Stop Using Kids to Justify the Actions of Grown Women!

I began this post as a personal rant, due to a comment I received on this post.   The commenter says 'kids will not stop having sex'.  I beg to differ.  Rather than rant, I'll attempt to post useful data to prove a point.

From Guttmacher:

Teens have been waiting longer to have sex than they did in the recent past. In 2006–2008, some 11% of never-married females aged 15–19 and 14% of never-married males that age had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.

In 2006–2008, the most common reason that sexually inexperienced teens gave for not having had sex was that it was “against religion or morals” (42% among females and 35% among males). The second and third most common reasons for females were “don’t want to get pregnant” and “haven’t found the right person yet.”

So yes, you CAN stop at least some kids from having sex.  Instilling moral values is one way, instilling common sense is the other.

According to data available from Guttmacher, 2006 being the most current year in the report, the pregnancy rate (per 1,000 women) of 15-17 year old women was 38.9, as compared to 122.3 for 18-19 year old women in that same year.  Even more telling, is the pregnancy rate for women aged 20-24 years.. a startling 171.

For teens, pregnancy is a problem, but it's clearly not as big a problem as it is with young adults.  So what about sex ed?  Most pro-choicer's think sex ed is the answer to this problem.  Well, if the kids stayed in high school until they're 24, maybe.  But in reality, it's when young adults get to college that the real problem begins.  I did a quick Google search for 'college sex education'.  A few of the web sites listed, peaked my curiosity.  I was surprised (I don't know why) to find how many people make a living talking to college students about sex.

Sex Discussed Here! is at the top of the list.  Another one was Sex Education for College Students · Think Out Loud, and it began by introducing another speaker - "Writer, educator and self-described feminist pornographer".  Stop! Pornographer?  Yep. Maybe we should go back to morals?

In the mix, I did find an article titled "College students split on effectiveness of required high school sex ed".  A few of the comments from college students are below:

University of Vermont freshman Benjamin Barnet of New York said he does thinks sex education should be optional because it could make people uncomfortable.

“I remember when they were talking about giving birth when I was in middle school and I almost threw up,” Barnet says. “Some people will just feel so uncomfortable and they shouldn’t be forced to take sex ed.”

University of Vermont junior, Nick Monteforte of Wilmington, Mass., is in favor of requiring sex education.

“It needs to be required,” Monteforte says. “Sex education is important when you are in high school because when you are in college and exposed to everything there you should really already know about it.”

For some students, like Anita Marquez, a senior at Stockton College in New Jersey, sex education is much more effective at college than in high school.

“In high school they don’t teach you anything cause they aren’t allowed,” Marquez says. “Our college has programs to teach you about sex and we have a general requirements courses about sex. I took a class called Perspectives of Sexuality and it was the most informative class I have taken at Stockton.”

Then I found an article which I'm still having trouble coming to terms with.  Columbia Students Sound Off On Northwestern’s Live Sex Ed Class.  You did get that word 'Live' in the title, didn't you? 

It has been the talk of Northwestern University, outside Chicago. The demonstration was conducted after a psychology class. A drill with a special attachment was used on a female student, wrapped in a towel, and in front more than 100 students.

“Most of the people who stayed were, in fact, trying to get a better view,” one student said.

“I don’t feel like I would want to see that,” another student said.

Guest lecturer Ken Melvoin-Berg, who was invited to the class by Professor J. Michael Bailey, is defending the voluntary demonstration as educational — a couple engaged in a sex act.

“We warned students five times at least,” Melvoin-Berg said. “He brought her to orgasm right there on stage and that was the end of it, other than the fact that we had positive comments from everybody in the class.” (emphasis is mine)

Have I mentioned morals lately? 

Another way pro-aborts use kids for their pro-abortion agenda, is in the tweet below.  Not that this could never happen, because we know it can and does.  Normally, we get the question "but what if the woman was raped?".  And we answer that it's not the baby's fault, so why should it die?  It's takes a special kind of warped pro-choicer to use kids this way though.  Anything for the cause right? 

In this case I would have to say that even if it is her own sibling, it's still a human being.  And if the 10 yr old can safely carry the baby to the point of viability, then let them both live.  If however, the 10 yr old is in mortal danger, then by all means, an abortion is appropriate.  But don't kill the baby just because it came into being due to a pedophile's actions.