Lula posts:

LW POSTS:

Someone just mailed me a bunch of newspaper clippings cncerning the King Middle School debacle.

One editorial writer wrote his own version of what the middle school should be giving parents who give permission to use the clinic.

"I hereby repudiate and renounce any pretense I have ever made to be a responsible parent for my son or daughter. In relinquishing control over this vital part of their physical and moral development to the government, I declare myself a hopeless failure as a parent."

To Dan Greene,

Your input on this weighty topic has been very informative, helpful and interesting to read, however, I would greatly appreciate and thank you if you would kindly refrain from using profanity.

"Your input on this weighty topic has been very informative, helpful and interesting to read, however, I would greatly appreciate and thank you if you would kindly refrain from using profanity."

Deal.

"Our disagreement lies in the fact that I do not believe that giving a youngster access to birth control is the same as encouraging them to have sex any more than teaching a young driver to wear a seat belt is encouraging them to drive like an idiot."

Youngsters, are youngerst for a reason, because they are not OLD ENOUGH to be engaging in the behaviour. You must be this tall to have sexual intercourse so to speak!

How about answering my question. When you say :

"If I had my way, Dan, young women would be put on long-term birth control (like Norplant or any of the other 5- year methods) immediately after their first period."

Does that mean you'd be in favor of hooking up 9 and 10 year old girls or even younger with birth control? And why would be doing this, in case they have sex?

I'm pretty sure you can't have your cake and eat it too Whip, certainly you can't be giving out birth control to people who are too young to know how to use it properly or choose to use is consistently or understand the consequences if they fail in either regard.

I just don't see why you think it's a good idea to just brush off all the other illegalities as well as the STD problem that is not solved by your favored solution i.e. the pill.

"We are never going to agree on this, and I'm not going to repeat myself further."

Uh huh, I'll believe that when I see it. Moreover, it would be more beneficial to your argument in favor of the freedom of 9 and 10 year olds to make family planning decisions to actually defend the weaknesses of your idea or at least explain what you mean. But then I guess you can't take the time to go into detail or examine why your thinking is so lacking in logic or dangerous for young children.

Boo hoo Whip, I'm pretty sure, I didn't start personal attacks against you but defended my points against yours. I came to this forum not from an interest in news or banter but to find ways of improving Galciv 2 when it sucked royally pre patches.

Now when you bring a faulted argument and distorted logic to a problem here and elsewhere, as in the past I've called you on it, when confronted with the reality of your statements it's me who has a "bug up my ass", or is the "racist" or is attacking you.

No whip, it is your personal attacks on other's here at JU and your faulted logic and inability to address those who would think differently. When you cannot compete or debate you resort to personal attacks, or start your own thread as to why other people are incompetent or liberals.

Answer my question. Why do you think it's a good idea, allowing the government to issue birth control to children? Because that is what your statement entails.

Defend it, revoke it, or runaway from it, you said it, you own it.

i have a question


if telling your kids not to do it for 10,000 years or if your religious 6000 years was good enough to keep most kids from having sex. how come in the last 50 years it hasn't been.


one more question when did they start giving the pill to women.

That's just the thing, people! Get your freaking heads out of the sand!

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SCREWING THE WHOLE TIME, stupids! "Telling kids not to do it" has NOT kept "most kids from having sex". Get your heads out of the sand, folks.

I agree, SC.

In fact, I believe we should abolish all murder laws. People have killed each other since Cain and Abel.

And theft? fuggeddaboudit. Realease all convicted murderers and thieves from prison because they're going to do it anyway.

Now, I'm saying this acknowledging there is SOME difference because sex (ideally) involves consent between both parties, but, really, at that age, how much of it is consent and how much coercion? I'd argue that more often than not it's the latter.

I don't agree with KFC's or Lula's approach, but frankly, I'm just as sick of those of you who mock them for WANTING something better for our kids.

The fact is, there IS a solution. Children who choose to remain abstinent at least into their adult years are more prevalent in families where the parents are involved, where the children know they are loved and accepted and don't have to look to someone else for that. Yes, sometimes children from those families still have sex at a young age, and yes, you can't completely prevent that from happening, but you shouldn't give up entirely based on the lack of a 100% success rate.

The truth is, there IS a push to sexualize our children way too young. Yes, they have raging hormones, but yes, differences can be made. I will use personal examples. My oldest daughter is 12, and while she does have some interest in boys, she doesn't have an interest in sneaking over to the old house to sleep with every guy who looks at her. And yes, we would know. We're THAT involved. One of my kids' best friends, on the other hand, is 8 years old, and he's already trying to be the "ladies man" with his several girlfriends.

You may not agree with KFC and Lula, but when you mock them for even TRYING, it 's just as wrong as the position they take.

Difference - years ago, you'd get married at puberty, because they knew you'd want to screw. You also knew how to support your family at puberty. Now, they have a new classification of age - adolescence. This is the time of your life where you should be an adult, but laws and lack of knowledge keep you from being able to support any family you may have.

Very interesting point Jythier.

just curious Gid, what exactly do you think is wrong about Lula and my position here?



Yes, this is true. Of course many grew up around trades and worked early with their families learning these skills that would carry them thru adulthood. Kids were on their own as young as even 15 way back when. I read stories over the years of young boys going on voyages as young as 12 or so starting their adult lives then. Even during the early wars you can read about boys joining the forces as young as 16-17. They grew up faster and out of their home than our kids do today. Now we're kicking them out of the house at 25 for the most part.

I talked to my dad about this subject this week. He was born in 1938. He said the kids had sex back in his day as well...it's not a new phenomenom...but it's not nearly as prevalent as today. Many in his generation got married as virgins. It was more the norm and expected.

But he also spoke of the dating scene today and how it's different than it was in his day and before that. He spoke of his mother's day when chaperones were the norm. A young lady would NEVER be expected to be alone with a male suitor. They were always supervised right up till the wedding. Sometimes the first kiss was right there at the church. The adults knew the power of the sexual urges and wanted to protect their daughters helping them remain pure for their wedding night.

In today's strict Christian circles this is still being done to some extent, but it's rare. I bet the Amish have much stricter rules about dating than we do. I'm wondering if they don't also believe in courtship instead of dating.

I should reread those books I have, but I think the Amish kids date behind the parent's backs for the most part. The parents know about it, of course, but they mostly ignore it because they also know they're not out 'doing it' and will probably marry the only person they dated.

who is coercing who tho

It's been pointed out numerous times. I'm trying to break my habit of beating dead horses

daniellost posts:

In 1942, the Birth Control Federation of America became Planned Parenthood Federation of America. By 1963, the birth contol pill was announced as being safe, natural, and psysiologic

Two years later in 1965, the US Congress began subsidizing birth control for the poor.

Five years later, in 1970, Title X (10) was formed as part of the Public Health Service Act. Title X spends taxpayers' money on "family planning" and "health care" for women, (euphemisms for sterilization and abortion)which includes the distribution of contraceptives and devices and counseling for abortion as a means of birth control.

The Act was originally intended to reduce pregnancies among poor people, and has been greatly expanded to cover teens and now, seemingly, middle school school age youngsters.

In his prophetical encyclical, Humanae Vitae, 1968, Pope Paul VI, in which he predicted the acceptance of contraceptives as a way of family planning and which separates sex from procreation within marital intercourse, was the first behavior that triggered other morally destructive kinds of activity all of which constitute what I think can appropriately be described as the moral revolution of the century.

The long list of behaviors that comprise the moral revolution that stems from the social acceptance of contraceptives is the first domino that triggered acceptance of abortion, pornography, single parent families, homosexuality, divorce, and shacking up, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell use, and cloning to name a few.

I agree with your whole comment. I respect Lula and KFC, and see they have different views than me. But they are also parents, and those who seem to be doing the most mocking are for the most part childless. I just hope they are still in the learning stage.