[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Uh, you don’t seem to be getting it. Damage is a value judgment. It’s an opinion. Them having that knowledge is damage in my opinion. You cannot prove a value judgment by definition. Nor can you disprove it.[/quote]
If you agree that sexual health material is causing neural repercussions or “damage” you have to show how it is.
Good for you, I think it’s damaging not to teach children about sexual health education. Since damage is my opinion, I don’t have a to prove it right?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But, more importantly, I think the demand is being placed on the wrong side of the argument here. PP is actively going out and spending tax dollars to do these things to children. The people doing this to children (using my money) should not only need to prove it’s not hurting kids, but that there is some definite benefit to the kids that justifies the expense.
You got any proof on that?[/quote]
But it’s showing that it prevents teen pregnancies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...80319151225.htm
Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education.
The likelihood of pregnancy was 30 percent lower among those who had abstinence-only education compared to those who received no sex education, but the researchers deemed that number statistically insignificant because few teens fit into the categories that researchers analyzed.
http://advocatesforyouth.org/.../1487?task=view
Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.6
Researcher Douglas Kirby for the National Campaign to End Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy examined studies of prevention programs which had a strong experimental design and used appropriate analysis. Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects.
40 percent delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use.
30 percent reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence.
60 percent reduced unprotected sex.
And you have no basis for your “damage” and provide this cop out answer that Damage is simply a value judgement.
[/quote]
I never said anything about neurological changes.
I think innocent kids knowing about these things is damage. My only proof then is that teaching them about sex leads them to know about sex.
And again, I would consider a 10 yearold having protected sex to be morally wrong too.
The other side is that it’s the general normalization of sex that has lead to more kids getting pregnant to begin with. Instead of trying to show them the “right” side of sexualization, maybe I’d rather prevent all sexualization at that age.
But again, going back to PP, all of these moral judgments are very personal and tax money has no business going to one side of the judgment.