Re: "Sexual" education
Posted: 2013-10-13, 23:02
Varislintu wrote:Massimiliano B wrote:If it is evident that a value or opinion is 'for life', then it is good.
But do you really mean that you would be okay with parents getting to decide that their children should be kept ignorant of all contraceptives, as long as they say this stems from a "for life" value?
If sexual education is simply theaching how to use contraceptives, it is really an unuseful subject, because usually a teen-ager already knows what is a contraceptive and how to use it (especially nowadays with the possibility to watch almost everything in internet!).
Varislintu wrote:The picture also included pre-marital sex, fertility treatments and divorce as "anti-life" values. Sure, divorce rarely comes up in school, except maybe in a very basic law course. But fertility treatments might even come up in biology. If it happens to do so, would parents be allowed to pull their child out of those particular classes as well?
I don't know. It depends on the age of the students.
Varislintu wrote: EDIT: Not to even mention "individualism". How many classes should parents be allowed to pull their children out of to protect them from that?
I'm trying to demonstrate that since practically anything could be called "anti-life", there would be no end to how much control parents would be allowed to have over their child's participation in public education. And from the outside, it would still be indistinguishable from whims.
Not everything [or "anything"? My English needs to be improved] can be called "anti-life". I mean that there is something which is not "anti-life". For instance, the faith in God is not "anti-life".
In regard to sexual education, it is "anti-life" to teach a young person that he/she can do whatever he/she wants with his/her body.
linguoboy wrote:Massimiliano B wrote:Something is "for life" if it is "for life". The definition is circular because there aren't clear objective and logically consistent criteria for determining whether something is "for life" or "against life". Logical consistency has nothing to do here.
Then it's all just a matter of validating your own prejudices by pretending there's some grandiose underlying principle. That's what I've been saying all along.
Which prejudices? Those concerning the worth of life? Or those about the possibility that there can be a conflict between what is taught in schools about sexual education and what some religions teach about the same topic?
Anyway, everyone knows what being "for life" means. There are no previous logical arguments that can demonstrate the worth of life. There's only your "attachment" - "bond", "devotion" - to your life (I don't how to say it in English). Logic can only start from this basis - from the foundation of your love for your life. That's the only path we can practice.
I've found some interesting articles about sexual education and contraception industry in England:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... nancy.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... xeducation