Robot Babies Not Effective Birth Control, Australian Study Finds (sky.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Girls given imitation babies to look after in an effort to deter teenage pregnancy could actually be more likely to get pregnant, according to a study. Researchers in Australia found 8% of girls who used the dolls were expecting by the age of 20, compared with 4% of those who did not. The number of girls having at least one abortion was also higher among girls given the dolls: 9% compared to 6%. 'Baby Think It Over' dolls were used in a Virtual Infant Parenting (VIP) programme which began in 57 schools in Western Australia in 2003. During the three-year study, published in The Lancet, 1267 girls aged 13 to 15 used the simulators -- which need to be fed and changed, while 1567 learned the normal health curriculum. The idea originated in the United States and is used in 89 countries. Researchers from the Telethon Kids Institute in Western Australia are now warning that such programmes may be a waste of public money.

Comments

social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives accuse liberals of trying unproven social experiments, but he's an excellent example of Conservatives pulling the same trick.

Re:social experiments

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, blaming it on either Conservative or Liberal is probably misleading. While the idea of "waiting" till you're able is likely conservative, even liberals would tend to agree. And it would be typical of a Liberal to label an unwanted baby as "Punishment", and they would likely want to deter it with such a program that basically enforces that idea.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that REALLY bad ideas come from trying to fit Conservative ideas with Liberal problem solving.

Schools should stick to Reading, Writing and Math, and drop the stupid social experiments that usually cause more problems than they solve.

Re:social experiments

[frnic]

I am no sure I understand your comment - since there would be not much point in "trying" a proven experiment...

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

Schools should stick to Reading, Writing and Math, and drop the stupid social experiments that usually cause more problems than they solve.

If we do that, where else can we attain such valuable data that benefits society?

Re:social experiments

[Oswald McWeany]

I'm a centrist. I believe in birth control and sex ed for all children.

However, before today's results, I would have thought the robot baby IN ADDITION to sex ed and teaching about birth control was a good idea. I've not read the nitty-gritty of Australia's tests. (Are the robot baby girls getting less Sex Ed teaching) so I won't rule out Robot Babies as a viable option- it certainly shouldn't replace learning.

I'd be interested in knowing WHY the robot babies failed. Do the girls consider the experience "not that bad". Do they think "I've done it with a robot, I can handle my own child". Or is it simply that they didn't receive as good sex ed teaching as the control group?

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

I have seen the "baby effect" in action. When a women shows other women a new baby, it can cause the other women to have a stronger desire to have that experience (of holding a newborn) again. I don't see this leading to a sudden number of new pregnancies in said social group, but it does seem to heighten maternal instincts.

Just like smelling food may increase one's hunger, perhaps stimuli that elicits a similar instinct in women also has the effect of increasing desire to have a real child.

Just a speculation that crossed my mind.

Re:social experiments

[beschra]

This. As well as "give them to the boys too."

Re:social experiments

[shaitand]

Your reading, writing, and math list is pretty dated unless you are talking about the lower portion of grade school. A purely practical program needs to include science, engineering, and computer programming. Without those things a school curriculum would be pretty useless today. About the only thing you'd be qualified for would be pumping gas or management.

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of focus on Reading, Writing, and Math is an over-simplistic ideal that reflects a conservative attitude of counter-reaction to the more recent achievements of progressive social methods by creating a false ideal of the past to which they appeal.

It is about as genuine as references to Roman virtues or Japanese divinity. You just want to point to some simple and easy solution that if only it were done, everything would work out just peachy. The lazy ten-word solution doesn't actually work though. It just sounds good.

In reality, schools need to teach a relatively broad curriculum, the US Department of Education is not running the local curriculum, the Texas School Book Commission has too much influence, and the biggest waste of education dollars is either foot ball or the standardized testing paradigm.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives accuse liberals of trying unproven social experiments, but he's an excellent example of Conservatives pulling the same trick.

All politicians are lying, deceiving, conniving, subversive, sociopathic, power hungry fuckers. If you believe one isn't it's always because they are worse than the ones you believe are and better at all the aforementioned traits.

Re:social experiments

[Mr D from 63]

The one impact that robot babies don't have is financial. They might take up a lot of your time, but they don't take your money as well.

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

Boys will be boys, especially when society all but encourages them to skip town once the deed is done. In some situations, the consequences are far less significant for males - for starters, they are not the ones pregnant, dealing with morning sickness, and possibly giving birth.

Re:social experiments

[Dread_ed]

Sounds plausible doesn't it? Show the young lady exactly what it is like to have a child, but without them having one. That should scare them into not wanting children, right?

However, when I read about this I thought "Aren't they risking priming and further activating all of the reproductive programming that women (and men) are subject to at that age?" I mean really, haven't we noticed yet that reproduction is a dirty trick that our biology plays on us? The drive to procreate is definitely not rational, in light of population pressure, economic well being, and lost opportunities swallowed up in the time it takes to raise young. But in spite of this it persists at a rate that is greater than necessary to sustain the species. What does that tell you? It tells me that reproductive motivations have root access to the wetware OS and are using that access to control the system subtly and pervasively.

Personally, I am surprised it isn't more effective at driving up pregnancy rates than it is.

Re:social experiments

[CrimsonAvenger]

I'd be interested in knowing WHY the robot babies failed.

Perhaps because human females are hardwired genetically to like babies?

Actually, this whole notion is from a very old science fiction story. Main characters had to deal with robot baby before they could get a license to have a real one. Very funny story.

But, as it turns out, completely unnecessary, since higher standard of living seems to reduce reproduction rate nicely in the Real World (tm).

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

And it would be typical of a Liberal to label an unwanted baby as "Punishment"

This is called "projection" and it is a conservative mainstay. If our side did something vile then the other side must have done something worse!!!
A liberal would see an unwanted pregnancy as an easily solved problem.

Now I have done this enough times to recommend it as the results have been 100% reliable.
1. Find a hardcore conservative abortion protester (you can find them outside abortion clinics)
2. Ask if they have heard of the success with transplanting a fetus from one person to another (have printouts in case they have not)
3. Ask if they will pay to have the baby of one of the girls enter the clinic transplanted into themselves rather than being aborted. (may need printouts that make it look like men can now carry babies in case protester is male)
4. Get told that they will most certainly not, as the baby is punishment for the girl having sex.
5. After this you can feel a little physically ill.

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

What does that tell you? It tells me that reproductive motivations have root access to the wetware OS and are using that access to control the system subtly and pervasively.

Change the root password. :)

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

But, as it turns out, completely unnecessary, since higher standard of living seems to reduce reproduction rate nicely in the Real World (tm).

In less "developed" nations, large families are an economic necessity where families need children to support the household (example in farming). Having many children is seen as a sign of favor from God among other groups. Also, a lack of birth control no doubt plays a large role.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems obvious to me. Get girls thinking about babies, and more of them will want to have one due to natural reproductive instincts.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

> Boys will be boys

What a terrible excuse for irresponsible behavior. Failure of Society to teach (enforce) those to live up to their responsibilities.

On the other hand, shame on Society for limiting male responsibility and having the male have little to no say in outcome.

Re:social experiments

[jeffmflanagan]

Change the root password. :)

That's what psychedelics and disassociatives are for.

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

Straight off a Google search result quoting a CNN article:

To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

Yeah, that's a big of money!

Re:social experiments

[Austerity Empowers]

There's a reason psychology isn't science, and a reason we shouldn't try to use the output of psychologists in practice.

Re:social experiments

[smooth wombat]

Failure of Society to teach (enforce) those to live up to their responsibilities.

Failure of society? You mean it's my responsibility to teach your kid not to rape women or to take care of the kids they create?

Is this the same society which wants me to pay for someone the smoker's, alcoholic's, drug user's and obese health care because they can't be bothered to take care of themselves?

If you want me to take on this responsibility that's fine, but you can't then complain about the tactics I use. I don't think you mean what you think you mean.

Re:social experiments

[Talderas]

I wonder if they may have been granted leniency or other special perks and rewards while having a robot. That may have given them a positive reward for having a baby that could make them inclined towards having children.

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

I agree it's a terrible excuse. Some males do the right thing after they get a female pregnant, and they should be applauded. Does our "look out for number 1" society applaud this?

No.

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

I think that would be more like running /etc/password through a shredder and expecting to still logon without issue.

Re: social experiments

[easyTree]

Actually, blaming it on either Conservative or Liberal is probably misleading.

Also, AC et al, STFU with this identify-portion-of-political-spectrum BS and talk about pros and cons of specific policies.

Re: social experiments

[easyTree]

Schools should stick to Reading, Writing and Math, and drop the stupid social experiments that usually cause more problems than they solve.

That's unfair, the underage pregnancy problem apparently existed already whereas the some-company-doesn't-have-lots-of-public-sector-cash has likely been fixed.
Potentially, various other corollary issues involving politicians lacking holiday homes have been at least partially remedied.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm living that right now :/ EVERYONE I know is having a baby, including me (well via my wife).

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a very good point. Schools are there to prepare you for your future(idealisticly) so by giving kids babies, they are playing into the role of teaching them to be mothers/fathers.

Re:social experiments

[Gavagai80]

It's simpler than that. These are dolls. Girls who play with baby dolls have always been more likely to want a baby. Then they add a game aspect (having to feed and change) to make it even more fun. Of course they don't worry about having a baby so much after that when you've taught them it'll just be a fun game.

If you want to make them consider the consequences, take them to an alley to talk to a homeless teenage single mother crackhead about her regrets.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of those basement dwellers who really dislikes children, and even I am sometimes swayed by these moments. If I am asked to babysit for an afternoon and I've put in my hours reading stories and chasing little squirts down the hall making funny noises, it's hard to pull myself back to serious business software developer world, I am briefly chemically persuaded to turn it all in and play Mr. Dressup. There is this pang of existential remorse, that this experience of raising young'ns is something I am robbing myself of, and that I should be rather aiming to procreate.

Then I take a look at our climate. Take a look at the kinds of people we share this world with, who are unwilling to even acknowledge problems, the kinds of ignorant filth who make election cycles like this possible. Weep for humanity, then "procreate" into a sock, because it's safer for everybody.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect (with no data) that the robot babies aren't nearly as much work as an actual human baby.

Re:social experiments

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Without those things a school curriculum would be pretty useless today. About the only thing you'd be qualified for would be pumping gas or management.

So just like today's high schools then but without all the bullshit classes.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids raised in a vacuum tend to end up pretty fucked up. As much as you wring your hands and insist other peoples kids are other peoples problem, they are a benefit to society if they are successful and a burden on society if they become dysfunctional. That's what you libertarian shitheads always seem eager to ignore. We are in this together, if you think you aren't please turn off your society-produced computer and leave your society-maintained first world nation that you seem eager to eschew, and relocate to a place like Rwanda where people like you can live without government intervention and erect fences as tall as you like to shut out "other peoples problems"

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

"1. Find a hardcore conservative abortion protester (you can find them outside abortion clinics)"

Or right outside where you work and nowhere near an abortion clinic.
A number of earnest young women, who to my aged & jaundiced gaze look barely old enough to vote have been trying to strike up conversations on the evils of abortion right near the very busy city center where I work.
Closest abortion clinic is about 10 miles away. The shopping, choices of places to eat and shelter in case of bad weather is quite excellent near where I work, not so much where the soulless baby-killers are to be found.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal/Conservative. Black/white. Good/bad. I for one am glad to live in a world of such well defined sides - it makes it so simple and easy to understand.

Re:social experiments

[unixisc]

Yeah, but nobody will be spending that on a robot baby. It'll only be pretend food, pretend diapers....

Re:social experiments

[JonnyCalcutta]

Enjoy living in your cave.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives accuse liberals of trying unproven social experiments, but he's an excellent example of Conservatives pulling the same trick.

All politicians are lying, deceiving, conniving, subversive, sociopathic, power hungry fuckers. If you believe one isn't it's always because they are worse than the ones you believe are and better at all the aforementioned traits.

So you've stopped voting, yes?

Re:social experiments

[Grishnakh]

Even if you change your mind and decide you'd like to procreate, good luck finding a decent female to do so with in this society.

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

He was more than likely not speaking in strictly literal terms. Presumably 'math' is an umbrella category which incorporates anything science or technology related.

Re:social experiments

[vel-ex-tech]

Oh go to hell. There are more than enough men out there who want to be fathers and be there for their children. In case you hadn't noticed, divorce court is heavily biased against giving custody to the father.

Bigoted Keyboard Warriors like you need to get out more and meet some real people. But I'm sure in your head, you're the One Good Man, and your Hunnies would never, ever turn into psychotic liars after they've lured a man in with marriage and had a kid.

Some men get lucky and are able to get sole custody of their children. The Hunny will pull out all the stops in that instance, finding whatever allies she can (who have never met the guy) such as pastors, women's shelters, etc, etc. I had to stop dating a guy once because having a trans faggot like me in the picture would have made things ugly quick, and I did not want to be the reason that battle was lost.

Others aren't so lucky. Your idea of a "deadbeat dad" is plain and simple sexism. It's discrimination. On the other site, we had a debate about whether sexism can exist in the absence of power. Let's presume it can't. This is very much a place where power exists. You're working off a bigoted notion that men are always at fault when divorce occurs. You seek to back this notion up with laws and policies that allow women to gain exclusive custody, laws and policies that allow women to take half a man's possessions with divorce no matter how little she had before marriage, laws that allow the woman to collect child care, and laws to put men in prison who cannot pay child care.

We got rid of debtor's prison for a reason. Some men who are not allowed to even talk to their children have to work two or three jobs simply to keep up with child care for bitch who took out a restraining order after lying about domestic violence. This is called slavery.

I am so glad I'm t3h gay and do not want kids. Even if I did want kids, I'd rather wait for biotech to be able to give me a fully functional female reproductive system. Surrogate mothers, attempting a lesbian relationship, all very very risky things.

I'll get modded to oblivion. It's just a matter of time before you run across the wrong Hunny and realize that yep, old insane Vel who's lived as both genders might just have had some reason based on real reality she kept posting shit like this.

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

More like going from nano to vi. Once you get the hang of it it can be an amazingly informative and valuable experience.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen spontaneous tears and subsequent extreme desire for pregnancy in the same situation, scared the shit out of me.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

just so you know marriage is a lure used by men, not women. Women use sex as the lure. Watch out for that next time.

Re:social experiments

[Immerman]

Yep, best thing for the species is for those individuals willing and able to recognize long term problems to voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool... /sarcasm

Re:social experiments

[Archangel Michael]

An educated society that can read, write and do math correctly, is a benefit. All the other social experiements have proven to be ineffectual at best, and at worst has added to our existing problems.

I mean, whose values do you want to indoctrinate our kids with, yours? Mine? The Radical Muslim? The WBC? The Militant Atheist who wants to kill everyone that believes in a deity?

Re:social experiments

[Anna Merikin]

Any insightful psychologist would have warned against positive expectations for this plan bc they would understand that simple boredom lies at the root of most societally problematic behaviors, including risky sex. Give them not lectures nor surrogate babies (after all, didn't Japanese companies sell a lot of dolls and video games about constantly caring for something?) but something else to fill the time.

No, not Midnight Basketball...

And, no, not coding, either.

Re:social experiments

[Cederic]

To be fair, a lot of people recognise the issue.

The problem is that if you give them viable workable solutions they get pissed off with you. So fuck 'em, and fuck the human race with them.

Given the idiocracy that's a natural consequence of removing evolutionary pressures and the increasing infantilisation of society I'm not seeing any real benefits to putting my pitifully short life towards helping this shower of shit.

I'll be dead soon, the rest of you not long after, and your entire family line in a couple of centuries. Deal with it. I have.

Re:social experiments

[Immerman]

Of course procreation is rational - you're simply assuming that your mind is relevant, and not recognizing that it (and your body) are simply tools created over hundreds of millions of years by genes optimizing their ability to reproduce. Any individual which doesn't procreate is irrelevant to the species, and those who are particularly good at it become the ancestors of most of humanity in a few dozen short millenia.

Re:social experiments

[Archangel Michael]

The consequences for males is less, because society starts off by saying boys have nothing to say in the matter of birth control and abortion. When you start the conversation by excluding the other parent as irrelevant, you should at least understand that part of that is how you frame other aspects of the same event.

This isn't a commentary on Abortion at all, but rather the framing of "my body my right" logic that then gets changed after 9 months.

For instance, Family court is one area where Men are at a complete disadvantage. Not that anyone cares.

Re: social experiments

[shaitand]

Really? Because I find that most talking about the three "R's" are actually seeking to minimize public education and thus their financial contribution to it and are usually especially anti-science. Even where this is not the case they want to minimize other forms of math like music and art which nurture the type of creative thinking required for engineering, science, and higher math. Most of their arguments tend to be attempts to disguise their negative anti-team player self serving philosophy into arguments proposing practical schooling. They usually fall pretty flat when someone argues for purely practical schooling that would require more funding than is present now rather than less. Oddly, these people don't argue for cutting physical education and sports which have absolutely no educational benefit.

Re:social experiments

[Archangel Michael]

All of this presumes that people do not have a will of their own and are more or less working off pure instinct / animalistic nature.

This assumption, that people CANNOT control themselves (default behavior) is how we get into this mess. Because we assume people cannot control themselves, we then excuse behavior. And then when we start excusing some behaviors, we allow for that logic (when it actually starts applying again) to replicate to all sorts of other "instinctual" aspects, like boys raping girls who are passed out.

How about we stop saying people CANNOT control themselves, and say that they WILLNOT control themselves. IMHO we should be teaching self control and willpower. But that doesn't create a subservient sheeple class in society.

Re:social experiments

[blackanvil]

My high school didn't have robots, but certain students had to carry around bags of flour that were supposed to be their "babies" to take care of. I remember both sexes being quite proud of having to take care of their sacks of flour, and dressing them up/showing them off.

Re:social experiments

[unixisc]

I didn't read smooth wombat as being misandrist sexism at all. Rather, what I read him say was that it's not his responsibility to raise, or instill values in boys that were not his. He said nothing about not instilling values in his own sons. Rather, he suggested that if he was gonna be expected by society at large to be responsible for other people's children (i.e. ones he had not created), then it was up to him on what tactics he used.

Re:social experiments

[unixisc]

Cool!!! I'll happily quit my job and have you take care of my food and medical bills. After all, we're all in this together, right?

Re:social experiments

[unixisc]

Uh, no. It's women who usually want marriage, so that they can force the man to pitch in and do his fair share of the child-rearing. The men who do want to be a part of their kids' lives are usually happy to marry, so that they can provide a healthy environment to their kids. The deadbeats who just want to screw around are the ones who try and avoid both marriage & childrearing responsibilities

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Schools should stick to Reading, Writing and Math, and drop the stupid social experiments that usually cause more problems than they solve.

Agreed. But when those few really dumb "students" from truly awful families go public that they honestly don't understand that doing "that" leads to having babies, the resulting jaw-dropping shock leads to the conclusion that the schools have to take up the slack. Thus, "health" classes, considered a waste of time by both the students and the gym teachers drafted into teaching them.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice straw-man you set up there. I am against abortion and see any child as a precious gift and never a punishment. Unfortunately our culture's attitude toward children is pretty negative. They cost too much, they take away your free time, they use up the planet's resources, etc.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see, 'radical Muslims' who feed the poor during their holidays, or Archangel Michael and the christian pedophile agenda? I know who I want my kids around, and I know who you want my kids around too. There's a reason in Quebec they banned priests being alone with children.

Re:social experiments

[npslider]

Places of formal education (AKA state run child indoctrination centers) have no business teaching children what the Parents should be doing from day 1.

I for one welcome being the parental overlord in my family! ;)

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about the fact that for many people, though it is work, having children is literally the best part of their lives.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

And it would be typical of a Liberal to label an unwanted baby as "Punishment", and they would likely want to deter it with such a program that basically enforces that idea.

In my experience it is conservatives who consider babies as punishment for out of wedlock sex. They may not use that word literally, but do they ever harp on "consequences" which is not a term synonymous with "reward" or "blessing."

Re:social experiments

[unixisc]

The climate argument - in x billion years or so, the sun will expand and pretty much roast all of us, if we haven't managed to flee the earth already. So stop bothering about that and do whatever you have to - procreate or not. It won't make a difference to the rest of us - one way or another - than it already has for everyone else doing the same thing

Re:social experiments

[angel'o'sphere]

Men can use condoms or do a vasectomy or use one of the new drugs.
Men have as much to say as women.

Your court point makes no sense. Father is a father is a father. The courts usually only make sure that he pays, rightfully though!

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised, as violence is predominately (though not totally) instituted by the man.

This results in the same response as racial profiling.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids raised in a vacuum tend to end up pretty fucked up.

Upright or cannister?

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Try leaving the basement and stop hitting on your mom.

Re:social experiments

[OrangeTide]

Nuance is for chumps.

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just advocate involuntary use of children for science, social science?

That is kind of twisted.

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... She is insane.

Re:social experiments

[Dread_ed]

I don't think it presumes a lack of free will. I think it presumes that a very small percentage of young people, in certain situations and with certain preconditioning, will tend toward activities that result in pregnancy. People can control themselves. Those young women that became pregnant, they controlled themselves in such a way that they became pregnant. Was that decision made easier by the stimulus they experienced? Well, it looks like in about 2-4% of them, the answer is yes.

One thing you need to remember is that you, and I, and everyone alive on this planet for that matter, comes from ancestors who all did one thing right, without fail, 100% of the time, each and every generation, going all the way back to the very first humans ever on this planet. That singular thing that every single one of your ancestors have in common? They procreated successfully and created offspring that procreated successfully.

Think about that for a moment and let's compare. What if every ancestor of a certain person from the beginning of human history was a murderer. How surprised would you be when that person committed a murder? Murder is, admittedly, a more complex behavior than sex so it is easy to argue that sex would be even more likely.

Also, it's not like there aren't tons of papers, experiments, and conjecture on the psycho-sexual motivations of humans. I have read that just about every human behavior has been related to or attributed to sexual drives by psychologist, psychiatrists, philosophers, and pundits. Everything from the drive to work and earn money and upwardly mobile social movement to speech patterns, vocabulary choice, and clothing. So it's not about whether or not people have free will, its about how people choose to use that free will, and how the world occurs to them when they make choices. Its about how people choose to have sex, when they will choose to have sex, and even why they choose to have sex.

I also seemed to notice a slippery slope in your writing that was coupled with a pejorative view of sex. If that is the case I fear we may have difficulty discussing this subject without knowing each other better. When discussing topics like sex there can be heavy filters and unspoken assumptions that lead to misunderstandings between people that are not aware of each others presuppositions. My goal in replying is not to say you are wrong, not is it to argue, but merely to say that any discussion of free will and sex needs to include the possibility that people will choose freely to have sex, and that those free choices are influenced by antecedents, stimuli, and experiences. It is true that acknowledging that people can control themselves is a good first step toward controlling that behavior. It is also just as important to realize what you are dealing with when considering human sexual activity. To deny that there are incredibly powerful underlying components to the human makeup that can be manipulated to increase the likelihood of procreation is shortsighted and leads to useless therapies like teaching abstinence, non-communication on sexual matters between children and parents, and ultimately sending children out into the world drastically under prepared and unsupported.

As humans we are, at our basest nature, violent sexual beings that don't always make choices that fit with the predominant behavior patterns we display to the world on a daily basis. Forgetting this leads to all sorts of problems. Like assuming that people will, with he proper training and teaching, decide to not rape an unconscious woman when she presents herself as such. I would love to live in a world where everyone could be taught proper self control and willpower, and would use those skills without fail. However, this is not the world we live in, and this is not who humans are. Drop a fully sedated and unconscious supermodel in front of 10000 young intoxicated men and regardless of how well you train them, some of them will rape her. Its not surprising, really. Remember those ancestors that I mentioned earlier, the ones that have been batting 1000 on the procreation front? Many of them were rapists, too.

Re:social experiments

[smooth wombat]

Ding! Exactly. But then I would expect nothing less from the knee-jerk reactions from folks on here who pontificate about being allowed to do what they want but then expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Thx unixisc. At least someone understands common sense.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

My family and I don't expect to be dead.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

" The drive to procreate is definitely not rational"

The drive to pick my nose is perfectly rational. I can't get enough of those tasty amber gems in my mouth.

It's only picking my nose by means of using my foot that isn't rational.

Re:social experiments

[maharvey]

You don't think if you put a fully sedated and unconscious male model in front of 10,000 intoxicated young women, some of them won't molest him? Drunk women can be worse than drunk men.

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Great point, but what is activities are more fun and socially engaging than drugs/alcohol & sex?

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, cousin! Have we ordered enough head jars for the family reunion in 2100?

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some males do the right thing after they get a female pregnant"
Driving her to the abortion clinic?

Re:social experiments

[guises]

Aw, you're just trolling. Yes men can use condoms but we all know that those suck, both for reliability and for the act itself. Meanwhile, a vasectomy is permanent and "the new drugs" (I assume you're talking about RISUG) don't exist yet. Saying... actually, I had read that as "Men have as much say as women." and was trying to call you out on that as being baloney. But you actually said, "Men have as much to say as women." which is certainly true, I guess. Men do like to talk. ... Neither one of those statements make sense in context.

Re: social experiments

[Anna Merikin]

In the 19th Century, a group of women who were anti-alcohol bc their husbands spend their paychecks at the bar instead of bringing it straight home first invented organized sports as something else to do. They were so successful at it they went on to found the Women's Christian Temperance Union to ban alcohol in bars and everywhere else completely. This passed into our constitution, of course, but had to be repealed later, as it did not increase the relief from boredom.

Re:social experiments

[Zak3056]

If you want to make them consider the consequences, take them to an alley to talk to a homeless teenage single mother crackhead about her regrets.

Studies show that "scared straight" programs not only don't work, they can actually have a negative impact on the kids exposed to them.

Re:social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no problem with it. I'm happily married and have been for a while (I'm currently 37). I had a vasectomy at 23 and regret nothing.

Re: social experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story, but organized sports predate the 19th century by several millennia.

Re: social experiments

[Anna Merikin]

I mean, of course, the leagues and playoffs. Basketball and baseball were the main beneficiaries of this movement, with local semi-pro play a reward for small-towners, but hockey and football also benefited at the national level.

Re:social experiments

[arglebargle_xiv]

I have seen the "baby effect" in action. When a women shows other women a new baby, it can cause the other women to have a stronger desire to have that experience (of holding a newborn) again.

There's even a name for it, baby rabies. "Oh my, it's so wonderful having a baby, you should have one too, you'll feel so fulfilled, it's a fantastic feeling, why don't you have a baby too, you'll be so happy, blah blah blah blah ad nauseum".

Re:social experiments

[vlad30]

His point is quite valid, with the exception of a condom a teenage girl or any woman no way of knowing if a male is on the new drugs or had a vasectomy which is highly unlikely at that age and condom use should be encouraged to stop disease as well as pregnancy but condoms in a purse or wallet is a dead give-away to parents. however some parents strangely, mostly creepy dads, think that a chastity vow is all you need.

As for the courts In the past the woman was certainly a parent after all it came out of her however are you sure you are the dad? A while back when paternity testing first became popular a statistic came back that as much as 25% of children were the progeny of another dad- note I can't recall if was disputed cases only which is why courts tend to favour women in custody al other things being equal.

Re:social experiments

[angel'o'sphere]

Vasectomy is not permanent.
You can revert it and the likelyhood of success is something like 85% if you are younger than 60 and it is not longer ago than ten years.
There are new vasectomy ways which are 100% reversible.
And no, condomes don't change the feeling, actually with their plenty of variations of extra juice in them they can be quite usefull to intense your feelings or calm them a bit down (depending on the additions in them) to last longer ... the later is pretty usefull if you are a young adult.

Re:social experiments

[guises]

Reversing a vasectomy is not a minor procedure and is not covered by most health care plans in the US. As such, it costs $10,000 or so according to my doctor. I discussed this with him at length at one point. And no, reversing a vasectomy only has a 85% success rate if you do it within the first year after you got it. The likelihood of success decreases over time until, after about ten years, it's basically zero.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new vasectomy ways" but I suspect that you mean vas clamps. I asked about those as well, there's a rumor that those are reversible since you can just take them off, but no: apparently having the clamps on damages the vas deferens over time, so the probability of reversing that is not much higher than with a regular vasectomy.

And this: "condomes don't change the feeling" is just wildly untrue. I don't know, experiences may vary, but my own experience is that there's a very dramatic difference and I've tried plenty of different types and styles and sizes of condom. Huge difference.

Re:social experiments

[angel'o'sphere]

As such, it costs $10,000 or so according to my doctor.
Yeah, the states have absurd prices for medical procedures. In a private clinic in germany the price is about EUR4000 to 5000.
I discussed this with him at length at one point. And no, reversing a vasectomy only has a 85% success rate if you do it within the first year after you got it. The likelihood of success decreases over time until, after about ten years, it's basically zero.
That is wrong.

The success rate is 85% after ten years and then decreasing slowly by about 3% per year.
So for a 50 year old who got vasectomy at age of 20 it is still around 50%.

And this: "condomes don't change the feeling" is just wildly untrue. I don't know, experiences may vary, but my own experience is that there's a very dramatic difference and I've tried plenty of different types and styles and sizes of condom. Huge difference.

I only used condomes when I was young, basically the first 10 years: there is no real difference except the fact that you have to put them on at some point.

I suspect that you mean vas clamps. No it is just the opposite, you get inflatable small "balloons" injected into the spermatic duct, so they can not grow together as in the clamp way. There is even a super new thing with a kind of magnetic lock so you can basically activate and deactivate it at will.

Re:social experiments

[guises]

The success rate is 85% after ten years and then decreasing slowly by about 3% per year. So for a 50 year old who got vasectomy at age of 20 it is still around 50%.

Can you cite this? Looking around for statistics it seems that my doctor may have been exaggerating a little, but I can find no figures higher than 30-40% after ten years. Regardless of those figures, the point that my doctor was making, namely that a vasectomy is a permanent decision, remains valid: even if the chance is "only" 15% that you'll never be able to have children, a vasectomy can't be looked at as a temporary means of birth control.

And getting back to the point of the discussion, even with a vasectomy the chances of pregnancy are not zero. The claim that you made was something along the lines of men being able to influence pregnancy to the same degree that women can, and the idea that you would need surgery to achieve anywhere near the reliability that a woman can get with a birth control pill, and still not the kind of certainty that a woman can get with an abortion, makes that idea pretty absurd. Even if it were true that there was some vasectomy procedure which was 100% reversible.

Regarding your experience with condoms: everyone's different, so I'm obliged to believe you when you say that you experience no change when using condoms. The change is so large for me, however, that it's difficult for me to believe you as I am obligated to do. I'm tempted to think that you might just be misremembering the experience.

Re:social experiments

[beastofburdon]

They did this program in the homec class at my high school. It was universally hated by every student I ever spoke to about it, but if you didn't take care of the fake baby then you failed the class no matter what you did for the rest of it. Fortunately for me homec was not a required class until the year after me, because I would have refused to play the game.

Re:social experiments

[beastofburdon]

I've yet to meet one that was decent, much less date one.

Re:social experiments

[beastofburdon]

increasing infantilisation of society

You have feminism to thank for that.

Re:social experiments

[beastofburdon]

Damn, I wish I had mod points to give you. That was a rather accurate description of reality.
I only have one criticism, we never got rid of the debtor's prison, we just changed the name. Now you go to prison if you are behind on child support. In some states being a single month late will send you to prison, unless you happen to be female. If you are female then you don't have to worry about things like that, you will simply be given a pass for being female.

Re:social experiments

[beastofburdon]

And no, condomes don't change the feeling

Well, looks like we've found the virgin.

Re:social experiments

[Grishnakh]

Wow, that sounds pretty sad. I haven't had *that* much luck dating, but I can certainly say I've met plenty of decent women, things just didn't work out for us to date. You might want to look at yourself if you haven't met a single decent member of the opposite sex.

Re:social experiments

[beastofburdon]

I would say an absolute minimum of 500 of them would, but more likely closer to 1500 of them would.

Women have all the same sexual urges that men have, but they know the chances of them ever being punished for their behavior lies on an asymptote of zero.

Very effective

[Oswald McWeany]

I find robots very effective at birth control. I've not managed to get one pregnant yet.

Re:Very effective

[npslider]

Obviously you're not doing it right.

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

I find robots very effective at birth control. I've not managed to get one pregnant yet.

But those robot babies have to come from somewhere.

Re:Very effective

[Oswald McWeany]

Obviously you're not doing it right.

Maybe I'm getting my input and output ports mixed up. Electronic Anal, or enal for short.

Re:Very effective

[Anne Thwacks]

But those robot babies have to come from somewhere.

This! a thousand times this!

Re:Very effective

[npslider]

Did you pass your high school health class? Perhaps a refresher is required... ;)

Re:Very effective

[fahrbot-bot]

I find robots very effective at birth control. I've not managed to get one pregnant yet.

Is it an iSexRobot? Maybe you're holding it wrong.

Re:Very effective

[sinij]

I've not managed to get one pregnant yet.

Try mounting it after you update drivers.

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

It's plug and play. It should just work.

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god, I hope you didn't get a hold of one of these robot babies, did you?

Do robot pedophiles dream of electric babies?

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but if the only robots available are robot babies they aren't going to be effective birth control because using them would be unappealing to most people and so they'd go to go a non-robot adult.

Re:Very effective

[orgelspieler]

No, but I know what Scottish robots dream about!

Re:Very effective

[product_bucket]

That's because of the DRM.

Re:Very effective

[sexconker]

You clearly don't watch Rick & Morty.

Re:Very effective

[npslider]

To quote C3PO:

"Droids making droids... how perverse!"

Re:Very effective

[JoeCommodore]

I was thinking the babies are probably very effective for training the kids to become parents, Technically what these programs are doing aren't really scaring the kids but are more in a way training them for parenthood. Just as you train people to become soldiers by shooting at them and simulating combat scenarios - you are simulating parenting scenarios.

Now what would be an interesting side affect to this study would be if the parents what went through this "experience" are doing any better with their babies than the ones who didn't. I have the thought that those that did are probably better first moms because of it.

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

But those robot babies have to come from somewhere.

They are created by watching Fox News.

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always straight to the ass with you isn't it. Try raising the tone next time.

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

I find robots very effective at birth control. I've not managed to get one pregnant yet.

I've no doubt that's technically correct, but only in the same sense that I could claim I haven't managed to get Natalie Portman pregnant yet. It doesn't say much about birth control.

The restraining order, on the other hand...

Re:Very effective

[sinij]

It's plug and play. It should just work.

Not if it runs Linux.

Re:Very effective

[Anonymous Coward]

Haggis. Is. No. Joke.

Re:Very effective

[maharvey]

Japan

Re:Very effective

[beastofburdon]

I don't know how it is on the whole, but the only women I have kept any contact with from high school who went through this program are terrible mothers, absolutely terrible mothers. I'll put it this way, kids taken away and given to the recovering alcoholic father. As anyone who knows a divorced father knows, it is almost impossible to get custody of your kids if you happen to be male. If you have actual problems those chances shrink even more.

My sample size is very small, I really hope it is not representative of the general population, but I have no delusions that they are much better.

Lack of sleep..

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of sleep could have accounted for the difference in judgement the girls with simulated babies experienced.

Re:Lack of sleep..

[Opportunist]

What lack of sleep? All you need is a glue gun to plug the holes that could leak and put it into the basement so you don't hear its sound module.

If someone complains, tell them to call CPS and take that little pest with them.

Re:Lack of sleep..

[Mr D from 63]

We must make these robot babies uglier, more colicky, & stinkier.

Tab A vs. Slot B

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Robot Babies Not Effective Birth Control, Australian Study Finds

Depends on where you install them.

Re:Tab A vs. Slot B

[npslider]

Did they also get the Anniversary Update? May explain a few problems...

Population Control FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it looks like this population control psyop / social engineering experiment will have to be scrapped. Maybe they should have made the robot baby cry and shit more....

Birth control

[fluffernutter]

You know what makes good birth control? Robot sex dolls with real AI!

Re:Birth control

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I'd settle for mediocre AI as long as it has a good sound randomizer and decent grip-control sensors.

Re:Birth control

[Anonymous Coward]

Make it practice on a hot-dog first.

Driven by moralism

[Anonymous Coward]

Good on the Australians for actually verifying the claims made by their American counterparts. I am sure this won't have an effect on the US' extremely large teen pregnancy rate, that correlates much better to the lack of sex-ed than anything else. But of course you can't teach children about sex; it's better if they never know!

Re:Driven by moralism

[bluefoxlucid]

They'll find out about it themselves; the Adult Conspiracy only holds so much power.

No, but...

[arth1]

It would be nice if the conservatives started admitting that birth control is effective birth control.

Re:No, but...

[whoever57]

It would be nice if the conservatives started admitting that birth control is effective birth control.

That will never happen: for too many of them, birth control is merely an excuse for their real motive: control of the bodies of young people. The real goal is not to prevent birth, but to prevent sex taking place.

Re:No, but...

[Mashiki]

I'd moderate you down for posting something so stupid, but what the hell...I'll reply in stead. Conservatives already know that despite the myths that they don't. Religious conservatives on the other hand? That ranges from yes they agree that it does, to nope not at all, to varying religious reasons that they're against it.

But while we're trotting out the bullshit, how about we toss this one in the ring. It would be nice if liberals would admit that GMO crops could help the world, or Margaret Sanger was a devout racist who believed that birth control was the perfect way to fix the "negro problem." I'm sure someone will come out with but but but, yeah. Go read up on the "negro project" and then look at the history and background of both people. There wasn't an altruistic motive, they believe that negros were subhuman and the best way to fix it was to stop them from reproducing. Enjoy that eugenics ideology there guys.

Re:No, but...

[AmiMoJo]

Or rather, that abstinence and scaring kids into avoiding sex is ineffective and actually counter-productive, because kids like to rebel and test dangerous things out for themselves.

Re:No, but...

[misexistentialist]

Many teens intentionally get pregnant, birth control would only be effective if it was forced on them.

Re:No, but...

[DarkOx]

except that isn't exactly true either, people under 30 today are more likely to have remained chaste than pretty much any point in modern history.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

By this logic, is the Haber Process suspect because it was designed to help Germany take over Europe? Just because an idea was convinced with less that noble motivations (killing off black people, imposing German hegemony over Europe) makes it no lesser when used to other, better aims (reducing teen pregnancy, making fertilizer to grow crops).

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone from Western Australia, let me say this, don't assume that our political landscape is anything like yours. Please keep your disfunctional partisan politics in your hemisphere.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if liberals would admit that GMO crops could help the world,

Yeah, keep blaming Liberals for that one. It's not a liberal problem, GMOs aren't even going to solve the world's problems with food distribution.

or Margaret Sanger was a devout racist who believed that birth control was the perfect way to fix the "negro problem."

Oh yeah, because Margaret Sanger is SO important to liberals today, right?

I'm sure someone will come out with but but but, yeah. Go read up on the "negro project" and then look at the history and background of both people. There wasn't an altruistic motive, they believe that negros were subhuman and the best way to fix it was to stop them from reproducing. Enjoy that eugenics ideology there guys.

I'm sure you won't realize that you'll have to get over your obsession with finding convuluted and tedious reasons to hate liberals, but no, no, Rush Limbaugh is still going to gabble on about birth control as if it had to be taken every time you had to have sex, and I still see people posting the Clinton Death List, or folks who think that Madalyn Murray O'Hair MUST have prayed to God when she was murdered.

Dude, you've gotten nothing but your own actions to blame for why nobody gives a shit about you.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be nice if liberals starting admitting that children are not simply burdens placed upon people who are too stupid to stop it. Some people actually like raising a family and many women actually choose to have several of them instead of taking the fast-track to corporate leadership. They tried to brainwash these kids into thinking that babies are nothing but trouble but to their surprise, some girls actually thought otherwise.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

> GMO crops could help the world ..

Sure, if you guarantee that those fish genes you're splicing into tomato plant will *never* cause a problem.
 
    I can see some smart aleck going oops, yea we spliced fast growning genes into tomatoes but we've made a mistake and it's taken over all other plant life.

Re:No, but...

[butchersong]

It would be super nice if progressives stopped trying to replace the father with the state. I have no problem with teen pregnancy. The natural consequence of this should be a household with a mom and dad sharing the obligations of raising a kid and maybe it's kind of tough for a few years but that is OK life is supposed to have sharp edges. The real problem is the systematic destruction of the family unit that is a predicable result of welfare programs and insanely onerous child support laws leveled against fathers.

Re:No, but...

[penguinoid]

birth control is effective birth control.

Bah! Computers are effective birth control.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be good if both sides would stop caving to special interests! The Liberals seam fine not working actively to reduce Birth Control Pills from the market which have a negative effect on finding a good mate along with other side effects as well as being non-cost effective, inconvenient (Maybe convenient for the drug companies they get women used to popping a pill everyday), and being an environmental pollutant. Now the Conservatives on the other hand are all, oh no it causes "abortions." And even if that is true. It is very different for women emotional/mentally than actively taking a step to terminate a fetus.

Re:No, but...

[Gavagai80]

I'm as liberal as they come. I like GMO crops, eat them and hope they continue to improve, though I don't like Monsanto too much as a company. Couldn't care less about Sanger, but it's hardly a surprise that someone from her era was racist and believed in eugenics -- almost everybody was racist and eugenics were extremely popular in that era. But who cares, outside of historical curiosity?

Re:No, but...

[jeff4747]

Anti-GMO liberals are our version of the "climate change is a hoax!" people on the right. In both cases, they utterly ignore science to push their narrative. And in both cases, they are wrong.

Re:No, but...

[Dorianny]

It would be nice if the conservatives started admitting that birth control is effective birth control.

That will never happen: for too many of them, birth control is merely an excuse for their real motive: control of the bodies of young people. The real goal is not to prevent birth, but to prevent sex taking place.

Actually it is about control over morality. The Religious Conservatives view sex outside marriage as Sin and unwanted pregnancies as a (Gods) punishing consequence for immorality. The also see the sacrifices required to raise that child as the path to Salvation and God's good graces. They very much fear that sexual immorality leads not only to the degradation of society, but to the physical destruction of the U.S at the hands of GOD ala "Sodom and Gomorrah."

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives already know that despite the myths that they don't.

[citation needed]

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you make the father play a role in the child's life without child support laws?

You want the family unit to be intact, but if the father doesn't play along then what?

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... As a religiously motivated conservative, I fully believe in the efficacy of Artificial Birth Control or just Birth Control in preventing pregnancies. I would also grant you that given general norms it's also the most effective from a statistical point of view. I also don't believe that abstinence or baby robots are more efficient; the latter is stupid and the former is probably less efficient. The reason many of us object is more with the implications and the side effects. For starters many options of the pill include ingredients that prevent an embryo implantation after fertilization, to many that is just an embryo, to me it's an unborn baby. A second is that in general, my wife for example feels strongly about this, the idea of using artificial means of changing our bodies from what we believe is a pretty awesome is wrong from our point of view.

Not trying to convince anyone, just explaining the nuances of why some religious conservatives object to the use... it's not that we believe there is something better, it's just that we don't believe it's worth the cost.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because of porn.

Re:No, but...

[Cederic]

How do you make the father play a role in the child's life without child support laws?

Close the divorce courts?

Re:No, but...

[stinerman]

Because if Hitler said 2+2=4, and you agree, you agree with Hitler and are therefore a bad person.

It's called a genetic fallacy. People use it because it tends to work.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

not effective enough. Birth control for men will become available just as soon as they cope with the side effects:

1. Increased lean muscle mass
2. increased sex drive
3. increased confidence
4. increased sociability

until then it's birth control administered by women, now that's ineffective birth control.

Re:No, but...

[unixisc]

If you want fathers to abide by child support laws, fine, but then, give them parenting roles as well. As opposed to slapping restraining orders on them on custody of the kids they're supposed to pay for.

Re:No, but...

[lgw]

Margret Sanger matters because she established the organizations that evolved into Planned Parenthood. Originally, it was explicitly a eugenics program, and it's operating today pretty much as intended then. Oh, sure, people usually claim different motivations for funding it, but that doesn't change the fact it's doing what the founders wanted it to do (as much as any large organization ever does).

almost everybody was racist and eugenics were extremely popular in that era.

The Republicans were still leading the charge for human rights and equality in Sanger's day, and eugenics was extremely popular with the progressive left, not generally.

It's still quite a popular notion on the left that the world has too many people and people should have fewer children to reduce the population, especially people in certain areas of the world. It's never phrased as "those lesser peoples should stop having so many kids", but the desired result is the same.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be super nice if progressives stopped trying to replace the father with the state.

How are they doing this?

I have no problem with teen pregnancy.

Why not? Do you not even realize that it's not biologically ideal?

The natural consequence of this should be a household with a mom and dad sharing the obligations of raising a kid and maybe it's kind of tough for a few years but that is OK life is supposed to have sharp edges.

One part of civilization is that life's sharp edges are reduced. They're not a good thing, and we don't practice the Spartan Method.

The real problem is the systematic destruction of the family unit that is a predicable result of welfare programs and insanely onerous child support laws leveled against fathers.

Welfare Programs caused this? How has this happened? And you do know that those child support laws are a result of conservative mores, right? They're the ones who insisted that any welfare be contingent on identifying the father and making him contribute. And no, they wouldn't accept Lesbians either, that's why that sperm donor in Kansas was forced to contribute to child support.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly as the parent poster stated: "The real goal is not to prevent birth, but to prevent sex taking place."

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with abstinence education. It is just a cultural phenomenon. Men in developed nations across the world are ceasing to pursue women, and most manly activities, and are instead just playing video games (and to a large extent avoiding growing-up as much as possible).

The women aren't chasing these men down either, finding them to be sexually uninteresting. The small supply of sexually interesting and active men have less competition, but realistically there is only so much sex they can fit in their schedules.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Margret Sanger matters because she established the organizations that evolved into Planned Parenthood.

She matters because you want to use guilt by association, even when the association is very tenuous.

That's the reason, and you know it.

Originally, it was explicitly a eugenics program, and it's operating today pretty much as intended then. Oh, sure, people usually claim different motivations for funding it, but that doesn't change the fact it's doing what the founders wanted it to do (as much as any large organization ever does).

Let me guess, you're one of the folks who believe that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions right?

Jon Kyl was wrong when he said it, and wrong when he tried to expunge it from the record.

They actually perform valid and useful health services for a population that needs it.

The Republicans were still leading the charge for human rights and equality in Sanger's day,

Really, how? What exactly did they do? And why? What people did what, and how did they behave?

And what will the people who identify as Republicans today do, when faced with the choices that Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, or Rutherford Hayes made?

I doubt you really want to admit the answers to that question.

and eugenics was extremely popular with the progressive left, not generally.

Oh, my no, you should read Buck v. Bell and the surrounding commentary. And it was quite popular as a notion, across the world. With all sorts of manifestations, in Japan, China, Germany, the UK, even Russia. And Fu Manchu

Of course, the actual instant case, further review has shown it was in fact, a put-up, but that's a different problem.

It's still quite a popular notion on the left that the world has too many people and people should have fewer children to reduce the population, especially people in certain areas of the world. It's never phrased as "those lesser peoples should stop having so many kids", but the desired result is the same.

And the Christian Quiverful movement thinks it is their obligation to have lots and lots of kids, so as to swarm out the unblessed, and take over the world for Christ.

Meanwhile the conservative right portrays the poor as having swarms of children in order to live like queens on welfare, demands child support enforcment (for which liberals oddly get blamed), and freaks out over birth control being provided for by health insurance, even though pregnancy is far more expensive in the end.

But seriously, don't get worked up over the Marching Morons debates in issues of Analog, nobody listens to it anyway.

Re:No, but...

[lgw]

Oh, the GOP today is a lost cause. I expect them to go the way of the Whigs at this point. BTW, if you don't know Chester Arthur, read up on him - best president since Lincoln IMO. If Trump had a VP pick like Arthur, I'd vote for him (given Trump would almost certainly be assassinated like Garfield was, and for the same reasons).

Believe what you want about Planned Parenthood, I'm not going to argue about it, but if you haven't watched the undercover video interviews about them harvesting fetus organs for quite a hefty profit on the side, you really should - it wasn't an isolated incident. Surely a different organization could provide these services.

And don't try to present bizarre Christian cults as mainstream, unless you're consistent and also claim that all Muslims support terrorism. Any large movement will have its fringe, and that doesn't represent the mainstream (well, except PETA, they're fucked up).

freaks out over birth control being provided for by health insurance,

BTW, I've never met a conservative who would stand by that. What they take offense at is business owners who object to it on religious grounds being forced to provide such. The state compelling you to take action against your moral principles (not merely refrain from action) crosses a line we should care about regardless of the issues, or at least those few Americans who still believe in limited government should care.

Re:No, but...

[guises]

That's part of what the parent poster stated. Before the parent got to that accurate part though, there was this hyperbolic line about control and an implied conflict with a whole age group. That kinda spoils the argument.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you just fail to understand the nature of the argument. It's not that OMG, they're changing genes or the immediate health impact of eating GMOs; it's the concerns about the further monoculturalization of our food industry, the tighter control by corps with extreme bad corporate citizen records via IP law abuse, and concerns about the further indiscriminate use of pesticides.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn has been around for AGES. People much older than 30 had plenty of access to porn. Married people look at porn. Unmarried-but-fucking people look at porn. The porn doesn't make them stop having sex. It turns them on.

People who aren't having sex...for whatever reason...will probably use porn to help them get off. Taking the porn away won't suddenly make them go out and have sex. They will just masturbate without it.

Your position makes absolutely no sense.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the GOP today is a lost cause. I expect them to go the way of the Whigs at this point.

You mean they'd remain on doing the same things under a new name? That's what has happened to the three or four Whig parties, depending on which you mean.

But no, the GOP of today? They're not dead. Not even close. Not even the attitude which is driving the party., that's one that is still deeply rooted in society.

BTW, if you don't know Chester Arthur, read up on him - best president since Lincoln IMO.

Arguable, but he wouldn't be invited to the Republican Party of Today, any more than Teddy Roosevelt. Things have changed over the years, quite a lot.

But perhaps we'll slowly move on, further and further, from the chains of the past. I'm not sure though, I'd have to think on it.

If Trump had a VP pick like Arthur, I'd vote for him (given Trump would almost certainly be assassinated like Garfield was, and for the same reasons).

Crazy guy acted crazy, then stubborn doctors fucked up and killed the guy who might have recovered if any of the available anti-septic treatments was used? I wouldn't count on it, even if the result wasn't Pence. Doctors have learned a little better since then, though I admit, they did almost kill my mother when she had heart surgery and none of the people in the office noticed she had an infection developing.

Still, Reagan didn't die, and neither did Jed Bartlett or Jack Ryan.

Believe what you want about Planned Parenthood, I'm not going to argue about it, but if you haven't watched the undercover video interviews about them harvesting fetus organs for quite a hefty profit on the side, you really should - it wasn't an isolated incident. Surely a different organization could provide these services.

If you believe those videos from a source widely known for its editing and misrepresentations, versus the repeated fruitless investigations that uncover no actual wrongdoing, that seems like a personal problem.

But no, the opponents to Planned Parenthood don't want those services provided either, which is why states where Planned Parenthood didn't even perform abortions cut off funding as soon as they could. It was a calvacade of lies and excuses to behave as they wanted, without a shred of integrity to guide them to follow the truth. Almost criminal, but so far the only person who is (sorta) going to go to prison for that is Robert Lewis Dear, Jr, if you count a Colorado state mental hospital as a prison.

And don't try to present bizarre Christian cults as mainstream, unless you're consistent and also claim that all Muslims support terrorism. Any large movement will have its fringe, and that doesn't represent the mainstream (well, except PETA, they're fucked up).

I believe I stated "Christian Quiverful movement" to identify them, I did not call them Christian. I merely identified a group with a fucked-up mindset. You can characterize them however you want, but I would nonetheless advise being cautious about them. They are quite dangerous.

BTW, I've never met a conservative who would stand by that.

I don't know how many people you've met, let alone their political standing, but I am quite sure they do exist. Just like you claim "it's never phrased as...." but the desired result is the same.

And the character and tenor of their rebuttals speaks to their own nature. Seriously, calling women sluts because they wanted birth control pills?

That said a lot about those who brought it up in that manner.

And of course, there's the legal cases still working their way through the courts where various entities are arguing that even saying to the insurer (who has no practical objection to birth control, it's a cost-saver for them), that they don't want to be involved, is a burden on them, to fill out a form, saying leave us out o

Re:No, but...

[lgw]

You seem to have a bug up your ass about Republicans, but I don't understand it. Most Republicans in DC are indistinguishable from most Democrats, once you look past the theater to what bills actually get passed, which are whatever the billionaire donors want. Everything else is just theater, on both sides.

Not all Whig politicians were able to get re-elected as Republicans, BTW. The platforms weren't the same and some had doubled-down on increasingly unpopular ideas (otherwise, the party never would have faded). I can't predict what coalition will arise from the ashes of the GOP, but Trump proves that catering to the religious whackos has become unnecessary and pointless - it never actually mattered that Trump is pro-choice, and not particularly religious.

And yes, today's GOP is "dead party walking", unless Trump somehow wins (Hillary would have to stroke out) and even then only the name would survive. Trump supporters are furious with the GOP, and without them it's a 40% party.

And of course, there's the legal cases still working their way through the courts where various entities are arguing that even saying to the insurer (who has no practical objection to birth control, it's a cost-saver for them), that they don't want to be involved, is a burden on them, to fill out a form, saying leave us out of it.

The court cases are about filling out a government form registering your religious beliefs. I object to that too: history suggests that sort of thing never ends well.

I'll at least expect a conscientious objector to report their status to the draft board.

Different case. The rule is that the State cannot not compel you to act against your strong moral beliefs unless there's a compelling state interest and the action is the narrowest possibly to address that. Registering as a conscientious objector is a perfect example where both are true. The court found no compelling State interest in having birth control paid for by insurance (rather than, you know, money).

Be open at some hours. Be closed at others. Access for people, even service animals.

You'd be surprised by what gets waved for legitimate religious objections. A strictly kosher restaurant, for example, doesn't follow all the same rules (of course, it has rather more self-imposed).

As for birth control, if it's against your moral principles for a person under your employ to make their own choices about their reproduction

Now you're talking about a very narrow subset of Catholics, and we're effectively back to fringe cults. But if you had it as corporate policy that employees couldn't use birth control, that would be very different legally from not paying for it via insurance. The former is an undue burden on the employee, the latter isn't.

Personally, I'm against any law mandating insurance coverage in all policies for that only women in a certain age range need - that's singling out a group of privileged people for elevated legal treatment, and again history shows that sort of thing never ends well.

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do conservatives really think? 1. Sex outside marriage = sin - true. 2. Unwanted pregnancy = God' punishment - do you have a quote? 3. Sacrifices = path to Salvation - do you have a quote? 4. Sodom & Gomorrah is coming - do you have a quote?

Re:No, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have a bug up your ass about Republicans, but I don't understand it.

That's ok man, there won't be a test, and I don't even expect it very much either. For one thing, I haven't made sufficient effort to make clear to you that "Republicans" or "GOP" is just a name, a label, not a core identifying principle. Same with Democrats, Whigs, Liberals, Jedi, Sith, and so on and so forth. I'd really have to go into a more technical discussion than I feel like bothering with outside of an academic setting. Which I admit, is somewhat unfair to you, but well, I just don't have that much esteem for you. You've not impressed me with your own levels of insight or expression very much.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter, since things will happen as they happen, and I doubt you're the stick that changes the course of the river.

Most Republicans in DC are indistinguishable from most Democrats, once you look past the theater to what bills actually get passed, which are whatever the billionaire donors want. Everything else is just theater, on both sides.

Well, you're a cynic, that's ok. But that is probably part of why you don't understand. You're not deep enough in your cynicism to get past it.

Not all Whig politicians were able to get re-elected as Republicans, BTW.

In the US? I doubt all of them tried, many in the South went to the American (Know-Nothing Party), and others went to the Constitutional Union party.

Only the Northern ones went mostly Republican. Because they couldn't go Democrat, since that'd just get them back in the same mess they didn't want to be in.

The platforms weren't the same and some had doubled-down on increasingly unpopular ideas (otherwise, the party never would have faded).

Oh, the platforms were muddled, but the key dividing point was the obvious one that would come crashing down. Legal Slavery was one of those things that would either become the norm, or would have to be abolished. That's why it became the Republican's unifying point.

After the ACW though, it'd be quite different. Which was why certainly populist parties arose.

I can't predict what coalition will arise from the ashes of the GOP, but Trump proves that catering to the religious whackos has become unnecessary and pointless - it never actually mattered that Trump is pro-choice, and not particularly religious.

Trump was catering to the anger and resentment mindset, he didn't need to cast it as religious with the fire and brimstone, it's not his sort of thing, though I imagine he'd be gleeful at the thought of a Church dedicated to worshiping him. I can't say it proves anything about religion, per se, either the angry and empty kind, or the deep and abiding belief, but rather it demonstrates once again, that agitprop works.

For that, I'd need another set of tests.

And yes, today's GOP is "dead party walking", unless Trump somehow wins (Hillary would have to stroke out) and even then only the name would survive. Trump supporters are furious with the GOP, and without them it's a 40% party.

Yes, you think they're on death's door. Me, I think, at most, that they'd just come together under a new name.

And of course, there's the legal cases still working their way through the courts where various entities are arguing that even saying to the insurer (who has no practical objection to birth control, it's a cost-saver for them), that they don't want to be involved, is a burden on them, to fill out a form, saying leave us out of it.

The court cases are about filling out a government form registering your religious beliefs. I object to that too: history suggests that sort of thing never ends well.

Oh no, you want some exception and some objection regarding the law based on you

Re:No, but...

[beastofburdon]

For the vast majority of fathers who are not in their children's lives you don't have to force them into their children's lives. All you have to do is stop forcing them out of their lives.

This just in...

[archatheist]

This just in from Australia: Robots do not prevent sex.

Re:This just in...

[Oswald McWeany]

No... you still need a real child to prevent sex.

Re:This just in...

[npslider]

I have seen teen parents have a child... then just when I think they will not do that again... they get pregnant again.

Seems that some things just cant't be stopped in all cases.

That being said, I'm sure it helps; I have twins. Do I want a third child... ehhhh, maybe after some further therapy I'll consider it. :)

Re:This just in...

[unixisc]

Are you a mom or a dad?

Re:This just in...

[npslider]

Depends on which gender I feel like identifying with in the morning... j/k

I'm a dad.

And the therapy bit is a joke. Once the kids are a little older and can help with a new baby, we will make the decision. Until then we are still recovering from new parents syndrome...

Time to upgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

If teenagers think that feeding a crying baby and changing diapers is tough, they should just wait until they start crawling, pulling things down, and gnawing everything in sight because of teething.

Insufficiently Realistic

[drinkypoo]

Until the dolls literally spray genuine, authentic baby shit and vomit on you in the middle of the night, they are going to be inadequate to the task of dissuading girls from wanting to make babies.

If you can't actually fill them with a truly realistic substitute for unwanted infant fluids, they're worthless.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[npslider]

Agreed!

Once it becomes necessary to baby proof your home to keep the robo-babies safe, and there are dire consequesbces if the "baby" is harmed... then perhaps we will see some positive benefits from this.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's how the rise of the machines will occur. We'll make newer, network-linked AI babies for teen girls to take care of, the machines will learn that we're horrible parents through this, and determine we need to be eliminated, take over all our computer systems, and begin pumping out T-1/2 Terminator babies to crawl across the globe and exterminate us all!

PLEASE SOMEONE THINK OF THE TERMINATOR BABIES AND GIVE TEENS PILLS AND CONDOMS DAMMIT!

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Then give them a baby simulant and a condom and ask: Which one do you want? It's a forced choice. You can't choose "none of the above". We assume you'll have sex no matter how hard you protest that you won't, because the excuse of "it just happened" is too common.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[gtall]

Those are the things the repel boys, not girls. Do recall that girls bleed every month, a bit of baby poo and vomit isn't going to ding the notion that a baby is a neat idea.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[swillden]

Until the dolls literally spray genuine, authentic baby shit and vomit on you in the middle of the night, they are going to be inadequate to the task of dissuading girls from wanting to make babies.

If you can't actually fill them with a truly realistic substitute for unwanted infant fluids, they're worthless.

I don't think that has anything to do with it.

I've raised four kids (youngest is now 15, oldest is 23), and the bad parts of having children, and babies, really have nothing to do with the icky body fluids. I've changed more than a few "blowout" diapers, and even had a couple of kids puke into my mouth and that's really not the bad/difficult part of having and raising children. The bad/difficult part is the commitment required. Kids require very close to 24/7 effort for years, and a lower level of focus and attention for decades. They're financially expensive, emotionally and physically demanding and they require you to be able to deal with your life so you can also deal with theirs.

On the surface, caring for a robo-baby for a few months should be a reasonable approximation of that. Where it falls down is not the lack of body fluids, I think, but the knowledge that (a) it's only a grade, not a life and (b) it is only a few months. (a) means that if you screw it up, it's not so terrible, and (b) means that you know there's an end in sight. Both of those probably significantly reduce the impact.

The schools in my area do something similar, but they don't use a robot, they use a bag of flour. That's not as good in that it won't rat them out for failing to care for it, but it may have another advantage (besides the low cost): It's not cute. I wonder if the robo-babies don't backfire because they get girls thinking about how cool it would be to have a cute little baby all their own.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the actual hard costs of having an infant, like cost of food, diapers and other child care cost when she is forced to go to a job after school.

Every girl that got a robot baby should have also been forced to work fast food at night after school. Either that or teach them how to sell crack on the side and how to evade police while doing it, or how to safely walk the streets at night looking for Johns or how to become effective gold diggers like all the youtube videos.

On the plus side they could also show how to effectively live off of government hand outs for the next 18 years with the toughest job of walking to the mail box every day to see what check has shown up. That would probably be the easiest since half of them are probably doing that now.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[wired_parrot]

If you can't actually fill them with a truly realistic substitute for unwanted infant fluids, they're worthless.

They're worse than worthless, they're giving a false idea that having a baby is easier than it seems.

By not fully simulating all the aspects of having a baby - from cleaning dirty diapers, to the financial aspects of dealing with the baby, to the changes in your social life - they're giving a false impression of what having a baby is really like. Instead, they made it seem like a game that only required them to press a button every few hours when the "baby" wails. They made having a baby similar to performing a series of in-game quests for the Pokemon generation, so it's no surprise those with the baby dolls had a much higher rate of pregnancy.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[npslider]

My real kids ALREADY do this! ;)

They invade every area of my house
They steal my phone
They try to hijack the TV
They encrypt my hard drive and loose the key
(OK, I made that one up)

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[jdavidb]

Trillions of women in history have eagerly cared for babies who produced real excrement and it did not dissuade them. I'm pretty sure this campaign is a struggle against a seriously deep instinct, here.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[npslider]

I have twins that just turned two. I have seen everything you described play out in my wife and I's lives.

- Diapers are not so bad, until it's 2 am and I have work the next day.
- Puke washes away and becomes a funny story.
- The bank account does not stay as full, as the diapers, wipes, and endless accessories are installed.
- The real kicker is the realization that something as simple as going to the store to get milk and eggs (when alone) is a HUGE ordeal, especially at 40 below zero.
- Being a good parent requires being healthy emotionally, unless you wish to see the painful consequences of bad choices made affect your kids

100% commitment is required 100% of the time. But it's worth it!

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[sexconker]

Trillions? Really? Try again.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[thoromyr]

You know, its pretty funny how many macho men become squeamish little sniveling babies when something inconsequential -- like piss -- gets anywhere near them. Now, whether they are *really* snot-nosed immature squeamish little shits or just lazy ass shits with a "I'm gonna be sick if I have to do work" excuse... I'm really not sure which is better.

And WTF is wrong with you that you think the menstrual cycle somehow predisposes women to be fit for unpleasant work. It sounds more like a misogynist, whiny excuse for not doing something. If a little blood bothers you there is something seriously wrong with you. On second thought, did you know that your body is just *full* of that horrid blood stuff and -- on occasion -- people get injured and it comes out of them? In fact, most kids bleed quite a bit over time (do you even have any idea how little blood is passed during normal menstruation?) so "a bit of baby poo and vomit isn't going to ding the notion that a baby is a neat idea" for guys. At least not real guys. Maybe the sissy, squeamish, sniveling, whiny variety, but the rest of us got over it around two years of age.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the dolls literally spray genuine, authentic baby shit and vomit on you in the middle of the night, they are going to be inadequate to the task of dissuading girls from wanting to make babies.

If you can't actually fill them with a truly realistic substitute for unwanted infant fluids, they're worthless.

Considering how many people have siblings I don't think there's evidence that the fidelity of the simulated shit is the issue.
If the real thing didn't deter their parents doing it again, a simulation would be unlikely to have prevented it in the first place.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Cederic]

They encrypt my hard drive and loose the key
(OK, I made that one up)

Give them a couple of years, they'll soon be offering you a variety of ransomware options.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Cederic]

It sounds more like a misogynist, whiny excuse

No, it doesn't. Buy yourself a fucking dictionary, and/or a clue.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[npslider]

Heh...

I'm sure they are smart enough to know how in a few more years
Let's hope we raise them to be upstanding kids who won't use that knowledge

Or just stay several steps ahead...

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

What they should do is make the robot "baby" cry louder when the button is pressed and then only have a random action that changes every time able to get it to stop. For example this morning walking and bouncing worked just fine, but this afternoon only rocking it while sitting down works.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[NotAPK]

"On the surface, caring for a robo-baby for a few months should be a reasonable approximation of that. Where it falls down is not the lack of body fluids, I think, but the knowledge that (a) it's only a grade, not a life and (b) it is only a few months. (a) means that if you screw it up, it's not so terrible, and (b) means that you know there's an end in sight. Both of those probably significantly reduce the impact. "

If that was true (nicely put, btw) then there should have been no difference between the control group and the study group.

Since the study group showed *higher* rate of pregnancy compared to control, the obvious deduction is that the system doesn't work. Period. We can all argue and muse as to the cause and effects, but ultimately, it doesn't work and unless someone goes and does a "better" study to double-check this work, then we have to accept it.

My personal opinion is that the baby exposure from the robot doll simply fosters natural instincts in the young women caring for them. When faced with the decision to use a condom or not, those from the study simply showed a slight bias towards "fuck it, a baby ain't so bad" compared to the rest.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[erapert]

I agree with your sentiment, but the Population Reference Bureau says that number is about 107 billion people have ever lived so that's closer to 54 billion women than "trillions".

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[jdavidb]

Yeah, I went and looked it up after I posted that and found the total number of humans who have ever lived is estimated at about 108 billion. Oops. That's what I love about Slashdot, your mistakes are immortalized, leaving you no choice but to just own up to it. :)

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, up until your last sentence I was under the impression that you had a vagina. Then you confirmed it.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not defend the OP, but your statement "If a little blood bothers you there is something seriously wrong with you" could be exactly why he said that about women. I am a man, and a little blood bothers me. And I know the sight of blood bothers a lot of other people.

The only reason I could think you might berate others over this is because women see blood every month and think nothing of it, and some (like you) lack the empathy to accept that others who don't might have a problem with it.

Re:Insufficiently Realistic

[drinkypoo]

Those are the things the repel boys, not girls. Do recall that girls bleed every month, a bit of baby poo and vomit isn't going to ding the notion that a baby is a neat idea.

Well, two out of two women I've talked to agree with me on this, including one who had a child. I'm going to stick with it. The mother did say it would also help if it needed to be fed from your aching boobs several times a day, though.

It's not a waste.

[Anonymous Coward]

The dolls are helping those who use them make an informed choice about a huge life decision. What did it matter that these decisions are politically unpopular? I can't think of a more important thing to be educated about.

Re:It's not a waste.

[Opportunist]

How about educating them in tools to avoid pregnancy?

Re:It's not a waste.

[npslider]

Yes, definatley. But no harm in taking multiple angles!

Re:It's not a waste.

[Opportunist]

True. If nothing else, these dolls at least give them enough convincing arguments to get rid of the parasite should the condom fail.

Selection Bias?

[Anonymous Coward]

How were the women selected for this program? Were they already at higher risk than national average?

This would only work sociopathic women

[BenJeremy]

Female brains are hardwired to care for a baby in need. All these robotic babies do is trigger those responses quicker. It's basic biology.

Yes, some women will decide babies aren't for them.. some out of practicality, but most out of an inability to process those biological imperatives nature has embedded into mammalian female brains.

Re:This would only work sociopathic women

[npslider]

Yes, I have seen this response in my wife when she sees a newborn. A very scary, however short lived feeling for dad...

Re:This would only work sociopathic women

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, 200 year old science, for that state-of-the-art analysis of the "female brain".

Was this a random sample of young women?

[Anonymous Coward]

They did something similar in my high school as part of one of the home economics classes. This was a while ago so I'm sure the simulators are now much more advanced, but that's neither here or there. My point is that the types of people enrolled in this particular class were...trying to be polite...just the sort of people most likely to end up with a teenage pregnancy. I'm wondering if this was a random sample of teenage girls, or were there other factors at play in determining what population ended up with these simulators?

because it doesnt teach whats really useful.

[nimbius]

simulated electronic dolls only teach children the approximate modes and methods of caretaking an infant. drop sensors detect potentially lethal impacts that are factored into scorecards, and rand() algorithms activate and deactivate pre-recorded audio through a speaker to simulate crying.

Children dont learn the complex consequences and repercussions of what it means to have a child our of wedlock or unplanned, For example, markedly lower income and education. They do not correlate the robot child in their arms with statistical increases in drug abuse and crime. Children are in many municipalities instead taught to avoid pregnancy but arent given viable options to do so such as condoms birth control or emergency abortifactants despite their safety for use in ages as young as 12. the doll program in the United States served no purpose than to drive sales of D cell batteries for all intents and purposes.

You know what would have been cheaper?

[Opportunist]

Not to mention more efficient?

Handing out condoms and showing how to use them.

Re:You know what would have been cheaper?

[Anonymous Coward]

Australians are not the brightest crayons in the box.

Chicks go nuts for new babies, all they have to do is see one and they get clucky.

As a guy - before having my own children I had no desire what so ever, or interest in other peoples kids, they were (and mostly still are) obnoxious little brats - I suspect this is mostly normal for males - if its not yours you're not interested in it.

Now, after having kids, that rewired something in my brain the moment I first heard, saw and held my own creation. Now when I hear and see other new babies I have an automatic urge to at take an interest, it gives my a weird feeling of happyness. - Chicks have this BEFORE having their own kids, giving them a trial baby .. whats that going to do.. not hard to figure out.

Re:You know what would have been cheaper?

[Anonymous Coward]

Handing out condoms and showing how to use them.

Your pickup lines need work.

Re:You know what would have been cheaper?

[Opportunist]

It works great in elementary schools.

Re:You know what would have been cheaper?

[Opportunist]

Apparently the effects are twofold. One group gets into "I wanna have a real" one mode, the other into "kill it with fire" mode.

But it doesn't seem to have any impact on their fucking habits.

Give the boys robot girls

[Anonymous Coward]

That's far better birth control than giving girls robot babies.

Re:Give the boys robot girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Date Robots!

Re:Give the boys robot girls

[NotAPK]

There's a good section in this about birth control in France.

Friend's teenage daughter did this..

[UncleWilly]

I think she was about 15 yo when this was assigned as homework in public school (in N Carolina, USA). She's from an affluent household and always said, I'll never have kids. After? Now she is looking forward to having children, someday. She's a Sr in H.S. now and picking her universities for next year. An all around great young lady.

Re:Friend's teenage daughter did this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Along those lines, considering the falling birth rates in many European/Western countries, maybe this is a good idea but for applied the wrong purpose

Re:Friend's teenage daughter did this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Until worldwide population is falling, I don't want to raise the population of any country.

Re:Friend's teenage daughter did this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah this doesn't seem like a bad thing. Bad thing would be if someday was now. Anyway in her case I got a feeling she would have wanted a baby eventually regardless. Teenagers are notorious shit-talkers when they haven't got a clue. "Oh I will never do X" 10 years later X it is.... Just replace X with any common adult activity.

People don't understand that the person they are now is not the person they will be forever. They may listen to the same music till the day they die, claiming they haven't changed, but that's all hogwash.

Re:Friend's teenage daughter did this..

[unixisc]

Precisely. In Europe, while birthrates are falling among natives and the native population is aging, the birthrates are as high as ever among Muslims, making them the fastest growing segment of the population. I wouldn't mind the first so much if the second weren't a trend: at that rate, Europe will become another Ottoman Empire.

Re:Friend's teenage daughter did this..

[NotAPK]

" Teenagers are notorious shit-talkers when they haven't got a clue"

Tru dat!

Funniest thing is when they start waxing lyrical about a complex situation they have obviously never experienced first hand, but are determined to answer by channeling all their social cues, learned behavior, knowledge from books. They always end up delivering their response with mind-blowing confidence that they are absolutely correct in their assertions.

other aspects

[bugs2squash]

My niece was given one to look after for a couple of days, the whole thing sparked a family conversation and it was fun and I suspect it was educational. It may not have met its political purpose but it had other value. I think the only thing they should have done differently was to pick some of the class at random and given them two or three at a time to take home.

Nothing posted about Socio-Economic Factors

[bagboy]

The articles referenced post nothing about the socio-economic factors of these girls, which many believe has a lot to do with unintentional pregnancies, with our without any education. Additionally, I see nothing discussed about interviews with the teen-mothers to indicate if they were already thinking of becoming mothers prior to the sex-ed/robot baby teachings. Seems a lot of data is missing if you ask me.

Re:Nothing posted about Socio-Economic Factors

[110010001000]

Exactly. Chances are they gave more of these dolls to girls "at risk" of becoming mothers. These studies are always run by morons.

Fixed that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have given the dolls to boys. It takes two.
(Maybe with a new law that all underage fathers get automatic, irrevocable full custody.)

Re:Fixed that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Additional thought: Take a hundred bucks a week from them too.
Then see how fast the robot girls get invented / perfected.

That's bullshit

[HBI]

Actual effectiveness ratios for birth control:

US CDC document on actual effectiveness

Highlights:

Condoms are about as effective as the withdrawal method, sponges, or the rhythm method. 20% or so failure rates.
Spermicides are worse (!) (28%)
9% annual failure on the pill.

The only truly effective contraception methods are *just* the methods they won't allow young kids to get. I had to get a signoff from my wife at age 29 for a vasectomy. I was told they wouldn't do it if i were single or if I had been married with no children. Reason: ex post facto lawsuits by women aggrieved by the urologist denying them children within their marriage. Similarly, just try walking in and asking for your tubes tied at 16 or an IUD implant.

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much. The birth control available to them _does not work_. They should all just screw bareback from what I can see.

Re:That's bullshit

[serviscope_minor]

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much.

That's like saying the most effective way to stop the tide coming in is to stand on the beach and tell the tide not to come in. I mean it works perfectly when it works.

But much like the tide won't stop when you tell it to, there is nothing you can say to teenagers to stop them fucking.

Back to your stats, condoms are pretty effective when used correctly--98%, not 82%. When used badly they have high failure rates. The CDC data indicates that you should be telling teenagers how to use condoms properly.

Re:That's bullshit

[squiggleslash]

The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much

You have figures for all the other methods. What are the figures for "encouraging them to stop fucking so much"?

The birth control available to them _does not work_.

The figures quoted say otherwise. True, the worst contraceptive you mention is successful with 72% of users across a year never having a problem, however the pill is successful for 91% of users (over a year), and the CDC includes reversible birth control measures that are more than 99% effective in the chart you mention.

It's also worth mentioning that the failures aren't necessarily a function of the devices themselves so much as user error. Condoms usually "fail" not because they break or anything else obvious, but because people who rely upon them frequently decide to chance not using them. Almost all versions of the pill can be rendered useless if combined with certain drugs - notably many antibiotics - and are more than 99% effective if used properly.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to get a signoff from my wife at age 29 for a vasectomy.

Really?! After all that women's lib stuff about gaining control of their own bodies (with the pill)?

The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much.

That's just not going to happen. You'd have better luck promoting a more tolerant society so gay-leaning teens start fucking each other more instead of the opposite sex.

Re:That's bullshit

[HBI]

In my world, we rely on practical tests of functionality *with the actual users* rather than theoretical measures of effectiveness. It seems the CDC agrees with me on this one.

As to one of your other points:

"The bottom line is that a single act of intercourse between a young couple has on average a one in 20 chance of pregnancy – this assumes the opportunity presented itself on a random day, as these things tend do when you are young."

Source

So the answer is based on how often you fuck. The CDC numbers do not map precisely to data of this sort, however.

Last point: "measuring the effectiveness of encouraging people not to fuck" sounds like the craptastic questionnaire-based research I saw at (not to pick on them) the Lehigh psych department in the early 2000s. People lie, and they can't simulate the paths not taken effectively. There would literally be no way to know if someone decided to not have sexual intercourse based on an abstinence campaign.

Besides, my kind of abstinence campaign would be "Blowjobs for Everyone" or "Real lovers wank each other".

Re:That's bullshit

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I had to get a signoff from my wife at age 29 for a vasectomy. I was told they wouldn't do it if i were single or if I had been married with no children.

This has always bothered me especially with the whole "It's my body you can't decided for me" line of thinking that is trotted out in the abortion debate. If a girl can be the sole decider about an abortion then why can't a guy be the sole decider about a vasectomy. For IUDs I don't know if there is some medical reason for a 16 year old couldn't get them especially considering that they are temporary but for thing like getting your tubes tied or getting a vasectomy done I would say as long as you are 18 and aren't under the legal custody of someone else, i.e. you aren't a nut case or have limited mental facilities, you should be able to get either done.

Re:That's bullshit

[TheSunborn]

Wow that stat is bad. American guys/girls really need to learn to use a condom.

And the effective solution, is just to use a condom, and the pill together. If used correct this combination should land you below 1%/year unwanted pregnancy.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual effectiveness ratios for birth control:

Are shaded by factors that you're not presenting. No surprise, you want to use a chart to advance your own lies, like most Conservatives. You take the lesson you want, and ignore the truth.

Highlights:

Condoms are about as effective as the withdrawal method, sponges, or the rhythm method. 20% or so failure rates.
Spermicides are worse (!) (28%)

Wrong, that's not a failure rate. That's a reflection of a usage rate. Condoms and Spermicides being on-demand usage, they have a lot of improper methods used. Like leaving them in the box. Or on the store shelf.

9% annual failure on the pill.

See above.

The only truly effective contraception methods are *just* the methods they won't allow young kids to get.

Because they aren't contraceptive methods, they are sterilization methods, and that's something you don't let young kids get, and which is SEVERELY problematic to do anyway.

I had to get a signoff from my wife at age 29 for a vasectomy. I was told they wouldn't do it if i were single or if I had been married with no children. Reason: ex post facto lawsuits by women aggrieved by the urologist denying them children within their marriage. Similarly, just try walking in and asking for your tubes tied at 16 or an IUD implant.

Yep, it's a real problem. Men lie about having a vasectomy, sweet-talk some woman into a family, but has been lying the whole time. Doctors do not want to be facilitating that. And children, children making life-long decisions at that age? Bad idea. Very bad.

Of course, you'd like to say that the doctors are not involved, but yeah, then you learn about the fertility specialist who never bothered to check the man's sperm count before giving the woman a hormone cocktail, or the one who was prohibited from telling the woman because of doctor patient confidentiality.

It's a nasty business.

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much.

Hmm, except what you didn't do, is offer ANY data or studies on the effectiveness of abstinence training. Did you notice that? I did. I noticed you presented nothing to tell us how many people actually practiced abstinence, or even the people who got ONLY abstinence, and nothing else.

There's a reason for that. Because you don't want to admit that abstinence is not practiced.

The birth control available to them _does not work_. They should all just screw bareback from what I can see.

Then you're not good at statistical analysis, which is no surprise, since you can't tell the difference between 100 and 10, let alone shown any evidence you have any idea of the actual pregnancy rate.

Why don't you go back, and stop the pretensions? I get it, like the guy blathering on about homicides in Chicago and Milwaukee, you want to present the numbers as SCARY ones. But what they didn't do, is note that the increases they cited were actually low in terms of real numbers, and that the peak homicide rate is still back in the early 1990s. Or all the FOX NEWS graphics where the make some HUGE display out of 2 or 3 more of something.

Re:That's bullshit

[gerddie]

Actual effectiveness ratios for birth control:

US CDC document on actual effectiveness

Highlights:

Condoms are about as effective as the withdrawal method, sponges, or the rhythm method. 20% or so failure rates. [snip]

... when used inconsistently you should add. With perfect use you get (Trussell J, Contraceptive failure in the United States.) way better numbers:

Our estimate of the proportion of women becoming pregnant during a year of perfect use of the male condom is [...] 2%.

Which means with a proper education you can lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies significantly.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you that I've been quite prolific in my late teens and never got pregnant. -Sure you can try and oppress me for being male but your solution does not apply to me.

I know, you're talking about girls? -I made sure I either fucked their mouths or their asses.

You will be quick to dismiss this I'm sure but if we try to preach "natural" and "effective" methods then let's stick to oral and anal. 0 pregnancy risk.

Sure, social taboo and BS religion will shy away from such acts but remember, your wife or gf wasn't born with super oral powers she practised.

Also I would not trust those figures. Condoms, if used correctly are 99% effective. There are also super thin and durable condoms In case your religion or beliefs/lame partner/retardation limit you to vaginal stuff.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Disgusting. Oral For Everyone doesn't assume any specific parts involved, and rolls off the tongue better. You'll never convince teens to get on their knees and kiss where they pee with half-baked campaigns like that.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Condoms absolutely suck. Feeling is reduced severely and it certainly ruins the moment to have to put a condom on. No, I am not advocated unsafe sex, but the reality is that I'm glad I'm in a relationship where I don't have to worry about putting on a rain coat to have sex.

Re:That's bullshit

[cmdr_klarg]

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much. The birth control available to them _does not work_. They should all just screw bareback from what I can see.

Obviously we must fit all teenagers with chastity belts! By Everlast!

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no law whatsoever regulating vasectomies. This is all FUD.

This is about independent urologists refusing to perform one. And I'm all for it. A 19 year old is going to sorely regret getting a vasectomy when he's 40 and has had multiple failed reversal attempts.

As for permission from the wife, there are guys out there who will get a vasectomy and not tell their wife they did it. That is an awful thing to do to a woman. I think a urologist with any morals would want to consult the spouse.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual effectiveness ratios for birth control:

US CDC document on actual effectiveness

Highlights:

Condoms are about as effective as the withdrawal method, sponges, or the rhythm method. 20% or so failure rates. Spermicides are worse (!) (28%) 9% annual failure on the pill.

The only truly effective contraception methods are *just* the methods they won't allow young kids to get. I had to get a signoff from my wife at age 29 for a vasectomy. I was told they wouldn't do it if i were single or if I had been married with no children. Reason: ex post facto lawsuits by women aggrieved by the urologist denying them children within their marriage. Similarly, just try walking in and asking for your tubes tied at 16 or an IUD implant.

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much. The birth control available to them _does not work_. They should all just screw bareback from what I can see.

I am religious, spiritual, and conservative. My sect teaches that all sex outside the bonds of marriage is sinful, but most forms of birth control within marriage are ok (but abortion is considered sinful in most cases). Abstinence is the method that is 100% effective, so it should be stressed. Realistically, a certain percentage of kids will experiment, so other methods should also be taught.

Re:That's bullshit

[Win0ver]

See this, kids? That's why we need Sex Ed, or you will end up believing total bullshit about birth control.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"why can't a guy be the sole decider about a vasectomy"

You mean to tell me it isn't?

Would you mind elaborating? Are you saying that if I go to *my* doctor and say "cut that shit" then they won't do it without permission from my "partner"????????

Re:That's bullshit

[sootman]

> The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training
> are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to
> encourage them to stop fucking so much.

Like many things, the theory is perfect -- I agree, abstinence is 100% effective, and other forms of birth control are less than that. But in the real world... how, exactly, do you stop teens from fucking?

The old joke is 100% true: What do you call someone who advocates abstinence-only education? Grandma.

Just like with computers: security in layers. How about teach abstinence and make birth control available?

Re:That's bullshit

[UnderCoverPenguin]

You'll never convince teens to get on their knees and kiss where they pee with half-baked campaigns like that

When we were teens (and legal age where we lived at the time), my girlfriend and I tried that based on recommendations from friends who said it was great. No promotional campaign needed. Also, we preferred (and still prefer) 69. (Not saying we don't fuck regularly. We do (and did). And a lot of oral, especially 69.)

Re:That's bullshit

[thegarbz]

The CDC agrees with you that Condom use currently has a failure rate of 12% due to the fact that people don't use condom use perfectly and while they regularly practice safe sex with condoms they don't always, hence this "random day" thing.

The real bottom line is where a condom is available and used the chance of pregnancy drops to 1-2%.

12% is quoted for "typical users" which includes all the wonders of "I don't have one with me right now", "trust me I'm on the pill", "yeah I'm sure this strange sized one will fit", and my personal favourite from parents to children "Why do we find this in your room!" which leads back to excuse 1.

Only the CDC is stupid enough to quote the "typical use" numbers in a frigging family planning campaign. Every other government medical department for countries quote the perfect use figure of 1-2% because the NHS actually encourages use while the Americans seem content to say "well we're not using them correctly right now, so clearly we should advertise to people that they don't work. That'll improve it, now pass me another beer I'm falling behind."

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Do both. Teach them how to use birth control, make it freely available, show them stats on effectiveness, teach them about sexually transmitted diseases, the responsibilities and consequences of pregnancy, what is really involved in an abortion, and that having sex while underage can implicate their partner in a crime.

Too complicated you say? Too bad. That is the straight dope. This is what all adults are expected to know and consider before having sex, so for God's sake let's teach it ALL to kids who are at an age where the desire sex.

We can't make their desire go away. We can't force our values on them. We can't stop them from having sex if the want to. The ONLY thing we can do is give them all the facts. No dumbing things down to avoid sending a mixed message, that's stupid. Relying on their ignorance of the facts to guide them to making the right decision is really damn stupid.

The truth is our best defense. Let's be honest with our kids, for Christ's sake.

Re:That's bullshit

[UnderCoverPenguin]

In my world, we rely on practical tests of functionality *with the actual users* rather than theoretical measures of effectiveness

Some actual users do use the methods properly, so the theoretical measures are not as theoretical as you seem to think.

My girlfriend and I were well educated about sex. We got her pregnant exactly the one time we planned for. The rest of the time, we've always used the precautions properly and effectively. And sex has always been a lot of fun for us. By the time our daughter turned 10, we had decided no more children, so I got a vasectomy. Yes, we can now be a little more spontaneous about fucking, but honestly, that made no difference in the level of fun.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

... you aren't a nut case or have limited mental facilities ...

That's more reason to sterilize: Leaving a helpless human in the clutches of someone who can't take care of herself is an obvious madness and thus many countries had a mandatory sterilization process. That's been shamed and banned, thus allowing people normal enough to fuck, to push out babies the government now has to wrest from the mother and pay someone else to raise them.

Re:That's bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much.

This is not the first or the 10th time you have said this I'm guessing. You feel hard about this subject.
The thing is that people who think about it have sent you many many links showing that abstinence only sex ed gives higher rates of teen pregnancy than all other types of sex ed including "no sex ed".
Why you go to places where people think about things rather than feel about things, I hate to guess at.

You have been shown you are wrong so please accept it and stop regurgitating this garbage in hopes that you have found yourself in an echo chamber with other emotional responders who feel about things.

And remember that when all methods of birth control fail that abortion still works. In an overpopulated world, if that is not something you are willing to contemplate, then you should not be fertile.

Re:That's bullshit

[beastofburdon]

If you are a nutcase, or have limited mental capacity it should be easier to opt into not reproducing, not harder.

we live in the world that is...

[HBI]

Not the one you dream of. The CDC's numbers are correct.

Re:we live in the world that is...

[serviscope_minor]

The CDC's numbers are correct.

Did I say they weren't?

Before blindly quoting numbers you should understand the numbers and where they come from. A large cause of failures for condoms is poor use, which gets aggregated into the CDC figures.

Give them a real one for a week.

[ErichTheRed]

Speaking as a father of two, nothing prepares new parents for what happens when one of these little creatures stops being a robot and starts being real:
- Sleep deprivation
- Loss of anything resembling free time unless a kid activity is involved
- Loss of money -- they're expensive at every age and stage, just in different ways
- Loss of sanity -- $deity help the teen parent who happens to get a perpetually fussy kid

Of course, there are huge upsides to it (it's the best thing I ever did, bar none...) but I'd think those would be drowned out quickly among the stresses of being poorly educated, underemployed, and always broke. I can see why young parents tend to be more abusive and neglectful.

I think it's silly to promote abstinence as a preferred form of birth control, which is what typically wins out in conservative areas of the US. These kids are teenagers -- if you tell them not to do something, and even show them examples of why you might not want to, they're going to go do it more. All the options need to be presented -- it's terrible luck of the draw for a kid who happens to be born to parents who can't properly care for it, and that kid shouldn't have to suffer because religious conservatives are afraid of exposing the real world to kids.

Re:Give them a real one for a week.

[npslider]

Something as simple as getting a full night of uninterrupted sleep is akin to winning the power ball after becoming a parent!

Sanity is measured by how much remains at bed time, not by how much one looses.

Money? What money? We operate a "feed the cherubs fund!"

Yes, it is worth it. I don't know why I say that some days, but it is!

Re:Give them a real one for a week.

[unixisc]

Of course, there are huge upsides to it (it's the best thing I ever did, bar none...) but I'd think those would be drowned out quickly among the stresses of being poorly educated, underemployed, and always broke. I can see why young parents tend to be more abusive and neglectful.

The upsides to it are a feeling you get b'cos it's yours - it came out of your spouse's body. For those teenage girls who lose their sleep due to someone like that, they won't feel as endeared to the little tykes, since that's not the case there. But they'd have the same feeling as you - of no regrets - if they were to actually become pregnant and have their own babies, since the feeling then is completely different

(At least) Two mistakes made:

[kheldan]

1) Expecting young humans to be rational
2) Expecting humans of any age to be rational about one of the most powerful hardwired instincts: reproduction.

Girls that are going to give in to their hormone-driven instincts are going to do so no matter what you do, unless you physically or medically restrain them somehow. Giving girls in that category babydolls like they did just 'trains' them to take care of the infants they'll eventually have too soon anyway, it doesn't deter them; more likely it just softens the impact of the reality of having a child to take care of.

Re:(At least) Two mistakes made:

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Expecting young humans to be rational
2) Expecting humans of any age to be rational about one of the most powerful hardwired instincts: reproduction.
 

How is it rational to not reproduce? That's just suicide on a heriditary scale.

I for one, can't fathom why western governments have so many programs to try and wipe out their current genelines by encouraging citizens not to breed (and therefore be wiped out). Meanwhile the same governments are importing replacement people from shitstain countries with inferior gene lines.

Makes no sense.

Re:(At least) Two mistakes made:

[Anonymous Coward]

Low-quality bait

Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[2ms]

I am sure it's awful. Just curious why. I don't know anything about it. Of course, the fact we have libido's as teens means that nature wants us to have children at that age. So why exactly is it the case that modern societal norms are correct and that nature is wrong?

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because raising babies is hard - it takes lots of time, lots of effort, and lots of money.

When we were a species of hunter-gatherers, kids had learned everything they need to be a functional adult my the time puberty set in. So once you could have babies, it was a good idea.

These days, it takes longer to become an independent self-supporting adult. The modern world is more complicated. Until you get there, you're not fit to raise a child.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[svanheulen]

Because nature "expected" us to die faster then modern medicine has allowed.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[jeff4747]

'Cause in modern society children are much, much, much, much better off if they are born to parents that have built up some emotional, personal and financial stability.

When we were evolving, that was not the case - your stability mostly came from living within a small tribe that helped you when you needed it. Far more critical back then was for the mother to be healthy enough and fast-healing enough to handle a pregnancy.

Now we have modern medicine to take care of the "need to be healthy" part, but we no longer have the tribe to help take care of you and your new family. So now the outcome is better if the parents are older.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[unixisc]

When we were a species of hunter gatherers, the sole role of girls was to stay home, get married, have babies. Nothing else. I'm not advocating for that, but that's what would need to happen if girls were to have kids in their teens, as opposed to studying and/or getting a job that they can support themselves w/

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[2ms]

Who says that we need postpone parenting in order to be doctors, lawyers, and engineers if even becoming one of those things is necessary to be a "functional adult" in the first place?

I'm in my late 30s and noticing that all the "most successful" women who I graduated with from a top-tier university are single and childless. Is that what we really want? All our "most successful" being weeded out of the gene pool? That's obviously very destructive to the gene pool. Almost the definition of destruction to it.

Offspring of teenagers are objectively healthier than the offspring of older women.

It seems like there are a lot of reasons why it would be good if more of us had children as teenagers, and relatively few. Your claim that being a functional adult requires postponing having children until after biologically optimal age seems to not only be a poor counterbalance to the benefits off earlier reproduction but furthermore specious in the first place.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[2ms]

Who says that modern society can't help young parents in the same way it did when we were primitive tribes?

Just because medicine provides all kinds of synthetic hormones etc to enable older parenting doesn't mean that there is any benefit in it. It just means we can do things in a different order. But maybe the order where you have children first and then do university is the better one. We know for a fact that it is the more natural one.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[angel'o'sphere]

And what has that to do with moral, or right or wrong?

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[angel'o'sphere]

When we were a species of hunter gatherers, the sole role of girls was to stay home, get married, have babies.
Extremely unlikely.
Much more likely they gathered together with the mothers and followed the hunting men, carrying what ever they needed to make camp where the men killed the prey.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says that modern society can't help young parents in the same way it did when we were primitive tribes?

Because modern society only "helps" others grudgingly and in very few circumstances. The expectation is that you acquire a degree of emotional, personal and financial stability as quickly as possible or just suffer until you do.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[svanheulen]

It doesn't. Who said it did? The question was why the social norm doesn't match nature. And my answer is because we've modified the "nature" of death, we need to modify the "nature" of birth so that we don't run into overpopulation issues. We're living longer and surviving things we wouldn't naturally survive. We probably shouldn't be procreating at the speed "nature intended" because we're not dying at the speed "nature intended." There's nothing moral about the issue at all. People need to stop having so many damn babies, in their teens or otherwise.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[angel'o'sphere]

The parent you replied to said it ...
And you confiemd him and now you are on a rant against to many babies.
Look around you, I guess birth verus death rate is 1:1 likley the burth rate is lower ... get out from under your rock.

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[svanheulen]

Look around you, I guess birth verus death rate is 1:1 likley the burth rate is lower ... get out from under your rock.

Really? http://www.worldometers.info/w... http://www.census.gov/popclock...

Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly?

[angel'o'sphere]

Rofl, what has the birth rate on the globe to do with the birth rate in your country, the later is what we are talking about. As your country is the menace of the planet and not the developing nations.

SEW THEIR FUCKING TWATS SHUT!

[Anonymous Coward]

End of story...

Re:SEW THEIR FUCKING TWATS SHUT!

[coolmoe2]

How about we just cut you dirty cock off instead. Its a lot easier then sewing anything shut. Whats good for the goose right?

This is a "dolly" not a "robot baby".

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing with feed and change dolls is something American girls have been doing for decades. As this wires in "be a mommy it is fun! You are a baby making machine!". As a result Yes, they get knocked up. If all it is is feed and change then this encourages reproduction.

You want a robot baby that works?
1. Install colic v4.2 135Db deluxe. Robot now screams at all hours of the day and night for weeks.
2. Install Explosive diarrhea v5.0 This makes sure that the human safe bacteria in the robots milk storage tank, break the milk down into the most foul and stench ridden substance known to man, and randomly expel it out of one end of the robot or the other at high velocity (or sometimes when RNG comes up right, both).
3. Install chunky milk burps v1.0. This takes milk from the storage tank and has it leak out on you whenever you burp the baby. Failing to burp the baby after feeding leads to reengaging colic v4.2 or firing off SIDS 10.
4. Install SIDS 10. Failing to take proper and constant care of the robot according to its sensors, makes it die and the girl gets an F for the class.
5. Install No more free time or friends v3.2. Robot will now make demands all the time or it will engage SIDS 10.
6. No more nice things v3. This leads the robot to crawl around and ingest things its pattern recognition identifies as valuable. Things which are too big to be eaten will be dealt with using Explosive diarrhea v5.0.

Pulling the batteries from the robot leads to an F, Failing to keep it charged leads to an F.

free(ish) choice

[hsthompson69]

I'll lightly disagree with the drive to procreate not being rational, if only because one can take the perspective of the individual, and one can take the perspective of the species - from a species point of view, procreation is definitely rational.

That all being said, I think part of the larger picture is that, whether driven primarily by biology, one can argue being a mother is a free(ish) choice. We "rational" folks pooh-pooh it as something we should scare people out of, but what if, making different assumptions about the world, it's actually a rational and conscious choice on the part of the woman?

Re:free(ish) choice

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular until fairly recently (in historical times) the value of unskilled labor was high enough that it made a lot of economic sense to have a lot of children. It was the easiest way to increase your net worth.

Have one a year for 3-5 years starting when you're 16 then put them to work when they hit 10 and by the time you're 32 you're probably set for life your oldest being 16 and therefore ready to start their own family after having put in 6 years working and learning the family business.

It's less appealing when they can't even support themselves let alone you until their 30's, and even more so if you didn't start having them until your 20's to 30's. being 60 when your oldest can start thinking about supporting you can still pan out, but each additional one is a much larger marginal investment for less marginal gain.

Not Much Supporting Data...

[Anonymous Coward]

The research doesn't state how the program affected the participants education experience, i.e. How do they pass or fail? If they fail how does that affect their academic status? Do they lose credits making them less eligible for higher education?

Without investment on behalf of the participant, how can they show that the Doll has any affect?

8% of participants went on to become pregnant.. OK so did they just put the doll in a corner for the duration of the program or did they actually participate.

The study doesn't seem very thorough.

Removed the fear of the unknown?

[Anonymous Coward]

This kinda makes sense, with multiple possible effects in play, but I think the greatest effect may be love/emjoyment and fear.

Removal of the fear of the unknown. Once a girl understands all the responsibilities of caring for a child, she may find that her fear of getting pregnant is reduced, and may possibly enjoy the idea, thus possibly increasing her desire to now have a real baby.

She may also find the experience enjoyable, and may actually like taking care of a baby.

In either case, I don't think either of these effects are bad. We should be teaching both boys and girls the responsibilities and skills necessary when having a child. This will allow them to fully understand what it takes, and will help them make better more informed choices.

If the program doesn't also include boys, it should. One of the worst problems we face in inner cities is the 'absent father' syndrome. Boys need to take this responsibility seriously as well.

...but better parents?

[bill.pev]

Maybe not a good prophylactic, but perhaps it makes these mothers better parents?

Good luck changing human nature

[wcrowe]

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that humans, particularly young human females, have an innate desire, probably driven by hormones, to reproduce, and no amount of scolding, cajoling, lecturing or whatever is going to override that.

Re:Good luck changing human nature

[Anonymous Coward]

teenage boys tend to be pretty horny, too

Skip the Robots

[sexconker]

There are plenty of unwanted babies already.

Pass those around and have the high schoolers take care of them. You'd only need to run the program for a week at each school.

What is the succes rate of abstinence again?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's something like 50% under those same CDC criteria, which count buying (pledging intending) and not using(sticking to the pledge) as a failure.

Beyond the joke...

[mrops]

Giving boys robot girlfriends might have worked better :)

In related news...

[PPH]

... Australians confirm that dingos don't like robot babies.

Also I bet dolls didn't wake up 4 times per night

[raymorris]

What you said is certainly true. Also, I would bet the dolls don't wake the girls up every two hours and apply a clamp to the their nipples for 30 minutes. I would bet that while changing the doll, the girls didn't get a squirt of diarrhea to the face.

By misrepresenting the difficulties, you encourage them to have babies rather than discouraging them.

Re:Also I bet dolls didn't wake up 4 times per nig

[Anonymous Coward]

Robot Babies! Now with Fecal Mist!

Reminded of a class in my high school

[Bob the Super Hamste]

This reminds me of a class that was offered in my high school where the students were given a 10lbs sack of flour (it may have been salt) and that was their "baby" that they had to take care of for the quarter. One of my buddies took that class for what ever reason and got to cart that damn sack of flour around for 3 months our senior year. I forget who has the pictures but we tormented the hell out of him about that and tried to get him into trouble. We took Polaroid pictures with it posed holding a screw driver about to go into an electrical socket in the computer repair class, sitting on the 3 axis milling machine, having a heater while holding a oxy-acetylene torch. I believe he learned from that class to not leave kids with his friends unattended. He was the first one to have kids and the only one to have them outside of marriage (3 kids by 3 women) although he has full custody of the first 2 and is happily married to the 3rd woman.

Teenagers are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have the wisdom, common sense, skills, or anything else that qualifies them to be parents.

Just make BC mandatory for all of them (yes, guys too when they come up with it) and condoms don't count. The idiots will fuck that up too.

Re:Teenagers are idiots.

[Cederic]

anything else that qualifies them to be parents

Not strictly true. They have young healthy fertile bodies.

Historically that's counted for far more than wisdom, common sense or other skills.

Re:Teenagers are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

>They have young healthy fertile bodies. Kinky boy. ;)

Re:Teenagers are idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically? I think you mean prehistorically.

Re:Teenagers are idiots.

[Cederic]

No, pretty much anywhere on the globe a hundred years ago, some places more recently than that.

It's not a binary divide though.

It's so fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Women who have a child love that child. The myriad costs are real, of course. But this is a program that tries to play up the costs ("what a hassle!") without any of the benefits ("this child is of my blood, I love him or her in a way that couldn't be described previously"). The whole program is sketchy from the get-go.

Total bunk conclusion!

[globaljustin]

Researchers in Australia found 8% of girls who used the dolls were expecting by the age of 20, compared with 4% of those who did not.

This doesn't prove anything. The research is missing the point...it's not to prevent pregnancy per se...

The program is to encourage birth control use, which is different than percentage who are pregnant at age 20.

Also, number of abortions is not a proper measure either!

One can argue more OR less abortions prove this program is successful...it depends on how you view abortions and their use.

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf

+1 emotional bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the +1 emotional bias mod? How does this get modded up when he's clearly just making up things that Cons want to hear?

Sex is fun, News at 11.

[eepok]

People like to have sex. Having a robot baby isn't going to deter people from having sex... but it may make some people desensitized to the downsides of being an ill-prepared parent.

...There's a problem here?

[bistromath007]

If they had to put up with one of these things and they still go out and get knocked up, presumably at least part of the reason why is that they feel the task was rewarding and they feel confident in their ability to handle it. Sounds like a win, to me.

People *want* babies because of natural selection

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty hard to get rid of the desire to nurture a child. It's not surprising that having an infant simulacrum causes more infants...

rofl

[Anonymous Coward]

birth control for whites? srsly are we at that stage now? my god...

Moderation proof that the truth hurts

[HBI]

n/t

Who will redline the super predators?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump and Hillary both hail back to such a past. Are those two racists just 'historical curiosities' or not?

Maybe robot tweens will do the trick

[GrumpySteen]

There's nothing like a whiny, demanding 11 year old throwing a tantrum and screaming about how much they hate you to make you wish you'd stuck to oral.

Uh, maybe try something different?

[reboot246]

Maybe they should have been given robot sex partners instead of robot babies.

reinforcing not deterring

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that "having children" is made a focal point? What would the rates be compared to giving similar groups work experience or mentoring so they have aspirations of more than just motherhood.

("more than just motherhood" should be read as being able to achieve both, not as disrespect for parenting. My sister for example was headstrong to establish a career before bringing my beautiful niece into the world, to a stable home that was able to prepare for the event with years of planning.)

Nutty religious types

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're running public policy based on the possibility of imaginary beings blowing up countries then we should give up now.

Physically partition the country, give the religious nuts one part, and allow the sane people space to make sane policies for the rest of it. Put up a sign at the enclave border "Warning: Entering Fruit Cake Town. Abandon all rationality here!"

Re:Nutty religious types

[Anonymous Coward]

So you saw The Handmaid's Tale too?

Who said it didn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

20 isn't a bad age to start a family - after all you can party with your offspring once they are teenagers.
Mother Nature has its way to make looking after a baby feeling attractive. So what might have worked for a teenager as deterrent while they are in their early teens, will surly be sugar coated by memories when they are a little more mature.

That experiment could bear the solution to counter some of the decline in birth rates

Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Declining birthrates... robot babies...

Yes, because the last thing we want...

[Anonymous Coward]

is healthy young women producing healthy offspring during their peak fertility years: lower odds of genetic defects; younger, more energetic parents better suited to the demands of raising active children.

Nah, forget that. Having a child at 20 is a travesty.

And gassing Jews is effective too, so?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's never been a dispute about whether murdering children eliminates children.

The argument is about whether it's MORAL to murder children.

Is it, for example, good to murder a child before he is born to spare him from a tough life? Many very famous/productive people got that way because of a tough life.

Is it good to murder a child because he might be deformed? Ask some adults with deformities. Some might say "yes" but the fact that most do not commit suicide says a lot.

The better question is about CONCEPTION control. The vast majority of conservatives are fine with controlling CONCEPTION and pracitce it themselves, but worry that if taught badly in the schools by government employees pursuing their own agendas it encourages kids to take life-altering risks including risking diseases and dangerous lifestyles. AFAIK the only people against conception control are the Catholics, but they're rather unique in this and even the Pope tosses that idea aside in places where Zika is raging.

These stupid ineffective robots are just another failed we-know-what's-best-for-you elitist idea to do the job of raising teenagers that parents are supposed to do. Teenage pregancy rates were FAR lower decades ago before government handouts and when young women in the larger families run by MARRIED ADULTS were involved in helping to care for their younger siblings and were thus exposed to the workload and observed the family concerns about family budgets. The real world used to be a harsh teacher. Young people living on cell phones and aware of government handouts are not so easily deterred from living recklessly.

Re:And gassing Jews is effective too, so?

[arth1]

The argument is about whether it's MORAL to murder children.

No, it isn't. Before we can even begin to argue that, we need to arrive at mutually acceptable definitions of "murder" and "children". It makes as little sense as arguing whether it's moral to murder bananas (but at least we have a fairly good agreement on what a banana is).

All resorting to hyperbole like "murder children" does is mark you as someone not worth inviting to a rational discussion.

Re:Also I bet dolls didn't wake up 4 times per nig

[baubo]

Exactly. Does the robot baby have a colic mode? A persistent and painful ear infection mode?

For the sake of argument, say that it works.

[Agripa]

Then you ultimately select for people who it does not work on.

If you persuade people to not have children or have children later, then you select for people who are not persuadable.

can't please pedantic aspies

[Anonymous Coward]

The tautology was intended as a rhetorical device. It should have made the meaning for you more clear, not less clear.