Condoms for teen agers

[DuncanONeil]

Well, if nothing else you could try moving to Texas. They seem quite ready and willing to drag the rest of the country's school systems down into the muck and mire. They don't want their kids being taught that the Earth is 5 billion years old, or that "evil"ution stuff.

You are making assumptions here!

Nor do I believe that such is the case in Texas!

[DuncanONeil]

"But like knowing where and how all the guns in the house worked and how to safely opperate them (I was a crack shot at a very early age) I still had the nessesary common sence knowledge imparted to me all the same...just in case I had real need of it and somehow managed to never shoot anyone while growing up or since then."

Serious advantage to having a Gunny for a father!!!!

[thir]

Some values obviously apply in both religious and non-religious contexts: proscriptions against murder, theft, child abuse, etc. Other values apply only within a religious context: prayer, bible study, etc.

The problem occurs when people try to extend those values which only apply in their religious setting into public schools, where people with other religious values are sending their kids. Which sets of values should be taught?

Or with no religion.

[SadisticNature]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?

There is a difference between excluding values from a setting entirely and from teaching based on those values in the classroom. I have no problems with religious clubs at school for things like lunchtime prayer or reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs - wearing of religious symbols provided they aren't weapons for instance.

But a school should cater to all its users not just the majority. There is no consistent way of teaching based on a specific faith that caters to every faith in the classroom. The way many nations have solved this problem is through the use of a secular school system.

If you want faith based teaching you can get it in a private school. I don't see why the burden is on the government to provide teaching based on the values of your specific faith in a public education system. This would be very problematic to run if they had to provide it for every single faith and would probably be the definition of large government.

[Thorne]

You are making assumptions here!

Perhaps, but I think you're feeding those assumptions.

Nor do I believe that such is the case in Texas!

Think not?

And this was just one of many instances where the TBoE has been trashing proper schooling by forcing their conservative religious beliefs to be taught in PUBLIC schools. Separation of church and state? Not in Texas!

[denuseri]

Serious advantage to having a Gunny for a father!!!!

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

[Thorne]

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

I think this is where most fundamentalists get it wrong. They make the assumption that protecting kids from the complications of sexual activity is tantamount to encouraging them to perform such activities. They can't seem to understand that providing contraceptives is really no different than buying a bicycle helmet for your kids. You're not forcing them to ride their bikes, but if they do ride you want them to be protected.

[denuseri]

Both of my parents are what some would loosely coin as being in the camp of the "fundamentalists" and they still taught us safe sex.

The main point I am trying to make is that common sence is common sence, one doesnt need politics, religion, philosophy or any other kind of BS to have and or employ it's use.

And trying to tie what should be basic biology 101 to any of the "isms" is just plain bad sophistry, no matter which side of which "isim" is doing it.

So is trying to paint things into any stereotypical partisan corners or anti religious ones etc etc.

[Ozme52]

Agree with this 100%.

Thanx.

Also regarding the early discussion about childhood. I disagree that the main factor is the modernization of society. I think a lot of it is our advanced knowledge of brain development compared to previous societies.

This is actually very "new" science and hasn't been widely accepted yet. if that were not so, we wouldn't be seeing more and more localities prosecuting children as adults instead of perhaps raising the age, especially for teen murderers who lashed out violently on a one-time basis against a constant, even dangerous bully.

Instead prosecutors are trying these minor children as full on adults.

So while I agree that science is beginning to understand that teen brains aren't "fully developed for rational thought" sounds good... it isn't being used and certainly not being used to justify delaying the teaching of sex ed.

It's strictly argued on moral grounds.

[Ozme52]

If you place more of the onus on the parents however, you create a lot more problems in society. People from poor families either with a single parent who works, or with two parents working full time are much less successful at managing this burden.

Furthermore, blaming the parents for the failures of the school system ensures it continues to fail. It's not like the parents of kids doing poorly in school are going to be more successful as time progresses. Most of the kids who don't do well in school come from families that didn't do well in school, and saying that they should have the supports at home propagates this.

Ultimately the reason we have an education system at all is that parents are not the best qualified people to teach their children a lot of subjects, and if we want the chance of children able to do more and better than their parents did we need a system that enables students to learn skills their parents don't have. Ultimately relying on parents to do more in education fails at this.

Though (mostly) true, it doesn't change the fact that we (in the US) throw more and more money at education getting less and less value. And for that I blame parents who, for all the reasons you mention, don't take an interest in their childrens' educations.

I'm not suggesting that they take over the task... but they could encourage their children to explore "educational" venues. Whether libraries or nature centers or just the History Channel once in a while.

How many children read graphic novels... and don't realize the The 300 is a true story (give or take some aggregious poetic license.) If they did, might they not learn more about what happened just before or just after... or Troy... or Robin Hood. It would be so simple... just to say "There's more to that story ya know." and send them off to the library (damn, I almost forgot...) or to the computer!! and find out. And then say "Tell me about it tonight at dinner."

[Ozme52]

Entire argument apocraphal!

Morality, how it's defined, changes with time and place.

And in times past, birth control was in the hands of woman, who were far better versed in the use of herbals. The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were "premature" births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the "hard choices".

Not to mention other options... meaning orifices, that are considered "improper" by those same moralists. And today... a teens are very willing to call themselves virgins and chaste because they don't have vaginal sex. Oral (nor anal) isn't even "sex".... they know because Bill Clinton said it wasn't

Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[Ozme52]

I think you have a misunderstanding of discipline.

I doubt that. There are many definitions. Please pay attention to the context of the sentence.

Definition #5c (if that helps.)

Main Entry: 1dis·ci·pline
Pronunciation: \ˈdi-sə-plən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin disciplina teaching, learning, from discipulus pupil
Date: 13th century
1 : punishment
2 obsolete : instruction
3 : a field of study
4 : training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character
5 a : control gained by enforcing obedience or order b : orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior c : self-control
6 : a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity

[Ozme52]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?

They don't except when those religious values don't match mine.

And expecially not when a percentage of those "values" are arbitrary and misrepresented as being holy.

I'll always fall back (because I'm petty that way) on the "societal abuse" I took in school for eating meat on Fridays. A religious value of piety based on a bribe the then Pope took from the Genoese fishing cartel. But I had to endure as a child because I wasn't raised to believe JC died for "my" sins... sins like eating a bologna sandwich on a Friday.

THAT's why your religious values have no place in an American (meaning USA) school.

[DuncanONeil]

I went to a private school. I am here to tell you that the only time there was any "faith based" based teaching was during the religion class.
All other subjects were taught based on the science of the subject!
I have never advocated for faith based teaching. To assert so is to introduce your own personal bias into the discussion. Please try to refrain from doing so as I make effort to be specific in what I say.

I will give credit for you apparent acceptance of various students differing desires, "I have no problems with religious clubs at school".

There is a difference between excluding values from a setting entirely and from teaching based on those values in the classroom. I have no problems with religious clubs at school for things like lunchtime prayer or reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs - wearing of religious symbols provided they aren't weapons for instance.

But a school should cater to all its users not just the majority. There is no consistent way of teaching based on a specific faith that caters to every faith in the classroom. The way many nations have solved this problem is through the use of a secular school system.

If you want faith based teaching you can get it in a private school. I don't see why the burden is on the government to provide teaching based on the values of your specific faith in a public education system. This would be very problematic to run if they had to provide it for every single faith and would probably be the definition of large government.

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps, but I think you're feeding those assumptions.

As I stated in one of the recent messages before this one I am most certain I have not advocated for all subjects to be taught from the basis of theology. Such was not the case when I attended St. Benedict's Grammar and High School and need not be so in any school today.

Think not?

Read most of the article. Had some agreements and some disagreements. I believe there was more to the Hutchinson case than the simple blurb in the article. The is a vague recolection of hearing or reading about it recently.

And this was just one of many instances where the TBoE has been trashing proper schooling by forcing their conservative religious beliefs to be taught in PUBLIC schools. Separation of church and state? Not in Texas!

This is where I think we may have some serious differences. I can find on assertion of a total separation of church and state in the Constitution, First Amendment notwithstanding. Yes I am aware of what Jefferson said in other sources but much like a law we must deal with what is on paper. In the above referenced article there was reference to the Declaration. The language implied that the Declaration is to have no place in the Pantheon of Founding Documents. I would have to take exception. The Declaration is the source document that presents the grievance and the proposed solution and as such is the basis upon all that follows occurs.

[DuncanONeil]

I was thinking about the firearms!

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

[DuncanONeil]

Now the reference to "The 300" was quite interesting. Having a discussion today at lunch with my 27 year old I brought up "The Stand" to help in explaining a BBCA series. She said the book was ok but the mini-series made the story easier to understand because of the visuals. Which made it easier to deal with the wide disparity of locations and continued movement of people.
I guess that made the mini-series kind of like modern Cliff Notes!

Though (mostly) true, it doesn't change the fact that we (in the US) throw more and more money at education getting less and less value. And for that I blame parents who, for all the reasons you mention, don't take an interest in their childrens' educations.

I'm not suggesting that they take over the task... but they could encourage their children to explore "educational" venues. Whether libraries or nature centers or just the History Channel once in a while.

How many children read graphic novels... and don't realize the The 300 is a true story (give or take some aggregious poetic license.) If they did, might they not learn more about what happened just before or just after... or Troy... or Robin Hood. It would be so simple... just to say "There's more to that story ya know." and send them off to the library (damn, I almost forgot...) or to the computer!! and find out. And then say "Tell me about it tonight at dinner."

[DuncanONeil]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Mostly what I had in mind is; "The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were 'premature' births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the 'hard choices'."

Which essentially means neither side can actually produce material of an evidentiary nature.

Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[DuncanONeil]

I doubt that. There are many definitions. Please pay attention to the context of the sentence.

Definition #5c (if that helps.)

I would much prefer that six be the prime definition. Way too many people are fixated on, what, the first two!

[DuncanONeil]

Abstaining from meat on Friday is not a value!
I was never presented with meat on Friday as a sin. Just something not done.

They don't except when those religious values don't match mine.

And expecially not when a percentage of those "values" are arbitrary and misrepresented as being holy.

I'll always fall back (because I'm petty that way) on the "societal abuse" I took in school for eating meat on Fridays. A religious value of piety based on a bribe the then Pope took from the Genoese fishing cartel. But I had to endure as a child because I wasn't raised to believe JC died for "my" sins... sins like eating a bologna sandwich on a Friday.

THAT's why your religious values have no place in an American (meaning USA) school.

[Ozme52]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Well bud!... you didn't capitalize it the first time!... so!, yes!, you did say spurious!

!!!

Main Entry: apoc·ry·phal
Pronunciation: \-fəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1590
1 : of doubtful authenticity : spurious
2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha

[Ozme52]

I would much prefer that six be the prime definition. Way too many people are fixated on, what, the first two!

That may well be... but don't say I am somehow incapable of choosing my words correctly, implying that my misunderstanding of some word invalidates my arguement.

Such would be an apochryphal implication.

[Ozme52]

Abstaining from meat on Friday is not a value!
I was never presented with meat on Friday as a sin. Just something not done.

Fine. Go ahead and miss the point.

Bye.

[Torq]

And yet ANOTHER good thread RUINED, with personal attacks in lieu of

STAYING ON TOPIC!!!

T