That explains all the radio dishes you keep ordering...
Abstinence totally works guys, no matter what the pregnancy rate say...
- Thread starter @Li3n
- Start date
- Status
D: That doesn't sound very good, is she at least learning about reproduction of other animals? Like chickens, cows, ... I'd say you should get or buy her one of those "where babies come from" book for kids or something. I think I have an old one from when I was 5-6 lying around the house somewhere, I can look for it.
Don't worry, I'm his older brother, but I'm also a personal encyclopedia for her. What she isn't learning at shcool, she'll learn it at home.
From me, because if she has to get the same kind of sex talk I got from my parents, she'll just be warned against pedophiles...
(as a Side note, when I was told that older people may be interested in me, I couldn't see what the problem was in being found attractive by a 20 /30 years old ("older" is such a relative term!) girl. )
Hah. My parents never warned me about that, didn't learn about paedophilia being a thing until I got unmonitored access to the internet at age 11 (protip: bad idea). Didn't pay attention to the news at that age, so I never heard about police CP busts and stuff like that.
C
Chibibar
It is human nature to reproduce (hence why it feels good doing it IMO) I would teach my kids about sex cause I wouldn't want to be a grandfather unexpectedly. It is quite difficult to control some urges. And we all know that some people have no control of themselves at all 
Let's see, in fifth grade, we had discussions of puberty. In sixth grade, more puberty with some light STD and pregnancy talk. Seventh grade, we got light puberty with lots of graphic STD talk. The teachers were officially not allowed to talk about condoms (divided up by gender to this point) or any form of birth control other than abstinence. Nothing eighth or ninth grade (traditionally). Tenth grade (high school sophomore), you got a full run down on the various methods of birth control and their success rates when used correctly. No hands on (dildos) practice, but it was emphasized that we should read any instructions given with whatever method we chose to use and made reasonably sure to follow them. However, technically, you could take health class in high school whenever you wanted. Most people took it in sophomore year, but the classes would undoubtedly include everything freshies to seniors. Seeing as I knew people who were becoming sexually active in eighth grade, perhaps that's a little late to be effective.
C
Chibibar
I personally never understood the idea of "don't teach them and they won't do it" when it comes to sex. When puberty hits, you get all kinds of emotions and physical changes. The internet is not really being secret about it, so the parents should at least teach their children the basics IMO, cause they are going to learn it from somewhere (The internet, their friends, porn mags. Yea I had access since I was 12 and that is nothing new)
Maybe ignoring the fact 20 years ago works (i.e. don't talk about it) but with information FLYING around in the speed of tweet/facebook status, it is hard to "keep this under wraps"
Kids will discover sex early and will participate cause you got to admit, sex does feel good. (when done right)
Maybe ignoring the fact 20 years ago works (i.e. don't talk about it) but with information FLYING around in the speed of tweet/facebook status, it is hard to "keep this under wraps"
Kids will discover sex early and will participate cause you got to admit, sex does feel good. (when done right)
No, i'm pretty sure we did fine in finding out ourselves (of course no parents i heard of found that unusual, so there might be some cultural bias in ym assessment).
And haven't any of you guys done the "show em yours and i'll show you mine" as a little kid?
C
Chibibar
You are right, but then what is causing the right rate of pregnancy? more reporting?
A friend of mine told me that "bad stuff" around the world have always happen in the past and present, it is just that in the world of internet, such news get around faster so we now know more.
But some of the teen pregnancy report shows differently in terms of rise BUT is that percentage rise or just pure number? There are MORE people now than say 20 years ago so in pure number of course it is going to rise (if thing always have been that way) but if it is a percentage ratio rise, that is a different story)
I think that made sense
Cajungal
Staff member
I thought I saw on the news that teen pregnancy was actually going down a little bit. I could be wrong. Can anyone confirm? If it is true, I guess it seems like it happens more often today because we don't send pregnant girls off to "live with an aunt" for a year while she has the baby and then ditches him/her.
Actually, teen pregnancy is at the lowest rate it's been in 70 years...
C
Chibibar
What about 2010 and 2011?
I am glad it is lowered (thank for the correction) so I guess it is more of "news on the internet" that more people know about it thus think it is 'higher'
Don't think they've finished collecting/analyzing 2010 data yet, which is why they've just recently (as of April) reported on the 2009 data.
As for the actual reason, that's anyone's guess. The teen pregnancy rate is still higher in the US than most other countries, but it's been trending significantly downward the past 20 years. Some people even credit reality TV shows that teens watch that show them how much it sucks to be a teen making a living with a baby.
Does the teen pregnancy rate include pregnancies terminated by abortion, or just pregnancies carried full term? Wikipedia's definition isn't clear on this, and the article you link to suggests to me that it's only counting those that are carried full term.
In a conversation on contraception, unless we accept abortion as a form of contraception, we have to make sure we understand how they measured "teen pregnancy is at it's lowest" ...
Well according to the article they certainly take it into account: Blacks and Hispanic teen girls are two to three times more likely to give birth than white teens.
Here is the original CDC report on the issue: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6013a5.htm?s_cid=mm6013a5_w
The word abortion isn't used once in the article, so perhaps the CDC simply considers it a form of contraception.
EDIT: Another option to consider is the confidentiality of abortions preventing the CDC from being able to actually collect that kind of data.
The word abortion isn't used once in the article, so perhaps the CDC simply considers it a form of contraception.
EDIT: Another option to consider is the confidentiality of abortions preventing the CDC from being able to actually collect that kind of data.
C
Chibibar
I am all about pro-choice but I cringe each time when people use abortion as a form of contraception.
They should still have the number of abortions... they should just not be able to tie it to race or social status...
...or age.
Since the question was whether or not abortions would be included in the teen pregnancy rate, the agencies tabulating that rate being legally prohibited from getting figures on the ages of women who've had abortions is somewhat relevant.
Right, i kinda just posted that out of reflex...
But i'm guessing that they don't need the exact ages to be recorded, as minors are likely treated differently when it comes to getting an abortion.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'll get right on it.
(muffled) What? No I... It's a j... Hey! No! Y... No. Alright! Sheesh!
Never mind. Spousal Veto.
It's mind-boggling to me how there can be such an outcry over teen pregnancy and yet such enormous adoption waiting lines.
A lot of foster care are for children removed from homes whose parents still have rights to the children, and thus are in the foster care system and cannot be adopted out.
Further, many adoptive couples choose to wait until they get the child they want - and typicially that child has no significant medical problems, is not a member of a minority group, and was born to a mother who actually took care of herself during her pregnancy.
Adoption is expensive, and they would rather wait 5-10 years, and pay their $10k or more once for what they perceive will be a better fit for them.
If, however, you want a black child, or a baby who was born addicted to cocaine, or suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome, you don't have to wait nearly as long. You will also have an easier time adopting an older child than a newborn, but that too has its own set of challenges.
Basically this. People know how awful the foster care systems can be so they try to get kids that haven't been in them long, so older kids (teenagers especially) tend to have a "damaged goods" stigma attached to them. There is also the fact that many parents want the "complete experience" of raising a child... or more to the point, to have a child that they KNOW will think of them as their only parents.
So yeah... the further you get past the young child stage (basically, once they kids are old enough to be attending school), the less likely they are to be adopted.
However, a lot of the problem is also that adoption agencies have some VERY strict standards for parents. Many organizations are faith based. Virtually all of them require you to be married and/or a college graduate. It is also quite hard to adopt outside your race and many agencies won't consider same-sex couples. That's not even getting into the housing situation and income requirements, let alone the huge fees you have to pay the agency.
I can't really speak for places outside the US, but in the US, states usually pay outside organizations to take care of kids. Because no single organization has the manpower to cover all the wards (and because many have philosophical differences on what constitutes a fit parent), this means that you might have dozens of groups working in a single city or state.
So self-fucked like every other government institution.
Understood.
Understood.
- Status