Wrong President?

I Think Hillary is losing her trolley!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145342,00.html
from JoeUser Forums

Seems Hillary Clinton is blaming Bush for the rise in Abortions.  Now does not that sound strange in light of the numerous affairs that Bill has had?

But I guess cigars are non-impregnating!

If there was ever a reason to support abortion, it was in the case of Mrs. Rodham, about 55 years ago!

politics
10,326 views 44 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
You could have actually made some good points, but instead went right for the cheap shot. How Roveian of you.

She actually makes a good point. Teaching abstinance only means that teachers are supposed to make all the decisions for the student, because there is only one choice. If you don't choose that non choice then you are filled with ignorance. Abstinance only tells us that we should not trust our kids with options.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #1 By: whoman69 - 1/25/2005 10:45:49 PM
You could have actually made some good points, but instead went right for the cheap shot. How Roveian of you.

She actually makes a good point. Teaching abstinance only means that teachers are supposed to make all the decisions for the student, because there is only one choice. If you don't choose that non choice then you are filled with ignorance. Abstinance only tells us that we should not trust our kids with options.


When was the last time you were in school? They have been teaching different methods of birth control for years in school and it has not helped one bit. So she is making an ignorant point.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
They have been teaching different methods of birth control for years in school and it has not helped one bit.


I haven't finished my education, so I can't say I know everything about what is tought, but so far I have only been told that abstinence should be used for birth control.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #3 By: NJforever - 1/25/2005 11:08:51 PM
They have been teaching different methods of birth control for years in school and it has not helped one bit.


I haven't finished my education, so I can't say I know everything about what is tought, but so far I have only been told that abstinence should be used for birth control.


That may well be but when I was in school or my sons in school they taught birth control. Abstinence only is a newer devlopment in teaching curriculum.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

only is a newer devlopment in teaching curriculum.


the bush administration has done its best to reduce funding for programs that teach anything but 'abstinence only' not only as a means of birth control but to prevent stds.  you weren't aware of this when you voted for the man? Link

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
That may well be but when I was in school or my sons in school they taught birth control. Abstinence only is a newer devlopment in teaching curriculum.


When I went through high school 17 years ago, they did teach abstinence first, then showed us how to use a condom. But abstinence always first.

While now just accross the boarder in CA they teach sixth graders why "Kelly has two moms" and teach teenagers when you would want to use two or three condoms (I'll let your dirty minds think that one up, and it not for missionaries). Abstinence is only a foot note at the end of the class.

I really think it depends on your state and schools board, what is taught in your schools.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #5 By: kingbee - 1/26/2005 2:11:08 AM
only is a newer devlopment in teaching curriculum.



the bush administration has done its best to reduce funding for programs that teach anything but 'abstinence only' not only as a means of birth control but to prevent stds. you weren't aware of this when you voted for the man? Link


I was WELL aware of the fact. And like I said earlier teaching them birth control obviously *ain't* working (thats what was being taught at one time.).




Reply #6 By: Lee1776 - 1/26/2005 2:19:26 AM
That may well be but when I was in school or my sons in school they taught birth control. Abstinence only is a newer devlopment in teaching curriculum.


When I went through high school 17 years ago, they did teach abstinence first, then showed us how to use a condom. But abstinence always first.


Well I went to school over 30 years ago and they only taught birth control at the time. Both of my sons went to school in upstate NY and got out 6-7 years ago. When they were in they were taught birth control first abstinence second.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

I said earlier teaching them birth control obviously *ain't* working


so if abstinence dont work and birth control dont work, what's the solution doc?


( i aint even gonna tell yall how long ago i was in hs.  suffice to say, we had condoms made from dino skin and you hadda use 3 or 4 which made it an exercise in futility)


 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently, there is a rise in abortions. It's not that hard a leap to conclude that the Abstinence Only programs that the Bushies are advocating is not working. Hillary is trying to bring the discussions and hopefully some solutions to a bipartisan agreement. That being that maybe abstinence is a good method of birth control, but its NOT the only one, and maybe the government should stop the Only for their funding requirements. That's clearly not working. In addition, they have been cited numbers of times for using blatant lies about condom use to discourage teens from using them, like they don't work. Of course they work. And, they prevent diseases if used correctly. The Abstinence Only discussions are pointless, lying and futile. That's all Hillary is advocating.

And, somehow comparing Hillary's willingness to open the debate with her husband's lousy sexual encounters is so blatantly disengenuous. It ludicrous and disgusting that you would do that. All it does is deflect the real issue, that being the unfortunate rise in abortions, that very issue that the dipshit bushies rally against. Again, if there is a rise in abortion rates and Abstinence Only is the only teaching that the bushies will fund, then you do the math, Dr. Guy. Something is not working. And, Bill's illicit sexual encounters have nothing to do with it. Fer cryin' out loud......................
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Birth control classes in general have apparently been a huge success. They have led to so many controlled births that now schools are coming fully equiped with daycare for all the babies that were prevented by "education". That doesn't even take into consideration all the girls that chose abortions.

I have been hearing the same excuses for birth control classes since the 70s. The whole idea was, if teens are taught about birth control in school the teen pregnancy and STD rates would go down. Where has the promises gotten us?

In 1980, I remember a "class" where planned parenthood came in to teach us all how we should best avoid pregnancy and STDs. There were two woman and a man who taught what was contracted to be a week of classes in each of the high schools in the school district. The first day we were taught that "when" we had sex... blah blah blah. The idea of abstinance was brought up, in a joke (and I'm not joking here). Never once was it said that pregnancy and STDs were caused by sexual activity. Pregnancy and STDs were the result of failed or misused birth control.

The second day there was a special surprise. We were shown films teaching us how to put on a condom and put in a diaphragm (complete with spermacidal foam). The special surprise was how this class was far too progressive to use mundane training aids like a banana or broom handle for the condom. We got to watch a film of a middle age man actually put the rubber on himself. The diaphragm and foam were done by a twenty something woman.

Then we were honored with yet another lecture about "when" we had sex. Never once was it even insinuated that some of us just might wait, or that there might be a reason why it could be a good idea. As far as they were concerned we were all a bunch of mindless automatons who dropped our pants at the first sign of arrousal,.

We never found out what was on the agenda for the rest of the week. After the films there were so many complaints about how graphic it was (from parents, teachers, the principal and even a lot of students), the people from Planned Parenthood didn't bother showing up anymore. Not only to our school, but the entire school district.

I really wish I could say that I have the answer for this problem though. It really should be the parents who teach this, but too many parents seem to be failing as miserably as the schools on this one. A good start might be to teach that pregnancy is the natural outcome of sexual activity and birth control only serves to reduce the chances of that outcome, the only way to prevent it (or STDs) is abstinance. But maybe something as simple as THE FACTS are far too backward for such a progressive society as ours.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
I was WELL aware of the fact. And like I said earlier teaching them birth control obviously *ain't* working (thats what was being taught at one time.).


We've had this conversation before. Any school system that taught any methods of birth control did it under protest. I graduated in 1981from high school. We had one class, one day, in all my years of schooling on methods of birth control. We certainly didn't go into any detail about any of the methods. We didn't hear about the statistics of teen pregnancies, and we certainly didn't go into the statistics of teen stds. This was before the age of AIDS.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
If there was ever a reason to support abortion, it was in the case of Mrs. Rodham, about 55 years ago!


OMG...thats sooooooooo mean! No cookies or TV for you today!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

You could have actually made some good points, but instead went right for the cheap shot. How Roveian of you.

I dont think Rove has that much of a sense of humor.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

And, somehow comparing Hillary's willingness to open the debate with her husband's lousy sexual encounters is so blatantly disengenuous. It ludicrous and disgusting that you would do that. All it does is deflect the real issue, that being the unfortunate rise in abortions, that very issue that the dipshit bushies rally against. Again, if there is a rise in abortion rates and Abstinence Only is the only teaching that the bushies will fund, then you do the math, Dr. Guy. Something is not working. And, Bill's illicit sexual encounters have nothing to do with it. Fer cryin' out loud......................

I dont black list you because when you are not being stupid or radical, you can be funny.  Like this time.  How many shades of purple did you turn because I dared to bring up Bill and his women? 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is Hillary Clinton upset with the rise of abortions? I thought abortions weren't wrong. If anything, she should be happy that people are having abortions so the teen pregnancy rate won't rise.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

OMG...thats sooooooooo mean! No cookies or TV for you today!

I am not alone in that thought.

Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife Hillary. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attack antics that  Hillary would use against her husband, the then President. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.

Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most people wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the neither liked nor respected each other and was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."

was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal which hurt her gravely.

Bill Clinton did in fact have "charisma," and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. They did respect him, unlike his wife, but they did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him. He was polite, but not kind.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
How many shades of purple did you turn because I dared to bring up Bill and his women?


Dabe didn't turn any shades of Purple. How do you turn a color that doesn't exist?? ;~D
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Why is Hillary Clinton upset with the rise of abortions? I thought abortions weren't wrong. If anything, she should be happy that people are having abortions so the teen pregnancy rate won't rise.


Actually, she has never said they weren't wrong. She said that the government should not dictate whether or not a woman can choose to have one. Many tens of millions of Americans agree with this viewpoint.

The real hypocracy is that pro-life Republicans like bush also reject proven contraceptive methods that can reduce unwanted pregnancy and and abortion rates. In fact when bush became president he directed that the national institutes of health and the US surgeon general web sites be stricken of any reference to condoms and condom use. (Source: Consumer Reports January, 2005)
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #18 By: greggbert - 1/26/2005 9:40:52 PM
Why is Hillary Clinton upset with the rise of abortions? I thought abortions weren't wrong. If anything, she should be happy that people are having abortions so the teen pregnancy rate won't rise.


Actually, she has never said they weren't wrong. She said that the government should not dictate whether or not a woman can choose to have one. Many tens of millions of Americans agree with this viewpoint.

The real hypocracy is that pro-life Republicans like bush also reject proven contraceptive methods that can reduce unwanted pregnancy and and abortion rates. In fact when bush became president he directed that the national institutes of health and the US surgeon general web sites be stricken of any reference to condoms and condom use. (Source: Consumer Reports January, 2005)


This is BS Here is a *DIRECT* cut and paste from the surgeon generals page.


We are also using the ABC approach as part of our response to the epidemic. Developed in the East African country of Uganda, where the ABC approach has meant a significant decline in HIV and AIDS, we are now taking their lead in a common-sense effort to reduce HIV transmissions here.

ABC stands for Abstinence, Be Faithful, and Use Condoms. We are encouraging young people to delay sexual activity. We are reminding those who are already in relationships of the importance of faithfulness and monogamy. And we are encouraging those who engage in high-risk behavior to use condoms consistently and correctly, each and every time they have sex.


Now try again.
 Link Under what are we doing.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

The real hypocracy is that pro-life Republicans like bush also reject proven contraceptive methods that can reduce unwanted pregnancy and and abortion rates

I have 4 children.  The first was conceived when their motehr was on the pill, the second was conceived using a diphram, the third using the sponge, and the last using rubbers.  I love them all, and am glad I had them (we were just trying to plan better).

Simple fact?  Contraception is not 100%.  The only thing that is is abstinance. 

You dont have to support abortion to understand that.

Oh, and as for 'permanent' types of contraception?  A co worker had a vasectomy last year.  His wife just got pregnant again.

 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course contraception isn't 100%. Abstinence is 100% only when it's followed, which is unlikely when teens are dealing with raging hormones. The fact is, that if contraception techniques are taught properly, their effectiveness is very high, and those techniques should be taught, along with the fact that they are not 100% . As an example, my daughter became pregnant while taking birth control pills. Unfortunately, the doctors nor any medical experts told her that taking antibiotics at the same time reduces the effects of the pills. Minor detail, don't ya think? Maybe a bit of education would have been helpful. I now have a wonderful grandson as a result of that pregnancy. He is the love of my life, and that's wonderful. But, had my daughter been educated, she likely would not have conceived him. What she did after conception was HER choice.

Abstinence is but one tool in the toolbox for people to practice to avoid pregnancies. It's not the only one, and trying to teach it as the only option is merely sticking your head in the sand, and is very disrespectful of the kids who are living with their raging hormones. You're taking them all for fools. It astounds me that the same people who advocate illegalizing abortions are the same fools who want to limit the ways that can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The hypocrasy is astounding.

All I can say to you, Dr Guy, is either you have superpowered sperm, you were very (un)lucky, you just didn't use the methods correctly, or your wife was taking antibiotics. So, what's the rest of the story? Care to share?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

All I can say to you, Dr Guy, is either you have superpowered sperm, you were very (un)lucky, you just didn't use the methods correctly, or your wife was taking antibiotics. So, what's the rest of the story? Care to share?


Cant be the latter, so it may be the former as all my children are in the Honor Society, so maybe just super smart ones. 


The real reason?  Birth control does not work 100% of the time. Period.  Raging hormones or none, every time they have sex, they are playing russian roulette as they are having sex with every partner their partner has had sex with.  And the least of their worries is a pregnancy.


There is something called tough love.  Teach it, learn it, do it.  Or the next funeral may be your childs.

Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
Are you guys trying to argue that pro-life republicans DO or DON'T support birth control? Because there are lots of examples of those idiots. (and by idiots I mean only the ones that hate abortion AND birth control.)

Damn that's weird about the Surgeon general's web site. Anyway, you can check that consumer reports. There is a little callout article about the president's anti-condom actions in the condom rating issue that came out January (or late December) and they mention the web sites.

-G
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
If there was ever a reason to support abortion, it was in the case of Mrs. Rodham, about 55 years ago!


Sorry, but that's just not funny--and don't tell me I don't have a sense of humor. I'm just plain old tired of attacking people instead of issues. You can hate what Hillary says all you'd like, but wishing a retroactive abortion on her is just plain cruel.

Why is Hillary Clinton upset with the rise of abortions? I thought abortions weren't wrong. If anything, she should be happy that people are having abortions so the teen pregnancy rate won't rise.


Let's just clarify here--being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. Simply because I think that the government does not have jurisdiction over my body does not mean that I am going to run out and have abortions willy-nilly.

The comments seem to suggest that people think that the majority of women having abortions are teenagers unable to contain their hormones. That is not true. Since the early 1990s more than forty percent of abortions are performed on women over the age of 25.

My first article here was called "Women Deserve Better than Abortion." You can read it at this Link if you'd like.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unlike NARAL, I dont beleive in post partum abortions. Sorry, you have the wrong guy.


I didn't say post-partum (which we are going to agree to disagree on anyway--you should actually read up on NARALs website before you put words in their mouth--we've actually had this conversation before), I said, "retroactive." Which is exactly what you implied in your comment.

Sorry, my point still stands--it wasn't funny.