children?

No one really knows what an autistic child goes through themselves, but from the looks of it it's pretty awful. I can't imagine why you would willingly bring someone into the world when you know they're going to be autistic. After the second one, I would think they would have put a lid on that and left well enough alone.

My post had nothing to do with eugenics. I would never advocate taking anyone's life because of how they were born. I would, however, suggest not having anymore children if it's apparent that they're all going to have disorders like that. To me, that's a horrible thing to do to a person. Autistic children go through hell trying to live their lives.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your tone; however, I will state that eugenics is NOT confined to just abortion, or stopping the procreative choices (through governmental means) of individuals. It also applies to the marginalization of those who have "inferior" children, whether blatant, or through empathy of what the child allegedly suffers, or stating what said children can hope to achieve.

Do you remember Little House on the Prairie? Did you know the actor who played Albert was autistic? Matthew Labryoteaux?

Matthew Laborteaux - Biography

Granted, he's just a voice over actor now, but, yet with Autism, he's given more to the world than the average day perfect child. And he's intentionallly given to the world around him.

 

[Arawyn]

You obviously missed the point, AND my tone.

I wasn't referring to abortion, what I was saying is why would you continually conceive more children when it has been confirmed that you are guaranteed to have autistic children?

No one really knows what an autistic child goes through themselves, but from the looks of it it's pretty awful. I can't imagine why you would willingly bring someone into the world when you know they're going to be autistic. After the second one, I would think they would have put a lid on that and left well enough alone.

My post had nothing to do with eugenics. I would never advocate taking anyone's life because of how they were born. I would, however, suggest not having anymore children if it's apparent that they're all going to have disorders like that. To me, that's a horrible thing to do to a person. Autistic children go through hell trying to live their lives.

The second child of two friends of mine has cystic fibrosis. After he was diagnosed they discovered that they both carry the gene for it and that any future children would have a 50% chance of having CF too. They did decide to go ahead and have anther child who thankfully does not have CF. I would not have taken the chance. I would have adopted if having a third child meant that much to me. However their youngest is one of my most favorite kids in the world, so I am glad they had him.

Well Arawyn apparently thinks your belief is inline with eugenicism. Not wanting to continue to conceive children that have an overwhelming chance of having a serious disorder must be eugenics

In your friends' case, it was 50%. In this show, where all 5 children over a span of 14 years ended up autistic, I'd say the percentage was MUCH higher. Obviously it was 100% for the first 5. Whether or not it would have ALWAYS remained 100% is still in question, of course, but why keep tempting fate at that point?

Autism is such a horrible disorder. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, LET ALONE a potential child of mine. At that point, I think I'd feel ok weighing the differences between using birth control, or just staying abstinent. An all-loving God would most likely approve of EITHER decision.

I'm not saying that not WANTING to take that chance is a terrible thing not at all, then, abstinence, or birth control would be an option. But believing everyone should share your opinion, and condemning those that do not as less worthy and ridiculing them smacks of eugenics.

Nice spin though. /sarcasm

 

[Cecilie1200]

You obviously missed the point, AND my tone.

I wasn't referring to abortion, what I was saying is why would you continually conceive more children when it has been confirmed that you are guaranteed to have autistic children?

No one really knows what an autistic child goes through themselves, but from the looks of it it's pretty awful. I can't imagine why you would willingly bring someone into the world when you know they're going to be autistic. After the second one, I would think they would have put a lid on that and left well enough alone.

My post had nothing to do with eugenics. I would never advocate taking anyone's life because of how they were born. I would, however, suggest not having anymore children if it's apparent that they're all going to have disorders like that. To me, that's a horrible thing to do to a person. Autistic children go through hell trying to live their lives.

The second child of two friends of mine has cystic fibrosis. After he was diagnosed they discovered that they both carry the gene for it and that any future children would have a 50% chance of having CF too. They did decide to go ahead and have anther child who thankfully does not have CF. I would not have taken the chance. I would have adopted if having a third child meant that much to me. However their youngest is one of my most favorite kids in the world, so I am glad they had him.

Well Arawyn apparently thinks your belief is inline with eugenicism. Not wanting to continue to conceive children that have an overwhelming chance of having a serious disorder must be eugenics

No, dummy, no one has said that personally choosing not to have a child is eugenics. The view that, in a general sense, only the perfect and completely healthy should be born is, though.

In your friends' case, it was 50%. In this show, where all 5 children over a span of 14 years ended up autistic, I'd say the percentage was MUCH higher. Obviously it was 100% for the first 5. Whether or not it would have ALWAYS remained 100% is still in question, of course, but why keep tempting fate at that point?

Maybe because they wanted more children, and don't consider being handicapped a fate worse than death?

Autism is such a horrible disorder. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, LET ALONE a potential child of mine. At that point, I think I'd feel ok weighing the differences between using birth control, or just staying abstinent. An all-loving God would most likely approve of EITHER decision.

An all-loving God ALSO approves of the decision to have children that might not meet up to your personal specs.

 

[Yukon]

Creationism and prayer are what is need in the US school system. Yes you should return to your past, half-witted value system.

Vive le PLO

 

[Cold Fusion38]

One thing I can say is that in some strange way I envy Down's Syndrom kids. They just seem to always have such a wide eyed marvel at things in this world.

 

[nia588]

I personally think the school system shouldn't be teaching the kids this stuff. I think it's the parents obligation to talk to their kids about sex. Not the schools. And it isn't working, we are currently seeing a rise in teen pregnancies.

People need to stop depending on the education system to talk to their kids about life issues like this. Parents have to held accountable for teaching their kids somethings. And sex is one of them.

the high school i went to didn't have sex ed. and i never got pregnant in fact i even chose to abstain from sex. but i still new what a STD was and how to prevent from getting one because my mother talked to me about sex.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of many things I find sad is what a deficient job the schools are apparently doing in teaching sex ed and disease prevention. It is shocking and frightening how many young people today think a condom is some cure-all, miracle little sheath that, as long as you use one, eliminates all possibility of anything bad happening. They have no idea how many diseases can be passed on despite the condom, or how easily, or just how fallible those little suckers really are, even when used correctly. It borders on criminal negligence and reckless public endangerment on the part of our schools.