Secrets of the City

is this some sort of sick joke?! MILLIONS are going to be spent to tell adults to not have sex? are these people on crack or are their heads just so far up their asses they cant see what an INANE plan this is?

…i had no idea our economy was suddenly so prosperous that we could afford tossing money out the window for “initatives” like this while troops overseas are forced to “improvise” with silly string…

Government data released last month show that 998,262 births in 2004 were to unmarried women 19-29, the ages with the most births to unmarried women.

But, how many where planned? How many were not really planned, but kind of on purpose? How many were lesibians who are not allowed to be married? How many were surrogate mothers?

And how do you tell a 28 year old to wait until marriage to have sex?

If you read closely they actually aren’t providing additional funding to extend the age to 29. They just wanted to remind people that they can spend the money they are getting to more than just adolescents. I guess they will have to just make that 50 Mil work a little harder.

That being said this is still a silly waste of time.

talk about big brother, conservative style. are we living in china?

So are you saying I can techincially blame the government for being a twenty-seven year old who never gets laid? Cause I gotta blame somebody.

And how do you tell a 28 year old to wait until marriage to have sex?

(Because this sounds like the beginning of a joke, I’ll finish it…)

“Don’t have sex!”

To which the entire population of America responds, “HAHAHAHAAHAAHAAHAHAAHHAHAHHAAAA — HA — [ending in a final] DOUBLE HA!!!”

What you should tell a 28 year old about sex:

“Wear a condom.”

What the government should be telling people about sex:

“Nothing.”

What the government should be telling people about sex:

“Nothing.”

I disagree with this. The government does have a responsibility to educate their population. If the gov’t knows that AIDS is spread by having sex, and a condom can help prevent this, they have a responsibility to let us know.

Just as if they know that the spinach is making people sick they have a responsibility to tell us. It is about Public Health.

They shouldn’t be passing moral judgements, but they should educate on potential risks.

Too bad they can’t spend those millions on body armor or rehab for amputee vets. I can see where keeping consenting adults from having sex would be more important to the rightwingers.

The problem is irresponsible people who have children out of wedlock and who can’t afford to raise them so they turn to the taxpayers for financial assistance. The hollywood types can procreate in or out of wedlock all they want, for all I care. But the only thing that separates some people in our society from animals is they don’t shit where they stand. And when those people, whether they’re 18 or 38 have children out of wedlock, they can pay the expenses themselves, especially if they’re going to go around ridiculing the beliefs of the people who warned them against such irresponsibility in the first place.

So, to translate into practical terms, let’s punish children for the mistakes of their parents.

Nice.

Ask your hero Ellison what the koran says about it. heh

I’m failing to see your point, but I presume you don’t really have one.

Heh.

Ask your hero Ellison what the koran says about it. heh

and he wonders why we attack him.

I wonder no such thing.

That’s right…no need to ever wonder if you’re “principled”. heh.

maza, you can’t paint all single parents as “irresponsible”. one irresponsible act, maybe…but i’m a single parent, and god knows my kid and his mom are well taken care of.

Well good for you. But I don’t think I said that. I meant to criticized those who are irresponsible, then ask to be bailed out by the taxpeyers, then complain that the government is “interferring” in their lives when they’re “counseled” against having more kids they can’t afford. I’m assuming that doesn’t apply to you, right?

And yet you’re part of a party that refuses to offer decent counselling on childbirth, refuses to fun women’s health care, refuses to make birth control widely available, and generally does whatever it can to keep baby making happening.

Weird.

First of all Max, I’m not a “part of a party.” I’m not a registered republican, I don’t belong to the republican party. I vote republican because they’re closer to my views than the democrats are. But secondly, none of those things are the role of government. That’s why we have charities, churches and non-profits.

I would argue that they are the role of government.

Whammy.

maza, the people you’re referring to then are probably already on welfare, kids or not. you’re already supporting them. my point was that you kept saying “out of wedlock”, like being “in wedlock” suggests a higher degree of responsiblity. it doesn’t.

msparber, i didn’t know republicans were trying to keep condoms off the shelf at walgreens??? and as far as “refusing to fund women’s healthcare”, well, that’s just not true. as soon as an uninsured women gets pregnant in this state, she has state-provided healthcare. and her new born baby does too. and now our gov is proposing free healthcare to kids. geez, what more do you want?

Weren’t you just saying here or thereabouts that you all are the constitutionalists around here? None of the stuff you guys seem to want is supported in the constitution as a legitimate role of government.

And yet, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it, either.

I was, of course, referring to abortion on demand.

as a taxpayer, what would mspeakers rather pay for, if you had to pay for one?

1.abortions
2. stomach-stapling surgery

this is a serious question. in a lot of ways, they’re very similar. they are both the result of poor judgement (save for rape and hyper-glands, or whatver fat people always say they have.) i’m guessing the stomach thing is way more expensive, but lets say they cost the same. also, if niether procedure is performed it will probably cost taxpayers more in the long run.

i think i would feel better about paying for abortions, even though i’m morally against them (but it not being my body and all, i’m not comfortable making that decision for others.) maybe that means i’m biased against fat people, i’m not sure. responses?

I say ask the baby what he thinks. If he’s ok with it, I’m ok with it.

I’ve never heard one say no.

kc, I’m all for the government telling people that unprotected sex spreads disease. That, as you say, is a health issue, not a sex/morality issue.

You need to ask his mother to listen real good.

Well, that’s true.

Wait, what?

Maza has a perfectly good point. Unwanted children are a blight upon the earth (see the other thread, of course). But why try to prevent them with abstinance? That’s moronic. It doesn’t work in practice, we know that, and it’s only a moral issue for particuarily idiotic Chrisitians who think God gives half a shit about where they stick their genitals. SEX. IS. FUN. Let’s all use condoms, mmk?

To answer the question above, I’d much rather pay for abortions.

as soon as an uninsured women gets pregnant in this state, she has state-provided healthcare. and her new born baby does too.

That’s not true at all. First, the woman must know that there are health care options available in the state. Then, she must find, complete, and return an application. Then, she must meet all the eligibility requirements and provide verifications. This includes income limits and citizenship/immigration requirements. Once the child is born, she is also subject to asset limits.

It isn’t like it is automatic, or even easy.

More proof that any notion of the Repubs being against “BIG (BROTHER) GOVERNMENT” is a total fallacy.

These Neocon Bigots (Like Dennis aka Masaspaza here) want to control every aspect of the public’s lives – all the better to keep the working class down so that they can continue to exploit them.

The TRUTH is that maggots like Dennis here feast on societal ills -drug abuse, unwanted pregancy, broken homes for this is the foundation upon which they build their personal wealth.

It’s the modern equivilant of “blood diamonds.”

They thrive when there is war and chaos which is why they strive to achieve division at every opportunity.

It would be easy to follow the lead of many Europoean countries and drastically cut down teen pregnancy, AIDS, urban violence etc. but the TRUTH is the Right Wing is better served with these tragedies IN PLAY. They have NO DESIRE to solve these problems.

why not just give the millions to the porn industry so they can make more masturbatory material to keep people from having sex? who needs women when you’ve got a computer with an internet connection!

Fuck the Feds already! The Government has no right to look into your private life, especially sex between straight couples. If the Neo-Con Christian right in this country has a problem with private issues, they should leave the U.S.A. and move to either North Korea or Iran where control freaks can live in harmony. And frankly, I don’t give a damn if they do vanished!

“But the only thing that separates some people in our society from animals is they don’t shit where they stand.”

This statement is not only true, it’s self actuating. We have millions of witless morons running around that are not prepared to even manage their own lives and they are out procreating the more intelligent sector of society.

I think that abortion is an abomination on it’s face, but when you look at it as a means by which a society can artificially skew the gene pool from which that society is being replaced with you start to see that the real danger.

All to often, it is the smarter (albeit moral lacking) women who are showing up to have their kids hoiked out, while the “trailer park” crew is producing kids like popcorn, This is not only wreaking havok on the kids, they are destroying our society as a whole.

If you’re familiar with the bell curve analysis you know that any in any society 50% of the population is going to have below average IQ’s…and that’s no big deal as long as the IQ scale along which it is measured remains high.

But in America, the average is sliding south.

So while it looks silly to have the government out there selling a
“no sex” message to “adults”, keep in mind that the “adults” that are being targeted are in many ways no more than children in mature bodies.

As if on command, this prime example bubbles up to the surface to underscore what I’m talking about:

“So that’s how Michael Jackson did it: On Wednesday, KDWB morning jock Dave Ryan signed on the air at 5 a.m. to find a switchboard jammed with waiting callers. The occasion was a promotional giveaway the station had been teasing. Just agree to hand over your baby to strangers from the radio station for 24 hours, no questions asked, and win a Playstation 3 console!”

“Nobody from the station really knows how many callers sought to claim this deal-of-a-lifetime, but one station official estimated that they heard from “dozens” of would-be tyke-swappers before blowing the whistle on the hoax. “

“The most memorable was the girl we had actually planned to make a deal with. She was 22, and she was going to give us her one-month-old baby for three nights. And we made it sound pretty harsh: She couldn’t call to see how the baby was.”

“We told her we didn’t have a car seat and we’d be driving around a lot with the baby on our laps, and was that cool? And she was saying okay, all right, I guess so, to all of this. No problem. The amazing thing was that after we explained the gag, she said, “Does this mean i don’t get the Playstation?”"

So how do we keep people like this from reproducing? Given this example, the program diesn’t look quite as silly.

The Government has no right to look into your private life, especially sex between straight couples.

why exclusively “sex between straight couples”?

I’m not a “part of a party.” I’m not a registered republican, I don’t belong to the republican party. I vote republican because they’re closer to my views than the democrats are.

this is probably the most ignorant thing i’ve read all year. and it’s december.
i hope i become “too cool” for admitting that i belong to a political party

David, just out of curiosity, do you have an ID card that says what party you belong to? I assume it would be democrat, given your, uh, comment. If so, were you issued this card when you registered your car or something? Because you see, I don’t have a party membership, I was never asked or invited to join a political party, and I would no idea how I would go about it if I did. Perhaps you can help me out with the process, since I don’t want to live in ignorance any longer than necessary. But since the majority of people in this state and country don’t formally belong to any political party, I guess that means we’re all too cool, eh?

Oh, one more thing. Do I have to pay dues if I join a political party? How much is it? Thanks.

So in order for someone to “belong” to a party they have to be full force into what is deemed as such political party? If you vote for republican for the reasons of their views being closer to your views doesn’t that make you republican Black Iron? I guess my “opinion” is that you vote for who you want to represent you in politics. Or you vote defensively, but this isn’t how you indicated your voting style.

on a side note, it’s nice to see the gov’t wanting to continue to waste money on their religious endeavors to “stop sex”

If you vote for republican for the reasons of their views being closer to your views doesn’t that make you republican

When Norm Coleman won for the U.S. Senate, and when Tim Pawlenty won for governor, does that mean that people voted for them based on their good looks? or are most people in this state republicans? I know of some communists who voted for Kerry. Does that make these communists democrats?

I don’t even know if people “register” as members of a party in this state, as they do in other states, but I know I have never registered as a member of a political party, republican or otherwise.