John C. A. Bambenek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bambenek) wrote,@ 2004-12-01 22:56:00 |
|
The Waxman Report on Sex Ed
You can read the report here:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/D
Or the news article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar
(FYI, linked be Drudge in Red despite the fact he supposedly only writes conservative things)
I can't quite evaluate many of the claims because the course material is not available, but let's deal with a few things that I can.
First, I'm sure the liberal pundits are going crazy saying "A Ha! This is why abstinence education won't work!". The study points out 2 of the 13 tentative courses are accurate. That's right, tentative. The report itself says these are the prospective programs that the grantees will use, and I'm sure after this press, probably most will not use. From page 9: "Each summary contains a proposal listing the curricula that the program intends to use." So two of these 13 programs are just fine to use. Use them, and all objections go away.
Second, in the bluring the scientific-religion line section it states "Although religions and moral codes offer different answers to the question of when life begins, some abstinence-only curricula present specific religious views on this question as scientific fact. One curriculum teaches: “Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.” I was unaware that science had a firm definition of when life begins in the first place. Not to mention, I fail to see much religion in the above portion, sure some religions hold that, others don't, but there are atheists who also hold it. Further, from m-w.com (not precisely a religious site) the definition of life:
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
The qualities of metabolism, growth, reaction and reproduction all are present in varying degrees in an unborn child. Moving on.
Third, in the same section "One curriculum that describes fetuses as “babies” describes the blastocyst,
technically a ball of 107 to 256 cells at the beginning of uterine implantation, 70 as “snuggling” into the uterus:". The word snuggling is objectionable? Of all the nit-picky crap to waste tax payer money on printing he chooses this? Some of his earlier points he has something (if true), but this is just stupid.
Fourth, Another teaches: “At 43 days, electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded, evidence that mental activity is taking place. This new life may be thought of as a thinking person.”72 The curriculum cites a source which does not in fact call a 43-day-old fetus a “thinking person.” Waxman should learn to read and know the difference between what the author is citing and what the author is saying. But this is again, childish semantic crap.
I'll grant him some of the stuff quoted if true and in that context make for curricula probably not best for schools. So use the 2 that Waxman approves of then. Case closed.
You can read the report here:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/D
Or the news article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar
(FYI, linked be Drudge in Red despite the fact he supposedly only writes conservative things)
I can't quite evaluate many of the claims because the course material is not available, but let's deal with a few things that I can.
First, I'm sure the liberal pundits are going crazy saying "A Ha! This is why abstinence education won't work!". The study points out 2 of the 13 tentative courses are accurate. That's right, tentative. The report itself says these are the prospective programs that the grantees will use, and I'm sure after this press, probably most will not use. From page 9: "Each summary contains a proposal listing the curricula that the program intends to use." So two of these 13 programs are just fine to use. Use them, and all objections go away.
Second, in the bluring the scientific-religion line section it states "Although religions and moral codes offer different answers to the question of when life begins, some abstinence-only curricula present specific religious views on this question as scientific fact. One curriculum teaches: “Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.” I was unaware that science had a firm definition of when life begins in the first place. Not to mention, I fail to see much religion in the above portion, sure some religions hold that, others don't, but there are atheists who also hold it. Further, from m-w.com (not precisely a religious site) the definition of life:
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
The qualities of metabolism, growth, reaction and reproduction all are present in varying degrees in an unborn child. Moving on.
Third, in the same section "One curriculum that describes fetuses as “babies” describes the blastocyst,
technically a ball of 107 to 256 cells at the beginning of uterine implantation, 70 as “snuggling” into the uterus:". The word snuggling is objectionable? Of all the nit-picky crap to waste tax payer money on printing he chooses this? Some of his earlier points he has something (if true), but this is just stupid.
Fourth, Another teaches: “At 43 days, electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded, evidence that mental activity is taking place. This new life may be thought of as a thinking person.”72 The curriculum cites a source which does not in fact call a 43-day-old fetus a “thinking person.” Waxman should learn to read and know the difference between what the author is citing and what the author is saying. But this is again, childish semantic crap.
I'll grant him some of the stuff quoted if true and in that context make for curricula probably not best for schools. So use the 2 that Waxman approves of then. Case closed.
