For school we're having to write a persuasive paper on a topic of our chosing. I recently had to switch mine because, i was having issues finding information on my other topic. The topic i got switchted to is 'Contraception in schools' basically whether or not school nurses should or should be allowed to give out contraceptives, confidetially and at low cost. Just out of curiosity more than anything i was wondering what Other people thought about this topic. Any of your opinions would be apretiated, and/or imformation that could help me with my paper...

ETWolverine

"What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios?"

You used those words to describe my "scenario" of parents who love and care for their children in the prior post. From these words it seems as if you believe that loving families that care for their kids are a "low-percentage what-if scenario".

So that's where you said it, whether you intended that meaning or not.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Nice try to cover for your friend but he was trying to paint me as an unloving parent.
The scenario you were playing was the one where the child the parents out and seek counsel elsewhere i.e going to PP and getting bad advice. PP exist because something broke along the way and they are trying to help. It would seem to me that someone in this thread had a bad experience and wants to paint the entire organization as evil. Sorry, I'm not buying it, I haven't heard of the same issues.

P.S. please stop assigning meaning, you often get it wrong.

inthebox

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, an advocate of negative eugenics, and the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood


Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[6]

speechlesstx

NK, whoa....calm down. Re-read the posts. Elliot spoke of "cases where the teen THINKS their parents wouldn't understand, but are actually good parents who would help their chidren out one way or the other."

Your next post said "What's the point of doing various low percentage what-if scenarios?" To which I responded in general concerning parents. The only thing directed at you personally was the cynicism I perceived in your post. From what little I know about you I have no reason to doubt how much you love your kids, and therefore would not attempt to paint you as an unloving parent ... I'm not that kinda guy, NK.

If you would have said you were speaking of PP scenarios when the discussion was on parenting scenarios this confusion could have been avoided. And, I don't think Elliot was covering for me, I believe he saw what I saw.

Steve

jillianleab

So because an instrumental member of the organization was a loon who supported eugenics it means the whole organization (which started in 1916) is, by association, horrible? Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

charlotte234s

No, it's not egregious or an assumption, bad parenting is what causes things like this to happen.


This is why parents should talk to their kids about the tough things, not just candycoat them and hope they go away. If they know how their parents will feel if somethng bad happens, because their parents said, hey we'll love you even if you do drugs or get pregnant or whatever, even tough you shouldn't do those things, then they were parenting well. Otherwise, it's failure on th part of the parents for nottalking to their kids about real issues.

Synnen

Charlotte, I agree and disagree with you.

I think my parents were GREAT parents. They were always ALWAYS there when we needed them. They talked to us about big issues, and made us go to church every week. Family is BIG where I come from, and family always come first.

I got pregnant at 16, and gave birth at 17.

My sister got pregnant at 17, and gave birth at 18.

My brother has served time for selling and possession of marijuana and crack.

Yet--my parents made SURE they knew where we were, who we were with, met all our friends' parents, etc, etc, etc.

I got pregnant using THREE forms of birth control, the second time I had sex EVER. After dating my boyfriend for almost 3 years, exclusively. I wasn't STUPID.

Oh--and guess what? It was our FRIENDS that covered for us so we could have sex. In a car--when we were supposed to be out with them at Perkins.

So--don't tell me it's PARENTS that always fail.

I have issues with schools dispensing drugs without specific parental consent.

I do NOT, however, believe that contraception should not be available to teens. Frankly--if you take ALL medical decisions away from teenagers, you prevent the right of choice in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. NOBODY should be able to choose for another person what should happen in that case. Forcing someone to abort or give birth is a HORRIBLE idea. 16 is old enough for limited medical decisions to be made--ESPECIALLY decisions involving contraception.

I have to say, though--those of you who preach absolute abstinence can not POSSIBLY have teenagers. My parents preached it, the school preached it--EVERYONE preached it.

But--we'd been together a long time (even by most adult relationship standards, 3 years is a long time), we were in love, and we were using birth control. Does that change the fact that I got pregnant when I didn't want to, and that if I didn't want to be a parent, I shouldn't have been having sex? Not at all.

But face reality, folks. Unless you hide your kids away from all media, keep them in a closed society, and allow them to go NOWHERE but the bathroom without a trusted adult family member---Your teen is very likely going to have sex. Don't you want them to be informed about it, to KNOW how to prevent pregnancy and disease when and if they make that step?

I posted my ideas on how to do this earlier. I think everyone thought i was joking--I wasn't.

You want to stop underage sex? Then make it impossible for any teen to raise their kids without parental help or marriage. Make it harder to be a single parent. Take away welfare. Make it so that you either get married, abort, or choose adoption--none of this single parent, I didn't really love him crap. Make getting a divorce "because I'm not happy anymore" harder to do. Make there be very real consequences to having sex. Faced with watching your kid starve because you're going to school and working at McDonald's--guess what? All those "poor, desparate infertile couples" would have an ABUNDANCE of babies to choose from.

It's not the kids, it's not the parents--it's the fact that society forces no social or financial consequences on anyone that DOES get pregnant out of wedlock.

charlotte234s

It's true that sometimes it happens that good parents have children who make an oops, but for the most part, it's poor children whose parents have failed.


I'm not saying that's the case 100% of the tim, but nowadays, it's usually parent failure that results in these problems because they don't talk to their kids and they fail to paren in general.

Either way, condoms=yes, BC, go to a free clinic at 16 (at least in my state) and get it without parental consent anyways, but maybe not at school.

inthebox

From the first sentence, are you implying that unwanted pregnancies never happen to "good parents" or do you wait to judge parents until after their kid[s] are past their teenage years?

inthebox

My post was in response to the why PP exists.


from

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.[7]

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).[11]*

- So poor and or minority women have the highest rates or likelihoods of getting an abortion; whether intentional or not, this is consistent with Sanger's negative eugenics.


Eight percent of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[15]

- so 92 % are not using induced abortion as their first means of birth control



Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[13]

- so even used correctly pill / condom use has a 13-14 % failure rate.