Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In Opinion
Across Site
- Jay Evensen: On second thought...
- Readers' forum: No nuclear waste in Utah
- In our opinion: New nuclear plants...
- Readers' forum: Price of freedom
- Robert Bennett: A brokered...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The...
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- Michael Gerson: Egypt's craziness is...
- George F. Will: Is it bribery or just...
- Mackenzie Eaglen: Obama's proposed...
In Opinion
Across Site
- Robert Bennett: A brokered...
- In our opinion: Editorial: Protecting...
- Charles Krauthammer: The Gospel...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The...
- In our opinion: New nuclear plants...
- Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
- Readers' forum: Price of freedom
- My view: The climate is right to tear...
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- Readers' forum: No nuclear waste in Utah
In Opinion
Across Site
- Letters: Bush's failed policies
53 - Letters: A changing Constitution
45 - Editorial: Rights of conscience
40 - Editorial: New nuclear plants
33 - Letters: Teachers not overpaid
32 - Letters: Home equity loans
28 - The Gospel according to Obama
27 - Letters: Rights of conscience
26 - GOP no longer leads on defense
24 - Tear down the wall of discrimination
21








Class dismissed.
Drivers ed is taught in this state.
As far as sex ed, it is the parents responsability to teach it, for the reasons brought up by 1:48am & 1:51am.
Just because some parents fail this does not mean all parents fail at this!
Other studies indicate that, contrary to popular belief, the majority of pregnant teens are not from single-parent families living in poverty.
There is one major difference between sex education and driver's education that Misinformed seems to be missing: children do not come automatically equipped with a car - so we can wait to teach them how to use one.
What happens to the kids that don't have decent parents?
Serious question. What would you propose we do with them? Those are the ones that are having the babies at 15 years old.
Of course parents are the best source. But what about those with lousy parents?
Why is that? I suspect because religious fundamentalists like to "leave everything in the hands of God", whatever that means, and not educate their children about such obviously "dirty" things. From young ages the children are made to feel ashamed of their "naughty" parts. Natural maturing processes are referred to as "immoral". Comprehensive sexual education is never taught. And parents are so embarrassed to talk about the subject their children are afraid to ask them basic questions, and instead gain their "knowledge" from whatever societal source they encounter.
You think sex education isn't the public domain's, but the parents'? You might have had a point if parent's would even attempt to educate their children instead of feed them with mumbo jumbo and scare tactics.
As it is, it's a matter of public health.
We shouldn't teach chemistry in school. It just gives kids carte blanche to go out and synthesize illegal drugs and create explosives for bombs.
We shouldn't teach math in school. It only encourages kids not to believe in God. How? Well I'm sure you could find some conservative somewhere who would explain exactly how. The answer wouldn't make sense, but that really doesn't matter, does it?
Absolutely no way should sex education be or continue to be a subject/class taught in our public schools. If parents/guardians are not taking upon themselves their proper duties then the girl and boy know full well they can get the necessary information on sex, STDs, pregnancy, condoms, etc from Planne Parenthood, clinics, doctors, .....
ANY QUESTIONS?.
Use common sense.
Obviously then the parents weren't teaching the kids what they needed to know to not get pregnant!
Even if the parents of the pregnant teen are able and willing to cover her medical needs and provide for her and the baby, even if the father pays support and helps raise the child, there are still social costs associated with this. Teen mothers are less likely to complete high school, they are more likely to end up on welfare, their children are less likely to do well in school and more likely to be single parents at a young age thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty, and on it goes.
There is also a social cost associated with an increase in the spread of STDs.
These factors make sex education a social concern and an appropriate topic for education in the schools.
How about this: two sex-ed classes, one very comprehensive, including contraception, STD's, etc., the other strictly focused on anatomy and reproduction. Make the curriculae for each available to parents in advance, then allow them to opt out of the comprehensive class, or even out of the anatomy class. In other words, there would be three options: full sex-ed, anatomy-focused, or none at all. My kids would get the comprehensive, but your kids don't have to get that. I respect that this is a personal issue, and I have no interest in forcing my morality on others. Yes, it will create some lines of separation among the students, but some kids play football, others take drama, others smoke in the parking lot. That's high school.
Why is this so hard? Oh wait, I know: because the shrill ideologues need to to divide us reasonable, flexible people into opposing camps, otherwise what will become of the ideologues?
"Abstinence before marriage. Complete fidelity after marriage".
When teens understand sexual morality and eternal consequences from a spiritual point of view, it's very effective. Combine that with the responsibilities of taking care of babies and potential guilt and heartache turned into mental illness. Yes, combine that with the medical point of view about disgusting STDs.
Condoms are no guarantee to protect form STDs and pregnancy. Pills don't protect from STDs.
Abstinence is the only thing that works. But I don't know if the schools teach that or not, I've heard that they don't.
Yes, I believe that home is where it should be taught. And parents can do it, by loving wisdom, and if needed, by literature from their churches. And from statistics from sources like the letter writer.