There was a mention earlier of teenage pregancy rates increasing. This isnt strictly true, theres a long thread somewhere on her where the facts were discussed ad nauseum.
" isn't strictly true "?
What does that mean?
They either are or they are not.....and they are!
" isn't strictly true "?
What does that mean?
They either are or they are not.....and they are!
Isn't strictly true.
Well things in most peoples world arent black and white. Most of us are aware of shades of grey.
So the shock horry headline "Teenage pregnancies are soaring" could for instance be an interpretation of the fact that they declined for many years and then went up for a year which is in fact the case and was described fully and with appropriate references in the other thread I referred to.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Many more out there to prove it is rising.
If you look at the other thread you will see we played this mindless game of fact versus embedded opinion on this issue.
I dont want to play it again.
Her we go ;frist fame thrid set second game 18th service.
You didn't post any facts you posted media reports that support your opinion.
Do a Google search for Government Statistics. Search within that site and you will find the official stats. Maybe they are fudged I dont know but they are a darn site better than the opinions touted by media with an agenda.
The main reason I try to avoid debating with you is not because you are right and I am wrong or becasue I dislike you or because we hold different opinions. It is simply because you choose to post your deeply held beliefs on every topic. People who hold that kind of belief are not going to be persuaded by facts or discussion. To debate with such folk is described by psychologists as "pissing in the wind".
" But research in the British Medical Journal showed that the project, which ran between 2004 and 2007, was not working ".
I am doing what someone said the other day about producing factual evidence to support ones claims. I have done this, but seems even that is scoffed at.
Ok then the rates are not rising,the programme has been a complete success, the UK has not got the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe......my mistake.
Kent- what are your opinions on the Dutch way of sex ed?
Witchy the Dutch have completely different attitudes to sex than us in the UK.
I am fully aware what you are thinking....they have the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe and yes they teach kids as young as five.
So what you are obviously implying here is that it obviously works there with regard to teaching very young kids about sex....is that near the mark?
Most of Europe do not have a problem with drink issues as youngsters drink at the table from an early age, so the same must apply if you adopt the same attitude to sex with youngsters? My analogy.
You may have valid points Witchy but....did YOU know that up until fairly recently,the Dutch had the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe?
It was a massive problem for them so the Government said nobody under the age of 21 I think it was would get any Government help with means no money. I think since the European court has reversed this but it happened for a number of years, and coincided with a huge fall.
Funnily enough once that was brought in the rates dropped hugely.
Over in the UK the opposite is in fact happening. Teenage girls know what help they will get financially, and to some it is a good option to get out of their parents house and into a place of their own...it happens.
So no I do not agree with the Dutch way as I feel getting no financial help certainly made some think twice about getting pregnant....that cannot be discounted with regards to the drop rates.
I do not agree with teaching very young kids about sex, everything else they have tried has not worked, so why they think this will baffles me, but seeing as how much they have already tried, they are at the point of trying anything.
This witchy was a very good series.
It may well work in Holland BUT will/could it work in the UK?
Our attitudes to sex are very different to those in Holland. Because something works for some does not mean it will work for others.
Still with the rates rising anything is worth a try, to try and stop young kids ruining their young lives by getting pregnant, before they are ready to become parents.
Whilst I may well agree with some of the Dutch ways, I do not think it is a good thing to teach them at an age where they are just about writing their names.
Nine is an ideal age I believe.
This is as usual is bang on the money view on sex education.
I have had this discussion on here and I have been proved right, that more sex education equals more kids having sex.
The rates of pregnancies are never going to reach the Governments targets, and to be honest I thought those targets should have been even lower than were set.
I am sick and tired of hearing from some people how wonderful all this sex education is....marvelous. The pregnancy rates are unattainable as kids are so bombarded with sex and not just the mechanics, that until they are taught RESPONSIBILITY before condoms, this will continue to happen.
This Government are now going to launch another non workable drive to stop kids seeing " sexy " videos before the watershed or....kids not being allowed " boys mags " until after they are 16. Wow what a superb idea that one is. So many parents do not bother with the watershed, in fact so many kids have tv's in their bedrooms now, with no set bedtimes that they watch anything they like. Once again those kind of initiatives have to be undertaken with the parents, and the parents using RESPONSIBILITY.
But this Government on the one hand want parents to be RESPONSIBLE and then on the other take away that RESPONSIBILITY by allowing young kids the morning after pill WITHOUT the parents knowledge.
How crazy has it become where IF a child wants an Asprin for a toothache they need the parents permission, yet for the morning after pill it can be given behind the backs of parents. Talk about double standards!!
I said at the time this Governments unrealistic pregnancy targets would never be reached, and I was right. What is needed is an approach to teaching kids about RESPONSIBILITY and the " family ", but as has been bounded about, family values have been downgraded from important, to some not giving a toss, and that has been helped by the very Lefties who hate the family values and RESPONSIBILITIES which make decent adults.
You can teach kids about sex...you can teach a kid about putting a condom on...you can teach a kid about the values of sex, but all are worthless without being RESPONSIBLE with it, which they seem to have forgotten how to teach!
The proof is in the reading....the rates are still the highest in Western Europe, the figures are quite frankly awful, a lot of these kids will just end up on the benefit gravy train with hot and cold running benefits, and then we are told that sex education is working.....don't make me laugh.
This Government set targets that they thought were attainable, there is no way they would have set targets that they did not think they could reach, for fear of being called failures.
So they set the figures at what they thought were reachable, but they are nowhere near them which shows how far off the mark our sex education is.
As it says in that link above... " "This is not just about the mechanics of sex, it is about relationships, moral values and about making clear what is right and wrong and what you expect from young people, but it is doing that in a way that enables them totake part in the dialogue."
Only the militants would not agree with that comment??
Holland's sex education is far more explicit than the UK's yet their teenage pregnancy rates are far lower. This 2009 article suggests only one fifth the UK rate. It clearly isn't too much sex education that causes teenage pregnancy.
If I remember correctly the Dutch had extremely high teenage pregnancy rates in the 1970s and decided that realistic sex and relationship education was the answer and it seems to have been with the Dutch figures now being one of the lowest in Europe. Maybe we should adopt the Dutch model if we really want our rates to drop.
I tend to think that young people are more sussed about these things now. they are having sex because they want to have kids. I don't blame them.
If you look at the last few generations who supposedly 'put children on hold' whilst they got on with 'marvellous careers'; and how much of a delusion that was, its no wonder young people have sussed that it was complete bollocks.
what did people achieve during those years of career building? just an ordinary job for most, creation of long competitive working practices, the 2 income home, infertility, some form of habit etc. Young people see that as failure not success, and they know their time is now to reproduce. So I think they should, perhaps not during school years but as soon as they want after.
For god's sake what do you want people regularly trying for kids as oap's? It nonsense. let young people breed now when they are fit. Stop stealing their best years by selling the dream of having it all. that doesn't seem to have done many people much good in the long run.
Dave ya git! 
