Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8123 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-14-2014 9:59 PM
86 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Post Volume:
Total: 735,945 Year: 21,786/28,606 Month: 873/1,410 Week: 75/524 Day: 75/84 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception
Taz
Member
Posts: 5047
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1 of 117 (639717)
11-03-2011 8:17 AM


http://www.foxnews.com/...rsial-bill-pushing-abstinence-over

MILWAUKEE Wisconsin school teachers would have to promote abstinence and marriage over contraception in sex education classes, under a controversial bill passed by the state Senate on Wednesday night.

The Republican-backed legislation was passed 17-15 on party lines and will now head to the GOP-dominated state Assembly -- possibly as early as Thursday, the Wisconsin State Journal reported.

Democrats slammed the bill during floor debate, saying it would not give children the information needed to make responsible choices.

A state law was passed last year by Democrats, requiring schools that offer sex education to include information on contraception methods.

The new GOP-backed legislation would not ban teachers from discussing contraceptives, but would demand they stress abstaining from sex the only reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

"We are trying to back away from the bill passed last year that we feel mandated sex ed that was too nonjudgmental, too explicit and at too young an age," said Republican state Sen. Glenn Grothman.

Democratic counterpart Sen. Jon Erpenbach said Wisconsin was "taking a step back to the Flintstone era" with the legislation.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 11-03-2011 9:03 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 4 by frako, posted 11-03-2011 9:12 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 12:43 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Pressie, posted 11-08-2011 8:07 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3743
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 2 of 117 (639718)
11-03-2011 8:59 AM


I've ceased being dumbfounded about how conservative the US is.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2011 9:37 AM Larni has responded
 Message 6 by jar, posted 11-03-2011 10:15 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5142
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 117 (639719)
11-03-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
11-03-2011 8:17 AM


Maybe Wisconsin can catch up with Texas on number of teenaged mommies!!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 11-03-2011 8:17 AM Taz has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 4 of 117 (639720)
11-03-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
11-03-2011 8:17 AM


At what age do you people get sex education??

I cant remember well

But the first par is arround 8-10 years old where the whole birds and the bees thing is explained, and a few years after that say 10-12 years old you get the whole how to use contraceptives, what contraceptives are available, their availability, and effectives, the effectiveness off "pulling out", sexually transmitted desieses, and stuff like that. And off course that the best protection is abstinence duh.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 11-03-2011 8:17 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 11:29 AM frako has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4696
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 117 (639721)
11-03-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Larni
11-03-2011 8:59 AM


I've ceased being dumbfounded about how conservative the US is.

I don't consider that "conservative."

Attempting to legislate a particular religious belief is more akin to fundamentalism.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 8:59 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2011 10:25 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 11:35 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-03-2011 6:32 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 25 by Artemis Entreri, posted 11-04-2011 12:58 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24663
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 6 of 117 (639727)
11-03-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Larni
11-03-2011 8:59 AM


Kinda Gotta agree with Coyote
What is happening in the US is not a Conservative movement but a Fascist one.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 8:59 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 117 (639728)
11-03-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
11-03-2011 9:37 AM


I don't consider that "conservative."

Why not? It's just the opposite of what liberals want today; by all available evidence that's your operating definition of "conservative."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2011 9:37 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3743
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 117 (639735)
11-03-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
11-03-2011 9:12 AM


I recall getting mechanical sex education when I was in priamry school (about 10 years old).

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 11-03-2011 9:12 AM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2011 7:18 PM Larni has responded
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 11-04-2011 1:04 AM Larni has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3743
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 9 of 117 (639736)
11-03-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
11-03-2011 9:37 AM


I don't consider that "conservative."

Maybe I should have used a big 'C'.

Over here conservatism is inextricably linked with puritanical values, Victorian famliy values, and sticking heads in sand about things.

I guess I just always considered the American south as very conservative and conflated English Conservatism with American conservatism.

Happy to corrected.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2011 9:37 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5142
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 10 of 117 (639770)
11-03-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
11-03-2011 9:37 AM


The problem, Coyote, is that "conservative" and "fundamentalist" have become so entangled through the efforts of people like Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, and 80% of the Republicans in the Texas Legislature that it's difficult to peel them apart. I long for the days of Barry Goldwater, who at least (like yourself) used logic in arriving at conclusions.

"Conservative," like "liberal," carries too much baggage to even be a useful word in the USA today. We need to just adopt "Rethuglican" and DemocRAT and call each other ugly names all the time instead of trying to solve our mutual problems.... :-(


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2011 9:37 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2011 7:49 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Jon
Member
Posts: 3995
From: Minnesota, U.S.A.
Joined: 12-29-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 11 of 117 (639772)
11-03-2011 6:51 PM


What's the Problem?
Maybe this comes from having not actually read the bill itself but only the article in the OP, but I am unsure as to what the real problem here is.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2011 7:45 PM Jon has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 117 (639777)
11-03-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Larni
11-03-2011 11:29 AM


I recall getting mechanical sex education when I was in priamry school (about 10 years old).

BEEP BEEEP YOU WILL NOW RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF YOUR GENITAL UNITS

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 11-03-2011 11:29 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Larni, posted 11-04-2011 5:40 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 5257
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 13 of 117 (639778)
11-03-2011 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jon
11-03-2011 6:51 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
Jon writes:

but I am unsure as to what the real problem here is.

So you didn't notice that the bill legislates providing bogus mis-information to kids?

quote:
The new GOP-backed legislation would not ban teachers from discussing contraceptives, but would demand they stress abstaining from sex the only reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

Apparently the idea is to provide kids a booby-man that won't serve them as adults in the hopes that they won't have sex as teens. What would a tenth grader think if he/she were taught this info and then observed that their parents were using contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

Kids have plenty of information at their disposal that will let them know that there are contraceptives that work pretty darn well at preventing pregnancy and even STDs when used properly. Wouldn't the requirement to teach a lie be counter-productive? Isn't teaching bogus nonsense going to undercut your confidence in the rest of the stuff you are being taught?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 11-03-2011 6:51 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 11-03-2011 9:43 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 11-04-2011 8:07 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4696
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 117 (639779)
11-03-2011 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
11-03-2011 6:32 PM


Back when...
I long for the days of Barry Goldwater...

I too long for the likes of Barry Goldwater. Scoop Jackson was somewhat similar, as was Alan Simpson. They were all respected for their honesty as well.

We could use a few more like them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 11-03-2011 6:32 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 6278
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 15 of 117 (639788)
11-03-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
11-03-2011 7:45 PM


Re: What's the Problem?
From what I've read, one of the underlying problems is that it doesn't make teaching contraceptive compulsory. So any teachers or local boards that happen to personally believe in 'Abstinence Only' can teach that if they choose. I'm not sure if there are other laws that do make it compulsory, however.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2011 7:45 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 11-04-2011 1:04 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014