Why the fight against Birth Control?

[Cecilie1200]

dont they still give out free condoms at the health department?

Most of them, I believe. Also, any anti-AIDS group will supply them.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Ok, that explains a lot. I was thinking that there might be an army of paedos hanging around the school gates.

What you actually mean when you say perverts is people who accept that teenagers have been shagging since Noah was a lad and are looking for strategies to protect kids from the consequences of it.

Or,in other words, adults.

Havent you got a stoning to go to tonight ?

Not at all.

My "people" have always accepted that teens have sex. We developed a wonderful social structure..known as *marriage*....to protect the women and offspring that are vulnerable during pregnancy and childhood.

The perverts don't like that social structure because it protects young, nubile victims from predators who like to engage them in sex, watch them having sex, sell them for sex.

So they developed a two-pronged approach, meant to decimate the structure that protects kids from sexual predation, and instead tell kids that they should be having sex for FUN, and that they don't need to worry about consequences like pregnancy and poverty because the magical application of free birth control and abortion will remove all their worries.

It isn't a new approach for progressives seeking to victimizing people they find problematic. Progressive Americans were the heroes of Nazis and commies alike, who took their ideology and applied it nationwide.

And it worked! They were able to victimize people by the millions. It's always worked. It's an excellent program if you want to advance a depraved and psychotic ideology.

You seem to be under the impression that kids need to be encouraged to have sex. Its laughable. Were you ever a teenager ?

You also seem to be under the impression that this started quite recently. Let me take you into a secret - its been happening forever.

But you offer no solutions to this.

In fact, apart from some bogus political conspiracy nonsense, you offer nothing of substance at all.

You just blather nonsense. What exactly is *this* that you are referring to? Coyote's pretense that if the state doesn't provide birth control, we'll have a population explosion of hated children of teen parents, who you maintain *just can't say no and shouldn't be asked to say no* to sex?

Because we already established that the imaginary problem that Coyote names in her OP is a lie. Nobody is protesting against birth control.

People are only willing to pay for their own, however.

Coyote conflates the two because she's never paid for anything entirely on her own in her fucking life. So she seriously cannot conceive of a world where she's expected to pay for the stuff she wants, and she doesn't believe that existence and success is possible unless the state hands it to you on a silver platter.

I suspect you're of the same cloth, only in a different location.

Well you know more about Coyote than I do. I think that, despite being a woman, she talks sense on a lot of issues.

You say that it is just about you having to pay for it.

That is such a dishonest position. It is cheaper to prevent a conception than to deal with the consequences. You have no argument on this so why not come clean and give us the real reason ?

no, I never said that it was just "about you having to pay for it". I said that COYOTE'S premise..which is that if the state doesn't pay for contraception, then contraception doesn't exist...is a false one. I said that COYOTE'S assertion that young women can't get free contraception UNLESS THE STATE PAYS FOR IT..is false.

And it is.

Well this is what you said.

The argument isn't whether or not you should be allowed to trot your daughter into the clinic for her std treatments and her cancer-causing oral birth control...it's about whether or not I should have to pay for it, because you're a crappy parent and a piss-poor provider.

That seems to me as if you are making an economic argument. But it is a nonsense. Remember the issue is the reality of what the state has to provide and not what you would like it to provide.

 

[Coyote]

Ok, that explains a lot. I was thinking that there might be an army of paedos hanging around the school gates.

What you actually mean when you say perverts is people who accept that teenagers have been shagging since Noah was a lad and are looking for strategies to protect kids from the consequences of it.

Or,in other words, adults.

Havent you got a stoning to go to tonight ?

Not at all.

My "people" have always accepted that teens have sex. We developed a wonderful social structure..known as *marriage*....to protect the women and offspring that are vulnerable during pregnancy and childhood.

The perverts don't like that social structure because it protects young, nubile victims from predators who like to engage them in sex, watch them having sex, sell them for sex.

So they developed a two-pronged approach, meant to decimate the structure that protects kids from sexual predation, and instead tell kids that they should be having sex for FUN, and that they don't need to worry about consequences like pregnancy and poverty because the magical application of free birth control and abortion will remove all their worries.

It isn't a new approach for progressives seeking to victimizing people they find problematic. Progressive Americans were the heroes of Nazis and commies alike, who took their ideology and applied it nationwide.

And it worked! They were able to victimize people by the millions. It's always worked. It's an excellent program if you want to advance a depraved and psychotic ideology.

I don't think very many people are telling kids they "should" have sex for "fun". The approach I see more commonly used is a combination of abstinance and, if you are going to have sex anyway then be responsible.

You and tommy and crixus et al adamantly maintain that children must accept the likelihood of engaging in risky sex, because "they're teenagers"..and thus the STATE must foot the bill. You keep pretending that this conversation isn't about having the STATE foot the bill. You try to pretend that people like me don't want anybody to have access to birth control. It's a lie, but everything you say is a lie.

The argument isn't whether or not you should be allowed to trot your daughter into the clinic for her std treatments and her cancer-causing oral birth control...it's about whether or not I should have to pay for it, because you're a crappy parent and a piss-poor provider.

I opt not to pay for it, thanks. I am responsible for my kids, you can be responsible for yours.

Not "likelihood" - but possibility. I haven't said one thing or another how you feel about access to birth control.

What I've said is consistent: providing free birth control has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates. You can argue around that all you want, but it's an evidence based claim.

The state can choose to pay the comparatively cheap cost of prevention now or the much more expensive cost of a pregnancy and child later because some people are "crappy parents" and "piss poor providers".

You're fine until the last sentence, which is a complete fabrication lol. Our teen pregnancy rate EXPLODED after the introduction of free birth control.

Not according to the statistics I've found. Teen birthrates (which would exclude abortion) have gone down since 1957. Teen pregnancy rates rose between 1980-91 then fell. The pill was not approved for contraceptive purposes until 1960. If you look at the trends - there isn't an "explosion" of teen pregnancy until around 1990 when there was an upswing. Newer versions of the pill have a lower failure rate because they are easier to use which accounts for some of the downward trend. States that offer free birth control, for example Colorado, have seen a significant reduction in teen pregnancies.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

dont they still give out free condoms at the health department?

Most of them, I believe. Also, any anti-AIDS group will supply them.

My wife and I were handed a handful by a barman in a Key West club many years ago. We told him that we were trying for a family and he went red and gave us free drinks.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yea, the places where people can't afford to have kids and where those people don't raise them right and it ends up causing a spike in violent crime.

Either that, or the Eugenics of Hitler and Margret Sanger are alive and well within PP and the DNC

 

[koshergrl]

Not at all.

My "people" have always accepted that teens have sex. We developed a wonderful social structure..known as *marriage*....to protect the women and offspring that are vulnerable during pregnancy and childhood.

The perverts don't like that social structure because it protects young, nubile victims from predators who like to engage them in sex, watch them having sex, sell them for sex.

So they developed a two-pronged approach, meant to decimate the structure that protects kids from sexual predation, and instead tell kids that they should be having sex for FUN, and that they don't need to worry about consequences like pregnancy and poverty because the magical application of free birth control and abortion will remove all their worries.

It isn't a new approach for progressives seeking to victimizing people they find problematic. Progressive Americans were the heroes of Nazis and commies alike, who took their ideology and applied it nationwide.

And it worked! They were able to victimize people by the millions. It's always worked. It's an excellent program if you want to advance a depraved and psychotic ideology.

I don't think very many people are telling kids they "should" have sex for "fun". The approach I see more commonly used is a combination of abstinance and, if you are going to have sex anyway then be responsible.

You and tommy and crixus et al adamantly maintain that children must accept the likelihood of engaging in risky sex, because "they're teenagers"..and thus the STATE must foot the bill. You keep pretending that this conversation isn't about having the STATE foot the bill. You try to pretend that people like me don't want anybody to have access to birth control. It's a lie, but everything you say is a lie.

The argument isn't whether or not you should be allowed to trot your daughter into the clinic for her std treatments and her cancer-causing oral birth control...it's about whether or not I should have to pay for it, because you're a crappy parent and a piss-poor provider.

I opt not to pay for it, thanks. I am responsible for my kids, you can be responsible for yours.

Not "likelihood" - but possibility. I haven't said one thing or another how you feel about access to birth control.

What I've said is consistent: providing free birth control has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates. You can argue around that all you want, but it's an evidence based claim.

The state can choose to pay the comparatively cheap cost of prevention now or the much more expensive cost of a pregnancy and child later because some people are "crappy parents" and "piss poor providers".

You're fine until the last sentence, which is a complete fabrication lol. Our teen pregnancy rate EXPLODED after the introduction of free birth control.

Not according to the statistics I've found. Teen birthrates (which would exclude abortion) have gone down since 1957. Teen pregnancy rates rose between 1980-91 then fell. The pill was not approved for contraceptive purposes until 1960. If you look at the trends - there isn't an "explosion" of teen pregnancy until around 1990 when there was an upswing. Newer versions of the pill have a lower failure rate because they are easier to use which accounts for some of the downward trend. States that offer free birth control, for example Colorado, have seen a significant reduction in teen pregnancies.

The top chart reflects nothing except the commitment of young marrieds to not have as many children as they did in the past.

Aside from that, the CDC is a joke. They get their numbers from Planned Parenthood, who isn't required to provide any information at all. They get the numbers from a few states where they *choose* to provide inaccurate and false information.

 

[Coyote]

Seriously...I just don't get it.

What's wrong with letting women have it?

The argument that they shouldn't have it free doesn't fly. ACA includes a bunch of different free items: Preventive care benefits for adults - but I have yet to hear an argument against aspirin or vaccinations being offered and birth control is a relatively cheap thing to offer.

The Pill is, as of this time, the most reliable method of pregnancy prevention. Yes...abstinence itself works, but isn't realistic as few people stick with it and, frankly, why should they if the pill can offer a more reliable option if they don't want to be abstinent? There is a direct correlation between preventing unwanted pregnancies, particularly teens, and the availability of reliable contraception.

It still boils down to responsibility. The employer shouldn't subsidize a persons private life. I thought the left wanted people out of the bedrooms?

Employer provided insurance (which the insured also pays into) covers a lot of "private life" things: smoking cessation programs, viagra, pre-natal care, childbirth...

 

[Coyote]

I don't think very many people are telling kids they "should" have sex for "fun". The approach I see more commonly used is a combination of abstinance and, if you are going to have sex anyway then be responsible.

You and tommy and crixus et al adamantly maintain that children must accept the likelihood of engaging in risky sex, because "they're teenagers"..and thus the STATE must foot the bill. You keep pretending that this conversation isn't about having the STATE foot the bill. You try to pretend that people like me don't want anybody to have access to birth control. It's a lie, but everything you say is a lie.

The argument isn't whether or not you should be allowed to trot your daughter into the clinic for her std treatments and her cancer-causing oral birth control...it's about whether or not I should have to pay for it, because you're a crappy parent and a piss-poor provider.

I opt not to pay for it, thanks. I am responsible for my kids, you can be responsible for yours.

Not "likelihood" - but possibility. I haven't said one thing or another how you feel about access to birth control.

What I've said is consistent: providing free birth control has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates. You can argue around that all you want, but it's an evidence based claim.

The state can choose to pay the comparatively cheap cost of prevention now or the much more expensive cost of a pregnancy and child later because some people are "crappy parents" and "piss poor providers".

You're fine until the last sentence, which is a complete fabrication lol. Our teen pregnancy rate EXPLODED after the introduction of free birth control.

Not according to the statistics I've found. Teen birthrates (which would exclude abortion) have gone down since 1957. Teen pregnancy rates rose between 1980-91 then fell. The pill was not approved for contraceptive purposes until 1960. If you look at the trends - there isn't an "explosion" of teen pregnancy until around 1990 when there was an upswing. Newer versions of the pill have a lower failure rate because they are easier to use which accounts for some of the downward trend. States that offer free birth control, for example Colorado, have seen a significant reduction in teen pregnancies.

The top chart reflects nothing except the commitment of young marrieds to not have as many children as they did in the past.

Aside from that, the CDC is a joke. They get their numbers from Planned Parenthood, who isn't required to provide any information at all. They get the numbers from a few states where they *choose* to provide inaccurate and false information.

No indication that they are married. Average age (and median age) of first marriage in the US has consistently been over 20 - not 15-19. So...you can't dispute the data?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

All one has to do is watch Maury Povich and you will realize that not only should BC be free, it should be a requirement.

 

[sealybobo]

Yea, the places where people can't afford to have kids and where those people don't raise them right and it ends up causing a spike in violent crime.

Either that, or the Eugenics of Hitler and Margret Sanger are alive and well within PP and the DNC

That's just not reality. I've had so many conversations with so many good people who understand abortion is a necessary evil. Talk to most healthcare professionals who deal with poverty and they'll tell you abortion is absolutely a necessary. And these are good people who personally would never get an abortion.

I don't know how Christians deal with the fact that abortion is murder and yet they are ok with murdering fetus' which are technically humans. Deep down they must admit that life just isn't that precious. If they were truly religious I don't know how they could think it is not but I suspect they are more born into their religions than they are BELIEVERS. Do they believe the bible literally? No they do not. Does my aunt who doesn't know a thing about science and who grew up super religious? She sure does. To her a fetus is just as much of a life as you are. Having an abortion is like shooting you in the head as you walk down the street. Or slitting a 3 year old babies neck. To them there's no difference.

 

[koshergrl]

Seriously...I just don't get it.

What's wrong with letting women have it?

The argument that they shouldn't have it free doesn't fly. ACA includes a bunch of different free items: Preventive care benefits for adults - but I have yet to hear an argument against aspirin or vaccinations being offered and birth control is a relatively cheap thing to offer.

The Pill is, as of this time, the most reliable method of pregnancy prevention. Yes...abstinence itself works, but isn't realistic as few people stick with it and, frankly, why should they if the pill can offer a more reliable option if they don't want to be abstinent? There is a direct correlation between preventing unwanted pregnancies, particularly teens, and the availability of reliable contraception.

It still boils down to responsibility. The employer shouldn't subsidize a persons private life. I thought the left wanted people out of the bedrooms?

Employer provided insurance (which the insured also pays into) covers a lot of "private life" things: smoking cessation programs, viagra, pre-natal care, childbirth...

That's a different subject now, isn't it?

But I for one do not believe the government should pay for ANY of that shit.

 

[koshergrl]

All one has to do is watch Maury Povich and you will realize that not only should BC be free, it should be a requirement.

so say all Nazis and concentration camp advocates.

 

[koshergrl]

You and tommy and crixus et al adamantly maintain that children must accept the likelihood of engaging in risky sex, because "they're teenagers"..and thus the STATE must foot the bill. You keep pretending that this conversation isn't about having the STATE foot the bill. You try to pretend that people like me don't want anybody to have access to birth control. It's a lie, but everything you say is a lie.

The argument isn't whether or not you should be allowed to trot your daughter into the clinic for her std treatments and her cancer-causing oral birth control...it's about whether or not I should have to pay for it, because you're a crappy parent and a piss-poor provider.

I opt not to pay for it, thanks. I am responsible for my kids, you can be responsible for yours.

Not "likelihood" - but possibility. I haven't said one thing or another how you feel about access to birth control.

What I've said is consistent: providing free birth control has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates. You can argue around that all you want, but it's an evidence based claim.

The state can choose to pay the comparatively cheap cost of prevention now or the much more expensive cost of a pregnancy and child later because some people are "crappy parents" and "piss poor providers".

You're fine until the last sentence, which is a complete fabrication lol. Our teen pregnancy rate EXPLODED after the introduction of free birth control.

Not according to the statistics I've found. Teen birthrates (which would exclude abortion) have gone down since 1957. Teen pregnancy rates rose between 1980-91 then fell. The pill was not approved for contraceptive purposes until 1960. If you look at the trends - there isn't an "explosion" of teen pregnancy until around 1990 when there was an upswing. Newer versions of the pill have a lower failure rate because they are easier to use which accounts for some of the downward trend. States that offer free birth control, for example Colorado, have seen a significant reduction in teen pregnancies.

The top chart reflects nothing except the commitment of young marrieds to not have as many children as they did in the past.

Aside from that, the CDC is a joke. They get their numbers from Planned Parenthood, who isn't required to provide any information at all. They get the numbers from a few states where they *choose* to provide inaccurate and false information.

No indication that they are married. Average age (and median age) of first marriage in the US has consistently been over 20 - not 15-19. So...you can't dispute the data?

I did dispute the data. And you have nothing except a bunch of lies lol.

Beginning with the lie that the fact that the married status of the pregnant teens is not noted on the chart means that they aren't married. No, it doesn't.

Followed by the lie that I didn't dispute the data. I did dispute it, and you came back with..nothing.

 

[Coyote]

Not "likelihood" - but possibility. I haven't said one thing or another how you feel about access to birth control.

What I've said is consistent: providing free birth control has been shown to reduce teen pregnancy rates. You can argue around that all you want, but it's an evidence based claim.

The state can choose to pay the comparatively cheap cost of prevention now or the much more expensive cost of a pregnancy and child later because some people are "crappy parents" and "piss poor providers".

You're fine until the last sentence, which is a complete fabrication lol. Our teen pregnancy rate EXPLODED after the introduction of free birth control.

Not according to the statistics I've found. Teen birthrates (which would exclude abortion) have gone down since 1957. Teen pregnancy rates rose between 1980-91 then fell. The pill was not approved for contraceptive purposes until 1960. If you look at the trends - there isn't an "explosion" of teen pregnancy until around 1990 when there was an upswing. Newer versions of the pill have a lower failure rate because they are easier to use which accounts for some of the downward trend. States that offer free birth control, for example Colorado, have seen a significant reduction in teen pregnancies.

The top chart reflects nothing except the commitment of young marrieds to not have as many children as they did in the past.

Aside from that, the CDC is a joke. They get their numbers from Planned Parenthood, who isn't required to provide any information at all. They get the numbers from a few states where they *choose* to provide inaccurate and false information.

No indication that they are married. Average age (and median age) of first marriage in the US has consistently been over 20 - not 15-19. So...you can't dispute the data?

I did dispute the data. And you have nothing except a bunch of lies lol.

Beginning with the lie that the fact that the married status of the pregnant teens is not noted on the chart means that they aren't married. No, it doesn't.

Followed by the lie that I didn't dispute the data. I did dispute it, and you came back with..nothing.

No, it doesn't mean that they were married. But given the average age of marriage it's highly likely they weren't. If they were then that also blows your claim of an explosion of teen pregnancies to bits.

You haven't disputed anything

 

[koshergrl]

"Without a strong commitment to marriage as a life goal and as an essential gift

to children, today’s teenagers find it much harder to come up with good reasons to

say “no” to sex, to use birth control conscientiously, to avoid men who are not good

marriage candidates, or to consider adoption when marriage is not advisable."

http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/ageofunwedmothers.pdf

 

[Coyote]

mm

"Without a strong commitment to marriage as a life goal and as an essential gift

to children, today’s teenagers find it much harder to come up with good reasons to

say “no” to sex, to use birth control conscientiously, to avoid men who are not good

marriage candidates, or to consider adoption when marriage is not advisable."

http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/ageofunwedmothers.pdf

And? I'm not arguing against teaching children these things.

 

[koshergrl]

You're fine until the last sentence, which is a complete fabrication lol. Our teen pregnancy rate EXPLODED after the introduction of free birth control.

Not according to the statistics I've found. Teen birthrates (which would exclude abortion) have gone down since 1957. Teen pregnancy rates rose between 1980-91 then fell. The pill was not approved for contraceptive purposes until 1960. If you look at the trends - there isn't an "explosion" of teen pregnancy until around 1990 when there was an upswing. Newer versions of the pill have a lower failure rate because they are easier to use which accounts for some of the downward trend. States that offer free birth control, for example Colorado, have seen a significant reduction in teen pregnancies.

The top chart reflects nothing except the commitment of young marrieds to not have as many children as they did in the past.

Aside from that, the CDC is a joke. They get their numbers from Planned Parenthood, who isn't required to provide any information at all. They get the numbers from a few states where they *choose* to provide inaccurate and false information.

No indication that they are married. Average age (and median age) of first marriage in the US has consistently been over 20 - not 15-19. So...you can't dispute the data?

I did dispute the data. And you have nothing except a bunch of lies lol.

Beginning with the lie that the fact that the married status of the pregnant teens is not noted on the chart means that they aren't married. No, it doesn't.

Followed by the lie that I didn't dispute the data. I did dispute it, and you came back with..nothing.

No, it doesn't mean that they were married. But given the average age of marriage it's highly likely they weren't. If they were then that also blows your claim of an explosion of teen pregnancies to bits.

You haven't disputed anything

More nonsense.

Yes, I did dispute it. Do you not know what the word *dispute* means, you poor ignoramus?

Meanwhile, in the world of letters and ideas:

"As far back as 1976, the Alan Guttmacher Institute published a


widely distributed booklet, “11 Million Teenagers,” proclaiming a teen pregnancy

“epidemic.” Two years later, Congress passed a bill doubling family planning

funds that the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare described as “the

centerpiece of President Carter’s strategy” to combat “the urgent problem” of teen

pregnancy.1

"Yet until quite recently, despite many successive government and community

efforts to reverse the trend, the unwed teen pregnancy rate continued to climb, from

23.9 births per 1000 single female teenagers in 1975 to 31.4 in 1985, and to an alltime

high of 46.4 in 1994. Nothing that adults said or did seemed to matter. From

1975 to 1994, the unmarried teen birth rate almost doubled.2"

http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/ageofunwedmothers.pdf

Words matter, coyote.

 

[koshergrl]

mm

"Without a strong commitment to marriage as a life goal and as an essential gift

to children, today’s teenagers find it much harder to come up with good reasons to

say “no” to sex, to use birth control conscientiously, to avoid men who are not good

marriage candidates, or to consider adoption when marriage is not advisable."

http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/ageofunwedmothers.pdf

And? I'm not arguing against teaching children these things.

You still haven't addressed the issue with your OP, which is that if you don't want the feds to pay for birth control, you are "anti-birth control".

When will you stop lying, pudding?

 

[sealybobo]

Seriously...I just don't get it.

What's wrong with letting women have it?

The argument that they shouldn't have it free doesn't fly. ACA includes a bunch of different free items: Preventive care benefits for adults - but I have yet to hear an argument against aspirin or vaccinations being offered and birth control is a relatively cheap thing to offer.

The Pill is, as of this time, the most reliable method of pregnancy prevention. Yes...abstinence itself works, but isn't realistic as few people stick with it and, frankly, why should they if the pill can offer a more reliable option if they don't want to be abstinent? There is a direct correlation between preventing unwanted pregnancies, particularly teens, and the availability of reliable contraception.

It still boils down to responsibility. The employer shouldn't subsidize a persons private life. I thought the left wanted people out of the bedrooms?

Employer provided insurance (which the insured also pays into) covers a lot of "private life" things: smoking cessation programs, viagra, pre-natal care, childbirth...

That's a different subject now, isn't it?

But I for one do not believe the government should pay for ANY of that shit.

Well if you mean pay for the birth control or abortions, how would that work out when the woman is denied food stamps to feed those kids? Do the kids go hungry? I'm ok with that. There are starving kids starving all over the world as we speak. I don't insist we send them all free money.

I see the sense in paying for birth control and abortions so we don't have to pay much higher costs for the next 18 plus years but if you are going to deny them welfare and food stamps then its really only the woman and father's problem if they have more kids that THEY can afford.

I feel for the starving kids same as you do but not enough to send them money they don't have to pay back.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Yeah, the reason stuff like that happens is due to a lack of governing rules. There are teenagers at my church that act more mature than some adults I know, it all lies with their parentage. If you implement rules which encourage the teenager to exercise better judgement, they will in turn learn to do the same regarding sex. There's a reason why you don't touch a hot eye on the stove as a 3 year old or get near a pot of boiling water. For me it was throwing temper tantrums and breaking a few fingers and toes from punching a steel washing machine as a toddler because I didn't get my way. Important thing was that I never punched nor kicked a washing machine again (at least not with that much force).

Yeah, teenagers are a real conundrum. I've known a lot of mature teenagers that still end up pregnant. I've known a lot of very very immature ones that don't. The difference? The immature one was taught about birth control, the mature one wasn't.

From a personal standpoint, I was taught that sex was a pretty important thing that should be reserved for the person you love and practiced in the safe confines of marriage. And my wife I both followed through on that. It was 100% effective. That doesn't stop you from having unplanned kids after you are married and those can be just as disastrous financially, emotionally, and physically. So you want to educate folks about birth control before they have sex, whatever that timeline is. As it is, sex can have such disastrous life changing consequences I'd like to educate kids early and have them take precautions seriously well before marriage. As a parent, I know I'll be raising my kids to practice abstinence, but I'd be remiss not to also teach them about birth control. And for my daughter especially, if she wants to go on birth control I'll support that. It's preventative medicine and given the consequences I'm very much in favor of that.

There is not a child in the US today who has attended public schools who hasn't been "taught about birth control". So I know you're full of shit by the end of the first paragraph of your irrelevant post. If you know "responsible" teens who got knocked up because they weren't *taught* about birth control, then you apparently live in an isolated society that has no contact with the outside world.

Thing is, in states like Louisiana, not all children are in public school. In fact, a very very HIGH percentage are not. What do you think the odds are that a kid is taught about birth control in a religious school?

As it is, there's taught about birth control and "taught about" birth control. In a fair number of pretty conservative states the birth control conversation is rushed past as soon as possible and topped off with "But abstinence is the only thing that works." And those states have much higher teen pregnancy rates.