Bristol Palin: TTF Poster Child
TeachTheFacts.org first came into existence to fight for comprehensive sex education in Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools. We've gotten into some tangential issues but there is one focal theme to most of it, and that is society's attitudes about sexuality. As a group we tend to believe that young people should be taught all they need to know in order to conduct themselves responsibly, especially when it comes to sex. They should know how everything works, what the risks are, there should be some preparation for adult emotions and behaviors, and they should give some thought to the ethical aspects of their choices -- what is right and wrong for them as individuals and for society in general.
Bristol Palin could be our poster child. People magazine is doing a big feature on her, and it's pretty good.
It was an epiphany for me when it came out during the election campaign that Sarah Palin's daughter, seventeen and unmarried, was pregnant. I figured that would do it, her mother's hypocritical morality would be splashed all over the front page of the newspaper -- but just the opposite happened. The Republican base loved the fact that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter was knocked up. They were so happy for her. Well, no, she was not married, and the boyfriend didn't have much of a clue about how he was going to support a family, but who cares? God is blessing them with a beautiful little baby. For me the situation provided a jaw-dropping insight into the irrationality and irresponsibility of the religious right.
Every parent remembers those days. It is serious stuff having a baby, oh they're cute and everything but when they're crying at three in the morning you will not sleep. It should not be a surprise. Students should be taught about the responsibilities of parenthood, how to prevent pregnancy, and what to do if you find you are pregnant.
This online article is just a teaser to get you to buy the hardcopy of the magazine. I'm glad they are focusing some attention on the plight of young women like Bristol Palin, and I hope that she is able to get the word out to other teens, especially ones who might live in areas that do not have good, comprehensive sex education.
Bristol Palin could be our poster child. People magazine is doing a big feature on her, and it's pretty good.
Bristol Palin's pretty, lightly freckled face was nowhere to be seen on the overhead screen as images from her high-school senior slideshow – photos from the prom and a Class of 2009 portrait set against the Alaska snow – played during May 14's Wasilla High commencement ceremony.
Did it make her sad to have missed out on so much senior-year fun – to be spending graduation night not with a gang of friends but at home, giving her 5-month-old son a bottle while her extended family plays "Eskimo bingo"?
Bristol, the eldest daughter of Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin's five children, answers with a multitasking mom's whiff of impatience: "I have other things to worry about."
Bristol Palin, 18, has logged more of those "other things" than some people twice her age. In just the past nine months, she weathered her mother's bruising vice-presidential run; a failed engagement to boyfriend Levi Johnston that played out in the national media; and, most indelibly, a pregnancy that made her both mother and poster child. She is uncertain where she will go to college – she's thinking of a two-year business program – but says her near future will include advocating for teen-pregnancy prevention. Bristol Palin Exposes Her Sometimes Isolated Life
It was an epiphany for me when it came out during the election campaign that Sarah Palin's daughter, seventeen and unmarried, was pregnant. I figured that would do it, her mother's hypocritical morality would be splashed all over the front page of the newspaper -- but just the opposite happened. The Republican base loved the fact that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter was knocked up. They were so happy for her. Well, no, she was not married, and the boyfriend didn't have much of a clue about how he was going to support a family, but who cares? God is blessing them with a beautiful little baby. For me the situation provided a jaw-dropping insight into the irrationality and irresponsibility of the religious right.
"Girls need to imagine and picture their life with a screaming newborn baby and then think before they have sex," she tells PEOPLE. "Think about the consequences."
Her mom may be governor, but there is no nanny in the Palin house. Bristol gets up – usually twice during the night – to feed Tripp, who sleeps in a hand-me-down crib in her bedroom, and she says she has tapped out at least one school paper with her son crying in the background. She breastfed her baby for a month, pumping milk before class and rushing straight home to feed him. And she worked two part-time jobs to help pay for the diapers and formula her parents otherwise supply.
"If girls realized the consequences of sex, nobody would be having sex," says Bristol, sitting at her parents' lakeside patio table. "Trust me. Nobody."
As for her breakup with Levi, 19, with whom she's still trying to resolve child support and visitation issues, Bristol says it was for the best. "I'm thankful we didn't get married because if it wasn't going to work now, it wasn't going to work in five years."
Every parent remembers those days. It is serious stuff having a baby, oh they're cute and everything but when they're crying at three in the morning you will not sleep. It should not be a surprise. Students should be taught about the responsibilities of parenthood, how to prevent pregnancy, and what to do if you find you are pregnant.
This online article is just a teaser to get you to buy the hardcopy of the magazine. I'm glad they are focusing some attention on the plight of young women like Bristol Palin, and I hope that she is able to get the word out to other teens, especially ones who might live in areas that do not have good, comprehensive sex education.
posted by JimK at 9:55 AM
90 Comments:
"Students should be taught about the responsibilities of parenthood,"
yes, they should
"how to prevent pregnancy,"
society has been teaching this for millenia
abstain from intercourse outside of marriage
"and what to do if you find you are pregnant."
don't kill the kid
it's not their fault
Or I could just eat the newborn child being the monster I am.
Bad anonymous said ""how to prevent pregnancy," society has been teaching this for millenia abstain from intercourse outside of marriage".
LOL - you fool! That won't prevent pregnancy. Hilarious that you should advocate teaching for millenia that which is false.
Anon did not learn "kill the kid" and "eat the newborn child" from the MCPS sex education curriculum that might have done Bristol some good. Maybe those 2 weeks getting up at 2 AM to "feed the egg" might have convinced her to either abstain or to insist her partner use a condom correctly and consistently for every instance of sexual contact.
"Just say no" didn't work in the Garden of Eden and it hasn't worked anywhere else since. Bristol Palin is an absolutely perfect spokesmom for abstinence education.
"LOL - you fool! That won't prevent pregnancy. Hilarious that you should advocate teaching for millenia that which is false."
""Just say no" didn't work in the Garden of Eden and it hasn't worked anywhere else since."
Tish is usually intelligent and Priya is usually backwoods Canadian but, unfortunately, they make the same error here.
Teaching kids to use condoms hasn't worked at all, indeed, when schools began that in the 70s, the result was an explosion of teen pregnancy.
The spread of abstinence training in the 90s, however, caused the teen pregnancy rate to tumble.
In the last two-three years, a chorus of groups have loudly proclaimed abstinence education to be a travesty. Teens have their parents and teachers arguing this and, voila, teen pregnancy has begun to creep up again.
As for the millenia, societal standards did indeed keep teen prgenancy in check for thousands of years.
Little known fact.
At least on the desolate plains of Sasktchewan.
"Maybe those 2 weeks getting up at 2 AM to "feed the egg" might have convinced her to either abstain or to insist her partner use a condom correctly and consistently for every instance of sexual contact."
You're right Bea.
That is an effective teaching tactic.
You're also right that it fits right in with an abstinence curriculum.
A couple of other points about abstinence. Avoiding disease and pregnancy are not the only two reasons that Bristol and other girls might want to refrain from having an intimate relationship. There are strong emotional and psychological reasons that some may want to refrain. Bristol may have wished that she had not slept with her boyfriend for other reasons aside from the pregnancy. Teenaged girls are very fragile emotionally. And I know -- I was one.
Also, maybe Bristol used a condom that broke, or maybe the pill or diaphragm failed her, and that could be a reason she's campaigning for abstinence.
Also, you assume that if teens don't learn about sex in school then they're clueless and have no access to any information. Especially with the Internet these days -- that's hilarious!
Uh, bad anonymous, marriage does NOT prevent pregnancy. Your claim that the way to prevent pregnancy is to "abstain from intercourse outside of marriage" is one of the dumbest things you've ever said.
Bad anonymous said "Teaching kids to use condoms hasn't worked at all, indeed, when schools began that in the 70s, the result was an explosion of teen pregnancy.".
Wrong. You're just making stuff up again. The truth of the matter was posted by Aunt Bea in this thread:
Teaching kids to use condoms hasn't worked at all, indeed, when schools began that in the 70s, the result was an explosion of teen pregnancy.
Abstinence only education has been a disaster and lead to increased pregnancy. Comprehensive sex ed is the only thing that's been successful.
Bad anonymous said "Also, you assume that if teens don't learn about sex in school then they're clueless and have no access to any information. Especially with the Internet these days -- that's hilarious!".
LOL, Bristol had the internet and obviously her sex education was lacking. Her mother was all about abstinence only education - it obviously failed (again) in this case. No way can we trust kids to educate themselves about sex and we most certainly can't leave it up to parents so loaded with sexual hangups that they can't bring themselves to even broach the subject beyond frantically suggesting "its bad and nasty - don't do it". Just look at the sorry example of a lack of sex education that is you.
"The truth of the matter was posted by Aunt Bea in this thread"
The truth is, comp sex ed hasn't been a success.
Sex ed really isn't effective. Ab only at least slowly builds a societal expectation of sexual morality which worked better than anything for centuries.
Bad anonymous said "The truth is, comp sex ed hasn't been a success.".
Aunt Bea posted the facts that demonstrate it is a success and abstinence only is a failure. You're willfully blind to the truth and just keep repeating your lies hoping someone will believe you.
Bad anonymous said "Sex ed really isn't effective. Ab only at least slowly builds a societal expectation of sexual morality which worked better than anything for centuries.".
LOL, the population of the planet is exploding - abstincence only has failed miserably. Its no coincidence that the countries with the most severe overpopulation problems are the most religious.
"Aunt Bea posted the facts that demonstrate it is a success and abstinence only is a failure."
Not so. She noted a slight increase in condom usage during the years when abstinence progams were becoming popular.
The fact is, when comp sex ed programs were first introduced to the U.S., teen pregnancy exploded.
Much like late-term abortion, inner city hell-holes, gay Nazis...you simply a denier of facts.
"Tish is usually intelligent"Tish is always intelligent. It is my default setting.
"Abstain until marriage" programs do not do as good a job of teaching teens to abstain as comprehensive sexuality education does. We do abstinence better.
"Also, maybe Bristol used a condom that broke, or maybe the pill or diaphragm failed her, and that could be a reason she's campaigning for abstinence."Perhaps so. However, we do know that Levi Johnston did not use condoms regularly because he said so.
"the population of the planet is exploding - abstincence only has failed miserably"
the purpose of abstinence is not to prevent life, it is to prevent teens from becoming pregnant
"Tish is always intelligent. It is my default setting."
Well, I stand corrected, Tish.
Think about, though. Is there any other subject that any group has maintained about that there is scientific proof that it can't be taught?
There seems to be a consensus here that because Sarah Palin believes that abstinence should be taught in schools that this therefore means that she doesn't talk to her children about contraception.
The two concepts are unrelated. Certain things, like sex education, belong at home. It is not the school's job to talk about sex. And if they feel compelled to talk about it, they should tell teenagers that abstinence is the overall best option.
I am for abstinence only education in schools, but I'm also FOR discussing contraception with my children.
Just like...if the school wanted to allow Nintendos in the classroom, I would say "NO" -- Nintendos do not belong in the classroom. That does not mean, however, that I wouldn't allow my child to own a Nintendo.
Teaching kids to use condoms hasn't worked at all, indeed, when schools began that in the 70s, the result was an explosion of teen pregnancy. May 21, 2009 6:49 PM
The fact is, when comp sex ed programs were first introduced to the U.S., teen pregnancy exploded. May 21, 2009 10:34 PM
Anon, it's time to retire that lie right now.
Look again at the CDC graphs I posted yesterday. Does that gradual slope upward from the 1970s through about 1987 look like "an explosion" to you? And check out this data compiled by the Wisconsin Dept. of Health Services. The first graph shows how Wisconsin's fertility rate closely follows the national rate from 1950-2007.The second graph shows the birth rate for Wisconsin women, broken down into age categories. Every line on these two graphs peaks in either 1955 or 1960 and the fertility and birth rates do almost nothing but fall to relatively flat after 1960.
Get it through your thick skull, there was **no** explosion of the teen pregnancy rate in the 1970s. Stop lying, it's contemptible.
maybe Bristol used a condom that broke, or maybe the pill or diaphragm failed her, and that could be a reason she's campaigning for abstinence.
No, Anon, not according to her Tripp's daddy. Levi Johnston admitted on Tyra Banks he and Bristol didn't always use a condom. (about 3 minutes into the video).
I'm also FOR discussing contraception with my children.
That's no problem. Sex education at MCPS -- other than girls being taught about menstruation, which is required by State law -- is optional. Parents must opt in and request that their students take this class. If you prefer to teach them at home, don't sign the request to opt in and teach them yourself.
Link to yesterday's CDC graphs
the teen pregnancy rate did indeed explode after the introduction of comp sex ed programs in the early 70s
your graph, which begins in 1976, misrepresents
graphs can do that
let's just humor you for a second though and assume I should have said "increase" instead of "explode"
no one, including you, claim comp sex ed caused a decrease in sex ed
and yet you cite one study showing ab education didn't work as proof it should be cancelled
research released by the Journal of Adolescent Health suggested that those age 12 to 17 who make such pledges delay having sexual intercourse longer than other adolescents who are similar to them but who do not take such a pledge
ab only works at least as well, if not better than comp sex ed
the issue is what kind of attitude makes for a healthier society
truth is, comp sex ed has been around for forty years and it has failed
Bristol Palin's high school did teach kids about condoms, btw, so that's another example, a face to back up the statistics
let's face it, Sarah Palin scares the bejeebies outta all liberals
that's she and her family will continue to receive such focus in the media
Bad anonymous said "the purpose of abstinence is not to prevent life, it is to prevent teens from becoming pregnant".
Preventing teens from becoming pregnant prevents life. Just because a couple is married doesn't mean they want to have an uncontrolled number of children. Its that kind of behavior that's lead to a seriously overpopulated planet and an unsustainable level of growth. Its well documented that natural populations tend to increase until the outstrip the ability of the environment to sustain them. Then populations have a catastrophic crash with most individuals starving to death. If we want to avoid that we need comprehensive sex education. We can't continue on as we have and say "don't have sex until you're married" and hope to miraculously get a different result than the entirety of history has demonstrated to this point.
Bad anonymous said "There seems to be a consensus here that because Sarah Palin believes that abstinence should be taught in schools that this therefore means that she doesn't talk to her children about contraception.".
She doesn't just believe that abstinence should be taught, but that abstinence ONLY should be taught. The theory that she contradicted her own desires at home is preposterous to say the least.
Bad anonymous said "The two concepts are unrelated. Certain things, like sex education, belong at home. It is not the school's job to talk about sex.".
Wrong. Sex education belongs in the school. As millions of children like Bristol Palin demonstrate parents can't be trusted to do a proper job of preparing their children for life. We can't continue to leave critical education up to chance. As too many parents like you demonstrate many parents are filled with sexual hangups and ill-equiped to teach their children about sex.
Bad anonymous said "I am for abstinence only education in schools, but I'm also FOR discussing contraception with my children.".
Clearly a lie. If you believed in informing children about contraception you'd have no problem with the school sex education program teaching the same. You're not fooling anyone.
Bad anonymous said "Just like...if the school wanted to allow Nintendos in the classroom, I would say "NO" -- Nintendos do not belong in the classroom. That does not mean, however, that I wouldn't allow my child to own a Nintendo.".
A faulty analogy. That's like saying "If my child has sex at home I want him/her to use contraception. If they have sex at school I don't want them to use contraception" - utter nonsense.
Bad anonymous said "the teen pregnancy rate did indeed explode after the introduction of comp sex ed programs in the early 70s your graph, which begins in 1976, misrepresents graphs can do that".
Another baseless claim. Demonstrate how this graph allegedly misrepresents or accept that it does not. No one here is going to take your word on anything given your long history of lying.
Bad anonymous said "research released by the Journal of Adolescent Health suggested that those age 12 to 17 who make such pledges delay having sexual intercourse longer than other adolescents who are similar to them but who do not take such a pledge".
It showed a slight delay and after which those who made pledges were less likely to use condomns than those who did not make such pledges.
Bad anonymous said "truth is, comp sex ed has been around for forty years and it has failed".
Another baseless claim. The facts posted by Aunt Bea clearly demonstrate you're wrong. Abstinence only is a failure. Your endless repetition of stuff you made up won't convince anyone here.
Bad anonymous said "Bristol Palin's high school did teach kids about condoms, btw, so that's another example, a face to back up the statistics".
Another right wing lie. When asked if Bristol was taught comprehensive sex education her vice principle said "I assume so, ,I don't know". Just as you do they made something up, have nothing to back up their claim and hope people will take it at face value.
Anonymous thinks he's smarter than all of us. Hee hee. But he knows he has worse hair.
Priya, the world is not over-populated. I live in the Northeast Boston-DC megapolis, one of the most densely populated places on the planet, and there are huge swaths of open territory. Leave the coasts and North America has vast empty spaces, incuding your mind.
"Another baseless claim. Demonstrate how this graph allegedly misrepresents or accept that it does not."
the graph begins in 1976 and the scale is reduced
better stats are available
even the biased Guttmasher institute does better and goes to the early 70s
"Brilliant anonymous said "research released by the Journal of Adolescent Health suggested that those age 12 to 17 who make such pledges delay having sexual intercourse longer than other adolescents who are similar to them but who do not take such a pledge".
It showed a slight delay and after which those who made pledges were less likely to use condomns than those who did not make such pledges."
And? You said it failed. A slight delay is better than comp sex ed has done. That represents real lives affected for the better.
Teen pregancy exploded in the 70s and began to go down in the 90s. the only known variables are that comp sex ed was introduced in the 70s and ab programs spread across America in the 90s.
"Brilliant anonymous said "Bristol Palin's high school did teach kids about condoms, btw, so that's another example, a face to back up the statistics".
Another right wing lie. When asked if Bristol was taught comprehensive sex education her vice principle said "I assume so, ,I don't know"."
Well, he's a moron which makes him perfect for a job in the public schools. Considering you can't spell "principal", you, no doubt, went to public school as well.
Wasilla High did indeed have a class on birth control. Actual accounts from students who attended are available online.
Sarah Palin's biggest mistake was sending her kid to a public school with its valueless sex ed curriculum.
"Anonymous thinks he's smarter than all of us. Hee hee. But he knows he has worse hair."
robert, you turkey, I'm going to send you a picture someday
I'm the only guy my age I know that doesn't have a receding hairline; my barber can't even keep up
when my Dad was on chemo, a few years back, the doctor told him he would lose his hair and it never happened
it's in my genes
The CDC graphs started at 1976, but the Wisconsin Department of Health Services graphs covered the years 1950-2007. Where are the graphs and data that support your repeated lie that teen pregnancy "increased" or "exploded" in the 70's? They do not exist.
That one study that showed the 88% failure rate of the Silver Ring Thing was a $45-million project, funded by 17 separate federal agencies. Bearman’s investigators interviewed more than 20,000 young people about virginity pledge programs -- and there was some good news.
"Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half," says Bearman. "It's a big deal in the lives of teenagers. Eighteen months is a phenomenally long time. It’s almost two school years."
So what's the downside?
"The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex," says Bearman. "So all of the benefit of the delay in terms of pregnancy-risk and in terms of STD acquisition -- poof -- it just disappears because they’re so much less likely to use a condom at first sex."
...Not only are kids who take virginity pledges just as likely to have sexually transmitted diseases as kids who don’t, but they are even more likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior.
Maybe Bristol was in class the day they learned about condoms, but maybe her mother taught her something else at home, who knows? Maybe Governor Palin had the same view of condoms as the creator of the Silver Ring Thing program, who said:
"My own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active. I would not tell her to use a condom," says Pattyn. "I don't think it'll protect her..."
Bristol Palin's high school did teach kids about condoms, btw, so that's another example, a face to back up the statistics
What statistics? Provide the URL to the statistics you're referring to.
If Bristol's sex ed program did include information about the use of condoms to prevent unplanned pregnancy, she failed to learn the lesson. More likely it was was one of those bogus "failure rates of condoms" lessons, in which case, she learned the lesson perfectly. Does anybody know which it was? Did it include a condom demonstration like MCPS's?
I am certain Bristol's sex ed program in an Alaskan public school taught her about abstinence and I would assume her mother probably worked to drive that message home to her too. So there we have it, there's an example, a face of the fact for all the world to see that sex without a condom has serious consequences.
Bad anonymous said "Priya, the world is not over-populated. I live in the Northeast Boston-DC megapolis, one of the most densely populated places on the planet, and there are huge swaths of open territory.".
You fool, no reputable scientist on the planet denies the fact that the planet is grossly overpopulated and the present rates of growth spell certain disaster. It takes vast stretches of open land to sustain every city. The mere existence of empty spaces does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the planet isn't overpopulated until humans cover every square mile of it. Vast numbers of peoples are starving to death all over the planet, there's huge overcrowding problems in many countries, the soaring energy prices demonstrate the unsustainability of current population levels, the pollution of the planet and global warming show the current population rates aren't sustainable. The planet absolutely needs vast arrays of open spaces to sustain a reasonable number of humans and we surpassed that long ago. We are headed for disaster and people like you sticking your head in the sand and telling children to get married and have all the children they can is going to continue to result in mass starvations and the destruction of the only home we have.
"Another baseless claim. Demonstrate how this graph allegedly misrepresents or accept that it does not."
Bad anonymous said "the graph begins in 1976 and the scale is reduced better stats are available even the biased Guttmasher institute does better and goes to the early 70s".
The differences between a graph that starts in 1976 and one that starts in "the early 70s" are trivial to say the least. In fact the shorter time scale makes the rate of increase appear steeper not shallower as you claimed. Once again you fail to make your point, and in fact, show the opposite of what you're claiming to be true - abstinence only has been a failure.
Bad anonymous said "And? You said it failed. A slight delay is better than comp sex ed has done. That represents real lives affected for the better.".
I see you've got your confirmation bias filter on. You conveniently "forgot" the second part - they were less likely to use protection when the did become sexually active. That represents the failure of abstinence only - real lives affected for the worse.
Bad anonymous said "Teen pregancy exploded in the 70s".
As Aunt Bea proved, that is a lie. Your constant repetition of a lie won't make it the truth.
Bad anonymous said "and began to go down in the 90s. the only known variables are that comp sex ed was introduced in the 70s and ab programs spread across America in the 90s."
The stats Bea posted demonstrated that teen pregnancy increased when the Bush abstinence only programs came into effect.
The slight rise in teen pregnancies in the 70's was due to three factors. The increased health and calorie laden diets children saw in that time period caused them to go into puberty earlier, this resulted in teens being more sexually active than they would have otherwise. Social change with children taking more autonomy from their parents. The tendency of the entertainment industry and advertising to "up the ante" when it comes to sexually suggestive messaging focused teens on their sexuality more than had been the case in the past. If it were not for comprehensive sex eductation programs the slight increase in teen pregnancy would have been an "explosion". You can thank the teaching of contraceptive usage for the fact that it was not.
Bad anonymous said "Wasilla High did indeed have a class on birth control. Actual accounts from students who attended are available online.".
Yawn. Another unsupported claim - we've heard your lies before.
Bad anonymous said "Sarah Palin's biggest mistake was sending her kid to a public school with its valueless sex ed curriculum.".
Her biggest mistakes were failing to ensure her child got a comprehensive sex education and being so wrapped up in religionist BS that her daughter sought the love she should have received at home through sex with another child.
Bad anonymous said "I'm the only guy my age I know that doesn't have a receding hairline".
Yesterday you were claiming to be a female. That you would lie about your hair in a vain attempt to bolster your saggin self-esteem comes as no surprise.
"Maybe Bristol was in class the day they learned about condoms, but maybe her mother taught her something else at home, who knows?"
Ho, ho, Bea.
I thought you said receiving both messages is the most effective method of all.
Face it, teaching kids about condoms has no effect on their behavior.
The facts Bea presented prove otherwise.
"What statistics? Provide the URL to the statistics you're referring to."
The graph you provided showed that the introduction of comp sex ed in the 70s did not decrease the teen pregnancy rate. Most of the explosion took place from 1972-1976. I've already told you where you can get those stats.
The best you can say about comp sex ed is that once it corrupted the sexual morality of an entire generation, the problem didn't get any worse and when abstinence messages started to go out a few decades later, they found a receptive audience.
Of course, the shrill propaganda of TTF-type liberals the last three or four years has taken a toll and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Kids have heard their parents and teachers say loudly that they expect teens to be sexually active. The kids have taken the hint.
"If Bristol's sex ed program did include information about the use of condoms to prevent unplanned pregnancy, she failed to learn the lesson."
So what? If she got information about abstinence she failed to learn that lesson too.
Your whole argument has been based on which lesson will be more likely learned by teens and this teen didn't get either.
"More likely it was was one of those bogus "failure rates of condoms" lessons, in which case, she learned the lesson perfectly. Does anybody know which it was? Did it include a condom demonstration like MCPS's?"
No, it didn't but it covered both male and female condoms and the Pill and discussed how to use them. The talk wasn't convincing and didn't work.
That's the basis you cite for cancelling abstinence programs.
Why not comp sex ed programs?
Come clean, Bea. You hope teens will engage in sex at an early age.
"I am certain Bristol's sex ed program in an Alaskan public school taught her about abstinence and I would assume her mother probably worked to drive that message home to her too."
Aren't you always accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "making things up"?
Et tu?
"So there we have it, there's an example, a face of the fact for all the world to see that sex without a condom has serious consequences."
It's just as much a face for sex outside of marriage has consequences and a face for comp sex ed doesn't work.
Wake up, Bea. Stop promoting policies that hurt kids.
That look in the mirror every morning will be a whole lot easier.
Good for you on the hair, anonymous. While we're all confessing, I started shaving when I had all my hair, but now there's a definite trend before the razor hits for toilet seat hair, and it's mostly grey. The Lex Luthor look is definitely my best look.
You've spoiled my hair jokes. But I want to see that picture.
I have no trouble looking in the mirror just like I have no trouble signing "Aunt Bea" to my posts here on Vigilance. You on the other hand...
You prefer the "better stats [at the] Guttmasher [sic] institute" to those reported by the CDC and Census Bureau, yet you won't provide a link to the specific stats just like you won't sign a name to your comments. Most kids outgrow being contrary, but you seem determined to remain juvenile. Until you provide a link or URL to the stats you claim support your statements, there's nothing more to say about your unsupported claims.
What drew you to the stats offered by the Guttmacher Institute? Was it their advocacy work like this:
The Guttmacher Institute has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind a federal regulation, put into effect on the last day of the Bush administration, that would allow even tangentially involved individuals and entities to refuse to participate in any aspect of a health care service to which they object.
"Yesterday you were claiming to be a female."
I've got a great explanation! There is MORE THAN ONE anon posting here....
Yeah, sure, that's mighty convenient. Of course with you being anonymous that's an easy excuse. That's why you post anonymously - it makes it easier for you to lie like this. You're not fooling anyone.
Priya --To my taste, your bitterness is unbecoming. Anyway...I finally found a chart about abortion statistics that I had in my files. These stats back up the number you posted the other day about there being 800 abortions after 25 weeks (your # is probably more accurate today than the 1100 listed here because these stats are from 1992).
This chart also shows that my previous estimate of 18,000 partial birth abortions was WAY off. It's about 92,000 in the second and third trimesters.
Table 1. Induced Abortions, 1992
Gestational age Number
Total 1,528,930
<9 weeks 798,850
9-10 weeks 377,570
11-12 weeks 181,960
13-15 weeks 94,060
16-20 weeks 60,040
>20 weeks 16,450
21-22 weeks 10,340
23-24 weeks 4,940
25-26 weeks 850
>26 weeks 320
Note: Numbers are estimates by AGI based on AGI survey data, the CDC abortion surveillance reports and data compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics.
Also, I came across this in my files:
"US News & World Report investigated abortion supporters' claims about late abortions. In looking at the reasons for late abortions, the report said:
[T]he survey undermines another claim sometimes made by abortion-rights groups, at least with regard to the D&X issue: that late abortions are usually done for medical reasons, particularly to protect the life and/or health of the mother. Only 9.4 percent of late abortions at clinics that responded to the U.S. News survey were done for medical reasons, either to protect the mother's health (a rare situation) or, more commonly, because of fetal defects such as spina bifida and Down's syndrome. For the handful of very late abortions, those after 26 weeks, medical reasons do predominate. But for post-20-week abortions generally, about 90 percent were classified by the clinics as "nonmedical."
That's 17 year old data. Can't you do any better than that?
Why don´t we leave the abortion topics up to women, AnonBigot?
I don´t think you have any right posting against a woman´s choice.
You sure do spend a lot of time on here... Why don´t you spend some time with your children instead?
Simple addition and knowledge of how many weeks comprise a pregnancy trimester seem to be a problem for Anon.
That US News and World Report quote is a little less ancient than the 1992 data Anon provided; it's from 1998, only eleven years ago instead of seventeen. In the interest of full disclosure, here's the very next paragraph Anon somehow avoided sharing with us:
These nonmedical abortions fell into several categories. "Our biggest group is 10-to-18-year-olds in total denial," says an official at one Southern clinic, making a common observation. Another category consists of women who find out late that they are pregnant: very young teens with irregular menstrual periods and women in their late 40s who mistakenly thought they had entered menopause. In interviews with 1,000 abortion patients, University of Alabama sociologist Michele Wilson found that compared with women who had abortions in the first trimester, those getting later abortions were more likely to be young, to live with their parents, and to have conferred with them on this decision. She concluded that some of the abortions were performed later because the women had to take more time to build family consensus for the choice.Many late term abortions back in the late 90's were performed on young women "in total denial," whose parents waited until late in her pregnancy to take her to get an abortion, or were performed on older women who mistakenly thought they were menopausal, not pregnant. Those young girls who sought abortion at that Southern clinic and their parents demonstrate another reason why comprehensive sex education, which is rare in Southern states, is so important. No teen should be "in total denial" about the consequences of sex; teens should be educated about how to prevent unintended pregnancies so we can reduce the number of abortions requested.
Also, in 1998, the number of post-20-week abortions had dropped to 5,500. Compare that to the 16,450 in 1992. Over that 6 year period there was approximately a 66% drop in the number of post-20-week abortions. And that drop in the number has continued. The Guttmacher Institute (thanks, Anon) reports, based on 2004 data:
• Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman’s last menstrual
period).
• Six in 10 abortions are performed within eight weeks’ gestation (calculated from the beginning of the last menstrual period).
• The proportion of abortions performed very early in pregnancy (at six weeks or before) increased from 14% in 1992 to 28% in 2004.
• Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.
• An estimated 0.08% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks
Thank goodness there are groups like TTF who support and advocate for medically accurate comprehensive sex education in our public schools.
"Thank goodness there are groups like TTF who support and advocate for medically accurate comprehensive sex education in our public schools."
Bea, since the MCPS Board created TTF to advocate for their interests, teen pregnancy has started to rise after years of decline. It's perfectly obvious that the movement that TTF is a small part of has changed the milieu and the attitudes of teens and undermined the abstinence message that had been taking hold.
"Why don´t we leave the abortion topics up to women, AnonBigot?
I don´t think you have any right posting against a woman´s choice."
Well, women aren't the victims of this murder, boys and girls are.
Should we all be free to murder anyone whose life represents an inconvenience to us?
While Bea and another anon debate how common late term abortion are, the truth is that all abortions are murder. Another truth is that even one torturous killing of an innocent himan life is too much. If the numbers have declined, credit the pro-life movement that has raised the conscience of Americans to this abomination.
Back to the original conversation this week, why does TTF have such heightened concern over a couple of confessed murderers who have had the uncomfortable feeling of having water shot up their noses and such nonchalance toward children being torturously murdered shortly before their birth or disdvantaged children being subjected to terror daily in dangerous and failing hell-holes while fat-cat teacher unions fight letting them escape?
In the words of George Costanza, what kind of a sick mind does it take?
Bea, since the MCPS Board created TTF to advocate for their interests...In case anybody reads this comment and believes it, let me document that it is untrue. TTF was not created by MCPS. A group of parents, mostly from Einstein, met in Wheaton when we saw that the radical right was planning to attack MCPS for its sex-ed curriculum. It started from some comments on the Einstein listserve, people contacted one another, and away we went.
Seems there are people in the county who will say anything, true or not. Like that TTF was created by the "MCPS Board," for instance. Somebody needed to stop them.
JimK
the uncomfortable feeling of having water shot up their nosesThe six seconds and 3/4 of a gallon of water waterboarding of Erich "Mancow" Muller
Interviewer: Do you want the EMT?
Erich Mancow Muller: No, no....It's OK, I'm fine.....It is way worse than I thought it would be...and I it is way worse than I thought it would be, that's no joke.
Interviewer: Do you consider it torture?
Muller: Look, all that's been done to this country, and I heard about water being dropped on someone's face and I never considered it torture. Even when I way lying there I thought "this will be no big deal. I go swimming, it's going to be like being in the tub." It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose and your mouth with your head back. It was instantaneous. I thought I could hold out 30 seconds, 60 seconds. It was instantaneous and uh and I don't want to say this, I do not want to say this. Absolutely torture. Absolutely, I mean that's drowning!
Interviewer" So you felt like you were going to drown?
Muller: When I was a kid, when I was a kid I drowned..I drowned... yes, my brother pulled me out of this uh this pool that I fell in and I had to be revived. And I remember the feeling and that it is the feeling of drowning...
Interviewer: That was a flashback to your childhood there.
Muller: Worse than that, I mean it was....
Interviewer" Yeah, you look shaken, your hands are shaking a bit, I can see your hand shaking and you're absolutely soaked, your hair, your shirt, you're just completely soaked...and your eyes, you look pale.
Muller: I thought I could hold out and it was instantaneous and horrific, and I really, look, I wouldn't have done this. If I knew it was going to be this bad, I would not have done it.
and yet he lived to talk about it
unlike children who are pulled from their mothers' womb and have their brains crushed or their throats slit
unlike kids who are killed when the cross a gang selling drugs in a hell-hole school they are forced to attend
did you know Americans are steadily trending toward a moral position on abortion and away from the amorality of the Derricks and Beas of the liberal netherworld?
in 1995, Gallup reported that Americans favored abortion rights 56-33%
this week, Gallup reported they were against abortion rights 51-42%
a new Pew poll shows only 44% believe abortion should be legal in most cases
this is the summer that the short-lived liberal resurgence ends
right now, in three blue states, Illinois, New York and Connecticut, polls show the Republican challenger for the Senate will defeat the Democrat incumbent by a comfortable margin
in California, voters last week rejected huge tax and spend propositions similar to Obama's national model
of course, they rejected gay marriage last fall
Obama will survive because he's pragmatist- he is against gay marriage and cut family planning money from the stimulus bill
but his adavantage in Congress is terminal
live it up now- there's no tomorrow for the lunatic fringe
Right on, Anon! It truly is unbelievable that bloggers here can read the descriptions of these mutilations and be for it. It is mind blowing.
For most of my adult life, I was "pro choice"-- until a kind friend took the time to educate me. I had truly been blind before that. The first time I read the descriptions of these abortions, and saw the hundreds of photos of mutilated babies and their parts -- little chopped off hands, toes, fingers, elbow sockets, shoulder sockets, black, charred burns on the babies, decapitated heads....I literally ran to the bathroom and VOMITED.
Aunt Bea, Priya, Derrick -- the rest of you -- go ahead and defend it if you wish. But remember that there is no shame in allowing for the fact that you just might be wrong about something.
Most abortions are conducted early in the pregnancy. If what bothers you is that the fetus looks like a person, how do you feel about aborting an embryo that is two, four, eight, 512 cells, a microscopic ball of unrecognizable tissue?
Let me guess -- you're still against it, even though the embryo has no nervous system and cannot feel pain or have awareness.
And please report how you vomited when you read about the atrocities that American soldiers committed against fully conscious adults, torturing and raping teenagers and other innocent people, in our glorious war to prevent Iraq from destroying us with their weapons of mass destruction. I will be glad to learn that you are opposed to wrongful violence in all its instances.
Man2
Babies don't just looks like "persons", they ARE "persons."
I find all torture of all "persons" unacceptable. Anon and I seem to be the only ones here who are against torture of all "pesons."
Ahem. Let me restate that without typos -- I was distracted when I sent the last one....
A baby doesn't just "look" like a person, he or she IS a "person."
I find all torture of any "person" unacceptable. Anon and I seem to be the only ones here who are against torture of any "person."
Yes, babies are "persons," I'm not talking about babies, I'm talking about embryos. Is a four-celled embryo a "person?" What do you think of the thousands of Iraqi "persons" who have been killed the war to protect the US from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Did you vomit when you heard about them?
Man2
Mantu --Yes, an embryo is a baby. And yes, war photos of the dead make me vomit too. There is no difference between the death of an unborn child, a child that has been born, a toddler, a young child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle-aged adult, or a senior citizen that has been ripped from limb to limb, stabbed in the neck, burned with medications, sucked into a vacuum, etc.
So you don't make any distinction between a four-celled embryo and a human adult with a name, people who love them, a sense of humor, a job?
Man2
Mantu
we have been discussing late term abortions and the contrast between the nonchalance TTFers exhibit about the torturous death of these obviously developed and innocent human beings and the excessive concern devoted to confessed and brazen murderers of thousand of people who had names, people who loved them, senses of humor and jobs
on one hand, TTF doesn't give a thought to the pain felt by these children as they agonizingly die
on the other hand, they fret endlessly about these dear souls who have water squirted up their nose
you should wake up and stop trying rhetorical games to defend evil
Anon, we were not talking about "late term" abortions, we were talking abortion in general. You like to talk about late-term abortion because it is creepier when the fetus looks like your friends.
If you are against taking of all life, including animal life, including capital punishment and war and the violent deaths that result from pharmaceutical and other corporate negligence, then I will just consider you an overly sympathetic soft-hearted worrier. If, on the other hand, you are only concerned about innocent fetuses aborted by people who are members of a social class that you abhor, then I will properly consider you a bigot. There is nothing special about abortion compared to other events that result in loss of life, which you do not seem to care to oppose.
Man2
Actually, you've been discussing late term abortion in great detail. This blog thread is about the serious consequences of teenage sexual activity without the use of condoms, namely unplanned teenage pregnancies, as in the case of Bristol Palin. Her outcome: motherhood before high school graduation. No one was lost, and lucky for her, no one became ill with an STD.
TTF's mission is to work to ensure medically accurate sex education is offered to our public school students so they might learn, better than Bristol and Levi did, how sexually active teens can avoid teen parenthood. Maybe one day even you will decide it's a good thing to help sexually active teens like Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston *not* become teenage parents who wished they'd waited "like, 10 years" to do so.
On another note, there's an interesting development over at Liberty University. They produce a lawyers and advocates like the Liberty Counnsel, which is dedicated to demanding religious freedom and tolerance for themselves and their anti-choice, anti-lgbt rights proselytizing and advocacy work. But they are hypocrites who don't see any need to be as tolerant of others as they demand others be of them. Now look what they've done:
Instaputz.blogspot.com reports
Friday, May 22, 2009
Liberty U. bans College Democrats
Nice.
“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University
and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”
That's right students, you can enjoy all the "liberty" you want at our fine institution as long as you belong to the sole political party we permit on campus. In other news, the school's annual "Do What You Feel" festival has been replaced by a "Do As We Say" festival.
Posted by Ed at 1:01 PM
"TTF's mission is to work to ensure medically accurate sex education is offered to our public school students so they might learn, better than Bristol and Levi did, how sexually active teens can avoid teen parenthood."
Bristol and Levi took sex ed in school where condoms were displayed and their use was discussed. They ignored it in the heat of the moment.
What's needed is work on developing a compelling way to convince teens to delay sex until marriage.
The comp sex ed approach and the public attack on abstinence is not working toward reducing teen pregnancy.
Bea
Who cares about Liberty University?
If you don't like their rules, try to discourage your kids from attending.
Unlike public school hell-holes, no one's forced to go to Liberty U.
"There is nothing special about abortion compared to other events that result in loss of life, which you do not seem to care to oppose."
Actually, there is.
Abortion is the murder of innocent human life. The pleasure and convenience of the strong is considered more important than the life of the weak under the pro-choice rationale.
Capital punishment, which I personally oppose, is the punishment for those who have killed others. Sometimes, we are lenient with these murderers and simply shoot water up their noses. Capital punshment is appropriate if it can be perfectly applied. Unfortunately, I don't think it can which is why I oppose it.
War is justified when it saves lives. Innocents may die collaterally but that would happen if the war is not waged too. Thugs like Saddam will end up destroying more lives if unchecked.
In any case, abortion is something special "compared to other events that result in loss of life".
And when you defend it, you defend evil.
Thugs like Saddam will end up destroying more lives if unchecked.Many more innocent lives of real human beings with names and friends and jobs were destroyed by the American conquest and occupation than would have been had Saddam stayed in power. You seem to defend the loss of those lives while the destruction of a four-celled embryo is "evil."
Man2
that's not true, Mantu
Saddam killed everyone he had any suspicion of in his own country and his vicious sons terrorized the country with impunity
on top of that, Saddam had invaded two neighboring countries, killing millions in the process; he'd do again if allowed to slip free of international sanctions
he also used chemical weapons on minorities in his own country; this was stopped only by our monitoring flights over the country
while we held him in check for most of a decade, he was steadily eroding the sanctions on him
we learned in WWII and 9/11 what happens when you ignore murderous thugs
letting him stay in power was obviously a mistake of the first G Bush
history will actually be kinder to the son than the father
in any case, the second invasion saved lives in the long-run
even if you make a case that it didn't, that was the intent
in abortion, the intent is the destruction of innocent life to benefit the stronger party
Complaining about abortion won't help to stop it or decrease it. Educating teens in our public schools like MCPS does, on both abstinence and the proper use of condoms, on the consequences of sexual behavior from STDs to nightly 2 AM feedings, on how to have respect for yourself and people who are different, etc., will help to reduce the number of teen pregnancies.
Bellyache about the sad facts of abortion all you want. I prefer to work to reduce the need for it and to keep parents in the audience on high school graduation day rather than on stage receiving diplomas.
Bea
Who cares about Liberty University?
Many residents of Montgomery County Maryland care about Liberty University and their spawn, Liberty Counsel because they took $36,000 from MCPS funds in legal fees for a failed lawsuit that ended in a settlement that still retained all of MCPS's legal rights to revise the old sex ed curriculum. Those were funds that could have done a lot of good for needy MCPS students, but didn't.
More generally, all Americans who care about tolerance care about Liberty University's latest decree because it is a perfect display of hypocrisy. Liberty U demands others must be tolerant of their religious views, but refuses to be tolerant of others' views themselves. They are violating the basic tenet of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
"Complaining about abortion won't help to stop it or decrease it."
Actually, the pro-life movement has already proved you wrong about that. Raising awareness has had a profound effect, reducing availability as doctors don't want to known for participating in this evil, and persuading women not to kill their children. Even Hollywood is in on it, making movies about girls who refuse to take the life of their children when brought face to face with reality.
You're on the side of a practice that will be remembered in the chapters of history books with slavery and witch-buring.
"Many residents of Montgomery County Maryland care about Liberty University and their spawn, Liberty Counsel because they took $36,000 from MCPS funds in legal fees for a failed lawsuit that ended in a settlement that still retained all of MCPS's legal rights to revise the old sex ed curriculum. Those were funds that could have done a lot of good for needy MCPS students, but didn't."
36K is a pittance for one of the wealthiest schools districts in America. Do you know how money MC spends segregating county schools? There are a handful of schools in the county that have outstanding test scores because the education level of the parents is high. MCPS pursues policies that make sure minorities are not well represented in these schools. If they'd stop busing whites out of their neighborhoods to attend schools miles away and allow to mix with a more diverse student body, they save, if nothing else, the transportation money.
Additionally, MCPS has to settle this case involving the notorious Fishback revisions because a judge ruled they were likely to lose it because they violated students's constitutional rights by sending teachers preparation material stating that certain religions had an incorrect view of homosexuality.
MCPS had to be stopped and they paid the costs for a group that took on that responsibility.
The county could save money in the future if the lame school board would actually read the stuff they are approving.
In any case, there are tens of thousands of private colleges in America. If one took a stand against a party that supports the evil of abortion, the creepy advocates of the liberal netherworld shouldn't become too concrened. There are plenty of places left that tolerate speaking in favor of wicked practices.
"More generally, all Americans who care about tolerance care about Liberty University's latest decree because it is a perfect display of hypocrisy. Liberty U demands others must be tolerant of their religious views, but refuses to be tolerant of others' views themselves. They are violating the basic tenet of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.""
The Democratic students still have the freedom to express their views and they are free to meet off campus. Liberty just won't provide support.
Big deal. There's a difference between tolerance and support.
I believe the interesting fact here is that evangelical Christianity has become a political party.
JimK
Genesis9:25-27 25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. "
Exodus 21:1-6, 1Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Colossians 3:22 22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
Exodus 22:18, 18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:10, 10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
Galatians 5:19-20 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Hosea 9:11-16 11As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! 13Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. 14Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.
Numbers 13:17 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Hosea 13:16 16Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
2 Kings 15:16 16Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
"I believe the interesting fact here is that evangelical Christianity has become a political party."
It hasn't, Jim. The guys at Liberty believe that parts of the Democratic Party platform support immorality so they feel they can't support them.
I think that few other evangelical schools would take the same action but, still, Liberty isn't saying Christians should be joining any particular party. They just say one's party's positions are anti-Christian.
That's their opinion, which they're entitled to. Believe me, they'll face plenty of debate about it within evangelical circles.
Evangelicals are entitled to their opinion but not to the tax breaks that go along with calling themselves a "religion."
JimK
The power to tax is the power to destroy, Jim. The government shouldn't be taxing religious activity. The prohibition on political speech by religious groups that was pushed by LBJ in the sixties will eventually be declared unconstitutional.
For what it's worth, Obama is with you. He's about to step on a minefield by limiting the charitable deductions of upper income individuals. This will devastate charities as their income takes a hit.
If the evangelical churches, starting with Liberty University, officially participate in the political process, as Liberty University is doing, then they are no longer religious institutions and should not be exempt. Religion has deteriorated to ideology, which is not tax-exempt.
JimK
glad you weren't around back in the 18th and 19th centuries when churches started an abolitionist movement to end slavery
religious groups have always been active in our political conversation
being free from government control makes them one of the most effective voices in America
that's the American way
btw, Liberty U isn't a church
Bea --Question for you....if you don't believe that a fetus is a human being, then why are you in favor of limiting abortions? If it's just an alternate form of birth control that some people utilize with little to no risk for the mother's health, and no moral implications in relation to the fetus, then why try to limit it? You're trying to increase the use of other birth control methods -- but why limit this one?
This is old business, but I want to reiterate some points made long ago.
1. Liberty Counsel lied to the Court about the background teacher resources, falsely asserting they were part of the curriculum and ignoring the clear language in the teacher guides that the background resources were NOT to be used in the classroom.
2. The case was settled (and the settlement was what led to the payment to Liberty Counsel) not because of the alleged religious materials -- those could have been simply removed with no impact on the curriculum, and, indeed, I suggested that right after the TRO -- but because of the Court's other statement regarding what is said was a "public forum" -- that the Constitution required that the curriculum include materials covering the "other side" of the "debate" about sexual orientation (i.e., that being gay is an illness and can be changed, even though those conclusions had been repeatedly rejected by all mainstream medical and mental health organizations). The Board of Education did not want to be caught up in years of litigation -- which would have ensued had the case not been settled on the terms set forth, which permitted MCPS to proceed as it did with a good, solid curriculum on sexual orientation.
The "public forum doctrine" doctrine regarding curriculum set forth by the Court was unprecedented, and never, before or since, has been successfully invoked. Indeed, the rejection of the "public forum" argument regarding curriculum was made clear by both the Supreme Court and the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (covering Maryland). That is why the second attempt by opponents to block curriculum revisions failed in 2007 and 2008.
3. Liberty Counsel, in insisting that it be paid attorney's fees to drop a case it could never have won in the long run, was engaging in a kind of legal extortion. The fact that it would not represent CRC and PFOX in 2007, when MCPS came up with a curriculum that went further and deeper than the 2005 curriculum proves that Liberty Counsel knew that their arguments were political, not legitimate legal, arguments.
"that the Constitution required that the curriculum include materials covering the "other side" of the "debate" about sexual orientation (i.e., that being gay is an illness and can be changed, even though those conclusions had been repeatedly rejected by all mainstream medical and mental health organizations)."
Whether homosexuality is an illness or is unchangeable is beyond the realm of empirical evidence and, thus, represents a religious view. The associations' position are based on what they feel is socially correct rather than any evidence.
As such, the schools should teach about both pro and con views and the history of societal attitudes or not at all.
The rest of what David says about why the sides settled is conjecture which supports his subjective view.
Anon writes:
"Whether homosexuality is an illness or is unchangeable is beyond the realm of empirical evidence and, thus, represents a religious view. The associations' position are based on what they feel is socially correct rather than any evidence."
1. Plainly, neither the State Board of Education in 2007 nor the Montgomery County Circuit Court in 2008 bought the argument that the mainstream science view of these matters was a "religious view."
2. Would Anon say the same thing about the age of our planet, or the concept of the evolution of species? If not, why not?
Well, maybe I should have said "metaphysical" rather than "religious". The point is, their is no way to obtain empirical evidence about whether homosexuality is an "illness" or can be cured. It is a philosophical debate, a matter of opinion.
Unlike the soul and psyche, one can gather empirical evidence about the age of the Earth and the development of physical characteristics in species, so, no thos questions don't fall into the same category.
Anon,
1. I'm curious: What is your definition of mental illness?
2. Another question:
Person A may conclude that people are delusional and therefore mentally ill if they believe that there is a God who
a. Revealed his rules at Mt. Sinai three thousand years ago.
or
b. Allowed martyrdom of his only son on a cross two thousand years ago.
or
c. Designated his prophet in an Arabian desert 1400 years ago.
or
d. Revealed himself to his prophet in upstate New York nearly two hundred years ago.
Are all these people clinically mentally ill, as shown by these beliefs?
By your logic, this should be an open question, and that "right minded people" legitimately may advocate "curing" those people.
3. What are your criteria for when it is appropriate to try to "cure" people of feelings or beliefs that you deem a sign of mental illness?
David, I was arguing that homosexuals are mentally ill or should enter clinical therapy.
I simply said it was not a verifiable issue and public schools shouldn't take a position.
It's intriguing that anonymous claims religious backing for his anti-gay views.
History records in America's past religious claims for the legitimacy, indeed the need for, slavery.
I remember in my own church religious claims for supporting school and housing segregation based on race.
I don't see the difference.
Please explain.
Anon,
So, to follow the logic here, it if the issue comes up in the public sphere, the public schools should not take a position as to whether Jews, Christians, Muslims, or Mormons are mentally ill and in need of treatment because they adhere to the tenants of their religions?
Andrea-not anon
One of the many things that Palin losing prevented was the forced marriage of her daughter to her awful boyfriend. The idea that being married was the right thing for these two is nonsense- it was political - another example of the wonderful family values of the GOP.
"So, to follow the logic here, it if the issue comes up in the public sphere, the public schools should not take a position as to whether Jews, Christians, Muslims, or Mormons are mentally ill and in need of treatment because they adhere to the tenants of their religions?"
Yes, David, I think that logically follows. Schools shouldn't be making judgments pro or con on any religions.
Anon,
So if the prevailing view in a community is that adherents of one of these religions are mentally ill and in need of treatment, and children berate members of that religion accordingly (as children are wont to do), what should the school do, if anything?
David -- I'm another Anon, but I've said the same thing here before....a good, basic course in manners is all that's needed in the public schools. And having good manners means that a child doesn't make fun of another student. If the child doesn't follow the rules, then normal disciplinary action should result.
If a kid makes fun of someone who's fat, and the teacher tells him to stop and he doesn't, then what happens? If a kid makes fun of someone who has glasses, and the teacher tells him to stop and he doesn't, what happens?
Same thing here. Basic manners, combined with fair, consistent discipline, is ALL that is needed in a school. So, whether someone's being taunted for being gay, or for being religious, or for being too fat, too tall, too thin -- the response is the same.
When the Anons of the world are constantly saying in public that children who happen to be gay are "sick" or "mentally ill," those children are in great psychological danger. For the public schools, in the context of health classes, to let those children know that the mainstream health care professionals do not view them as sick or mentally ill is an important message for those children's emotional well-being.
Yet, our Anons would deny those children of that information, because.... Well, why? Because they believe they are sick or mentally ill. They are entitled to their own beliefs, but it is completely appropriate for our schools to let our children know that whatever the beliefs of some people, the medical community has concluded otherwise.
The vast majority of children are heterosexual. So why do all children have to learn, through the schools, about the ins and outs and pros and cons of homosexual behavior? It is simply inappropriate for the schools to take on this role.
P.S. I can't think of anyone I know who feels that homosexuals are mentally ill, and most people I know don't oppose homosexuality on religious grounds.
Amongst those SAME people -- I also don't know anyone who feels that the subject belongs in the schools.
"it is completely appropriate for our schools to let our children know that whatever the beliefs of some people, the medical community has concluded otherwise"
David, the medical community's "conclusion" is a belief too.
The "beliefs of some people" is their conclusion.
Subtly use of language, such as you use here, and as is used in these curriculums, imply that some beliefs are more valid than others.
The public school should either teach empirical facts or, if they cover beliefs, they should not imply that some people's beliefs are more valid than others.
If we feel that "children who happen to be gay" cannot handle the fact that there are different viewpoints on homosexuality, we shouldn't bring up the subject of sexual deviation at all.
So why do all children have to learn, through the schools, about the ins and outs and pros and cons of homosexual behavior?Anon, first of all, I don't know what "homosexual behavior" is -- is that something that gay people do that the rest of us don't do? I'm trying to imagine what that is, I guess it has to do with interior decorating, am I right?
Second, whatever "homosexual behavior" is, I have never heard of any school teaching the "ins and outs and pros and cons" of it. Some people are gay and lesbian and some people are transgender, that's just another fact that young people should know as they go out into the world.
JimK
Subtly use of language, such as you use here, and as is used in these curriculums, imply that some beliefs are more valid than others.
The MCPS sex ed curriculum teaches that kids should have respect for each other regardless of differences in sexual orientation and religious belief. Lesson 10.1 points out the MCPS rules on nondiscrimination and human relations, both of which include "race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, marital status, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, physical characteristics, or disability." There's no subtle use of language or implication that any one of these characteristics is more or less valid than any other.
Jim -- You ask what "homosexual behavior" is. Here you go:
If you tell someone that homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex, and heterosexuals are attracted to people of the opposite sex, then that is explaining the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual." That does not explain their "behavior."
Now, if you tell someone, as the Montgomery County schools do, that homosexual males usually have anal sex, then that is a description of HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR. If you tell people that heterosexual couples have vaginal intercourse then that is describing HETEROSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
Of course, I know you'll pull out your statistic that lots of heterosexual couples have anal sex too. And that is fine for you to do so. BUT THAT INFORMATION DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCHOOLS.
We could describe every sexual preference and deviation that exists in the world to students, but why in the world should we? It's ludicrous.
Anon, nobody tells students that homosexuals have anal sex. And, as you anticipated, I will mention that that nearly half of heterosexual people have anal intercourse, too -- and nobody tells students that, either.
There is a lesson where they learn to use a condom, and they are told to use it for vaginal, oral, and anal sex, which is simply good advice to keep them safe. That is the only mention of anal sex -- which is decidedly not "homosexual behavior," since it is practiced by vastly more heterosexual than homosexual couples -- in the curriculum.
Why should we tell students that some people are gay and transgender? How about this -- even given the most conservative estimates, the probability is greater than 50 percent that at least one student in a class of 30 is gay. How about this -- it's an unembarrassing and harmless fact that there are gay and transgender people in the world.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home