DanGreene posts:

Dan, that's it in a nutshell. School policies should always be aimed to the common good for all and this particular decision is wrong....Trouble is nowadays, what is wrong to some folks isn't wrong to others...moral relativism is alive and well and as has been shown is applied even when the health and welfare of children is concerned.


DanGreene posts:

I remember this was the first response of some parents when this story first broke. They obviously were in a position where they could make the choice to move their children to an alternate type of school. This unfortunately, is not an option available to most.

Problem is the government has a monoply on education...there is no choice in public education and these people are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

"Trouble is nowadays, what is wrong to some folks isn't wrong to others...moral relativism is alive and well and as has been shown is applied even when the health and welfare of children is concerned."

I'm not a religious nut. I'm ok with 18 year old screwing their brains out, and getting contraceptives from the government. The difference is, they are not minors and it is not an illegality.

Minors can and will be prosecuted for rape crimes even if the sex they have is consensual depending on the state. It isn't ethical for the children to be having sex, or the children that could be created by illicit activity to have to be taken care of by children unable to care for them. Anybody jumping in front of the freight train to defend the decision is just wrong.

The moral aspect of it is bad, minors having sex, but the ethical aspect of having a government supporting illicit activity or enabling it by the actions of unwise adults in temporary custody of the decision making is what is intolerable.

"Problem is the government has a monoply on education...there is no choice in public education and these people are stuck between a rock and a hard place."

They have a mandate, but I agree I think we could be better served by private education. I think rather than private education, we should look to ways to make public education more like private education. We should find ways to reward teachers and schools for good performance, and work to improve schools that don't perform well. Rather than giving bonuses to teachers, give that money to the school to upgrade it's technology or fix infrastructure, whatever is preventing students from learning well.

Boneheaded and stupid decisions like this though don't bode well for higher education. I think it isn't just school that needs to be fixed, but government in general.

They changed the rules that parents could opt out of the birth control but still allow their kids access to the clinic and also that only girls over 14 would be given the pill.

Want to bet the COURTS (not parents, and not the schools) decide that this implies an age of consent of 14, and that anyone engaging in sex with a minor of that age cannot be convicted of Statutory Rape?

Like I said, moral relativism is alive and well.

Good points.

We would never agree on this, LW.

No one should, period.



This is most probably true.

But thinking through even this..


If you had started using birth control drugs at this tender age, it's quite possible that you could have ended up with other problems, such as sterility, cancer, etc.

you missed it again. the parents at this school signed their paper work 2 months ago. the clinic has just be authorized to hand out the pills. so all of those parents who signed paper work two months ago had no idea about this pill problem. now if i was the school it would mean that if we decided to give all kids, who already had permission, vitamin pills. then it would be legal for us to do so. does this make the parents stupid or lazy. no it doesn't not. it means that the school is using a loop hole to give out those pills.

"This makes no sense. It takes a male and a female to create a child, does it not?"

You said it not me, but when I was in Middle school-High school 1994-2000 yes it took a male and a female having sexual intercourse to create a child. It still does as far as I know Whip.

"The only birth control measure available to boys is a condom, something they can readily purchase at any convenience store or gas station men's room. With or without your consent."

Not true or accurate, there are lot of methods,
A. There is the pull out, (a method we were taught in highschool of all places with the side snicker that is has a low chance of success
B. There is the timing method, where you have sex when a woman, not girl, is not ovulating.
C. There is the get her drunk or high so she wont remember who I am method, inner cities right Whip?
D. Condom 98% effective when used perfectly.
E. Anal penetration, (also taught to us in highschool)
F. There is abstinence, where you don't fuck at all until you are ready to deal with what could happen.
G. "The shot" which lowers sperm production, probably not available to 11-17 year olds, yet.

"A female classmate taking BC pills is not going to get YOUR daughter pregnant, even if she does 'coerce' her into sexual activity."

Great point, unless I have a son, and she and he decide that because she is on BC, a potentially failable product/method of contraception, it's ok to do it, say they don't get pregnant but he gets a life altering STD. Nothing personal, but suppose your daughter has beee busy, only because of your "approval by permission" and she has mutiple STD's but is untested and diagnosed because you didn't know she was sexually active right, and my son gets her pregnant. Now we hit the jackpot Whip. See how it gets me involved because it takes TWO TO FUCK!

Now did I give my CONSENT! to either of them, no, but free love/birth control dispensing because you gave permission for your daughter to have illegal sex makes it more likely that my son will be impacted and thus me.

I don't even have kids Whip and I can see this reality, perhaps it is because you don't have kids that you don't but I don't understand why I can see it but you can't.

"A condom is far more likely to fail than BC pills."
Cite some stats.

"If I had my way, Dan, young women would be put on long-term birth control (like Norplant or any of the other 5- year methods) immediately after their first period."

Again you said it not me, I'm glad you are being honest that your viewpoint is that if you had your way 9-10-11 year old girls are given the expectation that they should be having sex.
Before it is moral, legal, or ethical for them to do so.

"Pregnancy at such a tender age is devastating, no matter what decision is ultimately made in regards to that pregnancy."

So is losing a baby because your body is unable to handle a pregnancy before you are mature and developed, contracting an STD, being accused of rape, being jailed for consensual sex and serving a rape sentence, being stigmatized throughout high school as easy.

"I know. I've been there. And as such I feel slightly more qualified to offer up an opinion on the matter, although I recognize that at least in JU, I hold the minority opinion."

It is just as valid as anyone else's opinion, even if it sounds like it's from a Stanley Kubrick movie or tales form the dark side episode.

"Most of my sexual partners, btw, were not even in school, and I was eventually impregnated by an 18 year old GI who was stationed there in Augsburg. Being a minor, I had no choice in the decision my parents made for me (in all their Baptist wisdom and respect for the sanctity of life) and I had an abortion the day before my 14th birthday."

I'm not sure I understand you here Whip, Do you not think that by encouraging sex rather than working to prevent it, helping children 9-15 year olds and young adults 15-17 year olds make better decisions and hold a more educated outlook on their future that makes more sense, than encouraging underage and illicit sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of experimentation or pleasure at the risk of all the bad to terrible things that can happen to them when they do.

"I am pro-life to the core. I am solidly for anything that prevents pregnancy, including abstinence and birth control, whatever it takes."

I'm pretty sure the tag Pro life, means taking responsibility for the life you create, not working to prevent it once you have gone ahead and made it, whether it was right or wrong to do so.

"In a perfect world, no child would have sex before they are ready to accept the responsibility of raising a child. In a perfect world, any child even considering having sex prior to that would have a heart to heart with mom and dad, and that heart to heart would result in her changing her mind and deciding not to. In a perfect world, any child deciding to go against mom and dad's wishes and have sex anyway would be able to go to their parents and be given the information and materials needed to prevent STDs and pregnancy.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, so the way I see it is this--in our imperfect world, if a child decides to have sex against mom and dad's wishes and mom and dad would rather keep their heads buried in the sand until disaster strikes, that child ought to have a way to make another decision, a decision to avoid that catastrophe in the first place."

Which is why your idea of protecting children by giving them the keys to the car, cigarattes, booze, and birth control, at the ripe old age of 9-17 makes no sense whatsoever.

"No 13 year old should ever have to lay on the abortionists table."

No 13 year old should be fucking.

"If I had had access to birth control, I would have been able to avoid that."

I don't feel like I'm being fair criticizing you and I don't know the whole story. You choose to continue to put your personal life out there. Whats on the page is fair game, right Whip. If you were raped, that is one thing, and I agree with you that no child should ever have to deal with that.

However, that is not what this decision was about, most underage pregnancies and pregnancies in general are not the result of non-consensual sex. Often underage sex doesn't even accompany relationships. As an adult you have the skills and the tools, along with the stability to deal with becoming a parent or choosing not to. However as a child, you do not. We should not be allowing our government to introduce any additional risks to our children than the ones they might undertake on their own through stupidity or youthful misadventure.

If you have made a better decision, i.e. not to have sex, you would not have had to face an abortion or the alternative, raising a child which you were not equipped to care for.

"All you have to do, Dan, (and the rest of you) is not sign the freakin' permission slip."

Ok so I don't sign it but maybe 50 parents/students out of 500 do. Say half of those students bow to "peer pressure" and "media influences" and maybe lack of guidance from their parents. Whatever, So 25 middle schools students are actively trying to have sex with my minor child. Do you see the problem?

Again it is neither,
moral for children to be raising children
ethical for two people to create a life they cannot care for
legal for under age kids to have sex....

Also, STD's are spread when people have sex without using protection or sticking to trusted and clean monogamous partners. Where I come from Middle school students aren't educated on how to prevent STD's just what they are. This is because people from my neck of the woods have the good sense to expect their minor child who is 5 years removed form learning how to cross a street looking both ways, isn't participating in sexual intercourse. We are taught and learn it well in high school because that is the age young adults start to take risks and get into trouble.

The problem of teenage pregnancy is severe enough at this age, why move it back 5 more years with the stupidity of encouraging sex between children?

Please take a few moments reexamine your own thoughts and explain again, why encouraging this can of worms, at a younger age than 18, is a good idea for our children?

Lula posts:

LW POSTS:

Someone just mailed me a bunch of newspaper clippings cncerning the King Middle School debacle.

One editorial writer wrote his own version of what the middle school should be giving parents who give permission to use the clinic.

"I hereby repudiate and renounce any pretense I have ever made to be a responsible parent for my son or daughter. In relinquishing control over this vital part of their physical and moral development to the government, I declare myself a hopeless failure as a parent."

To Dan Greene,

Your input on this weighty topic has been very informative, helpful and interesting to read, however, I would greatly appreciate and thank you if you would kindly refrain from using profanity.

"Your input on this weighty topic has been very informative, helpful and interesting to read, however, I would greatly appreciate and thank you if you would kindly refrain from using profanity."

Deal.

"Our disagreement lies in the fact that I do not believe that giving a youngster access to birth control is the same as encouraging them to have sex any more than teaching a young driver to wear a seat belt is encouraging them to drive like an idiot."

Youngsters, are youngerst for a reason, because they are not OLD ENOUGH to be engaging in the behaviour. You must be this tall to have sexual intercourse so to speak!

How about answering my question. When you say :

"If I had my way, Dan, young women would be put on long-term birth control (like Norplant or any of the other 5- year methods) immediately after their first period."

Does that mean you'd be in favor of hooking up 9 and 10 year old girls or even younger with birth control? And why would be doing this, in case they have sex?

I'm pretty sure you can't have your cake and eat it too Whip, certainly you can't be giving out birth control to people who are too young to know how to use it properly or choose to use is consistently or understand the consequences if they fail in either regard.

I just don't see why you think it's a good idea to just brush off all the other illegalities as well as the STD problem that is not solved by your favored solution i.e. the pill.

"We are never going to agree on this, and I'm not going to repeat myself further."

Uh huh, I'll believe that when I see it. Moreover, it would be more beneficial to your argument in favor of the freedom of 9 and 10 year olds to make family planning decisions to actually defend the weaknesses of your idea or at least explain what you mean. But then I guess you can't take the time to go into detail or examine why your thinking is so lacking in logic or dangerous for young children.

Boo hoo Whip, I'm pretty sure, I didn't start personal attacks against you but defended my points against yours. I came to this forum not from an interest in news or banter but to find ways of improving Galciv 2 when it sucked royally pre patches.

Now when you bring a faulted argument and distorted logic to a problem here and elsewhere, as in the past I've called you on it, when confronted with the reality of your statements it's me who has a "bug up my ass", or is the "racist" or is attacking you.

No whip, it is your personal attacks on other's here at JU and your faulted logic and inability to address those who would think differently. When you cannot compete or debate you resort to personal attacks, or start your own thread as to why other people are incompetent or liberals.

Answer my question. Why do you think it's a good idea, allowing the government to issue birth control to children? Because that is what your statement entails.

Defend it, revoke it, or runaway from it, you said it, you own it.

i have a question


if telling your kids not to do it for 10,000 years or if your religious 6000 years was good enough to keep most kids from having sex. how come in the last 50 years it hasn't been.


one more question when did they start giving the pill to women.

That's just the thing, people! Get your freaking heads out of the sand!

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SCREWING THE WHOLE TIME, stupids! "Telling kids not to do it" has NOT kept "most kids from having sex". Get your heads out of the sand, folks.

I agree, SC.

In fact, I believe we should abolish all murder laws. People have killed each other since Cain and Abel.

And theft? fuggeddaboudit. Realease all convicted murderers and thieves from prison because they're going to do it anyway.

Now, I'm saying this acknowledging there is SOME difference because sex (ideally) involves consent between both parties, but, really, at that age, how much of it is consent and how much coercion? I'd argue that more often than not it's the latter.

I don't agree with KFC's or Lula's approach, but frankly, I'm just as sick of those of you who mock them for WANTING something better for our kids.

The fact is, there IS a solution. Children who choose to remain abstinent at least into their adult years are more prevalent in families where the parents are involved, where the children know they are loved and accepted and don't have to look to someone else for that. Yes, sometimes children from those families still have sex at a young age, and yes, you can't completely prevent that from happening, but you shouldn't give up entirely based on the lack of a 100% success rate.

The truth is, there IS a push to sexualize our children way too young. Yes, they have raging hormones, but yes, differences can be made. I will use personal examples. My oldest daughter is 12, and while she does have some interest in boys, she doesn't have an interest in sneaking over to the old house to sleep with every guy who looks at her. And yes, we would know. We're THAT involved. One of my kids' best friends, on the other hand, is 8 years old, and he's already trying to be the "ladies man" with his several girlfriends.

You may not agree with KFC and Lula, but when you mock them for even TRYING, it 's just as wrong as the position they take.

Difference - years ago, you'd get married at puberty, because they knew you'd want to screw. You also knew how to support your family at puberty. Now, they have a new classification of age - adolescence. This is the time of your life where you should be an adult, but laws and lack of knowledge keep you from being able to support any family you may have.

Very interesting point Jythier.

just curious Gid, what exactly do you think is wrong about Lula and my position here?



Yes, this is true. Of course many grew up around trades and worked early with their families learning these skills that would carry them thru adulthood. Kids were on their own as young as even 15 way back when. I read stories over the years of young boys going on voyages as young as 12 or so starting their adult lives then. Even during the early wars you can read about boys joining the forces as young as 16-17. They grew up faster and out of their home than our kids do today. Now we're kicking them out of the house at 25 for the most part.

I talked to my dad about this subject this week. He was born in 1938. He said the kids had sex back in his day as well...it's not a new phenomenom...but it's not nearly as prevalent as today. Many in his generation got married as virgins. It was more the norm and expected.

But he also spoke of the dating scene today and how it's different than it was in his day and before that. He spoke of his mother's day when chaperones were the norm. A young lady would NEVER be expected to be alone with a male suitor. They were always supervised right up till the wedding. Sometimes the first kiss was right there at the church. The adults knew the power of the sexual urges and wanted to protect their daughters helping them remain pure for their wedding night.

In today's strict Christian circles this is still being done to some extent, but it's rare. I bet the Amish have much stricter rules about dating than we do. I'm wondering if they don't also believe in courtship instead of dating.

I should reread those books I have, but I think the Amish kids date behind the parent's backs for the most part. The parents know about it, of course, but they mostly ignore it because they also know they're not out 'doing it' and will probably marry the only person they dated.

who is coercing who tho

It's been pointed out numerous times. I'm trying to break my habit of beating dead horses

daniellost posts:

In 1942, the Birth Control Federation of America became Planned Parenthood Federation of America. By 1963, the birth contol pill was announced as being safe, natural, and psysiologic

Two years later in 1965, the US Congress began subsidizing birth control for the poor.

Five years later, in 1970, Title X (10) was formed as part of the Public Health Service Act. Title X spends taxpayers' money on "family planning" and "health care" for women, (euphemisms for sterilization and abortion)which includes the distribution of contraceptives and devices and counseling for abortion as a means of birth control.

The Act was originally intended to reduce pregnancies among poor people, and has been greatly expanded to cover teens and now, seemingly, middle school school age youngsters.

In his prophetical encyclical, Humanae Vitae, 1968, Pope Paul VI, in which he predicted the acceptance of contraceptives as a way of family planning and which separates sex from procreation within marital intercourse, was the first behavior that triggered other morally destructive kinds of activity all of which constitute what I think can appropriately be described as the moral revolution of the century.

The long list of behaviors that comprise the moral revolution that stems from the social acceptance of contraceptives is the first domino that triggered acceptance of abortion, pornography, single parent families, homosexuality, divorce, and shacking up, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell use, and cloning to name a few.

I agree with your whole comment. I respect Lula and KFC, and see they have different views than me. But they are also parents, and those who seem to be doing the most mocking are for the most part childless. I just hope they are still in the learning stage.