N.C.: Program Pays $1/Day to Girls For Not Getting Pregnant

[kokonut]

Posts #28, 29, 39, 50, 77, 90, and 91. Also evidenced by your refusal to answer why you aren't promoting the same sort of incentive for boys to keep their penis in their pants.

My, my, my....still insecure over the $1 thing?




Post 28 - first line of defense for girls is to say "no" rather than risk pregnancy. You CANNOT get any simpler than that. Unless you are saying, Jillio, that this shouldn't be an option for girls to have??

Post 29 - talks about the program and how it helps girls to be independent thinkers. Unless you are saying that girls should not learn to be responsible and make critical decisions on their own??

Post 39 - I bascially re-iterated post #28. Again, you seem to be objecting that girls should not have the option to say "No" which is really their first line of defense against pregnacy. After all it is they who risk getting pregnant. Completely understable if they choose not to risk that. Do you?


Post 50 - I clarified here further.

"First line of defense, a girl says "No."
Second line of defense if sex is decided by both is to have protected sex but even that is not a 100% guarantee that pregnancy."

"...no means no, and not "Yes, I want to have sex." If she says, "Yes" then responsibility falls on them both the girl and boy."

There are two possible decisions here. Either the girl says "no" to sex, or if both decides to have sex then protected sex would be the best option in reducing the risk for pregnancy. Unless you are saying of course that this decision process is wrong and irresponsible?? Seems like it.

Post 77 - Basically a re-iteration of post #50. I also clarified again.

"If she so *decides* to have sex, then she should understand the potential risk (as well as her partner) weighed against wanting to go to college "unecumbered." That is, both share the responsibility of sex.

Post 90 - Makes a point about self-esteem. You seem to have a problem for girls to have greater self-esteem and self-reliance when it comes whether one wants to have sex or not?

"Learning to say "no" or learning to make crucial and critical decisions regarding to having sex is a message of self-esteem, greater responsibility and self-reliance. Nobody, especially teen girls, should feel the pressure to have sex.

Post 91 - talks about responsibility of sex falls on both boy and girl. It also talks about that the girl does have the option to say "No" to have sex. Seems like you are somehow advocating that a girl's first decision (e.g. first line of defense) shouldn't include the word "no" when it comes to sex??? What you want her to say, Jillio? Yes to having sex? What exactly your message on the girls' part when it comes to deciding on sex? Especially if they have the desire on wanting to go to college, presumably so unencumbered.


"If *both* decide to have sex and the teenage girl gets pregnant then *both* female and male teens are equally responsible for the pregnancy result. And not just the teenage girl. That's been made clear numerous times in this thread. I have three girls, one is 15 soon to be 16. I encourage my oldest daughter to think critically and think ahead first should she ever decide to have sex and risk pregnancy. She is very college bound and seeks to work in the legal field someday. It's a simple matter of whether she wants to risk the chance to ruin or delay going to college because she decided to have sex or that she abstain and reap the opportunity of going to college unecumbered. It's about thinking critically and using common sense.


Hey, I'd rather have my girls be critical of their own decision process as far as consequences go, especially if they want to go to college someday. It's better to fear getting pregnant for the chance to go to college unencumbered. Don't you agree? So, who is the better person to say, "no" first when approached the decision to have sex or not?

Right.

 

[kokonut]

Now, Jillio. If you do not like this program and think it's a failure then you are more than welcomed to do something about it and set up a program for girls who are college bound.

My question to you. What would your advice be to girls about sex and pregnancy if they have a goal to go to college in 3 or 4 years from now?

At least this woman nurse did something on her own initiative to start a program to help college bound girls make it through high school without getting pregnant. That alone deserves kudos. You are way, way too hung up on this $1 deal. It's pretty apparent. Let it go. Let it go and take a deep, deep breath! Be encouraged that most of these girls in that program are making it so far to see their goals realized and not get pregnant.

 

[jillio]

I'm talking about taking AA courses while in high school. Not sure where you going with the post-secondary school spiel.

Students can also take BA and BS credits while in high school under the post secondary option program. Much more useful, actually than AA credits.

The point I am making is that you cannot compare the post secondary option program, which is based on reward for exceptional achievement academically, to a bribe for not getting pregnant.

 

[jillio]

My, my, my....still insecure over the $1 thing?




Post 28 - first line of defense for girls is to say "no" rather than risk pregnancy. You CANNOT get any simpler than that. Unless you are saying, Jillio, that this shouldn't be an option for girls to have??

Post 29 - talks about the program and how it helps girls to be independent thinkers. Unless you are saying that girls should not learn to be responsible and make critical decisions on their own??

Post 39 - I bascially re-iterated post #28. Again, you seem to be objecting that girls should not have the option to say "No" which is really their first line of defense against pregnacy. After all it is they who risk getting pregnant. Completely understable if they choose not to risk that. Do you?


Post 50 - I clarified here further.

"First line of defense, a girl says "No."
Second line of defense if sex is decided by both is to have protected sex but even that is not a 100% guarantee that pregnancy."

"...no means no, and not "Yes, I want to have sex." If she says, "Yes" then responsibility falls on them both the girl and boy."

There are two possible decisions here. Either the girl says "no" to sex, or if both decides to have sex then protected sex would be the best option in reducing the risk for pregnancy. Unless you are saying of course that this decision process is wrong and irresponsible?? Seems like it.

Post 77 - Basically a re-iteration of post #50. I also clarified again.

"If she so *decides* to have sex, then she should understand the potential risk (as well as her partner) weighed against wanting to go to college "unecumbered." That is, both share the responsibility of sex.

Post 90 - Makes a point about self-esteem. You seem to have a problem for girls to have greater self-esteem and self-reliance when it comes whether one wants to have sex or not?

"Learning to say "no" or learning to make crucial and critical decisions regarding to having sex is a message of self-esteem, greater responsibility and self-reliance. Nobody, especially teen girls, should feel the pressure to have sex.

Post 91 - talks about responsibility of sex falls on both boy and girl. It also talks about that the girl does have the option to say "No" to have sex. Seems like you are somehow advocating that a girl's first decision (e.g. first line of defense) shouldn't include the word "no" when it comes to sex??? What you want her to say, Jillio? Yes to having sex? What exactly your message on the girls' part when it comes to deciding on sex? Especially if they have the desire on wanting to go to college, presumably so unencumbered.


"If *both* decide to have sex and the teenage girl gets pregnant then *both* female and male teens are equally responsible for the pregnancy result. And not just the teenage girl. That's been made clear numerous times in this thread. I have three girls, one is 15 soon to be 16. I encourage my oldest daughter to think critically and think ahead first should she ever decide to have sex and risk pregnancy. She is very college bound and seeks to work in the legal field someday. It's a simple matter of whether she wants to risk the chance to ruin or delay going to college because she decided to have sex or that she abstain and reap the opportunity of going to college unecumbered. It's about thinking critically and using common sense.


Hey, I'd rather have my girls be critical of their own decision process as far as consequences go, especially if they want to go to college someday. It's better to fear getting pregnant for the chance to go to college unencumbered. Don't you agree? So, who is the better person to say, "no" first when approached the decision to have sex or not?

Right.

Not insecure in the least. And your explanation only further illustrates your sexist and distorted viewpoint. Thanks for the confirmation, although it really wasn't needed. You have already made your perspective quite clear.:roll:

If you want girls to go to college unencumbered, then I suggest you support comprehensive programs that teach them what they need to know to protect themselves...not try to bribe them with a $1.00 and deflect responsiblity from where it should be placed.

Still not answering the question regarding why it is that you don't promote such a program for the teen males. Yep, sexist through and through.

 

[Babyblue]

Please post the specific comments I said. I know what I wrote. You simply read it wrong.

Again, please post my comments where I said or implied that idea. I've already clarified my comments several times.

I'll be waiting...

People are actually, funnily enough, more upset over the $1 thing than not in this thread. Somehow they seem perfectly content that a pregnant teens get her welfare money from the state at an exhorbitant cost to taxpayers, not to mention the added stress psychologically, emotionally and physically.

I know, what I have read. And you know, what you wrote.

 

[Hwy99]

I think this program are the most foolish I ever seen in my life. It's like "I am not doing the drugs! Pay me!".

I hope this program don't teach the girls that if they don't get in trouble, they earn the money. They have to learn it on their own, JMO.

 

[jillio]

I think this program are the most foolish I ever seen in my life. It's like "I am not doing the drugs! Pay me!".

I hope this program don't teach the girls that if they don't get in trouble, they earn the money. They have to learn it on their own, JMO.

Yep. Should have been posted in Strange and Stupid News.:P

 

[Hwy99]

Yep. Should have been posted in Strange and Stupid News.:P

Agree!

 

[kokonut]

I think this program are the most foolish I ever seen in my life. It's like "I am not doing the drugs! Pay me!".

I hope this program don't teach the girls that if they don't get in trouble, they earn the money. They have to learn it on their own, JMO.

Not quite the same. Nice try but it's not really the same thing. Yet in the age of massive, massive welfare thought mentality when it comes to obnoxious entitlement this program shouldn't bother anybody. Right? What's the difference? No big deal, eh? If one gets pregnant the state govt will pay for everything. Nice incentives to get pregnant and back up plan that has little to with being responsible. Women and teen girls do purposely get pregnant because the incentives and entitlements are there in the first place provided by the state (ergo by tax payers). Maybe it's time to remove that welfare support and force both sexes to be accountable for their action then? And perhaps that alone would be enough to think twice about having sex?

Again, ya'll are twisting yourselves unnecesarily into a knot over a $1/day deal. Be thankful that the program was able to produce teens who were able to think independently, criticallly and be accountable only to themselves. Else, without the help they probably would have never gotten to college. A step in the right direction. But people here sounds more like they'd be content in seeing that this doesn't happen. And that's a shame.

 

[Jolie77]

First line of defense, a girl says "No."
Second line of defense if sex is decided by both is to have protected sex but even that is not a 100% guarantee that pregnancy.

This paragraph caught my attention.

I'm not out on to you for anything but this came across me and there are some things that raised my curiosity to ask you this - Why do you think the first line of defense begins with a girl?

We all of course know that it takes 2 to tango but why does the first line of defense have to begin with a girl? Couldn't the first line of defense begin with a boy too?

What I mean is - Sure, girls spread their legs wide open and have the boy entering her but then again, all the speculation also begins with the boy too since the boy could be aware of NOT to enter in her in the first place.

Supposedly, If there was a girl that asked a boy to have sex; Wouldn't that make it any different when it comes to the first line of the defense?

 

[Babyblue]

This paragraph caught my attention.

I'm not out on to you for anything but this came across me and there are some things that raised my curiosity to ask you this - Why do you think the first line of defense begins with a girl?

We all of course know that it takes 2 to tango but why does the first line of defense have to begin with a girl? Couldn't the first line of defense begin with a boy too?

What I mean is - Sure, girls spread their legs wide open and have the boy entering her but then again, all the speculation also begins with the boy too since the boy could be aware of NOT to enter in her in the first place.

Supposedly, If there was a girl that asked a boy to have sex; Wouldn't that make it any different when it comes to the first line of the defense?

By George! some one else sees it!!! It was not just me reading it wrong!!
It is how it was written!



Jolie!!

 

[kokonut]

This paragraph caught my attention.

I'm not out on to you for anything but this came across me and there are some things that raised my curiosity to ask you this - Why do you think the first line of defense begins with a girl?

We all of course know that it takes 2 to tango but why does the first line of defense have to begin with a girl? Couldn't the first line of defense begin with a boy too?

What I mean is - Sure, girls spread their legs wide open and have the boy entering her but then again, all the speculation also begins with the boy too since the boy could be aware of NOT to enter in her in the first place.

Supposedly, If there was a girl that asked a boy to have sex; Wouldn't that make it any different when it comes to the first line of the defense?

You, as a girl, has a boyfriend. You, as a girl, have your sights on to go to college and are making headways. Your boyfriend want to have sex with you. Do you let him decide for you to have sex or not?

 

[jillio]

The money isn't being paid not to have sex. The money is being paid not to get pregnant. I know that men love to pretend that they are so virile that just getting close to them results in pregnancy every time, but try to be realistic here.

 

[Jolie77]

You, as a girl, has a boyfriend. You, as a girl, have your sights on to go to college and are making headways. Your boyfriend want to have sex with you. Do you let him decide for you to have sex or not?

First of all, That decision will be made by me, myself and I. If I want to have sex, I'll decide that for myself.

You as a boy have a girlfriend - Do you let the girl decide for you to have sex too or not?

The point is - No matter how trivial it is; I say, the first line of defense goes to BOTH, the girl and the boy. Of course, It's just how I see it that way.

 

[kokonut]

First of all, That decision will be made by me, myself and I. If I want to have sex, I'll decide that for myself.

You as a boy have a girlfriend - Do you let the girl decide for you to have sex too or not?

The point is - No matter how trivial it is; I say, the first line of defense goes to BOTH, the girl and the boy. Of course, It's just how I see it that way.

You made my point very clear. Since you bear the burden in risking pregnancy. It stops right there. Therefore, no further risk.

If a girl ask me to have sex (that is you saying ok for sex) and she already made up her mind and accepts the risk of pregnancy. If you get pregnant despite preventative measures the fault equally falls on you and me. But you already lost your dream of going to college (assuming you bear this pregnancy to term). You have much more to lose, rather than the boy. So, what are the chances of that boy bailing out once he hears you got pregnant? Either the boy own up to his words or be a coward. So, in order to preserve you dream of going to college and not risk getting pregnant you first line of defense to that dream is say no to sexual intercourse that would guarantee 100% no pregnancy will happen. That's what I meant by first line of defense. Nothing sexist about it. If YOU want to take charge of your destiny of going to college then it's all up to you to ensure that.

 

[Hwy99]

Not quite the same. Nice try but it's not really the same thing. Yet in the age of massive, massive welfare thought mentality when it comes to obnoxious entitlement this program shouldn't bother anybody. Right? What's the difference? No big deal, eh? If one gets pregnant the state govt will pay for everything. Nice incentives to get pregnant and back up plan that has little to with being responsible. Women and teen girls do purposely get pregnant because the incentives and entitlements are there in the first place provided by the state (ergo by tax payers). Maybe it's time to remove that welfare support and force both sexes to be accountable for their action then? And perhaps that alone would be enough to think twice about having sex?

Again, ya'll are twisting yourselves unnecesarily into a knot over a $1/day deal. Be thankful that the program was able to produce teens who were able to think independently, criticallly and be accountable only to themselves. Else, without the help they probably would have never gotten to college. A step in the right direction. But people here sounds more like they'd be content in seeing that this doesn't happen. And that's a shame.

It's the same thing, dear. I am ex-addict and recovered from it without anybody paying me except me paying off others who I owe to and with full of emotionally due to the withdrawal moods. I don't complain that they don't pay me to be sober, I am very proud for.... MYSELF. Not being pride of what I earn from being sober, but what I can do for myself and how others look at me.

Those adult women worked so hard to keep their children feeded, to be educated, and to have a home, when those children become adult, they can be the new benefit for the world. That's why the government support the poor families more than any.

I don't see any point for the girls who have supports from parents to earn money for to not be impregant. If they never have a baby, that's great and they should just continue focus on their life like going to school, maybe get a new job during the summers, etc. Because those are the reality. People don't pay people for being good, they pay for what they can do for others.

 

[shel90]

It's the same thing, dear. I am ex-addict and recovered from it without anybody paying me except me paying off others who I owe to and with full of emotionally due to the withdrawal moods. I don't complain that they don't pay me to be sober, I am very proud for.... MYSELF. Not being pride of what I earn from being sober, but what I can do for myself and how others look at me.

Those adult women worked so hard to keep their children feeded, to be educated, and to have a home, when those children become adult, they can be the new benefit for the world. That's why the government support the poor families more than any.

I don't see any point for the girls who have supports from parents to earn money for to not be impregant. If they never have a baby, that's great and they should just continue focus on their life like going to school, maybe get a new job during the summers, etc. Because those are the reality. People don't pay people for being good, they pay for what they can do for others.

What a damn Puyo!!!

 

[Jiro]

Those adult women worked so hard to keep their children feeded, to be educated, and to have a home, when those children become adult, they can be the new benefit for the world. That's why the government support the poor families more than any.

like Obama

 

[Babyblue]

What a damn Puyo!!!

I agree!

Never realized, he had it in him!

Good Job Puyo!

 

[kokonut]

It's the same thing, dear. I am ex-addict and recovered from it without anybody paying me except me paying off others who I owe to and with full of emotionally due to the withdrawal moods. I don't complain that they don't pay me to be sober, I am very proud for.... MYSELF. Not being pride of what I earn from being sober, but what I can do for myself and how others look at me.

Those adult women worked so hard to keep their children feeded, to be educated, and to have a home, when those children become adult, they can be the new benefit for the world. That's why the government support the poor families more than any.

I don't see any point for the girls who have supports from parents to earn money for to not be impregant. If they never have a baby, that's great and they should just continue focus on their life like going to school, maybe get a new job during the summers, etc. Because those are the reality. People don't pay people for being good, they pay for what they can do for others.

Sorry. I disagree. It's not quite the same thing. The only thing similiar is that in both situations self-esteem and confidence are the results over time. That's about it.