The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)

[Newby]

Yes to hell with parental authority. I realize it isn't a popular thought, but I would rather a teen receive contraceptives if needed than be too afraid to go get them because they are required to tell daddy.

Think about the teens who end up moms at 13-16. I think it's fair to say many, if not most, do not come from the best homes.

Parental authority can be wonderful if you have responsible, reasonable and well educated parents. But way, way ,way too often that is not the case.

Wow, that's a pretty sad point of view you have there. If you want to give up your rights as a parent to the state to raise your child as they see fit, more power to you, but it will happen to me over my dead body. Do you even realize what you're saying you're in favor of here? Why stop at birth control? Maybe you don't feed them well enough? Maybe you leave them alone too much, so they should removed from your care? The power you're willing to relinguish to the state over your own children is never ending once you start to give it away. Very sad.

Who decides who is 'responsible' and 'reasonable'? The state? Then when they decide that you're neither, they get to take over? Scary road you're going down. It always starts with something small, like birth control, then the rationalizations start for the next thing, and the next..

Sorry to inform you, but you're a bit late to the party. Kids are taken from parents all the time for neglect.

Why would this be any different than school lunches? I can understand if it's morally ambiguous. But this isn't. Every teen who is having sex should have birth control. It's that simple. So no, I don't see it any different than feeding them at school without getting permission from the parents.

And I don't think the state needs to judge parent's. Simply make it available to all. As I said, what is the downside?

What is the downside? You're a parent and you have to ask that question? Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives? You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant? You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age? Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay? Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal. We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.

 

[Newby]

Wow, that's a pretty sad point of view you have there. If you want to give up your rights as a parent to the state to raise your child as they see fit, more power to you, but it will happen to me over my dead body. Do you even realize what you're saying you're in favor of here? Why stop at birth control? Maybe you don't feed them well enough? Maybe you leave them alone too much, so they should removed from your care? The power you're willing to relinguish to the state over your own children is never ending once you start to give it away. Very sad.

Who decides who is 'responsible' and 'reasonable'? The state? Then when they decide that you're neither, they get to take over? Scary road you're going down. It always starts with something small, like birth control, then the rationalizations start for the next thing, and the next..

Sorry to inform you, but you're a bit late to the party. Kids are taken from parents all the time for neglect.

Why would this be any different than school lunches? I can understand if it's morally ambiguous. But this isn't. Every teen who is having sex should have birth control. It's that simple. So no, I don't see it any different than feeding them at school without getting permission from the parents.

And I don't think the state needs to judge parent's. Simply make it available to all. As I said, what is the downside?

The downside is kids might start thinking for themselves, rather than blindly following the path their parents placed them on.

Blindly following the path their parents placed them on? What the hell does that mean? You have some real issues that go well beyond this topic apparently, and there's no rational discussion to be had here unfortunately.

 

[Newby]

I give consideration to the potential child. But I weigh those considerations against those of the mother who has to carry him for 9 months and pay for him for another 20. I love my kids. But I would not force anyone into having them.

There are too many bad parents out there already, we really don't need more. I think that when you weigh the partially formed life against that of the mother, yes the father, the cost, the potential for a miserable life for an unwanted child...

The picture is not as clear as some on your side want to paint it.

Except that those children ARE wanted! They might not be wanted by their parents, but they are still wanted. Otherwise we wouldn't have 60,000 babies adopted from Russia alone. Almost 5,000 more than that are adopted from China, every year.

The solution is, of course, to persuade women to delay sexual gratification or achieve it in ways other than by promiscuity. This means penalties, but not always legal penalties. There was a time when a girl getting pregnant could expect to be expelled from school, her family might go so far as to put her out on the street. She would be friendless and ostracized. The social penalties alone were enough to make girls think twice before spreading their legs. Today, girls feel obligated to have sex as early as possible, certainly pre menstrual, otherwise what kind of pictures would they be able to send to the kids who go to their school?

Of course! Because the children from Russia are white. Now: What's the adoption rate for black children in America. Hispanic? Special needs?

Nice, now we're going to bring racism into the topic?

 

[midcan5]

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable? Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phony stance and have lots of children. None would take care of all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all.

Why is it that men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision? Keep your religion out of other people lives.

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling?

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential person cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that OK, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded? Why are some cells more important than other cells.

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature, god, who? Are these conceptions humans? If so support an effort to end this.

How is it that a decision, a moral judgment, that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? And not only do not care but would be offended if asked to support or raise the child. It is so easy to preach and have superior values when nothing is required.

I repeat when anti-abortion foes stop the needless deaths of living, feeling humans throughout the world who die every 15 seconds, when they even care and protest that this happens, when they protest wars that kill the innocent, when they provide welfare and care for the homeless and the hungry in America and the world, then I will take them serious. But until then they are hypocrites because their only desire is to control another who they do not care about and probably condemn. It's so easy to be moral when nothing is required of you and you do nothing but preach and legislate.

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/241999-abortion-rape-question-4.html#post5859215
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184

 

[Delia]

Except that those children ARE wanted! They might not be wanted by their parents, but they are still wanted. Otherwise we wouldn't have 60,000 babies adopted from Russia alone. Almost 5,000 more than that are adopted from China, every year.

The solution is, of course, to persuade women to delay sexual gratification or achieve it in ways other than by promiscuity. This means penalties, but not always legal penalties. There was a time when a girl getting pregnant could expect to be expelled from school, her family might go so far as to put her out on the street. She would be friendless and ostracized. The social penalties alone were enough to make girls think twice before spreading their legs. Today, girls feel obligated to have sex as early as possible, certainly pre menstrual, otherwise what kind of pictures would they be able to send to the kids who go to their school?

Of course! Because the children from Russia are white. Now: What's the adoption rate for black children in America. Hispanic? Special needs?

Nice, now we're going to bring racism into the topic?

Race. Not racism. The race of the child.

 

[Newby]

Actually you'd rather they were dead than grow up at all. But how about this. A compromise. We permit women to have abortions and if they do, start prosecuting the fathers for murder. After all, it was their act that ended up with a dead baby.

First off, an aborted fetus is NOT a dead baby. The father gets no say in this decision, because he is NOT pregnant.

This whole idea that people who favour choice, hate children is also false and ridiculous. I have three children who I love dearly. I chose to have these children and to raise them. My children know they are loved and wanted, as should all children. That gives them the confidence to succeed in the world.

So basically you're saying that the children that are not loved and wanted are better off dead, never having existed?

 

[Newby]

Of course! Because the children from Russia are white. Now: What's the adoption rate for black children in America. Hispanic? Special needs?

Nice, now we're going to bring racism into the topic?

Race. Not racism. The race of the child.

You're saying they won't be adopted because of their race, that's racism.

 

[Delia]

Nice, now we're going to bring racism into the topic?

Race. Not racism. The race of the child.

You're saying they won't be adopted because of their race, that's racism.

No, that's reality.

 

[Dragonlady]

What is the downside? You're a parent and you have to ask that question? Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives? You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant? You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age? Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay? Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal. We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.

Teenagers are afraid to ask for contraception. I want my daughter to have protection first and foremost. Other issues can be dealt with but a baby is forever. Basically, we want our kids to get through high school without doing anything to irrevocably screw up their lives. My daughter's emotional well-being is going to be messed with a whole lot more if she becomes pregnant while in school.

Teenage sex, by and large, is not that big a deal. I had sex as a teenager, in the age before legal abortions. I used precautions but it was scary. My life would have been a whole lot less stressful if I had had access to birth control. I made sure my daughter had access to birth control at an early age. She is now 23, and has never really had to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

One of the unintended consequences of the abstinence movement is that young girls who have taken the virginity pledge, are now having annal sex and performing oral sex because, as long as their hymen is still intact, the girls are technically virgins. I would rather my daughter have a normal sexual relationship with her boyfriend that engage in high risk annal sex.

 

[Foxfyre]

In honor of the fact that pregnancy must not happen due to my health issues, both my husband and I have taken medical steps to ensure said decision will never need to be made.

You never know. My youngest sister should have never been possible.

I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm saying a pregnancy would kill me. Therefore, he had a vasectomy six months before the wedding, and I had my tubes cut and cauterized.

And that is a responsible action to take and I support you entirely in that decision. Those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to be parents are no more worthy of contempt than are those who are unable to be parents and those who, for whatever reason, should not be parents and take measures to prevent that. We are blessed to live in a society in which prevention of pregancy is fairly simple to accomplish.

As for unwanted children or those for whom the parent is unable to provide, pre Roe v Wade the responsible - and loving - choices was to give the child to somebody who was prepared to love, nurture, and give that child every advantage. And pre Roe v Wade, there were far more parents who wanted such children than there were children available to adopt. There still are now, but now the reason isn't because most people waited until marriage to become pregnant, but because since Roe v Wade, we have killed more than 56 million babies.

I can't imagine how anybody could see that as a good thing.

 

[Newby]

What is the downside? You're a parent and you have to ask that question? Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives? You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant? You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age? Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay? Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal. We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.

Teenagers are afraid to ask for contraception. I want my daughter to have protection first and foremost. Other issues can be dealt with but a baby is forever. Basically, we want our kids to get through high school without doing anything to irrevocably screw up their lives. My daughter's emotional well-being is going to be messed with a whole lot more if she becomes pregnant while in school.

Teenage sex, by and large, is not that big a deal. I had sex as a teenager, in the age before legal abortions. I used precautions but it was scary. My life would have been a whole lot less stressful if I had had access to birth control. I made sure my daughter had access to birth control at an early age. She is now 23, and has never really had to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

One of the unintended consequences of the abstinence movement is that young girls who have taken the virginity pledge, are now having annal sex and performing oral sex because, as long as their hymen is still intact, the girls are technically virgins. I would rather my daughter have a normal sexual relationship with her boyfriend that engage in high risk annal sex.

As far as teenage pregnancy, I think the problem with our society is that it is overwhelmingly lazy. Parents don't want to be parents any longer, they don't want to do the hard work and make the hard decisions where their kids are concerned. We didn't have this issue a generation or two ago, why is that? What's changed? Tell me why or how life is better this way? You're talking about teenage girls having anal and oral sex, when my grandmother's generation would have never even known what those things were in their teens. We're a depraved society, and all everyone does is applaud it and say how great it is. The path we're on is not a good one.

 

[Foxfyre]

What is the downside? You're a parent and you have to ask that question? Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives? You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant? You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age? Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay? Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal. We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.

Teenagers are afraid to ask for contraception. I want my daughter to have protection first and foremost. Other issues can be dealt with but a baby is forever. Basically, we want our kids to get through high school without doing anything to irrevocably screw up their lives. My daughter's emotional well-being is going to be messed with a whole lot more if she becomes pregnant while in school.

Teenage sex, by and large, is not that big a deal. I had sex as a teenager, in the age before legal abortions. I used precautions but it was scary. My life would have been a whole lot less stressful if I had had access to birth control. I made sure my daughter had access to birth control at an early age. She is now 23, and has never really had to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

One of the unintended consequences of the abstinence movement is that young girls who have taken the virginity pledge, are now having annal sex and performing oral sex because, as long as their hymen is still intact, the girls are technically virgins. I would rather my daughter have a normal sexual relationship with her boyfriend that engage in high risk annal sex.

As far as teenage pregnancy, I think the problem with our society is that it is overwhelmingly lazy. Parents don't want to be parents any longer, they don't want to do the hard work and make the hard decisions where their kids are concerned. We didn't have this issue a generation or two ago, why is that? What's changed? Tell me why or how life is better this way? You're talking about teenage girls having anal and oral sex, when my grandmother's generation would have never even known what those things were in their teens. We're a depraved society, and all everyone does is applaud it and say how great it is. The path we're on is not a good one.

When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want? Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't. And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.

And when having a kid is the way to get out of the house, get subsidized housing, get a government check every month, etc. etc. etc., how can that not be seen as an attractive option to the undereducated and disadvantaged among teen girls? And what opportunistic guy , who will never be held accountable for the 'deed' even if he is named, is going to say no the girl willing to be 'serviced'?

Such is our world since Roe v Wade.

Unfortunately most of the statistics from the pre Roe v Wade era don't differentiate between those who got married as teens and those who got pregnant without benefit of marriage. If they had kept better records of teenage pregnancy among unmarried teens, I am almost certain the pregnancy rates would be a small fraction of what they are now.

 

[Dragonlady]

When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want? Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't. And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.

Ah, nostalgia for things that never were. Anybody who thinks that teenagers didn't have sex in the days before abortion is dreaming in technicolor. Why do you think there were back alley abortions?

The difference is back in the 50's and 60's, if a girl became pregnant, she was sent to a home for unwed mothers to have her baby and put it up for adoption. Or there was a hurried marriage. In any case she was expelled from school. The boys did not face expulsion if their girlfriend got pregnant.

Of course girls and their mothers often disappeared for three mongths and when they returned, the girl had a new baby brother or sister. Happened all of the time.

There is no shortage of children available for adoption today. There is a shortage of healthy white babies available for adoption, and contrary to what you've been told, that's not because of the number of abortions. It's because white girls keep their babies today. There is no stigma to having a child out of wedlock as there was when I was growing up, any with the advances in paternity testing, guys can't just claim the girl was loose and it's not their kid. White girls keep their babies today because they can. When I was a teenager, you didn't have that option.

 

[Delia]

When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want? Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't. And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.

Ah, nostalgia for things that never were. Anybody who thinks that teenagers didn't have sex in the days before abortion is dreaming in technicolor. Why do you think there were back alley abortions?

The difference is back in the 50's and 60's, if a girl became pregnant, she was sent to a home for unwed mothers to have her baby and put it up for adoption. Or there was a hurried marriage. In any case she was expelled from school. The boys did not face expulsion if their girlfriend got pregnant.

Of course girls and their mothers often disappeared for three mongths and when they returned, the girl had a new baby brother or sister. Happened all of the time.

There is no shortage of children available for adoption today. There is a shortage of healthy white babies available for adoption, and contrary to what you've been told, that's not because of the number of abortions. It's because white girls keep their babies today. There is no stigma to having a child out of wedlock as there was when I was growing up, any with the advances in paternity testing, guys can't just claim the girl was loose and it's not their kid. White girls keep their babies today because they can. When I was a teenager, you didn't have that option.

In addition, there were lots. And lots. AND LOTS of housewives having abortions. This isn't all about teens.

 

[Foxfyre]

When we condone the schools passing out condoms to kids, no questions asked, how can the kids not see that as a license to have as much sex as they want? Pre Roe v Wade, most of society thought kids shouldn't be having sex and most kids didn't. And that cut way down on teen pregnancies among unmarried teens.

Ah, nostalgia for things that never were. Anybody who thinks that teenagers didn't have sex in the days before abortion is dreaming in technicolor. Why do you think there were back alley abortions?

The difference is back in the 50's and 60's, if a girl became pregnant, she was sent to a home for unwed mothers to have her baby and put it up for adoption. Or there was a hurried marriage. In any case she was expelled from school. The boys did not face expulsion if their girlfriend got pregnant.

Of course girls and their mothers often disappeared for three mongths and when they returned, the girl had a new baby brother or sister. Happened all of the time.

There is no shortage of children available for adoption today. There is a shortage of healthy white babies available for adoption, and contrary to what you've been told, that's not because of the number of abortions. It's because white girls keep their babies today. There is no stigma to having a child out of wedlock as there was when I was growing up, any with the advances in paternity testing, guys can't just claim the girl was loose and it's not their kid. White girls keep their babies today because they can. When I was a teenager, you didn't have that option.

I was a virgin when I graduated highschool. Most of my classmates say they were too and I believe them. My husband was a virgin when he graduated highschool. He also believes most of his friends were too. The fact that you had sex, that maybe most kids have sex now, is not evidence that this is the way it was in a different American culture. Nor is that the same thing as saying no kids had sex in highschool when I and my husband were in highschool. There are degrees of everything.

Yes more young single parents--race has nothing to do with it--keep their babies now. Some did 'back then' too. They had as much option as they do now, but it was not as socially acceptable then as it is now. Thus, the vast majority of kids in school had two parents in the home. Now, most kids in many schools are being raised by single parents. A large percentage of those are single parents who have never been married.

Now you might see that as enlightened compared to the way things used to be. I'm sorry but I don't. I think the fact that so many these days don't have two loving parents in the home--parents who are married and committed to each other for the long haul--is a huge reason for many of the problems we now have. Problems that were much more rare 'back then'. Back pre Roe v Wade.

Don't give me the lecture about how 'backward' things were back then. There are things, attitudes, concepts now that are an improvement. But not all change is good. And everything 'back then' was not bad.

The truly enlightened are able to recognize the unintended negative consequences of good intentions in all eras.

Twenty five percent of children being raised by single parents--that number is 72 percent of black children--is not something any society should be proud of. A majority of Fifty six million aborted babies is not something any society should be proud of.

 

[Katzndogz]

Except that those children ARE wanted! They might not be wanted by their parents, but they are still wanted. Otherwise we wouldn't have 60,000 babies adopted from Russia alone. Almost 5,000 more than that are adopted from China, every year.

The solution is, of course, to persuade women to delay sexual gratification or achieve it in ways other than by promiscuity. This means penalties, but not always legal penalties. There was a time when a girl getting pregnant could expect to be expelled from school, her family might go so far as to put her out on the street. She would be friendless and ostracized. The social penalties alone were enough to make girls think twice before spreading their legs. Today, girls feel obligated to have sex as early as possible, certainly pre menstrual, otherwise what kind of pictures would they be able to send to the kids who go to their school?

Of course! Because the children from Russia are white. Now: What's the adoption rate for black children in America. Hispanic? Special needs?

Nice, now we're going to bring racism into the topic?

Liberals need racism. That way they can forget about thousands of Chinese and Indian children. It is very difficult for white families to adopt a black child in the US. It requires a detailed parenting plan and continuing monitoring by social services to make sure the child gows up culturally black.

 

[Dragonlady]

I was a virgin when I graduated highschool. Most of my classmates say they were too and I believe them. My husband was a virgin when he graduated highschool. He also believes most of his friends were too. The fact that you had sex, that maybe most kids have sex now, is not evidence that this is the way it was in a different American culture. Nor is that the same thing as saying no kids had sex in highschool when I and my husband were in highschool. There are degrees of everything.

I told everyone that I was a virgin too. Nobody I knew ever admitted to having sex. It would destroy your reputation. Some of my friends I know were virgins, some were not, but if anybody asked, we were all virgins.

Yes more young single parents--race has nothing to do with it--keep their babies now. Some did 'back then' too. They had as much option as they do now, but it was not as socially acceptable then as it is now. Thus, the vast majority of kids in school had two parents in the home. Now, most kids in many schools are being raised by single parents. A large percentage of those are single parents who have never been married.

My daughter went all through public school as the only kid in her class whose parents are still together. I was both appalled and saddened by this but wishing it were different is not going to make it so, and sorry but few of these kids came from single parent homes. Most are children of divorce.

Now you might see that as enlightened compared to the way things used to be. I'm sorry but I don't. I think the fact that so many these days don't have two loving parents in the home--parents who are married and committed to each other for the long haul--is a huge reason for many of the problems we now have. Problems that were much more rare 'back then'. Back pre Roe v Wade.

I disagree. I saw a lot of people staying in bad marriages and the kids suffer for it, more than if they divorced. Further, those with bad marriages as examples, tend to repeat their parents mistakes. I know of people who stayed in loveless marriages for the sake of the children. What sort of an example does that set for their son. How will he ever know what a healthy loving relationship is. I know my friend feels she did the right thing by her child, but when he marries, how will he know how to be a loving man to his wife?

I raised two children as a single mother, and one in a committed relationship. Being married is easier, but in terms of raising healthy, well-adjusted adults, one good parent is better than two unhappy ones.

 

[Underhill]

What is the downside? You're a parent and you have to ask that question? Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives? You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant? You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age? Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay? Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal. We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.

Teenagers are afraid to ask for contraception. I want my daughter to have protection first and foremost. Other issues can be dealt with but a baby is forever. Basically, we want our kids to get through high school without doing anything to irrevocably screw up their lives. My daughter's emotional well-being is going to be messed with a whole lot more if she becomes pregnant while in school.

Teenage sex, by and large, is not that big a deal. I had sex as a teenager, in the age before legal abortions. I used precautions but it was scary. My life would have been a whole lot less stressful if I had had access to birth control. I made sure my daughter had access to birth control at an early age. She is now 23, and has never really had to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

One of the unintended consequences of the abstinence movement is that young girls who have taken the virginity pledge, are now having annal sex and performing oral sex because, as long as their hymen is still intact, the girls are technically virgins. I would rather my daughter have a normal sexual relationship with her boyfriend that engage in high risk annal sex.

As far as teenage pregnancy, I think the problem with our society is that it is overwhelmingly lazy. Parents don't want to be parents any longer, they don't want to do the hard work and make the hard decisions where their kids are concerned. We didn't have this issue a generation or two ago, why is that? What's changed? Tell me why or how life is better this way? You're talking about teenage girls having anal and oral sex, when my grandmother's generation would have never even known what those things were in their teens. We're a depraved society, and all everyone does is applaud it and say how great it is. The path we're on is not a good one.

Maybe so, but that is not primarily thanks to parents, it's our society. Like it or not. But you are welcome to join the Amish I suppose.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was a virgin when I graduated highschool. Most of my classmates say they were too and I believe them. My husband was a virgin when he graduated highschool. He also believes most of his friends were too. The fact that you had sex, that maybe most kids have sex now, is not evidence that this is the way it was in a different American culture. Nor is that the same thing as saying no kids had sex in highschool when I and my husband were in highschool. There are degrees of everything.

I told everyone that I was a virgin too. Nobody I knew ever admitted to having sex. It would destroy your reputation. Some of my friends I know were virgins, some were not, but if anybody asked, we were all virgins.

Yes more young single parents--race has nothing to do with it--keep their babies now. Some did 'back then' too. They had as much option as they do now, but it was not as socially acceptable then as it is now. Thus, the vast majority of kids in school had two parents in the home. Now, most kids in many schools are being raised by single parents. A large percentage of those are single parents who have never been married.

My daughter went all through public school as the only kid in her class whose parents are still together. I was both appalled and saddened by this but wishing it were different is not going to make it so, and sorry but few of these kids came from single parent homes. Most are children of divorce.

Now you might see that as enlightened compared to the way things used to be. I'm sorry but I don't. I think the fact that so many these days don't have two loving parents in the home--parents who are married and committed to each other for the long haul--is a huge reason for many of the problems we now have. Problems that were much more rare 'back then'. Back pre Roe v Wade.

I disagree. I saw a lot of people staying in bad marriages and the kids suffer for it, more than if they divorced. Further, those with bad marriages as examples, tend to repeat their parents mistakes. I know of people who stayed in loveless marriages for the sake of the children. What sort of an example does that set for their son. How will he ever know what a healthy loving relationship is. I know my friend feels she did the right thing by her child, but when he marries, how will he know how to be a loving man to his wife?

I raised two children as a single mother, and one in a committed relationship. Being married is easier, but in terms of raising healthy, well-adjusted adults, one good parent is better than two unhappy ones.

Please understand I am not judging you or anybody else. Sure some lied about whether they were having sex, but most didn't. The fact that it would 'ruin your reputation' if you had what the boys called 'round heels' in that earlier time is a reflection of the culture. Promiscuity was not accepted as 'normal' or 'okay' back then. And men were most attracted to women with similar values they could respect and they were expected to treat them with respect rather than just viewing women as a warm place to put it.

Nor am I saying that single parents cannot be wonderful parents. I know many who are. I am saying that children benefit from having a loving mother and father in the home. I am saying that most child poverty is due to single parenthood and most children who get into serious trouble, do poorly in school, etc. etc. etc. are children of single parents. That is NOT sayng that ALL children of single parents are unlikely to succeed or that MOST single parents do a crappy job of parenting.

Nor am I saying that all traditional marriages are good marriages. I grew up in probably the most dysfunctional family among all myr peers. I was abused by my father and endured the alcoholism of my mother. Would I have been better off under different circumstances? Of course I would. But neither was my situation the norm of families back then. The fact that there were some dysfunctional or bad parents does not extrapolate to the traditional family, on average,not being the best circumstance for rearing children.

And I still say encouraging single parenthood is not in the best interest of the children. And 56+ million abortions is not in the best interest of anybody, most especially all those people who never had a chance to live at all. And those statistics are not something any of us should be proud of, and rather than justifying it because we don't want to admit we're doing some things badly, we should be encouraging solutions to the problem.

 

[Underhill]

Wow, that's a pretty sad point of view you have there. If you want to give up your rights as a parent to the state to raise your child as they see fit, more power to you, but it will happen to me over my dead body. Do you even realize what you're saying you're in favor of here? Why stop at birth control? Maybe you don't feed them well enough? Maybe you leave them alone too much, so they should removed from your care? The power you're willing to relinguish to the state over your own children is never ending once you start to give it away. Very sad.

Who decides who is 'responsible' and 'reasonable'? The state? Then when they decide that you're neither, they get to take over? Scary road you're going down. It always starts with something small, like birth control, then the rationalizations start for the next thing, and the next..

Sorry to inform you, but you're a bit late to the party. Kids are taken from parents all the time for neglect.

Why would this be any different than school lunches? I can understand if it's morally ambiguous. But this isn't. Every teen who is having sex should have birth control. It's that simple. So no, I don't see it any different than feeding them at school without getting permission from the parents.

And I don't think the state needs to judge parent's. Simply make it available to all. As I said, what is the downside?

What is the downside? You're a parent and you have to ask that question? Do you actually parent your children? Are you involved in their lives? You don't care if your school hands out birth control to your daughter without your knowledge, just so she doean't end up pregnant? You don't care about her emotional well being that could be affected by having sex at such a young age? Just so she doesn't get pregnant, then everything else is okay? Sorry, but I'll just never understand how a parent can be so disengaged from their child's life that they would think it's no big deal. We'll never come close to agreeing on this topic, but I do appreciate you're point of view and that you were a gentleman while discussing.

Of course I care about these things. And I know from experience with my oldest that she did come and talk to us about these things. But I also know from a lifetime of experience (and you know I am right about this if you are honest) that most teens will not go to their parents. Some may scrounge some condoms but rarely do they get anything more.

And again I ask, what is the downside? When you get down off your high horse you might see that I am more concerned about my kids well being than I am my personal pride and inability to personally deal with every situation my kids run into.

I know plenty of parents as a scoutmaster, who will tell me all day long they know exactly what their boys are doing. And I can tell most of them they have no clue. I'm sure there are plenty of things my own kids do that I never hear about.

So when I say this I don't mean it personally but it boils down to arrogance. The arrogance to think your kids will always come to mommy or daddy. The arrogance to think that you always will know when is the right time to give them a good talk.

What we are talking about is help in time of need. But because it is tied into that most intimate of topics, parents immediately think it is their domain and theirs alone. But that is a dangerous approach. As any 35 year old grandmother will tell you.

I would tell any parent to always assume the worst and hope for the best. As we teach in scouts, prepare them for the worst. And I couldn't care less where that preparedness or aid comes from so long as they get it.