From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.kids-talk,alt.parents-teens,misc.education
Subject: Re: Minors right of access to contraceptives?
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:01:57 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <GILHAM.92Apr13145955@assault.csl.sri.com> gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) writes:
>
>The first problem with the public schools handing out contraceptives,
>in my view, is that it alienates those parents who oppose it.  Public
>schools need to win back the confidence of parents who are the ones
>who support the schools with their votes and taxes.  In the U.S.,
>the credibility of public schooling is very low, and telling parents
>the schools know how to deal with sex issues better than the parents
>do will tend to provoke responses like, ``You can't teach them to read
>and you think you can teach sexual responsibility.''

The problem with that perspective is that when a child contracts a
sexually transmitted disease, all too often the parents are in the 
school offices demanding to know why the school let it happen. It's
pretty odd that parents dmand moral and value control, but when 
those values are broken, it becomes the fault of the schools.

>Second, it is intolerant.  It seems that the idea is that `all moral
>viewpoints are equally valid' but some are more equally valid than
>others.  This is hypocritical and contributes to the alienation
>described in my first point above.

Speaking of intolerant, where in your view is the compromise that's
become necessary to keep these kids alive? Have you been reading the
statistics on AIDS and which segments of our population are being
infected? 

>Third, it tends toward totalitarianism.  I find it ironic that people
>who are concerned with civil liberties will seek to support these
>liberties using state-sponsored education.  The state becomes
>totalitarian by undermining those sources of power and personal
>identity that might compete with it; one of the strongest is the
>family.  I think using government education to champion civil
>liberties is like using a wolf to guard the sheepfold.

Fred, this isn't about civil liberties. What is being advocated isn't
some sequel to the 1960's Free Love genre. The purpose here is to keep
as many of our nation's children as healthy and alive as we can. Would
you advocate against a school placing guards on the grounds after a
few children were kidnapped and molested? Or, would you consider that
to be a necessary protection against a clear and present danger? 

Consoms in schools isn't a philosophical attempt at dictating what the
moral values of our nation should be. The distribution of condoms is
a needed protection against a clear and present danger which has already
moved into the schools. It's the only available response that we have
to fight against a disease that's killing our kids.

I'm sorry you believe this is an attack on parenting. I think it's safe
to say that the majority of parents believe it to be the schools working
with us to protect the most valuable thing there is.
-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                 "I tell you, -even it up..."
Bob Kirkpatrick                                           --heart
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA