GOD HELP THIS COUNRTY!!

[BigStewMan]

perhaps they just want to give their opinion. this obviously isn't a problem-solving medium [for these type of issues].

[BigStewMan]

"Certainly any informed parent simply has to inform the school that they don't want their kid to access the health center for any reason. I fail to see how that is so difficult for people."

Let me shed a little light on the difficulty you mentioned above--Maybe it is because many of us have lost our trust in the people running the schools. when my daughter was in 8th grade, the school requested parental consent for the students to take a sex education class. i reviewed the proposed cirriculum that the school said would be taught. they claimed it would be as abstinence-based platform. that sounded good and so we stupidly agreed. after attending a few classes, she comes home and tells us where she could go in our local community to get an abortion without parental consent, where she could get free birth control, etc...seems like the only abstinence in that program was the school abstaining from telling the parents the truth. We personally witnessed that and I've heard many similar accounts from others in various parts of the country.

you sound like you're getting upset? this is just a place for people to talk.

[mas]

Big Stew Man - -

I thought my post was clear - maybe not. The world is chuck full of complainers, and sadly in short supply of doers. Countless people standing around holding up shovel handles spittin' into the ditch whilst others dig. The easiest thing in the world now is the be "shocked and appalled" by everything. Every word, every action, every deed of "others" is shocking and appalling to the whiners. If people spent less time being shocked and appalled and a bit more time contributing, there'd be a lot less to be shocked and appalled at.

The point of my post was simple. Complaining is easy, cheap and painless. Sure, we all do it from time to time. But, I found it rather curious that not ONE SINGLE person in 3 pages had anything positive to contribute. Not one piece of work they have to show for their viewpoint. Nada. Odd, don't you think? Well, I thought so.

I am NOT saying one must work in these fields to "have an opinion." But you know what opinions are worth right? How about someone having an idea, or an alternative, or a plan, or some actual experience to go along with those opinions? That's what makes an opinion have some power, some weight, some meaning. Obviously, I am asking too much. Please accept my apology there Big Stew Man.

You know, regardless of my opinion, I don't have to trot out a resume of accomplishments or activities. Nor does anyone else! Just as you have not...nor do you have to!

Whether someone is simply responsible enough to 'keep it in their pants' and so not contribute to the problem, or whether they do not have kids which eliminates a load on the system (that they nontheless bear the brunt via paying taxes to support others!), or who have kids who are not experiencing such problems (I guess pure by serendipiuty as they are evidently 'doing nothing'), or via involvement in civic organizations like the Boy/Girl Scouts, Naval Cadets, athletics, or ANY number of other activities in no way reduces their right nor responsibility for having an opinion regarding the proper scope and role of the government in society.

So now I guess the only ones entitled to express an opinion are those who are either active in the community in some manner that directly impacts this issue or who have a kid facing such a dilemma! Fascinating.

Now, don't get me wrong! I do not denigrate the desireability of individual's getting off their posteriors and actually making a real positive contribution! Its funny that when, in a previous thread, that I suggested that those who so loudly claimed to have such strong feelings regarding the issue of animal cruely might want to actually get involved at a local level and actually make a real difference instead of simply boycotting a team that had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue, one of the more erudite members referred to me as a "troll"! (Gee, and I don't even have a bridge...I cried for days thereafter!)

But the difference here is that one needn't have any direct involvement in such programs, by virtue of tax money being used to support such programs. And that ultimately involves everyone!

So, regardless of your opinions regarding the matter or what you are doing in your own community, it does not add to, nor negate, the validity of anyone's opinion, nor their right and responsibility to enter into a debate over what one feels the proper role and scope of government to be.

And as far as "an alternative, or a plan, or some actual experience to go along with those opinions", I find it amazing that, just like how people simply send their kids to school and in doing so absolve themselves of all responsibility for their kids' learning, and expect the teachers to magically impart knowledge to their kids ' mush filled skulls who know more about Sponge Bob than where Chicago is on a map, without the kids having to do any work to learn; that so many think that it is is the school's and the government's job to teach values and do everything except hold both the parents (to the degree that is reasonable) and the kids fundamentally responsible for their actions.

The irony is that I don't have kids and yet I have tried to be involved in far too many activities (to the extent that nowadays a guy without kids is now viewed as some sort of a sexual deviant if they try to become involved!!). But that is superfluous to the issue at hand. The problem exists regardless of what I have or have not done. And I am stil entitled to my opinion regarding the role fo government in society. And I find it raqther interesting that when they so graciously withhold my taxes, no one seems interested in what social activities I participate! Fancy that!

So, since you are worried about public perceptions and contributions, how about explaining how it is my fault that so many kids think the prison tradition of wearing their pants loose around their posteriors that in prison indicates that you are sexually "loose and available", has become such a mainstream cultural event, and that those who oppose such dress in school are now labeled as repressive of an individual's "right" to free speech?

Its nice to see that they have gotten all the way through the alphabet to "right". When are they going to reach "responsibility"? Beginning with EACH INDIVIDUAL.

[BigStewMan]

mdeneen--parents have to stop abdicating and actually do what parents are supposed to do. through discipline, training, and correction--they have a great deal of influence on their kids.

i'm not against education--i just can't think of any problems that are being solved by educating people. unprotected sex puts one at a greater risk of STD--we've been educated up to our ears on that one, and the problem continues to grow. we've been educated relentlessly about everything from sex to nutrition--what has it solved? eduation isn't magic--you can teach a person most anything; but, you can't teach them to WANT to apply what they've learned.

[mas]

mdeneen--parents have to stop abdicating and actually do what parents are supposed to do. through discipline, training, and correction--they have a great deal of influence on their kids.

i'm not against education--i just can't think of any problems that are being solved by educating people. unprotected sex puts one at a greater risk of STD--we've been educated up to our ears on that one, and the problem continues to grow. we've been educated relentlessly about everything from sex to nutrition--what has it solved? eduation isn't magic--you can teach a person most anything; but, you can't teach them to WANT to apply what they've learned.

You know Stew, I can't help but think of another tragic situation in the world today that has affected far too many people including too many friends, and that is HIV/AIDS.

The true irony and tragedy of this disease is that it is not transmitted casually. You don't get it by someone coughing or sneezing or by casual contact. (And I will not even get into the criminality of the folks who have contracted it via Red Cross blood transfusions!!!) But the fact is that we essentially (at least in the US) could have rendered this disease as an historical footnote. All that was required, once we understood the pathology of the disease, was for the high risk groups to act responsibly. To simply not share needles and to keep it in their pants. And this situation has not continued due to lack of education, at least within the gay community! But the result has been a victim class that bemoans our "not doing enough". It's not them, its us! To the point where a behavior driven crisis now takes over the research dollars from diseases that need attention like diabetes.

And the problem STILL continues where the solution is sought in terms of treatment rather then responsible behavior. Despite education! Yeah, but if you only wear a @#$% ribbon. Maybe that ribbon should be more productively applied elsewhere!

Yup, when are THEY going to do something about it...Good question, only I really don't think the real answer lies in the treatment.

And ironically, the root cause of that tragedy is not unlike the same issues that are at the root cause of teen pregnancy and too many other problems. The poblem is a lack of individual responsibility.

Yup, when is the gobermnt going to do something?.....

[oldbuckster]

I did my job as a parent to my children.....................Abstinence was first line of defense.................Both my daughter and son went through high school, and college without becoming parents................had them both work at the lowest paying jobs we could find them for one summer, then explained that's what they would have to look forward to, should they become teenaged parents...............also, if you haven't raised a daughter, a teen-aged daughter, you don't know what your missing.........I have no problem ,NONE, spending money for education.........but to spend money to prevent teen-agers from having babies is not money well spent, and takes the burden of sex education off the parents, and put it on taxpayer is wrong............as far as "safe Sex", that applies to over active ADULTS just as much as kids......again, let's learn to spell,ABSTINENCE...................Oh Yeah, I choose CD's over LP's........................EH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kaiser SET say]

You know what you teach your children, once you/they leave the confines of your home and family it's all smoke and mirrors! Politicians talk a good game but we all know bureaucratic BS stops any forward progress. What your kids do and how they do it before their 18th Birthday sets squarly on the parents shoulders, it's called parenting Everything else is just an excuse! Just because a school is mandated to teach sex ed does not mean they will be good at it or do it right[]

I guess 4 and 6 are too young for my boys to be Eunuch's[]

[Amy]

It's painfully obvious to me that none of you (except Christy, of course) have ever been teenage girls. Blame the parents all you want to, but I'd be willing to bet at least 90% of girls who are sexually active would choose to be so no matter what their parents showed/taught/told them.

[mas]

It's painfully obvious to me that none of you (except Christy, of course) have ever been teenage girls. Blame the parents all you want to, but I'd be willing to bet at least 90% of girls who are sexually active would choose to be so no matter what their parents showed/taught/told them.

Just watch an episode of the Maury Povich "Whose baby is this?" show. (if you can stomach the ignorance and manufactured drama complete with strategically placed commercials!)

But gee whiz, babies give unconditional love and they are so easy to care for! Besides my mom will help me care for it! Right mom?....mom???......................mom?????

Would the government be smarter if they underwrote the giving of every teenage girl a spayed puppy instead of birth control? (And make them keep them for a year! ...Or force them to watch Ellen if they fail to do so?)

[Groomlakearea51]

It's painfully obvious to me that none of you (except Christy, of course) have ever been teenage girls. Blame the parents all you want to, but I'd be willing to bet at least 90% of girls who are sexually active would choose to be so no matter what their parents showed/taught/told them.

It's peer pressure.... Long discussions with our 16 year old daughter. Good kid, but confused and appalled at the behavior of her peers.... We have a solution here... Whenever a boy is coming over, I change into camouflage, grab a headband, run out to the truck, grab an M-16, and start cleaning it on the dining room table.... Boy arrives, comes in, and my wife says, "Don't mind him, the Agent Orange kicks in, but the medicine helps a little bit, Now where are you going with our daughter?" No problems....[6]

[Amy]

The problem is insecurity and self-loathing. That's what needs to be fixed. Teenage promiscuity is just a symptom. Peer-pressure only gets to the ones who are not secure enough to with-stand it.

Parents actually can help in that regard (self-esteem), but preaching abstinence will absolutely not cure that underlying problem, and will not stop the behavior. Neither will providing birth control.

I haven't read all the facts about this program, but has anyone done studies on what effect these hormone pills have on still-growing girls?

[Groomlakearea51]

Would the government be smarter if the underwrote the giving of every teenage girl a spayed puppy instead of birth control? (And make them keep them for a year! ...Or force them to watch Ellen if they fail to do so?)

Well... they tried something similar in middle school... gave all the girls a doll that cried if they did not "feed it" every 2 hours, etc. Besides getting the point real quick, my daughter was also reminded of the tylaxia (the drooling from hell syndrome) problem my wife had as well as the fact that my wife was in the hospital several times because of dehydration from being pregnant with her brother. What really clinched the deal was my daughter was in the room at the hospital (albeit in the corner, without a view to the scene of the birth...) when her brother was born. What with the screaming, pain, agony, death threats ("if you even think about this again I'll kill you" comes to mind...) I think my daughter is sufficiently well armed to avoid sex until she's married. That, plus the whole thing about me going on a date with her in the back seat with the wolf (yah, that one..) and a large assault weapon....[6]

Now that's a thought, make every teenage girl attend a live birth.... Huhm... I'll bet the statistics change real fast....

[Groomlakearea51]

The problem is insecurity and self-loathing. That's what needs to be fixed. Teenage promiscuity is just a symptom. Peer-pressure only gets to the ones who are not secure enough to with-stand it.

Parents actually can help in that regard (self-esteem), but preaching abstinence will absolutely not cure that underlying problem, and will not stop the behavior. Neither will providing birth control.

I haven't read all the facts about this program, but has anyone done studies on what effect these hormone pills have on still-growing girls?

To some degree. Peer pressure can be strong. You are correct. Self esteem comes from a feeling, or a certainty that they are valued, and are loved. That can only be done with a certain, sure and absolute commitment by the parents.

The pills can, at the least, cause weight problems, according to the physicians with whom I've spoken (it's prescribed for serious acne). Our pediatrician absolutely does not recommend any such prescriptions unless there is some real valid medical reason. NOT good for girls between the ages ofpuberty and about 17-18. Others might chime in here on that.

[Amy]

The pill actually has a wide-array of side effects for mature women, so there must be some additional dangers for girls who have not matured.

The media is partially to blame for the self-esteem problems we have today as well. Parents can only do so much against the images on TV, magazines, etc, which are very, very powerful, and designed to be so. It's a difficult thing to combat when it's in their faces every day. Girls are told it's ok if you're not skinny/tan/beautiful/tall...but the message they see from the media is..."no,sorry, it's not ok, and you should buy this to do something about it." It's a very confusing dichotomy for teenagers.

[dkp]

"You mentioned my imagination in your initial reply. Perhaps you should expand yours a bit as where there is a will, there is often a way, especially when young hormones are at play. Example: School sends home permission slip w/all children in the district for parents to authorize the school to treat their child. List of services is mentioned. Parent figures, "well, if Suzie falls down on the playground, I would like for the school to treat her scraped up knees." Parent signs form with the intent of utilizing a PORTION of the services listed. Suzie seeks birth control from the school and can receive it without the specific consent and knowledge of her parent(s). Back to my original question: How does this fall under the scope of responsibility for the school? I do not believe that you have answered this."

Yes, we can invent any number of byzantine examples where "things go wrong." Happens all the time regardless of the best intentions. If you need agreement on that, I agree. If you think that is typical however, we disagree. I haven't found the parents I know to be that naive. No system is perfect - not even the most highly restrictive ones. How does it fall under the responsibility of the school? Most likely because all other responsible parties have failed. That system had 17 pregnancies and countless abortions and miscarriages. Clearly whomever was "responsible" before wasn't doing a very good job. Why not schools? When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutten replied, "Because that's where the money is." Kids are in school every day, it's a logical place to try such a program if it's needed. Certainly any informed parent simply has to inform the school that they don't want their kid to access the health center for any reason. I fail to see how that is so difficult for people.

So you are saying that it falls under the responsibility of the school because all other responsible parties have failed? I wonder, does this argument have a boundary? What other societal ills should be shifted to the schools? What about other government agencies? Should they exceed their charter because other parties are failing as well?

"I may be a bit off in my history, but I believe that most of the examples you cited were either legal or illegal but not both legal and illegal at the same time. I'm not sure how you glean the notion that I may be simply against all reform by my statements thus far. I have stated my position as being against this particular reform, which is a far cry from all reform. I take issue with the government telling its citizenry that drugs are bad, not good for you, etc etc etc and then providing a place to shoot up. Seems to be a contradiction, don't you think?"

I think I described it to you clearly. I don't see any contradictions in what I described. As for the fact you take issue with the government "saying one thing" then doing another, are you kidding me or what? If you are somehow stumped by that, or have no understanding of that, then we will be talking past each other and all I can say is we can't communicate.

Well, I suppose we will be unable to communicate then as I expect the government to say one thing and then do it. What good are laws given by a government and then allowed to simultaneously be broken? If you are somehow stumped by that, I'm at a loss.

But in the bigger picture, I think you are truly missing the whole point of both programs. You appear to be completely tied in knots regarding PROCESS - permission slips misused - laws misapplied - contradictions of laws, and so on, and you are unwilling to talk about the OUTCOMES that are being sought - the purpose of the program. The purposes of these programs are not to serve some version of the Law, they are to serve some societal need. Frankly, what process they use locally, is less important here than whether or not the programs work, or don't work, or improve the situation or not.

Why do I assume you are against reform? Because you are totally balled up in the process argument. That's how anti-reformists argue everything - from a legalistic and process POV. "You can't do that because we never have done that before," is the classic anti-reform argument through all of history. As though some "process" in the universe were permanent and fixed and unchangeable.

I've been more than fair to answer all of your process-related questions multiple times. You've yet to answer my simple question, nor has anyone else, which is precisely what I anticipated when I asked it very tongue in cheek. So, I now return you to your regularly scheduled gripe sessions.

I may be wrong, but I believe that this thread was started with the intention of discussing the PROCESS and not the outcome of the situation, as I'm sure that Gilbert (I apologize if I am speaking out of turn, Gilbert) is not a fan of teenage, or pre-teenage, pregnancy. This thread was opened to display dismay at the process that this particular school district is going about in their attempt to reduce teenage pregnancies. I would be more than happy to discuss with you my views on reducing teenage pregnancies, but that was not the intent of this thread and we don't want to hijack it, do we?

I do a number of things in an attempt to "do my part" in our local community and my immediate family. Your insistence on getting an answer to this question is intriguing. I hope this is helpful to you.

I vote and pay taxes. I vote for people/parties who I believe that I am most closely aligned with in my personal views (both morally and financially). Besides working full-time in the financial field, I am the Sr. High Youth Director at our church. I teach the Sr. High Sunday school class. I talk to my students on the telephone more days than not. These students are at my home frequently and I counsel them on things too numerous to mention. However, my life is focused on my immediate family. My wife homeschools our three daughters as we believe that is the best learning and moral environment for them. I see the kids in my group becoming sexually active at an increasingly young age which concerns me greatly, for a number of reasons.

-David

[dkp]

The problem is insecurity and self-loathing. That's what needs to be fixed. Teenage promiscuity is just a symptom. Peer-pressure only gets to the ones who are not secure enough to with-stand it.

Parents actually can help in that regard (self-esteem), but preaching abstinence will absolutely not cure that underlying problem, and will not stop the behavior. Neither will providing birth control.

I haven't read all the facts about this program, but has anyone done studies on what effect these hormone pills have on still-growing girls?

Amy,

I believe that you are right on the money with your statement(s) above. I believe that a key to a young girl's self-esteem lies in her relationship with her father. Here's what I mean: When she is young, the father generally dotes on "daddy's little girl" and provides her with a plethora of attention, physical and other. (by physical I mean hugs, kisses and the like) However, as "daddy's little girl" becomes older and starts to mature, her body develops and daddy is naturally a tad more reluctant (I'm speaking in generalities) to provide his daughter with the same amount of attention as he has in previous years. This is especially true as her body begins to develop. So you begin to see a hole develop in her life where she used to receive love and attention from her father and a need to replace this. The lower her self-esteem, the lower her standards generally are when selecting the person to fill that gap. It is tough to see this happen before your eyes, but, unfortunately, is a story repeated over and over. I see this sort of thing all the time. A teenage girl requires a tremendous amount of attention. This is not the only thing happening, and there are certainly many variables to this equation, IMHO.

-David

[dkp]

"So you are saying that it falls under the responsibility of the school because all other responsible parties have failed? I wonder, does this argument have a boundary? What other societal ills should be shifted to the schools? What about other government agencies? Should they exceed their charter because other parties are failing as well?"

I am saying that the schools are a logical place for the responsibility to fall in light of the failure of other programs or parties, yes. The evidence of failure is clear. I certainly am not saying it is the exclusive place for the responsibility to fall.

Boundaries? I don't have a need to define a set of specific boundaries for schools. Is football and baseball ok? Is metal shop ok? Industrial arts? Acting? Home economics? Sex Ed? Drivers Ed? Basket weaving? Band? Chess club? Chemistry? Advanced Calculus? I think I am open to getting the best results we can from education based on what we need to get from it to move the society forward. It's just a tool. I am not afraid of it. I am not conceiving of some rigid boundaries that are applicable to all people at all times in all places. If we can improve the tool, extend and improve it's use, by all means let's do that.

Should charters expand? Well, they certainly should were it makes sense to do so. Likewise shrinking is fine too where the problems are solved.

"Well, I suppose we will be unable to communicate then as I expect the government to say one thing and then do it. What good are laws given by a government and then allowed to simultaneously be broken? If you are somehow stumped by that, I'm at a loss."

Well then we shall both be stumped. I believe I have a reasonable grasp on how reform is historically achieved, and this contradiction of laws and jurisdictions, with the attending judicial case law that results, is a part of that history. I suppose I could give many more examples, but they would divert considerably from the two issues present already in the thread, so I will accept the impasse. Sometimes communications simply isn't possible.

"I may be wrong, but I believe that this thread was started with the intention of discussing the PROCESS and not the outcome of the situation, as I'm sure that Gilbert (I apologize if I am speaking out of turn, Gilbert) is not a fan of teenage, or pre-teenage, pregnancy."

Actually, I looked at the very first post, and it is not clear at all to me that there was some intent to discuss the process. In fact, to the contrary the post says, "No explination needed." I am not a fan of teenage pregnancy either. So, we all have differing views about that, but I saw no intent to only discuss process.

"This thread was opened to display dismay at the process that this particular school district is going about in their attempt to reduce teenage pregnancies. I would be more than happy to discuss with you my views on reducing teenage pregnancies, but that was not the intent of this thread and we don't want to hijack it, do we?"

Again, look at the opening post. I suppose it would be shrill of me to point out that once again, you are really hung up on the PROCESS - but this time it's the process of what is or is not the right and acceptable comments to make in this thread. It's just a public thread, no? I fail to see Gilbert's rules anywhere for responding to it.

"I do a number of things in an attempt to "do my part" in our local community and my immediate family. Your insistence on getting an answer to this question is intriguing. I hope this is helpful to you. I vote and pay taxes. I vote for people/parties who I believe that I am most closely aligned with in my personal views (both morally and financially). Besides working full-time in the financial field, I am the Sr. High Youth Director at our church. I teach the Sr. High Sunday school class. I talk to my students on the telephone more days than not. These students are at my home frequently and I counsel them on things too numerous to mention. However, my life is focused on my immediate family. My wife homeschools our three daughters as we believe that is the best learning and moral environment for them. I see the kids in my group becoming sexually active at an increasingly young age which concerns me greatly, for a number of reasons."

Ok, so here you have chosen home schooling - good for you! But does that help the folks in Maine dealing with their problems? I can't see how. So for you, home schooling was the answer. Maybe some people can't do that for a whole range of reasons. Should they be denied a solution that works for them because you don't happen to like it? Don't get me wrong here - - I've no concern that your OPINION, or the opinion of a dozen others was simply to put down that solution - that's not what interests me one iota. What interests me is the lack of interesting reasoning, the lack of alternatives, the lack of any direct contradictory evidence and so on. I was merely interested in making the subject fuller than simply people flinging automatic put downs. You have your interests, I have mine.

Well, you should have been more specific in your original question. You asked what we, who were critical of the school district in Maine, were doing ourselves to prevent teenage pregnancies. Perhaps you should have asked us what we are doing to help those who live in Maine since you clearly are uninterested in what I am doing in my local community. I could have saved myself some time and simply answered, "nothing." lol

I'm sure that you are well versed in how our government has conducted business in years past. I believe that there is a process by which laws and behaviors are changed. I believe that rules and laws should be followed. I believe that there is a proper procedure for reforming things that need to be reformed. However, the fly in the ointment for me is when governmental agencies overstep their bounds and do not follow that very process that they created, especially when they meander outside the scope of the Constitution. Being results oriented, I'm sure you have no problem then with the FBI bypassing proper search warrants and getting results, rather than following procedure? I can't imagine this not logically following your argument for results and outcomes and that procedures do not matter. Or am I way off here?

EDIT: And if you complain about the FBI obtaining evidence without following proper procedures, do you then complain about it locally? And if you do, how then would you reply to a very similar set of questions that you asked in this very thread. That is, what are you doing to help the FBI reduce crime, and not in your area, mind you, but in the area in which they conducted said warrant(s)?

-David

[Groomlakearea51]

I've read and re-read the thread. The first post evokes: "What are those folks on that school board thinking?" Consider the high school that a couple years ago passed out condoms to all of the kids when they arrived for the prom... I see this as akin to "well, the pot's boiling, let's get rags to clean up the water", as opposed to turning off the burner..... Simplistic? yes, but the mechanics of the best solutions as to turn that burner off is the complex challenge that involves morality, ethics, politics, etc.

[Brac]

You are all looking at this all wrong. See here in Maine the law makers refuse to pass Jessica's Law. They don't think pedophiles are criminals. So if we are going to help the peds stay free, to look for young children, then it's only right that we be sure the children won't get preg. by them. I mean it's all for the peds.

Maine launches new phrase. The use of " for the children" is now banned. Replace with "for the pedophile"

[dkp]

To DKP:

Looks like you haven't read my posts carefully enough.

1. Of course I was interested in anything people do locally. I even commended you for home schooling.

2. I am choosing not to expand my end of the discussion into all those FBI issues for obvious reasons of trying to respect Amy's wish of non-political discussion. And, it isn't necessary to my make my point.

Reform comes about in many ways. There is a range running from violent revolution, to civil disobedience and all the way up to strict procedural doctrines. We are no doubt on different spots along that continuum. That's ok with me, is it ok with you?

mdeneen,

I have read your posts thoroughly.

1) You asked a question, I answered and then you changed the scope of the question.

2) We've been discussing political issues since the beginning of the thread. Gently, no name calling or any of the negativity that so often accompanies this sort of thread. I'm curious as to why you elect to stop now?

If my assumption is correct, then you are stuck which is why you are ending our discussion. To summarize then, because you are results oriented and frown upon those who rigidly follow procedure(s) you would then be in favor of one governmental agency overstepping it's charter in order to combat one social ill (teenage, or pre-teenage pregnancy), but against another governmental agency overstepping it's charter to combat another social ill (crime). If I am way off, please correct me.

It is okay with me that we are on different points of the continuum. No hard feelings or any ill will. I wish you and yours the best and an absolutely wonderful weekend.