Sex Education & Parental Rights

[Pangloss]

Just ran across this and thought I'd add it for balance:

 

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

 

This quote seems relevant to the current debate:

 

Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press.

 

Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of creationism, in some cases. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

 

Mod note: This thread was split off from this thread about McCain's choice of Sara Palin for VP:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34906

Edited September 6, 2008 by Pangloss

[ParanoiA]

You're right to pull it out, but to me her answer implied as much. Same with non-support for sex-ed classes in school. That's not teaching abstinance, as you're not teaching anything at all, that's leaving the teaching of sex to parents, or more accurately, keeping the teaching of sex out of public schools. I can only assume that concluding it's about "teaching abstinance" is an opinion one draws on their own.

 

On that subject, as long as they're minors, I don't agree with the school having more right to force that curriculum than the parents. The point, to me, gets its leverage because public school is compulsory.

 

If you're going to force me to jeopardize my child's life on a daily basis traveling back and forth to your learning facilitiy, trusting the officials you have put in charge with their safety and security, then what am I to conclude when you further decide you can train them for anything you want? To teach them anything you like - hate, propaganda, terrorism, brainwashing, cleverly disguised in your curriculum - and I have no say?

 

The parent must serve as the check. They must retain the ultimate right to restrict what their kids are forced to be trained in or learn by the state.

 

 

 

The fix seems simple enough to me, why not just let parents sign off on the course on a per child basis? How hard is that? You erase the force, which to me is the only legitimate issue there, and you retain a course that most kids are going to take - including mine.

[Pangloss]

I don't know, that just seems like pushing it too far just for the sake of parental convenience. Freedom shouldn't result in ignorance, it should result in informed decision-making. I don't think it's unusually high "force" to ask a parent to decide the issue by thus-and-such age, and if they don't take care of business by that age then the state does it, because they need to have that information.

 

And it's notable that Alaska doesn't have such a rule, but of course Palin hasn't been governor there for very long.

[ParanoiA]

Well then who gauges when business has been taken care of? A set of standards perhaps, by the state? That's a threatening precedence to accept over parental convenience. Such ignorance would seem remedied by predictable modern cultural pressures.

[bascule]

Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin taught her daughter about sex-ed at home? Condoms and all?

 

If she did, she didn't do a very good job. I'm gonna go with no.

 

After all, Sarah said she rejected support in schools - she rejected the government doing the teaching - she didn't reject the notion of it being taught.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say she probably does. I don't think this is an ideological issue about parents right to control what information their children receive so much as a moral issue surrounding premarital sex. I think parents of Palin's nature see within sex education some sort of implicit "having premarital sex is ok" message and thus prefer abstinence education for that reason. But that's just my own gut feeling on the matter.

 

A parents right to control their child's education has to be taken with a grain of salt. Unsafe sex results in both the spread of STDs and unplanned pregnancies, both of which take their toll on society. Multiple studies show that abstinence programs are not effective, and society pays the price.

[john5746]

I have little doubt that Bristol and her boyfriend had heard about condoms and the pill. They may have learned about them from their parents. I think if the child feels very comfortable talking about sex with their parents, then you have a much better chance of at least avoiding pregnancy. If a girl is even thinking about the possibility of being sexually active, she should feel OK with asking her mother for the pill. If she knows the mother will go pit bull on her, then she won't ask and won't tell.

 

Sex education in schools is a health issue. Unlike drugs, almost everyone will eventually have sex at some point in their lives and it is considered a good thing to do! Marriage doesn't magically stop the risk of STD's or possibility of unwanted or untimely babies. If a child has great parents who talk with them freely about sex and other health issues, then they are far less likely to have problems, but not all parents feel comfortable doing that.

[iNow]

I think if the child feels very comfortable talking about sex with their parents, then you have a much better chance of at least avoiding pregnancy. If a girl is even thinking about the possibility of being sexually active, she should feel OK with asking her mother for the pill. If she knows the mother will go pit bull on her, then she won't ask and won't tell.

 

You're quite right, especially about how powerful an open and honest relationship with the parents can be.

 

Unfortunately, sex before marriage can often carry a tremendously strong taboo, and the child is too often forced to reconcile their pounding biological urges and surging hormones with the fact that their parents and preachers teach them that these feelings are wrong, and that acting on them could resist in eternal damnation.

 

That doesn't strike me as an environment where the child is likely to engage in open discussion with the parents that they wish to explore their natural and evolved sexuality. It's much more likely they will try to find a way to do it without getting caught and in secret, and this is where the lack of education on this topic becomes especially problematic.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

[...] The point, to me, gets its leverage because public school is compulsory. [...]

 

The big, tremendous, enormous mistake here is the "public school" part. How did the government sneak that one by? Why do people allow the government to have such a huge, potentially dangerous influence on what their child learns?

 

The correct thing to do here seems to me to set aside some money for each child, sufficient for them to go to school. Then, the parents can take their child to whatever school they choose, possibly paying some extra for a better school. No need for the huge bureaucracy known as public school.

[Pangloss]

Well then who gauges when business has been taken care of? A set of standards perhaps, by the state? That's a threatening precedence to accept over parental convenience. Such ignorance would seem remedied by predictable modern cultural pressures.

 

It's an accepted practice in most states already, and has been for decades -- I got mandatory sex ed in high school in 1981.

 

 

If she did, she didn't do a very good job. I'm gonna go with no.

 

You don't know that, and more importantly, you don't know that she wouldn't have done so if the SCHOOL had told her what's what. You can't even suggest that her chances would be better, because you don't know what education she was exposed to.

 

It's much more productive to focus on the fact that Alaska has no mandatory sex ed, and look at their numbers of teen pregnancy.

[ParanoiA]

If I had to guess, I'd say she probably does. I don't think this is an ideological issue about parents right to control what information their children receive so much as a moral issue surrounding premarital sex. I think parents of Palin's nature see within sex education some sort of implicit "having premarital sex is ok" message and thus prefer abstinence education for that reason. But that's just my own gut feeling on the matter.

 

And yet it doesn't matter what her particular intent might be - the principle is still present whether you're looking at it or not - it's a parental rights issue. And parental rights doesn't deserve to be trumped just because group "x" wants to use the issue to teach abstinence. It's not my fault you've drawn your particular conclusion.

 

It's akin to trying to deny free speech rights because the KKK wants to march downtown and preach discrimination. It doesn't matter that it's the KKK that's doing the fighting - the principle of free speech rights covers more than that. Same with parental rights on education. It doesn't matter that Palin and the religious right are the ones doing the fighting on this point, the principle of parental rights is bigger than their focus point.

 

BTW, my gut feeling is the same. But I separate unsubstantiated belief from substantiated ones. Believing is a bit too much of a leap for this presumption.

 

The big' date=' tremendous, enormous mistake here is the "public school" part. How did the government sneak that one by? Why do people allow the government to have such a huge, potentially dangerous influence on what their child learns?

 

The correct thing to do here seems to me to set aside some money for each child, sufficient for them to go to school. Then, the parents can take their child to whatever school they choose, possibly paying some extra for a better school. No need for the huge bureaucracy known as public school.[/quote']

 

I like this. I agree wholeheartedly. Plus, having the competition thing between schools may force them to be more service oriented - maybe they won't suspend teenage students for doing teenage things and instead teach the little teenagers. Geez, if they're going to be in the business of instructing teenagers, then why act all surprised when they screw up doing typical teenager things? Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

 

It's an accepted practice in most states already, and has been for decades -- I got mandatory sex ed in high school in 1981.

 

Well sure, but pointing out how it is isn't an argument for how it should be. The subject isn't of terrible interest to me, personally, but it's still wrong to override the parents.

 

Weird how that is tough to accept for many in here. Yet, I'll bet all of you would change your minds if our government was teaching our kids about Islamic terrorism and how we need to be on offense, preemptive strikes, spreading democracy and freedom with our military might. Suddenly, parental rights would be right up your alley, I'm betting.

 

If you really want balance, you should read this:

 

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

 

I was talking about balancing the thread. There's a lot of passion and drive to find everything that's wrong with her, but nobody in here, including myself, is matching that passion and drive with any defense of these articles. Since I happened upon that one almost by accident, I figured I'd provide it.

 

And you're right, I do want to see her in a bikini. That's so wrong...

Edited September 6, 2008 by ParanoiA
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Well sure, but pointing out how it is isn't an argument for how it should be. The subject isn't of terrible interest to me, personally, but it's still wrong to override the parents.

 

 

I respect the rights of beleaguered parents, but let me ask the question a different way: Do you think parents have the right not to tell their children about sex? What happens if the kid makes it all the way to 18 without getting important information about safe sex? Is that really better?

 

I think we can do both -- respect parental rights, and guarantee that children get key, important facts.

[ParanoiA]

But seriously, I respect the rights of beleaguered parents, but let me ask the question a different way: Do you think parents have the right not to tell their children about sex? What happens if the kid makes it all the way to 18 without getting important information about safe sex? Is that really better?

 

Of course they have that right. They have that right, naturally, today. And whether it's better or not is a false premise for the government and law to function from. It would be better to make everyone eat vegetables and ban fatty foods, but it isn't right.

 

I agree, I think we can do both and I think it's done by modern societal or cultural pressures in combination with respect to their rights by offering parents to sign off, just like any field trip and some special classes like we presently do today.

 

I just don't think teen pregnancy and STD's are a big enough issue to set such a precedence overriding parental rights. There is a threshold, and I don't believe we've reached it. IMHO.

[Mr Skeptic]

Of course they have that right. They have that right, naturally, today. And whether it's better or not is a false premise for the government and law to function from. It would be better to make everyone eat vegetables and ban fatty foods, but it isn't right.

 

True. There's a limit to how much people can force others to do things for their own good.

 

I agree, I think we can do both and I think it's done by modern societal or cultural pressures in combination with respect to their rights by offering parents to sign off, just like any field trip and some special classes like we presently do today.

 

One problem with that is that is that then by allowing their kids to attend the classes, they are giving even more implicit approval for their kids to have sex than if the class was mandatory. That would make the parents even more uncomfortable with sex ed than before.

 

Then there is the issue of the child's rights. For example, consider that it is known that a child is allergic to peanuts, but the parents don't want their kid to know for some reason. Say they remove all peanuts from their house, and always give their kid a peanut-free lunch and tell them not to eat the school lunch, so that their child is not in much danger of eating peanuts. However, would not the child have the right to know that he is allergic to peanuts and that he could die from eating them? Would not the same logic apply to sex ed -- the kid's lives could be ruined, or they could contract a potentially fatal disease, from not knowing this information.

 

I just don't think teen pregnancy and STD's are a big enough issue to set such a precedence overriding parental rights. There is a threshold, and I don't believe we've reached it. IMHO.

 

But do the parent's rights override the child's rights?

[iNow]

At some point, Pangloss, are you going to split this sex ed discussion into its own (and deserved) thread?

 

Starts with post 138 to 142, half of 143 and all of 144, then continues from 146 to 149, and picks up again in the post previous to this, 152.

 

 

Maybe that helps in such a thread trim, I don't know. I hope it does. Cheers.

[ParanoiA]

Then there is the issue of the child's rights. For example, consider that it is known that a child is allergic to peanuts, but the parents don't want their kid to know for some reason. Say they remove all peanuts from their house, and always give their kid a peanut-free lunch and tell them not to eat the school lunch, so that their child is not in much danger of eating peanuts. However, would not the child have the right to know that he is allergic to peanuts and that he could die from eating them? Would not the same logic apply to sex ed -- the kid's lives could be ruined, or they could contract a potentially fatal disease, from not knowing this information.

 

But are we talking about a class on peanuts? Again, my issue is on forced training. I don't think that any parent has a right to restrict conversation from another person. In other words, I can physically pick my child up and move him away from your running mouth, but I don't have a right to make you shut up so my kid doesn't hear it.

 

Same with school officials, although I think we must partition operating in the capacity of a teacher from operating in the capacity of regular ole person. Teaching sex-ed in a class setting is different than a teacher sharing information in the lunch room about peanuts. No matter how offended I may be, I don't see how I have the right to force a teacher not to say something in my child's presence, unless of course it's within the commision of training or academia.

 

It's still a tough point you bring up though. Preliminarily, I'd have to argue for the child's rights, in your example, since eating peanuts will kill him, or at least harm him, and implies a decent case of child endangerment too. But if he doesn't get sex-ed training, that doesn't mean he will get an STD or get a female pregnant, rather it suggests so statistically. Until you can predictably prove which particular child will be endangered or whatnot, I don't see how you could make the same case.

Edited September 6, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

At some point, Pangloss, are you going to split this sex ed discussion into its own (and deserved) thread?

 

Starts with post 138 to 142, half of 143 and all of 144, then continues from 146 to 149, and picks up again in the post previous to this, 152.

 

 

Maybe that helps in such a thread trim, I don't know. I hope it does. Cheers.

 

Good call, thanks.

[iNow]

Good call, thanks.

 

You're beautiful, baby. Thanks.

 

I think that posts 13, 14, and 18 (as presently numbered in this new thread) still belong to the other (mccain vp) thread though.

[Pangloss]

Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

But are we talking about a class on peanuts? Again, my issue is on forced training. I don't think that any parent has a right to restrict conversation from another person. In other words, I can physically pick my child up and move him away from your running mouth, but I don't have a right to make you shut up so my kid doesn't hear it.

 

Same with school officials, although I think we must partition operating in the capacity of a teacher from operating in the capacity of regular ole person. Teaching sex-ed in a class setting is different than a teacher sharing information in the lunch room about peanuts. No matter how offended I may be, I don't see how I have the right to force a teacher not to say something in my child's presence, unless of course it's within the commision of training or academia.

 

It's still a tough point you bring up though. Preliminarily, I'd have to argue for the child's rights, in your example, since eating peanuts will kill him, or at least harm him, and implies a decent case of child endangerment too. But if he doesn't get sex-ed training, that doesn't mean he will get an STD or get a female pregnant, rather it suggests so statistically. Until you can predictably prove which particular child will be endangered or whatnot, I don't see how you could make the same case.

 

Well, not knowing that he is allergic to peanuts will not hurt a child, so long as he doesn't eat peanuts. Same as not knowing about safe sex will not hurt a child so long as he doesn't have sex. In both cases, however, it is likely that such a child will come to harm, due to that lack of knowledge. So, regardless of the parents' wishes, I'd say that the child has a right to know about things that might harm them.

 

Basically, I am saying that the child has a right to information concerning dangers to his health, regardless of the parents' wishes. However, both the parent or child think that the child shouldn't take a sex ed class, then it could be skipped.

[ParanoiA]

Well, not knowing that he is allergic to peanuts will not hurt a child, so long as he doesn't eat peanuts. Same as not knowing about safe sex will not hurt a child so long as he doesn't have sex. In both cases, however, it is likely that such a child will come to harm, due to that lack of knowledge. So, regardless of the parents' wishes, I'd say that the child has a right to know about things that might harm them.

 

No, that still doesn't quite work since if he does eat peanuts he will be hurt, whereas if he does have sex, he still is likey not to be harmed.

 

However, I do like your point. I'm not sure I agree that STD's and pregnancy have quite hit the threshold to presume children's rights here. But the perspective is compelling and I'm still pondering it.

[insane_alien]

However, I do like your point. I'm not sure I agree that STD's and pregnancy have quite hit the threshold to presume children's rights here. But the perspective is compelling and I'm still pondering it.

 

i think in these modern times where nearly everyone has net access it more comes down to: Do you want your child to learn of sex via a class that tells it like it is or the internet?

 

having sat through a sex -ed class in my youth as well as browsing some of the dodgier areas of the web i'd rather a kid learned of sex in a class at school than the web.

[ParanoiA]

i think in these modern times where nearly everyone has net access it more comes down to: Do you want your child to learn of sex via a class that tells it like it is or the internet?

 

having sat through a sex -ed class in my youth as well as browsing some of the dodgier areas of the web i'd rather a kid learned of sex in a class at school than the web.

 

See, it's not this logic that I'm challenging - it hardly ever is really. But you're not parsing the difference between your personal take on the matter verses what the legal take on the matter should be. I agree with all of the above, and support sending my kid through sex-ed, I just don't see how you all automatically conclude that it should be legislated for all to have to do it.

 

Was thinking of starting a thread on it actually, this conditioning where we seem to think our personal opinions on things should be mirrored in law. I don't like hearing people smack their gum, yet would never think such a thing should be legislated. I never see too much in the way of folks drawing a line on their own authority - everyone seems to think the intricacies of their thoughts should all be advanced by government. As if we're all supposed to believe in this higher power of moral enforcement.

 

None of these points on the sensibilities of sex-ed are all that relevant to me since I'm looking for the principle of authority to force this point on others to begin with. Why should people be forced? Why are their rights being trumped? Remember, a law is implicitly enforced by incarceration - so would you incarcerate someone for not complying with sex-ed?

 

Mr Skeptic is the only one who really offers any justification for the enforcement. Any others?

[Dak]

as bascule said/touched upon, it's everyone's burdon (including financially) to cure kids of STDs and to pay for their child-support if they're still going through schooling and thus unenployed. so, everyone has a right to teach kids about sex, even if only to lessen their own costs

 

The parents could allways suppliment the school-kids teachings with whatever they want, including 'just dont do it'.

[john5746]

See, it's not this logic that I'm challenging - it hardly ever is really. But you're not parsing the difference between your personal take on the matter verses what the legal take on the matter should be. I agree with all of the above, and support sending my kid through sex-ed, I just don't see how you all automatically conclude that it should be legislated for all to have to do it.

 

Your point in general, as to what information should be required is interesting, but this specific case is not at the top of my list as being "iffy"

 

I previously said that it was a health issue and you replied that it had not crossed a threshold. Do you mean that the problems caused by unprotected sex are not large or serious enough?

 

If I tell someone they should wash their hands frequently to avoid catching and spreading disease, is this personal opinion? No. There is data that suggests this will help. Am I making them do anything or change any other behavior? No. If someone has the opinion that they should never wash their hands, then they won't be made to do it. But at least they will learn why it is a bad idea not to wash their hands.

 

I don't have a good answer to your overall question regarding mandated curricula, but I have no doubt that sex ed should be included. The only argument I could see is if there isn't enough time for it.

[ParanoiA]

I previously said that it was a health issue and you replied that it had not crossed a threshold. Do you mean that the problems caused by unprotected sex are not large or serious enough?

 

Correct, you did make an appeal to the public's rights and a good one. And to explain, in lieu of parental rights, I don't believe the "problem" is large enough, nor horrible enough to trump those rights.

 

That's just a statement on reconciling competing principles. It's not a statement about pregnancy or STD's not being a problem. I think there are better ways to deal with the pregnancy issue, but maybe not STD's.

 

I don't know though, the more I think about it, the more I like the public safety consideration.