adrenalinejunky wrote: yes there are several ways she could take responsibility, and as niether you nor i know the specifics of the circumstances it wouldnt be right for us to try to assume which is the best course of action...

What junky said.

This type of situation is incredibly difficult for all involved, and one should be very careful of judging.

At least she took some action now, instead of shouting "surprise!" around Christmas time.

rednekk98 wrote: I wonder if this will make Sarah Palin rethink her anti-birth control stance?

More to the point, who the heck is anti birth control?  I mean, granted she is (relatively) old-fashioned, but that's positively 1880s of her.  No woman can be that old-fashioned and ever leave the kitchen.

Yeah, the CHURCH.  Most actual Catholics I have known (and "known") had no problem with birth control whatsoever.

Lots of organizations have goofy public positions that are ignored by their members.  But a reasonably intelligent person like Palin actually claiming this?  Very Victorian.

rednekk98 wrote: Alright, I did a little more research, Palin does support birth control, but didn't want to increase sex-ed funding in her state or provide contraception in middle schools, which obviously makes her a religious wacko.

But at least it makes here a regular religious wacko.  I feel a bit better now.

Good thing at least one of us bothered to actually fact-check...

:)

Reb Cpl wrote: ...providing contraceptives to middle schoolers seems to be encouraging deviant behavior in the young 'uns. I don't really see supporting that as a good idea.

Deviant?

According to my numbers, 33% of American 9th graders have had intercourse.  That makes it pretty non-deviant.  It also means that holding back the condoms until they hit high school seems contrary to reality, whether or not we think middle-schoolers are "developed."  At least 33% of them appear to be plenty developed.

The numbers drop rather precipitously as the kids get younger, so it would appear that 7th-8th-9th grade is exactly the RIGHT time to be having this conversation, and anything later than that is too late.

Some relevant data here:  http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf - http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activ ity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

I don't think anybody (fringe-groups aside) likes the idea of middle-schoolers having sex, and everybody agrees that it should be a primary goal of a policy to minimize middle-school sexual activity.

And handing out condoms certainly does appear to give mixed messages.  Abolutely.

But - two thoughts:

1.  Preventing/minimizing middle-school sex is not the only goal.  There are other things to consider when designing a sex ed policy, such as pregnancy, STD, relationship issues, mental health, etc.  A policy with a sole goal of minimizing sex is not a good policy - ALL of these issues must be addressed.  And if handing out condoms results in reduced pregnancy and STD rates and other benefits, but at the cost of increased sexual activity, then it may be the right thing to do anyway.  Sex is complicated - we cannot get hung up on a single aspect.

2.  Whether to make contraceptives available is not a binary solution.  Like everything else, it should be part of a larger plan.  We aren't talking about encouraging kids to have sex.  Making condoms available in conjunction with comprehensive sexual education is different than just having a bucket o' rubbers in the hallway with no information.  The main problem with sex ed in this country (IMO) is that it is random, ad hoc, unplanned, inconsistent, and incomplete.  Handing out condoms is neither a panacea nor a curse, but should be considered as part of, and consistent with, the master plan.

Bottom line is that the US has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the indistrialized world.  Our teens also start having sex earlier than most countries, and do so irresponsibly.  Maybe we should look at what those other countries are doing, and consider implementing similar programs here.

To throw another gun analogy out there - many gun parents teach their children firearm usage and safety at a fairly early age, while at the same time telling them to never, ever use the guns unsupervised.  But if you do, make sure to observe proper procedures.

There may be mixed messages there, but we all acknowledge the value of the two-part instruction.  I don't want to create a strained analogy competition here, but the bottom line is that we routinely tell our kids "don't to X, but if you do it anyway, do it like this."  That's part of how the world works, and we usually manage to digest that compromise.  For whatever reason, sex ed is different in the minds of many.

I agree with benji on all counts.

It is absolutely shocking to me that kids can make it through 7th-8th grade and still not have complete understanding of the mechanics and biological issues of sexuality.  That's just fundamental.

But beyond that - I had the somewhat unusual experience of experiencing two radically different types of sex ed.  One was strictly mechanical.  Tab A in Slot B, use a condom.  The other was more of a discussion forum, where the main issue was the relationship between people, and how sexuality plays into the that.  The principal message was mutual respect.  Much time was spent discussing how sex is not just a physical thing, and how it is important for all parties to take is seriously because it is so easy to get hurt, and so forth.

Drastically different approaches.  I personally believe that the second approach not only leads to a healthier attitude towards sex among teenagers, but also leads to a healthier attitude towards relationships for adults as well.  If we think of sex ed just as something for the teen years rather than something for life, I believe we are selling ourselves short.

JohnnyHopper wrote: You wouldn't need sex ed if you could still horse whip both parties. I have a real simple plan for preventing teen pregency, its called buh-bye. You screw up, you're gone. You proved you're an adult and now will leave. Don't call, don't write and don't even for a minute think I'm raising my grandkids. I also will not be paying for a car, car insurance or college or sending money for whatever. They can make it right by marrying the other dolt but that doesn't mean I don't get to throw him down the stairs first or forget her name and simply revert to calling both of them "hey you" and "whats-her-slut". If you know the penalty for being stupid and you still mess-up, then you're willing to face the penalty. Just like prison, I play nice because I don't want teh butsecs.

And in some alternate universe that plan might work.

Meanwhile, in the real world, I suggest looking for strategies that will actually accomplish something.

JohnnyHopper wrote: You didn't have a perfect world 100 years ago...in fact it was must less so. So what changed in terms of kids not being pregnant at 9?

What makes you think there weren't teen pregnancies before?  That seems a bit of an unwarranted assumption...

Of course, back in the day girls were married by 16 at the latest, which gave less time for pre-marital shenanigans.

Menarche also hits earlier now than before, but that is really a minor factor. 

Truth is that teen pregnancy has always been a reality.

EDIT - very first hit on google:  http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubteenp.htm - http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubteenp.htm

brihard wrote: So you'd see your teenage daughter kicked out of the house, with no income, forced to drop out of school and get a menial job (what kind of job can you get with a grade 11 education) just to keep herself and her child alive, never mind a reasonable quality of life? You'd have her forsake an education, job prospects, and any realistic chance of anything beyond a minimum wage job or perhaps in ten years managing a MacDonalds as a result of giving in to the most fundamental, natural and powerful biological impulse humans have beyond the basic need to eat and sleep? You are a fool.

Don't forget the part where he is abandoning his grandkids as well.

In 'Merica, we call that "taking responsibility."