VABills Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Where do you see that? The only reference to any religious organization is last two sentences of the article: 633806[/snapback] Yeah like the Catholic Church hasn't been opposed to constraceptives for about 2000 years now, nothing new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Opinion as Fact. 633791[/snapback] Teen sex increased after abstinence program Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush’s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers’ behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study. Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University. Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact : for Missouri There was a statistically significant increase in sexual behavior from pre- to posttest; the increase occurred for both genders, but was larger for males than for females. Shall I continue? I found those pretty quick. Notice the one specific to Missouri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 (edited) Where do you see that? The only reference to any religious organization is last two sentences of the article: 633806[/snapback] Right here. I am assuming of course, that Missouri Right to Life is a religious-based organization, or has significant ties. The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending. EDIT: Here's their Issue of Life page. Edited March 17, 2006 by Johnny Coli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 There was a statistically significant increase in sexual behavior from pre- to posttest; the increase occurred for both genders, but was larger for males than for females. And what did this study cost to produce? I could argue that young guys are going to nail anything they can, just because. And I don't need statistics to support that. Neither do you. So, now when we all already know some guys like to get laid, as do some women, it's a social and political issue because...why? Once again, I disagree with the morals implications and flavor here, but it's the defense by this board that has me astounded. This could have been ended in about 4 posts. Everyone could easily agree that people have sex, at least some do. I can't speak for those who want it controlled by a government program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 You are actually comparing vaccinating little kids with supplying free birth control and vd clinics for people who supposedly won't be able to afford condoms for themselves?! If you really can't afford the condom or the kid, don't have sex! You seem to forget that option. I know, you can't deny the poor anything just because they can't afford it...I can't afford to do a lot of the things that I enjoy, should you be forced to pay for that too? 633654[/snapback] Vaccines keep people from getting sick, uninsured ones too. And that saves money. Condoms also keep people form getting sick, uninsured people too. And that saves money. Do you want to spend pennies on condoms or millions on unwanted children and venereal disease? Why don't you go stand in a corner with some other wingnut and have a nice long debate about what people should and shouldn't do while the rest of us deal with the reality of what people actually do? God, I so wish you were running the Republican Party. Imagine the slogans: "No sex for the Poor". "The poor: they deserve it!". "Eff the Poor". I'd love for the democrats to run against that platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Would any of you give up sex altogether? 633398[/snapback] Well, I have been married for nearly two decades. As for the rest of your points: Sorry about taking away this particular giveaway. Personally I'd like to see governments stop ALL giveaways. It's the road to ruin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 And what did this study cost to produce? I could argue that young guys are going to nail anything they can, just because. And I don't need statistics to support that. Neither do you. So, now when we all already know some guys like to get laid, as do some women, it's a social and political issue because...why? Once again, I disagree with the morals implications and flavor here, but it's the defense by this board that has me astounded. This could have been ended in about 4 posts. Everyone could easily agree that people have sex, at least some do. I can't speak for those who want it controlled by a government program. 633828[/snapback] While most people are reasonable enough to know that abstinence-only programs are doomed to fail, for some it takes an actual study to get them to pull their head out of their ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 While most people are reasonable enough to know that abstinence-only programs are doomed to fail, for some it takes an actual study to get them to pull their head out of their ass. 633835[/snapback] The only people arguing for "abstinence only" education are the ones who are forced to practice it because no one will give it up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 While most people are reasonable enough to know that abstinence-only programs are doomed to fail, for some it takes an actual study to get them to pull their head out of their ass. 633835[/snapback] What a crock. If that be the case, we need new people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Right here. I am assuming of course, that Missouri Right to Life is a religious-based organization, or has significant ties.EDIT: Here's their Issue of Life page. 633821[/snapback] That still doesn't prove that the church is responsible for the lack of funding, which was your statement. This is a group made up of obviously religious people, but I do not see the connection where the church is calling the shots for this organization. If you can show me a better connection, I am more than willing to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 Cutting gov't funding = preventing people from making choices? I don't care for the religious right and their involvement in policy annoys the hell out of me. But your choice of words continues to be unfortunate. Nobody has "banned" contraception or is "preventing people from making a choice". No matter how poor or stupid you are you can still go spend a dollar on a rubber if you need one. If you want to start a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of this issue, then perhaps you'd be better served to stick to the actual issues instead of going hyperbolic on us. Your melodramatic use of language serves to accomplish nothing more than eliciting emotional responses and undermining what may possibly be a valid point. Cya 633129[/snapback] The measure targets contraception, not just rubbers. It includes natural family planning services as well. Can you buy that in a drugstore? The goal her is fewer sexually transmitted illnesses and fewer unwanted children. Both of those end up costing us a lot more than would providing contraceptive services at public clinics. This measure will result in fewer people using contraception. That translates into more sickness, more unwanted children, more abortions and higher health care costs. I can see why you are more interested in discussing rhetorical style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Blaming anything or anyone other than your own self for the results of one's copulation is beyond the pale. Humping is an optional act - it is not breathing, drinking, or the requirements of food and clothing or heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 That still doesn't prove that the church is responsible for the lack of funding, which was your statement. This is a group made up of obviously religious people, but I do not see the connection where the church is calling the shots for this organization. If you can show me a better connection, I am more than willing to listen. 633869[/snapback] I'm going by the original article. Rep. Phillips mentions (as stated in the article)that Missouri Right to Life is against the funding right before the vote that eliminates the funding. Their "focus" page is loaded with quotes from religious leaders and the Catholic Church. If I smell a turd, I don't actually have to see it to know it's there. Just because their website doesn't have a cross and a dancing Pope on it doesn't mean they're not connected in a major way. Maybe you're right and they're just a PAC of concerned agnostics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 The measure targets contraception, not just rubbers. It includes natural family planning services as well. Can you buy that in a drugstore? The goal her is fewer sexually transmitted illnesses and fewer unwanted children. Both of those end up costing us a lot more than would providing contraceptive services at public clinics. This measure will result in fewer people using contraception. That translates into more sickness, more unwanted children, more abortions and higher health care costs. I can see why you are more interested in discussing rhetorical style. 633874[/snapback] Oh, blow me Mickey. You know better than any of that. You the voice of reason here or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 The measure targets contraception, not just rubbers. It includes natural family planning services as well. Can you buy that in a drugstore? 633874[/snapback] Nah, you have to go to the library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Oh, blow me Mickey. You know better than any of that. You the voice of reason here or something? 633939[/snapback] He might catch a STD if you don't wear your free rubber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 18, 2006 Author Share Posted March 18, 2006 Oh, blow me Mickey. You know better than any of that. You the voice of reason here or something? 633939[/snapback] Hold on Bib, I'm still trying to get my arms around the idea that you supported sterilization of the poor. Only a fool would fashion public health policy based on what people should do. What people actually do would seem to me to be a more sound basis for making such decisions. Yet that is all so many here want to talk about. An inspirational discussion over whether the poor are irresponsible for screwing without rubbers or other contraceptives they can't afford. Riveting. Having a public health clinic without contraceptives and family planning services is like having a first aid kit without bandaids. There are plenty here who oppose the very idea of a public health clinic let alone any particular program it might have. No sense really talking to anyone like that and their viewpoint is, at least for now, one from the outer fringe. That is what I like about this story, it smokes the Pat Buchanan ugly side of the right out into the open. If Democrats are going to start winning elections again it will be the result of the "compassionate conservative" bs being unmasked to reveal the public health clinic closing, sterilizing truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 18, 2006 Author Share Posted March 18, 2006 Nah, you have to go to the library. 633980[/snapback] The way things are going in Mizzou, I would think that he public library has long been sanitized of any books that might promote promiscuity, you know, like books on contraception. I guess if we all just learned to love one another, to always signal before changing lanes, to wait 30 minutes after lunch before swimming and to say "please" and "thank you" we would make of this world a paradise on Earth. Thus, if only responsible people who never make a mistake had sex, this wouldn't be an issue. However, back in the real world, sane people make public policy based on what people actually do rather than on what we wish they would do. Besides, your problem isn't with condoms. If it were up to you, there wouldn't be any government give away like public health clinics, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 The way things are going in Mizzou, I would think that he public library has long been sanitized of any books that might promote promiscuity, you know, like books on contraception. I guess if we all just learned to love one another, to always signal before changing lanes, to wait 30 minutes after lunch before swimming and to say "please" and "thank you" we would make of this world a paradise on Earth. Thus, if only responsible people who never make a mistake had sex, this wouldn't be an issue. However, back in the real world, sane people make public policy based on what people actually do rather than on what we wish they would do. Besides, your problem isn't with condoms. If it were up to you, there wouldn't be any government give away like public health clinics, no? 634173[/snapback] That's what makes this country great. Every state doesn't have to follow your rules. The people of the state elect their reps who then makes laws that represent the value system of the majority in that state. I know you and a lot of democrats who can't seem to undertsand that concept that majority makes the decisions. If the people don;t think they are being represented, then elect new people next time. These folks are in Missouri, last time I checked you didn't live there, so this really doesn't affect you. If you are so bothered, move there and run for office or at least vote for the person who best represents you values. If your candidate loses because most people don;t like him, then guess what Mickey, he loses, and you have to abide by whatever stupid laws the people democratically elected representative comes up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Besides, your problem isn't with condoms. If it were up to you, there wouldn't be any government give away like public health clinics, no? 634173[/snapback] Correct, though in my politics that only applies to the FEDERAL government. I haven't read each state's Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts