Whatever the actual stance is, I really hope the party gets over themselves regarding birth control. Abortion, well, that's more understandable, but shooing people away from birth control is just patently stupid no matter how you slice it. It seems to be all centered in parent denial. GET USED TO IT, YOUR KID WILL HAVE SEX. YOU DID TOO. GET OVER IT. THIS IS REALITY. All this denial crap has no productive use.
Is the Repub Party against birth control ?
- Thread starter Silver Bullet
- Start date
Oh, OK. I'll check into Planned Parenthood's stance on abstinence---until then,
I'll stand corrected--but I'll check how much they support abstinence---hopefully more than just an obligatory " it's the only 100% way to......"
I'll check to see how they address abstinence in total.
Dipper
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Not my kids. When we adopt I plan to have their genetalia removed and they do not get them back until they are 25 years old...or graduate college. Whichever comes first.
whippoorwill
New member
The answer to the original question, which seems to have gotten lost amid the spouting of personal agendas, is.... NO.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
Silver Bullet
New member
And so do future Democrats.
Here we are, again debating two views of someting when the real issue probably lies elsewhere.
Abstinence is a great concept that is 100% effective... when it is practiced. Unfortunately, even societies that have executed transgresors have not been successful in ensuring abstinence. Chemical and mechanical preventatives are great supplements when abstinence fails... of course, they also have to be used to be effective. Education about birth control in all forms is critical, but the results from leaving that educational process to the schools is not very inspiring. We will continue to have troublesome levels of unwanted pregnancies until society places enough value on changing those results that more people get more involved in teaching and supporting their children and loved ones.
Abstinence is a great concept that is 100% effective... when it is practiced. Unfortunately, even societies that have executed transgresors have not been successful in ensuring abstinence. Chemical and mechanical preventatives are great supplements when abstinence fails... of course, they also have to be used to be effective. Education about birth control in all forms is critical, but the results from leaving that educational process to the schools is not very inspiring. We will continue to have troublesome levels of unwanted pregnancies until society places enough value on changing those results that more people get more involved in teaching and supporting their children and loved ones.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Words of true wisdom...I guess everyone gets lucky every now and then.
I guess the original question is not so easily answered. The republican party kind of is and kind of isn't against birth control. They seem to love to elect people that speak out against it. I guess some are against it and some are not. The ones that are not do not seem to be as vocal as the ones that are though.
Kreyzhorse
New member
Well said and thank you!
Teaching abstinence is fine, I'm all for it. However, teaching abstinence without also teaching the principles of birth control and disease prevention takes American back 200 years and is socially irresponsible.
I'm all for birth control and I'm as far to the right of the Republican party as you can get. I just don't care for my taxes to pay for it. If the poorest of kids in America can afford Air Jordans, cell phones and diamond nose rings, they can buy their own condoms.
As a side note, I did have sex education is school. An entire semister of it. If you want to teach birth control, show the kids a video of a woman having a baby. Amazing what that does for the use of condoms and abstinance.
As a side note, I did have sex education is school. An entire semister of it. If you want to teach birth control, show the kids a video of a woman having a baby. Amazing what that does for the use of condoms and abstinance.
fisherman66
New member
I don't like the idea of paying for someone's birth control either, but I find that to be a lesser evil than paying for Medicaid and welfare after the fact.
Ahh, the same logic Congress uses with the Commerce Clause...:barf:
Government tells you how to spend your money with tax breaks. Either spend it the way we tell you, or, we take it.
So, why not tax the people with the most kids, not give them money for it.?
The point is, it's not my business, it's a parents, to teach their kids about sex, and birth control. You can teach the science of conception, but, that's where government education should end.
Limited government should stay out of your pocket, not tell you what to say, or, who to sleep with...
fisherman66
New member
If parent's taught sex ed and it worked to cure the problem we wouldn't be having this conversation. A rubber's a whole lot cheaper than a delivery. If you can't accept a compromise on that, I've got bad news for ya. It ain't gonna get any better.
Let's get real. There are laws that we write, and money we throw at stuff, that simply isn't going to change.
For 100 thousand years, women go into heat at between 10-14, and, have been married at those ages. We want to legislate 18, we just make more criminals. STAY OUT OF PEOPLES BEDROOMS. It hasn't worked, and, it's not going to.
We write drug laws. They don't work. Stop throwing money at it, legalize it, and, all the badguys have to find another way to be filthy rich, like work, or prostitution.
We wrote anti-liquour laws. They only made the Kennedy's super rich...
My objection is government, and, in this case, it's a bunch of rich lawyers, indoctrinated with years of law school, by hippy liberal teachers, running our lives. They turn into facist-liberals, who's religion is their right to run our lives, by writing laws.
One thing I like about Obama is he didn't do anything. Voting present is actually a big plus for government has no business writing a law on this. I'd be much more in his corner, and, would certainly be much more in the corner of any politician that says his goal is to veto, reduce, and elimenate laws, giving freedom back to people.
I can't even tell you how bad it is in Kali. They tax everything, they have laws now that pretty much make it so you HAVE to have a new car, every 4-5 years.
It just sucks...
The real solution to this whole problem is not to limit kids from having babies. It's to make it possible for them to have jobs earlier in life, so, if they drop out of high school, they can make that choice, and, support themselves, and that child. I try and teach kids all day that are NEVER going to make it through high school, and, with our legislators making it harder and harder for them to get a high school diploma, they would be far better served being able to work, at 14 on. Allow kids to work full-time, and, not have to graduate from high school. Mexico has no such regulations, and, half of my students in Kali are Mexican. What do you think they brought with them???
For 100 thousand years, women go into heat at between 10-14, and, have been married at those ages. We want to legislate 18, we just make more criminals. STAY OUT OF PEOPLES BEDROOMS. It hasn't worked, and, it's not going to.
We write drug laws. They don't work. Stop throwing money at it, legalize it, and, all the badguys have to find another way to be filthy rich, like work, or prostitution.
We wrote anti-liquour laws. They only made the Kennedy's super rich...
My objection is government, and, in this case, it's a bunch of rich lawyers, indoctrinated with years of law school, by hippy liberal teachers, running our lives. They turn into facist-liberals, who's religion is their right to run our lives, by writing laws.
One thing I like about Obama is he didn't do anything. Voting present is actually a big plus for government has no business writing a law on this. I'd be much more in his corner, and, would certainly be much more in the corner of any politician that says his goal is to veto, reduce, and elimenate laws, giving freedom back to people.
I can't even tell you how bad it is in Kali. They tax everything, they have laws now that pretty much make it so you HAVE to have a new car, every 4-5 years.
It just sucks...
The real solution to this whole problem is not to limit kids from having babies. It's to make it possible for them to have jobs earlier in life, so, if they drop out of high school, they can make that choice, and, support themselves, and that child. I try and teach kids all day that are NEVER going to make it through high school, and, with our legislators making it harder and harder for them to get a high school diploma, they would be far better served being able to work, at 14 on. Allow kids to work full-time, and, not have to graduate from high school. Mexico has no such regulations, and, half of my students in Kali are Mexican. What do you think they brought with them???
Socrates:
Hey, aren't you one of those "rich lawyers??" BTW, the max score for the SAT has been 1600, not 1200, for decades, until recently, when the writing section was added. Also, a score of 150 on the LSAT wouldn't get you into one of the four university-affiliated law schools in my lovely state!
Hey, aren't you one of those "rich lawyers??"
BTW, the max score for the SAT has been 1600, not 1200, for decades, until recently, when the writing section was added. Also, a score of 150 on the LSAT wouldn't get you into one of the four university-affiliated law schools in my lovely state! fisherman66
New member
I couldn't agree more, truly, but in order to "get real" you have to admit we are not heading in that direction and won't be there in the next several decades.
If you think letting kids have jobs is going to solve the welfare problem, I'd disagree. Flooding the already full market of underqualified employees fresh out of public school isn't going to solve the economic woes macro or micro.
If you think letting kids have jobs is going to solve the welfare problem, I'd disagree. Flooding the already full market of underqualified employees fresh out of public school isn't going to solve the economic woes macro or micro.
So thanks Alleykat, for reminding me that I'm probably old enough to be your father, since, if I'm not, you one, either have a really bad memory, or two, are so young you didn't even know it used to be on a 600 scale, along with the ACH tests.
My intention was after graduating law school to teach law.
However, I got hooked teaching Special Education kids, and, through a number of horror stories, never did get a SPED credential, even though I finished 2 years, 36 graduate units, all done well.
That ended, and, I don't think the CTC will even issue another intern permit in SPED. Seems you get one chance, for 3 years, and, if you don't get your credential, you don't get another.
I'm currently finally starting to teach law, but, it's only part time. This after having taught as a teacher/teacher's aide, in law school for 3 years, and tutor.
I'll actually be able to retire from CTA this year, and,
may do just that...
s
PS: I'm conservative, and, going through law school, that's like being a stranger in a strange land. It actually cost me a year, and about 30k, since I became the target of one certain USF law professor, and, an Atheist bunch of law professors, who run a Catholic law school. Go figure....
fisherman66
New member
I taught Special Ed (EBD kids) for 5 years in a public school system. Tough but fun job.
Frankly "abstinence only" is the KISS method of not getting yourself in trouble.
If you don't do it, you won't put yourself at risk for the consequences of doing it. I agree with the concept. Plain and simple, you don't partake in risky activities, you negate the risks. And yes I willing partake in risky recreational activities. I understand others make those decisions for themselves everyday as well. So I do not mean for my words to sound as if I'm against risky behavior!
However, the issue is complicated though by other factors brought by each person involved. Friends, education on the topic, maturity, convictions, personality, activities, alcohol, responsibilities...and pretty much everything that happens in 'life'.
I must admit that my views have changed over the years depending on where I was personally on the topic at hand. My views have also changed as I have matured and solidified my positions and convictions about who I was as a person in the years of middle school, high school, college and now the real world. As I am right now, I still think the KISS idea up there is the way the world should work for everything in general, in a Hank Hill sort of way. But I know the reality of that concept being 1) practiced and 2) effective in this day and age with the influences on society are very slim. Things just don't work that way.
Kids do need to know what happens, how it happens and I think the biggest bit of information the kids need to know is that their questions, reactions and feelings they experience while 'growing up' not just on sex ed, but everything (school, self esteem, friends etc), are things that we as adults and parents have already gone through. The critical connection that should be made is the connection of their actions to their feelings. Recognizing and understanding those connections will put them ahead of the game in regards to making smart choices on sex.
Ohh geez, I'm going all Psych on a Sunday morning....I gotta get out of here!
Anyway, the entire topic of sex ed whether in the home or at school is a complicated issue that can't be confined a definitive set of do's and don'ts. It's such a personal issue that a one size fits all approach just will not work. So personal in fact that I personally think that is a family matter....scratch that, it should be handled as a family matter. The crack in the dam is that not all parents are equipped or informed or care enough to address it with their kids. It's almost as if there needs to be a lamaz class but for sex edu for parents. I mean, organizations teach moms&dads-to-be the protocol and procedure on how to handle the big day, right?
Ok, I'm beginning to ramble...the rest is just details the Health Edu in me is beginning to spout...freakin' programs...
If you don't do it, you won't put yourself at risk for the consequences of doing it. I agree with the concept. Plain and simple, you don't partake in risky activities, you negate the risks. And yes I willing partake in risky recreational activities. I understand others make those decisions for themselves everyday as well. So I do not mean for my words to sound as if I'm against risky behavior!
However, the issue is complicated though by other factors brought by each person involved. Friends, education on the topic, maturity, convictions, personality, activities, alcohol, responsibilities...and pretty much everything that happens in 'life'.
I must admit that my views have changed over the years depending on where I was personally on the topic at hand. My views have also changed as I have matured and solidified my positions and convictions about who I was as a person in the years of middle school, high school, college and now the real world. As I am right now, I still think the KISS idea up there is the way the world should work for everything in general, in a Hank Hill sort of way. But I know the reality of that concept being 1) practiced and 2) effective in this day and age with the influences on society are very slim. Things just don't work that way.
Kids do need to know what happens, how it happens and I think the biggest bit of information the kids need to know is that their questions, reactions and feelings they experience while 'growing up' not just on sex ed, but everything (school, self esteem, friends etc), are things that we as adults and parents have already gone through. The critical connection that should be made is the connection of their actions to their feelings. Recognizing and understanding those connections will put them ahead of the game in regards to making smart choices on sex.
Ohh geez, I'm going all Psych on a Sunday morning....I gotta get out of here!
Anyway, the entire topic of sex ed whether in the home or at school is a complicated issue that can't be confined a definitive set of do's and don'ts. It's such a personal issue that a one size fits all approach just will not work. So personal in fact that I personally think that is a family matter....scratch that, it should be handled as a family matter. The crack in the dam is that not all parents are equipped or informed or care enough to address it with their kids. It's almost as if there needs to be a lamaz class but for sex edu for parents. I mean, organizations teach moms&dads-to-be the protocol and procedure on how to handle the big day, right?
Ok, I'm beginning to ramble...the rest is just details the Health Edu in me is beginning to spout...freakin' programs...
MeekAndMild
New member
This sounds like politician doublespeak. Its amazing how politicians seem to have the penchant of spinning everything don't you think?
Off topic thought: Some years ago I spent the time to deconstruct the arguments for and against artificial contraception from the evolutionary viewpoint with consideration for nutrition and medical care and came to some startling conclusions which I won't bother you with here. Bottom line is that countries with a middling high birthrate do best. Those with a low birthrate cease to exist as do those with a super high rate. We see the stochastic results of two divergent lifestyles with the low replacement rate of the protestant/jewish/agnostic middle/working class versus the rising Catholic hispanic middle/working class.
(Stochastic, by the way is a random process, non-deterministic. In stochastic systems one can see direction when looking at the whole result over time. The closer you look the more random things look and its only when you do large numbers of counts over long periods you start to see trends. Population trends are not at all as obvious on the small scale as in the movie "Idiocracy".)
Last edited: