"...for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death." - Obama
Yet again, the Democratic party comes up with stellar presidential candidates. Read the article, the man actually supports sex ed in a kindergarten classroom. The insanity of the world in which we live never ceases to amaze me, but the source being Democratic candidates is never surprising.
Ok, I have to include the disclaimer that his campaign rushed to explain. Obama only wants education to be medically accurate ("science based"). So when a little tike asks where babies come from youre not allowed to say "Um, a stork, go back to your coloring." So what do you say? An anatomically correct explanation of reproduction?? Did this guy talk to his kids at all? Too busy coming up with ridiculous amendments about retreating from a war we're winning...
Here it is: a post on a social issue. [Although who cares whats being taught in the classroom if jihadists are running around outside.]
I particularly like Obama's association with abstinence (or "leaving them in ignorance" as he puts it) as a cause of death. And pregnancy (!?).
But let's back up. The debate is over whether we should teach kids abstinence (ie abstaining from sexual activity) or if we should base education on the statistically proven inevitable fact that half of teenagers are gonna get nasty and teach them how to do it safely.
I like that argument, it's like if stats say a third of all teenagers will try drugs, then we should have school-sponsored drug forums where everyone tries whatever they want in a safe, controlled environment. You know, where the needles are clean.
And since 3/4s (ok I made that up) of all teenagers drink, schools should have chaperoned booze-fests in which children can safely and responsible try adult beverages. Great idea.
Look, I'm all for educating on the dangers of sexual activity. The problem I have is the assumption that they're going to do it anyway so let's resign to that fact and base our policies on the bad decisions of teenagers.
What kids really need to know is that condoms are terribly ineffective and completely unable to prevent the transmission of several very dangerous diseases. They are far from the perfect preventive that they are touted as being.
That's why I like the "play with fire you get burnt" approach, ie DONT DO IT. Too simplistic I know.
I like how Obama attributes such a policy with causing pregnancy, illness, poverty (hm? oh, expensive abortions, right), and death.
The real cause of such things would be failing to communicate the ineffectiveness of preventative measures.
Nothing is as effective as abstinence.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What I especially love is how Obama treats pregnancy as a disease to be eliminated. Typical of the pro-death agenda.
Matthew Kennel, I don't know you, but how could you say that Barak Obama has a pro-death agenda? That's an absurd statement, just as saying any of the candidate have such an agenda.
But Jon, I don't understand your argument either. Yes, abstinence is the only 100% effective measure. But regard two points:
1) Is trying to get teenagers to not have sex a realistic policy position? If it's completely impossible to stop what will inevitably be at least 50% of teenagers from having sex, why on earth would that be the policy of the federal government? Wouldn't a policy that actually has implications for stopping the transmission of disease and preventing pregnancy be good?
I propose that we reinforce abstinence to boost the courage of those already likely to abstain, and for everyone else we give them sound advice on how to be safer.
The truth is that teenage pregnancy does cause illiteracy, illness, poverty, and in some cases premature death. Period. How can you argue with that?
2) Your argument concerning telling a child who's coloring the details of sex is an over dramatization. Obviously, as with any important life subject, responses to the questions of children should be age appropriate. But frankly, a close to puberty child (say, 10-12) absolutely should start learning about how to be safe with your body. It's no unreasonable for a 13 year old to know that sex exists, the basics of how it works, and that if they ever were to do it, that the safer way is to use a condom.
I challenge you to come up with any policy that would effectively stop teenage pregnancy in the city of Philadelphia. When you've thought of a way to make abstinence actually sink in, and lower the rate by just 10%, we should put you on the dollar bill, because you've pulled off a social policy making miracle.
At least Barak is speaking plainly. About the issue. Criticize him for his stance on abortion as much as you'd like, that's an unwinable conversation, but at least recognize that these two issues are apples and oranges.
Thanks for posting on a social issue! You should get a radio show.
James your comments are always welcome, however misguided they may be.
First, Matt's statement makes absolute sense if you consider abortion (the aborting, or terminating, or whatever lame scientific term you want to use for the unnatural and hideous removal of a child from its mothers' body) to be a procedure (if u can call it that) that causes death. Because it IN FACT does. abortion directly causes the death of a human. fine, an underdeveloped human, but an individual human nonetheless. so to support abortion is to support death. pro abortion = pro death. not absurd, logical.
now, i cannot stand that insane argument of inevitability. it's absurd, is there some minimum percent of teenage action that dictates policy? take drugs. whats the government's stance on drugs? they are illegal, therefore schools teach: say NO to drugs. now that makes sense. what percent of kids use drugs? i dunno, but its not 50. lets say its 10. what if that percent rises to 50? do we suddenly change our policy to "oh kids will do it anyway and if we dont teach them how to do it properly then they will die get sick etc"
so then we'll have safe drug use classes. nice.
no, thats absurd. why? because doing drugs is a very dangerous action, as is having sex as a teenager. doing drugs is wrong and illegal, and so is sex. at least its wrong (premaritally) and should be illegal for minors (might be?). so my point is you dont make policy decisions based on how many kids do it. our use-condoms-and-youll-be-ok approach is wrong. it should be sex is dangerous, wrong, dont do it.
im not saying there should be complete silence on preventive measures, that should be taught as well. but the primary policy should be the same as drugs: say NO.
its like the evolution v intelligent design argument (should they teach both etc), why dont we teach the controversy? which some schools are doing.
a post is coming up on that btw.
and ill criticize barak and anything i want to. he may be speaking plainly but its as ignorant as it is plain. read what he said: he suggested teaching SEX (sex, james) to kindergarten kids. im talkin kindergarten, not 10-12. at that age kids realize the stork isnt true, and education is necessary.
someone at a training thing today said if they could spend a day with anyone in history, dead or alive, it would be obama. are you kidding me!? i have a serious problem with that.
and i didnt relate abortion and abstinence, matts comment and your embellishment did that.
and i would love a radio show. we could do a hannity and colmes:
eh, dunno if i like the flow of our last names...
Post a Comment