Rumor What's going on in Portland? (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Hmmmm... enabling kids to practice safe sex or tell them a story about a ghost knocking up your savior's mother and that they're going to hell if they don't believe it?

Tough choice but I'll go with providing birth control.

Funny how often people's "gotcha!" moments backfire so magnificently
 
Hmmmmm.....you don’t trust teenagers (or women) to do the right thing with their own bodies but you trust “conservative” adults to do the right thing with their country. Got it. Personally, events of the past 4 years have convinced me that teenagers are more trustworthy.......and more intelligent.

Conservative men, you mean
 
Either way, I'd rather those monies be channeled in other directions. As an example, more public education at the teen and pre-teen levels would be nice. Any way you look at it, abortions can be a dangerous alternative to protection, better choices, etc. Look at it this way, recreational drugs are part of our society and many use them responsibly. Does that mean there should be no primary/secondary education as to the potential dangers, etc.? Perhaps this isn't the best analogy, but I think you get the idea.

You want schools to teach little kids about drugs and sex. Cool, but what about rock & roll?

barfo
 
Without parent's knowledge, yes.

You do realize kids have sex without their parents knowledge, right?

Unprotected sex is the #1 cause of pregnancies.
 
Without parent's knowledge, yes.
This means (and you are not alone in your thinking here) that you think kids will have sex if they are given birth control, but will abstain if they do not have it. If this was the case, we would not have to worry about unwanted pregnancies amongst teens. We would just not give birth control and bam, no one is having sex. I would prefer the opposite, that all humans were given birth control at birth and it could only get undone when they had proof of job and mental capacity, but since that wont happen, lets at least make it available to those who want it.
 
This means (and you are not alone in your thinking here) that you think kids will have sex if they are given birth control, but will abstain if they do not have it. If this was the case, we would not have to worry about unwanted pregnancies amongst teens. We would just not give birth control and bam, no one is having sex. I would prefer the opposite, that all humans were given birth control at birth and it could only get undone when they had proof of job and mental capacity, but since that wont happen, lets at least make it available to those who want it.

I would say that I think it's prudent that the parents have, at least, some participation in the matter. After all, these are kids - and the children of the parents - we're talking about. Granted, there are many irresponsible parents out there. I get that. I'm not speaking of exceptional situations here. I'm speaking of responsible situations whereas the parents want to (and rightfully should) be part of their children's lives and, hopefully, guide them towards good and safe decisions. To me, arbitrarily excluding parents from the equation seems careless at best.
 
Last edited:
I would say that I think it's prudent that the parents have, at least, some participation in the matter.

But they don't have any participation in the matter. Kids don't "involve their parents in the discussion" when they have sex with each other. So participation is not a possibility.

Given that participation is not an option, do we want kids to practice safe sex or unsafe sex? Your current position (even if indirectly) is that you'd prefer kids practice unsafe sex.
 
I would say that I think it's prudent that the parents have, at least, some participation in the matter. After all, these are kids - and the children of the parents - we're talking about. Granted, there are many irresponsible parents out there. I get that. I'm not speaking of exceptional situations here. I'm speaking of responsible situations whereas the parents want to (and rightfully should) be part of their children's lives and, hopefully, guide them towards good and safe decisions. To me, arbitrarily excluding parents from the equation seems careless at best.
In a perfect world, of course, parents and kids are lock step in every decision. Everyone would love if every kid under 18 just didn't have sex or if he/she did, parents were aware and they could have these great, meaningful conversations together and all risks were discussed. Instead, we have kids being normal kids, and doing things on their own. If one of those kids decides, hm, im going to do this, i can get protection/birth control and avoid a disaster and my parents dont have to know, thats a better option than 'i dont want them to know, so screw it, i'll just hope for the best and not get pregnant'.
 
I would say that I think it's prudent that the parents have, at least, some participation in the matter.

I think that's inappropriate. They can watch quietly from the side of the bed, but they shouldn't try to make it a foursome. Give the kids space to learn at their own pace.

barfo
 
But they don't have any participation in the matter. Kids don't "involve their parents in the discussion" when they have sex with each other. So participation is not a possibility.

Given that participation is not an option, do we want kids to practice safe sex or unsafe sex? Your current position (even if indirectly) is that you'd prefer kids practice unsafe sex.

I suppose it's easy for you to say that kids don't involve their parents in critical discussions. Happens all the time.

At any rate, I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.
 
I think that's inappropriate. They can watch quietly from the side of the bed, but they shouldn't try to make it a foursome. Give the kids space to learn at their own pace.

barfo

I'm sure you did.
 
I suppose it's easy for you to say that kids don't involve their parents in critical discussions. Happens all the time.

If they're going to involve their parents in their sex-making, they'll involve their parents in the birth control.

We're specifically talking about the kids who aren't going to, which is the vast majority. For those kids, telling them that either they get their parents' permission or else have unsafe sex seems stupid.
 
Bro there are NO kids involving their parents in their decisions to have sex or not. Why does guy think the way he does! Unreal!
 
Fun little tidbit or fact depending on which side you lean on; The word 'FUCK' is supposedly an acronym for 'Fornication Under Consent of the King.' So yeah, at one point in history there was a time where you literally had to be granted permission to have sex.
 
I would say that I think it's prudent that the parents have, at least, some participation in the matter. After all, these are kids - and the children of the parents - we're talking about. Granted, there are many irresponsible parents out there. I get that. I'm not speaking of exceptional situations here. I'm speaking of responsible situations whereas the parents want to (and rightfully should) be part of their children's lives and, hopefully, guide them towards good and safe decisions. To me, arbitrarily excluding parents from the equation seems careless at best.
One of the irresponsible parents just might be the rapist.
 
Guess you missed where I typed the word 'supposedly' meaning I was not saying it was a fact or not a fact. Good effort trying to create an narrative where I did by cherry-picking a certain sentence to look like I did by not quoting my whole post.

I think his response wasn't nearly as combative as you seemed to have taken it as.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top