How to reduce teen pregnancy

[James Brown]

Is that the OFFICIAL CANADIAN POSITION?

Yes. We'll politely set you on fire and apologize profusely for the inconvenience while we're doing it but we will burn you.

Typical. Scratch a Canadian and you'll find an Iranian underneath.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As long as they're 18 years and 1 day old, you're fine. If they're 17 years, 11 months and 29 days old then you're a fucking monster and we'll need to burn you alive.

Is that the OFFICIAL CANADIAN POSITION?

And the OFFICIAL CANADIEN POSITION as well since the early 80's I think.

 

[fromderinside]

Is that the OFFICIAL CANADIAN POSITION?

And the OFFICIAL CANADIEN POSITION as well since the early 80's I think.

Ain't human life wunnerful. We can get and make pregnant around nine or fourteen depending how far from equator your kind lives but you can't actually reason much before you're twenty-five or so. So the solution is "Take the position", get shot, or pregnant, or otherwise fucked up before your life really begins. Hoooo Ray. Three score and ten is a fraud.

we arta have laws based on something other than prejudice don't you think.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/s...-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

Provide free long-acting contraception. 40% drop.

Of course that leaves the fundies without a bunch of bad girls to hold up as examples, it's not going to get funded even though it's a no-brainer from the financial standpoint. (It's a hell of a lot cheaper than welfare.)

Not too many people take risks and play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun, but we look on sex in a different way. Whilst these contraceptives are more efficient at preventing babies, there is still the risk of sexually transmitted disease. Once a woman consents to sex in a relationship, they have a greater emotional involvement, when these relationships break down, people are often left emotionally scarred.

Whilst I agree with you, that it is good to reduce unwanted pregnancies, I also believe it is better for a women to consent to sex only when there is consent for a long term relationship, preferably marriage.

Life entails risk.

Furthermore, if you leave sex to too late in the relationship you get sexual incompatibilities that don't get discovered in time.

- - - Updated - - -

I am always thrilled whenever men try to solve the issue of young girls and women and unwanted pregnancy by suggesting something girls and women need to do to reduce the inconvenience of unintended early pregnancies which has the added benefit of requiring zero effort or thought or inconvenience for men and leaves the girls and women available for sex with men. Especially when the same men also argue against free birth control for women.


Two things that also work or have the potential to work:

1. Help girls envision a future fore themselves that includes education and economic security.
2. Develope long acting birth control for males, and make it readily available.

Birth control for either or both genders does not eliminate the risk of STDs nor does it mitigate the negative consequences of early sexual involvement.

These aren't women who envisioned no future. Thus your point #1 doesn't work.

There is work being done on long term contraception for males. While it would be a very good development it doesn't change the current situation.

 

[credoconsolans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/s...-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

Provide free long-acting contraception. 40% drop.

Of course that leaves the fundies without a bunch of bad girls to hold up as examples, it's not going to get funded even though it's a no-brainer from the financial standpoint. (It's a hell of a lot cheaper than welfare.)

This is news? The Scandahoovian countries have known this for decades.

And the OFFICIAL CANADIEN POSITION as well since the early 80's I think.

Ain't human life wunnerful. We can get and make pregnant around nine or fourteen depending how far from equator your kind lives but you can't actually reason much before you're twenty-five or so. So the solution is "Take the position", get shot, or pregnant, or otherwise fucked up before your life really begins.

A left over from the time when if you were approaching 30, your life was nearly over anyway.

 

[fromderinside]

Ain't human life wunnerful. We can get and make pregnant around nine or fourteen depending how far from equator your kind lives but you can't actually reason much before you're twenty-five or so. So the solution is "Take the position", get shot, or pregnant, or otherwise fucked up before your life really begins.

A left over from the time when if you were approaching 30, your life was nearly over anyway.

Left over nothing. Sad statistic. For most people it is over before they are 20 ..... If you don't own or do own but, live in something left over from the first world war and not modernized since, or, you don't make income above the second quintile, or, you have a felony record, or, you got pregnant as a teen, or you are disabled by auto, war, on the job, or genes, or emotions, or, all of the above, you are living a shitty life.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Is that the OFFICIAL CANADIAN POSITION?

Yes. We'll politely set you on fire and apologize profusely for the inconvenience while we're doing it but we will burn you.

You don't have to set us on fire, the smoke from your "forest" fires has put a thick have over our beautiful city. It smells like burning tires.

 

[Toni]

Not too many people take risks and play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun, but we look on sex in a different way. Whilst these contraceptives are more efficient at preventing babies, there is still the risk of sexually transmitted disease. Once a woman consents to sex in a relationship, they have a greater emotional involvement, when these relationships break down, people are often left emotionally scarred.

Whilst I agree with you, that it is good to reduce unwanted pregnancies, I also believe it is better for a women to consent to sex only when there is consent for a long term relationship, preferably marriage.

Life entails risk.

Furthermore, if you leave sex to too late in the relationship you get sexual incompatibilities that don't get discovered in time.

- - - Updated - - -

I am always thrilled whenever men try to solve the issue of young girls and women and unwanted pregnancy by suggesting something girls and women need to do to reduce the inconvenience of unintended early pregnancies which has the added benefit of requiring zero effort or thought or inconvenience for men and leaves the girls and women available for sex with men. Especially when the same men also argue against free birth control for women.


Two things that also work or have the potential to work:

1. Help girls envision a future fore themselves that includes education and economic security.
2. Develope long acting birth control for males, and make it readily available.

Birth control for either or both genders does not eliminate the risk of STDs nor does it mitigate the negative consequences of early sexual involvement.

These aren't women who envisioned no future. Thus your point #1 doesn't work.

How do you know? Your own proposal is (slightly ) changing the present paradigm--to one hat conveniently requires no efforts on the part of men and leaves girls and young women with the same or increased risk of STDs and other negative health consequences without preparing them for a more sound economic future. Bus do long as men get increased consequence free access to sex with teens, then I guess your argument is that it's a net good. Actual change that benefits young women and their future offspring is too much trouble.

There is work being done on long term contraception for males. While it would be a very good development it doesn't change the current situation.

Yeah, there's been work developing a male contraceptive since I was a teen. Funny how it never makes it to market.

You are t actually opposed to change: you've proposed it yourself. You are just opposed to increased opportunities for young girls and women and less access to consequence free(for them) sex with teenaged girls for teenaged boys and men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you know? Your own proposal is (slightly ) changing the present paradigm--to one hat conveniently requires no efforts on the part of men and leaves girls and young women with the same or increased risk of STDs and other negative health consequences without preparing them for a more sound economic future. Bus do long as men get increased consequence free access to sex with teens, then I guess your argument is that it's a net good. Actual change that benefits young women and their future offspring is too much trouble.

Biology is unfair.

We have long-acting contraception for women. We don't have long-acting contraception for men. It's better to work with reality than cause problems in the name of equality.

There is work being done on long term contraception for males. While it would be a very good development it doesn't change the current situation.

Yeah, there's been work developing a male contraceptive since I was a teen. Funny how it never makes it to market.

All non-barrier female contraception (as opposed to sterilization) is based on using the existing off switches in the woman's body. The man's body has no such off switches, it's much harder to develop something. They have been working, things don't pan out--although my understanding is that there is a fully reversible sterilization that's in use in some countries. Give that some years to weed out problems and we might see it here.

You are t actually opposed to change: you've proposed it yourself. You are just opposed to increased opportunities for young girls and women and less access to consequence free(for them) sex with teenaged girls for teenaged boys and men.

No--what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

Doing something that works now is better than sitting on your ass complaining about the lack of a perfect answer. We have the long term contraception for women, it cuts the oops rate by at least 40%. You want to wreck a bunch of women's lives in the name of fairness.

 

[Toni]

Biology is unfair.

Biology is neither fair nor unfair.

Policy and law can be fair or unfair. It is the duty of a just society to make policy and law as fair and just and as merciful as possible.

Biology has nothing to do with it.

We have long-acting contraception for women. We don't have long-acting contraception for men. It's better to work with reality than cause problems in the name of equality.

Excuse me?

If you were actually interested in what is effective instead of a convenient status quo, you would take the time and effort to become acqauinted wiht the established facts that link increased levels of education and a clear pathway to an improved and secure economic future with delaying pregnancy and reducing family size. Also reducing maternal and infant mortality rate.

But since your interest is in preserving a status quo that involves no thinking or effort on your part, why not indulge in your lazy minded privileged prejudices?

Why not just shove something up a girl if it means that teenaged girls might remain sexually available to teenaged boys and men, with few actual consequences? So much easier and more convenient and risk free. For the males. It's much more important that teenaged girls remain sexually available for consequence free sex on demand. Why bother about their futures? They're only girls.

All non-barrier female contraception (as opposed to sterilization) is based on using the existing off switches in the woman's body.

Uh, you need to learn some biology.

The man's body has no such off switches,

Again, learn some biology.

it's much harder to develop something.

Especially if you don't invest the time and money and effort and especially if you believe that like pregnancy, preventing pregnancy is a divinely bestowed burden placed upon sinful females.

They have been working, things don't pan out--although my understanding is that there is a fully reversible sterilization that's in use in some countries. Give that some years to weed out problems and we might see it here.

So how long did you actually work on the Tuskegee projects? You are awfully willing to let someone else bear the burdens of progress.

No--what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

Yes, why bother with what is fair and right and good, not just for girls and women but for humanity as a whole? Not worth the effort if it means a man might have to forgo some consequence free sex or put any thought or effort into....anything, really.

Doing something that works now is better than sitting on your ass complaining about the lack of a perfect answer. We have the long term contraception for women, it cuts the oops rate by at least 40%. You want to wreck a bunch of women's lives in the name of fairness.

Wow. So you equate providing education and economic security to girls and women with wrecking women's lives.

Wow. I am utterly gobsmacked.

 

[Derec]

I am always thrilled whenever men

2. Develope long acting birth control for males, and make it readily available.

So men should have no opinion about things involving female fertility (how very feminist of you) but of course you, as a woman, feel entitled to express your opinion of male fertility. Typical double standards.

Birth control for either or both genders does not eliminate the risk of STDs nor does it mitigate the negative consequences of early sexual involvement.

How early is "early"?

 

[Derec]

IMO, mandatory vasectomies for all males in their early-mid teens would be the way to go.

How about mandatory tying of tubes for all females in their early mid-teens?
Or do you only advocate mandatory surgeries for men and not for the "more equal animals" as far as radical feminism is concerned?

getting one was just about the greatest and most liberating thing i've ever done in my life,

Doesn't mean you should be able to force it on the rest of us.

and it would pretty much solve 99.9% of the unwanted pregnancy problem:

So would tube tying, but, of course, according to feminism women have autonomy over their bodies unlike men.

 

[Derec]

As a 40-something year old man I probably shouldn't be fucking teenagers anyway . . . or should I? :hmmm:

Consent here is 16? What is it in Florida? 12?

No, but in parts of Mexico it is.

Though, 18-19 is still technically teen and legal in every state, even for 40 year olds, so enjoy!

 

[Derec]

How do you know? Your own proposal is (slightly ) changing the present paradigm--to one hat conveniently requires no efforts on the part of men and leaves girls and young women with the same or increased risk of STDs and other negative health consequences without preparing them for a more sound economic future. Bus do long as men get increased consequence free access to sex with teens, then I guess your argument is that it's a net good. Actual change that benefits young women and their future offspring is too much trouble.

Did you fall into a vat of Andrea Dworkin serum or where did this sex negativity come from?
It benefits both participants in a sexual relationship to have "consequence free" sex. Just because it benefits guys you declare it as no good - I guess you want men punished for wanting to have sex, or at least your post reads that way to me.
As to guys not having to do anything, did you ever hear of condoms?

Yeah, there's been work developing a male contraceptive since I was a teen. Funny how it never makes it to market.

It's biology, stupid. Women have a built-in mechanism for regulating fertility that can be repurposed, while male fertility is always on and difficult to control hormonally.
Besides, there is a male contraceptive device in wide use for centuries called condom. It has the added benefit of protecting against STDs. I guess you don't care about the unfairness of men having been responsible for that for centuries or that condoms, unlike female birth control, are not free under Obamacare.

You are t actually opposed to change: you've proposed it yourself. You are just opposed to increased opportunities for young girls and women and less access to consequence free(for them) sex with teenaged girls for teenaged boys and men.

Huh? Where do you get that nonsense?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How about mandatory tying of tubes for all females in their early mid-teens?
Or do you only advocate mandatory surgeries for men and not for the "more equal animals" as far as radical feminism is concerned?

getting one was just about the greatest and most liberating thing i've ever done in my life,

Doesn't mean you should be able to force it on the rest of us.

and it would pretty much solve 99.9% of the unwanted pregnancy problem:

So would tube tying, but, of course, according to feminism women have autonomy over their bodies unlike men.

Dude you are trying way too hard to respond seriously to an unserious post!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Did you fall into a vat of Andrea Dworkin serum or where did this sex negativity come from?

It's probably a reaction to watching you insert your head halfway up LP's ass every time this subject comes up.

Besides, there is a male contraceptive device in wide use for centuries called condom.

Which is exactly Toni's point. Why is "free long-acting contraception" being touted as a solution to teen pregnancy if "comprehensive sex education," which would include encouraging boys to use condoms, isn't also part of the deal?

Of course we all know the basic answer to that question: use of condoms makes guilt-free sex possible, and guilt-free sex offends Christians, therefore condoms violate the 1st amendment.

condoms, unlike female birth control, are not free under Obamacare.

Do you mean "Medicaid?" I'm pretty sure you mean "Medicaid." I'm also pretty sure you're smart enough to figure out exactly why they might be if you took fifteen seconds to think about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Biology is neither fair nor unfair.

Policy and law can be fair or unfair. It is the duty of a just society to make policy and law as fair and just and as merciful as possible.

Biology has nothing to do with it.

We have long-acting contraception for women. We don't have long-acting contraception for men. It's better to work with reality than cause problems in the name of equality.

Excuse me?

If you were actually interested in what is effective instead of a convenient status quo, you would take the time and effort to become acqauinted wiht the established facts that link increased levels of education and a clear pathway to an improved and secure economic future with delaying pregnancy and reducing family size. Also reducing maternal and infant mortality rate.

But since your interest is in preserving a status quo that involves no thinking or effort on your part, why not indulge in your lazy minded privileged prejudices?

Why not just shove something up a girl if it means that teenaged girls might remain sexually available to teenaged boys and men, with few actual consequences? So much easier and more convenient and risk free. For the males. It's much more important that teenaged girls remain sexually available for consequence free sex on demand. Why bother about their futures? They're only girls.

Of course education helps. These are women that either are too young for this (access to college does nothing to stop teen pregnancy) or those who failed to take advantage of the opportunities that exist.

That says nothing about whether other things help, also. This isn't about keeping them sexually available--the numbers show they were sexually available before.

This is about reducing the harm of the choices they have already made. You seem very willing to sacrifice them to the gods of feminism, though--just as evil as the "pro-life" people sacrificing women to the gods of sex-on-in-marriage.

All non-barrier female contraception (as opposed to sterilization) is based on using the existing off switches in the woman's body.

Uh, you need to learn some biology.

The man's body has no such off switches,

Again, learn some biology.

What biology are you referring to in these cases??

it's much harder to develop something.

Especially if you don't invest the time and money and effort and especially if you believe that like pregnancy, preventing pregnancy is a divinely bestowed burden placed upon sinful females.

There would be quite a market if something were developed. It's not like people aren't trying.

They have been working, things don't pan out--although my understanding is that there is a fully reversible sterilization that's in use in some countries. Give that some years to weed out problems and we might see it here.

So how long did you actually work on the Tuskegee projects? You are awfully willing to let someone else bear the burdens of progress.

The reality is that higher risk levels are accepted in third world countries. I'm not promoting that, I'm saying that's how things really are.

No--what you are doing it going for perfect--which is as usual the enemy of good.

Yes, why bother with what is fair and right and good, not just for girls and women but for humanity as a whole? Not worth the effort if it means a man might have to forgo some consequence free sex or put any thought or effort into....anything, really.

You're digging yourself in deeper here.

Doing something that works now is better than sitting on your ass complaining about the lack of a perfect answer. We have the long term contraception for women, it cuts the oops rate by at least 40%. You want to wreck a bunch of women's lives in the name of fairness.

Wow. So you equate providing education and economic security to girls and women with wrecking women's lives.

Wow. I am utterly gobsmacked.

Yeah, I'm gobsmacked about how deep in fantasyland you are.

- - - Updated - - -

2. Develope long acting birth control for males, and make it readily available.

So men should have no opinion about things involving female fertility (how very feminist of you) but of course you, as a woman, feel entitled to express your opinion of male fertility. Typical double standards.

Birth control for either or both genders does not eliminate the risk of STDs nor does it mitigate the negative consequences of early sexual involvement.

How early is "early"?

I worry about the two of you being on the same board together. Matter/antimatter explosions are no firecracker!

 

[fromderinside]

Consent here is 16? What is it in Florida? 12?

No, but in parts of Mexico it is.

Though, 18-19 is still technically teen and legal in every state, even for 40 year olds, so enjoy!

Finally, a pithy one. let me take this moment to write Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, ...... a few times. Just can't hit paste enough to express just how you are not pithy, Hmmmnnn pity . Yeah that's it.

 

[Derec]

Finally, a pithy one. let me take this moment to write Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, ...... a few times. Just can't hit paste enough to express just how you are not pithy, Hmmmnnn pity . Yeah that's it.

You forgot to add "jobbery pokery" and "apple sauce".

 

[prideandfall]

How about mandatory tying of tubes for all females in their early mid-teens?

apples and oranges - tube tying for men and women are vastly different medical procedures.
the fact that they are both 'tube tying' and both birth control methods doesn't mean they are equivalent operations, because they're simply not.
vasectomies are faster, safer, more easily reversible, and is vastly less invasive, as well as being 100% laparoscopic.
the recovery time for a vasectomy is a couple days vs. several weeks or more for 'tube tying', and the statistical rate of complications of any kind are 20 times higher for tubal ligation than for vasectomy.

Or do you only advocate mandatory surgeries for men and not for the "more equal animals" as far as radical feminism is concerned?

this is some of the most pig-fucking stupid drivel anyone has ever posted on these forums. congratulations.

Doesn't mean you should be able to force it on the rest of us.

why not?

So would tube tying, but, of course, according to feminism women have autonomy over their bodies unlike men.

oh for fuck's sake, do you never shut up with this idiocy?