• 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!

Obama Eliminates Abstinence-Only Funding In Budget

Wait, this was my initial reaction when I first looked at the data too. But then I realized that the age range for the data was 15-19!!! Jesus Christ! Only 10% of girls over the age of 19 were unmarried?!? And some were in the age range of 15! How on earth could that be a good thing? I fully support the lowered teenage pregnancies and to hell with the higher rate of unwed mothers. To me the damage of forcing that many young teenagers into marriage just to avoid the shame of having a child out of wedlock is ridiculous and is drastically worse than the impact the unwed mothers will have on society.


then, again, maybe you could read the data and realize that it's not saying teen pregnancies have been lowered. It's saying live births have been lowered. But only marginally, and the number of unwed teen momma's grew by a staggering amount, thanks to the policies of the left.

You're making assumptions regarding the basis of the marriage that are not found in the data provided, and are thus irrelevant to the discussion.
 
I knew you were going to say that. Look at the graph.

Yeah, of course you did. That's why you posted it, to show us that your policies are wonderful because they've led to a 300% increase in births among unwed female teenagers.

No wait, you're totally ignoring that part and pretending it wasn't said.


Nearly ALL of the birth rate decline since the 1950s occurred BEFORE Roe v Wade. It's been pretty much level since then. Try again.

Correctly interpreted, the number of unwed female teen momma's began to increase as soon as the free love nonsense of the sixties became popular.

What a coincidence! More sex turns into more babies.

The real cause of the decline commenced in the 1950's, before Sex Ed? The "birth control pill".

What a concept.

And that has what to do with abstinence? Your argument was that abstinence-only education (and a society that approved of abstinence) meant fewer teen pregnancies.

Nope, never been in favor of abstinence-only education, totally assinine concept, almost as foolish as believing socialism is good for you.

Clearly less sex equals less risk of getting knocked up. You gonna argue with that?

Clearly the current educational trend of telling them everything and keeping the discussion absolutely and positively sterile of any moral ramifications has led to ....more sex, more pregnancies, more single teen mothers and WAY MORE abortions.

What's needed is a sex education program that teaches morals as well as mechanics.
 
Last edited:
I've always been amazed at people that do not support the one proven method birth control and STD spreading.

OH THAT'S right, because it requires people to use "self restraint" and they get held "responsible" for their actions.

Something the above posters seem to have an allergic reaction to.

Proven by whom? Bob Jones University??

May I suggest some "reading" of current studies on the subject and some further "critical thinking" on your part?:2wave:
 
Yeah, of course you did. That's why you posted it, to show us that your policies are wonderful because they've led to a 300% increase in births among unwed female teenagers.

No wait, you're totally ignoring that part and pretending it wasn't said.

Because it WASN'T said. Your argument was that "Leave It To Beaver" morality = fewer teen pregnancies. I completely demolished your argument. Now you're trying to pretend that your argument was about something else entirely.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Correctly interpreted, the number of unwed female teen momma's began to increase as soon as the free love nonsense of the sixties became popular.

What a coincidence! More sex turns into more babies.

Do you not know how to read graphs? The birth rate has DECLINED since the 1950s. And do you have any actual evidence that teenagers have more sex now than they did in the 1950s?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The real cause of the decline commenced in the 1950's, before Sex Ed? The "birth control pill".

No ****ing kidding. That's the whole point. It's exactly why one teaches people about contraception, not bull**** about how sex makes Jesus cry.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Nope, never been in favor of abstinence-only education, totally assinine concept, almost as foolish as believing socialism is good for you.

Then why don't you shut your mouth instead of creating pointless arguments that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Clearly less sex equals less risk of getting knocked up. You gonna argue with that?

And what does that have to do with abstinence-only education?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Clearly the current educational trend of telling them everything and keeping the discussion absolutely and positively sterile of any moral ramifications has led to ....more sex, more pregnancies, more single teen mothers and WAY MORE abortions.

More sex - Show some evidence of this.
More pregnancies - Show some evidence of this.
More single teen mothers - Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
More abortions - Show some evidence of this, as well as a reason why I should care.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What's needed is a sex education program that teaches morals as well as mechanics.

Who's morals? Yours? I'd rather not have kids learn morals from someone who says "If they can't afford health care, let them die" and refers to the President of the United States as "The Kenyan." ;)
 
Last edited:
Every statistic I have seen on the matter points to a dramatic increase in teen births since the 1960s.

Except those statistics only count non-martial births. It does not provide any data on total teenage births and total teenage pregnancies over the discussed time frame. I really don't see how the data you provided helps anyone in this discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom