Home - List All Discussions

by: 4given

Sadly, I believe that many children are not reared in an environment where they place much value on self worth, or consider themselves and their purity as a treasure to be kept. I am not naive enough to believe that abstinence only programs (solely) work. Many learn by example, and in a Godless society, there is an absence of shame for one. Who can fathom sin guilt, when one has yet to realize promiscuity as being sinful? I believe that educating our youth, and encouraging them to place value on their bodies and choices for one, will make that particular group less willing to give their bodies away later on. All forms of education are necessary- if the goal is to reach the young prior to being in a situation where they would have to be educated about abortion. Do I want PP teaching my children? NO! Do I understand the importance of both abstinence education and contraception education? Yes. I understand that many families aren't as open as we are with our children w/ whatever question they may have. I also understand that many parents are not willing to, or fail to see the necessity of educating their young about std's, birth control and sexual promiscuity. Both are necessary. Sex ed. IMO is a measure taken, and necessary to prevent future abortions. I know many do not agree. I have to be realistic though. Many of the youth of today are left to fend for themselves, with no positive force in their lives, directing, educating or protecting them. They need to be reached. Included in sexual education, should be the reality of abortion. It is my understanding that it is briefly mentioned as a form of bc in the public school where it is taught. As a parent, I would urge other parents to research the curriculum, and take one's child out of the program, if it deems to be inappropriate.

reply from: yoda

Agreed. The problem is timing.... it just doesn't work to use both methods at the same time.
"Sex-ed" can be a negative influence on those kids who will react positively to abstinence education, but abstinence education cannot have a negative influence on kids who will only benefit from sex-ed. It may not do them any good, but it won't harm them either. Sex-ed, on the other hand, can push some kids towards sexual experimentation that would otherwise not go in that direction.
So, like Mark says, we need to do that which will cause the least harm and do the most good. And that's abstinence education. Those kids that need the sex-ed need to somehow be given it away from the other kids, IMO.

reply from: NewMom

Agreed. The problem is timing.... it just doesn't work to use both methods at the same time.
"Sex-ed" can be a negative influence on those kids who will react positively to abstinence education, but abstinence education cannot have a negative influence on kids who will only benefit from sex-ed. It may not do them any good, but it won't harm them either. Sex-ed, on the other hand, can push some kids towards sexual experimentation that would otherwise not go in that direction.
So, like Mark says, we need to do that which will cause the least harm and do the most good. And that's abstinence education. Those kids that need the sex-ed need to somehow be given it away from the other kids, IMO.
Great point. The approach NEEDS to be shifted!
What I've been hearing up in my neighbourhood (and on this site) is "Oh, these damn kids these days! they're all getting pregnant and contracting chlamydia! Sex-ed isn't working! What are we doing wrong?! Planned parenthood infiltration!!" But most are missing the simple answer. Heaven forbid we teach them to wait to have sex in the first place... cause you know that does solve the problem of pregnancy and STD's... it seemed to work many years ago when most women actually waited till marriage to begin having sex out of respect for themselves and their body didn't it?

reply from: sheri

siecus is a planned parenthood front isnt it? You have to take it with a grain of salt if it is.

reply from: 4given

What does "siecus" stand for?

reply from: sheri

Im just saying if the source is slanted you may have to make your own conjectures with the info provided. I didnt see anything too objectionable, except the sourse, excuse me if i dont trust PP to aline the facts in the "truthiest" manner.
I dont see anything wrong with talking to kids about sex.
Its always an attention getter, I have to do it for our confirmation kids at least once a year.
The only problem i see with sex ed in the schools is that the teachers will often give a much too favorable opinion of artificial contraception. Something that probably springs from their own personal bias, not that i blame them, if i had the chance i would talk their ears off about NFP. However that is one of the reasons i will be homeschooling my kids.

reply from: Smurfy

Curious, I doubt you say the same about the clearly biased pro-life 'information' sites.
Hypocrite.

reply from: nancyu

Everyone is biased. I would rather be biased pro life, than pro death.


2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics