Posted on 04/14/2008 4:49:25 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- During the faith forum at Messiah College on Sunday night, pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made it clear he doesn't support abstinence-only education. Instead, he wants comprehensive sex-ed that includes contraception and birth control.
Though unmarried students who have signed a no-sex pledge to remain abstinent until marriage attended the event, Obama said their decision wasn't enough.
"What I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence," he said. "I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process."
Later in the forum, Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention talked about the abstinence-only education program True Love Waits and mentioned its success.
Page said it "has been credited by the government of Uganda for lowering the AIDS infection rate there dramatically from 30 percent to 6 percent."
Obama repeated his belief in forcing contraception-based sexual education into the abstinence-only program.
"[There] should be a strong education component and I think abstinence education is important. I also think that contraception is important," he said.
Obama also appeared to indicate he doesn't want the government funding just abstinence-only education.
"So I don't want to pluck out one facet of it. Now, that doesn't mean that non-for-profit groups can't focus on one thing while the government focuses on other things," he said.
In fact, the Uganda program has been successful because it has been focused on abstinence.
Washington-area investigative writer Carey Roberts wrote in a Washington Times article in late 2004 that Uganda has been using abstinence to combat AIDS for 15 years. "The results were impressive: the HIV infection rate in Uganda dropped from 15 percent to 5 percent. In 1991, 21 percent of pregnant women had the deadly HIV virus. Ten years later, that figure had dropped to 6 percent," Roberts wrote in the Times article.
In fact, only 6.2% of Ugandans in the 15-49 age group are now HIV-positive, compared with more than 15% in the early 1990s.
Rev. Sam Lawrence Ruteikara of the Anglican Church of Uganda, who has received funds from the U.S. government, says the abstinence message makes more sense to promote to younger teens than using condoms.
"Why give an alternative and have them take a risk," he told the Associated Press.
"This person doesn't have a sexual partner, so why should I report too much, saying that in case you get a sexual partner, please use a condom. I am saying, please don't get a sexual partner -- don't get involved because it is risky," he explained.
AIDS has killed as many as 25 million people worldwide and infected more than 40 million others since it was discovered 25 years ago.
More than 60 percent of the people infected with the AIDS virus live in sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa has the highest number of HIV-infected people in the world.
"[There] should be a strong education component and I think abstinence education is important. I also think that contraception is important," he said.
Hey Barack, it's one or the other.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Education Ping
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Even though I totally disagree with sex education in schools, if you ARE going to teach students about things, you have to teach them that if they DO have sex, they need to use protection. To act as if teens won’t do such a thing is folly.
This will all ne a non-issue after the Libs have succeeded in making all the kids gay.
And that is the job of the government?
This list is for intellectual discussion of articles and issues related to public education (including charter schools) from the preschool to university level. Items more appropriately placed on the “Naughty Teacher” list, “Another reason to Homeschool” list, or of a general public-school-bashing nature will not be pinged.
If you would like to be on or off this list, please freepmail Amelia, Gabz, Shag377, or SoftballMominVa
Unfortunately, such teaching is generally accompanied by the attitude that 'protection' eliminates the need to say 'no'. Further, what I understand of condom usage patterns would suggest a perception that using condoms most of the time is almost as good as using them all the time.
In decades past, most people had no particular problem saying "no". Why are today's youths assumed to be incapable?
After watching the forum I came away realizing that he is foe everything except outlawing abortion.
I totally with you, sex should be discouraged in these classes.
Nope. IMO, the government has no business teaching children about anything having to do with sex.
No doubt Michelle has to knock him upside his head FREQUENTLY
I agree, although I think that many of the teenagers who get pregnant do so not because they don't know sex causes pregnancy, but because they want to get pregnant.
I also think that assuming that teaching students about contraception will make them more likely to have sex is probably a ridiculous assumption...I think they are more likely to have sex because of the messages they get from the media, and from parents who live promiscuous lives.
Then again, there are those teenaged hormones...
I agree. If the govt. teaches kids about sex, they are going to do it THEIR way and according to THEIR agenda.
Let us hope he stays away from those women who "faint" at the mere sound of his voice.
this is the Obama method on everything— it feels like a pat on the back as he shoves you off the cliff.
We need less federal involvement in education, not more. Most involvement should be at the local level. That's what school boards are for.
I agree 100%.
“Abortion” and “sex education” are quasi government programs and that’s all Obama cares about here—he doesn’t actually care if some mythical “right” is protected or anyone ends up “educated.” Teen sex, unmarried mothers, all the attendant problems of out-wedlock birth, new welfare cases, all of it creates CHAOS of a type that government prospers from—and then bigger dependencies follow, larger voting blocs, bigger pots of cash, more power... That’s all. Obama is a communist. He’ll favor anything that undercuts the principle institutions of American life, family, religion, school, fixed values, etc. He’s a communist.
The problem with contraception based sex ed is that it implies girls should be willing to give in to boys sexual conquests. The only form of “contraception” that is 100% effective at preventing girls from becoming pregnant is to not have sex.
Of course men like Obama don’t have to worry about getting pregnant and Obama’s solution to pregnancy is to murder the baby.
Both Obama and Clinton want to make sure Planned Parenthood has job security.
I was going to say the same thing. Why promote what is 100% effective when it is so easy to fix the “mistakes.”
ping
I have to agree with you there. No matter what people say about abstinence-only sex ed, it tends to work only for a small number of kids, who usually have strong convictions about the subject already. I go to a large secular school, and I’ve known or overheard lots of students who weren’t taught to use contraceptives so they tried all sorts of random things that ranged from ineffective (pulling out) to downright dangerous (falling down stairs afterwards) that they ‘heard from somewhere’ would prevent pregnancy or STD’s. Abstinence should be emphasised, of course, but these kids need to know real stuff about sex from a responsible, educated source instead of having to rely on popular myths and hearsay from their peers.
My niece is 18 and has said no. So has her fiance. He owns his own home and they decided to not go there by themselves because they don’t want to be tempted. Abstinence is possible in today’s youth. To not promote this is pure laziness.
All sex out of wedlock is unprotected sex.
I agree totally. I personally don't believe anyone aside from a child's parents should be saying anything to them about sex, but if they are going to teach about it, and IF the kids are going to have sex(many do whether we like it or not), they are well served to be taught how to do it safely. At the same time abstinence should be encouraged and promoted.
They could start a promotional campaign that will be attractive to teens these days:
"Yo dawg, if uze down wit da hottiez in class, ya'll just be all 'bout dat shiz if ya'll hold up and be hittin' it on weddin' night wit ya ho afta yo hooked up!"
It's like him saying to children, "Don't play with guns. But I know you can't control yourselves, so we're going to show you how to make sure the safety's on."
What about the internet? These kids who spend hours online can’t look up simple biology or find out what old wive’s tales don’t work if they are determined to have intercourse? And why do these “home remedies” persist generation after generation? Simple biology, sex is the vehicle for reproduction. I think many of these children WANT to make a baby.
bookmark
Good points. The problem comes about when the teacher presents the subject in too friendly a manner.
Here’s the way it was covered eons and eons ago, when I was in high school: It was treated as a serious matter. There was no joking or laughing. We were told there were ways to avoid becoming pregnant and only one of those ways was 100% effective - abstinence.
There was no “getting in touch with our feelings” or “exploring intimate relationships.” It was clearcut and to the point, and abstinence was presented as what we as students should be doing - abstaining.
But there really shouldn’t be a “sex ed” course at all, imho. Instead, the subject should be called “reproduction” and covered in biology class.
If I were running a private school, I would call it: "Reproduction and Disease"
If we had a universal system of private schools, how this topic would be covered would be privately and quietly determined between parents, teachers, principals.
What would be even more important, in a private system of schools, the entire moral and ethical foundation of the school would be determined privately. It is these morals, ethics, and values that really determine whether a youth will be sexually active or not.
LOL!!! Now that was funny!
I don’t think schools have any business teaching “sex education”. That’s something to be learned with your spouse. However, if they need to teach about the human body and how babies are made in a purely scientific way, then go for it. I’m keeping my kids at home and will teach them according to God’s plan. Then I’m going to do a lot of praying for them and keep a close eye on them!!! ;0)
I think that this should always be decided on the local level. When I taught health, in TX we had an abstinence based program. We didn’t teach details about contraception, only the failure rates and that you could still get things like HPV using condoms (I liked to call it genital warts because it doesn’t sound as benign as HPV).
Unfortunately kids ARE having sex, but it’s probably not the fault of sex ed in schools, no matter what they teach. It’s the whole entire society, which is so sex saturated and the permissiveness which allows kids who are not old enough to make life altering decisions to spend a great deal of time alone with members of the opposite sex. Who would be surprised?
So, we need to teach them how and why to say NO. But, even tho I taught it, I think it’s really something the parents should be doing themselves. Perhaps it could be better handled by having an optional class which the parents attend with the students (at least for some of the classes) and I also don’t think we should be mixing boys and girls when we teach it. We don’t need to further break down the barriers that keep kids a little shy around the opposite sex.
susie
In past times the culture stigmatized girls who had sex outside of marriage or got pregnant without a husband. We have totally stopped doing, because it was *mean*. We also used to expect men/boys to be honorable, and take responsibility for their actions, including marrying a girl if they got her pregnant. I don’t see much honor these days either.
I also think that kids in the past had more to do, chores, jobs, etc, and didn’t have nearly as much free time. You know what they say about idle hands...
susie
We agree on something. The parents should be the ones teaching this and passing on their values. Part of the problem is that many parents are abstaining from passing on their values to their kids. My theory with my own kids that I was going to *brainwash* them with my values and beliefs because if I didn’t someone else would. ;)
susie
With regard to morals, ethics, and values there are only two worldviews, and these worldveiws can not coexist. Only one can occupy philosophical space at one time.
Those worldviews are: 1) God centered 2) Non-god centered.
Our government school the curriculum and polices, as a result of many court rulings, are officially god-less. Everything is taught from a god-less point of view. If a government school or individual teacher is attempting to sneak in God, then they are teaching the students that God fearing people break the law.
With regard to parents:
You are expecting parents to not only teach their own values but also deprogram their children from the effects of total immersion in a godless educational environment.
Parents send their children into an official god-less environment, and their children are swimming in this increment for 8 or more hours from the time they get on the school bus until they get off. They then have god-less oriented homework as well, sometimes after school activities, and association with friends who have been steeped in this god-less culture as well.
When and how is a parent supposed to deprogram a child and inculcate his values when the parent has such a limited amount of quality time with the child during the school day?
The child sleeps 9 to 10 or more hours.
There is the early morning rush for the bus.
Time to play outside.
Time simply to relax with TV, a video game, reading alone, or chatting with friends.
Time simply to be alone and daydream.
Homework
It is a shame, but government policies have encouraged two parent incomes, divorce, and illegitimacy, and these children have even **less** time with their parents.
Solution: Privatize universal K-12 education. Let parents choose a private school that best supports the values being taught in the home.
Why? So that one group of neighbors can impose their religious worldview regarding sexuality on other people's children?
Even if school districts were as small as a suburban subdivision, government schools will always be a freedom of conscience and First Amendment nightmare!
I should have known. Apparently with you there is no possibility that we can agree on anything, or that you could ever be wrong.
You appear to think that people (children especially) are little robots. They are not. My kids went to public schools and yet are all believing Christians. Imagine that.
susie
You clearly didn’t read the rest of my post.
susie
And yet, you think these parents will either home school or send their kids to private school (which they either have to pay for, or go to the trouble to find someone else to pay for it?
susie
Barry is a “typical liberal person” -
everything should be controlled and regulated
EXCEPT
consequence-free sexual activity.
Congratulations regarding your children. ( Sincerely!)
Because your children were successful does not make government schools less of a freedom of conscience nightmare and First Amendment nightmare.
Solution: Privatize universal K-12 education. Let parents choose a private school that best supports what is being taught at home.
It's part of the destruction of society that the libs need to accomplish in order to replace it with their own.
liberals have incentivized this behavior. Free food, housing, child care - as long as you aren't married!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.