I'll never understand the desire by the religious right to keep young adults ignorant. NPR Teen Pregnancy Rates From my post regarding older mothers...
And yet those back woods Religious Right folks strive to keep young women ignorant and unprotected during the time that they are at their highest risk of becoming an unprepared, unqualified and low income mamas.
Let me see: brain not fully developed, hormones in abundance, peer pressure and mixed messages all around them, emotional attractions, etc. And the Religious old folks want them to "just say NO" because "we said so". It is kind of like locking an over eater in the candy store and telling them to just use their will power to not eat...
What are these pious puritanical adults thinking. And then on top of this they want to make abortion illegal and they want to cut the financial support needed by these unprepared, unqualified and low income mamas. And the irony of course is that then they say they "value humans lives"... Maybe they do as long as they don't cost them any money or time, and they get to keep them ignorant.
"Remember that I am fine with abortions up to ~14 weeks, IUDs and morning after pills. And I am the odd voice that says welfare Mom's with 2+ kids should be forced to have an early abortion or give the baby up for adoption if they get pregnant with another while on welfare... Or they should be forced to give up all benefits...
My goal has been very consistent... Babies who are born should be taken care of by responsible and capable Parents who can afford them. I don't think Mom's / Dad's who delay pregnancy and increase chances of the baby having serious health problems so they can pursue their degree / career first count as responsible parents." G2A
And yet those back woods Religious Right folks strive to keep young women ignorant and unprotected during the time that they are at their highest risk of becoming an unprepared, unqualified and low income mamas.
Let me see: brain not fully developed, hormones in abundance, peer pressure and mixed messages all around them, emotional attractions, etc. And the Religious old folks want them to "just say NO" because "we said so". It is kind of like locking an over eater in the candy store and telling them to just use their will power to not eat...
What are these pious puritanical adults thinking. And then on top of this they want to make abortion illegal and they want to cut the financial support needed by these unprepared, unqualified and low income mamas. And the irony of course is that then they say they "value humans lives"... Maybe they do as long as they don't cost them any money or time, and they get to keep them ignorant.
50 comments:
There is a basic division out there I have deduced. It's summed up, I think, in the case of the girl who was denied the opportunity to graduate with her class in some religious school for getting pregnant. One faction would ban her for being immoral. Another faction applauds her for not having an abortion. Definitely a Solomon-like decision sort of a deal, for those who are into that sort of a thing. Thankfully, I am not.
--Hiram
For readers who had not heard about the Pregnant Teen who will not be allowed in the graduation ceremony.
I guess I can understand this one better. They instituted punishments for her violating the school behavior policy in a pretty noticeable way.
The baby mama is being punished for her behavior and it will have no impact on the baby. It sounds like the Grand Father is supportive.
What do you say to the parents who have instilled self-esteem and self-control in their teens, only to find the schools teaching them the opposite? "Don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" is the message. So which HALF of that sentence do you think hormone-addled kids will hear?
Will a hormone-addled kid be more likely to remember to use self-control or a condom?
Moose
What do you say to the parents who have instilled self-esteem and self-control in their teens, only to find the schools teaching them the opposite?
That's it's a complicated and diverse world out there, and different people think lots of different things. I have to say, I think parenting offers many more difficult challenges than this one.
--Hiram
I am thinking of my girls who have high self esteem and self control. (except maybe in shopping and doing their chores...)
The irony is that it does not matter what information they get in school because they have high self esteem, self control and Parents who are happy to talk to them about anything. They get taught something in school that confuses them, they find the Mrs and talk it out.
That is not kids like mine who requires the sex ed and birth control... It is the children of the irresponsible Parents who don't teach it at home because they are uncomfortable, irresponsible and/or have a religious objection to giving their children a broad base of knowledge.
How well you seem to know these folks, when they are such strangers to 'ya.
The irony is that the schools should be teaching the community's "values," at least in addition to the raw facts that kids learn out, as we used to say, "behind the barn." If all the schools teach is the mechanics, they're teaching it in a "value-less" way that is going to cause more trouble than it prevents. "Doing it right" isn't a lot better than "doing it wrong." If we cannot instill some sort of incentive to not engage in the risky behavior-- "protected" or otherwise-- we haven't really educated. And we haven't even mentioned the massive influence of the "popular culture" that we would hope the schools would educate against.
And are you CERTAIN that what they hear in school "confuses them"? My daughter came hone from college, after taking her required "diversity" class in "women's studies." At some point she was telling me all about the first woman to do such and so and I simply asked, "that's nice, but who was the first PERSON to do it?" Her jaw dropped and she sighed, "oh, no, they've done it to me, haven't they?"
Moose, to answer your question, self-control has proven 100% effective against both unwanted pregnancies and venereal disease. Statistically, among teenagers, condoms are less than 80%.
And are you CERTAIN that what they hear in school "confuses them"?
For myself I am not, but I hope that it will.
"The irony is that the schools should be teaching the community's "values," at least in addition to the raw facts that kids learn out, as we used to say, "behind the barn.""
Given that the community elected Donald Trump, I am comfortable if it keeps it's values to itself.
--Hiram
"Moose, to answer your question, self-control has proven 100% effective against both unwanted pregnancies and venereal disease."
When it's used, which was my point, which you missed....again.
Moose
Are you going to tell me that condoms, when properly used, are more effective than abstinence? That must be some condom! And if not properly used, I don't think either one makes much difference, does it? Purely and simply, it takes much less effort to control oneself than it does to properly use a condom.
Jerry,
Please feel free to keep your head in the sand. The data explains the benefits of thorough and complete sex ed. And easy access to contraceptives.
As the study shows... Teen pregnancies are falling where these things are provided... Which is excellent for everyone and society.
Where people rely on ignorance and just say no... The problem continues...
Jerry,
Please get that daughter to join us here for some comments...
I would love to read what she believes as compared to what you think she believes...
"The data"? If the purpose is to reduce teen pregnancy and VD, how does being told that there is such a thing as "safe sex," without consequences, reduce the possibility that sex will occur? I tire of the notion that "they're going to do it anyway."
We give our kids drivers ed, right? We do it in the belief that it makes them safer drivers, but it doesn't prevent them from making intentional or unintentional errors; it is why teen insurance rates are so high. AND, we don't let them behind the wheel until they have not just learned how to operate the vehicle, but how to do so responsibly, and establish rules they must follow. Should we do otherwise?
Now we know that wealthier more educated countries and communities have lower rates of unintended pregnancies.
Ironically... it is a big part of why they are wealthier... :-)
1. Does this indicate that wealthy more educated are "more moral" and do not have sex as often?
2. Or does it indicate that their younger adults are well educated regarding sex and have easy access to contraception?
I think it is number 2. I am pretty sure that that both poor and wealthier people enjoy sex.
Jerry,
Yes we do know based on history that a certain percentage of young adults who feel invulnerable and aroused will engage in sexual intercourse no matter what their Parents and society dictate.
Therefore just like driver's ed it is our duty to ensure these kids know all about sexual intercourse and to ensure the correct protections are readily available.
This young lady is an excellent example, a religious family in a religious school with a Father who was active in the school... And yet passion took hold...
I bet that Dad is wishing he would have made birth control an available option.
"Are you going to tell me that condoms, when properly used, are more effective than abstinence?"
If you can't be bothered to pay attention to what I've written, why should I bother?
Moose
Colorado's Plummeting Teen Pregnancy Numbers
Interestingly, education and access to free birth control have worked best in the poorest areas of the state.
Now remind me, who here is against access to free birth control? It makes one wonder who really are the ones trying to keep the poor poor.
Moose
Moose,
Excellent source and comment.
Jerry always says he is for helping the poor by giving them school vouchers so they have equivalent choices to the more well off people...
And yet on the much more important topic of birth control he seems to be okay leaving poor folks with abstinence as their only choice...
And we know how that has worked out for them... They are still poor with too many mouths to feed.
Hey, here's a great idea, why don't we just sterilize all these poor people? Problem solved, right?
John seems to want poor folks to "make good choices" and then denies that abstinence is the better choice. Tell me, if free birth control WERE made available, would people make a "good choice" and go get it, and use it? Why, if they have made "bad choices" all the way along? Would the amount of casual sex "goin' on out dere" go up or down?
"Tell me, if free birth control WERE made available, would people make a "good choice" and go get it, and use it?"
Read the article. It is clear you didn't.
Moose
I read it. Where is the evidence that I didn't? Where is the evidence that poor people made good decisions in this one case, when John insists they are incapable of making good decisions? If these unwed young women had made a decision to be abstinent until marriage, would that have been an equally good decision, costing the taxpayer FAR less in education than the $1000 or so for the "free" BC? Or do we want to insist again that these people are incapable of making good decisions, given the opportunity?
The goal with many social policy issues is to make it is easier for people to make good choices.
Making it hard and expensive for low income citizens to obtain good birth control is just wrong and unfair to them, and terribly expensive for our society.
As Moose says... Maybe it is the Religious Right who want to keep these folks trapped in generational poverty.
Permit me a quibble? The goal of social policy SHOULD be to make it easier for people to make good choices, (and preferably the best choice). Perhaps if we were to combine sex ed, free BC AND a program where people are educated about the many hazards of casual sex, contrary to the popular culture message of "it feels good, do it," we would really be onto something. If we're offering choices now, we ought to offer all the choices. Like private, charter, home, public or parochial schools. Or wanton sex, with or without BC, or abstinence.
BTW, any statistics on VD problems in these areas?
"Perhaps if we were to combine sex ed, free BC AND a program where people are educated about the many hazards of casual sex"
Seems like what Colorado and other progressive states are doing with excellent results...
Please remember that our pregnant teen who could not attend her graduation was attending a Private Religious school and that the Religious Right states are having the bigger problems. Maybe not a good sign that allowing to people pick ignorance and lack of protection is a good thing...
You must have skipped the first two paragraphs.
"Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?
They did in a big way, and the results were startling."
Compare that to your question to me:
"Tell me, if free birth control WERE made available, would people make a "good choice" and go get it, and use it?"
And you wonder why I think it's clear you didn't read the article. The information is staring you square in the face.
Also makes me wonder how little you understand about the things you read on other topics. e.g. AGW
Moose
I mean...they LITERALLY and DIRECTLY answered your question in the first two paragraphs!
Good grief!
Moose
Moose,
Yes Jerry has a very full tea cup going on regarding most topics...
Just like most people on the far right and far left. They have to make the "facts" match their beliefs or their heads explode. :-)
That is why they gravitate to sources that match themselves.
I've taught classes in critical reading. One of the things I always ask is "what is it that is not being told here? The question was "would those women choose them?" The answer given was "they did in a big way..." What, no numbers? To how many was this "choice" offered? What percentage accepted? How many took advantage of the opportunity to have more sex? Did venereal diseases increase (condoms protect, IUDs do not)? Were there other factors at work, like the famous machine-painting study?
Another question I always ask is, do you suppose, if this effort had been a failure, that you would be reading about it? Do you believe this effort was as smooth and straightforward as it was reported? Do you expect that YOU could achieve a similar result from the description provided?
I didn't say it was a bad idea, I just think those writing the report had a preconceived idea that it was successful and reported it accordingly. Just like readers have a "confirmation bias," so do many writers. There's an increasingly old joke in academic circles that goes, "If I want to study the mating habits of the Lapland Larkspur, I cannot get funding. But if I title my grant request 'the effect of global warming on the mating habits of the Lapland Larkspur' I get the money."
Do we really have enough /repeatable, scientific/ data to say this was a success? Or just a suggestion that this may indeed work as advertised, with no drawbacks?
There is enough data to satisfy me?
Beside the simple logic that:
- knowledge is important
- people with more knowledge make better decisions
- having easy access to the correct medicines and devices is important.
- people who make better decisions use the correct medicines and devices at the correct time.
And unfortunately the Religious Right is against providing knowledge, medicines and devices to those who need it most.
Why do you think that birth rates are lower in developed wealthier countries with better education systems and easier access to birth control?
Do you think that educated people with accessible birth control that they can afford have less sex? Really?
That somehow undereducated people with limited access birth control are more sexually active? Really?
if this effort had been a failure, that you would be reading about it?
Where issues of family planning are concerned, it's the failures we read and hear about. Not having a child isn't a statistical event in the way having a child is. The points that people who are critical of family planning don't seem to catch on much with the general public. In my view the reason for that is that much of the opposition to family planning is authority based,; the church says you are not supposed to do it and that's that. It's a logically air tight argument, but one without any impact at all on anyone who doesn't accept the authority of the church.
Do you believe this effort was as smooth and straightforward as it was reported?
--Hiram
It seems to me that on the whole, the business of having and raising children isn't a smooth and straightforward one, even in the best of circumstances.
Alleluia to that... My Spouse and Girls are nearly perfect in every way and the process has still been full of bumps, adjustments and other memorable events. :-)
Now if I imagine trying to do it as a young uninformed poor single parent... Well I really can not imagine how challenging that would be... No wonder the kids have challenges... :-(
"And unfortunately the Religious Right is against providing knowledge, medicines and devices to those who need it most."
And unfortunately, you have no knowledge of the Religious Right and what they do or do not favor, assuming that there is such an "organization," with stated purposes, which there is not. I could as well say that "Moderates favor letting people do whatever they want while reducing the dollar cost to the taxpayer and ignoring the cost in human terms, rather than try to teach them more productive behavior."
"Why do you think that birth rates are lower in developed wealthier countries with better education systems and easier access to birth control? Do you think that educated people with accessible birth control that they can afford have less sex? Really? That somehow undereducated people with limited access birth control are more sexually active? Really?"
You like simple logic, here it is: Developed countries, and wealthier people, have better things to do than have sex. They also have the knowledge that sex causes pregnancy and can afford to do something about that, so of course they avail themselves of birth control and DO have more sex than they would otherwise permit themselves. And the opposite is true for developing countries and poor people. Just making the birth control freely available does nothing about the underlying problem, it only relieves people of the consequences of their otherwise irresponsible behavior and, according to you, those consequences didn't fall on them anyway, but on the children and on the taxpayers. Is there some reason you don't just suggest sterilization of these "undesirables"? Why does their "good judgment" in choosing long-term birth control suddenly make them highly intelligent and productive citizens, capable of good decisions in all other areas of their lives, when the day before they were not?
Class is an issue here, and it's an issue in a number of different ways. The cynic in me suggests that wealthy Republican Party donors are very comfortable with their party's pro life policies because they know those policies will never be applied to them. Their daughters will always have access to birth control. Their daughters will have access to abortions. Their daughters will always have access to the wealth so vital to the support challenging pregnancies. Restrictive family planning polices are the price for the lower taxes, Republican want, and it's a price they are willing to pay because they no for certain that someone else will sent the bill.
--Hiram
Hiram, now you have me confused. "Wealthy Republican Party donors" are of the same "class" as the (more plentiful) wealthy Democrat Party donors. But in addition, what makes you think Republicans are generally wealthy? It's not true. Ignoring that as well, wouldn't Republicans be LESS likely to want their (presumably unwed) daughters NOT to have birth control, but using abstinence until marriage? They certainly would not be supporting abortions!
And I think you have the "family planning vs lower taxes" argument completely backwards. Republicans I know want lower taxes only because they believe federal money is largely wasted on things which are not helpful, like abortions, or welfare in general. We even have evidence. Alabama recently required able-bodied citizens without dependents to work, seek work, or engage in job training in order to receive food stamps. The rolls dropped by 85%! I'm OK with long-term birth control for poor women, but only as a small piece of a holistic effort to lift them out of poverty. Otherwise it's just eugenics.
jerry...did I see you on last night's episode of The Handmaid's Tale? You'd fit right in.
Good grief, your views on sex and birth control barely deserve a comment, much less to be considered by intelligent people. I've never understood and never will understand people like you who live in such fear of other people having the freedom to have sex.
Moose
"They certainly would not be supporting abortions!"
That's one of your flaws, jerry. You think that Republicans are morally different from everyone else. They're not. They just hide it behind a false facade of morality.
Moose
"Wealthy Republican Party donors" are of the same "class" as the (more plentiful) wealthy Democrat Party donors.
Sure, and they are a lot alike. In fact, just between you and me, they are very often the same people. One sure way to win a bet is to put money on all the horses in the race.
" in addition, what makes you think Republicans are generally wealthy? "
They aren't. And of course there are many wealthy democrats.
"wouldn't Republicans be LESS likely to want their (presumably unwed) daughters NOT to have birth control, but using abstinence until marriage?"
People want their children to have access to birth control. That's not an issue we dispute in public anymore. One way to tell that is to see even how the Catholic Church frames the issue. As much as they want abortion to be a crime, they never raise the issue of criminalizing birth control despite the fact that they oppose birth control just as much.
"And I think you have the "family planning vs lower taxes" argument completely backwards"
I don't think I did or would make that argument. I love children, I love people who have children. While I don't want to impose my views about having children on others, I am perfectly happy to pay the costs having more children creates. I would never treat with anything other than respect a young woman, wed or unwed, prepared or unprepared, who makes the brave decision to bring a child in this world.
--Hiram
Jerry,
"Is there some reason you don't just suggest sterilization of these "undesirables"?
Actually I have recommended that for people who continue to conceive children that they can not afford. Remember my unpopular view. "Society will help citizens pay to care for 2 kids. After that the fetus must be aborted early or the baby must be put up for adoption. And if the mama/dada triggers this draconian response more than once they shall be fixed."
Why does their "good judgment" in choosing long-term birth control suddenly make them highly intelligent and productive citizens, capable of good decisions in all other areas of their lives, when the day before they were not?
It doesn't where did you pull that from? It does however help to promote that fewer unwanted children are born to and raised by people who are not qualified, capable and/or responsible enough to raise them well.
Remember our friend Angel
"Is there some reason you don't just suggest sterilization of these "undesirables"?
Bit to reminiscent of the Nazi's for my taste.
Why does their "good judgment" in choosing long-term birth control suddenly make them highly intelligent and productive citizens, capable of good decisions in all other areas of their lives, when the day before they were not?
I know we venerate logic around here, but I think the decision to have a child is one where logic plays less of a role than in some other decisions we make in life. When deciding to have a child relatively few folks bring out their old college logic text book, and start analyzing the decision in terms of antecedents and consequents and that sort of thing, not that that doesn't happen. With respect to having a child, emotion plays a role for many people, and while that may be problematic, I think many people who made that decision on an emotional level might report that on the whole, things worked out fine, if not smoothly.
--Hiram
Hiram,
While it may work out ok for the baby mama and baby dadas of the country...
It doesn't work out so well for many of the children, look at how many of them are failing school, dropping out, going to jail, getting abused, being neglected and/or living their lives near the poverty level.
It is does not work so well for our society and the tax payers... (ie higher taxes, more police, more special ed, etc)
"...where did you pull that from? "
Sorry, I'm committing the sin of putting words in somebody's mouth, and that rarely advances the conversation. But you have insisted many times over the years that people are poor because they have made poor decisions,including "having children they cannot care for" and are incapable of making good decisions. So my question is why, just because they accept free "temporary sterilization" to prevent more kids, rather than altering their behavior, they suddenly get to count that as a "good decision" worthy of allowing them to make others? I mean, we do that sort of thing with our cattle and other farm animals, but...
Yeah, I don't think I have ever said this:
"are incapable of making good decisions".
Now I have said that people with little knowledge of how children learn and what they need to learn by when are not qualified to pick a "good" school.
And I have said that vouchers would create a motive for con people to open ineffective schools to tap into the available money. And that the under educated mamas and papas would be likely targets, and by the time they figured out how bad their choice was it would be too late for the kids.
And I have said that vouchers would create a motive for private schools to expel the challenging kids.
Other cases?
But you have said that they are irresponsible for "choosing" to have more children they cannot afford. How does choosing to accept free birth control suddenly make them capable of making good choices? All you have done is make a better choice free; it requires no change of behavior or thinking process. Offering them school vouchers is different. They are forced to actually choose what to do with a very large amount of money. The vast majority will be forced to exercise some level of responsibility to make a proper choice. You will never convince me that most parents, regardless of the "mistakes" they made becoming parents, do not care enough about their kids to take care in that choice, and those few that do not will just send their kids to the public schools that, in most cases, will be worse than the competitive choices offered by the voucher.
OK, you keep making the case that private schools (let us be more general and say voucher schools) might expel troublesome kids. That's a legitimate concern, so let me make a suggestion: Let's allow vouchers to be used at public schools, and allow public schools the same right of expelling troublesome students. To me, this is the essential of resolving the rampant discipline problems. If parents are told they will have to pay extra to send their kid to a school that will accept and deal with them, they are liable to exercise a bit of discipline at home and that's all good.
Now if what you meant was that schools would expel kids who were not academic whizzes, I think the proof is all around us that most schools are going to go for some sustainable "client base" and will gain even more business by having a reputation for improvement. Nobody is going to enter a business they intend to fail almost immediately when their poor quality is discovered (and we assume government will insist on some minimum standard). There will still be room for those who want to pay extra, above the voucher, for something better and more "exclusive," just as there is now.
Same thing you challenge me with...
"If parents are told they will have to pay extra to send their kid to a school that will accept and deal with them, they are liable to exercise a bit of discipline at home and that's all good."
How will you enforce this?
What will you do with the kids whose parents won't / can't pay?
That's an interesting question. I have been operating under the assumption that, faced with the choice of getting their kid some discipline or having to pay more out of pocket for his schooling, they will make a responsible choice. Since you aren't sure they are capable of such complicated reasoning, I can see why you raise that question. Once again, it seems to me that the right thing is to offer that choice, and deal with the few who cannot manage it as the exceptions they are. Now ASSUMING that the amount of the voucher is the full amount of per-pupil in that District, I am betting that the private schools are going to offer a considerably lower price for the average student, and only need the full amount for the troublemakers. And remember parents are required by law to send the kids to school and that they have been given the voucher, which must be spent at a (presumably approved in some fashion) school.
In short, I just don't think we should be making policy based on the few expected exceptions when the vast majority will presumably benefit from the change.
Jerry,
Your belief regarding the few exceptions always makes me smile.
Facts and Data
"Today 1 in 4 children under the age of 18 — a total of about 17.2 million — are being raised without a father and almost half 40% live below the poverty line.
For those living with father only, about 21% live in poverty. In contrast, among children living with both parents, only 11% are counted as poor."
These baby mamas and papas are struggling to keep a roof over their head and to keep the lights on. Keeping the kids on the straight and narrow when they are not home would be a trick. And unfortunately many of these adults are likely under educated and immature also.
That is why I think it is so critical to help them stop unintentional pregnancies.
Odd. It seems you are again promoting the idea that correlation equals causation. Yes, single mothers tend to be poor. Or are poor women more likely to become mothers, intentionally or otherwise? If you simply sterilized all these "poor" women (or more humanely gave them free BC), would their current poverty be reduced or eliminated? Would the social attitudes and pathologies be reversed in any way?
I understand the attraction of this "easy fix." But I prefer to treat these folks as real human beings who need a holistic program of help that may include birth control of all kinds, and incentives to form families and contribute economically in ways that will prevent making the problem worse. Until you have arranged that miracle, I continue to believe that most humans, with only a few exceptions, will react to a lot of carrots and a few sticks, given the choice to do so.
Post a Comment