McCain fought money on teen pregnancy programs

2»

Comments

  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    The only people who use birth control are white people, which is why they have a birthrate of 1.88 in America.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    anotherclone wrote:
    I'm not sure if you're asking me.



    what do you think is more expensive?

    Teaching kids how to use a condom?

    Or putting an uninsurred child mother and her baby through the medical system and/or welfare system?

    I honestly do not know which is more expensive. I know for a fact that if there is such a program, then it will cost money. What I do not know is how the effectiveness of the program is measured. If the program isn't effective and I vote against it, someone could say I was voting against sex education, but in reality I may have been voting FOR something more effective.

    That's why you can't just take everything at face value and you need to think about what isn't being said as much as what is.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    cincybearcat wrote:
    While I would entertain forced sterlizations, it seems wrong...or does it?

    What I suggest is that if one is unable to support their children and continue to make poor decisions that put their children's welfare at risk, that those children are taken away from their unfit parent. Radical huh?


    i don't see how that would save taxpayers any money, nor am i too sure how 'beneficial' it would be for the child(ren).....but since we were discussing $$$...i don't see the savings, but so be it.


    as i said, i do agree it IS a serious problem, but i really don't see any good solutions either.


    i WOULD really like to see the full embrace of BC at all socioeconomic levels, i think THAT would make a world of difference.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • catch22
    catch22 Posts: 1,081
    cincybearcat wrote:
    While I would entertain forced sterlizations, it seems wrong...or does it?

    What I suggest is that if one is unable to support their children and continue to make poor decisions that put their children's welfare at risk, that those children are taken away from their unfit parent. Radical huh?

    and given to who? have you worked in the foster care system? i have. it's not a solution to these problems.

    forced sterilization is something china does and the nazis supported. that said, i'd entertain it too. too many morons polluting the gene pool.
    and like that... he's gone.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    know1 wrote:
    I honestly do not know which is more expensive. I know for a fact that if there is such a program, then it will cost money. What I do not know is how the effectiveness of the program is measured. If the program isn't effective and I vote against it, someone could say I was voting against sex education, but in reality I may have been voting FOR something more effective.

    That's why you can't just take everything at face value and you need to think about what isn't being said as much as what is.

    I'm pretty damn sure a couple of hours of instruction cost much less than a lifetime of healthcare and welfare, but I don't have any data on that.

    We wouldn't need to come up with any more money for comprehensive sex ed, though, because there are already millions going toward ineffective abstinence-only sex ed programs. All we have to do is reappropriate this money.

    Here are a couple of big-time studies on the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex ed programs:

    The Mathematica Study (summary):
    http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp

    The Waxman Report:
    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

Categories