So your answer is medically but that you have no reason to believe it is any riskier than other vaccines. Right?

And yes I am familiar with thalidomide babies. I was in high school band with one -- not a baby by that time, of course. But thalidomide was not a vaccine nor was it forced on anyone.

And I am also aware of the possible connection between immunizations & autism, ADD,etc.

But this is really a subject for another thread. I was just curious about your exact position on the cancer immunization.

I'm sure you also know there is no "cancer immunization."

Yes. Sorry. Poor choice of words.

Study: Marijuana halts growth of lung cancer tumors

http://www.defendingthetruth.com/hea...er-tumors.html (Study: Marijuana halts growth of lung cancer tumors)

Study: Marijuana halts growth of lung cancer tumors | IndyStar.com

V, I wasn't born yesterday either.
And if you are truly teaching your children something with love and good reason, then I am sure they will not be any more tempted to have sex as they consider available methods of contraception.

I never once heard a young man or young lady say, "Yeah, we learned right at home but when we thought about how easy it would be to have an abortion, we thought, let's have sex anyhow!"

And the classes that teach young people sex education are having to teach children who come from many different backgrounds. Again, sharing contraceptive measures, educators are NOT encouraging sex.

And when you say that classes ought not be taught at all, well ...you could be right. If every young person was taught at home. But that is where you must be born yesterday, V. Far too many kids are not presented with information to make wise decisions. Either their parents are not actively parenting for any number of reasons or they are not sharing factual information with their children.

OD

Your argument here seems circular to me. "If I'm teaching my children...." then learning about contraception shouldn't matter, but at the same time, because "IF" they AREN"T being taught what is important at home, but the schools are teaching them how to ignore consequences....guess what? They learn how to ignore consequences....

So what your saying is everyone should teach thier kids what you think is appropriate.

I thought we were discussing Abstinance Only education.

You seem to be arguing against Contraception Only education.

Teaching both does not teach children to ignore consequences. Using contraception is one way of taking responsibility for your actions and the consequences.

Yes, and no one is dismissing the value of being taught whatever standards one wants to inculcate in their own children.

But there is alongside that teaching, the benefit to classes given for all the children.

Here is something to show what I think you are arguing about V.

Let's pretend that in your home, you teach your children that they are to always eat their stir fry with a fork, and that not until they have a passport.

Well teaching them the sensibilities of it, and the reasons you find this to be right, then you might well expect your children to first obtain a passport, and when they do eat stir fry, they will do so with a fork.

Now let's follow these children to the school where many other children come from many other homes, with other backgrounds. Some from homes where stir fy is never discussed. Some where the parents have a different set of values than your own, and teach other ideas about stir fry.

Here in the class room the teacher covers facts about stir fry. What it is, how some might implement chop sticks and others a fork. How some find it essential to have a passport to eat it. And how some opt to have stir fry all by themselves or in mixed company. How some get a tummy ache after eating it...how there often is MSG in stirfry.

And so the list goes on. Giving all the facts and customs, all the values and what all the hype about stir fry is...

why are you opposed to that? IF you really trust your own standards are clearly right and sensible, then can you not be assured that your own children will follow your Stirfry Standards?

OD

The basics in biology are that A coupled with B will naturally produce C.

Beyond that fact, why should government take charge of teaching things that obviously require lots of value judgement and moral teaching? Is the new secular god of government so superior that those appointed elites who know better than you do and think you are too stupid or too irresponsible to teach your own kids about these things? Are you satisfied with such a contemptious attitude toward your own family values?

As it is now and has been for many decades is that kids are being taught what those elites who are so contemptious of families and their values. Kids these days are not being taught to think, they are being taught WHAT to think, and that's a dangerous situation.

There would be far fewer families abdicating the role of providing guidance in these things if they weren't being contradicted and made to look like fools for doing it. If the schools are telling your kids you are wrong, they are telling them what to think, they are working against YOU the taxpayer who pays their salaries, and they are undermining your parental authority. So called "sex education" classes are so controversial that very contentious meetings take place every year in lots of school districts over content already.