Woman to Woman

By Lee

October 28, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

The ONLY time a government agency should be allowed to obtain a prescription for a child without the parent’s permission is if said child is in the care and custody of the Dept of Family and Children’s Services (DFACS).

That’s it. Period. No exceptions.

For too long, the politically correct parasites in the public school systems have tried to undermine the parental authority.

In our area, the number of private schools have grown exponentially in the past 20 years.

There is a good reason for that…..

By Geoffrey Broocker, M.D.

October 28, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Please think carefully before writing something that is incredibly untrue and misleading the public. AIDS HAS NEVER BEEN DOCUMENTED AS BEING TRANSMITTED THROUGH TEARS OR SWEAT. There are enough things out there to frighten the public!

Geoffrey Broocker, M.D. Professor of Ophthalmology Emory University School of Medicine Chief of Service, Grady Memorial Hospital

By No name please...

October 28, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

A. Sarvady rocks this one! Apparently, some people are torn between “sending a message” and sending the truth. As a mom, I choose to arm the kids with knowledge and truth — their best defense in a crazy world.

By comp133xi7y

October 28, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Dr. Broocker - apparently your medical education did not include basic understanding of punctuation.

Yet a 2004 congressional study showed that most commonly-used curricula were filled with falsehoods regarding reproductive health: Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31 percent of the time. AIDS can be spread through sweat and tears.

Please note the colon after “reproductive health”. That indicates that the items following are related to the phrase before the colon. In other words - “AIDS can be spread through sweat and tears” is one of the falsehoods mentioned.

By GOB

October 29, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

I’ve said for years that we need to do away with vaccines too. All they do is encourage kids to get polio.

By chuck

October 29, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

Gob as usual, you have reduced the topic to the absurd. BUT, since you’ve gone there, When was the last time that you know of that a kid was given a polio vaccine WITHOUT HIS PARENT’S PERMISSION?

While vaccines are REQUIRED for students to attend school, parents have A CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT their children will receive them. In most states there is an “opt out” provision for religious reasons.

I thought You lefties were all about choice. So let me get this straight, last week you said that gay marriage had nothing to do with UNDERAGE kids getting married (i.e. the slippery slope) because kids are supposed to PROTECTED from pedophiles and they aren’t supposed to having sex anyway. NOW, when it comes to the RIGHTS of parents to control the MEDICAL decisions for their own children, you want to hand over that RIGHT to the STATE?!?!

I thought ya’ll were against government intrusion into your family. A kid can’t get a license to drive until he’s 16, but you want him to be given ASSISTANCE to do something MUCH MORE DANGEROUS to his physical and emotional health at 11 years-old? You people are NUTS.

By chuck

October 29, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

Maybe you missed the FIRST SENTENCE of Shaunti’s commentary.

King Middle School in Portland, Maine has handed out condoms to 11-year-olds since 2000. And the school board just decided to provide prescription contraceptives without parental approval.

How can ANY SANE PERSON JUSTIFY THIS?!?

I want you to remember this moment. 10-12 years from now I want you to recall this prediction. If we don’t keep lunatics like this school board out of the decision making process, you will be looking at the demise of PUBLIC EDUCATION. You can mark my words on this. There will be a backlash of monumental proportions if this kind of idiocy spreads. Right now we are talking about one small group of lefty loonies, but if it spreads, people with means will stop sending their kids to public schools.

When that happens, public education will no longer be a viable means of educating children. There will be a nationwide push for voucher programs and the only kids that will be left are the ones who need the most help. But guess what? That help won’t be available to them because the BEST teachers will go where the money is.

By Billy

October 29, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

…you want him to be given ASSISTANCE to do something MUCH MORE DANGEROUS to his physical and emotional health at 11 years-old…

Avoiding pregnancy is dangerous? Seriously, though, I’m not sure I agree with the distribution of what is ordinarily a prescription medication by the school. Is the school nurse qualified to prescribe the pill in a clinical setting? The fact of the matter is that the pill can wreak havoc on a woman’s body and I personally wouldn’t want my daughter subjecting herself to that without my knowledge.

That said, I aim to be the same sort of parent my parents were, trusting me to make the right decisions but also being there for me should I make the wrong ones. This is the test for you, chuck. You have a fifteen or sixteen year-old daughter. She comes to you and tells you she’s having sex. Do you ground her or take her to the gynecologist where she can get a medical examination and professional info about the dangers of sex and how to protect herself? The catch-22 about the “pill/condoms in school” brouhaha is that the adults who make all the fuss tend to be the ones whose kids wouldn’t feel comfortable seeking parental advice and therefor get into sexual situations without knowing all the facts and options. They’re the kids who need easy access to birth control because they know their parents will go apeshit if they talk to them about it.

Again, not crazy about the pill being distributed. I think condoms are just about as reliable (if they are used correctly) and they have no side effects while protecting against STDs.

The thing we’re missing is that this particular school had something like 17 pregnancies last year. Regardless of the school size, that number is just about an epidemic. They obviously feel that they no longer can rely on the parents to teach their kids what to do and are taking drastic steps to try and fix things.

And honestly I have a hard time with the whole “sending the wrong message” argument. If you raise your kids to think for themselves, they’ll be more likely to resist peer pressure and less likely to be swayed the way Shaunti and chuck fear. At least if these kids come into the school nurse’s office for the pill she’ll be able to talk to them, give them information, tell them they don’t have to have sex just because their boyfriends want to, maybe find out if there’s any abuse going on. Any girl who is going to willingly have sex at 11 because she has access to the pill is going to have sex at 12 whether she has it or not. Better to get an adult involved and offer a modicum of protection so that her life isn’t ruined by getting pregnant as a preteen.

By Anonymous

October 29, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

quote: “Are Schools encouraging students to have sex?”

No, being [i]alive[/i] encourages students to have sex. Schools encourage them to be safe about it.

By Mara

October 29, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

So the school nurse will know a young girl is sexually active, privately put her on the pill so she can avoid pregnancy, and keep that knowledge from parents who wants to teach their daughter about sexual choices.

I’m totally confused by this. The kid is already having sex and now the parents “want to teach their daughter about sexual choices”? Aren’t they a bit late?! Shouldn’t that have been discussed before she started having sex? Shouldn’t that have been one of the primary conversations they had when the girl first hit puberty?

And because the school is picking up the slack from parents either oblivious to the intimacies of the childs life or too embarrassed to be talking to their fifth grader about s-e-x…now these parents are offended that they (and “the street”) aren’t the only source of information their little princess has about sexuality and safety?!!

By Lyrazel

October 29, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Uh gee. Someone should have sent Shaunti the actual FACTS about this Portland case. It seems the parents WERE involved/informed in the actual planning of this landmark decision. Read the Portland Press Herald to find details where you will also be informed that once a middle school child goes to the school nurse for birth control the school notifies the parent. The state law says that anyone under the age of 14 who is known to be having sex must be reported to state officials which the school will also do. Now the school can help the state to find and incarcerate pedophiles plus help the middle school children who cannot resist sexual relations by giving them very needed information if they continue having sex at this age. Middle School is 10-14 year olds, btw.

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Billy: nicely put (9:27)!!

Was trapped in a doctor’s waiting room on Friday, enduring the sensory assault of Fox “News” from which I was unable to escape. They were all over this story, giving, as usual, HALF the story, followed by ten minutes of urgent voice inflection, telling us how we’re supposed to feel about it. Clearly this is where Shaunti and Chuck get their “information,” since they seem oblivious to the full scope of the situation, and quite certain of their own patent on the definitions of right and wrong.

By Archie

October 29, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

No schools are not encouraging students to have sex. Schools are doing what they think is right and sometimes you have extreme liberal and extreme conservative viewpoints taking over. It is a shame that the extreme political viewpoints dominate any topic because frankly, I want my child to abstain from sex and I don’t have a problem with abstinence but I also want my child to get a comprehensive education on the human body which means education on sex. I do not want my child given birth control pills without my knowledge and I would be quite angry if such a thing were to occur. Condoms at age eleven is an extremely liberal thing to do in my opinion and if you are teaching about human body I don’t have a problem if you simply say to an eleven year-old “don’t have sex”. No need to lie to them just tell them point blank “don’t have sex”. Eleven year-olds don’t work anywhere so they can’t pay for their actions and they need to be told exactly what to do. I am all for being liberal but there are times when politics need to leave and common sense needs to come into play.

By Scalia

October 29, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Chuck, have you been to a school on the southside? For some reason, I see you being a teacher at a northside school. If you have, you would hear some very inappropriate things coming out of the mouths of these students. I heard an 11 year old asking another 11 year old what was the strongest muscle in your body. The student answered with his thing.

For some students, the ones that have parents absent from their education and their lives, need to have this option. However, I believe that the teachers should sit down and talk to these students. A lot of times, they just don’t know. Teachers and schools are taking on more and more responsibilities that used to belong to parents. I have a friend that is a Pre-k teacher. She had to potty train several students age 4 because the parents didn’t do it.

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

The year my mother retired from teaching, there were three sixth graders who were pregnant. ‘Nuff said?

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

well, i was going to make some comments as the mother of a 14-year-old who just completed the harrowing middle school years last year, but billy@9:27 and mara@10:08 covered a lot of the ground i was going to cover.

i will say that i started sex-ed with my daughter before middle school so she’d know what the heck she would be heading into. waiting until a kid is in the thick of things is too darn late. attitudes toward sex and drugs should be shaped early on in a rational manner (meaning not telling your kid: “if you have sex you will die” or “if you smoke pot you’ll go to hell”) or they’ll learn from their friends and their friends older siblings. not good. i don’t trust the schools to tell her what she needs to know, especially with all this abstinance-only stuff, and i sure as heck don’t trust her friends because i can only assume that they are getting the same bad info as she is getting.

i understand that some people want their kids to be abstinate, but you can teach abstinance and still give them factual information so they can use their God-given brains to process it all. You can tell them “this is how everything works, but i feel very strongly that you not have sex before marriage because _____.” it might also help to say that even though a body is physically “ready” to have sexual feelings, it’s a good idea to wait until their emotions are able to deal with the fallout.

It is especially helpful if you can tell them with a straight face that you didn’t have pre-marital sex, because my strongest belief in regard to child-rearing is that you shouldn’t expect your kids to make better choices than you did yourself. if you try to scare kids into doing the right thing, they’ll look around and see that other kids are doing the things you’re saying will kill them and since nothing happens to those kids, then it must not be so bad. then you’ve lost their trust. and once you lose credibility, you’ll lose their respect and you won’t be able to guide them anymore. i think a lot of well-meaning parents stumble on this.

i certainly don’t encourage my daughter to be sexually active, but i feel confident that i’ve done my job as a parent (so far) getting the information she needs either from me or from reliable sources so she knows exactly what will happen if she becomes sexually active. this seems to be working pretty well. she’s not scared of sex, but on the other hand, she knows the consequences ranging from emotional well-being to disease to pregnancy. i know she is armed with facts and is making good choices.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

many American schools are not helping children stay abstinent — which is the only real solution for emotional and physical health. IMO, it’s not the job of American schools to help children stay abstinent…it’s the job if their PARENTS! If the kids are having sex during school hours AT the school then the school has some level of responsibility, but I’ll venture a guess that little Susie and Johnny are getting it on at one of their homes while Mom and Dad are both at work.

how about helping the little girl with the self-destructive choices make better ones, for heaven’s sake? Once again…is this the responsibility of the school or the parents? I do think that the school should be notifying parents of a minor child that the child is requesting birth control, but beyond that it’s over and out. What I observe is Shaunti and many conservatives talking about how schools should teach abstinence, but not about sex because it could send the wrong message. What I can’t wrap my head around is how many of us who went through the public school systems in the 70’s and 80’s received comprehensive sex education but somehow it didn’t encourage us to have sex back then but it does now. Maybe it’s not the schools or the information being presented, but the culture and lack of parental involvement?

The catch-22 about the “pill/condoms in school” brouhaha is that the adults who make all the fuss tend to be the ones whose kids wouldn’t feel comfortable seeking parental advice and therefor get into sexual situations without knowing all the facts and options. Billy and Mara both make great points about “Where are the parents?” and are they approachable for this discussion?

Thanks for the research Lyrazel!

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

my strongest belief in regard to child-rearing is that you shouldn’t expect your kids to make better choices than you did yourself. GO ERYN!! You sound like one great Mom and completely on the mark about the downward spiral of losing credibility with your child!! I think your statement above is a key point many of us would miss. I wonder how many of the abstinence only crowd didn’t wait and think that by pushing abstinence only will be able to manipulate their child into not having sex prior to marriage?

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

thanks netB! my day is now officially made.

‘parents in denial’ is one of my biggest pet peeves. especially when one of these parents starts telling me what i need to do with my kid. jeez.

one of my daughter’s best friend’s parents told her she would get AIDS (her words) if she kissed a boy. not a specific boy – any boy. two problems here: 1) you can’t get HIV from kissing; and 2) if her kid knows any number of her friends and acquaintances that are already kissing and they aren’t HIV+ (including her family members, who clearly are kissing or have kissed someone), why would she ever believe anything her mom says about sex from then on. that’s entry-level.

By barb nelson

October 29, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Something in this picture seems chavonistic. The school has been passing out condoms since 2000 and this didn’t seem to be a big deal. But when they want to give the pill to the girls there’s a problem. Come on. If any of you have ever worked in a public health facility then you know the truth. Kids start experimenting with sex at a very early ages. Yea, 11 years old. And they can have babies at 11. And let’s be realistic how many kids really tell their parents everything. You probably can count them on one hand. Some may say they say they do, but let’s survey and see. I am quite sure if the parents make a request to the school not to allow their children to participate I am sure the request will/should be honored. Let’s all think back, the girl that was considered “the bad girl” wasn’t the one that got pregnant, most of the time it was the innocent girl. How many years have we been hearing about teaching abstinence, but what has happened. Are they really abstaining? When we really look a the whole picture, are the kids the ones that have the highest pregnancy rate in this day in time? Are they the ones that really need the birth control? Last I read the highest rate of unwed pregnancy is not among teens any more. Guess who….?

By Jack

October 29, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

It is not the scool’s responsibility to provide birth control for a student of any age. A parent that goes for that isn’t an involved parent.

By Jack

October 29, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

My speling on that last post maks me lok unedgicated. Sorry.

By Maxwell

October 29, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Apparently parental permission is required at the Maine school for a child to receive birth control pills at the clinic. Somehow all that got missed in the hoopla.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/29/national/main3422488.shtml

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

So… should the children of uninvolved parents suffer their whole lives, wallowing in an ignorant, disadvantaged state because, for some “moral” reason, other adults in their community and society write them off as “not my problem?” Who cares if Johnny can’t read or Suzie is an ignorant sl-t? They’re not MY kids; and Jesus only wants me to care about MINE! Thank goodness some people actually care enough to step in when they do!!

By Scalia

October 29, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

No name Please, that is exactly what I am saying. For some kids, school is their parent. School provides them with breakfast and lunch. It provides them with social skills. It stimulates their minds. It also provides them with safety.

It also provides them with sex education.

That is what gets me about our society. The adoption laws are so hard, and abortion is not an acceptable option. Child healthcare is underfunded. It is like we really don’t care about our children. I look at the kids that show up to school unprepared. It is really sad.

By Besuttediaded

October 29, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se ">buy viagra http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se - buy viagra

By BitWooxorie

October 29, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se ">buy viagra http://www.ibm.com/links?buyviagra.xforum.se - buy viagra

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

yeah, it really is sad. parents SHOULD be the ones helping their kids figure out what is going on, but if the parents don’t care or they misguidedly try to ‘protect’ their kids by willfully withholding information, who’s going to deal with the consequences?

education, education, education. knowledge, knowledge, knowledge. the more you know, the better prepared you are to make sound judgements. works for kids… and grown-ups, too.

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

72John - The year my mother retired from teaching, there were three sixth graders who were pregnant. ‘Nuff said?

Just curious - 3 out of how many total students? If we are talking about 3 out of 100, MAYBE one could make the argument that we have a serious problem. However, if it is a typical metro-Atlanta school with 800+ students in one grade, you are promoting a plan (at taxpayers’ expense) for a “problem” that affects less than one half of one percent of the students.

NetB - Billy and Mara both make great points about “Where are the parents?” and are they approachable for this discussion?

Does it matter if the parent’s are approachable or not? If their kids are having sex, the parents will have to clean up the mess, not the school. The parent’s approachability, or lack thereof, does not give the school the right to pass out birth control without their permission.

Let’s face it - this issue boils down to beliefs and feelings and not facts and figures. Most liberals have predetermined that passing out birth control is a good thing. Most conservatives will disagree. Neither will pay attention to pertinent data.

My “feeling” is this - when you have authority figures pass out condoms and pills, this sends a message to children that it is OK to have sex. Is that true? I don’t know. I do know that it would take mountains of data from non-biased sources to make me change my mind.

My liberal friends will disagree with my “feelings” because they have their own core beliefs. Despite claims from the left that they have superior critical thinking skills, it will take mountains of data for them to make a paradigm shift on this issue as well.

By Jack

October 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

NNP. Are you saying the school should be the children’s parents?

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

Jack - NNP. Are you saying the school should be the children’s parents?

Remember Jack - it takes a village. Hillary ‘08! LOL!

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

NNP. Are you saying the school should be the children’s parents?

Is that what I said? I don’t think so. I asked a question and then made a comment. Did you want to answer the question?

AARP: Nice segue into candidate bashing. Humankind survived for millenia largely because communities (villages) looked out for the young therein when the life expectancy of parents was much lower. But HEY, it must be a BAD thing if Whats-her-face points it out, right?

Y’all disappoint today. Going back to work now.

By Mara

October 29, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR - If their kids are having sex, the parents will have to clean up the mess, not the school

most likely the parents won’t be dealing with “the mess” either. Odds are that unprotected sex will end up in pregnancy. If the girl doesn’t abort or give the child up for adoption, society as a whole will end footing the bill. Thus it ends up being a “public” health issue.

this issue boils down to beliefs and feelings and not facts and figures

It is a fact (not a “feeling”) that the majority of teen mothers and their children end up impoverished and on public assistance. It is also a fact (not a “belief”) that access to birth control does impact unintended pregnancy numbers. It is also a fact that NOT having access to birth control doesn’t discourage sexual activity.

The only “belief” issue is whether you believe “better safe than sorry” or vice versa.

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this

The school in question was a very small school, perhaps 200 children across all grades.

I also disagree with this statement: My liberal friends will disagree with my “feelings” because they have their own core beliefs.

The only ideology involved in this debate is the ultra-conservative one that sex is immoral and wrong unless it takes place between a married couple. That ideology informs all attempts to promote abstinence-only education.

No mainstream liberal supports the opposite ideology, if such an ideology can said to exist anywhere but on the fringe, that sex is great and harmless and should be entered into freely and with as many partners as possible.

As a liberal, I think that adults should be free to make sexual choices with other adults. I also realize that no amount of abstinence-only education is going to prevent teenagers from experimenting sexually. Do I want my neice or nephews going out and getting involved in sex without understanding the physical and emotional effects - “consequences”, to use the more ideologically-weighted phrase - of sex? No. Do I want them having sex as teenagers at all? No. However, I DO want them to have the tools necessary to protect themselves should they decide to engage in it.

The religious right has a dog in this fight - abstinence, abstinence, abstinence! The moderate and left-leaning folks simply want to ensure that as few young people catch STDs and get pregnant as possible. There is no ideological axe-to-grind on that side.

By Jack

October 29, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

That’s what it sounded like NNP. Giving out BC is just like saying “go ahead and do it, this will fix it”. I’ll look out for my children, I don’t want or need the school to do it for me.

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

Mara - It is also a fact (not a “belief”) that access to birth control does impact unintended pregnancy numbers. It is also a fact that NOT having access to birth control doesn’t discourage sexual activity.

You may very well be right - but are you sure about these facts? Do you even remember where you read them, or do you just “believe” them to be true.

And to use a favorite line of my leftist brethren - “correlation does not prove causality”. How do you know that abstinence programs haven’t aided in the decline of teenage pregnancies, or that parents have done a better job educating their kids about sex? And how many studies did it take for you to be convinced of your “facts”? How many different studies would it take for you to be convinced otherwise, or would you simply dismiss those studies as being “biased”?

My point is that we believe what we want and dismiss evidence to the contrary. The right does it on this issue – but so does the left.

By Scalia

October 29, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Jack, you are one of the only ones. I used the potty training example earlier. I know of another student that stole a t.v. from somewhere, and bring it home. His mother looked at the t.v., and asked him where he got it. He told her he stole it. She told him to sit down, and didn’t do anything about it. She actually kept it.

By NNP

October 29, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

I’ll look out for my children, I don’t want or need the school to do it for me.

Well geepers! If you are an “involved” parent, then the question of how to deal with the children of “un-involved” parents doesn’t really apply to you or your kids, does it? D’OH!

The question therefore remains conspicuously unanswered: Should the children of “un-involed” parents be left without knowledge or guidance by the adults in their communities, leaving them struggling with a lifetime of lessons learned too late? Are you saying you don’t care about kids that aren’t yours? Sounds like it.

By chuck

October 29, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding me NetB? You thought this statement from Eryn was SMART?

my strongest belief in regard to child-rearing is that you shouldn’t expect your kids to make better choices than you did yourself.

That is asinine. Of course I expect my children to make better choices than did I. What is the whole point of the transmission of culture if not THAT? So Paleo Indians who saw chief head-in-butt eat a poisonous berry and die shouldn’t have pointed that out to their kids? Sorry you just ate a poisonous berry. I could have taught you better or stopped you but my liberal friends say that you should make your own choices.

One of the best things I learned growing up was the perils of alcohol abuse and smoking. My Dad constantly told me not to pick up those bad habits. I watched him quit drinking when I was about 15-years-old and it dramatically changed our family life. Unfortunately, he quit smoking too late and died of lung cancer…but it prompted BOTH of my smoking brothers to QUIT much younger than he did.

I don’t touch either one of those things because I LEARNED FROM MY DAD’S MISTAKES.

By Lily Toad

October 29, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

This whole situation is blown out of proportion. First of all, most of the teenagers in middle school who are provided birth control are 15, not 11. I personally don’t think a 15 year old should be having sex, but some do but can’t talk to their parent(s) about it. In such case I think it is entirely appropriate for a teacher or health professional to get involved. I don’t think they are “handing out condoms and birth control pills” freely like this phrase implies. I hope some counseling is going on.

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

I assume we’re all reasonable enough to appreciate that the comment concerning choices was made about children while they are children, not about choices made as an adult based on experiences as a younger person.

It’s perfectly reasonable - not at all asinine - to assume that hormone-charged teenagers confronted with the possibility of sex may make different choices than those that their parents would make for them.

I’m sure the misinterpretation was not deliberate.

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

NNP - The question therefore remains conspicuously unanswered: Should the children of “un-involed” parents be left without knowledge or guidance by the adults in their communities, leaving them struggling with a lifetime of lessons learned too late? Are you saying you don’t care about kids that aren’t yours? Sounds like it.

And who gave you the right to determine who is an “un-involved” parent so that YOU can make decisions for their children? Have you ever considered that they don’t want your advice nor do they care for your opinions?

And as far as my Hillary bashing statements - I’ll stick with my wife, other relatives, and friends to help me raise my children. I don’t need strangers from the government to “help” me. The villagers you mentioned were in control of the lessons taught to their children because they knew those who were giving them assistance in child-rearing, and they more than likely shared a common set of moral values. It is becoming more apparent that the government doesn’t share mine.

72John - I am sure you believe this statement with all sincerity: The religious right has a dog in this fight - abstinence, abstinence, abstinence! The moderate and left-leaning folks simply want to ensure that as few young people catch STDs and get pregnant as possible. There is no ideological axe-to-grind on that side.

But do you really believe that deep down the left doesn’t see any problem with sexual experimentation for younger and younger children? I know you have read Brave New World! I don’t think this ideology is as “fringe” as you believe it to be.

By Mara

October 29, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR - but are you sure about these facts? Do you even remember where you read them, or do you just “believe” them to be true

As a matter of fact I do recall where I saw the studies…the HHS and WHO websites and I’m as “sure” about them as one can be who hasn’t personally overseeing the methodology. The studies have been peer-reviewed and the data compares to other studies done on the subject. shrug But with the history this administration has with censoring the science from their own experts…who can say for certain?

My point is that we believe what we want and dismiss evidence to the contrary

If there were studies as solidly grounded in science as the HHS and CDC reports, I would certainly look at them. Unfortunately most of the reports that tout A.O. education as the be-all end-all of public sex ed come from suspect groups, like “Physicians for Life” and “Concerned Women of America”.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding me NetB? You thought this statement from Eryn was SMART?…I could have taught you better or stopped you but my liberal friends say that you should make your own choices.

Chuck…I think you missed the point that Eryn was making and I agree with. Knowing you made some poor choices as a child by not expecting your children to make better choices than you did you will be more watchful, involved, and TEACH them. Certainly you erred a few times and certainly your parents wished you had made a better decisions and likely this has happened with your own children, yes?

chuck, you also go on to finish that “I LEARNED FROM MY DAD’S MISTAKES” What if your Dad hadn’t continually reinforced avoiding drinking or smoking? What if you hadn’t learned from his mistake? How do you know what type of choice you would have made? What if there was no mistake to have learned from? Would you still have have made the same choice?

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

But do you really believe that deep down the left doesn’t see any problem with sexual experimentation for younger and younger children? I know you have read Brave New World! I don’t think this ideology is as “fringe” as you believe it to be.

Really? Is your view of liberals so skewed that you really believe that the average liberal parent - liberals are parents too, you know, and only a few of us still have our horns and tails - wants his or her child to get busy with a high school classmate? Do you actually know any liberals, or are you just going on what the Hannitys of the world tell you about us?

Let me guess - you also honestly think that liberals want murderers and other dangerous criminals running free, wreaking havoc, and that we really, really want the terrorists to kill us all.

Obviously the idea that liberals are just people like you, with basically the same motivations, has never entered your thinking.

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this

chuck, i’m not saying you shouldn’t tell your kids that you did something stupid and you don’t want them to do it because you already know how bad it is for them. that’s not what i meant at all.

i’m saying that if you are a human being and ever did anything stupid in your entire life, chances are your kid will, too. major or minor. it is human nature to fail, and by your past comments, that’s why i think you probably believe God will forgive you for making mistakes.

of course our role as parents is to protect our children from harm, encourage them to be the best person they can be, and try to raise them well enough and give them the knowledge to minimize their mistakes which are, unfortunately, inevitable.

a kid can and will slip up, but the magnitude of the mistake can be greatly reduced. you can demand that your kid not to do something, but what happens if they do it anyway? did you ever do something that someone told you you shouldn’t because they had already done it and knew it was bad for you? did you maybe think, “well you did it. why shouldn’t i?”

just some thoughts. i really think you misunderstood my meaning, though.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

do you really believe that deep down the left doesn’t see any problem with sexual experimentation for younger and younger children? You seem rather convinced that the mainstream left doesn’t see this as a problem. Can you define sexual experminentation? What is your basis of your ascertion? Children have always experimented sexually at various ages finally crossing the line into full blown sexual activity somewhere in their teens. It just is…and acknowledging that and wanting to educate them on the consequences while discouraging crossing that final barrier isn’t, IMO, what I would call not having a problem. It’s pragmatic because it addresses reality instead of the AO fantasy that ‘Just Say No’ will provide a young person enough substance to actually resist giving in to their hormones.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

What does Brave New World have to do with anything? BTW, does anyone know where I can score some SOMA?

By erynmarch

October 29, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this

HA! soma… funny : )

By No name please...

October 29, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

And who gave you the right to determine who is an “un-involved” parent so that YOU can make decisions for their children?

I never said I had that right or was that person. (Nice try, though.) I asked what others thought was the appropriate thing to do regarding children whose parents are “un-involved”, (clealy these people do exist) at least with regard to them becoming sexually active. It sounds to me like you’d rather bash candidates and hold your own life up as being morally superior to others than answer the question.

It’s the CHILDREN, not me, who find their way to the counselor or nurse’s office, if there is one. The CHILDREN who seek answers should not be turned away, in my humble opinion. Is it your opinion that they should be? Why not own up to the fact that your own kids are the only ones that matter to you, and that if some child who’s being pressured or molested is refused contraception and her life is ruined, who cares? Don’t pretend YOU do!

Caring about people (offering, making help available) and controlling them (forcing it on them) are not the same thing. If YOUR kids are so well-brought up, then what are you in a snit about? Surely they’re not over at the nurse’s office!

By AGFNPR

October 29, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

OK Mara - I will try one more time to get my point across - let’s look at two of your statements:

First, what did these studies truly say? Did they say that there was a correlation between the decline of teenage pregnancies and the availability of contraceptives or was the study done for all age groups?

Second, even if there is a correlation between those data sets, it is still next to impossible to prove that “X” input causes “Y” output.

Third, since you have admitted to not reviewing the data yourself, you don’t know that data from “suspect” groups isn’t just as valid.

Mara - trust me when I tell you that I believe you may be right with the data you have provided. The point that I have been trying to make is that data doesn’t drive our beliefs. We have beliefs and then look for data that supports our conclusions.

I know that you want to believe in your heart that you are a rational person that looks at all sides of an issues before making a decision. You’re not. Neither is Chuck, or Monica, or Kimberly, and most certainly not me! We are ALL driven by our pre-conceived notions.

Comp - I would respond to your statements @4:06 in kind. How many conservative do you actually know? Or do you simply believe what moveon tells you about us?

In all seriousness, if I really thought that mainstream liberals like NetB were in control of the Democratic party, I would be as concerned for the future of my children.

NetB - Brave New World - sorry not to be more clear with that reference. In the book the children were encouraged to have “erotic play”.

By NetBanker

October 29, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

I take offense to being called a mainstream liberal. I’m a former republican who has switched to being a libertarian. Why would you be concerned if someone like me was in control of the DNC? Still too liberal in social matters?

It’s been a very long time since I read BNW so I didn’t recall the erotic play part of the book.

By sharemania

October 29, 2007 7:11 PM | Link to this

sharemania or [url=http://sharemania.ru]sharemania[/url] or sharemania.ru

By sharemania

October 29, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this

sharemania or [url=http://sharemania.ru]sharemania[/url] or sharemania.ru

By comp133xi7y

October 29, 2007 7:16 PM | Link to this

First, I don’t pay attention to MoveOn. Organizations like MoveOn do nothing but increase the angry rhetoric between liberals and conservatives that is destroying any hope of reasoned discourse between us. As an example, while I believe that General Petraeus’s report has been influenced by the “with us or against us” mentality of the Bush administration, I believe that the personal attack against him by MoveOn was both inappropriate and adolescent.

Second - yes. I know and am friends with MANY conservatives. I do live in Georgia - one can hardly NOT know conservatives personally in this state. I also know that many of those friends and acquaintances are not afflicted with this “liberals as other” mentality. We are able to discuss our issues and differences with civility, and we do not view each other as less than human.

You’ll forgive me, but your regular comments about those of us on the opposite side of the political fence suggest to me that you believe we are somehow flawed, or perverse, or want something very different from what we actually want.

To address the specific - I can, with only a few minutes work on a search engine, provide you with links to mainstream ultra-right organizations, in this case basically exclusively right-wing evangelistic, that proclaim quite boldly their intent to eliminate any and all sex-ed initiatives that are not abstinence-only in nature. In fact, the Bush administration has quite clearly defined its position along those lines.

Can you point to mainstream liberal political organizations that support your assertion that liberals encourage and embrace sexual promiscuity and experimentation among - what was it…”younger and younger children”?

By SeemymnIdeace

October 30, 2007 6:24 AM | Link to this

http://www.zloyonline.info ">dallas school bus safety equipment http://www.zloyonline.info - true stories of teen suicide

By Pauscunse

October 30, 2007 6:24 AM | Link to this

http://www.zloyonline.info ">churchhill downs weddings in louisville http://www.zloyonline.info - what is cinco de mayo

By JOHN D

October 30, 2007 8:17 AM | Link to this

DUH! A yes abstinence programs work!!!! When they are done RIGHT!!! with boldness and facts!!!! Like there are over %) different kinds of STDs and STIs and many are contracted by skin to skin contact alone of an infected area in which condoms will do NOTHING!!!! Also any woman who gives into the sexual from her boyfriend outside of marriage is a woman who is gonna get played these types of men laugh all the way to the bank!!!! They are theives. I have proven this and have seen it be proven for over 20+ years and have seen the reseach and it too profoundly agrees! Women who give in get played I dont care if it is a boyfriend for ten years. Its all about what his selfishness is about without signing on the dotted line, so to speak.

If this was taught in abstinence classes then you would see even more results. And it isnt just teens, as a matter of fact it is just as many adults. Did you know women who cohabit put themselves at 6 to 8 times more likely to be abused. Did you know women who give into the sexual outside of marriage fall in to the 80 to 90 % bracket for women who get divorced within ten years. While the others no doubt who dont divorce have not yet figured out whats going on behind their backs. Men who do not practice abstinenec outside of marriage are liars and they are cheaters can absolutly gaurantee proof! Peace!

By Craig

October 30, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

Kinda new to this so I don’t know if you meant this seriously.

“data doesn’t drive our beliefs. We have beliefs and then look for data that supports our conclusions.”

This is one of the problems with the whole debate - facts, and truth, don’t matter.

Last week Shaunti referenced a study that purported to show heterosexual marriages in Scandinavia were weakened by gay marriage. It’s been widely and easily debunked. This week she quotes a poll that was shamelessly and crudely skewed to get the answers the pollsters desired.

I don’t blame her, or you, for having the beliefs you do. However, the people who develop these polls, and studies, and research, skewing it to get the results that support their beliefs, are not being honest with you. They are in fact, lying. In the Ten Commandments, it’s called “bearing false witness.”

The so called Christian right wing has set up a whole industry to develop erroneous and dishonest information to provide to well meaning but misinformed Christians. So as someone else said, when you see something by “Concerned Women for America”, know that it may or may not be based on fact.

By AGFNPR

October 30, 2007 8:25 AM | Link to this

NetB – I made a serious typo. Please accept my deepest apologies. What I meant to say was that I WOULD NOT be so concerned for my children’s future if someone like you were in charge of the DNC. I truly enjoy debating with you, even if we disagree on many issues! I consider you to be conservative on financial issues and moderate on social issues. However, I do believe that far left wing elements control the DNC, just as I am sure that Comp believes the far right runs the RNC.

Comp – I do know many liberals and I am even friends with a few! Yes, we tend to dehumanize each other on this blog, and I am just as guilty as anyone. No, I do not believe mainstream liberals are perverse. No, I do not believe that you are perverse.

Yes, with little effort in Google I can find organizations that promote sex for younger teenagers. However, you would dismiss these as “fringe” elements, or you would defend their positions with “that’s really not what they are promoting”. For instance I can easily make the case that for years Hollywood has promoted sex with younger teenagers by making a plethora of teen sex films in which they hired 25 yr. old actors to portray 15 yr. old kids having sex. But of course you will respond with “Hollywood is pushing for peace, environmental awareness, child health care, etc., but not teen sex.”

By Mrs. RepubLady

October 30, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I don’t usually come here to this blog, because I don’t have any “womans issues” but I have to agree with Mrs. Feldman and John D today. A good woman never gives up any affection without an iron clad contract changing her name and giving her all the man’s money and posessions and a prenuptual agreement stating if he ever fools around on her he gets nothing and will never see his children again. The problem with the women in this country is that they think they can give there love away for love or for fun, which is disgusting. Sex is not about love or fun. Good, churchgoing Republican women only give it up for money, but not just money, for money and a solomn oath that you will never give any money as long as you live to any other women, and you will never get to decide how to spend it either. God intended for women to be the keepers of the gates and only when you give us everything we want and forget about what you want, are you living the way God intended. I never had to work a day in my life like loose women do, and thier shame is upon them.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

Hollywood has promoted sex with younger teenagers by making a plethora of teen sex films in which they hired 25 yr. old actors to portray 15 yr. old kids having sex. But of course you will respond with “Hollywood is pushing for peace, environmental awareness, child health care, etc., but not teen sex.”

“Hollywood” isn’t a monolithic entity. It is a community of people and these people most likely don’t care if your kid has sex or not…just as long as the money keeps rolling in. Nor do they base their business model on “peace, environmental awareness, child healthcare, etc”. They base it on how much money they can bring in. They make movies and TV that people will pay to watch. If more people will pay to see a movie about the sexual awakening of a teenage character than will pay to see the tired peccadillos of two forty-something adults…that’s what they’re gonna make. It’s about the MONEY, not about the age of consent.

By chuck

October 30, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

What’s with all of the name changes on the blog? I know that Brudog is/was a pain in the butt, but is it that bad?

So, just so I can keep this straight in my mind:

Kimberly is now “No Name Please”

2D is now “AGFNPR”

Who else do we have here in “sheep’s clothing”? I will say this 2d, I don’t think that comp133 is 72John. Comp133 and 72John have both been here at the same time in the past. I just don’t think that he would go to all that trouble. I think he left because he got tired of being wrong all the time. Before a few conservatives came to the blog, he could kind of say anything he wanted to without being challenged. He would just get pats on the back from all his groupies.

It seems to me that the purpose of this blog is to DEBATE. Yes it should be civil for the most part, but it doesn’t always have to be. I think we learn a lot from our “opponents” when they attack. It usually points out the weakness in their argument. It certainly doesn’t bother me as it appears to bother some. I like to mix it up a bit.

Some have taken it over the top on occasion. I’ve had people wish me a horrible lingering death and so forth. What I sometimes have a hard-time understanding, is why liberals get so mad about the desire of conservatives to protect our children. EVERYBODY knows that the lives of our children will be easier if they aspire to a permanent, committed, heterosexual marriage. You need only look at the comments on this blog to see that. I could be wrong, but I believe every homosexual on here with the exception possibly of JBM, has made a statement to the effect that nobody would CHOOSE to be a homosexual. While I would disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, to me that implies if not explicitly states dissatisfaction (for whatever reason) with life as a homosexual.

Another thing they (liberals) don’t understand is that we can’t do what’s BEST for our children without doing it for ALL children at least to some degree. There are at least 2 reasons for this:

1) In addition to wanting what is best for our own children, we also want what is best for ALL Children. We aren’t satisfied with leaving these other children behind, to use a well-worn phrase.

2) Second, our children are in the public arena also. Things that are done by the government necessarily affect our children also whether it is in education policies or in such issues as that being discussed this week.

I took an informal poll with my public school students. I asked them to write down anonymously the answers to 2 questions. 1) Should the school give out birth control pills and condoms to students? Then I asked them if we did that, what message would they get from it?

These are 8th graders in a very diverse school. Here’s what they said. About 40% of them said yes and the predominant message that they got from that was that there was nothing wrong with sex. 55% said no. The message that they said would be given by the school was that it was okay for them to have sex. 5% said they didn’t know. 2 of those students said that they would not take them, but they didn’t want to make that decision for the others.

After I collected the poll answers I asked them another question. I asked whether or not being able to get condoms/birth control pills anonymously at school would make them more likely to have sex. The majority said yes. I also asked them why? Several of them said that they would not want their parents to know because they would not approve.

There is no doubt in my mind that the SCHOOL should not sanction, assist or encourage students to participate in activities that would go against what parents are teaching at home. Let me ask the lefties this question? Would you like me teaching that all the things you hold dear, all of your deeply held beliefs are a load of crap? Do you want me to give them materials (NOT RELIGIOUS BASED MATERIALS) saying things like homosexuality is bad, that PETA sucks and is a danger to society, or that liberals are the same thing as terrorists? You see, the left is AGAINST indoctrination UNLESS it is THEIR indoctrination.

What’s really bad is that they can’t even see the difference!

By Billy

October 30, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

“Give into the sexual”

tehe

By HoRadar

October 30, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

A good woman never gives up any affection without an iron clad contract changing her name and giving her all the man’s money and posessions and a prenuptual agreement stating if he ever fools around on her he gets nothing and will never see his children again.

In other words, she charges, just like a good HO?

By chuck

October 30, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this

Craig, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE LEFT DOESN’T DO THE SAME THING?

I will say this, though. John Zogby ia a pollster who does not cave to pressure from EITHER side. I have seen him on a number of political talk shows and he explains the process like this. He asks the people commissioning the poll what they want to find out about? Then HE WRITES the questions. I have read many of his polls in graduate research classes that I have taken and they are clearly without bias. He does not manufacture numbers. I have seen him report results commissioned by conservatives that were not favorable to those conservatives. As AGFNPR said, we care less about the numbers than we do our personal beliefs.

In this context, what happens is that if we see results we don’t like we BLAME the poll or the person/group that commissioned the poll. This happens on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. You CAN manipulate a poll by HOW you ask the questions. That does NOT mean that just because a conservative or liberal group commissioned the poll that that has been done. I don’t always trust polls just because they came from a group with which I agree. I find it is best to actually READ the poll to see how the questions were framed before I accept or reject the results. I also don’t think it is wise to use opinion polls to decide public policy.

By DocHollywood

October 30, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Hollywood reflects the culture, and if teens are having sex, and they are, hence this topic, it will be reflected in the movies they make.

a major DUH! there.

By chuck

October 30, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Sorry doc, but you are absolutely wrong about that. What hollywood does is take isolated incidences and makes them seem to be the norm. There is a difference there.

It seems to me that john d and republiclady are our name stealer trying to be cute. I don’t think those are “real” posts.

By lovelyliz

October 30, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

I hate to break it to you, but people including teens have been having sex since the beginning of time. In my parents day, you married, had an unsafe abortion or went off to one of those homes for unwed mothers a.k.a. going to visit your aunt.

It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children how to decide when sex if right for them and how to control themselves until that time.

The schools on the other hand are left to deal with the consequences are irrelevant, nonexistent and often false information given out about sex education. As a former student and teacher, I’ve seen what happens when a school is forced to deal with pregnant students, students with STD’s, etc. You wouldn’t believe the lies that some of these teens are taught or simply buy into.

Schools teach the science, parents the morality.

By Mara

October 30, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Another thing they (liberals) don’t understand is that we can’t do what’s BEST for our children without doing it for ALL children at least to some degree

the problem is that you (conservatives) don’t understand that you don’t have a monopoly on deciding “what’s best” for the children. You think you do, but you don’t. Some people don’t think that teaching children to hate or fear gay people is “what’s best” for them. Or that demonizing anyone for their political beliefs is “best”. Or that lying to them about sex is “what’s best”, or any of a hundred other things that conservatives believe liberals should be teaching their children.

your statement implies that ONLY conservatives can judge “what’s best” for America’s children.

Would you like me teaching that all the things you hold dear, all of your deeply held beliefs are a load of crap?

If you could do it without lying about the facts or presenting your opinion as a fact…sure, why not? Unlike conservatives, liberals aren’t afraid to answer questions from their kids. We aren’t apalled when a kid has the temerity to test the validity of his parents beliefs. Were I a parent I believe that I’d be glad to have a conversation with the kid and tell them why I hold the beliefs I do and why YOU might, perhaps even unconciously, be shading the truth…

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

thank you both, lovelyliz and mara – i was still struggling with how to put the science vs. morality and facts vs. belief into an answer to chuck’s post. i think you both summed up what i was thinking pretty well.

By No name please...

October 30, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

What I sometimes have a hard-time understanding, is why liberals get so mad about the desire of conservatives to protect our children.

Chuck, despite your history of (and continued) overt malevolence, I’ll join the spirit of earnest debate today. Are you truly saying that you think liberals are opposed to protecting children? If so, you’re not debating. The desire to protect children is not the debate, but rather what constitutes protecting them, and how to best ensure that they are not falling through the cracks of an unforgiving system, and additionally, what constitutes an appropriate system.

I agree with you that people who avoid sex outside of marriage (or comparable committed relationship) do indeed avoid the pitfalls of STDs and unwanted pregnancy at a significantly higher rate than those who do not abstain. They also avoid the serious heartbreak that comes from trusting the wrong people with their most private selves. It is therefore logical and reasonable to dispense this information to our young people. It’s good advice.

To say that liberals are somehow opposed to dispensing good advice to our children is false. Your assertion that I, or a school nurse or counselor, would encourage children to go out and experiment before reaching adulthood is, at best, unfounded, and more likely, a perjorative assertion attached to an agenda beyond what’s best for the children.

The idea of protecting “ALL children at least to some degree,” as you put it, is NOT one with which most liberals disagree. Therefore, as a “conservative,” you actually do NOT OWN that value. Disappointing I know… Rather, there is a widely-held and supportable opinion that restricting a child’s access to information and health care, to the point that they give up, is NOT protecting them.

I would never advocate dispensing these things without common-sense counseling on the pitfalls of young sex, heartache, disease, pregnancy, and an irretrievable reputation. Yet, it seems you are advocating the opposite: dispensing advice without the knowledge and healthcare. Do you agree that this is your stance?

ALL the children are important, IMO. But they are not all the same, and they do not have the same backgrounds, families, physical development, or emotional maturity. A one-size-fits all response to a universal issue is simply, by any quantifiable measure, NOT going to fit them all. Can you truly argue that it would? By implementing one rigid standard, you ENSURE that some kids are left out. Is that what you want? I don’t.

P.S. — While some of your 8th graders no doubt engage in sexual activity, the vast majority are engaged in a self-gratifying activity known as “wishful thinking,” and are likely still sniggering about Mr. Chuck’s condom talk.

By erynmarch

October 30, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

oh snap… someone just got served…

; )

By Jack

October 30, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

Has a study been done as to the effects of BC pills on females younger than 16? I don’t have stats but it seems couples now a days are having a much harder time having babies than it used to be. Could BC pills be the reason. They change the body and if I wanted my daughter’s body changed the school isn’t the one who should do it.

I kinda miss 72John. Made any ham tartlets lately?

By Mara

October 30, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

lovelyliz - people including teens have been having sex since the beginning of time

(gasp!) they have!? I’m shocked…LOL!

But they used to get married at younger ages, too…well, at least the girls did. Remember when a woman in college was refered to as “studying for her Mrs.”?

Billy - LOL @ “the sexual”

eryn - thank you for the compliments

By Lily Toad

October 30, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Chuck, I didn’t choose to be a lesbian, but I did make the choice to live my life that way. (I was once married to a man.) And, I would choose to be a lesbian because I love my life. My partner and friends are more important to me than the hatred of people who don’t know me.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Exactly how do you Libs reconcile Age of Consent Laws with your eagerness to dispense birth control to 11 year olds? I’m racking my brain, and I just can’t envision any scenario in which it is healthy/sensible to give permission to young children to have sex, whether they are “being pressured” or not. Exactly who are the 11 year old girls having sex with? Probably with a much older guy. As such, how is dispensing birth control the “solution”?

By lovelyliz

October 30, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

There is a big difference between protecting children and lying to them. When you lie to children about sex (remember the whole hairy palms, going blind thing?) and they figure out that you haven’t been truthful, they aren’t likely to listen or ask for information.

There are very good reasons for waiting to have sex until marriage or at least well into adulthood, but be honest.

By Not Convinced

October 30, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Also, NNP, I’m going to have to throw a BS flag on you today. Your “solution” to poor parenting is to allow strangers to make legal decisions for children. Pretty crazy.

Also, you state today that you don’t see yourself as a person who would usurp parental authority, but have stated on the blog in the past that you go out of your way to “speak” to the kids in your neighborhood because (in your opinion) their parents just don’t “understand them”.

And this is all coming from a person who screams when folks on the Fox News Channel “tell you how to feel”. If you don’t want strangers telling you “how to feel”, why do you think it’s appropriate for strangers to tell your child “how to feel” about sex?

By Mara

October 30, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Not Convinced - …your eagerness to dispense birth control to 11 year olds…can’t envision..healthy/sensible…give permission to…children to have sex…11 year old girls having sex with…with a much older guy. how is dispensing birth control the “solution”?

and how is forcing a sexually active 11-year-old to birth a baby the “solution”? I say “Better safe than sorry”, which is completely different from “giving permission” to have sex. Like chuck, you seem to have this picture of liberal mothers and fathers pushing their little children into the beds of adult sexual predators when in fact, it’s usually a schoolmate that’s within a couple years of their own age.

you willfully equate pragmatism with advocacy.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

AGFNPR…thanks for the clarification and ‘vote’ of confidence, but I doubt I’ll ever be running for any elected office. Too many ‘skeletons’ buried in the mud in my closet.

I believe every homosexual on here with the exception possibly of JBM, has made a statement to the effect that nobody would CHOOSE to be a homosexual. While I would disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, to me that implies if not explicitly states dissatisfaction (for whatever reason) with life as a homosexual. Chuck…the point about not choosing to be homosexual isn’t about any dissatisfaction with actually being homosexual. It’s 100% about the treatment, discrimination, and constant barrage of negativity from society…especially conservative Christians and more specifically from radical, conservative Christians the likes of Westboro Baptist, Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family. It take a lot of inner strength to be openly gay in our society. There have been comments about the ‘persecution’ that christians face today in America, but you’re legally protected by the ERA while gays have no legal protections. Have you ever been verbally or physically assaulted for being Christian? Know of any christians that have? How many? It’s plenty easy to find news and crime reports of assaults on gays and I have been verbally assaulted countless times and physically assaulted about 1/2 dozen times (mainly people yelling out car windows or spitting at me or throwing things…most of which missed, but the intent was perfectly clear).

ALL the children are important, IMO. But they are not all the same, and they do not have the same backgrounds, families, physical development, or emotional maturity. A one-size-fits all response to a universal issue is simply, by any quantifiable measure, NOT going to fit them all. Can you truly argue that it would? By implementing one rigid standard, you ENSURE that some kids are left out. Is that what you want? I don’t. I think that this response coupled with Loveliz’s comments are a pretty honest assessment of the mainstream liberal position and is quite pragmatic. If sex ed or distribution of birth control in public schools is coupled with facts, full disclosure, and parental involvement that is the best case scenario for reaching ALL children in a manner that doesn’t trample any parent’s teaching THEIR values or create cracks for a kid whose parents are stepping up. Abstinence IS best, but it is not mutually exclusive of the information that is factual. In school we didn’t receive the AO education, but the photos of genetalia infected by various diseases sure scared enough of us to abstain for a while.

they used to get married at younger ages, too…well, at least the girls did Quite a good point. When life expectancy was lower in prior centuries events such as marriage, sex, and child birth also occurred at younger ages. Waiting until 25 to get ma