Planned Parenthood refused educational dollars

[AllieBaba]

Because they were earmarked for abstinence education.

This is what they took their stand against...

"....he wants to enlist the support of the organization's coalition members to lobby against abstinence-only-until-marriage funding" from the abstract.

The definition of "abstinence education" from the text:

"* Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized from sexual activity....
"*Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children...."

You have to read this.

Sorry, it's a school library doc so I can't post a link...but..

McGee, Michael. Contemporary Sexuality, Jan2003, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p7, 1/3p.

He's a Planned Parenthood Guru who has made it his life's work to sexualize children while keeping them good and ignorant.

 

[daveman]

Of course. Planned Parenthood's mission is to kill babies, not prevent them.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not only did they want to not take the money and refuse to teach abstinence themselves...

they pushed to prevent OTHER people from teaching it.

So there you have it...Planned Parenthood is absolutely not about education or health. It's about promoting abortion. They say it themselves.

 

[chanel]

That saddens but does not surprise me. I've read numerous accounts of pregnant young women going to PP for advice and never given info on adoption as a "choice" They make no money on that. When people say "no one is pro-abortion" I cry "horseshit" People who profit from it, are not "pro choice" They are "anti life"

As I've mentioned before, I am pro choice. In fact, for years we gave money to PP. Then I discovered how corrupt they were. Instaed we now give to Catholic Social Services who still believes in adoption.

Sex education is important and teen pregnancy is cause for concern. But what they are doing, aint working.

 

[geauxtohell]

Refused money for "abstinance" education of "abstinance only" education?

I guess we'll never know without a library card.

 

[AllieBaba]

You could look it up yourself.

The funding they were trying to block was money that was to be used to teach abstinence. Not "Abstinence and abortion safety" with the implication that abortion is a much better option for everyone.

PP wasn't only not interested in accepting any such income (it would require them to teach kids that not having sex was an option! Gads!) but they wanted to prevent anyone else from being paid to teach it, either.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Ahh, but I bet the took the better informed "Teaching-kids-to-abstain-until-marriage-doesn't-work-so-why-bother" dollars.

 

[AllieBaba]

You bet they did.

They didn't want children to be taught that sex is best postponed till adulthood. What scumbags.

 

[rikules]

Because they were earmarked for abstinence education.

This is what they took their stand against...

"....he wants to enlist the support of the organization's coalition members to lobby against abstinence-only-until-marriage funding" from the abstract.

The definition of "abstinence education" from the text:

"* Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized from sexual activity....
"*Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children...."

You have to read this.

Sorry, it's a school library doc so I can't post a link...but..

McGee, Michael. Contemporary Sexuality, Jan2003, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p7, 1/3p.

He's a Planned Parenthood Guru who has made it his life's work to sexualize children while keeping them good and ignorant.

just like I said yesterday when you started that other thread

you have an OBVIOUS bias and AGENDA (with which I strongly disagree)
and you will NOT be fair in your "research paper"


you are merely intent upon IGNORING ANYTHING GOOD that PP does and concentrate completely on just t he things that piss you off.

this makes you 2 things;

1. a hero to conservatives everywhere
2. a very bad researcher

"abstinance until marriage" is a fools concept

most people have sex LONG before they ever get married

there is NOTHING FKN WRONG with fkn outside of marriage

in fact
REAL researchers and reporters indicate that people who have sex BEFORE marriage generally end up in healthier relationships when they do, finally, tie the old knot.

but with your bias and zeal
and willing ness to ignore any information that doesn't fit your ignorant agenda
I predict great things for you in the conservative media!

fox news would love to have you come spin reality and spread partial truths for them

 

[rikules]

You bet they did.

They didn't want children to be taught that sex is best postponed till adulthood. What scumbags.

postponed until "adulthood" is NOT the same thing as "wait until marriage"

 

[AllieBaba]

Because they were earmarked for abstinence education.

This is what they took their stand against...

"....he wants to enlist the support of the organization's coalition members to lobby against abstinence-only-until-marriage funding" from the abstract.

The definition of "abstinence education" from the text:

"* Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized from sexual activity....
"*Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children...."

You have to read this.

Sorry, it's a school library doc so I can't post a link...but..

McGee, Michael. Contemporary Sexuality, Jan2003, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p7, 1/3p.

He's a Planned Parenthood Guru who has made it his life's work to sexualize children while keeping them good and ignorant.

just like I said yesterday when you started that other thread

you have an OBVIOUS bias and AGENDA (with which I strongly disagree)
and you will NOT be fair in your "research paper"


you are merely intent upon IGNORING ANYTHING GOOD that PP does and concentrate completely on just t he things that piss you off.

this makes you 2 things;

1. a hero to conservatives everywhere
2. a very bad researcher

"abstinance until marriage" is a fools concept

most people have sex LONG before they ever get married

there is NOTHING FKN WRONG with fkn outside of marriage

in fact
REAL researchers and reporters indicate that people who have sex BEFORE marriage generally end up in healthier relationships when they do, finally, tie the old knot.

but with your bias and zeal
and willing ness to ignore any information that doesn't fit your ignorant agenda
I predict great things for you in the conservative media!

fox news would love to have you come spin reality and spread partial truths for them

Well thankfully I didn't read your other rant. Darn.

Funny my instructors like my research well enough.

BTW, sure I'm biased. But you can't argue with their own words. And that's what I'm using. So take a fucking pill and relax.

I hear PP has all kinds of pills for whatever ails you.

And abstinence until marriage is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy before marriage. But Planned Parenthood doesn't want kids to know that.

Neither do they want them taught that they shouldn't have sex while they're sill in school because of the lasting DAMAGE that can take place.

Sounds like a stand against education to me.

 

[traveler52]

Because they were earmarked for abstinence education./QUOTE]



You do know that "Abstinence" does not work?

 

[geauxtohell]

You could look it up yourself.

The funding they were trying to block was money that was to be used to teach abstinence. Not "Abstinence and abortion safety" with the implication that abortion is a much better option for everyone.

PP wasn't only not interested in accepting any such income (it would require them to teach kids that not having sex was an option! Gads!) but they wanted to prevent anyone else from being paid to teach it, either.

I only ask since this was around 2003 when the big brouhaha abstinance only education that the Bush Administration was trying to push was going on.

So I can see where they are coming from.

Why are you surprised? I don't expect the Catholic Church to accept money to promote abortions.

 

[AllieBaba]

This is the level of people who think children shouldn't be taught all their options.

Birth control doesn't work, either, using the same litmus.

Dumshits.

 

[AllieBaba]

You could look it up yourself.

The funding they were trying to block was money that was to be used to teach abstinence. Not "Abstinence and abortion safety" with the implication that abortion is a much better option for everyone.

PP wasn't only not interested in accepting any such income (it would require them to teach kids that not having sex was an option! Gads!) but they wanted to prevent anyone else from being paid to teach it, either.

I only ask since this was around 2003 when the big brouhaha abstinance only education that the Bush Administration was trying to push was going on.

So I can see where they are coming from.

Why are you surprised? I don't expect the Catholic Church to accept money to promote abortions.

It simply points out they are a franchise solely concerned with promoting abortion; not with family health or patient safety.

 

[geauxtohell]

And abstinence until marriage is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy before marriage. But Planned Parenthood doesn't want kids to know that.

And not breathing is the only 100% effective way to prevent lung cancer.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth......................

 

[AllieBaba]

Er..that was my point.

 

[txlonghorn]

Because they were earmarked for abstinence education.

This is what they took their stand against...

"....he wants to enlist the support of the organization's coalition members to lobby against abstinence-only-until-marriage funding" from the abstract.

The definition of "abstinence education" from the text:

"* Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized from sexual activity....
"*Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children...."

You have to read this.

Sorry, it's a school library doc so I can't post a link...but..

McGee, Michael. Contemporary Sexuality, Jan2003, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p7, 1/3p.

He's a Planned Parenthood Guru who has made it his life's work to sexualize children while keeping them good and ignorant.

just like I said yesterday when you started that other thread

you have an OBVIOUS bias and AGENDA (with which I strongly disagree)
and you will NOT be fair in your "research paper"


you are merely intent upon IGNORING ANYTHING GOOD that PP does and concentrate completely on just t he things that piss you off.

this makes you 2 things;

1. a hero to conservatives everywhere
2. a very bad researcher

"abstinance until marriage" is a fools concept

most people have sex LONG before they ever get married

there is NOTHING FKN WRONG with fkn outside of marriage

in fact
REAL researchers and reporters indicate that people who have sex BEFORE marriage generally end up in healthier relationships when they do, finally, tie the old knot.

but with your bias and zeal
and willing ness to ignore any information that doesn't fit your ignorant agenda
I predict great things for you in the conservative media!

fox news would love to have you come spin reality and spread partial truths for them

Wow...you're not biased at all either....I'm interested to know what "good things" you are talking about that PP does.

Where do you get your info on marriage? It's horribly skewed.

"Those who live together before marriage have a 50% higher rate of divorce than even the national average! (Bumpass, Sweet, and Cherlin: The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, 1991, pp.913-927) So sleeping together first to ensure compatibility does not necessarily make a marriage stronger. Another study says that Couples not sexually involved before marriage and faithful during marriage are more satisfied with their current sex life and also with their marriage compared to those who were involved sexually before their marriage. (Mayo, Larsen, Meier, and Mayo: Behind Closed Doors, unpublished manuscript, Feb, 1994. p. 84-85) Ensuring before marriage that you are sexually compatible does not guarantee that you will enjoy sex more in marriage. The opposite seems to be true."
(this info was from the website - http://www.stanford.edu/group/tlw/dormtalks/socialemotional.html )

 

[geauxtohell]

You could look it up yourself.

The funding they were trying to block was money that was to be used to teach abstinence. Not "Abstinence and abortion safety" with the implication that abortion is a much better option for everyone.

PP wasn't only not interested in accepting any such income (it would require them to teach kids that not having sex was an option! Gads!) but they wanted to prevent anyone else from being paid to teach it, either.

I only ask since this was around 2003 when the big brouhaha abstinance only education that the Bush Administration was trying to push was going on.

So I can see where they are coming from.

Why are you surprised? I don't expect the Catholic Church to accept money to promote abortions.

It simply points out they are a franchise solely concerned with promoting abortion; not with family health or patient safety.

Planned Parenthood has no interest in abstinence. They are interested in advancing education over safe sex, contraception, and abortion.

While you might disagree with that, they are under no obligation to adopt your worldview. There are plenty of advocacy groups that support what you believe in.

I don't really see what you are griping about.

 

[txlonghorn]

And abstinence until marriage is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy before marriage. But Planned Parenthood doesn't want kids to know that.

And not breathing is the only 100% effective way to prevent lung cancer.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth......................

You're equating pregnancy with lung cancer? Really?