WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain, whose running mate disclosed that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, has opposed proposals to spend federal money on teen-pregnancy prevention programs and voted to require poor teen mothers to stay in school or lose their benefits.

 

McCain's position on contraceptives and teen pregnancy issues has been difficult to judge on the campaign trail, as he appears uncomfortable discussing such topics. Reporters asked the presumptive GOP presidential nominee in November 2007 whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, whether such programs should include directions for using contraceptives and whether he supports President Bush's policy of promoting abstinence.

 

"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.

 

When reporters pressed McCain whether the government should provide contraceptives or counseling on contraceptives, he replied, "You've stumped me." McCain said later that he was sure he opposed government spending on contraceptives.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mccain_teen_pregnancies

Today's teens know how to prevent a pregnancy, info is out there, even on prime time TV. These gov. programs are not needed, we need fewer gov. programs not more.

Today's teens know how to prevent a pregnancy, info is out there, even on prime time TV. These gov. programs are not needed, we need fewer gov. programs not more.

 

The problem is not neccesarily with the knowledge, but with the "know-how". If you don't know how to use a hammer correctly, the table won't be built and it's no fault of the hammer.

The problem is not neccesarily with the knowledge, but with the "know-how". If you don't know how to use a hammer correctly, the table won't be built and it's no fault of the hammer.

 

These teens know about contraceptives, they just do not use them or maybe something didn't work as hoped.

This whole issue is absurd to me.

 

First we remove God and Biblically based morals from the equation.

 

Next we try to establish man made morals on the shifting sand of trends, opinions and conditional ethics.

 

Then we guilt trip those living their lives responsibly into financing the lifestyles of those who've tossed any semblance of personal responsibility out the window.

 

I’m amazed our society is still functioning.

 

The big news of the “Palin’s daughter is pregnant” story would have been if the family had secretly endorsed an abortion and then tried to cover it up. The fact that Palin is standing with her daughter, encouraging the live birth of her first grandchild and that the young parents face the responsibility of raising the child they made together… together, is merely confirmation to some of us that this woman truly practices what she preaches. :thumb:

 

I wasn't a huge fan of McCain, and was initially disappointed with the selection of Palin, but the more I've gotten to know about her, the more impressed I am with her.

The problem is not neccesarily with the knowledge, but with the "know-how". If you don't know how to use a hammer correctly, the table won't be built and it's no fault of the hammer.

 

Interesting choice for your analogy, Covercorner. :lol:

Interesting choice for your analogy, Covercorner. :lol:

 

:lol::thumb:

These teens know about contraceptives, they just do not use them or maybe something didn't work as hoped.

 

I'm glad McCain chose the way he did, as was stated earlier this is more money thrown down the drain in my mind. In regards to the program calling for mothers to lose their benefits if they stop going to school. Well that seems appropriate. If the young lady isn't in school, then they should be working. Setting it up this way helps to make it more beneficial for the mother to stay in school, rather than landing on welfare in a few years.

Lets all agree that the spending of Federal $$ on sex ed has not accomplished its goal.

 

For those that say we shouldn't spend any $$ on the program are you also saying that any unwed teen who can't afford to raise a child should not get any assistance ie welfare?

Lets all agree that the spending of Federal $$ on sex ed has not accomplished its goal.

 

For those that say we shouldn't spend any $$ on the program are you also saying that any unwed teen who can't afford to raise a child should not get any assistance ie welfare?

 

Limited aid, key word being limited. But I'm all for the aid if she's trying to further her education, to provide better for her child down the road. If she's a student then I understand the need for help with child care, as well as other things that may not be affordable due to lost wages while in school. I still don't like it, but think it's the right thing to do.

Limited aid, key word being limited. But I'm all for the aid if she's trying to further her education, to provide better for her child down the road. If she's a student then I understand the need for help with child care, as well as other things that may not be affordable due to lost wages while in school. I still don't like it, but think it's the right thing to do.

 

What if she's 18 and has no interest in anything more than a high school diploma? Is she on her own?

What if she's 18 and has no interest in anything more than a high school diploma? Is she on her own?

 

What else should we be paying for her?

What else should we be paying for her?

 

"Should" we or "will" we?

 

My point is that we can rail against spending money on sex ed but we're still going to be paying in the form of welfare.

 

If we agree on that then can't we assume that the sex ed is preventing "some" pregnancies and , thus, saving welfare $$? Isn't it simply a matter of which hand we're pulling the $$ from?

edit

What if she's 18 and has no interest in anything more than a high school diploma? Is she on her own?

 

Yup for the most part. If she's choosing to lead a life where she may potentially be paid considerably less due to her education then yes. If she doesn't like it, then go to school, learn a trade. It's not that hard, she still has a choice.

 

I don't mind some aid simply due to the fact that she's 18, however it should be limited, and should be phased out within 2-3 years or so. Maybe more depending on what research suggests would be the appropriate time frame.