|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:42 am
Anardana SterileNeedles So all in all I think it would be great if schools have thorough sex-ed programs that talk about birth control and STDs and pregnancy, etc. But I would prefer that parents start knuckling down and do their job, which is raising their kids. I second that! Although I am a little iffy about parental consent on sex ed. I do think parents should decide when their child learns about sex education, but more importantly they should do it. I know plenty of parents for their own reasons might not want to teach about the risks of sex because they dont want their child having it until marraige or whatever, but i honestly dont think that is their choice. Considering a person above the legal age for sex does not need parental consent to have sex i dont think they should be brainwashed into doing it unsafely. It is a parents responsibility to raise their child , and part of that involves ensuring their safety. I have a catholic friend who went to a school wherin half the girls had had abortions even though catholisism is traditionally against abortion, because they were not told about the risks. I know they could look it up themselves, but children really do respect their parents more than any other authority figure and if their parents didnt tell them it was a risk. One could argue that a child could be taught to look up the dangers on their own, but the sort of parents im worried about are the sort of parents who wont teach their child this. I also think it is quite upsetting knowing that these girls would all rather abort than face their families, because having a baby on your own is scary and there just isnt enough support for those who decide to keep a child. (Here I should point out that this is an examaple and i dont assume all catholics to be in this position, part of my family are catholic and they all have their own very different veiws, i dont assume one religion to all think the same.) Basically I don't trust parents to make decisions for their children education as time and time again i've seen kids lives damaged because their parents veiwed that child as their property. I know our school health nurse offers free sexual health advice and protection to teenagers at my old school whether they had parental consent or not. Still, even though a lot of parents fail to teach their children about the risks and dangers involved in sex that is still their choice. Nobody likes it when you 'tell them how to raise their children'. As their parents they have a right to raise their children the way that they choose to, teaching them the values they want to instill in them, teaching them about the religion they want to raise up into, and even teaching them what they want about sex-ed etc. Now it would be the same with like some pro-life parents and some pro-choice parents. I'm sure the majority of pro-life parents would highly disapprove of their daughters ever getting an abortion and would teach her that it is wrong to kill your child, however a set of pro-choice parents would teach their daughter that she has the option to get an abortion should she suddenly find herself stuck in an unwanted pregnancy and they would probably support her decision. I don't know what either side would teach regarding birth control methods, I'm sure the pro-choice parents would teach about all types of birth control but I don't want to stereotype and say that all pro-lifers would teach abstinence only education as I'm sure many in here would teach about multiple forms of birth control. But as you see they have completely different values, completely different beliefs. The pro-choice parents wouldn't approve of the pro-life parents method of raising kids and vice versa. So while sex-ed in schools is great for parents who are lazy, or who don't have a close bond with their kids and think it's weird to talk about, they still don't really get to pick and choose what is taught to their kids through that program, like right now I've seen a lot of choicers complaining about how the sex-ed programs at school are all mostly abstinence only programs. They don't approve of it and wouldn't want to teach their kids those things. You see you just can't make everyone happy. But I'm not about to tell parents that they need to teach their children about birth control, sex, and STDs. I won't tell them how to raise their kids and I certainly won't force values on their children they may not approve of.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:29 am
I would have to agree that schools should teach sex-ed. Yes it's much better if your parents teach you all of the things that you need to know, however many times that isn't the case. If something had happened to my mother and I had been raised by my father, for instance, I wouldn't have learned anything about sex except from what I learned in school.
My mom taught me pretty much everything that they teach in school's however she is not every parent. Also in school they were able to go into much more detail about things than my mother ever could have (eg. all the different types of birth control the effectiveness of each, all the different types of STIs, whether they're cureable or note etc.) which is no fault of her own.
That said I believe that they should stress (and in my school they always did) that the only thing 100% effective is NOT having sex. Then go on to teach all of the other forms of birth control. I've run into so many people who have been taught the same things but when the fact that abstinence is the only 100% way of not getting pregnant isn't stressed, the rest of the information on birth control tends to get... taken more lightly I suppose. I actually had an arguement with a girl once about whether Depo Provera is 100% effective.
I believe the stressing of what is 100% effective lends to people understanding better that there ARE risks involved even with safe sex. Also this way it will appease both sides of the spectrum.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:14 am
I'm going to disagree, as always! I love being difficult!
While I think it should be offered, too many times teachers infuse things with their own values. For example, I wouldn't want my child going to a school where the sex ed teacher was against sex and grossly misrepresented how dangerous sex can be even when it's safe sex just as much as I wouldn't want my child being taught that abortion is just removing a parasitic piece of tissue. Both things are taught in certain sex eds, and I think that parents DO have a right to raise their own kids and say to a school, don't put my child in your sexual education program.
One reason I refuse to put my children in public schools is because my neighbor came home and started spouting off to his parents how they were wrong to be pro-life because he had gotten a sex ed class in school. His parents aren't even radically prolife, they aren't opposed to safe sex, but their son was taught in school that abortion doesn't really kill a human (which no matter what your stance, is a blatant lie, since that is an individual human specimen. Whether or not it's a person is debateable.) and it is a valid method of birth control. Not only that, but if your parents won't let you have one, well in the good state of Maryland there are ways to get around that!
No matter how much you try to keep politics out of birth control, they're going to get in.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:29 pm
I'll be honest.
Most of what I know comes from the good ol' internet. (Nikolita's guild for win. <3) I was told about condoms, even put one on something plastic. Pills, shot, IUD, diaphragm... commonest STDs. The only things I ever heard about abortion were in religion class, and I came down pro-life from that. (Switched sides a yearish ago.)
I think all that should be mandatory. I didn't have stress put on abstinence, although I think it should be at least thrown on the table as an option. Better to know the stuff and be able to make your own decision, 'cause as I often say:
Ignorance breeds stupidity.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:41 pm
lymelady I'm going to disagree, as always! I love being difficult! While I think it should be offered, too many times teachers infuse things with their own values. For example, I wouldn't want my child going to a school where the sex ed teacher was against sex and grossly misrepresented how dangerous sex can be even when it's safe sex just as much as I wouldn't want my child being taught that abortion is just removing a parasitic piece of tissue. Both things are taught in certain sex eds, and I think that parents DO have a right to raise their own kids and say to a school, don't put my child in your sexual education program. One reason I refuse to put my children in public schools is because my neighbor came home and started spouting off to his parents how they were wrong to be pro-life because he had gotten a sex ed class in school. His parents aren't even radically prolife, they aren't opposed to safe sex, but their son was taught in school that abortion doesn't really kill a human (which no matter what your stance, is a blatant lie, since that is an individual human specimen. Whether or not it's a person is debateable.) and it is a valid method of birth control. Not only that, but if your parents won't let you have one, well in the good state of Maryland there are ways to get around that! No matter how much you try to keep politics out of birth control, they're going to get in. As much as you try and keep politics out of anything they're going to leak in. That's part of human nature, however the entire point of an education system is to educate. Unfortunitally while abortion is legal part of that process is at least informing people that that is an option available to them. As much as I disagree with abortion I would have no problem with my child taking a sex ed class (or many, as I did).
The part of a parent is to instill good morals in their child, and to help them along and educate them as well. However schools pick up with trained prefessionals where parents are lacking, not every parent can know everything they need to about every topic. Especially ones who are unwilling to learn. When I have a child one of the first things they will be taught is to always question what they hear, and that just because something is doesn't therefore mean that, that something is right. Just like smoking, just because it's legal doesn't therefore mean that it's a good idea or that I would condone it in any way, shape or form.
If a teacher is telling lies that is an issue with the teacher, not with the class itself. In my sex ed classes abortion was never actually mentioned. What was mentioned was sex in itself, the risks that go along with it, and ways in which you are able to protect yourself best from from those risks, while also stressing that the only way that you could be 100% sure that nothing happens (pregnancy, STI etc) is to not have sex. On top of that they discussed reasons for having sex and talked about not being pressured into anything that you're not ready for/don't want to do. They talked about good and bad reasons for having sex (Good: you and your partner both want it, and feel ready for it and have discussed it and are in a stable, loving relationship. Bad: Your partner wants it, and you feel that in order to keep them you have to have sex with them. etc.)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:53 am
That example? They couldn't do anything about the teacher, because she was right. She wasn't telling lies. Using data that says contraceptives aren't effective at all? There are some really biased studies out there that say that, so a teacher saying that wouldn't be lying either. That is one reason why I think parents should be able to keep their kids out of sex ed classes if they want to, and a big reason I am going to do everything I can to put my kids into private school or homeschool them. It's one thing to teach kids facts, but another to skew facts to meet an agenda, and that's what sex ed is around here.
If parents lose the right to raise their own kids and have the government forcefeed their kids things that the parents don't agree with at all, then why not just give kids over to the government? I don't agree at all with parents having to watch teachers grade children on things they don't agree with. It's not like this is just information that kids choose to listen to or disregard. They get graded and need to agree with a teacher's agenda, at least on paper, or they get bad grades. Now parents are faced with telling their children to either lie, fail, or believe everything they're told.
Parents should be given the outline of what the class teaches and then get the option to allow their children to take it or not.
Of course, it doesn't really matter to me what's taught in public school. I'm serious, I'm doing everything I can to keep my kids out of it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:07 am
lymelady That example? They couldn't do anything about the teacher, because she was right. She wasn't telling lies. Using data that says contraceptives aren't effective at all? There are some really biased studies out there that say that, so a teacher saying that wouldn't be lying either. That is one reason why I think parents should be able to keep their kids out of sex ed classes if they want to, and a big reason I am going to do everything I can to put my kids into private school or homeschool them. It's one thing to teach kids facts, but another to skew facts to meet an agenda, and that's what sex ed is around here. I thought that parents could keep their children out of Sex Ed. They could at my school (and up to like high school I think they had to sign something to allow their kids to take Sex Ed.).
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:12 am
WatersMoon110 lymelady That example? They couldn't do anything about the teacher, because she was right. She wasn't telling lies. Using data that says contraceptives aren't effective at all? There are some really biased studies out there that say that, so a teacher saying that wouldn't be lying either. That is one reason why I think parents should be able to keep their kids out of sex ed classes if they want to, and a big reason I am going to do everything I can to put my kids into private school or homeschool them. It's one thing to teach kids facts, but another to skew facts to meet an agenda, and that's what sex ed is around here. I thought that parents could keep their children out of Sex Ed. They could at my school (and up to like high school I think they had to sign something to allow their kids to take Sex Ed.). My neighbors didn't even have notice that their son was getting sex ed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:02 pm
lymelady WatersMoon110 I thought that parents could keep their children out of Sex Ed. They could at my school (and up to like high school I think they had to sign something to allow their kids to take Sex Ed.). My neighbors didn't even have notice that their son was getting sex ed. Wow. I feel "out of the loop". I really think that people should probably have to sign a form to allow their kids to take, or not take, Sex Education before, like 7th or 8th Grade, and that students or their parents should be able to opt out of Sex Ed after that. I already knew about sex by the time they started teaching it. And I had to suffer through "don't have sex until you're married" all throughout school. Personally, I would rather have just not bothered with the school, and learned on my own (as I already had). I know that some parents are very uncomfortable teaching their kids about sex, and would rather have a teacher do it. However, there really do seem to be a lot of parents that would rather not have their kids take it in school, that there should be some easy way for them to make sure that their children are not taking Sex Ed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:43 pm
A few weeks before I was given sex ed my mum gave me a small talk, and the only part I remember was "You wouldn't let just anyone in your pants, would you?"
Being eleven, I thought no. Oddly enough, it stuck. It wasn't abstinence, but it was waiting until I was ready.
Apart from that, I think my sex ed was pretty much "When a man and a woman love each other very much, they do xyz." I didn't get much information apart from that - like Waters, what I learnt I did by myself.
And I STILL didn't know what a clitoris was until I was fourteen. gonk
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:52 pm
I'm going to start with saying that I'm pro-birth control. I believe that any couple who are having sex and have no wish to become parents should be using contraception. Every female who wishes to have consentual sex without becoming pregnant should be offered a way to get on the pill. I know many use the excuse that they cannot afford it (it's covered under medical insurance in Canada, but if you don't have medical insurance it's around $60 for 3 months of pills), and I think that's not right. Birth control should be offered to women who want it, end of story. Cost should not be an issue as it lowers the number of unwanted pregnancies and so forth abortions.
Now that I've made it clear that I'm pro-birth control I'm going to add that I'm also pro-premarital sex but pro-responsible-sex as well. I think that as humans we are still taking religion too much into account when we make our personal choices of what is right and wrong. I mean if you're a Christian, and you want to save yourself for marriage, by all means, do so.
I don't agree with people being ready for sex but being forced to wait because society may deem them some rediculous name and frown upon them for it. In such a sex-centred world you'd think it would be a more accepted act, but it isn't. That's why I'm pro-pre-marital sex. I think that if it was more of a 'normal' occurace (which mind you, sex is one of the most natural things you can do) and it wasn't such a taboo topic, we'd be better off. The fact that everyone is all "sex is bad" probably gives a lot of young teens a reason to have sex - just for the simply matter of doing something so 'dirty'.
Just to add my final thought. Along with pre-marital consentual sex comes responsibility. I believe it is important for every couple who does not wish to become pregnant to use contraceptive method(s) like birth control pills and condoms. I'm anti-pro-creation because I think that we have enough children in the world who need to be adopted and properly taken care of, as well as that the fact that the earth is already over populated. But, just because I don't think there should be millions of babies, I still think sex is a fine thing. You can't deny yourself one of your most carnal instincts, but you can do your best to prevent yourself from pro-creating at an unwanted time in your life.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:27 am
Birth control isn't covered under American health insurance, but I'm not sure how much it costs. Plus, not everyone reacts well to hormonal birth control.
I agree with responsible sex, which is why I disagree with America's "sex ed" system - they DON'T teach them how to have sex responsibly. Which is probably why America has the highest teen pregnancy rates of any developed country.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:47 am
Seeing the Kraken Birth control isn't covered under American health insurance, but I'm not sure how much it costs. Plus, not everyone reacts well to hormonal birth control. I agree with responsible sex, which is why I disagree with America's "sex ed" system - they DON'T teach them how to have sex responsibly. Which is probably why America has the highest teen pregnancy rates of any developed country. Just t elaborate on this point, my roommate here in university will actually die if she takes regular birth control. I forget the technical reason for it but there's a special kind of hormonal birth control that she has to take. Plus she never wants to have a child (though she is still pro-life) so other methods have to be taught to her.
Luckly she comes to be if she has any questions regarding sex. XD She doesn't want to have sex before marriage, but she wants to know some things. Like it wasn't until a couple months ago she learned what the clitoris is. She's actually from America (Michigan), so she didn't get the classes, as far as I'm aware
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:15 am
Beware the Jabberwock Seeing the Kraken Birth control isn't covered under American health insurance, but I'm not sure how much it costs. Plus, not everyone reacts well to hormonal birth control. I agree with responsible sex, which is why I disagree with America's "sex ed" system - they DON'T teach them how to have sex responsibly. Which is probably why America has the highest teen pregnancy rates of any developed country. Just t elaborate on this point, my roommate here in university will actually die if she takes regular birth control. I forget the technical reason for it but there's a special kind of hormonal birth control that she has to take. Plus she never wants to have a child (though she is still pro-life) so other methods have to be taught to her.
Luckly she comes to be if she has any questions regarding sex. XD She doesn't want to have sex before marriage, but she wants to know some things. Like it wasn't until a couple months ago she learned what the clitoris is. She's actually from America (Michigan), so she didn't get the classes, as far as I'm awareO_O I didn't know what a clitoris was until I was fourteen, and I thought THAT was bad. And there are two different types of Pill, the combi-Pill which contains oestrogen and progesterone, and the mini-Pill, which only has progesterone, which is what doctors usually prescribe to people who have problems with the normal Pill. It's slightly less effective, though. I hope she's not allergic to condoms as well. >.< I always thought that must suck. I'm not allergic to condoms nor do I have adverse reactions to birth control, which is good for me. Although it would benefit someone who never wants children better, 'cause I do want kids someday. I really don't understand why BC isn't covered under American health insurance - it strikes me as ridiculous, especially when Viagra is covered. :/ I'm grateful for the NHS, though.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:20 am
 Mine was actually covered under the insurance. I think it depends on the insurance company. I can't remember if I had United or if I was under a different company at the time I took it, though. I know I'm under United now and I tried the patch while I was on it. There's a copay of about ten bucks, but they covered the rest.
It might be that I was taking it for medical reasons, but if you think about it, avoiding pregnancy has an element of medical reason to it, wouldn't you think? If the insurance isn't covering it, you can try going to your gyno about really bad periods that interfere with your life. Which women shouldn't have to do, but it's better than having sex without birth control. It's ridiculous that so many insurance companies don't cover it. I do know some do, even for just plain birth control reasons. Then again, I live in Maryland, which isn't exactly a conservative state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38979-2004Jun13.html
That article may be encouraging.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|