Abstinence vs. Birth Control Programs

Again, what color are the skies on your world?

Have you actually raised any kids? You act as if they are logical and consistant.

While some certainly are, a nearly uniform lack of common sense and dissapline is a trait that is part of the blessings of childhood.

It also makes a child unpredictable expecially if you aren't familiar with that kid.

I look back on some of my childhood and teen age adventures, enjoy the memories, then smile and wonder,"What the hell was I thinking?"

 

Vaderize (and others, too),

Would you also support the mandatory teaching of gun safety in schools? (Note: just like sex education can be taught without using real sex, gun safety can be taught without using real guns.) Or even just limit it to school districts with a high gun ownership rate.

After all, guns are a matter of public safety and health as well, aren't they?

If a group (say the NRA) tried to slip something like that "under the radar", how would you react? What about people who don't want their children learning about gun safety?

As my brother asked, where do you draw the line?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball Kinnison

With the exception of AIDS (HIV), sex can't kill people.

When someone says "public health" problem, it should be deemed that unwanted pregnancy should be included with sexually transmitted diseases under this title. If not, it is definitely a social problem.

But again, using your analogy Kimball Kinnison, the NRA teaches gun safety. It doesn't teach you NOT to shoot until you are older and know when it's right and with someone you trust. But it DOES teach you how to do it right and safely. Hence, they are encouraging shooting, as long as you do it correctly.

Now, take that analogy and plug it in to sex education at school. Teach them not to do it until the time is right. But, if not, teach them how to do it correctly, so there is no transmitted dieases or unwanted pregnancy. Due to the society we live in where sex is an instrument on the TV and movies, kids are constanly being bombarded with the notion of having sex is a good and popular thing. The problem is all the advertisements shows expressing sex out of wed lock. Now, knowing that most kids at that age, with their hormones raging, being very impressionable and their curiousity peeking, some are going to ignore the call for abstinence. Why not help them to make the right decisions in case they decide to push forward with their sexual curiosity? If anything, condoms will help stop the spread of disease and pregnancies. There should be middle ground here.

EDIT: Should we leave it up to the parents? I don't think so. Some kids see their teachers more than their parents. We as a society should take responsibilty for this, because it effects us all. Disease, unwanted child birth. It would even cut down on the huge division in this country - Pro Life and Pro Choice.

 

With the exception of AIDS (HIV), sex can't kill people.

Actually, AIDS doesn't kill anyone. It only destroys the immune system so that something else kills them easier. However, some STDs can be fatal if not treated.

When someone says "public health" problem, it should be deemed that unwanted pregnancy should be included with sexually transmitted diseases under this title. If not, it is definitely a social problem.

That's funny, because there have been several people in this thread claiming that teen pregnancy is part of the "public health" problem.

But again, using your analogy Kimball Kinnison, the NRA teaches gun safety. It doesn't teach you NOT to shoot until you are older and know when it's right and with someone you trust. But it DOES teach you how to do it right and safely. Hence, they are encouraging shooting, as long as you do it correctly.

But, it does teach you not to put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. In fact, it teaches you not to pick up a gun unless you intend to and are willing to use it.

But again, the point of my analogy was to illustrate a single point. How would people react if the NRA tried to slip such a thing into a school's curriculum "under the radar"? I'd bet you that a lot of the same people who claim that mandatory sex education does not encourage teenagers to have sex, would also claim that mandatory gun safety education would be encouraging teenagers to get and use guns.

I'd bet you anything that parents who oppose guns would complain about having their children forced to get gun safety education. And yes, it is a public safety issue. In the May 1998 school shooting in Springfield, Washington, student Jake Ryker drew upon his gun safety training that he had received to help him tackle and disarm the shooter. He did this in spite of a gunshot wound and after seeing his girlfriend shot. In the end, he credited his training from the NRA as being crucial to his actions, helping him identify the right moment to act.

Should we leave it up to the parents? I don't think so. Some kids see their teachers more than their parents. We as a society should take responsibilty for this, because it effects us all. Disease, unwanted child birth. It would even cut down on the huge division in this country - Pro Life and Pro Choice.

[analogy]Should we leave gun safety up to the parents? I don't think so. Some kids see their teachers more than their parents. We as a society should take responsibility for this, because it affects all of us. School shootings, accidental shootings. It would even cut down on the huge division in this country - Gun Control and Gun Safety.[/analogy]

As you can see, you can use the exact same argument with guns instead, but I promise you that it would suddenly be unacceptable to most advocates of mandatory sex education, because of the specific subject.

Kimball Kinnison

 

LDV, stage 3 syphilis can cause death. link

 

Actually when my dad went to high school in the 60's his school did have a sharpshooting course.

 

Mercurian...

My nephew is (suprise) ADD.

Cause and effect, consequences, are the focus of our teahings.

Sounds like you are a good dad. I agree with everythimg in your last post. You're kid is lucky.

Ironicly, I've never had any kids of my own. I started raising my daughter at age 8, who is actually my wife's daughter.

She was raised by her father, who was an abusive Post Tramatic Viet Nam vet. She, predicably, was a bit of a mess when we finally got her. (He thought I would leave if she came to live with us)

So I've never had a baby to raise, always felt I was too irresponcible and self-centered. Still feel that way to a point.

 

Actually when my dad went to high school in the 60's his school did have a sharpshooting course.

Was it a required part of the curriculum? Was it an elective? Did it require a parent's permission to take, or did it require a parent's permission to get out of it?

Kimball Kinnison

 

ok, some I guess failed to grasp my sarcasm of the comment about sex killing you. Hence the wink. Of course I know certain sexual diseases can kill you. That is a given.

What I am saying Kimball Kinnison in a way, I agree with you. I am not a member of the NRA but I took gun safety in school when I was younger. It was good for me. But, because of what has happened in schools and work places with guns, parents WOULD flip if gun safety was teached in school. They want to place walls up around their children and forget it. It's called denial. They would rather stick their heads in the sand and let it pass.

The same can be said about sex ed. Most parents want to shield their children from any of it and just forget about it themselves. Not into today's society. People in certain groups have to come to grips that this is a problem everyone is faced with. Not just a certain few. And trust me, growing up, the wildest kids I knew were sons and daughters of Preachers.

 

Sarcasm and irony are lost on a lot of people nowadays. Don't worry.

 

Most parents want to shield their children from any of it and just forget about it themselves

Just from my own experiance...

Most parents want to teach it themselves, not shield their kids from it.

EDIT: I caught it LDV...sarcasm, that is. Haven't caught anything else. Home sex ed, y'know.

 

Thank you - at least two of you "got it"

True J-Rod but look at so many who don't? My mom for instance. She is religious, and had a hard time even thinking about it. I learned in school. But by the time I got to the class, I already knew plenty from playground talk with my friends. They learned it from their older brothers and their Playboys. (Joking again people!!)

 

Would you also support the mandatory teaching of gun safety in schools? (Note: just like sex education can be taught without using real sex, gun safety can be taught without using real guns.) Or even just limit it to school districts with a high gun ownership rate.

But most kids aren't ever going to use a gun, while everyone will have sex and will probably do so thousands of times throughout their lives.

After all, guns are a matter of public safety and health as well, aren't they?

Well that's why I support mandatory gun safety classes for first time gun purchasers. But there is no logical reason for any of that to be taught in school. Kids aren't going to skip class to shoot things in the backseat of their automobile.

If a group (say the NRA) tried to slip something like that "under the radar", how would you react? What about people who don't want their children learning about gun safety?

Well if that did happen, would you want it to be a "don't shoot guns" only class? Or wait...you wouldn't like that would you? Almost kind of ruins the whole purpose of gun education doesn't it...

As my brother asked, where do you draw the line?

As much as most of us love to use slippery slope scenarios in every discussion, there is no slippery slope in this case. The only slippy slope type scenario would exist if there was an opt-in program for sex-ed, opening the door for other areas of school curriculum to be opt-in.

 

She is religious, and had a hard time even thinking about it.

My mom never once talked to me about sex and she's ultra religious. The only time I remember even something remotely resembling a talk was when one of my friends got caught with a Playboy or something and she gave me a speech about how it degrades women and it gives you an unrealistic perception of women and blah blah blah.

That's it...

 

Well that's why I support mandatory gun safety classes for first time gun purchasers. But there is no logical reason for any of that to be taught in school.

Many kids accidently kill or are killed by guns they haven't purchased and aren't owned by their families.

As much as most of us love to use slippery slope scenarios in every discussion, there is no slippery slope in this case.

It has already happened as some schools have "slipped" into providing the condoms they teach about free for student's use.

Kinda blows your whole "ain't no such thing as a slippery slope" theory, huh?

What's next? Providing clean safe rooms for kids to "bonk" in?

 

It has already happened as some schools have "slipped" into providing the condoms they teach about free for student's use.

Kinda blows your whole "ain't no such thing as a slippery slope" theory, huh?

Hehe, nice try J-Rod but that's not what I was referring to as a slippery slope. Read the context in which Kimball said it. Besides, I wouldn't call that a slippery slope anyway, while I disagree with handing out condoms in schools, many see it as just another part of sexual education and the promotion of safe sex. I think their intentions are good but I think it's promoting safe sex when they should be teaching safe sex.

 

But most kids aren't ever going to use a gun, while everyone will have sex and will probably do so thousands of times throughout their lives.

Look back in this thread. I seem to recall some statistics being posted about how the majority of respondants aged 15-17 in multiple surveys had not had sex.

But then, it only takes a few for it to become a statistic, doesn't it? How many accidental deaths occur every year due to firearms mishaps? According to one source:

Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2000) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)

As I recall, the top non-natural cause of death for children and adolescence is car accidents.

Well if that did happen, would you want it to be a "don't shoot guns" only class? Or wait...you wouldn't like that would you? Almost kind of ruins the whole purpose of gun education doesn't it...

Actually, there are quite a few people out there who support teaching gun safety as simply "don't touch guns".

As much as most of us love to use slippery slope scenarios in every discussion, there is no slippery slope in this case. The only slippy slope type scenario would exist if there was an opt-in program for sex-ed, opening the door for other areas of school curriculum to be opt-in.

Or, the slippery slope of the schools overriding the authority of parents? Oh, wait! That's already happening.

I will say again: whenever you feel the need to "slip it in under the radar", it is a sign that there is a real problem there. I say that with regards to legislation (some of the worst laws ever were "slipped in under the radar", including the DMCA), education, or any other field involving the government. (That is not to say that everything about government needs to be 100% open, as there are valid reasons to keep things classified, but that should only be in matters of national security.)

If you don't think that you can win through reasonable discussion of the issue in a public forum, then it is something that has no business being put into place by the government.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: Hehe, nice try J-Rod but that's not what I was referring to as a slippery slope. Read the context in which Kimball said it.

Or, you could try reading the context in which I said it. I was specifically talking at the time about "slipping it under the radar". That is a very slippery slope.

 

I actually couldn't find the refurrance of the slope in Kimball's posts...so I may be speaking out of context, bear with me.

But you don't consider going from teaching about safe sex to handing out condoms to be an example of going "the next logical step."? (My made-up definition of "slippery slope)

 

they used condoms to keep barrels of guns dry a long time ago. There is the connect! (once again, I am joking, sarcasm, etc etc for those who don't "get it")

 

ok, some I guess failed to grasp my sarcasm of the comment about sex killing you. Hence the wink. Of course I know certain sexual diseases can kill you. That is a given.

Gee, and I thought the wink after your statement was referring to the risk of people with bad hearts suffering a heart attack during sex.


EDIT:

Relating guns, condoms, abstinence and birth control makes this whole subject even more loaded

 

LDV...

 

Look back in this thread. I seem to recall some statistics being posted about how the majority of respondants aged 15-17 in multiple surveys had not had sex.

Read what I typed again. I said they WILL have sex, most people will NEVER own or operate a weapon.

But then, it only takes a few for it to become a statistic, doesn't it? How many accidental deaths occur every year due to firearms mishaps? According to one source:

Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2000) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)

Well that's why I advocate mandatory gun education for first time gun owners. A child playing with a gun is not so much about their education as much to do with the gun owner's education. They're supposed to be the responsible ones, they're supposed to make sure that their kids aren't playing with them. But really, what baring does firearm injurty being the 2nd leading cause of non-natural death have to do with what we're talking about anyway? Give me the actual numbers of deaths, and then we'll talk about it.

Actually, there are quite a few people out there who support teaching gun safety as simply "don't touch guns".

That's not what I asked.

Or, the slippery slope of the schools overriding the authority of parents? Oh, wait! That's already happening.

Is that a new thing???

I will say again: whenever you feel the need to "slip it in under the radar", it is a sign that there is a real problem there. I say that with regards to legislation (some of the worst laws ever were "slipped in under the radar", including the DMCA), education, or any other field involving the government. (That is not to say that everything about government needs to be 100% open, as there are valid reasons to keep things classified, but that should only be in matters of national security.)

Yes, there is a real problem if things need to slip under the radar, it's a problem that we live in a crazy society where people get their panties in a bunch over anything to do with sex. How many people in other more sexually mature countries are having this conversation right now? But yet they're the oens with a lower teen pregnancy rate, and they're the ones with lower STD transmissions, and they're the ones with teens on average having sex far later than american teens. Why is that Kimball??? So yeah, there is a problem alright.

Or, you could try reading the context in which I said it. I was specifically talking at the time about "slipping it under the radar". That is a very slippery slope.

How is that a slippery slope? It's been "under the radar" for at least 15 years and I suspect a lot longer than that. A slope is down...

 

most people will NEVER own or operate a weapon.

This has not been my experiance...

Most people will at least operate one, in my experiance.