Obama cancels abstinence education programs, and riles up everyone

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bagor

^ I'm not disagreeing with that, moreso with the suggestion they're going to follow it up with a Drs appointment.

There is a better chance that educated kids will take the proper steps to have safe sex.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

There should be a law that if a girl gets pregnant in her teenage years, she'll get no child support from the government at all. Nothing, zero, nada. That will teach teens responsibility in no time, they'll wear 5 condoms at once before you can say "if you get knocked up you're on your own girl!"

Absolutely! It's those girls who are at fault! We all know that the poor innocent boys would like to wear condoms, but the girls won't let them. And rightfully so, the girls should bear all the responsibility for raising the children. Otherwise, it would be a greater tax burden on the poor innocent boys when they start paying taxes.

By the way, I do not believe in green text. If you cannot make the distinction, that is your problem, not mine.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Absolutely! It's those girls who are at fault! We all know that the poor innocent boys would like to wear condoms, but the girls won't let them. And rightfully so, the girls should bear all the responsibility for raising the children. Otherwise, it would be a greater tax burden on the poor innocent boys when they start paying taxes.

By the way, I do not believe in green text. If you cannot make the distinction, that is your problem, not mine.

In the end.....the girl should make 110% sure she is protected.

Condoms are only 93% effective, IIRC, but the pill is something like 98% effective.

Therefore the girl has the power to protect herself.

Not to say that the guy doesn't share responsibility either.....but last time I checked, only females get pregnant and have to live with THAT consequence of her actions.

[MelBridgeman]

vasectomies for some, condoms for others!

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

vasectomies for some, condoms for others!

Yay! I never have to wear a condom again.

In other news, why haven't they made a male birth control pill yet? I would have loved that

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Yay! I never have to wear a condom again.

In other news, why haven't they made a male birth control pill yet? I would have loved that

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

sooon...very soon

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Absolutely! It's those girls who are at fault! We all know that the poor innocent boys would like to wear condoms, but the girls won't let them. And rightfully so, the girls should bear all the responsibility for raising the children. Otherwise, it would be a greater tax burden on the poor innocent boys when they start paying taxes.

By the way, I do not believe in green text. If you cannot make the distinction, that is your problem, not mine.

If you are itching so badly you don't insist that a condom (or a pill or whatever) is used then you deserve to bear the responsibilty.

Now guess if I believe in green text or not.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Yay! I never have to wear a condom again.

In other news, why haven't they made a male birth control pill yet? I would have loved that

Not a criticism or anything but I've heard this kind of argument from a bunch of straight guys/girls...I guess its because I'm gay and have had it drilled into my mind but what about wearing a condom to protect against STDs? To me, catching HIV is certainly a far more serious consequence of unprotected sex than getting someone pregnant.

The scariest thing I heard was a straight girl who was pregnant saying that she was excited because she could have as much sex as she wanted without birth control because she was already knocked up. I was thoroughly disgusted. What if she caught HIV and passed it on to her baby?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'd say, judging from the reactions of not just myself, the clarity was certainly there but not for the meaning you suggest.

Dude...In my very first post I said "...no support from the government..."

Did you really think I was talking about no support from the family...???

Originally Posted by jammies

Again you are retrofitting your argument onto your original rant. If you had said "NO ONE deserves child benefits, including these teen-age mothers, and maybe that would help with the number of pregnancies", that would be one thing. But you didn't. You specifically argued that teens be the ones to lose their benefits, and only teens. Now you're arguing a different proposition with a different justification and trying to pass it off as a mere elaboration on your original argument.

Uhhh yeah I was talking specifically about teenage mothers...because this thread is about teenagers. When there's a thread about child support in general, I'll make a statement about that. Seems fair, no?

Originally Posted by jammies

Also, it's not YOUR money once the government has it. It's the government's money. The government shouldn't waste it, but that has nothing to do with where it got the money - if I didn't pay any tax at all, that wouldn't mean I'd be ok with my government spending what money it had on hookers and blow just because I didn't have some mythical stake in its operations.

The government is beholden to the voters, not to the voter's - or anybody else's - money. I don't like paying taxes any more than you do, but if there is a better alternative, it certainly doesn't lie in some free-market dystopia hearkening back to the frontier days of robber barons, shady bankers and philanthropic societies of the smug and patronizing rich.

As for the rest of your post, I am afraid that is far beyond the scope of this thread and I don't really think it is appropriate to talk about state vs free market here; but I'll say one thing - if you think that coercion is an acceptable way to transfer wealth then our debate would not go anywhere anyway

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Not a criticism or anything but I've heard this kind of argument from a bunch of straight guys/girls...I guess its because I'm gay and have had it drilled into my mind but what about wearing a condom to protect against STDs? To me, catching HIV is certainly a far more serious consequence of unprotected sex than getting someone pregnant.

For me, I just didn't want to worry about wearing condoms with my wife in between the times we were trying for kids.

Or say, before we were married, but not really thinking of getting married / having kids I could have been sure the birth control end was taken care of so I didn't have to worry about being trapped....

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Did you really think I was talking about no support from the family...???

You weren't really "talking", it was more like ranting. Seriously. Go back and read your first post, you come across like you'd take some kind of weird pleasure from punishing (and I use the word deliberately) teenage mothers for getting pregnant by removing their social benefits to teach them some kind of "moral" lesson.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Uhhh yeah I was talking specifically about teenage mothers...because this thread is about teenagers. When there's a thread about child support in general, I'll make a statement about that. Seems fair, no?

Well... no. If you don't believe in government child support at all, that is a relevant point to make when decrying government child support for teenagers. By making the statement that you did, you were saying that teenagers, and ONLY teenagers, shouldn't get such child support. If you don't see how that implicitly suggests that you aren't opposed to child support in general, I think you are being wilfully obtuse.

An analogy might be appropriate - if I came to this board and went on and on about how the Canucks are a disgrace to hockey, and thus the team should be disbanded, GM Place demolished and the ground salted, I might get some agreement from the easily amused section of CP. However, if I then revealed I hated hockey in general, and my hatred of the Canucks was more or less directly related to this new fact, don't you think that would be seen as deception by omission?

What you don't say is sometimes just as important as what you do say.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

As for the rest of your post, I am afraid that is far beyond the scope of this thread and I don't really think it is appropriate to talk about state vs free market here; but I'll say one thing - if you think that coercion is an acceptable way to transfer wealth then our debate would not go anywhere anyway

So, to clarify, you wish the government would try coercing teenagers to bring down the pregnancy rate, but other forms of coercion are unacceptable.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If you are itching so badly you don't insist that a condom (or a pill or whatever) is used then you deserve to bear the responsibilty.

Now guess if I believe in green text or not.

No, you deserve to bear half of the responsibility. There is someone else involved who so far in the discussion hasn't been assigned any responsibility at all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by John Doe

No, you deserve to bear half of the responsibility. There is someone else involved who so far in the discussion hasn't been assigned any responsibility at all.

How do you force someone to share half that responsibility of taxpayers are paying for the support?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Azure

How do you force someone to share half that responsibility of taxpayers are paying for the support?

I am not talking about a case where the taxpayers are paying for the support. I was responding to a poster who said that "there should be a law that if a girl gets pregnant in her teenage years, she'll get no child support from the government at all". He (she?) seems to think that the mother has sole responsibility for raising the child (although caveats were later added that the families of the mother and father should also help out).

If there is no government support, then I do feel that the father has as much responsibility to raise the child as the mother does. There are many ways to share the responsibility. Two examples that come to mind are shared custody and financial child support.

[Azure]

The father has as much responsibility, if not more considering the mother can't work in the latter stages of pregnancy and for a while after.....to look after the child, regardless of government support.

His argument, and mine as well to an extent is that why should the taxpayer be forced to support some teenager that was irresponsible?

Why should I pay for her abortion, and why should I pay to support her kid?

[peter12]

Also, it's not YOUR money once the government has it. It's the government's money

Statements like this just scream, "RULE ME!"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why should I pay for her abortion, and why should I pay to support her kid?

If you read freakanomics by Stephan Levitt he has an interesting theory on abortion.

Basically after doing a whole bunch of regression analysis on abortion and crime data he found that the roe v. wade decision and its implentation accross various states was highly corolated more so then any other factors for a reduction in crime 20ish years laters.

Essentially people getting abortions are low income, low education and therefore the potential outcomes for their offsprings are far lower then the average child so by them not being born you reduce the future number of criminals.

So if you believe his study you should actually support the government funding of abotions for teenage moms because it will save money long term.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you read freakanomics by Stephan Levitt he has an interesting theory on abortion.

Basically after doing a whole bunch of regression analysis on abortion and crime data he found that the roe v. wade decision and its implentation accross various states was highly corolated more so then any other factors for a reduction in crime 20ish years laters.

Essentially people getting abortions are low income, low education and therefore the potential outcomes for their offsprings are far lower then the average child so by them not being born you reduce the future number of criminals.

So if you believe his study you should actually support the government funding of abotions for teenage moms because it will save money long term.

Interesting.

Although, I refuse to support any decision to abort ANY baby....lower income family or not. I realize that its their choice, but I will not support it.

Nor will I support the government funding it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If you are itching so badly you don't insist that a condom (or a pill or whatever) is used then you deserve to bear the responsibilty.

Now guess if I believe in green text or not.

You attach a lot more importance to simply proving a point to the knocked up kids than dealing with the reality of knocked up kids (and their kids).

How many teenagers in Canada even know what kind of government support if they do get knocked up? How many adults do? I don't have a clue, and I didn't when I was a teenager.

There won't be many, if any, kids out there thinking "well, I would give it up to Dave, but the government has decided they won't give me a monthly pittance to pay for diapers and food if I have a baby following this encounter, so I'll keep my pants on".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you read freakanomics by Stephan Levitt he has an interesting theory on abortion.

Basically after doing a whole bunch of regression analysis on abortion and crime data he found that the roe v. wade decision and its implentation accross various states was highly corolated more so then any other factors for a reduction in crime 20ish years laters.

Essentially people getting abortions are low income, low education and therefore the potential outcomes for their offsprings are far lower then the average child so by them not being born you reduce the future number of criminals.

So if you believe his study you should actually support the government funding of abotions for teenage moms because it will save money long term.

So you believe in government-funded eugenics? What a revolting argument.