The Teaching of Safe Sex Education in Public Elementary School

Urban hip-hop philosopher Chamillionare made his fortune with the lyric "tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty". Every parent's worst nightmare is not to have a sexually active child, but one who is ridin' dirty with their sexual intercourse, risking pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases that will affect the rest of their lives. Safe sex education is the means and solution to protecting America's children from the immorality of an abortion waiting to happen. "This is very simpe, and you obviously too young to be a parent, so you wont know what its like to try and protect your children from inapproprate things." Judge me not by my age, but by who I am. Maturity has no direct correlation to capable intelligence. If one is able to emulate the situation, then they are able to understand it. You use this rhetoric to defend against my arguments, however it holds no factual burden. "1) The public schools have no business covering this topic in any way, other than health class, denoting parts and functions , in a dry manner" You must elaborate, or this argument becomes a matter of my opinion against yours and nothing is accomplished. A 2005 study by the Guttmacher Institute observed and analyzed the current means of teaching sex education, and criticized them, recommending that they reach a larger age range and promote the means for safe sex. "(2) elementary school (under age 11) is way too young for Children to be learning about sex. they need their innocence preserved." "Children in Grade school need their innocence protected and need to be sheltered, not exposed, to adult topics" As I already asserted in my first round of arguments, the innocence of children has already been destroyed and should not be questioned. This debate is an issue of how to react to their innocence already been destroyed by the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Company. America's freedom in a globalized world has allowed the internet, free time, and other commodities unknown prior to the mid-20th Century to grant pre-teens an opportunity to attempt to cure their own curiosity. Sheltering them will only let the "evils" of society teach them more. "(3) Some of the current debates raging are whether CONDOMS should be distributed to children age 11 - this is ridiculous" How is preventing the pregnancy of 11 year old ridiculous? rBGH, an artificial growth hormone used to increase the production of cow's milk in the U.S., has been proven to speed the maturity of young females, causing their menstral cycles to begin at ages as early as 7. It is these flaws of society, the greedy capitalist means to maximize profits, that are betraying our children, not those handing out free condoms. The average age that a female loses her virginity is 14, and it continues to decrease annually. "Children should be taught that dating should not occur until at least age 16, and that sex should not occur outside a committed realtionship, and really marriage." "By infusing them with liberal "do what feels good" nonsense- kids are being sold a bill of good that will lead to" Stereotyping and classifying liberal beliefs is a specious assumption that should not be considered valid. To assume makes an a$$ out of you and me. * teenage pregnancy * depression * STDs * confusion Teenage pregnancy can never occur in elementary school. They aren't teenagers yet. The purpose of condoms is to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Sexual activity is linked to helping teenagers cope with depression by releasing chemically enzymes in the brain. It even burns calories in an obese America. The pre-teens are confused now... teaching them will fix it. The point of this debate is to argue not whether teens and pre-teen should be having sex, but whether this type of education should be taught in elementary schools. You can approach it supporting either no education or abstinence-only education; however, to assume the evils of the world without proposing the means or ways to keep them from our children is defeating the purpose of your attempts at argumentation. This round, try to use more concrete facts and less ridicule. You don't win a debate by name calling unless you accompany it with arguments that matter. The rules of debating like a Republican don't work outside of the political party...