Texas School Has Chlamydia Outbreak And Now Needs To Rethink Sex "Ed"

[ArmedProgrammer]

Parents certainly do have different styles. My dad told me (in so many words), first off: save it until you get married. But if you do get her pregnant, don't come crying to me--nothing's fool proof; and don't look for me to protect you when her dad comes to kick your ass.

Similar to my approach. Save it until you get married. Monogamy + fidelity = about as safe a road as you can go. That said if you decide to do otherwise - don't be doubly stupid. And as you said - don't look for me to protect you from the consequences of your actions.

 

[MisterChester]

Kids make bad decisions, and your first thought is that the government should have prevented it?

I thought you were libertarian leaning.

This is not the business of government.

Doesn't the government have a compelling interest to try to keep STD levels as low as they can? A cost upfront can prevent an even bigger cost in the future is how I see it.

 

[MisterChester]

Just goes to show that schools need to teach a wide array of things, when it comes to health and science. If they had taught abstinence AND safe sex there'd likely not be an outbreak in their school. Abstinence is nice, in theory, but when it collides with reality we see multiple bad outcomes when information is denied to students. Now they've got to have a discussion about sex education in their school. And the parents of these kids dropped the ball, too. They had a responsibility to educate their kids and they failed miserably, too. Hopefully, rational heads will prevail and these school kids will be allowed to learn a bigger picture than previous students were.

Crane High School in Texas Reports Chlamydia Outbreak

Chlamydia Outbreak Among High School Students - CBS 7: Multimedia

I Am of the belief that abstinence-only sex ed is silly and ignorant of common sense. Teens have hormones and will experiment unless they are kept under lock and key. I was told to hold it off until I was ready, not necessarily for marriage, and to take every precaution and to me that's reasonable. They should teach SAFE sex along with abstinence, because neither one is a one-size-fits-all solution. Teaching abstinence alone is a recipe for disaster, anyone with kids will tell you the further you restrict them to do something they want to do they more they will want to do it.

 

[HoughMade]

Schools shouldn't be teaching sex ed at all.

That is the parents' responsibility. (notice the apostrophe after the s, indicating the plural)

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Doesn't the government have a compelling interest to try to keep STD levels as low as they can? A cost upfront can prevent an even bigger cost in the future is how I see it.

Why should the government care? Health care costs? Why should government be in the business? Play stupid games - win stupid prizes.

Behavioral caused diseases - why should the government get in the way? WWDD? *What would Darwin Do?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I Am of the belief that abstinence-only sex ed is silly and ignorant of common sense. Teens have hormones and will experiment unless they are kept under lock and key. I was told to hold it off until I was ready, not necessarily for marriage, and to take every precaution and to me that's reasonable. They should teach SAFE sex along with abstinence, because neither one is a one-size-fits-all solution. Teaching abstinence alone is a recipe for disaster, anyone with kids will tell you the further you restrict them to do something they want to do they more they will want to do it.

Who is THEY? THAT would appear to me to be the main question. I agree with what you were taught. As I said above - my approach with my kids was similar. Again - who is THEY?

 

[steveh_131]

Doesn't the government have a compelling interest to try to keep STD levels as low as they can? A cost upfront can prevent an even bigger cost in the future is how I see it.

Both the prevention of STD's and the costs of treating them should have nothing to do with the government.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Doesn't the government have a compelling interest to try to keep STD levels as low as they can? A cost upfront can prevent an even bigger cost in the future is how I see it.

Using this logic, there is no disease, health concern, behavior, status, or what have you the government will not concoct a rationale to have a compelling interest in. Seat belts-check: reduces fatalities. Gasoline consumption-check: reduces global warming, raise taxes to artifically reduce demand and make expensive energy seem cheap. Freedom of religion-check: discriminates against others. Freedom of speech-check: Causes mad muslims to come and try and execute those exercising it and puts innocent bystanders at risk. Drugs-check: reduces various health concerns and drain on government financial resources. Obesity--well, they're working on that one: Reduces drain on health care costs. And on and on it can go.

 

[indiucky]

Libertarians believe in freedom of information, not proliferation of dogma.

[video=youtube;zWViRStTW5w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWViRStTW5w[/video]


I saw the "Blue Lagoon", have read Darwin (It's funny what "science" believed back in the 19th century) and believe that humans can figure out the whole sex thing without Government help...I am sure of it...

Why can't Libertarians just stay out of the bedroom???? Their Dogma is tiresome.....

 

[HoughMade]

I Am of the belief that abstinence-only sex ed is silly and ignorant of common sense. Teens have hormones and will experiment unless they are kept under lock and key...

Teens can live up to or down to expectations. Expect nothing and you will get what you expect. Expect higher intelligence and morality, and you would be surprised at how teens will respond. Pleasantly surprised.

 

[Birds Away]

There is no way this should be happening at school. The government has no business being involved. STDs should be introduced at home like they always have been.....um.....wait..

 

[HoughMade]

There is no way this should be happening at school. The government has no business being involved. STDs should be introduced at home like they always have been.....um.....wait..

What part of the south are you originally from?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Teens can live up to or down to expectations. Expect nothing and you will get what you expect. Expect higher intelligence and morality, and you would be surprised at how teens will respond. Pleasantly surprised.

This is true in many walks of life.

 

[Birds Away]

What part of the south are you originally from?

You don't shop at Walmart, do you?

 

[indiucky]

What part of the south are you originally from?

Sounds like South Detroit.........

Alright one slamming Kentucky joke before I leave....

What does a tornado and a divorce in Kentucky have in common?

Either way someone's losing a trailer....

 

[rambone]

Libertarians believe in freedom of information, not proliferation of dogma.

In a free society, families are free to be as dogmatic and anti-science as they care to be. It is not up to the state to root out their beliefs.

There is no libertarian case for a compulsory government sex training program for children. Lots of people object; that is their right, and I don't begrudge them. Most of what is called "public health" should not involve the government.

 

[HoughMade]

You don't shop at Walmart, do you?

Once they put the little food section in Menards, I didn't see the point.

 

[MisterChester]

Who is THEY? THAT would appear to me to be the main question. I agree with what you were taught. As I said above - my approach with my kids was similar. Again - who is THEY?

The schools. If the parents don't agree, then they have every right to excuse their children from those classes, homeschool them, etc.

 

[MisterChester]

Teens can live up to or down to expectations. Expect nothing and you will get what you expect. Expect higher intelligence and morality, and you would be surprised at how teens will respond. Pleasantly surprised.

Many religious parents (that seem to live where the article takes place) expect their children to be little darlings and that is obviously not the case. I agree with you to an extent, but if your expectations aren't realistic then you're going to have a bad time.

 

[HoughMade]

Many religious parents (that seem to live where the article takes place) expect their children to be little darlings and that is obviously not the case. I agree with you to an extent, but if your expectations aren't realistic then you're going to have a bad time.

My anecdotal evidence, a parent of teens, a former teen and married to a former teen, indicates that my take is accurate. Nothing is 100%, but by and large, this is how it works. "Realistic" expectations" should be based on individuals, not populations at large. If your base assumption is "no matter what you do, teens are going to have sex", I assure you that you will be correct.

As for what "religious parents" expect and how they interact with their children, I am happy to engage in theological discussions, but this is not the place. Unfortunately, I can't get deep into why I sense that there is some accuracy in your statement without going there. Suffice to say, there is a lot of religiosity which is very thin surface veneer. Divorce morality from the basis for morality and the morality itself will fritter away. This is also one reason why public school abstinence only programs are bound to fail.