|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 12, 2008 1:55:55 GMT -8
Mo, so far this thread has been very civil, fair, and level headed. But your last post (apparently based on impressions) leaves me with the "impression" that you didn’t get the fight you were looking for when you started this thread so now you wanna pick one. Oh please! Believe it or not, I've got enough fights going on here. I don't need to start new ones. What I wrote in my last post was an impression. I came across sentences like this: (...) and they make it seem like not a big deal and we were taught about PROTECTION and how to use it which in my mind was like saying as long as you use protection its ok. This SOUNDS to me, as if the author thought it was actually NOT okay. Then this: (...) and us as parents need to step up and make sure our kids know that abstinence is an ok thing. I agree with that. Abstinence is an okay thing. But in the context of the post I get the IMPRESSION that the author thinks abstinence is actually the way. I can only repeat the word IMPRESSION over and over again. This is not about picking fights. I just want to get straight where people stand here. Look, I’ll try to give you other examples of why I’m suspecting you guys of a hidden agenda. Here’s the recommendation of pregnantteenhelp you posted. I’ll try to show you what I mean, so we can get things straight:
• Explain that no one should be able to make him or her feel like they have to be sexually active. This is something I think everybody would agree with. No matter if you think teenage sex is okay or not, nobody should make our children have sex based on pressure. The advice seems to be morally neutral. So far, so good. But they go on to say:
* You may need to take further steps to help them avoid becoming sexually promiscuous.
This reveals much more of a moral agenda. Promiscuity is something to be avoided according to the organization. That is clearly a moral statement one could argue about. I tried to point out in my other post, that one can well be promiscuous without getting somebody pregnant or catching a vd. So promiscuity is not the problem here. Finally they conclude:
Finally abstinence is the only sure way of preventing teen pregnancy. Family values that promote abstinence as well as talking with your teenager over and over about the importance of abstinence can go a long way in preventing teen pregnancy.
This again emphasizes the abstinence take of the organization. All though it wasn’t you who wrote this, Chris, it was you who provided it and you used it for your case. You went on to say you were “becoming more convinced that efforts should be focused more on teen attitudes about sex than the biology of it.” Maybe it wasn't your intention, but I understood you as if you were promoting that parents should try to change their teenagers' attitudes more towards abstinence. Did I misunderstand you? Then we have Josh talking of SOBER teenagers “with a decided abstinence focus”, as opposed to the teenagers who are “cavalier” about sex. I don’t know, to me there’s clearly a clandestine moral judgement swinging here. I could be wrong. But my impressions surely didn’t come out of nowhere. Maybe this is something cultural too. Abstinence isn’t promoted over here (apart from the catholic church, which hasn’t got too much influence on teenagers here in my perception). Over here you learn that you should wait for the right person, and it’s a big difference. It doesn’t include marriage, it doesn’t say wait till you’re grown up. The right person is someone you trust and feel for. Somebody who is worth it. But one could as well meet that person at the age of 16. Sex is viewed as something natural and all in all good. Maybe you’ll understand that abstinence talk is confusing me. Over here, the majority of underaged teenagers is sexually active but only 1,4% of them gets pregnant. It sure isn’t the preaching of abstinence that is keeping our rates low as compared to the USA with their 8%. Do we have a better relation to our parents? I don’t think so. Do we have better schools? I don’t think so. Are our teenagers more intelligent? I don’t think so. Maybe we just have a better attitude towards sex but that’s just my very subjective opinion. One thing is certain: It has nothing to do with abstinence. I forgive you Chris. It’s my Christian duty  I don’t remember anyone in this thread making the claim that it [abstinence]was [the only way to avoid pregnancy]. Common Chris… I know nobody said this. This is precisely why I wrote the last post. Nobody is saying it, but out of reasons I already stated it SEEMED TO ME like you guys think abstinence is the only (read: the RIGHT) way. I hope you understand my thoughts better now. It’s not about fighting. I think this can easily be cleared: I think it’s okay to promote abstinence. But abstinence is not a necessary measure in order to reduce teenage pregnancy to a minimum. Abstinence is not the panacea. Teenagers can have safe sex if they know how. We can totally do without abstinence. If you agree with that statement, I truly misunderstood you. Really? ALL of the them? You sound pretty sure of yourself there. I would love to see the evidence for that one. It’s quite simple. A woman can’t get pregnant without sperms getting into her *. Condoms prevent sperms from getting into a *. If you use a quality condom that isn’t outdated, that you kept in a place where it isn’t affected by strong temperature variations (like your bedstand) if you put it on correctly, if you don’t touch the * with the hands or other parts that touched your thingy while putting on the condom, if you refrain from using lubricants that could damage the structure of a condom, if you use a condom that has the correct size for you, in other words, if you KNOW HOW, then the thing is safe. I’d like you to show me how a sperm could possibly break through a condom if it is handled correctly.* So, let me ask you this. .. why do you think surveys (non-religious ones I might add) reveal that the majority of teenagers wish they would have waited to have sex? Does that sound imposed to you? Or like they think it's a "huge disadvantage"? One thing hasn’t anything to do with the other. The question is: waited for what? I know many people who thought they should have waited more. But they don’t mean for marriage or until they come of age. They mostly mean they shouldn’t have done it at the age of 14 but rather 16 or 17. I personally don’t know anybody who regrets having had sex. …instead of the devils we’ve made ourselves into. The flat demonization of humans is something I condemn about religion. One thing I’m curious about though is: How are you gonna refrain from imposing your morals on others? *I guess you’re gonna say that there might be a defective quality condom in a million. It COULD break while having sex and get a woman pregnant. The probability for a woman to get pregnant (even if desperately desired) isn’t higher than 15-35% (depending on the source) at the best moment (during the ovulation). So you would have to take the low probability of getting a dysfunctional quality condom and calculate it with the probability that it actually breaks during the act, and calculate it with the low probability of getting pregnant at all and you’ll get a probability of getting pregnant that is so low, that it isn’t even worth mentioning. The risk might be as big as being hit by a roof tile while walking the street. Or even lower. All this provided that the condoms are handled correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 12, 2008 1:57:37 GMT -8
Yeah, Mo, where's the benefit of the doubt? And provided they're not drunk. And provided they remember to have contraceptives ready. And provided they're not giving in to peer pressure to not use condoms. And provided they don't have impulse control. Wait a minute.... aren't those last two things the very definition of most "teenagers" in our society??? (sadly) This isn't a technical point... mostly. I don't understand most parts of this post. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 12, 2008 2:48:48 GMT -8
Hi Mo, Actually, I don’t put any faith in parents and their abilities or even their sense of responsibility in the matter. What I do believe however is that parents should have the right to choose where, when, and how the topic of sex is introduced to their children rather than have it dictated to them by the state. Are you opposed to a parents’ right to choose? I would have pegged you for a pro-choice kinda guy myself.  Pro choice is relative wouldn’t you agree? I’m interested in your opinion about abortion by the way. From everything you write (“shouldn’t impose morals on others”, “parents should have the right to choose”, “The State should back off” [my paraphrase]) it sounds like you’re pro choice in this aspect. Just curious. but that doesn't mean a society should simply turn their kids over to the state to mold and shape them as it sees fit. The thought hearkens my memory back to books like "Brave New World" and "Walden II". So where is the line drawn? You have a tendency of dramatizing. Nobody says the state should mold and shape as it sees fit. If parents are doing their job well, the state will never have as much influence on their children as they have. Your question is fair though. Where to draw the line? Parents who overprotect their children can’t be the solution either. In the course of writing my thesis I just recently came across a study that shows how the selection of information by the media influences us heavily. The media decide from the vast pool of news all over the world every day, which we will be presented to. And they decide as well how they present the news. The same goes for the State and parents. If you had your way and children wouldn’t be taught about sex in school (or evolution), your power over your children would be way too high. Power should never be concentrated. There’s got to be balance. Otherwise abuse is what logically follows. (most of which are 18-19 year old ADULTS) One question and one request: Question: when do you come of age in the USA? Request: Could you please give me the link to the statistic you quoted (if you already have, please do it again). But what about the 92% that aren't getting pregnant? What does that reveal? Do they get no credit for avoiding it? Do the parents of that segment get no credit for bringing up their kids properly? In most institutions of learning, 92% is called an "A". Let's not overlook the successful while we're seeking to help the unsuccessful. Okay, let’s not overlook it. The USA has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the entire West. If you think that’s a success, okay. Let’s keep this in mind for later. Actually, those are not even my words. That came from a leading website on the subject. It's probably my fault for not framing it more clearly.  I’m fully aware of that. What often seems to produce misunderstandings between you and me is that I always assume that you want to tell me something with the things you quote. Something you agree or disagree with or maybe something that is just interesting to consider.You posted the recommendations of that webpage and went on to say that it convinced you even more that we should focus on the attitude of the teens. So I assumed you agreed with the recommendations of the webpage. My main concern is parental rights as well as peoples' tax dollars continuing to go towards an already overfunded, special interest agenda-driven, ineffective quagmire of an education system that is continually trying to expand programs to further grow itself without proper justification. Sex ed is just one of many things in publicly funded education that I am not convinced ought to be there. So much in here…. I’d like to highlight the word INEFFECTIVE first. Just a couple of lines back you were selling the teen-pregnancy-rate of the USA as a success. Now you’re saying the education children get at school is ineffective. You seem to think the credits go entirely to the parents? I’d like you to back that conclusion up with facts. My parents contributed nothing to the fact I’m not a father by now (I love you, Dad). One could easily read the thing differently: The fact that 92% of US teens don’t get pregnant might be an indicator of the success of sex ed. I think many factors play their part here. Unless you can provide the evidence, I won't be convinced that sex ed didn't contribute anything here. About the special interest agenda-driven education: who are you referring to? The Condom lobby? Are they possibly as powerful as the Religious Right? You want me to prove a negative? C’mon, you know me better than that. Do I even need a "fancy fallacy name"? Yes you do. You are making a lot of statements like “ineffective quagmire of education”. If you say something like that and want it to be taken seriously, you must be able to back it up somehow I would say. There’s no fallacy in this request. You are constantly asking for statistics proving the benefits of sex ed, despising all the statistics that give us hints, so you must have good information to believe the opposite I suppose. Please, bring it on. No need for fallacy games here. You’re such a politician The suspicion remains that you simply don’t like what children learn at school because it often disagrees with your world view. Your vigorous opposition makes sense in that |
|
|
|
Post by amyleigh on Sept 12, 2008 9:33:16 GMT -8
Ok so after much thought after what you posted yesterday mo I wasen't quite sure how to respond and still im not sure but im going to give it a go anyhow!
I enjoy reading these boards its fun for me to see what people think and how different people feel, I dont often reply because I feel like I know what I want so say but it never comes out right when it gets written down.
I guess I wasent clear with all that I said, I agree with one thing that stands out and that is this
1. Sex Education needs to be taught better in schools
I feel that many of us ran off from the topic of this forum and went to other sub topics such as teenage pregnancy and whether it is right or wrong.
First off mo I would like to ask you this- If your 13yr old daughter came to you and said she wanted to have sex how would you react? Would you be like sure great lets go get you on birth control or would you say no and explain why?
Me in that situation I would have to say no even being on birthcontrol I dont think that ANY 13 year old has any right having sex.
Being a teenager in general is confusing there are so many things going through your mind lets face it, It is an emotional time. As a teenager you are faced with so many peer presures of your friends whether you are popular or not let alone as you are an older teen you have to think about college did you get into this one ok so I hope we agree its an emotional time. So in my opinion I dont think teenagers meaning 13,14,15,16, and 17 yr olds have any business adding having sex into all the other confusion.
Believe me when I say that I dont go around PREACHING that Abstinence is best, that however is my OWN opinion
I do however think that something needs to be done about teenage pregnancy somewhere and probably with how its being taught in schools needs to be fixed.
I hope that I have cleared things up for you and by all means if you have questions please ask dont assume!
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Sept 12, 2008 23:06:18 GMT -8
So Chris, would you support sex ed being taught in schools with the understanding that parents could write their kids a note getting them out of class when it came to the part regarding the use of contraceptives? When I was in junior high, parents could get there kids out of certain parts of classes, like the evolution part of science. I would agree that parents should have the right to say that they don't want their kids to be taught certain things that are counter to their religious beliefs. If Jehovah's Witnesses can be exempt from saying the Pledge of Allegiance with their class, I think it's only fair that if Christians want their children to not learn about something that does not agree with their religious beliefs.
I would love to say that teaching parents how to talk about options with their kids would solve everything, but I work for a social service/child welfare agency, so I know better than that. That is why I beleive it should be taught (well, of course) in school. Unfortunately, if parents aren't going to teach their kids things, it may be the school is the only thing that will teach them.
IMO, I think that if parents want to emphasize abstinence, that is their perogative and their role. I think schools are there to present information, but not to try to influence kids to assume certain opinions.
I guess my position can be better understood if I give my personal experience of sex ed. I had 2 different sex ed classes; one in 5th grade (this was more of the biological aspect, who has what parts, menstruation, etc.) and one in 8th grade. I think we went back over biology in 8th grade with the addition of puberty, STD's, different kinds of contraceptives (though no condom demonstrations). I know that personally, there is probably no other way that I would have gotten that information. Like I said before, my parents never talked to me about it and I was too embarrassed to ask my friends about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 13, 2008 4:41:24 GMT -8
1. Sex Education needs to be taught better in schools check. First off mo I would like to ask you this- If your 13yr old daughter came to you and said she wanted to have sex how would you react? Would you be like sure great lets go get you on birth control or would you say no and explain why? hm, I would probably ask her who the fortunate young man is and then I would go and rip off his balls or something.  Okay, jokes aside. I think there are different angles from which to look at this. I personally think that 13 is too young to have sex. In this we agree. But we must also be aware that this is just a modern cultural concept. In other cultures, boys are considered men from the moment of their first ejaculation. This is when they come of age. The same goes for girls with their first menstruation. Biologically speaking this is the moment when they are ready to have sex. The modern concepts of childhood differ a lot from childhood concepts of the past. Children a couple of years back didn't really have a childhood. They had to work from the moment they could be useful. Sociologically speaking modern teenagers are way behind in terms of maturity even though they physically get ready earlier than in the past (due to better health and nutrition as biologists assume). They are biological adolescents, capable of reproduction with the mind of children. Even the famous Juliet of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" was merely 13 years old when she met her man. So how can we really determine when somebody is ready to have sex? This is one angle. Another angle would be: if I forbade my 13 year old daughter to have sex, that wouldn't mean I could actually prevent her from having sex (unless I lock her in the basement). So I would have to really consider putting her on birth control. What I would actually do is fill her in about sex and try to explain why I think it is too early for her to have sex. By all means I would have to conserve her trust in me. If she notices that I'm blocking and not really considering or respecting her desires, she won't ask me for advice or permission in the future any more. There's a big chance that being 13 she might actually think that I have no right to forbid or allow her anything anyway... After all, did a "no!" from your parents ever stop you from doing things you really wanted to do? Sometimes maybe but not always. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, the original rebels So in my opinion I dont think teenagers meaning 13,14,15,16, and 17 yr olds have any business adding having sex into all the other confusion. I would say 16 and 17 is okay. But that's just my opinion.* I'm cool with everything else you wrote. *From the legal perspective it looks like this where I come from: In Germany 14 year olds are allowed to have sex with persons of the same age and at the age of 16 you are allowed to have sex with older persons too. Your parents have only a right to forbid that if the partner is older than 18 but if they agree even that is legal. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 13, 2008 5:05:23 GMT -8
So Chris, would you support sex ed being taught in schools with the understanding that parents could write their kids a note getting them out of class when it came to the part regarding the use of contraceptives? When I was in junior high, parents could get there kids out of certain parts of classes, like the evolution part of science. I would agree that parents should have the right to say that they don't want their kids to be taught certain things that are counter to their religious beliefs. If Jehovah's Witnesses can be exempt from saying the Pledge of Allegiance with their class, I think it's only fair that if Christians want their children to not learn about something that does not agree with their religious beliefs. I would love to say that teaching parents how to talk about options with their kids would solve everything, but I work for a social service/child welfare agency, so I know better than that. That is why I beleive it should be taught (well, of course) in school. Unfortunately, if parents aren't going to teach their kids things, it may be the school is the only thing that will teach them. IMO, I think that if parents want to emphasize abstinence, that is their perogative and their role. I think schools are there to present information, but not to try to influence kids to assume certain opinions. I guess my position can be better understood if I give my personal experience of sex ed. I had 2 different sex ed classes; one in 5th grade (this was more of the biological aspect, who has what parts, menstruation, etc.) and one in 8th grade. I think we went back over biology in 8th grade with the addition of puberty, STD's, different kinds of contraceptives (though no condom demonstrations). I know that personally, there is probably no other way that I would have gotten that information. Like I said before, my parents never talked to me about it and I was too embarrassed to ask my friends about it. Excellent post Michelle. I agree with pretty much everything you said except for one thing: I don't think parents should have the right to get their kids out of class because something is being taught contrary to their worldview. I'll tell you why. I think this would put too much power in the hands of the parents. Their children are not their property. They have a right to know what is out there. Okay this is tricky to explain. So let's just bring an extreme example: Imagine someone who worships Hitler and is convinced the holocaust is a lie and that the Nazi ideology is the remedy for this rotten world. Should such parents be allowed to get their kids out of history class? I don't think so. If parents do their job well, they communicate with their children and know more or less what's going on in school. If a religious kid learned the theory of evolution in school it will probably tell this to the parents who could still provide the kid with their alternative explanation. Although parents have a right to teach their children their worldview, children aren't their property. Children have a right to learn what is out there. I can only repeat this over and over again. To imagine how parents could easily manipulate the knowledge of their children by abitrarily deciding what information fits and what not really scares me. Of course I would assume that most parents genuinely want the best for their children, but a right to decide what children learn in school and what not, opens the doors for abuse. I said it somewhere, power needs to be balanced. People in general should know as much as possible about the world. This is the only way they can take differentiated stands on things and critically deal with information. Selective education won't help. |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Sept 13, 2008 8:47:17 GMT -8
Yay, we agree on something, Mo!! ;D
Of course children are not parent's property because no human being should ever be considered property. I hope that lesson has been learned especially since at least in the US, many had to learn it the hard way.
Do they have private religious schools or home schooling in Germany? Those are options in the US. I'm not sure how common, but I know a couple of people that home school their kids and I know some people who send their kids to a Christian school. I'm sure people's decisions for not sending their kids to public school vary, but it is an option for parents. IMO, those options do the same thing as pulling your kid out of a class. It's all about controlling their environment. I think that parents have both a right and responsibility to do what they think is best for their kids. Now, what they may think is best may not actually be best, but it's still their right to act as they think is best. We may just have to agree to disagree here.
When you say that parents being able to choose what their children learn in school opens the doors to abuse, I'm guessing you don't mean physical abuse, but rather abuse of power. Is that what you meant?
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 13, 2008 12:19:04 GMT -8
Ok, for the sake of time, I’m going to have to summarize my position on the multitude of points going on here. Mo, As far as the whole “picking a fight” thing goes, I apologize if I got you wrong there. But I will say that inquiry is less abrasive than accusation. There is a great irenic value in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. As AmyLeigh pointed out, there are many pragmatic and practical reasons to promote abstinence as well. It shouldn’t be assumed (as it was clear you did) that it is entirely an imposition of morality. That is not a fair assumption on your part. You wrote How do you know it’s moral? That’s an exluded middle argument. I doubt this organization has any religious affiliation at all. I wasn’t even looking for Christian sites when I found it. I simply googled “teen pregnancy” (or something like that) and took the top picks (which typically means they are the most popular sites under that search). As I said before, abstinence has many pragmatic benefits as well as moral. One thing we seem to forget these days is that is wasn’t very long ago that virginity was considered a very valuable thing (especially for women), and waiting until marriage was almost the expectation. It seems to be the exact opposite these days. I would guess that most people would prefer to be their spouses’ first and only lover and what a great blessing it is if young people can give that gift to their new husband/wife. And despite your crass idealistic explanation on how condoms can work effectively, statistics still show that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid STD’s and pregnancy. By the way, there are certain STD’s that not even condoms always prevent (like HPV). Here is a quote from the CDC (center for disease control…a government, not religious agency by the way) website: For those who choose to be sexually active, condoms may lower the risk of HPV, if used all the time and the right way. Condoms may also lower the risk of developing HPV-related diseases, such as genital warts and cervical cancer. But HPV can infect areas that are not covered by a condom—so condoms may not fully protect against HPV. So the only sure way to prevent HPV is to avoid all sexual activity. www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htmIs that a moral statement? Or is it practical? You decide. Finally, you asked: If you noticed, I qualified my statement with “ on matters like this”. Of course morals are imposed on citizens of any society (murder, theft, etc). But morals of a sexual nature are personal IMO and should not be imposed upon by others who disapprove (unless of course there is victimization involved). It’s a passive thing to “refrain from imposing”, not an active thing. So to ask how I’m going to do it is a moot question it seems to me. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 13, 2008 12:27:18 GMT -8
Hi Michelle, I appreciate you sharing your personal testimony, experience, and anecdotes. Our experiences are very informative in knowing how our views are influenced. You wrote: I don’t think I would support that in the way you presented it for a couple of reasons: 1. I don’t think it’s fair to put kids in that position to be separated/alienated from their peers during the normal course of a day. For that reason, it puts pressure on parents to “go along with the program”. 2. I’m still not convinced this needs to be (or even should be) a part of public education at all to promote the general welfare. This is a common perception that I’m not sure is backed up with any real evidence (at least none that I’ve seen). I want to clear up what I think is a misunderstanding of my position. I do NOT oppose sex education. I just don’t know that it is the state’s role and responsibility to administer that education. What it really comes back to is the question “what is the purpose of public education?”. That’s the big debate isn’t it. People have varying opinions on this and some of them are quite alarming IMO. I’m rather libertarian when it comes to governmental imposition into the lives of citizens. There is a great cost that comes with trying to fix every social problem through government. That cost is freedom and liberty. Take the homeland security thing for example. How many liberties do we need to give up to be completely safe from terrorist attacks? And is it worth it? Similarly, how many parental rights and responsibilities do we need to hand over to the state to ensure the teenage pregnancy rate goes down? And is it worth it? Will you ever get to zero by doing so? What percentage is acceptable? In my mind, at least 92% of the population is doing just fine. Why should they be forced to educate their kids about sex with the state’s spin on it? (and you can’t teach anything without putting your own spin on it IMO). Here’s an interesting quote:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~attributed to Benjamin Franklin
Will there be dereliction of parental responsibility? Yes. Will there be kids uneducated about sex, even possibly leading to unexpected pregnancy? Of course. But that will happen with or without sex education in public schools because of the nature of humans. Knowledge is only beneficial when acted upon. And we all know that it's not always acted upon. There are a great many things parents will fail their kids on, and unfortunately abuse them on as well. However, I’m slow to simply turn that responsibility over to the state. I think history shows eroding liberties lead to oppressive government. I guess you could say that I buy into the slippery slope theory. Once you give up a liberty to the state, you never get it back and it just goes down hill from there. So, is it a matter of either public education or parental education? I don’t think those are the only two choices. It is often the case that concerned citizens step in to fill a social need. This education could be available from any number of sources and organizations (including churches). It doesn’t have to come through the government. P.S. You mention the pledge of allegiance in your post. I oppose that kind of brainwashing as well, even though I support my country. Little kids are in no position to understand let alone pledge their “allegiance” to a nation. But that’s another thread altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 13, 2008 12:34:27 GMT -8
Mo, A couple things from a later post I didn’t address previously. You wrote: I agree pro-choice is relative. Perhaps we could open a new thread to talk about that in respect to abortion. This really is the crux of the issue isn’t it? How much autonomy parents should have in raising their kids and when kids should be considered adults. We’ll have to disagree about that. 18. However, in many States minors can petition the court to become emancipated from their parents at age 16. I looked at many leading sites that said essentially the same thing. I don’t remember them all. But here’s one: In the United States, the 18 - 19 year-old age group has the highest rate of pregnancy followed by the 15 - 17 year-old age group. However, 15 – 17 year-old pregnancy rates dropped by as much as 23% between 1992 and 2000, while the rate for 18 to 19 year-olds only dropped by 11%. This comes from: www.pregnancy-info.net/teen_pregnancy_statistics.htmlThat’s not what I said at all. At least some credit does go to the parents, and the surveys I’ve seen seem to reveal parents have the greatest influence on teen sex. But it’s not about credit, but a perceived crisis rather than a real one. Some look at 8% teen pregnancy rate as an epidemic requiring governmental intervention, others look at it as a rather minor and predictable consequence of ever-shifting cultural norms. We live in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s. That’s why I believe it’s more about attitude than education. I was speaking in general terms, not necessarily about sex ed. I would oppose the “Religious Right” agendas in public education as well. Not so fast there slick, you asked the question way before I made that statement.  You’d make a good vacuum cleaner salesman Mo. I could imagine you coming to my door saying “If you can prove to me that my vacuum cleaner won’t do a better job cleaning your floors, I won’t sell it to you. Otherwise, we agree you need to buy it, right?”. If someone wants to convince the public to add something to the curriculum of public education, who is the burden of proof on? It should not be misconstrued that I do not disapprove. (How’s that for slippery political rhetoric?) ;D I think I’ve answered this in my post to Michelle. It’s hard for me to understand how you classify my disagreement as “vigorous opposition”. It’s not like I’m out picketing schools or anything. But given the vote, I’d vote against state-run sex ed in schools. I simply disagree with you and others that support it. But it’s not like I’m going to lose any sleep over it or bomb any schools or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Sept 15, 2008 21:06:47 GMT -8
In my mind, at least 92% of the population is doing just fine. Why should they be forced to educate their kids about sex with the state’s spin on it? (and you can’t teach anything without putting your own spin on it IMO). I guess for me to accept or reject this statement with certainty, I'd have to see some studies about how teen pregnancy would be impacted if sex education was not taught in school. As it stands, I believe that most [public] schools teach it, thought I could be wrong. I'd be interested in finding out who makes up the 8%. Are they people who didn't have sex education, people who had it and decided not to take the necessary precautions or people who had an "accident" (broken condom, missed pill, etc.). Whose to say that 92% wouldn't drop to 80% with getting rid of sex education. I'm not sure there is a way that we can know without doing away with it and trying it out. Chris, just to clarify, when you talk about sex education are talking specifically about a specific portion (e.g. contraceptives, STD's, biology, etc.) or all parts that I described in my previous post? Will there be dereliction of parental responsibility? Yes. Will there be kids uneducated about sex, even possibly leading to unexpected pregnancy? Of course. But that will happen with or without sex education in public schools because of the nature of humans. Knowledge is only beneficial when acted upon. And we all know that it's not always acted upon. True, true. I think history shows eroding liberties lead to oppressive government. Yes, but I guess I wouldn't classify education as government oppression. So, is it a matter of either public education or parental education? I don’t think those are the only two choices. It is often the case that concerned citizens step in to fill a social need. This education could be available from any number of sources and organizations (including churches). It doesn’t have to come through the government. I know I'm being a pessimist (it's just the frame of mind I seem to be in these days), but what happens when nobody does step in? While I do see some amazing organizations and people who are very selfless, there are a lot people in the world that don't feel the need to step up and help out. How much can we rely on the generosity of the few? There is a rule about fundraising called the 80/20 rule. 80% of donated funds come from 20% of the donors. That leave a lot of problems for 20% of the population to solve. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 15, 2008 21:55:23 GMT -8
OK. Still behind here.
Anyway, Mo, this post was an attempt to argue that just knowing how to handle contraceptives doesn't mean that they'll be used in the heat of the moment (or the pressure of the moment). Teens by their very nature tend toward impetuosity.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2008 0:54:56 GMT -8
Michelle, Yay, we agree on something, Mo!! ;D maybe on more than you might think  Of course children are not parent's property because no human being should ever be considered property. I hope that lesson has been learned especially since at least in the US, many had to learn it the hard way. Yet, the power parents would have if they could entirely control what information their children will receive and what information will be kept secret from them equals slavery in many ways. Just to get this straight, my last sentence isn't directed neither at you nor Chris or Amy. It just emphasizes why I think power must be balanced. After all, if you guys believe and cherish "free will" you should be on my side. If one can't choose between alternatives because no alternatives have been presented, where is the freedom? Do they have private religious schools or home schooling in Germany? Those are options in the US. Private religious schools yes, homeschooling no. Private schools need a State approved curriculum though. They can't just teach what they like. But they can prioritize independently. By the way, Religion is being taught in public schools as a regular subject. I think that parents have both a right and responsibility to do what they think is best for their kids. Now, what they may think is best may not actually be best, but it's still their right to act as they think is best. We may just have to agree to disagree here. I'm used to that Does this mean you think Nazi parents have the right to teach their children Adolf is the messiah? When you say that parents being able to choose what their children learn in school opens the doors to abuse, I'm guessing you don't mean physical abuse, but rather abuse of power. Is that what you meant? Yes, abuse of power. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2008 1:20:53 GMT -8
Josh, Mo, this post was an attempt to argue that just knowing how to handle contraceptives doesn't mean that they'll be used in the heat of the moment (or the pressure of the moment). Teens by their very nature tend toward impetuosity. Thanks for clearing that. I think I never said that full information will lead to 0 unwanted pregnancy. Just like a good driving education won't lead to 0 car accidents. But the better the education, the higher the possibility of avoiding unreasonable behavior. Misconceptions like "the girl can only get pregnant if she orgasms" are totally annihilatable. Furthermore I'd like to argue that unreasonable behavior like giving are often the result of nescience. The more you know about the consequences of your action, the less likely your going to give in peer group pressure. In Germany, if a child or a teenager tries to exculpate a foolery they did with the words "but the others did it aswell" parents use to answer "and if the others jump off the bridge you're gonna do it to?" Maybe it's the same in English. The essence of this lies in the rethoric question. Of course the answer is no. Why is the answer no? Because the kid knows that jumping off the bridge is suicidal. Knowing the full consequences of having sex, even if it won't have an effect on every teenager, might prevent many of being unreasonable. Here is the point: If teenagers are so unable to control themselves, they might forget about the abstinence talk of their parents quite quickly in "the heat of the moment". If they decide to ignore the advice of their parents (to be abstinent), they are better off if they know how to use a condom. How could anybody ever disagree with that? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2008 7:30:17 GMT -8
Hey Chris, I’ll answer to three different posts of yours in one. 1. Post. Mo, As far as the whole “picking a fight” thing goes, I apologize if I got you wrong there. But I will say that inquiry is less abrasive than accusation. There is a great irenic value in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. To be quite frankly, I honestly thought that I inquired instead of accusing. That’s why I used words like “It feels like”, “It seems to me”, “I get the impression”, “Maybe I'm misinterpreting you.” However, I apologize if it all came around the wrong way. It wasn’t my intention. As AmyLeigh pointed out, there are many pragmatic and practical reasons to promote abstinence as well. It shouldn’t be assumed (as it was clear you did) that it is entirely an imposition of morality. That is not a fair assumption on your part. Alright, I just wanted to get this straight. How do you know it’s moral? Because if this was morally neutral, it wouldn’t say that one has to take measures against promiscuity. As I tried to point out, promiscuity itself isn’t the problem. I’ll try to illustrate what I mean with an extreme example: Let’s say there is a boy who has five one night stands during his entire adolescence. 5 times sex and that’s all the experience he’s got. Yet with five different women, all of them virgins. Always using condoms. Technically speaking, he was promiscuous. Let’s now contrast him to a guy, who has the same girlfriend from age 16 throughout his adolescence. He has sex on a regular basis with just one woman (who already had unsafe sexual contact to other boys in the past and is taking intravenous drugs). He is not promiscuous yet the number of coituses outnumbers the coituses of the promiscuous guy by far. Technically speaking, the risk of getting a girl pregnant is much higher in the latter case. Technically speaking the risk of catching a STD is much higher in the latter case too. So that’s what I’m saying. Promiscuity itself is not the problem. Promiscuity becomes a problem, when it is done unsafe and carelessly. To advise to take measures against promiscuity in general is a moral statement for me. Maybe you’ll still disagree. But maybe you at least understand my rationality. If so, we can agree to disagree again. I simply googled “teen pregnancy” (or something like that) and took the top picks (which typically means they are the most popular sites under that search). Is that so? I have a friend who worked for google who told me years ago how to achieve to be listed first. It was a variety of factors, I honestly can’t remember. Is that a moral statement? Or is it practical? You decide. In this case I would say this is practical. In the case of the recommendations you quoted earlier I remain with the position that I see a moral bias. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem admitting that abstinence is the safest, or even the only safe way*. But it’s no reason to refrain from having sex or preaching that. It’s like saying: the only safe way to avoid being hit by a lightning is staying at home all the time. Or the only safe way to avoid car accidents is to refrain from driving. You said it somewhere else: Things like teenage pregnancy will always happen. Yet I believe we can reduce the numbers. The high discrepancy between the teenage-pregnancy rate of the USA and Germany proves that. If you noticed, I qualified my statement with “ on matters like this”. Of course morals are imposed on citizens of any society (murder, theft, etc). But morals of a sexual nature are personal IMO and should not be imposed upon by others who disapprove (unless of course there is victimization involved). It’s a passive thing to “refrain from imposing”, not an active thing. So to ask how I’m going to do it is a moot question it seems to me. The only safe way to refrain from imposing morals on others is abstinence from social contact ;D  ;D (jk) *I’m personally very much in favor of the „waiting for the right person“ principle myself. This concept doesn’t promote abstinence till marriage, but abstinence till love and that’s a form of abstinence too. Note that I don’t think marriage and love go hand in hand. 2. Post: I agree pro-choice is relative. Perhaps we could open a new thread to talk about that in respect to abortion. Okay, but may I ask you to open that thread? I want to avoid the suspicion of opening threads to pick fights ;P jk This really is the crux of the issue isn’t it? How much autonomy parents should have in raising their kids and when kids should be considered adults. We’ll have to disagree about that. Check. 18. However, in many States minors can petition the court to become emancipated from their parents at age 16. Thanks for the input. In Germany it’s 18 too. I thought it was 21 in the USA but I wasn’t sure. I looked at many leading sites that said essentially the same thing. I don’t remember them all. But here’s one: In the United States, the 18 - 19 year-old age group has the highest rate of pregnancy followed by the 15 - 17 year-old age group. However, 15 – 17 year-old pregnancy rates dropped by as much as 23% between 1992 and 2000, while the rate for 18 to 19 year-olds only dropped by 11%. This comes from: www.pregnancy-info.net/teen_pregnancy_statistics.html Thanks. Unfortunately this page doesn’t reveal the exact numbers. It would have been nice to know. I said: “You seem to think the credits go entirely to the parents? I’d like you to back that conclusion up with facts.” To which you replied: That’s not what I said at all. At least some credit does go to the parents, and the surveys I’ve seen seem to reveal parents have the greatest influence on teen sex. Yeah, alright, my bad. I have to rearrange the request. You seem to think that public education played no part (or at least no significant part) in the “low” rate of US teen-pregnancy. I derive that from the fact that you called sex ed inefficient and that you praised the 92% without mentioning the role of sex ed in that statistic. I’d like you to back this position up with evidence. Not so fast there slick, you asked the question way before I made that statement. Chris, you have stated that you are skeptical about the benefits of sex ed throughout the entire thread. And in the more recent posts you were even more explicit. I’m merely asking you to back your opinion up with facts instead of making assertions. You’d make a good vacuum cleaner salesman Mo. I could imagine you coming to my door saying “If you can prove to me that my vacuum cleaner won’t do a better job cleaning your floors, I won’t sell it to you. Otherwise, we agree you need to buy it, right?”. If someone wants to convince the public to add something to the curriculum of public education, who is the burden of proof on? So maybe we are discovering a fundamental misunderstanding here. I always thought that sex ed IS already part of the curriculum and that Mrs. Palin wants to REMOVE it from there. If I’m wrong, we can discuss the burden of proof. But IF sex ed IS already part of the curriculum, then the burden of proof is clearly on those who want to remove it. It should not be misconstrued that I do not disapprove. (How’s that for slippery political rhetoric?) ;D ;D Take a look at this, man! (fastforward to 3:20 to skip all the talk about Palin’s daughter) Isn’t that masterful? Total evasion of unpleasant questions. It has a familiar ring to me… It’s hard for me to understand how you classify my disagreement as “vigorous opposition”. It’s not like I’m out picketing schools or anything. But given the vote, I’d vote against state-run sex ed in schools. I simply disagree with you and others that support it. But it’s not like I’m going to lose any sleep over it or bomb any schools or anything. Vigorous apparently was a bad word choice. Persistent might have worked better. 3. Post (this one was originally directed at Michelle): Similarly, how many parental rights and responsibilities do we need to hand over to the state to ensure the teenage pregnancy rate goes down? None. Handing something over sounds to me as if the state had carte blanche for its education. But the parents are still there. They are totally free to oppose the public curriculum, just like you do. If your kids learn about evolution in class you're still there to tell them all about Creationism. If you think the State is wasting your tax money on sexual education that's your good opinion. But I daresay and I'm sure you know this yourself, that there will never be 100% agreement among citizens on what their money should be spent. And maybe education isn't even the worst money pit. I would be more concerned about other things (like the war in Iraq e.g.). And is it worth it? Will you ever get to zero by doing so? What percentage is acceptable? The Netherlands have a rate of 1,2%, Belgium 1,4% and Germany 1,6%. Those three countries together have a population of 100 Million. These numbers are at least reachable. Maybe they could even be improved. With a rate of 8,4% nobody can be satisfied. In my mind, at least 92% of the population is doing just fine. Again you are acting as if the existence of sex ed had no effect upon this statistic. I see no justification for this. By the way, this calculation contains an error of category because you aren't considering the unrecorded cases of teenagers who are actually having unsafe sex and fortunately don't end up with a STD or a Baby. The 8,4% are only those who turned out pregnant. You would have to add those who caught a STD and you would have to add those who practiced unsafe sex and were merely lucky enough to get away without consequences. So the actual numbers are certainly even worse. In that light I find the dissmissal of sex ed even more irresponsible. Knowledge is only beneficial when acted upon. And we all know that it's not always acted upon. Right. But the more knowledge there is, the more knowledge can be acted upon. If you reduce the knowledge, there is less knowledge people can act upon. There are a great many things parents will fail their kids on, and unfortunately abuse them on as well. However, I’m slow to simply turn that responsibility over to the state. Nobody is taking away your liberty to educate your kids. I think history shows eroding liberties lead to oppressive government. I guess you could say that I buy into the slippery slope theory. Once you give up a liberty to the state, you never get it back and it just goes down hill from there. I think your concern about freedom and your skepticism towards the government has it's place. But in the issue at hand you are simply exaggerating. I for one can't imagine that sex ed in school could possibly lead to a 1984 scenario. I see no indication. P.S. You mention the pledge of allegiance in your post. I oppose that kind of brainwashing as well, even though I support my country. Little kids are in no position to understand let alone pledge their “allegiance” to a nation. But that’s another thread altogether. I'm with you, pops. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 20, 2008 8:23:24 GMT -8
Wow, with all the activity, this thread has already dropped off the 30 post radar. Mo, For the sake of time, I’m going to skip some of the non-essential side issues on this thread and refocus on main points. You wrote: And.. I would invite you to go back and re-read the thread from the beginning. It was YOU who came on making the assertions, even implying that Palin’s daughters’ pregnancy was somehow linked to a lack of education. I invited you to back those assertions up with solid evidence and you have yet to do so. I had an open mind towards letting you make your case, and I still do. Believe it or not, I’m not opposed to having certain kinds of sex ed in schools, if someone can simply demonstrate the causal link between it and some significant social benefit in that area. But if it’s true that parents play the most significant role in influencing their kids’ attitudes towards sex, than I would argue (as I have) that the emphasis should be on educating and motivating parents to supply this information. I have yet to see any reason for the State to 1) dictate to families where, when, how the information is going to be presented to their minor children. And 2) impose an unnecessary burden to tax payers on an already overloaded and inefficient state education system (more on that in a minute). The charts you provided don’t make the case for sex ed (and especially not your list of “essentials”) IMO because they are talking about general education. As a sociologist, you ought to know there are many different factors that can be attributed to that correlation (demographic, culture, income level, etc.) About midway through, I said something like “I’m becoming more convinced that the real difference comes from parental involvement” (I don’t remember my exact words and I don’t have time to go find them). So I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that I’ve stated that I’m “skeptical” through the whole thread. My opinion is just that, an opinion, a judgment. Just like yours and everyone else’s. That’s what democracy is all about, people making judgments and having a vote based on those judgments. I’m on no campaign to remove sex ed from public schools and I doubt Palin is either (maybe she is, I don't follow it that closely). My kids aren’t even in public education. However, I do question is perceived efficacy towards the purpose you and others have stated. I don’t take things for granted just because lots of people “think” something is so. Certainly proponents for sex education ought to be able to come up with facts to justify its existence. It doesn’t suffice to say… You make my point when I said that once you give something over to the state, you never get it back. In my opinion, the State ought to take the responsible position of continually selling its services and programs by on-going evaluation and publishing key performance indicators of its efficacy. The public shouldn’t be responsible for proving something is ineffective, that’s backwards. I think that is especially true in public education. This brings me to my opinion about public education being an inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy that serves the government machine more than it serves the public. We already spend somewhere between $8,000 to $10,000 per year/ per student to educate kids in America through public education. I realize that since you are not an American, those figures may seem very foreign to you. But just to put it in perspective, the average middle-class income is somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000-$60,000 annually. In my state (Oregon), over half of the state budget (about 6 billion dollars) goes toward public education. That’s unacceptable to me. I think we can do much better. And it’s because there are so many layers of unnecessary programs and administration that demand to be fed with tax dollars. I remember watching an ABC special on public education a few years ago that compared public education to other forms of education and the findings where very unfavorable towards public education. If I remember right, private and alternative schools provided superior education with superior results for about ½ the cost. As a home school family, I can say that our costs are negligible (about 5%) by comparison and the results are much more to my satisfaction (not to mention that our kids spend only 1-2 hours a day 4 days a week compared to 7 hours a day 5 days a week). So my point is, we have an education system that is by most measurable standards, unsuccessful. In my opinion, it has grown into a unwieldly monster of a money pit that special interest groups (like the NEA) feed off of like a parasitic disease (I apologize if this offends anyone). As to all of the counter-points you made about the eroding liberties of parents, I’ll answer that in a subsequent post to both you and Michelle….when I get some time. Right now, I’m going to hang out with my kids. |
|
;D (jk)