Why the eye roll? I dont even believe anyone should have a abortion. Like any other thing in life, I think people should be responcible for there actions. Both man and women. Its to bad most people hate the bible so much. If we lived by it, these issues wouldnt even exist. Along with things like std's, and crime, and such.

That doesnt tell me to give up. It tells me we need to look into other ways of teaching it. Its far to important of a subject to not even bring it up.

Indeed, in order to prevent STD's, in order to prevent pregnancy, abstinence works everytime it's practiced.

The CDC figures say something. They say that a growing percentage of our teens are getting that message.

Personally, I don't know how anyone could conclude that this isn't true.

Of course abstinence works every time it's practiced.

That's not the point. The point is, that abstinence is not natural. And we cannot distribute spiritual fortitude or whatever means a young person would need to have to reject his natural inclinations.

Let families dialog with their children according to their own moral code and spiritual foundation. Let the churches teach what they will. But secular programs cannot issue "Holy Spirit rendered self-control" nor should it ever. Better to stick with the facts and a program that can work without invoking the name of God.

OD

Sheesh. Where did I invoke the name of God? Abstinence works every time it's tried. Punto.

I will have to disagree with you that we should not teach children to ignore SOME natural urges.... They do pick and choose when to defacate....they should be very much in charge of when to choose other bodily functions as well. What earthly good is free will if it's not USED?

We don't encourage them to TAKE whatever they want just because it's there...... That would be theft and wrong.... why not encourage them to control their own bodily urges for their own future good?

V, I DO teach my children to take the moral high road. To stand the moral high ground. I am their mother.

State funded programs cannot teach morality though. Because then you get into the debate of whose morality do we bestow on our youth at the expense of taxpayer's dollars? There IS wisdom in abstinence.
That is not in question.

And it ought to be covered in any sex education class for what it is. But not to the dismissal of other means of birth control and the prevention of STD's.

And there is a realistic approach that says that a high per cent of young people will explore their sexuality outside the moral principles that are held up to them at home or in church. So it is of benefit to everyone if they have an objective third party that educates them on the "what ifs" that far too many discover in ignorance because parents and churches are afraid to discuss birth control or encourage it, as if it is a free ticket to promiscuity.

Heck there is even a debate about whether to give an immunization to young ladies to prevent cervical cancer, as if it will encourage sexual activity if they know they need not fear the cancer. While so many so called Christians concern themselves with how they suppose some folk will go to hell if they aren't out there preaching the gospel and that if they do not preach that gospel , the blood of those who die not hearing it is on their own hands...I believe that they need to evaluate if the blood is on their hands for not sharing factual and informative views about sex and encourage the safeguards that medical science has made available.

OD

I must be too old!

I've been on earth long enough to see with my own eyes this history.....birth control pills DO AND DID actively and effectively encourage promiscuity....and further, legalization of abortion DOES AND DID encourage promiscuity..... You can check CDC statistics yourself all the way from the 50's to today..... you can see the destruction wrought upon our society as a result of these two "medical advances".... They have had a degrading, devastating effect on the family, robbed parents of their authority and their influence, taken away from many people their reasons for abstaining without sounding like holy rollers!

What role should the state play in all this? NONE. They should not be teaching how -to classes on any of this stuff..... They haven't got that moral high ground that you claim. There should be no government policy at all.

On the basis of government-nannyism-we=know=better-than-parents=what=children=should=learn, YOU have lost ground on these moral issues. Because the government will,and actively does undermine anything and everything you teach your children about these issues!

Should the state force risky immunizations for STD's on 12 year old girls against the wishes of their parents? NO.

Risky how?

Medically or socially?

I have not seen any indication that it is risker medically than any other vaccine, many of which are required "forced" by the state.

Do you have any kids yet Crazy? Just curious. I've lived long enough to remember thalidomide babies...indeed, I had a friend who was one. Medical science doesn't know actually what harm it does. As far as my children go, or my grandchildren, I'd be much happier if NOTHING was put into their bodies that could cause trouble.

But lots of children are now autistic possibly caused by immunications that contained mercury as a binder...can't remember the exact name....many children have ADD and ADHD and asthma, and all sorts of other things wrong with them that medical science hasn't figured out the cause of and won't if it involves something THEY did or caused. You can be sure of that.

One should ALWAYS be suspicious of anything the STATE wants put into our children....

Unless you EXPECT 12 year old girls to say YES to inappropriate behavior not sanctioned by any sane society, why immunize them against STD's except perhaps to protect sexual predators from responsibility? Unintended consequences.... There are always unintended consequences.

As a society we should be expecting appropriate good behavior on behalf of our young girls, and thus, also our young boys!