Obama doesn't want kids "punished" with babies

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I can't believe people sincerely think that children are punishments.

It's like saying a plant punishes its planter. A result is not a punishment. If you don't want a plant, don't plant a seed.

Would you prefer the word 'burden' instead of 'punish'? It has the same intent and whether you want to admit it or not having a child is a burden. Obviously most people think the joys outweigh the burdens but IMO it all depends on the situation.

Also, abstinence isn't the answer to every situation and birth control is not 100% accurate.

Burden would be more accurate, yes. A punishment is inflicted. A burden is acquired.

Children are supposed to be blessings. I'm disgusted that people think they're some type of affliction. I'm disgusted that people think we've some right to be comfortable, and that this right supercedes all notions of responsibility. I don't care if someone's quality of life will be screwed up. If you have a child, at any age, you must divert your desires to support your child. It's not about you anymore.

If being responsible is a punishment, then we should be thus punished.

Well the wording was wrong but the general message doesn't change. But of course the OP jumped all over it trying to spin that Obama considers children punishment. Sad but in this case typical.

As far as children being blessings, I think it depends on the situation and I don't think it's fair to say *everyone* must welcome a pregnancy regardless of who, when, why, etc. It's simply not that cut and dry.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lupi
in many states a kid old enough to have a baby could be held on charges as an adult, so yes.

And in many states it's also considered rape to have any kind of sex with any kid the ages we are talking about, regardless of choices, consent, the use of force or lack of.

Not really, age of consent is generally about 16, 15 in some locals. Without looking at stats, I'd guess that is the vast majority of teenage pregnancies.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: RKDaley
Terrible wording on his part
but I think he was talking about the abstinence only programs
The way I understand it is he doesn't feel teaching them abstinence is enough, that you have to also include sex ed, condoms and birth control into the fight against unwanted pregnacies.

But yeah "punished" is not the right words to use.

i think it makes perfect sense..if parents give children the idiotic idea that they will always defeat their human emotions when it comes to sex they will not be appropriately prepared for reality...the body makes the mind quite ignorant at times

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: piasabird
Responsibility is tough, that is true, but everyone has to shoulder their own responsibility. If you play, you gotta pay. It is hard to say what will happen to a child born to a young girl of 15 or 16. In most states a girl could legally get an abortion. I dont agree with abortion myself, but I cant tell everyone what to do. I consider it a personal decision, but there are a lot of women who later have second thoughts or go through a lot of personal doubts and pain over this issue.

On the other hand that child may be the next Ray Charles, or Albert Einstine. Life can be a precious thing.

. . . or Adolph Hitler, or George Bush.

I suppose we should kill all babies by this way of thinking.

No, it's that it is clearly intellectual dishonesty to fearmonger that we might have just aborted the next Albert Einstein when it's also equally likely that it could have been the next Adolph Hitler. This is well is obvious.
Odds are, though, that it would have been neither and just ordinary. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that these emotional arguments have no meaning.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: lupi
Having a baby is punishment?

I guess we should ignore personal responsibilty, parental guidance, and perhaps a little human morality while we are at it.

All things I would like to see in my leader.

That's exactly what he was advocating... Using protection is personal responsibility that parents should guide, and teaching kids about condoms is the moral thing to do.

Edit: I don't think everyone in this thread understands.. Obama was talking about CONTRACEPTIVES, not abortion. He was criticizing abstinence-only sex education.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Excusing rape, do teenagers make a choice when they have sex?

Choice is not of issue here. Does society hold children to the same standards of personal responsibility as it holds adults? If a child commits a crime, do we punish them just as severely as we do adults? Or do we not treat them more leniently?

This little obtuse game isn't going well for you.

Why do we even bother to have education at all? There's no need to focus on it . Why don't we just tell our children to sink or swim?

If choice is not an issue, then the person was raped, pure and simple.

I'm starting to wonder about your interchanging uses of the words "children" and "teenagers." 8 to 12 year olds aren't having babies. I'd assume you are talking about 15-19 year olds. Those aren't children. They're not adults either. But certainly they have more capacity to make rational choices than 8-12 year olds.

Courts try to have teenagers tried as adults all the time if the crime is severe enough. Society doesn't treat age as the final excuse.

We do and should educate our children about sex and the responsibility that must accompany it. We should not educate our children about how to have sex in a manner so as to avoid the consequences, because sooner or later, condoms and other prophylactics will fail.

I'm talking about 15-16 year olds, as from the OP.
The age of consent in your state, Louisiana, is 17. Oops! Where your "choice" now?
You are intentionally confusing the terms "responsibility" and "consequences."
I'm curious, do you also think that insurance is useless?

Please clarify the point in your age of consent argument.
How am I confusing the terms "responsibility" and "consequences"?
No, I don't think insurance is useless.

OMG you are stupid.

Age of consent is obvious. You keep saying, "excluding rape." Well, guess what, by your state's laws, it is ALWAYS the result of rape if a girl under the age of 17 gets pregnant.

How? That as well, is obvious. Just like how we've clearly been talking about 15-16 year-old here -- children -- and you bring up 19 year-olds in order to keep playing the responsibility card.
If you were genuinely responsible, you would be interested in trying to help your fellow human beings, instead of pulling a cold-shoulder "accept the consequences" card to undereducated children. Seriously, you are a hypocritical asshole.
And finally, insurance can "fail" too. No one wants teenage children to have sex, much less more often. But we do want to be the helpful adults here, and not just callous pricks like you propose.
And if it seems to you like I'm being a bit harsh, it's because I can't believe how you stack the deck against the kids here. We don't tell them about sex (except to tell them not to have), we don't allow them access to any of the tools to prevent the consequences of sex, and then when the inevitable happens, you'd just have us slap the scarlet letter on them (for the sake of the baby of course). And all in the name of pious morality and responsibility. What a crock of shit.

Regardless of what state laws dictate, rape is forcing someone to have sex without their consent and/or against their will, and for that reason excuses the victim of responsibility.

Again, we're not undereducating our children. I'm saying we should teach them about sex in context to the enormous responsibility that comes with it. It's not to be engaged upon lightly. Teach that, if you have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences. If, after we teach them this, they still willingly have sex and get pregnant, we should let them accept the consequence.

Conversely, we should not teach them ways in which to best play the odds; ways in which we have the best chance of having sex without responsibility.

Insurance is altogether different. Insurance protects against accidents resulting from risks that we are sometimes wise to take. Buying a house is worth the risk. Driving is worth the risk. Because they're are worth the risk, it's good to get insurance on them as well. Having premarital sex is not worth the risk. A few moments of pleasure is not worth the risk of pregnancy.

Responsibile people do help their fellow human beings, but they shouldn't do it indiscriminately. If someone is unwilling take responsibility for themself, nothing I do for them will make any lasting difference in their lives, because they'll keep making the same mistake. I wouldn't give a homeless man money if he told me he was going to use it to buy drugs. If, however, he asked me to buy him a meal, or refer him for a job, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Regardless of what state laws dictate, rape is forcing someone to have sex without their consent and/or against their will, and for that reason excuses the victim of responsibility.

Again, we're not undereducating our children. I'm saying we should teach them about sex in context to the enormous responsibility that comes with it. It's not to be engaged upon lightly. Teach that, if you have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences. If, after we teach them this, they still willingly have sex and get pregnant, we should let them accept the consequence.

Conversely, we should not teach them ways in which to best play the odds; ways in which we have the best chance of having sex without responsibility.

Insurance is altogether different. Insurance protects against accidents resulting from risks that we are sometimes wise to take. Buying a house is worth the risk. Driving is worth the risk. Because they're are worth the risk, it's good to get insurance on them as well. Having premarital sex is not worth the risk. A few moments of pleasure is not worth the risk of pregnancy.

No wonder you're all whacked out. Your entire argument here is straw man.
NO ONE is advocating any of the things you are pretending. No one is suggesting that kids be taught to play the odds. No one is saying that kids should not be taught responsibility or consequences. What we are saying is that we should teach kids how to be responsible and that way avoid the consequences in the first place. You have completely ignored this argument in favor of your mindless rhetoric.
Nor are your arguments here in this post in line with what you argued earlier in the thread. You are now backpedaling and contradicting yourself.
And whether or not it is "worth the risk" is also not of issue here. We are dealing with reality, not trying to pretend that reality doesn't happen.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Regardless of what state laws dictate, rape is forcing someone to have sex without their consent and/or against their will, and for that reason excuses the victim of responsibility.

Again, we're not undereducating our children. I'm saying we should teach them about sex in context to the enormous responsibility that comes with it. It's not to be engaged upon lightly. Teach that, if you have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences. If, after we teach them this, they still willingly have sex and get pregnant, we should let them accept the consequence.

Conversely, we should not teach them ways in which to best play the odds; ways in which we have the best chance of having sex without responsibility.

Insurance is altogether different. Insurance protects against accidents resulting from risks that we are sometimes wise to take. Buying a house is worth the risk. Driving is worth the risk. Because they're are worth the risk, it's good to get insurance on them as well. Having premarital sex is not worth the risk. A few moments of pleasure is not worth the risk of pregnancy.

No wonder you're all whacked out. Your entire argument here is straw man.
NO ONE is advocating any of the things you are pretending. No one is suggesting that kids be taught to play the odds. No one is saying that kids should not be taught responsibility or consequences. What we are saying is that we should teach kids how to be responsible and that way avoid the consequences in the first place. You have completely ignored this argument in favor of your mindless rhetoric.
Nor are your arguments here in this post in line with what you argued earlier in the thread. You are now backpedaling and contradicting yourself.
And whether or not it is "worth the risk" is also not of issue here. We are dealing with reality, not trying to pretend that reality doesn't happen.

Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

 

[neodyn55]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Excusing rape, do teenagers make a choice when they have sex?

Choice is not of issue here. Does society hold children to the same standards of personal responsibility as it holds adults? If a child commits a crime, do we punish them just as severely as we do adults? Or do we not treat them more leniently?

This little obtuse game isn't going well for you.

Why do we even bother to have education at all? There's no need to focus on it . Why don't we just tell our children to sink or swim?

If choice is not an issue, then the person was raped, pure and simple.

I'm starting to wonder about your interchanging uses of the words "children" and "teenagers." 8 to 12 year olds aren't having babies. I'd assume you are talking about 15-19 year olds. Those aren't children. They're not adults either. But certainly they have more capacity to make rational choices than 8-12 year olds.

Courts try to have teenagers tried as adults all the time if the crime is severe enough. Society doesn't treat age as the final excuse.

We do and should educate our children about sex and the responsibility that must accompany it. We should not educate our children about how to have sex in a manner so as to avoid the consequences, because sooner or later, condoms and other prophylactics will fail.

I'm talking about 15-16 year olds, as from the OP.
The age of consent in your state, Louisiana, is 17. Oops! Where your "choice" now?
You are intentionally confusing the terms "responsibility" and "consequences."
I'm curious, do you also think that insurance is useless?

Please clarify the point in your age of consent argument.
How am I confusing the terms "responsibility" and "consequences"?
No, I don't think insurance is useless.

OMG you are stupid.

Age of consent is obvious. You keep saying, "excluding rape." Well, guess what, by your state's laws, it is ALWAYS the result of rape if a girl under the age of 17 gets pregnant.

How? That as well, is obvious. Just like how we've clearly been talking about 15-16 year-old here -- children -- and you bring up 19 year-olds in order to keep playing the responsibility card.
If you were genuinely responsible, you would be interested in trying to help your fellow human beings, instead of pulling a cold-shoulder "accept the consequences" card to undereducated children. Seriously, you are a hypocritical asshole.
And finally, insurance can "fail" too. No one wants teenage children to have sex, much less more often. But we do want to be the helpful adults here, and not just callous pricks like you propose.
And if it seems to you like I'm being a bit harsh, it's because I can't believe how you stack the deck against the kids here. We don't tell them about sex (except to tell them not to have), we don't allow them access to any of the tools to prevent the consequences of sex, and then when the inevitable happens, you'd just have us slap the scarlet letter on them (for the sake of the baby of course). And all in the name of pious morality and responsibility. What a crock of shit.

Regardless of what state laws dictate, rape is forcing someone to have sex without their consent and/or against their will, and for that reason excuses the victim of responsibility.

Again, we're not undereducating our children. I'm saying we should teach them about sex in context to the enormous responsibility that comes with it. It's not to be engaged upon lightly. Teach that, if you have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences. If, after we teach them this, they still willingly have sex and get pregnant, we should let them accept the consequence.

Conversely, we should not teach them ways in which to best play the odds; ways in which we have the best chance of having sex without responsibility.

Insurance is altogether different. Insurance protects against accidents resulting from risks that we are sometimes wise to take. Buying a house is worth the risk. Driving is worth the risk. Because they're are worth the risk, it's good to get insurance on them as well. Having premarital sex is not worth the risk. A few moments of pleasure is not worth the risk of pregnancy.

Responsibile people do help their fellow human beings, but they shouldn't do it indiscriminately. If someone is unwilling take responsibility for themself, nothing I do for them will make any lasting difference in their lives, because they'll keep making the same mistake. I wouldn't give a homeless man money if he told me he was going to use it to buy drugs. If, however, he asked me to buy him a meal, or refer him for a job, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Then why not go all the way, and teach them *everything* there is no to know about it? i.e., methods of contraception, abortion, etc?

It seems you've forgotten being a teenager. How many teenagers do you know that actually understand 'responsibility'? 'consequences'? Do you think mere words can stop the throbbing urges of a million years of evolution?

While I don't want to see more underage sex, I understand that teenagers deserve to be bailed out, and not just 'accept the consequence'. We aren't talking a few months of being grounded. or bolidy pain. or mental trauma. We're talking a lifetime of caring for another without being prepared to. No one should be subjected to that because they simply didn't 'know enough' and had to "accept the consequences".

So to sum up, as you mentioned, we should:

"I'm saying we should teach them about sex in context to the enormous responsibility that comes with it. It's not to be engaged upon lightly. Teach that, if you have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences."

AND

everything about STDs, contraceptives, abortion, etc,

without minimizing either topic.

Either that, or set up a society so deeply conservative that the very notion of teenage sex is taboo with horrible punishments. And watch as rapes skyrocket and the kids do it anyway.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: neodyn55

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Excusing rape, do teenagers make a choice when they have sex?

Choice is not of issue here. Does society hold children to the same standards of personal responsibility as it holds adults? If a child commits a crime, do we punish them just as severely as we do adults? Or do we not treat them more leniently?

This little obtuse game isn't going well for you.

Why do we even bother to have education at all? There's no need to focus on it . Why don't we just tell our children to sink or swim?

If choice is not an issue, then the person was raped, pure and simple.

I'm starting to wonder about your interchanging uses of the words "children" and "teenagers." 8 to 12 year olds aren't having babies. I'd assume you are talking about 15-19 year olds. Those aren't children. They're not adults either. But certainly they have more capacity to make rational choices than 8-12 year olds.

Courts try to have teenagers tried as adults all the time if the crime is severe enough. Society doesn't treat age as the final excuse.

We do and should educate our children about sex and the responsibility that must accompany it. We should not educate our children about how to have sex in a manner so as to avoid the consequences, because sooner or later, condoms and other prophylactics will fail.

I'm talking about 15-16 year olds, as from the OP.
The age of consent in your state, Louisiana, is 17. Oops! Where your "choice" now?
You are intentionally confusing the terms "responsibility" and "consequences."
I'm curious, do you also think that insurance is useless?

Please clarify the point in your age of consent argument.
How am I confusing the terms "responsibility" and "consequences"?
No, I don't think insurance is useless.

OMG you are stupid.

Age of consent is obvious. You keep saying, "excluding rape." Well, guess what, by your state's laws, it is ALWAYS the result of rape if a girl under the age of 17 gets pregnant.

How? That as well, is obvious. Just like how we've clearly been talking about 15-16 year-old here -- children -- and you bring up 19 year-olds in order to keep playing the responsibility card.
If you were genuinely responsible, you would be interested in trying to help your fellow human beings, instead of pulling a cold-shoulder "accept the consequences" card to undereducated children. Seriously, you are a hypocritical asshole.
And finally, insurance can "fail" too. No one wants teenage children to have sex, much less more often. But we do want to be the helpful adults here, and not just callous pricks like you propose.
And if it seems to you like I'm being a bit harsh, it's because I can't believe how you stack the deck against the kids here. We don't tell them about sex (except to tell them not to have), we don't allow them access to any of the tools to prevent the consequences of sex, and then when the inevitable happens, you'd just have us slap the scarlet letter on them (for the sake of the baby of course). And all in the name of pious morality and responsibility. What a crock of shit.

Regardless of what state laws dictate, rape is forcing someone to have sex without their consent and/or against their will, and for that reason excuses the victim of responsibility.

Again, we're not undereducating our children. I'm saying we should teach them about sex in context to the enormous responsibility that comes with it. It's not to be engaged upon lightly. Teach that, if you have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences. If, after we teach them this, they still willingly have sex and get pregnant, we should let them accept the consequence.

Conversely, we should not teach them ways in which to best play the odds; ways in which we have the best chance of having sex without responsibility.

Insurance is altogether different. Insurance protects against accidents resulting from risks that we are sometimes wise to take. Buying a house is worth the risk. Driving is worth the risk. Because they're are worth the risk, it's good to get insurance on them as well. Having premarital sex is not worth the risk. A few moments of pleasure is not worth the risk of pregnancy.

Responsibile people do help their fellow human beings, but they shouldn't do it indiscriminately. If someone is unwilling take responsibility for themself, nothing I do for them will make any lasting difference in their lives, because they'll keep making the same mistake. I wouldn't give a homeless man money if he told me he was going to use it to buy drugs. If, however, he asked me to buy him a meal, or refer him for a job, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Then why not go all the way, and teach them *everything* there is no to know about it? i.e., methods of contraception, abortion, etc?

It seems you've forgotten being a teenager. How many teenagers do you know that actually understand 'responsibility'? 'consequences'? Do you think mere words can stop the throbbing urges of a million years of evolution?

While I don't want to see more underage sex, I understand that teenagers deserve to be bailed out, and not just 'accept the consequence'. We aren't talking a few months of being grounded. or bolidy pain. or mental trauma. We're talking a lifetime of caring for another without being prepared to. No one should be subjected to that because they simply didn't 'know enough' and had to "accept the consequences".

So to sum up, as you mentioned, we should:

"I'm saying we should teach them about sex in context to the enormous responsibility that comes with it. It's not to be engaged upon lightly. Teach that, if you have sex, you should be prepared for the consequences."

AND

everything about STDs, contraceptives, abortion, etc,

without minimizing either topic.

Either that, or set up a society so deeply conservative that the very notion of teenage sex is taboo with horrible punishments. And watch as rapes skyrocket and the kids do it anyway.

I've thought about that, but I see that solution as disingenuous.

I would think it has to be one or the other. You can't preach that sex is inherently risky and should be avoided until you're old enough to understand it, while simultaneously telling the kids, "but, just in case you do, here's how to do it without consequence." Really, that's the whole problem. If you're not discouraging underage sex, you're implicitly endorsing it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

The part where you keep changing your arguments. First, it's "responsibility," then "consequences," then "choice," then encourage kids to have sex, now it's "playing the odds." All of it has been knocked down in turn for the idealistic nonsense that it is.

Your new argument in this post only works if one assumes that abstinence-only programs actually work. They don't. Kids still have sex, at more or less the same rate regardless. They are now, they were in our time, and in our parents' time, and their parent's time, and so forth going back forever.
And NO ONE is trying to encourage kids to do anything except to be safe IF and only IF they choose to do this.
As such, this is no more "playing the odds" than it is to have people wear their seatbelts in a car. Those fail (or the collisions are too severe) something as well. Is that "playing the odds?"

 

[Tab]

Sex != I want to get preggers.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

Reality check. Sex happens. Your point is moot. No amount of indoctrination and teaching is going to change that. What's the best way to counteract pregnancy in teenagers when facing reality? Why yes, it would be protecting them to the best we can through a realistic means, hence contraception.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

The part where you keep changing your arguments. First, it's "responsibility," then "consequences," then "choice," then encourage kids to have sex, now it's "playing the odds." All of it has been knocked down in turn for the idealistic nonsense that it is.

Your new argument in this post only works if one assumes that abstinence-only programs actually work. They don't. Kids still have sex, at more or less the same rate regardless. They are now, they were in our time, and in our parents' time, and their parent's time, and so forth going back forever.
And NO ONE is trying to encourage kids to do anything except to be safe IF and only IF they choose to do this.
As such, this is no more "playing the odds" than it is to have people wear their seatbelts in a car. Those fail (or the collisions are too severe) something as well. Is that "playing the odds?"

Just because abstinence-based education doesn't yield the results we want doesn't mean it's wrong. We teach that murder is wrong, yet murders are still committed. Driving is an acceptable risk. Underage sex is not.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

Reality check. Sex happens. Your point is moot. No amount of indoctrination and teaching is going to change that. What's the best way to counteract pregnancy in teenagers when facing reality? Why yes, it would be protecting them to the best we can through a realistic means, hence contraception.

Sex involves a choice. It doesn't just happen.

I have to go to class now. I'll see you guys later.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've thought about that, but I see that solution as disingenuous.

I would think it has to be one or the other. You can't preach that sex is inherently risky and should be avoided until you're old enough to understand it, while simultaneously telling the kids, "but, just in case you do, here's how to do it without consequence." Really, that's the whole problem. If you're not discouraging underage sex, you're implicitly endorsing it.

And it is that flawed logic that makes you wrong. Either that or you had some kind of hormonal deficiency as a teenager, or you forgot what it was like. They're gonna do it regardless of whether you're discouraging it or encouraging it. To a teenage boy with a testosterone count of 1000, your opinion on this subject doesn't mean a damned thing.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've thought about that, but I see that solution as disingenuous.

I would think it has to be one or the other. You can't preach that sex is inherently risky and should be avoided until you're old enough to understand it, while simultaneously telling the kids, "but, just in case you do, here's how to do it without consequence." Really, that's the whole problem. If you're not discouraging underage sex, you're implicitly endorsing it.

And it is that flawed logic that makes you wrong. Either that or you had some kind of hormonal deficiency as a teenager, or you forgot what it was like. They're gonna do it regardless of whether you're discouraging it or encouraging it. To a teenage boy with a testosterone count of 1000, your opinion on this subject doesn't mean a damned thing.

Really? So parents' opinions have no effect on their child's behavior?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Just because abstinence-based education doesn't yield the results we want doesn't mean it's wrong. We teach that murder is wrong, yet murders are still committed. Driving is an acceptable risk. Underage sex is not.

It's just unbelievable to me how you can't see how you just proved yourself wrong.

We teach that murder is wrong, yet murders are still committed. And we punish murders because those are not risk. Risk implies uncertainty. There is no uncertainty in murder, someone is dead. And not just dead, but dead through intentional violence. That's not risk, that is purely unacceptable.
On the other hand, some 45,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Clearly your use of the word "acceptable" in that regard is subjective opinion.
In this case, we don't want people to drive more, we just want them to wear their seatbelts. Is this really that difficult to understand?

Seeing how people like you think makes me believe that Obama's use of the word "punishment" was no faux pax. You really do want to punish teenage children for having sex. You've just compared it to murder in fact.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Really? So parents' opinions have no effect on their child's behavior?

Did I say that? :roll:

Are you even a parent?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Condoms are, say, 99.9% effective. That seems generous enough.
That gives you 1000 to 1 odds. If you have sex with a condom, you're playing those odds.

If sex education promotes condom use, and condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing STDs or pregnancy, then using a condom is playing the odds, and for that reason sex education is promoting kids to play the odds. Worse, it's passing it off as responsible behavior.

Where am I backpedaling or contradicting myself?

Reality check. Sex happens. Your point is moot. No amount of indoctrination and teaching is going to change that. What's the best way to counteract pregnancy in teenagers when facing reality? Why yes, it would be protecting them to the best we can through a realistic means, hence contraception.

Sex involves a choice. It doesn't just happen.

I have to go to class now. I'll see you guys later.

Your post is irrelevant but thanks for trying to convolute the argument.

Edit: I guess I'll indulge your argument that hasn't worked on any of the other posters who have refuted you multiple times.

So what if sex is a choice? You haven't proven anything other than it can be a voluntary act. Like many things in life that involve choices, you are not restricted by a black and white situation. Your choice can be augmented by many different factors. If someone chooses not to have sex because of their morals and values or because they just can't get any, more power to them. If people choose to have sex (your answer would be that they have to live with the consequences), they should be able to choose a method to minimize those consequences if the methods are available.

The seat belt example that's been explained by Vic is a great example. You choose (since you seem to enjoy putting a heavy emphasis on this word) to take a risk by driving. You try to minimize those risks by wearing a seatbelt, buying a car with good crash ratings, buying a car with airbags, buying a car with ABS, etc. Your argument would be that people must drive and the choice is worth the risk. All you've done there is instill your own personal values to a choice, a choice that your values has no bearing on when being made by another person. Your basic premise is that you have moral superiority which has been proven throughout time to be a false premise.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Tab
Sex != I want to get preggers.

It does when it's 100% al'natural.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I've thought about that, but I see that solution as disingenuous.

I would think it has to be one or the other. You can't preach that sex is inherently risky and should be avoided until you're old enough to understand it, while simultaneously telling the kids, "but, just in case you do, here's how to do it without consequence." Really, that's the whole problem. If you're not discouraging underage sex, you're implicitly endorsing it.

And it is that flawed logic that makes you wrong. Either that or you had some kind of hormonal deficiency as a teenager, or you forgot what it was like. They're gonna do it regardless of whether you're discouraging it or encouraging it. To a teenage boy with a testosterone count of 1000, your opinion on this subject doesn't mean a damned thing.

Really? So parents' opinions have no effect on their child's behavior?

You don't have any kids, do you? In fact, i'd bet you ARE a kid yourself, naive and judgemental, condescending arsehole is another way to put it.

You claim to be Christian, but you are most certainly not following any religion involving Christ, he never ONCE said anything about the sanctity of the unborn life and since he didn't, let's turn to science, shall we, because since it's not part of your religion you should at the very least be able to grasp reality in this case.

Is a fetus a human life? Well, no it is not by any scientific definition a human lifeform until it reaches the stage where it's brain starts functioning and there are no abortions made after that, before that it is a parasite in science, anything living off of another life form without giving anything back is per definition a parasite.

Should humans be able to remove living things from their bodies, of course, it is YOUR body, YOUR domain, there is no questions asked when someone takes a crap (which by the way is full of life that will die) or when somone gets an operation which means cells will die, why is there any question about an abortion, it's just a bunch of cells that might, or might not, become human life, at the time of abortion it never is though.

So, should we go by the old testament on THIS one but not on the other hundreds of things said in there because putting down young females who dare to claim ownership of their own bodies is the right thing to do according to insane people like yourself?

How about NO?

 

[dahunan]

Reading that title again it comes across as some stupid Rush Limbaugh type horseshit that destroys all intellectual discussion..

 

[IGBT]

..it's mostly liberals and secular progressives flushing their kids down their low flow toilets so who cares.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..it's mostly liberals and secular progressives flushing their kids down their low flow toilets so who cares.

oh noes.