Obama on being "PUNISHED with a baby..." [Archive]

it5five

Apr 2, 2008, 01:11 PM

I'd say that a 16 year old being forced to go through with a pregnancy is punishment. Pregnancy can be hard enough for adults; imagine going through it while still practically a child.

I'd like to see the rest of that speech in context. As atszyman said below, I think Obama was talking more about teaching proper sex-education, rather than the poor excuse of one that is taught now.

EDITED: Deleted part of my post. I don't want to turn this into a pro-choice/pro-life debate.

arkitect

Apr 2, 2008, 01:12 PM

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 01:23 PM

This man is WRONG for our country...He may be wrong for your country, but he's right.

atszyman

Apr 2, 2008, 01:25 PM

This isn't even a pro-choice pro-life debate. His point was that we need to educate kids on the consequences and dangers of having sex.

If they are given proper sexual education, they should be able to make good decisions on whether or not to have sex and what protections to use. Simply telling kids "Don't have sex" without informing them about it, will only make them try it in rebellion and increases the likelihood that they will either end up pregnant or with an STD, both of which can wreck havoc on a teenagers life.

wordmunger

Apr 2, 2008, 01:35 PM

cant believe no one has posted this yet

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQt8QGIMo4U

i understand he is talking about sex ed but still, ranking babies up there with STDs? This man is WRONG for our country...

The youtube video appears to have been taken without context. We don't know what the question was.

Why do you think he was "ranking babies with STDs"?

My best guess at the point he was making is that he doesn't think that babies or STDs should be "punishment" for having sex. I agree with him. People should have babies because they want to have babies, not because they don't understand how babies are made.

For a 16-year-old, having a baby could seem an awful lot like a "punishment." Maybe when she gets older she will learn to value the child, but for nearly all 16-year-olds, having a baby is not something that is going to improve their lives. For most babies, having a 16-year-old mother is not ideal either.

Where Obama and the religious right disagree is on what the most effective way to prevent teenage pregnancy and STDs is. Obama bases his opinion on science; the religious right bases theirs on faith.

Aranince

Apr 2, 2008, 01:40 PM

it5five

Apr 2, 2008, 01:41 PM

For a 16-year-old, having a baby could seem an awful lot like a "punishment." Maybe when she gets older she will learn to value the child, but for nearly all 16-year-olds, having a baby is not something that is going to improve their lives. For most babies, having a 16-year-old mother is not ideal either.

True. Especially considering that 16-year-old mother will likely drop out of highschool or put graduation on hold. Then she likely wouldn't continue her education either because her grades in HS suffered because of the baby, but more likely because she doesn't have the money or time to do it.

Having a baby at that age can destroy someone's life. Not to mention the baby will be put at an extreme disadvantage in life, too. Children of poor, uneducated parents tend to be poor and uneducated themselves when they grow up.

Its quite sad that everyone goes around having sex before they are married...why don't you want to save that special experience with the one you are married to?

Maybe because some of us recognize sex for what it is; a natural bodily need. Sex isn't a mystical experience; it's biological.

Society is messed up, honestly. My opinion is to teach abstinence. Guaranteed to prevent STDs and pregnancy, unlike protection that does not protect from STDs and does not always prevent pregnancy

True, abstinence is is guaranteed to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Here's the big problem though; teaching abstinence as sex-education is ineffective.

Abstinence-only education ineffective (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=3048738)

People are going to have sex regardless. How about this approach? People who want to abstain from sex are free to do so. You don't need a class to be told that. But maybe we should be teaching kids the safe way to have sex; since they are already doing it.

Doctors oppose abstinence-only education (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/)

And another link:

Abstinence Programs Not Effective, Study Finds (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265940,00.html)

Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex within a few years as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.

The actual study itself:

Impact of Abstinence Education Programs (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf)

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 01:45 PM

Its quite sad that everyone goes around having sex before they are married...why don't you want to save that special experience with the one you are married to?What on earth is sad about it? I wanted to have that special experience with lots of people. It's not a one-time-only deal, you know. It didn't make it any less special later on.

Society is messed up, honestly. My opinion is to teach abstinence. Guaranteed to prevent STDs and pregnancy, unlike protection that does not protect from STDs and does not always prevent pregnancyUnfortunately, your argument appears to fall apart on contact with "facts".

atszyman

Apr 2, 2008, 01:46 PM

Its quite sad that everyone goes around having sex before they are married...why don't you want to save that special experience with the one you are married to?

Society is messed up, honestly. My opinion is to teach abstinence. Guaranteed to prevent STDs and pregnancy, unlike protection that does not protect from STDs and does not always prevent pregnancy

Abstinence should be part of every sexual education curriculum, however if it is the only aspect taught, those reckless teenagers who do have sex, will not know of the possible consequences and protections that they can take to avoid them and are likely to fall prey to the thousands of myths out there like "you can't get pregnant your first time."

Well I would love for my daughters (3 and almost 1) to wait until they are married (to a good man or woman) before having sex, I'm not naive enough to believe that just because I want it, it will be true. I'd rather have them informed and save then simply tell them "don't do it" and turn a blind eye.

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 01:50 PM

Well I would love for my daughters (3 and almost 1) to wait until they are married (to a good man or woman) before having sex, I'm not naive enough to believe that just because I want it, it will be true.Why would you even want it?

faintember

Apr 2, 2008, 02:01 PM

i understand he is talking about sex ed but still, ranking babies up there with STDs? This man is WRONG for our country...Why not rank them together? Both can be negatively life altering, can have immense financial ramifications and are long term products of a short term action. To a young, single person I can see how both STDs and babies can be destructive, and would even argue that a baby can be more destructive than a STD (aside from HIV).

Its quite sad that everyone goes around having sex before they are married...why don't you want to save that special experience with the one you are married to?

Society is messed up, honestly. My opinion is to teach abstinence. Guaranteed to prevent STDs and pregnancy, unlike protection that does not protect from STDs and does not always prevent pregnancyPeople are going to have sex, married or not. Let the schools teach about contraceptive devices, then as a parent you can, if you wish, teach abstinence as a means of birth control to your child. This way if parents don't teach abstinence then the children of those parents at least get an alternative method of preventing birth presented to them. Why not cover all of the bases?

edit: it5five beat me with much better info/links. Damn you phone calls!

TheQuestion

Apr 2, 2008, 02:02 PM

Unfortunately, your argument appears to fall apart on contact with "facts".

Shouldn't you reword this to say "some of your argument falls apart on contact with "facts" "?

Is there are any form of contraception that is 100% effective? Is not part of his argument sound then? Is not part of it flawed in that it possible to contract STDs even while practicing abstinence (however slight the odds)?

Prof.

Apr 2, 2008, 02:04 PM

My parents said the same thing. There was nothing wrong with Obama's statement.

The point Obama was making, I think, is that having a baby at the age of 16 or contracting an STD would ruin the rest of the childs (the 16 year old) life. No 16 year old wants to care for a baby full time or get an STD.

People (the Obama haters) are throwing this way out of proportion.

atszyman

Apr 2, 2008, 02:13 PM

Why would you even want it?

Poor wording on my part. I'd like for my daughters to not feel pressured into sex before they are ready with the right partner. I don't want them doing it because someone pressured them into it, I don't want them doing it because "everyone else is doing it". But knowing that those pressures will be there, I'd rather have them informed than falling prey to an unscrupulous partner spouting falsehoods.

Cromulent

Apr 2, 2008, 02:26 PM

My opinion is to teach abstinence.

How do you teach abstinance? That's a contradiction in terms.

teach |tiːtʃ|
verb ( past taught |tɔːt|) [ trans. or clause ]
show or explain to (someone) how to do something : she taught him to read | he taught me how to ride a bike.

You can't teach someone to abstain from sex. You need to teach them everything about sex so they make the decision to abstain.

BaronvdB

Apr 2, 2008, 02:37 PM

[QUOTE=it5five;5253932]I'd say that a 16 year old being forced to go through with a pregnancy is punishment. Pregnancy can be hard enough for adults; imagine going through it while still practically a child.

Certain actions have certain consequences. Most people that decide to have sex know there is the possibility of becoming pregnant. Even if they don't know why should a baby have to pay for the mistake of the mother? If they can't raise the child at least put it up for adoption...of course everything Obama says seems to be the gospel to a lot of people around here so i'm pretty sure a lot of MR people won't agree.

atszyman

Apr 2, 2008, 02:41 PM

Certain actions have certain consequences. Most people that decide to have sex know there is the possibility of becoming pregnant. Even if they don't know why should a baby have to pay for the mistake of the mother? If they can't raise the child at least put it up for adoption...of course everything Obama says seems to be the gospel to a lot of people around here so i'm pretty sure a lot of MR people won't agree.

True but if you're not taught about the actions and potential consequences then the probability of the consequences increases if the action is taken. Teaching kids about the actions, consequences and precautions they can and should take should they choose to do the action, is something we shouldn't even have to debate.

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 02:42 PM

Most people that decide to have sex know there is the possibility of becoming pregnant. Even if they don't know why should a baby have to pay for the mistake of the mother? If they can't raise the child at least put it up for adoption...of course everything Obama says seems to be the gospel to a lot of people around here so i'm pretty sure a lot of MR people won't agree.Isn't that pretty irrelevant? Better education about sex and relationships will lead to fewer unwanted teenage pregnancies. Isn't that better than just saying "It's your fault" after the fact?

.Andy

Apr 2, 2008, 03:03 PM

My opinion is to teach abstinence. Guaranteed to prevent STDs and pregnancy, unlike protection that does not protect from STDs and does not always prevent pregnancy.
Sorry to rain on your parade but you can catch STDs from other activities other than sexual intercourse. Abstinence guarantees nothing. Besides sanctimony.

Even if they don't know why should a baby have to pay for the mistake of the mother?
It's not a baby it's a foetus. Nature regards them with flagrant disregard.

leekohler

Apr 2, 2008, 03:06 PM

True but if you're not taught about the actions and potential consequences then the probability of the consequences increases if the action is taken. Teaching kids about the actions, consequences and precautions they can and should take should they choose to do the action, is something we shouldn't even have to debate.

It's sad that we even have to debate it, absolutely. Even sadder still that we have a "religious right" that constantly wishes to pawn itself off as science and fact.

Iscariot

Apr 2, 2008, 03:07 PM

ucfgrad93

Apr 2, 2008, 03:09 PM

True but if you're not taught about the actions and potential consequences then the probability of the consequences increases if the action is taken.

Are you telling me that kids don't know that sex leads to pregnancy?

.Andy

Apr 2, 2008, 03:12 PM

Are you telling me that kids don't know that sex leads to pregnancy?
There's plenty of misconceptions about sex and getting pregnant. Even amongst adults.

wordmunger

Apr 2, 2008, 03:16 PM

Are you telling me that kids don't know that sex leads to pregnancy?

It's much more complicated than that.

Without decent sex education, kids "know" all sorts of stuff that is completely false. My mother "knew" you couldn't get pregnant the first time you have sex. That was my sister. She "knew" you couldn't get pregnant within two months after giving birth. That was me.

Would she have been better off not getting pregnant at age 18? Absolutely. But she got no sex education at all in her Catholic high school, and had a pretty lousy life from about age 18-30 as a result. She recovered, I recovered, and my sister recovered, but none of us were especially happy about it. All of these problems could have been avoided if someone had told her the facts about how you get pregnant.

That's the difference between real sex education and things you "know" about sex.

it5five

Apr 2, 2008, 03:18 PM

It's much more complicated than that.

Without decent sex education, kids "know" all sorts of stuff that is completely false. My mother "knew" you couldn't get pregnant the first time you have sex. That was my sister. She "knew" you couldn't get pregnant within two months after giving birth. That was me.

Would she have been better off not getting pregnant at age 18? Absolutely. But she got no sex education at all in her Catholic high school, and had a pretty lousy life from about age 18-30 as a result. She recovered, I recovered, and my sister recovered, but none of us were especially happy about it. All of these problems could have been avoided if someone had told her the facts about how you get pregnant.

That's the difference between real sex education and things you "know" about sex.

Excellent post.

It reminds me of the large amount of kids I went to high school with that thought pulling out was an effective way to avoid pregnancy. Thank goodness for Arizona's abstinence-only education. :rolleyes:

obeygiant

Apr 2, 2008, 03:26 PM

Sorry to rain on your parade but you can catch STDs from other activities other than sexual intercourse. Abstinence guarantees nothing. Besides sanctimony.

Where do you get your information? Abstinence DOES guarantee that you won't get STDs. One who is abstinent is refraining from doing anything sexual. Unless you think you can get the clap from a toilet seat?

leekohler

Apr 2, 2008, 03:33 PM

Where do you get your information? Abstinence DOES guarantee that you won't get STDs. One who is abstinent is refraining from doing anything sexual. Unless you think you can get the clap from a toilet seat?

You can get crabs from a toilet seat, trust me. You can get AIDS and Hep C from a blood transfusion or tainted hypodermic needles.

Hawkeye411

Apr 2, 2008, 03:35 PM

I agree with what he is saying.

.Andy

Apr 2, 2008, 03:39 PM

Where do you get your information? Abstinence DOES guarantee that you won't get STDs. One who is abstinent is refraining from doing anything sexual. Unless you think you can get the clap from a toilet seat?
As one example you can have vertical transmission of STDs from mothers to children at birth. You can also be infected with an STD from contaminated body fluids such as blood.

An STD describes a disease that can be passed on through sexual contact, usually the primary mode of transmission. It does not describe how a person acquired that disease.

mactastic

Apr 2, 2008, 03:40 PM

You can get crabs from a toilet seat, trust me.I hope there's not an "ask me how I know" associated with that claim... :eek:

leekohler

Apr 2, 2008, 03:42 PM

I hope there's not an "ask me how I know" associated with that claim... :eek:

Unfortunately, there is.

stevento

Apr 2, 2008, 03:44 PM

No Human Being Is A Punishment!!!!!

.Andy

Apr 2, 2008, 03:48 PM

No Human Being Is A Punishment!!!!!
Dane Cook?

Iscariot

Apr 2, 2008, 03:48 PM

mactastic

Apr 2, 2008, 03:49 PM

Dane Cook?
Carrottop?

Eraserhead

Apr 2, 2008, 03:50 PM

Where do you get your information? Abstinence DOES guarantee that you won't get STDs. One who is abstinent is refraining from doing anything sexual. Unless you think you can get the clap from a toilet seat?

Some people thing that just having oral sex means they are still virgins (which in some senses is "correct"), but you can still get STD's from them.

Gelfin

Apr 2, 2008, 04:05 PM

That statement was a derisive reference to the fact that it is the religious right in the U.S. who regard pregnancy as a punishment from God for daring to have sex without His Permission. The idea of a baby as punishment is a central tenet of the anti-choice, anti-education agenda.

How else are we to sanctimoniously point and jeer at the wicked harlots if we cannot recognize them by their swollen bellies and naked ring fingers?

TheQuestion

Apr 2, 2008, 04:19 PM

Does it seem clear and evident that Obama was talking about risks of teens having sex? That by "punishment" he meant unconsidered effects? That he did not literally mean a baby is a "retribution for an offense"? Did this girl believe her baby was or wasn't a "punishment"?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345290,00.html

Are we not talking about children having children? Do we not have to think differently since we talking about communicating to children?

No agendas, just questions....

Iscariot

Apr 2, 2008, 04:26 PM

How else are we to sanctimoniously point and jeer at the wicked harlots if we cannot recognize them by their swollen bellies and naked ring fingers?

Intuition.

I saw a headline yesterday (yes, all the way up here in the still frozen North) that just blew me away. A Picture of Obama, and to the right it said "Destroy White People" (in quotes). Your politics are so vile and contemptible that the headlines in my country are more volatile during your elections than during mine.

Daveman Deluxe

Apr 2, 2008, 05:04 PM

Speaking as one who will wait until marriage to have sex, I ABSOLUTELY agree that it is important to have comprehensive sex education. I learned a LOT that may not be applicable to my current situation, but will help me a) help those around me, and b) make good decisions if I ever do get married.

My alma mater's campus newspaper has a weekly sex advice column. One girl wrote in a few weeks ago saying that she uses birth control but still insisted that her boyfriend pull out. One time he didn't and at the time of writing, she was afraid of getting pregnant. :confused:

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 05:14 PM

All of these problems could have been avoided if someone had told her the facts about how you get pregnant.You could have been avoided, too... :)

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 05:17 PM

Some people thing that just having oral sex means they are still virgins (which in some senses is "correct"), but you can still get STD's from them."I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 05:23 PM

Does it seem clear and evident that Obama was talking about risks of teens having sex? That by "punishment" he meant unconsidered effects? That he did not literally mean a baby is a "retribution for an offense"? I presume that he meant that having a baby at the age of 16 through a lack of sex education constitutes a major life disadvantage for both mother and child. To assume he meant otherwise would be crass indeed.
No agendas, just questions....A rare position...

wordmunger

Apr 2, 2008, 05:25 PM

You could have been avoided, too... :)

I could have been avoided if my parents had decided to watch TV that night. Should we ban TV? I could have been avoided if my Mom hadn't liked my Dad's car. Should we require everyone to buy Triumph TR3s?

Whether or not I would have been conceived is not a reasonable argument for whether my mother should have had sex education.

Children should be conceived by responsible parents who've carefully considered the consequences of their actions. We shouldn't play dice with such an important decision.

szark

Apr 2, 2008, 05:29 PM

But she got no sex education at all in her Catholic high school, and had a pretty lousy life from about age 18-30 as a result.

I certainly know that feeling -- in my Catholic high school, our "health" class consisted of teaching the boys how to tie neckties and color-coordinate our shirts/slacks/socks/shoes. And, yes, we were actually graded on that knowledge. :rolleyes:

Comprehensive sex education is the best solution.

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 05:29 PM

Children should be conceived by responsible parents who've carefully considered the consequences of their actions. We shouldn't play dice with such an important decision.Indeed not.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 07:22 PM

i just dont think you should use abortion as a form of contraception

and it seems like this is what he is saying, if you make a mistake and have sex and end up pregnant, just get an abortion..thats just wrong

now, rape, threat to the mothers life, thats different...

but if you have sex, you better be fully prepared to care for a child or you better not be having sex

gauchogolfer

Apr 2, 2008, 07:26 PM

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 07:31 PM

Based on what I've seen, you've just made quite the extrapolation.

thats why i said it seems like what he is saying, i didnt say thats what he said

anyway, thats all im saying on this subject yall have fun debating

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 07:34 PM

thats why i said it seems like what he is saying, i didnt say thats what he said

anyway, thats all im saying on this subject yall have fun debatingYou are making a completely unwarranted assumption and putting words in his mouth in order to back up your own obvious prejudice. Give it up.

obeygiant

Apr 2, 2008, 08:06 PM

but if you have sex, you better be fully prepared to care for a child or you better not be having sex

..or wear a condom. :)

Gelfin

Apr 2, 2008, 08:08 PM

Ah, yes, I thought I heard the hypocrisy alarm going off. Apparently it's okay for latter-day puritans like squeeks to use pregnancy as a punishment. It's just not okay to call it one.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:09 PM

You are making a completely unwarranted assumption and putting words in his mouth in order to back up your own obvious prejudice. Give it up.

im sorry, but i didnt put words in his mouth, everything i said is based on what he said and NOTHING MORE

i didnt say he supports abortion, though i hope he dosent, it just seems to me that if he feels babies are punishment, he would have his daughter have an abortion if she got pregnate, im not saying this is fact...im making an assumption based on what HE SAID

Ah, yes, I thought I heard the hypocrisy alarm going off. Apparently it's okay for latter-day puritans like squeeks to use pregnancy as a punishment. It's just not okay to call it one.

im sorry what?

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 08:12 PM

i didnt say he supports abortion, though i hope he dosent, it just seems to me that if he feels babies are punishment, he would have his daughter have an abortion if she got pregnate, im not saying this is fact...im making an assumption based on what HE SAIDKeep digging. It's good exercise.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:14 PM

i knew i should have kept my butt out of the political forum:rolleyes:

wtf was i thinking

Gelfin

Apr 2, 2008, 08:17 PM

im sorry what?

Do you read your own posts?

but if you have sex, you better be fully prepared to care for a child or you better not be having sex

You are suggesting that, despite many available methods to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, a woman must conform to the one that is compatible with your moral sensibilities or be forced to suffer what you consider to be appropriate consequences. You are using a pregnancy as punishment.

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 08:19 PM

You are using a pregnancy as punishment.With no mention of the father being a contributor to either the problem or the solution.

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 08:21 PM

Some people thing that just having oral sex means they are still virgins (which in some senses is "correct"), but you can still get STD's from them.Well unless you use the Bill Clinton defense isn't oral a sexual act, and in theory someone who is abstinent won't be doing any of that. Or are we going to debate what "is" is.

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:22 PM

cant believe no one has posted this yet

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQt8QGIMo4U

i understand he is talking about sex ed but still, ranking babies up there with STDs? This man is WRONG for our country...

Wow, are these the depths to which Obama-haters in your country have stooped to?! Mis-reporting his words to make it sound like he put pregnancy and STDs on the same level?! Wtf!

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 08:23 PM

Well unless you use the Bill Clinton defense isn't oral a sexual act, and in theory someone who is abstinent won't be doing any of that.Without sex education how do you know what to abstain from?

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 08:24 PM

Without sex education how do you know what to abstain from?I would hope sex Ed would teach that. Well I hope the teacher isn't named Ed.:p The real question is do the kids even listen to those classes. Or are they doing what they want anyways.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:25 PM

You are suggesting that, despite many available methods to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, a woman must conform to the one that is compatible with your moral sensibilities or be forced to suffer what you consider to be appropriate consequences. You are using a pregnancy as punishment.

I'm using pregnancy with punishment? its not my fault having sex leads to pregnancy...its really simple if you dont want a baby...dont have sex...duh

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 08:25 PM

Isn't abstinence supposed by its proponents to obviate the need for sex education?

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:26 PM

its really simple if you dont want a baby...dont have sex...duh

But what if you want to have sex but don't want to have a baby? :rolleyes:

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 08:27 PM

I'm using pregnancy with punishment? its not my fault having sex leads to pregnancy...its really simple if you dont want a baby...dont have sex...duhIsn't that taught though, the best way not to get preg is not to do it in the first place. Condoms can break so there is no full proof way.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:27 PM

But what if you want to have sex but don't want to have a baby? :rolleyes:

get your self fixed problem solved:D

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 08:28 PM

get your self fixed problem solved:Dsnip snip.:p

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:28 PM

Isn't that taught though, the best way not to get preg is not to do it in the first place. Condoms can break so there is no full proof way.

yup, i think i said that did I?

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:30 PM

get your self fixed problem solved:D

Um, but what if you want to have sex but don't want a baby now, but would like one (your own) in a few year's time?

I'm all ears. :)

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 08:31 PM

Isn't abstinence supposed by its proponents to obviate the need for sex education?Isn't sex ed more than just having sex, doesn't it also cover cleanliness issues.Um, but what if you want to have sex but don't want a baby now, but would like one (your own) in a few year's time?

I'm all ears. :)We call that Russian Roulette.:p

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:32 PM

Um, but what if you want to have sex but don't want a baby now, but would like one (your own) in a few year's time?

I'm all ears. :)

http://www.vasectomymedical.com/vasectomy-questions/vasectomy-reversal-questions.htm:D

dosent help women though...

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 08:33 PM

Can't you get an STD even if you use a condom? So that is not going to save you either if your not careful.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:33 PM

Isn't abstinence supposed by its proponents to obviate the need for sex education?

ah, now see that i do not agree with

im all for sex ed, as long as you teach ALL of the methods, abstinence, birth control, condom use, and stress that only the first is fool proof

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:34 PM

Can't you get an STD even if you use a condom?

only if it breaks, i believe, also suposably there are microscopic holes in condoms? think i heard that somewhere...

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-01-08-03 apparently there arent...so i guess you're good

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:35 PM

http://www.vasectomymedical.com/vasectomy-questions/vasectomy-reversal-questions.htm:D

dosent help women though...

O........kay. So, have a vasectomy when you don't want kids, then have a reversal when you do, have another vasectomy when you want a kid-free spell, then have another reversal when you want your second kid, repeat to fade.

Wow. Did you find all that snipping and un-snipping and re-snipping and re-un-snipping quite painful?

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 08:37 PM

O........kay. So, have a vasectomy when you don't want kids, then have a reversal when you do, have another vasectomy when you want a kid-free spell, then have another reversal when you want your second kid, repeat to fade.

Wow. Did you find it quite painful?Make sure your doctor doesn't have the shakes.:eek:

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:38 PM

suposably there are microscopic holes in condoms?

:confused:

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:39 PM

:confused:

read it on a forum somewhere, apparently according to that link i posted it isnt true

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:39 PM

Make sure your doctor doesn't have the shakes.:eek:

And hopefully he has good eyesight, otherwise you could lose the top of your little finger.

:o

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:40 PM

read it on a forum somewhere, apparently according to that link i posted it isnt true

It was the "suposably" I was struggling to comprehend.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:42 PM

It was the "suposably" I was struggling to comprehend.

damn spellcheck

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 08:42 PM

read it on a forum somewhere, apparently according to that link i posted it isnt trueCertainly sounds like you could use some sex education. It's exactly this kind of cluelessness which makes abstinence such an unreliable solution.

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 08:43 PM

Certainly sounds like you could use some sex education. It's exactly this kind of cluelessness which makes abstinence such an unreliable solution.

ok now you have me confused...how is abstinence an unreliable solution? i believe it works every time

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 08:50 PM

ok now you have me confused...how is abstinence an unreliable solution? i believe it works every timeAbstinence is touted as an alternative to sex education. Young people, especially coming from the kinds of households where such views are held, can be so utterly ignorant about sex that they do not know what counts as intercourse and what doesn't. A healthy attitude toward sex involves knowing about it, making educated choices and being equipped to take responsibility for the outcome, whether the male, female or same-sex partner.

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:50 PM

ok now you have me confused...how is abstinence an unreliable solution? i believe it works every time

But if your morals fail you one steamy night when you happen across the babe you have draped across your avatar?

Gelfin

Apr 2, 2008, 08:54 PM

But if your morals fail you one steamy night when you happen across the babe you have draped across your avatar?

Come on, this is squeeks we're talking about. The man is a stone. He would never, ever interfere with a woman sexually unless he and the wife had already bought the minivan and were scouting around for day care. If he is not absolutely, positively ready and planning to become a parent, then the missus will just have to get a hobby.

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 08:56 PM

Come on, this is squeeks we're talking about. The man is a stone. He would never, ever interfere with a woman sexually unless he and the wife had already bought the minivan and were scouting around for day care. If he is not absolutely, positively ready and planning to become a parent, then the missus will just have to get a hobby.

But what if they, you know, have an accident in the back of the minivan?

skunk

Apr 2, 2008, 08:58 PM

But what if they, you know, have an accident in the back of the minivan?I expect that'll be covered by the insurance.

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 09:08 PM

I expect that'll be covered by the insurance.

Well, I'm reading the fine print in my insurance for my minivan and I don't see any mention of cover for hanky panky in the back of said vehicle and the resulting pitter patter of tiny feet. Do you have to pay extra for that?

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 09:13 PM

Come on, this is squeeks we're talking about. The man is a stone. He would never, ever interfere with a woman sexually unless he and the wife had already bought the minivan and were scouting around for day care.

lol, it would seem that way from my view on abortion wouldnt it?

however that is not the case, lets just say we've thought a few times my fiancee might have been pregnant, she hasn't been yet, but im ready to have kid, im 25 i have a great job, would i like to travel a bit with my wife once we get married, sure, but if we end up with a baby, that would be just wonderful as well

Gelfin

Apr 2, 2008, 09:15 PM

lol, it would seem that way from my view on abortion wouldnt it?

however that is not the case, lets just say we've thought a few times my fiancee might have been pregnant, she hasn't been yet, but im ready to have kid, im 25 i have a great job, would i like to travel a bit with my wife once we get married, sure, but if we end up with a baby, that would be just wonderful as well

For a lot of people it wouldn't be nearly so wonderful, but they want to be close to the people they love just like you do. Why do you have such a problem with that?

squeeks

Apr 2, 2008, 09:20 PM

For a lot of people it wouldn't be nearly so wonderful, but they want to be close to the people they love just like you do. Why do you have such a problem with that?

easy, i believe life begins at conception, or shortly there after, and by aborting a child you are killing it, why does someone get charged with a double murder when they murder a mother and her unborn child if its not a human life?

thats all

Hello.there

Apr 2, 2008, 09:24 PM

why does someone get charged with a double murder when they murder a mother and her unborn child if its not a human life?

As the old saying goes, the law's an ass.

Ugg

Apr 2, 2008, 09:49 PM

easy, i believe life begins at conception, or shortly there after, and by aborting a child you are killing it, why does someone get charged with a double murder when they murder a mother and her unborn child if its not a human life?

thats all

You make it sound as though the law has been around for absolutely forever. Fetuses are unable to be separated from their mother's bodies and therefore can NOT be considered a separate human being. The laws have been passed in order to slip a slim wedge under the door with the ultimate goal of banning all abortions.

Think what you wish but from a medical standpoint, a fetus is not a human being.

Gelfin

Apr 2, 2008, 09:55 PM

easy, i believe life begins at conception, or shortly there after, and by aborting a child you are killing it

This is a religious claim and a subsequent moral choice not shared by even a majority of people in the United States. The government is not qualified to make such judgments on behalf of its citizens, and the vocal minority who strongly oppose abortion have no right to force the rest to conform to their will. That's what choice means.

why does someone get charged with a double murder when they murder a mother and her unborn child if its not a human life?

They do not universally. Laws vary widely, and where they exist generally do so as a part of an activist campaign by legislators of like mind to yourself to erode abortion in the first place. Referring to them to justify criminalizing abortion thus represents a circular argument.

atszyman

Apr 2, 2008, 10:05 PM

get your self fixed problem solved:D

Doesn't always work either, I know of at least two cases where a wife ended up pregnant after the husband was "fixed" and yes, the husbands are the fathers.

MacNut

Apr 2, 2008, 11:27 PM

Doesn't always work either, I know of at least two cases where a wife ended up pregnant after the husband was "fixed" and yes, the husbands are the fathers.So they were on Maury.:p

obeygiant

Apr 2, 2008, 11:56 PM

Think what you wish but from a medical standpoint, a fetus is not a human being.

If that makes you feel better....

.Andy

Apr 3, 2008, 01:08 AM

If that makes you feel better....
Burning building hypothetical. You have only time for one trip in. Save the 1 year old child or the vial of 20 frozen embryos?

Iscariot

Apr 3, 2008, 01:22 AM

Burning building hypothetical. You have only time for one trip in. Save the 1 year old child or the vial of 20 frozen embryos?

CTHULU DEMANDS BOTH FOR HIS SACRIFICE.

Alternate ending:

Trick question. Everyone knows you need both for the stew.

See the special features DvD for deleted scenes and commentary.

solvs

Apr 3, 2008, 04:12 AM

This man is WRONG for our country...
Be honest now. If something like this makes you not like him you were never really going to support him were you? There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike the man, even disagree with him, but this is just reaching.

SMM

Apr 3, 2008, 04:21 PM

cant believe no one has posted this yet

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQt8QGIMo4U

i understand he is talking about sex ed but still, ranking babies up there with STDs? This man is WRONG for our country...

I read the entire speech and follow-up to it. The neo-cons and right-wing machine is all over it, and I expected someone was going to quickly pop-up here and attempt promote their drivel. This is nothing except more smear and character assignation. It is a complete fabrication of what the man said. Put a lid on it, OK.