Pro-Lifers, do you support Comprehensive Sex-Education?

[Anonymous]

It's the #1 most effective way to reduce abortions! (As well as reducing unwanted pregnancies in general, and STDs)

Since you don't like abortion, do you support this effective, tested and proven method to prevent many abortions—especially among teens and young adults, which is the demographic most likely to get abortions?

[buzzword]

I support sex education in schools for children at the age of puberty and up. I've even taught it before. That said sex education isn't LGBTQ+ indoctrination (Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation & Identity), it's reproductive human anatomy, sexual development, microbiology specifically focused on STDs/STIs, birth control options including abstance and statistical evidence for effectiveness, ethics of consent, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, etc. The major problem with national education standards on the topic is that the Socialists are trying to use it as a point of infiltration to indoctrinate children with LGBTQ+ and pro-abortion propaganda when the course is intended to be taught by qualified biologists and geared toward a scientific focus. It's not suppose to be political, you just teach the facts about the human body, that pregnancy and disease is a risk for sexually active people and you can reduce said risks by using appropriate protection, and that you should ethically be decent to people you are in relationships with. Don't harass, abuse, or rape them. What kind of relationships you choose is your own business. You don't really ask the kids that, because their relationships are their own. They can discuss those matters with their partner or family if they desire.

[buzzword]

*abstinence

[buzzword]

Biology isn't gender studies or political marxism. People are free to have their own beliefs, but those beliefs have no place in a science lesson. While ethics do creep into the course, they are more centered around abiding by the law. Law in America is based on Judeo-Christian ethics. So in that sense, religion and God do enter the course. If you have a problem with that, then you're probably in the wrong country given that the entire basis for society comes from those cultural roots.

[Asker]

I can see how what you're saying makes sense, assuming that the functionality and risks and birth control and protection options and consent (etc...) are taught about different kinds of body and sex and not just one particular kind of bodies and sex. That way kids are informed of the important stuff about sexual health, risks/lpreventionn and ethics no matter if they're lgbt+ or not. I agree that I would not want people to be adding in anything to sex Ed like asking what your gender or orientation is or pressuring you to have a certain one. That doesn't sound appropriate even for a teacher to ask a student their sexual orientation, I don't know why it would even be helpful to know unless someone planned to divide up the kids by orientation and only teach them part of the scientific stuff that only applies to certain kind of sex or gender, like when they don't teach boys about periods or girls about condoms. That always seemed silly to me.

[buzzword]

In human anatomy you only deal with the human body. You don't teach animal anatomy and certainly do not teach bestiality in sex education. So yes, just one type of body is covered. I don't know where you're trying to go with that, but it doesn't sound good. There is a section on female reproductive anatomy and male reproductive anatomy. Both are taught to all students. That said, in recent years the federal standards (i. e. common core) are pushing LGBTQ+ indoctrination (Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation & Identity) into the course work, thus why a number of states have abandoned common core.

[Asker]

I gave an example of where I was trying to go with that: "like when they don't teach boys about periods or girls about condoms." So I don't know why you intentionally misinterpreted me, talking about animals and shit. Humans have different sexes, and they can have sex different ways, with different risks and protections needed. That is what I'm talking about. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you meant you did want all types of (human—since for some reason you need me to specify that) bodies and sex to be educated about for all students, so that regardless of their personal sex or sexuality they will know how to be safe. You keep bringing up indoctrination as if teachers would ever ask students their personal sex or sexuality, or pressure them to be a certain one as if one ways right and another's wrong. Obviously nobody wants that. No federal standards calls for that. No course work requires students to state their sexuality that's literally illegal. So obviously that's not included in comprehensive sex Ed and I don't know why you keep bringing that up instead of staying on topic of actual sex Ed.

[buzzword]

Nope you don't tech sex positions in sex ed either. Like I said, it's a science lesson. So I will repeat reproductive human anatomy, sexual development, microbiology specifically focused on STDs/STIs, birth control options including abstinence and statistical evidence for effectiveness, ethics of consent, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, etc. Human anatomy is enfacised because you are covering sexual reproduction in humans when teaching sex education to humans. I thought that would be a no brainier, but clearly you need further explanation. As a biologist there are many different sub-fields of anatomy that are studied and human anatomy is one sub-field of anatomy just as diesel mechanics is one sub-field of auto mechanics. And yes in recent years, common core calls for LGBTQ+ indoctrination (Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation & Identity). It's a main section of the federal education program since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris got in office. So to pretend that the federal government is not doing that is a blatant lie.

[Asker]

I wasn't talking about sex positions either. Those all carry the same risks / protections obviously. The things in common core are nothing about asking students what their sexuality or sex is. I know this for a fact because that is illegal, as I already said. I was just asking if you meant to include lgbt+ bodies and sex in with all the others when teaching about bodies and sex risks/protections etc, as not including them would be a big oversight so I assumed that was not what you meant.

I feel like you aren't even reading my replies so I may just stop replying altogether after this. Sorry. I really was trying to just clarify that you were in fact being reasonable, but you've been making that very difficult...

[buzzword]

I guess you feel that way because you speak a different language. Regular people in America speak English the majority of the time, and scientist tend to add a lot of scientific vernacular in as well which often uses greek and latin. In contrast you speak homonese and tend to lie a lot. A core bullet point in common core sex education is "Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation & Identity". So claiming they don't push that is a lie like I said earlier. That did not even use to be part of sex education. Common Core also pushes sex education standards starting in Kindergarten rather than at puberty. You people are sick. Apparently you think LGBTQ+ people aren't human, because you don't think they have human bodies, according to you they have LGBTQ bodies. Humans have either a male anatomy or a female anatomy being that we are sexual reproductive organisms, and that's a huge problem in a science class for you because the scientific evidence will consistently contradict your LGBTQ+ religion with factual evidence. So while you are entitled to your own religious beliefs, those ideas do not belong in a science lesson. And yes if you have vaginal sex with someone in missionary position and then you bend them over and have anal sex with them, that would be two different sex positions. So claiming you don't want to teach sex positions to children is also a lie. You sure do make a habit of doing that. This is why there is a cultural divide in this country, because people like you can't be honest. You religion encourages you to be dishonest at every turn.

[buzzword]

In a science classroom you're not going to find educators for example trying to convince their students that it's normal for different flowers rub their pistil together for personal satisfaction to meet some LGBTQ+ religious paradigm, because that's not the designed anatomical purpose of the pistil in sexual reproduction. Anatomists study organism to understand their structure and function. In sexually reproductive organisms there are male and female parts that have a specific function in order to carry out the reproductive cycle. Your perversions and kinks have nothing to do with anatomy and physiology. They are your religious practices and they have nothing to do with a science lesson. You sure are dense.

[Asker]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you're actually just illiterate. Considering that I think you've done quite well trying to read and write responses to me. Thank you for putting in so much effort but I think you need a little more practice before taking on a real discussion like you're trying here. Good luck bro you got this! Study hard.

[buzzword]

You're the one that has no understanding of science or education trying to beat around the bush on a gender studies degree with a minor in underwater basket weaving. You commies always project your inferiority. It's extremely pathetic.

[ImalwaysrightOK]

Absolutely. I support free contraceptives too, just not abortion.

[Agape93]

Of course they don't. Texas teaches mostly abstinence only, and is a leading state in REPEAT teen pregnancies.

[sawno]

I'd assume pro lifers are in favor of sex safety education and against kink education.

[Asker]

Are you a pro-lifer yourself?

[sawno]

I'm more in the middle, I think abortions are morally wrong but at the same time don't want to give the government any power over our bodies.

[Asker]

Okay. How do you feel about sex-ed? Do you have a similar view to public education as you do government control, or are you okay with it as long as there's alternatives (homeschooling and private schools) so it's not "mandatory"?

[sawno]

I opinions about education are very out of the box for that question. Within the current system I am fine with how it used to be in my class. Like not before puberty, and teaching about how the anatomy works, pregnancy works and how safety works. Not teaching elementary school kinds about LGBT, blowjobs, transgenders, etc.

[Asker]

Teaching about anatomy, pregnancy, and safety all applies to lgbt, blowjobs, and trans people though. How will a teen know a trans boyfriend/girlfriend is still a pregnancy risk, or that oral still carries STD risk, or that lgbt can still have pregnancy and STD risk unless that's also taught about? Even if your only concerned about anatomy, pregnancy, and safety of non-lgbt teens, they don't all only have sex with other non-lgbt teens, or all only have PIV sex... I feel like you've overlooked several important factors here...

[sawno]

No you misunderstood, some schools consider sex ed an oppertunity to at very young ages expose children to the concept of blowjobs and other sexual depictions. Confuse their genders on purpose by misleading them about gender concepts, etc is what I am against. I'm also concerned about the safety of LGBT teens, so basically everything you mentioned is included. But lets not show kids depictions of blowjobs, not teach them how to use grinder, etc.

[Asker]

Oh, yes no need for explicit/detailed images at very young age. I was just talking about teens. I also think lying and misleading is the opposite of education, so that sort of thing shouldn't be in any education for any ages! For those I agree with you I'd certainly not want to add any of that into schools. I don't see why anyone would! It wouldn't help anyone. (As for things like grinder that could be covered in maybe some internet safety class, not specifically for any site though just for all sites in general and all talking / sharing pics with strangers online in general.)

[BarryLiverstone]

I hope that most people are in favor of education. Whether it’s public, private.. in schools or church or at home.. better to have educated adults than not.


Right?

[Asker]

Absolutely!

[BarryLiverstone]

Thank you for agreeing with me

[Dargil]

I support Sex Ed from a scientific perspective... functional anatomy.

[Asker]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

[Dargil]

How stuff works and why.

[MzAsh]

How would you address sex for pleasure?

[Dargil]

@MzAsh They learn that by word of mouth. I would address the health and social risks, but not morality. That's up to parents. But this would be required reading.

[Asker]

If you only teach how stuff works, and not anything about methods of birth control or safe sex practices, that won't do a whole lot to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It may still do some, but certainly not nearly as much as teaching comprehensive instead of just function and risk.

[Dargil]

Methods of birth control and safe sex practices can be addressed generically without glorifying or eroticizing sex.

[Asker]

Obviously teachers shouldn't glorify sex or speak erotically to their students. That would be a ridiculous thing to add to sex Ed. Just like adding propaganda books that teach nothing about sex or how to have it safely would be ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

would that curriculum include showing how a new life is created?

[Asker]

Do you mean like a diagram, textbook illustration, or visual aid? Like they use for showing how to put on condoms with cucumbers? I think that can be helpful especially for kids who are visual learners, or who don't have the anatomy being talked about in that section. I've never been taught sex Ed in a class so I'm not sure, but I assume it would probably include some kind of illustrations like in the biology textbooks.

[Opinion Owner]

I was referring to the biological process of how babies are made

[Asker]

So was I. I assume there would be some kind if illustration for clarity.

[Opinion Owner]

there's documentaries on it

the fact there's grown adults even beyond their 50s who insist that unborn babies are parasites shows how broken the education system really is

[Asker]

Okay, if there's a documentary that teaches comprehensive sex Ed for teens then maybe the teacher can just pop that on a classroom TV and answer question if the students have any.

That's something this would help prevent. Sex Ed seriously reduces abortions especially for teens. So do you support it or no?

[Reijen]

Elaborate on what's included in the curriculum.

[Asker]

The main thing for preventing abortions would be opposite-sex sexual intercourse. What it is, how it works, different methods to prevent pregnancy and how to practice each method safely—and which methods are most effective, of course.

[Reijen]

I can see that being sensible enough.

[Asker]

If you also want to prevent STDs and other potential bad things having to do with sex, then you would have more topics to cover like other forms of intercourse and of course consent. If you only care about preventing abortion though then you could only support Comprehensive sex Ed about specifically opposite-sex PIV sex and birth control.

[Reijen]

Sounds about what I had back in high school.

[Asker]

Nice. I had zero sex Ed in school lol, I had smart parents though so I still got most of the general information.

[Reijen]

That's good at least, haha.

[Anonymous]

My uncle instructed me

[Asker]

Cool. My parents instructed me. Having comprehensive sex Ed in schools still statistically is the best way to decrease abortions, so do you support that or no?

[Opinion Owner]

My uncle taught me that if I wasn't on birth control or if he didn't wrap it up I'd get pregnant

[Asker]

Do you support Comprehensive sex Ed in schools?

[Opinion Owner]

No. It should be taught at home by family

[Asker]

Okay. So you are against abortion, and also against the best option to prevent abortions. Can you explain why?

[elaphe]

Yes, I do,