<p>“it just points out how preposterous it is to consider sex for junior high kids as a reasonable option.”</p>
<p>And who ever said sex - for anyone - is reasonable? Of course, we could stone a few to death, just to set an example. Alternatively, we can let them rot with some sexually transmitted disease and no health insurance - that will teach 'em!</p>
<p>“So 1of42, how would your 11-13 year old kids have sex if you didn’t want them to?”</p>
<p>Mine would have had a more difficult time - we homeschooled. :)</p>
<p>“there is always an adult I know and trust present.”</p>
<p>9% of U.S. students are sexually harassed/sexually abused by teachers/school employees. You are a very trusting sort.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m splitting hairs. That’s what happens when you consider moral issues with any of the subtlety that the issues require. It’s nice to say “it’s wrong, we must stop it”, but in reality the issue is much more complicated than that.</p>
<p>My argument is that we can’t legislate against everything we think is wrong. That is because as soon as we legislate against something, we are infringing on liberty. In many cases, this is justified - when the action we are banning infringes upon someone else’s rights, and so forth. But in a case like this, there is no justification for government getting involved in banning such acts. The responsibility lies with parents, and if they are unable or unwilling to deal with it, the only responsibility the schools (or the government) has is to make the acts as safe as possible, should we decide that such safety is in the public interest. Thus making birth control available.</p>
<p>I said “I can easily see kids not having sex because of the fear of getting pregnant. Especially those whose parents are actively involved in these kinds of conversations”, to which the response was
<p>Actually mini, I am not a very trusting sort at all. But at some point I feel I must trust certain adults that I know, or my children will never be able to do anything without me. I do like to think I make the right decisions, but it is true that no one ever knows. We have a family member that falls into your statistic, btw.</p>
<p>The number of 11-13 year olds (male and female) who have been previously abused by family members and “friends” (and hence are “sexually active”) is astonishing, and not confined by social class either. Add in the schoolteachers and the priests and there is good reason to offer birth control to 11-13 year olds. Remember - they have to ask for it; no one forces it upon them, unlike, in many cases, the sex itself. But, thank heavens, they can do so without telling their parents (some of whom might be among the abusers), or breaking confidentiality when it comes to their abusers, many of whom they cannot escape. </p>
<p>We have absolutely no data on how many of those 13-year-old pregnant ones became pregnant as a result of sex with their own age peers. (And then we have to deal the same anti-abortion crowd who denied the kids access to birth control to begin with.) The Maine people have done an extraordinary job of not going anywhere near such issues, but I am 100% sure it is on their minds.</p>
<p>Chocoholic: I do not believe we are in agreement. </p>
<p>You think that the fear of becoming pregnant stops some/many middle school students from having sex who otherwise would. You expounded upon that belief to say that if the pill was available, these students who were abstaining from sex because they feared pregnancy would become sexually active since the risk of pregnancy is reduced. You added that this would be an endorsement of middle schoolers having sex. I disagreed mainly because I do not believe that middle school students who aren’t having sex do so because they fear pregnancy. Those who decide to have sex have sex (I’m excluding situations of force), and those who aren’t having sex aren’t abstaining because they fear getting pregnant. I used the analogy of wearing a bike helmet. Middle school students know the risks of riding a bike without a helmet (or of having sex without being on the pill), but if a helmet isn’t available they still get on their bikes.</p>
<p>This is something I raised early on in this thread. Why are we handing out bc when we should be arresting the perpetrators? Why are we accepting sex with 11-13 year-olds as a “norm” to be treated with bc, instead of making every effort to stop it?</p>
<p>Its a difficult question with no easy answers, but advertising bc as readily available to these kids seems to be missing the point.</p>
<p>“Its a difficult question with no easy answers, but advertising bc as readily available to these kids seems to be missing the point.”</p>
<p>Not if you might become pregnant as a result, it isn’t. </p>
<p>Are you prepared to go after somewhere upwards of two million perpetrators, with children not ready to come forward? How many foster kids have you taken in during the past decade? (I apologize immediately if you have.)</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I’m willing to bet that those most likely to be sexually active at 11-13 with their peers are those most likely to have been abused even younger. So as I ask again: should we stone them, or let them spread sexually transmitted diseases to others? We could play a game: how many different ways can we think of to punish, embarrass, humiliate, or ignore abused kids all in the name of civic virtue and family morality (it probably wouldn’t be very different from what we do now.)</p>
<p>Bay: We should deal with the perpetrators, absolutely.</p>
<p>But if middle school kids are having sex, it’s irresponsible to take a neo-puritan attitude and refuse to help or educate them. That’s like not helping a girl who fell down a well because she shouldn’t have been playing around a well in the first place. The schools shouldn’t be promoting it, but it’s happening whether they like it or not, so it’s irresponsible not to provide support.</p>
<p>Things like birth control need to be up to the parents. If the parents don’t want their child to have sex, the child shouldn’t.</p>
<p>And before you bring it up, yes, I do follow the rules my parents set to me. I may disagree with some of them, but I follow them, because I respect my parents and until I’m 18, they have the power to set rules on me.</p>
<p>If I gave the impression that that was my intent, then believe me it was not what I meant at all!! (I admit that sometimes my writing is less than eloquent). To the contrary, I believe we need to help these kids MORE than just hand out bc! We need to help them find a better environment and provide them support to stop them from having sex at 11-13 by referring them to counselors and law enforcement, etc. BC as a solution is not enough.</p>
<p>BC is not enough. But it is an excellent (and much needed) start.</p>
<p>“We could play a game: how many different ways can we think of to punish, embarrass, humiliate, or ignore abused kids all in the name of civic virtue and family morality (it probably wouldn’t be very different from what we do now.)”</p>
<p>Well, I work in social services - and we are guilty. The parents are guilty. The criminal justice system is guilty, them public is guilty, and the schools are guilty of all of the above. In my office, I see it virtually daily. </p>
<p>But I should have added “in the name of right to life and in the sanctity of the family” into the mix. </p>
<p>Of course, BC itself is just a technology - what many kids really need is someone they can talk to, and confide in. And they aren’t finding the. I have managed – this year, and with extraordinary hassle - to get included on our state’s healthy youth survey a question regarding whether, if it was available, kids would avail themselves of counseling for alcohol or drugs. We’ve piloted the question, and the numbers are startling. But from the focus groups we’ve done, I think alcohol and drugs are just the trigger in the question - and a safe one at that. 'Cause once we get to talk to the kids we find out there’s a heck of a lot more going on.</p>
<p>Bush budget cuts have virtually eliminated prevention/intervention counselors in all middle schools in our state, and a majority of high schools. There was pushback from schools not wanting to ask the question, for fear they might have to deal with the answer. Sigh.</p>
<p>Please understand,1of42, I am not making fun of your statement. Rather, this is a solemn observation. You said in post #95:</p>
<p>Just because something is <strong><em>, does not necessarily make it </em></strong><strong><em>,
and even if it is </em></strong><strong><em>, does not necessarily make it </em></strong>.</p>
<p>It seems to me one can fill in the blanks with just about anything to make any argument. I get this a lot from people who are liberal minded. I am an adult and I know the world is complicated. But the more mature we become, the more we should shine through like beacons of light in this fuzzy world. If that statement above is the answer to everything, then there is no principle worth upholding, or a set of moral codes to live by like Edvest said.</p>
<p>OK-- as I understand some posters’ view of moral conduct, the principle that engaging in sex at the age of 11-13 years old is morally “wrong” is sufficient to justify denying bc to these young “sinners.” </p>
<p>I gather that this principle is an “absolute,” so the youngster is denied bc even if it is needed due to forced sex by adults, including parents, teachers and pastors, etc. WHY? Is it because the youngster “could just turn the adult in?” Is this then another moral failure of the child?</p>
<p>As several posters have pointed out, refusing bc to these children can and does lead to sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies (some through incest). As I understand it, that is “OK” from a moral position because the sex was “wrong.” As HGFM sees it, if the parent is doing the morally correct job, the parent has instructed the child not to have sex and therefore, the child “knows better.”</p>
<p>Seems like a sexual equivilant of “just say no” regardless of the circumstance of the child. And, I assume that those doing social work trying to aid these children avoid disease and pregnancies are what? Are they facilitating temptation and sin?</p>
<p>Isn’t there a moral principle of helping the “weak” and/or “fallen”? Or do these little “sinners” just have to suffer the consequences of their sins?</p>
<p>Well, I guess the taxpayers of Maine who support the medical services are just morally weak liberals. God Bless them.</p>
<p>What I, and probably other posters who find this appalling, feel is that providing BC for CHILDREN is hiding the problem. I view this policy as enabling bad parenting, poor supervision, sexual abuse and all kinds of other rotten behaviors by hiding the symptoms. </p>
<p>When children are having sex, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong! They should be busy with all kinds of other activities – if they are sexually active then they have probably been abused or neglected. FIX THAT FIRST. I’m fine with in-school counseling, sex ed or whatever else it takes to ensure the safety and well being of children. Providing BC, which may have serious, life-long consequences, to kids without parental consent is way beyond the pale. Use the money that is funding this program for after school programs, or sex education, or just better social services. Don’t enable the abusers by hiding the problem.</p>
<p>yourworld: You’re right. Everything falls under that statement. Which is why I throw it out there, as a kind of cover against the inevitable attacks I know are coming from edvest about “lack of moral code” and all that drivel. I throw it out there because it’s true and then apply the idea to the debate.</p>
<p>In this case, when I look at the birth control issue in the context of that idea, it becomes an issue of infringement on liberty. The government should stay out of the bedrooms of its constituents, and insofar as a relationship is between people of the same age, it should stay out of that. Obviously the normal “unless there’s coercion” etc. applies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t mean to be offensive, but I think this shows somewhat of a lack of imagination. There are clear principles that in any moral analysis end up being preserved. Deontology, utilitarianism, and so forth, all agree that murder is immoral, for example. You can take nothing for granted in an ethical analysis and still come out with many of the same principles of morality, working from first principles.</p>
<p>It’s the little stuff, where various rights conflict, that the difficulty lies in determining the right path. Which is why I made the statement that you correctly understood is almost universally applicable. It’s to remind people like edvest that there is no single moral code that we all have to live by; no universal command morality. There are many principles we as a society uphold, but they are (or should be) always open to question. Many of them - like the prohibition against murder - will never change, and this is how it should be, but their steadfastness against challenge should not be a proscription against challenging them. </p>
<p>And despite how strongly edvest might feel, there is no justification for him imposing his view of morality on anyone else with regards to issues like this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might be right. It might be enabling. But the schools can’t force parents to parent better (insofar as the parenting isn’t so bad as to be criminal). If a parent is not always around to supervise their child, it’s bad, but it’s not a crime.</p>
<p>In a situation like that, the school can either do nothing, keeping itself morally righteous and hands-off the issue, while its students get pregnant, etc.etc. or it can get involved, make the concession that although the behavior is wrong, if it’s not going away it must be made safe, provide birth control and so forth and lessen the inevitable suffering.</p>
<p>I think in many of these cases, telling the kids not to have sex will not work. Given that, you can either wash your hands of it, or make it as safe as possible. The latter is the morally correct thing to do.</p>
Of course, we could stone a few to death, just to set an example. Alternatively, we can let them rot with some sexually transmitted disease and no health insurance - that will teach 'em!</p>