|
|
|
Abstinence-Only Education Part #6758302
December 3, 2004
Yikes! I wish I could speak extemporaneously (literally) on this issue because it's one of my passions and my discourse flows a bit more freely from my mouth than it does my fingertips, but here goes. It's always been clear that Democrats are not in favor of abstinence education. Period. Why? Well, many may argue me, but I think the main reason they oppose it is because it's a philosophy commonly associated with the "Religious Right" and let's be honest, Democrats hate the "Religious Right" and everything for which they stand. So regardless of whether the concept of abstinence education makes sense, Democrats would hate it just based on the fact that Jerry Falwell supports it, and Planned Parenthood doesn't. A few have noted that Rep. Henry Waxman (D) in his recent report, has sought to wage war on the concept altogether by trying to dismantle 13 of the most commonly used abstinence curricula. Waxman claims that the curriculum is leaving young people uneducated and confused. Meanwhile, a recent article by Ceci Connolly in the Washington Post (email: nobiz@nobiz.com pass: nobiz) underhandedly co-signs on Waxman's findings which used convoluted manners of fact-finding to make a point. The issue of abstinence education is a loaded one, and I don't think either side has done a good job making their case. When people talk about "abstinence-only education", there are really two definitions of it. One definition states that schools should only be teaching about abstinence and not discussing contraception and other issues that pertain to giving up your purity in high school. The other definition states that schools should be honest and forthright in teaching that abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, but other basic (and I stress basic) issues of sex education should also be taught, and all with equal weight. Although the first philosophy I mentioned is in my opinion ideal, I am of the latter belief. Do I think teenagers (or anyone for that matter) should be encouraged to have premarital sex? I can say with about 658.9% certainty: NO. What I recognize is that gaining of any ground on this issue is going to take some diplomacy. (Not compromise, but diplomacy). In addition, this country is too carnal and too self-seeking to latch-on to the reality that premarital sex for anyone, is ultimately a bad decision. For the nation to come to that revelation alone would take the mighty hand of God. For this very reason, Conservatives need to be wise as serpents in how we push abstinence-only education and other similar initiatives because the very semblance of "morality" or "Christianity" will send Liberals flying off the handle. Not only that, the Liberal knee-jerk reaction to abstinence-only education is usually to write-off abstinence education altogether and I believe that possibility to be very dangerous. That said, I am a hardcore proponent of abstinence education being given equal weight and classroom time as the "slap on a condom and just go at it like an animal until you can't stop, or get pregnant, in which case you can have an abortion, but don't forget to get tested for HIV too, and here's a Planned Parenthood representative to take your questions" theory of sex education. It's time we stop using tax dollars to lie to kids. The way we educate about sex in this country is lacking any semblance of balance. While ultimately, it should be the parents' role to educate their children on sexual matters, a brief reality check reveals that the public school system (and private schools too) are attempting to fill a gap that's been created by the breakdown in the family. In regards to many matters, but specifically sex education, the public school system has usurped the role of parents. Since they're going to usurp, we might as well push for them to usurp the right way. The Left's sex-ed propaganda is dangerous, deceptive, and--despite what they may say out of the sides of their Planned Parenthood-worshipping necks--isn't one bit interested in the well-being and physical and emotional health of young people. Those against abstinence-only education usually state that they're in favor of "comprehensive sex education". "Comprehensive" my size-nine-foot. "Comprehensive" meaning that the idea of abstinence gets mentioned during the last five minutes of the last class on the last day of the semester. And if how we've educated on sex in the past is any indication of the future, the Liberal brand of "comprehensive" means everything under the sun:
"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases...I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."Well won't that one preach. It's uncanny that the very thing Waxman is fighting against is exactly what Liberals have been doing for years. Nevermind that according to the Center for Disease Control, 50% of the sexually active adult single population has at least one STD and one quarter of all sexually active teens have an STD. Nevermind that the emotional stability and well-being of teenagers has been directly and negatively linked to sexual activity. High depression rates in girls have been linked with teenage sexual activity. Attempted suicide rates for teenage boys has been linked to sexual activity. These are the things that even nonpartisan fact-finding has proven true. But down with facts for just a moment. The reality is, both sides skew or mis-represent health statistics to support their own agendas. Even Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the abstinence material that was surveyed, admitted that. Somewhere in all this mess, there is the truth. And although I run the risk of sounding totally uncool by borrowing an over-used phrase from "A Few Good Men", people can't handle the truth. I'm going to spend a good deal of next week examining this issue from my perspective and personal experience. I think there are a good number of things Conservatives could and should be doing differently as it relates to furthering the cause of sex-education curriculum reform. It's time to expose the Liberal sex-ed propaganda for what it truly is because it's reaping a harvest of confused souls. 
You go, girl! I can't wait to hear more of your take on the issue. As a married woman who abstained until marriage (shocking in this day and age), I firmly believe that kids today should be taught abstinence as a valid option with many benefits. I think they should also be made aware of how their bodies work (if they haven't already been given the correct information - which is iffy) and told the straight truth about birth control methods - including the real risks - and STD's. Of course, when I have kids, I'll be teaching this stuff to them long before they'd have SexEd in school, to make sure they know the truth without the "Planned Parenthood" spin. Has the battle really been lost? Has it really come down to this? The schools can't even teach children to read and write. Do we really want them to be messin' up a good thing like sex? i remember in eighth grade we had a woman come in and bring a fake penise and she demonstrated how to put a condom on. at that age i had no idea what sex was and i dont think we should push those ideas on kids like me who just wanted to be kids. i m married now and i have the rest of my life to expolore sex and i dont think kids should be encouraged to do it and thats what condom education does. childdren need to be taught self esteem girls especially thats what leads to teenage sex most of the time Kids do what adults do not what adults say. There's sex all over tv, music, movies, etc. and kids see it. Adults need to start being more sexually responsible THEN maybe kids will listen when told to do the same. I'm beginning to think that they should take sex ed out of school altogether and leave it up to the parents. I am a Christian (and a conservative one at that) I am still careful how I express opinions regarding teenage sexuality with my children. Children are the first ones to spot a lack of authenticity. I recently spoke with my oldest son regarding the study (I can't remember who or where, sorry) pointing out that young people are more than 10 times more likely to be poor if they bear a child before the age of 21. This seemed to make an impact on him. However, I'm not so naive as to believe that he's now immunized against stupid behavior. We all know that God only gave men enough blood to use one head at a time. (My apologies if that crosses the propriety line.) I was recently part of a Board of Ed advisory committee tasked to review new sex ed curriculum materials for all the middle schools in the county. During the discussion, the issue of when or if to introduce contraception to high school students came up. My point was this: if we are all in agreement that children having sex is a bad idea, how does teaching them how to have it more safely address the problem? And since young women between 16 and 25 represent the largest number of new AIDS cases every year -- a number that continues to skyrocket -- it's clear that our current "safe" programs aren't working. Last but not least, the Heritage Foundation has numerous studies showing -- among other things -- that young women who have sex at an early age are significantly more likely to suffer from obesity, depression, and higher rates of suicide later in life than their abstinent peers. All the way around, regardless of religious positions on the issue, abstinence programs are hands down the best choice when considering both the long- and short-term mental, emotional and physical health of our children. I am angry and disgusted at the political factions that choose to take to the sex-ed barricades funded by radical social groups like Planned Parenthood rather than do what's right and responsible for our kids. Aw man, you missed your chance! { Comments are now closed for this entry. } |
 May 2009 April 2009 August 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004  Baldilocks Black Informant Booker Rising Cobb Evangelical Outpost DC Thornton Hip-Hop Republican Ill Doctrine Jen Lancaster* Joanne Jacobs Joel Stockstill La Shawn Barber Michelle Malkin Nerd With Swag Racialicious The Pioneer Woman You129 *indicates strong language Disclaimer: This is my personal blog. The views expressed on these pages are mine alone and do not represent those of my dog.
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
 RSS Feed |
both condom-only and abstinence-only sex ed is short-sighted. i hafta co-sign with you that balancing both sides of the rubber (with mebbe an emphasis toward abstinence-is-best mode) is the best road to hoe when you're dealing with a wide variety of kids with different backgrounds and perspectives.