What's new

Will wonders never cease

We wouldn't need to worry about prenatal care nearly as much if people would stop having premarital sex. I think this is a great appointment.
That sure is right...what to you propose to put an end to it? How do you tell a kid with raging hormones...or in the case of the recommendations of this president, a person up to the age of 29...not to have sex before they are married? For the record - I engaged in premarital sex in my youth...did you? I wonder how many of the right wing mouthpieces have engaged in premarital sex...Rush had a heckuva hot girlfriend (Daryn Kagan)...I would have had a tough time saying "no" to sex with her...I wonder if Rush did.
 
That sure is right...what to you propose to put an end to it?
By appointing someone like Eric Keroack, who is "renouned for preventing teen pregnancy", to this position.

For the record - I engaged in premarital sex in my youth...did you?
Nope. And now I'm happily married and expecting my first.

I wonder how many of the right wing mouthpieces have engaged in premarital sex...Rush had a heckuva hot girlfriend (Daryn Kagan)...I would have had a tough time saying "no" to sex with her...I wonder if Rush did.
I don't care what Rush does, but if no one had premarital sex the problem would be solved.
 
By appointing someone like Eric Keroack, who is "renouned for preventing teen pregnancy", to this position.
Nope. And now I'm happily married and expecting my first.
I don't care what Rush does, but if no one had premarital sex the problem would be solved.
Good Post!
 
We wouldn't need to worry about prenatal care nearly as much if people would stop having premarital sex. I think this is a great appointment.
...
I don't care what Rush does, but if no one had premarital sex the problem would be solved.

Leto2,

I agree that promoting abstinence-until-marriage may help solve the problem; but it certainly won't completely solve the problem.

It is not only unwedded teenage girls that require federal-funded prenatal care. There are plenty of married couples that require federal-funded prenatal care. I would imagine that some of those married couples waited until marriage to have children, but do not have enough money to afford health insurance.

His actual appointment is as 'deputy assistant secretary for population affairs'. I think the appointment may be helpful; but only if Keroack decides to fight this battle on both fronts: Promoting abstinence-until-marriage but also providing relevant services to those who choose to have sex outside of marriage (i.e. sex education and birth control).
 
Leto2,

I agree that promoting abstinence-until-marriage may help solve the problem; but it certainly won't completely solve the problem.

It is not only unwedded teenage girls that require federal-funded prenatal care. There are plenty of married couples that require federal-funded prenatal care. I would imagine that some of those married couples waited until marriage to have children, but do not have enough money to afford health insurance.

His actual appointment is as 'deputy assistant secretary for population affairs'. I think the appointment may be helpful; but only if Keroack decides to fight this battle on both fronts: Condoning abstinence-until-marriage but also providing relevant services to those who choose to have sex outside of marriage (i.e. sex education and birth control).


Funny thing is this fact: People didn't listen to God and that Father does indeed know best!

What is this guy going to really accomplish, nothing.
 
It is not only unwedded teenage girls that require federal-funded prenatal care. There are plenty of married couples that require federal-funded prenatal care. I would imagine that some of those married couples waited until marriage to have children, but do not have enough money to afford health insurance.
That's an easy answer from those on the right...people who can't afford to have kids shouldn't be having sex. They need to teach the woman to "keep her legs together" until they are in a financial situation that will allow them to support kids. I think to many on the right, the only sex related social programs they would support is sterilization of poor people.
 
That's an easy answer from those on the right...people who can't afford to have kids shouldn't be having sex. They need to teach the woman to "keep her legs together" until they are in a financial situation that will allow them to support kids. I think to many on the right, the only sex related social programs they would support is sterilization of poor people.
I think you are starting to veer again, better strengthen the dosage.
 
That sure is right...what to you propose to put an end to it? How do you tell a kid with raging hormones...or in the case of the recommendations of this president, a person up to the age of 29...not to have sex before they are married? For the record - I engaged in premarital sex in my youth...did you? I wonder how many of the right wing mouthpieces have engaged in premarital sex...Rush had a heckuva hot girlfriend (Daryn Kagan)...I would have had a tough time saying "no" to sex with her...I wonder if Rush did.

Well obviously Responsibility is'nt in your liberal vocabulary. thats fine and dandy if you choose to engage in unprotected sex, but you have no right to expect society to pay for your care free life style.

What ever happened to the Idea of getting a JOB and paying for your own way? and yes you should'nt have kids unless you can be a responsible care giver. Welfare and government handouts only promotes more of the same.

Im all for helping those who are Incapable of helping themselves, Im not for helping those who choose to take the easy way out and live off the government tit from cradle to grave.

We keep hearing from our government that illegals are good because they take the Jobs Americans wont do, yet we have millions of Americans on the welfare system who choose not to work. That is just one example your socialist idealism is a complete failure.
 
That's an easy answer from those on the right...people who can't afford to have kids shouldn't be having sex. They need to teach the woman to "keep her legs together" until they are in a financial situation that will allow them to support kids. I think to many on the right, the only sex related social programs they would support is sterilization of poor people.

I don't know where this off-the-wall comment came from. I've never heard anyone say or imply that. You're trying to exaggerate and over-generalize conservative views to make us look *evil*, a common liberal tactic.

I think it's very rare that someone's financial situation won't allow them to support kids. Should they be careful about when they choose to have children? Probably. Even so, I've known many people going to college that still support 2 kids without any government help.
My personal view is that people who still have problems supporting children even WHEN THEY ARE WORKING THEIR HARDEST, even if that requires 3 part-time jobs (my father did this once to support me and my three brothers), should turn to family first for help, then churches or private organizations, and last only if completely necessary, the government. And while they are getting assistence they should be doing everything in their power to become self-sufficient.
 
Well obviously Responsibility is'nt in your liberal vocabulary. thats fine and dandy if you choose to engage in unprotected sex, but you have no right to expect society to pay for your care free life style.
Sorry to differ with you. I believe in personal responsiblity. I also believe that when it comes to kids and sex, it's not a bad idea to tell them how NOT to get pregnant in case their abstinence pledge fails them. Unfortunatly, many of the 'personal responsiblity' folks on the right don't want "my tax dollars paying for rubbers". And it's as if they bury their head in the sand and pretend that if they don't TALK about sex - their kids won't have sex. Some kids aren't the strong Christian warriors that their moms and dads wish they could be. Of course, many parents today tend to forget that there was a really good chance that THEY themselves couldn't abstain until marriage. Did you local12?

Im all for helping those who are Incapable of helping themselves, Im not for helping those who choose to take the easy way out and live off the government tit from cradle to grave.
What about the middle class college age girl who is kind and sweet and works to help pay for college - but who, in a moment of passion, forgets and has sex with her boyfriend. Now she's pregnant, with no insurance. She goes to the health department...funded by YOUR tax dollars. She sits in the lobby, next to someone who "chose to live off the government tit from cradel to grave"....she looks a LOT like that teat sucker she's sitting next to...how do you determine who gets your tax dollar care?

We keep hearing from our government that illegals are good because they take the Jobs Americans wont do, yet we have millions of Americans on the welfare system who choose not to work. That is just one example your socialist idealism is a complete failure.
Let's send them all back. I'm ready to pay more for my groceries because I understand that you can't expect someone to live on the meager wages that are paid to the illegals. Hell...I know I wouldn't work for that meager amount for that backbreaking kind of work. I also understand that picking those fruits and vegetables is backbreaking work and it's hard to get up each morning, much less having to go to a second job to make ends meet. Let's send them all back and see how many Americans actually flood the migrant worker market.

And before you accuse me of being a liberal teat sucker - back when I was first married in 1980 (Ohio), jobs were pretty darn scarce. I worked in a Goodwill trailer until I could find a better job...and didn't look to the government for help.
 
Sorry to differ with you. I believe in personal responsiblity. I also believe that when it comes to kids and sex, it's not a bad idea to tell them how NOT to get pregnant in case their abstinence pledge fails them.

Agreed!

Unfortunatly, many of the 'personal responsiblity' folks on the right don't want "my tax dollars paying for rubbers".

Better than the government (tax payer) having to foot the bill for a childs care in far too many cases.

many parents today tend to forget that there was a really good chance that THEY themselves couldn't abstain until marriage. Did you local12?

My parents had 'The Talk' with me about sex and advised me of the serious consequence of un-protected sex and that it would behoove me to abstain until marriage. Did I listen? well yes and no, but neither did I produce a child out of wedlock.

What about the middle class college age girl who is kind and sweet and works to help pay for college - but who, in a moment of passion, forgets and has sex with her boyfriend. Now she's pregnant, with no insurance. She goes to the health department...funded by YOUR tax dollars. She sits in the lobby, next to someone who "chose to live off the government tit from cradel to grave"....she looks a LOT like that teat sucker she's sitting next to...how do you determine who gets your tax dollar care?

Thats simple KC, its called responsible management oversight. The government knows who the life long abusers of the system are, yet turn a blind eye. Ive already stated Im all for helping the less fortunate who are unable to contribute, its the free loaders I detest.

Let's send them all back. I'm ready to pay more for my groceries because I understand that you can't expect someone to live on the meager wages that are paid to the illegals. Hell...I know I wouldn't work for that meager amount for that backbreaking kind of work. I also understand that picking those fruits and vegetables is backbreaking work and it's hard to get up each morning, much less having to go to a second job to make ends meet. Let's send them all back and see how many Americans actually flood the migrant worker market.

That arguement does'nt hold water. Who do you suppose picked those crops when your grandparents were kids?

Americans, thats who!

If I understand your logic, we need to keep migrant workers in order to keep wages depressed so you can buy cheap groceries. In the mean time those same migrant workers, most of whom are Illegal living on those meager wages you favor now rely on our government (Tax Payer) for assistance because they can't/don't have health Insurance, adequate housing, etc.. a vast majority don't pay taxes because they have no Legal ID or SS# and many are paid cash sending there money home. please explain to me how this benefits this Nation as a whole.

And before you accuse me of being a liberal teat sucker - back when I was first married in 1980 (Ohio), jobs were pretty darn scarce. I worked in a Goodwill trailer until I could find a better job...and didn't look to the government for help.

I also worked menial jobs while putting myself thru school and never once in my life had to depend on Uncle Sam to feed, clothe, or house me. Ive seen and known people who overcame tremendous odds in order to make something of their lives, I do not and will not accept the fact that we are obligated to support the able bodied in this country when there is every opportunity available for them to work hard and succeed.
 
The point is that many on the right do not support social programs because it's tax money that funds it. All too often the refrain is heard "she should have kept her legs together"...because they don't want their tax money going to support 'freeloaders'. Yes...they get prenatal care now - thanks to those evil "liberal" policies. But if the neocons had their way....teach them abstinance only, and if they fail that course - point out "personal responsiblity".

You're way off base here. The so called neocons that your refer to are against "Freeloaders" that milk the system and remain on the dole from cradle to grave. It's the crap where you've got a single mother living on welfare with 3 or 4 (or more)kids living under her roof and the kids have 2 or 3 or 4 different fathers. There's a lesson for a mother like that with regard to personal responsibility. No one is saying let the kids suffer but cutting her off from the dole is a damn good dose of tough love. Get off your back, close your damn legs and take some personal responsibility and make something out of your life rather than being a drain on society and something more than the easy tramp for all the fellas in the neighborhood that know she's an easy lay. It's the people like that that need to be thrown out on their azzez and told to fend for themselves.
Don't come back with that lame ass excuse about punishing the kids for their mothers dumb ass choices. They need to go after the fathers of the kids as well as the extended family and put them on the hook for caring for the kids, with help from the taxpayers, to ensure the kids are well taken care of. If they do that enough the extended family will take care of the behavior of the relative that is causing them to lose some money and time.
 
The 'Just say no' policy did/does not work for drugs or is working to reduce unwanted pregnancy. In as much for similar reasons of stupidity, hopelessness and apathy. There is a societal breakdown where the hardliners from both sides will not sit down and agree to a 'sustainable' course of action. Face it, we have a large population of ignorant people that will never protect themselves from either drugs, pregnancy and/or STD's. I would rather see an educational program before institutionalized control but at this point, we would have to have a 'balanced' mix of the both with a plan (novel idea). 🙄

But to make 'hard decisions' for a consensus is an impossible pill to swallow for both sides.
(Glad I am an independent) 😛
 

Latest posts

Back
Top