Here is a shocker-- Study shows that Abstinence education doesn't work

[Autumnleaf]

You do realize that welfare is temporary, and that the stipend is very small and it would be impossible to pamper anyone on it, right? That the idea of the "welfare queen" is nothing more than a malicious lie? That welfare is a tiny portion of the governmet budget and the "lazy poor" aren't crippling us hard working real Americans?

What makes you think welfare is temporary? Do you really think all these single mothers are going to get high paying jobs which get them off of ADC, food stamps, and them and their kids off of Medicaid?

 

[Dworkin]

What you are making is an excellent argument to have an abortion. If a pregnant young girl has to decide between living on the streets without help to raise an unexpected young child, or to have an abortion. Me thinks it would be an easy choice.

 

[NeTrips]

What you are making is an excellent argument to have an abortion. If a pregnant young girl has to decide between living on the streets without help to raise an unexpected young child, or to have an abortion. Me thinks it would be an easy choice.

or adoption....

 

[bammertheblue]

I just want to go on the record saying that yes, I am fine with the tiny tiny amount of my taxes that goes to give a 16 year old single mother her food stamps so she can feed herself and her baby. Same with the amount that goes for the schools, even though I have no children and want no children. Same with the amount that goes for the highways and roads, even though I don't drive. Even the military, although I'm not crazy about it and think we could better spend part of the money elsewhere-- I'm okay with my taxes going for that too, because when push comes to shove, they are the ones who try to keep me safe.
That's part of being an American. That's how it works in a civilized country. Sometimes you have to pay a few cents for things you don't use. Who knows. You might need them in the future.

 

[RecentConvert]

WASHINGTON -- Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.

So, wait a minute... Are you saying that people who are trying to have sex get no more sex than people who are trying to avoid it?! That explains a lot...

 

[RecentConvert]

Unless the "pro lifers" are prepared to provide young mothers with a viable alternatives to encourage full term pregnancies they have lost all credibility.

It takes two...

And there is a viable alternative. It's called don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant. (That goes double for men too. Unfortunately, they seem to abrogate their responsibilities on a regular basis.)

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I think there's a deep misunderstanding, here.

Non-"abstinence only" education is not "no abstinence" education. You teach them everything, including abstinence and its benefits. Hopefully, they'll chose the responsible choice. If not, at least they won't necessarily choose the least responsible choice...

 

[quantumspirit]

Teens should be taught about abstinece and birth control, not one or the other. Texas has abstinence only, and also the highest rate of teenage pregnancy.

 

[RecentConvert]

Just some flaws in your explanation

People need food to live. We give murderers food while they are in prison. People who have brutally killed and maimed children are still fed. Yet we cannot do the same for someone who had too many children to support? Are you serious?

I don't support pampering people with no jobs, but allowing them a stipend to feed themselves I don't really see as wrong.

I don't support feeding murderers and people who main children. I support killing them quickly once they are convicted.

A stipend to live is okay for a time for some but a form of slavery for others. Its the difference between teaching a man to fish or giving him 3 hots and a cot for the rest of his life. One is empowering, the other is disempowering.

What about the sanctity of life? Do you honestly think Jesus would approve of us executing these people?

Since you seem so concerned about where your dollar is going, what about the fact that it's cheaper to imprison a man for life than it is to execute him? Shouldn't that be reason enough to abolish capital punishement?

 

[Kremlin Fried Chicken]

It's 176 million bucks. Does the federal government even notice?

 

[The Nihilist]

Guys! This is NOT what a shocker is!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What makes you think welfare is temporary? Do you really think all these single mothers are going to get high paying jobs which get them off of ADC, food stamps, and them and their kids off of Medicaid?

All WHAT single mothers? What sort of percentages are we talking here?

And hey... even if there IS a small minority who want nothing more than to live of the tiny pitance of welfare that the government gives them... So what?

I mean really, Compare the cost of stopping your so called "welfare mothers" and their families from starving to death in the cold, to other government spending... What would you rather see the money used for?

 

[Autumnleaf]

What about the sanctity of life? Do you honestly think Jesus would approve of us executing these people?

Since you seem so concerned about where your dollar is going, what about the fact that it's cheaper to imprison a man for life than it is to execute him? Shouldn't that be reason enough to abolish capital punishement?

Jesus never did address killing criminals except for when he spoke with Pilate about his own sentence. Hint: he never said Pilate would be wrong for killing him even though Pilate desperately wanted to let him off the hook.

 

[Autumnleaf]

All WHAT single mothers? What sort of percentages are we talking here?

And hey... even if there IS a small minority who want nothing more than to live of the tiny pitance of welfare that the government gives them... So what?

I mean really, Compare the cost of stopping your so called "welfare mothers" and their families from starving to death in the cold, to other government spending... What would you rather see the money used for?

I'd rather see orphanages built for the children of parents who can't support their kids and work farms for parents who can't support their children. We know children learn from their parents. Does it make any sense to allow their parents to teach them by example how to not support themselves. Drive through an inner city and tell me you like what your welfare dollars are paying for.

 

[bammertheblue]

Ah, so if you're poor you should just have your children taken from you and put in an orphanage because you're not worthy of raising them? That's a great plan.

I'd take all these people who ranted and raved about welfare a lot more seriously when they started ranting about the large amount of rural white people who are on welfare. However, it seems that demographic is conveniently overlooked.

I'd rather see orphanages built for the children of parents who can't support their kids and work farms for parents who can't support their children. We know children learn from their parents. Does it make any sense to allow their parents to teach them by example how to not support themselves. Drive through an inner city and tell me you like what your welfare dollars are paying for.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'd rather see orphanages built for the children of parents who can't support their kids and work farms for parents who can't support their children. We know children learn from their parents. Does it make any sense to allow their parents to teach them by example how to not support themselves. Drive through an inner city and tell me you like what your welfare dollars are paying for.

This is... frankly... disturbing.

Perhaps you should do some reading about the massive psychological trauma inflicted on kids in state run orphanages in Eastern Europe, and workhouses as an answer to dealing with "incorigible sloths" in Victorian England...

No. Just because YOU disagree with the way people are bringing up their children, does NOT make it a good idea to seperate children from their biological parents just because their parents are in a lower socio-economic bracket than you.

And if you had done ANY research into the hundreds of examples where well meaning states have arbitrarily removed children from families for the sorts of reasons you suggest, you would see that every time its tried, it ends up causing misery, and ending in utter failure.

Sorry if reality doesn't work the way it should in your ideals, but, baring GENUINE causes of neglect or abuse, the best place for EVERY child is with it's parents.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Ah, so if you're poor you should just have your children taken from you and put in an orphanage because you're not worthy of raising them? That's a great plan.

I'd take all these people who ranted and raved about welfare a lot more seriously when they started ranting about the large amount of rural white people who are on welfare. However, it seems that demographic is conveniently overlooked.

There is such a thing as generations of people getting on welfare indefinitely. Are you suggesting children don't learn by their parents' example or are you suggesting you don't care if they are taught by example to be welfare babymommas and babydaddies?

These situations go beyond color. You seem to think whites don't go on welfare in the inner cities and minorities don't do so in rural areas.

 

[Jacey]

I'd rather see orphanages built for the children of parents who can't support their kids and work farms for parents who can't support their children. We know children learn from their parents. Does it make any sense to allow their parents to teach them by example how to not support themselves. Drive through an inner city and tell me you like what your welfare dollars are paying for.

Work farms? You aren't a big fan of Mao or Pol Pot are you by any chance?

Just out of curiousity, are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Why are you concerned about welfare dollars, when what is spent on welfare is but a tiny, tiny pittance compared to what is spent weekly and monthly in Iraq. It's like Bill Gates complaining at Publix that the peanut butter next door at Kroger is 20 cents cheaper.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There is such a thing as generations of people getting on welfare indefinitely

There is. Any idea what percentage of the overall total of the wellfare budget goes on such seemingly hard cases is?

Are you suggesting children don't learn by their parents' example or are you suggesting you don't care if they are taught by example to be welfare babymommas and babydaddies?

Do you have any figures that show the difference between the number of "wellfare babies" who go on to be self supporting, and those who go on to perpetuate the cycle you are talking about?

Seems like you are basing your rather draconian social engineering on some rather anecdotal evidence, unless you have any, you know, facts...

 

[Autumnleaf]

This is... frankly... disturbing.

Perhaps you should do some reading about the massive psychological trauma inflicted on kids in state run orphanages in Eastern Europe, and workhouses as an answer to dealing with "incorigible sloths" in Victorian England...

Eastern European orphanages turn out mosters while Chinese orphanages don't. Maybe they're doing things differently. Hint: they are much different.

No. Just because YOU disagree with the way people are bringing up their children, does NOT make it a good idea to seperate children from their biological parents just because their parents are in a lower socio-economic bracket than you.

It doesn't make it a good idea to leave them there either. Have you checked out how children turn out who were raised by adoption or orphanages compared to those raise by welfare parents?

And if you had done ANY research into the hundreds of examples where well meaning states have arbitrarily removed children from families for the sorts of reasons you suggest, you would see that every time its tried, it ends up causing misery, and ending in utter failure.

Sorry if reality doesn't work the way it should in your ideals, but, baring GENUINE causes of neglect or abuse, the best place for EVERY child is with it's parents.

The state has an obligation to see its children are not abused or mistreated. If you don't like that I don't know what to tell you. When the state removes children it does so when concerns of abuse or unsafe living conditions are present. That is the reality.

Another part of that reality is generations of people getting on and staying on welfare because people stay with what they know which is what their parents do. The best place for children is safe and with people who take good care of them who help them grow into well adjusted adults. Sometimes parents don't fit that mold.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Eastern European orphanages turn out mosters while Chinese orphanages don't. Maybe they're doing things differently. Hint: they are much different.

Not really... Eastern European orphanges are full to bursting, and Chinese ones aren't.

I worry that, should your plans be implemented, then our orphanages would be fit to bursting, with the same problems as in Eastern Europe.

It doesn't make it a good idea to leave them there either. Have you checked out how children turn out who were raised by adoption or orphanages compared to those raise by welfare parents?

Adoption is something I have looked into extensively actually... Now, I'm certainly NOT saying that there aren't some parents who need to have their kids taken away from them... but ONLY in situations of abuse and neglect. I genuinely believe that the concept of the "wellfare mum" that you are talking about, is largely mythical and sensationalised by the gutter media

The state has an obligation to see its children are not abused or mistreated. If you don't like that I don't know what to tell you. When the state removes children it does so when concerns of abuse or unsafe living conditions are present. That is the reality.

And I have no problem with that. However, allowing a child to grow up in a loving home that is below a certain socio0economic level is NOT the same as allowing a child to grow up in an abusive environment.

Another part of that reality is generations of people getting on and staying on welfare because people stay with what they know which is what their parents do.

You say its a reality... OK, so... again... provide data to back up your assertion... how many children whose parents recieve wellfare benefits, go on to recieve wellfare benefits themselves?

The best place for children is safe and with people who take good care of them who help them grow into well adjusted adults. Sometimes parents don't fit that mold.

Indeed, sometimes they don't. BUT natural parents have a MUCH better track record of looking after the best interests of a child than foster carers or state institutes have... and again, being poor does NOT equate to being a bad parent.