What, This Isn't Important?
A question came up in a recent citizens advisory committee meeting, and I expect it will come up again -- it's a good one. A hard question. See what you think.
Let's say you're a sixteen-or-seventeen-year-old girl with a boyfriend, and you discover you're pregnant. What do you do?
A section addressing this question was proposed for the new sex-ed curriculum, though it was voted down. But what could be more on-target than this?
What is a girl supposed to do? It seems the choices are few in number. You can have the baby and raise it, you can put the baby up for adoption, or you can have an abortion.
Can anybody think of anything else? I suppose there are things like, let your mom raise the baby, but those will be variations on a theme.
This seems like an obvious thing to include in a sex education curriculum for teenagers. Some not-small-number of them are going to get pregnant -- when I drop my kid off at school, I see the girls pushing their strollers. I don't know the numbers, but there are a lot of pregnant MCPS students and students with kids.
For some people the answer to the question is a given. For instance, for some girls the idea of raising a child is simply ... out ... of ... the ... question. Yes, it's irresponsible, we can say it's reprehensible, even, to get knocked up before you're ready to be a parent. Teenagers who think they're ready for sex need to be ready for the consequences, too. We know that, and we can explain that to them in class. But, no matter, it's going to happen. Accepting the fact does not mean approving of the behavior, it just means we need to figure out what to do about something that actually happens.
For some girls, abortion is just not an option. Especially for religious reasons, some people cannot accept that choice. Most of us, maybe everybody, understands that abortion is not a practical birth-control method, there are lots of reasons not to have this procedure done. I don't think anybody wants to encourage girls to have abortions -- it's far better not to get pregnant in the first place.
But the truth is, abortion is legal, and it is one of the choices available to someone with an unwanted pregnancy. Maybe the law will change one day, maybe not, that's not really the point. Plenty of anti-abortion women end up having abortions themselves, when you come to that decision in your life it's not a simple black-and-white, right-and-wrong matter, it's a complex decision and a hard one. But it is a decision.
By the way, a writer named Joyce Arthur has collected a series of anecdotes about women who oppose abortion, but consider their own case an exception: The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. Very interesting and thought-provoking.
When this question came up in the citizens committee, it seemed that it was just too controversial to go forward with. Some school board members are up for election this year, and nobody wants to deal with this issue in their campaign, no incumbent wants the "pro-abortion" label hung around their neck in an election year. But is that the way we make choices about our children's education?
It seems like the most basic kind of knowledge for a student to have, at least as important as defining "zygote" and explaining how mitosis works.
Does it make sense to you to leave it out?
Let's say you're a sixteen-or-seventeen-year-old girl with a boyfriend, and you discover you're pregnant. What do you do?
A section addressing this question was proposed for the new sex-ed curriculum, though it was voted down. But what could be more on-target than this?
What is a girl supposed to do? It seems the choices are few in number. You can have the baby and raise it, you can put the baby up for adoption, or you can have an abortion.
Can anybody think of anything else? I suppose there are things like, let your mom raise the baby, but those will be variations on a theme.
This seems like an obvious thing to include in a sex education curriculum for teenagers. Some not-small-number of them are going to get pregnant -- when I drop my kid off at school, I see the girls pushing their strollers. I don't know the numbers, but there are a lot of pregnant MCPS students and students with kids.
For some people the answer to the question is a given. For instance, for some girls the idea of raising a child is simply ... out ... of ... the ... question. Yes, it's irresponsible, we can say it's reprehensible, even, to get knocked up before you're ready to be a parent. Teenagers who think they're ready for sex need to be ready for the consequences, too. We know that, and we can explain that to them in class. But, no matter, it's going to happen. Accepting the fact does not mean approving of the behavior, it just means we need to figure out what to do about something that actually happens.
For some girls, abortion is just not an option. Especially for religious reasons, some people cannot accept that choice. Most of us, maybe everybody, understands that abortion is not a practical birth-control method, there are lots of reasons not to have this procedure done. I don't think anybody wants to encourage girls to have abortions -- it's far better not to get pregnant in the first place.
But the truth is, abortion is legal, and it is one of the choices available to someone with an unwanted pregnancy. Maybe the law will change one day, maybe not, that's not really the point. Plenty of anti-abortion women end up having abortions themselves, when you come to that decision in your life it's not a simple black-and-white, right-and-wrong matter, it's a complex decision and a hard one. But it is a decision.
By the way, a writer named Joyce Arthur has collected a series of anecdotes about women who oppose abortion, but consider their own case an exception: The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. Very interesting and thought-provoking.
When this question came up in the citizens committee, it seemed that it was just too controversial to go forward with. Some school board members are up for election this year, and nobody wants to deal with this issue in their campaign, no incumbent wants the "pro-abortion" label hung around their neck in an election year. But is that the way we make choices about our children's education?
It seems like the most basic kind of knowledge for a student to have, at least as important as defining "zygote" and explaining how mitosis works.
Does it make sense to you to leave it out?
posted by JimK at 10:27 AM
22 Comments:
Jim, can you find out what the current policy is? Are teachers prohibited from discussing it at all? Are they allowed to discuss it if a student brings it up? If the teachers are allowed to discuss it, are they getting any training?
I think that it should be covered in the curriculum, but I understand why the board would shy away; look what happened when they tried to admit that some kids have two moms.
Tish, there have been a couple of times when the citizens committee started to discuss something, and someone from MCPS would just interrupt and tell us it violated a policy, or tell us if there was an "internal" issue with it. That did not happen when we discussed this proposal, they let us discuss and vote on it. So while I don't think there is any mention of abortion or adoption in current curricula, it doesn't appear to be set in stone anywhere.
JimK
That question better be addressed again.
I have had a friend who had that happen and that is not pleasant.
In fact, it's down right awful.
How else are we supposed to find out?
Alex, can you give us a few more details? Do you mean that a friend of yours was cut off by a teacher when s/he asked to discuss abortion? Was your friend told that discussing abortion violated MCPS policy?
I'd like to have abortion discussed in the class. It is a real hot-button issue, but 10th graders are old enough to discuss it. They know it is real, they have opinions, they deserve answers to questions.
By the way, my son brought home his candidates' information sheet for the student member of the BOE elections tomorrow. One of the candidates, Sarah Horvitz of Springbrook HS has support of Comprehensive Sex Ed and support of the CAC on her platform.
A friend of mine was pregnant and didn't know what to do.
I think the pro-lifers are all a bunch of hypocrites.
And I can say that with perfect confidence because if they weren't, then they'd be protesting McDonald's everyday.
They take a lot more life than abortion does, I'm sure.
And who are they to decide that human life is above animal life?
Unless all the pro-lifers are strict vegetarians, they have no argument.
Alex K. writes,
A friend of mine was pregnant and didn't know what to do.
Uhh, the choices are so simple that I frankly think it a waste of time to open such a can of worms, not to mention the social engineering mischief that could take place as a result.
I think the pro-lifers are all a bunch of hypocrites.
Oh really? This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes,
Hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue.
by,
François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
And I can say that with perfect confidence because if they weren't, then they'd be protesting McDonald's everyday.
Huh???
They take a lot more life than abortion does, I'm sure.
Oh, I can see where this is heading...I think.
And who are they to decide that human life is above animal life?
Western Law has decided this issue already; simply put, it is not possible to MURDER an animal. Yes, there are laws that regulate the taking of animal life so that it is not done in a cruel or inhumane manner, but there is no law that defines in any way, shape or form the taking of animal life as MURDER. This is a legal term used exclusively for human race, period.
Unless all the pro-lifers are strict vegetarians, they have no argument.
Put in charitable terms this is nonsense. It is like the belief that the earth is flat or that two plus two equals five...sorry, it is simply not the case.
Orin
My church has been having a discussion series on "hot" topics this Spring and last night was homosexuality night. A couple of ex-gays, one male and one female told their stories. Anyway, during the question time one woman said her babysitter, a high schooler, told her that her teacher at a public school told her that you couldn't know for sure what your sexual orientation is until you've tried both.
I realize that second- and third-hand quotes aren't always accurate. Assuming the story is correct, though, I'm curious about the TTF reaction. Do you guys think the remark is appropriate and, if not, should any action be taken toward a teacher who makes such a remark?
I am a vegetarian but I do not equate abortion with McDonalds. My problem with those who oppose choice- and I object to them being called pro-life- often do not seem to care about much beyond the fetus. We have so many poor hungry children in this country- it seems many of these people don't care about what happens once life really begins. The foster system in this country is a disgrace but I don't see these people running to help these children.
I believe in a woman's right to choose- it should be a medical matter, not a political one nor one in which some people's religious beliefs are thrust on others. People like to pretend that abortion started with Roe Vs Wade. I remember when abortion was not legal in the US- but people with money could get safe abortions elsewhere- while others died from back alley or self induced abortions. I imagine that quite a few loud mouth politicians who seemingly oppose abortion have helped family members get abortions and would continue to do so- while poorer women would suffer as they always have.
I doubt any remark that came out a session on "ex-gays". I am quite sure no teacher would say that.
What could this teacher possible mean when she says "try" both? Do you suppose she means to "have sex" with a male and female partner? That's absurd, and that's not what sexual identity is about. It is interesting when church groups and "family values" advocates see sexuality as genital porn, and fail to understand that a person's sexual identity touches every aspect of their life. The world must look very dirty and creepy to them.
JimK
"My problem with those who oppose choice- and I object to them being called pro-life- often do not seem to care about much beyond the fetus. We have so many poor hungry children in this country- it seems many of these people don't care about what happens once life really begins."
I think if you'll think about it, Andrea, you'll realize this isn't true. The Evangelical and Catholic churches are heavily involved in charitable work. Mother Theresa whose sacrificial work among the poor is universally acknowledged said, "When, in any society, it becomes acceptable to kill one's children, it's hard to see how it still qualifies as a civilization." I remember a few years back when famous Democratic liberal Jerry Brown went to work with her for six months in India and came back telling everyone he was pro-life.
Beyond general poverty work, there are pregnancy centers run by pro-life organizations that assist both young unwed mothers that keep their babies and also those that put them up for adoption. I know several families who work with these local centers and take in several babies a year while permanent adoptive parents are found.
There's a world of activity taking place about which you may be unaware.
Dear Orin,
So now only law and not religion decides what is murder and what isn't for you?
So therefore Roe v. Wade makes abortion okay for you.
Because law obvious supercedes your religious values.
Got it. Great.
Love,
Alex
Alex K. said...
Dear Orin,
So now only law and not religion decides what is murder and what isn't for you?
Nice try Alex...note carefully what I wrote, that Western Law recognizes a moral distinction between going up to somebody on the street, pulling out a gun and shooting them dead and eating a hamburger at McDonald's. The former is defined as homicide, while the latter is simply the act of eating.
Even now, much of Western Law is informed by Judeo-Christian writings that support the same conclusion as Western Law.
So therefore Roe v. Wade makes abortion okay for you.
Come now...I have been posting here long enough...you don't think that I support something merely because it is legal, do you??? Despite all the laws passed by the Third Reich stripping Jews (as well as other classes of humans) of their rights, including the natural right to life, it did not justify or make moral such a vile act.
Because law obvious supercedes your religious values.
Such insincerity suggests that you do not take this issue seriously...pity. Please explain how an atheist like Nat Hentoff and a Catholic like myself can come to the same conclusion about abortion? Simply put, Hentoff and I both recognize as a self-evident truth that the unborn are of the human class (as opposed to the inorganic, like rock, or the animal class, like a cow) like ourselves, and hence are worthy of protection as such.
My religious "values" (as you put it) inform me more fully why the unborn and the convicted murderer both deserve to live. It is either that, or we place all human life on a sliding scale...
Got it. Great.
2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Sincerely,
Orin
Love,
Alex
"What could this teacher possible mean when she says "try" both? Do you suppose she means to "have sex" with a male and female partner? That's absurd, and that's not what sexual identity is about. It is interesting when church groups and "family values" advocates see sexuality as genital porn, and fail to understand that a person's sexual identity touches every aspect of their life. The world must look very dirty and creepy to them."
The question I related was not from a church leader or the ex-gay speakers but a member of the audience at the presentation and directed to the speakers. The ex-lesbian responded by saying something similar to what Jim is saying here about distinguishing between gender and sexual identity.
I must admit though that it didn't occur that the teacher in question was referring to this. I guess it's possible.
You don't have to be in a church group or a family values group to see that our culture has become "very dirty and creepy". It is widely recognized across the political and social spectrum. Most people can't even imagine what the societal consequences ten years from now will be of the current widespread adolescent exposure to sick internet pornography.
Anonymous wrote:
"My church has been having a discussion series on "hot" topics this Spring and last night was homosexuality night. A couple of ex-gays, one male and one female told their stories. Anyway, during the question time one woman said her babysitter, a high schooler, told her that her teacher at a public school told her that you couldn't know for sure what your sexual orientation is until you've tried both.
"I realize that second- and third-hand quotes aren't always accurate. Assuming the story is correct, though, I'm curious about the TTF reaction. Do you guys think the remark is appropriate and, if not, should any action be taken toward a teacher who makes such a remark?"
******************************************************
Dear Anonymous,
You are right to be skeptical about second- and third-hand quotes. I would be extremely skeptical that any such comment was made by an MCPS teacher, for several reasons. First, until MCPS and the Board complete their work on the revised Family Life and Human Sexuality Curriculum, there is no mention whatsoever of sexual orientation in the health curriculum. Second, there is no other place in the curriculum where the subject as related by the woman’s babysitter would have come up. Third, during BOE public comments on the original proposed revised curriculum, people were making allegations about what was being done in the health curriculum which simply were false.
Sadly, what we have seen is that a lot of allegations are made about things that, in fact, have not occurred. Given the absurdity of the alleged comment reported to you, I would think that that is one of them. Why do I think the comment is absurd? Because the vast majority of people, by the time they emerge from puberty, know darn well what their orientation is and they don’t need to engage in experimentation to find out. Some people are bi-sexual – perhaps the “ex-gays” who spoke at the meeting are in that category; if so, perhaps they “tried” both. Or, as reported by so many who have been through “reparative therapies,” they may have tried to suppress all their natural sexual feelings to comport with a particular theology – a very risky matter personally, as we have seen with the tragic stories of leaders of “ex-gay” groups who have “relapsed.” As noted before on the Teachthefacts.org website, the American Medical Association explicitly rejects as dangerous “therapies” based on the proposition that homosexuality is a mental disorder or based on the proposition that one ought to change one’s sexual orientation.
One reason why MCPS decided in 2004 to approve revisions of the 8th and 10th Grade Health Education Curriculum to include basic information on sexual orientation was to eliminate factual misconceptions students might have and to provide teachers with a curriculum and background that separated fact from fiction. Unfortunately, a year ago an 11th hour lawsuit brought by Jerry Falwell and James Dobson supported groups temporarily derailed the process. By this time next year, hopefully, curriculum revisions will be in place that provide information from the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and similar mainstream health care professional organizations (as was done with the original revisions).
David
It's kind of a catch-22. Gay advocates claim there are no examples of people who've changed and, then, provided with one, they say those people weren't real gays to begin with. Maybe there aren't any real gays. Maybe there are just alot of people who've accepted the current line. You must admit the stance of gay advocacy groups toward ex-gays is somewhat extreme. In the gay community, there is strong peer pressure to say your orientation is innate so as to support the cause.
The science is out on this and the professional associations aren't acknowledging that because of socio-political forces. Interesting that TTF is now questioning the authority of the FDA, CDC and NIH but maintaining that the AMA and AAP are infallible. Your speaker from the AMA at the TTF forum last year presented data full of holes and misinterpretted. Your side needs to recognize this.
Anon, the CDC, FDA, etc. are government organizations, whose upper-level managers are often political appointees. The AMA, APA, AAP, etc. are professional organizations whose members are experts in the field, who have both academic and hands-on knowledge of the topics.
JimK
Professional associations are subject to political pressure. That's why they sometimes issue unsubstantiated statements.
Anon said, TTF is now questioning the authority of the FDA, CDC and NIH
It is not the authority of these government agencies that is being questioned; it is the credibility and integrity. The credibility and integrity of scientific federal government agencies are compromised when these agencies are forced to alter data and conclusions based on political pressure. TTF is not alone in noting this political tampering at agencies that were once highly regarded sources of scientific data and analyses.
Professional associations are subject to political pressure. That's why they sometimes issue unsubstantiated statements.
Do you think scientific federal government agencies under the Executive Branch are immune to political pressure? As if!
As if there was no political pressure on the FDA to ignore it's own advisory panel's recommendation to make emergency contraception available over the counter or to silence Dr. David Graham's research findings on the dangers of VIOXX and similar drugs.
As if there was no political pressure to change climate reports and press releases on scientific findings that conflict with administration policies about global warming at NASA.
As if there was no political pressure to give the National Physician’s Center for Family Resources, a group that has taken positions against scientific agencies on matters of public health, a no-bid contract to create the 4parents.gov website that includes inaccurate information on STDs.
Need some more examples of political pressure tampering with federal government agencies' scientific studies and finding? Check out this list at the Union of Concerned Scientists website.
Christine
Anonymous said...
"Professional associations are subject to political pressure. That's why they sometimes issue unsubstantiated statements."
There was a time when government agencies charged with providing factual information to the public were not subjected to the ideological bent of the President. Facts were facts; policy was policy. In the last few years, however, we have seen efforts by policy-makers to suppress facts that do not comport with their pre-conceived viewpoints. People are beginning to recognize this. It is part of the reason why, even according to a Fox News poll, less than 1/3 of Americans approve of the job the Administration is doing.
The Dobson/Falwell types can talk all they want about their view that the mainstream professional medical and mental health groups are just responding to pressure from gay rights groups, but those statements do not ring true. Does anyone truly believe that, for example, the American Medical Association is responding to so-called "political correctness," rather than science and clinical experience?
Absolutey I believe that the AMA responds to political pressure and that doctors are asked to change and alter their papers based on what the AMA would like to see published.
So, Theresa, you think the front office sends out a notice to all editors, saying that "gay is good and we want all results to show that?" Or you think they faked the HPV vaccine results. Or what?
It's ok to be paranoid, but I wonder if you have an idea how that would really work, that a conspiracy of AMA insiders would influence research results.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home