• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen pregnancy and disease rates rose sharply during Bush years, agency finds

You know what aps? I get tired of your "passionate" finger pointing and silly lecturing. I could give a crap if you're disappointed in me or if you think my posts are temper tantrums. There's nothing childish about my contribution to this thread. You're the only one not making a point here. So if the shoe fits, as you said.

I made a lot more sense as to what could be causing the sharp increase of teen pregnancy and stds than the alleged correlation between Bush's interest in abstinence only programs than the OP did. So Middle's not saying exactly that she's blaming Bush, but it certainly sounds like it's being inferred with just a quick glance at her responses:





Middle & I may be coming from 2 different POVs, but at least she's being respectful, and we're having a discussion. Save your lecturing about how disappointed you are in me. It's getting tiresome, and I simply don't care.

I indicated you provided thoughtful ideas; however, you asserted a fact that simply was not true. If you think asserting an incorrect fact is contributing to this thread, be my guest. If yo think my pointing our the error of your way is NOT contributing to this thread, I don't care. You're just upset because I called you on your little temper tantrum. Bye bye. :2wave:
 
My kitten got stuck in a tree on January 19, 2009.... therefore it was obviously Bush's fault!! No, no wait, it was a RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY, yeah, that's it!


:roll:
See, if your kitty had waited until January 21, it would be a left wing conspiracy.

Your cat has no sense of timing.
 
Alyssa Milano said it better than I ever could since I have no clue
The paparazzi, unless 'tipped off' usually by the celeb, or 'their people', only work 3 specific areas. If they do not want to be shot by paparazzi, they would not go to those areas or tip them off

/diversion

so you agree that the degradation of moral values has more to do than who is in office
after all, those who get it, get it. they dont need a sex ed class to make them realized all the complications sex involve, usually because of the involved parent(s)
those that 'think they get it' are going to go their own way no matter what you say. So whats the point
very few actually learn fron sex ed and use tha as a basis for making sexual decisions

or would you care to dispute all my positions posted from 'my soapbox'
it can all be boiled down to Liberals, for 8 years screaming the world is ending: Bush/Cheney, should have included in previous post Global Warming, war, terrorism yada yada yada

Deej, more than anything, I think education is the key. Look at Denmark... you want to talk about morals? They openly smoke pot and prostitution is legal amongst other things. Yet they have an incredibly low teen pregnancy rate. Why is that, and don't you think that blows your theory all to hell?
 
My kitten got stuck in a tree on January 19, 2009.... therefore it was obviously Bush's fault!! No, no wait, it was a RIGHTWING CONSPIRACY, yeah, that's it!


:roll:


My kitten got stuck in a tree on January 19, 2011.... therefore it was obviously Obama's fault!! No, no wait, it was a LEFTWING CONSPIRACY, yeah, that's it!

:roll:

(see the pattern?)
 
There's nothing to say Bush influenced that. Those tv shows got much worse in the last 10 years, as did the slutty clothing. I almost forgot about the internet. Nude pics within 1 click. Chat rooms where kids brag about sexual trysts. Cell phones where young kids send nude pics (oft times to people they met in chatrooms). The decline of the traditonal American family where 1 parent is home after school to make sure the kids aren't sucking each other off in the basement. Bush had nothing to do with these things, and if he had ever stepped in, the outcry of censorship, morality imposing & other feigned outrages would be heard from east to west.

It's not our president. It's our culture. Off on a tanget here. I'm so sick of people saying Americans are uptight about sex. Our culture is nothing BUT sex. I was reading a gardening site last night, and a pair of t*ts were staring me in the face. :shock:


None of this stuff is new, Chuck.
I'm sure parents had the same lament back in the 60s, when all major department stores began carrying mini- and micro-skirts for eight-year-olds.
I grew up in the 80s, and if anything I think teens were far more blatantly "sexualized" back then.
Hell, there was a whole genre of movies entirely about teenagers screwing.
The Blue Lagoon was probably the most popular one, but there were a bunch of knock-offs, and also a bunch of movies that played mainly on late night cable that were entirely about, say, high schoolers getting laid. Or else high schoolers trying unsuccessfully to get laid.
The attitude toward abortion was much more laid-back. Look at the casual, blase treatment of abortion in 1982's classic "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". You would not see abortion treated so lightly in a movie today. Popular film-makers today tend to avoid the issue entirely, since attempting to deal with it, from any perspective, is akin to poking a hornet's nest with a stick.
Back in the 80s, all of the most popular teen actresses did nude scenes, sometimes even sex scenes. Phoebe Cates, Brooke Shields, Jennifer Jason Leigh, ALL of them. And yes, they did them while they were still minors.
Today, we've got people going ballistic because a 15 or 16-year-old Miley Cyrus appears on the cover of a mainstream magazine draped in fabric which exposes her bare shoulders. Oh yeah, she's also wearing lipstick. The horror! :roll:
So, let's see... in the 80s we had tweens and teens wearing tube tops, slop-buckets full of makeup, and Guess jeans so tight they had to zip themselves into them using a coathanger (remember that?).

To me, teens seem more innocent today than they did 20 years ago; more childish, more prudish.
Kids were more sophisticated 20 years ago, better at impersonating adults (or at least, more interested in doing so).
In the 80s (and the 70s, and the 60s...) kids smoked, drank, and did a lot of drugs. And had a lot of casual sex (or at least attempted to). They partied.

True, some kids still do these things today, but it seems like those are the "bad kids". The rebels and outcasts.
Back in my day, these behaviors were pretty normative. It wasn't only the bad kids that did them. It was the mainstream kids, too.
Many, many kids in the 1980s were latch-key kids, children of divorced single working parents, raising themselves and in many cases their younger siblings as well, without much adult supervision.
Today it's just not acceptable for an eleven-year-old to come home to an empty house after school and babysit his two younger brothers until mom gets home. This situation is frowned upon.
But back in the 80s, that was just the way things were done. It wasn't considered strange or inappropriate or dangerous or illegal.
Kids had to be more mature, more independent. They had to grow up faster back then.
Today, I think maybe we shelter them too much.
 
Last edited:
Deej, more than anything, I think education is the key. Look at Denmark... you want to talk about morals? They openly smoke pot and prostitution is legal amongst other things. Yet they have an incredibly low teen pregnancy rate. Why is that, and don't you think that blows your theory all to hell?
things are not universal. I hardly think legalizing prostitution and drugs will end teenage pregnancy here
it has been decades in the making and it will be decades in correcting, if ever.
with the Progressives trying to do away with competition and making judgements about behavior, it definitely is not certain to be fixed
 
things are not universal. I hardly think legalizing prostitution and drugs will end teenage pregnancy here
it has been decades in the making and it will be decades in correcting, if ever.
with the Progressives trying to do away with competition and making judgements about behavior, it definitely is not certain to be fixed

I don't think you understood my point, Deej. Based-on what you have listed here in this thread, there is no doubt that Denmark is morally corrupt in your book. Yet despite all of that, they have a very low teen pregnancy rate. So my question you is why do you think that such a "sinning" society has such a low teen birth rate?
 
I don't think you understood my point, Deej. Based-on what you have listed here in this thread, there is no doubt that Denmark is morally corrupt in your book. Yet despite all of that, they have a very low teen pregnancy rate. So my question you is why do you think that such a "sinning" society has such a low teen birth rate?

Yea Denmark is one hell of a morally corrupt society.. I agree fully. We care for our elderly, we care for our sick, we defend the weak in society, and we provide for those that need regardless of sexual orientation, religion, sex or race.. ohh we are so morally corrupt! This corruption has created one of the most economically even societies in the world, one of the richest, with the some of the lowest unemployment and high economic growth.. and yes high taxes, but with free education and UHC... oh the morally corruption!

But back in what we call reality, there is a very good reason for why there is a low teen pregnancy rate in places like Denmark.

Education and easy access to contraception. Pure and simple.

We teach our children the facts of life and we teach our girls how to control their own body. We do not teach that sex is a sin, or that you will go to hell if you have sex outside of marriage. We do not have conflicting messages from religious morons and politicians confusing the young. The Danish church is not much different than any other churches but they have almost totally pulled out of the political scene and rarely comment on anything. Yes they are officially against gay marriage, abortion and sex before marriage.. There is one religious political party but it lost its parliamentarian seats a decade ago or so and has not pulled enough votes to get in since.. no where close. The political parties all, including the conservatives, acknowledge that religion and sex are private matters that government should not interfere with.

There is a clear policy in Denmark that it is up to the individual to decide on ones future and the whole society is built around that principle. That is why we have a legal consent age at 15, and partial economic freedom at 15, and full adulthood at age 18 (vote, drink, drive, marriage). Schools, education and everything basically is built up around the principle of the child having to decide as much as possible self, with of course the guidance of adults. Children are taut to think self at an early age for one and that follows children all the way through adulthood. And yes that causes other problems...

But the country with the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the western world is Holland/Netherlands and guess why?... again.. education at an early age...I believe that like in Denmark, there are mandatory sexual education classes at a very early age, and contraception is freely available for anyone.

But the most important thing.. Danes are far from as uptight about sex and the human body as Americans are.. We Danes all looked on in total puzzlement over the whole Janet Jackson boob slip... so much crap for nothing.
 
Deej, more than anything, I think education is the key. Look at Denmark... you want to talk about morals? They openly smoke pot and prostitution is legal amongst other things. Yet they have an incredibly low teen pregnancy rate. Why is that, and don't you think that blows your theory all to hell?

Because prostitutes use protection! Is that really your argument?

Teens typically aren't being paid to put out in the back seat. There are "feelings" involved. Things get out of hand, and they didn't bring anything, and they have a tough time turning off the engine at the key moment.

Hookers are putting out three times an hour and come prepared. If a teenage boy in Denmark wants to get him some, he doen't have to blow his money on dinner and a movie with 16-year-old Susie on a hope she might. The sure thing is down the block.
 
I am a strong believer that education, rather than abstinence, is the best way to prevent teen pregnancy, but even I am surprised by these results. According to this article, both teen pregnancies and STDs have sharply risen during Bush's tenure, so I have to ask you why you think the downward trend has swung upward. Does this change your opinion of "yes, abstinence works," or do you believe it to be other underlying factors?

From the article:


US teen pregnancy and syphilis rates rose sharply during George Bush's presidency, Centres for Disease Control finds | World news | guardian.co.uk

The credibility of this article is at best that of a gossip page. But here is what was pertinent about the article:

Although the CDC does not attribute a cause, groups that support comprehensive sex education have seized on the report as evidence of the failure of religiously-driven policies that shy away from teaching about contraception in favour of emphasising avoiding sexual contact.

Planned Parenthood said the CDC report is "alarming" and confirms that teenagers need "medically accurate, age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education".


Why not link the report and let's see for ourselves exactly what is happening and how bad the problem is rather than playing the "agenda" game and claiming that the ONLY way these rates had been reduced in the past was by emphasizing using condoms and handing them out on middle school campuses.

This is more like a Business cycle where you have highs and troughs, the same can be said for teen sexuality. Anyone who has raised kids understands these things.

Of course, if you are Librul and agenda driven, it is all about Bush's failure right? :roll:
 
We Danes all looked on in total puzzlement over the whole Janet Jackson boob slip... so much crap for nothing.

Yep, and we also blame a former president for hurricanes, poverty among blacks, people who don't pay their mortgages, and now, apparently teen pregnancy. That's one powerful dude, that George Bush.

And no offense, but you're Denmark. Hardly the bastion of accomplishment, leadership, and might.
 
None of this stuff is new, Chuck.
I'm sure parents had the same lament back in the 60s, when all major department stores began carrying mini- and micro-skirts for eight-year-olds.
I grew up in the 80s, and if anything I think teens were far more blatantly "sexualized" back then.
Hell, there was a whole genre of movies entirely about teenagers screwing.
The Blue Lagoon was probably the most popular one, but there were a bunch of knock-offs, and also a bunch of movies that played mainly on late night cable that were entirely about, say, high schoolers getting laid. Or else high schoolers trying unsuccessfully to get laid.
The attitude toward abortion was much more laid-back. Look at the casual, blase treatment of abortion in 1982's classic "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". You would not see abortion treated so lightly in a movie today. Popular film-makers today tend to avoid the issue entirely, since attempting to deal with it, from any perspective, is akin to poking a hornet's nest with a stick.
Back in the 80s, all of the most popular teen actresses did nude scenes, sometimes even sex scenes. Phoebe Cates, Brooke Shields, Jennifer Jason Leigh, ALL of them. And yes, they did them while they were still minors.
Today, we've got people going ballistic because a 15 or 16-year-old Miley Cyrus appears on the cover of a mainstream magazine draped in fabric which exposes her bare shoulders. Oh yeah, she's also wearing lipstick. The horror! :roll:
So, let's see... in the 80s we had tweens and teens wearing tube tops, slop-buckets full of makeup, and Guess jeans so tight they had to zip themselves into them using a coathanger (remember that?).

To me, teens seem more innocent today than they did 20 years ago; more childish, more prudish.
Kids were more sophisticated 20 years ago, better at impersonating adults (or at least, more interested in doing so).
In the 80s (and the 70s, and the 60s...) kids smoked, drank, and did a lot of drugs. And had a lot of casual sex (or at least attempted to). They partied.

True, some kids still do these things today, but it seems like those are the "bad kids". The rebels and outcasts.
Back in my day, these behaviors were pretty normative. It wasn't only the bad kids that did them. It was the mainstream kids, too.
Many, many kids in the 1980s were latch-key kids, children of divorced single working parents, raising themselves and in many cases their younger siblings as well, without much adult supervision.
Today it's just not acceptable for an eleven-year-old to come home to an empty house after school and babysit his two younger brothers until mom gets home. This situation is frowned upon.
But back in the 80s, that was just the way things were done. It wasn't considered strange or inappropriate or dangerous or illegal.
Kids had to be more mature, more independent. They had to grow up faster back then.
Today, I think maybe we shelter them too much.



It was almost nostalgic reading this post. Very well said and quite true.
 
My original post was in response that education and birth control only, without abstinence, are the alpha and omega for the prevention of teen pregnancy. The point being, that if you teach teens how to have sex and use birth control more teens are going to **** and more teens are going to get pregnant and it shouldn't come as a shock and it certainly isn't Bush's fault.

I am basing this only on my experience with my daughter, but I would say that her state-required sex ed class has made it LESS likely that she will have sex, anytime, soon, and if she does, it will definitely be with a condom.

Kids are more than capable of figuring out how to have sex on their own. Is that the scenario that we want for our children? Because, goshalmighty, it worked damn well on us, didn't it?
 
And no offense, but you're Denmark. Hardly the bastion of accomplishment, leadership, and might.

No Denmark doesn't have military might but it does seem to have common sense and pragmatism on hard issues, a very strong moral and ethical line. Not to mention a pretty brilliant country with low crime rate compared to US.
 
None of this stuff is new, Chuck.
I'm sure parents had the same lament back in the 60s, when all major department stores began carrying mini- and micro-skirts for eight-year-olds.
I grew up in the 80s, and if anything I think teens were far more blatantly "sexualized" back then.

Yeah, I have to agree with 10 on this one. Sex was EVERYWHERE when I was a kid. Kids do have more access to information about sex, but their curiosity about it is no different than the curiousity we felt when we were kids.

And that access to information has in some ways been a good thing, I think. It has lead to many more candid conversations with my daughter than I EVER had with my mom and dad about sex.

Frankly, my daughter is FAR less sexually active at 15 than I was at her age.
 
What do you expect? The Bush doctrine was all about abstinence as the only acceptable method of preventing sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy.

No wonder there was an increase in teen pregnancy and disease.

It’s obvious to me that those who make such farcical statements never had children or were involved in their local schools.

The claim that schools stopped teaching sex education, which provided hours of laughs and derision from both my kids, can only be expressed in a vacuum of the facts and reality.

Bush pressed for abstinence; the schools still taught sex education and many still handed out condoms which basically say go out there and have SAFE sex. Of course, children seldom if ever listen to sage advice.

But of course, if yer Librul it is so easy to just claim it's all his fault. :rofl
 
None of this stuff is new, Chuck.
I'm sure parents had the same lament back in the 60s, when all major department stores began carrying mini- and micro-skirts for eight-year-olds.
I grew up in the 80s, and if anything I think teens were far more blatantly "sexualized" back then.
Hell, there was a whole genre of movies entirely about teenagers screwing.
The Blue Lagoon was probably the most popular one, but there were a bunch of knock-offs, and also a bunch of movies that played mainly on late night cable that were entirely about, say, high schoolers getting laid. Or else high schoolers trying unsuccessfully to get laid.
The attitude toward abortion was much more laid-back. Look at the casual, blase treatment of abortion in 1982's classic "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". You would not see abortion treated so lightly in a movie today. Popular film-makers today tend to avoid the issue entirely, since attempting to deal with it, from any perspective, is akin to poking a hornet's nest with a stick.
Back in the 80s, all of the most popular teen actresses did nude scenes, sometimes even sex scenes. Phoebe Cates, Brooke Shields, Jennifer Jason Leigh, ALL of them. And yes, they did them while they were still minors.
Today, we've got people going ballistic because a 15 or 16-year-old Miley Cyrus appears on the cover of a mainstream magazine draped in fabric which exposes her bare shoulders. Oh yeah, she's also wearing lipstick. The horror! :roll:
So, let's see... in the 80s we had tweens and teens wearing tube tops, slop-buckets full of makeup, and Guess jeans so tight they had to zip themselves into them using a coathanger (remember that?).

To me, teens seem more innocent today than they did 20 years ago; more childish, more prudish.
Kids were more sophisticated 20 years ago, better at impersonating adults (or at least, more interested in doing so).
In the 80s (and the 70s, and the 60s...) kids smoked, drank, and did a lot of drugs. And had a lot of casual sex (or at least attempted to). They partied.

True, some kids still do these things today, but it seems like those are the "bad kids". The rebels and outcasts.
Back in my day, these behaviors were pretty normative. It wasn't only the bad kids that did them. It was the mainstream kids, too.
Many, many kids in the 1980s were latch-key kids, children of divorced single working parents, raising themselves and in many cases their younger siblings as well, without much adult supervision.
Today it's just not acceptable for an eleven-year-old to come home to an empty house after school and babysit his two younger brothers until mom gets home. This situation is frowned upon.
But back in the 80s, that was just the way things were done. It wasn't considered strange or inappropriate or dangerous or illegal.
Kids had to be more mature, more independent. They had to grow up faster back then.
Today, I think maybe we shelter them too much.

Very true on a lot of fronts. I think much of that was good for kids, and much of it wasn't.

I can think of a lot of old friends that might be in a better place in life had their parents prevented such a life. Others seemed to find their way through it just fine.

What we didn't have then was the internet. Nowdays, 15-year-old girls are expected to perform like porn stars from the get-go. I think it was a better time when we fumbled our way through finding ourselves sexually, instead of having overtly graphic "how-to" video as the instruction manual.

Back then, you "lived" life in your teens. With the internet, kids now just mimick it as they interpret it from their computer screen.
 
No Denmark doesn't have military might but it does seem to have common sense and pragmatism on hard issues, a very strong moral and ethical line. Not to mention a pretty brilliant country with low crime rate compared to US.

Easier to have brilliant kids and low crime in a country the size of Connecticut and with almost no cultural diversity compared to the United States.

We have pockets of the US that have almost no crime and fantastic education, too.
 
Last edited:
We have pockets of the US that have almost no crime and fantastic education, too.

With UHC and free, universal education. I doubt it but i'll take your word for it.
Belitting Denmark because it isn't a military power is downright pathetic
 
Yep, and we also blame a former president for hurricanes, poverty among blacks, people who don't pay their mortgages, and now, apparently teen pregnancy. That's one powerful dude, that George Bush.

And no offense, but you're Denmark. Hardly the bastion of accomplishment, leadership, and might.

And that is how you define a "good nation" by what accomplishments, leadership and might they have? We are a nation of 5 million people, how much accomplishment, leadership and might do need to meet your standards? We also got 2000+ years of history, so where should we start?

Nuclear power would not have been possible if it was not for a Dane.. look up Niels Bohr. The planetary movement theory would not have been possible if not for a Dane. It was a dane that calculated the speed of light for the first time. C++.. heard of that.. yes it was a Dane that developed it. How much is C++ used in programming these days? PHP.. know that? Yes a dane made that.. these boards would not have been possible if it was not for a Dane..You know that place that is called "Palin land".. aka Alaska? Guess who discovered that... yes a Dane.. bet you cant guess his name.. let me give a hint.. what is the sea between Alaska and Russia called? Do you want to go on?

We might not have many people in our small nation, and we may not be on everyones lips, but we have had an impact on human life on this planet, long before the idea of the USA was even contemplated...no wait a minute.. if it was not for a Dane, then there would be no USA, because guess who discovered the freaking place!.. yes the Vikings, sailing from the area known as Denmark and Norway.. go figure!

Yes I was offended by your comment. Belittling a nation just because it is a small nation is uncalled for. It shows the very arrogance that many people absolutely loath about American's, the French and the British. You are not the center of the universe, did not invent everything and did not discover everything. There existed a world before 1776 and a world after 1776. Get over it.
 
With UHC and free, universal education. I doubt it but i'll take your word for it.
Belitting Denmark because it isn't a military power is downright pathetic

...and ignoring that they'd all be speaking German if not for the military might of others is moreso. They get to live in a bubble because others do their fighting for them.
 
...and ignoring that they'd all be speaking German if not for the military might of others is moreso. They get to live in a bubble because others do their fighting for them.

WTF is your problem with Denmark? :confused:
 
...and ignoring that they'd all be speaking German if not for the military might of others is moreso.

Not the bloody 'speaking german' speech ... :doh

I'd rather thank Stalin, Russians lost entire generations and we musn't forget the role Russian winter played to the defeat of Nazis.
 
Back
Top Bottom