ExRx.net

It wasn't just the kids. The teachers seemed to expect all of us to have sex indescriminately at the first opportunity.

Of course abstinance was covered briefly, and they did point out that it's the only 100% effective method of birth control and disease prevention. However, it definitely wasn't stressed. Likewise, they didn't stress the importance of choosing ones sex partner(s) carefully.

PS.) Also, they didn't seperate the boys from the girls for sex education like you see on TV and in movies.

It would have been better to separate them. It's all kind of embarrassing at that age.

It does sound like your school was in the midst of a backlash. It should even out though. Especially with the new administration, there will be nothing to be angry about. Neither ignorance only education, nor liberal teacher angry at the government education do very good. I'd take a snarky liberal over ignorance any day. But a proper education is the only way to go.

It is true that frequently, with lack of traditional religion, some liberals will find a religion substitute. Like alternative medicine and homeopathy or gun crusades or that whole lets-be-tolerant-of-everything-done-in-the-name-of-religion-no-matter-how-brutal-and-barbaric set of values. That last one is popular in Europe with a bit of America hate blended in. But I think rationality will win in the end.

I don't know if it was a backlash, or just the generation gap.

The best argument I have ever heard for why young fetuses / embryos are not human is this:

If you walk by a in vitro fertilization clinic and it is on fire and burning to the ground and you have a choice to save either:
(A) 10,000 embryos
or
(B) a 5 year old

A person is not really a person until they have existed in the world and interacted with it, been influenced by it, and exerted influence on those in it. Experiences and interaction make someone have moral weight; that they can think for themselves is the key ingredient for me.

If this opens the door to justify some kind of infanticide, then I would rather have that definition than the hilariously inhumane one that says some cells in a petri dish constitute something of importance.

sorry double...

I agree. I'm sure that's no surprise though.

Interesting point. Of course, I'd also choose a five-year-old over a thirty-year-old. Does that mean a five-year-old is more human than a thirty-year-old?

Personally, if I'm going to be wrong, I'd rather error on the side of life.

The thirty year old should have the mental capacity to escape himself unlike a 5 year old.

I guess this is the problem I see, not with you personally but with what seems like a majority of people who oppose abortion.

Most of them are right wing and therefore oppose high taxes.

Erring on the side of life in your view seems to completely discount the life of the mother and the quality of life of the child.

A large portion of these babies that would be born if abortions were not allowed would end up in foster homes and in the care of the state. If you are going to oppose abortion you better support paying for all the social programs that take care of all the people who use them.

Same goes for the people who oppose birth control. If you oppose birth control and have 10 kids, you better keep your hand to yourself when it comes to asking for help from the state.

I feel the same as you Matt but the problem is we disagree on what "life" means, I would prefer to error on the side of a quality life in which the parents actually want the child.

Well said. I hadn't thought about the economic part of it.

I am personally against abortion, but I am pro-choice. I won't force my morals on someone else.

You make some good points, but I'd still rather be poor than dead. Meanwhile, I never said anyone had to keep and raise a child resulting from an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption is a viable option that a lot of people overlook.