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.