SMOKERING SAID:
“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?"
Knowledge of procreation is not the question at issue. Rather, the question at issue is knowledge of, and access to, contraceptives.
“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?”
1.It’s unclear to me why you think an adolescent or preadolesent needs to have advance knowledge of contraception. Seems to me that specific knowledge of contraception is only pertinent at the time a couple is engaged to be married.
2.I also assume that anyone who’s old enough to get married is old enough to do his/her own research on the contraceptive options. That’s something the couple should do on their own.
3.Why would you teach your daughter about condoms? She’s not going to use one herself.
I hope you don’t intent to teach your son about condoms. For one thing, I doubt a boy would appreciate having his mother explain condom use to him. In addition, a teenage boy would have to be as dumb as straw not to figure out how a condom works. It’s pretty self-explanatory.
4.More to the point, the primary use of a condom is to engage in “safe” premarital or extramarital sex. Even then, only about 1 out of 4 promiscuous males use a condom, and–not surprisingly–it’s even less popular in conjugal relations.
5.Opponents of abstinence-only programs are not merely recommending that we teach students about contraception. Rather, they advocate the free distribution of contraceptives.
6.Finally, there are times when ignorance is virtuous. For example, I hope most folks are ignorant of how to construct a biochemical weapon.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAt a more fundamental level, what do you think of public education? Do you think that this country would be better off abolishing public education? Thanks.
Yes, we'd be better off abolishing public education.
ReplyDelete"Finally, there are times when ignorance is virtuous. For example, I hope most folks are ignorant of how to construct a biochemical weapon."
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand this point. I cannot see how it is sinful, unethical, or vile to know how to construct a biochemical weapon. How is the possession of the knowledge less virtuous than ignorance?
ANDREW'S LIBRARY SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don't really understand this point. I cannot see how it is sinful, unethical, or vile to know how to construct a biochemical weapon. How is the possession of the knowledge less virtuous than ignorance?"
Try to consider the obvious. Do you want every jihadist to know how to construct a biochemical weapon? Or is it better if some people are ignorant of that technology? I'm making a pretty obvious point. Some folks misuse knowledge. In their case, ignorance is preferable.
"Do you want every jihadist to know how to construct a biochemical weapon?"
ReplyDeleteSo we should build our homeschooling curriculum as if we were teaching jihadists then? In that case, should we not put all our children in jail?
ANDREW'S LIBRARY SAID:
ReplyDelete"So we should build our homeschooling curriculum as if we were teaching jihadists then? In that case, should we not put all our children in jail?"
It would behoove you to learn what an argument from analogy is.
Teach me. What is an argument from analogy?
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
ReplyDelete---
Yes, we'd be better off abolishing public education.
---
I couldn't agree more.
Publik Skrewl is the absolute worst thing that happened to my math skills. (On the other hand, it's enabled me to use creative spelling without fear of being misunderstood by the texting generation....)
Sure, I did some things in publick scoool that wouldn't have done otherwise. There was the season I played football in 7th grade, for instance, but I think I would have turned out just fine without that.
Three words describe pubaluk edjukashun: Least Common Denominator.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but sex-ed teaches students about contraceptives, correct, and that's its selling point. Also, the stated problem with abstinence only programs is that they don't teach about contraceptives use, correct?
ReplyDeleteNow, if my first two assumptions are correct, then my question is, how is teaching something that anyone can figure out quite easily a good selling point? I never took a sex-ed class, but I know about some forms of contraceptives from reading and TV. Is that the best light sex-ed classes can be put in? Nobody feels like saying "see, in our sex-ed classes, we have a condom dispenser"?
Thanks for your respose, Steve.
ReplyDelete"1.It’s unclear to me why you think an adolescent or preadolesent needs to have advance knowledge of contraception. Seems to me that specific knowledge of contraception is only pertinent at the time a couple is engaged to be married."
You could use the same argument to dissuade teaching people about pregnancy and childbirth until they were married and planning to conceive, but why should the default position be withholding information? Basic info about contraceptives pretty much comes under general knowledge of how the world works. Condoms work by preventing the sperm from physically reaching the egg, the Pill works by hormonally suppressing ovulation and/or rendering the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation, chemotherapy works by destroying certain types of cells, Pitocin works by stimulating contractions of the uterus, epidurals work by preventing pain signals travelling up the spinal cord to the brain. It's pretty basic knowledge.
I'd also add that a fair few people are engaged or even married by the time they leave school, so teaching about reproduction and contraception at least in the higher classes makes sense.
"2.I also assume that anyone who’s old enough to get married is old enough to do his/her own research on the contraceptive options. That’s something the couple should do on their own."
Why should they? I agree that they should make any moral decisions regarding contraception together, but why is it a bad thing for them to be on the same page about what the options are, how they work and what they do, first? After all, married couples ought to be old and smart enough to make decisions together about what kind of transport to use, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for them to be aware of different types of transportation and their pros and cons before having the discussion.
"3.Why would you teach your daughter about condoms? She’s not going to use one herself."
The same reason I plan to teach my son about childbirth, even though he won't ever bear a child - because the alternative is ignorance. Again, I don't see why that should be the default position.
We're not talking about exhaustive, indepth hour-long lectures every week on the subject. As you say yourself, condoms are pretty self-explanatory. A brief mention of them when discussing types of birth control will be sufficient - "Condoms are another type of birth control, which are worn by the man to prevent the sperm fertilizing the egg. They're also used to prevent the transmission of STDs, although in neither case are they 100% effective" - and then the conversation might move on to the political/social implications of a birth control device for which the man is primarily responsible, or the biology of sexually transmitted diseases, or the history of birth control in Biblical times - whatever. She hasn't had her first birthday yet, I haven't got it all worked out. :p Either way: short, to-the-point discussion which informs her on a topic and prevents her learning about condoms when some fifteen-year-old on the internet declares they're reusable up to three months (or some similarly bizarre misconception). What's the problem?
4.More to the point, the primary use of a condom is to engage in “safe” premarital or extramarital sex. Even then, only about 1 out of 4 promiscuous males use a condom, and–not surprisingly–it’s even less popular in conjugal relations.
I don't see how this is to the point. If what you say is true, what's topping me from discussing *that* with my children as well? "One of the implications of freely available birth control was an increase in promiscuity: discuss". Sounds like a good essay topic to me. :) Like any... well, knowledge... it would be more difficult to have in a public school setting, but not entirely impossible.
5.Opponents of abstinence-only programs are not merely recommending that we teach students about contraception. Rather, they advocate the free distribution of contraceptives.
OK, I can certainly see why that would concern Christians more than the actual teaching.
"6.Finally, there are times when ignorance is virtuous. For example, I hope most folks are ignorant of how to construct a biochemical weapon."
Ignorance is never virtuous. Sometimes it is politic to censor information, but that's a different matter. Given that birth control exists, is prevalent in society and is the subject of many misconceptions (no pun intended!), teaching teenagers the actual truth about it is hardly akin to equipping them to blow up subway stations. Some of them may indeed misuse the knowledge (although there are social upsides even to that - fewer unwanted pregnancies mean a lower abortion rate), just as they may misuse any knowledge you give them at school, including how to read and count. I don't think you've made a case for demonising this very basic information about the existence and function of contraceptives, especially as the alternative is not ignorance of them but misunderstandings about them.
As a side note, by the end of high school quite a few girls will be on some version of the pill for health-related reasons. Given that the pill is a rather dangerous drug with sometimes massive side effects which tends to be overprescribed, it would probably do them a service to teach them about it. Few doctors bother.
Please note that I'm not advocating partial, incomplete knowledge of contraceptives which paints them as the 'cure' for all societal ills. That wouldn't be real education at all. Among other things, students should know that birth control *isn't* 100% effective against either pregnancy or STD transmission. And given that we presumably want our kids to have a good and well-rounded education, we should also teach them about the social development and effects of birth control; of the social impact of Planned Parenthood; of Roe vs Wade; of the realities of pregnancy, childbirth and parenting (not demonised, but realistically portrayed); of female and male biology; of the medical and ethical issues surrounding RIC; of the recent research surrounding the health effects of hormonal birth control; of religious responses to birth control; and so on, and so forth. Now I think about it, it'd probably make an excellent unit study for older teenagers, encompassing everything from social studies to biology and bioethics. And I think students would be better for it.
Sean: Never having been to a US sex ed class I can't speak to whether or not that's the case: but if it is, shouldn't that be an indication they need to teach sex ed better, not not teach it? FAM, which is only one form of birth control, requires some fairly technical knowledge about female biology. It can't be picked up in ten seconds flat: it's best taught with lots of visual aids and charts and different-coloured pens. Of course it can be learned outside a classroom, but if that's to be the criterion for not teaching things in school there wouldn't be much left to teach, would there?
ReplyDeleteFrom various comments made by people online I'll hazard a generalisation that the average person doesn't have the foggiest notion of how reproduction and contraceptives work; whether this is because they go to bad sex ed classes, no sex ed classes or what I don't know, but it's a tad scary. A large number of Christians aren't aware of the potentially abortifacient effects of hormonal birth control; a large number of people have no idea that FAM isn't the same thing as the 'rhythm method', cycle beads or NFP; and from my experience very few people seem to be aware of the rules of LAM, the true failure rates of withdrawal and the reasons for those statistics, the necessity of taking certain kinds of the Pill at the same time every day, the possibility of anovulatory periods and amenorrhoeic ovulation, the specifics of various forms of twin conception, and so on and so forth. Learning all these things indepth should prevent the topic from being sordid or giggly, as the students will find they have to buckle down and concentrate because it's fairly complicated and fascinating.
SMOKERING SAID:
ReplyDelete“You could use the same argument to dissuade teaching people about pregnancy and childbirth until they were married and planning to conceive, but why should the default position be withholding information?”
i) To begin with, I didn’t say we should wait until a couple is married. Rather, I said until a couple is engaged to be married.
ii) Moreover, we live in, with, and around human bodies 24/7. So it’s natural for even young kids to ask where babies come from.
By contrast, artificial conception is a form of technology. There’s no particular reason to give everyone advance knowledge of all the different forms of technology. And it would be impossible to do so.
Do we teach everyone how to build an F-22 Raptor? I don’t think so. And should we do so even if we could? I don’t think so.
iii) ”Withholding” information is a misleading characterization. It’s not as if this information is banned.
On the other hand, “we” withhold all sorts of information. There’s far too much information out there on a wide variety of subjects to disseminate to everyone. So the dissemination of information is invariably selective. Prioritized.
iv) Finally, sex is a highly value-laden activity. It should be taught in moral context. Kids don’t get that in public school. Rather, sex is taught in a deliberately immoral context. Nonjudgmental. Alternative lifestyles, &c. Same thing with contraception.
The point of public sex ed on contraceptives is to teach kids how to minimize the risk of promiscuous and/or premarital sex (e.g. pregnancy, STDs).
“Basic info about contraceptives pretty much comes under general knowledge of how the world works.”
So is how to build a bioweapon.
“Chemotherapy works by destroying certain types of cells.”
That’s a problematic example since there’s no reason to give everybody advance knowledge of chemo. That’s only relevant if you’re a cancer patient. Do you think we should teach students all the possible cures for all the possible illnesses? That’s hardly a practical curriculum.
“I'd also add that a fair few people are engaged or even married by the time they leave school, so teaching about reproduction and contraception at least in the higher classes makes sense.”
Actually, it doesn’t make sense. Aside from the moral context, there’s also the question of competence. I don’t share your boundless confidence in the expertise of the average high school teacher. A couple should consult a medical specialist for reliable information on the best contraceptive options. Not rely on some teacher who’s a product of the NEA.
“Why should they?”
They should because having sex and using contraception is, or ought to be, a grown-up decision. A mark of their own maturation and adult independence. As a couple engaged to be married, they are leaving behind the authority-structure of their parents and forming their own authority-structure. It’s childish for them to rely on Mom and Dad for their knowledge of the contraceptive options. That’s the sort of thing that they, as a couple, need to do together. At that point it’s time to cut the apron strings.
“But why is it a bad thing for them to be on the same page about what the options are, how they work and what they do.”
That begs the question of where they should turn for information.
“Condoms are another type of birth control, which are worn by the man to prevent the sperm fertilizing the egg. They're also used to prevent the transmission of STDs.”
Why does your kid need to know that? What’s the value of that information except to remove the disincentive to commit fornication?
You can also teach your kid how to commit the perfect crime. Tutor him in CSI-style forensics. What’s the point? Unless he’s going to become a criminologist, why should he know to get away with murder?
“I don't see how this is to the point. If what you say is true, what's topping me from discussing *that* with my children as well? "One of the implications of freely available birth control was an increase in promiscuity: discuss". Sounds like a good essay topic to me. :)”
Why don’t you also teach your kids how to cheat the casino? Or how to commit untraceable wire fraud? Or how to skim an ATM? After all, that’s just another part of how the world works.
“Ignorance is never virtuous.”
Really? I’ve never seen the “art” of Robert Mapplethorpe, or viewed the films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, or read the works of Aleister Crowley. I’ve never attended a séance, or a black Mass. I never experimented with heroin or crack cocaine. I never committed sodomy or bestiality. I don’t know what it feels like to murder someone.
My ignorance of these and other things is clearly a vice. A Christian should never limit his exposure to all the varied objects of knowledge.
“Given that birth control exists, is prevalent in society and is the subject of many misconceptions (no pun intended!), teaching teenagers the actual truth about it is hardly akin to equipping them to blow up subway stations.”
When you make glib, sweeping statements about how “ignorance is never virtuous” and “that’s the way the world works,” I cite some obvious counterexample to your thoughtless claims. It’s a standard method of showing that one’s opponent is wildly overstating his (or, in this instance, her) case.
“I don't think you've made a case for demonising this very basic information about the existence and function of contraceptives…”
Since I wasn’t trying to “demonize” this information, my failure to hit a target I never aimed at isn’t much of a rebuttal.
“As a side note, by the end of high school quite a few girls will be on some version of the pill for health-related reasons. Given that the pill is a rather dangerous drug with sometimes massive side effects which tends to be overprescribed, it would probably do them a service to teach them about it. Few doctors bother.”
Why do you think a high school teacher would be a more reliable source of information on the pros and cons of the pill than a trained physician?
Moreover, do few doctors bother because few patients bother to ask?
“And given that we presumably want our kids to have a good and well-rounded education, we should also teach them about the social development and effects of birth control; of the social impact of Planned Parenthood; of Roe vs Wade; of the realities of pregnancy, childbirth and parenting (not demonised, but realistically portrayed); of female and male biology; of the medical and ethical issues surrounding RIC; of the recent research surrounding the health effects of hormonal birth control; of religious responses to birth control; and so on, and so forth. Now I think about it, it'd probably make an excellent unit study for older teenagers, encompassing everything from social studies to biology and bioethics.”
And you think that’s the least bit realistic as a description of a public school curriculum?
Steve, so far you've compared knowledge of how to use a condom to "advance knowledge" of building biochemical weapons and hundred-million+ dollar stealth air superiority fighters. That strikes me as odd.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, “we” withhold all sorts of information. There’s far too much information out there on a wide variety of subjects to disseminate to everyone. So the dissemination of information is invariably selective. Prioritized.
I agree. We should prioritize information which is important and relevant to a child. Such as information about sexuality.
Finally, sex is a highly value-laden activity. It should be taught in moral context. Kids don’t get that in public school. Rather, sex is taught in a deliberately immoral context. Nonjudgmental. Alternative lifestyles, &c. Same thing with contraception.
Of course we all agree that sex ed, like all education, is best performed in a situation other than public high school. But by this logic, we should avoid teaching history and politics, philosophy and classics, geography and biology—actually, there are few subjects covered in high school which don't have some moral component which is distorted or ignored by the secular system. That's a good argument, perhaps, for abolishing state-run education. It doesn't seem to be a good argument for preventing the extant state-run education system from teaching about contraception specifically. That seems to just be a case of special pleading. Why focus on that one issue?
The point of public sex ed on contraceptives is to teach kids how to minimize the risk of promiscuous and/or premarital sex (e.g. pregnancy, STDs).
Of course, we all agree that kids shouldn't be engaging in promiscuous and/or premarital sex. But teaching them how to minimize the risk of sex in general isn't the same as encouraging them to engage in promiscuity or premarital sex (not in principle, at least—I defer to your knowledge of how this cashes out in the US public education system). The issues are related, but separate. And if kids are going to engage in those activities—and we really have no reason to expect non-Christian teenagers not to, do we?—then isn't it to everyone's benefit that they know how to minimize their risk? All things being equal, a high proportion of teenagers in modern society are going to engage in premarital sex. Is it better that they do so knowing how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, or that they do so without that knowledge, thus raising the incidence of abortions? It seems to me that education in this regard is highly important given what's at stake—the lives of babies.
That said, this isn't a cut-and-dried issue as far as I can see. Should we encourage schools to give out free condoms, on the basis of the potential abortions prevented? I'd say no. Obviously there is a line to be drawn; the question we seem to disagree over is where to draw it. I think Smokering has made good points about the need for proper sex education, and hopefully I've made my own points above. But there's a distinction to be made between education and assistance. That seems, to my mind, the proper place to draw the line, unless we're going to start censoring all public education.
Now, you can certainly argue that society in general needs to change so that teenagers aren't engaging in pre-marital sex. That's a valid point, but it's not really germane to the issue at hand. We aren't going to change society by not teaching kids basic sex education.
“Basic info about contraceptives pretty much comes under general knowledge of how the world works.”
So is how to build a bioweapon.
I don't think so. Not given a charitable reading of "general knowledge of how the world works". An imprecise term, I agree—but not so imprecise as to encapsulate dirty terrorism. That isn't part of "the world" being discussed in this thread as far as I can see. I think you need to get off the knowledge-of-using-condoms-is-like-knowledge-of-how-to-create-top-military-grade-weapons horsie now.
That’s a problematic example since there’s no reason to give everybody advance knowledge of chemo. That’s only relevant if you’re a cancer patient. Do you think we should teach students all the possible cures for all the possible illnesses? That’s hardly a practical curriculum.
Of course, the most common cures for the most common illnesses is hardly a problematic topic for inclusion in a school curriculum. Not in principle, at least.
Actually, it doesn’t make sense. Aside from the moral context, there’s also the question of competence. I don’t share your boundless confidence in the expertise of the average high school teacher. A couple should consult a medical specialist for reliable information on the best contraceptive options. Not rely on some teacher who’s a product of the NEA.
That's a better argument. I agree. That said, most high school teachers aren't competent to teach most topics. Most people in general aren't competent to teach even when they have to. You can make a special case here based on the particular practical importance of sex ed—but as a general principle, your logic could be extended to the point of making education impossible. Private consultation with experts in every field isn't a feasible system for educating the next generation.
They should because having sex and using contraception is, or ought to be, a grown-up decision. A mark of their own maturation and adult independence.
True in itself, but I'm not sure how that really speaks to the question. I'm sure we make plenty of decisions, as grown-ups, based on knowledge we gained but never used when we were younger. Driving a car ought to be a grown-up decision; a mark of maturation and adult independence. But that, if I'm not mistaken, is something taught in US high schools as well, is it not? Isn't part of the point of school to equip teenagers to become young adults, capable of functioning independently in the world? You appear to be advocating a sort of education based on systematic ignorance up until the point where knowledge becomes necessary. That strikes me as odd.
“But why is it a bad thing for them to be on the same page about what the options are, how they work and what they do.”
That begs the question of where they should turn for information.
Not really. The question functions independently of the issue of where this information originates, as far as I can see.
Why does your kid need to know that? What’s the value of that information except to remove the disincentive to commit fornication?
That question appears to imply that we should actively restrict access to that kind of information. Little Johnny spots a box of condoms at the checkout aisle and asks me what they are. I should just tell him to mind his beeswax? Or he learns a lot of half-truths about condoms from his friends, who don't have parents with such restrictive views. Then what? It seems to me that Smokering has already given plenty of reasons for why basic information about contraception is valuable.
You can also teach your kid how to commit the perfect crime. Tutor him in CSI-style forensics. What’s the point? Unless he’s going to become a criminologist, why should he know to get away with murder?
Of course, most kids eventually are going to become "criminologists", as your analogy goes. Most kids eventually will have sex. Incidentally, there's that comparison between knowing how to use a condom and knowing how to kill people again...it's starting to get kinda weird, Steve.
Why don’t you also teach your kids how to cheat the casino? Or how to commit untraceable wire fraud? Or how to skim an ATM? After all, that’s just another part of how the world works.
Not really. Your analogies are all highly specious, frankly. Paranoid even.
Really? I’ve never seen the “art” of Robert Mapplethorpe, or viewed the films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, or read the works of Aleister Crowley. I’ve never attended a séance, or a black Mass. I never experimented with heroin or crack cocaine. I never committed sodomy or bestiality. I don’t know what it feels like to murder someone.
My ignorance of these and other things is clearly a vice. A Christian should never limit his exposure to all the varied objects of knowledge.
Agreed. Ignorance is frequently virtuous. Christians are called to be ignorant of evil. Smokering is wrong in this instance.
Since I wasn’t trying to “demonize” this information, my failure to hit a target I never aimed at isn’t much of a rebuttal.
Well, you've come across as trying to demonize it, given your analogies between knowledge of contraceptives and knowledge of how to create weapons of mass destruction. Maybe that was just part of your reductio strategy, but it came across as wildly paranoid rather than as pointing out an obvious overstatement in Smokering's own case.
"By contrast, artificial conception is a form of technology. There’s no particular reason to give everyone advance knowledge of all the different forms of technology. And it would be impossible to do so...
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, “we” withhold all sorts of information. There’s far too much information out there on a wide variety of subjects to disseminate to everyone. So the dissemination of information is invariably selective. Prioritized."
Why eliminate non-artificial methods of birth control (which are not technology-based) from the category? Discussing LAM, NFP, withdrawal and so on should be part of any sex ed curriculum.
I agree that any education naturally prioritises information. Why do I feel birth control is a more relevant, useful subject than learning how to build an F-22 Raptor? Do I even need to answer that? The advent of modern methods of birth control has had huge social implications; it has shaped the women's movement, greatly influenced bioethics, politics and society in general. If students are going to learn modern history at all, the history of birth control is relevant; and it's difficult to teach the history of something without defining what it is.
"iv) Finally, sex is a highly value-laden activity. It should be taught in moral context. Kids don’t get that in public school. Rather, sex is taught in a deliberately immoral context. Nonjudgmental. Alternative lifestyles, &c. Same thing with contraception."
I agree that that's a problem (a bigger one than just sex ed, which is why I plan to homeschool). But the biology of reproduction and contraception can be taught fairly accurately regardless (just like the biology of digestion or the way cancer treatments work can be taught). Would you have a problem with this?
"The point of public sex ed on contraceptives is to teach kids how to minimize the risk of promiscuous and/or premarital sex (e.g. pregnancy, STDs)."
Again, if that's the case I agree it's a problem: in which case I would advocate a change of focus in sex education, not eliminating sex education altogether.
"So is how to build a bioweapon."
LOL! Um. Really?
"That’s a problematic example since there’s no reason to give everybody advance knowledge of chemo. That’s only relevant if you’re a cancer patient. Do you think we should teach students all the possible cures for all the possible illnesses? That’s hardly a practical curriculum."
Again, I agree with you that prioritising information is necessary. That's why I used the example of chemotherapy: cancer is common, chemo is one of its most well-known treatments, everyone is likely to have heard of it, so it seems sensible to teach them what it actually is. So yes, I do think it's practical - the average student today is very likely to have first-hand contact with cancer at some point, so the information is relevant to today's world. Teaching alternative medicinal cures for leprosy, less so. Given that the use of birth control is extremely prevalent, I would file its likely relevance next to chemo rather than leprosy treatments. Heck, nowadays even people in the USA who don't take HBC are affected by the hormones, which are leached into the water supply. That's pretty relevant!
"I don’t share your boundless confidence in the expertise of the average high school teacher. A couple should consult a medical specialist for reliable information on the best contraceptive options. Not rely on some teacher who’s a product of the NEA."
I don't have boundless confidence in the average high school teacher: if he or she is unable to teach sex ed properly, he/she should be replaced with someone who can. Ditto for any other subjects.
"Why does your kid need to know that? What’s the value of that information except to remove the disincentive to commit fornication?"
Married people use condoms too.
"You can also teach your kid how to commit the perfect crime. Tutor him in CSI-style forensics. What’s the point? Unless he’s going to become a criminologist, why should he know to get away with murder?"
Married people use condoms too. Committing a perfect crime is inherently evil: using contraception isn't. That said, you keep using the phrase 'how to', which may indicate you misunderstand my own position. I don't think sex ed classes should focus on how to use contraceptives, but on what they are and what they do. It might seem a subtle distinction, given that a student would (hopefully) be able to work out how to use them from that information; but it does come from quite a different perspective. There's a difference between teaching students about the use of landmines in war and the basic principles of how they work, and teaching them to build a landmine during class. In the proper context, even discussing the perfect crime could have historical or literary educational value. :)
"Really? I’ve never seen the “art” of Robert Mapplethorpe, or viewed the films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, or read the works of Aleister Crowley. I’ve never attended a séance, or a black Mass. I never experimented with heroin or crack cocaine. I never committed sodomy or bestiality. I don’t know what it feels like to murder someone."
OK, point taken. You do know what those things are, though, I notice. If someone invited you to a black Mass, your knowledge would allow you to say "No, thanks". Similarly a Christian whose doctor offers her HBC could benefit from the knowledge that HBCs can act as abortifacients. One needs the facts of what things are or do in order to make moral decisions concerning them, and birth control is very prevalent in our culture, making such knowledge relevant.
"Why do you think a high school teacher would be a more reliable source of information on the pros and cons of the pill than a trained physician?"
Will? Not necessarily. Should? Yes, I see no reason why a teacher cold not know as much about birth control and reproduction as a doctor (who, after all, only spent a small proportion of his medical training learning about those subjects). Plus, if you'll pardon my cynicism, high school teachers don't get kickbacks for prescribing particular drugs.
"Moreover, do few doctors bother because few patients bother to ask?"
Very possibly. Well-informed patients are more likely to ask the right questions, rather than blindly accepting what the doctor tells them. A patient who knows about various forms and functions of birth control will be able to ask the doctor for his reasons for choosing this prescription over that, for recommending such-and-such given her body weight or previous medical history, etc... and that's a good thing!
"And you think that’s the least bit realistic as a description of a public school curriculum?"
Nope, which is why it'll be a cold day in hell before I send my kids to public school. :) Nevertheless it's a realistic model of what a student should be able to learn, so if the system needs to change to accommodate it, it should.
While we're on the subject, Sarah might wish to include this contraceptive method in her well-rounded sex ed curriculum: "As a precaution, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rajneesh
Not really engaging with my prioritisation of knowledge comments, Steve, but OK. Given enough time in the curriculum, I might indeed mention it in that it sheds an interesting light on early paranoia about AIDS transmission. It reminds me of that tribe where adolescent girls are shut up in huts to prevent the sun impregnating them - it may not be scientifically accurate, but it's sociologically interesting. (Which brings to light another difficulty inherent in teaching anything in the current public school system - artificial separation of subjects).
ReplyDelete".More to the point, the primary use of a condom is to engage in “safe” premarital or extramarital sex. Even then, only about 1 out of 4 promiscuous males use a condom, and–not surprisingly–it’s even less popular in conjugal relations."
ReplyDeleteErr... except that thinking Christians may have an objection to most of the other methods since they are abortificants.
Might not that be a good thing for your Christian daughter to know as part of her education? She may be "old enough" when she gets married to get some pamphlets on the pill, but she may not know they could kill her baby.
Come to that, any education could be argued against on the basis that by the time you actually need it, you'll be old enough to find out for yourself. Besides which, if you don't tell them, the school yard will.
Sarah said:
ReplyDeleteWill? Not necessarily. Should? Yes, I see no reason why a teacher cold not know as much about birth control and reproduction as a doctor (who, after all, only spent a small proportion of his medical training learning about those subjects). Plus, if you'll pardon my cynicism, high school teachers don't get kickbacks for prescribing particular drugs.
Just a quick comment:
1. Of course, there are always possible exceptions, but we're talking about what's normative, aren't we? What does a normal high school teacher know about reproduction, birth control, etc. compared to a normal physician?
2. Maybe it's true that reproduction and birth control only constitute a small percentage of a doctor's medical education in light of the whole of his medical education. But at the same time it's not as if other things a doctor is taught or learns in med school don't likewise inform his knowledge of reproduction. It's not as if his knowledge and understanding of, say, anatomy/physiology, embryology, pathology, pharmacology, and so on aren't in some way also relevant to his knowledge of reproduction and birth control.
3. It doesn't necessarily mean that just because a doctor does get money from a pharmaceutical or affiliated group for recommending this or that drug that his medical knowledge in regard to reproduction and birth control isn't worth listening to or is somehow less than it should be or is prejudicial or whatever. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Or maybe he's recommending a drug which is perfectly good and even the best available drug for a particular illness, and at the same time receiving financial compensation. Anyway, it's not as if he can't also give sound medical advice about birth control even if he is prejudicial in regard to a particular drug.
And what about doctors in nations where pharmaceutical drug companies aren't as influential in the medical community as here in the US (e.g. the UK, Australia, NZ)?
And high school teachers, or at least US high school teachers, aren't necessarily without prejudice either when it comes to the issue.
All good points, Patrick. I do think it is not unreasonable to expect a teacher to be well-versed in his field, and if this isn't the case he should be replaced by someone who is. Is sex ed in the USA taught by specific 'sex ed teachers', or by teachers who are trained in other areas (science, for instance) and expected to teach sex ed without the proper training?
ReplyDelete