It angers me how puritanical some of the individuals in control of our government tend to act. Constitutionally our country seperates church and government but in practice the reality tends to be far from that. It has never proven to me to bring our country any justice. Religion seems most commonly abused as a platform for spreading the viral disease of ignorance than used as an environment seek solace and peace within.
A society without the social dogmas of religion seems so nice. To finally exist outside its superimposed boundaries on my life. Alas, the reality would probably be less glorious than I envision.
___________________
quote:
Venus: And there are troops of savage giraffes whose necks are on fire, like
the starry ejaculations of fireworks in the very pale sky of childhood
... Venus: Enter, enter here - men of all kinds and races, victims of reality!
You who have the thirst for dreams.
... Venus: You, on life's bitter road, drenched in hard sunlight who have the
thirst that once more the dark marvel of dreams...
Mar-11-2004 03:05
Arbiter
Naked Power Organ
Registered: May 2002
Location:
It isn't the place of the government to be giving people advice on their sex lives anyway, ffs...
Mar-11-2004 03:25
imokruok
Lawyers, guns, and money
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA / Milwaukee, WI
Originally posted by Arbiter
It isn't the place of the government to be giving people advice on their sex lives anyway, ffs...
Well I agree 100% ... it's the parent's responsibility. But are parents ever responsible? Hardly. And normally I wouldn't care beyond that. But who bears the burden of irresponsibilty? More often than not, society. So either A) Society absolves itself of any duty to mend the stupid decisions of others, or B) Society takes the most practical educational approach to limit the costs it is burdened with. So if the most cost-effective approach is abstinence only than so be it. If it's contraception education than great let's do that. I don't care if one approach leads to more kids having std's or the other leads to more pregnancies. Just give me the cheapest approach and any corrollary burdens should be shouldered by the parents and/or the decision maker. My own personal solution to the problem would be something even more draconian than that. Something similar to my welfare solution .
Yes it's been dropping for some decades now...except in the South.
The average age of marriage in the US is 26.
Abstinence until marriage - talk about a pipe dream.
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Well I agree 100% ... it's the parent's responsibility. But are parents ever responsible? Hardly. And normally I wouldn't care beyond that. But who bears the burden of irresponsibilty? More often than not, society. So either A) Society absolves itself of any duty to mend the stupid decisions of others, or B) Society takes the most practical educational approach to limit the costs it is burdened with. So if the most cost-effective approach is abstinence only than so be it. If it's contraception education than great let's do that. I don't care if one approach leads to more kids having std's or the other leads to more pregnancies. Just give me the cheapest approach and any corrollary burdens should be shouldered by the parents and/or the decision maker. My own personal solution to the problem would be something even more draconian than that. Something similar to my welfare solution .
When we're talking about STD rates within a given population, that concerns all of us. Therefore we all have an interest in bringing those rates down.
Originally posted by DaveSZ
Yes it's been dropping for some decades now...except in the South.
That's so true. At my school, at least 3 girls (per grade) drop out of school until the end of semester due to pregnancy/giving birth.
I love Texas!
Mar-11-2004 07:25
occrider
Traveladdict
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York
quote:
Originally posted by DaveSZ
When we're talking about STD rates within a given population, that concerns all of us. Therefore we all have an interest in bringing those rates down.
But it doesn't necessarily concern all of us. It concerns a certain segment of the population that practices risky sexual behaviour. But at any rate, there's no point in stygmitizing one particular effect as it leads to irrational conclusions. It's far better to reduce effects down to their costs alone and from that form public policy on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis. Which is more costly to society (the ones footing the bill), 20 million people with genital warts and crotch rot or whatever, or supporting x amount of unwanted teen babies? Once you can figure out the economic costs of each situation you can implement the best possible policy that will reduce the total aggregate costs.
.
