National Academy of Sciences takes a stand

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Sure, split hairs.

Don't see how that's splitting hairs. It's simply putting things in their right places. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, no matter how you contort it. They're religion. Religion should be taught in religion classrooms, not science classrooms. Health class. What should be taught in there, if not health? People whose parents don't teach very well still need to know that gonorrhea might make 'em infertile. AIDS might make 'em die, and syphilis might make 'em insane before they die. But they can protect themselves from all of these things.

I teach teenagers about safe sex just about every day in clinic. And ya' know what? It's one area where parents do NOT have the right to know what their teenagers talked about with their doctors. Any teenager can go to his/her doctor and get the skinny on sex and the physician cannot tell their parents unless the child gives consent. That's cool, imho.

WELL THEN, I am glad YOU have more power over what MY children learn than I

FUCKING NOT!!!

This is a Liberal view that has to be stopped

Your signature line says it all.

Basic education regarding bodily functions/systems and protection from transmissible disease should be a part of every child's formal education. Regardless of their race, creed, religion, or national origin. Much like reading, writing, and basic math skills. A foundation of factual information against which reasonable judgements can be made.

There are those parents who are so "messed up on the lord" that they think that their kids should remain ignorant as long as possible about those things that the parent doesn't like. I do NOT support the right of parents to keep from their children basic knowlege of how the human body works and how to prevent common diseases from infecting their bodies. Choosing to be an ignorant moron as an adult is pathetic. Choosing to make your children ignorant morons is reprehensible.

Funny how you invoke the "liberal" boogeyman when it comes to basic, fundamental education in simple scientific matters of biology and disease. What is "liberal" about this? It is common sense to provide children with a basic foundation of knowlege, for the health and safety of society as a whole.

The more education that a person receives, the more "liberal" they become, for the most part.
The less education a person has, the more "conservative" they are, for the most part.

Can you provide ONE example of positive social change coming about through "conservative" philosophy?

Is ignorance really bliss? For conservatives, that seems to be the case. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up", sums it up pretty well.

Creationism is religion disguised as science and has no place in a science classroom.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

FUCKING NOT!!!

Well, "fucking yes," it's how it is. If your child comes to my office to talk about sex, it is my job to give her good medical advice. It is also against the law for me to tell you ANYTHING that we talked about, unless she gives consent. AND I can give her contraceptives without your consent. AND I can't even tell you that without her consent.

IF THEY ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE THIS IS PART OF WHAT IS FUCKING BULL SHIT!!!!! You and your liberal I can fuck who I want to fuck liberal mind set bull shit are part of what will destroy this country if it is allowed to happen. I will fight you with every fiber of my being to make sure this does not continue.

This attitude is a disease on this county and if you truly belive this should be the norm screw you. Prepare for a war

I am engaged in the cultural war you speak of. Narrow minded conservatives are ripping this country apart. Rotten to the core, with the best of intentions. Smart folks must fight the ignorant. As it ever was...

If a person is under 18, do you believe that the parents have complete and total ownership of that person?
The right to say what that person can and cannot learn?
Who and what that person can and cannot believe?
Does this "ownership" translate into any meaningful restrictions as to what the parents can and can not do?
How do the restrictions come about?

Why do you think that a person has no rights at all for the first 6412 days of their life?

Indentured servitude, and forced apprenticeships used to be one way that parents got troublesome children to "make something of themselves". Sounds pretty good to me. When can we start this again? Or are these practices and customs no longer legal? Why were they made illegal? The parents agreed to the terms. What was the problem? Parental rights are superior, aren't they? Why did the government have to get involved?

Stinking liberals always see shades of grey when the issue is clearly black and white.
Parental rights trump children's rights in every case, no matter what.

Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up.

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, split hairs.

Don't see how that's splitting hairs. It's simply putting things in their right places. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, no matter how you contort it. They're religion. Religion should be taught in religion classrooms, not science classrooms. Health class. What should be taught in there, if not health? People whose parents don't teach very well still need to know that gonorrhea might make 'em infertile. AIDS might make 'em die, and syphilis might make 'em insane before they die. But they can protect themselves from all of these things.

I teach teenagers about safe sex just about every day in clinic. And ya' know what? It's one area where parents do NOT have the right to know what their teenagers talked about with their doctors. Any teenager can go to his/her doctor and get the skinny on sex and the physician cannot tell their parents unless the child gives consent. That's cool, imho.

WELL THEN, I am glad YOU have more power over what MY children learn than I

FUCKING NOT!!!

This is a Liberal view that has to be stopped

Your signature line says it all.

Basic education regarding bodily functions/systems and protection from transmissible disease should be a part of every child's formal education. Regardless of their race, creed, religion, or national origin. Much like reading, writing, and basic math skills. A foundation of factual information against which reasonable judgements can be made.

There are those parents who are so "messed up on the lord" that they think that their kids should remain ignorant as long as possible about those things that the parent doesn't like. I do NOT support the right of parents to keep from their children basic knowlege of how the human body works and how to prevent common diseases from infecting their bodies. Choosing to be an ignorant moron as an adult is pathetic. Choosing to make your children ignorant morons is reprehensible.

Funny how you invoke the "liberal" boogeyman when it comes to basic, fundamental education in simple scientific matters of biology and disease. What is "liberal" about this? It is common sense to provide children with a basic foundation of knowlege, for the health and safety of society as a whole.

The more education that a person receives, the more "liberal" they become, for the most part.
The less education a person has, the more "conservative" they are, for the most part.

Can you provide ONE example of positive social change coming about through "conservative" philosophy?

Is ignorance really bliss? For conservatives, that seems to be the case. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up", sums it up pretty well.

Creationism is religion disguised as science and has no place in a science classroom.

Fantastic post.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

You and your liberal I can fuck who I want to fuck liberal mind set

That sounds pretty good to me!

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

You and your liberal I can fuck who I want to fuck liberal mind set bull shit are part of what will destroy this country if it is allowed to happen. I will fight you with every fiber of my being to make sure this does not continue.

Just curious, what action have you taken 'with every fibre of your being' to make this stop? (Apart from using ALL CAPS on an internet message board.)

LOL

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[billvon 3,008]

>Sex is an act that can have (and many times does have) consequences.
> Those being pregnancy, STD's and the emotional issues that can come
>with the act. When sex ed moves beyond the biological facts, it changes to
>a process to help someone avoid any one of these issues. IE, to remove
> responsibility.

A few comments:

1) If there is no knowledge, there can be no responsibility. If a boy hears his friend tell him that if he just pulls out, he won't get her pregnant and he won't get an STD, then he may decide to do the "responsible thing" and have sex with her and then pull out. Was he really being responsible? Or was he _unable_ to be responsible because he didn't know enough to make responsible decisions?

2) If by your above statement you mean "schools should teach the biology and mechanics of sex, STD transmission and prophylactic effectiveness, but not the morality or ethics of such issues" then I agree. Morality (beyond basic public health) is not the responsibility of the school; it's the responsibility of the parents. So if you are objecting to a sex ed teacher saying "everyone should have sex, and here's how" then I would agree with you. (Although I don't think that happens.)

>teaching MY kids ways the may help them avoid consequences of an adult act.

Any child who can be sexually active must be taught the consequences of sexual activity, and the (limited) effectiveness of things like condoms and other forms of birth control/STD barriers.

>By teaching these things, combined with the laws, you are the
>one trying remove responsibility for a choice.

No. There is no responsibility without knowledge. Only by having an accurate view of what the decision entails can children make a responsible decision on whether to engage in sexual activity.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Slightly off the main topic, I went to high school in the 70's. The teachers decided that whole language was easier for the student. The basics of phonics was not used. Spell it how it sounds and you will pick it up latter. That is a failed experiment that I fight through everyday.

OK, now this is interesting

You blame your bad spelling on being given less than complete information on how to properly spell in high school. Your parents obviously didn't or weren't able to pick up the slack, nor have you taken effective remedial action to correct your lack of knowledge in the 30 odd years since you left school.

Yet despite this, you think that schools should give less than complete information on one of the most relevant public health health issues of our time, in the expectation that parents will pick up the slack. Hmm.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[livendive 8]

Quote

In this case the law is irrealvant (for the case of this discussion) because what is right is right. YOU should not have the power to deal with my under age children as you see fit when is comes to sex or birth control.

Treatment aside, if your child asks their doctor about birth control or avoiding STDs, shouldn't they be allowed to answer? You know, freedom of speech and all that.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Why are people so threatened by this anyway?

A school teaching my daughter that Santa Claus really exists would bother me. It's not a good use of her time or tax dollars.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In this case the law is irrealvant (for the case of this discussion) because what is right is right. YOU should not have the power to deal with my under age children as you see fit when is comes to sex or birth control.

Treatment aside, if your child asks their doctor about birth control or avoiding STDs, shouldn't they be allowed to answer? You know, freedom of speech and all that.

Blues,
Dave

If they are miniors I should be asked or included

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In this case the law is irrealvant (for the case of this discussion) because what is right is right. YOU should not have the power to deal with my under age children as you see fit when is comes to sex or birth control.

Treatment aside, if your child asks their doctor about birth control or avoiding STDs, shouldn't they be allowed to answer? You know, freedom of speech and all that.

Blues,
Dave

If they are miniors I should be asked or included

So they can ask their friends and get an answer without you listening in, but not their doctor? That seems kind of silly.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

In this case the law is irrealvant (for the case of this discussion) because what is right is right. YOU should not have the power to deal with my under age children as you see fit when is comes to sex or birth control.

Treatment aside, if your child asks their doctor about birth control or avoiding STDs, shouldn't they be allowed to answer? You know, freedom of speech and all that.

Blues,
Dave

If they are miniors I should be asked or included

So they can ask their friends and get an answer without you listening in, but not their doctor? That seems kind of silly.

Blues,
Dave

I know, most you replying to me here refuse to see what I am trying to say. I hope you never have a minor child that can go to a Dr to get what evey they need without your permisiion or knowlege.

As I have stated earlier. This is about rights, consequenses and responcibility. Some want to pass these off. I do not. I also do not feel the need to insult as many have here just lately.

Says much to me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

> I also do not feel the need to insult as many have here just lately.

"You and your liberal I can fuck who I want to fuck liberal mind set bull shit are part of what will destroy this country if it is allowed to happen. I will fight you with every fiber of my being to make sure this does not continue."

"if you truly belive this should be the norm screw you."

"you are once again full of shit"

You have been the one doing most of the attacking here. Cut it out.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Treatment aside, if your child asks their doctor about birth control or avoiding STDs, shouldn't they be allowed to answer? You know, freedom of speech and all that.

Blues,
Dave

If they are miniors I should be asked or included

So they can ask their friends and get an answer without you listening in, but not their doctor? That seems kind of silly.

Blues,
Dave

I know, most you replying to me here refuse to see what I am trying to say. I hope you never have a minor child that can go to a Dr to get what evey they need without your permisiion or knowlege.

As I have stated earlier. This is about rights, consequenses and responcibility. Some want to pass these off. I do not. I also do not feel the need to insult as many have here just lately.

Says much to me

My daughter is no longer a minor, so that time has passed. Oddly enough, I was, and remain, substantially involved in her healthcare decisions, including those of a personal nature. I agree that, as a parent, I want to know all, but I certainly wouldn't try to place any sort of gag order on her physicians. For the most part, I do not think a child should be able to receive treatment without the parents at least being notified, and elective treatments should usually include parental consent. I recognize that some exceptions have to exist, but not for run of the mill stuff.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> I also do not feel the need to insult as many have here just lately.

"You and your liberal I can fuck who I want to fuck liberal mind set bull shit are part of what will destroy this country if it is allowed to happen. I will fight you with every fiber of my being to make sure this does not continue."I have a hard time seeing this one as an attack or insult

"if you truly belive this should be the norm screw you."OK, I get this one

"you are once again full of shit"OK, I see this one too, sorry

You have been the one doing most of the attacking here. Cut it out.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Treatment aside, if your child asks their doctor about birth control or avoiding STDs, shouldn't they be allowed to answer? You know, freedom of speech and all that.

Blues,
Dave

If they are miniors I should be asked or included

So they can ask their friends and get an answer without you listening in, but not their doctor? That seems kind of silly.

Blues,
Dave

I know, most you replying to me here refuse to see what I am trying to say. I hope you never have a minor child that can go to a Dr to get what evey they need without your permisiion or knowlege.

As I have stated earlier. This is about rights, consequenses and responcibility. Some want to pass these off. I do not. I also do not feel the need to insult as many have here just lately.

Says much to me

My daughter is no longer a minor, so that time has passed. Oddly enough, I was, and remain, substantially involved in her healthcare decisions, including those of a personal nature. I agree that, as a parent, I want to know all, but I certainly wouldn't try to place any sort of gag order on her physicians. For the most part, I do not think a child should be able to receive treatment without the parents at least being notified, and elective treatments should usually include parental consent. I recognize that some exceptions have to exist, but not for run of the mill stuff.

Blues,
Dave

We are most likely not as far apart as it may seem sometimes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

No. There is no responsibility without knowledge. Only by having an accurate view of what the decision entails can children make a responsible decision on whether to engage in sexual activity.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> This is about a nanny state, some one else telling me as a parent
> what and how it should be taught to my children . . .

That's the definition of "public school." You can homeschool your children if you choose. If not, then the public school will teach your kids per its curriculum, not yours.

>the argument is still removing parents rights and giving it to the state.

Absurd. It is providing a service that you can choose not to avail yourself of.

Sorry, but I do not agree. (it may be the definition you want) Public schools are still supposed to be guided by the community they are in. What has happened is the Feds and teachers unions have stepped in to change that.

FOR THE Nth TIME - PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICY IS DICTATED BY SCHOOL BOARDS ELECTED BY THE COMMUNITY.

(Everyone except Marc please excuse the shouting. I"ve tried every other way to get the message across.)

Oh, really? So if the local communitiy decides to NOT teach English, nothing will happen? Bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> This is about a nanny state, some one else telling me as a parent
> what and how it should be taught to my children . . .

That's the definition of "public school." You can homeschool your children if you choose. If not, then the public school will teach your kids per its curriculum, not yours.

>the argument is still removing parents rights and giving it to the state.

Absurd. It is providing a service that you can choose not to avail yourself of.

Sorry, but I do not agree. (it may be the definition you want) Public schools are still supposed to be guided by the community they are in. What has happened is the Feds and teachers unions have stepped in to change that.

FOR THE Nth TIME - PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICY IS DICTATED BY SCHOOL BOARDS ELECTED BY THE COMMUNITY.

(Everyone except Marc please excuse the shouting. I"ve tried every other way to get the message across.)

Oh, really? So if the local communitiy decides to NOT teach English, nothing will happen? Bullshit.

I doubt the State Board of Education would like it. And that, of course, also answers to elected officials in the wider community. Contrary to rushmc's ignorant assertion, school policy is NOT made by teachers' unions or the feds.

The major recent influence of the feds is the poorly conceived, poorly executed and inadequately financed mandate for "No child left behind"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,008]

>And who would you put at fault here?

The parents.

If the parents want to pull their kids out of health class, and teach them what sex is about themselves, then they are free to do so. If they are too lazy to bother, then their kids will get the information they need from a teacher. That's not as good as getting it from their parents, but it's sure as shit better than them not knowing anything at all (or knowing only what their friends tell them.)

>Your point here does not make it ok for your think I should give up
>my parental rights.

I don't think you should give up your parental rights, and you have the right to not let your child take health class.

However, if YOU decide to give up YOUR rights, and not bother to either pull your kid out of health class or tell them anything about sex, then health class will cover what your kid needs to know. That's your decision and no one else's. Make your decision and live with it.

The topics covered in health class serves as a safety net for kids without responsible parents (and we all know there are too many of them out there.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And who would you put at fault here?

The parents.

If the parents want to pull their kids out of health class, and teach them what sex is about themselves, then they are free to do so. If they are too lazy to bother, then their kids will get the information they need from a teacher. That's not as good as getting it from their parents, but it's sure as shit better than them not knowing anything at all (or knowing only what their friends tell them.)

>Your point here does not make it ok for your think I should give up
>my parental rights.

I don't think you should give up your parental rights, and you have the right to not let your child take health class.

However, if YOU decide to give up YOUR rights, and not bother to either pull your kid out of health class or tell them anything about sex, then health class will cover what your kid needs to know. That's your decision and no one else's. Make your decision and live with it.

The topics covered in health class serves as a safety net for kids without responsible parents (and we all know there are too many of them out there.)

Most of this I can agree with except, the default should be the kid is NOT in class. Express consent should be given for them to attend by the parent

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Most of this I can agree with except, the default should be the kid is NOT in class. Express consent should be given for them to attend by the parent

I'll disagree. You need to make the 'active' response be on the responsible parents. The irresponsible just won't do anything no matter what. And making it an elective would result in making it a class that 'costs' extra. Maybe correct in principle, but it doesn't help the kids that would need it for the same reason - parents that don't care enough to sign up for it sure wouldn't do it if they had to pay. As always, those that are responsible will always pay for those that aren't.

The schools only need to be VERY clear to all the parents what the content of such a class includes. I see most objections from parents who work with schools that take a presumptive stance on the issue. Rightly so.

Or, forced sterilization of irresponsible parents and retroactive abortion of kids up through the 200th month of kids of same would also work.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Most of this I can agree with except, the default should be the kid is NOT in class. Express consent should be given for them to attend by the parent

I'll disagree. You need to make the 'active' response be on the responsible parents. The irresponsible just won't do anything no matter what. And making it an elective would result in making it a class that 'costs' extra. Maybe correct in principle, but it doesn't help the kids that would need it for the same reason - parents that don't care enough to sign up for it sure wouldn't do it if they had to pay. As always, those that are responsible will always pay for those that aren't.

The schools only need to be VERY clear to all the parents what the content of such a class includes. I see most objections from parents who work with schools that take a presumptive stance on the issue. Rightly so.

Or, forced sterilization of irresponsible parents and retroactive abortion of kids up through the 200th month of kids of same would also work.

You want me to by default give up my rights. Sorry, that is wrong. As I have stated before one of the attempts of a school here was to send the permission forms home with the child. If they did not get it back it was infered you agreed to let them attend. This was not by acident it was by those who think like you do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Most of this I can agree with except, the default should be the kid is NOT in class. Express consent should be given for them to attend by the parent

I'll disagree. You need to make the 'active' response be on the responsible parents. The irresponsible just won't do anything no matter what. And making it an elective would result in making it a class that 'costs' extra. Maybe correct in principle, but it doesn't help the kids that would need it for the same reason - parents that don't care enough to sign up for it sure wouldn't do it if they had to pay. As always, those that are responsible will always pay for those that aren't.

The schools only need to be VERY clear to all the parents what the content of such a class includes. I see most objections from parents who work with schools that take a presumptive stance on the issue. Rightly so.

Or, forced sterilization of irresponsible parents and retroactive abortion of kids up through the 200th month of kids of same would also work.

You want me to by default give up my rights.

You do not have the right to deprive your kids of sex education.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Most of this I can agree with except, the default should be the kid is NOT in class. Express consent should be given for them to attend by the parent

I'll disagree. You need to make the 'active' response be on the responsible parents. The irresponsible just won't do anything no matter what. And making it an elective would result in making it a class that 'costs' extra. Maybe correct in principle, but it doesn't help the kids that would need it for the same reason - parents that don't care enough to sign up for it sure wouldn't do it if they had to pay. As always, those that are responsible will always pay for those that aren't.

The schools only need to be VERY clear to all the parents what the content of such a class includes. I see most objections from parents who work with schools that take a presumptive stance on the issue. Rightly so.

Or, forced sterilization of irresponsible parents and retroactive abortion of kids up through the 200th month of kids of same would also work.

You want me to by default give up my rights.

You do not have the right to deprive your kids of sex education.

And you do not have any rights to teach my kid a dam thing about sex that I dont approve of.

You insinuation is just plain stupid

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln