[Barcs]

But when the right to do something is considered legal, then interfering or impeding their right to do so becomes against the law and participation of citizens in that activity becomes required by law. To refuse to give a woman an abortion or to assist in the procedure or to throw out the remains, etc. etc. can get a person fired or cause them to be sued for infringing on a woman's legal rights. There has to be a counter law passed that protects our rights to follow our conscience, which is in the works. New Bush Rule: Doctors Can Refuse To Give Women Abortions

That's what all the hubbub is about on abstinence education. Unless it is supported as legal to be mentioned as an option, then those that mention it can be legally accused of pushing religion on kids. I think anyone would agree, except some fringe people, that delaying sex for kids might
result in them making better choices and have fewer problems.

Obviously a doctor should have a choice whether he performs abortions, but if morals were truly the issue here, he wouldn't work at a place that supports abortion in the first place right? That would really be following his or her conscience. That law sounds silly and unnecessary unless I'm missing something . Delaying sex for kids might produce better future choices, however, good luck getting teens to actually do that. Teenagers are horny (to put it lightly). Most of them are going to continue to have sex regardless of what you teach them about god and abstinence. I know this first hand, from my teen church youth group. Kids will be kids, no matter what. They will be rebellious. They WILL have sex. In fact, if you tell them not to, they will probably be much more likely to do it. Morality is good, but reality wins. It doesn't hurt at all to teach them the consequences and how to be safe about it. Thanks to the hormones in most of our foods these days, kids hit puberty earlier and earlier, so they have sex earlier and earlier. It's human nature.

But because abstinence is also what religions teach, to even say that might be considered a violation of church and state and is why it has become necessary to seek a law to protect that right to say it.

The contraceptive argument is coming mostly from the Catholics but also some Muslims, Jews and Christians. Because some believe contraception is a sin, a school teaching contraceptive options is in effect teaching their kids how to practice the sin of contraception.

It is also a sin to have sex without the intent of procreation in these same religions you mentioned. That is why they do not want to teach contraception. But that is why we have private and religious schools. If you (collective you, not you personally) feel that strongly (as Palin does) about not teaching safe sex, then you should send your child to a private school that does not teach these things, and assume that your teenager will never experiment. I feel that suppressing this knowledge is detrimental to society, because when your child DOES experiment it will be without protection and could spread diseases or get her pregnant. Knowledge is power and any child old enough to have a baby or have sex, should know exactly what it is for and what the consequences can be if you do not practice it safely. Assuming that kids will never experiment if they are taught not to is an absolutely ludicrous way of thinking and encourages the spread of disease AND teen pregnancy, which in effect INCREASES abortions, nationwide. In my opinion, if there is a god, he does not care about abstinence. If he did, he would not have made sex so pleasurable.

As a conservative Christian, if you have protected your kids from R rated movies and nasty video games and explicit songs and taught them to be modest, then you don't want them to get their information about sex in a group, especially a mixed-gender group and from a person of whom you have no knowledge of their values.

Parents want the right to opt out and give their kids that information themselves. Assuming that the parents can't do a good job of that in the privacy of their own home and needs the help of the "state" is usurping parents authority and making a judgment on their values.

Some parents do a good job teaching their kids about sex, and some do not. This is why it should be taught in school, just like any other bodily function. If you have doubts about the school system, then communicate with your kid. Talk to him about what the school teaches and what you believe. You shouldn't expect the school to be the parent for you. You need to constantly interact with your children and teach them at the same time. Teach them that you believe sex is immoral, however, the school is correct about using protection. The school doesn't teach morality. It teaches practicality. Morality is up to the parents, however the information about body functions, pregnancy and disease should be taught to every single kid in America.

Notice I didn't take a stance on the right and wrong of these issues. It is just too easy, especially in this culture, to assume that because a person believes in God that their concerns on sex and contraception are shallow and religious. They are judged and dismissed as having bad judgment without first trying to understand.

I do not believe this to be true. Obviously there's people out there that will judge you based on your religion, but in general the ones who are judged are the types that end up being hypocrites. For example, Foley, who spent his career fighting against and prosecuting child molesters, and then turns out that he is trying to fornicate with an underage intern. Palin advocates not teaching about safe sex and only abstinence, and bang, her daughter's pregnant. These are the people who are judged by others, and also the reason why other people are so quick to judge. Bad judgment is bad judgment and refusing to teach safe sex is very bad judgment, regardless of your personal beliefs on god and religion.

In education, there is a fine line between being neutral about God and teaching ideas that assume an absence of a god.

I disagree. Schools do not comment on god or teach about god, besides in specified classes. The reason for this is because America is based on freedom of religion, and if you teach or conform to one version of god, you will essentially have to teach or conform to all of the others, which will contradict each other. Schools do not teach that there is no god, nor do they teach that there is. Do you know why? It's because there is absolutely no evidence of (or against)any sort of creator, AND because there's so many different versions of god out there that it would get way too confusing. Religion is personal and should either be taught in the home, or taught in a private school. What you're saying about teaching ideas that assume an absence of god, is actually an absence of what you interpret as YOUR god. When the average person in America thinks of "god", they immediately think of the bible. The god of the bible is against contraception, but not every single version of god is, including the interpretations of many branches of Christianity. To be fair you can't assume something that has no logical proof and teach it to kids, especially when there's so many interpretations. "Unprotected sex causes pregnancy and spreads STDS." This is scientific fact. "God does not want you to have sex. It is immoral." No evidence supports that statement whatsoever.

Also, you can't hold back, teaching logical scientific proven facts because it MIGHT contradict one religion. If everyone did that, our society would not be as advanced as it is. Many things would be suppressed (for example the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe, or isn't flat). The pursuit of knowledge is very important to our progression as a species and I feel that this type of mentality holds us back. Science and religion should be kept separate, just like church and state. Many feel that evolution somehow disproves a god, when in reality it does no such thing. If anything it gives him way more credit to set up a system so advanced and complicated that it evolves on its own.

Great. So if I think that and you think that, why haven't any of the political parties proposed this to draw us in?

I'm guessing we are a minority in this belief, and also that the parties prefer the polarization of its believers. It always has to be absolutely FOR or absolutely AGAINST. It's never in the middle. This is why I can't stand democrats or republicans. It's almost as if they conspire together to maintain their grip on society. I believe that concept is called "Divide and conquer." What I am definitely against is fundamentalism, no matter what religion you follow. No fundamentalist should ever hold office here in America, because their judgment is impaired by their religion, they are generally intolerant of other religions (and even different branches of their own religion), and interpret scriptures literally. This mentality keeps society back in the stone age. I'd like to think we've come a long way since then, but many do not.

Well, I hope I didn't ramble too much in there, sometimes I tend to go on and on, but hopefully I addressed most of your points fully and to be honest, that is probably the longest thing I've ever written in my life about abortion. It's kind of weird too, because I've never really cared about it because it doesn't really affect me personally as I don't plan on ever having kids. Ah well.