| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/15/2009 1:26:34 AM |
Abstinence is the only moral choice that leads to decrease in teen pregnancy.
That's interesting language, because I consider my attitude to be based on a moral agenda. My MORAL position is that it is in the best interests of young people to equip them and educate them for the pressures that they are going to experience and the lives they are going to lead. And with particular regard to young women, I consider it absolutely MORALLY right that they should be equipped to avoid the hardship of an unwanted pregnancy, especially when they are young enough that IT could contribute to depriving them of making choices best for THEM in their longer lives--exactly BECAUSE their decisions as teens will effect them for their entire lives.. SEX is natural--it is NOT, in itself, immoral. Intentionally depriving women of the means and/or knowledge to control their reproductive systems because of some religious agenda that they may or may not embrace (as is their right!) IS immoral, in my view. You might not agree with me--but that does not make your POV more MORAL than mine.
We could all get creative and conjure up nine kinds of methods that could decrease the teen pregnancy rate but the bottom line is:
Moral depravity will have consequences.
One of which is teen pregnancy. Choosing to ignore that fact and carry on with fruitless ideas to combat those consequences are, as we have all seen, both
inadequate and incompetent.
But the problem is that while YOU seem to believe that you KNOW what moral depravity is, OTHER people have the goal of equipping people to make their OWN moral choices, and yet navigate THIS life in some kind of productive way irrespective of whether or not everyone would necessarily agree with them...or EVEN irrespective of the idea some have of eternal damnation or similar. In the REAL world people have impulses that they follow irrespective of what their preacher (if they care to have one) might sanction or not. Is it not MORAL to consider the possibility that a young woman expressing her love (as she sees it) shouldn't necessarily, thus, sacrifice her autonomy due to a moment's weakness (or even a moment's STRENGTH that some people who have NOTHING to do with her life might disapprove of)? The way I see it, people banging this abstinence only drum WANT every fifteen year old who gives way to her sexual desire to GET PREGNANT or get AIDS--to SUFFER the consequences (for surely hellfire won't be enough punishment????). Honestly, how does THAT qualify as "Christian" compassion? How is THAT morality? And since when does making love qualify as "moral depravity"?
But let us continue trying with the same moronic ideas and see if they will some day pan out...oh wait! I think that's the definition of insanity.
No...the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Since moral judgments regarding human sexuality (and most especially FEMALE sexuality) were first introduce into human civilization... nevertheless, women have had SEX (shock) outside of marriage (along with MEN who are MUCH less, historically, burdened by that reality). At what point do we just freakin' ACCEPT that and think--hmmmm, maybe they are gonna have SEX. WOW! NEXT!? | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 10:12:29 AM | Give me a reasonable one. Changes in our culture,(surprisingly not Bush). No one can argue that movies like Juno have effected our youth's view of pregnancy. Also, as a mother of a two teens I can assure you that compared to when I was a teen, there is much more risk-taking among teens today.
Besides, the same data showed that last year also had record high rates for for Caesarean deliveries. Bush must be butcher happy, too.
*Federal health experts said they don't know why the teen pregnancy numbers went up from 2005 to 2006, and that not enough data have been collected to say whether it's a trend.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071205/teen-birth-rates-up-for-first-time-in-14-years-us-reports.htm
It's a moral choice that results in no pregnancy, as an educational method it's been shown time and again to be a immoral choice to produce more pregnant teenagers. So what you're saying then is the moral choice is whichever method is effective? Since abstinence is ineffective (in your opinion) we should modify morality to best suit our goal? Tell me, Charlie, what if we discovered tonight that ------ (fill in the blank) will have 100% success rate in eliminating all unwanted pregnancy.
What if the method was barbaric? Would you still support it? I do not think so.
Morality can not be modified. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 11:20:50 AM |
Changes in our culture,(surprisingly not Bush). No one can argue that movies like Juno have effected our youth's view of pregnancy. Also, as a mother of a two teens I can assure you that compared to when I was a teen, there is much more risk-taking among teens today.
Besides, the same data showed that last year also had record high rates for for Caesarean deliveries. Bush must be butcher happy, too.
Cultural changes? Teen birth rates were on a decline up until the year that this new education system was introduced. Meanwhile Canada another country with hyper sexualized media has continued to see a drop in it's teen pregnancy rate. We're not comparing data from 1980 to 2009 here. We're talking about the difference between 2003-2009.
"Cultural changes" doesn't fly.
So what you're saying then is the moral choice is whichever method is effective? Since abstinence is ineffective (in your opinion) we should modify morality to best suit our goal? Tell me, Charlie, what if we discovered tonight that ------ (fill in the blank) will have 100% success rate in eliminating all unwanted pregnancy.
What if the method was barbaric? Would you still support it? I do not think so.
Morality can not be modified.
Abstinence is not ineffective in stopping pregnancy, I never said that. I've argued (with scientific backing) that abstinence only education fails to produce abstinence, and instead produces STI's and teen pregnancy.
No I would not support barbaric measures. Unfortunately I don't have to, we have the means to reduce teen pregnancy and the only people who oppose it are the barbarians who think that a book written thousands of years ago is the path to teaching children in the modern age. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 1:30:15 PM | Cultural changes? Teen birth rates were on a decline up until the year that this new education system was introduced. Excuse me? *raises eyebrow*
There is nothing new (in US) about teaching children/teens that abstinence is the only100% effective method of birth control and/or STDs. This has been the norm in sex education for decades up until recent years so you lost me somewhere between say wha? and "what-chu-talkin' bout Willis?"
Meanwhile Canada another country with hyper sexualized media has continued to see a drop in it's teen pregnancy rate. Citation please.
"Cultural changes" doesn't fly. Depends on the pilot and his agenda besides I merely gave it as oneof many possible scenarios.
Abstinence is not ineffective in stopping pregnancy, I never said that. I've argued (with scientific backing) that abstinence only education fails to produce abstinence, and instead produces STI's and teen pregnancy. It doesn't fail to produce abstinence for many teens. It may have failed some but we can not say that it has failed altogether. Please spare me any claims that teaching "safe sex" to our youth will result in a solution to this problem. Just as many teens that have refused to consider the advice of abstinence, may just as likely 86 our encouraging the use of condoms.
No I would not support barbaric measures. Unfortunately I don't have to, we have the means to reduce teen pregnancy and the only people who oppose it are the barbarians who think that a book written thousands of years ago is the path to teaching children in the modern age.
You missed the point darlin and name calling is soo beneath you. Because I hold true to a Religious text that encourages us to keep our bodies disease free by not nailing everything that has a pulse means Im barbaric.
Ohh the irony is too much to bear. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 1:50:21 PM | "Changes in our Culture".... Hmmmmm. I love an argument based on such vague terms as to be rendered essentially meaningless.
Can you provide any evidence for this "cultural change" you see happening....other than the fact that there was a movie about a teenage girl who got pregnant and gave up her child for adoption?
It's kind of like saying The Scarlet Letter caused adultery to skyrocket.....
But....how's this for a "cultural change"?
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html
Personally, I'm less concerned with the evangelical right's silly little obsession with abstinence only education than I am with their distaste for (and budget gutting pernicious influence on) public education altogether. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 5:06:51 PM | Can you provide any evidence for this "cultural change" you see happening.... One would have to both blind and dumb to fail to see the changes in the culture our kids are living in. In the 1950's kids got thrown out of class for chewing gum, which by the way was the chief complaint given by teachers, and now grade 6 kids are carrying guns and knives. And speaking of the 50's-- a mere 4 percent of births in 1950 were to out-of-wedlock mothers. But in 2008, according to the most recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, 35.7% of all births were to unmarried women. *gets out calculator* Lemme see. I would say that its clear to see somethingin our culture has changed, for the worse I might add, and by the looks of things W couldn't possibly be responsible for all this mess. (unless he began screwing things up while attending Harvard. Doubtful.
Personally, I'm less concerned with the evangelical right's silly little obsession with abstinence "Silly little obsession" with values? From the right? Noooo.
(and its impolite to refer to others religious views as silly~unless they happen to be Christians and then it apparently is kosher.)
And Christian Reconstructionism? Youre serious?  Be sure to check under your bed tonight too for the monsters with fangs that want to hurt you.  | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 7:46:37 PM | [quote[Personally, I'm less concerned with the evangelical right's silly little obsession with abstinence
"Silly little obsession" with values? From the right? Noooo.
(and its impolite to refer to others religious views as silly~unless they happen to be Christians and then it apparently is kosher.)
Well, I didn't say that Christians were silly for being Christian. I said that the obsession with abstinence only education was a silly obsession of the Christian Right's. But this is helpful that you state that abstinence-only education is a religious view--for all the facade of concern about preventing pregnancy (and I don't believe for a second that they do anything but celebrate when teenage girls get pregnant), to the Christian Right this IS an imposition of their RELIGIOUS views into public education, to the practical detriment of young people. Now...what on earth gives them the impression that this is RIGHT in a secular republic when it comes to PUBLICLY funded education? Why should I pay through MY tax contributions to impose YOUR religious views through publicly funded education in a secular republic?
Oh wait....I KNOW....could it BE------
And Christian Reconstructionism? Youre serious? Be sure to check under your bed tonight too for the monsters with fangs that want to hurt you.
Yes. Well if you look at the first page of the discussion of this that I posted you will see that according to the author MOST Christian Reconstructionists don't realise that they are Reconstructionists. How about you tell us how you are NOT a Christian Reconstructionist rather than just poo poo-ing the notion in this Oh-Aren't-You-A-Fool way? | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:40:42 PM | Whatever you are doing, it isn't working. The statement in question was that Canada has a decreasing number of teen pregnancy, not that it had one lower than the US.
Yes. Well if you look at the first page of the discussion of this that I posted you will see that according to the author MOST Christian Reconstructionists don't realise that they are Reconstructionists. How about you tell us how you are NOT a Christian Reconstructionist rather than just poo poo-ing the notion in this Oh-Aren't-You-A-Fool way? I already have and read the entire page thank you very much. And damn, how could one believe in such utter nonsense claimed in this blatant propaganda and not know it?
EX: As a Reconstructionist, I'd hold be belief that capital punishment should reach beyond such crimes as murder and include things like blasphemy heresy, adultery and homosexuality. *rereads text due to its absurdity*
Ex 2: We read that Reconstuctionists believe that whatever does not fit neatly into a "Biblical world view" is a delusion sent by Satan. *wipes tears of laughter from eyes*
Ex 3: Reconstructionists--scary lil devils (pun intended) believe there is no such thing as a natural disaster and that sin is being judged when nature brings us to our knees.
Once again, are you serious?!
Hell, If I were that demented I'd at least suspect that my views were extreme. As I said, I've read it and its full of mere scare tactics, propaganda and a dash of bull$hit, for taste.
And "Poo-pooing"?
For your reading pleasure... proof that Canada has a decreasing pregnancy rate.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trousses/preg-gross/preg-gross-eng.htm
From your own citation we read that the probable reason for the finding was due largely to increased numbers of abortions--not exactly what I'd call an example we should follow.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 9:52:32 PM | ^^^^ Are you actually going to answer her question or are you one of those pesky "write about something else and hope they don't realize that I didn't answer the question" people?
For your reading pleasure... proof that Canada has a decreasing pregnancy rate.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trousses/preg-gross/preg-gross-eng.htm | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 10:13:07 PM |
EX: As a Reconstructionist, I'd hold be belief that capital punishment should reach beyond such crimes as murder and include things like blasphemy heresy, adultery and homosexuality. *rereads text due to its absurdity*
Ex 2: We read that Reconstuctionists believe that whatever does not fit neatly into a "Biblical world view" is a delusion sent by Satan. *wipes tears of laughter from eyes*
Once again, are you serious?!
You are reducing a broad movement down to two of its most extremist points, without regard for its broader teachings....essentially (from the article to which I posted the link):
Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or "Biblical Law," is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.
Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely "social" or "moral" issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a "Biblical world view" and "Biblical principles" by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."
More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God's covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are "in submission" to him. In turn, the husband "submits" to Jesus and to God's laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God's laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called "theonomy."
and yet....with regard to widespread use of capital punishment:
People who sympathize with Reconstructionism often flee the label because of the severe and unpopular nature of such views. Even those who feel it appropriate that they would be the governors of God's theocracy often waffle on the particulars, like capital punishment for sinners and nonbelievers.
Anyway....yes it's easy to laugh this stuff off, but it's most basic premise--which is that all law should conform itself to Christian teachings--is scary enough...for that IS theocracy (and thus profoundly seditious/unAmerican). And while I'm sure that you will "poo poo" (yes, poo poo) any alliance between the POV advocating (on biblical principles) for the sort of imposition into education that adds up to abstinence only education/ teaching of creationism/ and similar....yet, HOW is it so different? Either you want to craft our country into a "Christian" state operating according to fundamentalist interpretations of biblical tenets of you don't? If you DO, then you are a reconstructionist....or at least a sympathiser...even if not EVERYone sharing basic reconstructionist principles adopts the same position on every single detail. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 10:17:41 PM |
From your own citation we read that the probable reason for the finding was due largely to increased numbers of abortions--not exactly what I'd call an example we should follow.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Yeah, let's talk about something else other than the fact that you were wrong. We need to keep distracting so that people don't catch on.... | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 10:47:35 PM |
The statement in question was that Canada has a decreasing number of teen pregnancy, not that it had one lower than the US.
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e5dad385-c1d5-4ae2-9681-8aa188f5496a
The rate of teen pregnancies in Canada has hit an all-time low and has fallen more dramatically than in the United States and England over the last three decades, says new research published.
Also your argument that it’s because of Abortion? We have less of those as well by about 25%!
Seriously, your abstinence only education produces more pregnancies. More pregnancies mean more people in abortion clinics! | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 11:08:32 PM | Just to summarize then:
Abortions are much, much easier to obtain in Canada.
Canada is a much, much less religious nation than the US.
We have 25% fewer abortions per capita than the US.
There's an argument which is often offered when something like this is pointed out. I'm kind of hoping it will be. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 11:37:29 PM |
From your own citation we read that the probable reason for the finding was due largely to increased numbers of abortions--not exactly what I'd call an example we should follow.
"We read that the probable reason"? Noooo....you read and interpreted it to fit your argument. It is very clear in the conclusion (did you get that far?) that teen pregnancy has overall declined and abortion rates have stabilized AND most pregnancies end in a live birth.
In recent years, teenage pregnancy in Canada has declined. At the same time, the abortion rate for teenagers has stabilized. As a result, the proportion of teen pregnancies that end in an abortion has increased, exceeding live births for the first time.
Pregnancy rates are higher for older teens than younger teens. Abortion is the most common outcome for pregnancies among women aged 15 to 17. Older teens, however, are still more likely to have a live birth.
Teenage pregnancy rates tend to be high in the North and the Prairie provinces and low in the Atlantic region. However, in every province and territory, except Québec, Ontario and British Columbia, the majority of teenage pregnancies end in a live birth rather than an abortion.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trousses/preg-gross/preg-gross-eng.htm
David Chilton... Oh...crap...please don't say he's the same guy who wrote "The Wealthy Barber"...or related in any way!
"The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."
Replace the bold words with....
Muslim
Koran (ic?) or (ical?)
Mohammad
Allah's (same guy, BTW)
...and what do we get?....worldwide religious sectarian violence....which...coincidentally enough....has nothing to do with the true teachings of either religion (or just about any other, for that matter)
WWJD? WWMD? My guess...talk about how much they both love their father and wonder why the rest of us just don't..... | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/16/2009 11:53:41 PM | | Perhaps part of the reason for abstinence only education is to increase teen pregnancy because much of the "western" world (the U.S. especially) is increasingly seeing a flat or negative growth rate among WASP's. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/17/2009 6:23:08 PM |
Cultural changes? Teen birth rates were on a decline up until the year that this new education system was introduced.
Excuse me? *raises eyebrow*
There is nothing new (in US) about teaching children/teens that abstinence is the only100% effective method of birth control and/or STDs. This has been the norm in sex education for decades up until recent years so you lost me somewhere between say wha? and "what-chu-talkin' bout Willis?"
What is new is teaching abstinence only. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/20/2009 4:39:43 AM | Charles ... please provide ... the real facts on teen preg. vs. abortion .......
USA ... vs ... Canada ...
In relation to ....... population differences .....
Per capita means PER PERSON. In other words those rates I gave you were population adjusted already.
For instance
# 1 United States: 1,671.63 births per 1 million people
# 9 Canada: 607.224 births per 1 million people
So that means a million teenagers in the USA have 1,671.63 births.
A million Canadian teens have 607 births.
Damn sex ed isn't all that needs to be reformed down there.
| |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/20/2009 7:23:08 AM | | Do Canadian schools give out free condoms to the students, and if so at what age do they start the distribution? | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/20/2009 8:18:19 AM | | You can find free condoms at most university health clinics. In a popular tourist town (filled with young kids working for the summer) just down the road from me, a HIV-AIDS awareness group occasionally stops in at the bars and pass out free condoms. | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:03:05 AM | It really doesn't matter if you gave condoms out in preschools ........
You must also have real sex ed............. Based on science | |
|
| The Bush legacy: Pregnant teens.
Posted: 8/20/2009 5:34:52 PM |
You must also have real sex ed............. Based on science
Hell I had that in 6th grade back in 1968 | |
|
Home
login 
