Planned Parenthood: Teach your preschoolers 'their genitals don’t determine their gender'

It doesn't border on abuse, it IS abuse. It should be outlawed ASAP.

 

So abortion up until the child is born.

 

This isn't quite there, but its close...

 

Only if your plans for parenthood is to not have children.

 

No, that's not it. See the Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade.

 

hoosier88 said: ↑
PP is about the planned part, more than the how-to of the parenthood part.

No, Sanger saw that families had no problems becoming pregnant nor having children. She thought that the children would do better & the parents would do better if the births could be spaced out more, rather than all the children being born sequentially one after the other each year.

There are a fair number of programs & outreach that help parents-to-be learn how to interact with their baby, care for him/her, read to & play with, feeding, nutrition, etc. The segment that Sanger wanted to address was putting control of pregnancy & childbirth into the parents' hands, rather than leaving it up to fate or chance.

 

Not at planned parenthood. They deal with preventing or ending pregnancies.

 

hoosier88:
The segment that Sanger wanted to address was putting control of pregnancy & childbirth into the parents' hands, rather than leaving it up to fate or chance.

That's a narrow view of what PP does. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

"Planned Parenthood consists of 159 medical and non-medical affiliates, which operate over 650 health clinics in the U.S.[2][3] It partners with organizations in 12 countries globally.[2][3] The organization directly provides a variety of reproductive health services and sexual education, contributes to research in reproductive technology and advocates for the protection and expansion of reproductive rights.[3]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

PP puts women & families in charge of their own reproduction planning. Spacing births out over time is usually better for the babies & the families (& by extension, for their communities); but sure, women can opt not to have children @ all. That's the point to liberty.

& yes, PP does not offer child rearing advice nor classes - that's not what they do. For that you want one of the agencies that actually dedicates itself to helping parents & families raise children.

 

They're clearly offering expert guidance in this "preschool" case, and for higher grades see here.

 

hoosier88 said: ↑
& yes, PP does not offer child rearing advice nor classes - that's not what they do.

Yep, see my above:

"The organization directly provides a variety of reproductive health services and sexual education, contributes to research in reproductive technology and advocates for the protection and expansion of reproductive rights.[3]"

Notice that it's not child rearing advice - it's linked to their mission - providing sexual education. The information in both cases is on their website - so the parent (or whoever's looking) has to go looking for the information. I doubt that preschoolers are wandering about on the Internet, looking for cross-gender sexual ID information - it wouldn't make any sense to them.

PP has defined itself as working on their area of expertise - & so I doubt that anyone goes to PP & looks for information on crocheting or how to bake a turkey. The PP name defines what they're about. It's a self-selecting audience - & most public schools (K-12), public libraries & so on have filters on their Internet access - to make finding sexual material more difficult for random encounters - if that's the issue here.

 

Good post and true but you know the Anti-Choicers are ONLY concerned with punishing women for having sex and care nothing at all for facts...

 

Good post as well. I'm just pointing out that sex education can be viewed as part of child rearing. I was fortunate to have sex ed in junior high. Many of these shocked, squeamish maroons here no doubt advocate home schooling where they can just dodge the question and guilt their kids into submissive silence. 'Tis quite clear from what's already been said. Thank goodness many of these idiots will never actually be parents.

 

Yep. & the states that have tried to simply ignore the problem - of adolescents with little or no or mistaken information on reproduction - TMK mostly have the highest rates of adolescent pregnancies, STDs, & students whose academic careers are cut short by childbirth, marriage. & high rates of poverty, low educational attainment, low health care participation rates - Texas & Oklahoma come to mind, but I think generally the states that are in denial about the facts of life have some of the worst outcomes nationally in terms of HS graduation rates, literacy rates, & so on.

There could well be other causes, of course.

 

You didn't contradict anything I SAID.

 

Cant imagine what would lead you to believe that planned parenthood is an expert when it comes to the education of preschool children.

 

I bet they didn't teach you about women with dicks or men with vaginas

 

Yep, junior high was a long time ago. World changes. Best go with the flow when there's clearly no point in doing otherwise.

 

Why, do you have anyone better in mind, ready to take their place?

 

Planned Parenthood is about planned pregnancies & childbirth & related issues in sexual health - education, information & they also advocate for reproductive rights & back some research in sexual health. It's not about raising children, that's not their mission.

 

It's only 'part of parenting' in some corners of the world. The vast majority doesn't teach it, at school or at home. They (more sophisticated thinkers than the average American/Brit/Swede etc) understand that if ants can figure out how to do it, young adult humans ought to have no difficulty. And since every kid knows by age 13 how babies are made (and how to avoid it), that doesn't need to be explained either. The evidence that it's an effective approach is in the considerably lower numbers of teen pregnancies and STDs.

PS: There is no 'guilting into submissive silence', it's just a non-topic. If a child asks a direct question, answer it and move on. Don't give kids the idea that sex is important by harping on it. It's patently counter-productive, and says rather disturbing things about you as an adult. Besides, it's none of your damned business. It's their private adult life, and you have no business dictating the terms of it, or discussing it at all really. Do you discuss how and when they'll poop as adults? Yeah, thought not.

For the record, many many millions of people in Asia etc do have children, and raise them exactly this way. But your quaint and insular notion that anyone who doesn't bombard kids with sex talk is an 'idiot' was entertaining. Very 1960's. Peace

 

I think the topic of sexual mental disorders can wait until psychology class.

Speaking of..... just saw on the tube an interviewer asking Cher if she wanted grandchildren.....lol! Think Chas has cut away all her former baby making equipment.

 

????? They offer no pre natal care, no pediatric care, no assistance in child births. They are about PREVENTING pregnancy and ending UNPLANNED pregnancies through abortion

 

hoosier88 said: ↑
Planned Parenthood is about planned pregnancies & childbirth

Ah, I see the problem. planned above in my quote also refers to childbirth.

No, quite right, PP isn't interested in how to raise children, except perhaps as it touches upon possible answers to questions about human sexuality. That's what they're about.

Sanger (the founder of what became PP) wasn't interested in women never becoming pregnant - she merely thought that as women were otherwise completely involved in pregnancy, that women should also have control over when they became pregnant. (& possibly if they became pregnant - a corollary to allowing women to choose, & a possible outcome of that choice, right enough.)

& Sanger herself was opposed to abortion. She always felt that if the child was unwanted, that the child could be put out for adoption.

 

LOL - You think have solved the abortion issue with a dictionary definition.

Do not blame me that you do not know that a dictionary definition includes colloquial language definitions.

For example - the term "with child" = a pregnant woman does not actually mean a child exists. It is what the person meant by using that term.

If dictionaries were what you seem to think they are we would not need textbooks for University.

You may have no higher education so your error is understandable. Now that you have been schooled please stop making this nonsense argument.

When it comes to actual science - Experts Disagree. Below is a chapter from a developmental Biology textbook. You will find that there are 5 main scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

So according to you we should just throw out the science and rely on your mistaken understanding of a dictionary definition.

You also seem to think we should just ignore the domain science that defines what a human being is = Human Taxonomy.

You are welcome to your opinion - but, is it informed ?

 

I know, there is no problem. My point is Planned parenthood has NO involvement with "childbirth"s, "planned" or unplanned AND no involvement with "pregnancies" other than terminating them. AND I would suspect a very high percentage of those pregnancies were in fact UNplanned, SO, absurd to claim that "Planned Parenthood is about planned pregnancies & childbirth"