Originally posted by Davo: Like I've also said in this thread, you can't really make a point with teaching abstinence if you hand out condoms at the end of the lesson, can you?
They never handed out condoms when they taught us. I was able to skip high school health by taking a test so I dunno what they did in my school. But the first sex ed was in like 6th grade or perhaps in 7th/8th, I can't remember. When they taught us there was hardly going to be anyone having sex, we simply weren't interested in sex, it was more who like who and that kind of stuff. If they teach "don't have sex, your in like flint, have sex with condoms, they work but do you want to chance it, and unprotected sex is like sticking it in the grave, there is no point" then I would be happy. In fact that is what they did in 7th grade or whenever. I really think this is a state and local politics issue and I don't see the secular point in Bush handing out funding; how bad is the current system working? But Davo I can see what you mean, I just think once an issue like this has large social implications as well as....I guess logistical ones as well. We have a problem of Teen pregnancy and STDs, there is a social aspect in that parents want to dictate when their kids learn about sex. The other aspect is that kids/teens are having sex regardless of what their parents say/do. If we ensure that everyone at the age of lets say 13-15 has the same sex-ed then don't we ensure that atleast all teens who become sexually active have the correct information? Really what it comes down to is this: does teaching Sex-ed in schools really cause teens to have sex or do teens have the impulse to have sex anyway regardless of the meathod of education?
