Possible free birth control under new health care laws

• I Wear Pants

  Why is school not the place?
  
  You're okay with the schools teaching absitnence, but not methods that actually work (I know abstinence does work but I mean realistic methods).
  
  Why should proper sex ed not be a part of a sex ed or health class?
  
  You also contradict yourself in saying that you don't like the welfare families and such but then you say you don't support measures that would help reduce those situations.
• majorspark

  

  I thought the left wanted government to stay out of the bedroom.
• I Wear Pants

  Promoting safe sex and responsible behavior isn't exactly an intrusion of anyone's rights.
• majorspark

  

  Perhaps they should open the sex ed class with a word or prayer.
• I Wear Pants

  Why?
  
  Look, I'm by no means anti-religion. But it doesn't belong in the classroom.
  
  Unless it's a history or religion class in which case it should be about the history of the religion itself. Not how correct or incorrect the religions beliefs are.
• KnightRyder

  

  tk421;541334 wrote:Hell, forget free birth control, I've got an idea. Forced sterilization for anyone on welfare more than 1 year until they prove they have and can keep a job. Problem solved. If the government has to pay for your welfare, you shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant.

  
  thats the stupidest thing i read . with the job market today how many people are insured of having a job and keeping it. with a comment such as that , maybe you would be one of those sterilized. its clear you are to stupid to hold a job.
• I Wear Pants

  Now I hate to be "that guy" but I don't think it's prudent to call people stupid if you cannot use the proper form of "too".
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;543893 wrote:But it doesn't belong in the classroom.

  And certain aspects of sexual education need not be in the class room. Personally I don't care what you want to have your kids taught in your school district. Just don't come into mine and tell me what should be taught.
  
  I find it funny that when abstinence when it comes to sex is taught. People come out of the wood work saying teens are just going to do it anyways, so we need to teach them how to do it right with less risk of ruining their lives. Some districts even go as far as to hand out condoms. But when it comes to alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Which many teens are also likely to do anyways, no one is clamoring for schools to teach them safe uses of these items.
• I Wear Pants

  Why do you think certain aspects of sex education shouldn't be taught in the classroom? Do you have any reasons, be they legal, result related, etc?
  
  Sex isn't illegal for teens. That's why.
  
  And if we're going on a purely result driven basis we should teach kids how to be safe with those items. In fact they do around prom time. There's always an assembly showing car wrecks and talking about being responsible and how you shouldn't drink. But included in that is the "if you do drink, do not drive".
• majorspark

  

  Its simple. Let the local school districts decide what needs to be taught. BOE in some state pressure local districts because of some type of political agenda.
  
  For me when it gets into teaching that certain types of sexual activity are ok or normal. In my opinion that is left to the parents to teach these things Also what age some of these things are being taught. Hell you got some of these idiots trying to pollute the minds of grade school kids. .
• I Wear Pants

  What if local districts, because of extremely conservative voting bases/school boards, decide to not teach sex ed at all or to teach that abstinence is the only way to go or that gays are somehow immoral/inappropriate? Is that okay because the local school board decided it is okay?
  
  Or what if they go the opposite way and teach BDSM or something? Is that okay because the school district decided it was right?
• redstreak one

  

  I Wear Pants;543851 wrote:You also contradict yourself in saying that you don't like the welfare families and such but then you say you don't support measures that would help reduce those situations.

  In the situations I described, you could pass them a condom on the way out of the door and they wouldnt use them. They want paid for having a kid. These are the types of welfare cases that drive me nuts. Case in point, I wrote an educational plan for a student who is being homeschooled over the internet in our district who is pregnant. I ask her mother and grandmother to bring her in so that I could interview and test her to write the plan. They said they couldnt make it in, so I spoke over the phone to her and mailed the other paperwork with a self stamped envelope. I never received the paperwork back, and when it came time to meet and sign the plan, they once again couldnt afford to come to town. They live 10 minutes from school. I went to the house on my conference period and spent my money on gas to get it signed. Saturday at trick or treat in town, guess who I see sitting in the van, idling on the street while following the younger kids around town for candy? That burns me up, by gosh can afford gas for free candy, but their daqughters eudcation, sorry cant do it.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't think that there are very many of those cases.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;543985 wrote:What if local districts, because of extremely conservative voting bases/school boards, decide to not teach sex ed at all or to teach that abstinence is the only way to go or that gays are somehow immoral/inappropriate? Is that okay because the local school board decided it is okay?

  Yes. If the voters don't like it they can vote them out. You will not find many, if any at all that teach nothing at all on sex ed. My kids go to a school district that practices segregation.
  

  I Wear Pants;543985 wrote:Or what if they go the opposite way and teach BDSM or something? Is that okay because the school district decided it was right?

  Sorry but this is a strawman argument. This example is so extreme it is beyond the possibility that any school would teach that this is a healthy activity for kids. So I don't think we have to worry about. Why would you want to limit the freedom of a local school district to make a reasonable decision regarding sex ed because of a contrived argument that some district could do something nutty.
• redstreak one

  

  I Wear Pants;544028 wrote:I don't think that there are very many of those cases.

  I have 3 kids from 3 different families in 1 grade level that fit that description. This schoolo averages about 100 kids per grade. So, you havent been out and about in too many areas have you pants? Our district has 80+ free or reduced lunch program.
• I Wear Pants

  Someone on free or reduced lunch does not mean they are abusing the welfare system.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;544050 wrote:Yes. If the voters don't like it they can vote them out. You will not find many, if any at all that teach nothing at all on sex ed. My kids go to a school district that practices segregation.
  
  
  
  Sorry but this is a strawman argument. This example is so extreme it is beyond the possibility that any school would teach that this is a healthy activity for kids. So I don't think we have to worry about. Why would you want to limit the freedom of a local school district to make a reasonable decision regarding sex ed because of a contrived argument that some district could do something nutty.

  It is a strawman argument. My point was, some districts would choose to have ridiculous standards or no standards when it comes to sex ed, what would be the course of action there.
  
  Continuing on that, I'm pretty sure Ohio has rules regarding what you have to teach in sex ed already. Are you against those?
  
  I guess I'm asking if you think that anything is okay as far as sex ed curriculum goes as long as the district chooses it?
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;544371 wrote:It is a strawman argument. My point was, some districts would choose to have ridiculous standards or no standards when it comes to sex ed, what would be the course of action there.
  
  Continuing on that, I'm pretty sure Ohio has rules regarding what you have to teach in sex ed already. Are you against those?

  To be honest I am not sure what Ohio's standards are regarding sex ed. IMO state standards should be basically teaching the "plumbing". In other words male and female anatomy and the science behind human reproduction. The whole deal in frank scientific detail. Anything beyond that I would leave to the local school district.
  

  I Wear Pants;544371 wrote:I guess I'm asking if you think that anything is okay as far as sex ed curriculum goes as long as the district chooses it?

  Anything within reason. I trust the people through their local school district to structure their sex ed reasonably. It may not be the way I would choose but I don't live there and they know what is best for their kids. If a local school district sees a problem with sexual promiscuity among its students and wants the school nurse to hand out condoms that is fine, but the locals should foot the bill for it.
• hoops23

  

  Is sex ed really parenting though?
  
  I mean sure, you should talk, but at the same time, it's called Sex "ED", emphasis on the Education.
  
  STD's, pregnancy, and all the other risks are things that most definitely could be talked about in school.
  
  Let's face it, most people now a days don't even teach their kids how to act proper in public, how do you expect them to teach the education of sexual activities and the risks involved?
• stlouiedipalma

  The bottom line in all of these arguments is that parents aren't doing their job. We are being idiots if we expect the schools to do it for us.
  
  Maybe Angle was right. It's time to "man up" and take responsibility.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't think that sex ed falls under the traditional parenting moniker. Sure there is the birds and the bees talk but I think that the concepts behind safe sex, condom use, dangers of STDs, etc belong in a health class. I don't see why they wouldn't. Next you'll tell me that health classes aren't needed because parents can tell their children to brush their teeth and how to eat.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;544571 wrote:I don't think that sex ed falls under the traditional parenting moniker. Sure there is the birds and the bees talk but I think that the concepts behind safe sex, condom use, dangers of STDs, etc belong in a health class. I don't see why they wouldn't. Next you'll tell me that health classes aren't needed because parents can tell their children to brush their teeth and how to eat.

  
  Not true at all. If you remember correctly (I just went back and re-read) you were advocating that sex-ed in schools need to be more developed or improved. That is when I said no, that that would be taking even more parenting responsibilities out of the hands of parents. And then everything that came after that...
  
  Schools already teach everything that you have mentioned.(std's, condoms, abstinence, etc.) There's really nothing else to teach/show the kids without getting downright pornographic.
• redstreak one

  

  I Wear Pants;544364 wrote:Someone on free or reduced lunch does not mean they are abusing the welfare system.

  Yeah, ignore that I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, been to the house, met with guardians, know them personally multiple cases of abuse of the welfare system in my area and you point out that 80% being on free and reduced lunch doesnt mean welfare abuse! lol
  
  Pants, you sound like an end justify the mean kind of guy. Why stop at sex ed? Why not just have the government take the child at birth and begin their indoctrination then? Yeah, I know thats extreme, but the slippery slope of what a school should do is tough. We the teachers and schools are not parent substitutes. No where in my contract does it say that its my responsibility to ensure that little Johnny and Susie dont get pregnant before they graduate.
  
  Be a parent. It scares the heck out of me about having to talk to my children about these things, but guess what I knew that when I had them!
• cruiser_96

  

  I Wear Pants;543922 wrote:Now I hate to be "that guy" but I don't think it's prudent to call people stupid if you cannot use the proper form of "too".

  
  Just one of many reason I LOVE OHIO CHATTER!!!!!!!! This one made me laugh. Even teared up a bit. Nice work, Pants
• I Wear Pants

  redstreak one;544633 wrote:Yeah, ignore that I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, been to the house, met with guardians, know them personally multiple cases of abuse of the welfare system in my area and you point out that 80% being on free and reduced lunch doesnt mean welfare abuse! lol
  
  Pants, you sound like an end justify the mean kind of guy. Why stop at sex ed? Why not just have the government take the child at birth and begin their indoctrination then? Yeah, I know thats extreme, but the slippery slope of what a school should do is tough. We the teachers and schools are not parent substitutes. No where in my contract does it say that its my responsibility to ensure that little Johnny and Susie dont get pregnant before they graduate.
  
  Be a parent. It scares the heck out of me about having to talk to my children about these things, but guess what I knew that when I had them!

  Not an end justify the mean kind of guy. I just think that the current sex ed situation isn't very effective.
  
  As for you knowing several people who abuse the welfare system. That doesn't mean most of those kids or their families are doing so. The fact that you seem to have disdain for anyone on those programs is a little bit unsettling.
  
  

  Schools already teach everything that you have mentioned.(std's, condoms, abstinence, etc.) There's really nothing else to teach/show the kids without getting downright pornographic.

  Schools are supposed to teach that. Many don't.