[clue-talk] Obama, McCain, and the American flag

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:17 PM, Angelo Bertolli wrote:

> Just banning abortions though without putting some kind of  
> infrastructure in place that will prevent and "solve" unwanted  
> pregnancies will lead to underground abortions.  Abstinence is  
> good,  but not really effective since people are going to still have  
> sex, and guys are definitely going to want it.  Contraception and  
> education about preventing pregnancy, easy access, is absolutey the  
> best realistic way to stop unwanted pregnancies, but a lot of the  
> right-wing thinkers are religious and don't want their kids being  
> given contraception.  And a lot of women have problems with  
> adoption.  I've heard more women say they'd rather have an abortion  
> than give their child up for adoption because they thought it would  
> be "too hard" for them to do.

You know, I try to stay out of the abortion debate, because it's so  
darn personal to everyone.  But I'm tired of people saying abstinence  
doesn't work.

I've talked to people who DID practice it in their teenage years and  
beyond -- who did it (or should I say, didn't "do it"?) out of SELF- 
respect for their own moral and personal values.  It worked for them.   
These weren't ugly people, "nerds", or in any way sexually  
unattractive.  Just normal kids who DID say no to sex.  None regretted  
it, and none said they had to give up having a good time for it.

Often they come from a religious background that included moral values  
that said sex outside of marriage was wrong, and I understand why many  
people think that's too narrow in today's world, but for them...  
Abstinence was 100% effective and guaranteed to work.

If you continually set the bar low for people, they hit it -- every  
time.   Keep rattling off the phrase "people are still going to have  
sex" to groups of people who obviously SHOULD NOT have sex, and make  
sure to be careful to NOT make being pregnant at a young age taboo, or  
to "scare" kids with the reality that if you become pregnant at a  
young age without the fiscal resources (or at those ages, the  
character/experience to raise a child) to handle the consequences --  
and you will be exactly the negative influence on their lives you're  
attempting to be.

I'm not one of those who doesn't want contraception provided, but I'd  
like to think that kids are smarter than we give them credit for.  I'd  
also have more respect for the pro-contraception crowd if they'd try a  
little harder to educate teens about abstinence, and stop using  
phrases like "oh well, it'll happen anyway" when arguing with other  
adults about the topic.

The kids hear this, and learn that some large percentage of adults  
thinks them having sex is inevitable.  They ARE paying attention.   
What they don't understand is that the adults are just being stubborn  
to make a point, and that there are very few adults who think teenage  
sex is the right thing for the kids to be doing in our society.

Acting like our offspring are just a pile of raging hormones who can't  
CHOOSE what to do, along with a whole lot of other statements that are  
similar for other things in their lives, means they grow up blaming  
things like hormones and other externalities for all their problems  
their whole lives.  We indirectly create a nation of "it's not my  
fault" cry-babies as the result, as if everything has an external cure  
only available if someone else "helps" you ... in this case, someone  
delivers you rubbers to save you from your own genitalia.

While handing out condoms MIGHT lower the overall pregnancy rate, it  
RAISES the number of people participating in a exceedingly risky  
activity for their age group.   Could we focus more heavily on the  
education of how to assess RISK, and less on how we can make a risky  
action less so?   Could we somehow figure out how to convey that sex  
for entertainment is something consenting ADULTS can do, but that  
teenagers can't possibly handle the consequences of the risks  
involved?  (Frankly, there's a lot of adults who need to grow up and  
realize sex for entertainment when they only have $100 in the checking  
account at the end of the month, is also too risky for them to be  
doing, too.)

It's like handing the kids a helmet, putting them on a running  
motorcycle parked on a ramp aimed over 10 parked cars, and not saying  
anything about how dangerous to their well-being that jumping over  
those cars -- because we're worried they'll try it anyway.

Give the kids something more useful to do... and convince them via  
heavy cultural pressure and peer pressure that their friends  
participating in sexual activities are morons who are taking great  
risks they shouldn't be taking... "But if you're stupid enough to  
still want to do it, here's your condom.  Good luck, hope you don't  
screw up your life."... that should be how they're presented.  Maybe  
print something like "You're not thinking" on the wrapper of the darn  
condom.  Seriously.  Call it the "You're not smart if you do this"  
Foundation.

Use the things we know about marketing and advertising (just look at  
the political campaigns) into getting past their hormones and to their  
base fears.  Maybe it won't work as well with the males, but you print  
those condom wrappers with that phrase, and call the organization that  
hands them out the "Just in case you're stupid" program, and you'll  
see a shocking decline in females willing to participate in sexual  
activity.

Stop calling it the "You're going to do it anyway" Foundation, so to  
speak... and call it the "If you're dumb enough to do this, you're not  
ready for introduction to adult society" group.

(Okay, these ideas aren't exactly fleshed out, but I think anyone  
reading along can get the idea of what I'm getting at here.)

If you have to, shock them into knowing the world isn't an easy place  
with some real stories of how difficult being a young parent in this  
country is.  Have a teen mom speak to classrooms, while the class  
watches her two year old.  (In addition, run a fundraiser for a few  
nights of babysitting/childcare for her via the parents, or ask for  
donations of nights of babysitting her child as payment for her  
talking to their kids.  Some parents will be all pissy and whiners  
about the "scare tactic", but many more would probably gladly offer a  
night of babysitting in return for a little reality check for their  
kid.  I sure hope so anyway.)

As to how kids would respond to ANY of the above:  SOME kids won't  
listen to anything... but the vast majority of them WILL if given half  
a grain of respect.  THEY KNOW that being told the truth about being a  
parent at their age, telling them they're risking a lot, etc... IS  
RESPECTFUL to them.  Again, they're not stupid.  At least if we've  
done that, they only have to choose whether or not they'll be  
respectful of THEMSELVES and the people in their families they would  
affect -- by avoiding a teen pregnancy.

My mother-in-law worked in a special high-school program for teen  
moms.  The lack of basic education about things needed to survive in  
REAL LIFE like how to draw up a budget, was appalling.  She retired  
many years ago, but I still remember the stories she shared (without  
names of the girls, of course -- she respected their privacy) about  
how these girls simply had ZERO clue about cost of living, how to make  
one, nor how tough things are out there.  They were getting a very  
hard education about real life budgets, very quickly.

The thing that worried me at the time was... "Where are the people  
telling the girls who are NOT pregnant these things?"  I could already  
tell their parents were completely missing from the picture or just as  
screwed up as these girls were, by their complete lack of  
understanding of anything real -- one girl was going to "go to college  
and get a $100K/year job like everyone who goes to college" and that  
was her plan after having a baby at 16 years old.  The disconnection  
between reality and these girls heads was almost beyond belief at times.

Obviously the parents had utterly failed in these cases -- so I always  
thought there was room for discussion that included the question:   
Should there be a safety net of COMMON KNOWLEDGE beyond the three R's  
in our schools?

That might be an interesting discussion -- like, should basic  
budgeting and checkbook balancing be taught in our public education  
system?  We assume that teaching math concepts makes a person capable  
of keeping a budget, but that's just not true for many people.  How  
many kids would appreciate someone standing in front of their  
classroom, and telling them what the median salary for a high-school  
graduate with no further education will likely be, what local housing  
costs are on average, and what a typical real person's budget looks  
like?  To be honest, parents try too hard to "protect" their kids from  
"having to grow up too soon", when they really should be honest about  
things.

Would something as simple as showing our kids fiscal reality (and  
making money a less taboo topic in this country overall), lower teen  
pregnancy?

Sure would be an interesting idea to pose to the folks that wrote  
Freakonomics to get a study grant for, and go try in a few high schools.

Would teen pregnancy rates drop if they knew how much having a baby  
would cost and understood budgeting well enough to see how poor they  
would be?  A side-benefit to teaching something useful to everyone  
living in this country -- basic budgeting and personal accounting --  
in the middle/high-school environments?

Heck, let the students write a paper, "The Budgetary Constraints of a  
Teen Mom" for a grade...

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com