Don't have an account? Create one!

House Bill 17

AuthorMessage
Deleted
Salute You in Your Grave
Deleted
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 2475
September 8th, 2008 at 07:36am
I agree that sex education should be taught to the youth.

But not necessarily the elementary students. They know about the reproductive system but that doesn't mean they actually understand how sex really works.

I agree that sex education would be much more effective if taught to high school students. But then again, we all know how curious teens can get.

I remember during the anglo-saxons period, couples always had to ask permission to the king before they actually can engage in a sexual intercourses. a sign in front of the house such as "Fornication under the consent of the king" is a proof that they were allowed to have sex. I don't really know if this is true. But I think it would be much effective if the government holds the issue of sex by the throat. this is so dictatorial but it may work.

This makes the country much complicated. It's as if it became more hipocritical than before. The society is conservative and yet the citizens are liberal.

Maybe we should think of the good intentions of sex-ed. The result of this may be good or bad. If you really want people to control, refurnish our moral values. Because I believe that sex education involves moral values. That is why it's called "education". It's meant for the greater good.
idee fixe.
Salute You in Your Grave
idee fixe.
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 3023
September 9th, 2008 at 07:23am
kindersex.:

atsaka kung ituturo yan sa mga Graders pa lang, mas lalo silang macucurious sa mga ganyan at baka sa ganoong edad eh matuto na silang mag-experiment. They don't have enough understanding about sex. unlike high school students, na mas madaling mamulat sa mga ganyang bagay. Malay ng Grade 5 kong pinsan sa ganyan? Disgust


If they reach high school, probably they even know more about sex and their knowledge about sex is thanks to their friends. So, if you notice, when we discuss anything related to sex in the classroom, everyone erupts into giggles. Sex education now is kind of taboo already.

I think it's better they learn early and the correct education. I trust that the people there would teach them correctly. Obviously, they shouldn't use the vulgar, street words when teaching.

Hmm, actually, despite being very Christian, I can see the point of this bill and those who support it.
idee fixe.
Salute You in Your Grave
idee fixe.
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 3023
September 9th, 2008 at 07:33am
Frank-itis;:
Sometimes I wonder when our goverment's gonna crack, and look, its happening now. People might think that contraceptives actually help control the population of the country, which is, you know, one of our major problems, but the real answer to this kind of problem consists of only 8 words.

Keep it in your pants until your married.

Because, honestly, seeing that were one of the largest Catholic countries in the world, what would the other countries think if they found out that "we" had agreed to the use of contraceptives and to give sex ed to children as young as about 10, 11, 12 years old? Its just not right.


Other CATHOLIC countries started using these things since insertdatehere. Even Spain, the ones who brought us our religion, started using these. Actually, we are one of the few [ I think around... three? } countries who have not yet.

And what if they're married and they simply cannot "keep it in their pants"? You know that the people who mostly encounter these problems are the poor family, right? They're the ones who usually have a large family; it's because of lack of knowledge, I believe and this is one of the projects of House Bill 17.
lorilee krizelle.
In The Murder Scene
lorilee krizelle.
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 21370
September 9th, 2008 at 07:40am
idee fixe.:


Other CATHOLIC countries started using these things since insertdatehere. Even Spain, the ones who brought us our religion, started using these. Actually, we are one of the few [ I think around... three? } countries who have not yet.

And what if they're married and they simply cannot "keep it in their pants"? You know that the people who mostly encounter these problems are the poor family, right? They're the ones who usually have a large family; it's because of lack of knowledge, I believe and this is one of the projects of House Bill 17.


i agree with kei, the simple "keep it in your pants" rule only works with us teenagers. what about those married families? especially the ones in the squatters area, the ones who didn't even reached highschool, what about them? will you also them them to keep it in their pants?
besides, i don't really know why the church is against it, isn't it more INHUMAN to have a child aborted? i mean, things are not the same as they have been 20 or 40 years ago. most teenagers ARE liberated and CURIOS, willing to try almost anything. i'm not exaggerating here. its just the way things are.

but i do hope that teenagers nowadays LEARN to think more responsibly. that they wouldn't really on this so called contraceptives so that they won't get pregnant while enjoying sin. x_x
sherlock!
Crash Queen
sherlock!
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 30830
September 9th, 2008 at 07:46am
yes, that is true.
But you also have to understand that the use of contraceptives is quite similar-ish to abortion.
It's quite like stopping a child from forming, from living, because you don't want it to. It's like abortion, except cutting the line at an earlier stage.
*if that makes sense*.
And, also, the whole poor family thing is a little bit off.
I know that the house bill says it's pro-poor.
But they shouldn't stop poor people for making kids, even though they can't afford them.
Don't the government take count of the population?
Then they should know that poor people really do have more kids. They recognize that fact.
But I don't think that learning about contraceptives is going to help them, in the state their in NOW.
They, the government, should understand that to cure THIS poverty problem is not to introduce the concept of condoms and pills to them, but, rather, to create a support fund, outreach, program, etc. for the poor people.
If our president can give 3 billion bucks worth of projects for her son's birthday, then why can't she set up a certain support for those who thrive in poverty?

And, for another, I know that other countries are using contraceptives since... a long time back, back, back.
But you have to understand that although the government is authority, and has approved this, with all due respect to said authority, the government is not, in any way, infallible.
The Roman Catholic church itself has said that contraceptives are against the religion.
And I was present at the World Family Congress in Spain, wherein they held a talk against the law approving abortion, which the Spanish government was trying to push through.

*NOT PICKING A FIGHT PLEASE. (: *
sherlock!
Crash Queen
sherlock!
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 30830
September 9th, 2008 at 07:48am
if some poor families cannot even afford food for their mouths,
then how will they afford said contraceptives?