quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I agree with some of what you said.

But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children.

By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions:

a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers.

b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic.

Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate.

Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission.

Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach?

Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him.

Is that really the only idea you can come up with?

The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Who does math, science, history, language education for our children? When you teach the human body in health/science classes, teaching human reproduction and STD's is part of it. Prevention of those should also be a part of it.

a) Its a federal issue because public schools receive federal funding. Some of that funding is to help lower the risk of unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Federal funding is also paying for babies and STD's that could otherwise be avoided by educating youth.

b) People often make the argument about diverting from teaching but if that's the problem we need to cancel football, basketball, band, art, dance, and any of the other many many extra curricular activities that drain money, time, and resources from the school because they "divert from teaching." The "divert from teaching" argument is a red herring. No one seems to care when anything else diverts. Just this issue.

We all agree that there is much to be fixed in education, but allowing kids to get pregnant and STD's out of ignorance is not going to help that. In fact it will only make things worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I agree with some of what you said.

But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children.

By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions:

a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers.

b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic.

Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate.

Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission.

Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach?

Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him.

Is that really the only idea you can come up with?

The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Because they do such a miserable job at teaching math, science, history, language education..it rather argues this is too important to leave to them now, doesn't it?

Not an argument I expect to win, here. But...

For the record, I am in favor of allowing multiple kinds of schools MJ. I'm in favor of anything that breaks the stranglehold of our incompetent public education system that we have now.

Its an absolute travesty how poor inner city youths are robbed of a future by unions. And how year after year they block rudimentary reforms that would give these kids a future.

Instead they perpetuate a cycle of poverty and violence. You know - like how they blocked charter schools scholarships in DC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

....To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant(Figure 2).

Lies, damn lies & statistics.. and the dimocrats that push them.

Such cleverly constructed wordsmithing.

Buried in the text of said observation that pregnances in white girls are 28.7 per thousands; black 108; hispanic 147. That single fact alone explains your pregnancy map more than adequately - and far better than the smug assertion that it is due conservative policies.

quote:

we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

....To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant(Figure 2).

Lies, damn lies & statistics.. and the dimocrats that push them.

Such cleverly constructed wordsmithing.

Buried in the text of said observation that pregnances in white girls are 28.7 per thousands; black 108; hispanic 147. That single fact alone explains your pregnancy map more than adequately - and far better than the smug assertion that it is due conservative policies.

Actually not, as always.
From the study

quote:

we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state.

Unlike cons actual scientists do think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

....To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant(Figure 2).

Lies, damn lies & statistics.. and the dimocrats that push them.

Such cleverly constructed wordsmithing.

Buried in the text of said observation that pregnances in white girls are 28.7 per thousands; black 108; hispanic 147. That single fact alone explains your pregnancy map more than adequately - and far better than the smug assertion that it is due conservative policies.

Actually not, as always.
From the study

quote:

we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state.

Unlike cons actual scientists do think.

Here's a little thought experiment. Map teen pregnancy rates by state. Correlate by racial distribution.
See how it varies from the authors map.

Answer: Not much.

Ergo, what I said was accurate.

And as for 'scientists'. She's an associate professor of plant biology.
She ignored two major variables known to strongly influence teen pregnancy rates and said her results strongle suggested that comprehensive sex education was in order. Thats like doing optical astronomy during the day and saying the results prove more powerful telescopes are in order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

....To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant(Figure 2).

Lies, damn lies & statistics.. and the dimocrats that push them.

Such cleverly constructed wordsmithing.

Buried in the text of said observation that pregnances in white girls are 28.7 per thousands; black 108; hispanic 147. That single fact alone explains your pregnancy map more than adequately - and far better than the smug assertion that it is due conservative policies.

Actually not, as always.
From the study

quote:

we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state.

Unlike cons actual scientists do think.

Here's a little thought experiment. Map teen pregnancy rates by state. Correlate by racial distribution.
See how it varies from the authors map.

Answer: Not much.

Ergo, what I said was accurate.

And as for 'scientists'. She's an associate professor of plant biology.
She ignored two major variables known to strongly influence teen pregnancy rates and said her results strongle suggested that comprehensive sex education was in order. Thats like doing optical astronomy during the day and saying the results prove more powerful telescopes are in order.

quote:

Conceived and designed the experiments: DWH KSH. Performed the experiments: DWH KSH. Analyzed the data: DWH KSH. Wrote the paper: DWH KSH.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

As far as Palin goes, farglebargle said that Bristol was the poster child for abstinence. He didn't say she was the poster child for "abstinence only" education. Had that been the comment, I'd have either posted in agreement, or not posted at all.

Fargle will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe what he meant was "Bristol is the poster child for abstinence-only sex education NOT working."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
if are you practising to write a better obituary for Jacques de La Palice you need some more efforts...
look at Phydeaux numbers: abstinence classes reduces pregnancy risk by a 30% in the 12-14 age range, condom by an 85% if used without skills and 98% if used correctly. And by the way I think that in the 14-18 age range that 30% becomes a 0%. So there is no queston about what is better for saving the kids bodies, if the problem is how o save their souls than it is a different problem that I really don't care.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
They are not dumb. Abstinence is a philosophy based mostly in religious belief. Religion teaches you that by faith you have to believe something even if all the evidence says otherwise. This is what my Christianity teaches, its what my Bible says and it is what most people of faith adhere to.
Science teaches that verifiable outcomes cannot be rejected. As a person who loves and believes in science I realize now that if science and religion merge, neither one of them make sense.
Until I participated in this discussion I honestly could not figure out what the big deal was with teaching creationism in science class. I figured it couldn't hurt to allow it. This discussion changed my view on that. When you promote faith as science some people get to the point where they cannot tell the difference........ And they are not just different, they are polar opposites.

Do they have a complete timeline of the Evolutionary process yet? Or, are there still gaps, and assumptions involved? If it's not complete, then, it's not settled science, is it? When I was in college, the dominant theory on how a muscle contracts was explained as the "Sliding Filament Theory." It was explained that it wasn't completely known to be true, but that most people believed it was. If you can only "believe" it to be true, then it brings in some elements of faith, doesn't it? Faith and science can not co-exist, as science knows while faith doesn't.
I'm not opposed to teaching Evolution in schools. I'm also not opposed to exposing kids to Creationism or Intelligent Design as possible "other" explanations. We don't know exactly what happened at this time. And, it should be taught in that manner.

You are wrong about evolution, and the argument you are giving is how the creationists and such go about promoting their cause. In a nutshell, they argue because evolution has holes in it, gaps, that the entire thing isn't fully understood (which any scientist would tell you is true), then somehow that makes the whole idea that organisms evolved from lower creatures wrong, and that is silly.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Choosing to not have sex is a very effective way to prevent pregnancy. Choosing to not have sex is the only way to prevent - 100% of the time - pregnancy (outside of sterilization). Every other method involves some risk of failure, even when used properly.

This is only the case if you count the failure rate in every other method of birth control and ignore it in abstinence. The way you're defining abstinence to ignore the massive failure rate is known as a "no true Scotsman fallacy", let me explain.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

An "unbiased" examination of the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDOGQ5A8M0w

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I agree with some of what you said.

But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children.

By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions:

a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers.

b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic.

Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate.

Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission.

Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach?

Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him.

Is that really the only idea you can come up with?

The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Who does math, science, history, language education for our children? When you teach the human body in health/science classes, teaching human reproduction and STD's is part of it. Prevention of those should also be a part of it.

a) Its a federal issue because public schools receive federal funding. Some of that funding is to help lower the risk of unwanted pregnancies and STD's. Federal funding is also paying for babies and STD's that could otherwise be avoided by educating youth.

b) People often make the argument about diverting from teaching but if that's the problem we need to cancel football, basketball, band, art, dance, and any of the other many many extra curricular activities that drain money, time, and resources from the school because they "divert from teaching." The "divert from teaching" argument is a red herring. No one seems to care when anything else diverts. Just this issue.

We all agree that there is much to be fixed in education, but allowing kids to get pregnant and STD's out of ignorance is not going to help that. In fact it will only make things worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I agree with some of what you said.

But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children.

By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions:

a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers.

b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic.

Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate.

Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission.

Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach?

Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him.

Is that really the only idea you can come up with?

The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned.