86 teen girls pregnant at a single high school in Memphis Tennessee

[Cowlesy]

Uhhhhh, wtf??? 86????? In one school?????

http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/high_school_dealing_with_90_teen_pregnancies/hof13234

Where are the parents??

[MRoCkEd]

Trying to get on MTV's 16 and Pregnant? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_And_Pregnant)

[Son of Detroit]

Imagine the crazy hormones that are going to be flowing through that school.

[aGameOfThrones]

Trying to get on MTV's 16 and Pregnant? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_And_Pregnant)

This!

[tangent4ronpaul]

WOW! - 20% of the school population is knocked up!

Abstinence only sex ed FAIL!

[Cowlesy]

Having a child seems like pretty much a lifelong commitment. Somehow I doubt these kids took this into consideration.

[Bruno]

Imagine the crazy hormones that are going to be flowing through that school.

No more hormones than any other school.

Now imagine the lack of birth control used, the absence of postive parental influence in the childrens' lives, and the awareness of the social net of programs the government provides that encourages such behavior.

[sevin]

I'd like to ask the school's sex ed teacher a few questions. Did she even mention condoms?

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'd like to ask the school's sex ed teacher a few questions. Did she even mention condoms?

One of the comments said that school was an abstinence only school - so no, she (or he) never mentioned them.

-t

[Bruno]

One of the comments said that school was an abstinence only school - so no, she (or he) never mentioned them.

-t

Just Say Know

[Jeremy]

That would be funny if it was the same guy.

[specsaregood]

One of the comments said that school was an abstinence only school - so no, she (or he) never mentioned them.
-t

You have a low threshold for proof.

[sevin]

One of the comments said that school was an abstinence only school - so no, she (or he) never mentioned them.

-t

Interesting.

[erowe1]

I'd like to ask the school's sex ed teacher a few questions. Did she even mention condoms?

This didn't happen because these kids weren't exposed to enough government indoctrination about sex.

No schools ever had problems like this before the days of sex-ed.

[erowe1]

One of the comments said that school was an abstinence only school - so no, she (or he) never mentioned them.

-t

The person who made that comment said that he only assumed it was abstinence only because Tennessee is a "red state."

I assume he's wrong in his assumption.

[Brett85]

WOW! - 20% of the school population is knocked up!

Abstinence only sex ed FAIL!

How about no sex education in government run schools? BS like this is why many Christian parents don't want to send their kids to public school.

[MikeStanart]

I told you guys not to let the "Collins" into Tennessee! :D

[Cowlesy]

It reminds me of the classic clip....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo

[squarepusher]

Having children is a natural part of life, I always wondered why schools were so against it. "Dont have a baby! Its going to ruin your life!"

That's nonsense, I'm glad these teenagers are seeing through it. Whats the issue, that these people won't get high paying jobs and contribute to the government tax revenues?

It seems backwards in our society, that the younger women (teenager to 20's) are the most fit and healthiest to have babies are expected to go into career, but yet we seem to want to reserve actual pregnancy it for women in their 30's after their career, simply because they have money to buy a house/BMW/etc, even though their bodies and possibly motherhood skills aren't up to par (this age may be more fit biologically to be a grandmother type roll).

Anyways, just a rant I believe nature has a way of righting itself, as seen in this population of teen young women who bucked the trend to 'wait till your 35 and have a career to have a kid"

[Jeremy]

Having children is a natural part of life, I always wondered why schools were so against it. "Dont have a baby! Its going to ruin your life!"

That's nonsense, I'm glad these teenagers are seeing through it. Whats the issue, that these people won't get high paying jobs and contribute to the government tax revenues?

It seems backwards in our society, that the younger women (teenager to 20's) are the most fit and healthiest to have babies are expected to go into career, but yet we seem to want to reserve actual pregnancy it for women in their 30's after their career, simply because they have money to buy a house/BMW/etc, even though their bodies and possibly motherhood skills aren't up to par (this age may be more fit biologically to be a grandmother type roll).

Anyways, just a rant I believe nature has a way of righting itself, as seen in this population of teen young women who bucked the trend to 'wait till your 35 and have a career to have a kid"

It's not natural when you're still a child yourself. And don't tell me anything about age and how back in the day blah blah blah... Kids aren't prepared to be parents that young in this time period.

[squarepusher]

It's not natural when you're still a child yourself. And don't tell me anything about age and how back in the day blah blah blah... Kids aren't prepared to be parents that young in this time period.

becoming a parent isn't' something you learn in school, or get a certificate from. It's something that nature gives. Look at most career moms, who drop their kids off at daycare from 9-5 m-f. Is that the preparation for a mom you like?

[qh4dotcom]

Oh dear, many of you seem to have forgotten your Libertarian philosophy...All of you who advocate that a person should do whatever he/she wants with their body, why can't mature teens do whatever they want with their body? Who are you to tell them who they can have sex with or that they can't have sex?

[Jeremy]

becoming a parent isn't' something you learn in school, or get a certificate from. It's something that nature gives. Look at most career moms, who drop their kids off at daycare from 9-5 m-f. Is that the preparation for a mom you like?

It's not about parenting skills. It's about basic life skills. They don't even have those yet. And who's going to provide for the child?


Oh dear, you all seem to have forgotten your Libertarian philosophy...All of you who advocate that a person should do whatever he/she
wants with their body, why can't mature teens do whatever they want with their body? Who are you to tell them who they can have sex with or that they can't
have sex?
You don't know the difference between making something illegal and saying something is a bad idea?

[Andrew-Austin]

Having children is a natural part of life, I always wondered why schools were so against it. "Dont have a baby! Its going to ruin your life!"

That's nonsense, I'm glad these teenagers are seeing through it. Whats the issue, that these people won't get high paying jobs and contribute to the government tax revenues?

Its going to "ruin their life" because they can't afford it, they are dependents themselves, they are not ready for parenting. Its pretty fucking foolish to have babies that young regardless if its biologically natural to do so. They are bringing a baby in to this world which they are poorly equipped to take care of ideally, this is a form of neglect.


It seems backwards in our society, that the younger women (teenager to 20's) are the most fit and healthiest to have babies are expected to go into career, but yet we seem to want to reserve actual pregnancy it for women in their 30's after their career, simply because they have money to buy a house/BMW/etc, even though their bodies and possibly motherhood skills aren't up to par (this age may be more fit biologically to be a grandmother type roll).

The human race need not restrict itself to what was normal in the past.


Anyways, just a rant I believe nature has a way of righting itself, as seen in this population of teen young women who bucked the trend to 'wait till your 35 and have a career to have a kid"

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be born to one of these teenage girls, you are almost guaranteed to get a negligent mother that way. But its no big deal to you, just because its "biologically normal".



becoming a parent isn't' something you learn in school, or get a certificate from. It's something that nature gives. Look at most career moms, who drop their kids off at daycare from 9-5 m-f. Is that the preparation for a mom you like?

They are ignorant little turds, ignorant little turns can make "okay" parents by yesterday's shoddy standards of parenting, but they won't be good parents.

No that isn't the kind of mom I'd like, so don't strawman.

You should checkout freedomainradio for a more enlightened view on parenting.




Oh dear, many of you seem to have forgotten your Libertarian philosophy...All of you who advocate that a person should do whatever he/she wants with their body, why can't mature teens do whatever they want with their body? Who are you to tell them who they can have sex with or that they can't have sex?

What the fuck? Who is saying it should be illegal? I condemn stupid actions, but I don't think stupidity should be illegal, even this form of especially negligent stupidity. Do you just give your thumbs up approval to anything that you don't think should be illegal? I doubt it.

[t0rnado]

95% of the kids in that school are eligible for free lunch and the other 5% are eligible for reduced lunch.

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/74457

They're just bringing more leeches into the world.

[amy31416]

Having children is a natural part of life, I always wondered why schools were so against it. "Dont have a baby! Its going to ruin your life!"

That's nonsense, I'm glad these teenagers are seeing through it. Whats the issue, that these people won't get high paying jobs and contribute to the government tax revenues?

It seems backwards in our society, that the younger women (teenager to 20's) are the most fit and healthiest to have babies are expected to go into career, but yet we seem to want to reserve actual pregnancy it for women in their 30's after their career, simply because they have money to buy a house/BMW/etc, even though their bodies and possibly motherhood skills aren't up to par (this age may be more fit biologically to be a grandmother type roll).

Anyways, just a rant I believe nature has a way of righting itself, as seen in this population of teen young women who bucked the trend to 'wait till your 35 and have a career to have a kid"

Back in the old days, and by the "old days" I mean the time of my great-great grandparents...they'd have children in the double-digits quite often, and the older girls didn't have any option BUT to help raise children. Just as the boys didn't have any other option but to help on the farm, in the business, whatever. So, 10-year-old girls would often be starting to learn how to rear children, and that would be their main job (often, alongside school and learning other homemaking skills.) Even then, the girls often did not get married and have children until they were about 17-20+ years old.

And when they did, they were already seasoned "mothers" who were skilled in sewing, cooking, baking, canning, knitting, various basic medicinal arts, etc--at the very least.

These girls are probably whizzes at text messaging. Young girls don't even babysit like they used to...so we're looking at a generation of extremely superficial, untrained girls with no discipline, no need to have a father around, who will likely rely on the state to help them feed their babies Fruit Loops and Kool-Aid, raising a whole mess o'children.

That ain't natural, no matter which way you slice it. And it will not promote the more "natural" order of things as you may (or may not) think.

[demolama]

That would be funny if it was the same guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo&feature=player_detailpage#t=119s

[Brett85]

Oh dear, many of you seem to have forgotten your Libertarian philosophy...All of you who advocate that a person should do whatever he/she wants with their body, why can't mature teens do whatever they want with their body? Who are you to tell them who they can have sex with or that they can't have sex?

Nobody is talking about making a law against this, but we have the 1st amendment right to speak out against it.

[Matt Collins]

Memphis is a dirty filthy cesspool, one of the worst cities in the nation.


I can say that because I was born there, my family is from there, and none of us live there any more, with good reason.

[erowe1]

Oh dear, many of you seem to have forgotten your Libertarian philosophy...All of you who advocate that a person should do whatever he/she wants with their body, why can't mature teens do whatever they want with their body? Who are you to tell them who they can have sex with or that they can't have sex?

Did anybody here say they can't have sex?

[specsaregood]

//

[Cowlesy]

95% of the kids in that school are eligible for free lunch and the other 5% are eligible for reduced lunch.

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/74457

They're just bringing more leeches into the world.

I just think it is unsustainable in the long run. Question is, what is the 'long run'?

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's not natural when you're still a child yourself. And don't tell me anything about age and how back in the day blah blah blah... Kids aren't prepared to be parents that young in this time period.

What's so different about this time period?

-t

[liberalnurse]

Did anybody here say they can't have sex?

Exactly. If they're ready to have sex then they're ready to do it responsibily and use birth control. I pounded that into my son's head from an early age. His grandmother used to get a kick out of his answer to: "What's your mother's worst nightmare?" His response, "My girlfriend gets pregnant at 16." He was in like 6-7 y/o at the time. :) He's 24 now and ready to graduate from Pharmacy school in May.

[osan]

Uhhhhh, wtf??? 86????? In one school?????

As understandable as it may be to wonder otherwise, I swear it was not me.


(http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/high_school_dealing_with_90_teen_pregnancies/hof13234)
http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/high_school_dealing_with_90_teen_pregnancies/hof13234

Where are the parents??

Busy taking the next hit off the pipe? Being self absorbed yuppies?

I wonder how many of these parents would be raising the roof if anyone took issue with the level and manner of their parental involvement. "We know how to raise our daughter. Piss off!"

Indeed.

[Brett85]

Exactly. If they're ready to have sex then they're ready to do it responsibily and use birth control. I pounded that into my son's head from an early age. His grandmother used to get a kick out of his answer to: "What's your mother's worst nightmare?" His response, "My girlfriend gets pregnant at 16." He was in like 6-7 y/o at the time. :) He's 24 now and ready to graduate from Pharmacy school in May.

Birth control pills still don't prevent STD's.

[qh4dotcom]

What the fuck? Who is saying it should be illegal? I condemn stupid actions, but I don't think stupidity should be illegal, even this form of especially negligent stupidity. Do you just give your thumbs up approval to anything that you don't think should be illegal? I doubt it.

I wasn't talking about laws...just that some folks here seemed to be speaking out against the actions of these teens instead of defending their liberties.

[amy31416]

I dion't think the rearing younger siblings "job" is/was limited to the girl children. I know it wasn't in my house.

It was in my grandparents/great-grandparents families. Of course, the girls worked in the bakery too, when they weren't helping take care of the kids.

[Brett85]

QH4dotcom needs to just be ignored. Just look at the filth he was spewing on this thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?275572-Ed-Schultz-Tries-To-Make-Tucson-Hero-Joe-Zamudio-Out-To-Be-A-Danger-To-The-Public

[virgil47]

Having a child seems like pretty much a lifelong commitment. Somehow I doubt these kids took this into consideration.

Somehow I also doubt that the sex ed instructors mentioned either.

[Cowlesy]

I wasn't talking about laws...just that some folks here seemed to be speaking out against the actions of these teens instead of defending their liberties.

What kind of liberty would their children have if we didn't have a gigantic welfare state?

[virgil47]

Having children is a natural part of life, I always wondered why schools were so against it. "Dont have a baby! Its going to ruin your life!"

That's nonsense, I'm glad these teenagers are seeing through it. Whats the issue, that these people won't get high paying jobs and contribute to the government tax revenues?

It seems backwards in our society, that the younger women (teenager to 20's) are the most fit and healthiest to have babies are expected to go into career, but yet we seem to want to reserve actual pregnancy it for women in their 30's after their career, simply because they have money to buy a house/BMW/etc, even though their bodies and possibly motherhood skills aren't up to par (this age may be more fit biologically to be a grandmother type roll).

Anyways, just a rant I believe nature has a way of righting itself, as seen in this population of teen young women who bucked the trend to 'wait till your 35 and have a career to have a kid"

you of course are correct. Just look at many African nations and you can readily see the results of having sex whenever the urge strikes. These youngsters are simply screwing their way onto the welfare rolls.

[MaxPower]

Memphis is a dirty filthy cesspool, one of the worst cities in the nation.


I can say that because I was born there, my family is from there, and none of us live there any more, with good reason.
But... but what about "Walking in Memphis"?!

[virgil47]

Oh dear, many of you seem to have forgotten your Libertarian philosophy...All of you who advocate that a person should do whatever he/she wants with their body, why can't mature teens do whatever they want with their body? Who are you to tell them who they can have sex with or that they can't have sex?

Because they have not reached the age of majority and do not have the life experience required to make reasoned decisions. That is the primary reason that I oppose children voting. They just don't have enough life experience to make good decisions.

[low preference guy]

How about no sex education in government run schools? BS like this is why many Christian parents don't want to send their kids to public school.

You're a very naive. You won't have a good education as long as you have government schools. And even if they grant you your wish of not having sex-ed in government schools, they can change that policy anytime, since the schools aren't privately controlled.

So the right question is: What about no government schools?

[liberalnurse]

Birth control pills still don't prevent STD's.

Birth control includes condoms.

[qh4dotcom]

Because they have not reached the age of majority and do not have the life experience required to make reasoned decisions. That is the primary reason that I oppose children voting. They just don't have enough life experience to make good decisions.

So where do you draw the line then?
Why can't a teen who is 17 years 364 days old vote and a teen who is one day older (18) can?
and how do you know that ALL 86 teens in this article don't have the "life experience" you talk about?

[Anti Federalist]

Birth control includes condoms.

Lot's of people mentioning this or that when it comes to birth control.

This is not education related (or the lack thereof).

I refuse to believe that in 2010 in the United States, that no person over the age of ten does not know that sex between a male and female is how "babies are made".

This is just laziness and stupidity.

[low preference guy]

I refuse to believe that in 2010 in the United States, that no person over the age of ten does not know that sex between a male and female is how "babies are made".

They made "pregnancy pacts" (to get pregnant) according to the video linked in the OP.

[Anti Federalist]

They made "pregnancy pacts" (to get pregnant) according to the video linked in the OP.

*smacks forehead*

You're kidding right?

(I can't watch videos where I am right now)

[low preference guy]

*smacks forehead*

You're kidding right?

nope.

[pcosmar]

They made "pregnancy pacts" (to get pregnant) according to the video linked in the OP.

That was my suspicion. And it is not unknown.

The girls who made the pregnancy pact — some of whom, according to Sullivan, reacted to the news that they were expecting with high fives and plans for baby showers — declined to be interviewed.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html#ixzz1B8NR3ckT

There was a movie about it too. Art mimics life.

[bunklocoempire]

Where are the parents??

+ a million.

Bunkloco

[Brian4Liberty]

It's about incentives...


Imagine the crazy hormones that are going to be flowing through that school.

The natural and strongest incentive.


Trying to get on MTV's 16 and Pregnant? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_And_Pregnant)

The Hollywood incentive.


... the awareness of the social net of programs the government provides that encourages such behavior.

The free money from government incentive.

And finally, let's not forget the positive attention that having a baby brings from family, friends and society in general.


No schools ever had problems like this before the days of sex-ed.

You must mean a highly publicized cluster like this? Obviously, young women have always become pregnant.



It seems backwards in our society, that the younger women (teenager to 20's) are the most fit and healthiest to have babies are expected to go into career, but yet we seem to want to reserve actual pregnancy it for women in their 30's after their career, simply because they have money to buy a house/BMW/etc, even though their bodies and possibly motherhood skills aren't up to par (this age may be more fit biologically to be a grandmother type roll).

Anyways, just a rant I believe nature has a way of righting itself, as seen in this population of teen young women who bucked the trend to 'wait till your 35 and have a career to have a kid"

There is a case to be made that there is some modern brainwashing and hidden agendas at work here. Nature dictates that 16-30 is the best age for women to have children. Though in our current society, finishing school (or college) first is highly advisable.

[Brett85]

You're a very naive. You won't have a good education as long as you have government schools. And even if they grant you your wish of not having sex-ed in government schools, they can change that policy anytime, since the schools aren't privately controlled.

So the right question is: What about no government schools?

I support vouchers so that parents can afford to send their kids to private school, but I don't support abolishing public schools all together. I just think that public schools need to get back to teaching the basics like Math, Reading, Science, Social Studies, etc. Public schools shouldn't be in the business of social engineering.

[Anti Federalist]

I just think that public schools need to get back to teaching the basics like Math, Reading, Science, Social Studies, etc. Public schools shouldn't be in the business of social engineering.

They were never created or intended to do that.

Public schools were created for the specific purpose of "social engineering".

[tangent4ronpaul]

I refuse to believe that in 2010 in the United States, that no person over the age of ten does not know that sex between a male and female is how "babies are made".


GET REAL! - Every 10yo knows babies come from kissing. It's the same way cooties are spread!

:D

-t

[pacelli]

Public schools were created for the specific purpose of "social engineering".

^^^^ What AF said. ^^^^^

[AFPVet]

This and the observations that I have found in my area lead me to believe that Alex Jones' statements about infertility and population control are BS. The facts are the absolute contrary.

[tangent4ronpaul]

They were never created or intended to do that.

Public schools were created for the specific purpose of "social engineering".

Google: john dewey education social engineering

Yeah, same guy that came up with the Dewey Decimal System is responsible for the Public Fool System.

-t

[Anti Federalist]

This and the observations that I have found in my area lead me to believe that Alex Jones' statements about infertility and population control are BS. The facts are the absolute contrary.

Sperm counts decreasing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4112450.stm

Testosterone levels decreasing:

http://www.usdoctor.com/testone.htm

[mczerone]

I support vouchers so that parents can afford to send their kids to private school, but I don't support abolishing public schools all together. I just think that public schools need to get back to teaching the basics like Math, Reading, Science, Social Studies, etc. Public schools shouldn't be in the business of social engineering.

Public Schools (1) are the business of social engineering, you can't have one without the other, and (2) Schooling is not one of the few explicit powers enumerated within the Constitution, so at the very least they shouldn't be Federally funded.

And "vouchers" don't reconcile the vast regulation put on nominally "private" schools by the government.

[Brett85]

(2) Schooling is not one of the few explicit powers enumerated within the Constitution, so at the very least they shouldn't be Federally funded.

I agree. I believe that education should be a state and local issue. I just wouldn't want my state to abolish public schools. I support Constitutional government, but I don't want to turn America into a third world country.

[AFPVet]

Sperm counts decreasing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4112450.stm

Testosterone levels decreasing:



http://www.usdoctor.com/testone.htm

I don't doubt that chemicals decrease sperm and testosterone; however, the evidence I have seen points to a population boom—not decline. This is in my localized area as well as my state... not to mention the area where this story takes place!

[Anti Federalist]

I don't doubt that chemicals decrease sperm and testosterone; however, the evidence I have seen points to a population boom—not decline. This is in my localized area as well as my state... not to mention the area where this story takes place!

You may be witnessing a localized phenomenon.


Recession may have pushed U.S. birth rate to new low

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-08-27-birth-decline_N.htm

The U.S. birth rate has dropped for the second year in a row, and experts think the wrenching recession led many people to put off having children. The 2009 birth rate also set a record: lowest in a century.

Births fell 2.7% last year even as the population grew, numbers released Friday by the National Center for Health Statistics show.

"It's a good-sized decline for one year. Every month is showing a decline from the year before," said Stephanie Ventura, the demographer who oversaw the report.

The birth rate, which takes into account changes in the population, fell to 13.5 births for every 1,000 people last year. That's down from 14.3 in 2007 and way down from 30 in 1909, when it was common for people to have big families.


ETA - The photo that came along with that article was too good to pass up.

Taking the baby's blood for DNA database collection. (and before the scoffers come in, yes, I know what they tell you it's for, a PKU test)

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2010/08/27/babyx-topper-medium.jpg

[mczerone]

I agree. I believe that education should be a state and local issue. I just wouldn't want my state to abolish public schools. I support Constitutional government, but I don't want to turn America into a third world country.

I'm glad we agree on the Federal issue. But I think that you'd be surprised that public schooling, even on a local or state level, is probably more likely to push the economy into "third world" status than the abolition of publicly supported schooling would.

But since reasonable minds can differ, it would be nice if the original federal notion of "laboratories of democracy" was still functioning so that different States could try different things - to see what actually works, even without pushing for complete anarchy (though I bet that that would be the most economically beneficial system, but without a stable environment for experimentation, we'll never know for sure).

[low preference guy]

I agree. I believe that education should be a state and local issue. I just wouldn't want my state to abolish public schools. I support Constitutional government, but I don't want to turn America into a third world country.

Third world countries tend to have public schools, that's why their education is so bad. So you should oppose them if you don't want America to turn into one.

[Anti Federalist]

Third world countries tend to have public schools, that's why their education is so bad. So you should oppose them if you don't want America to turn into one.

Agreed, I was just coming back into this thread to make that very same point.

Some of the worst third world shitholes I have been in tend to have public schools with uniformed kids marching off to them every day.

[specsaregood]

Third world countries tend to have public schools, that's why their education is so bad. So you should oppose them if you don't want America to turn into one.

Are you suggesting that first world countries don't tend to have public schools? Please provide evidence of this. I've been in a number of countries: 1st,2nd and 3rd world. I'm pretty sure the public school phenomena exists in all of them.

[Brett85]

Third world countries tend to have public schools, that's why their education is so bad. So you should oppose them if you don't want America to turn into one.

Well I don't know of any industrialized country that doesn't have public schools. Also, what is Ron Paul's view on this? Does he support abolishing public schools? Or does he simply want to get the federal government out of education?

[low preference guy]

Are you suggesting that first world countries don't tend to have public schools? Please provide evidence of this. I've been in a number of countries: 1st,2nd and 3rd world. I'm pretty sure the public school phenomena exists in all of them.

I'm suggesting that it is false that the elimination of public schools turns a country into a third world country.

This is what TC said: I don't want to eliminate public schools because I don't want to be a third world country. I respond: if you want to be different from third world countries, get rid of public schools!

[specsaregood]

I'm suggesting that it is false that the elimination of public schools turns a country into a third world country.

That's what TC said: I don't want to eliminate public schools because I don't want to be a third world country. I respond: if you want to be different from third world countries, get rid of public schools!

Fair enough. I don't think it has been tried, so it is tough to argue either way. I do think the barrier for entry of creating a small private school should be lowered, dramatically.

[Anti Federalist]

Well I don't know of any industrialized country that doesn't have public schools. Also, what is Ron Paul's view on this? Does he support abolishing public schools? Or does he simply want to get the federal government out of education?

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007/08/where_do_the_candidates_stand_4.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-EAYncCRok

[low preference guy]

Fair enough. I don't think it has been tried, so it is tough to argue either way. I do think the barrier for entry of creating a small private school should be lowered, dramatically.

The problem is that when you have public schools, they get subsidies when the government pays for their students. So it's very hard for a private school to compete without having subsidies.

The only way it can happen is getting rid of the department of education and let the states do what they want. Those with fewer regulations and restrictions to operating private schools will gradually diminish the % of students in public schools.

[low preference guy]

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007/08/where_do_the_candidates_stand_4.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-EAYncCRok

Great video. RP agrees with getting rid of public schools in principle:


0:38 "We want to go in the direction of privatizing all schools"

[specsaregood]

The problem is that when you have public schools, they get subsidies when the government pays for their students. So it's very hard for a private school to compete without having subsidies.

Well that is part of the "barrier for entry" I spoke about. This is one argument for the voucher system as a way to help the transition.



The only way it can happen is getting rid of the department of education and let the states do what they want. Those with fewer regulations and restrictions to operating private schools will gradually diminish the % of students in public schools.
No doubt about it.

[low preference guy]

Well that is part of the "barrier for entry" I spoke about. This is one argument for the voucher system as a way to help the transition.

that's a barrier of entry but i think there are more. don't you need the approval of the government regarding what you'll teach? if so, an education entrepreneur who wants to radically try a completely different system wouldn't even be able to do it legally.

[specsaregood]

that's a barrier of entry but i think there are more. don't you need the approval of the government regarding what you'll teach? if so, an education entrepreneur who wants to radically try a completely different system wouldn't even be able to do it legally.

Yup, there is a whole lot of govt in the way of letting people try out educational ideas.

[silentshout]

Having children is a natural part of life, I always wondered why schools were so against it. "Dont have a baby! Its going to ruin your life!"

That's nonsense, I'm glad these teenagers are seeing through it. Whats the issue, that these people won't get high paying jobs and contribute to the government tax revenues?

It seems backwards in our society, that the younger women (teenager to 20's) are the most fit and healthiest to have babies are expected to go into career, but yet we seem to want to reserve actual pregnancy it for women in their 30's after their career, simply because they have money to buy a house/BMW/etc, even though their bodies and possibly motherhood skills aren't up to par (this age may be more fit biologically to be a grandmother type roll).

Anyways, just a rant I believe nature has a way of righting itself, as seen in this population of teen young women who bucked the trend to 'wait till your 35 and have a career to have a kid"

Meh. I am one of those horrible people who waited until 34 to have kids, and I am glad I did. I was far too immature to do so when younger, and I am glad I got to travel a lot, etc. Not to mention, I didn't get married until my early 30s. My body and motherhood skills are just fine, thank you, I am in no way a "grandmother" type at my age.. People should be able to have kids when they choose, of course, but for many teens having kids, they don't have the money to support them, so they end up on the government dole and everyone ends up having to pay to support them. I would rather they wait in that case, but people are going to do what they are going to do.

[MelissaWV]

Having children may be a natural part of life for most people, but please realize that teens who have spent the bulk of their lives in school and with parents may lack the money and maturity to raise a child. It's not that someone in high school automatically lacks some kind of magical parenting potion they receive later in life. It's that the way the school system and employment regulations work, it would be incredibly difficult to raise the child without help. Counting on mom and dad to help is a mixed bag, and the parents might not have spare money either.

So what happens? A portion of those young mommies are going to end up on public help. That's not a good thing.

There will always be a good chunk of parents who got through having a child very early just fine. I don't think the majority turn out that way, though.

[dannno]

Where are the parents??

Where are they going to college :confused:

[liberalnurse]

Meh. I am one of those horrible people who waited until 34 to have kids, and I am glad I did. I was far too immature to do so when younger, and I am glad I got to travel a lot, etc. Not to mention, I didn't get married until my early 30s. My body and motherhood skills are just fine, thank you, I am in no way a "grandmother" type at my age..they are going to do.

I too would be included in one of those horrible people who waited until their 30's to have a child. Married at 27 and had a planned birth at 31. We were ready and prepared. One and done because we wanted to do more then "get by," plus time just flew by and before you know it we were 40. I was a stay at home Mom the first 2 yrs. and have worked full time since. Apparently our parenting skills are just fine. As I mentioned before he graduates from 6 years of Pharmacy School in May and has interviewed all accross the country with an average starting wage of $90,000 plus some will pay his school loans with a 3-5 year contract. Maturity, confidence, financial stability, personal responsibility and a like minded partner are a big factor in parenting. Raising producers not moochers. Teenagers are not anywhere near that stage.

[osan]

They made "pregnancy pacts" (to get pregnant) according to the video linked in the OP.

After smacking the shit out of them, I'd drag their asses to the clinic for roto-rooter work.

If their parents are that stupid, they deserve the misery they are getting.

[osan]

They were never created or intended to do that.

Public schools were created for the specific purpose of "social engineering".

Precisely this.

[osan]

I believe that education should be a state and local issue.[\quote]

Disagree 100%. GOvernment has NO business in a child's education. None whatsoever. It is 100% parental business and nothing else. If parents want to get together and run a school for their children, great. Neither state nor municipality have and legitimate power to tax for this purpose. It is bullshit to the core.

[quote] I just wouldn't want my state to abolish public schools.

Then you support state violence and theft. You cannot have public schools without them.


I support Constitutional government

This is clearly not the case. Methinks you need to rethink your position and correct one end or the other.


but I don't want to turn America into a third world country.

Please elaborate on your meaning here.

[TNforPaul45]

What's funny is that a large majority of these kids got pregnant on purpose.

I think we can all discern the reason.

*cough* *cough* welfare state *cough* *cough*

[Matt Collins]

But... but what about "Walking in Memphis"?!
There was a cool parody of that song by Scooter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcBQepRQR7E

[Brett85]

[QUOTE=Traditional Conservative;3066092] I believe that education should be a state and local issue.[\quote]

Disagree 100%. GOvernment has NO business in a child's education. None whatsoever. It is 100% parental business and nothing else. If parents want to get together and run a school for their children, great. Neither state nor municipality have and legitimate power to tax for this purpose. It is bullshit to the core.



Then you support state violence and theft. You cannot have public schools without them.



This is clearly not the case. Methinks you need to rethink your position and correct one end or the other.



Please elaborate on your meaning here.

Sorry, but I'm not an anarchist. I'm a Constitutional Conservative. Ron Paul has supporters from all over the political spectrum. Every industrialized country on the face of the earth has public education. We have to give children the tools and knowledge that they need to compete in the market place and succeed. You're crazy if you think that parents can give their children an adequate education. You must not realize how dumb and unqualified to teach many parents are. The only way that America will remain a top tier country is if we provide local education for children and allow them to gain the knowledge that they need to compete in the market place.

[AFPVet]

Society is to blame—and the breakdown of institutions (Ulrich Beck)

[low preference guy]

Sorry, but I'm not an anarchist. I'm a Constitutional Conservative. Ron Paul has supporters from all over the political spectrum. Every industrialized country on the face of the earth has public education. We have to give children the tools and knowledge that they need to compete in the market place and succeed. You're crazy if you think that parents can give their children an adequate education. You must not realize how dumb and unqualified to teach many parents are. The only way that America will remain a top tier country is if we provide local education for children and allow them to gain the knowledge that they need to compete in the market place.

You're right that we need to give children the tools and knowledge they need to compete. It's too important, and that's why it shouldn't be left to the government! Look at what happened since Carter created the Dept. of Education? Involvement of the government in higher education increased dramatically. The result? Our college graduates today are dumber on average than high school graduates of 50 years ago!

Look what happened in DC when they tried to improve public education. They spent more money on it. The result? The more money is spent, the worse students perform!

If we keep having public education to the degree we do or more, you might just get your wish and produce enough morons and parasites to destroy what's left of this country.

Lastly, you talk about the market place. If that is so important, why do you want to eliminate the market place in education?



You must not realize how dumb and unqualified to teach many parents are.

They are the product of public education! Geez!

[QueenB4Liberty]

[QUOTE=osan;3066239]

Sorry, but I'm not an anarchist. I'm a Constitutional Conservative. Ron Paul has supporters from all over the political spectrum. Every industrialized country on the face of the earth has public education. We have to give children the tools and knowledge that they need to compete in the market place and succeed. You're crazy if you think that parents can give their children an adequate education. You must not realize how dumb and unqualified to teach many parents are. The only way that America will remain a top tier country is if we provide local education for children and allow them to gain the knowledge that they need to compete in the market place.

You know I consider myself ancap and I believe in community schools. Of course, not the state, but local communities, neighborhoods getting together and someone or a few people being the teachers. I think that's a win win situation for everyone.

And I don't believe public schools were always as bad as they were. Public schools were around before the Department of Education right? I just think the problem lies most with the federal government being involved.

[Brett85]

You're right that we need to give children the tools and knowledge they need to compete. It's too important, and that's why it shouldn't be left to the government! Look at what happened since Carter created the Dept. of Education? Involvement of the government in higher education increased dramatically. The result? Our college graduates today are dumber on average than high school graduates of 50 years ago!

Look what happened in DC when they tried to improve public education. They spent more money on it. The result? The more money is spent, the worse students perform!

If we keep having public education to the degree we do or more, you might just get your wish and produce enough morons and parasites to destroy what's left of this country.

Lastly, you talk about the market place. If that is so important, why do you want to eliminate the market place in education?




They are the product of public education! Geez!

When did I ever say that I supported the Department of Education? I didn't. I support abolishing the DOE and returning education to the states. The reason why the quality of public education decreased so drastically after the Carter years was because the federal government became involved in education. So I want the federal government to have absolutely no role in education, and I certainly don't want unlimited education spending at the state level. All I said was that I wouldn't abolish public schools. How in the world is that controversial? Liberty candidates like Rand Paul and Justin Amash have never said that public schools should actually be abolished. I went to a public school and still go back to watch sporting events. How hypocritical would it be for me to support abolishing the public school that I attended?

[Brett85]

...

[low preference guy]

I went to a public school and still go back to watch sporting events. How hypocritical would it be for me to support abolishing the public school that I attended?

Setting aside whether it's desirable or not, I don't think it's hypocritical. It's just a change of the owner of the school. If you went to a private school as a kid, you're not a hypocrite if you don't oppose the owner selling the school to someone else. Same thing with public schools. If the state sells it and the school has a new owner with or without your encouragement, there is nothing hypocritical about that.

[Anti Federalist]

You're crazy if you think that parents can give their children an adequate education. You must not realize how dumb and unqualified to teach many parents are.

So, you are in favor of abolishing home schooling then?

ETA - Or maybe not abolishing, but regulating heavily and demanding that home schoolers precisely follow state established curricula?


The only way that America will remain a top tier country

What defines a "top tier" country?

If it's what we see right now, I'd happily become a "second tier" country with more freedom thank you very much.

[Brett85]

So, you are in favor of abolishing home schooling then?



What defines a "top tier" country?

If it's what we see right now, I'd happily become a "second tier" country with more freedom thank you very much.

No, I don't support abolishing home schooling. I'm just saying that many parents wouldn't trust themselves to educate their children and would rather send them to public schools. I'm just talking about countries that have a large economy, good economic growth, low unemployment, etc. I don't know of a single industrialized country on the face of the earth that doesn't provide public education. Again, I want absolutely no federal involvement in education, but I'm not in favor of allowing children to opt out of education. That's not a realistic idea. And surely you realize that children aren't entitled to the same amount of freedom that adults are.

[low preference guy]

No, I don't support abolishing home schooling. I'm just saying that many parents wouldn't trust themselves to educate their children and would rather send them to public schools. I'm just talking about countries that have a large economy, good economic growth, low unemployment, etc. I don't know of a single industrialized country on the face of the earth that doesn't provide public education. Again, I wan't absolutely no federal involvement in education, but I'm not in favor of allowing children to opt out of education. That's not a realistic idea. And surely you realize that children aren't entitled to the same amount of freedom that adults are.

There is no single industrialized country on the face of the earth without a central bank! Thank God for central banks!

[Brett85]

There is no single industrialized country on the face of the earth without a central bank! Thank God for central banks!

The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, which is why it should be abolished. The Constitution specifically says that "Congress" shall have the right to coin money. So regardless of what other countries do, I don't want to violate our Constitution. I also support abolishing the Department of Education, which I thought was the libertarian position on this issue. I never realized that libertarians wanted to allow children to opt out of education.

[specsaregood]

Again, I want absolutely no federal involvement in education,
Why just federal? If state involvement in education is good, then federal involvement must be super gooder. And if federal involvement is bad, one must question if state involvement is even worser.

[low preference guy]

I never realized that libertarians wanted to allow children to opt out of education.

schooling =\= education

[Anti Federalist]

No, I don't support abolishing home schooling. I'm just saying that many parents wouldn't trust themselves to educate their children and would rather send them to public schools. I'm just talking about countries that have a large economy, good economic growth, low unemployment, etc. I don't know of a single industrialized country on the face of the earth that doesn't provide public education. Again, I want absolutely no federal involvement in education, but I'm not in favor of allowing children to opt out of education. That's not a realistic idea. And surely you realize that children aren't entitled to the same amount of freedom that adults are.

Not children but adults making decisions about how they raise their children.

So you favor compulsory education, and you favor other people being forced to pay for that, even if they don't have children.

Gotcha...

[college4life]

The whole "every industrialized nation has it so it must be good" mantra is often used by Ted Turner and the liberals to justify universal healthcare.

You can't assume something is good just because others do it, that is Jared Laughner logic right there.

[Brett85]

Not children but adults making decisions about how they raise their children.

So you favor compulsory education, and you favor other people being forced to pay for that, even if they don't have children.

Gotcha...

Can you name a single country on the earth that doesn't have any taxes at all? I support abolishing the income tax and only having indirect taxes like the sales tax, but it isn't possible to not have any taxes at all. Without taxes you wouldn't have a government at any level.

[Brett85]

Why just federal? If state involvement in education is good, then federal involvement must be super gooder. And if federal involvement is bad, one must question if state involvement is even worser.

I believe that the government that is closest to the people is the government which governs best. I would say that most of the funding for education should come at the county level rather than the state level, but realistically there has to be state funding as well. Are you saying that we shouldn't have public universities as well? Would you abolish my favorite sports team, the Kansas Jayhawks?

[college4life]

We should not have public universities, no. It's not like education wouldn't exist in their absence, entreprenuers would provide better education at a cheaper price I'm sure of it.

[low preference guy]

Are you saying that we shouldn't have public universities as well? Would you abolish my favorite sports team, the Kansas Jayhawks?

have you ever heard of the word PRIVATIZATION?

[Cowlesy]

Hah, this thread makes me think of that video ronpaulhawaii posted earlier today :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=056C4wM9niQ&feature=player_embedded

[specsaregood]

I believe that the government that is closest to the people is the government which governs best. I would say that most of the funding for education should come at the county level rather than the state level, but realistically there has to be state funding as well. Are you saying that we shouldn't have public universities as well? Would you abolish my favorite sports team, the Kansas Jayhawks?

I'm not saying much, just asking. I agree for the most part.

[college4life]

LPG, traditional conservative fails to understand how the government crowds out the private sector and simply assumes services wouldn't exist without the government.

So sad that even people here are brainwashed, we are hopeless as a country. Hope everyone has a sufficient supply of gold and silver and food supplies to make it through this economic winter.

[Anti Federalist]

Can you name a single country on the earth that doesn't have any taxes at all? I support abolishing the income tax and only having indirect taxes like the sales tax, but it isn't possible to not have any taxes at all. Without taxes you wouldn't have a government at any level.

I am on record many times as being in favor of import duties and tariffs, so I have no issue with government funding itself, if there is to be government.

I take issue with being charged exorbitant amounts of taxes for a "service" that is used exclusively by a small segment of the population.

Especially when that service is used not to educate but to indoctrinate.

[Brett85]

We should not have public universities, no. It's not like education wouldn't exist in their absence, entreprenuers would provide better education at a cheaper price I'm sure of it.

I went to a private Christian college, and I had to pay at least 4 times the tuition that I would've paid had I attended a public university. Private schools run on donations and are always extremely expensive. The idea that the cost of attending private colleges will someday go down significantly is just a dream.

[low preference guy]

LPG, traditional conservative fails to understand how the government crowds out the private sector and simply assumes services wouldn't exist without the government.

So sad that even people here are brainwashed, we are hopeless as a country. Hope everyone has a sufficient supply of gold and silver and food supplies to make it through this economic winter.

I wouldn't be so harsh with Traditional Conservative on this issue because he at least wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education. That's the most important change that can be done to move in our direction and will also make it more likely that public education will decrease in at least a few states, to start.

[college4life]

TC, GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS ARE SUBSIDIZED. This makes it hard for the private sector to compete efficiently.

Also studently loans distort pricing in the higher ed market.

This is so sad to me, please think a little outside the box

[low preference guy]

I went to a private Christian college, and I had to pay at least 4 times the tuition that I would've paid had I attended a public university. Private schools run on donations and are always extremely expensive. The idea that the cost of attending private colleges will someday go down significantly is just a dream.

what the fuck? how can you be so ignorant of economics? the reason it is so expensive is because it has to compete with subsidized schools! schools subsidized by the government!

why does the cost of almost everything the government is not involved in go down? breast enhancements, computers, etc. oh, it's just a coincidence i'm sure.

[Brett85]

have you ever heard of the word PRIVATIZATION?

Yes, and students would be paying at least 4 times more for their tuition than they would now if there were only private colleges. Are you in favor of privatizing roads as well? Every road would be a toll road. That would be a blast.

[college4life]

gosh you really don't understand TC, we are screwed as a nation. even someone who is supposedly "conservative" is brainwashed to this extent?

Private entreprenuers would provide services much more efficiently if the government didn't control the higher ed market

[Brett85]

TC, GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS ARE SUBSIDIZED. This makes it hard for the private sector to compete efficiently.

Also studently loans distort pricing in the higher ed market.

This is so sad to me, please think a little outside the box

Well if we only had private schools, would you still be in favor of forcing children to attend these schools or else have home schooling? I guess I'm just pointing out that children shouldn't be allowed to actually opt out of education.

[low preference guy]

Yes, and students would be paying at least 4 times more for their tuition than they would now if there were only private colleges. .

yeah, you're right. computers also will be four times cheaper if governments made them. those damn private companies and entrepreneurs...

[specsaregood]

I am on record many times as being in favor of import duties and tariffs...


You don't say!? Understatement alert!

[Brett85]

gosh you really don't understand TC, we are screwed as a nation. even someone who is supposedly "conservative" is brainwashed to this extent?

Private entreprenuers would provide services much more efficiently if the government didn't control the higher ed market

What conservative do you know of who supports completely abolishing public schools? I don't know of any. The conservative position on education is that the Department of Education should be abolished, and we should have local control of education. I thought only anarchists supported abolishing public schools. Certainly Rand Paul and Justin Amash don't take that position.

[Brett85]

yeah, you're right. computers also will be four times cheaper if governments owned them. those damn private companies and entrepreneurs...

There has to be some public resources at the local level of government. You didn't answer my question on whether you support privatizing roads.

[college4life]

people should educate their children how they see fit. If they want to pay for someone else to educate them that is fine with me, if they want a friend to educate them that's fine.

But other people should not be forced at gunpoint to educate another's child.

[qh4dotcom]

I went to a private Christian college, and I had to pay at least 4 times the tuition that I would've paid had I attended a public university. Private schools run on donations and are always extremely expensive. The idea that the cost of attending private colleges will someday go down significantly is just a dream.

Here you go...why you wasted to much money going to a Christian college

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIcfMMVcYZg

[low preference guy]

You didn't answer my question on whether you support privatizing roads.

i haven't thought much about the issue. i wouldn't be oppose of some roads being privatized and see what happens.

[low preference guy]

You didn't answer my question on whether you support privatizing roads.

i haven't thought much about the issue. i wouldn't be opposed to see some roads being privatized to see what happens.

[Brett85]

It is nice to be on a forum where my position is actually the "statist" position. My liberal uncle thinks that I'm some kind of anarchist because I support abolishing the Department of Education. Well anyway, I'm going to bed.

[low preference guy]

What conservative do you know of who supports completely abolishing public schools? I don't know of any. The conservative position on education is that the Department of Education should be abolished, and we should have local control of education. I thought only anarchists supported abolishing public schools.

Ron Paul takes that position. In the video that you watched today and are pretending it doesn't exist Ron Paul said the goal should be to "privatize all schools".


Certainly Rand Paul and Justin Amash don't take that position.

Rand doesn't take public positions related to fights he doesn't want to engage in.

[specsaregood]

Rand doesn't take public positions related to fights he doesn't want to engage in.
LOL I was just about to quote/edit it and add "public" but you beat me to it, it seems.

[Mini-Me]

What conservative do you know of who supports completely abolishing public schools? I don't know of any. The conservative position on education is that the Department of Education should be abolished, and we should have local control of education. I thought only anarchists supported abolishing public schools. Certainly Rand Paul and Justin Amash don't take that position.

You're right about the conservative position, but abolishing public schooling is actually pretty popular among minarchist libertarians as well as anarchists (actually, could anyone support public schools and still be considered a minarchist?). If you're interested in why someone might come to such an extreme position, John Taylor Gatto (winner of New York State Teacher of the Year) has some good material about the history behind public schools, their purpose, and why they are inherently bad from an educational standpoint. For instance, here is a chapter from one of his books, (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-uhae-7.html) posted on Lew Rockwell's site. :)

[low preference guy]

LOL I was just about to quote/edit it and add "public" but you beat me to it, it seems.

hahaha. maybe we've been reading to much of each other posts. this thought synchronization is kind of scary.

[Galileo Galilei]

check out the first comment at the link by Caroline Riegel:


Watch the first 10 minutes of the movie 'Idiocracy'... it explains it all.

People with high IQs are having less babies, later in life...
People with low IQs are breeding like rabbits.

Hence, the inhabitants of the world are getting dumber, generation by generation.

http://en.terra.com/latin-in-america/news/high_school_dealing_with_90_teen_pregnancies/hof13234

[romeno182]

uh oh sex uhhh scary ohhh no sex ed ahhhh what going to happen to the poor children??? maybe they will soffocate in a mass orgy!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

my god as an european you americans (and i mean christian conservatives) are truly scary. you have soo a perverse relation to sex. whats so wrong with sex or sex education?? you want to keep them ignorant?
didnt you learn a thing about the whole paedophile priests scandal?? the sexual phobic approach creates monsters!!

[Noob]

Whats the big deal about that? Were the girls supposed to get them selfs sterilize? Or head and RUN down to the abortion clinic, scared out their minds about having a bigger carbon footprint?

[college4life]

It's a big deal because they are already sucking the system dry, they create more tax-eaters and steal more from me.

This is why I keep buying more gold and silver, to hedge against the inevitable hyperinflation that follows the FED monetizing over trillion dollars. Good luck to you if you think 16 year old welfare queens is healthy for our economy.

[pcosmar]

uh oh sex uhhh scary ohhh no sex ed ahhhh what going to happen to the poor children??? maybe they will soffocate in a mass orgy!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

my god as an european you americans (and i mean christian conservatives) are truly scary. you have soo a perverse relation to sex. whats so wrong with sex or sex education?? you want to keep them ignorant?
didnt you learn a thing about the whole paedophile priests scandal?? the sexual phobic approach creates monsters!!

This has nothing to do with sex education. They understood what they were doing. They wanted to get pregnant. All the birth control devices available would make no difference.
They weren't trying to avoid pregnancy, they set out deliberately to get pregnant , To the point of jumping some homeless guy. This wasn't just about having some sex. It was about getting pregnant.
I do agree, with some here that the Welfare State encouraged this.
There should be no need for sex education in schools. This is something that should be taught by parents at an early age. Farm kids know it and understand it. They know how the Cows ,Chickens and dogs "do it". It is up to parents to prepare them to make the right choices.

[Noob]

It's a big deal because they are already sucking the system dry, they create more tax-eaters and steal more from me.

This is why I keep buying more gold and silver, to hedge against the inevitable hyperinflation that follows the FED monetizing over trillion dollars. Good luck to you if you think 16 year old welfare queens is healthy for our economy.

Unemployment well also be blame on overpopulation, along with any thing that the greens and any one who thinks that having kids is a bad thing.

[college4life]

Having kids is a bad thing if you can't even take care of yourself. You are pretty naive, you think all these students will be good mothers and raise productive children?

No they will continue to drain the system and place a heavy burden on our currency. You're clueless.

[romeno182]

There should be no need for sex education in schools

then lets make sex ed only for children of liberal parents.. so the conservatives can keep their perverted non-education LOL

no serioulsy i want my child to have sexual education.. and it should not be mandatory.. so if you dont want to send your children, no problem..


Having kids is a bad thing if you can't even take care of yourself. You are pretty naive, you think all these students will be good mothers and raise productive children? thats not up to you to decide

[tangent4ronpaul]

One deranged and bored little "terrorist" with a sewing needle, left to his lonesome in the school health clinic waiting room next to a bowl of "free" condoms could easily be responsible for 90 pregnancies.

Hay, just throwing an alternate hypothesis out there...

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Poverty is often responsible for over reproduction.

Sex is free and entertaining - a way to pass the time.

In really poor countries, a woman will ahve as many children as possible, in hopes that at least one will live long enough to take care of her in her old age.

In countries like ours, kids are meal tickets and a source of gvmt handouts. The more you have, the better!

-t

[paulitics]

uh oh sex uhhh scary ohhh no sex ed ahhhh what going to happen to the poor children??? maybe they will soffocate in a mass orgy!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

my god as an european you americans (and i mean christian conservatives) are truly scary. you have soo a perverse relation to sex. whats so wrong with sex or sex education?? you want to keep them ignorant?
didnt you learn a thing about the whole paedophile priests scandal?? the sexual phobic approach creates monsters!!


Actually, I think it is more perverted to want some junior high gym teacher teaching some 11 year old kids about how the penis and vagina work. Or, now is it even kindergarteners in some schools?

The kids should, and will learn it on their own, so trusting some stranger who statistically have a higher rate of pedophilia for obvious reasons, to me is perverted, and for some reason you like to use that word because you have no other point other than to bash "christian conservatives".

Also, there is no proof that sex ed does anything more than pervert the minds of those who may not be ready for it. Don't you think the child should have a few years of innocence?

I guess not, because to you that would be perverted. How odd.

[specsaregood]

//

[pcosmar]

One deranged and bored little "terrorist" with a sewing needle, left to his lonesome in the school health clinic waiting room next to a bowl of "free" condoms could easily be responsible for 90 pregnancies.

Hay, just throwing an alternate hypothesis out there...

-t
Nope.
Getting pregnant was a deliberate plan.
They had a plan. A Pact. They were never trying to NOT get pregnant.
Why would they be using condoms? Free or otherwise.

[Cowlesy]

I learned all about the penis and vagina and how babies are made a little before kindergarden. It was called spending time on my grandpa's farm. Didn't ruin my innocence or make me any more of a pervert. Actually, gave me a healthy respect for the process and fear of knocking up some girl as I grew up.

All you need to do today is watch a few hours of cable television.

/conservative curmudgeon sarc