Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

CNN.com article- Bristol Palin: Abstinence for all teens 'not realistic'

TheGoodBits

By TheGoodBits
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
Certainly possible since they run at different speeds:D

What did you think I was suggesting?

Only abstinence classes?...I would not be in favor of that

I do not see a problem with separate classes focused on different approaches though.

The current model is certainly not real effective.

Hypothetically speaking... It would make an interesting social experiment. Do it for ten years and compare results of the numbers of teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, etc. between the kids who attend the classes.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted
Maybe because kids are starving in China, and we are wasting a perfectly good cucumber by getting condom-gunk on it?

Well, that class in your photo definitely gives the girls VERY unreasonable expectations, and likely gives the guys quite a complex.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

A question for folks, here:

Do parents have the right to demand that the schools not teach their children information who's lack can well negatively affect the entire remainder of the child's life?

I know it's a silly example, but does a parent who wants to teach his child that the Earth is the center of the universe, have the right to demand that the schools not teach the heliocentric model of the Solar System?

And yeah, it was a silly example, but which ignorance do you think will cost the child more, down the road? Not knowing where the center of the Solar System is? Or not knowing how to avoid STDs and pregnancy? Which "test" carries the greater penalty for "failure"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

I believe they do (even if it is wrong and foolish on their part:2cents:),after all they made the choice to allow their kids to be born and to raise them.

The courts can require lifesaving treatment against objections,but knowledge does not meet the bar set imo.

That is a dangerous road

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
I believe they do (even if it is wrong and foolish on their part:2cents:),after all they made the choice to allow their kids to be born and to raise them.

The courts can require lifesaving treatment against objections,but knowledge does not meet the bar set imo.

That is a dangerous road

And giving parents the authority to demand, say, that the public schools not teach their child to read, isn't (a dangerous road)?

We have laws overriding parental discretion in lots of situations. Try asserting your "right" not to have your child vaccinated.

Is a teenage pregnancy less of a risk to a child's well being than Measles?

(Or pick some childhood disease we vaccinate against. I don't know what they are.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Good points, but what are the risks of pregnancy?

From what I recall with proper care it is minimal.

The vaccinations are supposedly for the good of society

and I did assert my rights on vaccinations,the idiots insisted on them while my daughter was sick...which is a no-no

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Good points, but what are the risks of pregnancy?

From what I recall with proper care it is minimal.

Do you really wish to assert, in a thread discussing abstinence only education, that teen pregnancy really isn't that bad a thing, and society shouldn't discourage it?

:halo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

ols..Why not?...many of our grandparents had kids as teens.

Not what I would recommend,but then that don't matter much obviously;)

But I was speaking of risks to health,which is what I assumed you were addressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
But I was speaking of risks to health,which is what I assumed you were addressing.

No, I was talking about preparing citizens to be productive members of society. (And no, I didn't mean reproductive members.)

You know, the reason we have an educational system: To deliver to our children the information (at least, the minimum information) they will need.

Society has decided that it's to society's benefit if all of it's citizens know the capital of Ohio. Parents, as far as I know, do not have the right to demand that the schools not teach this information to their children. In fact, any parent who were to claim that well, he's OK with the schools teaching the capitol of Ohio, as long as parents were given the choice of demanding that their child not be taught this information, but the child still needs to get his diploma, anyway, would be looked at as, at best, seriously weird. (And, at worst, of abusing his child by intentionally denying him information which society expects people to have.)

I assert that knowing how to not have babies, when you don't want to have babies, is far more likely to be important to our young adults than knowing the capitol of Ohio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
No, I was talking about preparing citizens to be productive members of society.

Perhaps they need to outsource or call in a consultant then.

Cause the present course ain't working to well;)

The new slogan gonna be Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of productive citizens ?:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted
ols..Why not?...many of our grandparents had kids as teens.

Not what I would recommend,but then that don't matter much obviously;)

But I was speaking of risks to health,which is what I assumed you were addressing.

Actually, there are a number of health risks associated with teen pregnancy - especially when the girl is uninsured, which a disproportionate amount of teen mothers are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Actually, there are a number of health risks associated with teen pregnancy - especially when the girl is uninsured, which a disproportionate amount of teen mothers are.

Yes, but I addressed that a couple posts before

From what I recall with proper care it is minimal.

but you are correct,and many of those risks include adults as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted
Yes, but I addressed that a couple posts before

From what I recall with proper care it is minimal.

but you are correct,and many of those risks include adults as well.

Right, but Larry's whole point was that missing this kind of education could cause much, much more of a disaster than not knowing the capital of Ohio. Not everyone receives "proper care," and even for the ones who do, the one or two percent that suffer significant health problems add up to a much larger number than the kids who suffer significant health problems from not knowing their capitals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
Actually, there are a number of health risks associated with teen pregnancy - especially when the girl is uninsured, which a disproportionate amount of teen mothers are.

Aw, there ya go, trying to make kids getting pregnant sound like a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiebear

Thiebear

Posted
Posted
Hypothetically speaking... It would make an interesting social experiment. Do it for ten years and compare results of the numbers of teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, etc. between the kids who attend the classes.

~Bang

At least there would be a point to the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Aw, there ya go, trying to make kids getting pregnant sound like a bad thing.

Must be a member of the imposing morals club;)

We could alway implant teens

birth control or behavioral control chips...kinda like a invisible fence for dogs:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiebear

Thiebear

Posted
Posted
Do you really wish to assert, in a thread discussing abstinence only education, that teen pregnancy really isn't that bad a thing, and society shouldn't discourage it?

:halo:

The baby boomers arn't going to pay for themselves. I'm going to need the country's teenagers to step up and have lots of children so i can get my 1700 a month in 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Hypothetically speaking... It would make an interesting social experiment. Do it for ten years and compare results of the numbers of teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, etc. between the kids who attend the classes.

~Bang

A partial answer to your request

Need to correlate the pregnancy rates and STD's to get a true picture though

http://104bab****.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/abstinence-only-states-more-effective/

“Abstinence Only” States More Effective

http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/less_than_15_graph3.jpg

For teen girls under the age of 15 years old, from 2001 – 2005, there was a 7.5% decrease in abortions among the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

For teen girls under the age of 15 years old, from 2001 – 2005, there was a 23.1% decrease in abortions among the states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education.

The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 208% greater reduction in abortions among girls 14 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

Overall, the abortion rate among girls younger than 15 years old in states which rejected abstinence only funding was 37.3% higher than in states which accepted funding

http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/total_teen_graph.jpg

For teen girls under the age of 20 years old, from 2001 – 2005, there was a 5.2% decrease in abortions among the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

For teen girls under the age of 20 years old, from 2001 – 2005, there was a 20.5% decrease in abortions among the states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education.

The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 294.2% greater reduction in abortions among girls 19 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

Overall, the teen abortion rate among girls 19 years old and younger for states which rejected abstinence only funding was 48.2% higher than in states which had accepted funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...