The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Why though? It's provably harmful to deny it, what gives parents the right to foist their beliefs on their children? That's religious tyranny.

Parental Authority.

[mad_gater]

allowing to access is at least as, if not more, "provably harmful" to the children since man-made birth control methods often have a nasty habit of not working as advertised and thus your precious child could wind up pregnant (which last time I checked wasn't a disease) or with an STD

which makes not doing the act at all your most fool-proof way of not having either of those 2 scenarios happen...and enrolling your children in martial arts too so that one day should the need arise they say "no" to someone who isn't inclined to take "no" for an answer

[Britta]

allowing to access is at least as, if not more, "provably harmful" to the children since man-made birth control methods often have a nasty habit of not working as advertised and thus your precious child could wind up pregnant (which last time I checked wasn't a disease) or with an STD

They work a lot more often than not, that's why abstinence only teachers have to resort to lies to sell their agenda. The truth is that teen pregnancy rates are higher in places that teach abstinence only. Your logic is predicated on the notion that if children can't have safe sex, they won't have sex at all. They do anyway, all safe sex obstruction does is increase the risks they face.

http://mic.com/articles/98886/the-st...hing-in-common

Parental Authority.

What, the right to a petty power trip at your child's expense? Parents don't magically know best all of the time.

[LtColCarter]

allowing to access is at least as, if not more, "provably harmful" to the children since man-made birth control methods often have a nasty habit of not working as advertised and thus your precious child could wind up pregnant (which last time I checked wasn't a disease) or with an STD

which makes not doing the act at all your most fool-proof way of not having either of those 2 scenarios happen...and enrolling your children in martial arts too so that one day should the need arise they say "no" to someone who isn't inclined to take "no" for an answer

While I partially agree with you...abstinence only programs don't work. I am not an advocate of birth control pills, but condoms are very effective in preventing both pregnancy and STDs. While they are not 100% effective, they are pretty darn effective.

Britta...Why is it harmful to deny birth control to teenagers? I agree, anyone would have to be stupid to think that teens aren't having sex, but most teens are not mature enough to make decisions about birth control that requires a doctor's prescription. I've been in the classroom for over 20 years...I know that most teens don't have the capacity to make such decisions.

[Annoyed]

What, the right to a petty power trip at your child's expense? Parents don't magically know best all of the time.

No, they don't. Kids don't come with an owner's manual, every parent has to work out what is best for themselves.
And there will be mistakes. Too bad.

Aside from obvious abuse situations, such as your example of withholding needed medical treatment for an injury, actual child abuse (And no, spanking is NOT child abuse), refusing to educate them (home schooling counts!) or that kind of thing, the parents authority should be absolute. No excuses, no BS.

[Britta]

Britta...Why is it harmful to deny birth control to teenagers? I agree, anyone would have to be stupid to think that teens aren't having sex, but most teens are not mature enough to make decisions about birth control that requires a doctor's prescription. I've been in the classroom for over 20 years...I know that most teens don't have the capacity to make such decisions.

If parents were basing their decisions on medical reasons I'd agree with you, but they're often basing them on pseudo-moralistic dogma. I suppose you can argue against hormonal birth control, there are potential (rare) side effects, but condoms should definitely be easily, and discreetly, available. They certainly shouldn't be lying about the efficacy of any kind of contraception, which is de riguer for the abstinence crowd.

No, they don't. Kids don't come with an owner's manual, every parent has to work out what is best for themselves.
And there will be mistakes. Too bad.

Aside from obvious abuse situations, such as your example of withholding needed medical treatment for an injury, actual child abuse (And no, spanking is NOT child abuse), refusing to educate them (home schooling counts!) or that kind of thing, the parents authority should be absolute. No excuses, no BS.

Parents get the benefit of the doubt, but the benefit ends where the doubt ends. When something is provably harmful, like teaching abstinence only, the parents don't get to claim that nobody knows better. As I said above there is wiggle room on hormonal birth control, so let's leave that out here and talk about condoms. When you teach that condoms are ineffective, the actual result isn't abstinence, it's unsafe sex. At what point do you call that conspiracy to inflict STDs/unwanted pregnancies on children to punish them for straying from your opinion of morality?

Or is it just that not preaching that something is evil is essentially the same as endorsing it? The "if you're not with us you're against us" logic.

[LtColCarter]

If parents were basing their decisions on medical reasons I'd agree with you, but they're often basing them on pseudo-moralistic dogma. I suppose you can argue against hormonal birth control, there are potential (rare) side effects, but condoms should definitely be easily, and discreetly, available. They certainly shouldn't be lying about the efficacy of any kind of contraception, which is de riguer for the abstinence crowd.

I agree...that condoms are a viable option. I was just saying that any method that requires a doctor to give a prescription or perform a procedure should require parental approval. Plus, I don't know many teens under 18 who would have the money to purchase an Rx or have a medical procedure done.

[Annoyed]

When something is provably harmful, like teaching abstinence only, the parents don't get to claim that nobody knows better.

Show me 1 documented case where successful practice of abstinence has resulted in either pregnancy or the transmission of an STD.
There are claims of 1 case of pregnancy roughly 2000 years ago, but the accuracy of that claim is a matter for debate.

Abstinence works perfectly, every time it's practiced correctly.

The claim that it won't work because kids will have sex anyway is bogus as well. A lot of people manage to grow to adulthood and beyond without having sex. How about all of the social outcasts that can't find a willing partner? Do we excuse them for forcing themselves upon someone because the kid has to get sex someplace?

[LtColCarter]

Show me 1 documented case where successful practice of abstinence has resulted in either pregnancy or the transmission of an STD.
There are claims of 1 case of pregnancy roughly 2000 years ago, but the accuracy of that claim is a matter for debate.

Abstinence works perfectly, every time it's practiced correctly.

The claim that it won't work because kids will have sex anyway is bogus as well. A lot of people manage to grow to adulthood and beyond without having sex. How about all of the social outcasts that can't find a willing partner? Do we excuse them for forcing themselves upon someone because the kid has to get sex someplace?

The Truth About Abstinence-Only Programs

Does Abstinence-Only Education Work?

Teen Pregnancies Highest In States With Abstinence-Only Policies

[Britta]

Teen pregnancy statistics speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how well abstinence works when actually done, if people don't actually do it. Sure some won't have sex, but too many do to just ignore.

[Annoyed]

It is interesting to note that while unplanned pregnancies among young women have always happened from time to time, it didn't come anywhere near the epidemic levels we see today until the "sexual revolution" of the 70's started the "anything goes with no responsibility attached" attitudes that are so common today.

[mad_gater]

It is interesting to note that while unplanned pregnancies among young women have always happened from time to time, it didn't come anywhere near the epidemic levels we see today until the "sexual revolution" of the 70's started the "anything goes with no responsibility attached" attitudes that are so common today.

Actually I think it began even sooner than that...in the 60's even I think...but yeah you're right

[Falcon Horus]

Before I dive into the quoting and replying, I would like to share the 30,000th Last Post resounding underneath the Menin Gate in Ypres.

We shall remember them.

................................................................................ .......................................

So IYO, a parent is not responsible for their kid, other than financially.

MONEY!! It's the most important thing growing up... no?

So even if a kid is witnessed say shooting someone, its "not his fault as he is just a kid"?

First degree murder will get you sentenced to jail. Or over here, locked away in a closed institution for rehabilitation, and at the age of 18 send to grown-up jail or released under supervision.

Do you honestly think that will stop Obama from giving our tax dollars to Greece if it suited him to do so?

He better think twice about that. Angela Merkel will tell him to stick it in something more trustworthy.

If legally they can be held accountable as adults for crimes committed, then why are they seen as NOT adults for other things? Why is there that double standard? THAT is what i am trying to get to the root of.

Because there's difference between stealing and killing.

None of those are US places, therefore fall under the Scotus decision.

But they're still islands where it's quite possible lives a baker that doesn't want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Yup. I fall short of requiring some sort of intelligence test to vote, like there supposedly used to be back in the day.

We have many different parties, with many different programs that I'm usually forgetting about half of it when elections are happening. Or I think I remember who I was gonna vote for and then totally forget and vote for someone else on the list.

I usually have a tendency to vote for women.

Though sadly, last time also voted for the losing side, and everyone voting for the winning side all of a sudden has that wait, that's not what I voted for-thing going on. *face!palm*

Since our inception, when has religious belief NOT been an issue in regards to someone running. Has not every president we have ever had, shown (or at least said) they are Christian/Catholic?

Don't they swear on the bible? When Presidents are inaugurated? Or am I remembering that wrong? Was it the court thing "So help me God" - that was dropped...

Well, it does help (a little) to be a good Catholic, considering the vast amount of church goers in the US.

Also isn't part of the reason Mitt Romney didn't get a lot more votes, is cause a lot of people did not want a Mormon in office?

Does he have more wives than he can count? Would have been funny then?

Mister President Mitt Romney and his wive .... s.

That is why personally i would LOVE to see an Agnostic run.

I say, go ahead.

Or as my dad used to say, "If you don't vote, don't gripe about what the government does!".

Way to go, Dad!

From what i understand, its Not mandatory here..
YET.

Should it be? Or would you want it to be?

Although I would make the requirement be "self supporting through employment in either the private sector, military, police, fire, etc. or LEGITIMATELY retired from such due to age or genuine disability". The basic idea being that if you are riding on the cart, rather than helping to pull it, you have no say where it goes. Only the people pulling it should have a say in its direction.

Wouldn't be much of a democracy, I think... could raise a few eyebrows here or there.

Who are these people serving?

That's an easy answer: THEMSELVES!!

which makes not doing the act at all your most fool-proof way of not having either of those 2 scenarios happen...and enrolling your children in martial arts too so that one day should the need arise they say "no" to someone who isn't inclined to take "no" for an answer

Please tell me you were young once, young and wild, and free...
Or, you know, experimented a little here and there. Did some stupid things that could have gone horribly wrong?

the parents authority should be absolute. No excuses, no BS.

I have a question for you then:

In Belgium, there's no minimum age to asking for euthenasia when terminally ill, which means that children can ask for it. A 4-year old will most likely not ask for it, but a 6-year old might.

How far then goes the authority of your parents? Do you want them to say "No, we forbid you to even think about it. We don't want you to die this way." or "We will decide what will happen to you?"?

A child seeking for a dignified ending, can be given just that. And while it has to go through a very thorough procedure, it's the child's choice to make, and not the parents.

[mad_gater]

sure I was young...but I was also taught common sense when I was young too...I wasn't stupid enough to put my trust in man-made pills and condoms when simply not engaging in the act was far more foolproof

IMO common sense should be taught when children are young as that's when the neural pathways are forming and strengthening and thus that's when such teachings are likely to stick into their long-term memory long after they reach adulthood

[Womble]

Show me 1 documented case where successful practice of abstinence has resulted in either pregnancy or the transmission of an STD.

I see that and raise you this: show me 1 documented case where abstinence was successfully practiced on a large scale (as in not by individuals but by a society) without being enforced by a horrific coercive apparatus.

P.S. Our Annoyed friend was on to something with Greece, apparently. Hillary Clinton's economic advisor is calling for the US to bail Greece out:

The U.S. was generous with Germany as we defeated it. Now, it is time for the U.S. to be generous with our friends in Greece in their time of need, as they have been crushed for the second time in a century by Germany, this time with the support of the troika. At a technical level, the Federal Reserve needs to create a swap line with Greece’s central bank, which—as a result of the default of the ECB in fulfilling its responsibilities—will have to take on once again the role of lender of last resort. Greece needs unconditional humanitarian aid; it needs Americans to buy its products, take vacations there, and show a solidarity with Greece and a humanity that its European partners were not able to display.