Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Wisconsin? Really? It's more backwards than I thought... <a href="http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/wis-da-threatens-arrest-for-local-sex-ed-teachers/19430578" target="_blank">http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...19430578</a> "(April 7) -- A Wisconsin district attorney is urging schools to drop their sex-education programs, warning that the teachers involved could be arrested if they follow a new state law requiring them to instruct students on how to use condoms and other contraceptives."
Originally Posted By gadzuux How're you gonna keep `em down on the farm once they've seen the bright glittering lights of Green Bay?
Originally Posted By DAR It's like our third most populated city after Milwaukee and the People's Republic of Madison. Ah Madison, your politics may drive me a little insane but you are one hell of a good time.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones ""For example, if a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child -- or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child -- that teacher can be charged under this statue," Southworth wrote." I was horny as hell when I was 12. If my experience is common there is a far great benefit to society to have "children" under 16 knowing how to property use birth control.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not naive, just not thinking it through. We know a certain percentage of teenagers will not exercise that self-control. How do we know this? Oh... all of recorded history. Knowing this, it's crazy not to teach about birth control. Studies have shown that kids taught "abstinence only" were NO more likely to delay sexual activity, but WERE less likely to use birth control.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Studies have shown that kids taught "abstinence only" were NO more likely to delay sexual activity, but WERE less likely to use birth control.<< <a href="http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2009/02/bristol-palin.jpg" target="_blank">http://cdn.newsone.com/files/2...alin.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Or better yet, self-control. But I guess I'm naive or something.<< "Naïve" isn't quite the word I'm thinking of.
Originally Posted By utahjosh That's pretty much a personal attack bluedevil and it's not welcome here.
Originally Posted By utahjosh That's pretty much a personal attack bluedevil and it's not welcome here.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Or better yet, self-control. But I guess I'm naive or something." Oh boy, I had sex at 16 and my partner was 16 and I wore a condom and when I stuck it in her the world just imploded on itself! Teenagers having sex! My God! Don't tell them the information they need to be safe! They might actually feel pleasure! The worst part is, they might think it's okay to feel pleasure.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The worst part is, they might think it's okay to feel pleasure*** No, the worst past is the powers that be teach them that it shouldn't be pleasurable, that's it's somehow shameful and dirty, and when you put THAT into a young mind you end up screwing them up for life. Which, I suppose, is really the whole point.
Originally Posted By alexbook What's wrong with presenting abstinence as the best choice, with birth control as second-best? I don't get why it has to be an either/or choice. I'm going to get attacked from both sides now, aren't I? ;-)
Originally Posted By Mr X No attack from me. I think that is a completely reasonable approach. Fact is, abstinence IS preferable (aside from a long term, monogamous relationship where in the case of a heterosexual couple a child is desired). Condoms CAN break. Birth control CAN fail. Sometimes undesired consequences CAN occur. So, teach them that. Make it very clear. But then, make it equally clear that if they ARE going to engage in sexual activity, they SHOULD take proper action geared towards avoiding any unintended consequences (which as we well know can range from life-changing all the way to deadly). Abstinence-only education programs aren't just naive, they are irresponsible.
Originally Posted By SuperDry A quick check on The Google reveals that this DA is pretty much a hard-core right wing conservative. I can make an educated guess as to what his views on judicial activism are, yet here he is promoting his own agenda by very conveniently interpreting a law to suit his own political purposes. First of all, I doubt that the writers of the law that he threatens to enforce intended it to apply to sex education. Not everyone would agree that teaching sex ed is equivalent to promoting delinquency of a minor. But more to the point, certainly the legislature didn't consider this when they passed the mandatory sex education law. No reasonable person, regardless of their views on sex education, would say that the legislature's intent in passing the mandatory sex education law was to require that every teacher become a criminal and violate the delinquency law in order to comply with the education law. I think the only reasonable conclusion to make is that the legislature didn't consider the mandatory education they enacted to be in violation of the delinquency law or any other law that they had previously passed - otherwise, they would have amended that law at the same time. I know that different overlapping jurisdictions can have conflicting laws on the same subject. For example, a state may legalize pot, but the feds will say that there is a federal law against it, and that they don't really care one way or the other what state law says. The same can be true with regulatory conflicts between agencies of the same government: for example, one federal agency may mandate something that another declares unlawful. Here's a question for you lawyers out there: can the same be true with differing laws passed by the same jurisdiction? In this case, both the delinquency law and the mandatory sex education law were passed by the same legislature. Wouldn't the fact that the mandatory sex education law was passed after the delinquency law, and that there was no alternative available for compliance with the mandatory education law that would pass this DA's muster, provide an absolute defense from prosecution by showing that the mandatory conduct did not in fact contribute to a minor's delinquency within the scope of that particular state's law?
Originally Posted By Mr X Sounds like you would make a pretty adequate lawyer yourself SD. I HEREBY NOMINATE SD to replace Associate Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court! Do I hear a Second?
