Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Joe Guzzardi In today's world, I see few sensible parents

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Joe Guzzardi

Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:08 am, Sat Mar 12, 2011.

Potential GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently criticized Academy Award-winning actress Natalie Portman for glamorizing out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

The day after the Oscars, Huckabee said: "Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out-of-children wedlock."

With unmarried mothers delivering 41 percent of all newborns, Huckabee deserves credit for telling it like it is. And after years of teaching at the Lincoln Technical Academy (then the Lodi Adult School), I have witnessed over and over again the exact situation that Huckabee referred to.

Portman's meticulously groomed and glowing personality belies the truth behind the average unwed mother's plight. Hollywood is an alarming advocate for keeping the birth rate churning, all the while falsely portraying pregnancy as a glamorous adventure.

Because Hollywood's big names have a built-in platform for their various causes, they have the power of persuasion over many of their fans — especially younger ones.

A few weeks ago, I watched the Red Carpet ceremonies that preceded the 2011 Grammy Awards. The E Channel hosts, Giuliana Rancic and Kelly Osborne, gushed endlessly about "baby bumps" and giddily quizzed the pregnant actresses about their pending maternity.

According to Hollywood insiders, "baby bumps" have replaced Hermes handbags and Louboutin heels as the essential accessory.

Kate Hudson, Jewel, Alicia Keys, Amy Adams and dozens more — all pregnant and gushing! Tell me, Giuliana, is there anyone out there who isn't pregnant?

Age isn't a factor in the stars' childbearing, either. Last year, Kelly Preston, John Travolta's 47-year-old wife, had her third child. And although he wasn't on the Red Carpet, septuagenerian Larry King fathered his seventh just a few years ago.

The baby boom has reached across thousands of miles to Australia, where 40-year-old Penny Lancaster delivered 66-year-old rock icon Rod Stewart's eighth child. That sounds like a bad choice to me, but maybe Stewart can get a song out of it.

The enlightened among us could, if the problem were not so urgent, dismiss it as more crazy Hollywood nonsense. But what about impressionable, fertile teenagers?

Even if their families don't get basic cable, teens are still exposed to the deceptive message. Here are some recent tabloid headlines screaming at the gullible: "Kim's In Love; 'I Want His Baby!'" and "Kendra: We're Having a Baby!"

To the uninitiated, the baby phenomena is deceptively alluring. Hollywood's mothers outfit their babies in Little Lark, the chic place to buy tots' T-shirts and body suits.

But teeming bank accounts don't guarantee well-adjusted children. Britney Spears, rumored to be pregnant with her third, will have to undergo a major lifestyle overhaul to give her 5- and 4-year-old sons a fighting chance as adults.

For the less financially fortunate, babies often represent a new start: a living, breathing opportunity to have and hold something that they can love and that will love them back. Since fathers are infrequently in the picture, rarely does it work out well.

We can't expect Hollywood to take a responsible position on overpopulation. But the problems it creates are real and irreversible.

As I look at today's world, I see millions of fathers and mothers but only a few sensible parents. Less bubbly blather about baby bumps would help everyone.

Joe Guzzardi retired from the Lodi Unified School District in 2008. He is a Senior Writing Fellow at Californians for Population Stabilization. Contact him at joeguzzardi@capsweb.org.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

49 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:21 pm on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Manuel... in reading all these posts with you and Pat, I have observed another lesson in perception vs reality... you tend to respond using perceived realities that books offer, Pat responds from his personal experience and lifes' lessons.( as well as from books)
    I normally think you convey what you think very well... unfortunately, what you think does not match reality often... I am impressed though that you have not mentioned a CBO report in a while.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:39 pm on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    When the government starts choosing for you, you cease to be a human being. It can give me food, shelter and money...I have to choose to eat it, live in it and spend it.

    The government cannot eat for me, breathe for me, sleep for me, use the bathroom for me, walk for me or even look or hear or smell for me. It cannot even protect me.
    I have to do it for myself.

    The value of a product, experience or human lies in the struggle it took to obtain value.

    What we obtain without cost is of less value than that which is earned...universally.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:29 pm on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Well put Mr Stanley...good points Doctor B. Since money is power and power is the freedom to choose...then choosing is paramount. We pay to see these people play, so they do...with their lives and those of their children. Only because they can. Yet, we will allow this for them while those of lesser means do the same. Because they can...because we support them...when we don't support their lifestyles they change... because they must...they no longer have a choice.

     
  • stan taves posted at 9:51 am on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Stan Taves Posts: 306

    By now everyone should know what my position is on this topic. The culture is shaped by power -- or energy if you will. One could say that the more access people have to energy the more feminine they become. Case in point: the inhabitants of ancient Rome, where energy flowed more freely, were more feminine/gay than the those further out in the rural communities, where access to energy was much more limited. Taken a step further one might conclude that ones decadence -- or self imposed decay -- is off-set by their consumption of energy. So... when a woman says that she doesn't need a man to raise a child; she is merely celebrating the power that she has been able acquire without a man. Does this kind-of celebration of power make her decadent? Does her statement send the wrong message to young women? It kind-of looks that way, doesn't it? One thing is certain: any system that re-distributes power, or wealth, based on a preconceived notion of "fairness" will fail everytime -- it's just a matter of time. In other words, A women who can afford to raise her child without the assistance of a man is one thing -- her thing; but a govt that makes it possible for young girls to emulate this alternative exercise of power is a govt that is clearly on the side of decadence -- The sad thing is that the decadence isn't even paid for; it's borrowed.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:32 am on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    I would speculate the MTV crowd in the Middle-East are well aware of the differences.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:13 am on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel wrote:

    I seriously do not understand how you feel to comprehend my call for universal population control. Regardless of ethnicity, we should work to reduce pregnancies to the levels of which our habitat is able to sustain.

    -Indeed we have reduced the size of families to the point where cultures are at risk of dying off. You seem to want to skate the issue of Europe becoming mainly Islamic
    in the not too distant future. Again, you and your liberal ilk have done a disservice to the mainly Non-Muslims by fear mongering that if they don't reduce their family sizes
    there won't be enough room on the planet for everyone. Now,as a result, the population in Europe becoming of age to replace the aging workforce do not share the same values and religious views. Perhaps since you are an anti-theist, what's the big deal if Muslims dominate Europe. I suggest you stop watching MTV because their ever tolerant nature for multi-culturalism is turning Europe into a Mono-culture.
    And sir, our founding fathers also called for no dis-establishment of religion. And you cannot find a country other than islamic countries where the laws are from a higher power. Here in the U.S. we have a Judeo-Christian value system only. We don't refer to the Bible everytime we decide to make laws nor are we under strict accordanance
    with the Bible. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the politics of
    Non-Muslim countries. Islam does not allow nor can it allow for the separation of church and state. They are one in the same. When one the last time the folks on MTV explained to you the differences?

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 7:58 am on Thu, Mar 17, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mr m...you have hooked a fish that is bigger than your boat and now you don't know what to do...take some advice...take a picture then cut the line. You are no match for either the fish or the fight.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 5:48 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    I have already handled this argument and it is not surprising that Patrick sought to protest further in such a manner that borders on unabated repetition.

    Again, no. I did not lump all children into your statement, I left your statement completely intact, quoting directly:

    Patrick W Maple posted at 1:14 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.
    "Children (people under the age of 18) having sex, drugs, rock and roll and children is inherently stupid. A child having a child is inherently stupid..."

    If you would like to amend your statements to imply an aversion to the act and not the person carrying out the act, do so forthwith. Do not defend the previous replies that are grammatically germane to my interpretation; that "A child having a child is inherently stupid". It really is that simple.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 5:08 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Sorry...your lump-sum bid to include all children in my statement falls flat on its face. You must either bring facts, logic or credibility to the debate...so far you have only brought your PC. You must also bring some intelligence worthy of the debate...again you left that in your back pocket (reference to the condom you keep there), along with some semblance of knowledge of the subject (sex). If and when you attend college...all of those "professors" (look up the meaning of the word) will tell you that most of what they say isn't how it is in the "real world", just how it should or could or would be. Read again my statements...here is a hint at what they say...it is the ACT that is inherently stupid...they get to choose...yes or no. Choose.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 3:38 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    If anyone had any doubts as to the conclusion that Patrick formulates horribly incoherent arguments, I present you with the monstrosity directly beneath this response...

    Patrick W Maple posted at 3:15 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.
    "Who taught you sex ed? Probably the same teacher that was having sex with one of her students."

    QED...


    Regarding your "slowest possible mode" segment, of which I have demonstrated to be only a possible aid to yourself rather than your opponent; Here is what I responded to:

    Patrick W Maple posted at 1:14 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.
    "Children (people under the age of 18) having sex, drugs, rock and roll and children is inherently stupid. A child having a child is inherently stupid..."

    Here was my response:

    Manuel Martinez posted at 2:15 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.
    "To call children "inherently stupid" is to sell our youth short in such a disgusting manner. I've noticed that if you level with them instead of talking down to them, they are more receptive of the message you convey. To denigrate them or threaten them is to isolate them."

    Note that I did not promote or defend the use of controlled substances, or the parenting of a child by a child. I stated that the ridicule you subject them to does not prevent or mitigate the actions you oppose and serve only to defame your character (not much left of it at this point). All that you have accomplished is to isolate them further from responsible countermeasures.

    I suggest that you work on reading comprehension while trying to salvage your position.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:16 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    You still lost!

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 3:15 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    So you are still a baby...not married, no children, no experiences...living in your MTV.
    Apparently you don't observe anything...especially the real world. Who taught you sex ed? Probably the same teacher that was having sex with one of her students. Did you ever wonder why she skipped pages 20 thru 103? Did she teach you EVERYTHING about sex, or was it just an overview? Have you even had sex? Maybe you are one of those who thinks that thinking about it is the same as having it. Grow up son.

    Slowest possible mode I can find: The comments were, "children (under the age of 18) having sex, drugs and rock and roll is inherently stupid" and "a child having a child is inherently stupid" I s u p p o s e you t h i n k taking d r u g s is o k?

    One minor point...sex isn't something you teach it is something you learn...not everyone likes the same stuff. Like swimming it isn't something to be taught out of a book...that is what life is about. Simulating being an adult does not make you one.

    As you grow older you will find that there are a lot of inherently stupid people (of all ages) out there...try not to join the crowd.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 2:15 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Patrick W Maple posted at 1:14 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.
    "mr m: I see now that I am going to have to type slower for you also."

    Which ever method helps you assemble arguments that surpass your previous ones. I, after all, do not observe the sentence by sentence development of your response, I just see the horrible outcome.

    I am unsure as to whether or not the poor structure, spelling or fallacies were intended for the purposes of simulating a "slow" response, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    It is not contested that children should not produce children, which is why those of us who you refer to as liberals, take a serious stance on proper sex education to appraise our youth of the implications of their actions and provide them the tools to remain safe if they are to engage in these activities. To call children "inherently stupid" is to sell our youth short in such a disgusting manner. I've noticed that if you level with them instead of talking down to them, they are more receptive of the message you convey. To denigrate them or threaten them is to isolate them.

    It was not so long ago, that I sat in sex ed (or family planning, as it was called) and concluded that my instructor had not provided approval for the careless engagement of sexual activities. Demonstrating condom use, or promoting other forms of contraception is not the equivalent of promoting sexual activity. Rather, it is the act of compelling serious thought to the activity prior to engaging in it.

    Where do people get off comparing sex with controlled substances? Are you that sexually repressed that you have to present a fallacious comparison between LSD use and safe sex?

    I think you've gone into denial mode by repeating yourself in regards to who is the victor. Go back to your board and ask Glenn Beck for the eraser because you have a lot of work to do.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 1:14 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    mr m: I see now that I am going to have to type slower for you also.

    When you are in line at Disneyland is that also incoherent to you?

    Children (people under the age of 18) having sex, drugs, rock and roll and children is inherently stupid. A child having a child is inherently stupid...most cannot even fend for themselves let alone another being. YOU may think you are smart and logical but most of society sees a kid in and adult suit.

    Slower typing: Telling a child how to have "safe" sex (why is THAT word used?) is telling them it is okay to HAVE sex. Remember you are dealing with a child's mind not an adult one. A fourteen year old girl having her third child has not been using SAFE SEX techniques.

    Slower yet: LSD if used properly was thought to be a safe and useful drug...ask the people who thought they could fly...wait...they are dead...

    Slower than Jim on Taxi: We are not dear friends...we are adversaries in the struggle for children's lives.

    Slowest yet: You lost...just like the world did when "sex, drugs and rock and roll" came about and sanity flew out the door. I know at least several "liberals" with common sense...I have found none in your ramblings.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 12:39 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    As always, Patrick remains consistent in vomiting up another incoherent statement. Where did Joanne or I trivialize the importance of commitment? In what manner does the dissemination of sexual education devalue human life, or make a mockery of relationships when the entire focus is on promoting responsible behavior in the course of engaging in sexual activity with others, for the sake of themselves and their partners?

    It is you, my dear friend, who has lost this round by entering ill-equipped, into the fray.

    (preemptive response to Darrell: Patrick brought up the win/loss commentary, not me.)

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 12:29 pm on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian, have you ever encountered one of my posts whereby I praised Islam or called for "toleration" of Sharia? I am an anti-theist, I do not just oppose Christianity, I oppose any faith; especially faith systems that seek to breach the separation of church and state. Further, to state that Christianity has no political system in this country (or beyond, Vatican anyone?) is to be oblivious to the movements of the past two centuries that pushed for temperance, marginalization of gays and lesbians, implementation of abstinence-only programs and a counterweight to a clear wall between private religious practices and the operations of the state.

    I seriously do not understand how you feel to comprehend my call for universal population control. Regardless of ethnicity, we should work to reduce pregnancies to the levels of which our habitat is able to sustain.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 10:04 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    The problem is not sex-education...history will tell you that. The problem is human value...too many kids see no value in their lives (they lead the world in suicides) thus they see no value in a life they might give...its all just a game. Unless you have suffered the affects of an abortion, you cannot speak with any authority. Talk to any woman who has suffered a miscarriage...their loss was of value to them. Mr D you win the argument.

    Ms B and mr m...you lose. As soldiers we all swore to fight and defend each other, in combat some didn't keep that oath...MANY people died from that broken oath. To me having sex with someone is more than a fling or a thing...it is a commitment...something that young people today often have a hard time maintaining.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:48 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Our founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state. Unlike political Islam.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:40 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Pardon me for getting off subject. But Manuel's random acts of stupidity can't be ignored.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:35 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel,

    One could speculate your definition of White paranoia wouldn't have been much different
    if you were smack in the middle of Nazi Germany during WWII. And of the eight divisions
    of the Nazi war machine, two were Islamic. Chew on that a while.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:24 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel,

    There is no doubt Caucasians have been the dominant force in the world
    and they haven't always been fair in advancing this. But if Muslims become the dominant
    force in the world I need you to brush up on your knowledge of the Ottoman Empire to get an idea of what things will be like on this planet. And this begs another question;
    Are you prepared to be persecuted as a non-Muslim regardless of your race or ethnicity?

    And as far as White paranoia? Well, you must not get around too much. Because Mexicans are also paranoid about Muslim dominance. In a nutshell, you won't have the choice to be secular under Muslim dominance. Political Islam is creeping into the fabric
    of Britain. And it's here too. Although not quite as much. Perhaps it will never take hold here. But to brush it under the rug is not something I would recommend. One last thing.
    There is no such thing as political Christianity. Christianity may be universal. But Islam
    is universal AND political. So, if you're as smart as I think you are, you will read up on political Islam. For your sake, I hope.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 7:22 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Thus far, I had considered the claims of white paranoia as unfounded. You however, have bolstered the position that some Caucasians are afraid that they will no longer be the dominant force with which to subjugate the other minorities, perhaps more afraid that the next majority demographic will treat them as they have treated countless others for numerous generations.

    Do not insinuate that I seek to reduce the birth rate of one segment of the population while secretly showing favor to other groups. Population controls are necessary, regardless of ethnicity.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:15 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VnUH_CPulc&feature=related

    Extinction of The European Population

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:08 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel,

    You seem to be quite content about how Liberalism has been able to convince whites not to have as many children. But the problem of who's going to fill the void always arises. Your Mexican comrades and Muslims are currently filling the void. So, this begs the question; Are you really for population control or isn't it really population control of a certain peoples?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:50 am on Wed, Mar 16, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel wrote:

    University studies are far more credible

    - No need to remind us about the bastions of Liberalism universities are. If they had it their way their would be no reference to religion in any of their libraries and cirriculum.
    Thank God many families have taught their children enough about religion so they can combat the liberal and secular universities.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 11:29 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 8:33 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.
    "Abortion has not lowered teen pregnancy. In fact, it has only encouraged them to go out and get pregnant again."

    Fuzzy logic if ever I saw it...

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

    The religious(correlation with conservative) are more likely to promulgate teen pregnancy BECAUSE of a rejection of contraception. How many times have we heard the catholic church condemn condoms only to recently back down a bit in regards to STDs rather than preventing pregnancy? What of the fact the the monotheist faiths have a mandate to "fill the earth and subdue it?" Which of us is truly dedicated to the idea of population control and responsibly planned parenthood?

    "Perhaps we have gone forth and multiplied enough already"

    Prudery can be attributed to the rise of teen pregnancy in regards to the rejection of various forms of contraception. If you wish to tell your children to wear celibacy rings and abstain from sex, fine (good luck enforcing it), but you should not have the authority to prevent them and other children from learning about the ways in which one can be safe from unwanted and unneeded pregnancy and STDs because of your unease about the topic.

    I stand with Joanne in calling your links skewed, there is an obvious bias in favor of the abstinence position.

    http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf

    "Abstinence-only programming runs
    the serious risk of leaving young people, especially
    those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated."

    University studies are far more credible.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:33 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Joanne,

    I can only conclude you are misguided and misinformed. Abortion has not lowered
    teen pregnancy. In fact, it has only encouraged them to go out and get pregnant again.

    And your conclusion that it could never be liberals based on this one incident with this Baptist family illustrates how far you will go to advance your agenda that Conservatism
    is taboo. Unlike you with your liberalism, I have no problems coming to grips with the imperfections of conservatism. AND, I find it very strange that you would go as far as saying liberals should not be held accountable for the rise in teen pregnancy throughout the years given the numerous reports with numerous statistics. Shall
    I provide you with some links. I could also provide you with some links about how
    conservatism has contributed just to be fair.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:17 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel:

    I don't see any positive result from the condom on the banana. And if that's what teachers want to do, I don't give a darn. The point is, it doesn't help. Follow the link I provided at 7:12 about the misconceptions of CSE in schools.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:16 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    And to answer your question - no, I do not believe in leaving the "birds and the bees" to the schools, but at least in families where the subject is never brought up in the hope that less knowledge is better, at least schools can help bridge that gap.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:12 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel wrote:

    This level of prudery is enough to see why our nation's youth have a poor knowledge of sexual activity and implications.

    -Prudery Manuel?

    How could you conclude that being modest Is in direct correlation with a poor knowledge of sexual activity and implications?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:11 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I have no argument with whatever "statistics" you want to produce, Mr. Docktor. But it is very strange that you would blame "liberals" for the increase in teen pregnancy. Liberals have traditionally supported birth control and abortion, so that leaves only conservatives to produce teen parents.

    Case in point, neighbors who are strict Baptists ended up with a pregnant 16 year old, then forced her to attend church throughout her pregnancy to shame her. When that didn't work, the mom started a day care as a cover for the new baby in the family. A year later - same daughter has another kid. She's now 21, lives at home and has another one on the way - no father in sight. Darn liberals!

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:51 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    And wasn't it about this time too that the mother received welfare benefits
    as long as the father did not reside with her and their child?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:44 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel wrote:

    Your quibble is over placing a condom over a banana?!

    It's a little more complicated than that.

    I have a theory:
    It seems to me there is a direct correlation with about the time liberals started telling teens to question any authority ( meaning their parents and or elders) and the rapid rise in teen pregnancy.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 7:20 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 7:55 am on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    "I don't know of any parents wh think TRADITIONAL sex education is bad. But I do know parents who are appalled that public schools would show 5th graders how to put a condom on a cucumber."


    This level of prudery is enough to see why our nation's youth have a poor knowledge of sexual activity and implications. Your quibble is over placing a condom over a banana?!

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:17 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Evidently Joanne believes leaving the birds and the bees to the schools is the perfect remedy for teen pregnancy.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:16 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Joanne:

    Of course you would argue that the findings in this report are skewed.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:15 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    A clip Joanne:


    III. There is Limited Evidence of Success for CSE in School Settings
    Applying the above criteria to four national reviews of outcome research on sex education demonstrates a lack
    of evidence of success for CSE programs delivered in school classrooms to school-based populations of teens.
    A. Emerging Answers 2007,4 a review of 115 studies covering 20 years of sex education research,
    provided little evidence of CSE effectiveness in school settings. Of the 32 school-based CSE studies:
    1. No school-based CSE program demonstrated a decrease in teen pregnancy or STDs for any time period.5
    2. No school-based CSE programs were shown to increase the number of teens who used condoms consistently
    (i.e., every time) for even 6 months after the program ended. Note: Consistent condom use is necessary to
    achieve the partial protection from STDs that condoms can provide.6
    3. Only 3 of these programs increased frequency of teen condom use (not consistent condom use) for at least one
    year for the target population.7
    4. One of the programs delayed sexual initiation for at least one year for the teen population (in 4 studies).8

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:12 pm on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    http://instituteresearch.com/docs/Misconceptions_About_Sex_Education_Effectiveness_(IRE,_12-3-10).pdf

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:26 am on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I don't know about Arizona, but here in Lodi 5th graders just view a film on how their bodies begin to change at that age - and boys and girls view it in separate classrooms.

    Your comment illustrates perfectly the misconceptions (oops! - a pun) that parents have about sex education and why kids in middle school end up with babies.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:55 am on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    I don't know of any parents wh think TRADITIONAL sex education is bad. But I do know parents who are appalled that public schools would show 5th graders how to put a condom on a cucumber.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:27 am on Tue, Mar 15, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    I seriously doubt that many girls who become pregnant do so thinking that they are emulating Hollywood actors. Most follow in the footsteps of their parents..."mom had me at 15 or 16, so big deal if I have a kid." Or as one LNS columnist/blogger wrote in a column (Ooopsy!) that her son figured out that his mom was pregnant before she and his dad were married. It's just a family joke now, she wrote, not a teachable moment.

    That was the mentality of the lower level of society, but is growing now in the middle classes, as noted by the number of teens with babies and "grandma" strolling the aisles at Raley's.

    And somewhere along the line, we have regressed to a point that young people are not concerned about birth control and leave the consequences of their sexual activity to fate and to the growing acceptance of out-of-wedlock births fostered by the general society that rejects birth control and abortions, but condones teenagers having babies.

    Now that we have trained our kids that sex education is bad, birth control is a secret abortion is a sin, and teenagers with babies are just fine, we have to live with the consequences.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 6:06 pm on Mon, Mar 14, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    Sorry mr m...your esoteric trumpolism doesn't work. I think Joe G was talking about the glamourization of babydom by the Hollywood wookies. The "I don't need a man in my life to raise my child" cattle call is a selfish one. The wookies think that having a child is cool, as they hand them off to their nannies. Their version of raising a child lies in fantasy land where they practice their lives. Good ol' Charlie, and the bud Tiger, along with a few thousand other nasties are example enough for the cough-ups of male child rearing by these troglodies of SCA. Just remember in order to form a more perfect union it takes a man (or at least a little piece of him) and a woman. Any other form of union takes three...and your version of a marriage is what?

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:51 pm on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813


    Currently,

    Most of the world's religions are on the same page when it comes to traditional
    families. This glamorization of single parenthood started in the sixties with the sexual revolution and the women's rights movement. It's unfortunate it has festered to the point where marriage is now uncool in certain circles and mainstream Hollywood.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 5:45 pm on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Manuel wrote:

    Not due to Mr. Dockter's ludicrous appeals to a Judeo-christian customs, but because it spells a future of overpopulation and developmental complications.

    -Hmm,

    Currently,
    Muslims are having more children per household than any other peoples. Liberal's
    idea that if we just slow the birthrate we won't have to worry about overpopulation
    has actually caused a shortage of people all over the world. Currently in Europe there aren't enough people having children except for the immigrants, who are primarily Muslim. Thus what we know as Europe will soon be no more.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 5:01 pm on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 3:32 pm on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.
    "How easy it has become for gay women AND men to circumvent the traditional male-female upbringing of children."

    ...What? I'm convinced now that Brian is nothing more than a forum troll eliciting a parody of paranoia. No one could possibly make such a statement and mean it...

    Would you like to provide evidence of your claims that the majority, or even a significant portion of child acquisitions take place through such 'nefarious' means, given that every gay parenting book I've read indicates that a large portion of gay parents acquire their children through adoptions, foster care, or coparenting?

    -"Gay Men Choosing Parenthood" by Gerald P. Mallon

    Don't pass off the folly of heterosexual child bearing outcomes on those of us who don't produce in such a manner. It is my opinion that population control need be implemented, with a heavy emphasis on contraception and birth control, to curb the overflow of abandoned children in the system.

    I see no hint of your interpretation in the writings of Mr. Guzzardi. Rather, I get the impression that American culture glamorizes the production of children for the purposes of equating them to accessories. Nothing about keeping children from their natural fathers(note his sentence, that the father is generally not in the picture. This does not indicate an inability to be a part of the lives of children, but often, a reluctance) or references to gay parenting. If this be the case, than I can agree with Mr. Guzzardi that the glamorization of pregnancy is a cause for concern. Not due to Mr. Dockter's ludicrous appeals to a Judeo-christian customs, but because it spells a future of overpopulation and developmental complications.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 3:32 pm on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Laura,

    It seems to me you are unaware or just refuse to accept the fact there are women who seek out men to be not much more than sperm donors and have no intention of letting them bond with the father. This is what Joe is alluding to. and with the rampant lesbian culture many of these women make the case there are two adults taking care of the children in the same household. How easy it has become for gay women AND men to circumvent the traditional male-female upbringing of children.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 2:26 pm on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    LR: Not always. Having coached children for nearly 40 years and sat on school boards for over 14, I too can attest to what Joe Guzzi is saying. Two quickly come to mind...three little girls(6, 7 and 8) who were forced to live in the garage of their parents home, sleeping on a mattress, going to the bathroom in a bucket and seldom allowed to take baths...parents were busy doing drugs. We turned them into CPS, who took them away for three months and then gave them back...then they disappeared.

    The other was a HS student who was going to give birth to her third child at the age of 14/15. She refused to name the father, but lived on welfare.

    Yes, men are just as stupid but they aren't the ones out there bragging about it! Well maybe some of the idiots who think it is okay for others to pay for their sex lives and raise their children for them. Those guys aren't men...they are punks. I do exclude those fathers who do not live with the mother..but pay at least some of the expenses.

    Their loss isn't the weight of their wallet but the loss of an life experience.


     
  • Laura Rouzer posted at 11:40 am on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.

    Laura Rouzer Posts: 57

    To all the men that bash on single mom's remember, it takes two to make a baby.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:05 am on Sun, Mar 13, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2813

    Joe,
    You hit the nail right on the head.

    Incidently,
    My wife and I have chosen the "not so glamorous route" of staying together and raising our children in a two parent household. Oh, bite my tongue that my wife and I would think outside of the box of the mainstream Hollywoood mindset.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 16 hours ago by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: Arab and Jewish conflict is due…

It is unfortunate you misunderstood, Walters. Other religions are "those guys". Mormons are "those guys" to Snake danc…

More...

Posted 23 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Thanks, Thomas. Yours are the last words I'm going to read here tonight, and I will fall asleep with a smile and sleep soundly on that tho…

More...

Posted 23 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

I don't need verification from you, Andrew, you didn't produce the video.

More...

Posted 23 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Just a thought

[beam] Thanks for the chuckle!

More...

Posted 24 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

Very interesting theory, Mike. And plausible to an extent, I think. So, who/what do you see as the new major party to replace the Republi…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists