Should abstinence 101 be taught in public education

[g5000]

Which one is the least practiced out here in the real world?

So, if the car is headed on one direction but you have to go another, to you just give up and go straight because you're afraid to turn?

Why is it always all or nothing with you conservative fools?

"Just say no" didn't work with drugs, and it has never worked with sex. When I was growing up we had abstinence training and nothing else. Half the girls in my class ended up leaving school to get married before graduation, because if you were pregnant, in those days, you were expelled.

As I was growing up, the only sex education we ever received was to say "No" to boys because they were incapable of stopping once they started. There was no birth control pill, so we had to rely on condoms, the Rhythm Method (the only method approved by the Catholic Church), or old fashioned "luck". Girls would suddenly leave town for 6 months and return sadder but wiser. That is the effect of abstinence education.

On the other hand, teach teenagers how their bodies function and how and why to protect themselves, not just from pregnancy but also disease, is giving them the information they will need to cope with the real world where people do have sex, and have to be prepared for that. One of those things which keeps it all sane is reproductive choice.

If society is NOT prepared to allow women reproductive choice when, not if, but when her birth control fails, then that society is obligated to going to find itself overwhelmed with women giving up their children for adoption, as it was in the 1930's through to the 1950's. Ever wonder whatever happened to all of those orphanages which were a fixture of every city and town in the US and which pretty much ended when abortion became legal.

that's a nice emotional story you have there....Here is a fact...54 million babies have been destroyed since Roe. 54 million lives..That "choice", that blood is on the hands of those defending such a disgusting stat all in the name of selfishness, and convenience...

Its more about parental responsibility and only having the number of children you can responsibly support

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

Every prosperous nation has a negative birth rate. Nothing wrong with that.

As we pull the rest of the human race along, we will see the "population bomb" defused.

 

[Dragonlady]

Do you think so, check one, Yes or No.

I agree with the intent of my friend's political cartoon that makes fun of anti sex-ed freeks.

Okay Jake, here is a question that you can answer?

What contraception technique is 100% fool proof? Without killing unborn or born children?
a. Condom
b. Pill
c. RU486
d. Vaginal Mesh
e. Abstinence
f. put an aspirin between a girls knees and tell her not to let it fall.

Now focus Jake, which one is will prevent a birth 100% of the time?

View attachment 110978

Which one is the least practiced out here in the real world?

So, if the car is headed on one direction but you have to go another, to you just give up and go straight because you're afraid to turn?

Why is it always all or nothing with you conservative fools?

"Just say no" didn't work with drugs, and it has never worked with sex. When I was growing up we had abstinence training and nothing else. Half the girls in my class ended up leaving school to get married before graduation, because if you were pregnant, in those days, you were expelled.

As I was growing up, the only sex education we ever received was to say "No" to boys because they were incapable of stopping once they started. There was no birth control pill, so we had to rely on condoms, the Rhythm Method (the only method approved by the Catholic Church), or old fashioned "luck". Girls would suddenly leave town for 6 months and return sadder but wiser. That is the effect of abstinence education.

On the other hand, teach teenagers how their bodies function and how and why to protect themselves, not just from pregnancy but also disease, is giving them the information they will need to cope with the real world where people do have sex, and have to be prepared for that. One of those things which keeps it all sane is reproductive choice.

If society is NOT prepared to allow women reproductive choice when, not if, but when her birth control fails, then that society is obligated to going to find itself overwhelmed with women giving up their children for adoption, as it was in the 1930's through to the 1950's. Ever wonder whatever happened to all of those orphanages which were a fixture of every city and town in the US and which pretty much ended when abortion became legal.

that's a nice emotional story you have there....Here is a fact...54 million babies have been destroyed since Roe. 54 million lives..That "choice", that blood is on the hands of those defending such a disgusting stat all in the name of selfishness, and convenience...

Where would those 54 million unwanted children be right now? How many of them would have ended up in orphanages, a drain on the public purse, or the charity of others?

Babies aren't aborted for "convenience". 75% of all abortions are given to women who are poor or low income. 60% to women who already had one or more children. Less than 15% to teenagers. 61% to women who are between the ages of 20 - 29. Nearly 46% to women who are married or cohabiting.

Induced Abortion in the United States

Hardly the teenage party girl you keep portraying her to be is she

 

[rightwinger]

Which one is the least practiced out here in the real world?

So, if the car is headed on one direction but you have to go another, to you just give up and go straight because you're afraid to turn?

Why is it always all or nothing with you conservative fools?

"Just say no" didn't work with drugs, and it has never worked with sex. When I was growing up we had abstinence training and nothing else. Half the girls in my class ended up leaving school to get married before graduation, because if you were pregnant, in those days, you were expelled.

As I was growing up, the only sex education we ever received was to say "No" to boys because they were incapable of stopping once they started. There was no birth control pill, so we had to rely on condoms, the Rhythm Method (the only method approved by the Catholic Church), or old fashioned "luck". Girls would suddenly leave town for 6 months and return sadder but wiser. That is the effect of abstinence education.

On the other hand, teach teenagers how their bodies function and how and why to protect themselves, not just from pregnancy but also disease, is giving them the information they will need to cope with the real world where people do have sex, and have to be prepared for that. One of those things which keeps it all sane is reproductive choice.

If society is NOT prepared to allow women reproductive choice when, not if, but when her birth control fails, then that society is obligated to going to find itself overwhelmed with women giving up their children for adoption, as it was in the 1930's through to the 1950's. Ever wonder whatever happened to all of those orphanages which were a fixture of every city and town in the US and which pretty much ended when abortion became legal.

that's a nice emotional story you have there....Here is a fact...54 million babies have been destroyed since Roe. 54 million lives..That "choice", that blood is on the hands of those defending such a disgusting stat all in the name of selfishness, and convenience...

Its more about parental responsibility and only having the number of children you can responsibly support

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

I grew up then
Only the father worked and mom stayed home to raise the kids

Divorce was rare as women had nowhere else to go

Family planning has changed our society for the better. Families tend to only have the number of children they can afford. Our birth rate may be at 1.8 per family, but our population continues to grow

 

[j-mac]

So, if the car is headed on one direction but you have to go another, to you just give up and go straight because you're afraid to turn?

Why is it always all or nothing with you conservative fools?

"Just say no" didn't work with drugs, and it has never worked with sex. When I was growing up we had abstinence training and nothing else. Half the girls in my class ended up leaving school to get married before graduation, because if you were pregnant, in those days, you were expelled.

As I was growing up, the only sex education we ever received was to say "No" to boys because they were incapable of stopping once they started. There was no birth control pill, so we had to rely on condoms, the Rhythm Method (the only method approved by the Catholic Church), or old fashioned "luck". Girls would suddenly leave town for 6 months and return sadder but wiser. That is the effect of abstinence education.

On the other hand, teach teenagers how their bodies function and how and why to protect themselves, not just from pregnancy but also disease, is giving them the information they will need to cope with the real world where people do have sex, and have to be prepared for that. One of those things which keeps it all sane is reproductive choice.

If society is NOT prepared to allow women reproductive choice when, not if, but when her birth control fails, then that society is obligated to going to find itself overwhelmed with women giving up their children for adoption, as it was in the 1930's through to the 1950's. Ever wonder whatever happened to all of those orphanages which were a fixture of every city and town in the US and which pretty much ended when abortion became legal.

that's a nice emotional story you have there....Here is a fact...54 million babies have been destroyed since Roe. 54 million lives..That "choice", that blood is on the hands of those defending such a disgusting stat all in the name of selfishness, and convenience...

Its more about parental responsibility and only having the number of children you can responsibly support

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

Every prosperous nation has a negative birth rate. Nothing wrong with that.

As we pull the rest of the human race along, we will see the "population bomb" defused.

No such thing as "the population bomb".... That was just another Marxist scare tactic in the '60s....Kind of like Global Warming is today.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Nope.

....but I do believe schools are sure pushing the envelope by introducing various subjects at too early an age.

Kids can see stuff on network television today that wasn't seen in 18+ restricted movies when I was growing up. It is extremely difficult to keep children from learning about sex and violence, if there is a TV or a computer in your home.

Schools aren't pushing the envelope, they're reacting to the reality that kids need the information at a younger and younger age.

....but what about responsible parents such as myself, who understand child development well enough to have allowed them that important time to be children? My children did not watch violent t.v. or movies and they didn't watch sex until their development warranted it.

Mine didn't either, but I know multiple families where 7 years olds were watching The X-Files and XXX films because their parents had porn videos. Even after-school soap operas are pretty steamy these days.

Bill Maher made a crude joke that this fixation of fundamentalists having "purity" ceremonies where girls promise their fathers to remain virgins until marriage. He said that it's produced a generation of apple-cheeked Christian girls willing to engage in high-risk anal sex which used to be illegal in most states (and still is in some), and which men used to have to pay kinky call girls to engage in, but they will not have normal vaginal sex with their boyfriends because of this stupid pledge. As laughable as it sounds, this is quite, quite true. Beware of unintended consequences.

I am certainly no fundamentalist, and Bill Maher is one of my favorite people in the world.

I just don't buy the logic that just because some people are shitty parents, then ALL kids must be exposed to
sexual material at the same age as the very worst of them.

 

[j-mac]

Where would those 54 million unwanted children be right now? How many of them would have ended up in orphanages, a drain on the public purse, or the charity of others?

I don't know...But, it isn't an either or situation...People are 'fluid'.... Truth is they would be alive, and that is all I can say for certainty...That sure beats dead.

Babies aren't aborted for "convenience".

Of course they are...
Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.
That's just a fact.

75% of all abortions are given to women who are poor or low income. 60% to women who already had one or more children. Less than 15% to teenagers. 61% to women who are between the ages of 20 - 29. Nearly 46% to women who are married or cohabiting.

Your stats make my point.

Hardly the teenage party girl you keep portraying her to be is she

No one said that it was the "teenage party girl", just that abortion is used as contraceptive, for unwanted pregnancy, as a matter of convenience...period...And that is wrong.

 

[j-mac]

So, if the car is headed on one direction but you have to go another, to you just give up and go straight because you're afraid to turn?

Why is it always all or nothing with you conservative fools?

"Just say no" didn't work with drugs, and it has never worked with sex. When I was growing up we had abstinence training and nothing else. Half the girls in my class ended up leaving school to get married before graduation, because if you were pregnant, in those days, you were expelled.

As I was growing up, the only sex education we ever received was to say "No" to boys because they were incapable of stopping once they started. There was no birth control pill, so we had to rely on condoms, the Rhythm Method (the only method approved by the Catholic Church), or old fashioned "luck". Girls would suddenly leave town for 6 months and return sadder but wiser. That is the effect of abstinence education.

On the other hand, teach teenagers how their bodies function and how and why to protect themselves, not just from pregnancy but also disease, is giving them the information they will need to cope with the real world where people do have sex, and have to be prepared for that. One of those things which keeps it all sane is reproductive choice.

If society is NOT prepared to allow women reproductive choice when, not if, but when her birth control fails, then that society is obligated to going to find itself overwhelmed with women giving up their children for adoption, as it was in the 1930's through to the 1950's. Ever wonder whatever happened to all of those orphanages which were a fixture of every city and town in the US and which pretty much ended when abortion became legal.

that's a nice emotional story you have there....Here is a fact...54 million babies have been destroyed since Roe. 54 million lives..That "choice", that blood is on the hands of those defending such a disgusting stat all in the name of selfishness, and convenience...

Its more about parental responsibility and only having the number of children you can responsibly support

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

I grew up then
Only the father worked and mom stayed home to raise the kids

Divorce was rare as women had nowhere else to go

Family planning has changed our society for the better. Families tend to only have the number of children they can afford. Our birth rate may be at 1.8 per family, but our population continues to grow

Guess what happens to a society when that society has less children than it takes to replace the parents?

 

[rightwinger]

Why is it always all or nothing with you conservative fools?

"Just say no" didn't work with drugs, and it has never worked with sex. When I was growing up we had abstinence training and nothing else. Half the girls in my class ended up leaving school to get married before graduation, because if you were pregnant, in those days, you were expelled.

As I was growing up, the only sex education we ever received was to say "No" to boys because they were incapable of stopping once they started. There was no birth control pill, so we had to rely on condoms, the Rhythm Method (the only method approved by the Catholic Church), or old fashioned "luck". Girls would suddenly leave town for 6 months and return sadder but wiser. That is the effect of abstinence education.

On the other hand, teach teenagers how their bodies function and how and why to protect themselves, not just from pregnancy but also disease, is giving them the information they will need to cope with the real world where people do have sex, and have to be prepared for that. One of those things which keeps it all sane is reproductive choice.

If society is NOT prepared to allow women reproductive choice when, not if, but when her birth control fails, then that society is obligated to going to find itself overwhelmed with women giving up their children for adoption, as it was in the 1930's through to the 1950's. Ever wonder whatever happened to all of those orphanages which were a fixture of every city and town in the US and which pretty much ended when abortion became legal.

that's a nice emotional story you have there....Here is a fact...54 million babies have been destroyed since Roe. 54 million lives..That "choice", that blood is on the hands of those defending such a disgusting stat all in the name of selfishness, and convenience...

Its more about parental responsibility and only having the number of children you can responsibly support

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

I grew up then
Only the father worked and mom stayed home to raise the kids

Divorce was rare as women had nowhere else to go

Family planning has changed our society for the better. Families tend to only have the number of children they can afford. Our birth rate may be at 1.8 per family, but our population continues to grow

Guess what happens to a society when that society has less children than it takes to replace the parents?

Our society has 330 million people and growing

Guess what happens to a society where parents have more children than they can afford?

 

[j-mac]

that's a nice emotional story you have there....Here is a fact...54 million babies have been destroyed since Roe. 54 million lives..That "choice", that blood is on the hands of those defending such a disgusting stat all in the name of selfishness, and convenience...

Its more about parental responsibility and only having the number of children you can responsibly support

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

I grew up then
Only the father worked and mom stayed home to raise the kids

Divorce was rare as women had nowhere else to go

Family planning has changed our society for the better. Families tend to only have the number of children they can afford. Our birth rate may be at 1.8 per family, but our population continues to grow

Guess what happens to a society when that society has less children than it takes to replace the parents?

Our society has 330 million people and growing

Guess what happens to a society where parents have more children than they can afford?

Isn't that exactly what is happening with those stuck on the liberal plantation of generational welfare? So, are you like Margret Sanger promoting the idea of abortion as a means of controlling the populations of how she termed it then, "the wanted hordes of negro babies"? Because if you are, we know exactly where you are coming from.

 

[sartre play]

All forms of safe sex should be part of any sex ed class.

 

[2aguy]

Do you think so, check one, Yes or No.

I agree with the intent of my friend's political cartoon that makes fun of anti sex-ed freeks.

It should be taught alongside sex ed. Not having sex when you are a teenager keeps them from having children as children, getting sexually transmitted diseases, and then committing the crime of killing their babies when they listen to left wingers....not having sex as teenagers also keeps them from living in poverty their whole lives....and it saves their future children from the same thing...

Why not teach that?

 

[j-mac]

Do you think so, check one, Yes or No.

I agree with the intent of my friend's political cartoon that makes fun of anti sex-ed freeks.

It should be taught alongside sex ed. Not having sex when you are a teenager keeps them from having children as children, getting sexually transmitted diseases, and then committing the crime of killing their babies when they listen to left wingers....not having sex as teenagers also keeps them from living in poverty their whole lives....and it saves their future children from the same thing...

Why not teach that?

Considering your avitar, just remember what Scotty always said to Kirk....

"Ay Captin, I think she's gonna blow"....

 

[Dschrute3]

Remove 'sex education' from the Public School curriculum completely. Allow parents to handle it. Problem solved.

 

[Seawytch]

Half of all abortions are due to no birth control of any kind being used during the sex act which led to the unwanted pregnancy. Another fifth are due to the improper or inconsistent use of birth control.

It then follows that we could substantially decrease the rate of abortion in the US by increasing the use of birth control and increasing education about birth control.

Once abortions are substantially reduced, then they become more stigmatized, and we would probably see another drop.

That's why, as a pro-lifer, I very much favor the increase of birth control usage and birth control education.

Nothing else has worked to reduce abortions. And if we repeal Roe v. Wade, which I believe should be done as a matter of principle, we will not see a decline in abortions. There were nearly a million abortions a year before Roe v Wade.

We have let the ignorant extremists of both sides control the conversation for far too long, with the result of the number of annual abortions being minimally changed in all that time.

We don't have an abortion problem in this country. We have an unwanted pregnancy problem. We solve that and the symptom of abortion almost entirely goes away.

The abortion "problem" will never be solved by prohibition. It will only be solved through science and education.

Wrong again. We have a morality problem in this country

No, not really. Sex isn't immoral.

 

[Seawytch]

Abortion is a fact. We have always had it with us, legal or not. Getting rid of Roe will not get rid of abortion.

Not for rich women anyway...

 

[j-mac]

No, not really. Sex isn't immoral.

Really? Blanket statement? Because I can think of many things done in relation to 'sex' that are immoral...lol...And some of them quite fun....lol

 

[rightwinger]

Its more about parental responsibility and only having the number of children you can responsibly support

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

I grew up then
Only the father worked and mom stayed home to raise the kids

Divorce was rare as women had nowhere else to go

Family planning has changed our society for the better. Families tend to only have the number of children they can afford. Our birth rate may be at 1.8 per family, but our population continues to grow

Guess what happens to a society when that society has less children than it takes to replace the parents?

Our society has 330 million people and growing

Guess what happens to a society where parents have more children than they can afford?

Isn't that exactly what is happening with those stuck on the liberal plantation of generational welfare? So, are you like Margret Sanger promoting the idea of abortion as a means of controlling the populations of how she termed it then, "the wanted hordes of negro babies"? Because if you are, we know exactly where you are coming from.

Sanger did not advocate abortion and was correct in advocating family planning for poor people. She saw, firsthand, the impact that too many children had on the ability of people to escape poverty

 

[j-mac]

In the 1950s our 'fertility rate' was about 4 children per family. Today it is around 1.8 or lower...So now we are even having enough kids to replace ourselves...That is NOT good. Not if we want to continue to carry forward.

I grew up then
Only the father worked and mom stayed home to raise the kids

Divorce was rare as women had nowhere else to go

Family planning has changed our society for the better. Families tend to only have the number of children they can afford. Our birth rate may be at 1.8 per family, but our population continues to grow

Guess what happens to a society when that society has less children than it takes to replace the parents?

Our society has 330 million people and growing

Guess what happens to a society where parents have more children than they can afford?

Isn't that exactly what is happening with those stuck on the liberal plantation of generational welfare? So, are you like Margret Sanger promoting the idea of abortion as a means of controlling the populations of how she termed it then, "the wanted hordes of negro babies"? Because if you are, we know exactly where you are coming from.

Sanger did not advocate abortion and was correct in advocating family planning for poor people. She saw, firsthand, the impact that too many children had on the ability of people to escape poverty

Sanger was a racist, eugenicist piece of shit....

"It was in 1939 that Sanger's larger vision for dealing with the reproductive practices of black Americans emerged. After the January 1939 merger of her Clinical Research Bureau and the ABCL to form the Birth Control Federation of America, Dr. Clarence J. Gamble was selected to become the BCFA regional director for the South. Dr. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing Procter and Gamble company, was no newcomer to Sanger's organization. He had previously served as director at large to the predecessor ABCL.

Gamble lost no time and drew up a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestion for Negro Project." Acknowledging that black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot, he suggested that black leaders be place in positions where it would appear that they were in chargeÑas it was at an Atlanta conference.

It is evident from the rest of the memo that Gamble conceived the project almost as a traveling road show. A charismatic black minister was to start a revival, with "contributions" to come from other local cooperating ministers. A "colored nurse" would follow, supported by a subsidized "colored doctor." Gamble even suggested that music might be a useful lure to bring the prospects to a meeting.

Sanger answered Gamble on Dec. 10. 1939, agreeing with the assessment. She wrote: "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." In 1940, money for two "Negro Project" demonstration programs in southern states was donated by advertising magnate Albert D. Lasker and his wife, Mary."

BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger - Page Two

Unless you are trying to assert that only black people are 'poor people', then you are simply, and completely wrong.

 

[Snouter]

I recall "sex ed" and they taught nothing relevant. Demonstrating how to put a rubber on is ridiculous. I still cannot roll one on even with Magnum XLs in the heat of the action.

Here is sex ed 101 in one post...

Pre-menopausal woman ovulate a few days a month. She will be hornier than normal so be careful! A few days before or after the period and you should be safe with no protection. However, if she is a serious girlfriend, get her on the pill. That way there will not even be many rag days. Have fun, and don't be stupid and desperate by banging an ugly, short or fat broad! If you suspect any evidence of disease such as a rash of any kind, RUN OUT OF THE BEDROOM AND CHANGE YOUR CELL PHONE NUMBER! Class dismissed!

 

[j-mac]

I recall "sex ed" and they taught nothing relevant. Demonstrating how to put a rubber on is ridiculous. I still cannot roll one on even with Magnum XLs in the heat of the action.

Here is sex ed 101 in one post...

Pre-menopausal woman ovulates a few days a month. She will be hornier than normal so be careful! A few days before or after the period and you should be safe with no protection. However, if she is a serious girlfriend, get her on the pill. Than way there will not even be many rag days. Have fun, and do be stupid and desperate by banging an ugly, short or fat broad! Class dismissed!

Yes, yes....Thanks for that.... I'd like to think that when our kids get to say a middle school, say 8th grade level, that they are taught that the safest way to not find yourself in a pregnancy situation is to simply NOT insert the penis into the vagina at all....Why is that so controversial? Are we really looking for our kids to be having sex?