95 Comments

• 1. OhioOrrin  |  January 9th, 2008 at 6:29 am

  east is a city school 40% black.

  this aint suburban brittany we’re talking about.

  different ethnicities require diff solutions.

  don’t get stuck on stupid…

  …speaking of which, General Honore is retiring.

  http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/army_honore_080108w/

• 2. french student  |  January 9th, 2008 at 7:22 am

  Better solution: advise young people who have worked themselves into pregnancy that their options are to put the kid out for adoption, or drop out of school and start working their tails off to support their child. You know, make life real for them - they want to play at mommy and daddy? Let them understand that such a game can have real world consequences.

  Are you advocating that the teen’s parent should be forbidden to help support their grandchild?

  Or are you just trying to keep the poor poor, and the rich rich?

• 3. Sunny  |  January 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am

  Maybe real sex education would be a better solution. Abstinence only programs do not work with these kids. It is time to get a realistic solution to this problem. We, the tax payers, are picking up the tab for the prenatal care, the birth and support of these babies and their mothers after the birth. It is costing us millions each year to support these teen mothers and their babies. Not only should the girls be held responsible, but the teen dads need to be as well. Our society has become way too accepting of children born out of wedlock as the norm. Until we convinence these young people that they have a future with an education, and having children in your teens is not good for them or the child, this problem will continue.

• 4. steveGA  |  January 9th, 2008 at 7:53 am

  Let me get this straight: you want abortion to be illegal because it kills unborn children, you believe the government should step in and protect the health and well-being of unborn children, from fertilization to birth.

  Once they’re born, however, they’re on their own. Science tells us that babies develop best if breastfed, which requires new mothers to virtually do nothing but feed the baby for the first few months. For a teenage mother to do this, she has to take time off from school. Given your alleged concern for unborn children, you’d think you’d be equally if not more concerned for babies who are ACTUALLY BORN.

  Of course, logic has no place in your head, and instead you wish to punish teenage mothers (and their babies) in order to teach them a lesson. With this post, its pretty clear that your real opposition to abortion is based on punishment and vindictiveness, not actual concern for babies or mothers. What a horrific person you are.

• 5. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 7:56 am

  Having kids is for adults. Kids who have kids are adults. Treat them as adults.

  There is no use in rewarding kids for this behavior by spending public funds for additional programs for kids who misbehave….

  Even special ed programs should not be offered, the public should not have to pay for it. Require the real adults, the kids parents, to pay for the kids education (more or less a GED is about all they deserve). If they wouldnt keep thier kids off the streets and teach them right from wrong, they should pay for thier irresponsibility as well!!

• 6. liberalT  |  January 9th, 2008 at 7:59 am

  good point Steve - you got there before I could. You can rant and rave all you want about the supposed immorality of premarital sex - but it is a simple and demonstrable fact that children from unwed teenage mothers have some of the toughest lives out there - with lower levels of education, nutrition, and future wages due to the mother just scraping by. Mark’s solution - tough luck kid - you should have had the luxury of being born into a nice middle class family. Shame on you

• 7. Sunny  |  January 9th, 2008 at 8:06 am

  Well js, that is a real solution to the problem. Lets just kick the teen mother out to the street with a new born and let her take care of everything. So the new baby doesn’t have food or shelter or medical care, that isn’t our problem. So the mom doesn’t have an education to get a job to support them, not our problem, right? Sounds like a sound solution to teenage pregnancy - lets just show those immoral, promiscuious kids what real life is like! As for the new born, that is what you get for picking a teen mom. I’ll bet you never had sex as a teen or before marriage, since you are so moral and self-righteous.

• 8. liberalT  |  January 9th, 2008 at 8:20 am

  JS Says -
  Even special ed programs should not be offered, the public should not have to pay for it.
  —

  well sort of tangential. So now you are saying that if a kid has a learning disability or a genetic disease he shouldn’t be educated. Why stop there - there were plenty of people in my school who weren’t very bright - why educate them as well. I wonder what you would think if you had a child with a disability. I guess you won’t complain when they refuse to teach him how to read because he qualifies for special education. I guess it must have been your fault for having a child with special needs. Christ..

• 9. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 8:24 am

  Society isnt responsible for the care of these teens. We have taken away the negative impact of something that “IS WRONG”. Teens should not run about having sex, and getting society to bend over backwards to remove any and all negative impact for bad behavior only promotes the viability of teen sex, to teenagers. We gotta quit rescuing them and make them pay thier dues. When all the other kids see how well off Susie is because she has a new baby and gets all this attention, it promotes teen pregnancy, when we should be discouraging it.

• 10. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 8:26 am

  Wow, talk about cutting benefits that make teen pregnancy easy to deal with on public money and idiot Liberals start hawking trash talk to the extreme.

  You just got no good sense in your body LiberalT.

• 11. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 8:37 am

  “Sounds like a sound solution to teenage pregnancy - lets just show those immoral, promiscuious kids what real life is like! ”

  Real true. Maybe it will actually promote individual responsibility instead of promiscuity.

  Good point.

• 12. Joe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 8:46 am

  wow…
  anti-abortion
  anti-condom availability in schools
  anti-sex education

  But when a teen actually gets pregnant, just kick them out of school and make them fend for themselves.
  js feels they are now lesser people and don’t deserve anything more than a GED.
  You people are f-ing crazy. I’m totally convinced.
  When do you realize that your ideas just are blatantly flawed? Oh wait… I forgot…. it is those damn liberal public school teachers that are teaching pre-marital sex with their liberal ideas.

  js: “Society isnt responsible for the care of these teens”
  Isn’t that what Government does is provide for the care of it’s people???

• 13. Zach  |  January 9th, 2008 at 8:59 am

  Hey over here! *waving hand* I’m not crazy! LOL

  I actually agree with giving high school mothers 4 weeks maternity leave. Pregnancy and birth are a pretty strainful time for the mother. Giving some time off from school so she can fully recover from birth and also be able to bond with her newborn isnt that bad of idea, I mean come on…

  I agree with condom availability, and sex-education, although during said education, I think abstinence should be heavily favored above all.

  Giving 4 weeks off from school isn’t going to give anyone incentive to get pregnant.

  If anything at all, that 4 weeks off from school helps the newborn just as much as it does the mother. IMO, that is the most important thing. Just because the mother got pregnant during high school doesnt mean the newbord should suffer because of it, as it is, with a teenage mother, life for the newborn isnt going to be all peaches and cream..

• 14. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:08 am

  Another stupid post, Joe? Nice ta meetcha.

  Teen pregnancy has been an issue for decades. 1 million teens will become pregnant in the next year. About 1/3 of them will carry to term, and have a baby. 90% of the will be under 17.

  They have been promoting programs to deal with thier education, care, special considerations for almost half a century now. It hasnt worked. After a 30% decline from 91-02, its on the rise again.

  Why? Government programs are just making it easier for the teen to deal with teen pregnancy, and removed the responsibility for that teens parents to deal with it. Its NOT the Governments duty or responsibility to “provide for the care” of every aspect of “its people”
  s irresponsibility.

  The Government gives them food, and shelter if they need it, because of the infant. Food stamps and welfare checks….thats a terrible future to look for, no? Instead of taking that route, and using facilities already in place for destitute women with children, we are spending something like 7 billion dollars a year to duplicate what already exists to care for these irresponsible teens. What have we done? We removed all responsibility from the one place it belongs, to the teens parents.

  Enough of you bleeding heart liberals, spending 7 billion per year for your social experiments is a losing battle.

  Its already proven itself to be ineffective, cut the tear jerking sympathy programs and make them face the consequences of thier actions.

• 15. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:13 am

  [[but it is a simple and demonstrable fact that children from unwed teenage mothers have some of the toughest lives out there - with lower levels of education, nutrition, and future wages due to the mother just scraping by. Mark’s solution - tough luck kid - libT]]

  And libT’s solution is apparently to make it more convenient for teen girls to manage their pregnancy, or in other words, help them enjoy a life of lower education, malnutrition and poor future prospects. At least they wouldn’t feel bad for making a wrong decision.

  That’s what it’s all about for liberals. It’s perfectly fine for people to make morally bad decisions, as long as they don’t feel bad about it.

• 16. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:27 am

  No they’re not crazy at all.
  All the good christians on this website are currently going through the paperwork to adopt one of the many foster children they take care of.
  They are amazingly selfless people, providing for the well being of those less fortunate.
  Oh no wait, Mark can’t do that, he’s much too busy bullying pregnant teenage mothers at five in the morning to raise a child.
  But that’s just God’s plan. You see Mark got lucky, he can keep his money, play around on the internet in his free time, and for retirement, sit on the roof of his glass houese throwing stones.
  God’s plan for these teenage mothers, not so lucky. Like any beast of burden, once they’re done giving birth they get put back to work, so all the good christians without sin can enjoy lower taxes.

• 17. Ricorun  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am

  What about the dad? The responsibility of the father of the child always seems to the missing element in discussing the problem of teen pregnancies. I think this is a serious omission.

• 18. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:42 am

  Rico,

  All liberals know that fathers aren’t important. And you may have to apologize to the teen girls for that remark.

  Most liberals here condone bad moral choices such as this amongst teens, and then blame the Christians for not taking care of the them and their problems afterwards. How nice.

• 19. Joe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:42 am

  Js,
  What is your point?
  You say how teen pregnancy decreased from 91-02, now it is back on the rise? Why is that? What occurred? Oh… of course, it was pushing this abstinence only bull. You can say it all you want, but kids don’t care about that. Were you ever in high school or college? Did you ever go to parties? It doesn’t matter if people push abstinence or not. Now… if you teach sex education and teach them the consequences of their actions (even if abstinence is strongly encouraged as it should be), maybe they will think twice about having sex especially unprotected sex. Giving condoms will not promote having sex, it will say if you are going to do it, make it safe. After all, the objective here is to prevent teen pregnancy as much as possible. Preventing teen sex just isn’t going to happen… ever no matter what you do.

  Government programs don’t make anything easy for a teen to deal with teen pregnancy as you state. Your plan and Mark’s plan of kicking them out of school is just making it harder if not impossible.

  Why do you and Mark love the baby in before birth but hate it after?

  Zach, good for you for thinking on your own.

• 20. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am

  Liberals love to sit on the sidelines, encourage poor behavior from one subset and then blame another. It’s evident in their abortion agenda, war agenda, tax cut agenda, etc, etc.

  Condone then blame. What a pathetic group.

• 21. Joe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am

  neocon,
  Most liberals here condone bad moral choices

  Wow… do we really need to go into recent CONSERVATIVE morals (Foley, Vitter, Craig, but this post is not about them, it is about teen pregnancy)????

  You clown.

• 22. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am

  Joe,

  The baby is not the issue, but you getting it wrong is just accepted now.

  The moral action is the issue. Try and keep up.

• 23. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am

  Joe, so now you want to use the failings of three conservatives as indicative of conservative values?

  Really? Because I could actually rake you over the coals with liberal failings and the hypocrisy thereof.

• 24. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:49 am

  And Joe evidently thins that if one, or any conservatives have personal failures then all immoral choices should be accepted.

  Joe, you’re bright enough to be here.

• 25. Retired Spook  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am

  That’s what it’s all about for liberals. It’s perfectly fine for people to make morally bad decisions, as long as they don’t feel bad about it.

  Neo, I may have to frame that and put it on my wall — classic!! Although, in a sense, I have to disagree with your premise. Many, if not most, Liberals don’t believe there is any such thing as a bad moral choice.

• 26. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am

  Condoning bad moral choices? I’m fine with that. If that’s what a liberal is the world can use alot more.

  Much better than being a christian, hell bent on punishing bad moral choices, I think we’d all be better off leaving that to a higher authority.

  But you’re the expert, I thought god wanted us to help each other, leave the punishment to him. That must not of been a bible I was reading, probably a koran.

• 27. Sunny  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am

  js “After a 30% decline from 91-02, its on the rise again.”

  Do you suppose that decline might have been because teens were getting a real sex education, and not the religious right “abstinenece only” nonsense? Lets face it, some teens are going to have sex. We as a society are going to be much better off if they have real knowledge of how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Not this, lets stick our head in the sand and just tell them “don’t do it”. The increase in teen pregnancies has occurred during the Bush administrations reign. I think it is real special that Bush appointed a Veterinarian to oversee women’s health.

• 28. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:05 am

  Andrew,

  So you think “helping” people is by letting them make bad choices which leads to life of struggles? Really?

  I don’t want your help then, ok?

  I thought “helping” people was th encourage them to make good decisions which leads to a fulfilled life wherein they can then help others make good decisions.

  I guess it’s just a difference of philosiphy.

• 29. neocon  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am

  Sunny,

  Name one school, just one, where abstinence only is taught.

• 30. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:15 am

  Helping is helping regardless of who and why.

  To be selfish is to pick and choice who is worth your kindess. Every man is your brother, and every women is your sister. And the bad choices they make do not change that. In fact it means they just need your help even more.

  Neocon if you ever decide you do need my help, it is yours. But I must warn you it is liberal.

  For the moment I only offer my christian “help” rubbing your face in hypocrisy and chiding your morality.

  You are certainly right their is a philosophical difference, and I am very comfortable on my side of the line.

• 31. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:19 am

  I laugh so hard.

  If anyone knows of the struggle that teen mothers have, it is the best way to prevent it from happening.

  When women were kicked out of schools, made to deal with life as an adult, teen pregnancy was 1/10th of what it is today. We, through our Governments and school systems, have spent billions every year, for the last 40+ years, to ease thier plight. What happened? It got worse.

  The old school had it right. Dont pamper them, make the consequences of becoming a teenage mother something that should bring fear to those young women. Its the best prevention in the world, reality.

• 32. Zach  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am

  “Giving condoms will not promote having sex, it will say if you are going to do it, make it safe.”

  You’re right and wrong at the same time. It does also condone having sex, thats the problem with this topic; it does both. Your point is taken though that the only “realistic” *my emphasis* objective here is to reduce the number of teen pregnancies.

  It seems to me that in order to achieve that objective, you need to come at it from multiple angles. Just saying “God frowns on premarital sex” and “Abstinence is key” just ain’t gonna cut it.

• 33. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:30 am

  Right on js, decimation.
  We sacrifice ten percent to save the rest.
  Jesus came up with that right, it was the parable inbetween the time he spit on the lepers and passed out rocks at the stoning.

  So we spend billions on pregnant teens every year? A bit of advice, when pulling numbers out of your ass, make them a little smaller or you might end up with one of those dreaded fecal infections all the homosexuals get.

• 34. Sunny  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am

  js, you are such a warm Christian human being. A real example for others to follow. It must be such a good feeling to have never made a mistake or done something in poor judgment. I know that if you are a parent, your children will never make an error in judgment and do something that they would later regret. Unfortunately, as a Christian, I have sinned, but I have received forgiveness from God and from my family and friends. I have not lead a perfect life - so I really diserve to be living on the streets. Although I never received anything from any governmental program, I now realize that I do not disserve the good life I have lived so far. Oh - to be so perfect and be able to judge others must be such a wonderful gift.

• 35. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am

  Funny, another liberal spin andrew.

  Sacrifice 10%. LOL.

  What is it about reality in life that evades your attention span? Its pretty simple to see that you have no idea if those numbers are real, yet you chose to ignorantly challenge them.

  Typical liberal idiot. And you want respect?

  LOL!!! Fat chance.

• 36. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am

  Ever heard of tough love sunny?

  I didnt think so.

• 37. Sunny  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am

  . neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am
  Sunny,

  Name one school, just one, where abstinence only is taught.

  Sorry neocon, I cannot name one. However, since much of the money for programs such as this went to religious based school, and the Bush policy was to promote the abstinence only sex education program, I will not be surprised if there are schools with an abstinence only program. In order to get federal funds, the schools had to follow the Bush policy. Nor can you prove that this is not the case, and are very aware that this is the Bush policy.

• 38. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:41 am

  js you are very right, the world is a cruel place, reality is painful and miserable. And it is the duty of people like you stop the government from trying to help.

  What kind of person are you?
  Conservative.
  I would use other words, out of respect for true conservatives, but they ain’t pretty.

• 39. Sunny  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am

  js, seriously, you are a pretty sad case. Do you have children? I really don’t think this is a “tough love” issue. It really is an issue of good parenting and loving our children. To many children are just growing up - they are not being raised in families with love and guidence. Our society has become about “things” - who has the biggest house, who makes the most money, who has the lastest gadget etc., and in the mean time, kids are left to fend for themselves. That is when things start going wrong. So, I don’t believe that “tough love” is the solution. It is parents taking the time to teach their children right from wrong, good from bad, and knowing that they are going to make mistakes and loving them in spite of their mistakes. Only one perfect person has every walked on this earth and it wasn’t you.

• 40. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am

  oh yeah, and js I’m very glad I don’t have your respect. If I did, I would have trouble respecting myself.

• 41. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:50 am

  >>>>>Unfortunately, as a Christian, I have sinned, but I have received forgiveness from God and from my family and friends.<<<<

  Oh, so you saying that you did something wrong, and that there was no consequence to it?

  Dont whitewash that lie here. Fact is, spiritually you may be forgiven, yet, even sin has consequence that you deal with. Teen pregnancy is no different.

  Luv thu palayah, hayt thu syn

• 42. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am

  “It really is an issue of good parenting and loving our children.”

  Thats not true. Its really an issue of bad parents not caring enough to prevent such a huge mistake in thier childrens life.

  The rest of us make sure thier kids dont get pregnant.

• 43. Ricorun  |  January 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am

  neocon: Name one school, just one, where abstinence only is taught.

  Here’s a study comparing four school systems with abstinence only programs with a control group of school systems that don’t:

  http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

• 44. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 11:11 am

  Funny thing. You losers want to keep on doing the same ole thing, even after we know it doesnt work (for long).

  Educate yourselves before you come back with your liberal ignorance, will ya?

• 45. Mitch  |  January 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am

  I am very surprised at the attitude of the supposed pro-life crowd here. I am pro-life, and I consider it not just being anti-abortion, but providing health care and related assistance.

  Yes, they have sinned by having sex outside of marriage. But should we not help those that do want to take care of their children and get a better education in order to provide for their children? Forcing the mother to choose between giving up the child for adoption and choosing a low-wage job due to lack of a high school diploma is obviously not beneficial to the child. Why should the child be punished for the sins of his/her mother/father?

  Although I have always voted Republican, I am saddened by the lack of compassion in the mainstream Republican lines. The sanctity of life should not end at birth.

• 46. AAR  |  January 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am

  Are you advocating that the teen’s parent should be forbidden to help support their grandchild?

  I wouldn’t forbid the teen’s parents from helping support their grandchild… I would insist on them helping support the child along with her husband (if she has one), the boy friend father (if she has any idea who that might have been), and the parents of the father (if he and they can be identified and found)!

  If the teen has any more children and her parents and husband or boy friend can’t fully support that child, I would give the relatives and friends the opportunity and option of contributing to the child’s care and support. If the teen’s parents, relatives, and friends are unwilling or unable to fully support the child, I would place the child in a foster home and pay the foster parents with the welfare and government subsidies that would otherwise have been paid to the mother. At such time as the mother, relatives, and friends could fully support the child, the child would be returned to the mother and/or father and/or grandparents and/or other relative who could fully support the child and who was willing to do so.

  Additionally, the mother, father if known, and perhaps even the teen’s parents would be required to pay child support to the foster parents. If they did not have a job and could not pay the support, they would be required to repay the government for all costs over a period of years (as a loan with interest) until they had paid for the taxpayer costs of supporting and caring for their child.

  As for maternity leave, there wouldn’t be any loafing in bed at taxpayer expense. The teen would be using any time off to study and work from home, including submitting all the homework and taking all the tests. In order not to place an additional burden on the school to conduct and fund that special training, the parents can also pay for that — probably through correspondence courses.

  It is not the taxpayer’s responsibility to subsidize, support, and pay for the bad behavior and mistakes of others!!!

  AAR

• 47. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am

  It’s a matter of perspective.
  We don’t offer government cheese to teenage mothers because we think it will reduce teenage pregnancy, we do it because calcium builds strong bones and bodies.
  We don’t subsidze prenatal care for teenage mothers because we think it will reduce teenage pregnancy, we do it so less children will be born with easily preventable birth defects.
  But I can understand how from your perspective that makes us losers. You’re a selfish shallow uncaring person. I’m just another loser that cares about the well being of children.
  You embrace tough love, you embrace change, pardon me for not embracing malnutrion.

• 48. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 11:39 am

  I dont know where anyone jumped to the conclusion that I endorse cutting all aid to unwed teenage mothers, surely, jumping to conclusions is a liberal thing though.

  My position, and thats what I posted, is to cut the 71 billion from the budget that is spent on these girls in public schools after they have had thier babies, not to cut every type of aid and benefit the government offers. The fact is, that same 71 billion should be spend to advance the quality of our educational systems on kids that are being short changed because of special interests.

  Like I said, the consequences should be painful, like they were in the 50s and the early 60s when teen pregnancy was 1/10th of what it is today. When we took away the consequences, teen pregnance skyrocketed.

• 49. Mitch  |  January 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am

  js,

  I think your causality is incorrect. Teen pregnancy is probably not chiefly caused by lessening consequences, but by the propagation of the lack of morals and values both by parents and society as a whole. All I have to do is turn on television, even during the daylight hours, to see filth promoting sinful sex, violence, and so forth.

• 50. Mark Noonan  |  January 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  You liberals are missing the point, as usual; it is more loving, in the real sense of love, to ensure that the consequences of sin are endured. Love and generosity are not just mushy feelings - they are, at times, hard as steel.

  I’m all for helping the teen mothers out - in a very small way, I do that in my personal life. But to say its ok to have premarital sex and then re-arrange life to suit the mistakes of the teen parents is to subsidise error…and to do that would be immoral on our part, as adults, who are supposed to know right from wrong.

  I know a lady - a very close friend, actually - who got pregnant at 14, and then again a few years later. No marriage, no real family support system…but rather than whine about her fate and wait for a liberal to come along and help her out, she just took charge of her life and, 15 years later, achieved her bachelor’s degree. You liberals would have scooped her up and softened all blows…and by making life soft then instead of having a hard-nosed, professional woman who is capable of taking care of herself and her chidlren, you’d have a welfare-dependent, impoverished woman who might even had had more illegitimate children.

  Life can be hard, and you don’t make it better by protecting people from the consequences of their own poor decisions. Payment must be made by someone for everything which happens. In this particular instance, you’re either going to have to make the parents pay, or you’ll just be transferring the burden of their sin to their children.

• 51. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

  js in post 14 you said
  “Food stamps and welfare checks….thats a terrible future to look for, no?”

  So the solution is a less educated mother?

  Providing mearly the bare minimum to keep the baby healthy is very compassionate of you, sorry for jumping to conclusions. I had you all wrong.

  The babies will grow up strong and healthy, cared for by poor uneducated mothers and sustained on food stamps. Probably make the same mistakes as their parents, but nothing to fear, they too can always count on the bare minimum.

• 52. Sunny  |  January 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

  js - learn to spell. Thier is their; pregnance is pregnancy. You are an idoit!

• 53. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Solution? I didnt say anything about a terrible future being a “solution”.

  The real thing is, you are trying to impose you veiws on my words, which makes them your conclusions, not mine. Your posting hogwash.

  Ive said enough about my views. You have none. In the last 5 years, teen pregnancy is up 25%. There are very little consequences, because of tree hugging, bleeding heart liberals like you. They can have a baby at 14, get an education paid for by the GOVERNMENT, get food stamps, AFDC payments, tax credits, and go on to college without any problems whatsoever. No wonder so many dont care.

  Do you also believe we should stop making bullets for our soldiers in Afghanistan so they dont kill anyone?

  Wake up. This is real life.

• 54. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  mark,

  It sounds like education really helped this mother. Yet you think the proper punishment is making it harder for young mothers like her to recieve an education.
  I never realized dependency on welfare stemmed from staying in school.

• 55. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  Whats better, having the knowledge that prevents it from happening, or having the knowledge that there is no consequence to ones own actions?

  The onus is not on society to coddle people who have made mistakes. Using this issue as an example, one could justify taxing and spending forever for some bleeding heart cause. Reality is this, look at the deficit. When we had no deficit, no bleeding heart causes, and we didnt coddle irresponsible youths, we and they were much better off.

• 56. liberalT  |  January 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  You liberals are missing the point, as usual; it is more loving, in the real sense of love, to ensure that the consequences of sin are endured. Love and generosity are not just mushy feelings - they are, at times, hard as steel.

  —

  No - as ALWAYS - you are missing the point. Nobody is trying to take away the consequences of having a baby out of wedlock in high school. All the program is doing is to give the student 4 weeks off after having a baby. They will have to deal with the consequences of having a child when they are in high school for the rest of their lives. Nobody can take those away. What we can do is to make sure that the students and the child are properly taken care of immediately after the child is born.

  Quite frankly Mark - what you propose is clearly not love. It is punishment for what you consider a sin - and its not only the student you will punish but the baby as well. Shame on you

• 57. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

  js,

  I wish it were so easy for young mothers, I wish more went to college.
  AFDC hasn’t existed for ten years, but somehow five years ago it led to a rise in teenage pregnancy. Everyone in this country can recieve a highschool education paid for by the government, why shouldn’t a mother as well?
  Everyone in this country who has children can claim a tax credit, but young mothers shouldn’t?
  Should the government also stop loaning money for a college education to mothers?

  Of course these aren’t your conclusions, you’re in favor in all this. Because you’re a bleeding heart liberal. You and me are just to peas in a pod.

  But i do think your stance on bullet control in a war zone is dangerously naive.

• 58. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

  So tell me andrew, why do they charge money to take the GED? Did you say “free”?

• 59. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  Because the test is administered by ACE a private eduactional institute.

  You see js there is public and private education, and in america public education is paid for collectively by taxpayers up till highschool graduation. The GED is administered by a private institution, that charges for it’s services.

  But hey man reread all my posts and I bet you’ll find a few real errors to point out. Maybe run a spell checker, I’m not using one now, so I’m sure you’ll get something there.

• 60. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  oh yeah and js, I said a free education.
  (actually I said paid for by the government)
  And taking a test isn’t an education, tests test education levels.

• 61. Jeremiah  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  (actually I said paid for by the government)–Andrew.

  So where’s the government gonna get the money to pay for all that free educaton? And all this other “free” stuff, like healthchare…

  ~ Jeremiah

• 62. Kahn  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  It’s not subsidizing immorality. It’s subsidizing stupidity.

  There is a percentage of our society that can’t handle schooling. They can’t handle guns. And they can’t handle what assets they’ve got in their pants. Subsidizing them has proven ineffective.

• 63. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  taxes, typically property taxes are used for the majority of local education
  You might want to ask js, though, he started this whole free in quotes nonsense.
  I orignally said paid for by the government, I feel it’s more accurate, which js turned into “free” to make me sound ignorant, and for continuity I continued with it. But you’re right Jeremiah, as you so coyly implied, nothing is free.

• 64. Jeremiah  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  It’s subsidizing stupidity.

  That’s exacstly right!!

  ~ Jeremiah

• 65. Jeremiah  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  Fox New Alert

  Some guy just threw his three children over the bridge into the river.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 66. Diana Powe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

  I know a lady - a very close friend, actually - who got pregnant at 14, and then again a few years later. No marriage, no real family support system…but rather than whine about her fate and wait for a liberal to come along and help her out, she just took charge of her life and, 15 years later, achieved her bachelor’s degree. You liberals would have scooped her up and softened all blows…and by making life soft then instead of having a hard-nosed, professional woman who is capable of taking care of herself and her chidlren (sic), you’d have a welfare-dependent, impoverished woman who might even had had more illegitimate children.

  Here comes Mark, demonstrating the oh-so-patronizing stance that he enjoys accusing liberals of. The reality of his friend’s life and will are nothing. She’s just a pawn to choices made by others. If the “liberals” that Mark demonizes at every turn had gotten to her then she would have had no choice but to become a “welfare-dependent, impoverished woman”. Right, Mark? She’s just a tabula rasa to be written upon by the implacable force of government policy?

  Fortunately, she was not victimized by government assistance that would have given her no choice but to “whine about her fate”. After all, it was just “fate” that led her to become pregnant at age 14 and again a few years later. Tell us, Mark, did she avoid being victimized by the nightmarish, enslaving snare of government assistance in obtaining her college diploma? Can you repress a shudder at the idea that she might have received a Pell Grant?

  Fortunately, she was able to be acted upon by the forces around her that Mark approves of, which forces have been the cause of her Mark-approved “hard-nosed, professional” nature now rather than the inevitable “welfare-dependent, impoverished” nature she would have been had she been the hapless and helpless recipient of “liberal” government policy.

• 67. andrew  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  So rather than getting an abortion these poor mother’s go through the agony of child labor, and that makes them stupid?

• 68. Jeremiah  |  January 9th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  It’s subsidizing stupidity because they don’t want to show or take any responsibility, for their actions, and they don’t think before they act.
  And it ain’t no one’s fault except the parents for not teaching them properly. The parents put their children in the hands of the State, and well, there’s not much more you can expect when you do that to find them brainwashed.

  Believe me, the State could care less about your children, they’re just out to make a buck.

  We do need change in this country, and a good place to start is by stopping these large corporations who shake hands with Communist China and export our work over seas.

  If we keep the work here, then there would be more opportunity for work, and less people on welfare, more responsibility, better raised children, less crime.

  The whole entire mess would be straightened out.

  Vote Mike Huckabee for President.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 69. Jeremiah  |  January 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  I need to make a correction.

  That was 4 children instead of three.

  Man, people just don’t care anymore.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 70. Libsbane  |  January 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  Diana,
  Do you have something to add to the debate, or are you just posting half-assed law school invective?

• 71. Diana Powe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

  Libsbane,

  Do you have something to add to the debate or are you just posting half-assed personal insults?

• 72. Joe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  Libsane, I would go with the former.
  Diana, I would go with the latter.

• 73. Libsbane  |  January 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

  Rico,
  Thanks for the link; some interesting information there; including, but not limited to the lack of substantive damage done by offering an abstinence information curricula. I’ve seen a great deal of accusation regarding the lack of effect abstinence education brings but this report apparently dispels that thesis, somewhat.

  Interestingly, the basis of success/failure is the learners’ knowledge of STD’s and contraception. When the long term effects of both educational techniques are processed it will be interesting to see which methods the learners recommend for their successors. Give it a generation (25 years) to determine the outcome, after all, we’ve had a generation of the alternative.

  And point of order; I could not tell if the curriculum is exclusive i.e. abstinence only.

• 74. Libsbane  |  January 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

  Diana,
  If you are incapable of formulating an argument, admit it; there’s no shame in that. But to ramble for paragraphs and not make a point will only dupe the simple-minded, and the rest of us lose interest after your first attempt at sarcasm.

• 75. Diana Powe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Libsbane,

  If you adjudge that I’m incapable of making an argument, that’s fine. As I was not making an argument in this instance (such as my outline of the case that can be made for impeaching the President over his violation of FISA in the comments about Mark’s post insulting Senator McGovern) but rather pointing out deficiencies in Mark’s thesis, I’m not sure what to make of your complaints. However, feel free to complain away or, better yet, skip over my comments. I’m not quite sure what to make of your characterization of other readers here as “simple-minded”, however, other than to note that you are quite the one for handing out priggish insults.

• 76. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

  63. andrew | January 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
  taxes, typically property taxes are used for the majority of local education

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm

  Federal taxes contributed 100 billion dollars to education. Averages about 2 billion per state actually. Thats a lot of “majority”.

  Whats really happening is states are shortchanging schools, taking federal tax contributions, and replacing local property tax collections with stuff like lottery contributions.

  Once upon a time it was for education, fire and police. Not anymore.

• 77. Diana Powe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  Whats really happening is states are shortchanging schools, taking federal tax contributions, and replacing local property tax collections with stuff like lottery contributions.

  Oh? As a real world for-instance. Texas has a state lottery which I voted against and have never played. The Richardson Independent School District (RISD), which has a high number of high-performing schools, is getting 60.9% of its budget this year from local property taxes, 36% from the state education budget which comes primarily from the statewide sales tax and only 0.3% from the federal government.

  Source: http://www.richardson.k12.tx.us/aboutrisd/budget_finance.htm

• 78. js  |  January 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  77. Diana Powe

  Really Diana, you should expand your horizons a bit. Your naivity about these things is glaring, do you think RSID is some kind of pattern for the rest of the world?

  Or, have you considered that its a sure fire possibility that alot of federal dollars just isnt making it to your area?

• 79. Diana Powe  |  January 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  js,

  Did you read my comment? Did I assert that RISD represented the entire universe of American public school systems? As to your last “sentence”, I honestly can’t even understand what it is you’re trying to ask. However, I would offer, given that Mark is prone to editing out “off-topic” comments, that public school financing may not really be what he was going after with his post.

• 80. Faceplant  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

  Wow, Marky. A new low even for you. Pregnent teens need to be taught a less on by making their lives hell?

  How very “family values” of you.

  If they want to keep their child, then they need to be uneducated, and likely poverty stricken? What about the child Mark? Once he’s born you really don’t care about him anyway, do you?

• 81. Faceplant  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

  “Its already proven itself to be ineffective, cut the tear jerking sympathy programs and make them face the consequences of thier actions.”

  Of course, that means the child is facing the consequences as well, not just the mother. But of course you guys only care about unborn children. Once they are born, they are on their own, right? It’s amazing how shamelesly hypocrtical you guys can be.

• 82. Faceplant  |  January 9th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  “It’s subsidizing stupidity because they don’t want to show or take any responsibility, for their actions, and they don’t think before they act.”

  What a ridiculously insulting notion. I know plenty of people who are single mothers, who had kids when they were young. To say that they don’t show any responsibility is just blatantly prejudice, and insulting. Only “family values” republicans like yourself think you can label an entire group of people as stupid, despite NEVER walking in anything even resembling their shoes.

  “And it ain’t no one’s fault except the parents for not teaching them properly.”

  Because if kids make mistakes, then the parents are worthless? It’s funny how you attack the parents of teenage mothers, simply because their kids got pregnant at a young age, but give your “family values” crusading candidate Mike Huckabee a free pass when his son slits the throat of a stray dog.

  The logic of you guys is pretty impossible to follow.

• 83. Mark Noonan  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  Face,

  No, but a cold dose of reality will wake up the parents and get them busy doing the right thing…foolishly telling a young girl who’s pregnant that it’ll all be smooth sailing with maternity leave from high school, that is what will consign her to a life of poverty.

• 84. Mark Noonan  |  January 9th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  Diana,

  No grants - by working very hard at a corporation, she got into a program which paid for her college education provided she kept her grades up. As I’ve said - no problem at all with all sorts of help…but help in hard work, not help in softening the blows of life. You, a liberal, might have given her a grant - and what would be her incentive to perform? The private sector said, “we need more people with degrees in business, and if you’ll work hard and do well, we’ll pay for it…”.

  Huge difference…

• 85. liberalT  |  January 10th, 2008 at 12:17 am

  its nice that your friend ended up so well. But statistics show that she is the exception - far from the rule. I ask you again - and if you are not a coward you will answer me - why would you punish the child for the supposed sins of the mother.

• 86. Jeremiah  |  January 10th, 2008 at 12:24 am

  why would you punish the child for the supposed sins of the mother.>/i>

  It wouldn’t be punishing the child, it would be punishing the mother.

  Like this, “If you can’t be responsible to your children, then we’ll give the baby to someone who will”.

  It’s that simple.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 87. Huck Fillary  |  January 10th, 2008 at 4:47 am

  Why stop there - there were plenty of people in my school who weren’t very bright - why educate them as well.

  You’re Exhibit A, a prime example. Can’t write. Can’t punctuate. You must’ve been class validictorian. You’re kblack, aren’t you?

  Sunny, it’s cows like you who are part of the problem. You want to reward immoral behaviour. Maybe all you kook libgressives should start a fund for all these teens, so we don’t have to pay for their immorality.

  Abstinenence works, every time it’s tried…

• 88. Huck Fillary  |  January 10th, 2008 at 4:49 am

  You are certainly right their is a philosophical difference, and I am very comfortable on my side of the line.

  Then your “side of the line” should be willing to pay for all this slutty behaviour…

• 89. Diana Powe  |  January 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am

  Mark,

  I note that you don’t deny your patronizing attitude towards your friend’s powerlessness to use her own will in the face of government policy.

• 90. js  |  January 10th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

  79. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
  js,

  Did you read my comment?

  –//–\\–

  Why would I have replied to it if I didnt read it?

  Maybe you should think deeper instead of faster, its much better for everyone.

• 91. FmrMarine  |  January 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

  The dems are todays marxists.

  They are atheistic,
  Anti GOD
  pro homosexual, pro abortion, pro euthanasia.
  ALL the aforementioned are immoral.

  Their morals equate a President of the USA getting
  b!@w jobs IN the oval office by a 21yo INTERN girl a couple years older than his daughter to be a
  “matter of sex between consulting adults”
  total lack of morality.

• 92. Diana Powe  |  January 10th, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  FmrMarine,

  I am a Democrat. I believe in God. I believe everything found in the Nicene Creed. I don’t hate homosexuals. I wish that we could eliminate abortion. I totally oppose euthanasia.

  I wish President Clinton didn’t cheat on his wife, but at least he’s still married to his first wife.

  I thinking lying is immoral, as well. The current President has lied to you. Does that mean Republicans hold morals that approve of lying?

• 93. Ricorun  |  January 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

  FmrMarine: “matter of sex between consulting adults”

  One wonders how much consulting went on. After all, it’s hard to talk when you have your mouth full.

• 94. DM  |  January 11th, 2008 at 9:11 am

  Rico – cute.

  Diana,

  I find it interesting that you’re a Democrat while stating your opposition to a number of core beliefs that the Democrat party as a whole, strive toward.

  You state your opposition of abortion yet the Democrat platform is one where they want public funded abortion on demand.

  You oppose euthanasia, yet euthanasia as an option is pushed by the Democrat and Liberal parties.

  You believe in God and the Nicene Creed yet it is largely the Democrats and Liberals who are trying to separate God from most everything we do and then make the mention of God irrelevant to any aspect of how we’re governed.

  Doesn’t this strike you as odd? Just curious what it is that Democrats work toward that you associate with? Are you for socialized health care? Are you for gun control? Are you for higher taxes? Are you for allowing the government to take property from private citizen A and giving it to private citizen B because s/he have more money? Are you for activist judges? Are you for wealth redistribution?

  These are just a few of the things I see that stand high on the Democrats list and as a whole are trying to push. You seem far more intelligent than the typical liberal poster here and based on your stated beliefs I can’t figure out how it is that you’d still claim to be a Democrat. Just curious.

• 95. Almiranta  |  January 11th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  Ohio Orrin seems to be saying that it is not right to hold black students to the same standards as white students—”..l.different ethnicities require diff solutions…”

  Sounds pretty racist to me. Kind of like a new version of affirmative action–after all, we can’t expect SOME folks to know how to act (get eddicated, get a job, not get knocked up…..) so we’d better step in and smooth it over for them.

  But it’s still better than the neighbors just to the north, the Boulder County Schools, where they hired “counselors” and speakers to come in and advise high school students that drug use is just fine, go ahead and drink and use drugs, be sure to experiment sexually (”boy on boy, girl on girl, groups—it’s all good” and that condoms are just too hard to use and don’t feel good.

  At least in Denver they wait till the girl IS pregnant, instead of paying people to advise her on how to GET pregnant

Matt Margolis on Twitter