There used to be a taped talk by a retired Naval Doctor — a woman — going around on either the Christian networks, or EWTN, I forget which.

But she talked about the personal ethical, emotional, and, yes, moral (in a nonreligious sense) price to be paid.

She also spoke of the permanence / incurability of certain STD’s, and their effect on later pregnancies.

It was very impressive in its lack of religious content while it hit several important notes with the adolescent mind.

The most memorable point? (I’m paraphrasing) “When you have sex with someone, you’re having sex with every girl he’s ever been with, and every guy the girls were ever with”.

Abstinence, when effectively, consistently, and responsibly used, has a 100% success rate.”

I actually think I might know what Frank’s talking about. I think that he’s arguing that in an ideal world, teens wouldn’t have premarital sex at all, contraception or no. Additionally, by disapproving of overt teen sexual behavior (rather than “promoting” it by discussing contraception/STD prevention), adults may be performing the most moral of actions. “Moral” in that the action itself is pure, even though the results from said action may be less than desirable. Am I right?

I disagree with you, Frank, but I see and appreciate your argument if this is what you’re trying to say.

I never said they did. With me so far?

However, the success rate with typical use is 86%

Which would you rather practice?

See, condoms when effectively, consistently, and responsibly used have a 99% success rate.

Abstinence, when effectively, consistently, and responsibly used, has a 100% success rate.

And you don’t have to worry about your conscience, the objectification of women, or all that fumbling in the dark.

But doing the right thing is so difficult.

And, there’s always Maury.

But, yes, frameone, you’re right. Whatever you say.

I am indeed frank.

Why I’m four comments too late?

(Joke)

Actually, I thought I was the first to post a link to actual statistics on the subjects.

As for why it is dropping, comprehensive enducation, the one that includes the use of condoms, seems to be helping.

On the other hand…

Here’s a study of several abstinence only sex education programs.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

Six of the five-year studios checked changes in short term sexual behavior, half did nothing, 2 made it worse, (or better if you are into teen sex), and 1 showed mixed results.

None, that’s right, none showed less sexual behavior.

In fact, those people who hand out the silver promise rings admit they have a failure rate of 89%. (Saw that on a TV show show I can’t link to it.) If something has a 89% failure rate, it shouldn’t be used as a primary tool, and especially not an only tool. Hell, it shouldn’t even be used as a backup.

“We don’t expect you to stay abstinence until marriage because a lot of people don’t get married until they are 30, or older. What we are going to do is give you the facts about sex, pregnancies, STDs, etc. We will also give you the tools and training to minimize the negative outcomes. Abstinence may be the only 100% successful tool to avoid these, but people who use abstinence only are 89% likely to fail. On the other hand, condoms used correctly have a 99% success rate. Which would you rather learn about?”

You’re the only person I know who thinks “idiot” is a punctuation mark.

But you know what?

You’re right again.

Maybe it’s actually because you post a lot of idiotic nonsense. Case in point, your entire rant about how you’re just an innocent victim of viscious left-wingers. Seriously, look at your first post in this thread:

F*ck abstinence!

We certainly don’t have a problem with teenage pregnancy, or the ongoing degradation of women to consider…

Give him a condom, and she can go on “Maury” next year, and straighten it out.

You followed these pithy contributions to the debate with this statement:

Teenage pregnancy is going through the roof, and abortion among young black girls has reached genocidal proportions.

You go from the non-sensical to the utterly untrue — and easily disproven — in two posts and then wonder why people think you’re an old idiot crank with way, way too much time on his hands.

Abstinence Only seems to be no more, or less, effective than anything else.

That’s, of course, assuming you don’t believe the statement from the Heritage FDN guy that there have been numerous studies that indicate that Abstinence Only does work.

* * *

And, yes, Squirrel, as crazy as it may sound to you, and your moral relativist liberal friends, I do believe that some things are right, and some things are wrong; and they always are.

Not when I choose them to be, but always.

Does that mean I always do the right thing or never do the wrong thing? No. It means that when I do something wrong, I can identify it as wrong — not situationally so, or relativistically so, but wrong.

I know, I know, you may never have heard that said before, or you may think I’m just an “old fogey”, but I have lived both ways, and I have chosen the way I like, and the way that works for me.

What’s interesting is how you can be a moral relativist, and be dogmatic at the same time.

And, incidentally, I am not suggesting either that you should respect your elders, and let them treat you like crap, or that only “elders” should be respected.

I don’t even believe I have the right to determine who should be respected. I don’t take any shit from anybody in real life, just like I don’t in this blog, but I don’t choose who to respect.

I respect everybody. If you disrespect me right now, I will zing you right back, and if I am tempted to hold a grudge, I might hold a grudge.

But if I see the the fact that that hurts me as much as, or more than, it hurts you, soon enough; then the next time I address you it will be as if nothing ever happened.

Unless, you happen to be as foolish as some others on this Blog have been, and remind me of the last time you disrespected me, like I’m your doormat, or something.

That’s the point here. There’s a certain amount of flaming that goes on here. Given the fact that are lots of liberals here, and only a few conservatives, so naturally the conservatives take a lot of guff. Given that I post a lot, I take a lot of guff.

But I see two things happening here that I don’t see on other blogs. One is, liberals, for the most part, are much meaner, and harsher in their flaming of conservatives, than conservatives are in their flaming of liberals on conservative blogs.

And, secondly, people say things to me, on this blog, hiding behind their keyboards, that they would never say to my face.

And that’s something that I have almost never seen on any blog, done by anyone to anyone else.

People say some unbelievable stuff – “George Bush is a chimp”; “Why doesn’t Cheney just die”, “Why doesn’t somebody hang this anti – Israel politician?”, or “Kill this or that Liberal politician?”, but the personal stuff people say about me, especially when it come from out of the blue, is beyond astonishing.

Two quick examples:

Here’s a guy, elspi, who to the best of mu knowledge, has never even posted here before: Here are two of his comments, minutes apart:

Babies cannot be aborted dipshit.
fd10801: I cannot believe what a bastard you are.

Get my drift?

D’oh! I’m a stupy-head! We’re talking teen pregnancies, not all pregnancies!

(Boomers have a reputation for clinging to their youth, but last I heard, they haven’t found a way to stop time altogether.)

And you’re still wrong. The number of births hasn’t changed much, but not all pregnancies result in births. For that, you have to take into account pregnancies that are ended by abortion, miscarriage and stillbirth. That number has declined by nearly 50 percent.

And started declining again in the 1990s. The rate is now at a historic low. What on earth could possibly explain such a thing?

Without any evidence whatever, I’ll take a guess: the rate began to decline as baby boom generation women aged out of their childbearing years. Just looking at the numbers, I’d guess that the shift might be generational.

Side note: the state with the highest proportion of abortions to total teen pregnancies is New Jersey. Why is that?

The births have barely changed, so whatever has been about “teen pregnancy” hasn’t worked!

My point from the beginning referred to the comment in the article that Abstinence “doesn’t work”, and “they” should be using “Programs that work”.

Further, “kids just don’t behave” is BS…

Kids have misbehaved since prehistory.

The teen pregnancy rate started going up in the late 60′s.

OK. You’re wrong. You’re reading the “Births” column, not the “Abortions” column. The number of abortions fell from 408,000 to 222,000.

C’mon, you can figure it out. You almost had it: prior to 1973, pregnancies terminated by abortion weren’t reported!

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that’s what it says in Table 2.5, page 10.

It says there were 488,941 abortions in 1988; and 432,808 abortions in 2002.

Well, there’s rate and there’s count. I thought this discussion was about the former. ‘Scuse me if I misunderstood.

Is there anyone (in the real world) that you deal with regularly (not Manson or Castro, unless you correspond with them), that you treat disrepectfuly because they don’t “deserve your respect”?

The reason I don’t need, or want to know your answer, is because we owe everyone respect because of who we are, not because of who they are.

If you think it bothers me that you might “remind me of my disrespectful conduct towards you”, here’s my eMail — fd10801@gmail.com, because I don’t want any grief from Oliver about derailing the thread, which only happened because I happened to be “old”, “really, really old”, and you somehow felt it relevant to point that out.

In your typical reasoned fashion, you will link to the entire thread, rather than “cherry picking” only my comments, won’t you?

If you don’t take advantage of my offer, it will be because you know that you started this. It will only be because people who say, “I only respect people who deserve my respect”, are just rationalizing their bad manners.

The reason why I respond to disrespect with disrespect is because I didn’t come here to take shit from you, or anybody else.

You, on the other hand, feel that is your responsibility to dole out respect, as you see fit.

What a fine world this would be, if every one thought as you do!

A quick reminder: Life isn’t “Star Trek”, and you’re not “Spock” or “Data” or “Seven of Nine”.

Huh? Huh?

Did I get it right?

Now,think about this: Without running back to Guttmacher, what is the connection between these three things:

1) The number of teenagers of each age within the cohort;

2) The number of pregnancies per person; and

3) The number of abortions per person

??

Finally, why do you suppose you can’t find teenage pregnancy statistics prior to 1973?

By 2002, the teenage abortion rate had dropped by 50% from its peak in 1988

So, basically, whatever the rate was in 1988, when it was its highest, it is now one – half that.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that’s what it says in Table 2.5, page 10.

It says there were 488,941 abortions in 1988; and 432,808 abortions in 2002.

It seems that the rate may be a meaningless statistic.

Correct me if I’m wrong…