[quote]pookie wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
We did not have near the out of wedlock births 60 yrs ago and we did not have sex education.
Please cite your references for both affirmations.
[/quote]
You really are as dumb as Alan Colmes. You need proof of this one???
[quote]rainjack wrote:
That wasn’t what I asked for, poindexter. Here, reread your statement, and then reread my request:
This is you:
I think that teaching abstinence as the only valid form of birth control leads directly to the unfortunate circumstances being so common.[/quote]
That’s a reply to someone else’s comments. I don’t see Palin mentioned.
Who said anything about a quote?
Find me the quote where Obama refers to himself as The New Messiah.
I wouldn’t know. But if you say so, I’ll defer to your expert knowledge on that technique.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
You make as much sense as Alan Colmes. Fairies may be true??? Unicorns???[/quote]
An invisible God???
[quote]rainjack wrote:
That is not birth control, dimwit. You either don’t understand what the hell is going on, or you used the wrong words in your original statements.
Sex education is not a form of birth control. Never has been never will be.
Reading is such a glorious tool if one chooses to actually use it. [/quote]
If the parents don’t inform their children about birth control and don’t want the schools to do it either, do you expect some kind of spontaneous knowledge about the subject to magically appear in teenager’s mind while they’re fooling around?
I’m starting to understand why the “abstinence only” crowd is getting such stellar results.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Don’t tell me that if one of Obama’s daughters would get pregnant at 17, the outrage wouldn’t be tremendous.
For same reason a candidate should be married and have children, this matters: A candidate is expected to have a model familiy and live a life according to certain values. Values, that some candidates and partys are even more eager to promote.
Who is outraged? So far, the only people posting ave been those who thought it was funny.
I don’t know how it translates in German, but outrageous, hilarious, etc. are all words used to describe things people find humorous - not anger.
Sarah Palin’s values somehow didn’t stick to her daughter’s uterus, and that is telling.
What the fuck does that even mean?
He is saying she didn’t do her job as a mother. Maybe true. Maybe not. Unfortunately, sometimes kids fuck up and they fuck up big despite parents’ best efforts. [/quote]
Cure for that is work 'em 15 or so hours a day 6 days a week. Worked with my old man, lol.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
You really are as dumb as Alan Colmes. You need proof of this one???[/quote]
Who is Alan Colmes anyway?
Second, yes. If it’s such common knowledge, how hard can it be to find some numbers to back it up? I’ll even grant you the lack of sex education sixty years ago; all that’s missing is the out-of-wedlock birth numbers.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
That wasn’t what I asked for, poindexter. Here, reread your statement, and then reread my request:
This is you:
I think that teaching abstinence as the only valid form of birth control leads directly to the unfortunate circumstances being so common.
That’s a reply to someone else’s comments. I don’t see Palin mentioned.
[/quote]
Good lord. If you weren’t talking about Palin - who were you referring to, then?
Are we really going to go this route? I can be just as much of an ass as you can - probably more. And I know I am just as stubborn.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
We did not have near the out of wedlock births 60 yrs ago and we did not have sex education.
Can one of you sex education in school advocates explain that one?
Don’t tell me they were having sex too - I am talking about out of wedlock births - it was not even close to the rate today.[/quote]
They indeed were having sex too, and nice amounts of it. Look at these interesting national census figures:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0020/table3.html
Interesting points (especially when looking at the age breakdown): Among 15-19 year olds, overall pregnancy numbers in the mid nineties were effectively the same as in the 1960s (so much for the myth that there’s been an epidemic of teenage pregnancies today). Now if you go back to the 1930s, you’ll see that pre-marital conception percentages are pretty much the same as in the nineties - but more significantly, in the 1960s there was a spike of pre-marital conceptions. What does that mean - people used to shag just like they do today and the got pregnant back then as well. What has changed is that they are not subjected to shotgun marriages (premarital conceptions resulting in a marriage) anymore: they were at 48% in the 30s, spiked in the 60s (those marriage crazy hippies) and fell down to 16% in the 90s. It’s pretty similar among 20-24 year olds.
Now what does that say - people shagged back then as much as they do now, but when they got pregnant, they got married because of that; always the basis for a successful marriage (not). Nowadays, they don’t get married just because they are pregnant - not much of an option in the good old days due to social stigma and basically social hell if you were a single unmarried mother. So, from the abstinence perspective, people failed just like the do today as they were having pre-marital sex; what makes the good old days look more respectable (and creates this fantasy of a more moral society) is the massive amount of post-conception marriages back then. Charming.
Makkun
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
That is not birth control, dimwit. You either don’t understand what the hell is going on, or you used the wrong words in your original statements.
Sex education is not a form of birth control. Never has been never will be.
Reading is such a glorious tool if one chooses to actually use it.
If the parents don’t inform their children about birth control and don’t want the schools to do it either, do you expect some kind of spontaneous knowledge about the subject to magically appear in teenager’s mind while they’re fooling around?
I’m starting to understand why the “abstinence only” crowd is getting such stellar results.
[/quote]
According to Makkum’s source, Teen pregnancy rates are the same as they were 60 years ago. Could it be that nature will take its course regardless of the best of intentions?
Seems like taking them to the farm and letting them watch the bulls and the cows is about as good as having a condom dispenser on the girls restroom.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Now what does that say - people shagged back then as much as they do now, but when they got pregnant, they got married because of that; always the basis for a successful marriage (not). Nowadays, they don’t get married just because they are pregnant - not much of an option in the good old days due to social stigma and basically social hell if you were a single unmarried mother. So, from the abstinence perspective, people failed just like the do today as they were having pre-marital sex; what makes the good old days look more respectable (and creates this fantasy of a more moral society) is the massive amount of post-conception marriages back then. Charming.
Makkun[/quote]
They probably did get married a lot more than they do these days. i would take a forced marriage over an abortion any day.
But you seem to be forgetting adoption. Lot’s of girls “went away”, had the baby, and gave it up.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
makkun wrote:
Now what does that say - people shagged back then as much as they do now, but when they got pregnant, they got married because of that; always the basis for a successful marriage (not). Nowadays, they don’t get married just because they are pregnant - not much of an option in the good old days due to social stigma and basically social hell if you were a single unmarried mother. So, from the abstinence perspective, people failed just like the do today as they were having pre-marital sex; what makes the good old days look more respectable (and creates this fantasy of a more moral society) is the massive amount of post-conception marriages back then. Charming.
Makkun
They probably did get married a lot more than they do these days. i would take a forced marriage over an abortion any day.
But you seem to be forgetting adoption. Lot’s of girls “went away”, had the baby, and gave it up. [/quote]
I will concede the rate in the early 90’s is not much different (though it was lower) than in the 30’s but what does that say about the success of sex ed and handing out condoms?
It was in the same range for the 30’s and 40’s (a 20 yr stretch) which was a lower rate than any other period. And it was likely this low or lower prior to the 30’s.
So, other than the early 90’s dip, it was lower by a significant % back then without sex ed in the schools.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
[…]
According to Makkum’s source, Teen pregnancy rates are the same as they were 60 years ago. Could it be that nature will take its course regardless of the best of intentions?
Seems like taking them to the farm and letting them watch the bulls and the cows is about as good as having a condom dispenser on the girls restroom.[/quote]
Nope, they were lower, but so was the overall birth rate. The question brought up by bald eagle was about births out of wedlock. What has changed wrt to that is the attitude what to do when getting pregnant. And the answer to that is lot less often ‘lets get married’.
Learning about procreation is only one part of sex education - condoms also fulfil besides their contraceptive role a vital role in preventing the transmission of STDs. Both described measures are pointless though when not put into context by being explained. And that’s where the abstinence credo fails - it’s based on non-information and lack of preparation, which doesn’t help equip teenagers to handle difficult and confusing situations.
[quote]They probably did get married a lot more than they do these days. i would take a forced marriage over an abortion any day.
But you seem to be forgetting adoption. Lot’s of girls “went away”, had the baby, and gave it up. [/quote]
Maybe, but these figures only concentrate on conceptions, births and marriages in relation to each other, not abortion or adoption. Again, it was an answer to bald eagle’s post to dispell the illusion that society 60 years ago was in any form more ‘moral’ based on numbers of children born out of wedlock.
Makkun
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Seems like taking them to the farm and letting them watch the bulls and the cows is about as good as having a condom dispenser on the girls restroom.[/quote]
Maybe you should try sex-ed and easily available birth control; with social stigma, taboos and pressures removed - then report on how that works compared to the status quo.
Maybe Makkun can find some stats from a progressive European country to compare with those from the US.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Seems like taking them to the farm and letting them watch the bulls and the cows is about as good as having a condom dispenser on the girls restroom.
Maybe you should try sex-ed and easily available birth control; with social stigma, taboos and pressures removed - then report on how that works compared to the status quo.
Maybe Makkun can find some stats from a progressive European country to compare with those from the US.
[/quote]
Whatever. Do you have numbers supporting the superiority of the Euro method? Just wondering.
Nice duck out, though, on the “She thinks you can drill yourself out of your current energy problems” thing.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
[…] I will concede the rate in the early 90’s is not much different (though it was lower) than in the 30’s but what does that say about the success of sex ed and handing out condoms?
It was in the same range for the 30’s and 40’s (a 20 yr stretch) which was a lower rate than any other period. And it was likely this low or lower prior to the 30’s.
So, other than the early 90’s dip, it was lower by a significant % back then without sex ed in the schools.[/quote]
Let’s see what the CDC has to say to that: overall teenage pregnancies keep declining (this basically closes the gap between the earlier statistics and now), which has to a large extent to do with the increasing use of contraceptive methods (which requires information provided by parents, school - sex education), even during first contact. So, the trend is positive, largely due to usage of condoms and other contraceptive methods and people talking to teenagers about sex.
More interesting news on this: scroll towards the end - use of condoms and the pill both are highly dependent on education of especially women/girls.
So, overall - people will have sex, and that doesn’t seem to be affected by what the adult population tells them. But, there seems to be a clear and positive correlation between informing (educating) young people and their ability to use measures for disease and pregnancy prevention. That may not make the people happy that don’t want their children to have sex (that never seems to have worked), but does indeed soften the impact of what their children will do anyway. I’ll take that over abortion or adoption at any time.
Makkun
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nice cover. Doesn’t fool me, but I am sure there are a bunch of suckers out there that will be fooled. [/quote]
Right, right. Run away, as usual.
Aren’t you ashamed that lifticus is pretty much all you can handle in a debate when you don’t have others making points you can jump behind?
No wonder you two spend so much time arguing in circles. You’re evenly matched.
You should make sure that Thunderbolt, Zap, BB or you new BFF Bill Roberts (rah! rah!) are around before you start replying. It would save you much embarrassment.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Whatever. Do you have numbers supporting the superiority of the Euro method? Just wondering.[/quote]
Right, 'cause you’re the kinda guy who bases his opinions on facts and numbers.
Sucks for you that I can spot an amateurishly built straw man miles away.
[quote]makkun wrote:
So, overall - people will have sex, and that doesn’t seem to be affected by what the adult population tells them. But, there seems to be a clear and positive correlation between informing (educating) young people and their ability to use measures for disease and pregnancy prevention. That may not make the people happy that don’t want their children to have sex (that never seems to have worked), but does indeed soften the impact of what their children will do anyway. I’ll take that over abortion or adoption at any time.[/quote]
Are you telling me that all the facts agree with my views?
Damn, what are the odds?
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Whatever. Do you have numbers supporting the superiority of the Euro method? Just wondering.
Right, 'cause you’re the kinda guy who bases his opinions on facts and numbers.[/quote]
So that would be a no? Not surprising since you haven’t provided a fucking thing but your worthless opinion all day.
And you are attempting to tag me with creating a straw man?
[quote]Nice duck out, though, on the “She thinks you can drill yourself out of your current energy problems” thing.
Sucks for you that I can spot an amateurishly built straw man miles away.
[/quote]
Not a straw man. I was just asking a question. You seem to make a shit load of statements but, when asked to back them up, cry straw man at your earliest convenience.
[quote]pookie wrote:
[…]Maybe Makkun can find some stats from a progressive European country to compare with those from the US.
[/quote]
You make it sound like I’m the resident research minion…
Well, I’ll get some sleep and then we’ll see - certainly I wouldn’t go for the UK: its unwanted teen pregnancy figures are famously second worst in the western world, after the US.
Good night.
Makkun