College Sex and....

Email Print posted by vikingmother 08/07/2007 10:04:45 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
So college is the place for some to sleep around. 

The mostly 17-23 year old college students might, inspired by the carefree images on screen, or even the wistful, crude comments of a few clueless parents, bring the so called "safe sex" protection to college along with the school supplies.

Like many of their Baby Boomer parents, the college students of today buy into the marketed GLORIES of the sexual revolution...After all, there's safe sex, so we are told. People who don't know their science still fall for that one!!!

However, these eager students are like their post World War II grandparents in one KEY WAY
...and therin lies the problem---the PITFALL--- 

All with college daughters (and we hope--responsible college sons) should BE AWARE...

Like their post World War II fertile grandparents, the average college students might create their first child at a VERY YOUNG AGE...(my post WWII parents, for example were 19 and 23 when I was conceived...)

HOWEVER, what the party films, literature, even the sometimes smirking comments of some Baby boomer father leave out are....pregnant college girls, still not fully trained to make an ADEQUATE living...are FORCED to choose between their education and their child.  Education or Poverty....(if she keeps the baby).

Abortion overall is STATISTICALLY AND USUALLY A FORCED CHOICE...WHERE A GIRL/WOMAN IS ECONOMICALLY, EMOTIONALLY UP AGAINST THE WALL....(Look up the stats for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

  EVen  a middle class white girl, for instance, could find herself on the
EXPRESS TRAIN TO THE U.S.'s MAINLY FEMININE POVERTY GROUP
as yet another female head of a home at or near the poverty level...if she keeps her child & doesn't have adequate job training.

The Dem. party holds abortion on demand as its most sacred and holy ideal--and some Reps buy into this "holy birthright". Even in this age where many claim there are no moral absolutes, they hold the idea of "choice" as sacred and inviolable...IT'S the& nbsp; NUMBER ONE PRINCIPLE....for most Dem. leaders I've seen or heard.

But if you truly believe in a free choice, then let college girls have the OPPORTUNITY to choose with power...i.e. help colleges set up parenting centers where girls, women can get support as they go thru pregnancy, give birth, & raise their babies whilst getting an education...so they can support the child.  Ideally, there is counseling for those college boys that decide to be responsible also for the child they "sired". ) 

But meantime, look at this bipartisan bill....If a college woman (girl) gets pregnant, and if college dad is either absent, or not told, or himself still unable to make a living....this bill offers single college new moms some campus resources.

http://www.govtrack.us/cong ress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-108 8
< Jung Jurks Enough! Protest and Episode 4 | Iran not the only country supplying insurgents >
 Display:
College Sex and.... | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden)
Did your girl friend ever tell you??? (none / 0)
I have some female friends who deal with the pain of their early abortions. Sounds like their boyfriends NEVER KNEW they were even pregnant.

Just wondering how many males (maybe now mature, in committed relationships) slept around years back...and never realized that a former lover was pregnant and aborted the child (or had a child)????

I don't expect answers. This is a personal and painful rhetorical question.

But maybe there's a better choice...Know all the kids you create. Don't scatter your seed all over the place.

But since the abortion rate is so high, if you are a male who slept around, you may have sired one or more kids.  Unless you KNEW medically that you could not sire kids.

by vikingmother on 08/07/2007 10:29:22 AM EST

Go to Africa (none / 0)
Are you to lazy to leave the house to do missionary work? Is that why you post this stuff here?

by Mr Pibb on 08/07/2007 11:26:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lazy? Let's use LOGIC and Science here... (none / 0)
I GASP at this comment.  I didn't know I was discussing any religion.

My question to you is purely scientific.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound?

Have you ever studied the science of the developing fetus?

Have you ever had a heart to heart talk with a girlfriend, former girlfriend, sister, or maybe just another woman on these issues?  Talk tothe MOMS of today about their experiences in the sexual revolution.  They will NOT all agree with my views...but some of the stories of what happened to them...and some of the PAIN will be the same.

by vikingmother on 08/07/2007 04:17:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the clarification (none / 0)
So your answer is yes. You are doing missionary work on your computer in lieu of knocking on doors and handing out watch tower right? Or am I missing something.

by Mr Pibb on 08/07/2007 07:40:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Abortion (none / 0)
I think early abortion is fine.

by acroso on 08/07/2007 03:04:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Think? (none / 0)
Again...I suggest you study the science of the developing fetus.

And I ask...have you seen a fetal ultrasound?  (It will at least make you think...)

I saw my daughter in utero 17 weeks after conception.  Had I miscarried before the ultrasound I would have been a little sad.  But NOW she was visible to me...and it would have been VERY PAINFUL to have miscarried after the ultrasound.

Study the sciences here...One need not bring religion into it.

We may find we NEEDED these 47 or so million babies we aborted since 1973. 

by vikingmother on 08/07/2007 04:20:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
17 weeks (none / 0)

I was referring to the first trimester.

 Whatever the concensus it should be decided by the people and not the activist judges the left continues to put up to advance its agenda.

by acroso on 08/07/2007 05:06:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Left? (none / 0)
Bush appointed all the activist judges on the Supreme court. You know the ones that rolling back this and that. They are not strict constitutinalists or however the right wing echo chamber likes to frame it , in any way , shape, or form.

by Mr Pibb on 08/07/2007 07:42:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Disagree (none / 0)

I disagree. The mian tenets of right wing judicial nominees are either Originalism and Textualism.

 

The main tenet of left wing judicial nominees is that they do not have a set juriprudence. Sometimes they even cite foreign constitutions to validate their rulings. Other times they just say that is the way it should be because I'm smarter than the people or the legistlatures who they elect. 

by acroso on 08/07/2007 10:23:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
I won't say you're wrong -- yet -- but can you cite me some examples of where leftist activist judges have really created an objectively bad situation in the world?

The only thing I can think of is that horrible eminent domain decision.  I still don't understand how the left-wing judges broke in FAVOR of it.

But that's it.  Left-wing activist judges have brought us civil rights.  What's the problem?

by jarett on 08/07/2007 11:21:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
civil rights (none / 0)

I prefer a Democracy to judicial tyranny. Judges might be smarter than the people once in a while, but on the whole it’s better for the people to decide then grand philosophers who choose for them.

 What if the right started putting activist on their who made up decisions. A judge could decide "I don't like abortion and it's against God's will! It is now unconstitutional to abort children because it constitutes murder."

 But that's not what the right is doing. Scalia, Thomas etc are saying congress nor the constitution have eveer mentioned abortion so it's simply not mentioned. It certainly has nothing to do with privacy since that word is not even mentioned in the constitution let alone basing ground breaking rulings on it.

by acroso on 08/07/2007 11:34:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't think anyone should disagree with this (none / 0)
This sounds like a great bill.  Parenting centers are an excellent idea.  If a girl chooses to keep a developing pregnancy going and wants to be a mom, that should be celebrated, not turned into an object of shame and derision.

That said, restricting voluntary abortion before the first trimester would be a very, very big mistake.

I have seen ultrasounds of developing fetuses.  They were clearly human, developing little people -- but they were all taken after the first trimester.

by jarett on 08/07/2007 11:27:25 PM EST

Courts (none / 0)
The courts should be respecting the law not the infants right to life.

by acroso on 08/08/2007 10:05:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Constitution (none / 1)

The constitution does not talk about abortion. It also doesn't address what constitutes a person nor does it talk about "when the soul enters a body" or if people even have souls for that matter.

 That's an issue for congress to decide not right-wing activist judges to decree.

by acroso on 08/08/2007 10:47:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh look Chuz I mean Bitch is posting photos AGAIN (none / 1)
In typical fashion when you can't win an argument with words you choose to try the oldest ploy in the world post the "SHOCKING" photo shopped pictures. WOW!!!

Get ready everyone next will get the ChuztoBitch's favorite trashcan photo's.

Deja Vu all over again.

Of course our unborn advocate could care less what happens after a girl is forced to carry an unwanted child to term...In fact with 7 million children in our own country without health care coverage, he could care less.
12.9 million children in the United States living below the poverty level not a single word or solution.

Children living in war torn areas? Seems he could care less, not an issue unless there are abortions going on and then we must step in and stop them.

He's more concerned about a clump of unformed cells than he is about

image

He cares more about this

egg

than he does this

dead child

Just trying to put a few things in perspective.

Oh look I can post pictures too! who would have thunk it. Of course mine aren't photo shopped.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/08/2007 12:23:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
BB (none / 0)

Ummm, I don't think the constitution has ever considered what constitutes personhood.

 Even if you eliminated all the liberals on the court, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would not outlaw abortion.

You're going to need a new breed of conservative judges to do such a thing.

by acroso on 08/08/2007 07:18:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again the Bitch weasels (none / 0)
One more time just for fun.

It's a simple question Bitchicums so I'll start from the beginning.

Let's review how does the current state of IVF works?

The Doctor removes a number of eggs and fertilizes them.

Current technology causes a high rate of non implanted "babies" to be left over.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of these non implanted "babies" have no hope of ever being brought to term, and thousands are discarded annually,  and hundreds of thousands are sitting frozen in a test tube and will ultimately be flushed away do you support the current IVF procedures knowing that these "babies" will ultimately be discarded down the toilet?

It's a matter of the science of today versus your supposed ethics when it comes to protecting the unborn.

So quite weaseling with your answers and just give me an answer. IVF causes the deaths of thousands of "babies" every year, until the technology is improved to guaranty each and every "baby" has a host mother to have a chance to be brought to term should it be outlawed?

This isn't a trick question, a yes or no answer is all that is required.

I not interested in shoulda woulda coulda, I'm interested in how things currently transpire do to the technology available to the would be parents should IVF be outlawed or is it okay to kill a few thousand "babies" in your opinion so selfish murders can have a baby?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/08/2007 09:13:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Embryos (none / 0)

You know those embryos if left frozen long enough will simply go bad.

 

Leaving lots of murdered humans. 

by acroso on 08/08/2007 09:50:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
IVF (none / 0)
What do you mean "one at a time"?

by acroso on 08/08/2007 09:52:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And (none / 0)

And no that definition is not good enough. Issues that the constitution do not define are best left to the legistlature.

 Making something out of nothing is how we end up with bad laws like Roe.

by acroso on 08/08/2007 09:51:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Legistlature (none / 0)

Of course it's going to the courts. I think Roe was a mistake and has led to the politicization of the Judiciary. 


by acroso on 08/08/2007 10:04:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

My opinion is that Roe should be overturned as unconstitutional as soon as and IF a state or the Federal government passes a ban on the first trimester. I don't think there is anything that even remotely suggests grounds for Roe in the constitution. It was a fabricated law based on ideology and political opinions of the judges\legistlatures.

 However, do I think the court should rule out of the blue that they think personhood includes the first-trimester because they think so- based on what? No I don't think they should do this, which is what you seem to be suggesting earlier in the tread.

by acroso on 08/08/2007 10:25:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)

"And the laws will revert back to "pre-Roe" WITH the knowledge and opinion of the courts... that a human "person's" life begins at and by the moment of their conception."

 

Pre-Roe does not mean that life begins at conception...it jsut means ROE does not protect the right to an abortion (they say privacy.)  But hey, I'm for overturning that law too!

by acroso on 08/08/2007 10:51:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
DOWN (none / 0)
I'm putting my next post at the bottom bc that makes me dizzy.

by acroso on 08/08/2007 11:15:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Man (none / 0)
You just can't win, can you?

Ken knows you're wrong.
Acroso knows you're wrong.

Are there ANY conservatives here willing to stand up for BB?  Twba?  Eh?

by jarett on 08/09/2007 02:59:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And guess what? (none / 0)
And just so you know, elective abortion is LEGAL in many states well beyond the 1st. trimester.

It shouldn't be.  That underscores once again the complete lack of understanding of science in government.

by jarett on 08/08/2007 10:37:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Recently (none / 0)
Up until recently Roe protected the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester of abortion. Recently being...before Alito and Roberts got on the court.

by acroso on 08/08/2007 10:52:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Misrepresenting me won't get you anywhere (none / 0)
A clump of cells is not a person.  There is demonstrably no one "in" a two-week embryo.  Period.  End of story.  You can knock all you want, BB, but noooobody's home.

It has nothing to do with "souls."  It has to do with the presence or lack of presence of the physical substrate requisite for a person to exist.

You're just wrong on the science.  Period.  End of story.  GIVE UP.

Move on to something else.  Can't you go back to calling us all terrorist lovers or something?  At least that's a matter of opinion rather than fact.

What the hell is wrong with you?  Seriously?  Do you spend two hours every night crying for all the victims of menstruation?  All those blastulas getting washed out when they don't implant -- MILLIONS A DAY, BB.  SO MANY DEAD.  OH THE (lack of) HUMANITY!

by jarett on 08/08/2007 10:34:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ah, the crux of the matter (none / 0)
But, unlike you... I don't let their temporary lack of attributes determine the amount of regard that I have for their right to the life they are living.

... WHY?

Attributes define the reality of a thing.  This is inescapably true.  Properties make things what they are.  Things change, yes, and sometimes according to a predictable plan, but that doesn't mean that A is B because A will be B in the future.

This statement of yours I have quoted above is the essence of why you are completely, utterly, scientifically and philosophically wrong.

by jarett on 08/09/2007 02:57:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
330am posts can't be a good thing.-Martha Stuart (none / 0)
This sounds like a great bill.  Parenting centers are an excellent idea.  If a girl chooses to keep a developing pregnancy going and wants to be a mom, that should be celebrated, not turned into an object of shame and derision.

Absolutely.

Can we take it a step earlier as well? Unwanted pregnancy is the cause of almost all abortions, so make it as easy as possible to have access to ways and knowledge about preventing the situation in the first place?

And that comment about those "47 or so million babies" aborted since Roe, needed them for what? To pay for our Social Security? Fight in crazy wars?  Even if a woman was 'forced' into terminating a pregnancy by whatever situation, what is the likelihood of a support system appearing to avoid the poverty route? And the flat-out unwanted babies, where do they go?  I just don't even want to fathom an addition 47 million people, a significant percentage of which would have been not only unexpected, but unwanted.

by jazzchic on 08/09/2007 03:12:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That Bytch sure can dance (none / 0)
Dance some more for me Bytchicums.

I’ll beat this horse just a little more.

The facts are that the current state of the science for IVF makes it necessary to “harvest” more eggs than will  in the vast majority of cases ever be used. These eggs are fertilized in a test tube producing what Bytchicums believes are human “babies”.

While our drum banging Bytch is correct when he says that multiple fertilized eggs are often implanted in the uterus, this isn’t what the issue is about.

Now the question AGAIN, is considering the state of current technology to maximize the chance of a successful pregnancy it is necessary for more “babies” to be created than will ever be implanted. These “babies” will never be implanted, they will be destroyed or killed in the freezing or thawing process, or flushed away.Now considering that so many of these “babies” are allowed to be “killed” the question again Bytchicums is….Given the current state of science IVF produces the death of thousands of “Babies” do you believe IVF should be banned, or do you believe the deaths of all those “babies” is justified?

No woulda, shoulda coulda, this is a specific question regarding “babies” being killed en mass unnecessarily. YES or NO, do you support IVF as it is now or should it be outlawed until the unnecessary deaths of all of those “unborn” can be eliminated.

Again it’s a YES or NO question.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 08/09/2007 08:11:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whaaaa??? (none / 0)
Better, medically accurate sex education?!

THAT'S CRAZY TALK!

by jarett on 08/09/2007 02:58:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
BB (none / 0)

The courts will have to face ""Does a child's life and their rights to it begin at the earliest moment their life as a "human organism" begins?"

 No they won't. The legistlature will have to face that question.

 

by acroso on 08/08/2007 11:15:49 PM EST

You're right (none / 0)
Unfortunately, we will never get our limp, useless Congress to take a strong stand on anything to do with abortion.

Personally, I think you're right.  A moderate bill on abortion like the one you talked about (elective abortion okay before end of 1st trimester, after that medically necessary only) should be introduced, debated by Congress and hopefully passed.

But they're far too scared of the fallout.  They'd rather leave it to the courts so both sides can point fingers.

It's dangerous and Constitutionally decrepit.  I agree with you on that.

by jarett on 08/09/2007 03:02:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
so is it safe to assume... (none / 0)
those opposed to abortion are on the phone with their legislatures DEMANDING an increase in speanding for social programs that would benefit the lives of the fetuses.... that is after they are actually born....

OR are you and your abortion clinic bombing buddies getting together a task force to help place the over 1/2 million children that are already in foster care??

i am the proud mother of 3. one by birth--the others are by way of (adoption) extended love. i put my money where my mouth is..


by prettyblkgyrl on 08/08/2007 11:21:33 PM EST

That's my Viking Mo-Fo! (none / 0)
Wow, I'm sorry my summer travels cost me the chance to get in on this ChuzLife-inspired festival of shame.  And by "sorry," I mean "immensely relieved."

by OneHitKill on 08/14/2007 12:08:41 PM EST

College Sex and.... | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: