Thought that might get you Repub's attention.

If it didn't, this forum has forever gone off into endless boredom kingdom. I'm tired of talking about chicken soup and children. Let's get to the real nitty gritty.


Bush’s Sex Scandal[/b]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/16/opinion/16kristof.html?hp

Sorry, to see the whole article, you do have to have a free subscription to the NYTimes. If you are too lazy to do it, so be it. A couple of quotes:

I'm game if anyone wants to enter into some discussion of the real issues that face our country.

Someone's feeling fiesty today...

:p Jodi

I had inspiration.

No offense, Bcarey, but I feel more comfortable talking about children. I know, I'm such a whimp.

Get over it. It's time to get some spunk.

If some people don't get some spine, this forum is permanently doomed to "whimpdom".

Can we talk?

Well, this went over like a lead ballon. For the record, I agree with BCarey.

I'm too old to discuss politics. Sort of like arguments over religion, it just wastes my time. I have more important things to do, like paint my toenails. (grin)

Anything in the New York Times is suspect (& not worth the time to read because there is typically skewed liberal opinions & other info passed off as "facts"). They lean so far left they make the leaning tower of PIZZA look like its standing straight up.. ..

Social programming of children isn't good use of tax dollars, IMO. Kids will have sex. Parents, teach them how to deal with the consequences how *you* want to, not how the government (this one, or any other one) wants you to.

Does that mean you would rather discuss chicken soup?

In other words, the article wasn't about the NYTimes, for goodness sake! :rolleyes:

The NY times is as far left as one can get. (Actually there are sites and publications that the times gleans from that are further left, but the bits and pieces from all those inflammatory sites add up to a great big left fest clearinghouse. You shouldn't read that carp.

Suggesting that birth control prevents the transmission of sexual diseases is very irresponsible. The left knows that if the idiots who believe that are not replaced, no one will vote for them in the future and is just trying to 'further the cause' at our expense.

Was that unwimpy enough for you BCArey?

BCarey, I think you might have gotten a better response to this issue if you'd just started the topic yourself - as in, "how do you feel about abstinence only sex education", or "what should our schools be teaching when it comes to health class and sexual behavior?", rather that linking to an article somewhere and posting that rather Gryphonesque title to this thread.

Jodi

Gee...how about parents teaching their children to keep their legs together and their pants zipped up? :rolleyes:

Too radical.

Yeah, that worked really well in the 1960's. :rolleyes:

When all those feminists burned their bras things really started heating up.

Or not suggest that others are lazy because they don't want to be on the NYT subscriber list.

Yes, well some of them do. But some parents are as clueless about sexually transmitted diseases, and prevention of pregnancy as their teenagers are. These are the kids that need the education.

I think kids should be strongly advised to practice abstinence. But they should have all the information available about sex, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases (including the prevention of) so that when they do have sex (whenever that may occur, and it will occur sooner or later, married or not) they have had access to ALL the facts.

Jodi

Now how can anyone argue with that?

tcmod,

Hate to tell you but 60% of teens have had sex before the age of 18. It isn't working.

"almost all sex-ed classes in America already encourage abstinence. But abstinence-only education isn't primarily about promoting abstinence - it's about blindly refusing to teach contraception.

To get federal funds, for example, abstinence-only programs are typically barred by law from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception - except to describe how they can fail. So kids in these programs go all through high school without learning anything but abstinence, even though more than 60 percent of American teenagers have sex before age 18."

"Other developed countries focus much more on contraception. The upshot is that while teenagers in the U.S. have about as much sexual activity as teenagers in Canada or Europe, Americans girls are four times as likely as German girls to become pregnant, almost five times as likely as French girls to have a baby, and more than seven times as likely as Dutch girls to have an abortion. Young Americans are five times as likely to have H.I.V. as young Germans, and teenagers' gonorrhea rate is 70 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands or France."

Does this not disturb some you?

It would scare the living daylights out of me, if I had teens right now.

But Americans are more moral. :rolleyes:
Kids having sex is the fault of those liberal's.
Our kids surely don't want sex naturally.

Okay, end of funny part.

If humans start having sex before age 18 it is irresponsible and unrealistic to not teach them about birth control and safe sex.

The "moral" people who advocate teaching only abstinence have their heads in the sand.

And if kids don't start taking sex and abstinence more seriously, then the ages are only going to get younger, and the problems are only going to get bigger. Kids don't take abstinence or sex seriously because birth control and condoms, etc. provide them an easy way out. And as kids start having sex younger and younger, they are progessively less informed, and make worse and worse decisions.

Matt I believe the problem is with a much younger crowd now than in the 60's. Unless I am mistaken teenage pregnancy wasn't quite the problem then as it is now. And I bet it wasn't celebrated then as it is now. Nothing more affirming than a 15 y/o getting together with her friends for a baby shower huh? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I read an obituary of a woman recently that was 62. She had a number of great-great grand children.

Let me tell you about my great-grandparents' shotgun wedding at ages 16 and 15, respectively. In 1904.

Or maybe my great-grand aunt whose son was born when she was 17. In 1910. (Oh, yes, she eventually married a nice man. In 1943.)

Sound like Europe's statistics prove you wrong and proves America is just plain unrealistic.

I bet it was a modern epidemic back then too.

Wonder how that would be adjusted for life expectancy?

According to Pat Moynihan, it did.