JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 9:30 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 3, 8:35 am, boater wrote:





Keith nuttle wrote:
Boater wrote:
Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds
Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex,
and
Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2008; A02
Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as
likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise
abstinence
and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms
of
birth control when they do, according to a study released today.
The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that
more
than half of youths became sexually active before marriage
regardless
of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the
percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually
transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for
non-pledgers.
"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any
sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the
January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make
a
difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is
quite striking."
The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions
about
programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage,
including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare
their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes
beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar
values
about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.
"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges,"
Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only
the
apples to other apples."
The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of
abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new
Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176
million in annual funding for such programs.
"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government
is
continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah
Brown
of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
"What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay
sex
until they are older, but then when they do become sexually
active --
and most do well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves
or
their partners?"
James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed:
"The
Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get
real about sex education in America."
Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as
flawed
and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further
than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain
virgins.
"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research
methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild,
ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the
content
of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the
National
Abstinence Education Association.
Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered
detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000
students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.
Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to
examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first
to
use a more stringent method to account for other factors that
could
influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex
before they took the pledge.
Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or
taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who
were
17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity
pledge,
with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She
based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their
attitudes
and their parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of
their
friends' attitudes about sex and birth control.
"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a
virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American
teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be
more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There
are
some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers
to
all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense."
By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a
pledge
had retracted their promises, and there was no significant
difference
in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in
any
type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex,
vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their
number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had
engaged
in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three
sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even
if
they were unmarried.
"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge,"
Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be
motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence
has to come from an individual conviction rather than
participating
in a program."
While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted
diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who
reported
condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the
pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use
any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those
who
had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with
about 34 percent of those who had not.
Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about
condoms in abstinence-focused programs.
"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take
part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about
condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information
about
condoms and birth control."
But Huber disputed that charge.
"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the
level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and
contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms
may
reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove
the
risk."
snerk
I wonder if the governor of Alaska has talked about condoms with
her
younger daughter.
As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on
other
reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less likely
to
have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17 for the
average American teen. To Quot CNN:
I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage
pregnancy, not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age
of
the first marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably
waiting
for their partner of their first marriage.
Trying to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs is a
worthwhile activity. Trying to put a stop to teen sexuality is an
exercise in futility and stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There's many studies to the contrary. Of course, we all know that
Harry wouldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of his
thoughts.

===============

Be careful about what you want to believe is important. Do you find this
interesting?

"Both groups had about the same number of sexually transmitted diseases
as
well and had, on average, three sexual partners. Teens who took the
pledge
had 0.1 fewer partners, on average."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Taking a pledge and actually abstaining is two completely different
things.
Here, see for yourself, and show your buddy Harry.
http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people
time to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of
the articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains,
so we probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains
comprised only about 10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are
not at all indicative of the population as a whole.
I have no idea of the validity of the data on this web site. The 42%
figure for 2007 seems high to me. I cannot recall anyone that I've had a
personal relationship ever mentioning they were "born again".


Who knows...my 10% figure came from a few articles I read about McCain
trying to win back evangelicals. In any case, targeting that group for a sex
study is a bit goofy, unless the researchers make it absolutely clear that
the numbers came from a fringe group. May as well be asking the Taliban
about their attitudes toward women in the workplace.


Outside of coasts cities, those cities on the east coast and west coast,
I believe that the average person's ideas will be more in line with what
you call the "born agains", than the ideas of those in the coast cities.
I have not checked the population statistic recently but I believe the
people in the coast cities are still in the minority.

"Keith nuttle" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 9:30 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 3, 8:35 am, boater wrote:





Keith nuttle wrote:
Boater wrote:
Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds
Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex,
and
Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 29, 2008; A02
Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as
likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise
abstinence
and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms
of
birth control when they do, according to a study released today.
The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that
more
than half of youths became sexually active before marriage
regardless
of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the
percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually
transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for
non-pledgers.
"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any
sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the
January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make
a
difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is
quite striking."
The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions
about
programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage,
including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare
their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes
beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar
values
about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.
"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges,"
Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only
the
apples to other apples."
The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of
abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new
Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176
million in annual funding for such programs.
"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government
is
continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah
Brown
of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
"What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay
sex
until they are older, but then when they do become sexually
active --
and most do well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves
or
their partners?"
James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed:
"The
Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get
real about sex education in America."
Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as
flawed
and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further
than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain
virgins.
"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research
methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild,
ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the
content
of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the
National
Abstinence Education Association.
Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered
detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000
students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.
Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to
examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first
to
use a more stringent method to account for other factors that
could
influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex
before they took the pledge.
Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or
taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who
were
17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity
pledge,
with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She
based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their
attitudes
and their parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of
their
friends' attitudes about sex and birth control.
"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a
virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American
teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be
more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There
are
some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers
to
all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense."
By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a
pledge
had retracted their promises, and there was no significant
difference
in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in
any
type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex,
vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their
number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had
engaged
in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three
sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even
if
they were unmarried.
"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge,"
Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be
motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence
has to come from an individual conviction rather than
participating
in a program."
While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted
diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who
reported
condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the
pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use
any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those
who
had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with
about 34 percent of those who had not.
Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about
condoms in abstinence-focused programs.
"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take
part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about
condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information
about
condoms and birth control."
But Huber disputed that charge.
"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the
level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and
contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms
may
reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove
the
risk."
snerk
I wonder if the governor of Alaska has talked about condoms with
her
younger daughter.
As usual spun to make it appear the pledges don't work. Based on
other
reports of the same study those who take the pledge are less likely
to
have sex until average age of 21 compared to about age 17 for the
average American teen. To Quot CNN:
I believe the main point of the pledges was to prevent teenage
pregnancy, not stop sexual activity. I believe 21 is about the age
of
the first marriage, so those who take the pledge are probably
waiting
for their partner of their first marriage.
Trying to prevent teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs is a
worthwhile activity. Trying to put a stop to teen sexuality is an
exercise in futility and stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There's many studies to the contrary. Of course, we all know that
Harry wouldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of his
thoughts.

===============

Be careful about what you want to believe is important. Do you find
this
interesting?

"Both groups had about the same number of sexually transmitted
diseases as
well and had, on average, three sexual partners. Teens who took the
pledge
had 0.1 fewer partners, on average."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Taking a pledge and actually abstaining is two completely different
things.
Here, see for yourself, and show your buddy Harry.
http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe ways. So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully
gives people time to absorb more information, it doesn't always work
that way. One of the articles said that the survey in question was
focused on born-agains, so we probably shouldn't even be discussing
that survey, since it's statistically insignificant. Last numbers I saw
said that born-agains comprised only about 10% of the U.S. population,
and their attitudes are not at all indicative of the population as a
whole.
I have no idea of the validity of the data on this web site. The 42%
figure for 2007 seems high to me. I cannot recall anyone that I've had
a personal relationship ever mentioning they were "born again".


Who knows...my 10% figure came from a few articles I read about McCain
trying to win back evangelicals. In any case, targeting that group for a
sex study is a bit goofy, unless the researchers make it absolutely clear
that the numbers came from a fringe group. May as well be asking the
Taliban about their attitudes toward women in the workplace.
Outside of coasts cities, those cities on the east coast and west coast, I
believe that the average person's ideas will be more in line with what you
call the "born agains", than the ideas of those in the coast cities. I
have not checked the population statistic recently but I believe the
people in the coast cities are still in the minority.

- I'll admit that my opinion about born-agains are based on two close
evangelist acquaintances, both of whose relationships are being destroyed by
their bizarre sexual upbringing. Not abusive. Bizarre, church-wrecked
nonsense which makes them feel guilty about anything more pleasurable than a
fresh bag of potato chips. This is just two people, but that's all I have to
go on, other than hearsay.

- Coast cities: In the minority as far as sheer numbers? Or....what?

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains, so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000 women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains, so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer? Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000 women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so from a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's dishonest,
don't you?

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with choice
of the words you used to ask it.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains, so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000 women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't said.
Don't you?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.

You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.

You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by
me,
which supports your claim.

I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?

I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.

Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with choice
of the words you used to ask it.



snerk

Herring is a hateful, lying, useless old fart. I'm glad you are making
him spin on the end of your yo-yo string.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr@4ax. com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls, so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question. If you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:21:33 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:32:21 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:10:38 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:jkhvl4l2c866mss9n3g83o0ia253kh6vqc@4ax. com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:21:24 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:ceavl4p5bmtb05d1rdbnso4ioagfdghrbr@4a x.com...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:12:55 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


http://www.etr.org/recapp/stats/index.htm
http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/publications/abstats.htm

==========

The conclusion I drew from the "Both groups..." clause was that
even
when
people waited longer to have sex, they eventually had sex in
unsafe
ways.
So, although waiting might seem good because it hopefully gives
people
time
to absorb more information, it doesn't always work that way. One
of
the
articles said that the survey in question was focused on
born-agains,
so
we
probably shouldn't even be discussing that survey, since it's
statistically
insignificant. Last numbers I saw said that born-agains comprised
only
about
10% of the U.S. population, and their attitudes are not at all
indicative
of
the population as a whole.


You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy rates if they wait
longer?
Or,
in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem either?

In DC, for 2005:

The teenage pregnancy rate for 2005 was 64.4 pregnancies per 1,000
women
aged 15-19 years,

http://tinyurl.com/75nboa

Note that this number is based on the 'reported' outcomes, live
births,
*reported* fetal deaths, and *reported* induced abortions. In
other
words,
the problem is very under stated.

Of course, this will allow for an increase in the welfare rolls,
so
from
a
liberal's perspective, it may be a good thing.


You never saw me claim that waiting was not a good idea.

You may be wishing so hard that you saw me make that claim, that you
have
actually turned it into reality in your own mind. But, I never made
that
claim.

You will now disagree. You know the drill. Go find something typed
by
me,
which supports your claim.


I asked you this: " You reckon it might help the teen pregnancy
rates
if
they wait longer? Or, in the liberal mindset, is that not a problem
either?

Unlike some, I do not put words in people's mouths. I think it's
dishonest,
don't you?


I made no such claim. That's your answer. You will now try and say
that
my
earlier comments IMPLIED that I think waiting is not a good idea.

Good luck with that.


Why would I want to do that? It wouldn't be honest. I think it's
dishonest
to put words in someone's mouth, or to *imply* words that weren't
said.
Don't you?


John, if you want to ask loaded questions, try it with someone else. If
they're asked by someone more skilled, I might occasionally fall for
them.
But you're not that good at it. You torpedoed your own question with
choice
of the words you used to ask it.


Actually, I was being a little less subtle than I could have.

But you got the point.


The point was that there was no valid reason for asking the question. If
you
disagree, explain why you asked the question.


Which question?


Step backward 3-4 messages (of yours) to where it says (typed by you) "I
asked you this..."