Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
We keep tap dancing around the issue - To me children should abstain from sex. I have no problem with sex education, in fact you could easily come up with a curriculum that I would support. I think we both agree that abstinence is the best way to go for children. To me it is the same with many issues, another example is steroids. I have no problem with teaching children about steroids in a factual, scientific manner, however children should not use steroids unless there is a medical reason to. No school/coach/clinic/etc., should condone/encourage/turn a blind eye/wink, wink we know you are going to do it, so here is how to do it "safely"... to the use of steroids.
|
We agree on this.
Here's the question: Is the fact that you and I think they shouldn't have sex going to stop them from having sex? Your and my personal kids, maybe, but we're talking about educational policy here.
I have to think the answer to that question is a ringing NO. Look, if it didn't work with Bristol Palin, it doesn't work.
Given that, wouldn't you rather they know what they need to know to do what (statistically, inevitably) they're going to do as safely as possible?
Plus: they'll be grown-up some day. How early is too early to teach them how to have sex as responsibly as possible?
DON'T fall back to the "it's not safe, it's not responsible" canard--I deliberately worded it "as safely as possible."
DON'T fall back on the "We oughta be teaching them to balance a checkbook instead of how to fuck" canard, because that's entirely aside from what we're talking about.
My question is: given you're not going to be able to stop teenagers from having sex, generally speaking and granting some exceptions, wouldn't you prefer they know how best to protect themselves from the risks of it?