Tags changed from "sex, education, 70's video, oh so wrong" to "sex, education, 70's, disabled" by gold star member choggie.

posted this about a gjillion days ago....never made it out the queue.......are u makin' funna retarded folks????
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-ABCs-of-Sex-Education-for-Trainables--2

I know all you "Jesus loves fetuses" types don't like science, but here is a scientific study of your abstinence programs that backs up what I was saying:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6927733.stm

The latest study, which included trials comparing young people attending abstinence-only programmes against those receiving no sex education, raises questions over whether they work in developed countries.

Researchers found none of the abstinence-only programmes had an impact on the age at which individuals lost their virginity, whether they had unprotected sex, the number of sexual partners, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases or the number of pregnancies.

One trial did show a short-term benefit with participants reporting that they were less likely to have had sex in the month following one abstinence-only programme.

But the researchers said this finding was offset by six other trials that showed the programmes had no effect on the participants' recent sex lives.

Another trial even showed that participants in abstinence-only programmes were significantly more likely to report pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, compared to participants using the usual services.

ORLY: I find your lack of even getting the point hilarious:

"..meaning, no education or condoms to prevent abortions. no welfare or help after the kid is born."

oh, so how exactly did you glean that information from this video? nice try, son. many pro-life organizations do more for expectant single mothers than anyone else (counseling, adoption, help with baby expenses, transportation, etc...)

Many pro-life groups do what for EXPECTANT mothers? See you are missing the concept of .. avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place. That is something both sides agree on and should be focused on. pro-life, pro-choice, pro-bush, pro-whatever (except some extreme "sex-is-only-for-babies" strict religious folks) everyone agrees that if women didn't get pregnant (except by choice) there would be less abortions (except for medical emergencies).

But I guess you have some folks that believe it is against their religion to give out condoms or educate people, and no "don't have sex" is not a prevention technique. That is like telling all the obese people in this country "don't eat too much" or solving smoking by say "don't smoke". It is childish and stupid position to even use the word abstinence.

These super religious folks should ask themselves... which is more moral, which would please my god, which makes me a better Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. To approved of condoms and other things that they are 100% against, which would stop women from (getting pregnant and then) getting an abortion. Or being 100% against some policy like real sex education or condoms or easily available birth control, but then standing around lecturing about how bad abortions are and how immoral.


See, we have religious nuts who are so moral they refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or RU-486. And they run around with their abstinence only programs and ban schools from teaching about how to avoid becoming an unwanted pregnancy. Then they act surprised when people ARE have abortions. Which of the two choices would God approve of? Or is God all about breeding, increasing the population, fruitful and multiply, etc. If you believe that, you'd better start stoning people and all the other strict adherence to the texts.

agreed legacy... Moore tends to be highly vitriolic, enough so that I don't want him being a spokesperson for my views.

enzoblue - even if for-profit companies were completely removed from the healthcare equation, it would not remove the need for cost control. Every socialized medical system in the world has some kind of cost controls.

If we really wanted to reduce healthcare costs in this country, we would do things like banning cigarettes outright, require comprehensive physical and sex education in schools, have much stronger food labeling laws, increase funding for local health clinics (so poor folk don't have to go to the emergency room to see a doctor), etc., etc. But I doubt any of these things are going to happen.

On a side note... Newshour on PBS last night had a good piece on political pressure being put on the Surgeon General: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/carmona_07-10.html
(there's video also available, but the link is like 300 characters long - just go to recent programs).

Hey! Pick me! I'm ready for reproduction! LOL

I didn't quite take it this far, but I have been proactive with my kids as far as sex education goes. We got a copy of What's the big secret? when my oldest was in first grade. We read it together and I answered any other questions she had. It cleared the way for open communication on the subject...and that's a very good thing.

=> "http://www.stunning-stuff.com/read-weird-news-stories/91.html?ci=3"

I don´t believe that. In Germany we have compulsory school attendance (hope that´s the right expression) and sex education starts at the age of around 10. This has been since the "68ers" (referring to the generation of late sixties). So the couple aged in their 30s had no chance of missing the proper education. Also we don´t have this american-style be-religious-and-take-your-kids-out-of-school-and-teach-them-yourself-bullshit, that would be against the law. In Germany if your kid misses school regularly you as a parent will be confronted with enormous fees and finally your kid would be taken from you by authorities. Additionaly religion isn´t THAT big in Germany as it probably is in the states: Only 15.2% of Germans go to churches (and that´s the official number puplicized by the catholic church).

So, urban myth for sure.

As a word of caution, it contains frank discussions about sex, just as any other sex education video should. Even if it's technically for educational purposes, it will always offend at least someone, and I marked it as NSFW just in case.

From "The ABC's of Sex Education for Trainable Persons" (1975)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209871/

The first person to mention Eugenics gets smacked.