Abstinence Funding

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by shetlan

For that matter, I guarantee you that more than 4 public school girls in that same city got pregnant on prom night - it just didn't get any press.

Exactly what I've been saying--a lot doesn't get in the press. That's why you don't "see" so great a figure for pre-1960. And, as bloodlusta said; a lot of forced weddings covered up some statistics.

All of this comes back to a massive delusion that the government can stand in for a lack of parental oversight.

At last, we agree.

2: I have a degree in sociology, this is the kind of crap we spend time studying.

Oh, Puh-leeze, stop trying to convince us you have a BA or BS Plus two years in the service...we can add. You can't have both. A Berkeley degree, as I said, would put you in a good job, not as a rent a cop.

3: The fact that promiscuity in teens and young adults causes relationship problems later in life is a basic facet of sociological study. Joanne B. Parrotta wrote an entire book on the effects of teen and young adult promiscuity on an woman's ability to find a stable relationship in the future.
The Promiscuous Woman: Modern Attitudes about Love and Sex

"Fact?" Someone's opinion in a text book, drawing their own conclusions? You only agreed with it to get an "A" out of the class--ain't necessarily so. Don't swallow everything you read. Although, I do think this jibes....

If you can't do the time. . .
. . think a government program about safe sex would have any more success?
Again, it all comes back to the parents not raising their kids - and expecting the government to do it for them.

Again we agree--parents need take responsibility First; if that won't work; then spend my tax dollars.

Wow. . . have you ever even spoken to a parent?

You ever Been one?

If parents want to explain sex to their children, then they should . . . Oh I don't know - EXPLAIN SEX TO THEIR CHILDREN!

}
Yes!

Answered in responces to lusta.

And, don't call him "lusta" unless you want us all to think you are lazy....

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

And, don't call him "lusta" unless you want us all to think you are lazy....

It doesn't really matter, I call him shet when im feeling lazy. Although I have noticed that when people agree with me they tend to call me Blood, and then when they disagree its lusta lol

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Can someone tell how the American government pass a bill that will allow 50mil to be spend on abstance only sex education? This is the dumbest idea ever! Everyone knows that doesn't work. And what is this 50 mil going to be spent on? all you have to say is don't have sex. Thats it.

If you had done a little more checking you would have found that the Obama administration is actually shifting the focus from abstinence to sex education.

Originally Posted by Medical News Today

Obama's budget proposes nearly $178 million for teen pregnancy prevention, including $110 million for community-based programs. It calls for 75% of that funding to go toward programs that have proven successful, with the remaining 25% directed toward "innovative" programs. Barnes said that the president is "open to innovation and that could include abstinence-only if there is some indication it would work."

So spending on sex education is more than three times the amount allocated for abstinence.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

If you had done a little more checking you would have found that the Obama administration is actually shifting the focus from abstinence to sex education.

If you read a bit up the thread you would see I made that point. Obama says he wants to shift away from abstinence only sex education, and then he turns around and does this.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

So spending on sex education is more than three times the amount allocated for abstinence.

There shouldn't be ANY abstinence ONLY programs. I have no issue with abstinence being taught if it is taught alongside contraception so kids have a choice. The danger comes from when it is the ONLY thing taught because kids just arn't going to do it.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

If you read a bit up the thread you would see I made that point. Obama says he wants to shift away from abstinence only sex education, and then he turns around and does this.

What you said was:

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

But wasn't Obama agaist this, and doesn't his party have 60% of the American government?

You didn't clearly say "Obama wants to shift to sex education" nor did you provide any reference to what he is actually doing. As usual.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

There shouldn't be ANY abstinence ONLY programs. I have no issue with abstinence being taught if it is taught alongside contraception so kids have a choice. The danger comes from when it is the ONLY thing taught because kids just arn't going to do it.

Saying there shouldn't be any abstinence-only programs is somewhat presumptious. If it were proven that abstinence-only kids had lower rates of pregnancy/STD's than sex-ed groups that would be a good argument for it. (I don't think it's likely, but you never know.)

I think the best approach would be to offer both programs at the same schools and let parents choose which one their child attends. After a few years, compare the statistics and then go with whichever approach works best.

[bloodlusta]

What I think is that, kids want to have sex. Just telling them not to doesn't help. Its like saying don't do drugs. Teaching them about contraceptions means that when they do have sex (which they will) they will be somewhat protected agaist the risks.

I say teach both.

Also Steve, your idea wouldn't work. because the kids whose parents want them to have ab only would problaly have brought them up that way, so the class would make no differance.

[Steve_TPF]

First you say that kids will have sex anyway, then you say they won't if their parent's bring them up that way. Make up your mind.

Point was, it would allow a direct comparison between the two methods.

[bloodlusta]

OK what I meant was that the kids who would have sex anyway will regardless of telling them not to, and the kids who wouldn't, still won't if you teach them about sex.

My point was your not going to change their minds about sex.

[archleone]

Originally Posted by shetlan

It's not sexist in the least.

Oversaturation of media, inattentive parenting, and the wonderfully helpful sex education classes have turned a huge chunk of the last 25 years of young women into dime a dozen sluts. They've been brainwashed and objectified to the point that they not only think that they're sex objects - they want nothing more than to be sex objects.

Guys will be pigs for the rest of time, but women have seriously trashed their self-respect in the last 25 years or so.

How is calling all women whores not sexist? Simply because women try to look attractive to men does not mean that they will spread their legs for anyone.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Where the hell do you get this stuff?

Why should tax dollars go to pay for abortions?
Translation: Why are the taxes I pay going to subsadize some girl's lack of self control, her parent's lack of attentive parenting, etc? This shit isn't my problem - adda little self control, and it wouldn't be their problem either.

Ok here is a story, a teenage daughter says shes pregnant and the father, lets call him shetlan, shetlan calls his daughter a whore for getting knocked up. Then this daughter, horribly ashamed, runs away and lives in poverty. Or the father actually kicks his daughter out, etc. I'm not saying this happens in every case but it isn't it at least possible that this could happen?

Originally Posted by shetlan

Shotgun weddings (what you're describing) are still quite prevalent. I consider that one of the more legitimate solutions to the problem of teen pregnancy.

1: You have sex at a young age, and get pregnant.
2: Your parents discuss it and sign permission letters so you can get married.
3: You move in with one of the sets of parents (most often the girl's family).
4: Your parents help you raise the kid for the first 3-4 years, so you get some on the job training.
5: Your parents also make sure the husband is well enough employed to take care of the girl and his child.

In this model, you get free daycare, free housing and food, a supportive environment in which to raise the child - I really don't see the downside.

Unhappiness for a lifetime.

Originally Posted by shetlan

You apparently don't know when the "victorian era" was - since nothing in that article has anything to do with the victorian era.

When Queen Victoria became queen, she pledged to (in her words) ". . . be good." This evolved into a massive revolution of social, moral, industrial, and scientific advancement throughout the empire.

My bad, I was just thinking england.

Originally Posted by shetlan

You're right, the government program known as DARE doesn't work - what makes you think a government program about safe sex would have any more success?

Again, it all comes back to the parents not raising their kids - and expecting the government to do it for them.

But you expect the government to get an abstinence only education to work?

Originally Posted by shetlan

Oh god, more of this "why shouldn't I do things that are bad for me" crap

And you have not given a reason why teens should not be allowed to have safe sex or drugs. How is pot bad for me? Why should the government be allowed to tell me what I can put into my body, put all the warnings you want but why can they tell me not to do this?

Originally Posted by shetlan

They'll be adults later, so we should tell them to start having sex now?
My god, that is the stupidest thing I've heard all week.

My point is that eventually they will start having sex so unless everyone waits until they are married to have sex, people need to how to practice safe sex.