Ain't we great?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/5/13 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:26:53 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Easy.

Small towns where there may not even be a local pharmacy, and even it
there is, everyone knows everyone else's business.

Small towns are not where the problem lies.




Don't you righties even bother to look?

Rural teens at high risk for pregnancy, analysis finds

Michelle Healy, USA TODAY 12:01 a.m. EST February 21, 2013

First-of-its-kind analysis by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancy shows that the teen birth rate in rural counties is
nearly one-third higher than the rest of the nation.

Nationally, the birth rate for U.S. teens has plunged to record low
levels, but a new analysis shows that a disproportionate share of teen
births are in rural communities.

In 2010, the birth rate for girls ages 15 to 19 in rural counties was 43
per 1,000, nearly one-third higher than the rate for metropolitan
counties (33 per 1,000), says a report released Thursday.


http://tinyurl.com/a84uowf

The problem is there are a lot more urban kids than rural kids. As well as
certain urban areas have an extremely high rate of teen births.

Ain't we great?
 

On 8/5/13 5:59 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/5/13 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:26:53 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Easy.

Small towns where there may not even be a local pharmacy, and even it
there is, everyone knows everyone else's business.

Small towns are not where the problem lies.




Don't you righties even bother to look?

Rural teens at high risk for pregnancy, analysis finds

Michelle Healy, USA TODAY 12:01 a.m. EST February 21, 2013

First-of-its-kind analysis by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancy shows that the teen birth rate in rural counties is
nearly one-third higher than the rest of the nation.

Nationally, the birth rate for U.S. teens has plunged to record low
levels, but a new analysis shows that a disproportionate share of teen
births are in rural communities.

In 2010, the birth rate for girls ages 15 to 19 in rural counties was 43
per 1,000, nearly one-third higher than the rate for metropolitan
counties (33 per 1,000), says a report released Thursday.


http://tinyurl.com/a84uowf

The problem is there are a lot more urban kids than rural kids. As well as
certain urban areas have an extremely high rate of teen births.



That is a problem, but the pregnancy rate is higher among rural girls.
They must be less moral, right? :)

Ain't we great?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/5/13 5:59 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/5/13 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:26:53 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Easy.

Small towns where there may not even be a local pharmacy, and even it
there is, everyone knows everyone else's business.

Small towns are not where the problem lies.




Don't you righties even bother to look?

Rural teens at high risk for pregnancy, analysis finds

Michelle Healy, USA TODAY 12:01 a.m. EST February 21, 2013

First-of-its-kind analysis by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancy shows that the teen birth rate in rural counties is
nearly one-third higher than the rest of the nation.

Nationally, the birth rate for U.S. teens has plunged to record low
levels, but a new analysis shows that a disproportionate share of teen
births are in rural communities.

In 2010, the birth rate for girls ages 15 to 19 in rural counties was 43
per 1,000, nearly one-third higher than the rate for metropolitan
counties (33 per 1,000), says a report released Thursday.


http://tinyurl.com/a84uowf

The problem is there are a lot more urban kids than rural kids. As well as
certain urban areas have an extremely high rate of teen births.



That is a problem, but the pregnancy rate is higher among rural girls.
They must be less moral, right? :)

Actually, if you also select only low income urban areas, the rate would
most likely be exponentially higher than rural areas.

Ain't we great?
 

On 8/5/13 6:13 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/5/13 5:59 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/5/13 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:26:53 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Easy.

Small towns where there may not even be a local pharmacy, and even it
there is, everyone knows everyone else's business.

Small towns are not where the problem lies.




Don't you righties even bother to look?

Rural teens at high risk for pregnancy, analysis finds

Michelle Healy, USA TODAY 12:01 a.m. EST February 21, 2013

First-of-its-kind analysis by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancy shows that the teen birth rate in rural counties is
nearly one-third higher than the rest of the nation.

Nationally, the birth rate for U.S. teens has plunged to record low
levels, but a new analysis shows that a disproportionate share of teen
births are in rural communities.

In 2010, the birth rate for girls ages 15 to 19 in rural counties was 43
per 1,000, nearly one-third higher than the rate for metropolitan
counties (33 per 1,000), says a report released Thursday.


http://tinyurl.com/a84uowf

The problem is there are a lot more urban kids than rural kids. As well as
certain urban areas have an extremely high rate of teen births.



That is a problem, but the pregnancy rate is higher among rural girls.
They must be less moral, right? :)

Actually, if you also select only low income urban areas, the rate would
most likely be exponentially higher than rural areas.



And rocks have weight because if they didn't, they'd be floating in the
air, eh?

Ain't we great?
 

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:56:16 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

I asked for a cite showing that "most unwed mother are poor and living
on their own".

===

The vast majority are, and the kids are usually raised by a
grandmother.

Ain't we great?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 8/5/13 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:21:16 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

The question was about ready access to the 24 hour pill, whatever
it's
being called today.

The biggest problem with that pill is they cost about $40.
Still a bargain compared to the alternative tho.

The problem with young girls is denial. They don't believe they are
pregnant for weeks.


Part of that problem is that righties in school districts work
overtime
to make sure that 10-11 year olds of both genders don't get direct,
explicit sex ed instructions, including how pregnancies are prevented,
and that sex ed continue through at least the first year of high
school
as mandatory subjects.

Sex is not bad, and abstention preaching leads only to teen
pregnancies.
Pre-teens are going to experiment. It's appropriate to make sure they
know what they are doing and that they take steps to prevent disease
and
pregnancy when they become sexually active.

-----------------------------

It used to be that dear old mom and dad provided that education.

Ain't we great?
 

On 8/5/13 6:26 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 8/5/13 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:21:16 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

The question was about ready access to the 24 hour pill, whatever it's
being called today.

The biggest problem with that pill is they cost about $40.
Still a bargain compared to the alternative tho.

The problem with young girls is denial. They don't believe they are
pregnant for weeks.


Part of that problem is that righties in school districts work overtime
to make sure that 10-11 year olds of both genders don't get direct,
explicit sex ed instructions, including how pregnancies are prevented,
and that sex ed continue through at least the first year of high school
as mandatory subjects.

Sex is not bad, and abstention preaching leads only to teen pregnancies.
Pre-teens are going to experiment. It's appropriate to make sure they
know what they are doing and that they take steps to prevent disease and
pregnancy when they become sexually active.

-----------------------------

It used to be that dear old mom and dad provided that education.



Apparently in a significant percentage of households, dear old mom and
dad don't. It's an appropriate subject for the public schools to teach.

Ain't we great?
 

On 8/5/2013 6:26 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 8/5/13 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:21:16 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

The question was about ready access to the 24 hour pill, whatever it's
being called today.

The biggest problem with that pill is they cost about $40.
Still a bargain compared to the alternative tho.

The problem with young girls is denial. They don't believe they are
pregnant for weeks.


Part of that problem is that righties in school districts work overtime
to make sure that 10-11 year olds of both genders don't get direct,
explicit sex ed instructions, including how pregnancies are prevented,
and that sex ed continue through at least the first year of high school
as mandatory subjects.

Sex is not bad, and abstention preaching leads only to teen pregnancies.
Pre-teens are going to experiment. It's appropriate to make sure they
know what they are doing and that they take steps to prevent disease and
pregnancy when they become sexually active.

-----------------------------

It used to be that dear old mom and dad provided that education.




Don't let him fool you Dick. Next time it will be 8-9 year olds...

Ain't we great?
 

On 8/5/13 6:46 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 8/5/2013 6:26 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 8/5/13 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:21:16 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

The question was about ready access to the 24 hour pill, whatever it's
being called today.

The biggest problem with that pill is they cost about $40.
Still a bargain compared to the alternative tho.

The problem with young girls is denial. They don't believe they are
pregnant for weeks.


Part of that problem is that righties in school districts work overtime
to make sure that 10-11 year olds of both genders don't get direct,
explicit sex ed instructions, including how pregnancies are prevented,
and that sex ed continue through at least the first year of high school
as mandatory subjects.

Sex is not bad, and abstention preaching leads only to teen pregnancies.
Pre-teens are going to experiment. It's appropriate to make sure they
know what they are doing and that they take steps to prevent disease and
pregnancy when they become sexually active.

-----------------------------

It used to be that dear old mom and dad provided that education.




Don't let him fool you Dick. Next time it will be 8-9 year olds...

No one here is interested in what happens in your house.

Ain't we great?
 

wrote in message ...

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:06:38 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/5/13 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:21:16 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

The question was about ready access to the 24 hour pill, whatever
it's
being called today.

The biggest problem with that pill is they cost about $40.
Still a bargain compared to the alternative tho.

The problem with young girls is denial. They don't believe they are
pregnant for weeks.


Part of that problem is that righties in school districts work
overtime
to make sure that 10-11 year olds of both genders don't get direct,
explicit sex ed instructions, including how pregnancies are
prevented,
and that sex ed continue through at least the first year of high
school
as mandatory subjects.

Sex is not bad, and abstention preaching leads only to teen
pregnancies.
Pre-teens are going to experiment. It's appropriate to make sure they
know what they are doing and that they take steps to prevent disease
and
pregnancy when they become sexually active.


I agree sex education should be more honest but there is nothing
scarier than the actual reality of being a teen mom.
Just explain the truth.
It is the end of your hopes and dreams. You are going to de doomed to
a life of diapers, other ****ty jobs and poverty.

------------------------------------

It's been many years since I had kids in jr. or senior high school, so
I may be wrong but I just can't picture a public school sex education
curriculum that addresses the issues you pointed out. That has to
come from the parents and family.