Alabama Senate passes nation’s most restrictive abortion ban

a reply to: dawnstar

Sex Ed does not teach abstinence. You have maybe 15 minutes devoted to abstinence, then weeks devoted to intercourse with no more mention of it. These are adolescents. They have hormones raging from the tip of their head to their big toe. You really think 15 minutes out of a semester is sufficient?

Get a grip!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Tempter

A state that's willing to entertain the possibility of criminalizing abortions.

Yet ranks 50th in the public education system.

Don't exactly give a rats-arse about children.

Actually, California ranks 50th. Not counting "Higher" education, which includes degrees in gender studies...

And furthermore, Alabama has a been a Democrat state for a very long time, and only recently has it changed hands.

Just look what they did to poor Birmingham..

Doublechecking your facts... California is 21st in state rankings. Alabama is the one that's 50th (source)

The Alabama Republican Party's own website says that the state's Democrats lost power in 1986... which is 30 years ago. It hasn't had a Democrat senator since 1996 (which is 23 years, give or take a few months.) That's "recent" in geological times but not considered "recent" by any other standard. Source - Alabama GOP

This says otherwise. Perhaps metrics matter after all. California does rank 50th in quality of life however.

Your second source states that in 86', Alabama effectively became a two party state. That's not Dems losing power, that just means the state wasn't part of the Democrat's "Solid South" anymore.

Following the November 2010 election, Republicans won control of the Alabama state legislature for the first time in 136 years winning large majorities in both chambers.

Regardless of senator or Governor, they still contend with the state congress. So, nice try.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

That's not Dems losing power, that just means the state wasn't part of the Democrat's "Solid South" anymore.

Actually, yes it was the Democrats losing power. I remember the switchover very well.

In 1976, Alabama helped elect Jimmy Carter to power, despite an already uneasiness developing concerning several of the newer DNC platform planks. Among the concerns were: nationalizing education, forcing abortions to be legal at the federal level, and gun control. Carter did not appear to be a threat in those areas, and since Jesus was a Democrat at the time (at least that was the running joke), we went Democratic.

Under Carter, two things happened: the oil embargo, which led to a spike in gasoline prices and rationing (along with general inflation), and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. We didn't like the former for obvious reasons (much of the South is still rural and we have to drive to go anywhere), and the latter embarrassed us. We came to see Carter as weak and ineffective.

1980 saw Ronald Reagan rise to power. He promised to end the oil shortage and bring the hostages home. Like Trump, he talked a damn good game, tough and serious. So Alabama ditched Carter and helped elect him. The hostages were on a plane home before the echoes of his acceptance speech died down. Then, he managed to ease the oil rationing and prices began to come down while the economy began to boom. So, the first Republican selected by Alabama did very good for the country and the last Democrat selected by Alabama was a disappointing embarrassment for the country.

This, combined with the concerns over DNC policies, caused a major shift in the South from Democrat to Republican. Local elections remained Democrat-dominated for a while after that, but the DNC just kept turning it's back on us with their crazy socialistic and regulatory policies. Now, it's hard for a Democrat to win a city election unless they are well-known by name. Obama was a big part of that; thanks to him, Jesus is a Republican now.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And you know this how?? It seems to me that the logicalway to teach it would be to outline the reasons that abstinence would be better. Talk about the many types of stds and not to allow anything to pressure you into something you aren't ready for. What consent means and that no really means no. And them bring in the big reason to just say no. Pregnancy, time to hand pair the kiddies up and hand out the eggs for the to treat like babies for a week, lay out the changes to a womans body and how an egg and a sperm meet and what happens next. Go through the stages of pregnancy. And then you go into the but at some point in your life you will want to have sex. And then go through the methods of birth control and the effectiveness of each.
That was how I remember it being taught to me and it really wasn't that different when my kids were in school.
Oh I forgot to mention explaination of women's monthly cycle.
All this was taught in the health class that lasted half the scool year and included more than just sex ed with the embarassing parts being presented in during gym class which was segregated by sex.
And it doesn't really take that long to say just don't have sex what takes time is to present the facts that might convince the kids to do it. And well realizing that at least half of the won't take your advice and giving them the information they will need to keep from getting pregnant.

a reply to: dawnstar

And you know this how??

I have kids, you know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

It seems to me that the logical way to teach it would be to outline the reasons that abstinence would be better.

How is that actually working?

Some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the world.

How about some education in those schools. Teach the kids how their bodies work and perhaps teach all the fun that can be had without going all the way.

Teach real sex education.

Try Norway's sex ed for schools.

Lol. Abstinence Lol.

Hormones don't need no abstinence.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Did you read all of my post? I only ask because I do mention that probably only half the class would take that advice seriously even after you thru telling the about the stds and the reasons why they should. So you go into how to prevent the pregnancy, birth control which even if they do wait till marriage they'll probably want to use at some point in their lives.
Outside of the egg bit this is how I remember it being taught back in the 70's in NY. And I have kids also and many of my friends had daughters. They were taught basically the same things.
And it's kind of hard to belief that we have one of the highest rates in teen pregnancies in the world when in so many countries they are marrying off kids to older men.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And so do I. Or are you telling me that liberal NY schools are encouraging the kids not to rush into sexual relationships and bible thumping Alabama is pushing abortion? I find that hard to believe.

a reply to: dawnstar

Did you read all of my post?

Yes.

Outside of the egg bit this is how I remember it being taught back in the 70's in NY. And I have kids also and many of my friends had daughters. They were taught basically the same things.

That was my point. Not enough emphasis on abstinence.

Look at the post right above yours. "Hormones don't need no abstinence." That's the problem. The irresponsible poster who wrote that isn't speaking just to you and me... he's speaking to teenagers who are (hopefully) trying to fight a battle with raging hormones, and giving them a nice pre-packaged mantra... And I'll bet that poster has no kids, maybe is little more than a kid themselves. That's what we are fighting with sex ed. And a few statements about abstinence ain't gonna cut it.

I remember back in the 70s too... we didn't have sex ed, but there was talk of getting it, and we were excited! Some of the comments were like, "I hope they don't get Porch to teach it... I's rather have Hess. She looks like she knows a lot about it!" or "Can we get Betty Lou to be the demonstration model?" We already knew about sex, at least the basics, and all we wanted to know was how to get more of it. Thankfully for us (and probably for every girl in the school) they didn't get it in until I graduated. You could have showed us a freakin' autopsy and we wouldn't have cared!

Now we have people with their manta: "hormones don't need no abstinence!" We have classes that are, to be honest, nothing more than late-night entertainment material for the boys. The parents have been drowned out by irresponsible adults and public education. So what do we get? Teen pregnancies and abortion used as a last-chance birth control 6 months into the pregnancy.

I know about the sex ed here now because I have two children who told me what was taught... one boy and one girl (my wife got the info from the girl). Luckily, she never got pregnant (we did put her on birth control as soon as she was old enough to safely do so) and my son doesn't have any illegitimate kids running around (to anyone's knowledge). We preached abstinence. Abstinence. Abstinence. We didn't get frisky in front of the kids. We were responsible adult parents. Other parents were not so lucky.

You are apparently discounting the sex drive at puberty. Maybe you just don't realize how strong it is in boys. They are not thinking logically, so what looks like a balanced lesson plan is actually a lopsided disaster waiting to happen. You need to put aside thinking like yourself and think like a teenage boy: if presented with this material, what would you do as a teenage boy?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And I'll bet that poster has no kids, maybe is little more than a kid themselves

Three grown boys, no illegitimate children and I am over 60.

I am also a councilor and have dealt with these issues.

So, why did one single comment trigger you into that tirade.

BTW we are not in the mud pit and slanderous comments from a Mod no less.

What was the trigger?

P

a reply to: pheonix358

One single comment? That's how you see it? I see it quite differently... I see it as someone, who claims to have raised children, no less, negligently advertising to any teen who might be reading that sex is just fine, no problem, go right ahead... it's fun!

Tell me, how would you have reacted when your kids were young if you saw someone you didn't know telling them, "Abstinence doesn't work... go have sex with someone and enjoy yourself!" I'd bet you would be in quite the rage. But you just did that to untold teenagers. And now you complain when you are called out about it?

For shame... and by the way, I do not see where I made a politically trolling comment in that post. I simply stated that you, without even using your screen name, were being irresponsible. That, sir, is not an insult... it's truth.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am not talking to a bunch of children.

We are on ATS.

My statement was a fact of existence, not free advice.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

I am not talking to a bunch of children.

We are on ATS.

ATS is a family-friendly website. The minimum age to join is, I believe, 14 years old and there is no age verification. The minimum age to view is not even specified. You are, in effect, standing on a street corner expressing your opinion while others of all ages walk by and listen.

My statement was a fact of existence, not free advice.

Regardless, it can be taken as advice. Just because you believe it will be taken a specific way does not mean it will be taken a specific way. Beavis and Butthead was a TV series developed by Matt Groening with the intent to show how childish certain behavior was; he later stated that, to his horror and amazement, the characters were instead taken as role models.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But you did make sure your daughter was on birth control...
Just in case.

I have three grown sons. No grandchildren. They are still waiting till they can afford them.
Not saying that they are virgins though or that they wouldn't like to have kids someday. They just want to provide them with a better life than they had.
I would actually sit and browse their textbooks and homework papers. I talked with their girlfriends. I know what they were taught also. And I just think you are wrong. And maybe I am wrong but I do believe the teen pregancy rate has been going down not up since the bird's and the bees has been taught in school as well as the abortion rate.
But remember that post I responded to a few days ago? The one that seemed to be saying how horrible and degenerate the women were and that they were the sex fiends that just can't control their urges?
You just seemed to prove my point.
Personally I think telling boys that they were built with such a strong overpowering sex drive that even raising the subject up in a classroom will drive them wild while ignoring what the driving force in the girls that causes them to seek out the company of boys (which I don't believe actual sexual pleasure is a dominate factor in) while telling them just don't have sex and neglecting to go over the ways to prevent that action from setting the entire course of their future is gonna do much. And it isn't preparing them for the adult world is it?

a reply to: dawnstar

But you did make sure your daughter was on birth control...
Just in case.

Duh.

I know full well what teenagers want, and I now full well they will get it eventually, even if getting it screws up their lives. So yes, of course I got my daughter on birth control. I also made sure my son knew what the consequences were and how to minimize those consequences. If there were a male pill, I would have had him on that.

All the while preaching abstinence, abstinence, abstinence!

And maybe I am wrong but I do believe the teen pregancy rate has been going down not up since the bird's and the bees has been taught in school as well as the abortion rate.

That is possible. I'm not going to deny it, nor am I saying sex ed is a bad thing. The point I was trying to make is that we have differing ideas on what the optimal sex ed curriculum would be, and unless we are willing to listen to each other, we're never going to agree on anything. It'll wind up being either a school-sanctioned orgy or a nunnery/monastery.

Every time someone on your side says I should shut up because I am a man, it destroys the conversation. Every time someone on my side tells you to shut up because you are a woman, it destroys the conversation. Is that our purpose here? To destroy the conversation? Or is our purpose to provide the best, fairest solutions we can? It seems not when only hate and venom spews forth from those trying to dominate.

Personally I think telling boys that they were built with such a strong overpowering sex drive that even raising the subject up in a classroom will drive them wild while ignoring what the driving force in the girls that causes them to seek out the company of boys (which I don't believe actual sexual pleasure is a dominate factor in) while telling them just don't have sex and neglecting to go over the ways to prevent that action from setting the entire course of their future is gonna do much.

I speak to the boys' situation because that is what I have experienced. I have never been a teenage girl. You have, so I would place your opinion higher on that subject than I would a man's. I will not say the man has nothing to say on the matter, because it takes both boys and girls to do what we're discussing.

When my daughter was a teen, she would sometimes have friends over. Nice girls, all of them. Not a one would I define as promiscuous. However, there were quite a few times when their actions would shock me. They seemed to be intended to drive any teenage male within sight into seizures! I understood something then that I did not when I was younger... it wasn't about sex for them, and they had no earthly idea their mannerisms were so... let's say interesting to boys. It's just how girls are at that age. Combined with how boys are at that age, it pretty much assures procreation. But it's both doing it... maybe for different reasons, maybe through different hormonally-driven actions, but both are contributing to the issue naturally.

And no, that doesn't mean I am blaming the girls! Quite the opposite. Neither am I blaming the boys. I am simply saying that the drive to reproduce is strong in both... girls via enticing boys and boys via impregnating girls, while neither realizes the implications of what they are really doing.

It is the place for adults to set the boundaries.

And it isn't preparing them for the adult world is it?

They're not in the adult world yet. While we're preparing them for that, how about making sure they can handle the adolescent world first?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I saw a video once some kid taped. Of the lession on abstinence she had to sit through. I am gonna use socks here but I am not really sure what was used. But the massage conveyed will be the same. The teacher brought in two socks one looked like it was straight out the package nice and clean. The other one looked like She stomped it into the mud. She told the class that the nice clean sock was the girl who had never had sex. Then she held the other one up saying that was the girl after she has sex. And asking them which one they thought a guy would prefer to put his foot in?
Now. To be fair she should have held up two bananas one looking perfectly ripe the other rotton and moldy and going through the same routine ask the guys which one they though a girl would rather eat. But I would venture to guess that didn't happen.

a reply to: dawnstar

Eh. Not sure I like that metaphor (either of them). Sex does not make one dirty. It simply can have undesirable and severe consequences.

Kids are smart enough to know when someone is peeing on their leg and telling them it's raining. That old outdated methodology has been used with little success for generations. You'll grow hair on your palms! You'll go blind! You'll be an outcast! You'll die in childbirth!

I think a more apt approach is to explain, over and over, day after day, ad nauseum, that an early pregnancy can stop that career in its tracks; that getting your girl pregnant can mean you get to pay her for the rest of your life (at that age, 18 years will seem like the rest of your life); that unprotected sex can literally kill you (HIV/AIDS); that your social status as an adult will be damaged irreparably. You have to do more than plant that seed of thought. You have to cultivate it, over and over, until the kids hear your words in their mind in the midst of those raging hormonal attacks. Then you have a decent chance at stopping a teen pregnancy and the killing of an innocent child.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Tempter

There is something fundamentally wrong about the concept of chopping up a living human while in the symbolically safest place a human can know: the womb.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the concept of "unlimited pleasure with zero consequences and zero responsibility".

a reply to: TheRedneck

When I was in seventh or eighth grade all the girls we gathered around in gym class and it was explained to us how our reproductive system worked. How little sperm meets little egg and if they like each other they join together to meet egg. If that doesn't happen your period will probably show up on time if it does you probably won't are it again for about nine months.
One of the legislatures who was defending the abortion ban that his state just passed stated on the floor of their state congress than any man and women can go straight to the doctor after sex and he will be able to tell the weather the eggs was fertilized. Boy that is one superfast little spermie there!
Guess maybe we should have included the little boys in our discussion even it would have embarrassed us. Maybe them we wouldn't have so many ignorant lawmakers writing the laws that regulate our reproductive systems!

Day after day you say? Drill into their heads. When does that give time to explain what an std is how to recognize the sumptoms, how to seek treatment for it, or what kind of damage it can do if you don't and how fast of can spread through a group of sexually active people if they don't protect themselves from it. How does that give time to cover birth control methods what works and what doesn't. And what happens when it fails.
You seem to just want to go through that last item day after day neglecting to dive into any one area enough to provide meaningful useful information. It just sounds like the modern say version of the this sock is you after sex horror story.
And quite frankly since it's a ongoing thing us know day after day event it sounds like a job more fit for the parents. Since you aren't really teaching but preaching as you yourself out it. I ain't saying things you suggest shouldn't be brought up in a few discussions just that those things I an bringing up deserve adequate time to discuss also.
Where you say tell them they might die in childbirth I say tell the why give them some information on the ways a pregnancy could go wrong and the warning signs that might tip them off that they are in trouble and possibly safe their life one day.

a reply to: 3n19m470

And yet most humans will never know what being in that womb was like. Sure you don't want to change your wording or something here. I mean when if a fetus developed brought to know anything??