Nov 21, 2009 -- 12:39PM, mountain_man wrote:

Nov 21, 2009 -- 12:07PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Well, an awful lot of screaming is going on out there about the government limiting access to health care.....

Those are conservatives spreading lies. Nobody in the congress - except Republicans - have put forth any proposal that limits access to health care.

When you use the normal way of using the quote system, I'll reply to the rest. And when you do, remember that this thread is about Republicans wanting to fund a program that is ineffective, harmful and will cause more abortions. The topic is abortion, not health insurance reform.

well in that case, never mind.

Where is the evidence that abstinence is ineffective?

Nov 23, 2009 -- 12:29AM, Vistronic wrote:

Where is the evidence that abstinence is ineffective?

What a bizarre question. No one has ever said that abstinence is "ineffective." It takes just a teeny bit of thinking, and I know I expect too much, to understand that the topic is that the abstinance PROGRAM they want taught has proven to be ineffective. In several places they taught that PROGRAM the teen birthrate went up. The studies on all over the place on the web, just take a few minutes and learn.

Nov 20, 2009 -- 10:14PM, mountain_man wrote:

I just heard that a program that has been proven beyond a doubt to be ineffective and at times harmful - abstinence only - has been given some money by an addition to the health insurance support bill now going through Congress. Instead of trying to curb abortions they are actually causing more. They just don't get it.

I would agree that abstinence-only education is ineffective; however, I have absolutely no problem with an abstinence-based sex ed. (a.k.a. abstinence-plus) curriculum.

My son and his soon to be wife didn't even kiss on the lips their first year as a couple--something I wouldn't have been able to manage,I'll  admit. Her reasoning was that it was easier to not risk getting too turned on than try to calm down when they were. She told him from the start she was going to be a virgin on her wedding day--less than a month from now.

However, she's already started taking preventative measures from  getting pregnant, too.

so there's your conservative day-dream,right up to the point where she's smart enough to be sure her b/c pills will be in force before the honeymoondom. she doesn't  share my views on abortion, but we both agree the best way to avoid them is to control your own fertility.

I keep waiting for the day when the rules for Congress include NOT identifying where someone is from or which party they represent, since supposedly they will be voting for the good of the entire country and not their own little fief back home. If his constituents don't know who he is, that's their fault. I know better, but it's how it should work. All contributions from lobbyists can be used to reduce the national debt or to fund other programs that have no connection with what the lobbyists wanted. they can still brag about their generousity, right?

Their are too many kids who still think you can't get pregnant on the first time, that taking a few of Mom's BC pills will protect them...and that having contraceptives on hand takes away the romance and makes sex "planned". Diapers aren't that romantic, either but that kind of thinking may bring mountains of them into your lives.

think of all the reality shows that will be out of business once they stop paying for DNA tests!

We need to teach our children how to protect their bodies and their hearts. Breaking up with someone who said they loved you is painful enough without wondering if the other person is going to exploit the whole thing on-line.  Or on the above-mentioned reality shows where in admittedly too few cases the girl has only had sex with one man and is still branded a "ho" because the guy assumes if she'd sleep with him she'd sleep with anyone. All of it preventable with birth control and knowing how and when to use it.

As for Congress--if they really want us to pay attention, I'd like them hooked up to lie detectors with the results being shown above their heads during debates. it would certainly make more people watch them and might even get us better elected officials. (I'm told wanting it rigged to give a mild electric shock when someone lies falls under the "cruel and unusual" and I'm being mean. I still think it would ensure great ratings and a chance for us to get to know our candidates for office better....)