I could agree to this.....

[rushmc 18]

...if all funding would be dropped for planned parenthood as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480605,00.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rasmack 0]

So, because abstinence programs don't work, people shouldn't talk about condoms? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

From the link:

Quote

... several major studies — including a federally funded review — have found no evidence that the abstinence-only approach works in deterring teen sex.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[rushmc 18]

Quote

So, because abstinence programs don't work, people shouldn't talk about condoms? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

From the link:

Quote

... several major studies — including a federally funded review — have found no evidence that the abstinence-only approach works in deterring teen sex.

No, because the gov should never take a side on an issue like this.

Fund both sides of the debate or fund neither.

On another note, and abortion works every time, right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,167]

The funding that Planned Parenthood gets only supports things like birth control. Any referrals that it does to abortion providers are not subsidized.
Or are you suggesting that all doctors that also provide abortions be removed from the Medicaid eligibility rolls?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The funding that Planned Parenthood gets only supports things like birth control. Any referrals that it does to abortion providers are not subsidized.
Or are you suggesting that all doctors that also provide abortions be removed from the Medicaid eligibility rolls?

Wendy W.

Hi Wendy

No, I am not speaking to medical procedures whether I agree this them or not.

Planned Parenthood is as much a political agenda driven org as anything in government. My point very simpley is, support all sides or support none.

If those (whom I would bet are great supporters of Planned Parenthood) want other orgs to loose funding who deal with similar issues and topics, then they too should loose funding

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,167]

No, it's not actually a political action organization. That would be the NARAL. However, it's been given the title of "political action org" by a lot of people on the right.

They do comment on things, like, for instance, the success (or lack thereof) of abstinence-only education. But that's in their role as an organization that interacts with contraception.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rasmack 0]

Quote

No, because the gov should never take a side on an issue like this.

Fund both sides of the debate or fund neither.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on that one. You cannot seriously mean that the government has to fund programs that don't work just to "not take sides". That's misuse of your money as a tax payer.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[rushmc 18]

Quote

No, it's not actually a political action organization. That would be the NARAL. However, it's been given the title of "political action org" by a lot of people on the right.

They do comment on things, like, for instance, the success (or lack thereof) of abstinence-only education. But that's in their role as an organization that interacts with contraception.



Wendy W.

And what is their role when an unwanted baby is on the way?

sorry Wendy, you and I will disagree here. I have my views, I do not want to push them on anybody. I also do not want the gov being involed in these choices or decisions anymore than you want me to be involved with them.

You can call this org techincally anything you want. It does not change what they are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

No, because the gov should never take a side on an issue like this.

Fund both sides of the debate or fund neither.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on that one. You cannot seriously mean that the government has to fund programs that don't work just to "not take sides". That's misuse of your money as a tax payer.

So, you think Planned Parenthood should be funded based on their actions and positions. You think abstinace training is wrong and does not work.

I disagree with you on both counts.

Why should your opinions and positions get funded while those you disagree with do not? You God? Your opinion or beliefs more important than anybody elses?

I only ask that it be equal. You want it one sided and your way.

Nice high road you are taking..........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,167]

Their role if an unwanted baby is on the is includes providing information to the mother. If she says she wants an abortion, they will refer her to a licensed physician who performs them. I don't believe they perform abortions themselves any more. Here is the statment on their page on abortion:

Quote

Abortion
Abortion is a safe and legal way for women to choose to end pregnancy. There are two kinds of abortion in the U.S. — in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill.
Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

If you are trying to decide if abortion is the right choice for you, you probably have many things to think about. Learning the facts about abortion may help you in making your decision. You may also want to learn more about parenting and adoption.

Only you can decide what is best for you. But we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss abortion and all of your options with you and help you find the services you need.

There is nothing in there advocating for abortion. Yes, it's safe. Really. Safer than pregnancy for the mother.

Don't let people demonize organizations. Do your own research and decide for yourself.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Their role if an unwanted baby is on the is includes providing information to the mother. If she says she wants an abortion, they will refer her to a licensed physician who performs them. I don't believe they perform abortions themselves any more. Here is the statment on their page on abortion:

Quote

Abortion
Abortion is a safe and legal way for women to choose to end pregnancy. There are two kinds of abortion in the U.S. — in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill.
Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.

If you are trying to decide if abortion is the right choice for you, you probably have many things to think about. Learning the facts about abortion may help you in making your decision. You may also want to learn more about parenting and adoption.

Only you can decide what is best for you. But we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss abortion and all of your options with you and help you find the services you need.

There is nothing in there advocating for abortion. Yes, it's safe. Really. Safer than pregnancy for the mother.

Don't let people demonize organizations. Do your own research and decide for yourself.

Wendy W.

Wendy, I have, and I am not demonizing the org. I know they do not advocate for abortion, but they do make it easy.

I know there are good people there. But if people do not want fed monies supporting opposing views or training then they too should expect ot have their funding called into question
Many want a society where people are not responsible for their own acts. This issues is just a part of it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rasmack 0]

You're turning this into a moral issue. I was looking at it as a medical issue. I have not been able to find any studies showing that abstinence programs work (i.e. delay first sex or prevent STDs/pregnancies). Consequently I would not support funding them.

Here is the British Medical Journal for you. I don't know enough of American politics to dig up an organization you might consider impartial.

From the abstract:

Quote

A robust systematic review finds no evidence that such programmes reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy

So, based on empirical evidence I cannot see any medical reasons for abstinence only programs. Does that make me an immoral bigot?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[airdvr 200]

Quote

I have not been able to find any studies showing that abstinence programs work (i.e. delay first sex or prevent STDs/pregnancies). Consequently I would not support funding them.

Using that line of thinking there are tons of programs funded with our tax dollars that aren't working. I can name a few...

War on Drugs
Great Society
EPA

That's just off the top of my head. If the benchmark for funding programs is their effectiveness we could save a ton of money

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 18]

Quote

You're turning this into a moral issue. I was looking at it as a medical issue. I have not been able to find any studies showing that abstinence programs work (i.e. delay first sex or prevent STDs/pregnancies). Consequently I would not support funding them.

Here is the British Medical Journal for you. I don't know enough of American politics to dig up an organization you might consider impartial.

From the abstract:

Quote

A robust systematic review finds no evidence that such programmes reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy

So, based on empirical evidence I cannot see any medical reasons for abstinence only programs. Does that make me an immoral bigot?

I am turning it into where money is spent, who's money is spent and why. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If being fair is a problem I dont know how a converstation can continue.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rasmack 0]

Quote

I am turning it into where money is spent, who's money is spent and why. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If being fair is a problem I dont know how a converstation can continue.

So, because you as a tax-paying citizen believe (in spite of evidence to the contrary) that these abstinence only programs work, it is a democratic problem that this belief is not reflected in financial support from the government?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[pirana 0]

Quote

So, you think Planned Parenthood should be funded based on their actions and positions. You think abstinace training is wrong and does not work.

I disagree with you on both counts.

What the hell is abstinence training? Somebody standing in front of a bunch of pre-teens and teens and saying "Don't have sex!"?

You think that works? HA! Guess all those pregnant teens must have missed the meeting. It is proven to be ineffective. That you think otherwise is irrelevant. That any taxpayer money gets dumped in such an ineffective program is just pure politically driven stupidity. Maybe if they keep saying "Don't have sex!" for a couple more generations, the kids will suddenly stop having sex? HA!

Guess what? Kids have been having sex since the beginning of time; and will continue to keep having sex. It is the nature of things. No amount of taxpayer money dumped on paying middle-aged stuffed suits and dewy-eyed teens that themselves made the mistake of getting pregnant is going to stop that.

Oh sure, now tell me about the entire syllabus, with all the charts and graphs and testimonies and elderly wisdom and yakity yakity yak. To the kids this is interpreted as "Don't have sex, yakity yak, blah blah, yada yada yada."

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

So, you think Planned Parenthood should be funded based on their actions and positions. You think abstinace training is wrong and does not work.

I disagree with you on both counts.

What the hell is abstinence training? Somebody standing in front of a bunch of pre-teens and teens and saying "Don't have sex!"?

You think that works? HA! Guess all those pregnant teens must have missed the meeting. It is proven to be ineffective. That you think otherwise is irrelevant. That any taxpayer money gets dumped in such an ineffective program is just pure politically driven stupidity. Maybe if they keep saying "Don't have sex!" for a couple more generations, the kids will suddenly stop having sex? HA!

Guess what? Kids have been having sex since the beginning of time; and will continue to keep having sex. It is the nature of things. No amount of taxpayer money dumped on paying middle-aged stuffed suits and dewy-eyed teens that themselves made the mistake of getting pregnant is going to stop that.

Oh sure, now tell me about the entire syllabus, with all the charts and graphs and testimonies and elderly wisdom and yakity yakity yak. To the kids this is interpreted as "Don't have sex, yakity yak, blah blah, yada yada yada."

You have too much emotion to talk with about this.

Have a nice day

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,167]

If the research exists showing that abstinence-only education is not as effective as a fuller approach, what is the justification for funding abstinence-only education?

I have no issue with parents who want their children to abstain. I don't even have any issue with parents who want their children kept in the dark about sex on the off chance that it means they won't experiment.

But I disagree with the government paying for that approach. We should be shining a light on things, not keeping them hidden. Human curiosity generally trumps any attempt to keep things secret.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

If the research exists showing that abstinence-only education is not as effective as a fuller approach, what is the justification for funding abstinence-only education?

I have no issue with parents who want their children to abstain. I don't even have any issue with parents who want their children kept in the dark about sex on the off chance that it means they won't experiment.

But I disagree with the government paying for that approach. We should be shining a light on things, not keeping them hidden. Human curiosity generally trumps any attempt to keep things secret.

Wendy W.

I disagree with the Gov paying for either aproach. that is my point. It is not their job. Expecially with my money

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

No, because the gov should never take a side on an issue like this.

It's education. The science and facts of both sides should be presented but not particularly advocated. The problem with abstinence only programs is they ONLY showed one side.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

It's education.

State issue. Fed should mind its own business.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

No, because the gov should never take a side on an issue like this.

It's education. The science and facts of both sides should be presented but not particularly advocated. The problem with abstinence only programs is they ONLY showed one side.

they are both more than that and I am confident you know as much.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

What the hell is abstinence training? Somebody standing in front of a bunch of pre-teens and teens and saying "Don't have sex!"?

This is really the job of parents, not the government.

We are all engines of karma

[sfc 0]

Quote

...if all funding would be dropped for planned parenthood as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480605,00.html

So throw the baby out with the bathwater? It is your way or no way.

Abstinence programs don't work, they are a waste of money.
Planned parenthood helps people who ask for it, they don't go shoving their message down anyone's throat. They deal with adoption, abortion, the pill, condoms and fertility treatment, they do everything related to reproduction, not just abortion.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

If the research exists showing that abstinence-only education is not as effective as a fuller approach, what is the justification for funding abstinence-only education?

I have no issue with parents who want their children to abstain. I don't even have any issue with parents who want their children kept in the dark about sex on the off chance that it means they won't experiment.

But I disagree with the government paying for that approach. We should be shining a light on things, not keeping them hidden. Human curiosity generally trumps any attempt to keep things secret.

Wendy W.

I disagree with the Gov paying for either aproach. that is my point. It is not their job. Expecially with my money

I have to agree with you, it is not the fed gov job to promote either side. I personally don't think the fed gov should spend any money on either side. this is a state or local issue. Just because little johny got little sussie to spread her legs and didn't take the time to buy a couple condums for a buck doesn't mean i should pay for the abortion or kid. make the parents of the minors pay the bills. Maybe then the parents just might take a little more interest in the activities of little johny and little sussie.