115 Girls in One High School Are Pregnant

Nosferatu wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Combining condoms, with OTC morning after meds for an outlying "break" and you are as close to 100 percent certain as you can get.

And people who have the facts can at least go forth, omit the jimmy, and show that they intend to impregnate someone.

Well as certain as you can get without not actually having sex (though apparently, even this ancient method isn't foolproof either)

I can give you documented proof of birth without sex that will convince any Christian.

KingGorilla wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Combining condoms, with OTC morning after meds for an outlying "break" and you are as close to 100 percent certain as you can get.

And people who have the facts can at least go forth, omit the jimmy, and show that they intend to impregnate someone.

Well as certain as you can get without not actually having sex (though apparently, even this ancient method isn't foolproof either)

I can give you documented proof of birth without sex that will convince any Christian.

i'm not sure, last I checked the document in question is deemed to be not a legitimate source here.

Nosferatu wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Combining condoms, with OTC morning after meds for an outlying "break" and you are as close to 100 percent certain as you can get.

And people who have the facts can at least go forth, omit the jimmy, and show that they intend to impregnate someone.

Well as certain as you can get without not actually having sex (though apparently, even this ancient method isn't foolproof either)

I can give you documented proof of birth without sex that will convince any Christian.

i'm not sure, last I checked the document in question is deemed to be not a legitimate source here.

Hence, it would convince any Christian.

I would like to live in a fantasy realm where whenever a condom breaks, that couple heads to the pharmacy the next day for some morning after pills.

What is in serious contention, with all of this sex ed controversy is if we think people have a biological right to their sexual destiny. And I think you would have a serious problem proving the otherwise given the numerous cases on sodomy, abortion, access to the pill, since Roe v Wade.

If you think yes, then we violate that by not teaching about contraception in sex ed. If you think that there is only a dichotomy of no sex, or sex for procreation, then you think no.

KingGorilla wrote:

I can give you documented proof of birth without sex that will convince any Christian.

That's evidence, not proof.

Jayhawker wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Combining condoms, with OTC morning after meds for an outlying "break" and you are as close to 100 percent certain as you can get.

And people who have the facts can at least go forth, omit the jimmy, and show that they intend to impregnate someone.

Well as certain as you can get without not actually having sex (though apparently, even this ancient method isn't foolproof either)

I can give you documented proof of birth without sex that will convince any Christian.

i'm not sure, last I checked the document in question is deemed to be not a legitimate source here.

Hence, it would convince any Christian.

So all Christians are literalists in your mind then?

Um, if you don't accept that particular bit of hearsay evidence as proof, by definition I don't think you're Christian.

Nosferatu wrote:

So all Christians are literalists in your mind then?

I am aware of several denominations of exceedingly liberal Christian organizations. Some of them are quite clear on the ambiguity and errors in the Biblical texts. But to my knowledge, none of them denies Jesus' virgin birth or His description as Son of God.

Malor wrote:

Um, if you don't accept that particular bit of hearsay evidence as proof, by definition I don't think you're Christian.

Or I have faith, and don't require proof.

Edit: By the way, this is why the whole "Prove it!" argument becomes really tiresome sometimes. We religious folk have something called faith. Proof is repeatable. Proof is demonstrable. If you require proof you will not find it here. In some areas of my life I do require it, but not in this. As much as I still consider it searching for truth, my spiritual life does not require proof in order to move on and grow.

LouZiffer wrote:
Malor wrote:

Um, if you don't accept that particular bit of hearsay evidence as proof, by definition I don't think you're Christian.

Or I have faith, and don't require proof.

Edit: By the way, this is why the whole "Prove it!" argument becomes really tiresome sometimes. We religious folk have something called faith. Proof is repeatable. Proof is demonstrable. If you require proof you will not find it here. In some areas of my life I do require it, but not in this. As much as I still consider it searching for truth, my spiritual life does not require proof in order to move on and grow.

You are missing the point. Malor was responding to the claim that some Christians do not believe in the virgin birth because they are not literalists to be dubious. No one is trying to prove or disprove the Bible.

I'm surprised that everyone is focusing on the Sex Education and Religious angles of this particular conversation and not the societal impacts of Brangelina Babies, Otcomoms, Jon != Kate + 8, Zoe 101(+1) (Jamie Lynn Spears), Duggers, etc.. Cmon, there's even a show on TLC called "I didn't know I was pregnant".

I'd be willing to bet that the above is at least 50% of the problem. In the battle between Marketing and Education, Marketing tends to win in this country.

Jayhawker wrote:

You are missing the point. Malor was responding to the claim that some Christians do not believe in the virgin birth because they are not literalists to be dubious. No one is trying to prove or disprove the Bible.

Whoops! I thought he was responding to this:

LouZiffer wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I can give you documented proof of birth without sex that will convince any Christian.

That's evidence, not proof. ;)

Johnvanjim wrote:

I'm surprised that everyone is focusing on the Sex Education and Religious angles of this particular conversation and not the societal impacts of Brangelina Babies, Otcomoms, Jon != Kate + 8, Zoe 101(+1) (Jamie Lynn Spears), Duggers, etc.. Cmon, there's even a show on TLC called "I didn't know I was pregnant".

I'd be willing to bet that the above is at least 50% of the problem. In the battle between Marketing and Education, Marketing tends to win in this country.

Somehow, I don't think the majority of these babies were intended, so I dunno why that'd matter in the least.

Malor wrote:

Um, if you don't accept that particular bit of hearsay evidence as proof, by definition I don't think you're Christian.

Belief in the virgin birth of Christ has never been a requirement for salvation within Christianity.

Johnvanjim wrote:

I'm surprised that everyone is focusing on the Sex Education and Religious angles of this particular conversation and not the societal impacts of Brangelina Babies, Otcomoms, Jon != Kate + 8, Zoe 101(+1) (Jamie Lynn Spears), Duggers, etc.. Cmon, there's even a show on TLC called "I didn't know I was pregnant".

Not to mention MTV's "Sixteen and Pregnant," which, if the two episodes I've seen are representative of the series approach, indicates that being a pregnant teen can be difficult but is an overall positive experience for any girl.

Johnvanjim wrote:

I'm surprised that everyone is focusing on the Sex Education and Religious angles of this particular conversation and not the societal impacts of Brangelina Babies, Otcomoms, Jon != Kate + 8, Zoe 101(+1) (Jamie Lynn Spears), Duggers, etc.. Cmon, there's even a show on TLC called "I didn't know I was pregnant".

I'd be willing to bet that the above is at least 50% of the problem. In the battle between Marketing and Education, Marketing tends to win in this country.

Well, you're allowed your opinion but your arbitrary bet of 50% is hardly compelling evidence. Honestly, I don't think half the problem is media glamorization of parenthood. Of course, my opinion isn't any closer to proof than yours. I do think you'd be hard pressed to argue that being taught (in school) that birth control is useless and you MUST abstain has exactly the same amount of influence (or less!) as seeing people with kids on TV. However I'd love to be proven wrong in that assumption, because it'd be pretty damn fascinating.

After hanging out in a women's clinic for a day during the course of a college class I came away with the impression that a big part of the problem in teen pregnancy can be boiled down to laziness. The vast majority of the women I saw come through the office seemed to view having an abortion as an inconvenience to their day. Taking birth control pills would have just been such a hassle and worrying about whether or not the guy used a condom would've just caused a fight so it was just easier to pop into the clinic whenever something like this did happen. I was told that they had a lot of repeat business. For those that do go through with the pregnancy I don't think it's too much of a leap to think a good portion of them had suffered from "it can't happen to me" itis. Goodness knows we've all suffered from that affliction. They may get pregnant but I never will. They may get cancer but I never will. They may have been killed in a car crash because they were drunk, but that won't happen to me. You get the picture.

Kehama wrote:

After hanging out in a women's clinic for a day during the course of a college class I came away with the impression that a big part of the problem in teen pregnancy can be boiled down to laziness. The vast majority of the women I saw come through the office seemed to view having an abortion as an inconvenience to their day. Taking birth control pills would have just been such a hassle and worrying about whether or not the guy used a condom would've just caused a fight so it was just easier to pop into the clinic whenever something like this did happen. I was told that they had a lot of repeat business. For those that do go through with the pregnancy I don't think it's too much of a leap to think a good portion of them had suffered from "it can't happen to me" itis. Goodness knows we've all suffered from that affliction. They may get pregnant but I never will. They may get cancer but I never will. They may have been killed in a car crash because they were drunk, but that won't happen to me. You get the picture.

I don't think thats laziness exactly, it sounds more like a teenagers disbelief in their own mortality.

KingGorilla wrote:

I remember Dan Quale spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

I seriously though you were making this up because it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Unfortunately, you were not.

"It doesn't help matters," Quayle complained, when Brown, "a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman" is portrayed as "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice.' "
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I remember Dan Quale spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

I seriously though you were making this up because it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Unfortunately, you were not.

"It doesn't help matters," Quayle complained, when Brown, "a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman" is portrayed as "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice.' "

Thanks, Seth, for making me feel old...

Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I remember Dan Quale spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

I seriously though you were making this up because it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Unfortunately, you were not.

"It doesn't help matters," Quayle complained, when Brown, "a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman" is portrayed as "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice.' "

Then again we often here vocal complaints about how certain lead characters are bad role models because they are racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever.

Nosferatu wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I remember Dan Quale spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

I seriously though you were making this up because it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Unfortunately, you were not.

"It doesn't help matters," Quayle complained, when Brown, "a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman" is portrayed as "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice.' "

Then again we often here vocal complaints about how certain lead characters are bad role models because they are racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever.

Really? You want to compare a racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever character to a single professional women having a child. That where we are going? Really?

Jayhawker wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I remember Dan Quale spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

I seriously though you were making this up because it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Unfortunately, you were not.

"It doesn't help matters," Quayle complained, when Brown, "a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman" is portrayed as "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice.' "

Then again we often here vocal complaints about how certain lead characters are bad role models because they are racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever.

Really? You want to compare a racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever character to a single professional women having a child. That where we are going? Really?

sh*tty role models are sh*tty role models. Either the personal politics of the make believe characters do not matter at all or they do.

Nosferatu wrote:

sh*tty role models are sh*tty role models. Either the personal politics of the make believe characters do not matter at all or they do.

Okay. On my planet, a racist, a homophobe, and a sexist are sh*tty role models. A single professional woman conflicted over having a child is a positive role model, because she is thinking about the consequences of her actions. A single professional woman proudly choosing to have a child is a positive role model because she is exultant with being a powerful woman.

A single professional woman choosing not to have a child because she is fearful of what society will think? That would be a sh*tty role model.

Nosferatu wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I remember Dan Quale spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

I seriously though you were making this up because it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Unfortunately, you were not.

"It doesn't help matters," Quayle complained, when Brown, "a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman" is portrayed as "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice.' "

Then again we often here vocal complaints about how certain lead characters are bad role models because they are racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever.

Could you give a recent example? I'd like to hear some, as I haven't in a good, long while. Especially coming from someone at the level of Vice President of the United States.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Malor wrote:

Um, if you don't accept that particular bit of hearsay evidence as proof, by definition I don't think you're Christian.

Belief in the virgin birth of Christ has never been a requirement for salvation within Christianity.

Sorry gang. The Rev is right. There are more kinds of Christians out there than some seem to think. There are versions of the Bible used by mainstream Christianity that carefully do not suggest that the Virgin Mary was in fact a virgin.

For example, read this version of Luke chapter 1 from the Contemporary English Version. Particularly verse 34, which instead of stating something on the lines of "How can this happen? I am a virgin" like most other translations, it reads "How can this happen? I am not married!"

Just on General Principles I recommend you all bookmark BibleGateway.com and have it on hand for just these sorts of discussions. I have, uh, discussions with my pastor all the time based on various texts being shown in different lights by the different versions. He uses three or four of these from the pulpit (he always shows which one in the notes and on the overhead) and you have to really keep up with him on it sometimes.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I remember Dan Quale spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

I seriously though you were making this up because it is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Unfortunately, you were not.

"It doesn't help matters," Quayle complained, when Brown, "a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman" is portrayed as "mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice.' "

Then again we often here vocal complaints about how certain lead characters are bad role models because they are racist, homophobic, sexist or whatever.

Could you give a recent example? I'd like to hear some, as I haven't in a good, long while. Especially coming from someone at the level of Vice President of the United States.

I'll give you a recent example if you give me one Quayl(e) isn't exactly recent, but God knows Bidens probably said something similiar, I've refered to him as Obamas Quayl(e) before.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Malor wrote:

Um, if you don't accept that particular bit of hearsay evidence as proof, by definition I don't think you're Christian.

Belief in the virgin birth of Christ has never been a requirement for salvation within Christianity.

I vehemently disagree...but how in the world did a thread on pregnant high school girls get derailed to the point of discussing the virgin birth of Mary, who was a pregnant young woman....ooohhhh...

IMAGE(http://www.dahmus.org/blogimg/fry-see-what-you-did-there.jpg)

I am intrigued by the media angle mentioned bin here. There are several people who have had kids just to get their 15 minutes.

But it seems to me that emulation is so tenuous. We have seen it argued, never shown accurate with violence, why should sex be any different? I remember Dan Quayle spouting how Murphy Brown would lead to more teen pregnancies. Because of all the tweens watching Murphy Brown.

Still, off the rails.