As I have said before, I think that we are forgetting the ability of adults to influence children in a positive way through education.

Over the past several years, we have seen educational efforts regarding smoking pay off. Fewer kids are smoking, thanks to education and ad campaigns.

Over the past several years, we have seen educational efforts regarding drugs pay off. Fewer kids are doing drugs of any kind, thanks to education and ad campaigns.

Over the past several years, we have seen educational efforts regarding drinking and driving pay off. Fewer kids are getting behind the wheel after drinking, thanks to education and ad campaigns.

These were once areas where we were SURE that we could have no impact on our kids. And yet we have seen these efforts pay off.

So, to those who say that educational efforts regarding abstension will not work, I point out these cases where such educational efforts DID work.

There are those who want to see abstension-only education in schools. Those who are against it ague that it won't prevent kids from having sex. But neither is giving them BC or condoms. In fact, you are practically ensuring that they WILL have sex if you hand them condoms and BC without educating them on abstension as an alternative. And the one thing that giving out condoms and BC is schools has NOT done is lower the incidence of teen pregnancy. So the argument that we need to give our kids contraception in schools in order to prevent them from getting pregnant is proving to be untrue. It isn't preventing any such thing. But it is giving kids the impression that having sex is okay.

On the other hand, abstinence education worked very well during the years prior to 1960... the incidence of teen pregnancy was nil, and nobody complained. On the other hand, times were different... kids didn't know as much as they do now. So the equation might not be the same as it was 40-50 years ago.

So... what do we have here.

- We have something which has not been tried in 40 years: abstinence education. It has not been tried because people argue that it wouldn't work, despite the fact that similar efforts in different areas have worked, and despite the fact that abstinence educatuion did work prior to 1960.

- We have something which has been proven not to work that is still being pushed as the most effective means of controlling teen pregnancy: contraception in schools. It has been argued as the best way to stop teen pregnancy, despite the fact that there has been no decrease in teen pregnancy.

So, if what we are doing now isn't working, why aren't we willing to try something else that has a good chance of working in the long term? If school contraception isn't working, why aren't we willing to teach abstinence?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

There are those who want to see abstension-only education in schools. Those who are against it ague that it won't prevent kids from having sex. But neither is giving them BC or condoms. In fact, you are practicaly ensuring that they WILL have sex if you hand them condoms and BC without educating them on abstension as an alternative. And the one thing that giving out condoms and BC is schools has NOT done is lower the incidence of teen pregnancy. So the argument that we need to give our kids contraception in schools in order to prevent them from getting pregnant is proving to be untrue. It isn't preventing any such thing. But it is giving kids the impression that having sex is okay.

---

In my opinion, teaching abstinence isn't the problem - teaching the current abstinence only program which is full of factually incorrect information and doesn't discuss contraceptives at all is the problem. That just means the kids who DO decide to have sex have no clue at how to prevent pregnancy or infection. We can't expect teens to grow into adulthood and be able to make informed decisions if we lie to them to keep their pants on when they're kids. Uninformed teens = uninformed adults, and well... there are enough of those already! :D

If there were a program which focused on abstinence first, but also provided factual information about contraceptives, STDs, abortion, teen pregnancy and so on, I'd be all for it. I think that what people forget is that teens grow into adults, and while it might be nice for everyone to wait until marriage, that's just not the case for most. So if two un-married 30-somethings decide to have sex, it's important they too know the risks and prevention methods. Personally, I'm more concerned with preventing teens from having sex than preventing consenting adults; so maybe I advocate "abstinence until adulthood". I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

As I have said before, I think that we are forgetting the ability of adults to influence children in a positive way through education...

So, to those who say that educational efforts regarding abstension will not work, I point out these cases where such educational efforts DID work.

---

Amen, brother.

Quote:

---

There are those who want to see abstension-only education in schools. Those who are against it ague that it won't prevent kids from having sex. But neither is giving them BC or condoms. In fact, you are practically ensuring that they WILL have sex if you hand them condoms and BC without educating them on abstension as an alternative. And the one thing that giving out condoms and BC is schools has NOT done is lower the incidence of teen pregnancy. So the argument that we need to give our kids contraception in schools in order to prevent them from getting pregnant is proving to be untrue. It isn't preventing any such thing. But it is giving kids the impression that having sex is okay.

---

Like I said before, justifying BC and condoms in schools is surrender. The critics argue that PP does teach abstinence as an alternative but they have many definitions of abstinence. Part of their decades long campaign is to tell kids that having sex is OK. They don't imply it, they come right out and encourage them to explore their sexuality and arm them with the tools and techniques.

So your claim is that the rise is teenage birth is mainly PP's fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

In my opinion, teaching abstinence isn't the problem - teaching the current abstinence only program which is full of factually incorrect information and doesn't discuss contraceptives at all is the problem. That just means the kids who DO decide to have sex have no clue at how to prevent pregnancy or infection.

---

And what is the best way to prevent pregnancy or infection?

Furthermore, do we teach kids not to play with matches, or do we tell them that not playing with matches is the "best choice" but don't worry about playing with matches as long as they have a fire-extiguisher? Do we teach our kids that there are choices with regard to playing with matches, or do we simply prohibit them from doing it? Personally, I keep my kids from playing with matches in the first place.

Why is it any different with sex? Why are we teaching kids that not having sex is the "best choice" but there's really nothing to wory about as long as you have birth control. Why aren't we telling them not to have sex... and there is no other choice?

Quote:

---

We can't expect teens to grow into adulthood and be able to make informed decisions if we lie to them to keep their pants on when they're kids.

---

I'm not saying we should lie to them. But I am saying that as parents and educators we should take a stronger position on teen sex. It is NOT ALLOWED. If you do it you will suffer the consequences.

That is as truthful as can be... if you are a teen having sex, there will be consequences that range from social to medical to educational, to financial. Therefore, don't do it. Nor will we as authority figures assist you in do this or look the other way when you do this.

Why are we not taking this tact to the issue? Why are we saying it's okay as long as you use protection? Its NOT okay, and we need to stop giving kids the message that it is okay. And the only way to do that is to prohibit the action. That's abstinence education. And that is the argument against BC in schools.

[/quote]Uninformed teens = uninformed adults, and well... there are enough of those already! :D [/quote]

That is certainly true.

Quote:

---

If there were a program which focused on abstinence first, but also provided factual information about contraceptives, STDs, abortion, teen pregnancy and so on, I'd be all for it.

---

Well, I would be more in favor of that than what we have now. But I still see it as giving a mixed message of "It's okay as long as you don't get into trouble." I don't think its okay.

Quote:

---

I think that what people forget is that teens grow into adults, and while it might be nice for everyone to wait until marriage, that's just not the case for most.

---

That's the problem. And that is part of the abstinance education campaign that I'm talking about... a move similar to what MADD did for drunk driving and TRUTH did for teen smoking. Teaching kids that it's okay to say no, that waiting is a good thing, that they don't have to give in to peer pressure, and that those who are pushing you to do these things do not have your best interests at heart. After a decade (or more) of ad campaigns, drunk driving among teens is down and teen smoking is down. The message with smoking was "Don't Smoke", not "smoking is okay, as long as its cigars or pipes, not cigarrettes". The message with drinking was "If you drink, don't get behind the wheel" not "You can drive drunk as long as you are wearing a helmet." The messages were clear: this action is prohibbited and if you do it you will be hurt.

Why wouldn't a similar campaign work for abstinence education? Why are we so concerned with sending a mixed message to our kids that they shouldn't have sex... but if you do, used protection? Why aren't we simply saying "Don't have sex or you will suffer the consequences."

Quote:

---

So if two un-married 30-somethings decide to have sex, it's important they too know the risks and prevention methods. Personally, I'm more concerned with preventing teens from having sex than preventing consenting adults; so maybe I advocate "abstinence until adulthood". I don't know.

---

I can deal with that. What adults do isn't my concern. But what kids do IS my concern.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So your claim is that the rise is teenage birth is mainly PP's fault?

---

No NK, I've said repeatedly it's the culture - but PP is a prime culprit in advancing that culture. It seems obvious to me their way has failed, they've had their chance for decades and you will never solve the problems of teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion by encouraging hormonal kids to engage in the very activities that put them at risk in the first place. Why is that not obvious to people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And what is the best way to prevent pregnancy or infection?

Why is it any different with sex? Why are we teaching kids that not having sex is the "best choice" but there's really nothing to wory about as long as you have birth control. Why aren't we telling them not to have sex... and there is no other choice?

---

The best way to prevent pregnancy and infection? Gee, how about telling kids the TRUTH instead of lying to them? How about making sure kids know how to use condoms so, if they decide as an adult to engage in sexual activity they know how to prevent pregnancy and infection? Or, so the teens who DO engage in it (you know they're out there, they always will be) don't wind up pregnant or with herpes?

I'm not saying tell them not to is best, but if you do, do it safe. I'm saying it's wrong to lie to our teens about sex, contraceptives and STDs. Stress abstinence, but make sure they are informed to make decisions to have SAFE sex as ADULTS. It's NOT acceptable for teens to be having sex, but sex education which talks about contraceptives doesn't have to condone it.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying we should lie to them. But I am saying that as parents and educators we should take a stronger position on teen sex. It is NOT ALLOWED. If you do it you will suffer the consequences.

That is as truthful as can be... if you are a teen having sex, there will be consequences that range from social to medical to educational, to financial. Therefore, don't do it. Nor will we as authority figures assist you in do this or look the other way when you do this.

Why are we not taking this tact to the issue? Why are we saying it's okay as long as you use protection? Its NOT okay, and we need to stop giving kids the message that it is okay. And the only way to do that is to prohibit the action. That's abstinence education. And that is the argument against BC in schools.

---

The problem is the current abstinence program DOES lie. It tells teens abortion makes you sterile and AIDS is transmitted via sweat and tears. Both of those assertions are WRONG and are there to scare the kids, not teach them. I agree, as parents and educators we should take a stronger position against teen sex, but you can get that message across without lies.

I never said tell them it's OK as long as you use protection. I said it's NOT OK to LIE. Again, I'm not opposed to abstinence education, I'm opposed to the current abstinence-only education.

Quote:

---

Well, I would be more in favor of that than what we have now. But I still see it as giving a mixed message of "It's okay as long as you don't get into trouble." I don't think its okay.

---

Sorry, but I don't see how telling kids about contraceptives and STD prevention is giving them the green light to have sex. Beyond that, back to my point about uneducated adults; we have to inform them at some point, and, by your own admission, you don't care what adults do. How can you expect adults to make the right decisions if they were never taught about the right decisions as teens?

Quote:

---

Teaching kids that it's okay to say no, that waiting is a good thing, that they don't have to give in to peer pressure, and that those who are pushing you to do these things do not have your best interests at heart.

---

Which is the same thing I'm saying. I just think it's important to include contraceptive and STD education with that information. I don't think it's sending a mixed message, I think it's educating them and making them equipped for the future. What good does it do to cut down on teen pregnancy rates and STD infections in teens, if it skyrockets once they hit their 20s because no one ever taught them how to prevent such things?

Quote:

---

I can deal with that. What adults do isn't my concern. But what kids do IS my concern.

---

And kids grow into adults. I'm all for keeping teens from having sex, but I don't want to see the infection rates and pregnancy rates jump a few years into the 20s.

What's wrong with telling teens to wait, stress the physical and emotional strain sex has on young relationships, stress how damaging pregnancy can be as a teen, how an STD can ruin your life, and that by waiting until they are in adulthood they are better equipped to handle these things. Then let them know once they DO decide to have sex once they are adults there are ways to prevent these things, and let them know about contraceptives. Talk about those things as something for the future, not the present. WAITING is for the present.

I'm really torn about contraceptives in school. I DON'T think the nurse should be able to hand out the pill without parental consent, but I'm on the fence about condoms. On the one hand teens can get them OTC, so unless we want to put an age limit on them, what's the difference? If condoms are easily accessible, maybe teens will be more likely to use them. Then again, maybe having access to them will encourage some teens to have sex sooner than they are ready. All I can say for sure is this: I was in high school less than ten years ago; I would NEVER have gone to the nurse to get condoms, and I didn't know anyone else who would either. I can also say the way my school handled sex ed did nothing to prevent me from doing way too much way to early. I, like most teens had the invincibility complex, and, lucky for me, it worked out in my favor. It did NOT work out in favor for several of my friends, however. Maybe recent graduates should be the ones who design sex ed programs; after all, they're the ones who know more than anyone else what teens are more likely to respond to.

Obviously the parents have failed that child anyway if they need to get BC or condoms at school, if they are having sex that young, if they are pregnant, and if they want to get an abortion, so we should force them to keep a baby they can't afford, don't want, can't raise properly, all the while messing up their own lives because their parents didn't do a good job and they had an accident?


Someone has to take responsibility for the kids and since the parents have failed and the child is incapable, why not give them the protection and options they need?

Tha parents have FAILED when it gets to the point that they are seeking help elsewhere. Maybe you can raise your children correctly, and they won't have that problem, and you will have the right to privacy, but when the parents have failed, they don't deserve privacy at the expense of their child.


Aren't our children worth protecting since their parents have failed? We tried to teach them better, it has'nt worked. My parents told me to not do thing when I was young and I didn't listen, it's the nature of children. I never got pregnant, or anything like that, but no one just does as their parents say all their life.

I think the real "future of guilt, shame, torment" lies in the teeagers who made a mistake and got pregnant because they were to afraid, didn't know about, or couldn't get protection, and then they are forced to have a child at a young age, and not be able to live their own lives first.

Planned parenthood does provide help to some people, and I'm sorry for your issue with them, but it's not planned parenthood who did that to your daughter. They made a mistake, obviously, but it wasn't their fault/mistake that caused things to end that way in in the first place.

Girls should be able to talk with their parents about getting an abortion or protection if thy want, but some parents won't allow them to get the pill, tell them not to have sex, tell them abortion is off-limits. The fact is that when the parents do not allow the girl to make her own choices and be okay with them, the girl ends up going to places like PP, which is unfortunate because we should be able to have a girl go to any doctor's office, any hospital, and get medical treatment.

I still don't believe in forcing women to have babies they don't want, can't afford, regret, and who they can'r provide or care for properly (unfair to that chid anyways), not for their parents, not for their boyfriends, not for any one else. They should only have to do what THEY Want to when it comes to reproduction.

Quote:

---

No NK, I've said repeatedly it's the culture - but PP is a prime culprit in advancing that culture. It seems obvious to me their way has failed, they've had their chance for decades and you will never solve the problems of teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion by encouraging hormonal kids to engage in the very activities that put them at risk in the first place. Why is that not obvious to people?

---

At least they're trying to help people by providing services, information, and protection instead of just telling them to keep it in their pant, which is obviously NOT working.

Sure they're not perfect, but neither is anyone or any other other program to help people. No one is successful 100% of the time.

Quote:

---

The problem is the current abstinence program DOES lie.

---

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

I'm saying it's wrong to lie to our teens about sex

---

Of course it is, lying is wrong on BOTH sides.

I'd rather see a teenager with a condom in their pocket that a baby in their arms.

Altenweg, I could hug youuuuuu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

I'm saying it's wrong to lie to our teens about sex

---

Of course it is, lying is wrong on BOTH sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Of course it is, lying is wrong on BOTH sides.

---

I agree. I don't want to lie to our kids by telling them having an abortion makes you sterile or by telling them condoms are 100% effective or that having sex standing up prevents pregnancy.

I sort of wonder if we don't trust teens with decision making because we rarely give them access to the information they need to make decisions. Instead we pepper it with our own agendas and keep quiet about the things we don't want them to know. So many parents treat their kids like precious little snowflakes and when they get into adulthood they are clueless about how to rationalize, think critically or make informed decisions. I'm not saying we should leave it up to teens completely to have or not have sex, but I wonder if we started treating them (with regards to information) more like adults if they would be able to make better decisions on their own (less hand holding from the parents). It's been said time and time again that knowledge is power...

'Course then we mind end up with a bunch of power-drunk teens on our hands... :p

As if they aren't power-drunk anyway XD

Oh, I can drive, I'm invincible, the world owes me!

Kids. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

I agree. I don't want to lie to our kids by telling them having an abortion makes you sterile or by telling them condoms are 100% effective or that having sex standing up prevents pregnancy.

I sort of wonder if we don't trust teens with decision making because we rarely give them access to the information they need to make decisions. Instead we pepper it with our own agendas and keep quiet about the things we don't want them to know. So many parents treat their kids like precious little snowflakes and when they get into adulthood they are clueless about how to rationalize, think critically or make informed decisions. I'm not saying we should leave it up to teens completely to have or not have sex, but I wonder if we started treating them (with regards to information) more like adults if they would be able to make better decisions on their own

---

Well, yes and no I suppose. Granted, there were things my parents could have taught me but didn't that would have been helpful. On the other hand I believe we've lost so much by not letting kids be kids. Parents need to be the parents and kids shouldn't be exposed to so many things they aren't equipped to handle. I hear people complain of TV, music and video games rotting their little brains - yet we want them to be exposed to all the details of adult sexual relationships? That doesn't make sense to me, 6 year olds should be playing tee-ball, finger painting and sliding down slides, not preparing for sexual relations.

Quote:

---

(less hand holding from the parents). It's been said time and time again that knowledge is power...

---

Oh I agree there should be less hand holding by parents, I have friends that just drive me nuts over the way they baby and coddle their kids.

Quote:

---

'Course then we mind end up with a bunch of power-drunk teens on our hands... :p

---

Exactly, lol... there has to be a balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

I'd rather see a teenager with a condom in their pocket that a baby in their arms.

---

And I'd rather see a baby in their arms than a "non-viable tissue mass" sucked out of their womb. :)

Quote:

---

And I'd rather see a baby in their arms than a "non-viable tissue mass" sucked out of their womb.

---

Not me, they'll be broke and miserable for their whole lives, the baby will not be treated the same way as if it is wanted, it may even be abused or have to go without because the parents can't provide because their lives were messed up by an unplanned pregnancy.The mother is also more liable to have complcations or even death during delivery because her body is not ready to give birth. I think that a viable and very much alive girl's life is more precious than a "non-viable tissue mass". Lesser of two evils I supposd.

Most (almost all) abortions are performed before 20 weeks, across the board, statistics state that.

According to the journal of american medicine, if the fetus can feel pain at all, it doesn't feel pain until at least 28 weeks.

The fetus is not typically even able to survive outside the womb (meaning its organs are not present or not functioning) until around 23 weeks.

Either way, it's a personal choice, and you have no right to say people shouldn't get an abortion because of your morals and values because they may not share your morals and values. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Simple as that. Don't try to say that people shouldn't have a choice because YOU think it's wrong.

And tell me speechless, are you a man or a woman?

Speechless, I's rather see a non-viable tissue mass sucked out of their womb than a teenager having a baby she's not ready for and tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom, these things happen everyday, or don't you watch the news? Besides, the issue here isn't about abortion it's about contraception and even though accidents do happen even when you're careful there are definitely tons of options out there that prevent pregnancy and it's not in anyone's best interest not to discuss these options with our kids. You have a right to your opinion as does everyone else in the world. If you don't want your kids using contraception then don't tell them about it, you can deal with a teenage unwed mother when it happens. I'm the mother of two and even though they're both too young to worry about sex and pregnancy I will expose them to contraceptives when the time comes and hope that I've ingrained in them the fact that I am open to hearing anything they have to say and will always listen with an open mind and heart. But there is absolutely no reason that teens should be having children when there are ways to prevent it and short of locking them up in a monastery you are not going to prevent these teens from having sex. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Well, yes and no I suppose. Granted, there were things my parents could have taught me but didn't that would have been helpful. On the other hand I believe we've lost so much by not letting kids be kids. Parents need to be the parents and kids shouldn't be exposed to so many things they aren't equipped to handle. I hear people complain of TV, music and video games rotting their little brains - yet we want them to be exposed to all the details of adult sexual relationships? That doesn't make sense to me, 6 year olds should be playing tee-ball, finger painting and sliding down slides, not preparing for sexual relations.

---

I agree, lots of kids aren't allowed to be just kids. Sometimes we treat them like mini-adults when they should be playing in the dirt and giving each other cootie shots. I'm thinking more about older kids - teens. I have a 15 year old sister in law, and you would not BELIEVE how ill-equipped for the real world she is! This is in part because she's been treated like a "precious little snowflake", and it really, really worries me as she gets older. Should 6-year olds be preparing for sexual relations? No. But they should know about families, and communities and how to treat others. That's all part of comprehensive sex ed; not teaching them how to give BJ's, but teaching them that it takes all kids to make up a world.

With regards to the argument that abstinence worked in the 50s and 60s, I'd like to point out the following:

1. If you got pregnant then, your choices were to disappear for a few months and give your baby to strangers, never seeing him/her again, or getting married to the schmuck who knocked you up. If you could find him.

2. If you got married, and had kids, YOU raised them. YOU paid for them, maybe with some help from your family. There were no food stamps, government aid, welfare, whatever. I'm ALL for that.

Frankly, it's not teaching abstinence or birth control that's the problem here. It's not teaching kids that in the end, THEY are responsible for their mistakes, and no one else is going to help them "fix" it.

If you HAD to get married or give your baby away, then YEAH, you're going to be a heck of a lot more careful about having sex. That goes for both men AND women. If you could still beat the hell out of the kid that knocked your daughter up, then YEAH, that kid would be more careful. If you had to drop out of school, and give up the rest of your life to work in blue collar factory because you had to feed your wife and kid somehow--well, of COURSE you're not going to have sex until you're ready for that.

It's not protection, or morals, or abstinence, or whatever. It's the fact that every 15 year old out there knows her parents can't make her do anything, and every guy out there knows he won't have to marry the girl if he knocks her up. It's the fact that being a single parent doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS be a single parent anymore--it used to make you a whore to be raising a child without having married.

So, by all means--let's go back to teenage weddings, get rid of welfare, and find babies for all of those "desperate, loving couples who LONG to hold a baby in their arms and call it their own".

I don't seehow that is helping anyone.. but okay..

I'd rather just have a person take responsibility for their own actions AND have choices with how to deal with it.

People say oh, abortion is just the easy way out, well no, it's less inconvenient in the long run, but you don't see women standing in line with lollypops and balloons at the abortion clinic. For some women they made a mistake, which can happen to anyone, and this is how they feel is best for them to deal with it.

I don't think that necessarily waiting until marriage is a great idea either 'cause I'd rather know what I'm getting into sexually, whether I'm going to be compatible or not, and even responsible people who use BC and Condoms can have an accident.

Sorry... I thought my tongue-in-cheekness was more obvious than it apparently was.

I'm a HUGE advocate of choice. Look at any of my previous arguments in other threads.

I just don't think that any ONE solution is going to work. Personal responsibility will--but how do you teach that when there are virtually no consequences, no unbearable hardships?

Oh, I see, I was like, are you serious? XD

That abortion, having the baby, giving it up for adoption, all of them are forever and they're all hard. The problem is that we need to help people learn to not let it get to that point. Everyone should beable to get protection, that's the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately. Everything in life almost is a responsibility and unfortuntely people are too closed-minded to let people live their lives how they live, or too stupid to deal with their own lives. What we need is a medium.

Has anyone looked at the potential side effects of oral contraceptives
For example
Ortho-Novum side effects (Norethindrone and Ethinyl Estradiol) and drug interactions - prescription drugs and medications at RxList
Thrombophlebitis
Arterial thromboembolism
Pulmonary embolism
Myocardial infarction
Cerebral hemorrhage
Cerebral thrombosis
Hypertension
Gallbladder disease
Hepatic adenomas, carcinomas or benign liver tumors



This is a medical issue, not a school issue. Therefore it requires parental consent.
--------------------------

Does anyone have children on asthma inhalers, isulin, or adhd medications?

You know the paper work and all the permission slips needed to give these medications.

Why even the thought of a prescription medicine without parental consent? i.e.. "confidential"



I remember it the mid eighties when airbags were mandated. They made intuitive sense.
A couple of years later small people [ women and children primarily ] were being killed or maimed by them. Now we have the warnings.

Why? The kids can go to the health department and get them without parental consent. If a person is old enough to be aving sex they need to be able to take responsibility for it themselves. Their parents may deny them the contraceptives because they don't what then to have sex so they will continue unsafe practices anyway.

I agree. BC isn't for little girls, and maybe not something that should be in the school, but a girl when she's old enough NEEDS to be able to have access to it if she wants.

Condoms on the other hand should be easily available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

This is a medical issue, not a school issue. Therefore it requires parental consent.

---

It seems we have all agreed on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlotte234s

And tell me speechless, are you a man or a woman?

---

And the relevance of that question is what exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlotte234s

Not me, they'll be broke and miserable for their whole lives, the baby will not be treated the same way as if it is wanted, it may even be abused or have to go without because the parents can't provide because their lives were messed up by an unplanned pregnancy.

---

I believe that just may be the mother of all assumptions, and I darn sure value human life more than to destroy it on such an assumption.

Quote:

---

The mother is also more liable to have complcations or even death during delivery because her body is not ready to give birth. I think that a viable and very much alive girl's life is more precious than a "non-viable tissue mass". Lesser of two evils I supposd.

---

Wow, talk about fear factor. According to the CDC:

Quote:

---

The risk of death from complications of pregnancy has decreased approximately 99% during the twentieth century, from approximately 850 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1900 to 7.5 in 1982.

---

If the abortion rights crowd is correct in that teens under 16 are "5 times more likely" to die during childbirth, that puts their chances of dying from complications at .0375 percent if my math is correct. The child's odds of dying from an abortion are pretty much 100 percent.

Quote:

---

Most (almost all) abortions are performed before 20 weeks, across the board, statistics state that.

---

The fetus at 20 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/20-weeks.jpg

Quote:

---

According to the journal of american medicine, if the fetus can feel pain at all, it doesn't feel pain until at least 28 weeks.

---

The fetus at 28 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/28-weeks.jpg

Quote:

---

The fetus is not typically even able to survive outside the womb (meaning its organs are not present or not functioning) until around 23 weeks.

---

The fetus at 22 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/22-weeks.jpg

The fetus at 24 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/24-weeks.jpg

Quote:

---

Either way, it's a personal choice...

---

It seems clear to me from these images from the weeks you mentioned it is a child.

Quote:

---

and you have no right to say people shouldn't get an abortion because of your morals and values because they may not share your morals and values. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Simple as that. Don't try to say that people shouldn't have a choice because YOU think it's wrong.

---

First of all Charlotte I have every right to express my opinion just as you do, so let's dispense with the "you have no right to say" nonsense. It's just a discussion, I'm not imposing my values on anyone. But, this discussion on birth control in schools has been largely about education and facts, and I'm backing my post up with the facts. Whether you buy into the justification for aborting a 20 week old fetus or that it may or may not feel pain until week 28 is your business. I see the fingers and toes of a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Speechless, I's rather see a non-viable tissue mass sucked out of their womb than a teenager having a baby she's not ready for and tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom, these things happen everyday, or don't you watch the news?

---

Alt, I watch the news every day, read the paper every day, get glimpses of the news on the internet every day... I cannot recall the last time I heard or read a story about some teenager "tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom." Can you point those out for me please?

Quote:

---

Besides, the issue here isn't about abortion it's about contraception and even though accidents do happen even when you're careful there are definitely tons of options out there that prevent pregnancy and it's not in anyone's best interest not to discuss these options with our kids.

---

Just so you'll know, the first mention of abortion on this post was by charlotte234s. I just followed where the discussion went. :D

Quote:

---

You have a right to your opinion as does everyone else in the world. If you don't want your kids using contraception then don't tell them about it, you can deal with a teenage unwed mother when it happens.

---

Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion. That's part of what makes this a great country, the right to object to insane, intrusive and subversive policies. Just so you know, I have no kids at home and but I do speak from experience concerning the kind of "education," "help" and "health care" that PP gives and demands for our children.

Quote:

---

I'm the mother of two and even though they're both too young to worry about sex and pregnancy I will expose them to contraceptives when the time comes and hope that I've ingrained in them the fact that I am open to hearing anything they have to say and will always listen with an open mind and heart. But there is absolutely no reason that teens should be having children when there are ways to prevent it and short of locking them up in a monastery you are not going to prevent these teens from having sex. Wake up and smell the coffee.

---

I speak from my experience as what I see as not only PP failing my daughter but my own failures to my daughter. I know our kids will do what they're going to do and I know we need to do our best to educate them, foster good decision making skills and I know we can't lock them up. But I also know there has to be a better way than surrendering our children to "they're going to do it anyway," subjecting them to the kind of "education" and "health care" that PP has in mind - and ceding the right of parents to make those determinations for the children in their care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

It's not protection, or morals, or abstinence, or whatever. It's the fact that every 15 year old out there knows her parents can't make her do anything, and every guy out there knows he won't have to marry the girl if he knocks her up. It's the fact that being a single parent doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS be a single parent anymore--it used to make you a whore to be raising a child without having married.

---

It's not even 15 year olds, I think every 10 or 12 year old knows their parents can't make them do anything. That's the result of the "children's rights" movement. You can't even take your child to the pediatrician any more without being under suspicion.

Condoms are readily available, and I agree BC isn't for little girls and should not be in schools but what is "old enough?"

Actually, MOST abortions are performed before 12 weeks

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the U.S. fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2006). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.2 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2006).

Not that this thread is about abortion, nor is it likely to make speech or anyone else switch to the pro-choice side, but let's at least be clear on the facts.

Also, women who abort after the first trimester tend to do so because of medical concerns, not because the baby is "inconvenient"

In a recent survey of U.S. women choosing to terminate their pregnancies, significantly more women in their second trimester cited fetal health concerns than women in their first trimester. The fetal health concerns they cited included the risk of fetal anomaly due to advanced maternal age, a history of miscarriage, a lack of prenatal care, and fetal exposure to prescription medications and non-prescription substances (Finer et al., 2005).

Conditions in which the woman's health is threatened or aggravated by continuing her pregnancy include
certain types of infections
heart failure
malignant hypertension, including preeclampsia
out-of-control diabetes
serious renal disease
severe depression
suicidal tendencies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Actually, MOST abortions are performed before 12 weeks

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the U.S. fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2006). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.2 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2006).

Not that this thread is about abortion, nor is it likely to make speech or anyone else switch to the pro-choice side, but let's at least be clear on the facts.

---

I'm all for the facts, I don't think they're "useless" as someone else said. But no, there are no facts that will convince me that what's inside the womb is not human life. It clearly is. Look, I don't hold the position that "abortion is never necessary," I think the data on that is probably mixed. I'm sure the decision can be excruciatingly difficult, but it would be less difficult if the abortion crowd and the medical community had not devalued human life to the point that a growing fetus is merely a "non-viable tissue mass" and positioned abortion as a "solution" to irresponsible behavior.

To me that just about sums it up, the advocates of BC in schools and comprehensive sex education have for decades encouraged and enabled that irresponsible behavior over encouraging kids to keep their pants on until they are mature enough to handle it. It hasn't worked, and that is a large reason why schools are now considering this radical step of furnishing BC to teens. You don't feed their desires and expect the situation to improve - very few horny 16 year old boys are going to care if they forgot to pack a condom when that cute little thang offers him sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I'm all for the facts, I don't think they're "useless" as someone else said. But no, there are no facts that will convince me that what's inside the womb is not human life. It clearly is. Look, I don't hold the position that "abortion is never necessary," I think the data on that is probably mixed. I'm sure the decision can be excruciatingly difficult, but it would be less difficult if the abortion crowd and the medical community had not devalued human life to the point that a growing fetus is merely a "non-viable tissue mass" and positioned abortion as a "solution" to irresponsible behavior.

To me that just about sums it up, the advocates of BC in schools and comprehensive sex education have for decades encouraged and enabled that irresponsible behavior over encouraging kids to keep their pants on until they are mature enough to handle it. It hasn't worked, and that is a large reason why schools are now considering this radical step of furnishing BC to teens. You don't feed their desires and expect the situation to improve - very few horny 16 year old boys are going to care if they forgot to pack a condom when that cute little thang offers him sex.

---

I didn't expect it to change your mind, nor did I expect you to object to using facts. :)

I agree with you to a point that many in the abortion crowd and medical community have a way of passing abortion off as a simple solution with no emotional repercussions. That simply isn't true, and if someone decides to have unprotected sex because "I can just get an abortion if I get pregnant" that's INCREDIBLY dangerous thinking. I would, however, like to point out there is a big difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion (at least I think there is). Pro-abortion people advocate it, think there's nothing wrong with it, and see it as a easy fix. Pro-choice people support a woman's right to choose, but recognize it's NOT an easy fix and that there are emotional and psychological strains that come with making such a decision.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree with regards to comprehensive sex ed. I honestly think if we started exposing kids to learning about relationships, respect for themselves, alternative activities and so on from a young age and later turn that into biological facts and sexual facts there could be a decrease in teen sex. As I said before, I don't think we need to be teaching 6-year olds how to have oral sex, but to me, comprehensive doesn't mean that; it means talking and learning about all aspects of relationships and socialization.

Does anyone know the legal age for medical informed consent in the US? At what age can a person make their own medical decisions without having to tell their parents? I THINK it is 16, but I could be wrong. If it is, it's quite a loophole the clinics at these middle schools have used to administer the pill (get a blanket consent form for everything). I did see an article however, that the school in Maine requires girls have a physical exam from the clinic doctors and receive counseling services prior to being put on the pill. So it's not like the school nurse is handing the pill out like candy, which makes me feel a little better. Only a little. The same article said that of the girls who went to the clinic (about 160) only five admitted to being sexually active, and all were 14 or 15. Again, it makes me feel a little better that this school doesn't have a rash of sexually active 11 year olds. Still, only a little better though.

"I honestly think if we started exposing kids to learning about relationships, respect for themselves, alternative activities and so on from a young age and later turn that into biological facts and sexual facts there could be a decrease in teen sex."

Absolutely

Teach self respect and respect for the other person in a relationship before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

I didn't expect it to change your mind, nor did I expect you to object to using facts. :)

---

Nah, I didn't expect that you expected you would expect me to change my mind. How's that for mangled grammar? :D

As to the rest of your last post let me first say I've enjoyed discussing this with you, hope you don't mind some of my sarcasm. But anyway, yes there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion but I think the main "pro-choice" advocacy groups have been less than honest - I would say devious.

In this day nobody wants to appear "pro-abortion," it isn't a winning position to champion what many see as the murder of a child. So what they've done is changed their terminology, it's ever evolving. "Safe sex" is now "safer sex." Pro-abortion is now "pro-choice." "Anti-abortion" is "anti-choice," "pro-lifers" are becoming "forced pregnancy activists," while "pro-choice" has become "reproductive freedom." Well, one has the "reproductive freedom" to abstain from sex thus avoiding "unforced pregnancy" and the need to "choose" "reproductive health care." They make it all sound so liberating...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Nah, I didn't expect that you expected you would expect me to change my mind. How's that for mangled grammar? :D

---

Actually, I think you got it right! :)

Quote:

---

As to the rest of your last post let me first say I've enjoyed discussing this with you, hope you don't mind some of my sarcasm. But anyway, yes there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion but I think the main "pro-choice" advocacy groups have been less than honest - I would say devious.

In this day nobody wants to appear "pro-abortion," it isn't a winning position to champion what many see as the murder of a child. So what they've done is changed their terminology, it's ever evolving. "Safe sex" is now "safer sex." Pro-abortion is now "pro-choice." "Anti-abortion" is "anti-choice," "pro-lifers" are becoming "forced pregnancy activists," while "pro-choice" has become "reproductive freedom." Well, one has the "reproductive freedom" to abstain from sex thus avoiding "unforced pregnancy" and the need to "choose" "reproductive health care." They make it all sound so liberating...

---

Bah! I never mind sarcasm! In fact, it drives me nuts when I try to discuss things with people who don't GET it...

I think we can both agree there are extremists on both sides of the fence (like oh so many other things... ). There are the pro-lifers who assault or murder doctors, or assault women who are going into a clinic. There are pro-choicers who take a cavalier attitude to abortion, and certainly those who lie to women about the developmental phase the fetus is in (though I've seen pro-lifers exaggerate this as well). There's a documentary you should check out; Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion (2007) about the pro-life movement. I thought it was pretty unbiased, but some of the participants felt otherwise after some reviews came out (which you can read if you Google the title). It was insightful for me, and really made me look at abortion in a different way (didn't change me mind, but made me realize more what a really difficult decision it is). Basically it follows some key people in the pro-life movement and documents their activities, thoughts, etc. To some it shows the lunacy in what they do, but to others it shows WHY they use the methods they do.

BOTH sides have instances where they've been less than honest, which is what is such a shame. This goes for BC as well; where can you go to get information that is unbiased and honest? Where someone doesn't have an agenda? Though I agree with the mission of PP, I do question the motives of some individuals who work there, because let's face it, it's a sensitive issue. And that's where you get into trouble - the face people of your organization don't honor your mission, and it gives the whole company a bad name.

As far as the terminology... it's all PR spin, from both sides. I think there are some people on each side who really care about the women involved, and others who are just in it to "win". Again, that applies to so, so many other things as well!