KD in CA Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 You seem to be trying that red state blue state correlation thingy again. We get it. Anyone that votes for Republicans is dumb. Gee, maybe Micky will give us an analysis of teen pregnancy rates of poor and minority groups within the red and blue states and then compare those rates to the voting tendencies of such groups. Naah....probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 You seem to be trying that red state blue state correlation thingy again. We get it. Anyone that votes for Republicans is dumb. As for the rest of your post, the correlations are tough to draw. Does "abstinence only program" mean there are no other programs at all in that state? Are there other demographic factors in play? Does the program itself properly support abstinence (is it taught in a compelling way)? Does anyone think teaching kids to put condoms on cucumbers is really helping? If I'm not listening about abstinence, why would I listen to a condom lesson? I don't know really, maybe it would work to a degree but it would definitely be tough to properly measure its success rate. What is the opportunity cost? Perhaps an extra math session a day would serve the students better than condom or virginity class. Doesn't MTV teach us everything we need to know about condoms already? Can't our parents teach us abstinence? 139907[/snapback] Not dumb. Lustful, horny, randy and condomless apparently . Remember that in the post I talked about it seeming to be a good idea, that the goals were laudable and that it was unfortunate that it didn't work. I am not trying to take shots here. I just found the blue state/red state numbers surprising. I have no idea if the increased moral opprobrium against all things sexual in these areas correlates to high teen pregnancy rates. I don't think they are having sex any more often than blue state kids or are any less moral. There must be some other reason why they have consistently high pregnancy rates. It is an interesting issue to consider. I suspect that for political reasons the reports were delayed because the numbers were not good at all. The simple fact is that if they aren't working we ought to pull the plug. We are just wasting more money if we delay that decision for political reasons. By contrast, the best info I could find on condoms being available in schools which is what you always hear being complained of on the right, is that they are only available in around 400 or so schools and virtually all (91%) require parental consent. There is not a lot of data available on this but what is around indicates that they enjoy more success than these abstinence only plans Furstenburg, et al, Condom Availabilty One study showed that condom availability did not increase sexual activity but did increase condom use: Guttmacher, Condom Use-California Here is another study reaching the same conclusions comparing schools in NYC and Chicago: Condom Availablity I am not suggesting some sort of nationwide condom program for schools. I just think that schools that want to give that kind of thing a shot should not be ridiculed and mocked out because Rush Limbaugh on a slow news day can't find any other "look at those crazy liberals" stories to exaggerate and mischaracterize. It is one thing for a 16 year old to sit at the back of health class and snicker when they pull out a cucumber and a condom but adults should be past that. If your school decides to distribute condoms with parental consent and you give that consent for your kid, it would stand to reason that knowing how to put it on would be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 There must be some other reason why they have consistently high pregnancy rates. It is an interesting issue to consider. 140135[/snapback] Better looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Waste of money. That's parents, and a supportive local infrastructure. And, sorry, the kids themselves. Kids want to be so damn sophisticated and worldly at 13. They should hold themselves to it. In this day and age, if a kid old enough to procreate doesn't understand that putting tab A into slot B can result in baby C, there's a real problem. It's not that they don't know, it's that they don't care. An entire society based on immediate gratification. That's why there are a LOT of problems, and also a lack of quality in most anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Gee, maybe Micky will give us an analysis of teen pregnancy rates of poor and minority groups within the red and blue states and then compare those rates to the voting tendencies of such groups. Naah....probably not. 140075[/snapback] Teen pregnancy rates logged by the CDC are for ages 15-19. Most of them can't vote, not old enough. I know of no database that would keep track of the voting habits of pregnant teenage females who are old enough to vote. If you think that would be revealing, I suggest you do the research yourself as I did rather than just suppose you must be right. I am not sure the point you are hoping to make. Is it your theory that within the red states the minorities, being more irresponsible and also democrats, drove up their teen pregnancy numbers making the red states look bad yet somehow didn't have the same effect in the blue states? Let me guess, you weren't a math major were you? If your theory is that poor black democrats have high teen pregnancy rates, wouldn't you expect to find higher percentages of them in blue states such that those states would head the list of the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates? I am not sure why you seem to think, without any apparent research by the way, that the pregnant teens would be mostly minorities. What underlying assumptions are you making here? You might find it interesting to know that in 2001 the percentage of white teens using no contraception at all was 12.3% while among blacks, the rate was 12.1% Blacks were actually slightly more responsible when it came to contraceptive use. Moreover, whites used the pill 25% of the time where blacks only used it 7.1% no doubt owing to the expense and difficulty of getting the pill. For the record, here are the ten states with the highest teen pregnancy rates for white teenagers from highest to next highest: Nevada, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kansas. Also for the record, that is 9 red states and only one blue and 8 of those states are also on the leader board for the highest rates regardless of race I listed in the first post. As it turns out, the states with the worst teen pregnancy rates are simply the states with the worst teen pregnancy rates and 9 of the 10 worst are red states. On a side note, data on black teenagers was not available in the following states because as it turns out, they had less than 1,000 female teens who are black: Vermont, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah. At least you can't claim that minority democrats in those states are skewing the data, they apparently don't have enough to form an adequate sampling. Unless pregnant black teenagers are somehow more worrisome than pregnant white teenagers, I see no reason to separate the data which is why I used the overall rates. I also don't see any reason to even want to find out if a pregnant teen, providing they were even old enough to vote, would vote for a democrat or a republican. Then again, I am just as concerned about pregnant teen republicans as I am about pregnant teen democrats. Maybe you could explain why that is an important difference to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I'm not concerned about any of them, except for the fact that someone is going to make me pay for them, which takes money away from more important issues, or runs the deficit up some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Teen pregnancy rates logged by the CDC are for ages 15-19. Most of them can't vote, not old enough. I know of no database that would keep track of the voting habits of pregnant teenage females who are old enough to vote. If you think that would be revealing, I suggest you do the research yourself as I did rather than just suppose you must be right. I am not sure the point you are hoping to make. Is it your theory that within the red states the minorities, being more irresponsible and also democrats, drove up their teen pregnancy numbers making the red states look bad yet somehow didn't have the same effect in the blue states? Let me guess, you weren't a math major were you? If your theory is that poor black democrats have high teen pregnancy rates, wouldn't you expect to find higher percentages of them in blue states such that those states would head the list of the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates? I am not sure why you seem to think, without any apparent research by the way, that the pregnant teens would be mostly minorities. What underlying assumptions are you making here? You might find it interesting to know that in 2001 the percentage of white teens using no contraception at all was 12.3% while among blacks, the rate was 12.1% Blacks were actually slightly more responsible when it came to contraceptive use. Moreover, whites used the pill 25% of the time where blacks only used it 7.1% no doubt owing to the expense and difficulty of getting the pill. For the record, here are the ten states with the highest teen pregnancy rates for white teenagers from highest to next highest: Nevada, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kansas. Also for the record, that is 9 red states and only one blue and 8 of those states are also on the leader board for the highest rates regardless of race I listed in the first post. As it turns out, the states with the worst teen pregnancy rates are simply the states with the worst teen pregnancy rates and 9 of the 10 worst are red states. On a side note, data on black teenagers was not available in the following states because as it turns out, they had less than 1,000 female teens who are black: Vermont, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah. At least you can't claim that minority democrats in those states are skewing the data, they apparently don't have enough to form an adequate sampling. Unless pregnant black teenagers are somehow more worrisome than pregnant white teenagers, I see no reason to separate the data which is why I used the overall rates. I also don't see any reason to even want to find out if a pregnant teen, providing they were even old enough to vote, would vote for a democrat or a republican. Then again, I am just as concerned about pregnant teen republicans as I am about pregnant teen democrats. Maybe you could explain why that is an important difference to you? 140203[/snapback] Actually, my point was that you are an idiot for continually bringing up the red state/blue state nonsense. Way to overanalyze as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Actually, my point was that you are an idiot for continually bringing up the red state/blue state nonsense. Way to overanalyze as usual. 140269[/snapback] Ah, come on KD, his 400 some words out does your 24 words, didnt you know that? Check with Blzrul, then again, she might go after your short hairs because of your post. Sorry for that image................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Ah, come on KD, his 400 some words out does your 24 words, didnt you know that? Check with Blzrul, then again, she might go after your short hairs because of your post.Sorry for that image................. 140296[/snapback] Yeah, but I only got through about 24 words in his post before I realized it was more of the usual blather, so I think that makes it even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Yeah, but I only got through about 24 words in his post before I realized it was more of the usual blather, so I think that makes it even. 140303[/snapback] Attorney's go a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way sometimes, to try and make their point. Remember my wifes client base? blzrul's on her broom heading your way. Cottage Cheese? Again, sorry for that image................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 Actually, my point was that you are an idiot for continually bringing up the red state/blue state nonsense. Way to overanalyze as usual. 140269[/snapback] That's it, run away punk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 Attorney's go a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way sometimes, to try and make their point. Remember my wifes client base? blzrul's on her broom heading your way. Cottage Cheese? Again, sorry for that image................. 140309[/snapback] I see, so if it is long, it must not have substance. Gee, can't argue with that logic. I'll try and keep my posts short, insulting and devoid of analysis in the future because that is what we need more of around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I see, so if it is long, it must not have substance. Gee, can't argue with that logic. I'll try and keep my posts short, insulting and devoid of analysis in the future because that is what we need more of around here. 140506[/snapback] Well, all that stuff confuses them. You need to boil it down to sound bites and stuff they can understand. Remember these are people who think FAUX News is deep and that people like Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reilly are great thinkers. You don't want to go removing those little barriers that they hide behind that make them feel so safe and secure. By the way, I get darned PO'd about paying for teenagers and their little bastards, if only because most of those little bastards will themselves become teenagers with little bastards. Case in point is this person in TX who caused a ruckus last year when she had 2 sets of twins (at once), naturally. She was about 17 I believe ... the father married (to someone else) ...he does not pay child support and she does not work...her father is in jail...her mother lives in CO .... they all live with gramma who was a teenager who gave birth to a bastard who gave birth to THIS bastard who just delivered bastard #5, fathered by the same married guy ... so figure out statistically how many little bastards the 5 little bastards will have, all living off government checks. Unless something breaks the cycle. But of course, on this board, the only acceptable cycle-breaker would be sterilization and of course cutting off the money that feeds the poor little bastards who didn't ask to be born in the first place. Ahhhh, if only the answers were as simple as the simpletons think .... sound bites, think sound bites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Well, all that stuff confuses them. You need to boil it down to sound bites and stuff they can understand. Remember these are people who think FAUX News is deep and that people like Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reilly are great thinkers. You don't want to go removing those little barriers that they hide behind that make them feel so safe and secure. By the way, I get darned PO'd about paying for teenagers and their little bastards, if only because most of those little bastards will themselves become teenagers with little bastards. Case in point is this person in TX who caused a ruckus last year when she had 2 sets of twins (at once), naturally. She was about 17 I believe ... the father married (to someone else) ...he does not pay child support and she does not work...her father is in jail...her mother lives in CO .... they all live with gramma who was a teenager who gave birth to a bastard who gave birth to THIS bastard who just delivered bastard #5, fathered by the same married guy ... so figure out statistically how many little bastards the 5 little bastards will have, all living off government checks. Unless something breaks the cycle. But of course, on this board, the only acceptable cycle-breaker would be sterilization and of course cutting off the money that feeds the poor little bastards who didn't ask to be born in the first place. Ahhhh, if only the answers were as simple as the simpletons think .... sound bites, think sound bites. 140545[/snapback] This from the poster that stated more American troops died in Iraq than Vietnam. Because that wasn't a soundbyte for the stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I see, so if it is long, it must not have substance. Gee, can't argue with that logic. I'll try and keep my posts short, insulting and devoid of analysis in the future because that is what we need more of around here. 140506[/snapback] You know Mick, you're right. I shouldnt ever kid with a Lawyer like you. The ones I know have a sense of humor. So much for the use of the smilie's......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelissaInPhilly Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 As part of the 1996 welfare reform act, 50 million bucks was appropriated to fund state initiatives to promote abstinence as the only acceptable choice for teens. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Who could be against promoting abstinence for kids? Well, in the first 5 years of the program, all the states but California participated in the program. California was ahead of the curve and already had its own program in effect back in the early 1990's. By 1996 they had to admit that it was a failure and finally pulled the plug on this "feel-good", no pun intended, program. A report on the effect of these programs was due out last year but still has not been released. A final report on the effectiveness of these programs was to be out next summer but since the first report is already almost 2 years late, I imagine the final study will be delayed even further. How many here think that if the programs were successfull they wouldn't rush the numbers out asap? The program provides the the feds will put in $4 for every $3 the states kick in. Basically, that has drummed up around $90 million each year for these programs. Although a comprehensive report hasn't been issued yet, some states have released reports on how their programs are doing. Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Maryland, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri and Nebraska have published some data and of course, we can see how California did in their own program. Four of those ten reported increased sexual activity comparing pre- and post program levels. Three more concluded that there was no impact on sexual activity and three more had reported no data on this issue. Basically 7 show no effect or things actually getting worse and 3 have not reported. The CDC's most recent study on teen pregnancy, including those terminated by abortion covered four years, from 1992-1995. This is before the abstinence program started which was much later. The study already showed decreasing rates across the board which was a relief. Interestingly, the ten states with the highest rates in the last year of the study are, from highest to lowest: Nevada, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, NY, Ten, and Arkansas (aren't those all "red" states besides NY?). The states with the lowest rates were, from lowest to highest: ND, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah, Maine, Wisconsin, SD, Idaho, Vermont and Pennsylvania (I think the red-blue is 5-5 there, a dead heat). The ten states with the best reduction over the period of the study are: Vermont, Wisconsin, Conn, Pa, SD, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota (the blues take that one 6-4). CDC Teen Pregnancy Rates As laudable as an abstinence only program may sound, it looks like states were lowering rates without this expensive program. Even worse it looks more and more like these programs are just another big waste of money by state and local governments. The report is being delayed, a good sign that it has nothing good to report and the numbers we do have are pretty bad. Of course, what is a few hundred million here or there wasted? It just shows you that the Republican elite can just as happily waste money on ill conceived social engineering projects as well meaning liberals. What I would like to see is who did each state hire to establish and run these things and who was passing out those plum jobs? 139730[/snapback] I've heard that abstinence only programs have mixed results, so I really don't know what's going on. But my 16 year old is not sexually active, and neither are her friends, so I like to think her father and I did something right. She doesn't even have a boyfriend, and she's a very pretty girl. In fact, she thinks "doing it" is "disgusting," especially when people over 30 are involved. She even went so far as to say "old people" shouldn't "do it." I wonder how she thinks she was conceived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 You know Mick, you're right. I shouldnt ever kid with a Lawyer like you. The ones I know have a sense of humor. So much for the use of the smilie's......... 140732[/snapback] Sorry eryn, I thought your first post was serious as it was mocking of the length of the post and the one smilie face was in reference to a crack about blzrul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 I've heard that abstinence only programs have mixed results, so I really don't know what's going on. But my 16 year old is not sexually active, and neither are her friends, so I like to think her father and I did something right. She doesn't even have a boyfriend, and she's a very pretty girl. In fact, she thinks "doing it" is "disgusting," especially when people over 30 are involved. She even went so far as to say "old people" shouldn't "do it." I wonder how she thinks she was conceived? 140746[/snapback] Good for you, I have a 5 and 3 year old daughter so this topic is of prime importance to me. I started out looking for information on the number of school programs making condoms available to students as this seems to be a frequent complaint. My hunch was that there were very, very few such programs and that the outcry over them was overblown. Along the way I ran across the info on abstinence programs which led to teen pregnancy rates by states. That info included an article in a Nashville paper which showed how perplexed they were that the south in general had a worse teen pregnancy problem than the north. I checked the raw data to see if that particular article was right about the numbers in the south, it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Or as a prenatal condition. Or shared needles... And no, stuckincincy...they're not ALL shared for illegal purposes. Worldwide, it's probably the second-biggest vector for AIDS. 140023[/snapback] Or rape, which exclusively in Africa is the biggest transmitter. Perpetuated by the myth that an infected person can be cured by having sex with a virgin. 6-month-olds are on the other end of this equation. We live in a glass house as far as telling them they're doing it wrong, tho. Keep denying that teens WILL have sex. Because no matter how much you try to push abstinance only, they will keep getting hard nipples and erect penii. This is true in every country, the percentages are basically the same no matter the parenting styles, the government programs, etc. The area where there is a difference is in teen pregnancy rates; those that give information about the use of condoms have lower rates and fewer abortions. As for those griping about paying for them to be handed out (in my school, they actually weren't foisted upon us in "here's one for you, and you..." fashion) in schools, a large portion in the schools that even do this are provided free by the companies. And in spite of all of this sex-pushing education, a slightly-left of center upbringing, and graduating from one of those big liberal brainwasher universities, I'm still the big V (OK, I'm ready for the jokes ). Imagine that! But when I do, at least I'll be informed. Do AO advocates also support not teaching the Food Pyramid? Kids are going to be eating for the rest of their lives, but I guess it's not the schools' place to show them the information about healthy diets.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 and you have the gall to B word about the board? The guy put some thought and research into starting a discussion and because it may not reflect favorably on YOUR side, or poorly enough on HIS, you want to stifle it? This board has gone to hell because people here WANT it that way. You want to spend your time either gushing over your boy and agreeing with your fellow wingnuts or stomping on people who don't agree with you. You don't want discussions. That jailhouse mentality will serve you well though, given that you're a thief and all and it will catch up with you. 139821[/snapback] Pot, meet kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts