115 Girls in One High School Are Pregnant

I think its laziness or some less charged term to avoid a fight. Present company, and all that. Buf if my dad can work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and still coach little league. Or my mom working 45 a week, cleaning houses, and still drop me off and pick me up from school, go to my games, take my brother to hockey camp, anyone can.

If a family friend can do the same, while pursuing a law degree, anyone can.

People often are not working for their kids, they are working for that TV, that trip to the Bahamas, those Air Jordans, or that bigger house. Parenting is a f*cking hard job. But big boys and girls learn to manage their time and prioritize.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

...and when did *Legion* last visit Chicago?

I went for the deep dish pizza. I stayed for the high school girls.

Rezzy wrote:
ThatGuy42 wrote:

When did the educational system become responsible for literally raising children into well adjusted adults?

At the point where both Parents had to work full-time jobs to maintain a 'comfortable' standard of living.
EDIT: What Kehama said.

Both my parents worked 50 hours a week to support our family. My brother and I got two hours a night with our parents, but they dedicated weekends to family. They made it work. We were raised in a loving, supportive environment despite that limited amount of time. Now, more than 30 years later, both my wife and I work 50 hours a week to support our family. I get to see my son for 2 hours a night, but we dedicate our weekends to family. It can be done, and IMHO, it should be done. If you've got family, you make it work, and you dedicate yourself to not just doing the best for your family economically, but emotionally and developmentally as well. Again, this is all my opinion, and YMMV, but family is a responsibility that you gotta dedicate yourself to, and it's unacceptable to me to foist that off on the schools and society.

Before this goes really off the deep end into P&C let me just say that yes, there are extreme cases. Yes, society needs a support system for those cases. I just don't think that the support system needs to be the general public education system.

Oh, and just to lighten the mood a little, my Dad's sex talk he gave to both me and my brother:
*puts box of condoms on table*
"Sex is wonderful. Go have has much as you can. Just always wear a rubber."

KingGorilla wrote:

People often are not working for their kids, they are working for that TV, that trip to the Bahamas, those Air Jordans, or that bigger house.

An unfortunate truth. Americans love stuff, and they're certainly willing to work for it.

I'm teaching my son about sex with homemade porn.

Let's see him scrub that horrific image out of brain long enough to knock someone up.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

I'm teaching my son about sex with homemade porn.

Let's see him scrub that horrific image out of brain long enough to knock someone up.

Homemade...like with clay-mation and stop animation and such? Weird...but it just may work.

115 is a scary number, but how many students attend this school, and before we go off on abstinence-only education can we confirm that's actually taught there?

LobsterMobster wrote:

115 is a scary number, but how many students attend this school, and before we go off on abstinence-only education can we confirm that's actually taught there?

115 out of 800 girls.

The Chicago Public School System adopted a new sex ed policy in 2006, Family Life and Comprehensive Sexual Health Education. A 2005 survey had revealed that half of all CPS students were sexually active. The new policy was supposed to provide medically accurate, age appropriate information about sex. However, if you look at the actual text of the policy, you'll see that one of its primary objectives is to:

...emphasize abstinence as the expected norm and the only protection that is 100% effective against unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and HIV when transmitted sexually

It's up to individual schools to determine how much they emphasized (or even talked about) contraceptives over the wonderfully effective "just say no" method. The result is a tremendously confusing and uneven sex education program for Chicago students.

KingGorilla wrote:

The fact is that the religious zealouts have just about destroyed generations' ability at sexual normalcy. Whether it is abstinence or some BS load about sexual sin. If you really care, pay attention to school board elections, write the governor and your state representatives, go to the PTA meetings parents.

I'd disagree with you, 18 year olds still go about having sex like they always have, if anything the thirty year old crowd had the weird teen sex notions, what with AIDS hysteria and all during that time frame.

ThatGuy42 wrote:

I just don't think that the support system needs to be the general public education system.

Neither do I.
But the alternatives worry me.

Having worked in a school that dealt with impoverished children, though nowhere near the level of poverty at the school in question, I'm sure, I agree with everything Jayhawker said, except one detail--many of those homes are two-income, because the single parent has to work two jobs to get by.

Rezzy wrote:
ThatGuy42 wrote:

When did the educational system become responsible for literally raising children into well adjusted adults?

At the point where both Parents had to work full-time jobs to maintain a 'comfortable' standard of living.
EDIT: What Kehama said.

Just because parents can raise their children effectively in a two-income home does that mean that parents will do so in all cases. When you end up in areas of poverty, there are ton of factors that make educating those kids much harder. Two incomes? Too many of the homes are single parent. And too may parents are in poverty because they pretty much suck at life, which makes ranting about how they need to be better parents kind of pointless.

Teaching in areas of poverty is harder, and costs more money, becasue there is more work that needs to be done to make up for what isn't happening at home. It costs more to get teachers to teach in the inner city, and those teachers not only have to deal with far more discipline problems, but have far more students that need more help.

Those schools do need more money, but when voters refuse to fund them, those schools just turn out more students that become poor parents. But they also turn out more students that affect all of us. They turn out worse employees, more criminals, and more folks that need welfare.

But we could invest in those schools and try to turn the tide. But that will only happen if we stop whining about the bad parents. We already know that. The goal is to make up for that lack of parenting, and try to turn out more students that give a rip. But our society has decided we can live with just hiring teachers that really love kids and don't care about the money. It's as though if we pay teachers more money, it will draw terrible teachers into the districts instead of making teachers compete for positions.

American society is not even close to taking K-12 education serious at this point. Take a walk through some inner city schools, and tell me how serious students think we take education. And then we expect them to take make up for our failings.

Nosferatu wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

The fact is that the religious zealouts have just about destroyed generations' ability at sexual normalcy. Whether it is abstinence or some BS load about sexual sin. If you really care, pay attention to school board elections, write the governor and your state representatives, go to the PTA meetings parents.

I'd disagree with you, 18 year olds still go about having sex like they always have, if anything the thirty year old crowd had the weird teen sex notions, what with AIDS hysteria and all during that time frame.

Oh no, we have the benefit of misinformation that AIDS is caused by gayness and heroine use. This is a prejudice that persists today.

There was a great episode of Bullsh*t, on sex, a good part focusses on a former Surgeon General Joy Elders. She was fired because she advocated teaching masturbation, protected oral sex, and mutual masturbation as alternatives to intercourse. That was under Clinton. This is actually something standard at Planned Parenthood counselling as safe alternatives to intercourse to prevent STDs and pregnancy.

My issue is that it is a very important area of life that Americans send kids into the world completely unable to cope with or protect themselves. And if the point of education is to prepare our kids for life in the real world, why is lying and fairy tales the standard of education? The effects of which \are that we have high unwanted pregnancy rates, high infant mortality rates, and high rates of STDs. You combat that with healthcare and education.

Remember the whole toliet seats can give you AIDs stupidity? Ryan White? AIDs was our "Commies"/Al-Qaeda/Boogieman, you could get it from someone sneezing, farting, using the bathroom or simply living near you.

Crazy unprotected sex is the norm, "safe sex" is by far the outlier in the course of human sexuality. Our culture currently seems to have its collective head up its ass about sex on both sides: Some think teens shouldn't ever have sex, and that is the best way to teach it, the oter side goes just as nuts in the far direction and says that there is nothing to sex and as long as a condom is used that having lots of sex with lots of people is a good thing with no "side effects".

Nosferatu wrote:

Remember the whole toliet seats can give you AIDs stupidity? Ryan White? AIDs was our "Commies"/Al-Qaeda/Boogieman, you could get it from someone sneezing, farting, using the bathroom or simply living near you.

Crazy unprotected sex is the norm, "safe sex" is by far the outlier in the course of human sexuality. Our culture currently seems to have its collective head up its ass about sex on both sides: Some think teens shouldn't ever have sex, and that is the best way to teach it, the other side goes just as nuts in the far direction and says that there is nothing to sex and as long as a condom is used that having lots of sex with lots of people is a good thing with no "side effects".

No so much. In fact, that flies in the face of everything that is taught in sex education courses. Just because abstinence is not the only thing taught, does not mean a sex ed class is primer on swingers clubs.

KingGorilla wrote:

My issue is that it is a very important area of life that Americans send kids into the world completely unable to cope with or protect themselves. And if the point of education is to prepare our kids for life in the real world, why is lying and fairy tales the standard of education? The effects of which are that we have high unwanted pregnancy rates, high infant mortality rates, and high rates of STDs. You combat that with healthcare and education.

I agree, mostly. I think our educational system can only teach what parents want them to teach, and an unhealthy aversion to anything sexual in nature is far more ingrained in American society than the term 'religious zealots' implies. Pointing fingers at what is essentially a vocal minority in this country is ignoring the real (and much larger) problem, in my opinion.

Jayhawker wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:

Remember the whole toliet seats can give you AIDs stupidity? Ryan White? AIDs was our "Commies"/Al-Qaeda/Boogieman, you could get it from someone sneezing, farting, using the bathroom or simply living near you.

Crazy unprotected sex is the norm, "safe sex" is by far the outlier in the course of human sexuality. Our culture currently seems to have its collective head up its ass about sex on both sides: Some think teens shouldn't ever have sex, and that is the best way to teach it, the other side goes just as nuts in the far direction and says that there is nothing to sex and as long as a condom is used that having lots of sex with lots of people is a good thing with no "side effects".

No so much. In fact, that flies in the face of everything that is taught in sex education courses. Just because abstinence is not the only thing taught, does not mean a sex ed class is primer on swingers clubs.

I was pointing out that both sides have their zealots that have crazy notions, I would say that ideally not ahving sex until you are ready is the best solution, but I also realize that teenagers are horny and not exactly prone to completely rational thinking. I don't view sex as a "sin", but neither do I view it as being void of actual consequences. Admitedly it has been a few decades since I had to take a sex ed class, but I do recall a fair amount of what was taught (LOL it surprised the hell out of my doctor when I actually knew what a refractory period was).

With modern science, there are very few inescapable consequences to having sex, and that's the fundamental problem from the conservative viewpoint. Women can have sex more or less freely, as long as they're careful, which means that conservatives have lost a tremendous amount of power over them. And they want it back; they want women in the subservient roles they once occupied.

Most of the anti-abortion arguments are about trying to re-inflict the 'natural consequences' for having sex; very few anti-abortionists actually care about the fetus except as a tool to make the mother fear having sex. How can you tell? Because while they champion the rights of the unborn, they also steadfastly refuse to allow methods and teachings that actually demonstrably reduce unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions. It's not ACTUALLY about the kids, it's ACTUALLY about controlling the behavior of the mother. They want to force men and women back into the old mold of only having sex within wedlock, and stopping abortions is a big step toward that goal.

There are some anti-abortionists that really are about the kids; those are the ones that champion contraceptive use and sex education.

The best litmus test I know is to ask an anti-abortionist if they're in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest. Usually they will say yes, it should be allowed. If you ask why, the reason will boil down to, "it isn't the woman's fault, she shouldn't be punished." And that, right there, shows you the real goal, punishment. If it was REALLY about the kid, they'd require the woman to have the kid anyway.

There's at least one country that does this, and life for women there is miserable. They actually have genitalia police and can force women to undergo examinations.

Malor wrote:

With modern science, there are very few inescapable consequences to having sex

If you are a woman you mean, the legal system and modern science sees to it that men can be held to the consequences of having sex.
While I won't argue that there are not some with the worldview that you describe, you seem to be applying it pretty broadly to almost everyone that doesn't morally agree with you. Your "litmus test" is kind of like asking those against capital punishment if we shouldn't apply it to cases like repeat offender baby rapists/murders (or Hitler/Manson/). Some things our society finds abhorent (which are not a nature response) and the reaction that one gets to those cases are going to be skewed.
Are there hippocrits in the groups who have abortions because they "made mistakes", then go right back to protesting abortions? Sure, humans are well documented in their capacity to rationalize away any action they take. Hell a lab coat is all it takes to get many people to potentially kill a fellow human because they were told to do it by an authority figure.

Not to be pedantic, but what they want is a non-existent ideal. People have been having sex, outside of marriage or commitment for as long as there have been people. Whether prostitutes, in courtship, people are going to have sex. That ideal from the 50's never existed outside of TV.

As much as I'd like for abortion to be a simple feminist argument, there is a little more to it than that. Namely, that without a concept of a soul, it's really hard to place just where life begins. I think we can all agree that it is and should be illegal to kill a baby that is outside of its mother, and I don't really see birth to be so huge a transition, from the baby's perspective. They get their nutrients in a new way and experience a new world, but they are fundamentally the same organism.

Yet I consider myself pro-choice, if only because I am a man and don't feel I have any right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. At what point does a fetus become its own body? I really have no idea. We could say that it's the point at which the child can survive outside of its mother, but how useful a distinction is that? With the steady advancement of medical technology, that age is constantly diminishing. Further, that new independence is largely symbolic, as a newborn child will obviously die without a caretaker.

While I do readily concede that some pro-lifers DO want to control women - or at least see them in their "traditional" place - there are more enlightened reasons to be anti-abortion.

LobsterMobster wrote:

As much as I'd like for abortion to be a simple feminist argument, there is a little more to it than that. Namely, that without a concept of a soul, it's really hard to place just where life begins. I think we can all agree that it is and should be illegal to kill a baby that is outside of its mother, and I don't really see birth to be so huge a transition, from the baby's perspective. They get their nutrients in a new way and experience a new world, but they are fundamentally the same organism.

Yet I consider myself pro-choice, if only because I am a man and don't feel I have any right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. At what point does a fetus become its own body? I really have no idea. We could say that it's the point at which the child can survive outside of its mother, but how useful a distinction is that? With the steady advancement of medical technology, that age is constantly diminishing. Further, that new independence is largely symbolic, as a newborn child will obviously die without a caretaker.

While I do readily concede that some pro-lifers DO want to control women - or at least see them in their "traditional" place - there are more enlightened reasons to be anti-abortion.

Wait I agree with LobsterMobster? I may have to rethink my position

While I do readily concede that some pro-lifers DO want to control women - or at least see them in their "traditional" place - there are more enlightened reasons to be anti-abortion.

Which is exactly what I said. But there aren't very many anti-abortionists that are also in favor of comprehensive sex education and free condoms in high schools, either. They SAY it's about preventing abortions, but fight tooth and nail against the best measures we've found for preventing abortion.

The only reasonable conclusion is that their goal isn't really preventing abortion. It's preventing sex.

Yet I consider myself pro-choice, if only because I am a man and don't feel I have any right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. At what point does a fetus become its own body? I really have no idea. We could say that it's the point at which the child can survive outside of its mother, but how useful a distinction is that? With the steady advancement of medical technology, that age is constantly diminishing. Further, that new independence is largely symbolic, as a newborn child will obviously die without a caretaker.

If you do not have a right to tell a women what to do with her own body, does she have the right to tell you to take care of what she decides to do? Meaning: If you don't want a kid and she does, should you have to support the child?

The feminist argument for abortion has never carried any water with me.

Ulairi wrote:
Yet I consider myself pro-choice, if only because I am a man and don't feel I have any right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. At what point does a fetus become its own body? I really have no idea. We could say that it's the point at which the child can survive outside of its mother, but how useful a distinction is that? With the steady advancement of medical technology, that age is constantly diminishing. Further, that new independence is largely symbolic, as a newborn child will obviously die without a caretaker.

If you do not have a right to tell a women what to do with her own body, does she have the right to tell you to take care of what she decides to do? Meaning: If you don't want a kid and she does, should you have to support the child?

The feminist argument for abortion has never carried any water with me.

That's why you use a condom. Even if the women says she's on the pill, you use a condom unless you have talked and agreed that you want to have kids *now*.

That's just practical advice in this day and age. If you take responsibility for using contraceptives as a man, you'll never have to worry about her having a kid you don't want. It's pretty much only when you expect the women to be the only person to worry about birth control that you'll end up in the position you talked about.

OG_slinger wrote:

That's why you use a condom. Even if the women says she's on the pill, you use a condom unless you have talked and agreed that you want to have kids *now*.

That's just practical advice in this day and age. If you take responsibility for using contraceptives as a man, you'll never have to worry about her having a kid you don't want.

Yes, because condoms never fail.

nosferatu wrote:

Some think teens shouldn't ever have sex, and that is the best way to teach it, the oter side goes just as nuts in the far direction and says that there is nothing to sex and as long as a condom is used that having lots of sex with lots of people is a good thing with no "side effects".

Yep, exactly. I think it's a no-brainer that contraceptive teachings are needed in sex ed, but I also have issues with people who say that sex is no big deal and that casual sex, one-night stands, and a dozen (or more) sexual partners are completely normal and acceptable with no repercussions. I've actually known people who believed that teens should be taught to have sex and NOT be abstinent, because abstinence is unnatural and could inhibit teens' emotional development. Personally, I'm not sure that teachings of that nature are any less destructive than those saying that having sex will cause one's penis to fall off.

Crispus wrote:

Yes, because condoms never fail.

The chance you get someone pregnant using a non-spermicidal condom is 2% over an entire year of use. And that's if she's using no birth control whatsoever.

If both you and your partner use birth control like responsible adults you can pretty much guarantee you aren't going to have a kid. After 20 years of condom use, I can count on one hand the number of times I've had one break on me.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Beyond that, however, I have grave doubts that such a paradigm is being taught in schools. My guess is that such a training discussion in classes would be front page news with certain terminations to follow.

It is very much not. Even the most liberal of Health teachers I have worked with emphasized that abstinence the best way to avoid STDs and underage pregnancy, because that's what the curriculum mandates, and every text book I've encountered says.

And that's been true since the 1970s at least; my curriculum was very loud about abstinence being the best possible form of birth control.

Nobody is handing out condoms and telling kids to head out behind the gym.