December 2, 200421 yr President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. You would think at a time of war we could be spending nearly $1 billion on something more productive than apparently bogus abstience programs.
December 2, 200421 yr Abstinence only programs are wrong, yes, but so are you guys on this board. You don't seem to be taking a very logical and nonpartisan approach!
December 2, 200421 yr Abstinence only programs are wrong, yes, but so are you guys on this board. You don't seem to be taking a very logical and nonpartisan approach! 624903[/snapback] Did you read the article? If you did you are okay with programs that teach the following: A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person." ? HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears. ? Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse. None of which are backed up by science. Or maybe you like this: One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said. I think when that is being taught to kids that is enough said, how is that stuff logical. Some people on these boards think violent video games are harmful to kids, but they know between right and wrong. Kids don't know about sex, a lot of parents leave it to the schools and if this is what kids are being taught, that is harmful. Basically scaring your kids of sex. Sex and masturbation which has been shown to be good for your health. :mischief Is Bush trying to keep kids from being healthy by scaring them not to have sex? :lol
December 2, 200421 yr I tell you what, no matter how much money they pour into an abstinence program, it ain't going to work. I think personally that learning about safe sex is a much more worthy emphasis. But that's what seperates me from President Bush just a bit.
December 2, 200421 yr Author President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. You would think at a time of war we could be spending nearly $1 billion on something more productive than apparently bogus abstience programs. 624901[/snapback] Nah...I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.
December 2, 200421 yr Awesome. Hopefully they'll have something like, "AIDS is gay cancer" or "Interracial relations result in children that hate themselves and are rejected socially". :plain
December 2, 200421 yr "Interracial relations result in children that hate themselves and are rejected socially". I wouldnt be surprised in the least.
December 2, 200421 yr "Interracial relations result in children that hate themselves and are rejected socially". I wouldnt be surprised in the least. 624927[/snapback] What about the poor kids that are children of interracial, homosexual relationships? Why are my mommies two different colors?
December 2, 200421 yr "Interracial relations result in children that hate themselves and are rejected socially". I wouldnt be surprised in the least. 624927[/snapback] What about the poor kids that are children of interracial, homosexual relationships? Why are my mommies two different colors? 624931[/snapback] :lol :lol :lol
December 2, 200421 yr Author Complete waste of money. Everyone knows kids get their sex-ed from : HUSTLER :lol 624948[/snapback] So true. Or Playboy.
December 2, 200421 yr abstinence could work, should be taught, but should not be financed by the federal government.
December 2, 200421 yr This part is especially juicy and shows misogyny (sp?) alive and well in the conservative movement. Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess." I think they left out the part where the dragon killed the prince who wouldn't ask for directions and the princess hopped on her horse, killed the dragon, saved the maiden, introduced her to extreme lesbian sex, and they lived happily ever after off of the dragon's horde. Damn, I wish I wrote that. Hilarity.
December 2, 200421 yr Also, this hum-dinger.... and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," hahaha. Honestly, I'm happy when people believe this stuff because it's less competition for me. Using tax dollars to fund it I do not condone though.
December 3, 200421 yr One could make the case that conception has a small chance of occuring by handling genitals. Use your imagination.
December 3, 200421 yr One could make the case that conception has a small chance of occuring by handling genitals. Use your imagination. 625457[/snapback] Youre joking right?
December 3, 200421 yr It's a possiblity I suppose (that pregnancy could occur by transferring semen by hand into the female anatomy, which, when you think of it, is fairly easy to absent mindedly do). Guess I should call Dr. Drew.
December 3, 200421 yr Author One could make the case that conception has a small chance of occuring by handling genitals. Use your imagination. 625457[/snapback] I think the chance is about 1 in a million.
December 3, 200421 yr Abstinence only programs are wrong, yes, but so are you guys on this board.? You don't seem to be taking a very logical and nonpartisan approach! 624903[/snapback] Did you read the article? If you did you are okay with programs that teach the following: A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person." ? HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears. ? Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse. None of which are backed up by science. Or maybe you like this: One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said. I think when that is being taught to kids that is enough said, how is that stuff logical. Some people on these boards think violent video games are harmful to kids, but they know between right and wrong. Kids don't know about sex, a lot of parents leave it to the schools and if this is what kids are being taught, that is harmful. Basically scaring your kids of sex. Sex and masturbation which has been shown to be good for your health. :mischief Is Bush trying to keep kids from being healthy by scaring them not to have sex? :lol 624908[/snapback] Federal funding spent on any thing like this is bad. Period. however, lets talk about the content of what is being taught. I personally do not believe schools should teach children anything about sex aside from the anatomy and the consequences. For example, know that sex although pleasureable can result in pregnancy and STDs. So schools should teach kids about how to avoid those problems, which includes contraception, birth control, AND abstinence. And i will continue to say that IMO, which is in no way a professional opinion, violence is worse than sex for children
December 3, 200421 yr Bottom line if schools are going to teach something, they have to teach it all and teach it truthfully none of this "if you hold a penis you might get pregnant" stuff. And i will continue to say that IMO, which is in no way a professional opinion, violence is worse than sex for children 626083[/snapback] :blink: So you would expose a kid a porno before Medal of Honor or Dynasty Warriors?
December 3, 200421 yr Bottom line if schools are going to teach something, they have to teach it all and teach it truthfully none of this "if you hold a penis you might get pregnant" stuff. And i will continue to say that IMO, which is in no way a professional opinion, violence is worse than sex for children 626083[/snapback] :blink: So you would expose a kid a porno before Medal of Honor or Dynasty Warriors? 626086[/snapback] Degrees of violence and age of the child come into question. I rather have my 13 year old watching playboy than playing a video game like GTA
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.