Saturday, February 21, 2009

Public sex ed

Opponents of abstinence-only sex ed have once again been touting Bristol Palin as a disproof of abstinence-only programs. I’ll venture a few comments:

1.To my knowledge, Bristol attended public school, not a private Christian school. If, therefore, her behavior represents a failure in the sex ed curriculum, it represents a failure of the public school curriculum.

2.Abstinence-only programs were never predicated on the assumption that every teenager indoctrinated in the virtues of chastity will remain chaste.

If a 100% success rate is the liberal criterion for a successful program, then every liberal social program is an abject failure.

3.The liberal contention is that, since some teenagers are going to do it anyway, then gov’t should teach them safe sex and provide them with free contraceptives.

While we’re on the subject, I’d also note that some teenagers use digital cameras to photograph themselves having sex, then post these X-rated images on the internet.

By liberal logic, since some teenagers are going to it anyway, gov’t should provide them with free sound stages to make commercial quality porn. That would teach them a marketable skill.

1 comment:

  1. What do abstinence-only advocates think of teaching reproductive health in general? I'm not familiar with how the system works in the USA (or anywhere, come to think of it). Presumably everyone wants their teenagers to exit school with a decent understanding of biology and reproduction, just as they'd want their children to know how the digestive system worked. Are these facts currently taught as part of human biology in science class, with 'sex ed' (discussing condom use or whatever) in a separate class, or is it all in together?

    Personally I plan to homeschool, but while I'll teach 'abstinence only' in the sense of 'abstinence is the only moral alternative to married monogamy', I'll probably teach quite a lot about birth control, simply because the biology and history of it is fascinating. I want my daughter to learn FAM (no, not the rhythm method, proper sympto-thermal charting) for the myriad things it will teach her about her health and body. I don't particularly see the need for her to stick condoms on bananas (if for no other reason than that by that stage of her education, I hope she can read the writing on a packet), but I don't see the problem with mentioning what condoms are, when they were invented and how they work; nor the biology behind hormonal birth control, the side effects of it, and so on. As a sociological phenomenon, birth control exists, and not knowing what it is or does is ignorance rather than virtue.

    So, would abstinence-only advocates have any problems with teenagers being taught the things I mentioned above? Is there a moral viewpoint being taught alongside these facts which they find objectionable, or do they object to the teaching of the facts themselves?