PJ you missed my point. What hoops would you have to go through to adopt a child through the child welfare system where you live? I am not talking about private adoption either. Here it is absolutely demeaning for the adoptive parents. On average it takes ten or more years and many are rejected in the end because a bureaucrat says they have become *too old* to start a family.

On the otherhand what efforts are the same bureaucrats taking to screen unwed minors and unfit married couples? Nothing. Absolutely nothing except defending the parent(s) unearned right to ruin the life of child.

I guess I did. I thought you were talking about ensuring that unqualified people did not create children.

Of course, we could outlaw stairs, also, as falls in the home kill or maim a lot more folks than firearms do....

Source, please?

Accidental deaths by firearm, and falls:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120


http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidentsFULL.html

I've read that ladders and motor vehicles are pretty dangerous too.

Your numbers don't pan out. According to the second source, the 14,900 deaths include falls from ladders, busses, etc., not just stairs.

quote:
7. Firearms
Deaths per year: 1,500

We can thank our second amendment rights for all 1500 of these deaths; call it the "right to die" amendment. You probably don't want to know how many countries in the world do not even have "accidental death by firearms" on their top ten, or their top twenty. Suffice it to say that it's most of them. Of the 1500, you're looking at about 75% young males between the age of 14 and 25 (and getting younger every year), who unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else.


Swell.

.

Also your first source says the the number of deaths from firearm accidents is steadily decreasing.

I would suggest, then that we focus on a cause of deaths that is steadily INCREASING, that is STDs, a cause of death that is very controllable, yet your government has chosen to prevent the dissemination of information about the only sensible and scientifically proven method of preventing the spread of these diseases.

Nope. I gave you two diverse sources, one which puts firearms deaths into a better perspective. Many of those deaths labeled as accidental, are not.

However, taking fall data from both sites, the rate of fall deaths is over ten times even the higher firearms death figure.

Now, if you care to debate whether 10% of those falls can be blamed on stairs of one kind or another, I'll try to find more exact statistics.

Before I continue, please be advised that this discussion of stairs is good-natured debating, not the usual name-calling, aspersion-casting, coercive, venomous drivel we usually see in the CR. I herewith engage, tongue firmly planted in cheek...

Sorry, I missed the stats in the NRA page. I couldn't stomach the extremist blather long enough to see what you were tyring to cite.

Firearms[/b] are involved in only 0.8%[/b] of accidental deaths. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, ...falls (13%)[/b]....
Among children, firearms[/b] are involved in only 1.5%[/b] of accidental deaths. Most accidental deaths among children involve, or are due to,...falls (1.4%)[/b]....

Again, the NRA-sourced stats (like I'd ever trust that as a reliable source), mention "falls", but do not single out stairs. You'll have to waste more of your time looking for a further breakdown.

But the more interesting numbers there are the causes of accidental death among children, where there is practically no difference in the rate for firearms and the nebulously broad category of "falls".

I remain unconvinced.


(removing tongue from cheek)

Now, as far as I know, no human beings are born with a firearm in their hands. (Almost) all human beings are born with reproductive organs and hardly more than a decade after being born, they get very interested in trying them out. As we know, this is a deadly proposition these days.

So why is the Bush administration hell-bent on ensuring the spread of STDs?

One idea: because it is a puppet of the religious right.

Exactly !

That is your opinion, it is not fact.

In your opinion, it appears as if only condoms can stop the spread of STDs (which has morphed from HIV, earlier in the thread).

In Africa, they are giving away condoms like candy-canes.

Heck, around here at one time, we gave away peppermint flavored condoms, primarily to the gay community.

Didn't slow the spread down a bit.

Could it possibly be, that there are other, and possibly more effective ways of controlling HIV, and other STDs, than just condoms?

Not just my opinion. Did you read the article I linked to?

quote:
In place of effective, disease-preventing safe-sex education, little will soon remain except failed programs that denounce condom use, while teaching abstinence as the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS. And those abstinence-only programs, researchers say, actually increase the risk of contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).


Condoms aren't the only way. They are the only practical way. The only way is abstinence. Abstinence is not practical. The Minnesota Dept. of Health has proven that conclusively.

You have no way of knowing 1) if all those free condoms were used, and 2) what the rate of infection would have been without them.

As far as I can see, you haven't shown a leg to stand on.


For a very sick and twisted approach, how about this rhetorical question: Could it be that the Bush administration (or the religious right that is controlling it) actually wants the HIV infection rate to increase?

There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I read the article. Here's the problem with some of its' points:

1. There are many places for most people to obtain free condoms besides those paid for by the government.

2. My tax money also pays for government programs in the schools. If I don't want my tax money paying for a cucumber/condom demonstration, then I resort to politics. As do others.

The Bush Administration is giving people what they want.

3. Free condoms, and some pretty graphic sex education programs have been available in San Francisco for some time, a town not known for being a conservative bastion. Yet, I hear on the news that their HIV infection rate is beginning to rise again.

Why?

Why? Complacency.

The fact that HIV has not been in the headlines for a while.

The availability of new drugs that postpone death has reduced the fear of AIDS. There is still no cure. It is still a death sentence.

Also there has been a rise in the unfortunate cases of people known in the gay community as "bug-chasers". People who are actively trying to become infected with HIV after losing many of their friends and acquaintences to the disease.


The Bush administration is not giving 'the people' what they want. It is giving the religious right what they want. Talk about pandering to 'special interest groups'.


Now, looky here. One minute you are trying to persuade me with statistics from (hah!) the NRA. The next minute you are poo-pooing all statistics as lower than 'damn lies'.


Furthermore, you have obviously missed the whole point of the article. It's not about giving out condoms in schools. It's about the CDC violating its fundamental premise. It's about eliminating federal funding for any HIV or STD research or education except those that claim that condoms are ineffective at preventing the spread of STDs (which is a bunch of hooey), and which preach (and I use the term intentionally) abstinence. It's about extremist politics steamrolling science, common sense, and the health of U.S. citizens.

It is a dangerous and repulsive policy.

1. The NRA's statistics are about the same as the second website, except with an explanation of how the government totals firearm statistics (something that Clinton changed). Other than that, as in the number of deaths through MVAs, or from falls, the numbers are the same - because they are government statistics.

2. All social conservatives do not hail from the religious right. But I'd like you to keep thinking along those lines. That way, we can talk about this election in December, and use Wellington's well worn words.

To paraphrase, "They came at us in the same old way, and we killed them, in the same old way".

Jolly, I don't think you read the article at all.

The only statistic I mentioned was that the Minnesota Department of Health's study showed that the rate of sexual activity among students DOUBLED in the five years that they have had their abstinence-only program.

You, once again, have your apples and oranges mixed.


But speaking of the religious right, refresh my memory, was is Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, or Pat Robertson who announced in the early 1980's that AIDS was God's way of punishing the homosexuals? I do recall that Ronald Reagan echoed the message.

and the gangbangers will hit more of their targets and fewer bystanders.

OK. I can agree with this, a la Kreisler: sex education could be totally eradicated in every form from public schools. What's the state's interest here, anyway?

What about drug use? Should schools be outside the loop? I think they should be mum on the subject. It's a parent's place to teach a child about drugs and the possible danger of their usage. What's the state's interest here, anyway?

What about safe driving? I don't think schools should be teaching driver's ed. It isn't their place. It's a parent's place to teach their child how to drive a car. It's wrong to force a child how to drive an automatic when the parents are strict adherents to manual drive. What's the state's interest here, anyway?

Could it be the state has an interest in a healthy, responsible, and vibrant youth?

What's the line and what interest does the state have in any of these areas?

Excellent point Bernard. The schools should not be teaching driver training any more than should parents. It is the role of trained driving instructors and driving schools. Parents however can prepare kids for responsible driving by setting a good example behind the wheel as they ferry their children around from infancy onward.
Bad and irresponsible driving is a learned behavior stemming from childhood.

Actually, it's quite a bit more complicated than that. [Oh, no!]. Yes, indeed.

My father was the only driver in our family when I was growing up. One by one, the rest of us learned to drive. As far as I know, he was a reponsible driver.

I grew up 3 miles outside of a very small town in a not-too-big-state. Late teens. What's to do? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. BUT. My aunt and uncle, who live down the road go to the Elks club every Saturday evening to dance the night away. Somehow or other I learn that I can get in as their guest. So I go. I borrow my sister's car because I don't have my own yet. It's fun. I love to dance. I like to drink. I'm a confused teen.

I drive home. I notice that I have trouble keeping a clear straight line. I know I've had drinks, been drinking. My aunt and uncle know it too, though they don't acknowledge it. My parents must know it, but they are so convinced that we are perfect angels that they skip over the part about me being human. (That's a different story.) So I drive home under the influence. Not once, but several Saturday evenings. The thought of it now sends shivers up my spine.

Who's going to help? My parents? They are in denial. My aunts and uncles? They don't want to be involved. The Elk's club? They are too upright to be concerned, I've never existed as far as they are concerned. Granted, as far as the US is concerned, I'm a drop in the bucket. But drops add up. The statistics wouldn't look good.

I can thank my lucky stars I never had an accident or hurt someone.

Should the government care?

Bernard your story is darn near a carbon copy to my own. Moreover your point is well taken. My father too was the only driver in the family and he was a very cautious responsible driver. After I got my license- I took the AMA Driving School course, as he refused give me any driver training himself- his good driving habits at first did not rub off me. Although I never got caught or was involved in an accident there were times that I got behind the wheel in a less than coherent state. The penalties at the time were not much more than a 6 month conditional license suspension, a couple of hundred dollar fine and reprimand from a judge. Yet I never saw my father impaired whether behind the wheel or sitting in house. *A drink* was something enjoyed just before dinner time around Christmas and New Years and in only in the company of house guests.

High performance cars and speed were also fun to an an invincible 19 year old male determined to beat the odds. Certainly I didn't learn that either from my father. Yet it didn't take very long before one acquaintance from high school ended up crippled for life in an MVA involving liquor. Brain started to put together cause and effect. Hmmm. Then a year later a close friend wound up six feet under after rolling his pickup truck at high speed. Almost imperceptably the speed decreased and the consequences of drinking and driving fell into place. The droning lectures of the driving instructor and gory images of the Driving School's in class film presentations were finally sticking. By the time I entered my third year of driving my driving habits and my father's were almost identical.

Now after 30 years + of driving- two years of which were as a short haul truck driver- I have never had a traffic violation or been involved in an accident in which I was at fault.

French shouldn't be taught in public schools either! Why should the U.S. government subsidize teaching that language to our children, and inculcating them in the culture of that horrible, horrible country that... er.... umm... umm.... remind me again, what exactly did France do that was so bad???


Again, this is not about condoms in schools. It's about violating the purpose for which the CDC was created and gutting all legitimate research and education on eliminating the spread of HIV and other STDs. It's about abandoning science for politics and endangering the health of every U.S. citizen.

What's that you say? You are in a faithful hetero relationship and you don't use intravenous drugs, so you have nothing to worry about. Other than being irresponsibly self-centered, you had just better hope you never, ever need a blood transfusion once the HIV infection rate skyrockets and our already dangerously low blood supply dries up completely.


Being a non-Christian, I would also like to see the end of my tax dollars being spent on teaching "creationism" and for that matter, anything that looks like decorations for a holiday that is not part of my religion.

I can agree with that. It should be taught by parents and Sunday school teachers. Exceptions could made for denomination based private schools. As for Christmas and Easter decorations think of them as a warm up to New Years or prep for Summer Solstice.

WELCOME WINGERS to NYC