Good luck brining this up at the next RNC convention.

The "if you don't teach them about it, they won't do it" crowd is going strong.

Look at this list of state marriage laws. Most of them have some accommodation for teen pregnancy, and most of these laws have been on the books for decades, if not a century.

Nearly $1.5 billion in federal funding for abstinence only education in the last 25 years, starting with Reagan (the "keep govt out of our lives" guy) and increased significantly in the last eight years (by the other "keep govt out of our lives" guy)

The History of Federal Abstinence-Only Funding

I don't understand how kids get pregnant these days??
you can't go into a music store or supermarket without falling over displays of condoms,you can get the morning after pill without doctors presciption in any chemist store.
They get taught sex education from a very early age so it's not that they don't know how babies get there..
Strange days

Read this book... it offers some perspective.

No morning after pill w/o a Rx if you are a minor (under 18) in the US.

And the more extreme social conservative movement in the US prefer their 8 point plan for abstinence only education, including baseless scare tactics:

sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects

bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society

That's what I thought, but didn't want to say anything based on an assumption.

The author of the article (Talbot) is making comparisons Republican/Democrat, red state/blue state and attributing liberal/conservative with a broad brush.

That said, The "social scientists and family-law scholars" that are actually providing the data and conclusions the author quotes, like the one Pie put in her post, are not concerned with politics but religion, values, and actions of the teens. I think their conclusions sound quite reasonable.

What, you've never heard of Hot-dog-down-a-hallway Syndrome? It's in the DSM-IV.

I think you'll find it pretty hard to argue with this one as it's written. Single parents have a harder life, their kids have a harder life, and society is asked to support one or both of them more often than married couples. I can't imagine anyone sanely arguing that having unplanned babies is a fine idea. Obviously there can be plenty of debate as to the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancies, but you really can't call the above statement a baseless scare tactic.

sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects

bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society

I would have no argument if it were described as "possible" rather than "likely"....there is no study that I have seen that supports the conclusion that harmful psychological and physical effects or harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society are "likely"....to describe it in that manner, IMO, is a scare tactic.

I don't think having children out of wedlock necessarily means the child is that of a single parent.

I have two kids out of wedlock but I wasn't a single parent till my relationship failed. At the time they were concieved I never expected to be a single parent ever.

Shit happens.

True, but the "choice" in "pro-choice" really ought to be this:

The active choice to conceive a child in the first place.

Until we've worked out the medical, societal and ethical issues that surround blocking conception itself, everything else will be less than optimal.

Despite a rather shiny liberal veneer, I do have a deeply conservative heart.
I genuinely believe that the best possible upbringing for a child results from having two adults living in the same home. Ideally one male and one female. Preferably the child's biologicial parents or their replacement (guardian, adoptive parents of foster carers) simply to omit two-household complications.

A bad person as a parent is by no means preferable to only one of course.

Then again, I believe 13 year old girls should get 3 year contraceptive implants (it's illegal to have sex before 16 anyway).
And that if children can't be taught to make a joyful noise then they are better off seen and not heard.
Oh and that once someone reaches a weight which tips them over the line into obesity, they should be sent to some sort of Fat Camp. Or at least have the option of it. Obesity is a killer, and people slip into it, burger by burger. Or pint by pint in my case.
I believe that public trasnport and emergency services should have the right to shunt illegally parked cars out of the way.
And that children truanting on a regular basis should be put to use cleaning the streets and parks - they might have something to say to litterers after a while. With the option to go back to school the minute they request it of course - it will teach them that school isn't hard work compared to real life.

I blame my reactionary views on my parents of course ;)

THAT is the title of the article in the link. The bold is mine, but IS what the author wrote. Now where is the misunderstanding? There seems to be some confusion in what appears crystal clear.

I can't imagine how I'd feel if Aden became a father this year. He turns 13 in 6 months. As far as I know, he's maybe pecked a couple of girls on the lips, but I don't think there's been any deep kissing even, let alone heavy petting, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad. I hope he can save that sort of thing for at least another couple of years if not 3 or 4.

I guess we have all the baby infrastructure at home, so if he did somehow become a father young we'd be able to help him out, but it'd really change the structure of our family. For one thing, I think it would really put a strain on the bond between Aden and Mav which is something I'd hate to see happen.

Ultimately I can't really control that situation if it ever arises, but I can try and educate the kids and hopefully they'll somehow find the wisdom to not make a bad decision in that regard.

I said before, the author of the article is trying to make a red/blue, rep/dem, case with a broad brush. But in writing this article Talbot based it on the work of researchers that make no political connection.

They are working with religion, values, attitudes and goals of the teens. They make no connection with the politics of the teens or their parents. That's why I said although the overall article is obviously bias, the conclusions and reasoning of the actual researchers, look sound.

This is another case of someone with an agenda taking valid research results and trying to twist or embellish it to prove their agenda. That's partisan and dishonest, but doesn't negate the validity of the researcher's results, which is what Pie quoted. For example, if you just read the quote in the post without going to the link, it's not political.

Are you implying that I did that?????
The title of the article clearly states what I previously posted. To disconnect from that is, in my opinion, partisan and dishonest.