Sarah Palin's Daughter Pregnant

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Seems like taking them to the farm and letting them watch the bulls and the cows is about as good as having a condom dispenser on the girls restroom.

Maybe you should try sex-ed and easily available birth control; with social stigma, taboos and pressures removed - then report on how that works compared to the status quo.

Maybe Makkun can find some stats from a progressive European country to compare with those from the US.
[/quote]

Interesting discussion so far.

“Reasons for the decline in teenage pregnancy in the United States were examined in a study using data from the National Survey of Family Growth in the years 1995 and 2002. The proportion of females aged 15�??19 who reported using an oral contraceptive at last intercourse, alone or in combination with other methods, increased dramatically during this period, from 32% to 49%. The proportion who reported using an injectable long-acting hormonal contraceptive (e.g., Depo-Provera) also increased, from 8% to 10%. Reports of using no contraception at last intercourse decreased, from 34% to 18% of respondents. The authors concluded that improved contraceptive use was the main factor behind decreased rates of teenage pregnancy in the United States; it explained all variability in pregnancy risk among respondents aged 18�??19, although decreased sexual activity played a minor role among those aged 15�??17.”

Source: Journal of the Canadian Medical Association
“Teenage pregnancy: trends, contributing factors and the physician’s role, Donald B. Langille”

John

82

I would say that the biggest cause of the drop in the rate probably has more to do with fear of disease than any other factor.

Remember, it was lower back then and there was no fear of disease. And no one handing out free condoms.

So in that respect, it was substantially better way back without showing kids how to put a condom on a cucumber.

83

Another teen pregnancy study:

Context: Adolescent pregnancy, birth, abortion and sexually transmitted disease (STD) rates are much higher in the United States than in most other developed countries.

Methods: Government statistics or nationally representative survey data were supplemented with data collected by private organizations or for regional or local populations to conduct studies of adolescent births, abortions, sexual activity and contraceptive use in Canada, the United States, Sweden, France and Great Britain.

Results: Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United States (22% of women reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%), Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%); differences are even greater for births to younger teenagers. A lower proportion of teenage pregnancies are resolved through abortion in the United States than in the other countries; however, because of their high pregnancy rate, U.S. teenagers have the highest abortion rate. The age of sexual debut varies little across countries, yet American teenagers are the most likely to have multiple partners. A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21% and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively).

Conclusions: Data on contraceptive use are more important than data on sexual activity in explaining variation in levels of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing among the five developed countries; however, the higher level of multiple sexual partnership among American teenagers may help explain their higher STD rates.

Source: Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 33, Number 6, November/December 2001
“Differences in Teenage Pregnancy Rates Among Five Developed Countries: The Roles of Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use”
By Jacqueline E. Darroch, Susheela Singh, Jennifer J. Frost and the Study Team

John

84

[quote]pookie wrote:
You should make sure that Thunderbolt, Zap, BB or you new BFF Bill Roberts (rah! rah!) are around before you start replying. It would save you much embarrassment.

[/quote]

So several brilliant posters would disagree with you. Maybe there’s a message in there, genius.

85

Palin’s pregnant daughter should not be, and for anyone smart will not be, a campaign issue.

If it becomes one for the DEMS, then they need to lose.

Mufasa

87

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
You should make sure that Thunderbolt, Zap, BB or you new BFF Bill Roberts (rah! rah!) are around before you start replying. It would save you much embarrassment.

So several brilliant posters would disagree with you. Maybe there’s a message in there, genius.

[/quote]

Ownt?

88

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nice cover. Doesn’t fool me, but I am sure there are a bunch of suckers out there that will be fooled.

Right, right. Run away, as usual.

Aren’t you ashamed that lifticus is pretty much all you can handle in a debate when you don’t have others making points you can jump behind?

No wonder you two spend so much time arguing in circles. You’re evenly matched.

You should make sure that Thunderbolt, Zap, BB or you new BFF Bill Roberts (rah! rah!) are around before you start replying. It would save you much embarrassment.

[/quote]

Run away? I haven’t gone anywhere.

It’s not incumbent upon me to do your arguing for you. I know you canadians like it when the US does all your heavy lifting, but this shit ain’t that hard, or heavy.

Surely you can do better than this. In lieu of actually staying on topic, perhaps you could at lest work on your ad hominems.

I don’t know if it is your work schedule, or what - but I usually crack a grin when you go off on your little insult binges. These are just sub par.

Please try harder.

89

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Palin’s pregnant daughter should not be, and for anyone smart will not be, a campaign issue.

If it becomes one for the DEMS, then they need to lose.

Mufasa[/quote]

Oh, but it will though. Write it down. Obama will continue to denounce it and his unpaid minions in the media will continue keep it alive. The campaign will indignantly call for the attacks to stop all the while praying that people he correctly says he can’t control continue to hammer away.

To be fair, if the Republicans had a comparable situation the other way they would do the same thing and so would I if I were running somebody’s campaign. Politics is a ruthless cutthroat business, comparable to war where winning is everything and always has been. There are lines I wouldn’t cross, but as much as I don’t like it, in Palin’s specific case this is relevant. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but it is .

90

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Palin’s pregnant daughter should not be, and for anyone smart will not be, a campaign issue.

If it becomes one for the DEMS, then they need to lose.

Mufasa

Oh, but it will though. Write it down. Obama will continue to denounce it and his unpaid minions in the media will continue keep it alive. The campaign will indignantly call for the attacks to stop all the while praying that people he correctly says he can’t control continue to hammer away.

To be fair, if the Republicans had a comparable situation the other way they would do the same thing and so would I if I were running somebody’s campaign. Politics is a ruthless cutthroat business, comparable to war where winning is everything and always has been. There are lines I wouldn’t cross, but as much as I don’t like it, in Palin’s specific case this is relevant. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but it is .[/quote]

IMHO, This is completely accurate. The dems are on their heels and will lose. I saw Obama congratulating Palin with Biden behind him. Biden was looking at Obama with the facial expression of “I can’t believe I walked into this you pompous arrogant ass.” I expect Obama, Olberman, Couric, Huffington and the rest to get more shrill, but expect Biden to tone it down and ride it out. He’s been around long enough to know it’s already over and he’ll be looking beyond the election now.

91

You’re probably right, Tirib.

I don’t know; but since I’ve been able to Vote, “negative” campaigning, that hits way below the belt, has had the effect of really turning me off to those delivering the attack.

Yea; Edwards and his hypocrisy was fair game.

A pregnant 17 year old is not.

I think that there are far too many Americans whom have faced this type of family crisis to NOT be turned off by an attack on Palin’s young daughter.

I guess we’ll see.

Mufasa

92

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
The issue is whether girls (be they privileged kids or crack whores) should be taught about sex and given access to contraception. The question of women’s rights to do as they please with their bodies is central to this newsbite as well.

“Why does this matter?”, you ask. Because it’s ironic that Palin happens to oppose both.

Show me an exact quote of her opposing teaching her children about sex. [/quote]

[i]Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

S. Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.[/i]

http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

Children? The girl’s 17 for crying out loud!

I say hand out condoms to everyone who reaches puberty. If they’re sexually active (and chances are they are) you’ll be doing them a favor. If they’re not, they’ll be contraception-aware when they start humping.

In a world where STDs are lethal, the head-in-the-sand attitude is most irresponsible.

93

Lixy, do you have kids?

94

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
The issue is whether girls (be they privileged kids or crack whores) should be taught about sex and given access to contraception. The question of women’s rights to do as they please with their bodies is central to this newsbite as well.

“Why does this matter?”, you ask. Because it’s ironic that Palin happens to oppose both.

Show me an exact quote of her opposing teaching her children about sex.

[i]Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

S. Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.[/i]

http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

What kind of access to contraceptives do children need?

Children? The girl’s 17 for crying out loud!

I say hand out condoms to everyone who reaches puberty. If they’re sexually active (and chances are they are) you’ll be doing them a favor. If they’re not, they’ll be contraception-aware when they start humping.

In a world where STDs are lethal, the head-in-the-sand attitude is most irresponsible.[/quote]

Not wanting to “explicit sex education” taught by some teacher (most likely a liberal)does not translate into a head in the sand attitude.

Trusting in condoms to prevent everything and giving kids the impression there is no risk of disease or pregnancy if you use them is irresponsible.

All you clowns criticizing her for opposing explicit sex ed in school have no idea what was taught in their home.

That being said, all the sex ed in the world will not prevent every mistake a young kid can make.

By the way, stay in Sweden. We don’t need anymore liberal whack jobs here - we have enough of our own to deal with.

95

[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Not wanting to “explicit sex education” taught by some teacher (most likely a liberal)does not translate into a head in the sand attitude. [/quote]

When the only solution to deal with teenage pregnancy one proposes is abstinence, I consider it “a head in the sand attitude”.

Who said “there is no risk”? It’s about managing said risk.

We don’t know for sure, but to write “have no idea” is disingenuous. There’s quite a bit to infer from her public stance on the issue.

Besides, this particular girl has a home. What about those that don’t? Proper sex ed in school might just be the weapon that lets them escape a life of misery.

Absolutely! But as an argument in the context of this discussion, it is beyond pathetic.

The idea is to minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancies and STD proliferation. That can be achieved through proper sex education. Another desirable (and not exclusive) course of action is minimizing the consequences of those “mistakes”. And inarguably, forbidding abortions does not.

Liberalism is, first and foremost, about individual liberties. If that makes me a “whack job” in your eyes, so be it.

96

The Hope and Change strategy failed. The Dems have to find something else simple and easy to harp on so they don’t lose the base.

A 17 yr. old girl, who didn’t have an abortion, is an inviting target for them. The kid can’t fight back and the bloodsucking abortion obesessed democratic base will salivate over this.

Going head to head on issues or character has been costly for the Democrats. They need easier targets to go after. I hope Biden brings it up in the debate with Palin. I think she’ll gut him like a trout.

97

So, teach your own children and stay the hell away from mine.

99

[quote]lixy wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Not wanting to “explicit sex education” taught by some teacher (most likely a liberal)does not translate into a head in the sand attitude.

When the only solution to deal with teenage pregnancy one proposes is abstinence, I consider it “a head in the sand attitude”.

Trusting in condoms to prevent everything and giving kids the impression there is no risk of disease or pregnancy if you use them is irresponsible.

Who said “there is no risk”? It’s about managing said risk.

All you clowns criticizing her for opposing explicit sex ed in school have no idea what was taught in their home.

We don’t know for sure, but to write “have no idea” is disingenuous. There’s quite a bit to infer from her public stance on the issue.

Besides, this particular girl has a home. What about those that don’t? Proper sex ed in school might just be the weapon that lets them escape a life of misery.

That being said, all the sex ed in the world will not prevent every mistake a young kid can make.

Absolutely! But as an argument in the context of this discussion, it is beyond pathetic.

The idea is to minimize the risk of unwanted pregnancies and STD proliferation. That can be achieved through proper sex education. Another desirable (and not exclusive) course of action is minimizing the consequences of those “mistakes”. And inarguably, forbidding abortions does not.

By the way, stay in Sweden. We don’t need anymore liberal whack jobs here - we have enough of our own to deal with.

Liberalism is, first and foremost, about individual liberties. If that makes me a “whack job” in your eyes, so be it.[/quote]

There is only one method that works every time to prevent pregancy and disease. One can choose to abstain or roll the dice. Most sex ed is about how to roll the dice.

Sex ed is everywhere and we still have not lowered the rates from the 1st half of the 20th century. Why is that?

Can someone explain that if sex ed is so effective why don’t we have lower rates??? After all, people just stuck their heads in the sand back then.

Condoms are not 100%. And when you consider that one may end up with HIV, why in the world would we tell kids that condoms will protect them? When you are talking about life here why would we hand kids false security?

Would you jump from an airplane with a parachute that had the failure rate of condoms? If 2 or 3 jumpers out of every 100 died each yr because of parachute failure we would have hearings in Congress to ban jumping until this was fixed.

100

The only important question is this, is she hot?

Anybody have a picture?