From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Well, I lost that article...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 23:25:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.192256.15039@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Jul23.003313.18002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu 
>   (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >
>
>>[Me and Bill Overpeck were talking.  I said that state schools should teach
>>children that their bodies are their own, and that nobody has the right to
>>use them against their wills.]
>>
>>[Bill asked, something along the lines of, so do you think the schools should
>>teach about abstinance?]
>
>Here's the article...
>
>(Subject: Re: State Teaching (formerly: Pro-Choice Position?))
>
>In <1992Jul8.010926.8658@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu 
>   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >
>In article <1992Jul6.210332.13220@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com 
>   (Bill Overpeck) writes: >>
>In <1992Jul3.153144.2879@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu 
>   (Keith A. Cochran) writes: >>>
>
>>>>>>If "the state" has to teach anything, it should be extensive human 
>>>>>>biology/ sex ed/why _nobody_ should touch you there from grades K-12...
>>
>>>>>This, of course, would be "value neutral" education?
>>
>>>>Not at all.  What it should be is fear-eliminating schooling.  When an 8 
>>>>year old girl understands what "her privates" are for, the odds of somebody 
>>>>being able to molest her falls to a low.  When a 7 year old boy understands 
>>>>what "Uncle Timothy" is trying to do, and knows that he _can_ tell people 
>>>>and be believed, the odds of him being sucessfully molested (multiple times) 
>>>>falls drastically.
>>
>>>So you support the idea that values should be taught in the public 
>>>school system?  Interesting.  Which values should we endorse?  What
>>>criteria should we use to select the "right" values to teach? 
>>
>>If they're going to teach it in terms of being the only 100% guaranteed,
>>foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy, and all STD's, yes.
>>
>>If they're going to teach it in terms of "Saving yourself for your future
>>husband/wife, because sex is for marriage", then no.
>>
>>If they're going to teach it in terms of "Six is ikky; be abstinant", 
>>then no.
>
>Six *is* ikky - I prefer seven... :-)
>
>>If they're going to teach it in terms of "The Bible says..", then no.
>
>You've articulated some guidelines that, as you previously indicated, 
>are anything but value neutral.  What you haven't done is explain *why*
>your values are the right ones, which is a bit tougher.  Are you willing?

Sure:

Sex _by itself_ is a value neutral thing.  Just like a hurricane, or an
earthquake.  You cannot look at sex and say, "Good - Bad", any more then
you can claim an earthquake is "Bad" because it kills humans.

Stating that abstinance is the only 100% guaranteed way of preventing pregnancy
is value neutral.  If says that if you don't want to become pregnant, don't
have sex.  If you want to become pregnant, then you'd better have sex.  If
you don't want to become pregnant, but have sex, you're taking some risk.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
="I want a man, who will, lay down beside me.  I want a man, who will stand up=
=to me too.  That's what I like about you." -Trisha Yearwood, talking about me=