Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

By Paul Kane
ST. PAUL -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

According to Passage House's web site, its purpose is to provide "young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives" and help teen moms "become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families."

Palin's own daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant and has plans to wed.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family," Palin said in a statement released by the McCain campaign. "We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy, as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

Earlier today the Associated Press reported that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies, a position that Palin also took as governor. "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates.

Reporters asked McCain in November 2007 whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, whether such programs should include directions for using contraceptives and whether he supports President Bush's policy of promoting abstinence.

"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.

A mother with a pregnant daughter cut spending for an organization like Covenant House?? And opposed funding to more effective sex-ed programs? This is the kind of person we want as our vice president?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplehaze11

By Paul Kane
A mother with a pregnant daughter cut spending for an organization like Covenant House???

---

And.... what's the point? Why should everyone else subsidize an organization like Covenant House. If you are so outraged then write them a check. Don't legislate that everyone else HAS to pay for it.
She should have went 1 step farther and cut funding completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplehaze11

And opposed funding to more effective sex-ed programs? ?

---

Could you define more effective, I don't know anything more effective than NOT FUCKING if you don't want to be pregnant.
I didn't realize we needed to spend money on some new way to tell people to stop fucking if they don't want kids, I thought that was common knowledge?:wtf:
You realize no matter how much money is spent on "more effective sex-ed programs", people will still fuck and have kids even when they can't or don't want to take care of them. Then those same people will stick their hand out and ask everyone else to pay for them. So what exactly is the problem, and what are you advocating?:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplehaze11

This is the kind of person we want as our vice president?

---

Um yeah, sure! Why not? What's the problem?:wtf: And how does her daughter being pregnant have anything to do with her political position on these items? Am I missing something?
I believe 80%+ of the voters of Alaska applaud and support her and what she did while in office. So what am I missing?
Do we want a vp that will reduce needless spending on social programs programs that do nothing, ABSOLUTELY!
If YOU want to give your money to people that are too stupid to not fuck and have kids they can't support, then go ahead. Don't tell me I have to though, I need my money to support my own son, not someone else's.
Let me guess,
you believe in "change" and "hope" and are "hoping for change", well you are going to get it! I can't wait until she and McCain take office, I can't wait until McCain's 4 years are up and he steps aside and lets Palin take the presidency!!:D:D
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your question, I hope I was clear and you understood what I said!
Could you answer a question for me?
What relevancy does her daughter being pregnant have in the discussion?
Thanks.:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Could you define more effective, I don't know anything more effective than NOT FUCKING if you don't want to be pregnant.

You realize no matter how much money is spent on "more effective sex-ed programs", people will still fuck and have kids even when they can't or don't want to take care of them. Then those same people will stick their hand out and ask everyone else to pay for them. So what exactly is the problem, and what are you advocating?:wtf:



Um yeah, sure! Why not? What's the problem?:wtf: And how does her daughter being pregnant have anything to do with her political position on these items? Am I missing something?
I believe 80%+ of the voters of Alaska applaud and support her and what she did while in office. So what am I missing?
Do we want a vp that will reduce needless spending on social programs programs that do nothing, ABSOLUTELY!
If YOU want to give your money to people that are too stupid to not fuck and have kids they can't support, then go ahead. Don't tell me I have to though, I need my money to support my own son, not someone else's.
Let me guess,
you believe in "change" and "hope" and are "hoping for change", well you are going to get it! I can't wait until she and McCain take office, I can't wait until McCain's 4 years are up and he steps aside and lets Palin take the presidency!!:D:D
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your question, I hope I was clear and you understood what I said!
Could you answer a question for me?
What relevancy does her daughter being pregnant have in the discussion?
Thanks.:jointsmile:

---

what relevance does palins daughter have. shes a christian with christian values that she wants to push on me, and her christian daughter got pregnant while unwed. i have a problem with that because she wants to push god on me. remember god told her to do it. thats a big problem cause its the same as the muslims sayin allah told me to do it

you want change, mccain and bush basically voted together on everything but torture.

i want kids to be educated about diseases and pregnancy. you dont want education? they learn more about sex on tv falsely, so how would it hurt to learn it in school. isnt education good?

when palin first started as gov. her spending per person was about 800, the rest of the country was about 35. she wasted as much money as anyone else. she has no experience. the most experience she has is do we have enough snow for the snow mobile race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

you want change, mccain and bush basically voted together on everything but torture.

i want kids to be educated about diseases and pregnancy. you dont want education? they learn more about sex on tv falsely, so how would it hurt to learn it in school. isnt education good?

---

1) I agree, they are identical twins. 2) yes, the teen pregnancy rate is unbelievable, the amount of the population with AIDS is rising...

And their idea of sex education is "Abstinence" don't have sex. That's like telling high schoolers to not drink alcohol, and we all know how well that's working out. Just as the alcohol, they need to get on the subject of telling youngsters how to be responsible, rather than hoping we're not going to do things that are very fun.:stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

And.... what's the point? Why should everyone else subsidize an organization like Covenant House. If you are so outraged then write them a check. Don't legislate that everyone else HAS to pay for it.
She should have went 1 step farther and cut funding completely.

---

Eh I don't agree with this too much. but back to the original poster

Quote:

---

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

---

Do we know how much the Covenant House of Alaska had in Overhead last year? Was it 5 million? If not then guess what, it is not unusual for businesses to cut departments funding if they do not use the money allotted in their budget. Miss Sarah Palin was a CEO so I'm sure that this was probably a business decision of some sort. (possibly, I obviously don't know what the reason for the cut was).

Also it says she cut funding to the Covenant House, not specifically the Passage House which is responsible for pregnant teens. This is a perfect example of how the media will spin a story to stir up a commotion.

In addition to this having a pregnant teenage daughter and then cutting funding to an organization that helps pregnant teens does not make you a hypocrite. She doesn't believe that the state should have to pay for these young people's mistakes. I feel she's partially right. People are aware that if they mess up there are programs to help them. It's almost like it's ok to be a screw up in this day and age. I'm not that old and even I think that.

Quote:

---

Earlier today the Associated Press reported that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies, a position that Palin also took as governor. "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates.

---

Eh.. to be honest I support sex education, but with a large emphasis on abstinence. I feel that the current sex education programs put too much focus on other forms of birth control. That is almost like saying it's ok for them to go out there and have sex.

This not only creates a problem for the teens but also for the parents who have to care for them. Abstinence prevents so many other issues aside from teen pregnancy that I feel there NEEDS to be a stronger focus on it.

Quote:

---

A mother with a pregnant daughter cut spending for an organization like Covenant House?? And opposed funding to more effective sex-ed programs? This is the kind of person we want as our vice president?

---

I won't judge her cuts until there is much more insight. Alaska isn't a big population state and 5 million is a big budget when considering Alaska has 1770 teenage pregnancies a year (not much) and their teenage pregnancy dropped by 34% in 1992 - 2000.

The data on the website is dated but if the trend holds true then I could see a perfectly logical reason for cutting back funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

1) I agree, they are identical twins. 2) yes, the teen pregnancy rate is unbelievable, the amount of the population with AIDS is rising...

And their idea of sex education is "Abstinence" don't have sex. That's like telling high schoolers to not drink alcohol, and we all know how well that's working out. Just as the alcohol, they need to get on the subject of telling youngsters how to be responsible, rather than hoping we're not going to do things that are very fun.:stoned:

---

This is just a thought, but why can't parents explain sex education to their children?

The last I checked your son or daughter should be the responsibility of the parents. If your child can't learn to tie his shoes do you blame the school for this? If your child doesn't know to talk to strangers and something happens.. is this the fault of the school?

It is the parents job first and foremost to instill these things into their children. The problem is that parents look for the easy way out and let the school system teach the kids about sex.

I think the school should teach about STD's and perhaps the anatomy (but that's covered in a different class also).

Why are Americans fine with not being responsible for themselves and their families?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Could you define more effective, I don't know anything more effective than NOT FUCKING if you don't want to be pregnant.
I didn't realize we needed to spend money on some new way to tell people to stop fucking if they don't want kids, I thought that was common knowledge?:wtf:
You realize no matter how much money is spent on "more effective sex-ed programs", people will still fuck and have kids even when they can't or don't want to take care of them. Then those same people will stick their hand out and ask everyone else to pay for them. So what exactly is the problem, and what are you advocating?:wtf:

---

Abstinence is effective as a practice, but abstinence-only sex education is not effective as a policy. If all you tell teenagers is "stop fucking," you haven't taught them anything. You said yourself that "people will still fuck and have kids even when they can't or don't want to take care of them." So how is preaching abstinence and not teaching anything else going to change that?

You may have recieved abstinence-only sex education yourself and not be aware of this, but there are actually a lot of contraceptives that are very effective at preventing pregnancy, and condoms are pretty effective against STDs. I've been fucking for over 20 years and have never had an unintended pregnancy or an STD, so "stop fucking" is not the only option.

I'm sure Palin told her daughter to "stop fucking," and now she's gonna be a baby-mama.

I agree that the fact that Palin's daughter is pregnant is not relevant to her veto of the teen mother funding, but it is ironic. And I think her pregnant daughter does show the failure of abstinence-only sex education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Abstinence is effective as a practice, but abstinence-only sex education is not effective as a policy. If all you tell teenagers is "stop fucking," you haven't taught them anything. You said yourself that "people will still fuck and have kids even when they can't or don't want to take care of them." So how is preaching abstinence and not teaching anything else going to change that?

---

Exactly, I see abstinence only sex education as the same as the archaic ways that schools teach their so-called "drug education." Isn't the DARE method of telling kids all drugs are bad and they shouldn't do them, while comparing the dangers of marijuana to those of heroin, much less effective than educating kids about the different dangers of each drug and what to expect if faced with such drugs? We shouldn't just say don't fuck, we should educate them on the dangers and pleasures of sex, while making sure they are responsible so they don't get pregnant.

8182KSKUSH-- do you really think that simply telling kids not to fuck is the most effective strategy against teen pregnancies? Would a 16 year old kid think before having sex with his girlfriend..."Oh man, my health teacher told us not to fuck so we better not." No, he's gonna forget everything that health teacher says the second he walks out of that classroom if all they are doing is talking at them rather than with them. Abstinence only education is a failed policy.

And for the record I don't think her daughter being pregnant should have ANYTHING to do with this election, it should be a private matter. But the media just loves to stir up anything that will drive up ratings. The thing that bothers me about Palin in this situation isn't her pregnant daughter, its the fact that her daughter got pregnant while she was advocating abstinence only education and she still supports it. Maybe if they had better sex-ed her boyfriend would have wrapped his shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplehaze11

Abstinence only education is a failed policy.

---

Actually Parenting is the failed policy. Ultimately the consequences your child faces directly reflect the beliefs you've instilled into your child. Who ever said it was the school's job to teach children about sex? Don't you feel first and foremost such a sensitive matter should come from the parents?

I personally would never rely on public education if I had kids to teach them about sexual responsibility.

Quote:

---

And for the record I don't think her daughter being pregnant should have ANYTHING to do with this election, it should be a private matter. But the media just loves to stir up anything that will drive up ratings. The thing that bothers me about Palin in this situation isn't her pregnant daughter, its the fact that her daughter got pregnant while she was advocating abstinence only education and she still supports it. Maybe if they had better sex-ed her boyfriend would have wrapped his shit up.

---

How do you know he wasn't wearing a condom, or that she wasn't taking some form of birth control (many teenage girls do as it can help regulate their periods and even sometimes control the severe cramping they get), or something else?

The fact is that you don't know and neither do I or the general public. You are making judgements and assumptions over things that you will never know. And people wonder why it's "guilty until proven innocent." it's because the general population are so damn judgemental when there is no reason to be. Our own judgements and biases have led to the "guilty until proven innocent.". It's no wonder so many people think this way.

As far as abstinence.... That is what Sarah Palin believes and despite what has happened to her daughter she still feels that is the most RESPONSIBLE form of birth control.

I admire her from not budging from her beliefs.. this is something you would never see a liberal do if they were caught in a tough situation. They would cave in just to save themselves. Look at Obama, he threw William Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and a number of people under the bus just to save his own standings in the presidental election.

This is one of the GOP's issues that I can't agree with. Fact is, you tell a teen NOT to do something you can bet that he or she will out of either spite or curiosity. If they want to promote "do not fuck", they had better promote oral sex as an alternative food group. :thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

This is one of the GOP's issues that I can't agree with. Fact is, you tell a teen NOT to do something you can bet that he or she will out of either spite or curiosity. If they want to promote "do not fuck", they had better promote oral sex as an alternative food group. :thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

---

My problem with this is that the general population doesn't take responsibility for their own kids.

I think abstinence should be taught in school and other forms of birth control should be taught by the parent. We're all adults, we've had sex, we know how to prevent babies. Why do we need to invest tax dollars into a sex education class for something the parents can do themselves if they feel it is in their families best interest?

This is another example of people placing responsibility somewhere outside themselves.

I could care less if teens are having sex or abstaining but I don't think the government has a place to educate our children. If anything they should be sending parents to a sex education class to help instruct their children.

A teacher won't express the consequences and importance the same way a loving family member would. It also doesn't have the same impact coming from someone you have no relation with (teacher) as it does with someone you have a solid bond with (parent).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Actually Parenting is the failed policy. Ultimately the consequences your child faces directly reflect the beliefs you've instilled into your child. Don't you feel first and foremost such a sensitive matter should come from the parents?

---

While I do agree with the fact that parents should teach their kids the majority of their sex-education, the thing is many parents will not do this. There are a lot of parents out there who are either a) too naive to think that their kids might start having sex at age 16, or b) too embarrassed to teach their kids about contraceptives. Now I'm not saying parents should feel this way, but there are definitely a large portion of them who do. What would the negatives be from teaching contraceptive use in school? I think it should be taught to supplement whatever the parents have taught the kids, or in certain circumstances to fill the void that the parents have left by either their naiveté or embarrassment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Who ever said it was the school's job to teach children about sex?

---

No one, but hey who ever said it was the school's job to teach kids about drugs? Sex, like drugs, is a sensitive subject and sometimes it is more effective for trained professional educators to provide knowledge and information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

A teacher won't express the consequences and importance the same way a loving family member would. It also doesn't have the same impact coming from someone you have no relation with (teacher) as it does with someone you have a solid bond with (parent).

---

I respectfully disagree. Just because a parent tells a teen to do something does NOT mean he or she will do it. In fact, oftentimes just the opposite happens; rebellious teens are notorious for doing the exact opposite thing as their mother and father told them to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I think abstinence should be taught in school and other forms of birth control should be taught by the parent.

---

Actually I think this is exactly backwards and should be the opposite. The topic of human sexuality, reproduction, and birth control (including, but not limited to, abstinence) are all valid clinical health issues that should be taught in school. Personal moral and religious beliefs are best taught at home or in the church.

I think the people advocating for abstinence-ONLY sex education are not doing it because they truly believe that abstinence is the BEST contraceptive and should be the only method taught because it is so effective. They advocate for it because they believe it is amoral for kids to be screwing. Let the schools teach the facts and let the parents teach the morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I think abstinence should be taught in school and other forms of birth control should be taught by the parent.

---

Wow. That's all thats even worth saying to this statement. Nothing like giving the religious right everything they could ever hope for....

:DWow, this is a really lively discussion!
Lot's of good points from both sides.
I like P4B's best, MORE ORAL SEX!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank

Wow. That's all thats even worth saying to this statement. Nothing like giving the religious right everything they could ever hope for....

---

No, it has to do with some things need to be taught by a parent. Do you take your kid to school to teach him how to ride a bike? It's something a parent should do.

Why don't you tell me how what I said was so terrible. What is so terrible about putting the responsibility into the parents hand. The parents who raised and cared for this kid. It is a parents responsibility to keep a child safe. Part of that safety is talking about sex.

Wow.. that's all I have to say to you. Wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplehaze11

While I do agree with the fact that parents should teach their kids the majority of their sex-education, the thing is many parents will not do this. There are a lot of parents out there who are either a) too naive to think that their kids might start having sex at age 16, or b) too embarrassed to teach their kids about contraceptives. Now I'm not saying parents should feel this way, but there are definitely a large portion of them who do. What would the negatives be from teaching contraceptive use in school? I think it should be taught to supplement whatever the parents have taught the kids, or in certain circumstances to fill the void that the parents have left by either their naiveté or embarrassment.

---

So tell me... why is it the job of the government to make up for bad parenting? That's my only issue with this. If people would parent their kids and take responsibility for themselves then we could probably save a lot of money through various programs.

Personally I don't think it's the job of the government to teach sex education in public schools because their parents are too lazy, stupid, or scared to do it themselves.

Quote:

---

No one, but hey who ever said it was the school's job to teach kids about drugs? Sex, like drugs, is a sensitive subject and sometimes it is more effective for trained professional educators to provide knowledge and information.

---

I don't think that it's the school/governments job to do that either. Again I think that's a parents role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Actually I think this is exactly backwards and should be the opposite. The topic of human sexuality, reproduction, and birth control (including, but not limited to, abstinence) are all valid clinical health issues that should be taught in school. Personal moral and religious beliefs are best taught at home or in the church.

---

The last time I checked birth control was neither a moral or religious belief. It was just birth control. Maybe I'm naive though? From my point of view I don't understand the need to use government funds to tell kids how to put on a condom, what birth control is and what the consequences of having sex are. These are all common sense things that a parent can and should address. I just don't think it's the role of the government to teach kids how to use birth control.

Quote:

---

I think the people advocating for abstinence-ONLY sex education are not doing it because they truly believe that abstinence is the BEST contraceptive and should be the only method taught because it is so effective. They advocate for it because they believe it is amoral for kids to be screwing. Let the schools teach the facts and let the parents teach the morality.

---

I believe abstinence works the best, but I'm a realist and know kids are going to have sex. I really believe schools need to place more emphasis on abstinence. I know when I was in highschool I felt like they were almost advocating for me to go out and buy condoms and have sex. It was weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

If anything they should be sending parents to a sex education class to help instruct their children.

---

That statement is probably more valuable than you intended when you wrote it :thumbsup:

Since when can we blame children for acting like idiots? Haha. While education is definitely a key issue, whether it be from teachers or parents, I think many overlook the role society plays on influencing young people. All the education in the world is no match for a scandalous TV show that glorifies indiscriminate sex or deviant behavior. Plain and simple. Maybe if people lead by example... teens would understand WHY sex has to be taken seriously, instead of just HEARING that it should be. We are a culture of adultery, promiscuity, and separation. Good or bad... whatever... it is what it is. We are also HUMAN. The drive for things like sexual intercourse, intimacy, and reproduction have been a part of our brain for a very very long time. For us to ignore the fact that we physiologically NEED to acheive that type of relationship, at whatever age, is plain ignorant. When young people see people in media or real life engaging in various types of sexual behavior... the curiosity is absolutely overpowering. Trust me... I was recently young :stoned: We should not expect a teacher to hold a teenagers hand through life... just like we can not expect a parent to be there ALL the time. We need to educate COLLECTIVELY. Whether we like it or not, television raises a good percentage of our nations young people. Now, people ALWAYS claim that this is bad. I completely disagree. The problem behind this type of education, is that we have completely lost control of what is shown in these media outlets. Now, I don't claim to be the moral authority by ANY means. I'm just saying that, with the amount of influence the media has in society... how can we expect anything other than mirrored behavior from those people that spend a majority of their time watching that television? I think we need to educate parents... educate teachers... educate students... educate children... educate ourselves... and most importantly, demand more responsibility from the media for the way they subconsciously influence young people. Adults should be old enough to know better than to believe what we see in movies and tv as fantasy. Young people do not have the life experience to see through that fantasy. Those little subliminal messages, that we ALL know exist in propagan... (woops) television ;)... really do play a more impacting role than many are willing to admit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

The last time I checked birth control was neither a moral or religious belief. It was just birth control. Maybe I'm naive though? From my point of view I don't understand the need to use government funds to tell kids how to put on a condom, what birth control is and what the consequences of having sex are. These are all common sense things that a parent can and should address. I just don't think it's the role of the government to teach kids how to use birth control.

---

If you thoguht I said birth control was a moral or religious belief, you misunderstood. I said the opposite. I said teaching about it was part of giving a person a clinical understanding of human health, which is a perfectly legitimate school subject. In my high school it was part of a Health and Safety and Drivers Education class that covered a wide range of subjects designed to teach people to make safe choices as they started making their own decisions about things. It didn't seem like a big waste of moeny to me --- I liked it. I think everyone kind of ridiculed it at the time, but actually liked it and learned something.

The other thing I said was that those who advocate for ABSTINENCE-ONLY education do so out of their own moral convictions, not out of a legitimate concern for public-safety. Teaching moral values is somethng to do at home. Teaching clinical facts is for school.

Well I do not agree with her abstinence only sex education program. However I do not hink that I should have to pay for any knocked up teenage mother or any other person who has a child without having the means to support it.

I believe that schools should have to teach all forms of birth control AND abortion to their students. Religious views should not be the basis for what schools teach children. I also feel however that parents should also teach their children about the various forms of birth control, abortion, the plan B pill and much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texas grass

what relevance does palins daughter have. shes a christian with christian values that she wants to push on me, and her christian daughter got pregnant while unwed. i have a problem with that because she wants to push god on me. remember god told her to do it. thats a big problem cause its the same as the muslims sayin allah told me to do it

you want change, mccain and bush basically voted together on everything but torture.

i want kids to be educated about diseases and pregnancy. you dont want education? they learn more about sex on tv falsely, so how would it hurt to learn it in school. isnt education good?

when palin first started as gov. her spending per person was about 800, the rest of the country was about 35. she wasted as much money as anyone else. she has no experience. the most experience she has is do we have enough snow for the snow mobile race.

---

Amen!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I also feel however that parents should also teach their children about the various forms of birth control, abortion, the plan B pill and much more.

---

Yeah, thats 70% of problem to me, parents are not doing whats called "parenting" these days... and they just bitch about it that schools dont do enough, um, schools aint day cares!

I have too many kids in my apartment block and they run around from 3rd floor to 1st floor, and their parents have not taught them that, when u run down the stairs of a crappy apartment complex the whole building shakes, feels like a mild earthquake! even worse the keep hitting the basketball down in the walkways and stairs too!

who should teach 'em about a simple commons sense thing like that? school?
and then we expect the parents to open up on their kids about "sex ed"

most of such parents have kids now cuz they didnt have "sex ed" themselves!
*unwanted kids* that they really dont care much about or for that matter raise in the right way!:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

So tell me... why is it the job of the government to make up for bad parenting? That's my only issue with this. If people would parent their kids and take responsibility for themselves then we could probably save a lot of money through various programs.

Personally I don't think it's the job of the government to teach sex education in public schools because their parents are too lazy, stupid, or scared to do it themselves.




I don't think that it's the school/governments job to do that either. Again I think that's a parents role.

---

Unfortunately every kid in the country doesn't have two parents who are always going to be around to mentor their children. Guess what, shit happens. Who is going to teach those kids about sex education or drugs, they'll have to learn that information elsewhere, so shouldn't it be from trained educators rather than just random people on the streets? We shouldn't punish kids just because of irresponsible parenting or circumstances that are out of a person's control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplehaze11

Unfortunately every kid in the country doesn't have two parents who are always going to be around to mentor their children. Guess what, shit happens. Who is going to teach those kids about sex education or drugs, they'll have to learn that information elsewhere, so shouldn't it be from trained educators rather than just random people on the streets? We shouldn't punish kids just because of irresponsible parenting or circumstances that are out of a person's control.

---

Since when does it take 2 parents to mentor a child. Every parent makes time, even if it's 30 minutes a day. You make time for your children; which is the exact point I was bringing up this entire time. Parents today do not parent enough, they do not make enough time for their children and to talk to them.

Education should start at the home and unfortunatley it's not, but you know what kids aren't stupid either. They would have to lead a very sheltered life to not know that if they have unprotected sex that there is a chance they will get pregnant. You act as if all teenagers are so naive.

Parents need to make time for their kids. There are NO excuses for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

No, it has to do with some things need to be taught by a parent. Do you take your kid to school to teach him how to ride a bike? It's something a parent should do.

Why don't you tell me how what I said was so terrible. What is so terrible about putting the responsibility into the parents hand. The parents who raised and cared for this kid. It is a parents responsibility to keep a child safe. Part of that safety is talking about sex.

Wow.. that's all I have to say to you. Wow.

---

What's so terrible is you'd rather have the school teach the least practiced form (and therefore least effective) of birth control, abstinence, but have parents teach about contraceptives, wasting my tax dollars in the process. I see absolutely no logic in that except that you want Christians to dominate our schools with their rhetoric.

Schools are centers for education. In this day in age, with so many parents being forced to take dramatic steps just to keep working, they aren't exactly around as often as they used to be. Therefore, the relationship between child and parent isn't quite what it used to be. I'd send my kids to school to learn everything they can, not simply academics. As a parent, of course it'd be my job to teach my children as well, but it should be supplementary to what they learn in school, not contrary or in spite of.

In this day and age, if you don't go to school as much as you possibly can, you're largely screwed, so I think I'd prefer it if they taught as much as humanly possible. I'm actually surprised that most dont teach about religions in more depth, that's something that REALLY needs to be taught.

I think sex ed must be in general curriculum of all schools @ the right age, because we all know there are always those families/parents that fail to do their job in this regard and this is something that will hurt all of us as a society, now with 1 teenager out of 3 with an STD and STDs becoming so normal, it will cost us in health care and other ways

However, IT IS "ALSO" and initially the parents' responsibility to tell their kids about sex, but sadly since some parents for various reasons dont/cant do this, therefore schools must also teach kids about sex and safety, NOT abstinence! that is taught for those interested, for free in church! schools aint churches!

We have too many failed families to risk not teaching whats important to kids in school, u must always know, its not the poor kids' fault if the federal government or whatever politician dictates some nonsense to schools and cuts their funding for it if they dont practice it, nor is it the kids' fault that their parents cant/dont do their parenting.

So the tax money should be spent in this regard, but in the correct direction! it will be beneficial to us as a society in the long run.

humans are not born with STDs @ first, so I don't know why any1 should have 1, if everyone "knew" how to be safe @ the right age, then we wouldnt have this embarrassing statistics!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank

What's so terrible is you'd rather have the school teach the least practiced form (and therefore least effective) of birth control, abstinence, but have parents teach about contraceptives, wasting my tax dollars in the process. I see absolutely no logic in that except that you want Christians to dominate our schools with their rhetoric.

Schools are centers for education. In this day in age, with so many parents being forced to take dramatic steps just to keep working, they aren't exactly around as often as they used to be. Therefore, the relationship between child and parent isn't quite what it used to be. I'd send my kids to school to learn everything they can, not simply academics. As a parent, of course it'd be my job to teach my children as well, but it should be supplementary to what they learn in school, not contrary or in spite of.

In this day and age, if you don't go to school as much as you possibly can, you're largely screwed, so I think I'd prefer it if they taught as much as humanly possible. I'm actually surprised that most dont teach about religions in more depth, that's something that REALLY needs to be taught.

---

Why would I care about christians? I'm agnostic.

The problem is that parents don't talk to kids about this sort of thing. If they did I guarantee you there would be a lot less need for sex ed. Many of the social problems we see today stem from poor parenting. It's not that I Feel it's bad it's that we need to not make it so easy for parents to let other people do their job.

So if we start taking away these services and force the responsibility back onto the parents I'm sure there would be much more benefit aside from being educated about contraceptives and safe sex. Parents don't seem to have time for uncomfortable conversation for their kids. They'd rather let someone else do it. It's not just sex ed, there are many other services I'd like to see put back into the hands of the parents just for the sake that they should be instilling values into their children. Being forced to teach your child about these things would help enforce those values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Why would I care about christians? I'm agnostic.

The problem is that parents don't talk to kids about this sort of thing. If they did I guarantee you there would be a lot less need for sex ed. Many of the social problems we see today stem from poor parenting. It's not that I Feel it's bad it's that we need to not make it so easy for parents to let other people do their job.

So if we start taking away these services and force the responsibility back onto the parents I'm sure there would be much more benefit aside from being educated about contraceptives and safe sex. Parents don't seem to have time for uncomfortable conversation for their kids. They'd rather let someone else do it. It's not just sex ed, there are many other services I'd like to see put back into the hands of the parents just for the sake that they should be instilling values into their children. Being forced to teach your child about these things would help enforce those values.

---

Then I guess I have to respectfully disagree with you. We won't get anywhere here because we have fundamental differences in how people think. You believe force will produce results, regardless of the damage to children and society. I, on the other hand, don't. Just because we try to force these responsibilities on to parents has NO bearing on whether or not they'll actually do it. Also, I almost certain that 90% of teenagers, when told to or how to do something by their parents, will often go out of their way to not do it, or to do it their own way. It's simply the way young people are. Knowledge is objective; parents are not. By purposefully not giving our children this important information we do them a great disservice. School is there for a reason; to learn anything and everything we possibly can.

good, teens dont belong prego, parents need to pay for shit like that..

teach your children
fuckers.

Abstinence is completely farcical, they use scare tactics and propaganda, sensationalizing the risk of STDs. Safe sex needs to be taught, like it is in Holland, where the subject isn't taboo because of the general tolerance. I believe society needs to progress to this liberal stage if the teen pregnancy rate will ever drop, though that's no guarentee. I remember an abstinence assembly i went to in high school in America, talk about a waste of tax dollars.. As for the job of the school, this is to provide an education, allowing students to receive knowledge, facts, the truth. To prepare them for life, the big bad world, the consequences which arise, such as how you'll get pregnant if you don't use a condom or even the pill. I agree that abstinence is synonymous with the religious right and their attitude that sex before marraige is immoral, if they believe that, they're entitled to, but it doesn't make them correct because morailty is subjective. It is common knowledge that sex education is taught in schools. Some parents don't teach their kids enough, however, the blame has to be put on the person participating in sex, they're independent enough to do it and thus accept the consequences for THEIR ignorance, or blatent disregard of warnings and basically common sense at that age. Have they been hiding their heads in the sand reading the bible? Most teens know what's up, it's their fault if they get pregnant/get someone pregnant. Like i say, advocate SAFE sex, it happens millions if not billions of times a day safely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

if we start taking away these services and force the responsibility back onto the parents

---

this looks good to me, but only in a fictional world or in a country like China.

how do u suggest we enforce such a thing?

LOTS & LOTS of these parents u mention are those who get accidentally pregnant and run with it! and many more are single parents who hardly get a chance to see their children for more than a couple hours a day sadly

unless u wanna make unwed pregnancy a crime [which will just add to the shit] or punish it by higher costs/taxes/fees and make all parents take a parenting qualification course and test b4 allowing them to have children or levy heavier taxes on them if they ended up with a child without passing the test of how to parent...

i just know such an idea will most likely result in fall of whoever that pushes for it in the political world! public outcry will be worse than anything u have seen before and all of a sudden our individual freedom and rights become very important and we wont sacrifice them for better of our society contrary to the idea that we currently have, to give up some basic individual rights & freedom for security and safety of all (the society)... :cool:

We really do need comprehensive sex ed in schools, if only because the kids that don't realize that babies can result from sex are precisely the ones we DON'T want breeding.

As for Palin cutting funding to those programs, it's not hypocritical at all. If anything, it makes her decision seem even more like it must have been the right one. After all, she knows what it's like to have a teenager get pregnant. Of course, this may all be a moot point, since she may have done it before her daughter got pregnant. It's only been like five months after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Why would I care about christians? I'm agnostic.

The problem is that parents don't talk to kids about this sort of thing. If they did I guarantee you there would be a lot less need for sex ed. Many of the social problems we see today stem from poor parenting. It's not that I Feel it's bad it's that we need to not make it so easy for parents to let other people do their job.

So if we start taking away these services and force the responsibility back onto the parents I'm sure there would be much more benefit aside from being educated about contraceptives and safe sex. Parents don't seem to have time for uncomfortable conversation for their kids. They'd rather let someone else do it. It's not just sex ed, there are many other services I'd like to see put back into the hands of the parents just for the sake that they should be instilling values into their children. Being forced to teach your child about these things would help enforce those values.

---

I very much agree with you that overall it's the parents responsiblity to teach their kids about sex and how to have safe sex. The problem having the parents solely responsible is you don't know if the parents know any better. In addition, you are limiting the perspective of a child when it comes to sex education and life matters. Passing them the buck doesn't make them instantly knowledgeable or knows how to communicate properly those values. Heck their parents might be engaging in unsafe behavior as adults. That's why I don't mind having sex ed taught in schools. Prepare them for when the time comes. I also think total abstinence is a crazy concept. Sure there are times you should abstain and that's should be communicated when taking about contraceptives. But never should they taught complete abstinence because that's a disaster waiting to happen, whether kids engaged in unsafe sex, or kids are taught sex is an evil thing. Sex can be a beautiful act.