College Bound Sisters is the name of the program that is trying to keep 12- to 18-year-old girls from getting pregnant. Participants in the program attend 90-minute meetings weekly. They are taught about abstinence and contraceptives.
Each week that they do not get pregnant $7 dollars is deposited in a bank account. The money can only be collected when they enroll in college.
The cost of paying teens not to get pregnant is minuscule compared to the $9 billion teen pregnancy costs annually.
in the way he should go, and when he grows old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6
We have to pay teens to not get pregnant now? Is money that much of a motivator? I myself am guilty of having kids out of wedlock in my B.C. days (thank God for mercy).
I applaud the idea (kind of, i still don't agree with teaching that premarital sex is okay), but man... this is what we've come to?
It is implied by the, "...taught about abstinence and contraceptives," line.
This is about teens (i.e. pre-college, pre-18 and probably not married) and motivating them to not get pregnant, not just not have sex.
The one thing seems particularly odd is the requirement to join of having an older sister who got pregnant before 18. So oldest/only girls need not apply and they can have kids all they want?
if it costs the state so many dollars to deal with the total costs associated with teen pregnancy - and I bet that there are more far-reaching issues than I could rattle off - then why not entertain the idea that a percentage of that cost can be given directly to the teens and possibly save the state $$$$ in the long run. I bet this isn't the last we'll see of this logic. Sad state we're in when THIS logic is the best thing we have to offer.
I know of plenty of young women who did whatever it took not to get pregnant, double/triple contraceptive or abstinence, because they knew their family had provided them money to go to college. The promise of education is a pretty big incentive and so is money. So it's great they are actually thinking hard about what they do and the consequences if they don't.
@ Kuhl- You've got a valid point. Do you think it's possible that providing an incentive for maintaining abstinence until marriage will prove more effective in the long run? Abstinence is more effective than contraception and birth control (std's/sti's, pregnancy, possible emotional distress, etc). It seems to me that they are setting the bar kind of low (I'm sure they have the best intentions at heart)... I mean, it's like, here, challenge yourself by not getting pregnant. How about really setting the bar high and making these girls role models for others. Here take this incentive for saving it for your husband.
I don't know what kind of bomb ass sticky you're smoking, but people are by no means automatically "role model" material when they abstain from sex until marriage.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ "Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience."
Maybe it's because these retards don't have sex before they get married, and then are upset with how weak their partner is, mid coitus?
Catch up with the times, teaching abstinence only is worthless, (like Sarah Palin) and only serves to fuel the religious propaganda parade even further.
To those of you who are religious and felt offended- I don't care. I'm offended every single day by the outrageous predicament you tards have put America in.
Another example of proving that the world has gone to shit. Can you imagine 25 years from now. Kids will be producing like bunnies and who will be responsible? I guess I'm upset because in my youth I was made to understand that if I knocked a girl up I'd pay for that child until he became of age. Now days they get the milk and don't have to buy the cow.
"...teaching people that they should be having sex." - No one said this. Even if they were teaching that premarital sex was OK, that would not be the same as teaching that they should have premarital sex.
No. I'm not saying they are right, but COG and StringBlade said that teaching about safe sex implies teaching it is not wrong to have premarital sex. You said this was false, that teaching about safe sex does not imply teaching one should have sex. Your counterargument does not apply to COG and StringBlade's argument.
They said the program teaches "It is not wrong to do". Your counterargument implies that they said the program teaches "It is wrong to not do". They did not say what you are saying is false.
Hardly. C.O.G. claimed that teaching people what safe sex is, is teaching that premarital sex is right.
That is nonsense.
"They said the program teaches 'It is not wrong to do'." You make this claim several times. In fact, they didn't say this. They claimed this program is teaching children that premarital sex is right. Again, that's complete nonsense.
OK is not the same as Right. An "OK" act is a permitted or accepted act (ie - not wrong). A "Right" act is the morally preffered act. These are obviously not equal. I cannot say whether COG and StringBlade intended this distinction, but it exists.
I'm not saying they are correct, but since you want to make sure people aren't "making stuff up", I figured your errors should be pointed out.
these kids be taught safe sex as opposed to just abstinence. They're going to be having sex anyway and abstinence only works for virgins.
As for paying them, I think it's ridiculous that we have to pay 12-year-olds not to get pregnant, but if it works and saves money, good. It's certainly a sad state of affairs, though.
