Our dear leaders have made a quantum leap into total insanity, with word that they are expanding "abstinence-only" funding to focus on horny
19-29 year-olds.
If you think it's hard convincing a 16 year-old still living with his parents and struggling with trig homework to keep it in his pants on a Saturday night, just think how hard it's going to be to convince a 25 year-old with his own pad and a freaking job. Most everyone thinks they've earned the right to bone in peace by that point.
The funniest thing to me, however, is that the guvmint's apparent reasoning for funding this education (and how are they going to educate all of us loose-moraled twenty-somethings, btw? I mean, I am so not in school anymore) is that the greatest increase in pregnancies by unmarried women is in the 19-29 age range.
Um -- call me crazy -- but I would think the greatest number of pregnancies by any women at all would be in the 19-29 age range. That is when most women, most of the time, tend to get pregnant. Peak childbearing years, those -- regardless of marital status. Durn those crazy facts!
3 Comments:
Wow. Good thing Carrie and I just turned 30 this year! The green light we've been waiting for!
But here's a fun point: they say that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. But then, why don't they promote gay sex? Can't get pregnant from that either, and I certainly wouldn't call it abstinence.
-JE
4:11 PM, October 31, 2006
sex can wait, masturbate!
11:40 PM, October 31, 2006
I just don't understand why they can't see that abstinence only education becomes increasingly ridiculous as a matter of actually reducing out-of-wedlock births once the targeted population is financially independent.
Even if you can count on a reasonable number of teens simply being too scared to have sex, or just not ready on account of their own biological workings, over 90% of 19-29 year olds are sexually active. And well, duh. Basically, you're not going to stop the sex. So you need to decide: is the problem the babies, or the lack of wedlock?
If the problem is the babies, you need birth control. If the problem is that the people having babies without being married, just telling them to keep their legs crossed is not a viable solution, and it is not a pro-marriage soluation. If you want encourage wedlock, you'd have to put together a very systematic support system that encourages early marriage by creating financial incentives and supports -- educational credits for young married couples, child care, housing subsidies -- all the things that would enable two young people genuinely committed to each other to have a family without sacrificing that family's economic chances.
7:58 AM, November 01, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home