I appreciate the time you took to formulate your response in a fairly respectful manner and even tone, so I'm going to try to reply in kind.>> ^VoodooV:
That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.My views on the potential legality of abortion are not based on my party or religious affiliation. You can look elsewhere for my views on how destructive the party system is to American democracy, and I believe religion should play no part in legislation. (For instance, if your only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, then you have no valid opposition to the legalization of gay marriage. However, it's easily to rationally oppose theft or murder outside of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" or "Thou Shalt Not Kill", so that gets legislated.) I'm looking at what I know and believe about human development and extrapolating from there. So perhaps airing my opinions in a thread discussing the backwardness of the Republican Party Platform is likely to promote some misunderstanding.>> ^VoodooV:
"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."
That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.
We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?I don't think we live in a perfect world. Rape, incest, and threat-to-life are real things, and I believe it's acceptable to make an exception in those cases - that it's acceptable to do the reprehensible when it is necessary to promote justice. I believe this in the same way I think murder is reprehensible, and that taking of a human life would never be necessary in a "perfect world", but acceptable in cases of self-defense or punishment of particularly heinous crimes. Accidental pregnancies are a known risk of sexual intercourse. "Financially and emotionally secure" are different issues, addressed in a moment. >> ^VoodooV:
A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.You're absolutely right. Having a baby is VERY different from just getting a puppy. We're talking about a human life. Some people aren't emotionally or financially fit to be parents. Some of them realize that. Unfortunately, some of them realize it too late, after they've chosen to have sex and gotten pregnant. Should the child be "punished" by being raised by unfit parents? Of course not. I advocate adoption in those circumstances. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it is an acceptable one. Yes, this means nine months of pregnancy and the lifestyle impacts that carries. I feel it should be noted that you are also advocating "fixing a mistake by making another mistake.">> ^VoodooV:
To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.Yes, but again - selectively. The use of a firearm against another human being should not be taken trivially. I'm not going to shoot my neighbor just because he's doing something to make my life inconvenient. I'm going to shoot him when he poses a threat to my life or the life of another innocent individual. I'd say it was an ill-advised analogy, because it's a much better analogy for the anti-abortion stance than the pro-abortion stance. In the firearm analogy, the one harmed is a violent aggressor, while in abortion we're wielding this power against someone who is genuinely and truly innocent. My stance on abortion is MUCH more lenient than my stance on deadly force, since I also acknowledge cases of rape or incest. >> ^VoodooV:
Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate)I have to admit that that is a ridiculous position for them to take. If you're going to advocate that people avoid having sex if they're not prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice, then it's ludicrous to tell them masturbation is ALSO verboten. Mutual masturbation is almost the only sexual practice that can legitimately be said to eliminate the risk of pregnancy.>> ^VoodooV:
Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.I think this takes the slippery slope (no pun intended) too far, and I think you realize that. There are religious viewpoints on the "spilling of seed", but again, I think religious viewpoints alone are not justification for legislation in a free society.
We can both agree (I'm fairly confident) that killing a newborn is murder. I'm fairly confident that we both agree that late-term abortion is abhorrent, if not explicitly "murder". (Is this assertion correct?) Furthermore I think we can both agree that an unfertilized egg or unused sperm is not a "life". So, somewhere between those points is the point of contention. The point where a mass of undifferentiated tissue becomes a developing human life. I don't think we can clearly define that point with our current level of knowledge, so I feel it is most rational to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion even in early pregnancy. (I feel that this view tolerates, for instance, the "morning-after pill", that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, a view that is likely opposed in many "pro-life" circles. I must admit, though, to a degree of uncertainty in that opinion.)

>> ^RFlagg:

I am confused by the people blaming the woman for getting pregnant and saying she chose to have sex... so did the guy, who also chose to have sex without adequate measures to prevent the pregnancy. Why is the guy always absolved of guilt when a woman gets pregnant? "Oh she got pregnant just to trap him." Really? He chose to have sex too, he chose to have sex without wearing protection and pulling out and insuring she was up to date on her birth control. Is abortion the best outcome? No, but it has to remain a valid choice, especially in cases of incest and rape... and any ass who would deny it when the mother's life is in danger should just be denied any sort of medical care (even Tylenol) for the rest of their lives. The best way to counter abortion is to do the things Republicans hate, increase education (and I'm not just talking sex education here, though that should be included, but education as a whole) and increase access to affordable health care, including contraception for both parties.
A few points to clarify my position.


- I don't think this is about choosing to have unprotected sex. It's about choosing to have sex. Few methods of birth control are infallible. Condoms break, people forget to take a pill. The choice to engage in sexual intercourse is a choice which carries consequences. Contraceptives decrease the risk of pregnancy, dramatically, but the risk still exists.
- I don't consider this an issue of blame or guilt. It's about responsibility. It's not a woman's "fault" she got pregnant. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of her choice, which, again, it is her right to make.
- The male in this picture is also free to choose whether to have sex. Is it fair that he can up and split, because he is not physically carrying a developing human being? No, it's not fair, but it's the reality of the situation. Even so, the courts acknowledge that he must take responsibility as well. Jerry Springer made a sideshow out of paternity testing.

- Which raises a counterpoint I'd never considered before - should a man be allowed to compel a woman to have an abortion, because he does not feel capable of supporting the child? If the woman carries and delivers the child and he abandons them, the courts will hold him responsible for child support, even if he strongly advocated the pregnancy be terminated.

Listen, I am not trying to take anything away from this girl or the situation at all, but she was 17 years old, at a party, drinking to black-out drunk levels and got in a bad situation.

Why was she there at all? Where are her parents? They should be just as guilty as anyone.

Rape sucks. My wife was date raped before we met so I am not making light of it. I say this with all due respect for rape victims out there. People hear or read the word rape and picture Jodie Foster in The Accused every time. Legally, rape at the core level means "sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent." -Wikipedia. Here's the issue. If she is black out drunk (which she was), she could have easily offered consent willingly and later not been able to recall consenting in the first place, therefore placing the boys in serious trouble. Them pleading guilty was probably their lawyer's work, pleading guilty ends the case and seals the charges in juvenile record as they were not tried as adults. Now, I am not saying that happened here, but it is possible.

They are assholes for taking advantage of the situation and especially for taking pictures and spreading them around school. I am glad they were found guilty and they absolutely deserve it. We'll never know what their punishment was and I am quite sure it wasn't enough for this girl or her family, nor would any remotely realistic punishment be enough, honestly. The judge tried them, they were found guilty and punished according to the judge's application of the law. Case closed.

Her tweeting their names and violating the court order was stupid, but I am glad they didn't seek to punish her further for it, she's clearly been through enough.

All that being said, these hack-job video "hosts" are just making it worse for everyone, especially this girl whom I sure would rather have it all behind her instead of cramming it down everyone's throat like this morons did.

>> ^cracanata:

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this, female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^cracanata:
War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."
You're a lunatic that has no morals.


hmm, i think a good start would be to acknowledge the victims of rape and prosecute the perps? As previously mentioned, the fact that rape exists in the military isn't especially shocking. What is shocking and surprising is this "boys will be boys" military attitude regarding the rapes. Lets be clear here. A strong military needs proficient female soldiers. If you want the best then you better not limit yourself to 50% of the population. Women shouldn't expect to be raped for serving their country anymore than they should expect to be raped when they wear something that doesn't reach their knees...The stress of war dies not excuse rape. Rapists have demonstrated that they are capable of committing this heinous crime against their comrades - the frontline of war is the last place such a person should be unless you like inviting warcrime tribunals upon yourself.


I think that maybe you advocating for the Devil...but I do wonder why.

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this, female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^cracanata:
War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."
You're a lunatic that has no morals.

>> ^cracanata:

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.


No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."

You're a lunatic that has no morals.

You, sir, are absolutely despicable. >> ^cracanata:

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

In reply to this comment by heathen:
>> ^alien_concept:

And before you say it, he came before Russell Brand


I wasn't even aware they were having sexual intercourse. ;

Brilliant, hahaha

>> ^alien_concept:

And before you say it, he came before Russell Brand


I wasn't even aware they were having sexual intercourse.

>> ^rottenseed:

Insecure teens grow into insecure adults is what I inferred from his comment.
For the record, the physical aspects of having intercourse with a 15 or 16 year old isn't what bothers me. In many cases they're just as much woman in that sense that they'll ever be. It's the mental and emotional state that would make it disgusting. A guy that can look past the fact that she's 5 years from playing with barbie dolls is pitiful. There'd be absolutely no emotional connection an older man could have with a teenage girl, and if there were, it would be very strange.>> ^Sagemind:
Ahem..., how old are you? These teens sound around 15ish.
( understanding that you were probably - mostly, kidding...)
>> ^Yogi:
I don't like Jon Hamm telling teenage girls to be themselves and have confidence. How the hell am I supposed to get laid with all these confident girls knocking around?!




If I pay for them, they're as all as I tell them they are!

Insecure teens grow into insecure adults is what I inferred from his comment.

For the record, the physical aspects of having intercourse with a 15 or 16 year old isn't what bothers me. In many cases they're just as much woman in that sense that they'll ever be. It's the mental and emotional state that would make it disgusting. A guy that can look past the fact that she's 5 years from playing with barbie dolls is pitiful. There'd be absolutely no emotional connection an older man could have with a teenage girl, and if there were, it would be very strange.>> ^Sagemind:

Ahem..., how old are you? These teens sound around 15ish.
( understanding that you were probably - mostly, kidding...)
>> ^Yogi:
I don't like Jon Hamm telling teenage girls to be themselves and have confidence. How the hell am I supposed to get laid with all these confident girls knocking around?!

Disease rates

"During the past two decades, an explosive growth in both the prevalence and types of sexually transmitted diseases has occurred. Up to 55 percent of homosexual men with anorectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80 percent of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15 percent of asymptomatic homosexual men, and up to one third of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Higher rates of AIDS - 63 percent of new cases

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm


Drug use

Among homosexual men, ages 18 to 25: 79.2 percent have used marijuana; 75 percent have used psychotherapeutics for nonmedical reasons; 65.2 percent have used stimulants such as dexedrine and benzedrine; 62.5 percent have used inhalants such as amyl or butyl nitrate; and 50.2 percent have used hallucinogens such as LSD. Rates among lesbians: marijuana, 82 percent; psychotherapeutics, 58.8 percent; stimulants, 52.9 percent; inhalants, 41.2 percent; and hallucinogens, 41.2 percent. Comparing current usage to national usage, homosexuals were found to use drugs with greater frequency: "Among adults aged 18-25, 16.5 percent of men and 9.1 percent of women have used marijuana in the past month, compared with 37.5 per-cent of gay men and 23.5 percent of lesbians."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

20 times higher rate of meth use (quoted from LA Times article)

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html

Domestic violence

"Rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women. Public health efforts directed toward addressing intimate partner battering among these men are needed."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.92.12.1964

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/

Depression, suicide, mental health

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18706118

Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530626

Life expectancy of homosexuals

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871"

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Statistics on Amsterdam

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society’s lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses Youth are four times as likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11146762

That covers all of my claims. I think you'll find all of the evidence I have provided is from unbiased sources. This refutes the claim that homosexuality does not harm anyone. It clearly harms the individual, the community and society at large.

Here are some more statistics that I don't have direct links to. .

An Amsterdam study found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 18 months and that "men in homosexual relationships, on average, have eight partners a year outside those relationships." By comparison, more than two-thirds of heterosexual marriages in America last longer than ten years. Maria Xiridou et al.,

"The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,"
AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038.

Ricky Behaviors:

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

"Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000)"

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners

Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," GayHealth News (July 18, 2000).

Promiscuity

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981)

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.

Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[11]

M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991),

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

3 million teens contract an STD every year

Irrelevant. That is a problem of bad safe sex practices, caused mostly by idiotic christian idealists who preach abstinence. Funny how states that preach abstinence have the highest rates of stds.

>> ^shinyblurry:



25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.
In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

Well first off, you're equating "premarital sex" with "teen sex". I didn't get married until I was 30. Most people these days are getting married later, so pre-marital sex can be easily between mature adults.
Besides, I don't really believe you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.


Yep, and there's a reason we have age of consent laws. You will get no argument from me that 12 year olds should not be having sex. Doesn't mean they shouldn't learn about it though.
>> ^shinyblurry:



Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy
Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,
In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.
Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.


Clearly you missed the part where I said:

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense.

Again, if you and your ilk weren't so hung up on teaching safe sex practices, this issue would be a lot less of a problem.

>> ^shinyblurry:


A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex
That's just scratching the surface.


Again, irrelevant. "premarital sex" != "teen sex". The issue is not at what age you lost your virginity, it's whether or not premarital sex causes "grief".

Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data, I'd wager that part of the reason they feel bad about it is precisely because of the bullshit story that has been pushed onto kids from day one that you will have sex, a chorus of angels will sing and you'll live happily ever after with your partner at the time. Life doesn't always work like that.

edit: fixed quote tags

3 million teens contract an STD every year

25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.

In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.

Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy

Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,

In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.

Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.

A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex

That's just scratching the surface.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^lantern53:
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
Yeah, and my point was that statement is bullshit. Forget about providing evidence to back up your spurious claim, you haven't even elaborated how or why sex outside marriage causes any more problems than sex within marriage.
I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense, and even then, a happily unmarried but loving couple will make better parents than a marriage that's falling apart.