From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:10:45 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.052102.22878@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>Sex education programs are designed to deliver facts to the students.
>One of these facts is that abstinence is the absolute best way to
>prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy. Like all of the
>other facts, facts about abstinence are included in the lectures and
>literature of (most?) sex education programs.

>Sex education programs are *not* designed to teach morality. So, a sex
>education program would not teach, for example:

> - Abstinence is the only right choice.
> - Those who do not practice abstinence are depraved, sexually 
>   perverse, or immoral.
> - (Any number of further moral points...)

Of course it should not.

>Some who oppose sex education, or who would change sex education,
>propose that:
> 
>1) Sex education, factual or otherwise, should not be in the purview
>of public education.

Maybe.

See the argument, I've heard, is that some (like myself) would like to 
teach my own kids on this subject.  But of course, some parents don't
do this well enough, and the state must pick up the slack.  Problem is, 
when the state picks up the slack for the facts, who gives the kids any
moral background?  If their parents have been neglectful of the subject, 
they probably won't get any morality information.  What to do about
that?

I'd like an option.  I'd like to be able to say "My kids will learn that
material at home", sign some paper and voila, they are not in public
sex ed class, but something else.  Parents who feel otherwise can do what
they like.  Kinda like pro-choice isn't it?

>- or -

>2) Sex education should be modified to encourage abstinence
>specifically, presumably labelling other activities as 'bad',
>'unacceptable', 'immoral', or simply incorrect.

Mistake.  Don't do it.  State should stay out of religious/moral issues, 
they will screw it up.  About as far as I'd go here is giving them
some really thorough info and interviews with kids who have had pregnancies, 
diseases, abortions.  Real life examples.  No judgements will be necessary, 
I think.

>In reply to 1), I can only object in the strongest possible terms. We
>cannot expect children to make critical decisions about their lives
>unless we provide them with complete and timely information. For a
>typical child in or entering puberty, the specifics of reproductive
>biology are definitely relevant, particularly in a society where
>sexual themes are so strongly featured in popular culture.

I'd like a choice, as parent.  That's all.  Not an exclusion.

>In reply to 2), I suppose it might be possible to construct a sex
>education program which specifically encouraged abstinence without
>parroting the strictures of some religious group (avoiding the 'church
>-n- state' issue), but who decides how abstinence is to be encouraged?

That's scary, isn't it...

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se