[Flipside]

What amazes is me is what is wrong with teaching Abstinence & Contraception?

I can't believe a country that has as much much access to phsychological data on teenagers as America is after anything but a 'Baby Boom' with this idea. The question is : Why?

[Tiara]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
he's

[size=9999]*COUGH*[/size]

Have I been away from this board for that long?

Anyway, I think this issue boils down to the issue of Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech in itself is a good thing. But I think is that sometimes the boundries of Freedom of Speech are crossed and people head right into Agree-with-me-or-Die-ville without even realizing it.

[kasperl]

T: about the glad we're in Holland thing. Are you sure about that?

[Tiara]

Originally posted by kasperl
T: about the glad we're in Holland thing. Are you sure about that?

Ah, you are one of the people who take recent events too serious. I found that people tend to grab hold of opinions in the heat of the moment and stick to it rather then to calmly think about it. Thats probably what you have done.

Because really, has anything changed in Holland in any noticable way? Besides the fact that they stepped up security, which happens to be a good thing, barely anything has changed.

Yes, its bad what happened but you shouldn't get stuck on it. Neither should anyone else.

[kasperl]

The passport thing? Dunno, alla criminal has to do after 1 jan is to go into a secondary school, past a rack infront of a lab class, and start opening bags. Or just rip the poor 2nd graders off on the way home.

And what's changed, dunno, really.The constant panic and scare? The posters urging people to report arms carrying in schools? The bombing of primary schools?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Flipside
What amazes is me is what is wrong with teaching Abstinence & Contraception?

I can't believe a country that has as much much access to phsychological data on teenagers as America is after anything but a 'Baby Boom' with this idea. The question is : Why?

Footsoldiers for WW3 in 20 years time?

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Actually, it just occured to me; schools really should be teaching proper masturbation techniques.

Bah.  There's nothing wrong with self-taught.

Besides, then you'd have to deal with that fat, sticky kid at the back of class practicing....

[Tiara]

Originally posted by kasperl

And what's changed, dunno, really.The constant panic and scare? The posters urging people to report arms carrying in schools? The bombing of primary schools?

If you or anyone else lives in constant panic and scare you need to see a psychiatrists. Badly. Here, where I live, not a single person is actually scared as such. yes, they voice their discontent about what happened but thats basically all. You are blowing this WAY out of proportions, Kas.

Sure, some bad **** has happened, but isn't the friggin' end of the world you know. It were just a few incidents and it's being worked on as we speak.

Worrying too much about that sort of thing is exactly what you shouldn't do. It has a direct adverse affect on society.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Flipside
What amazes is me is what is wrong with teaching Abstinence & Contraception?

I can't believe a country that has as much much access to phsychological data on teenagers as America is after anything but a 'Baby Boom' with this idea. The question is : Why?

it's because some people are idiots and think this actually will work - despite all the evidence to the contrary

they also think it's the only "moral" option

well there are enough studies out there showing that
A) Abstinance-only raised the teen pregnancy (and and abortions rates)
B) The more fundamentalist a family is the more likely their daughter(s) is/are likely to become a teenaged mother (due to not being informed)
C) Comprehensive Sex Education (like europe) decrease teen preganancy (and hence abortion)
that if I were to print them all out it would more than fill my appartment with printer paper

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan


it's because some people are idiots and think this actually will work - despite all the evidence to the contrary

[/b]
Thats not really the big issue.

they also think it's the only "moral" option

This is

[Flipside]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Footsoldiers for WW3 in 20 years time?

Relationship must = Marriage
Marriage must = Children
Making sure people are ignorant of contraception.....

You know, theres only one more step till we are talking 'God's Army' don't you?

We should run a book until the 'Marriage is only Marriage if it takes place in a Church' movement starts gaining weight

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Ace
Outlawing 'deliberate childlessness'?

Now maybe people can see what folks like Kazan mean by reproductive rights being infringed.

Oh wait... let me guess freedom to have children does not include freedom to not have children.

According to Republicans, exactly.

[Singh]

Originally posted by Bobboau
becose marrage doesn't change people.

errr...yes it does....at least, I believe its supposed to change one to suit the other's needs and persona........

[Bobboau]

/*sarchasm*/

[Singh]

Originally posted by Liberator
The way I see it, quickie divorce and abortion let people run from the consequences of their poor decisions.  All this guy wants to do is force them to make the hard decisions.  It's too easy to ruin lives(abortion aside), it a marriage has produced children, any petty disagreements that the parents have with each other immeadately take a back seat to the needs of the children.

He does have a point im afraid. The way the younger generation is going, they tend to run away from all the bad decisions or when hte going gets tough.

the point raised that everyone should have hte right to live the live how they want it, is valid, yet VERY selfish, especially when other lives are involved. If one of these youngsters happened to leave the pregneant wife and child to fend on there own, it would result in problems and probable death of the latter. Which would be more important? THe life of the child? or the Discomfort of some dumb kid that doesn't want to grow up and face the consequences?

[Singh]

Originally posted by Bobboau
/*sarchasm*/

and it slipped right by me

sorry.

[kasperl]

T: I'm not scared. The only thing I'm scared of is getting airport like security in schools, with everyone over exeguarating everything. The fact that others clearly are scared, yeah, that annoys me.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Singh


He does have a point im afraid. The way the younger generation is going, they tend to run away from all the bad decisions or when hte going gets tough.

the point raised that everyone should have hte right to live the live how they want it, is valid, yet VERY selfish, especially when other lives are involved. If one of these youngsters happened to leave the pregneant wife and child to fend on there own, it would result in problems and probable death of the latter. Which would be more important? THe life of the child? or the Discomfort of some dumb kid that doesn't want to grow up and face the consequences?

Is someone immature / uncommited enough to run away going to be a good father, though?  (NB: one of my cousins is a single mother; the father turned out to be a very dodgy character unbeknownst to her, so he cut all ties.  He never knew she was pregnant, tho)

It's all about giving people choices.  Removing the choice doesn't make people any more inclined to make the 'right' decision, it just traps them; and trapping people can have a profound change upon them.  Is an absentee father better than a bitter, alcoholic, wife-beating father, for example?

[Singh]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Is someone immature / uncommited enough to run away going to be a good father, though?  (NB: one of my cousins is a single mother; the father turned out to be a very dodgy character unbeknownst to her, so he cut all ties.  He never knew she was pregnant, tho)

It's all about giving people choices.  Removing the choice doesn't make people any more inclined to make the 'right' decision, it just traps them; and trapping people can have a profound change upon them.  Is an absentee father better than a bitter, alcoholic, wife-beating father, for example?

In some situations, I'd agree with you fully, and in others, I'd have to say no. Unfortunately it all boils down to Relativism. On one hand if were to enforce the choice, we'd end up with one set of problems.

Yet in the other, if we allow people to make other choices, we'd end up with a totally different set. The real issue from what I can see here, is do we want to give them freedom or happyness?

Contrary to popular belief, having one does not mean you'll have the other....i'll explain later tho.

[aldo_14]

You can't force people to be happy, though.

Unless you put prozac in the water.