Welfare and B-Control

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

It's pompous nonsense to advocate a school program of social engineering for economic reasons, attack & denigrate those who oppose it (as fearful christians) over concern about the impact they justifiably think it will have on THEIR children, then turn around and claim not only that you don't care how someone raises their kids but that anyone who objects to the grand plan for imposing this on schools is the one attempting control. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

This is quite a bit like the Intelligent Design argument.

No it isn't, not for me, like so many issues ID doesn't fall along the party or faith lines expected. If it helps imagine compolsory gun handling and target practice in school for young kids (or some other policy peccadillo), just because it's educational doesn't mean it should be a mandatory curriculum and parents deserve a say.

Quote

Humans are wired to be horny a large portion of the time during adolescence. Ignoring this fact doesn't do anybody any favors.
Teaching kids about birth control is basic risk management. Teens are going to have sex, generally speaking. Few would argue that teens are mature enough, except in a strictly physical sense, to procreate. They are capable, but rarely ready. We need to give them the tools to prevent kids from having kids until they are ready for the responsibility of parenting.

And as a parent you should be entitled to take those beliefs you just posted and teach YOUR kids about all the birth control you like at an age you find appropriate to their circumstances, I know I will. Others who have differing opinions as to age and content for THEIR kids should be entitled to raise their kids their way. For many children it actually works and most of those parents and kids suffer no ill effects from your lack of interference in their "wholesome" upbringing.

Quote

Teaching teens about birth control in public schools is neither a "master plan" nor a defamation of Christianity as you claim.

I never claimed that it was a defamation that would be bizarre.

Saying all christians are afraid of sex because some parents of undetermined faith object to your policy on sex education IS a bigoted defamation of christians. That's what I actually claimed.

But hey, anyone who points out this brazen bigotry and who is the only one in a thread full of such intelligent posters to articulate the real reasons some parents get alarmed by social agendas in schools must be a christian forcing their beliefs on others.

Whatever you do, don't admit that parents of all stripes have some legitimate concerns about a social economic agenda (unequivocally posted in this thread) undermining their parenting choices.

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

Parents should not have to home school their kids to avoid them being taught about condom useage at an age and in a context which the parent finds inappropriate.

There's a difference between teaching evolution and teaching the use of contraceptives, one is plain science fact and the ignorant go pound sand, the other is a social and parenting choice.

There are people who would disagree with each of those statements. The public schools will never keep everyone happy -- that's not their job. Their job is to make sure that children have an education. What goes into the definition of "education" is very culturally and socially defined. Only girls used to be able to take home ec (in fact, I was the first girl I knew of in my junior high who didn't take it -- it was a required class for girls), and only boys could take shop. We teach each state's history in that state, and books are picked out by committees.

It's not a smorgasbord in most cases -- there are electives, but most of the classes are required.

Personally, I do think that kind of education belongs in the public school. I also think that separating the class into boys and girls for that part of the discussion is a smart idea, and allowing children whose parents object to sit in study hall is fine too.

If the parents care enough to pay attention and write a note, then they should get some input. If they want a custom-designed curriculum and are too lazy to do anything but bitch about it, tough shit.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

imagine compolsory gun handling and target practice in school for young kids

Actually I think this is a great idea

illegible usually

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

If it helps imagine compolsory gun handling and target practice in school for young kids (or some other policy peccadillo), just because it's educational doesn't mean it should be a mandatory curriculum and parents deserve a say.

Good point, except the public schools I attended did in fact require all middle school students to take a gun safety course, in response to the fact that so many people are killed by "unloaded" firearms. Granted, there was no target practice involved, but the course was mandatory. It was a gun safety course, and not a pro-gun course.

Quote

And as a parent you should be entitled to take those beliefs you just posted and teach YOUR kids about all the birth control you like at an age you find appropriate to their circumstances, I know I will. Others who have differing opinions as to age and content for THEIR kids should be entitled to raise their kids their way. For many children it actually works and most of those parents and kids suffer no ill effects from your lack of interference in their "wholesome" upbringing.

Parents are free to home school their children, or send them to private schools. Additionally, most schools offer parents the option of having their children excused from sex education.

Quote

I never claimed that it was a defamation that would be bizarre

Your exact words, in the context of the entire paragraph:

Quote

That doesn't mean I think your masterplan for everyone's children or your defamation of all christians is acceptable.

You make it sound as though people should put no more thought and planning into having children than they put into having sex. Or, are you trying to say that sex without intent to procreate is wrong?

Should we wait until our kids actually get married to tell them about sex?

Do you honestly believe withholding information from teens will help eliminate teen sex?

Kids are going to hear about sex and birth control in school. It is much better that they receive accurate information from teachers than information from other students based on half truths and misconception.

[billvon 3,107]

>Parents should not have to home school their kids to avoid them
> being taught about condom useage at an age and in a context
> which the parent finds inappropriate.

Schools teach stuff. If you dislike what's being taught - whether it's that fat is bad for you, or that the revolutionary war was fought a long time ago, or that condoms can help prevent spread of HIV, or that we evolved from a common ancestor - then teach them at home. It would be absurd to attempt to mold any curriculum into some kind of factless happytalk that offends no one's sensibilities, no matter how outrageous those sensibilities.

Schools exist to teach facts to kids. That mission should not be adulterated by people who don't want their kids to learn certain things.

>There's a difference between teaching evolution and teaching the
> use of contraceptives, one is plain science fact and the ignorant go
> pound sand, the other is a social and parenting choice.

Many christians disagree. But in any case, schools have an obligation to foster public health. Students should be sent home when sick (and especially when contagious.) Young students should be told to wash their hands after going to the bathroom. They should be taught in health class what is healty to eat and what isn't. They should be taught that condoms can help prevent the spread of HIV.

They also have an obligation to teach facts. Condoms help prevent the spread of HIV. Students studying current events must be told that if the debate about birth control in Africa is to make any sense at all. Surely you would object to your child being steered to a 'dumbed down' class where HIV, birth control, African aid and world diseases are never mentioned.

Now, they should not be taught that they must have sex, or that they must not have sex, or that they should act any way at all when it comes to sex. They should not be taught that africans are evil or good for using or not using condoms. They should not be taught that they should go out and buy condoms, and they should not be distributed in class. That's up to the parents. But they should be taught the basic health fact that condoms can prevent the spread of HIV and other STD's, both to educate them and to help them survive.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I never claimed that it was a defamation that would be bizarre

Your exact words, in the context of the entire paragraph:

Quote

That doesn't mean I think your masterplan for everyone's children or your defamation of all christians is acceptable.

You are intentionally ignoring what I wrote immediately after that first quote and the context AND content of the second quote, you accused me of claiming the social plan was defaming christians and what I've said all along is that some remarks made attacking christians defame and are bigoted. Or don't you think an "or" smack dab in the middle of a sentence can list a separate issue? If you can't understand this this it's just hopeless, you can read whatever you choose into my clear unequivocal posts and think you've made a point.

I mean really are you fricking serious? Do you just not understand what I explained it the sentence after that second quote?

I'm done explaining this, I tried once, you're wrong, I explained what I meant and it's clear from my posts what I meant, there's not even ambiguity here, just confusion on your part over interpretation of my posts even with a clear explanation.

It tells me you're not interested in the idea being discussed, you'd rather posture and attack someone you see as an enemy by misrepresenting what they wrote.

Quote

Do you honestly believe withholding information from teens will help eliminate teen sex?

No, but it's not about what I believe, it's about the parents who disagree with that conclusion and their right to make their own determinantions as parents. For some teens alternative approaches work and parents can choose context etc.

You just can't seem to separate two issues, what you think is best for someone elses kid isn't the point, you're not the parent in all cases, and you paint with too broad a brush.

[dorbie 0]

Bill there are facts you would certainly dislike being taught in school to all kids at too young an age, or even any age so don't pretend that there's no additional component to this decision.

And what I would teach my kid is a separate issue from what all kids are taught in school.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

You are intentionally ignoring . . .and you paint with too broad a brush.

Are you going to attempt to counter any points being made, or are you simply going to accuse those who disagree with you of being bigots?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

You are intentionally ignoring . . .and you paint with too broad a brush.

Are you going to attempt to counter any points being made, or are you simply going to accuse those who disagree with you of being bigots?

There are two things that I have commented on in this thread pretty much from the outset, one is the influence over the curriculum, the other is saying parents are concerned because christians are scared of sex.

The second part is bigoted, I'm not calling people who disagree with the first component bigots, I'm calling people who take potshots at their stereotypical christians bigots and justifiably. I do it with absolutely no apology.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

This debate is illuminating not because of the comments made but because of the many assumptions of the debaters, both about my faith and their inability to distinguish between what I think is right for my kid and the freedom of other parents to decide what is right for theirs.

I actually started out explaining why parents are concerned and why the bigoted viewpoint was just plain wrongheaded.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I'm calling people who take imaginary potshots at their stereotypical christians bigots

That's better.

[billvon 3,107]

> I'm calling people who take potshots at their stereotypical christians
>bigots and justifiably. I do it with absolutely no apology.

You probably know this, but you can't call ANYONE a bigot for any reason here, no matter how right you consider yourself to be. See the rules for details.

[dorbie 0]

Here's what I actually wrote:

***
There are a heck of a lot of them around suggesting that they don't actually fear sex.

The real issue for them is pretty obvious when you set aside anti-christian bigotry. Many parents, not just christians, want to control their kids exposure to sexual materials both in terms of content and the age at which they are exposed, and many object to some of the moral guidance passed off as sex education.

[sinker 0]

>Catholicism’s continued decline

>it’s influence has fallen GREATLY

>it is an archaic social structure.. dying a slow death like all such outdated belief systems

Do you have any idea what sort of a broken record you are?

I believe you are the one needing not only a history lesson but one in current leading cultural indicators. The Catholic Church has never been larger, had more members, been influential in more parts of the world, etc. Her influence is only deminishing in your small, sheltered area of view. And what a small world that is, Zen. You have no earthly idea how vast the Catholic world is. No earthly idea.

And knowledge is progressive and cumulative, but Truth cannot contradict itself, ever. Our understanding of Truth can only expand. That doesn't mean it changes. How limited is your vision and how deep your misunderstanding.

Oh and Zen? Thanks once again for mocking the faith I hold so dear... you're such a kind soul... I'm sure God smiles on you...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

up to 2 kids? no problem.. but if you already have 2 kids or become pregnant with your second, the welfare should cease unless you have yourself sterilized..

i've got no issues with anyone's desire to have children, or the need for social support at time.. HOWEVER... i dont believe society should continue to pay for those who create excessive burdens they cannot support themselves

A person who cannot support themselves cannot support two kids.

My welfare plan:

1. Give them a job. Maybe working at McDonalds, or working anywhere. But they must work to receive benefits unless physicaly unable to work.

2. If they are underemployed, provide training to improve their skill sets to seek a better wage. While underemployed they are entitled to assistance. Stop working, they stop getting benefits.

3. Provide BC for anyone on assistance. Tell them it is not the Governments job to let them raise kids. 1st child it is a warning, second child benefits are reduced. The reduction in benefits is set aside for the child. This is money that the parent will never be able to reach.

A child raised in poverty is set up to fail from the start. So we must reduce the amount of children born into poverty to reduce poverty.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The reduction in benefits is set aside for the child. This is money that the parent will never be able to reach.

that's not bad, I wonder how it would fare in practice....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Wopelao 0]

Or if they Die before having legal rights to those funds....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Or if they Die before having legal rights to those funds....

More importantly, if that happens, then do we rebate it back to the taxpayers, or just retain against the national debt and lower taxes proportionately as a windfall? or, do we just plan for a certain percentage of the children to die and thus set aside a smaller amount per child to account for attrition - we'll keep it all in a 'lock box' as such (i'm mocking social security here for those that aren't too quick)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Wopelao 0]

Lock Box? more like petty cash, you know to pay for all those out of pocket political expenses.

[rehmwa 2]

Then there's the matter of the corpses - if they can be dehydrated and the chemicals extracted for drug company testing, how much of that income should accrue to the government also?

(I think I just crossed a line, better throw out an arbitrary number here)

Hey look!! 98.387471.34872176.aaaaaaaaaaaaauppp298hjfddj8.*

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

that's not bad, I wonder how it would fare in practice....

It would go just like Social Security. Both sides would fight over that money and it would be squandered.

The best solution is to reduce the number of people born into poverty...any other fix is nothing more that poor bandaids or political weapons.

[drae 0]

Currently in GA if a recipient has received cash benefits for ten months and gets pregnant, the cash benefit does not increase with the birth of the additional child. Remember, however, that those on assistance are also receiving the benefits of Medicaid and most receive Food Stamps. We are not removing basic support from them. The Government has low income housing available, the rent can be zero, or it may be as low as $2 monthly, and they will also provide a utility check that should well pay for a month of utility use. Therefore, reducing or cutting the "Welfare check" is not withholding the taxpayers privilege of providing the basic needs of these poor people that choose to have children that they are unable to support. Also most of the mothers will receive child support from the fathers at the amount of 30% of his wages. They, and the government, expect the father to take responsibility for his irresponsible sexual behavior. The mother does not have to provide a dime for the care of this child. I don't think most people resent helping someone who is in need as long as the recipient does not have the attitude that they are entitled to it.