Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Differing views on teenage sex

Posted by   + Show Post
by on Dec. 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM
Replies (11-15):
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Dec. 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

So you see the evidence provided here, and are just choosing to ignore it/imply it isn't possible?

No one is saying that it would stop 100% completely. But 7.7 out of 1,000 is a LOT less than 55 out of 1,000. And the kids that are born of teens are a LOT more likely to run into this problem as well.

No one is saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions. But kids don't always think like that.

Clearly there is a better way than hiding or giving misleading information about contraception. And it would save a lot more money in the long run. Birth control, or condoms are WAY cheaper than nearly 18 years of various forms of PA.

Quoting radioheid:

 The cost would be monumental, and there would still be children born to teen moms...there always have been and always will be. I don't see why people can't simply take responsibility for their own actions. If you're old enough to have sex, fully aware that sex can lead to babies, you're old enough to get a part-time job, baby-sit, collect cans or mow people's lawns to buy some damn condoms (or pay for an abortion), IMO.

Quoting Woodbabe:

Taking the financial aspect of this, fiscally it would be cheaper in the long run because it would lower the costs of paying for all of these unwanted, unaffordable children. Welfare, medical, WIC, etc...those costs to the government would drop substantially if the numbers of children requiring these services dropped.

Quoting radioheid:

 I personally feel those over the age of consent should have ready, "free" access to contraception, however, I stop short of believing we should hand it out, literally for free, in schools. I don't believe encouraging promiscuous sex is a good idea, as pregnancy isn't the only risk associated with sexual activity, and both gonorrhea and syphilis have been on the rise to boot.

Nearly 50 million Americans are now on food stamps, and our federal deficit is over 16 trillion dollars. We simply can't afford to host federal government-funded float parades in which we cast out free birth control pills and condoms to cheering spectators all over the country.


 


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

radioheid
by Libertarian on Dec. 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

 Sometimes I think you just like arguing with me, even when it requires twisting my words or grasping for straws.

Rather than *discouraging* kids from having sex---and I'm not talking abstinence-only programs, but rather giving them a dose of the good, the bad, and the ugly---we're talking about *encouraging* them to have sex, simply because the Dutch claim something they did worked...for Dutch teens raised in a Euro culture.

We don't live in the same culture as the Dutch. Not even close. So why would assume to see their numbers, even if we could afford to pay for a "universal birth control for kids" program? This type of argument is like that which supports making kids take more and more math and science classes in high school to "keep up with the Japanese", while ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that we don't live in, and thus our kids aren't raised in, the same culture as the Japanese, which still place an insane amount of emphasis on family honor and perfection. You don't blindly throw money into a program without carefully considering the consequences. This is how we got trillions in debt in the first place.

IN AMERICA, I don't think this is the answer, and certainly not at this point.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

So you see the evidence provided here, and are just choosing to ignore it/imply it isn't possible?

No one is saying that it would stop 100% completely. But 7.7 out of 1,000 is a LOT less than 55 out of 1,000. And the kids that are born of teens are a LOT more likely to run into this problem as well.

No one is saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions. But kids don't always think like that.

Clearly there is a better way than hiding or giving misleading information about contraception. And it would save a lot more money in the long run. Birth control, or condoms are WAY cheaper than nearly 18 years of various forms of PA.

Quoting radioheid:

 The cost would be monumental, and there would still be children born to teen moms...there always have been and always will be. I don't see why people can't simply take responsibility for their own actions. If you're old enough to have sex, fully aware that sex can lead to babies, you're old enough to get a part-time job, baby-sit, collect cans or mow people's lawns to buy some damn condoms (or pay for an abortion), IMO.

Quoting Woodbabe:

Taking the financial aspect of this, fiscally it would be cheaper in the long run because it would lower the costs of paying for all of these unwanted, unaffordable children. Welfare, medical, WIC, etc...those costs to the government would drop substantially if the numbers of children requiring these services dropped.

Quoting radioheid:

 I personally feel those over the age of consent should have ready, "free" access to contraception, however, I stop short of believing we should hand it out, literally for free, in schools. I don't believe encouraging promiscuous sex is a good idea, as pregnancy isn't the only risk associated with sexual activity, and both gonorrhea and syphilis have been on the rise to boot.

Nearly 50 million Americans are now on food stamps, and our federal deficit is over 16 trillion dollars. We simply can't afford to host federal government-funded float parades in which we cast out free birth control pills and condoms to cheering spectators all over the country.


 

 

 


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

jlo1313
by Silver Member on Dec. 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Abstinence only programs and education are failing at rapid rates.  I feel it would be far more economical to educate teens correctly, based on science, not morality, provide birth control options and fund abortions for teens under 21 that wish to obtain them than what we are doing right now.  And then the bonus would be that a certain CM'er would stop making posts about single mothers.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Dec. 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM


I -never- suggested we should encourage kids to have sex (Talk about grasping for straws). The article presents amazing results and how they were obtained and you attack a part that is insignificant.

Do you think their pregnancy rate, and abortion rate are so low because they encourage kids to have sex? And if you do, how do you think that works out?

Or would you be willing to admit that the Pregnancy/Abortion rate is so low because their government offers free birth control and teaches them about contraception in their sex ed classes?

That is the point of the article.

I am not saying we should randomly just fund a program like this for our entire country (Another straw man tactic). But if it is working extremely well for another country it should be something to look into. For example, maybe try it at a certain school/school district and see if the results are the same, or significant at all.

I don't see how it won't work. If there are two girls who are going to have sex. One is given the option to have free birth control and the other is taught abstinence-I know which one I think might end up pregnant in the future and which one won't.

Ps-I do enjoy debates. And out of the normal CafeMomers you are one of my faves to debate with. Sorry.

Quoting radioheid:

 Sometimes I think you just like arguing with me, even when it requires twisting my words or grasping for straws.

Rather than *discouraging* kids from having sex---and I'm not talking abstinence-only programs, but rather giving them a dose of the good, the bad, and the ugly---we're talking about *encouraging* them to have sex, simply because the Dutch claim something they did worked...for Dutch teens raised in a Euro culture.

We don't live in the same culture as the Dutch. Not even close. So why would assume to see their numbers, even if we could afford to pay for a "universal birth control for kids" program? This type of argument is like that which supports making kids take more and more math and science classes in high school to "keep up with the Japanese", while ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that we don't live in, and thus our kids aren't raised in, the same culture as the Japanese, which still place an insane amount of emphasis on family honor and perfection. You don't blindly throw money into a program without carefully considering the consequences. This is how we got trillions in debt in the first place.

IN AMERICA, I don't think this is the answer, and certainly not at this point.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

So you see the evidence provided here, and are just choosing to ignore it/imply it isn't possible?

No one is saying that it would stop 100% completely. But 7.7 out of 1,000 is a LOT less than 55 out of 1,000. And the kids that are born of teens are a LOT more likely to run into this problem as well.

No one is saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions. But kids don't always think like that.

Clearly there is a better way than hiding or giving misleading information about contraception. And it would save a lot more money in the long run. Birth control, or condoms are WAY cheaper than nearly 18 years of various forms of PA.

Quoting radioheid:

 The cost would be monumental, and there would still be children born to teen moms...there always have been and always will be. I don't see why people can't simply take responsibility for their own actions. If you're old enough to have sex, fully aware that sex can lead to babies, you're old enough to get a part-time job, baby-sit, collect cans or mow people's lawns to buy some damn condoms (or pay for an abortion), IMO.

Quoting Woodbabe:

Taking the financial aspect of this, fiscally it would be cheaper in the long run because it would lower the costs of paying for all of these unwanted, unaffordable children. Welfare, medical, WIC, etc...those costs to the government would drop substantially if the numbers of children requiring these services dropped.

Quoting radioheid:

 I personally feel those over the age of consent should have ready, "free" access to contraception, however, I stop short of believing we should hand it out, literally for free, in schools. I don't believe encouraging promiscuous sex is a good idea, as pregnancy isn't the only risk associated with sexual activity, and both gonorrhea and syphilis have been on the rise to boot.

Nearly 50 million Americans are now on food stamps, and our federal deficit is over 16 trillion dollars. We simply can't afford to host federal government-funded float parades in which we cast out free birth control pills and condoms to cheering spectators all over the country.


 


 


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

radioheid
by Libertarian on Dec. 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM

 I didn't say YOU said we should encourage kids to have sex, I'm saying that such a program encourages the behavior, and the parents who permit such sleep-overs as mentioned in the article certainly do.

I don't know why their pregnancy and abortion rates are so low, and neither do you. The article didn't say how many Dutch kids are having sex, nor how many are actually using birth control provided, only that a rather ambiguous "2/3 of parents allow sleep-overs". Perhaps the rates are low because the kids aren't all that sexually active. Maybe they are engaging in alternative sexual practices, such as oral and anal. Maybe those who are actually having vaginal intercourse *are* using birth control, and perhaps that birth control just so happens to be that which is provided by government. Who the hell knows. The article really didn't cover that.

I'm not opposed to such a program, providing the program is approved by a two-thirds majority of school board members, and the funds are raised by private donors. The issue I take with government (tax-payer) funded programs is that such subtly encourages public dependence upon an ever-expanding government and the money earned by others, and I consider this dependence to be dangerous. Never in the history of civilization has a government had wide, reaching power without using that power to systematically strip away the rights of its citizens. I'd prefer the government stay out of my life as much as possible.

Our species is naturally driven by the prospect of reward. I personally believe our current situation---a high rate of unemployment and poverty, and children born outside of a stable, long-term relationship (including virtually all teen pregnancies)---is the result of our society rewarding lesser and lesser "achievements" with everything from free food, free housing, free transportation, free college/vocational education, free phones for people who made a series of poor choices, to trophies for the last place team and medals and ribbons for the last place "competitor". These things are indeed rewards---"gimmes" for people who did nothing to earn them. We're teaching kids not to work hard, we're teaching kids there is no such thing as truly winning or losing, and this, IMO, is a greater problem than free birth control and sex ed can solve. Our kids, American kids, are being raised in an environment devoid of accountability, where everyone must be equal in their possessions (my parents were chastised for buying my little sister the 64 ct box of crayons because "not everyone could afford those...the kids are only allowed the 24 ct box"), no one may be judged or criticized without facing backlash or even punishment for doing so, and everyone gets to play and win, regardless of effort (they didn't keep score at my niece's softball games, and everyone got a trophy). This environment, which has been in full-swing since the 1980s, as well as religiously-motivated and shame-based "abstinence-only" programs are directly responsible for our high rate of teen pregnancy, and high rate of children born to truly single parents (not just those who aren't legally married), which are, of course, closely tied to poverty.

At least I have an explanation for why you seem to disproportionately target my replies in this group. Ha.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


I -never- suggested we should encourage kids to have sex (Talk about grasping for straws). The article presents amazing results and how they were obtained and you attack a part that is insignificant.

Do you think their pregnancy rate, and abortion rate are so low because they encourage kids to have sex? And if you do, how do you think that works out?

Or would you be willing to admit that the Pregnancy/Abortion rate is so low because their government offers free birth control and teaches them about contraception in their sex ed classes?

That is the point of the article.

I am not saying we should randomly just fund a program like this for our entire country (Another straw man tactic). But if it is working extremely well for another country it should be something to look into. For example, maybe try it at a certain school/school district and see if the results are the same, or significant at all.

I don't see how it won't work. If there are two girls who are going to have sex. One is given the option to have free birth control and the other is taught abstinence-I know which one I think might end up pregnant in the future and which one won't.

Ps-I do enjoy debates. And out of the normal CafeMomers you are one of my faves to debate with. Sorry.

Quoting radioheid:

 Sometimes I think you just like arguing with me, even when it requires twisting my words or grasping for straws.

Rather than *discouraging* kids from having sex---and I'm not talking abstinence-only programs, but rather giving them a dose of the good, the bad, and the ugly---we're talking about *encouraging* them to have sex, simply because the Dutch claim something they did worked...for Dutch teens raised in a Euro culture.

We don't live in the same culture as the Dutch. Not even close. So why would assume to see their numbers, even if we could afford to pay for a "universal birth control for kids" program? This type of argument is like that which supports making kids take more and more math and science classes in high school to "keep up with the Japanese", while ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that we don't live in, and thus our kids aren't raised in, the same culture as the Japanese, which still place an insane amount of emphasis on family honor and perfection. You don't blindly throw money into a program without carefully considering the consequences. This is how we got trillions in debt in the first place.

IN AMERICA, I don't think this is the answer, and certainly not at this point.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

So you see the evidence provided here, and are just choosing to ignore it/imply it isn't possible?

No one is saying that it would stop 100% completely. But 7.7 out of 1,000 is a LOT less than 55 out of 1,000. And the kids that are born of teens are a LOT more likely to run into this problem as well.

No one is saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their own actions. But kids don't always think like that.

Clearly there is a better way than hiding or giving misleading information about contraception. And it would save a lot more money in the long run. Birth control, or condoms are WAY cheaper than nearly 18 years of various forms of PA.

Quoting radioheid:

 The cost would be monumental, and there would still be children born to teen moms...there always have been and always will be. I don't see why people can't simply take responsibility for their own actions. If you're old enough to have sex, fully aware that sex can lead to babies, you're old enough to get a part-time job, baby-sit, collect cans or mow people's lawns to buy some damn condoms (or pay for an abortion), IMO.

Quoting Woodbabe:

Taking the financial aspect of this, fiscally it would be cheaper in the long run because it would lower the costs of paying for all of these unwanted, unaffordable children. Welfare, medical, WIC, etc...those costs to the government would drop substantially if the numbers of children requiring these services dropped.

Quoting radioheid:

 I personally feel those over the age of consent should have ready, "free" access to contraception, however, I stop short of believing we should hand it out, literally for free, in schools. I don't believe encouraging promiscuous sex is a good idea, as pregnancy isn't the only risk associated with sexual activity, and both gonorrhea and syphilis have been on the rise to boot.

Nearly 50 million Americans are now on food stamps, and our federal deficit is over 16 trillion dollars. We simply can't afford to host federal government-funded float parades in which we cast out free birth control pills and condoms to cheering spectators all over the country.


 

 

 

 

 


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)