Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sex education"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Debate?)
(Undo revision 542752 by JudgeKing (Talk))
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
:This doesn't seem very conservative. It's all about how ineffective abstinance education is. Probably true, but irrelivant: Conservatives know that sex ed is about more than safe sex, it's about promoting moral values and Christian virtue. Comprehensive sex ed may keep the teens safe from pregnency and STI, but at the expense of turning them away from God, so we need to give our full support to abstinance. I urge a rewrite to strip all the pro-sex and anti-abstinance parts - which leaves three paragraphs. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:12, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 
:This doesn't seem very conservative. It's all about how ineffective abstinance education is. Probably true, but irrelivant: Conservatives know that sex ed is about more than safe sex, it's about promoting moral values and Christian virtue. Comprehensive sex ed may keep the teens safe from pregnency and STI, but at the expense of turning them away from God, so we need to give our full support to abstinance. I urge a rewrite to strip all the pro-sex and anti-abstinance parts - which leaves three paragraphs. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:12, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 
::Abstinence only education doesn't work because of the forbidden fruit effect (for an example, see Prohibition). Teens just don't listen, hell I'm only seventeen and I understand that. Abstinence only, like Communism, requires that human nature change completely and abruptly and that is impossible. Comprehensive Sex Education gives teens information that can actually be useful such as contraceptives, STDs, STD prevention. It also teaches that abstinence is also okay and someone's choice. But it isn't taught exclusively and used as a crutch to misinform teenagers.[[User:JudgeKing|JudgeKing]] 13:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 
  
 
== Where did this article go? ==
 
== Where did this article go? ==

Revision as of 12:44, 25 October 2008

Debate?

Considering that this is a hot-button issue, don't you think we should have a debate about it? DLerner 20:34, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Can't they just use the same method that scared me away from sex? My high school showed STD videos.. like the worst stages of getting one. -^_^- Fuzzy 20:42, 5 February 2008 (EST)

This doesn't seem very conservative. It's all about how ineffective abstinance education is. Probably true, but irrelivant: Conservatives know that sex ed is about more than safe sex, it's about promoting moral values and Christian virtue. Comprehensive sex ed may keep the teens safe from pregnency and STI, but at the expense of turning them away from God, so we need to give our full support to abstinance. I urge a rewrite to strip all the pro-sex and anti-abstinance parts - which leaves three paragraphs. NewCrusader 18:12, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Where did this article go?

Why were huge (refereneced) chunks of this article deleted without explanation? HelpJazz 23:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Second sentence

It's awkward. Really, really awkward and horribly written. Changing it.

Apples & Oranges

Federal funding for abstinence only education across the country has increased during the decade, but still does not equal the amount of money the government gives to Planned Parenthood, a single organization, each year. I don't believe that the figures in the two articles cited can be compared to each other. Planned Parenthood does various things - not all of their money is about sex ed or abortions, some is things like breast cancer ed (if I remember right) - plus most public schools get little federal funding anyway, so looking at Planned Parenthood's total income vs. federal gov't money spent on abstinence-only ed doesn't mean much of anything. We need more accurate/specific figures or we need to remove this sentence. --Hsmom 13:37, 22 October 2008 (EDT)