|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 24, 2008 23:16:27 GMT -5
Yes subdjoe, which why I'd posted previously that both sex ed and abstinence only should be taught together...
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 24, 2008 23:28:07 GMT -5
Subdjoe: "There are a number of clear biological facts which easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother’s body." Why don't men get pregnant then? Um.....because men and women are designed with different parts? Mink, your question makes NO sense at all. AND has nothing at all to do with what I posted. In fact, I have to ask: Did you even bother to read what I posted? Care to address the points one at a time? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 11:14:52 GMT -5
And then again there's the always concept of preventing pregnancy until the parents are mature enough to raise children in the first place. You know, sex education etc. We already have sex education. Has that prevented a rise in teenage pregnancy? No. Why not. Because abortions are available at low or no cost to the teenager, and the parents may never know. Besides, if the government is going to fund abortion, they should also fund carrying to term and putting the child up for adoption. It is a far greater benefit to society as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 11:18:59 GMT -5
Not a job I want the Govt. doing, thank you. One look at the job they do on English, Economics or Math should be enough to convince anyone of that. We'll teach our own kids, thank you. That will work for some, but what about the illegal immigrants the country has no control of, the raped, victims of incest or a woman/girl whose life is threatened, children having children with no means of support who become emotionally attached to the newborn? There are too many variables to shut your mind off without thinking the other politcal party is "running the show". There is already one political party running the show. It is time to offer both alternatives, and not present only one possible solution. That is called deception, and I am tired of it. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 11:35:58 GMT -5
I taught my kids sex education at home, but one has to remember, responsible parents always have honest intentions, but are not professionals.Read to mean, the government is far better at teaching sex to children then the parents. Especially Democrats, because they are always screwing somebody, usually taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 11:44:54 GMT -5
harpman, your response is typical. I am up to my eyeballs in disgust over comments like yours. Teach your kids what ever you want, I don’t care, but I do care about all of the teens who get pregnant and abort their babies, and maybe if someone taught them the consequences of sex ie: sperm meets egg, and pregnancy occurs as a result unless protected blah, blah, blah some may actually refrain unless protected, or here’s a thought, maybe they won’t “do it” at all! Sorry to tell you and the rest that without education, and in a scientific manner, not pornographic, abortions will continue, and frankly I say the blood is on the hands of those who refuse to educate. How many children have you raised by the way and when did you introduce sex ed? You could not be more disgusted then I am at the shear numbers of wasted lives. 46 million. And we complain about the holocaust, which took place over about 11 years, yet in any three given years, we kill just as many unborn. That is truly disgusting, especially since there have always been loving families waiting to adopt. Oh, and sex education is part of our school system, and has been since I was a child. However, with the increase in abortions, teenage pregnancy climbed as well. That is the true correlation, not sex education. So, watch what you say about the blood being on anyone's hands, that offends me, and I don't like to be offended by people who are unable to connect the dots of truth on this subject. Yes, abortions should be legal. However, a program supporting adoptions is what is lacking in this case, and that is entirely the fault of the abortion industry and lobbyists, and the Democrat party. We should have funding to educate those who have gotten pregnant about the needs for babies to be adopted, and provide them with support to make the right decision for them. Not the one sided approach that abortion is the answer to all their problems, because that is a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 11:53:09 GMT -5
Subdjoe: "There are a number of clear biological facts which easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother’s body." Why don't men get pregnant then? You need to get some sex education. I am smiting you for this ignorant remark, intended only to inflame. Provide an intelligent response, or none at all. Or should I say, "because if they did, they'd be women." |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 25, 2008 13:31:34 GMT -5
JMO:
I love the personal challenge "Oh yeah, well how many kids you got, huh?"
Strolling from the schoolyard, I'll tell you I have three.
The sex-ed I gave my kids is no more your business than it is that of the Govt.
This is a debate club. Learn to debate, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 25, 2008 13:36:45 GMT -5
Bolverk, I write it as I see it, and feel it, not unlike yourself. I've said before I would love to see adoption programs put into place I agree with you 100%, and even exalted you for your comments regarding this issue. BUT, I wonder if you know that sex education teaching is not like it used to be. Here's a bit from the link posted below: TeachersNot surprisingly, this shift in policy has had an impact on teachers and the content of sexuality education. A second AGI study, based on a survey of public school teachers, shows that since the late 1980s, sexuality education in secondary schools has become more focused on abstinence and less likely to provide students with information about contraception. The survey results, published in 2000, show that the percentage of public school teachers in grades 7-12 who teach abstinence as the only way of preventing pregnancies and STDs rose dramatically between 1988 and 1995—from one in 50 to one in four. Additionally, nearly three in four present abstinence as the preferred way to avoid unintended pregnancy and STDs. Teachers are also emphasizing different topics than they did in the past. Compared with teachers in the late 1980s, teachers today are more likely to teach about abstinence, STDs and resisting peer pressure to have sex, but are significantly less likely to discuss more "controversial" subjects such as birth control, abortion and sexual orientation. And while some topics—such as HIV and other STDs, abstinence, correct condom use and resisting peer pressure—are taught earlier than they were in the past, most are still taught less often and later than teachers think they should be. Although more than nine in 10 teachers believe that students should be taught about contraception (and half believe that contraception should be taught in grade seven or earlier), one in four are instructed not to teach the subject. And while the vast majority also believe that sexuality education courses should cover where to go for birth control, information about abortion, the correct way to use a condom, and sexual orientation, far fewer actually cover these topics. Thinking vs. Doing There is a large gap between what teachers think should be taught and what they teach when it comes to birth control, abortion and sexual orientation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Darroch JE, Landry DJ and Singh S, Changing emphasis in sexuality education in U.S. public secondary schools, 1988-1999, Family Planning Perspectives, 2000, 32(5):204-211 & 265. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even if teachers are allowed to cover these sensitive topics, they may avoid them because they fear adverse community reaction; more than one-third report such concerns. All in all, these pressures and limitations lead one in four teachers to believe that they are not meeting their students' needs for information. A similar percentage of fifth- and sixth-grade teachers who teach sexuality education believe that schools are not doing enough to prepare students for puberty or to deal with pressures and decisions regarding sexual activity. Finally, a study published last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a significant proportion of health educators in secondary schools want additional training in the areas of pregnancy, STD and HIV prevention. Source:www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040109.html |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 25, 2008 13:41:27 GMT -5
Bolverk, to add, I don't think our society will benefit from large population increases, and I would rather teach "comprehensive" sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Teaching today is passive when it comes to this matter, and I think it's a disservice to our young. For those who might get pregnant despite solid education I agree that adoption would be the optimum way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 25, 2008 13:52:19 GMT -5
Bolverk, to add, I don't think our society will benefit from large population increases, and I would rather teach "comprehensive" sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Teaching today is passive when it comes to this matter, and I think it's a disservice to our young. For those who might get pregnant despite solid education I agree that adoption would be the optimum way to go. Frankly, I don't care if you believe our society would benefit from the increases in population or not. The parents seeking to adopt these children most certainly would benefit. Besides, why should our population increase from illegal immigration, but not adoption. At least if it increase through adoption, we would have a better chance of an increase in intelligence in our population, rather then a dumbing down as a result of illegal immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 25, 2008 14:03:35 GMT -5
Bolverk, illegal immigration is a entirely different topic. But since you bring it up, I don't think anchor babies should be granted citizenship, and their families shouldn't receive all of the benefits that go along with it.
Personally, I think we should toughen up on illegal immigration and ICE raids should be supported. It is sad that people live in a countries that suffer, but I don't think coming to this country illegally is acceptable either.
And by the way, I am not trying to rip babies out of the hands of adoptive parents, and I think if adoption was encouraged instead of abortion there would be a fair amount of babies for parents who desire a child. I would prefer to see young girls expand their education and build solid futures instead of going through the process of becoming pregnant and giving up their babies.
Did you only read the one reply from me?
|
|
