Sarah Palin: Sex Ed debate
 

She stated why she resigned and there were several reasons, to say she resigned for money is to assume something you do not know. She agree to the book deal before resigning. She has been getting political donations amounting to large totals which could cover her legal bills before resigning. There is no guarantee that she will get a TV show and anything else. We do know Clinton received large sums of money creating a conflict of interest for Hilary. We do know that political patronage is wrong. And we do know that Gore is full of it, with his -the world is going to end - while making investments in the solution he pitches.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

I looked this up, here is a good recap:

Teen Life Q & A - Peer Pressure - How old do you have to be to legally have sex?

The decision? Nothing. The decision isn't up to the schools, just explaining the consequences. Schools don't teach people how to live, but how the world works (at least they're supposed to).
You support the teaching of the "morality of sex", then.
But still, the primary function of the age of consent is to prevent adults from taking sexual advantage of children. It's why a 16 year old can have sex with a 16 year old, but a 40 year old can't. I think we're getting off topic, though.

OK, I forget where I read this but someone said the best way to stir up controversy and get comments is a headline "Palin says Israel and China are wrong on abortion."

Gotta admit, that's funny.

"Unwed teenage Arab pot smoking couples protest in favor of evolutionist abortions"
"Gay Muslim Democrat takes guns from hard working Americans"

I don't think children can make informed choices regarding sex. I think the law agrees with me. I think children should abstain from having sex. I think children should be given an education based on the science of sex. I think the standard response from schools (when the question comes up) is that children should abstain from sexual activity - I do not think they should be told that ...if you are going to have sex, this is how you.... I think it is wrong for adults to validate/encourage, in any manner, children to decide to engage in sexual activity.

I feel the same about recreational alcohol, illegal drugs, smoking, chewing tobacco, tattoos and probably a few other things that don't come to mind right now. And you could basically substitute "sex" for any of those other words in the above and I would be comfortable with it. If you call that teaching "morality", then I am guilty as charged.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

Yes. Or, at least he wants to.

Understand, I don't have a problem with people making money - even a boat load of money - I just have a problem when they have a pretentious attitude about it or look down on those who are honest about their motive to make money.

For example, Ralph Nader. Given his rhetoric, what do you think his net worth is? According to this source in 2000 - it was $3 million.

Ralph Nader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The experts (read: people with advanced degrees in sciences that actually record and interpret data) all agree that the best thing to do is to teach children and young adults how to be responsibly sexual. While I respect your opinion, when weighed against the real data it would seem that those children that are taught about contraceptives and responsible sex practices are less likely to be infected with STDs and are less likely to have an accidental pregnancy. Abstinence, on the other hand, has repeatedly been demonstrated to have the opposite effect.

I'd be glad to retrieve some bookmarked articles to back this up if you'd like.
Due respect to politicians, but it would seem very few of them are scientifically literate, especially socially conservative politicians. You may be looking to the wrong people on this issue.

---------- Post added at 11:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Socialists don't care about profit. :thumbsup:

And you do know that this attitude is entirely, 100% at odds with Palin's views? Palin feels it should be the job of the nanny-state public schools to inculcate abstinence as the only valid means of staying free of disease and offspring, violating both science and the free exercise of parental moral education. And you're okay with that?

I don't agree with Palin on everything. I don't agree with anyone on everything. However, with Palin I know if we disagree it is not because we have opposing goals or objectives. I think her position is based on what she thinks is best for children as is mine. I am not saying that people who are much more liberal on this issue than I am are not thinking about what is best for children, some do. But, some have other agendas. Like I wrote earlier, I could have voted for Hillery Clinton because I trust her, even though I disagree with her. I also have respect for a guy like Dennis Kucinch, he seems to act in a manner consistent with his views, but in his case I think his views are simply too extreme - but I like the fact that he is a part of the debate.


Again, I am not sure that is correct. When I am asked about "abstinence only", and not given an opportunity to clarify what it means to me, it would come out as, yes, I support "abstinence only"

{added} From post #187 Will included a link to this question of Palin and her answer.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...1/1320417.aspx

Based on the question, I agree with Palin's answer.

So, you're changing your position on sex education, in this last post? Now you think children SHOULD be taught in school that abstinence is morally right. Before you thought the science should be taught in school, and moral issues should be left to the parents.

See, what I mean. All depends on the question. What the hell is "explicit sex education" any way?

I don't see the issue of children having sex from a moral point of view, I simply don't think they can make an informed mature choice. I don't think children fully understand the consequences of sexual activity. If you call that taking a "morality" stance, o.k. - I get it. Personally, I think sex is healthy, normal, enjoyable, and should be engaged in frequently between adults. I don't believe in making people feel guilty in any way about sex, including children. People make their own choices and what they do is their business. I have no problem with scientific based sex education in the schools and children understanding the human sex drive and what they will experience as they become adults.

That's just it, though, they're not going to abstain. You could lock them in their rooms until they turn 18 and they'd still figure out a way to shag. That's what teenagers do. Bearing that reality (this isn't opinion, I can back this up with fact) on mind, there's only one question: would you rather have them have sex with proper and complete sexual education or without?

ace: It's a moral issue for Palin and the social conservatives who support her. When you speak for yourself, it's not a moral issue, it's purely pragmatic (and I agree with you completely, by the way). When you line up in support of Palin, you're supporting something I don't think you understand you're supporting, and I don't think you understand is diametrically opposed to your own ideas. You really can't have it both ways. You can think your own thoughts, or you can follow a politician whose thoughts are different.

Maybe we're working from utterly different worlds here, and there's no reconciling them. I'm frankly gobsmacked that you'd have voted for Hillary because you'd trust her to do what is in your view the wrong thing. I can't even begin to get my head around that. I trusted McCain to do what I view as the wrong thing, which is why I campaigned for Obama. How trust can be a more important issue than that actual position the candidate takes is completely unfathomable to me.

Wyodiver33: drama queen much? You didn't even get any warning points. But you might, for loading this place down with your Goodbye Forever Because I Dared to Have an Opinion nonsense. Leave the drama with your mama and come back and talk.

Here is the difference and I will use alcohol as an example to illustrate what I have been trying to say.

I have no problem with schools teaching the scientific affects of alcohol, the history, the law.
In my view the decision people make to drink alcohol is their decision, I do not make moral judgment, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with drinking alcohol.
However, children do not have the capacity to make mature informed decisions regarding alcohol consumption, we have certain laws applying to children that don't apply to adults.
Schools should take the standard position that the best approach for children is to abstain from the recreational use of alcohol, and they should refer the child to their parents/guardian/etc. for more guidance on the subject.

I do not think our schools should adopt the approach of - we know you are going to drink alcohol so... - here are some complimentary shot glasses, here are a list of "safe" drinking establishments, here are some instructions for drinking games, and here are some coupons allowing you to buy 2 drinks and get one free, etc, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

When I am against the social conservative agenda, I am against it. In this case if they are on the correct side of the argument - I will stand on what I think is the correct side of the argument. I have always had problems with "social conservatives" on many issues where they want to impose their values on others, which is why I have gone back and forth between being a Libertarian and a Republican. I think on this issue with Palin she has concern primarily for children. Some social conservatives have an agenda of wanting to take the pleasure out of sex and wanting people to feel guilty about enjoyment and desire - I think these people are small in numbers.

Does it matter? Her policy is: don't teach them how things work. Don't teach them how their bodies work, or what happens biologically. Indoctrinate them ONLY to not follow their urges. (That's the "only" part in "abstinence-only", in case you missed that.) I don't really care if her heart's in the right place or she's doing that for "right" reasons. Leaving aside the legislated-morality aspect of it, it's just BAD POLICY.

With no disrespect meant at all to the young woman in question: Grandma Sara only needs to look at who's living in the next bedroom over to see how well that policy works. I don't blame Bristol in the slightest for her unplanned pregnancy. That's a failure of parenting.

Precisely! The biggest problem is teaching abstinence-only. Kids need the information because most of them will not remain abstinent.

Can you provide any support for that comment?

I did not think so.

Ostensibly, she's not opposed to contraception:

Sarah Palin on Sex Ed | Sex and Relationships | AlterNet
Conservative Believer - Sarah Palin: News and Photos - TIME
Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times

You should wait before answering your own questions.
Palin backed abstinence-only education - First Read - msnbc.com

Does not seem that you have read what I have written. I have no problem with children being taught about birth control from a science point of view, nor STD's and prevention from a scientific point of view. In a perfect world the government should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging sex in any manner. One the one side the government should not be involved in "family planning clinics" or promoting "wait until you are married". I think both extremes are an inappropriate role for government.

If I may, each of these was published after it was publicly reported that her daughter had become pregnant. I would hope she changed her tune because she was able to realize she'd made a mistake, but more likely it was simply political.

The question isn't "what are your views on sex education".

The question is: how do you square that (IMO rational, sensible) view with your support of Palin's (radical, nonsensical, and--as evinced by her own daughter--failing) views? That's the part I don't get.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

Wait. Surely you're not implying she's something other than a paragon of these so-called "convictions" we've been talking about? That she changes her tune for political expedience? NO!!

I don't think you understand Palin's views on sex education, and therefore you don't understand my support of her views more than I do Obama's. I will try to clarify it one more time:

The social conservative who says: God is punishing you (teenage unwed mother) because you had sex outside of marriage - is a person who is an extremist and does not have my support


the liberal who says: You (unwed teenage mother) are being punished because you had sex without using a condom - is a person who is an extremist and does not have my support.

Palin supports promoting abstinence to children but does not consider being a mother punishment. She does not make mothers feel guilty about the choice they made to have sex - she has in fact demonstrated a willingness to give unconditional love and support to a teenage mother and the baby. I have never heard her say that she is against teaching the science of sex. I think you and others are making that up or simply assuming she is an extremeist when there is no evidence to support that view. the media promotes these lies and myths about Palin, and I don't really understand why, I but I have the view that it is because she is not an "elitist" and is more an average American.

Pot, Kettle, Black, mister "I'm for sex-education personally, but also against it when my chosen leader says so".

I admit I have not watched her show in the last two weeks. Actually, didn't she have a guest host during the week of the 4th of July?

I know I have biases, and I admit them.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

It is subjective. But if there was some way to measure it objectively and assuming on one extreme is Rush Limbaugh at a 10 - on a scale of one to ten, I would estimate Maddow is a 3.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

I am never against scientific based sex education in schools.

Palin is, and you claim to support her policy. And you've ignored my REPEATED requests for any sort of explanation for how you square those things. My conclusion HAS to be that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I have never read or heard anything indicating that Palin is against teaching the science of sex in schools. If she has I do not agree with her.

Then you do not agree with her. She is against what she calls "explicit" sex education. She is for what is generally known as "abstinence-only" education, where the existence of sex is acknowledged and kids are told "DON'T", and that's about it.

The thing to notice is how strongly you've supported something you haven't read or heard anything about. Isn't that curious?

I am against "explicit" sex education in schools. I support schools teaching "abstinence-only" - it is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD's - most children in school have not reached the legal age of consent and even those that have, in my view should not engage in sex until the age of majority. Schools should not encourage or validate children engaging in sex.

Yes you are:
Abstinence only does not teach anything but abstinence. I'll write that again: abstinence only does not teach anything but abstinence. It's entirely unscientific. It's the sex education version of creationism.

What you support is not called abstinence only, it's called regular sex education.

These are terms that mean things, ace. When Palin says "abstinence-only", there's a code she's talking in that you appear to have missed. I propose to you that it'd be best to learn the details of what you're hitching your wagon to.

Palin doesn't want the biology of sex taught in schools. She only wants to say "DON'T" to kids. You and I both know that's ludicrous and could never work, but it's what she stands for. And you've been saying that you're for that while also saying you're for regular sex education. Which is why it's been dissonant talking to you about this. Can you see it now?

I disagree with your definition of "abstinence only". In order to teach someone to abstain from something, don't they have to know what they are abstaining from, and wouldn't be good to know why?

Your view of "abstinence only" makes no sense to me. I have never talked to a person who is against teaching reproductive science at all. I have talked to some who are against certain human related sex education teaching methods, illustrations, books, demonstrations, films, etc. I also know some who are more conservative than I am and have problems with certain words or descriptions of certain things using common adult vocabulary. But I find your definition so extreme that I doubt you could find many who would actually agree with it.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

Oh, the secrete code. You are correct, I don't have access to the secrete code. My, my, we could have concluded this a long time ago, if only you had referenced the "secrete code" to begin with.http://www.topdownloads.net/section_...1091890404.jpg

I know you're being snarky, but that does seem to be the case.

A lot of the far-right talks to itself in a code that is really only understood internally. You end up with moderate-righters like you thinking you know what "abstinence-only" means, and talking about "your definition" of the term versus "my definition". It actually means something very specific to the politician promoting it, and you're not aware of that fact. But you're supporting it, because it uses words that are reasonably close to something you would actually support.

Open your eyes, chief. The evidence is blinking back at you that you've been had on this one.

That is why I explain my view. I tell you what the terms mean to me. Then I tell you that if Palin has the same view, we agree - and if we don't we disagree. I still don't really know what "explicit" sex education means. Is it demonstrations on how to use condoms, sexual positions, techniques, etc., what? I don't have a problem with teaching what a condom is and what it does, effectiveness, etc. - but I draw the line at demonstrations in school and handing out free samples.

It's not my definition, it's President Bush's. And it failed:
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs - washingtonpost.com

But YOU'RE the one saying you support Palin's policy on sex education! Earlier in this thread you said that, and now you're saying, well, if she says something other than what I think, then I DON'T support her, but I don't really know, and I didn't really know what I was saying I support when I said I supported it! And then why you like Palin is for her FUCKING CONVICTIONS!!!

You're incredible, ace.

Here is what you are talking about.

Community-Based Abstinence Education

It does not say the science of sex should not be taught in the schools. Local communities could request grants for this education, it was their choice.

And, I don't agree with all of this, but I don't agree with all of what is presented on the other side of the argument either.

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

Thanks.:thumbsup:

I'm not convinced you know what the other side of the argument is.

The other side, the alternative to abstinence-only, reads something like this: Abstinence is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. As abstinence isn't statistically likely, however, here is all the information you'll need on anatomy, reproductive health, contraception, reproductive rights, contraception, sexually transmitted disease, abortion, and pregnancy. If you remain abstinent, great, but if you choose to have sex we want you armed with the most correct, up-to-date information so that the risk to you is drastically reduced. Our program is supported by American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American College Health Association among many others, whereas Abstinence-Only as instituted by the Bush Administration enjoys little to no support from the scientific, psychological, and medical community. Moreover, our program demonstrates lower rates of STDs, unwanted teen pregnancy, and abortion.

We leave morality to parents and religious influences over children, opting instead to simply educate them on the facts.

There are only subtle differences between the position you outline above and mine and then I think Palin's position is again subtly different than mine. I would simply prefer schools not council children on sex at all, my preference is that they give the facts and send the children to their parents for council.

What council on sex do you imagine schools are offering? They're not telling kids to have sex. They're not telling kids to give oral. They're not telling kids to give hand jobs or to finger. It already is factual. It was factual when I took it back in the 90s, it was factual when my little brother took it in the 2000s.

On one hand you have right wingers who council children saying you should only have sex if you get married.

On the left we have those who council children saying if you are going to have sex use a condom.

I say give children the facts. What do the statistics say about unwed mothers who have babies? What percent live in poverty? What percent finish their education? Etc. What happens to the babies? Give them the facts and let them decide what to do.

What do the statistics say about various birth control methods. what are the known trade offs between the various methods, etc. Give the facts and let them decide. condoms may be convenient and inexpensive but they may not be the first choice of informed people. I don't want a teacher or social worker giving my son incomplete information based on the fact that the school just got a free carton of condoms to pass out to students. I want them to tell him to talk to me!