Thats sad. And even sadder is the cycle. The children of those kids are the ones who will suffer the most. Thats all I can say without going off.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
I hope none of your daughters go to this school!
- Thread starter satan_srv
- Start date
Thats sad. And even sadder is the cycle. The children of those kids are the ones who will suffer the most. Thats all I can say without going off.
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
liftshard said:
Its sad to say, but I did a report on this in my women's studies course a few years back. Significantly more than half of teenage pregnancies are African American/Hispanic women, with African Americans making up the larger part.
SilverStone05 said:
Of course, I already knew the answer when I asked the question.
And, no, poverty doesn't cause an increase in teen birth rate. Having the type of bad judgment and low intelligence that makes one poor leads to doing a lousy job as a parent and passing on bad judgment to your children, some of whom end up pregnant.
Sexual maturation rates, which vary among the races, also have much to do with the rates of "young" pregnancies.
ojas said:
Oh, I do realize this? How do I realize it? Can you make an offer of proof as to your assertion? Blacks have higher illegitimacy and violence rates than asians all across the economic spectrum.
The legitimization and enouragement of promiscuity. What IS the so-called "complicated reality" that causes things, huh? There has been a destigmatization across the board of teenage pregnancy, teenage sex, parentless households, etc. Who do you SUPPOSE have been the chief advocates of social policies intended to encourage such behavior? The Sexual Revolution was not a mom&pop phenomenon, nor are the fashion or entertainment industries populated by Sam Waltons. Popular culture is now incredibly crass, and it encourages self-destructive behavior. Single momhood is a notion embraced by the feminist lobby and advocated. The elimination of fathers or the reduction of their role to that of payors of child support has been their chief thrust for the better part of 3 decades. As far as promiscuity goes, the gay lobby wants everyone to have sex like they do, which means roughly 70 different partners per year. And, get a tattoo, piercings, and a bunch of other "counter culture" San Francisco stuff while you're at it. If you go to church, you're a wacko. Hate isn't a family value, is it? But wanton sex sure is.
Nobody likes condoms. It's just a fact. Teens know, bud. Every public school in the nation, including the one referenced in this thread, has a graphic sex-ed course which advocates use of birth control, and they put a condom on a banana. I think I recall that day in my middle school like 20 years ago. And this was in a conservative small town. Everyone knows about condoms. Those who say they don't are LYING. And, people lie on surveys ALL the time.
As for promiscuity not being a cause of teen pregnancy...puhleaze. It is THE cause. Because, in case you forgot, you cannot get pregnant without having sex! Those who have MORE sex and MORE partners are MORE likely to get a disease and/or pregnant! Anyone who even got a D- in statistics could do this correlation for you. And, just in case you didn't realize it, the pregnancy is not causing the promiscuity, it's the other way around.
And, on the other topic, behavior is largely genetic. It's how baby gazelles know how to get up and run 10 minutes after being born. We call genetic behavior "instinct" in animals. Our hereditable "instincts" are obviously far more complex and susceptible to extrinsic influences, but there are LEGION separated identical twin pair studies which establish that genetics are the stronger factor between nature and nurture.
People are the way they are because of their genes. Those groups of people with "better" cultures have, on average, better genetics. As a little nugget, poverty DOES NOT cause crime. Crime causes poverty. Violent crime doesn't pay in the long-term, and those with criminal genes are not only more likely to be dumber than average (well-established studies), uglier than average (again), but because of these, poorer than average.
Those teen girls who GET pregnant tend to end up poor. This causal link is inarguable. Those who cannot see trends properly keep forgetting that it is PEOPLE and their BEHAVIORS which lead to the circumstances which occasion them. Teen moms have a demonstrated propensity to bad judgment. This genetic tendency is passed on to their children, along with the crappy environment that people with bad judgment create.
People create culture, not the other way around.
I was wrong. I made a invalid assuption, based on the fact that you live in a large metropolitan area in the year 2005, not rural Mississippi in 1905. My mistake.liftshard said:
liftshard said:
Instead of spitting out these deceptive statements and pussyfooting around, why don't you just come out and clearly state what you are suggesting? Please offer your insights as why you think this is the case.
Actually, it's not that complicated, but it's not as simplistic as xenophobically blaming those who are unlike yourself. What I was getting at is that rather than externalizing a problem (as you have done), one should accept that, regardless of what goes on outside the home, by being the one who raises a child, responsible ultimately falls upon the parents.liftshard said:
You previously made the absurd claim that "This situation is the brainchild of the feminist movement and the gay lobby". A "brainchild" is an original scheme designed to accomplish a specific objective. Since the scheme is intentional in nature, you are claiming all those girls who like girls, all those guys who like guys, and all those girls who like to be treated as equals made increasing teen preganancy an objective of theirs.
This is laughable. Out of all the things these groups stand for, you are assuming a particular position was engineered to promote teens having sex.liftshard said:
There is no difference between your acceptance of these false relations and one that a conspiracy theorist would make. In either case an almost trivial position is picked out and twisted to appear in support of a larger agenda.
If it's a fact, it's something that can be proven. So, rather than just saying the same thing over again, prove me wrong. I would like to see something - anything - that proves that the dislike of condoms is the primary reason why teens don't use them. Not your bud, either.liftshard said:
Wrong and wrong. From this article: "Although more than 90% of school systems in the U.S. teach some form of sexual education, approximately one-third teach nothing about birth control or contraception and require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people."liftshard said:
What incentive do they have to lie? Incredibly weak argument - one can refute the outcome of anything by claiming that the participants are lying. Once again, you have provided zero proof. Of course, it is impossible to ensure a survey is 100% accurate, but it takes more than claiming "people lie on surveys ALL the time" to discredit the conculsion when nearly every survey shows the same results.liftshard said:
Once again, you write alot, but fail to provide any proof. Maybe this is because the facts don't support your claims. From these statistics about pregancy in industrialized countries:liftshard said:
Sexually active teenage population:
<pre>Norway 66%
United States 65
United Kingdom 57
Germany 56
Canada 53
Italy 34
France 34</pre>
Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:
<pre>United States 98.0
United Kingdom 46.6
Norway 40.2
Canada 38.6
Finland 32.1
Sweden 28.3
Denmark 27.9
Netherlands 12.1
Japan 10.5</pre>
Yes, I am aware of this. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make - I never claimed otherwise.liftshard said:
Please re-read what I said and quit trying to make your point by putting words into my mouth and questioning my statistic interpretation skillz.liftshard said:
Yes, I know.liftshard said:
Just in case you didn't know, condoms in schools does not lead to promiscuity. Neither does pills.
No, not it's a root cause, as I already stated.liftshard said:
Wrong. You are making a number of huge, invalid association here. There is no "dressing up like a hoochie" gene anymore than there is a "NSX" gene. Traits such as how one act, how one dresses, and what car one drives are almost exclusively determined by environmental factors. As matteni articulated so well, kids emulate what they observe. Here's an excerpt from Where Do Kids Learn About Sex?: "More teens, 38%, pointed to their parents as the biggest influence on their sexual behavior -- more than friends, the media, educators, siblings, or religious organizations.liftshard said:
If genetics determine who a person is to the level you claim, I consider myself beyond fortunate for not having the ones that predispose me to being a bitter, fearful, and arrogant know-it-all.
Ojas said:
Yes. In 2005, we have reams of statistical data that we did not have in 1905. Sadly, some choose to ignore it.
It's hard to do that when you provide me no context.
Xenophobically?!? You are demagoguing here. That is a sure sign of defeat in an argument. You'll next scream bigot, hater, and racist. C'mon, get it all out and then we can talk like rational people.
Equality as an end is a GROSS misdescription of what feminism morphed into. I'm as ardent a feminist as anybody. I believe in arming women, letting them vote and read and all of that. But, bra burning isn't feminism, it's militancy.
The reason EVERYBODY doesn't use condoms is the same. They don't like them. The SIMPLEST explanation is the truth here.
Do you ASSUME that children are freaking STUPID? Like, that, if they do not have a condom shoved in their face at a school that they do not know what it is? This is like an argument I had about that Japanese kid who was shot down south by mistake and the other person said "well, they don't have legal guns in japan so he probably didn't know what one looked like." How utterly absurd. Like, people live in caves? They have Trojan COMMERCIALS buddy. The ads LITTER the porno mags that teenage boys like to get ahold of. Give me a BREAK.
Does WHO have to lie?!?! I have claimed no lies here. I claim ERROR, on your part and the part of whoever was attempting to get YOU to infer that kids don't know about condoms. Like they're from another planet or something or were born yesterday.
You don't even have a survey. You have one piece of data cribbed from "webmd," wherever that is. And, the piece of data says NOTHING about what teens actually KNOW. It is therefore IRRELEVANT.
about pregancy in industrialized countries...
I have to call total foul here. This is INEXCUSIBLE. You cited only industrialized countries. Cite the ones with similiar ethnic makeups as the United States, please. You have noted that my previous thesis is that rates differ widely for different ethnic or racial groups. Here, you cite a bunch of lily white countries. Are you some kind of racist?
Stunningly, the asian country came in last. And the nation with the highest black and hispanic population came in first. Whoa, what a STUNNING revelation. But, again, you cite european, white countries as if they're the only ones on earth. How xenophobic of you.
If you can FIND the point at which I CLAIMED that condoms in schools promoted promiscuity, you have won a point. Please try to address what I SAY instead of non sequiturs that YOU would like to argue. You took issue with my correct statement that pregnancy rates VARY among the races. The United States is where it is on both of those lists BECAUSE the people in this country who are typically pregnant are NOT of the same ethnic background as those in freaking NORWAY. But, the whole world's white to you, ain't it?
What kids claim and what is correct may be two different things. They are correct in this point, though. Their parents ARE their biggest influence, even if they are not RAISED BY THEM. There are MILLIONS of studies of IQ, criminality, social problem rates, and whatnot, among babies adopted into families of other races. The MAJORITY contribution is genetic. Black children adopted into high-income jewish or asian families show higher than baseline rates of ALL of these negative social factors, and lower IQs than peer cases. Genetics determine MOST of what we are and become.
As do I. I am neither bitter nor fearful. I merely state facts. Stop reading Gould, if you ever have or even know who the guy is. Also, Diamond's thesis is utterly incorrect. There are a lot of well-meaning apologists whose work is going to be crushed under the juggernaut of genetic research. I can direct you to point-by-point refutations of works such as "the Mismeasure of Man" by S.J. Gould, a leading "nurture" apologist.
Do you have children? I ask, because children will demonstrate physical behaviors and tendencies of their parents which they COULD NOT have seen and were never shown. Your judgment, anger tendency, level of violence, intelligence, looks, body structure, etc., are pretty much ALL inherited. They can be swayed but you cannot truly "escape" biology.
To suggest otherwise is to deny the correctness of Evolutionary Law.
I think part of the high teenage pregnancy rates is cultural acceptance of it. If you look back 50 years, to be a teenage mother was to disgrace your family. Nowadays, there are support groups, social programs, schools with daycares, etc..... so what is the message to teenagers here? It may seem cruel at the surface for society to make those single moms outcasts and force them to retreat to their families for their only source of support, but it would change the attitudes of teenagers. That's the only way that this cycle can be broken. To advocate safe sex is unfortunately to condone it, which means more sexually active teenagers and a greater number (regardless of the percentage) that fail to practice safe sex and thus become pregnant, which is what we're supposed to be avoiding in the first place.
matteni said:
Nicely Said! I worked with one young lady and she told me she became promiscuous at around age Seven!! I asked her to tell me more. She told me that her father was always ogling other women (he's still married to the mom) and frequently looked at Playboy and other "exploitive female adult" material. She told me that she felt her mother was beautiful, but to get her father's attention, she "thought" she needed to become a sexual object (that which he often lusted and ogled after). So confusing, and very sad. Our actions are WAY Greater than we imagine. :frown:
Similar threads
