Skip to comments.Planned Parenthood Web Site Advises Teens on Porn Use [site tells readers about "Outercourse."....]
Posted on 02/26/2008 3:46:35 AM PST by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
I'll be darned. I thought people just bought Playboy for the articles.
You are just playing the same semantic games planned parenthood chooses to play.
So did the Allies commit a war crime when they firebombed Dresden? Innocent people were the target. Same with the Atomic Bombs.
That's demonstrably untrue. In fact, percieved easy access to abortion ~increases~ teen pregnancy.
reputable link or it doesn’t happen.
Reminded me of a friend’s girlfriend (don’t get me started) who use to have a bumper sticker on her car that read: PORN, IT’S CHEAPER THAN DATING.
Teen birth rate follows pregnancy rate and rises and falls along with sexual activity rate, not inverse to the abortion rate. The abortion rate has been more or less flat since 73 with a slight decline over time.
Teen sexual activity rate rose after Roe v. Wade in 73 through the 70’s into the 80’s. Fell slightly during the 80’s (as abortion was being hotly debated as a moral issue) then rose again until about 93 when it began to fall again and has been until now.
IMHO, abortion has become less popular and less of an option for girls to consider, and this was reflected in the sexual ~activity~ rate, which drives the others.
Many girls first believe that they’ll just have an abortion if they get pregnant... so they’re somewhat more willing to have sex. When they actually become pregnant it dawns on them what they have, they change their minds and they opt to keep the baby. I don’t have data handy for that, but I do have several examples of this happening to acquaintances who’ve told me exactly that story. It does happen.
But the flip side is those girls know they can have their Uncle Sam pay for the kid without them having to worry about the father. Get rid of welfare, we get rid of teen pregnancy.
How do you figure that? They're in favor of the directly intended killing of the innocent. I'm firmly and unequivocally against it. How does that make me like PP?
"So did the Allies commit a war crime when they firebombed Dresden?"
"Innocent people were the target. Same with the Atomic Bombs.'
Yes. Murder. Whether done by a bomb, abortion, or a baseball bat.
OK, I’m hip to that.
As it would happen, welfare rates ~have~ been declining since the successful welfare reform of the 94-elected congress. That’s probably part of the decline in unwed births as well, as you suggest.
So Americans are war criminals?
“Would you rather be subsidizing even more teem moms?”
This stuff is sick.
The way to have less teen moms is for those girls to not remove their pants.
The whole of educating them do do stupid things in a safer way, is a fallacy.
They should just not do stupid things.
If a kid has sex then they are making a baby. They shouldn’t make a baby.
Not all Americans. Just ones who commit war crimes.
So Eisenhower is a war criminal? Churchill? Truman? These guys are all war criminals?
They gave the go ahead for the Dresden and Atomic Bombings.
Sex is stupid? You might be doing it wrong.
There would have to be some investigation of their intentions and their actions. But a person-— any person -— who deliberately targets civilians is a war criminal. Yes. City = target is a war crime.
“Sex is stupid? You might be doing it wrong.”
It’s stupid when 14 year olds are doing it...
You appear to be deliberately misinterpreting Heartland in order to be provocative. The idea is not that “sex is stupid.” The idea os that baby-making behavior by people who don’t want to make a baby, and who ought not to make a baby, is stupid.
Back in 1969 my family spent a Christmas together up at a beautiful home in White Lake lake, Wisconsin. My brother, as a gag gift from one of his friends, had gotten a puzzle of Playboy's Miss December. He brought it with him.
Now we're a very Catholic family, but everybody had a hand in putting together that puzzle on Christmas day. (She was tastefully presented.)
We still talk about that Christmas.
ROFL... Remembering checking out that copy of “Wifey” with a group of friends in Middle School at the local library. *blush* You could find all the “good” parts of the book very easily, LOL... All dogeared and coming apart at the binding in those sections!
I have to admit it’s much easier for kids to get their hands on things like that nowadays through the internet, but it’s not anything “new” by any stretch of the imagination!
Ahhh... so a good Motherboard reduces the chance of Motherhood! ;) Good to know. ROFL
“Straw man argument” clean up on aisle 44...
Most excellent! Here’s a Margaret Sanger article for you too!
So are you saying even sex with contraception is stupid?
Why are we even having this discussion?
The context is about teenagers and Planned Parenthood doing things to enable them to have sex with each other.
I would hope that you and others on this forum are astute enough to see why that is a very bad thing.
Teenagers are children with adult body parts in some cases, they shouldn’t be having sex.
Teenagers are going to have sex with or without planned parenthood. Teenagers had sex before Planned Parenthood was even created, they’ll have sex after civilization is wiped out and Planned Parenthood is barely a memory.
If parents actually did their job, we wouldn’t need a Planned Parenthood.
We Don't need a planned parenthood regardless.
And absolutely we don't need one on the public dime. In case you wish to try weaseling - we don't need welfare either. Charity isn't charity unless it is voluntary.
The teen pregnancy statistics disagrees with you.
And programs like these send the message that “we know you are going to do it so we will teach you to do it properly.”
It tells kid that’s it’s normal to do and ok to do.
Which causes more kids to do it.
Besides it’s just immoral to be accepting of kids doing this.
It’s also degrading to kids with morals to assume that they are gutter trash.
I just went through this in my school, and pulled my kid out of a 25 session (yes 25 sessions) course like this.
I will not be part of a school indoctrinating my kids with this kind of crap. Our kids know right and wrong. They learned it from their parents which is how a healthy society is supposed to function.
No they do not. no statistic has EVER showed that persons who get pregnant are entitled by that some how to my or anyone else's money.
Nor do statistics show that teen pregnancy has decreased since planned parenthood began operating. you cah babble all you want philly, but you can't misrepresent the statistics enough to make them say what you are trying to say.
I am under the impression that you subscribe to the “steam valve” theory of human emotions. The theory goes that you have a certain amount of pent-up energy, and it needs to be let out somehow. This theory, however, is far too simplistic. Sexual restraint can be encouraged, as indeed it was before around 1965. People were far more modest in general at that time and sex was not discussed in public. Rates of illegitimacy were far lower than they are today.
Of course people always have sexual instincts, but we’re living in a time when the media and the schools are encouraging an absense of them. That’s what this article is about.
You do know that 40% of the women gtting abortions are regular contraceptive users, right? You know that every state and every country for which we have the statistics, has seen contraceptive use and abortion go up in tandem, right?
Then there's the problem of the intrinsic ("built for failure") flaws in latex condoms. I researched a bit and found these interesting tidbits.
(Go ahead and makd the effort to click and read it, Nomad.)
Pro-choice: Choose before you screws.
And back before 1965 a man could go to work in a factory and make enough to support a family of five, send the kids to college and take a nice vacation.
Those days are long gone and aren’t ever coming back. You can either adapt or die.
So that means 60% of the women getting abortions were too stupid to use contraception in the first place. Now if somebody taught them the advantage of contraception then we wouldn’t have had to worry about the abortion in the first place.
And I wonder how many of that 60% were taught ‘no-sex’ before marriage.
History isn't your strong suit either. The prosperity bubble the US experienced after world war two was hardly endemic of human experience either in this county, or in the world as a whole. Tossing sexual morality benefits economic condition how? The topic your response to beejaa seems entirely disconnected to the substance and topic at hand.
But where there's a high rate of contraception, there's almost always also a high rate of abortion and STD's. Check out mega-contraceptive California's experience.
So you say.
Well the California data is meaningless without comparison to populations without sex ed and access to birth control.
Contraception is constantly being promoted as a way to keep kids "safe" from the effects of sexual behavior. California's disease incidence gives the lie to that argument, unless you want to argue that their epidemic is accepable as an outcome.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, often announces that contraceptives have prevented so many thousands of pregnancies and abortions. But these are projections based on a flawed mathematical model, not genuine findings.
In 2006, when the Institute issued a report card ranking the 50 states by how aggressively they promote contraceptives, the embarrassing fact emerged that New York, California and other states receiving the highest grades also had some of the highest abortion rates in the country; some states ranked near the bottom for contraceptive services have the lowest abortion rates.
Studies from a variety of countries have shown that contraceptive programs do not reduce abortion rates. In fact, says one recent overview, [m]ost studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that programs promoting ECs do not reduce abortions. Yet when leading experts who favor EC programs recently summarized 23 studies gauging the effect of such programs, they had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions.
Conclusion: What reduces abortions?
One clue lies in the Guttmacher data mentioned above. Abortions are lowest in heartland states with a more traditional culture of honoring marriage and discouraging premarital sex. New studies show that an increase in the number of teens nationwide who delay initiating sexual activity is responsible for a large part of the reduced abortion rate in recent years.
Second, these and other states place modest legal restraints on abortion, which have a well-documented and significant effect of reducing abortions.
Third, offering life-affirming services to pregnant women and their children, as proposed in federal bills like the Pregnant Women Support Act (H.R. 6145), could make a substantial impact on the number of abortions.
These strategies can reduce abortions without creating any moral or social problems, and could be the true common ground in the abortion debate. Will Congress seize this opportunity?
The full-length version of this article is posted at
Please take a statistics course, it will do wonders for the both of us.
You can’t say anything about the California “study” because we don’t know how a control group would work. That number is only descriptive of California. For example, lets say a sports team won 10 games. Did that team have a good year? Well we don’t know because we are missing a bunch of other contextual factors. 10 victories is good for a football team, but a disaster for a baseball team.
But if we compare the US to other industrialized countries like France, England, Sweeden and Canada, countries with no shortage of contraception, have a teen pregnancy rate of about 1/3 of the US.
It's like this: if there's some daredevil stunt in your state in which 1/4 to 1/2 of the participants ages 14-25 sustain injuries serious enough to require medical care even when using protective equipment, plus the loss of many lives, would a reasonable conclusion be (a) that's a really inappropriate activity for our 14-25s, or (b)this tells us nothing useful: it may be even worse in Mississippi.
You made no comment on Doerflinger's report in #88. The major findings:
"In 2006, when the [Alan Guttmacher] Institute issued a report card ranking the 50 states by how aggressively they promote contraceptives, the embarrassing fact emerged that New York, California and other states receiving the highest grades also had some of the highest abortion rates in the country; some states ranked near the bottom for contraceptive services have the lowest abortion rates. "
"23 studies gauging the effect of such [contraceptive] programs... had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions. "
To comment on your reference to contraceptive success in various European countries:
Pregnancy data and abortion rates are not collected and reported the same way in European countries as in the US. For instance, the much-heralded Dutch teen pregnancy, abortion and birthrates used are for all females under 20 years of age (that is, the statistics encompass subjects from birth through 20 years) while ours are for adolescents ages 15 to 19. If you factor in a large number of prepubescent girls, naturally you come up with a much smaller rate of contraception and abortion per thousand.
Moreover, in Holland, there is a strong emphasis on delaying sexual activity. Fetal development is taught in schools, and most Dutch educators report they do not use condom demonstrations. There is little tolerance for teenage pregnancy. Unwed mothers are not subsidized the way they are in the U.S.
Also, Europe has tighter abortion laws. Abortions are typically allowed up to 17 weeks 22 weeks is considered an emergency. Counseling, parental notification, and waiting periods are standard.
One of the biggest reasons the Netherlands and other European countries have much lower abortion rates is that early abortions simply are not counted! If a young girl misses her monthly period and goes to a clinic, they don't do a pregnancy test! They do a "menstrual extraction." No pregnancy is reported (no test) and a menstrual extraction is not recorded as an early D&C abortion, although that's exactly what it is.
In some European countries, adolescent girls are routinely put on hormonal-type contraception, that is, a pill, a patch, a vaginal ring (like NuvaRing) or an implant. These effectively prevent pregnancy, but are worse than useless in preventing STI's since almost nobody will consent to use two contraceptives (hormonal plus condom) which would be necessary to effectively stop both pregnancies and STI's.
All of these countries have catastrophically low birthrates overall, which means that while the desired infertility is obtained in the young, a normal reproductive sexuality is rarely recovered thereafter.
Adolescent sterility isn't followed by historically normal patterns of marriage and childbearing, but in lifelong subfertility. Unless you think that imploding fertility rates, persistent non-family-formation, and civilizational suicide are either a reasonable price to pay, or a desired outcome, this is an outcome worse than California.
“And back before 1965 a man could go to work in a factory and make enough to support a family of five, send the kids to college and take a nice vacation.”
It’s true that blue collar jobs were more readily available, even for people without a high school diploma, but people didn’t have nearly as much stuff, especially high tech stuff. Back then there was no cable TV. Cell phones and
ipods didn’t exist. Computers did not exist outside of research facilities.
Mom and Dad today sometimes work in order to be able to afford this stuff, and the average person probably has all of it, but you can cut down in order to raise a family.
It’s hard to generalize. Scientists were probably thinking of a nice typical family when they invented the birth control pill back in, I think, 1957. The point is that our highly relaxed standards now produce a whole range of social problems from illegitimate kids growing up in poverty to HIV/AIDS. We would be better off with a more certain set of standards than just “do it if it feels good.”
OMG yes, Wifey!!! I was an avid reader of any and everything and my parents rarely looked through my book collection. So I was the one who was able to hide my group’s copy, lol. There was also another one that was *really* bad, called ‘Hurricane’. Pure, unadultered porn in written form, lol. We walked around for weeks calling ‘HURRICANE!’ to each other and cracking up. I think my mom caught onto it after overhearing us though because it disappeared from my shelves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.