July 28, 2014 11:11:50 AM
Agrees with sex-ed editorial
I was out of the area and didn't read Friday's paper until this evening. As a conservative (and what difference does that make anyway?) I wholly agree with your viewpoint on sex education. Boys are going to be boys, and girls are going to be girls.
While I would rather see young people wait until they are mature enough to handle the consequences of sex, what I want doesn't count. Therefore, responsible sex education and contraceptives need to be available for young people. How young? I've known parents whose children as young as 4 or 5 knew "how babies are made." These children weren't engaging in sex, mainly because their interests were elsewhere, like playing, but they were educated.
I think the most objections to sex education and available contraceptives comes from the puritanical mind-set. Protect the virgins! At least the female ones, anyway.
If young people could realize that loose reputations are impossible to lose in later years, there would be less teen sex.
Anything we can do to stem the tide of teen pregnancies is worth the effort. As you noted, it's one of the root causes of poverty and welfare dependency. My sister in Jackson heard a co-worker gushing that she was going to be a grandmother. This woman was barely 30, and her unwed pregnant daughter was barely 15, yet this woman was proud of the situation. There is no shame in Mudville today.
1. Our View: Debate, decision on billboard represent city's best interests DISPATCH EDITORIALS
2. Thomas Sowell: Tortured reasoning NATIONAL COLUMNS
3. Jamie Stiehm: The California lady lights the dark NATIONAL COLUMNS