Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (480532)	5/13/2009 6:02:25 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573377

"Our socialist friends have far less teen pregnancy than we do:" They get real world sex education and FREE access to all the means of birth control with no parental notification, including the morning after pill and abortion if necessary. I have no doubt their abortion rate is FAR lower than ours too. An effective, judgment-free, reality-based program free from religious concerns.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (480532)	5/13/2009 6:26:37 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1573377

Steve, > Less pregnant teenaged girls is unequivocally a good thing, period. One of the reasons there is less of it now is liberalism has helped secure more equality, freedom and opportunity for women than they had in the 50's. That too is unequivocally good. I like how you make two unsubstantiated generalizations and declare them "unequivocally good." Seems like you're suffering from your own version of "black-n-white," LOL ... Tenchusatsu

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (480532)	5/13/2009 7:33:37 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1573377

"Less pregnant teenaged girls is unequivocally a good thing, period." If a nineteen year old is able to make mature informed decisions and is ready, willing, and able to raise a child, I see no basis in which to agree with your statement. I figured you to be a relativist to the extreme; where as, that comment was an absolute condemnation without adequate justification. I can only conclude that partisan hackery is driving you to form an argument in desperation and in spite of clear, observable, obvious, and sensible information to the contrary. "One of the reasons there is less of it now is liberalism has helped secure more equality, freedom and opportunity for women than they had in the 50's. There are less traditional pregnancies where there is a family home to support the baby. The number of teenage pregancies where immature, children, who have no means of support, no preparation for raising a child, and no interest in being a parent has exploded from what was an insignificant number of girls in the fifties, when the number of children produced that way were easily accommodated through adoption to what we have today. That too is unequivocally good. Really?