|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,578 Year: 2,835/9,624 Month: 680/1,588 Week: 86/229 Day: 58/28 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: This just in, Wisconsin Senators Pass Bill Pushing Abstinence Over Contraception | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Jon writes: I mean... abstinence is, afterall, more effective than any other form of contraceptive available. Abstaining is more effective, yes. What you've said would be the truth, but teaching that abstinence is the only effective means would not be teaching the truth. In fact, all that would be necessary to accomplish what you are suggesting is to teach that all contraceptive methods have failure rates. I would also suggest that attempts by teens to practice abstinence also have failure rates.
But, then again, like I said: I haven't read the actual bill, You commented that you did not see any problems based on the post about the article, so it is fair to criticize your statement on that basis. Otherwise, what was the point of your saying anything at all, if you did not form your opinion based on what was posted and you have not read the article. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Jon writes: A state law was passed last year by Democrats, requiring schools that offer sex education to include information on contraception methods. That's the existing law Jon passed by Dems, and not the current bill under discussion here. I agree the that current law seems okay. Here is the language from the article that describes the bill we are talking about. (Emphasis added by me.)
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But as the article states, Wisconsin still requires other contraceptive methods be taught; so this new bill doesn't push reasonable sex ed completely out the door. The article states no such thing. The article states that the teaching of contraceptive methods is not prohibited. And other sources say that the law would leave no requirement to teach contraception in any way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Jon writes: quote:Is there something about this that I'm not reading right? You are doing a fine job of reading the current law. But you are making the unwarranted assumption that the bill leaves the old law intact. At least according to the article and according to other reporting I've read, the bill does away with the original requirement to teach contraception. Under the Republican bill, teaching abstinence only would be just fine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Jon writes: And that's not what I read in the article at all. No, you don't read that. Let me suggest that you are unrealistically trusting of Wisconsin's Senate Republicans. The link below is to the text of the bill, SB237. Wisconsin Legislature: SB237: Bill Text The language of the legislation is preceded by a summary of what the bill would accomplish if enacted. Note in particular the description of the provisions of current law including curriculum item 6, required by current law, which I quote below:
quote: What does the bill claim to do with item 6?
quote: Now what does the bill mandate?
quote: Yep. The bill allows a curriculum that does not include FDA approved contraceptives, but that does emphasize abstinence as the only reliable method to prevent pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted infections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Is there a secular reason for abstinence being taught? Yes, there is. The secular purpose is reducing the birth of out of wedlock children that have a high probability of needing economic support by the state. The fact that practicing abstinence is not wholly effective does not prevent it from being a secular purpose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So ALL non-married individuals should practice abstinence? Teens and pre-teens. K-12. Adults can smoke, drink, and have sex responsibly. The risk that kids will goof up is higher. Generally speaking, the SC has invalidated laws regulating sex and birth control under the 4th Amendment and not under the 1st amendment.
Perhaps not, but I was more asking what secular purpose there is to teach abstinence ONLY education. That's not what you asked. I think I could cobble up a constitutionally valid purpose if I wanted, but it is not unnecessary to do so. The bill does not mandate abstinence only education. It just does not criminalize such a program. The only requirement is that lies about abstinence be a part of every sex education program.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Oh, and there is one other problem.
If the bill is enacted, then the statute will no longer makes any specific mention of any FDA contraceptive methods. So if you elect to teach the use of condoms in WI, then you risk being prosecuted by this @%!# loose cannon. Wisconsin District Attorney Says Sex Ed is Sexual Assault 101 - Above the LawAbove the Law
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: I addressed this. We don't supervise adults in the same way we supervise children. Unless you are suggesting that we force adults to go to sex education classes, I'm not sure what your point is about adults. Having children out of wedlock is a burden, so we teach everybody not to do it when they are in school. What contradiction do you see?
quote: Because despite passing Constitutional muster, the bill is bad policy that will cause more kids to end up with possibly incurable diseases and/or pregnant.
quote: What about the fact that the statement is not true, and is likely to result in more teens having unsafe sex? What about the fact that every Senator knew the likely result when they were voting on the bill? I know these points have been made here by multiple posters.
So again, what is the secular purpose behind abstinence only sex education? Nobody is claiming that there is such a purpose. Teaching abstinence is constitutional. Teaching nothing is constitutional, and there is no constitutional right to have contraception taught. So teaching, and even lying about abstinence is constitutional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
"abstinence is the only sure fire way to not get pregnant or get STD's" is a factual one No it is not. Of course we all know where babies come from. But practicing abstinence often turns out to be a difficult and many kids fail the attempt to be chaste. Crashfrog has done an excellent job of explaining the point to Jon. I'd suggest reviewing that discussion. Let's just say that you cannot cure homelessness by telling people to just own a house.
hooah212002 writes: If we can pinpoint that abstinence only education is strictly religious in nature, I think we've taken a few steps forward in killing this monster. I don't think you've come close to making this argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Fair enough, though there wasn't anything "obvious" about it. But I'll take your word for it. Good grief dude. Take your foot off the guy's neck. He said he was sorry! Let him back up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
hooah212002 writes: If the QUESTION can't be answered in a straightforward manner, then that means that abstinence only education is religious in nature and has no business in public school. In my opinion, the argument you are trying to use will not work. There is nothing unconstitutional about teaching abstinence. If a teacher taught abstinence and never mentioned anything else there would be no constitutional issue. If there is a constitutional issue at all, it would have to involve the requirement to rebut advice regarding use FDA approved contraceptives with religiously based rationale. But anyone can come up with something that would not be a problem. Using the "abstinence never fails" logic is not unconstitutional, it's just stupid. And reasons like, "The legislature does not feel that kids are not emotionally ready for relationships that include sex" would probably would pass muster. One dimension of the Dover trial is that there was plenty of evidence available to show that the "scientific" reasons for teaching ID offered by the defendants were not the real ones. Absent that evidence, who knows how things would have turned out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I was simply asking whether or not there is any secular reason to teach abstinence only education. Yeah, my bad. I read your question, but I translated it to, is there a constitutionally valid reason that would pass the muster with the Supreme Court which presently includes Clarence Thomas who will accept any pretext offered, and Scalia who thinks the Establishment Clause bars only establishing a particular religious sect as the state church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Thanks - not for "defending my freedom", which unless you're 80 years old you have not ever done, but for paying the price of our mistaken policies. We owed you better than that. I find that a pretty ungracious, and demonstrably false Veterans' day sentiment. Our service men have done their part to defend our freedom, at great personal sacrifice, even if you discount every single fighting action they've been involved in since WWII. I understand your opinion of our mistaken policies, and I even agree with much of it. But you go a little too far here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024