Originally posted by Viss1:I need to know more about what you consider "liberal indoctrination."
Read a couple chapters out of any public school history book. You'll understand what I mean.
Originally posted by Viss1:But now, through his actions, Bush has now essentially made it an either/or choice - you don't get the matching funds if you teach anything other than abstinence. I can't think of any motives that don't involve morality or religion that would prompt him to do this.
Thanks for proving my point.
Originally posted by Viss1:Any evidence for either assertion?
If you don't understand why abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, then I really don't know where to start with you. I guess I could recommend some books...
Originally posted by Viss1:Are schools with a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum eliminating all mention of the benefits of abstienence? Mine certainly didn't when I went through it.
I suppose not. But you can't really make a point about abstinence if you're giving condoms out at the end of the lesson.
Originally posted by Viss1:And I've never read any scientific study that says sex is great for 12 year olds, or, more importantly, that high school kids in general should be having it.
If I get really bored later, I'll hit Google up.
Originally posted by Viss1:That's valid. But it does mean that you are against the President's efforts here.
Well, if sex ed is going to be taught, it should be via the abstinence route. I don't think tax dollars should be spent on something parents should be doing. This is why I theorize that unless a shift in policy occurs, people will some day have the same right to child supervision that they do to education. Like if you and your wife/girlfriend/whatever wanted to go to the movies, then the government would be obliged to watch your child(ren) while you were gone.
