Forums → WEPR → Obamacare & Abstinance-Only Sexual Education
| 29 | 10822 |
There are three problems with the bills passed by Congress:
1. Representatives are not required to read an entire bill before voting it into law.
Here's a bill that would require politicians to read bills in their entirety.
2. Compromises - When democrats want one thing, and republicans want another, they will often compromise. Democrats will be allowed to pass law A, but in return they must also add Law B to a bill, or else they wont receive republican votes.
3. Federal bills are allowed to contain multiple subjects. Read more about the Single Subject Rule here.
This thread is not about Obamacare as a whole, but Abstinence- Only Education. The merits of socialized healthcare should be discussed elsewhere.
Hidden inside the Affordable Care Act is a provision that demands a return of Abstinence-Only Sex programs in public secondary education. This provision was added by a republican. There's no doubt in my mind that this republican would have voted against the bill had they not pandered to their desire.
To make matters worse, some states have passed laws to help enforce this program!
At the same time, a number of states â" Texas, Tennessee, and Wisconsin among them â" are launching aggressive legislative efforts to promote abstinence-only education. In Tennessee, for instance, a bill that passed the house and senate in April 2012 specifies that teachers must "exclusively and emphatically" endorse abstinence, or face a $500 fine. The bill stipulates that contraceptives may be discussed only as an inferior means of preventing pregnancy and disease. The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" â" such as holding hands or hugging.
Did you catch that last part?
The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" â" such as holding hands or hugging.
IT'S ILLEGAL FOR TEACHERS TO ALLOW TEENAGERS TO HUG AND HOLD HANDS IN SCHOOL! I need say no more.
- 29 Replies
Gateway sexual behavior? What a load of bull. I am honestly not that worried, because it comes down to the enforcers in the end. Most teachers I know are not that strict, and would never enforce a policy so closed-minded.
Blade, you have a point, teenagers can be pretty dumb about that stuff, but isn't that what the early parenthood class is for?
I thought the no PDA rule was universal in the U.S. But I believe that only covered kissing, but not holding hands. (banning that is just stupid.)
When i took health class the std section said that you can try condoms/the pill, but recommended several thousand times to practice abstinence, (on the grounds that it is the only 100% way)
p.s. This might of been in another chapter (can't remember what it was called but i am pretty sure we went over it.)
Abstinence only? Hah, what a joke. Might as well encourage teen pregnancy and forego all sexual education period. It'll accomplish about the same thing.
The bill also allows parents to sue public school teachers and staff for allowing students to engage in what is bizarrely termed "gateway sexual behavior" such as holding hands or hugging.
I lol'd. Like suing schools would actually stop that?
they stated in one of their documents that they oppose critical thinking skils
Let me correct you: They oppose thinking skills. They oppose thinking. Period. We have one of the worst education systems on Earth, and classes (especially health classes) are jokes.
Blade, you have a point, teenagers can be pretty dumb about that stuff, but isn't that what the early parenthood class is for?
that can be avoided if teachers don't enforce abstinence only education. I'm pretty sure you can avoid early parenthood class if you have a properly run sex-ed class (something that makes any conservative nut cringe).
When i took health class the std section said that you can try condoms/the pill, but recommended several thousand times to practice abstinence, (on the grounds that it is the only 100% way)
I don't think you realize just how bad teenagers are at controlling themselves. you get some who are rather well disciplined, but the vast majority have done at least one stupid thing before they graduate high school. this could be anything from sex to assaulting a teacher. a smart teenager knows that he will probably do something stupid, but knows to be smart about it. having sex? he uses a condom. doing drugs? has a sober sitter. not every teenager is farsighted enough to plan like that, but when they do, the chances of them receiving negative consequences for it will decrease.
-Blade
I understand that teenagers do stupid stuff, but hopefully they will learn from it and live a better life. (it would be better if they learned before making the mistake)
I can understand sex-ed in high school, but not middle school. Because middle schoolers are too young for any of that.
I can understand sex-ed in high school, but not middle school. Because middle schoolers are too young for any of that.
How old exactly are people in middle school, 3? It's better to educate them while they're exploring their own body and before they do so with the other gender; at least if you want to prevent higher levels of teen pregnancy, and I guess this is the case. Contrary to popular belief, educating young children on sexual matters doesn't magically turn them into pervs.
(it would be better if they learned before making the mistake)
a wise man learns from his mistakes, the wiser learns from the mistakes from others.
the sad fact of the matter is that somebody has to make a mistake for them to learn from it. they might live a better life, or they will refine the act to make as little mistakes as possible. most people grow out of it, and mature (to a degree), but there are always those who fail to heed warnings.
I can understand sex-ed in high school, but not middle school. Because middle schoolers are too young for any of that.
that's when their hormones are strongest, and they are the least adapted to it. it is a perfect time to teach them because they will eventually start wanting to procreate with anything that moves when they hit high school. they need to learn before they have sex, not after.
-Blade
To each their own. every person is a little bit different. I think that it should be mostly taught by parents, they are more personal to the people in question after all. A class should be taught in freshman year, maybe earlier, so that those whose parents have drawn out the subject as long as possible, which it is an uncomfortable subject for many parents, and it is understandable.
[quote]I don't think you realize just how bad teenagers are at controlling themselves.[quote] It depends on what the see. It depends on how they are taught. It depends on who they are closest to. It depends on the movies they watch, the music they hear, their heroes. It depends most importantly, on who they are.... All can resist, many choose not to. It comes down to their choices beforehand. It depends on the questions asked, the questions answered, or, for that matter, avoided. it is their choice.
No one can make you do anything nor can they control your actions. It is
all
up
to
you.
You can choose your action, but not your consequent, whether it be good, or bad. But you can see other's actions, hear other's advise, see the consequence of others. You make the choice to say, "The bad won't happen to me, I'm safe, I'm different." You also choose to say, "I will be safe, because I will not do it." You have the knowledge, now it is your choice...
And will you stop blaming religion here, and besides, Atheism is technically a religion....
Many politic leaders say that they are religions, but mostly for the politics, and not that they actually believe, Take Hillary Clinton, as well as other democrats and republicans. Believe what you say you do? That is just plain wrong....
~Krill11
To each their own. every person is a little bit different. I think that it should be mostly taught by parents, they are more personal to the people in question after all. A class should be taught in freshman year, maybe earlier, so that those whose parents have drawn out the subject as long as possible, which it is an uncomfortable subject for many parents, and it is understandable.
Not blaming parents, but I'm sure not all parents could give correct sexual education to their kids. It has to be school, that way every child is well educated on the matter. The parents then can of course teach their kids what behaviour they think is correct.
It depends on what the see. It depends on how they are taught. It depends on who they are closest to. It depends on the movies they watch, the music they hear, their heroes. It depends most importantly, on who they are.... All can resist, many choose not to. It comes down to their choices beforehand. It depends on the questions asked, the questions answered, or, for that matter, avoided. it is their choice.
And that is why it is important to educate them properly and early on, so they can make their choice on basis of what they know, not on basis of what they don't know and want to find out themselves. You can educate them and strongly suggest abstinence, that is no problem; but you still have to educate them.
And will you stop blaming religion here, and besides, Atheism is technically a religion....
1. Atheism is not a religion, it is just an overused and overinterpreted term for people who don't hold any belief in a deity.
2. We're not blaming religions. The abstinence-only thing comes from religious fundamentalists; those are who we blame, not all of religion.
What in Merlin's beards makes people think Atheism is a religion? Utter tosh.
It depends on what the see. It depends on how they are taught. It depends on who they are closest to. It depends on the movies they watch, the music they hear, their heroes. It depends most importantly, on who they are.... All can resist, many choose not to. It comes down to their choices beforehand. It depends on the questions asked, the questions answered, or, for that matter, avoided. it is their choice.
all true, but you have too much faith in people. very few at that age make the proper choices, ask the proper questions, or even think of choosing abstinence.
You can choose your action, but not your consequent, whether it be good, or bad. But you can see other's actions, hear other's advise, see the consequence of others. You make the choice to say, "The bad won't happen to me, I'm safe, I'm different." You also choose to say, "I will be safe, because I will not do it." You have the knowledge, now it is your choice...
most who say they're different just because they believe they are tend to end up like those who they called different from themselves. you have too much faith in abstinence education (republican?), in the early times 16-18 was middle age, so our species evolved to spread our genes to as many candidates as possible, regardless of the conseqences.
And will you stop blaming religion here, and besides, Atheism is technically a religion....
BULL****, atheism isn't a religion, and you are foolish for believing it is. I'll stop blaming religion when they stop doing stupid stuff like arizona's new notion that life begins when a mother ovulates.
Many politic leaders say that they are religions, but mostly for the politics, and not that they actually believe, Take Hillary Clinton, as well as other democrats and republicans. Believe what you say you do? That is just plain wrong....
the difference between republicans and democrats is democrats try to stop the mix of church and political stance, while republicans do whatever it takes to make the two mix (not smart). when I say religion, I mean christian only values.
2. We're not blaming religions. The abstinence-only thing comes from religious fundamentalists; those are who we blame, not all of religion.
which has been the cause of many of my grievances.
-Blade
What in Merlin's beards makes people think Atheism is a religion? Utter tosh.
many of them do not understand the definition of the word atheist.
and if they do they are unwilling to understand the "no believe" part i guess.
i can understand Sex-ed in high school but not middle school becuase middle schoolers are too young for any of that
in Virginia (Fairfax county public schools) we learn about sex-ed in fourth grade
Oh, i didn't read this thread - whoops. But very interesting.
Don't teach kids things, make them end up in a sticky situation with no knowledge. Seems like a brilliant idea.
IT'S ILLEGAL FOR TEACHERS TO ALLOW TEENAGERS TO HUG AND HOLD HANDS IN SCHOOL! I need say no more.
In my school, it wasn't "illegal" but it was a strictly enforced rule. Maybe because it was a Catholic school. If someone was crying, and you hugged them, you could get suspended. So silly.
We never had sex education in secondary school although thankfully it's something they've adapted. We had it in primary school for a year, when we were like eleven, so it was just kind of funny then.
You must be logged in to post a reply!