Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly for a fair amount of people in this country they probably see this as reason for more abstinence "education" even though this could be partially a result of that BS that was touted during Bush's presidency. It's just so ironic how some of the most socially conservative states have the most social problems.
Idiocracy is starting to look more like a documentary every year.
Idiocracy is a statement about more liberal values and the "dumbing down" of America more than anything else. The movie speaks volumes about what will happen to this country if the far, far left have their say.
Hmmm, could this be 0bama's "The era of personal responsibility is over" which is a spin off of bill Clinton's "The era of big government is over"?
Nice try, however, these data are as of 2006. Can't blame it on Obama, can't blame it on Jamie Lynn Spears, can't blame it on Bristol Palin, can't even blame it on 'Juno.'
From the OP's link:
"The U.S. teen pregnancy rate rose in 2006 for the first time in more than a decade, reversing a long slide, a U.S. think tank reported on Tuesday."
Seems we were right smack in the middle of that 'abstinence-only' fervor then, weren't we?
Also from the OP's link:
""It's interesting to note that this flattening out of the rate and the increase in the rate is happening at the same time that we've seen substantial increases in funding for abstinence-only programs," Finer said.
"We do know that when we saw the big decline in the '90s, that a lot of that decline was due to improved contraceptive use among teens.""
Personally, I think it is pretty clear that abstinence-only doesn't work, particularly for younger teens.
I do have to say though, I wonder why they included women 18+ in this report. Since they are legally adults, I don't see how including them adds anything to this investigation.
Talk about a huge non-sequitur. So we are talking about teen pregnancy rates, and then you drop some red-herring about abortion rates just to justify your unheeded belief to begin with. The problem with your theory is that there is absolutely no way to separate out those who had abortions who are under the age of 18 and those who are over the age of 18. What's next?
Then to top it off, you add some off-handed comment about political leanings. Kudos to you! Thanks for the mature conversation. Until you detail some kind of methodology proving your previous statements saying that
is in fact correct (separating out all the correlated variables that are relevant, such as poverty rate, crime rate, etc.), have some moretact.
Abortion rates are abdominal in those states and you tout it like it's a good thing? This country has gone LOONIE!
I don't care if NY is the abortion capital. I've never heard that though. I'd rather people abort a pregnancy if they aren't ready. I think that's putting the baby first
To KILL the baby is putting the baby first? Wow, now I've HEARD IT ALL!
Before everyone gets off on a political, morality or blame track, let's take a moment to see just WHO produced these statistics and why. ALWAYS, ALWAYS question the source before going off half-cocked. Don't be so easily deceived by advocacy groups.
This data was developed by the Guttmacher Institute, described in the article as a "think tank." It was founded by Dr. Alan Guttmacher who was an important and active member of Planned Parenthood for many years after witnessing a botched illegal abortion in the 1920's. (all this is from their website).
A couple of quotes from Dr. Guttmacher show his thoughts on abortion:
"No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."
"We really have the opportunity now to extend free choice in family planning to all Americans, regardless of social status, and to demonstrate to the rest of the world how it can be done. It's time we got on with the job."
Among the Institutes goals are these:
They will conduct verifiable scientific research in order to develop:
• A comprehensive view of sexual and reproductive health. The Institute regards sexual and reproductive health as encompassing a wide range of people’s needs from adolescence onward. The Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable women and men to
•avoid unplanned pregnancies;
•prevent and treat sexually transmitted infections, including HIV;
•exercise the right to choose abortion;
•achieve healthy pregnancies and births; and
•have healthy, satisfying sexual relationships.
And, they will use that research in the following manner:
Use evidence-based advocacy to translate research findings into action.
• Advocate effectively for evidence-based U.S. domestic and foreign policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights in order to improve access to reliable information and good quality services.
• Advocate effectively for evidence-based policies at the global level, in other major donor countries and in selected developing countries in collaboration with local organizations.
• Raise the public profile of Guttmacher’s work in order to increase its potential impact on policies and programs and garner support from important funders for Guttmacher’s future work.
In other words, the goal of their research is to affect public policy and turn the Institute into an authority on the subject of sexual health.
Now...why is that important to know when reviewing the OP's original link and the article it goes to?
Just this. Within that article we find this quote from a representative of the Institute:
"It's interesting to note that this flattening out of the rate and the increase in the rate is happening at the same time that we've seen substantial increases in funding for abstinence-only programs," Finer said.
Do you see what's happening now? The Institute is pro-choice, in line with the opinions of it's founder, and this data is being released to the media with little other aim than to discredit abstinence-only programs. The data, which must be suspect given the aim of the Institute, apparently makes no effort to establish a definitive cause and effect link between the rise in teen pregnancies and abstinence-only programs, but you'd never know that because the idea is just sort of "casually" tossed out there by the Institute's spokesman.
Additionally, there is no information on just what the Institute considers as "teenage" for the purposes of their research nor is there any indication how many of these pregnancies are a result of marriage, rape, stable relationships or casual sex.
In summation, let me suggest that what we have here is just one more example of how public opinion can be shaped and driven by those with an agenda which is not readily apparent without digging deeper.
Don't be fooled so easily, not this time nor any time you see alarming data coming from some advocacy group.
Good grief!
You read and reposted all that information, and all you gleaned was that PP (sorry chiel) was against abstinence only programs? Unbelievable, seriously, and people wonder why teen pregnancy rates are so high with misinformation and folklore the chosen sex-ed of the day. Abstinence only programs have been proven to be a huge failure.
So of course other programs need to be introduced. Abstinence education should be part of sex-ed, not instead of, that is the point PP is trying to make. Abtinence is one of the choices pro-choice supports, and PP endorses. After all these years people still don't get what CHOICE really means.
Before everyone gets off on a political, morality or blame track, let's take a moment to see just WHO produced these statistics and why. ALWAYS, ALWAYS question the source before going off half-cocked. Don't be so easily deceived by advocacy groups.
This data was developed by the Guttmacher Institute, described in the article as a "think tank." It was founded by Dr. Alan Guttmacher who was an important and active member of Planned Parenthood for many years after witnessing a botched illegal abortion in the 1920's. (all this is from their website).
A couple of quotes from Dr. Guttmacher show his thoughts on abortion:
"No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."
"We really have the opportunity now to extend free choice in family planning to all Americans, regardless of social status, and to demonstrate to the rest of the world how it can be done. It's time we got on with the job."
Among the Institutes goals are these:
They will conduct verifiable scientific research in order to develop:
• A comprehensive view of sexual and reproductive health. The Institute regards sexual and reproductive health as encompassing a wide range of people’s needs from adolescence onward. The Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable women and men to
•avoid unplanned pregnancies;
•prevent and treat sexually transmitted infections, including HIV;
•exercise the right to choose abortion;
•achieve healthy pregnancies and births; and
•have healthy, satisfying sexual relationships.
And, they will use that research in the following manner:
Use evidence-based advocacy to translate research findings into action.
• Advocate effectively for evidence-based U.S. domestic and foreign policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights in order to improve access to reliable information and good quality services.
• Advocate effectively for evidence-based policies at the global level, in other major donor countries and in selected developing countries in collaboration with local organizations.
• Raise the public profile of Guttmacher’s work in order to increase its potential impact on policies and programs and garner support from important funders for Guttmacher’s future work.
In other words, the goal of their research is to affect public policy and turn the Institute into an authority on the subject of sexual health.
Now...why is that important to know when reviewing the OP's original link and the article it goes to?
Just this. Within that article we find this quote from a representative of the Institute:
"It's interesting to note that this flattening out of the rate and the increase in the rate is happening at the same time that we've seen substantial increases in funding for abstinence-only programs," Finer said.
Do you see what's happening now? The Institute is pro-choice, in line with the opinions of it's founder, and this data is being released to the media with little other aim than to discredit abstinence-only programs. The data, which must be suspect given the aim of the Institute, apparently makes no effort to establish a definitive cause and effect link between the rise in teen pregnancies and abstinence-only programs, but you'd never know that because the idea is just sort of "casually" tossed out there by the Institute's spokesman.
Additionally, there is no information on just what the Institute considers as "teenage" for the purposes of their research nor is there any indication how many of these pregnancies are a result of marriage, rape, stable relationships or casual sex.
In summation, let me suggest that what we have here is just one more example of how public opinion can be shaped and driven by those with an agenda which is not readily apparent without digging deeper.
Don't be fooled so easily, not this time nor any time you see alarming data coming from some advocacy group.
While I agree that there is some very meaningful information lacking in the synopsis of the findings, I have absolutely no problem with the Institute's 'agenda' and I happen to agree 100% with their goals and with the quotes from Dr. Guttmacher that you provided above.
Womens' lives have only changed for the better with access to birth control, good-quality qyn/ob care and all associated services.
How anyone could argue with reduced maternal death rates, reduced infant mortality (although both are still higher here than in other countries), and other positive benefits is totally beyond me.
Perhaps some investigation into the history of womens' healthcare in this country is in order.
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,152,651 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzpost
Idiocracy is a statement about more liberal values and the "dumbing down" of America more than anything else. The movie speaks volumes about what will happen to this country if the far, far left have their say.
Completely inaccurate.
The Dumbing Down of America has been based in several partisan concepts from all sides.
Dumbing Down is as much a mechanism of extremist capitalism, greed and GOP policies; as they are of Liberal extremism.
One day people like you will finally learn that narrow-minded partisan loyalties (whether it be Rep, Dem, Liberal...etc) and the mindless following of partisan agendas; is the true source of this country's demise and destruction.
In addition to which, abortion has nothing to do with the topic. A higher rate of abortion will not create the appearance of a lower teenage pregnancy rate because guess what: you don't qualify for an abortion until after you're pregnant!
This does seem to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the use of religion as a means of controlling the sexual behavior of American teenagers.
And your many years of research have told you this I suppose.
Social isolation, lack of educational and economic opportunities, limited access to health services, fewer numbers of health professionals, weaker infrastructures for transportation and information, heightened concerns about confidentiality, low rates of insurance coverage, and reluctance to accept social services all conspire to reduce the likelihood of rural teens receiving adequate preventive or reproductive care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
