No. Instead you and people who share your position should take responsibility for you part in all of this. Unwanted pregnancies have been on the decline since the invention of contraception. You are part of an institution that preaches it as an immorality even though they have clearly help prevent this problem.
Comprehensive sex education has shown to drive down unwanted pregnancy and STD rates, yet you still label it as filth, consider it harmful to children (with no basis) and try to keep it down.
So no you have it backwards. People aren’t interjecting their bedroom consequences into your lives, you and people of similar standing are dumbing them down, feeding them false information and this is result of that.[/quote]
I honestly can’t believe I am reading this. In an age of ubiquitous and inexpensive birth control and education, the percentages of children out of wedlock have skyrocketed, and it’s no secret as to the ill effcets of this event, and it’s the fault of people who say “hey, you need to be more responsible when you engage in sex? It’s not a game, it has consequences, and those consequences are visited upon society and most importantly the children themselves”?
No. Instead you and people who share your position should take responsibility for you part in all of this. Unwanted pregnancies have been on the decline since the invention of contraception. You are part of an institution that preaches it as an immorality even though they have clearly help prevent this problem.
Comprehensive sex education has shown to drive down unwanted pregnancy and STD rates, yet you still label it as filth, consider it harmful to children (with no basis) and try to keep it down.
So no you have it backwards. People aren’t interjecting their bedroom consequences into your lives, you and people of similar standing are dumbing them down, feeding them false information and this is result of that.[/quote]
I honestly can’t believe I am reading this. In an age of ubiquitous and inexpensive birth control and education, the percentages of children out of wedlock have skyrocketed, and it’s no secret as to the ill effcets of this event, and it’s the fault of people who say “hey, you need to be more responsible when you engage in sex? It’s not a game, it has consequences, and those consequences are visited upon society and most importantly the children themselves”?
Orwellian. Simply Orwellian. Oh, and idiotic.[/quote]
Umm…You know Christians are known for keeping comprehensive sex education down right? There are plenty of places where abstinence-only programs are taught which do not work. Even if contraception is available people are not being taught about it and its use is being demonized by some churches.
I’m not sure about out-of-wedlock birth rates but unwanted pregnancy rates are steadily on the decline.
Umm…You know Christians are known for keeping comprehensive sex education down right? There are plenty of places where abstinence-only programs are taught which do not work. Even if contraception is available people are not being taught about it and its use is being demonized by some churches.[/quote]
Um, you know that there is absolutely no shortage of sex education being taught in schools (and other places) despite Christian objections? A fraction of the population - a tiny fraction - is being taught “abstinence-only”.
And, take a look where the bulk of “unwanted pregnancies” are taking place - there are not areas where "abstinence-only’ is being taught by anyone, in school or any place else for that matter. So, as usual, you have no basis for your “cause and effect” argument.
So, look at the correlation - information about and access to birth control has risen exponentially since the 1960s, and the percentage of out of wedlock children have soared since the 1960s. This should be the other way around, unless there is a cause other than access to birth control driving this phenomenon. Which there must be, and there is.
Umm…You know Christians are known for keeping comprehensive sex education down right? There are plenty of places where abstinence-only programs are taught which do not work. Even if contraception is available people are not being taught about it and its use is being demonized by some churches.[/quote]
Um, you know that there is absolutely no shortage of sex education being taught in schools (and other places) despite Christian objections? A fraction of the population - a tiny fraction - is being taught “abstinence-only”.
And, take a look where the bulk of “unwanted pregnancies” are taking place - there are not areas where "abstinence-only’ is being taught by anyone, in school or any place else for that matter. So, as usual, you have no basis for your “cause and effect” argument.
So, look at the correlation - information about and access to birth control has risen exponentially since the 1960s, and the percentage of out of wedlock children have soared since the 1960s. This should be the other way around, unless there is a cause other than access to birth control driving this phenomenon. Which there must be, and there is.
Let me guess - you have no idea.[/quote]
Yeah it’s called the women’s movement. Women are no longer getting married out of highschool and becoming home makers.
They are going to university, chasing their careers and putting marriage on hold.
Um, you know that there is absolutely no shortage of sex education being taught in schools (and other places) despite Christian objections? A fraction of the population - a tiny fraction - is being taught “abstinence-only”.[/quote]
This is not true.
A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive.
And, take a look where the bulk of “unwanted pregnancies” are taking place - there are not areas where "abstinence-only’ is being taught by anyone, in school or any place else for that matter. So, as usual, you have no basis for your “cause and effect” argument. [/quote]
Yes they are. Again you should look into this issue before making a decision.
Look up teenage birth rates in Lubbock, TX - that’s a great example.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, look at the correlation - information about and access to birth control has risen exponentially since the 1960s, and the percentage of out of wedlock children have soared since the 1960s. This should be the other way around, unless there is a cause other than access to birth control driving this phenomenon. Which there must be, and there is.
Let me guess - you have no idea.[/quote]
Yeah it’s called the women’s movement. Women are no longer getting married out of highschool and becoming home makers.
They are going to university, chasing their careers and putting marriage on hold. That is a major reason why out of wedlock rates are up.
A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive.
Take a look at your own cited materials, Einstein - “comprehensive” means “includ[ing] information about both abstinence and contraception” and that “comprehensive” means “young people should wait…but if they do not they should use birth control.”
In other words, 58% of these principals are saying “yes, we teach ‘all of the above’”.
And, of course abstinence is going to be taught and encouraged, and it isn’t purely a religious motive - that should be a message to teenagers.
Seriously. You don’t even read your own “authority”. This is laughable.
[quote]Yes they are. Again you should look into this issue before making a decision.
Look up teenage birth rates in Lubbock, TX - that’s a great example.[/quote]
This article makes an example of the correlation, and even notes “Correlation can be due to causation, but it can also be due to other underlying factors, which need to be examined.” Of course it does, mainly because if you look at the demographics, you see that a high number of out of wedlock births (particularly teen pregnancies) are in urban areas (though they are getting worse in rural areas as well). Urban areas don’t have religiously dominated education systems - it’s run by urbanites. That is one obvious problem with this “thesis”.
[quote]Yeah it’s called the women’s movement. Women are no longer getting married out of highschool and becoming home makers.
They are going to university, chasing their careers and putting marriage on hold. That is a major reason why out of wedlock rates are up.[/quote]
No, it isn’t - that’s ridiculous. Out of wedlock births aren’t a function of women getting higher levels of education or chasing a career, and we know this because of, well, common sense, but also because the percentage of out of wedlock births among that demographic is low.
It’s not like there are huge spikes in out of wedlock pregnancies among college sophomores and juniors since the 1960s. No, it’s occurring somewhere else demographically, because of something else.
Take a look at your own cited materials, Einstein - “comprehensive” means “includ[ing] information about both abstinence and contraception” and that “comprehensive” means “young people should wait…but if they do not they should use birth control.”
In other words, 58% of these principals are saying “yes, we teach ‘all of the above’”.
And, of course abstinence is going to be taught and encouraged, and it isn’t purely a religious motive - that should be a message to teenagers.
Seriously. You don’t even read your own “authority”. This is laughable.[/quote]
Yeah and that leaves 42% of people without comprehensive sex education.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This article makes an example of the correlation, and even notes “Correlation can be due to causation, but it can also be due to other underlying factors, which need to be examined.” Of course it does, mainly because if you look at the demographics, you see that a high number of out of wedlock births (particularly teen pregnancies) are in urban areas (though they are getting worse in rural areas as well). Urban areas don’t have religiously dominated education systems - it’s run by urbanites. That is one obvious problem with this “thesis”.[/quote]
You speak about common sense, then choose to ignore the fact contraception use and teaching of it’s use is the cause of it.
No, it isn’t - that’s ridiculous. Out of wedlock births aren’t a function of women getting higher levels of education or chasing a career, and we know this because of, well, common sense, but also because the percentage of out of wedlock births among that demographic is low.
It’s not like there are huge spikes in out of wedlock pregnancies among college sophomores and juniors since the 1960s. No, it’s occurring somewhere else demographically, because of something else.
Seriously. I can’t take you seriously.[/quote]
In 2007, women in their 20s had 60 percent of all babies born out of wedlock, teenagers had 23 percent and women 30 and older had 17 percent.
If you’re going to continue to be snotty and condescending I’m really uninterested in continuing this conversation. If you continue posting this way, I’m not going to bother responding.
Yes, but it wasn’t a function of them choosing to go get an education and career, it is a function of them getting pregnant and not marrying the father. What are the statistics of out of wedlock children being born to women attending college or otherwise on a “career” path (as opposed to working) compared to those who are not?
Maybe a side effect of giving women more opportunities like jobs and education also gives them the power to make more mistakes. Given more freedom people can use it wisely or poorly.
Yes, but it wasn’t a function of them choosing to go get an education and career, it is a function of them getting pregnant and not marrying the father. What are the statistics of out of wedlock children being born to women attending college or otherwise on a “career” path (as opposed to working) compared to those who are not?[/quote]
And why do you think they’re not marrying the father after getting pregnant?
Opportunity for women has taken off in general. They are no longer dependent upon men financially and therefore aren’t obligated to get married as they once were.
The incentive to marry someone you don’t love (maybe not even like in some cases) simply because they impregnated you is no longer there.
Even if a woman doesn’t pursue higher education she has the opportunity to make a decent living . Women can easily make $20+/hour as a waitress or bar tending after you include tips. The better looking they are, the higher that number climbs.
Oh, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t address this - no, this doesn’t show causation, it shows correlation. You have no idea what you’re talking about.[/quote]
There’s been countless studies done on comprehensive sex education vs abstinence only education. Practically every time one is performed, the results show teens receiving comprehensive sex education have fewer pregnancies while abstinence-only do not and in some cases even increase.
I may not be able to provide a study showing a causal link, but it is absurd to believe teaching contraception use in combination with the dangers of unprotected sex does not have an effect on unwanted pregnancies. Especially since many institutions support it, and several experts agree on it’s effectiveness. It’s also pretty obvious…That’s what contraception is for, preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
The American Psychological Association,[16] the American Medical Association,[17] the National Association of School Psychologists,[18] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19] the American Public Health Association,[20] the Society for Adolescent Medicine[21] and the American College Health Association,[21] have all stated official support for comprehensive sex education.
Yes, but it wasn’t a function of them choosing to go get an education and career, it is a function of them getting pregnant and not marrying the father. What are the statistics of out of wedlock children being born to women attending college or otherwise on a “career” path (as opposed to working) compared to those who are not?[/quote]
And why do you think they’re not marrying the father after getting pregnant?
Opportunity for women has taken off in general. They are no longer dependent upon men financially and therefore aren’t obligated to get married as they once were.
The incentive to marry someone you don’t love (maybe not even like in some cases) simply because they impregnated you is no longer there.
Even if a woman doesn’t pursue higher education she has the opportunity to make a decent living . Women can easily make $20+/hour as a waitress or bar tending after you include tips. The better looking they are, the higher that number climbs.[/quote]
Sounds like an argument for unburdening the tax payer from theses women’s liberated decisions.
Yes, but it wasn’t a function of them choosing to go get an education and career, it is a function of them getting pregnant and not marrying the father. What are the statistics of out of wedlock children being born to women attending college or otherwise on a “career” path (as opposed to working) compared to those who are not?[/quote]
And why do you think they’re not marrying the father after getting pregnant?
Opportunity for women has taken off in general. They are no longer dependent upon men financially and therefore aren’t obligated to get married as they once were.
The incentive to marry someone you don’t love (maybe not even like in some cases) simply because they impregnated you is no longer there.
Even if a woman doesn’t pursue higher education she has the opportunity to make a decent living . Women can easily make $20+/hour as a waitress or bar tending after you include tips. The better looking they are, the higher that number climbs.[/quote]
Sounds like an argument for unburdening the tax payer from theses women’s liberated decisions.
[/quote]
It also works as an argument for denying women educational opportunities.
It also works as an argument for denying women educational opportunities.[/quote]
I didn’t realize women were such pathetic damsels in distress. I suppose unless they’re getting getting subsidized by those not having sex with them, they’re simply incomplete. And my goodness, don’t expect to be to able to hold the actual father responsible, even if she won’t (while demanding her subsidy).
And why do you think they’re not marrying the father after getting pregnant?[/quote]
Because they’ve been (wrongly) told that it isn’t necessary or good to do so.
[quote]Opportunity for women has taken off in general. They are no longer dependent upon men financially and therefore aren’t obligated to get married as they once were.
The incentive to marry someone you don’t love (maybe not even like in some cases) simply because they impregnated you is no longer there.
Even if a woman doesn’t pursue higher education she has the opportunity to make a decent living . Women can easily make $20+/hour as a waitress or bar tending after you include tips. The better looking they are, the higher that number climbs.[/quote]
But that doesn’t speak to the reason this issue was brought up. If what you say is true, then this liberated woman doesn’t need welfare. She has chosen to take on raising a child by herself and doesn’t need the state’s assistance.
So, you are back at square one, refuting yourself with your own theory.
I didn’t realize women were such pathetic damsels in distress. I suppose unless they’re getting getting subsidized by those not having sex with them, they’re simply incomplete. And my goodness, don’t expect being able to hold the father, even if she won’t (while demanding here subsidy).[/quote]
Yes, for Pete’s sake, which is it? Are women liberated and independent, ready to to take on the world now that they are free to pursue education and work? Or are they next-to-helpless damsels in distress, constantly in need of special dispensation and protection from the state to rescue them from their choices?
And why do you think they’re not marrying the father after getting pregnant?[/quote]
Because they’ve been (wrongly) told that it isn’t necessary or good to do so.
[quote]Opportunity for women has taken off in general. They are no longer dependent upon men financially and therefore aren’t obligated to get married as they once were.
The incentive to marry someone you don’t love (maybe not even like in some cases) simply because they impregnated you is no longer there.
Even if a woman doesn’t pursue higher education she has the opportunity to make a decent living . Women can easily make $20+/hour as a waitress or bar tending after you include tips. The better looking they are, the higher that number climbs.[/quote]
But that doesn’t speak to the reason this issue was brought up. If what you say is true, then this liberated woman doesn’t need welfare. She has chosen to take on raising a child by herself and doesn’t need the state’s assistance.
So, you are back at square one, refuting yourself with your own theory.[/quote]
I brought up the fact that Santorum thinks it’s okay to asks his citizens for such private information including DNA testing. I have not made any comment on whether the subsidy itself is good. If you are going to provide services, do not put ridiculous conditions upon them. That was my original point.
And even if I were for subsidizing these services for women, it still wouldn’t refute anything. A sizable chunk of women give birth in their teens and are unable to support themselves. What was it? 17% of unwanted pregnancies are from teens?