And the "generic" program I got in jr/sr High school didn't include abstinence
WHEN you go out and have sex, here are your methods of eliminating risk.
Abstinence ONLY programs aren't the way either, but an Abstinence BASED program focused on abstinence but addressing briefly and to the point, no need for 60 condom covered bananas, the other areas and issues is one way we can do better.
Divorce should be complicated. IMO divorce should be MUCH more complicated than we allow it to be today. Civil unions as a new area of law would allow for a much more effective "pre-nuptual" contractual arrangement.
Clauses could include nonseverability for anything other than violent crime until all offspring reach majority. Details can be worked later, getting action taken should be the first priority
Yes, when used by married adults in a laboratory setting condoms are 99% effective
However any studies on teenagers indicate 50-75% effectiveness. some have indicated effective levels as low as 30%.
I'm at work, or I would try to google for condom effectiveness teenagers, obviously not work safe, I'll try later at home for some of the CNN/FOX/Reuters articles I've seen over the last couple years.
Apparently being a horny teen impares both your choice to use and your ability to use effectively any form of contraception.
I understand, my good fortune. and mourn the societal changes allowing and occasionally encouraging irresponsibility.
Responsibility breeds responsibility and irresponsibility breeds greater irresponsibility.
So someone(formerly the village or grandparents or cousins, now the government) has to step in and take charge. I know that time cannot be turned back but I would rather a society where the taking charge(seizing responsibility) happened at a local or family level rather than a state or federal one.
Actually nothing works pretty well. As someone who married as/to a virgin at 25/25, I've never had an STD, never lost sleep over her being "late" and never had any of the other problems associated with teenage "safe" sex.
Except protectin doesn't prevent pregnancy or disease it "reduces the risk of pregnancy or disease".
SO instead of a 2 out of 3 chance of pregnancy or disease you have a 1 out of 12 or so chance. GREAT. vs Abstinence(the real kind not the clintonesque kind) you have a 0 out of 0 chance of pregnancy or disease. I like those odds. So sure, include contraception and barrier information, but use real numbers not blue sky laboratory numbers. Give them all the facts and make sure they understand all the risks. Then if they drive drunk, they know they have a good chance of dying and a condom is only going to reduce that, not eliminate it.
First, my apologies and sympathy for the perversion of Christianity that brought you where you are
I am a Christian, married at 25 as a virgin to a virgin aged 23 whose parents(mine) took the effort to explain the consequences(pregnancy, child support, oh and by the way disease) of pre-marital sexual activity. I knew how and where to find condoms and how to use them.
Allowing or requiring parents to abdicate any of their responsibilities for any part of educating their children from math to sex is one of the largest problems with the education system as it has evolved today.
And if you want to know what it is, it's hidden somewhere on my website, but it's simple and easy to explain, but I won't do it here Oh and go to my website.
In fact, the biggest complaint I have about some of the anti-drunk driving programs in place in many states is that they forbid teachers from discussing driving slow or other techniques of risk reduction, even if the students bring the issue up in class. They have to act like no such thing exists. If kids are going to have drive drunk, and we have not forbidden to learn about how to reduce their risk of injury or death, we have seriously failed them. "Don't drink and drive based" drivers ed is nothing more than an attempt to push the morals of one group onto everyone else, under the guise of protecting the children from the slim chance that they'll get injured or die (if whatever technique they use is used properly, which if we had taught them, it is highly likely that it would be).
No, I'd rather tell them don't put a gun to your head, even if it's not loaded or you think there is only one bullet. It's unwise and unsafe and you are likely to die.
Then why do wealthy people from those locations come to the US and choose to pay cash for access to our facilities?? If the local care or service is better why fly halfway around the world for a heart bypass?
And you ignore the fact that 1. Sadaam believed he had WMDs. 2. The UN believed that Sadaam had WMDs. 3. France believed that Sadaam had WMDs. 4. France, Germany, Russia and others objected to the invasion because they were getting cash kickbacks from the food for oil deal.
Where was the mistake? There was deception somewhere since 90% of the world's population believed he had Chemical and Biological weapons and the other 10% didn't care one way or the other.
Based on the evidence 18 months ago
1. Sadaam and the rest of the world believed there were WMDs
2. 11 years of him taking potshots and taunting us was long enough and one more try wasn't going to get him to roll over and play nice.
the right decision was to get it done. and we did we have and we are.
And as another poster pointed out, telling teens that a condom makes sex safe is like telling a teenager that they have a 4/5,5/6,7/8 chance of surviving a game of russian roulette.
Like putting a loaded gun to your head having sex outside a responsible, adult, committed relationship is dangerous and that should be what we are stressing, not "here have a condom go have safe sex".
No, it is very much an answer Just like the question Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
There are several appropriate responses to this question 1. A punch in the nose from your wife to the obnoxious being asking the question 2. I'm not going to answer that question. 3. WHAT!! I've never beaten my wife. 4. Huh?!?!?! I've never beaten my wife.
Notice that none of the responses answers the question.
Why limit civil Unions to only two adults.. IMO civil unions should be permitted to any 2 or more adults in any combination for inheritance or child raising purposes.
No, what he has said before and is saying again is that based on what I know now about what I knew then, I made the best decisions I was able based on what I knew then and if I had the same information in front of me today I would act in the same way.
IMO this is a man of integrity. NOW I do agree with the poster who pointed at Bush's wild youth as an example of a learning mistake, but the PR people wouldn't let him bring that up as it could cause problems... IMO it would be wise for him to address those years again in this campaign, but he addressed them rather thoroughly in 2000.
If you believe honestly that you made the best decision at the time, you have nothing to apologize for. If more people lived like this, the world would be a better place. Yes, if you acted wrongly based on the information available, apologize, but if you acted correctly don't second guess yourself. move on. Press forward. IF I see a person being assaulted and I step in and break it up and call the police to find out later that the person being assaulted instigated the affair, should I refrain from stopping the next guy I see from being beaten?? no... I did the right thing based on the intelligence available.
Perhaps they should show kids entering Jr high the slideshow I saw Upon entering basic training which graphically demonstrated the consequences of STDs. Suffice it to say that the pictures on Rotten.com have nothing on this. All of the pictures were of actual instances of various forms of VD and several were varietals that cannot be prevented by wearing "protection".
IN point of fact the ONLY way to be certain of avoiding STDs is to be abstinent and not in the clintonesque forms.
How much of his income did he manage to deduct into non-taxable status? Why don't you just post a link, and let us evaluate it for ourselves, since I don't want john kery sending me e-mail.
Slashdot Mirror
And the "generic" program I got in jr/sr High school didn't include abstinence
WHEN you go out and have sex, here are your methods of eliminating risk.
Abstinence ONLY programs aren't the way either, but an Abstinence BASED program focused on abstinence but addressing briefly and to the point, no need for 60 condom covered bananas, the other areas and issues is one way we can do better.
Divorce should be complicated. IMO divorce should be MUCH more complicated than we allow it to be today. Civil unions as a new area of law would allow for a much more effective "pre-nuptual" contractual arrangement.
Clauses could include nonseverability for anything other than violent crime until all offspring reach majority. Details can be worked later, getting action taken should be the first priority
Yes, when used by married adults in a laboratory setting condoms are 99% effective
However any studies on teenagers indicate 50-75% effectiveness. some have indicated effective levels as low as 30%.
I'm at work, or I would try to google for condom effectiveness teenagers, obviously not work safe, I'll try later at home for some of the CNN/FOX/Reuters articles I've seen over the last couple years.
Apparently being a horny teen impares both your choice to use and your ability to use effectively any form of contraception.
And perhaps because it is a system bought with money rather than financed by taxes that causes it to be the BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM in the world.
Anyone can buy into the system. And those who cannot afford to pay to buy in there are insurance programs and other ways to get service.
I understand, my good fortune. and mourn the societal changes allowing and occasionally encouraging irresponsibility.
Responsibility breeds responsibility and irresponsibility breeds greater irresponsibility.
So someone(formerly the village or grandparents or cousins, now the government) has to step in and take charge. I know that time cannot be turned back but I would rather a society where the taking charge(seizing responsibility) happened at a local or family level rather than a state or federal one.
Actually nothing works pretty well. As someone who married as/to a virgin at 25/25, I've never had an STD, never lost sleep over her being "late" and never had any of the other problems associated with teenage "safe" sex.
Except protectin doesn't prevent pregnancy or disease it "reduces the risk of pregnancy or disease".
SO instead of a 2 out of 3 chance of pregnancy or disease you have a 1 out of 12 or so chance. GREAT. vs Abstinence(the real kind not the clintonesque kind) you have a 0 out of 0 chance of pregnancy or disease. I like those odds. So sure, include contraception and barrier information, but use real numbers not blue sky laboratory numbers. Give them all the facts and make sure they understand all the risks. Then if they drive drunk, they know they have a good chance of dying and a condom is only going to reduce that, not eliminate it.
First, my apologies and sympathy for the perversion of Christianity that brought you where you are
I am a Christian, married at 25 as a virgin to a virgin aged 23 whose parents(mine) took the effort to explain the consequences(pregnancy, child support, oh and by the way disease) of pre-marital sexual activity. I knew how and where to find condoms and how to use them.
Allowing or requiring parents to abdicate any of their responsibilities for any part of educating their children from math to sex is one of the largest problems with the education system as it has evolved today.
And if you want to know what it is, it's hidden somewhere on my website, but it's simple and easy to explain, but I won't do it here Oh and go to my website.
A federal sales tax would also be reasonable and aproved under the constitution as part of "regulating interstate commerce". I like the idea.
In fact, the biggest complaint I have about some of the anti-drunk driving programs in place in many states is that they forbid teachers from discussing driving slow or other techniques of risk reduction, even if the students bring the issue up in class. They have to act like no such thing exists. If kids are going to have drive drunk, and we have not forbidden to learn about how to reduce their risk of injury or death, we have seriously failed them. "Don't drink and drive based" drivers ed is nothing more than an attempt to push the morals of one group onto everyone else, under the guise of protecting the children from the slim chance that they'll get injured or die (if whatever technique they use is used properly, which if we had taught them, it is highly likely that it would be).
Kid's are going to drive drunk, we should teach them how to drive more safely when drunk so we will demonstrate safe drunk driving procedures.
NO!!! we tell them DON"T DRIVE DRUNK IT"S STUPID AND DANGEROUS AND SOMEONE WILL EITHER GET HURT OR DEAD.
No, I'd rather tell them don't put a gun to your head, even if it's not loaded or you think there is only one bullet. It's unwise and unsafe and you are likely to die.
Then why do wealthy people from those locations come to the US and choose to pay cash for access to our facilities?? If the local care or service is better why fly halfway around the world for a heart bypass?
Where was the mistake? There was deception somewhere since 90% of the world's population believed he had Chemical and Biological weapons and the other 10% didn't care one way or the other.
Based on the evidence 18 months ago the right decision was to get it done. and we did we have and we are.
Here is what I wrote yesterday on the subject, slightly more drawn out.
And as another poster pointed out, telling teens that a condom makes sex safe is like telling a teenager that they have a 4/5,5/6,7/8 chance of surviving a game of russian roulette.
Like putting a loaded gun to your head having sex outside a responsible, adult, committed relationship is dangerous and that should be what we are stressing, not "here have a condom go have safe sex".
Here I agree with John Kerry, "we can do better".
Read Robert Heinlein --- The moon is a harsh mistress, Friday, and others.
No, it is very much an answer
Just like the question
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
There are several appropriate responses to this question
1. A punch in the nose from your wife to the obnoxious being asking the question
2. I'm not going to answer that question.
3. WHAT!! I've never beaten my wife.
4. Huh?!?!?! I've never beaten my wife.
Notice that none of the responses answers the question.
Why limit civil Unions to only two adults.. IMO civil unions should be permitted to any 2 or more adults in any combination for inheritance or child raising purposes.
No, what he has said before and is saying again is that based on what I know now about what I knew then, I made the best decisions I was able based on what I knew then and if I had the same information in front of me today I would act in the same way.
IMO this is a man of integrity. NOW I do agree with the poster who pointed at Bush's wild youth as an example of a learning mistake, but the PR people wouldn't let him bring that up as it could cause problems... IMO it would be wise for him to address those years again in this campaign, but he addressed them rather thoroughly in 2000.
If you believe honestly that you made the best decision at the time, you have nothing to apologize for. If more people lived like this, the world would be a better place. Yes, if you acted wrongly based on the information available, apologize, but if you acted correctly don't second guess yourself. move on. Press forward. IF I see a person being assaulted and I step in and break it up and call the police to find out later that the person being assaulted instigated the affair, should I refrain from stopping the next guy I see from being beaten?? no... I did the right thing based on the intelligence available.
Perhaps they should show kids entering Jr high the slideshow I saw Upon entering basic training which graphically demonstrated the consequences of STDs. Suffice it to say that the pictures on Rotten.com have nothing on this. All of the pictures were of actual instances of various forms of VD and several were varietals that cannot be prevented by wearing "protection".
IN point of fact the ONLY way to be certain of avoiding STDs is to be abstinent and not in the clintonesque forms.
How much of his income did he manage to deduct into non-taxable status? Why don't you just post a link, and let us evaluate it for ourselves, since I don't want john kery sending me e-mail.
Well, of the three, it was the only honest answer.
If you believe that France told you not to invade for any reason other than It would hurt them financially Then you are a fool. And possibly a troll.
IF you believe the book is closed on the existance of WMDs you are un-informed
ANd if you believe there were no links between the Baathists and Al Qaeda you need to read the 9/11 report.