BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:32 PM

Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce the Problems of Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Disease, a report from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

Report: Abstinence Programs Don't Work, Washington Post, about that report

Teen sex-ed programs backed, Washington Times, about that report

From the Washington Post summary:

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

"Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect," said the report.

---

From a Tucson Citizen's columnist (Denogean: Balanced plan for sex ed tops abstinence-only):

Researcher Doug Kirby reviewed the scientific evaluations of 115 sex ed programs of both the abstinence-only and comprehensive (addressing both abstinence and contraceptives use) variety.

Two-thirds of the comprehensive sex ed programs showed a positive effect on teen sexual behavior, either delaying the initiation of sex or increasing the use of contraceptives, or both.

Debunking the myth that such programs encourage teens to become sexually active, there is no evidence that any of the programs hastened the initiation of sex or increased the frequency of it. Even making condoms available at school clinics didn't make teenagers more likely to have sex.

The best programs send clear and consistent messages about sex and contraceptive use, Kirby said. They talk explicitly about sex and contraceptives, identify specific situations that might lead to unwanted or unprotected sex and involve practicing saying no to sex or insisting on contraceptive use.

Regarding abstinence-only programs, Kirby found that very few of these programs that receive millions in federal dollars have been subject to a rigorous scientific evaluation of their effectiveness. Of those that have, there's no strong evidence that the programs delay the initiation of sex, lead sexually active teens to return to abstinence or reduce a teen's number of sexual partners.

Kirby said he couldn't say all abstinence-only programs don't work because of the scarcity of studies. He said, however, that those studied and found to have no positive impact were chosen for evaluation because they were viewed as the most promising abstinence-only programs.

[She also points out:]
Despite the lack of evidence for it, the federal government has cold-shouldered comprehensive sex ed and primarily funded abstinence-only sex ed since 1996. It is spending $176 million on such programs in fiscal 2007 and plans to spend $204 million in fiscal 2008.

Since 1996, taxpayers have paid $1.5 billion for abstinence-only programs when you add in the matching dollars states are required to put up to get the federal funding, Boonstra [of the Guttmacher Institute] said.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 04:58 PM

Oh my heavens........

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 07:06 AM

Although the thread has drifted from the original subject, one of many comments on the original thought - drugs in schools - appeared quite recently. The story is "anecdotal" and doesn't really say much that's verifiable about the prevalence of drugs; but it's perhaps worth a quick read, just to see the kind of people who get into drugs in the lower grades.

HEROIN DRUG TARGETS MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

John

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:46 PM

This may be thread drift too but what the hell. As a broker (real estate) I was recently involved in a sale representing the seller. The buyer was qualified through a subsidized program and I am philosophically all in favor of this .......BUT the terms that were set by the lender to meet the low income program were ludicrous.....including, as Maeve commented, removinglead paint, fixing windows, - fixing things that the seller (my client ) just didn't see as a problem AT ALL. By the time we had finiished with the deal, with the government agency coming back time and time again to inspect improvements that in 99% of our homes we would just grin and bear it about finished my sympathy for the program......

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 08:57 PM

"...it is a no brainer that those capable of reproducing be given the tools and information they require"

It just isn't that simple. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, while it is of course quite possible that passing out contraceptives/prophylactics to very young teenagers might have the desired effect, more especially for some individuals, it is also quite possible that it could in fact have the reverse effect for the age group in question.

This isn't the kind of issue where commonsense and guesswork can settle the question. It definitely isn't a "no brainer".

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: maeve
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 06:40 PM

robomatic said, "guaran-damn-ties that our young women be free throughout their lives of a very nasty cancer."

Unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee any such thing.

maeve

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 06:39 PM

But I believe there's plenty of food in the world, enough to feed everyone well. Whole villages in France starved to death in the 1700s but this kind of thing no longer happens in the West anyway. Up to recently, we all heard of the 'lakes of wine', 'mountains of butter' pools of milk in the EU - the results of over-production of food that no-one knew what to do with without tinkering with the make-belief economy. Harvest yields have never been higher. The real probelm is distribution - and politics. Ironically, population control is being advocated mainly for the so-called Third World, whereas, despite those regiosn high populations, it is often the West that has some of the highest densities of population (think of Holland for example). I admit China's population is high, as is India's but those countries are also vast. there are huge uninhabited expanses in China, especially in Western China. We are all in a position to supply the reproduced with EVERYTHING they need, if we are just willing to share a little of the surplus we have. Dig in your pockets (and me in mine) and give to a charity, sponsor a child (or two) in a developing country to ensure they get fed and an education and a future, and that their parents are not reduced to indentured labour or worse to support their children.


(As an aside, GM companies would now like to foist their products on the Third World as a supposed solution to their food shortages, even though there's already enough food. Plus any nation that makes itself more dependent on GM companies' products will find itself more desperate and dependent than ever, as plants are engineered to die after one one harvest, die without the expensive fertilises - coincidentally also produced by GM companies - and find themselevs exposed to lawsuits if they attempt to harvest the seed. Far from solving the Third World's food problems, they are sure to aggravate them further).

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 04:52 PM

We are dealing with the products of biological 'success' of our species, having increased to large numbers and still with plenty of high quality food to eat with little or no effort. Our females are coming into estrus at younger ages which we have traditionally not regarded as reproductive years, though (now) they are.

What I think we can all agree on is that it is desirable to control the act of reproduction until the reproduced are to be supplied with the caretaking and sustenance they require.

Accordingly it is a no brainer that those capable of reproducing be given the tools and information they require, along with that nifty anti-virus that guaran-damn-ties that our young women be free throughout their lives of a very nasty cancer.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:37 AM

That link seems to have gone missing. Strange - it showed up OK in the preview. Here it is again: British Association for Adoption and Fostering

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:33 AM

A very very different system there from the one in the UK, and I think in most European countries, I'm glad to say from our point of view, though not from yours. (Here's a link to the British Association for Adoption and Fostering - incidentally next week is their 10th annual National Adoption Week.)

It does seem to me that for anyone concerned about these matters, whether they call themselves pro-choice or pro-life, one thing they'd be committed to do would be to fight to get rid of those kinds of barriers to adoption, as well as trying to reduce the social and financial pressures that can make talk of "choice" a mockery.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: maeve
Date: 01 Nov 07 - 09:07 AM

OK: massive thread drift, and then I'm out of here.

McGrath and TruBrit- Thank you for asking. Yes, it can be painfully expensive to adopt, even via the foster-to-adopt program. In a standard (non-foster care) adoption there are many charges to cover: administrative costs, home studies, legal fees, and depending on the state laws in the US, certain birth parent expenses may be billed to the potential adoptive parent(s) as well. Foreign adoptions are dramatically more expensive, and include more paperwork, more legal fees, and sometimes, bribes under the guise of gifts of money or supplies. Out of pocket expenses may range from 10-30 thousand US dollars or more. In the US there is a partial tax credit available for adoptive parents, but it is a credit- not a refund of money spent, and thus can't be used to actually pay for one's expenses. This does not mean that most adoptions involve "buying" a child, it means that adoption is simply not available for many who would be excellent and capable parents, and many splendid infants, children, and teens must wait for adoptions that may never occur. I've been working on this for years.

Adoption through the Foster-to Adopt programs in various states still requires a home study which may be free in itself, but there are certain requirements for the house itself that must be met before a home study can be approved. On the face of it, it is good and reasonable to have a high standard to protect the children involved. In reality, that can mean a huge expense to replace or install specified doors and windows, add new electrical wiring, remove rather than stabilize lead paint, change the heating system, etc. We have a wonderful old house. To meet the requirements we must do all of the repairs at once, rather than a few each year. Before the required changes can be made, other non-required but necessary repairs must come first. We pay for that. Nothing in our 200 year old home is a hazard, but it doesn't meet the expectations for new construction. Our home is paid for, we are warm in the winter, we eat well and raise many of our own veggies, fruits, and eggs. We are hardworking, loving, and well-prepared to be parents. Our cash flow is minimal.

Paperwork, including collection of personal information, gathering referrals, copying fees, further legal research, paperwork which has been lost or filled out incorrectly by overburdened, poorly trained, burned out, or antagonistic social workers (and there are many wonderful social workers, too!) are a further headache.

Add to the mix widely varying requirements from country to country, state to state, county to county, and even office to office. Stir in the emotional and psychological exhaustion. Pound in too many questions dealing with too many personal subjects. Now, sit and read the newspaper accounts about the many children who are neglected or abused, or just look around your community at the children who are continually returned to dangerous homes with scary adults.

Foster to adopt programs look great on the surface, and perhaps some are as good as they look. Underneath, however, potential adoptive parents must make the same changes to their homes and lives, learn to love and care for children who in many cases have been terribly damaged, and remember that the function of the foster care system is to reunite families, not support adoption. Most children in foster care are not really available for adoption, and quite a few will never be released. Your social worker may or may not make that clear.

So I get a wee bit testy when people I otherwise respect identify abortion as being the way to deal with unwanted children. I am tired beyond exhaustion of being told that the life that results from the fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm is something other than human. I am horrified by the view that it's better to cut out that fetus than make life harder for the mother. Life is hard. An unplanned pregnancy can make it much harder. Our response to the hard times determines the overall quality of our lives.

I am a private person. I have too much respect for the people who have posted, and value children too much to not speak up. Friends who are really interested in a conversation about these hard issues are welcome to PM me. Otherwise, warm regards to all who have struggled with the hard choices discussed in this thread. Let there be no condemnation between us.

maeve

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 10:56 PM

many of those who want them (or older children) don't have the thousands of dollars needed.

I don't get that - I know it costs money to look after any child, but surely you don't actually have to pay to adopt?

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 10:10 PM

Maeve -- not sure if I should say this but I hope your time will come when you can adopt. Have you considered fostering? There are so many examples of foster parents being able to adopt their foster children over time....

A big hug!

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: maeve
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 07:12 AM

Please- Could we move on?

maeve

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Naemanson
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 12:46 AM

Sounds to me like the efforts of pro-life and pro-choice alike should be made to streamline the adoption process. Unfortunately the streamlined process will mean kids going to people who should not have them. What do you do about that?

I've heard the argument that an aborted kid could be a future Einstein. Unfortunately S/he could be a future Jeffrey Daumer or Hitler. Bad argument.

I believe every woman has the right to make her own decisions. I agree that life starts when the child starts to form but I do not believe that stopping that life is evil or wrong. Life and death are part of our existence. Stopping a life before it becomes self aware is not cruel. Sentencing a woman to life as a single mother before she is able to live freely is cruel.

This is one of those issues that people react to on a visceral level. Therefore there is no answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: maeve
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 11:00 PM

People are lined up to adopt unwanted babies. I'm one of them. The irony is that there aren't enough babies for all those who want them, and many of those who want them (or older children) don't have the thousands of dollars needed.

This is an area that's ripe for improvement in which all of us could make a difference (dare I say it?) by working together. Donate money to help someone to adopt an infant,children, or teen. Provide housing for a woman or girl in need of shelter, thereby allowing her to give birth to her child and to make an informed decision to keep her child or to allow someone ready to adopt to raise her baby? Use your time and talent to help make physical improvements to potential foster and adoptive homes. Help someone with the never ending paperwork. Train social workers to better cope with the demands of the job in an effective way. Act to streamline the process of adoption in your town/state/country.

There are no "Pro Abortionists" or "Right-to-Lifers" in my world. There are people in need and there are people who can offer some kind of help. Either situation can and will change without notice. Kindness and patience from each makes a hard world that much more joyful.

Now, could we please either return to the thread's original topic as posed by TruBrit, and informed by the newer legal developments in the Portland case, or close up shop and make some music?

Warm regards to you all,

maeve.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Kent Davis
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 10:16 PM

Let's see if I've got this straight.
Your 12-year-old asks me for birth control pills. I decide whether or not she gets them. You don't decide. You have no say in the matter. I can give her the pills no matter what you think. After all, I'm the doctor. You think that's a good thing. Am I right so far?
What if I decide she doesn't get them? You want her to have them, but I don't. You have no say in the matter. I can keep her from getting the pills no matter what you think. After all, I'm the doctor. Right?
If not, why not?

Kent Davis

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Nickhere
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 08:07 PM

Naemanson "I'll start agreeing with the pro-life people when they start lining up at the clinics to claim the unwanted babies"

Therein lies one of the ironies of life. There are loads of people / couples who would love to adopt a baby, but find it such a lengthy and deeply bureaucratic task that all but the most determined are put off. If they were to hang around outside the abortion clinics offering to take the unwanted babies, I've no doubt they'd be hustled off by the cops as 'disturbing the peace'!!

Greg B: "I'm always astonished by the 'right to life' types' willingness
to hijack any conversation about reproductive health"

A conversation about birth control doesn't have to be 'hijacked' - the issue of abortion falls under its ambit quite readily.

"Look, if you believe that "life begins at conception" then don't
get an abortion"

I do. I'll try not to - or at least, my wife won't, I hope.

You imply *you* don't believe life begins at conception -

"But you can't prove it, no matter how many
little beats of developing hearts you show"

Odd, then. What kind of animal / cellular structure do those beating little hearts belong to? I think it *has* been proved, scientifically etc., But if you refuse to acknowledge proof there's not much I or anyone can do about it. That's up to you.

"So stop sticking your
nose into other people's reproductive organs (don't you think you're
supposed to be married to someone before you stick your nose into her
private parts, anyway?)"

So you don't agree with pre-marital sex? ;-))

"and finding every possible method, honest and
dishonest, to interfere with her right to do what she chooses
with them, should she happen to believe that "life" begins
with extra-utero viability"

What 'dishonest methods' have I used (assuming you're referring to my arguments)?

"to interfere with her right to do what she chooses
with them"

I am not trying to tell 'her' what to do with them. But once there's a new life there, well that's a different story. It's no longer only 'her' concern. And if I do not respect the right to life of the unborn child, why should I respect the woman's right to choose? Why should I respect anyone's rights for that matter?

Put it another way -

I understand a pregnancy that arrives when you don't want it can be a burden. I've seen it in my own life up close, as I've explained in previous posts. I've known women who kept their kids (and were delighted about it, their children filled their lives after all their apprehensions faded away) and at least one who didn't (and she prefers not to talk about it, so I've never been really sure how she feels about that).

Yes, it can be a burden. But I've seen what lots of positive help and a shoulder to cry on and so on can do to make the situation bearable. On the whole, in the two cases I mentioned above, having the child turned out to be a life-enhancing experience for the women involved. That's what pro-lifers CAN do: offer support, financial help (directly or through taxes etc.,) and so on, to make abortion less attractive an option.

But some people may feel it's just too much to carry (and maybe they're not getting much help from anyone).
But suppose I was a carer looking after a very sick old person. Now that would be a big burden to my life, in some cases a 24 hr job with little support and less thanks. Suppose I live in a place where the state doesn't give much support either, and no 'home' will take this person since I can't afford it.
So, I would be within my rights to kill off this decaying and hardly viable 'collection of cells' (even if it were my own mother and she herself didn't particularly want to go just at the moment) since they couldn't survive without me and medical attention anyway (all those pills) and I deserve a better life.
It's a tough choice, but people should be free to make the call themselves, and society in any case has no responsibility to either party, heck we're all just individuals free to come and go as we like.......right?

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Greg B
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 06:20 PM

I'm always astonished by the 'right to life' types' willingness
to hijack any conversation about reproductive health. Here in
Bucks County PA, they're running protests in front of Planned
Parenthood and not just interfering with women's right to choose
what to do with their own bodies. They're interfering and haranguing
women going in for things like cervical cancer screenings and other
reproductive health screenings and services. So they don't just
hijack the conversations, they are hijacking women's health services.
Guess it makes 'em feel real important.

Look, if you believe that "life begins at conception" then don't
get an abortion. But you can't prove it, no matter how many
little beats of developing hearts you show. So stop sticking your
nose into other people's reproductive organs (don't you think you're
supposed to be married to someone before you stick your nose into her
private parts, anyway?) and finding every possible method, honest and
dishonest, to interfere with her right to do what she chooses
with them, should she happen to believe that "life" begins
with extra-utero viability.

We have the Diocese of Trenton now running radio ads against New
Jersey's stem-cell research ballot initiative. I hope to hell they
lose their tax-exempt status as a result of the campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 09:10 AM

If the pro-life people really want to do something they should come up with an effective program of their own

It sounds as if you're only aware of one variety of "the pro-life people". Whatever the legal situation, there are going to be women for whom pregnancy is a problem and abortion seems to offer a solution. Trying to offer other solutions is something that should unite both those who would identify themselves as pro-choice and those who would identify themselves as pro-life.

There are "pro-life people" who focus their efforts on doing this - offering a real choice of an alternative to abortion to women who might feel they have no other choice. For example.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Naemanson
Date: 30 Oct 07 - 06:13 AM

I'll start agreeing with the pro-life people when they start lining up at the clinics to claim the unwanted babies.

Mark Twain once observed that humanity is strong on working for the betterment of mankind... with it's collective mouths. If the pro-life people really want to do something they should come up with an effective program of their own, not just shoot down other people's efforts.

Today in class I discussed this discussion with my students. We had a very interesting conversation. I started with an explanation of what was happening in Maine and the argument that it was giving permission to the kids there. I asked them if they would see this as "permission". They didn't. They see it as concerned adults making sure that kids don't make mistakes that would stay with them for life. We had a lively discussion after that.

In the next period one of my students came in with an eye patch. He was not celebrating Halloween. He and his best friend had been out in the bars and he was injured in a mosh pit incident. He was very drunk at the time. They are fifteen years old. I do not believe anyone gave them permission to drink.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Kent Davis
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 10:51 PM

Just a reminder that the "amazing converstion" was not about abortion nor about trying to prevent anyone from having access to condoms. It was about a school that is providing birth control to children age 13 and younger.
Birth control has been readily available for a long time. Unwanted pregnancies are still occurring. STDs are still being contracted. Children are still being emotionally and spiritually scarred.
What we, as a culture, have been trying for the last 4 decades hasn't worked. Why would it start working now?
Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Nickhere
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:27 PM

Sinsull "I do not equate a parcel of cells unable to survive outside the womb to a child"

But the fact that that 'parcel of cells' is a human life is central to the question. It's been gone over at length in another thread so I won't bore by going over it in detail here. But there are two central planks -
1) every human life is sacred and a God-given gift and we should do what we can to preserve it
2) (the more secular argument) If we allow ourselves to decide that this person or that person is not really a person at all, but some form of outlaw - that is literally, someone outside the protection of the law - it soon becomes a matter of degrees of difference by which ALL our humanity and right to life is undermined.

We can decide that handicapped people are 'not viable' that they are a 'parcel of cells' that are not capable of independent life (without support and care). We can extend that argument to old people, the terminally ill, and so on - basically anyone we like or that's too weak or defenceless to fight back for their rights.

Similar arguements have been used to kill off classes of unwanted people, again I won't bore by going over old details. But it's enough to say if we allow it to happen to others, at the very least we make it harder to explain why it shouldn't happen to us too.

And so instead of protecting the most vulnerable in society, we would victimise them.

If a young girl is pregnant, that is unfortunate and not they way we would wish things, but once it's a fact we can't un-do this (we can terminate the pregnancy, but we cannot un-do what's happened - the creation of a new unique human life). All we can do is try and mitigate events. If the preganancy threatens the life of the young girl, of course, as I already said, abortion is an option. Obviously if the mother is to die, the baby will die too, so it makes no sense to proceed. But if she's capable of carrying the child to full term, then this is what should be done, whether we like it or not. No-one would advocate the death penalty for the boyfriend that got her pregnant, but that's what we advocate for the unborn child if we propose abortion for any reason other than the one I mentioned.

Anyway, I think I'm drifting off-thread again....

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: john f weldon
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 09:25 PM

A film everyone should see, especially any 19 yr old. Very upsetting. Through a Blue lens.

http://www.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/?id=33864

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 08:16 PM

Everyone is still approaching the debate from the intellectual and moral high ground. It is not a question of explaining or telling, teaching or offering alternatives. These kids really don't care about our opinions. They will do what they do no matter what we say or do. the best way is to offer positive role models and let them make up their own mind. However, as Trubrit pointed out in her first post there is a paucity of positive role models out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 07:16 PM

I have to disagree that it is the "Christian thing" to force a 13 year old girl to have her child and help with its support later.
I do not equate a parcel of cells unable to survive outside the womb to a child.
You are all entitled to your opinions - I understand and respect you and your opinions.
But I draw the line at having your opinion enforced by law upon those of us who disagree.
Abortion is not a simple choice. It is not a "quick fix" option. It requires thought and counseling and moral support because a woman or a child woman will have to live with this decision for life.
I know several women who chose abortion for a variety of reasons. None regretted the decision.
I started menstruating at 8 1/2. I could have conceived. It is incomprehensible to me that I should have been forced to carry a child to term at 8 or 9 years old.
Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 07 - 05:42 PM

As for analogies, here is one famous one by Sanuel Johnson: "Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true."

This would not have been refuted by someone who pointed out, quite correctly, that dictionaries do not as a rule have hands and a clockwork mechanism, and watches are not generally made of paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 07:59 PM

Analogies are analogies, not identities. The point I was making with my analogy was that any course of action is likely to have a number of consequences. If you are trying to work out what is the best or least worst option you have to take that into account rather than pick out one and ignore the others.

If you focus exclusively on the goal of reducing the likelihood of young people getting hold of drugs of various sorts (including tobacco and alcoholic drink) from people supplying them illegally, then a policy of providing them directly could make sense. But that would involve ignoring the other consequences of doing this, including what would be interpreted as official encouragement to use the drugs supplied. (My second paragraph was tongue in cheek in this respect.)

The same kind of double effect has to be balanced in the case of schools providing birth control to "middle school kids". On the one hand it can be argued that it increases the likelihood that kids having sex will use contraceptives/prophylactics, reducing the chance of pregnancy or or STDs. On the other hand it can be argued that it might serve to increase the pressures to have sex prematurely, which in practice much of the time woudl be likely to be without making use of effective contraceptives/prophylactics.

There isn't any obvious commonsense way of knowing how the balance of advantage works out between those two consequences. That means people rely on their gut instincts and on their personal experience.

I don't find it too amazing that TRUBIT's son conmes to a conclusion on this basis which TRUBRIT finds amazing - he's in a different situation, seeing different things, and making his judgment on that basis.

And I've no idea where the truth lies, and I doubt if any of us do. Perhaps there has been research that would make the balance of advantage clearer. There clearly needs to be that kind of research as a guide to policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Nickhere
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 04:59 PM

Plus, as you mentioned, drugs and alcohol (especially alcohol) are a big part of the teen scene too. And if the kids are really drunk, they're unlikely to remember to put on a condom, and if they do, they'll probably not put it on correctly. A number of posts here have commented on how young girls feel pressured into having sex or losing the boy. I think we need a new approach: 1) try and inculcate some self-respect into these kids so they don't give away what's precious to them to the first emotional blackmailer they have the misfortune to stumble into. 2) try and explain it's alright to say no and mean it, and that a boy that puts a girl under that kind of pressure is no boy'friend'. I accpet of course that that last realistaion often only comes with experience when it's already too late and hearts have been broken etc., But I knew girls when I was a teenager that didn't 'put out' to any old boy who pressured them, and thinking about why I realised it was because they had a high sense of self-worth,they knew they didn't need to offer their bodies to be loved and accepted.
And of course no form of contraceptive is 100 percent proof against either pregnancy or STDs, especially when you factor in the above contexts of alcohol etc. If you take the case of older teenagers and twenty-somethings, who CAN freely access most forms of contraceptive and apparently do, STDs have also shown an alarming rate of increase despite this. But some kids might believe condoms etc., are a sure-fire guarantee against STDs.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 02:07 PM

Too true Brett.

And on the question of condoms - that's fine if the boy will wear one. A lot of lads don't seem to want to and quite often the girls will go along with that just for the attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Naemanson
Date: 28 Oct 07 - 03:41 AM

There is a huge difference between the two, McGrath. They aren't passing out sex and drugs but you seem to advocate that in your post. There is an enormous difference between passing out disease prevention and passing out the disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 07:13 PM

Kids are going to smoke and drink regardless, so wouldn't it make more sense to pass out smokes and drinks at school to make them less likely to go buying them in places where they might run into difficult and dangerous situations?

After all, it might even put them off things like that if the authorities seemed to be encouraging them to try them...

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Naemanson
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 06:52 PM

Sex, Drugs, Young People, Permission?

Listen very carefully. They do not need our permission. They do not want our permission. They do not care what we say or do about sex or drugs. They look to each other. Their goal is to "hang" with their friends and do what they want to do. Their goal is to enjoy themselves, listen to their music, party with their friends.

Having said that I should explain my authority. I teach English and Composition to sophomores in a small private Catholic high school in Guam. I start the school year with a talk on honesty and fairness. I explain that if they are honest with me I can be honest with them. We have a very good relationship in the classroom. They feel they can tell me things they would not say to other teachers because I do not criticize or judge them. Consequently I hear it all. At fifteen I do not believe many of the girls in my classes could attract a unicorn (i.e., they are not virgins). They all drink to some extent. Most have used some kind of drugs.

SO, to those who worry that giving condoms to kids is giving permission I would say they are not seeing the forest for the trees. The kids are doing this without our permission. Withholding condoms is just spreading disease and unwanted children and ruining young lives unnecessarily.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Kent Davis
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 04:19 PM

Birth control has been readily available for a long time. Any kid with a quarter could get it from a gas station restroom 35 years ago. Unwanted pregnancies are still occurring.
Last week, I saw two patients who were teen-aged unwed mothers. They both had long been taking birth control pills, or so their mothers thought, when they conceived.
What we, as a culture, have been trying for the last 4 decades hasn't worked. Why would it start working now?
Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 03:28 PM

As a moral conservative (as well as the political conservative you've all come to love and adore:) ) I'd rather see someone handing out condums and BC pills than children having abortions, unwanted babies and the life changing hardships an unexpected (?, !!) consequence can bring. I bow to the power of human nature. That drive is what perpetuates the species. If we all had the moral courage, resolve and strength to wait until we were responsible what amazing beings we'd all be. But it aint gonna happen.

Children make mistakes. That's a large part of growing up, making mistakes and hopefully learning from them leads us from innocence to higher innocence. Along with the pills and paraphenallia should come solid correct information about sex, STDs, and responsibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:02 PM

Is it me, or do many of the posts in this thread show an attitude of "it was good enough for me, it is good enough for my kids"? And that, irrespective of the poster's experience or inclination - liberal or otherwise. Colbert's words referred to in one post are one such example, but there are others to be found in the posters' own opinions.

Surely that is wrong? Surely we want better for our kids, and for their kids, than we had ourselves? And surely that does not only apply to materialistic things only but also to education, attitudes, chances of survival and hapiness.

The fact that we may have "broken the rules" and survived is no bragging matter - or it can become too easily the norm for our kids. I am not moralising, just trying to be pragmatic. And the attitude of "children will be children" can all too easily lead to a washing of the hands. I have seen it in TV interviews of the parents of delinquents, who should have known better. Lessons in parenting? Hell, yes, if it can help our sad state of affairs; and the fact that such lessons are needed at all is an indictment of sorts.

Yes, we are all people, with our feelings and our failings, sometimes easily tempted, and no less lovable for that. But humanity used to have the innate drive for improvement of its lot. Where did that go?

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 07:57 PM

I think most of us here are a collection of cells. Or a mass of molecules. Or an assembly of atoms.

And human beings as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Nickhere
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 07:29 PM

Guest:Sins: "Which child, Nick? The pregnant 13 year old or her fetus?"

I'm not sure what you're on about here. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Grab: "Yep - because it's not a child at that point, it's a collection of cells which *might* become a child. You may disagree, but it isn't your choice, it's the choice of the woman whose body this collection of cells is in"

I disagree first of all with what you are trying to claim (directly and indirectly) with your semantics. 'Fetus' (in this context) is a term for a stage in the development of a human being, just as 'child' is a term to describe another stage in that development. A child, by the way, is also a collection of cells - which might (if no-one interferes by destroying it) become an adult at some stage. A child is not an adult, a fetus is not a child, but they are all the same human, whether you like it or not.

But anyway we have been over this at length in another thread, and if you are still trying to say black is white, we can only agree to disagree.

As for it not being my choice - no, of course it's not. Thankfully I cannot be held responsible if someone destroys the life within them (for whatever reason). But I could be held responsible if I say or do nothing to try and prevent it. And by that I mean arguing my view, voting according to my conscience, trying to persuade others of the rightness of my argument, giving whatever support I can to those who wish to keep their child - either directly when the case is known to me personally, or through my taxes used to support people who find themselves in this situation, etc., etc.,

And I'm sure, being modern, democratic and pluralistic and so on, you wouldn't want to deny me that right!

BTW, pro-choice/ abortion lobby, I think you might have misunderstood the motivation of pro-lifers / anti-abortionists, when you criticise their motivation for trying to persuade kids not to abort. It's not about making that kid's life hard, or to 'punish' them (which wouldn't be very christian), or 'set an example', but to try and preserve the new human life, out of respect for the sanctity of life. Of course, and I shouldn't even need to have to state this, if the pregnancy were threatening the life of the child (i.e if having the baby would result in the death of the child either immeditaely or soon after) abortion is an acceptable course of action. But even young teenagers have sucessfully carried to full term (Grab has pointed out how kids got married and had children at very young ages in the past, even quoting the example of Shakespeare and his 13-year old Juliet, and again, according to Grab, they're maturing at an ever younger age), so abortion shouldn't be a necessary option in most cases.

Anyway, as I said, we've been over this at length in another thread and we're not likely to convince each other by the looks of it. We'll all have to answer for our own actions in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: GUEST,SINS
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:46 AM

Which child, Nick? The pregnant 13 year old or her fetus?

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Grab
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 09:58 AM

"kids are having sex at an earlier and earlier age"..... can anyone explain why this is?

Can anyone explain *if* this is? I've still not heard anything conclusive saying that this is the case. Sure, the Victorians and their descendants this century liked to pretend that sex didn't happen, or at least that it didn't happen outside of marriage. That's pretty comprehensively proved to be false though.

A link with some historical background. So back in the Middle Ages, girls *married* at 14-16 was usual, and the only reason men didn't marry was because they couldn't support a family then. Shakespeare wrote Juliet as being 13, remember.

Granted, we've moved on a bit from the Middle Ages - with contraception, sex and marriage can be disconnected. Age of reaching sexual maturity is unlikely to be significantly affected though - if anything, medical data says that it's happening *earlier* with better diet and medical care (and possibly chemicals in food).

so many hundreds of thousands of them to be killed before they are even born

Yep - because it's not a child at that point, it's a collection of cells which *might* become a child. You may disagree, but it isn't your choice, it's the choice of the woman whose body this collection of cells is in.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Nickhere
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:16 PM

Greg B: "The principle at work here is that laws should look out first for
the interest of the child"

Which of course explains clearly why it also allows for so many hundreds of thousands of them to be killed before they are even born in the US and elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:47 PM

I didn't see that list of suggestions from anyone, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:44 PM

Oh of course. Let's just change ALL of the media, or make sure that
every TV has its V-chip activated, as well as those of any house
they visit. Control anything that is ever said by ALL of their
peers, and monitor and control their discussions over lunch. That'll
'nip it in the bud.' Great solution.

And, let's compel pregnant 13-year-olds to have the baby, that'll
teach the other kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:33 PM

If you go back to the start of the thread the interesting point was that the fact that a 19 year old didn't share that agenda was what was seen as amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Nickhere
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:37 PM

"kids are having sex at an earlier and earlier age"..... can anyone explain why this is? Who or what is sexualising these kids at ever younger ages if not us grown ups? Maybe if we paused to consider the causes rather than just 'try and deal with practicalities' (without bopthering to ask where these 'practical problems' come from) perhaps then we might find the real solution instead of using kids to push our own liberal agendas....

Greg B: "Kent:

>I can't legally remove a wart from a girl's big toe without parental
>permission, but it's O.K. if I remove a child from her womb without
>even their knowledge?!

Yes"

Unbelieveable.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Greg B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:06 AM

Kent:

>I can't legally remove a wart from a girl's big toe without parental
>permission, but it's O.K. if I remove a child from her womb without
>even their knowledge?!

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:00 AM

Kevin - the reason for being afraid to tell parents is because being sexually active would not be approved of and the kids who do go down that route quite often have parents who put the fear of god into their children, without showing them any real love. The child is afraid of the wrath of the parent/s, not what action might be taken so far as the baby is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:19 AM

The assumption seems to be that the reason for being afraid to tell the parents would always be to do with fear of being prevented from having an abortion.

I'd think that in today's world it might be at least equally to do with fear of being pressured into having an abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 10:06 PM

Some unwanted pregnancies will always happen because some people (youg and old) are in total denial .... sex and babies (stunning but true) don't go together in their minds. Many people are having sex because they are lonely, sad, whatever and think this will buy them some happiness....

I am so glad my kids made it through -- I wonder what being a grandparent of the next generation will feel like......

Subject: RE: BS: Amazing conversation with a 19 yr. old..
From: Kent Davis
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 10:00 PM

I also do not know what the answer is. Actually, I know that there will never be a complete answer to the problem as long as this old world stands.
However, there are partial answers, and some are better than others. Sad situations like jacqui c describes have always occurred and will always occur, but they occur more often in some sub-cultures than in others and more often in certain periods of history than others.   
Birth control has been readily available for a long time. Unwanted pregnancies are still occurring. What we, as a culture, have been trying for the last 4 decades hasn't worked. Why would it start working now?
Kent