who supports right to choose

[rodriguezequal 3]

Very true!

[gadgetlady 4]

Giving our kids a very good, basic sex education that covers everything and includes but is not limited to:

* basic anatomy and physiology of the sexual organs and the sex act itself

* information about the emotional turmoil that sexual activity can cause

* information that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent sex

* information about sexually transmitted diseases

* information about birth control methods and their success rate

* the anatomy and physiology of conception, pregnancy, labor and delivery and how it changes a girl's body

* a reality class on parenting and what becoming a teenage parent really means

* an elemental bookkeeping class on what it costs to feed, clothe and raise a baby

* a class on the responsibility of parenthood and the fact that once someone becomes a parent they will be resonsible as a parent for the rest of their lives

For the life of me I cannot understand why any parent would be averse to their children having the information that I've listed above presented to them in a clinical classroom situation - with the understanding that the teacher is qualified and screened, of course.

The problem is, that's not all that's being taught. Go to Planned Parenthood, Take Care Down There and watch all of the videos. This is a Planned Parenthood website. It's not clinical discussion as you presented above. Yes, kids get this in the hallways and such, but providing it in the classroom legitimizes it. It's out of line. Since the people presenting these topics are human beings with their own agendas, you shouldn't be surprised when you hear of "instructors" who push the envelope in big ways.

So clinical, factual information? Absolutely; it should be presented. What people object to is indoctrination.

[gadgetlady 4]

I just read an article in USA Today that says that President Obama is going to cut funding for abstinence-only sex education. I had no idea that Bush had thrown money at a program for abstinence only sex ed for the past 7 or 8 years. I guess that's his idea of giving our children a good education, eh? Being the "education" president and all.

Research has shown that abstinence only sex ed does not reduce the incidence of teen pregnancies. President Obama is staying open to the discussion with some abstinence only proponents, but he wants to use the money to do something that actually works to reduce teen sex and teenage pregnancies and STDs.

It is so wonderful to have the voice reason in the White House - and someone who will pay attention to statistics and research instead of going rogue and quietly doing his own thing no matter what the country actually needs.

Lovely perspective, but it's actually completely false. Both teen pregnancy and abortions decreased under Bush.

[rodriguezequal 3]

The problem is, that's not all that's being taught. Go to Planned Parenthood, Take Care Down There and watch all of the videos. This is a Planned Parenthood website. It's not clinical discussion as you presented above. Yes, kids get this in the hallways and such, but providing it in the classroom legitimizes it. It's out of line. Since the people presenting these topics are human beings with their own agendas, you shouldn't be surprised when you hear of "instructors" who push the envelope in big ways.

So clinical, factual information? Absolutely; it should be presented. What people object to is indoctrination.

So what. They're making these informational videos "funny" so that teens will actually watch them! And it does state for mature teens and adults. They're giving information and scenarios inorder for teens to sit and watch them...they're just trying to have fun while watching these videos...I thought they were silly, but they did provide some info...I don't see it as out of line.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Lovely perspective, but it's actually completely false. Both teen pregnancy and abortions decreased under Bush.

Maybe, but there wasn't abstinence only teachings during Bush's Reign...come on! So thanks to Bush there were less teen pregnancies and abortions?

[gadgetlady 4]

So what. They're making these informational videos "funny" so that teens will actually watch them! And it does state for mature teens and adults. They're giving information and scenarios inorder for teens to sit and watch them...they're just trying to have fun while watching these videos...I thought they were silly, but they did provide some info...I don't see it as out of line.

Therein lies the problem. I find some of it quite objectionable and not want that "tone" taken while teaching my kids in a "clinical" setting (which is precisely what I'm talking about -- it's not often "clinical"). And believe me, that is the in-classroom tone often taken. I don't know if you watched all of them or not, but some are worse than others. "I didn't spew" and "Let me do me", for example, are not things I would want my kids watching. Your kids -- fine. But not mine. I teach my kids to have respect for sex, not treat it like a joke.

I think in general you will find that people who object to sex ed aren't objecting to factual information presented in clinical fashion; they're objecting to crap like this.

[rodriguezequal 3]

They aren't showing those videos in classrooms. The majority of the videos they show in the classrooms are from the 90s! Those videos are for mature teens to watch...if a parent doesn't want their teens watching that then maybe they should put blocks on their computers and have rules for the computer for their teens. In all the sex ed/sociology for Living classrooms I have been in taught factual information and didn't treat sex as a joke...just because it's on the internet doesn;t mean that's what is being taught to teens in school!!!

[gadgetlady 4]

Maybe, but there wasn't abstinence only teachings during Bush's Reign...come on! So thanks to Bush there were less teen pregnancies and abortions?

I was responding to a post of BJean's where she was complaining about abstinence funding under Bush, that it doesn't work, and that he somehow blindsided the American public by funding something that no one agrees with and is a waste of money. I thought you were agreeing with her about it? Maybe not. Anyway, I was just correcting the perception that it doesn't work, because statistically it does have an impact.

[gadgetlady 4]

They aren't showing those videos in classrooms. The majority of the videos they show in the classrooms are from the 90s! Those videos are for mature teens to watch...if a parent doesn't want their teens watching that then maybe they should put blocks on their computers and have rules for the computer for their teens. In all the sex ed/sociology for Living classrooms I have been in taught factual information and didn't treat sex as a joke...just because it's on the internet doesn;t mean that's what is being taught to teens in school!!!

I am talking about tone. The people who produced these videos are the same people who train the people who go into the classrooms. It's all part of the same organization. It's not an issue for me -- my kids are homeschooled, do have blocks on their computers, and know the facts about sexuality. What I'm saying is that the people who are objecting to what's taught in the schools are objecting to things like this and putting condoms on bananas and discussions of topics that are not appropriate or clinical. Not every parent can be vigilant, so they want to trust what is being taught in the schools doesn't violate their moral code. Right now, they can't trust that.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I think it is a waste of money to fund that kind of teaching! I was just saying that he may have been funding that kind of crap, but it wasn't in practice yet so it wasn't what was making the rates drop.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I think it is a good idea to teach teens how to use a condom...and a banana or even a cucumber seems like a better thing to show it on then an actual penis?! A lot of teens don't know how to properly put on a condom so they break or don't work right. How is that something they shouldn't teach?

[gadgetlady 4]

I think it is a waste of money to fund that kind of teaching! I was just saying that he may have been funding that kind of crap, but it wasn't in practice yet so it wasn't what was making the rates drop.

Are you saying that something which was funded for 7-8 years, as BJean says, wasn't implemented anywhere? Then what was the funding going for?

[gadgetlady 4]

I think it is a good idea to teach teens how to use a condom...and a banana or even a cucumber seems like a better thing to show it on then an actual penis?! A lot of teens don't know how to properly put on a condom so they break or don't work right. How is that something they shouldn't teach?

I wouldn't want my kids having a visual substitute for an erect penis in their classroom. Again, this is the rub. What's OK for some isn't acceptable to others. Teaching kids sex ed in early elementary, k-3, isn't OK to me. Teaching teens about oral sex, sex techniques, etc. - also not OK for my kids. If you want your kids to learn it, then you can allow it or teach it to them. Basic biology stuff? Sure - that's fine. I don't have a disagreement with anything like that.

We had this discussion on another thread a while back, and someone on this board was prompted to call their local school so she could sit in on a class or get a copy of the sex ed curriculum. She was denied the ability to do so, prompting her to wonder precisely what it is they teach.

You and I have different values -- and that's fine. I want the ability to monitor what my kids are taught, making sure they are from my perspective and reflect my values. That's my prerogative as a parent.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I'm not saying it wasn't implemented anywhere...I'm saying it wasn't everywhere. I don't agree in young kids being taught. Where I sat in they did not teach techniques or positions...and in the school district where I was at a parent could sit in on any class at anytime! Would you rather they use an erect penis? or a fake erect penis instead of a banana?

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm not saying it wasn't implemented anywhere...I'm saying it wasn't everywhere.

You said it wasn't "in practice." It was, in some places.

Would you rather they use an erect penis? or a fake erect penis instead of a banana?

I would rather they not demonstrate the technique for putting on a condom at all. There are directions on the box, and kids can seek advice elsewhere -- even on the internet or in books -- if they need it. They don't need to expose all kids to that visual. Just like they don't need to explain in detail to the boys how to insert a tampon.