PDA

View Full Version : Mississippi abortion bill



pspstatus
11-08-2011, 10:03 PM
Hey, not sure if this has been brought up or not before but I was wondering what peoples opinions might be on this.

http://rt.com/usa/news/abortion-mississippi-state-law-759/

theonedru
11-09-2011, 05:38 AM
If this sems a little frazzled its because I have been up for almost 24 hours, will make more sense of my thoughts when i wake up. <br />
<br />
Where is it going to stop, Pretty soon every time a male receives...

duane1969
11-09-2011, 08:07 AM
My only problem with the &quot;when life begins&quot; issue is this. If a pregnant woman has an abortion it is totally legal and she will face no repercussions for it. If I assault that same pregnant woman and...

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 08:17 AM
I caught a glimpse of the law on my mobile web on the way to work but I don't know too much about the bill to make an informed opinion. However my opionion on abortion as a whole is that it is immoral and wrong to kill an innocent, defensless, unborn child. However it is even more immoral and wrong not to properly educate our citizens about sex, its consequences and how to avoid unwanted pregnancies as well as it is wrong to deny people who are sexually active access to contraceptives. The religious right claims that they are looking out for the unborn by being against abortion. On the surface that sounds like a good idea but we all know that they have an agenda. However the religious right has absloutely no right to stop people, especially consenting adults from having access to avoid getting pregnant in the first place let alone stopping then from getting protection to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. If the religious right is so much in favor of the rights of innocent babies they need to do more to help out families with children, especially young unwed mothers who decided not to have an abortion either by choice or because they had no access birth control.

MadMan1978
11-09-2011, 08:51 AM
Duane I think that is set by the states...and each state is different

duane1969
11-09-2011, 11:46 AM
Duane I think that is set by the states...and each state is different

Yeah that is why I said nearly every state.

Ironically, the most abortions are performed in California and California was one of the first states to implement a Fetal Murder Law.

So apparently, in California, if the mother wants the baby then it is a living human and protected by the law, but if the mother doesn't want the baby then it is medical waste and killing it is protected by law.

Star_Cards
11-09-2011, 11:50 AM
I see the difference in these two scenarios. It's because it's not the attackers right to choose and is the mother's legally. I see what you are saying as far as when life starts, but I can see a...

Star_Cards
11-09-2011, 11:54 AM
very good points. I think the &quot;waste&quot; of the two products used to create the fetus is different than the actual fetus, but see where you are coming from. To me I have an issue with everyday citizens...

duane1969
11-09-2011, 12:02 PM
I see the difference in these two scenarios. It's because it's not the attackers right to choose and is the mother's legally. I see what you are saying as far as when life starts, but I can see a difference.

Mother's choice does not decide when life statrts tho. That was my point in my last post.

Consider this scenario:

A pregnant woman wakes up and decides she is having an abortion today. On the drive to the clinic she has a change of heart. Seconds later she is car-jacked and her baby is killed during the car-jacking. Is it murder because seconds earlier the mother changed her mind? If she hadn't changed her mind and still wanted the abortion would that make it not a murder?

Life does not start and stop based on the whims of an undecided mother.

"If life does not start until birth then life can not be taken before birth occurs." This is the argument applied by the pro-choice side. It applies regardless of how the life is taken.

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 12:16 PM
Mother's choice does not decide when life statrts tho. That was my point in my last post.

Consider this scenario:

A pregnant woman wakes up and decides she is having an abortion today. On the drive to the clinic she has a change of heart. Seconds later she is car-jacked and her baby is killed during the car-jacking. Is it murder because seconds earlier the mother changed her mind? If she hadn't changed her mind and still wanted the abortion would that make it not a murder?

Life does not start and stop based on the whims of an undecided mother.

"If life does not start until birth then life can not be taken before birth occurs." This is the argument applied by the pro-choice side. It applies regardless of how the life is taken.

I agree.

Life also does not start and stop based on the circumstances of the conception.

Star_Cards
11-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Mother's choice does not decide when life statrts tho. That was my point in my last post.

Consider this scenario:

A pregnant woman wakes up and decides she is having an abortion today. On the drive to the clinic she has a change of heart. Seconds later she is car-jacked and her baby is killed during the car-jacking. Is it murder because seconds earlier the mother changed her mind? If she hadn't changed her mind and still wanted the abortion would that make it not a murder?

Life does not start and stop based on the whims of an undecided mother.

"If life does not start until birth then life can not be taken before birth occurs." This is the argument applied by the pro-choice side. It applies regardless of how the life is taken.

yeah, I definitely can see both sides of the argument. I was thinking of a scenario similar to that after reading your post. I think even if the mother was going to get an abortion she still has the right to dictate when, where and how that happens. The car jacker had no clue where she was going and even if he did he had no right to carry out an act that she was on her way to have done. Having an abortion in a doctors office is quite different to having the same outcome done due to a criminal trying to do you harm and take your car.

ensbergcollector
11-09-2011, 12:27 PM
I caught a glimpse of the law on my mobile web on the way to work but I don't know too much about the bill to make an informed opinion. However my opionion on abortion as a whole is that it is immoral and wrong to kill an innocent, defensless, unborn child. However it is even more immoral and wrong not to properly educate our citizens about sex, its consequences and how to avoid unwanted pregnancies as well as it is wrong to deny people who are sexually active access to contraceptives. The religious right claims that they are looking out for the unborn by being against abortion. On the surface that sounds like a good idea but we all know that they have an agenda. However the religious right has absloutely no right to stop people, especially consenting adults from having access to avoid getting pregnant in the first place let alone stopping then from getting protection to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. If the religious right is so much in favor of the rights of innocent babies they need to do more to help out families with children, especially young unwed mothers who decided not to have an abortion either by choice or because they had no access birth control.

i get what you are saying and for once we mostly agree. I think all people (not just the religious right) need to find ways to help children and single mothers. However, your bolded statement above is false. No one is denying people access to contraceptives. There is no age restriction or id required to purchase. I think what you meant to say is that people should give out free contraceptives to teenagers. I have two problems with that. If a teenager is either too embarrassed to buy them or doesn't have the money to buy them, then they don't need to be having sex. Also, last I checked, the constitution doesn't say "life, liberty, condoms, and the pursuit of happiness" (though I guess you could make a case for contraceptives being part of the latter.

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 01:16 PM
I don't know about the States, but up here in Canada our Conservative government has cut funding to charity groups doing work in developing countries because they were providing contraceptives to women.

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 02:57 PM
i get what you are saying and for once we mostly agree. I think all people (not just the religious right) need to find ways to help children and single mothers. However, your bolded statement above is false. No one is denying people access to contraceptives. There is no age restriction or id required to purchase. I think what you meant to say is that people should give out free contraceptives to teenagers. I have two problems with that. If a teenager is either too embarrassed to buy them or doesn't have the money to buy them, then they don't need to be having sex. Also, last I checked, the constitution doesn't say "life, liberty, condoms, and the pursuit of happiness" (though I guess you could make a case for contraceptives being part of the latter.


On the cool I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever with local high schools handing out condoms and providing manditory sex education. Last time I checked not having condoms and/or birth control does not stop people from having sex. How do these people think that teen pregnancies occur in the first place?

theonedru
11-09-2011, 03:35 PM
I caught a glimpse of the law on my mobile web on the way to work but I don't know too much about the bill to make an informed opinion. However my opionion on abortion as a whole is that it is immoral and wrong to kill an innocent, defensless, unborn child. However it is even more immoral and wrong not to properly educate our citizens about sex, its consequences and how to avoid unwanted pregnancies as well as it is wrong to deny people who are sexually active access to contraceptives. The religious right claims that they are looking out for the unborn by being against abortion. On the surface that sounds like a good idea but we all know that they have an agenda. However the religious right has absloutely no right to stop people, especially consenting adults from having access to avoid getting pregnant in the first place let alone stopping then from getting protection to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. If the religious right is so much in favor of the rights of innocent babies they need to do more to help out families with children, especially young unwed mothers who decided not to have an abortion either by choice or because they had no access birth control.

" it is wrong to deny people who are sexually active access to contraceptives."

Why should I or anyone else have to pay for some other persons contraceptives? Sex is a privilege not a right and if you can't pay then don't play. If you refuse to face reality and risk it then suck up and accept the consequences of your actions like everyone else.

"they need to do more to help out families with children, especially young unwed mothers who decided not to have an abortion either by choice or because they had no access birth control"

They had access its called not having sex or taking care of it yourself either way you can't get pregnant so I don't feel any pity for stupid people who put themselves into these positions and then are not willing to accept their actions, Welcome to reality people and live with it, now find a job......

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 03:43 PM
" it is wrong to deny people who are sexually active access to contraceptives."

Why should I or anyone else have to pay for some other persons contraceptives? Sex is a privilege not a right and if you can't pay then don't play. If you refuse to face reality and risk it then suck up and accept the consequences of your actions like everyone else.

"they need to do more to help out families with children, especially young unwed mothers who decided not to have an abortion either by choice or because they had no access birth control"

They had access its called not having sex or taking care of it yourself either way you can't get pregnant so I don't feel any pity for stupid people who put themselves into these positions and then are not willing to accept their actions, Welcome to reality people and live with it, now find a job......

Last time I checked babies can't go out and find work.

theonedru
11-09-2011, 03:46 PM
Last time I checked babies can't go out and find work.

Not in this country .. But the parents can work

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 03:49 PM
Not in this country .. But the parents can work


Yeah but who is going to hire a 15 year old high school drop out with a child and no baby sitter?

theonedru
11-09-2011, 04:12 PM
Yeah but who is going to hire a 15 year old high school drop out with a child and no baby sitter?

It takes 2 to make a kid, and like I said if they think they are mature enough to have sex they are old enough to suffer and live with the consequences otherwise people never learn and are doomed to making the same mistakes over again

duane1969
11-09-2011, 06:03 PM
yeah, I definitely can see both sides of the argument. I was thinking of a scenario similar to that after reading your post. I think even if the mother was going to get an abortion she still has the right to dictate when, where and how that happens. The car jacker had no clue where she was going and even if he did he had no right to carry out an act that she was on her way to have done. Having an abortion in a doctors office is quite different to having the same outcome done due to a criminal trying to do you harm and take your car.

I agree with what you are saying. I am just looking at it from a legal standpoint tho and not applying the human element. From a legal point-of-view it is (or should be) irrelevant if the mother wanted the baby or not.

According to the law, if I have a PhD hanging on the wall and do it in an office then I am legal, but if I do it on the street corner with a hunting knife then I am a murderer. That just makes no sense to me. If it is wrong to kill an unborn baby then it is wrong, period. If it isn't wrong then it isn't wrong, period. Emotion and feelings should play no role in the application of the law.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 08:43 AM
It takes 2 to make a kid, and like I said if they think they are mature enough to have sex they are old enough to suffer and live with the consequences otherwise people never learn and are doomed to making the same mistakes over again


So you would rather pay more tax dollars in the long run on taking care of a welfare child and family than to pay a few dollars up front to give these kids access to condoms and birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 09:16 AM
So you would rather pay more tax dollars in the long run on taking care of a welfare child and family than to pay a few dollars up front to give these kids access to condoms and birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

you're going to be one of those parents that has parties for your kid and provides alcohol because "they are going to drink anyway, they might as well be safe about it" aren't you? because it is the same logic

Star_Cards
11-10-2011, 09:45 AM
providing alcohol and having parties for underaged kids is different than educating them about sex and protection... or even making condoms or birth control available. I get the worry about providing condoms could be seen like an okay to have sex, but since you go through puberty at 13 or so, sex is going to be something they start to think about whether they like it or not. I'd rather give them the tools of education to help them navigate that. I don't have kids, but I doubt the typical parents that is educating their kids about sex are just tossing them a pack of condoms and telling them to use them. I'm assume when done correctly there's an emphasis on not using them at all but if you do use a condom. Much different than inviting all of your child's friend over and getting them drunk.

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 10:19 AM
providing alcohol and having parties for underaged kids is different than educating them about sex and protection... or even making condoms or birth control available. I get the worry about providing condoms could be seen like an okay to have sex, but since you go through puberty at 13 or so, sex is going to be something they start to think about whether they like it or not. I'd rather give them the tools of education to help them navigate that. I don't have kids, but I doubt the typical parents that is educating their kids about sex are just tossing them a pack of condoms and telling them to use them. I'm assume when done correctly there's an emphasis on not using them at all but if you do use a condom. Much different than inviting all of your child's friend over and getting them drunk.

my comment has nothing to do with sex-ed. I am all for that. My comment is in regards to handing out condoms to teenagers using that logic that they are going to do it anyway so they may as well be safe about it. There is no difference at all in that and the logic parents use to let their kids and friends drink at their houses.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 10:37 AM
you're going to be one of those parents that has parties for your kid and provides alcohol because "they are going to drink anyway, they might as well be safe about it" aren't you? because it is the same logic


And you sound like one of those parents who when your kids asks you about sex you respond back don't do it because the bible says so and thats the end of the discusion. Then you will scratch your head and wonder why your daughter gets pregnant at an early age.

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 10:45 AM
And you sound like one of those parents who when your kids asks you about sex you respond back don't do it because the bible says so and thats the end of the discusion. Then you will scratch your head and wonder why your daughter gets pregnant at an early age.

actually no, but i understand why you would think that, seeing as how to you, all christians are idiots. Anyway, care to respond to my comment. How is handing out condoms because "kids are going to have sex anyway" any different then handing out alcohol because they are going to drink anyway?

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 10:57 AM
actually no, but i understand why you would think that, seeing as how to you, all christians are idiots. Anyway, care to respond to my comment. How is handing out condoms because "kids are going to have sex anyway" any different then handing out alcohol because they are going to drink anyway?

You really need someone to answer that??? How's this. One is legal, one is NOT. You figure out which is which.

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 11:06 AM
You really need someone to answer that??? How's this. One is legal, one is NOT. You figure out which is which.

how's this? in multiple states various underage sex is illegal. Are schools going to check who these kids sexual partners are? Because guess what, if the girl is younger, in a lot of states it is illegal. So feel free to figure out how giving condoms to a boy who is sleeping with his girlfriend who is 2 years younger than him is legal.

MadMan1978
11-10-2011, 11:11 AM
Name the state please...and a great burden prove they committed the act without violating their privacy...

however that would that this off topic...

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 11:20 AM
how's this? in multiple states various underage sex is illegal. Are schools going to check who these kids sexual partners are? Because guess what, if the girl is younger, in a lot of states it is illegal. So feel free to figure out how giving condoms to a boy who is sleeping with his girlfriend who is 2 years younger than him is legal.

There is nothing to figure out. There are no states in which giving a minor a condom is illegal. Let me know when you find one.

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 11:40 AM
There is nothing to figure out. There are no states in which giving a minor a condom is illegal. Let me know when you find one.

no but there are states where sex between minors is illegal so wouldn't giving them condoms be encouraging a criminal act?

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 11:50 AM
no but there are states where sex between minors is illegal so wouldn't giving them condoms be encouraging a criminal act?

Which states are these?

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 12:14 PM
Which states are these?

i will post when i get home. don't really want to look up "statutory rape" laws at the office. I know in texas, unless things have changed in the last few years, if the female is more than 2 years younger than the male, it is statutory rape.

MadMan1978
11-10-2011, 12:22 PM
i will post when i get home. don't really want to look up "statutory rape" laws at the office. I know in texas, unless things have changed in the last few years, if the female is more than 2 years younger than the male, it is statutory rape.
Actually That is not correct....

It would more so be what the age of consent is for a given....

However this doesnt really back your argument?

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 12:22 PM
I am not referring to statutory rape statutes. Your analogy equated the two acts. That simply isn't the case.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 12:23 PM
actually no, but i understand why you would think that, seeing as how to you, all christians are idiots. Anyway, care to respond to my comment. How is handing out condoms because "kids are going to have sex anyway" any different then handing out alcohol because they are going to drink anyway?


Once again you are putting words in my mouth but to respond to your question, having sex is a natural desire of most humans who are at or beyond the age of puberty and naturally some people will explore their sexual disires. Not saying that it is right but it is what it is. Drinking alcohol is not something that the body natural craves. Do I want my children to drink liquor of have sex or even ecourage them to do so? Hell no and I don't know of any parent worth his salt that would. Buying liquor if you are under 21 is illegal and it would be harder for them to access compared to being alone with someone and having sex. If someone is hellbent on having sex regardless of their age I would rather have my taxes going to them getting condoms than paying taxes for children born out of wedlock or even worse care for HIV/AIDS patients. You know the old saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 12:28 PM
I am not referring to statutory rape statutes. Your analogy equated the two acts. That simply isn't the case.

unfortunately, it is the case. maybe it is just in the wording but sex between an 18 year old and a 15 or 16 year old is statutory rape, even if it is consentual.

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 12:59 PM
unfortunately, it is the case. maybe it is just in the wording but sex between an 18 year old and a 15 or 16 year old is statutory rape, even if it is consentual.

You are not getting it. You compared supplying liquor in a party atmosphere to kids (which is ALWAYS illegal) to supplying your kid with a condom (which MAY contribute to an illegal act IF his/her partner is of a certain age).

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 01:03 PM
You are not getting it. You compared supplying liquor in a party atmosphere to your kids (which is ALWAYS illegal) to supplying your kid with a condom (which MAY contribute to an illegal act IF his/her partner is of a certain age).

ok, first of all, i'm not talking about supplying your own kid with a condom. We are talking about schools supplying kids with condoms. Secondly, we can agree to disagree. The fact that schools would be providing condoms to kids who MAY be having illegal sex bothers me. If it doesn't bother you then just say so, but that doesn't make my concern any less real just because it doesn't bother you.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 01:10 PM
ok, first of all, i'm not talking about supplying your own kid with a condom. We are talking about schools supplying kids with condoms. Secondly, we can agree to disagree. The fact that schools would be providing condoms to kids who MAY be having illegal sex bothers me. If it doesn't bother you then just say so, but that doesn't make my concern any less real just because it doesn't bother you.


So what would you like the schools to do? We all know not having condoms does not stop people from having sex. Would you rather have our public instutions eg schools, churches, gov't stick their head in the sand and ignore the problem? Then when HIV rates and teen pregnancies soar wonder why? Or should we be proactive and try to prevent an even bigger problem?

duane1969
11-10-2011, 01:27 PM
So what would you like the schools to do? We all know not having condoms does not stop people from having sex. Would you rather have our public instutions eg schools, churches, gov't stick their head in the sand and ignore the problem?

As a teacher, I think schools should mind their own business. Since when is it the school or a teacher's business to get involved with the sex lives of a child that is not theirs?


Then when HIV rates and teen pregnancies soar wonder why?

I won't wonder why. I will know why. It is because for one reason or another the parents failed.

Schools teach reading, writing, math, science, etc.
Parents teach morals, standards, responsibility, ethics, etc.

If a teen gets pregnant then the failure is not on the school, it is on the parents.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 01:37 PM
As a teacher, I think schools should mind their own business. Since when is it the school or a teacher's business to get involved with the sex lives of a child that is not theirs?



I won't wonder why. I will know why. It is because for one reason or another the parents failed.

Schools teach reading, writing, math, science, etc.
Parents teach morals, standards, responsibility, ethics, etc.

If a teen gets pregnant then the failure is not on the school, it is on the parents.


Yes the parents are the first line of defense but it does take an entire village to raise a child. The gov't which controls the school system has an obligation to look out for the best intrest of all if its citizens regardless or race, religion, age, political party, etc. Teen pregnancy and HIV is a problem that affects all of us rather directly or indirectly in the form of higher taxes to support welfare moms or HIV treatment. I have no problem in the school playing a secondary role to the parents in helping raise our kids.

ensbergcollector
11-10-2011, 01:38 PM
as a teacher, i think schools should mind their own business. Since when is it the school or a teacher's business to get involved with the sex lives of a child that is not theirs?



I won't wonder why. I will know why. It is because for one reason or another the parents failed.

Schools teach reading, writing, math, science, etc.
Parents teach morals, standards, responsibility, ethics, etc.

If a teen gets pregnant then the failure is not on the school, it is on the parents.

+1

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 01:43 PM
ok, first of all, i'm not talking about supplying your own kid with a condom. We are talking about schools supplying kids with condoms. Secondly, we can agree to disagree. The fact that schools would be providing condoms to kids who MAY be having illegal sex bothers me. If it doesn't bother you then just say so, but that doesn't make my concern any less real just because it doesn't bother you.

I think in the case of schools providing condoms to students; the schools are probably weighing the pros and cons of such an act and feel that the pros outweigh the cons. Your concerns may be justified and I think the schools should have a policy in place to enact in case your concerns become a known reality.

As a parent of two adult daughters, I always wanted my kids to be informed and prepared for any situations that they may find themselves in.

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 01:50 PM
Here I go nitpicking again.

If a teen gets pregnant then the failure is not on the school, it is on the parents.

Says who? In my case, my parents did not condone my sexual activity as a teen. I did it anyway. How would that be my parents fault? Why would it not be my fault, or my girlfriend's fault?

Star_Cards
11-10-2011, 01:51 PM
my comment has nothing to do with sex-ed. I am all for that. My comment is in regards to handing out condoms to teenagers using that logic that they are going to do it anyway so they may as well be safe about it. There is no difference at all in that and the logic parents use to let their kids and friends drink at their houses.

I know some people are casual with sex, but drinking an alcoholic drink isn't exactly as big of a leap as having sex. supplying condoms doesn't always mean they will go have sex. Plus condoms aren't illegal to people under a certain age. Condoms are a positive thing where alcohol could be considered more of a negative. I thought about having sex way before I really knew about condoms. My parents didn't give me condoms and I knew of no place that gave them out and I still wanted to have sex as a teenager and did. By the time I did I just knew that I should use them so I bought my own.

theonedru
11-10-2011, 02:10 PM
So you would rather pay more tax dollars in the long run on taking care of a welfare child and family than to pay a few dollars up front to give these kids access to condoms and birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

who said they deserve welfare, they can find work somewhere doing anything. And they can afford their own condoms plain and simple, if they can't too bad I am sick and tired of paying for other peoples stupid choices. If you cant afford protection what makes one think they can afford the alternative if they don't use it.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 02:22 PM
who said they deserve welfare, they can find work somewhere doing anything. And they can afford their own condoms plain and simple, if they can't too bad I am sick and tired of paying for other peoples stupid choices. If you cant afford protection what makes one think they can afford the alternative if they don't use it.


You are right they can't. Some people just get caught up in circumstance and make what appears to be a minor mistake but it haunts them for the rest of their life. And you proved my point if they can't afford the condom there is no way they can afford the child or the HIV meds. So then you and I as tax payers will have to pay for them. Not that they are entitled to welfare but that is the tax system here in america. I would much rather have my tax dollars used for sex ed, pregnancy and disease prevention on the front end which would be much cheaper than taking care of welfare children or AIDS patients on the back end.

duane1969
11-10-2011, 02:29 PM
Here I go nitpicking again.

If a teen gets pregnant then the failure is not on the school, it is on the parents.

Says who? In my case, my parents did not condone my sexual activity as a teen. I did it anyway. How would that be my parents fault? Why would it not be my fault, or my girlfriend's fault?

If the "fault" will be laid on either the schools or the parents then IMO it falls on the parents. Saying that a rise in teen pregnancy or HIV cases is the fault of the schools if they do not hand out condoms is a fallacy IMHO.

What happens if for some weird reason all schools were suddenly closed? Who is responsible for teaching kids to not have sex or to use protection then?

In regards to your scenario (not saying anything specific about your parents). It was your parents' fault that you were not better educated to abstain from sex or use protection, but you are responsible for your own actions. Don't confuse responsibility for education with responsibility for actions.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 02:39 PM
If the "fault" will be laid on either the schools or the parents then IMO it falls on the parents. Saying that a rise in teen pregnancy or HIV cases is the fault of the schools if they do not hand out condoms is a fallacy IMHO.

What happens if for some weird reason all schools were suddenly closed? Who is responsible for teaching kids to not have sex or to use protection then?

In regards to your scenario (not saying anything specific about your parents). It was your parents' fault that you were not better educated to abstain from sex or use protection, but you are responsible for your own actions. Don't confuse responsibility for education with responsibility for actions.


If I could add my two cents if I were still a teenager living with my parents and I got a girl pregnant even though my mother educated me on such it would be my fault. However I don't feel that it would be fair for my mom to pay for my mistake by having to raise my kid. If the state would step in and give out condoms, birth control and education even though it would go against my moms beliefs against premarital sex I think that she would be ok with that since I am not bringing home a bunch of babies that I didn't have the means to take care of or a disease that I cant get rid of.

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 02:51 PM
If the "fault" will be laid on either the schools or the parents then IMO it falls on the parents. Saying that a rise in teen pregnancy or HIV cases is the fault of the schools if they do not hand out condoms is a fallacy IMHO.

What happens if for some weird reason all schools were suddenly closed? Who is responsible for teaching kids to not have sex or to use protection then?

I agree.


In regards to your scenario (not saying anything specific about your parents). It was your parents' fault that you were not better educated to abstain from sex or use protection, but you are responsible for your own actions. Don't confuse responsibility for education with responsibility for actions.

I was educated just fine regarding abstinence and protection. I chose to succumb to my urges, despite my parents wishes. Much like all the teens that do/did the same thing. Are all their parents at fault? Are the only parents not at fault the ones that have children that obey them in every regard?

duane1969
11-10-2011, 02:56 PM
If I could add my two cents if I were still a teenager living with my parents and I got a girl pregnant even though my mother educated me on such it would be my fault. However I don't feel that it would be fair for my mom to pay for my mistake by having to raise my kid. If the state would step in and give out condoms, birth control and education even though it would go against my moms beliefs against premarital sex I think that she would be ok with that since I am not bringing home a bunch of babies that I didn't have the means to take care of or a disease that I cant get rid of.

I don't diagree with anything that you are saying. I just think that it is time to start expecting people to be responsible for their own actions.

Case in point. My son is 19 and in college. I know he is having sex with his girlfriend (I caught them). My words to him were this:

"If you get her preganant your life changes. College ends. You get a job, a car and a place to live and you become a daddy." I went on to tell him that my wallet, my cars and my home will not be available to him. My guess is that every time that he has sex he makes sure to use protection because he knows that the "daddy safety net" does not exist.

Would I hang my son out to dry like that? Absolutely not. I would help him out, but I am serious about college, the car and house, and thanks to our conversation and the way that I raised him he knows that I expect him to be responsible for his own actions. If more parents held their kids to a high standard then that would make a bigger dent in teen pregnancy than any condoms in schools program could hope to accomplish.

theonedru
11-10-2011, 02:57 PM
If I could add my two cents if I were still a teenager living with my parents and I got a girl pregnant even though my mother educated me on such it would be my fault. However I don't feel that it would be fair for my mom to pay for my mistake by having to raise my kid. If the state would step in and give out condoms, birth control and education even though it would go against my moms beliefs against premarital sex I think that she would be ok with that since I am not bringing home a bunch of babies that I didn't have the means to take care of or a disease that I cant get rid of.

We are bankrupt we have no money to give condoms out for kids to have sex.. So they have no choice but to not have sex or buy their own contraceptives. teachers these days can barley be teachers why do you expect them to be a parental role as well?

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 02:59 PM
I don't diagree with anything that you are saying. I just think that it is time to start expecting people to be responsible for their own actions.

Case in point. My son is 19 and in college. I know he is having sex with his girlfriend (I caught them). My words to him were this:

"If you get her preganant your life changes. College ends. You get a job, a car and a place to live and you become a daddy." I went on to tell him that my wallet, my cars and my home will not be available to him. My guess is that every time that he has sex he makes sure to use protection because he knows that the "daddy safety net" does not exist.

Would I hang my son out to dry like that? Absolutely not. I would help him out, but I am serious about college, the car and house, and thanks to our conversation and the way that I raised him he knows that I expect him to be responsible for his own actions. If more parents held their kids to a high standard then that would make a bigger dent in teen pregnancy than any condoms in schools program could hope to accomplish.

Sounds like you did everything a responsible parent should. Do you think he is abstaining now? Accidents can still happen. Would it be your fault as the parent?

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 03:02 PM
We are bankrupt we have no money to give condoms out for kids to have sex.. So they have no choice but to not have sex or buy their own contraceptives. teachers these days can barley be teachers why do you expect them to be a parental role as well?

Simple solution. Get the condom companies to supply them. In many cases when they start buying them, they will by the brands they know. Marketing 101!!

duane1969
11-10-2011, 03:02 PM
I was educated just fine regarding abstinence and protection. I chose to succumb to my urges, despite my parents wishes. Much like all the teens that do/did the same thing. Are all their parents at fault? Are the only parents not at fault the ones that have children that obey them in every regard?

I understand where you are coming from. I just don't see how society can place the blame on the schools/government.

Obviously not all parents are at fault. Kids are kids. Once certain body parts start working they just have to try it out. But not a single school is responsible for a single teen's pregnancy, which was my true point. If you are going to place the blame on someone then it has to be the parents. Even holding a 14 year old kid responsible is hard to do because most of them can not grasp the scope of the results of their actions.

With that said, if parental sex education doesn't work then is a counselor handing out condoms suddenly going to make it all better?

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 03:03 PM
We are bankrupt we have no money to give condoms out for kids to have sex.. So they have no choice but to not have sex or buy their own contraceptives. teachers these days can barley be teachers why do you expect them to be a parental role as well?


So since the state has no money to buy condoms to prevent unwanted pregnancies or disease where would the state get the money to take care of welfare babies or AIDS patients?

duane1969
11-10-2011, 03:08 PM
Sounds like you did everything a responsible parent should. Do you think he is abstaining now? Accidents can still happen. Would it be your fault as the parent?

No, he isn't abstaining, he is using protection. Obviously I have done about all that I can do. If all that I have done doesn't prevent it then a school handing out condoms won't prevent it either.

Technically, since he is 19, he is an adult. So no, it wouldn't be my fault. If he was 14 and I knew he was having sex and I didn't stop it, then yes, it would be my fault.

I found out he was having sex when he was 16. I called the girl's parents and informed them. I made him break up with her. I grounded him from everything but breathing. He didn't even leave the house (except for school) for 2 months. The sex stopped.

duane1969
11-10-2011, 03:09 PM
So since the state has no money to buy condoms to prevent unwanted pregnancies or disease where would the state get the money to take care of welfare babies or AIDS patients?

They don't. The mother and father get jobs and become responsible for their own actions.

I know this is a pipe dream...just saying.

mrveggieman
11-10-2011, 03:25 PM
They don't. The mother and father get jobs and become responsible for their own actions.

I know this is a pipe dream...just saying.


So who is going to baby sit or pay for babysitting the child when the parents are working? Mcdonalds cannot pay for babysitting, feeding, clothing and housing an infant. Also who is going to pay for their medical expenses when they are too sick to work due to advanced HIV?

duane1969
11-10-2011, 08:15 PM
So who is going to baby sit or pay for babysitting the child when the parents are working? Mcdonalds cannot pay for babysitting, feeding, clothing and housing an infant. Also who is going to pay for their medical expenses when they are too sick to work due to advanced HIV?

I am not disagreeing with you, just saying what I think should be. It wasn't that long ago in this country that if you got a girl pregnant you did the responsible thing, married her and took care of your responsibilities. It is only in the last 25-30 years that it became the responsibility of the parents or government.

Same for HIV/AIDS. There was a time when you either got your insurance to cover your health costs, covered it yourself or died. I see no reason why it should be different.

I know that my position seems harsh, but I can't find a single reason why my tax dollars should be used to make a better life for someone who could have had a better life if they had just used a little forethought instead of just doing whatever they wanted without caring about how they were hurting their own future.