T1B

One of the things I mentioned in the other education thread was that I've never in my almost five years of teaching gone a semester without:

a) a pregnant student in my class

b) a student with one of those probation tracking ankle bracelets

As for the former - IMNSHO, I believe that one of the reasons for this is that the whole stigma of premarital pregnancy is gone. Totally. Now we're being taught in grad school and in professional development conferences that it's morally wrong to judge a "mistake" on the part of the kid. Uhhhh....having (usually unprotected) premarital sex and getting knocked up isn't a "mistake." Forgetting to carry a digit when balancing your checkbook is a mistake. Forgetting to check your oil before a long trip is a mistake. Deciding to have sex out of wedlock, while still in high school is a CHOICE. And a piss-poor one. One that now has to be paid for in large part by an innocent child, one way or the other.

Unfortunately, in order to not force a stigma on this innocent child, the government of many states (including NY) and have put in place so many freaking safety nets for these teenage moms that a lot of teenage girls get a mistaken impression about how "easy" being a parent will be.

I had one student whose mother's disapproval of her pregnancy resulted in the school district and social services setting the girl up with an apartment (which the gov't paid the rent on...), food stamps and financial assistance, phone hookup, internet access so that she could do research for classwork, tutoring so she wouldn't fall behind in school, had furniture donated to her via Catholic Charities, etc. When I asked her how she was doing shortly before she gave birth, she told me what a 'sweet deal" she had. Yeah, she found out soon enough the toll parenting takes on us all, but the fact remains that she was given a free ride on a lot of stuff and pats on the back for her "maturity." Maturity?!?!?! Getting knocked up at 16 and then sponging off of society?

Directly because of what her peers saw her getting financially and emotionally from the district, social services, teachers, etc., two more student in the district went out and got knocked up ON PURPOSE. The good intentions of some folks has now wound up misleading two young, impressionable girls into making choices that will screw up lives beyond their own.

In our health and biology classes, we as teachers are even instructed not to impose our "personal moral views" on the decisions relating to pregnancy. This is understandable with regards to sensitive issues such as abortion and birth control, but for us to be muzzled with regards to these issues - especially when the parents have obviously been ineffective, is practically criminal. I try to handle the situation by discussing the physical impact of pregnancy on the female body, the impacts of venereal diseases...stuff that is technically part of the curriculum and freaks the hell out of kids, but doesn't really get into the "moral judgement" area.

What other options do we have? On the one hand, these kids are getting knocked up at least partly with the tacit approval of a "nonjudgemental" society that has decided against stigmatizing teenage sex, so you'd think that re-stigmatizing it would be a good idea, but, on the other hand, no one wants to cause needless shame to the TRUE victims - the children brought into the world by these careless, selfish teens (male AND female).

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: What other options do we have?

Try minding your own business, like the good little libertarian...



...you claim to be.


Phibes will be by shortly to drop-kick you into LaRouche La-La Land for your classist, sexist
chauvenism. I think he's still celebrating the TightYoungDong missile launch, so give him some time.

Martyred wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: What other options do we have?

Try minding your own business, like the good little libertarian...



...you claim to be.

How trite of you, yet so typical.

No solutions, just a snide drive-by remark that reflects your ignorance of what you're speaking.

With regards to the child welfare provisions, I do precisely as my employers, my school district and the (nanny) state of NY, order me to do, regardless of my political viewpoints. I work with some hardcore conservatives who do the same. Unlike you socialist/communist nutjobs, we don't believe that our entire worldview has to be dominated or permeated by our political leanings.

Martyred wrote:Phibes will be by shortly to drop-kick you into LaRouche La-La Land for your classist, sexist chauvenism.

Classist? For expecting children who decide to make ADULT decisions to face ADULT consequences? For taking leftist social engineers to task for practically encouraging out-of-wedlock births by granting financial rewards, housing, and minimizing the negative impacts of their decisions? For being frustrated in how these kids have been led to believe that the decision to engage in unprotected premarital sex is "value neutral" (remember, it's jus a "mistake!") and that "the state" will be there to pick up the pieces if they stupidly make that decision?

You haven't got a clue about the topic you've decided to wade into.

Stick to defending repressive socialist regimes, Lysenko....

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:What other options do we have? On the one hand, these kids are getting knocked up at least partly with the tacit approval of a "nonjudgemental" society that has decided against stigmatizing teenage sex, so you'd think that re-stigmatizing it would be a good idea, but, on the other hand, no one wants to cause needless shame to the TRUE victims - the children brought into the world by these careless, selfish teens (male AND female).

I belive this is where the words of Alfred North Whitehead would apply.

"Major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur."

State supported teen pregnancies are a direct consequence of what has been in the large a very healthy loosening of our attitudes towards sex and personal liberty. I'm not sure what realistic answers are out there. We certainly are not going to stuff the genie back in the bottle and revert to Victorian attitudes towards sex. Which means these kids are likely going to continue doing what they are doing.

BSmack wrote:We certainly are not going to stuff the genie back in the bottle and revert to Victorian attitudes towards sex.

I'm sure an uptight, pre-Vat II Catholic like MikeTLR is willing to give it a shot.

Oh well, what can you expect from Big Government Conservative types...

In the words of David Cross' hillbilly character from Season 2 of Mr. Show...

"Get off mah land!"

One of the ironies here, Mike, is that I think this is, if anything, a bigger problem in the rural areas than in more urban areas.

My stepdaughter just graduated from high school. No less than five of her current/former classmates had become pregnant (one had already given birth) prior to graduating from high school. And this is out of a class of just slightly over 100. And I'm not passing judgment on any of their parents. My wife and I have been on my stepdaughter like white on rice, and even then, I realize that there was quite a bit of luck involved for us that she wasn't in that group. In that regard, I suppose that having a kid in our early 40's was a major blessing, in that she's now able to see firsthand the difficulties involved in caring for a baby without being burdened by them herself.

Part of the problem, imho, is that the kids complain that there is so little to do out here. Many of them hook up with somebody of the opposite sex at a rather early age, and, well, you know the rest . . .

I honestly don't know what the answer is. Offering more constructive afterschool activities for the kids might help a little, but as BSmack noted, the genie is out of the bottle and it's impossible to put it back in.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Offering more constructive afterschool activities for the kids might help a little, but as BSmack noted, the genie is out of the bottle and it's impossible to put it back in.

Yep. It's frustrating to watch these children wreck their lives and the lives of innocent babies....and as you and Bri have pointed out, we can't turn the clock back.

I'm not advocating Victorian measures, contrary to the arguments being attempted by the board's trolling pseudosocialists. I'm just lamenting the complete removal of ANY stigma from premarital pregnancy. Criminy, we should at least be hammering these kids' minds with the financial costs of offspring, the impact on their social lives ("Prom? Try getting a sitter!"), the very real health dangers of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy, etc., instead of sitting back and hoping that the ONE area that their absent/neglectful parents decided to intelligently, persuasively address is that one. Yeah, right.

I am stunned every year when I hear the freaking misconceptions (pun intended) that my male and female students have regarding what constitutes effective birth control, when women can conceive, what happens to the body during pregnancy, what practices can spread STD's, etc. The kids swear up and down that drinking Mello Yello or Mountain Dew can reduce sperm count to count as "birth control," that you can't get STD's from oral sex, and that you can't get pregnant your "first time." Scary part is that some of their parents TAUGHT them this shit.

The kids are bombarded with "sex is fun" messages while never getting the "oh yeah, as a consequence you can get a disease or conceive a child" message. Then we go and financially reward their poor chioce, without the kids truly realizing that we're doing it primarily to help the innocent baby that resulted from their selfish, stupid act. As a result, we wind up with sweet girls being turned into bastard factories.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I honestly don't know what the answer is. Offering more constructive afterschool activities for the kids might help a little, but as BSmack noted, the genie is out of the bottle and it's impossible to put it back in.

They used to have those in California. Then in 1978 property owners felt it was more important to pay less property taxes than provide for their community. They're now reaping what they sowed.

You meant to say, property owners were tired of political weasels pissing their hard earned money down the toilet, and they finally said, NO MAS.

Terry is right.
More 'constructive afterschool activities' is like plugging one hole in the side of a ship that has a dozen.




What's the answer .... ?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I honestly don't know what the answer is. Offering more constructive afterschool activities for the kids might help a little, but as BSmack noted, the genie is out of the bottle and it's impossible to put it back in.

They used to have those in California. Then in 1978 property owners felt it was more important to pay less property taxes than provide for their community. They're now reaping what they sowed.

Part of the problem is that it shouldn't be the taxpayers' problem to find things for other people's kids to do. When I was a kid (70's into early 80's), we didn't have taxpayer-funded afterschool programs to keep us busy...we went home and played neighborhood sports (baseball, football, cycling, etc), turned on the awesome Atari, read books at the library or at home, went to our parttime jobs, etc.

At some point, parents abandoned their childcare responsibilities and decided to turn the schools into taxpayer-funded babysitters, complete with activities and meals.

Darwin's the man with the plan.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I honestly don't know what the answer is. Offering more constructive afterschool activities for the kids might help a little, but as BSmack noted, the genie is out of the bottle and it's impossible to put it back in.

They used to have those in California. Then in 1978 property owners felt it was more important to pay less property taxes than provide for their community. They're now reaping what they sowed.

Part of the problem is that it shouldn't be the taxpayers' problem to find things for other people's kids to do.

I don't completely agree with this. We already do this, at least in part -- it's called school sports, among other things. The problem you have in a small town is that the tax base may be too small to accommodate the interests of the various kids.

One of my long-term projects (which I admit to having slacked off too much on) is to start a youth lacrosse program in my town. Part of it is long-term planning for the benefit of my son -- he has shown a little interest in the game, and I'd like a spring sport to be available for him in high school (we tried baseball, but he has ADHD, and the game progresses a little too slowly for him). Right now, the high school in this district doesn't have a lacrosse team, but they might implement one by the time he's in high school if there's enough demand for it.

When I was a kid (70's into early 80's), we didn't have taxpayer-funded afterschool programs to keep us busy...we went home and played neighborhood sports (baseball, football, cycling, etc), turned on the awesome Atari, read books at the library or at home, went to our parttime jobs, etc.

At some point, parents abandoned their childcare responsibilities and decided to turn the schools into taxpayer-funded babysitters, complete with activities and meals.

We're about the same age, and it sounds from that description like we grew up with the same circle of friends. Having said that, again there has been a significant historical development that we can't turn back the clock upon -- the decline of the single-income households. When I was a kid, my mom didn't work, and neither did the mothers of most of my friends. Those days are long over, and it's not just because of materialism -- in many households, the wife has to work to help make ends meet (and even in households where the wife doesn't work, economics is often driving that decision as well, as many of those households include multiple children, and the cost of daycare would essentially wipe out the wife's economic contribution by working outside the home). In our case, my wife and I have relied to a major extent upon my wife's mother for childcare help. And as often as I complain about the consequences, including the length of my commute to/from work, we probably couldn't have done it without her (although if I had a nickel for every time my stepdaughter complained that we were treating her like a baby by requiring her to go to her grandmother's, her college education would have been paid for by now).

But that's not available to everyone, and again, you can't go back and turn back the hands of time.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: I'm not sure what realistic answers are out there.

You simply allow them to fail.

You pull the plug on services for unwed mothers and what happens to the children they are having? I know where you stand. But convincing the American body politic to allow thousands of innocent infants to be at risk will never happen.

true, but the schools are bearing part of the burden of the unwed mothers because of the system anyway. they have to go to school, they can't because of the child, so they set up a home schooling program, which is a far easier paced program than the daily grind of classes. They only have to turn in assignments once or twice a week, and they graduate while staying at home.

Regardless of what you think should be done, that is what is being done. Finding ways to change it to make having an out of wedlock child as unattractive as studying for mid term exams is the key, but no one has managed to find that yet.

THe only real limitation on pregnancy in many past generations was the taboo of having sex before marriage or the fear of being ostracized for being pregnant. That doesn't exist anymore, so until a deterrant is found, it will only continue, and probably get worse if it continues to get accomodated the way it is.

Mister Bushice wrote:Finding ways to change it to make having an out of wedlock child as unattractive as studying for mid term exams is the key, but no one has managed to find that yet.

For teens, it already is, at least to anyone who actually has a brain.

THe only real limitation on pregnancy in many past generations was the taboo of having sex before marriage or the fear of being ostracized for being pregnant.

I'm considerably older than today's high schoolers, and I didn't see much, if anything, of a taboo on premarital sex even in my day. Don't know about being ostracized for being pregnant, as the God's honest truth is that no one in my high school class became pregnant during high school (color us lucky, I guess). As for me personally, I'd like to think it was my ability to stay focused on what was important in the long term that kept me on the straight and narrow. More likely, it was the fact that I was scared shitless of the fairer sex until I was in my early 20's.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

THe only real limitation on pregnancy in many past generations was the taboo of having sex before marriage or the fear of being ostracized for being pregnant.

I'm considerably older than today's high schoolers, and I didn't see much, if anything, of a taboo on premarital sex even in my day.

I grew up on the east coast, and as a little kid in the 70's when an older neighbor girl suddenly disappeared, we were told she was "away at school" Well, she was away at a convent, having a baby. The parents were ashamed of the public reaction to having a 16 year old pregant. In the 60's and 70's teen pregnancies were hidden, and most girls during that time went to far greater lengths than todays kids do to not become pregnant.

But maybe that's just my upper middle class roman catholic upbringing talking. :)

Mister Bushice wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

THe only real limitation on pregnancy in many past generations was the taboo of having sex before marriage or the fear of being ostracized for being pregnant.

I'm considerably older than today's high schoolers, and I didn't see much, if anything, of a taboo on premarital sex even in my day.

I grew up on the east coast, and as a little kid in the 70's when an older neighbor girl suddenly disappeared, we were told she was "away at school" Well, she was away at a convent, having a baby. The parents were ashamed of the public reaction to having a 16 year old pregant. In the 60's and 70's teen pregnancies were hidden, and most girls during that time went to far greater lengths than todays kids do to not become pregnant.

But maybe that's just my upper middle class roman catholic upbringing talking. :)

Like I said, I don't remember anyone in my immediate social circle going through a teen pregnancy. I know it happened to one couple in my younger brother's high school class. They got married very quickly, and I believe neither went through the graduation ceremony with their class.

But I was referring to premarital sex itself. While there may have been taboos associated with the potential consequences of premarital sex, by the time I was a teenager, there really were no more taboos as to the actual act itself, although I suspect that there was more talk than anything else going on. Btw, I also went to a Catholic high school.

When I was growing up, the word "bastard" had considerably greater "oomph" as an insult. Nowadays, the kids don't even really know what the word means - they tend to use the word as sort of a male version of "bitch."

When I tell them what the word ACTUALLY means, they don't get why being the product of unwed parents should be an insult.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:When I was growing up, the word "bastard" had considerably greater "oomph" as an insult. Nowadays, the kids don't even really know what the word means - they tend to use the word as sort of a male version of "bitch."

When I tell them what the word ACTUALLY means, they don't get why being the product of unwed parents should be an insult.

Yeah, the sanctity of the American Marriage.
MOTTO: "If at first you don't succed, try again. And again. And again..."

Fucking moralist hypocrites. I hope you choke on the class system you so desperately wish
to burden your country with. Thanks for showing that Europe is a good two centuries ahead of you.

And fuck your bourgeois American nomenclature that masquerades as academia.

Phibes > MtLR

mvscal wrote: ... their stagnating economies...

Just shaking off the last vestiges of American influenced Neo-Liberalism. Give 'em another decade or so.

mvscal wrote: ...bloated entitlement spending

Governments spending people's tax dollars on the people, instead of lining the pockets of their rich friends. The horror.

mvscal wrote: ...and crashing demographics.

Unlike America's booming demographic...of Hispanics.

Martyred wrote:Yeah, the sanctity of the American Marriage.
MOTTO: "If at first you don't succed, try again. And again. And again..."

Actually, in MY family, marriages have been "'till death do us part" for about 300 years, according to my genealogy. My own parents have been together 42 years, and my own wife and myself have been together for almost 20.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, bitterman.

Martyred wrote:Fucking moralist hypocrites.

Prithee tell me, oh-so-smarmy one how I could be a "moralist hypocrite" when I am espousing that the kids should share THE SAME behaviors I HAVE BEEN DOING.

You see, "hypocrite" by definition is someone who preaches one thing and does the opposite. I, on the other hand, am walking the talk.

So much for your vaunted North-Of-The-Border education....

Martyred wrote:I hope you choke on the class system you so desperately wish to burden your country with.

"Class system?" How am I imposing a class system by expecting kids to use birth control (if not abstinence) and then be expected to face the moral and financial consequences of their actions?

Oh yeah, that's right - you socialist utopians want to insulate everyone from the negative consequences of your comerades' behavior...and then use government force to minimize those mistakes by limiting intellectual and religious freedoms.

Martyred wrote:Thanks for showing that Europe is a good two centuries ahead of you.

Yeah, they're a real technological, educational, cultural utopia, as can be seen by the class riots in France (one of your socialist paradises, I recall....), the racism at soccer matches, the barbarity of Muslim extremists in the Netherlands...

And fuck your bourgeois American nomenclature that masquerades as academia.

Bitter much? Ah well, if your blood pressure causes an aneurysm, make sure to come south of the border to get treatment that is best in the world and doesn't make you wait weeks or months...

Phibes > MtLR

He really bought himself one devoted little huckleberry with those cartons of cigs, didn't he?

Dr_Phibes wrote:... but you'd rather sensationalise teen girls getting knocked up.

It's the Gay Marriage strawman of our time.

Osama* must be rubbing his hands in delight.


* the guy who allegedly murdered 3000 Americans, and was promptly forgotten about by Bush & Co.

Martyred wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:... but you'd rather sensationalise teen girls getting knocked up.

It's the Gay Marriage strawman of our time.

There it is.....another driveby with no ammo....

Martyred wrote:Osama* must be rubbing his hands in delight.

* the guy who allegedly murdered 3000 Americans, and was promptly forgotten about by Bush & Co.

Socialism posts have been spit off into another thread.

mvscal,

I agree "letting them rot" has greater appeal, but of course I wouldn't take it to your extreme. making it harder, not easier to get by is closer to the answer. And by that I don't mean denying them basic means of survival, I mean that if they have a baby, they aren't given an apartment, a n expense account, food and internet access, they're put to work babysitting other unwed mothers babies while they are at work/go to school, and vise versa. Trading freedom for responsibility as a result of irresponsibility.

Soon as all the carefree teens see what a sweet deal that isn't, they might be more careful about spreading their legs.

Lab rat,
Did you ever once consider that your assumption of these pregnant girls in your class could be false. Maybe these are married women who have chosen to have a child, all the while working at improving their careers?
Or would you rather have mothers at home in the kitchen?

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: they're put to work babysitting other unwed mothers babies while they are at work/go to school, and vise versa. Trading freedom for responsibility as a result of irresponsibility.

That's fine. It also doesn't require any government program or intervention.

mvscal,
But isn't that the purpose of the government?

Dog wrote:Lab rat,
Did you ever once consider that your assumption of these pregnant girls in your class could be false. Maybe these are married women who have chosen to have a child, all the while working at improving their careers?
Or would you rather have mothers at home in the kitchen?

Just in case you're not trolling . . .

He teaches high school. Not a lot of married women going to school there.

Mister Bushice wrote:Socialism posts have been spit off into another thread.

Thank you.

Soon as all the carefree teens see what a sweet deal that isn't, they might be more careful about spreading their legs.

Problem is, this really isn't a "sweet deal" as it stands. They're going to have to delay for a significant period of time, if not deny outright, their future ambitions.

Raising a kid is a tough job, even when you're old enough, and established enough, to take it on. The pittance these kids get from the government isn't even close to compensating for the financial costs, let alone other costs.

In fairness, though, it might not be quite so easy for a teen to see that. That is where their parents need to step up to the plate.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Just in case you're not trolling . . .

He teaches high school. Not a lot of married women going to school there.

Thanks Crapchester. No, I'm not trolling. When I read his post, I got the impression that he taught in higher education.

When I was in highschool, the district shipped all the pregnant girls to a separate school because they were "too much of a distraction".

So much for Brown v. Board of Education, eh.

mvscal wrote:No.

I'm curious as to exactly what you believe the roll of government should be, if not to provide for social welfare programs.

Dog wrote:Did you ever once consider that your assumption of these pregnant girls in your class could be false.

Not for a second. It's a small, rural school, and I know the kids and their families (via classes and parent conferences).

Dog wrote:Maybe these are married women who have chosen to have a child, all the while working at improving their careers?

Not at age 14 and 15 they're not.

Dog wrote:Or would you rather have mothers at home in the kitchen?

Considering that my wife, who is the mother of my two sons, happens to be a business owner and I not only supported her emotionally and financially during her professional education and still support her in her business venture, I'd say that I pretty much don't have a problem with working moms.

And before the question gets asked - mom-in-law and family friends help watch the kids while we're at work. One of the nice perqs of teaching is that I get home earlier than a normal "9 to 5 job" dad and I get two months of in the summer to be "Mr. Mom."

We deliberately waited until both our educations were complete, we had saved up some money, and that at least one of us had a stable job with benefits before reproducing....

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Soon as all the carefree teens see what a sweet deal that isn't, they might be more careful about spreading their legs.

Problem is, this really isn't a "sweet deal" as it stands. They're going to have to delay for a significant period of time, if not deny outright, their future ambitions.

Raising a kid is a tough job, even when you're old enough, and established enough, to take it on. The pittance these kids get from the government isn't even close to compensating for the financial costs, let alone other costs.

In fairness, though, it might not be quite so easy for a teen to see that. That is where their parents need to step up to the plate.

That's the point. they THINK it is a sweet deal, thus MtLR posting that two girls got preggo on purpose because they saw it as such. Kinds of that type aren't going to listen to their parents much.

I know it is not a sweet deal, but getting that message across doesn't work with mere words or threats of being ostrasized. If they saw how accountable the preggos had to be, and heard how tough life was on them because of their lack of judgement, perhaps they'd think twice about spreading them thighs. Perhaps. A BIG perhaps, but it's certainly better than " Janice is so lucky, she got pregnant and they gave her her own apartment, internet, food stamps and EVERYTHING for free."

Dog wrote:

mvscal wrote:No.

I'm curious as to exactly what you believe the roll of government should be, if not to provide for social welfare programs.

provide social welfare to an extent, yes, but creating a whole new level of social welfare that is a one way ticket to a lifetime of living at the taxpayers expense? absolutely not.

If a teen gets pregnant, you have a welfare program that assists them in provindng for thir child WHILE enabling them to develop skills that can contribute back to the society that helped them, and not just eternally take from it.

starting out adult life on the dole with no way out is not a solution.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Problem is, this really isn't a "sweet deal" as it stands. They're going to have to delay for a significant period of time, if not deny outright, their future ambitions.

Trouble is, for many of these girls, being a mother IS their future ambition.

BSmack wrote:Trouble is, for many of these girls, being a mother IS their future ambition.

I had one student who announced in my class that her future ambition was to be a Playboy centerfold.

I told her dad that at a parent-teacher conference and he sent her ass to Catholic school. Got her away from her skanky friends and gangsta boyfriend.

She just graduated in the top five in her class and got a scholarship to study pharmacology at St. John Fisher College.

Props to her dad, and to her.

I see this as an excellent argument for better sex education courses in high school.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Dog wrote:

mvscal wrote:No.

I'm curious as to exactly what you believe the roll of government should be, if not to provide for social welfare programs.

provide social welfare to an extent, yes, but creating a whole new level of social welfare that is a one way ticket to a lifetime of living at the taxpayers expense? absolutely not.

If a teen gets pregnant, you have a welfare program that assists them in provindng for thir child WHILE enabling them to develop skills that can contribute back to the society that helped them, and not just eternally take from it.

starting out adult life on the dole with no way out is not a solution.

agreed.

Dog wrote:I see this as an excellent argument for better sex education courses in high school.

Yep. No need for teachers to go the "slipping a condom on a banana" route, but a better explanation of the physiology of pregnancy, birth control info with regard to efficacy and misconceptions (baddump-bump!), STD's, the gory details of birth (including the expulsion of the placenta, episiotomy, etc.).

Going over infant requirements, typical parent stresses, etc. would also be good. If kids had any idea of how much fun sleep deprivation, loss of social activities (at least for awhile), big bills, and incessant crying are, they might rethink their actions.

The kids should also be heavily encouraged, if not required, to interview their parents, as a way of involving those ideally responsible for a lot of this info in the process. I've found that a lot of parents have misconceptions of their own (one mom argued with me, adamant that you couldn't get STD's from oral sex) and this might help correct them.

Anything but the "abstinence only" stance they've been preaching.

mvscal wrote:
I've never had a government roll, though. They any good?

Split them in two, cover them with slices of gubmint cheese, then put them under the broiler(or the boiler, if you live in a particularly shitty part of the projects).