|
Ya, definitely.
At my school at fifth grade we were told about puberty and the differences between guys and girls.
We didn't actually get sex-ed until late into the eighth grade year. By then, and the guy teaching
us mentioned this, some people had already started 'experimenting'.
Most people don't start experimenting until late seventh grade, early eigth grade at the earliest
(ninth grade's more common imxp) so having sex-ed early seventh grade would be a huge help.
Abstinence only shouldn't be taught, either. That's a surefire way to loose kids' attention. What
should be taught is preventive measures for not getting STDs or pregnant (safe sex, and for between
two girls and two guys, also!), that you should always make sure your partners are checked, the
risks of STDs and pregnancies, etc.
And to everyone arguing that they'd be running around perverted talking about sex, they start doing
that lightly in fourth and fifth grade (there were guys at my school bringing condoms to school in
the fifth grade!!!) and start talking seriously in late sixth, seventh, and eigth, and start
experimenting anywhere from late seventh to ninth (sometimes tenth) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, and I believe I did receive some kind of sex education when I was in seventh grade. I was very
aware of the consequences I would have to pay, and I believe it is a very important knowledge. I
also believe parents should be encouraged to educate their own children as well, even before the
classes are given in the school. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
All 13-year-old girls should be lined up in their cafeterias and Norplanted. Draconian? You bet. But
teen pregnancy can destroy a young girl’s life.
Virtually all of today’s 13-year-olds are well-versed on where babies come from, due to sexually
suggestive music, movies, and television. They just do not know the medical facts. It is up to the
schools to set the matter straight.
Because so many parents are squeamish about discussing the facts of life, and deny that their teens
are having sex, we cannot rely on parental involvement.
Schools must teach sex ed because the public ends up paying the societal costs of teen pregnancy:
Welfare, food stamps, and subsidized health care.
Another reason to teach girls sex ed early is so that they will not have abortions. The younger the
woman when she undergoes the procedure, the more likely it is that she will develop cervical cancer
later. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agreed |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I was given sex ed from 5th grade 6th grade and 7th grade and im going to have it this year too so i
support this |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Absolutely, perhaps even younger. But you have to make it a good class that points out why kids
SHOULDN'T be having sex and how underage pregnancy can ruin your entire life. That's not to say be
abstinence only, but be personal-responsibility only. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Why even think about it that young. YES they are going to have learn about the bees and the birds,
but Seventh grade come on! THINK! These kids are going to be running around perverted talking about
sex! NO! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The two worst sins in this world are taking life without authority from God; and giving life without
authority from God. The enlightenment on these topics are the responsibility of the parents to
speak to their children about them. When government dissolves the parents responsibility they
won't talk about. When a child even begins to ask their parent, they would just say, "Go ask the
Sex Ed. Teacher."
By removing the divine responsibility from parents to enlighten their children the family unit is
dissolved.
Another point, if the parents don't take their responsibility of teaching chastity verbally and by
example . . . . . A Sex Ed. Class would be ineffective and useless. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008 20:34
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
