Nothing good can come of this

[caley]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2267236

 

[gwyyn]

  no i don't think so either

 

[coastie]

nope... you can still get STD's from it. You just eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. Like kids involved in that won't move on to something more.

 

[Zoe Girl]

Seems to me that they aren't concerned with the actual individual kids involved.  They just want the number of teen pregnancies to be reduced, at any cost, which means if they can get them to wait until after they are 18... but where are the morals in that?

 

[caley]

Today at 09:41 PM Zoe Girl said this in Post #4

Seems to me that they aren't concerned with the actual individual kids involved.  They just want the number of teen pregnancies to be reduced, at any cost, which means if they can get them to wait until after they are 18... but where are the morals in that?

That's kind of what I thought when I read this.  Government programs, instead of trying to do any sort of real good, usually try to manipulate the population so the politicians in charge can make themselves look good.  This is a prime example of that mentality.

 

[Blindfaith]

Give me a break.  Thanks for posting this caley.

My daughter (who's 14) told me that she's heard kids at school (8th grade) talking about this as an alternative.  The mentality is, "nothing's going to happen to me (STD's), and I don't want to get pregnant, so....."

Incredible, huh?

 

[IslandBreeze]

Well, I'd be pulling my kids out of that school...unacceptable and inappropriate....

 

[JillLars]

I find that story pretty interesting. I think that saying "know when to stop" is a perfectly acceptable way of teaching kids, telling them to stop when they reach oral sex is just nuts...what teacher in their right mind would feel the need to explain that to kids. Know when to stop means know when to stop and if you can't stop at oral sex then you should be smart enough to know you need to stop before then...that story just doesn't make sense to me. I am also amazed that their pregnancy rate is so high, I"m not sure what the stats are, but we probably have a much higher rate than they do. Stats show that in countries where they teach alternative methods of bc the pregnancy rates drop significantly, and the average age teens become sexually active goes up. But that's a different story.

 

[Nelzador]

This is nothing new. I used to be part of these types of lessons in school and it was really telling us nothing that we didn't already know. The teachers teaching us were astounded at how much we all knew about STDs and such. Me & my friends actually researched STDs and the types of protection to use. Of course, most of the adults considered us to all be ignorant of sex, but we ended up showing that in the information age, we used the resources available to educate ourselves.

 

[Wolseley]

50 years ago, kids in school didn't have to worry about catching STDs or getting pregnant, because kids in school weren't engaging in sexual activity. Sex was something that you didn't have to worry about until you were an adult, and preferably married.

Nowadays, of course, that's unrealistic, because as everyone knows, teenagers are incapable of controlling themselves like teenagers did 50 years ago. Back then, kids still had a little bit of self-control; now, it seems, teenagers are totally incapable of handling their baser instincts, and they boff like rabbits.

Must be something they've put in the water. ("Fluoridation, Mandrake.")

Ah, what hath the '60's wrought......

 

[shout2thelord]

I think its just lack of discipline wosley and the world tells them its ok to do whatever you want.

most teenagers will have had oral sex pre teen anyway thats why they have moved on to sex by that age. also the morning after pill is easy to get hold of and their parents will never know.

 

[Morat]

Actually, pregnancy rates were lower in the 1950s. Mainly because we'd killed off a bumper crop of potential fathers in WWII.

However, that sort of thing still did happen. It just was hushed up. You had far more "baby sisters" appearing after a girl visited her distant aunt for 10 months, rather than pregnant girls going to school.

I'd be interested in seeing actual statistics on pregnancy rates in the 1950s.

 

[Wolseley]

Well, don't depend on Kinsey. He's been discredited.

They found out he sort of had an agenda.......

 

[seebs]

Today at 10:27 PM Wolseley said this in Post #13 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678494#post678494)

Well, don't depend on Kinsey. He's been discredited.

They found out he sort of had an agenda.......

Perhaps more importantly, he had huge sample bias. An agenda doesn't necessarily change facts, but sampling bias does.

 

[Morat]

Since I said it would be nice to see actual statistics, I'm obviously not depending on Kinsey.

Do you plan to present any?

 

[O'Mara]

Pregnancy isn't really as big of an issue here as STD's.

STD's weren't any where as big a worry 20-30-40 years ago as they are now.

It sounds to me that these school administrators are acting very irresponsibly. The parents should really speak out.