Free Birth Control for 11-Year Olds
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
surethere are plenty of unwed families, that either end in marriage or not, who have strong families...
That is most certainly a fantasy.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
so, an unwed man and woman, cohabitating, cannot raise a healthy productive child?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
so, an unwed man and woman, cohabitating, cannot raise a healthy productive child?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
They certainly can, they're just less likely to do so than a married couple. Not a critisism, merely a widely reported statistic.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
They have done studies and found out that schools that preach abstinence only have a higher rate of oral sex among students because they don't consider actual sex.
Hey! I finally found a picture of myself!
i wish they had taught abstinence at my schools...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
so, an unwed man and woman, cohabitating, cannot raise a healthy productive child?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
so, an unwed man and woman, cohabitating, cannot raise a healthy productive child?
In theory, but that oftentimes results in "common law" marriage such that the two are at least bound by some legal obligations. And I'm sure there are plenty of cases where two parents behave as a married couple but for one reason or another never actually get married. But to say that out-of-wedlock births enjoy the same stability (in general) as those born within wedlock is surely a fantasy.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I made no mention of single parenting. That piece of paper traditionally meant "lifelong commitment". But with 2 out of every 3 marriages failing, lifelong commitment is almost as extinct as the Tyrannosaurus Rex. So a reasonable question could be "Well why bother?"
That's true. But note that you did say that the lack of marriage "does not mean that the adults who form that relationship are not as capable of enjoying a solid family experience as those who do marry". And yet you say that lifelong commitment is extinct. So how can a child-bearing relationship that does not entail a lifelong commitment (i.e. the family will likely be disrupted during the child's development) yield as solid a family experience as those that do marry?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
A couple who commit to each other, irrespective of marital status, can exhibit a sort-of lifelong commitment (I said almost extinct not actually extinct). This lifelong commitment may be real or a convenience because of the existence of children. Where it is either real or a convenience, as long as that does not provide any form of dysfunctionality, then the children are most likely to grow up as worthwhile members of society. Where there is dysfunctionality, much better for the family unit (married or not) to separate thus protecting the children to some extent of some of the unsavoury aspects of life that is likely to be repeated in the next generation.
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
so, an unwed man and woman, cohabitating, cannot raise a healthy productive child?
In theory, but that oftentimes results in "common law" marriage such that the two are at least bound by some legal obligations. And I'm sure there are plenty of cases where two parents behave as a married couple but for one reason or another never actually get married. But to say that out-of-wedlock births enjoy the same stability (in general) as those born within wedlock is surely a fantasy.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
A couple who commit to each other, irrespective of marital status, can exhibit a sort-of lifelong commitment (I said almost extinct not actually extinct). This lifelong commitment may be real or a convenience because of the existence of children. Where it is either real or a convenience, as long as that does not provide any form of dysfunctionality, then the children are most likely to grow up as worthwhile members of society. Where there is dysfunctionality, much better for the family unit (married or not) to separate thus protecting the children to some extent of some of the unsavoury aspects of life that is likely to be repeated in the next generation.
I would argue that separation is itself usually a dysfunction and likely to be repeated in the next generation. I would also distinuish between the legal paperwork that the state uses to recognise and license marriage and actual marriage which is a state in the eyes of God that is not avoided by failing to fill in the paperwork and requires a genuine lifelong commitment, not for it to be a fact but for it to work. This is clearly a controversial view but makes sense when you consider who invented marriage in the first place.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
A couple who commit to each other, irrespective of marital status, can exhibit a sort-of lifelong commitment (I said almost extinct not actually extinct). This lifelong commitment may be real or a convenience because of the existence of children. Where it is either real or a convenience, as long as that does not provide any form of dysfunctionality, then the children are most likely to grow up as worthwhile members of society. Where there is dysfunctionality, much better for the family unit (married or not) to separate thus protecting the children to some extent of some of the unsavoury aspects of life that is likely to be repeated in the next generation.
Personally, I think dysfunction is the result of selfishness from one or both of the parties. All it takes is effort and a willingness to sacrifice. There are, unfortunately, a lot of selfish people.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Why should I propose a solution. Liberalism led to this mess. You fix it.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
leckey wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but child abuse does happen
of course it does, but an 11 year old should not be making her own medical decisions before she can long divide fractions...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
You fix it.
Their proposal is an attempt to address problems, you apparently oppose it so what is your alternative proposal. Or are you suggesting they "do nothing"?
led mike wrote:
Their proposal is an attempt to address problems, you apparently oppose it so what is your alternative proposal. Or are you suggesting they "do nothing"?
Their "proposal" only expands the source of the problem further. The idea that promiscuity is acceptable was one that arose from feminism and the free-love movement. Since then, marriage has been increasingly rejected while teen and out-of-wedlock birthrates accelerate. To simply provide the means to block an 11-year olds ejaculate from reaching its destination sends a message from authority figures that the sex is OK to begin with and one must not worry about potential pregnancy (so long as you take the steps to ensure both promiscuity and to attempt to restrict pregnancy). The cause (and ultimately solution) of the problem lies not with expanding the notion of acceptable promiscuity, but by restricting it at a cultural level. Unfortunately, half a century of cultural erosion is a difficult thing to undue.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
I would argue that separation is itself usually a dysfunction and likely to be repeated in the next generation. I would also distinuish between the legal paperwork that the state uses to recognise and license marriage and actual marriage which is a state in the eyes of God that is not avoided by failing to fill in the paperwork and requires a genuine lifelong commitment, not for it to be a fact but for it to work. This is clearly a controversial view but makes sense when you consider who invented marriage in the first place.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Irrespective who invented marriage, it is not for everybody. And where Chancellors of the Exchequer gave tax benefits to those who are married, it is no longer a religious view, it is more like a financial solution. And as you know, today, UK Government treat married and co-habiting (as if married) with equality in almost all respects, notwithstanding the promises of the Conservatives to give greater tax breaks to married persons.
-
What if he parents are religious fanatics, she gets strep throat and wants to take an anti-biotic for it? She can't make the decision to at least talk to a doctor about it?
Hey! I finally found a picture of myself!
leckey wrote:
What if he parents are religious fanatics, she gets strep throat and wants to take an anti-biotic for it? She can't make the decision to at least talk to a doctor about it?
Or what if her father is Fred_Smith?
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Personally, I think dysfunction is the result of selfishness from one or both of the parties. All it takes is effort and a willingness to sacrifice. There are, unfortunately, a lot of selfish people.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
led mike wrote:
Their proposal is an attempt to address problems, you apparently oppose it so what is your alternative proposal. Or are you suggesting they "do nothing"?
Their "proposal" only expands the source of the problem further. The idea that promiscuity is acceptable was one that arose from feminism and the free-love movement. Since then, marriage has been increasingly rejected while teen and out-of-wedlock birthrates accelerate. To simply provide the means to block an 11-year olds ejaculate from reaching its destination sends a message from authority figures that the sex is OK to begin with and one must not worry about potential pregnancy (so long as you take the steps to ensure both promiscuity and to attempt to restrict pregnancy). The cause (and ultimately solution) of the problem lies not with expanding the notion of acceptable promiscuity, but by restricting it at a cultural level. Unfortunately, half a century of cultural erosion is a difficult thing to undue.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
Red Stateler wrote:
Unfortunately, half a century of cultural erosion is a difficult thing to undue.
Education is the solution providing that there are competent teachers to teach the subject AND willingness of children to both listen and learn. However, if education is the answer, then there also needs political clout with the willingness to spend sufficient money to see it through.
-
Irrespective who invented marriage, it is not for everybody. And where Chancellors of the Exchequer gave tax benefits to those who are married, it is no longer a religious view, it is more like a financial solution. And as you know, today, UK Government treat married and co-habiting (as if married) with equality in almost all respects, notwithstanding the promises of the Conservatives to give greater tax breaks to married persons.
My point is that a lot of people who think they're not married because they're not state-married are in fact just as married as those whom the state recognises. State legal marriage may not be for everybody due to tax, inheritance etc law but trust me if you're together you're married. Time for dinner.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Unfortunately, half a century of cultural erosion is a difficult thing to undue.
Education is the solution providing that there are competent teachers to teach the subject AND willingness of children to both listen and learn. However, if education is the answer, then there also needs political clout with the willingness to spend sufficient money to see it through.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Education is the solution providing that there are competent teachers to teach the subject AND willingness of children to both listen and learn. However, if education is the answer, then there also needs political clout with the willingness to spend sufficient money to see it through.
Education isn't the answer. In fact, it appears to have absolutely no affect. Legislation here in the US mandated abstinence programs (in lieu of safe-sex education) in some pilot areas. The net result was absolutely no difference. And yet teen sex and out-of-wedlock birth rates continue to climb. The reasons run much deeper than what a classroom can fix.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Education is the solution providing that there are competent teachers to teach the subject AND willingness of children to both listen and learn. However, if education is the answer, then there also needs political clout with the willingness to spend sufficient money to see it through.
Education isn't the answer. In fact, it appears to have absolutely no affect. Legislation here in the US mandated abstinence programs (in lieu of safe-sex education) in some pilot areas. The net result was absolutely no difference. And yet teen sex and out-of-wedlock birth rates continue to climb. The reasons run much deeper than what a classroom can fix.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
What if he parents are religious fanatics, she gets strep throat and wants to take an anti-biotic for it? She can't make the decision to at least talk to a doctor about it?
Hey! I finally found a picture of myself!
leckey wrote:
What if he parents are religious fanatics, she gets strep throat and wants to take an anti-biotic for it?
what does religion, or lack of, have to do with making your child take antibiotics ?
leckey wrote:
She can't make the decision to at least talk to a doctor about it?
sure she can, but thats not birth control. im not against birth control or free advice / medicine for minors. i just think the parents should be notified if their 11 year old daughter is asking for it. like i said in an above post, physical maturity is not the same as emotional maturity. just because an 11 year old girl is physically mature, does not mean that she is emotionally mature enough to have a sexual relationship, and providing free birth control without parental notification is only encouraging the behavior. i started having sex at a young age, and im sure there are plenty of people here who did the same. if they dont have a few horror stories personally, they know someone who does. sex is a natural thing in life, and scientifically you are in you prime" from ~14 - ~26 for females and ~16 - 35 for males, but in todays society, there aren't very many people in the lower bounds who are emotionally mature enough to do deal with physical relationships...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
Well, if education is not the answer and statutory programs have no effect, then frankly, the answer becomes elusive.
Currently there is no federal funding for comprehensive sex ed but according to the Surgeon General, comprehensive sex education is empirically proven to be a highly effective approach. 'In 2000, the Surgeon General reported that providing young people with contraception information decreases the likelihood of teen pregnancy or an STI infection while not expediting the initiation of sexual intercourse, increasing the frequency of sexual contact, or increasing the number of sexual partners.'