“Does it please Thee, O God, to deliver into the hands of these beasts the defenseless children whom I have nourished with Thy Love?” - St. Clare of Assisi

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

More Condoms Needed!

OK. These smarty pants UN loving types seem to love two things: condoms and funding. They love talking about condoms, they love funding condoms, they love the idea of passing them out to kids. And getting mad cash to do it.

I actually think their love of condoms is directly inversely proportional to their love of actual humans. And they love their condoms.

So a new study comes out indicating that young people experience a 25% higher rate of contraceptive failure than adults. Shock! Kids don't know what they're doing. Who'd a thunk it?

A new study of women’s contraceptive use around the world finds that sexually active 15–19-year-olds are more likely than their 20–49-year-old counterparts to use contraceptives inconsistently and, on average, experience a 25% higher rate of contraceptive failure.
So what's the answer? Guess?

Yes! You guessed it. MOOOOOOOORRRRRE funding for MOOOOOOORRRRRRRE CONDOMS!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this science? Do scientists often say, "Hmmm. Nothing we're doing is achieving the desired result. Let's do it more and see what happens."

One of the main reasons that the study gives for birth control not working effectively is that young people are just so darn fertile. Well what amount of funding is going to change that?

In their gobbledygook smartypants way they use to try to make what they're saying less absurd they say that they think a wee bit more money will do the trick nicely even though it hasn't worked yet:
Blanc and colleagues observe that the rising proportion of young women practicing contraception, coupled with global trends toward staying in school longer and delaying childbearing, have created a greater demand for comprehensive contraceptive services. The authors believe that meeting the contraceptive needs of young people will only become harder as the global population of adolescents increases. They conclude that meeting this expanded need will require greater investments in improving the quality of health systems, as well as in instituting targeted programs and policies aimed at increasing young people’s knowledge of and access to contraceptive services.
You've got to love these folks. If everyone were using them correctly (and those darn kids weren't so darn fertile) and teen pregnancy rates went down they'd say their plans are working so they need more funding. But when they don't work they say that's obviously an indication they need more funding.

In the real world, the guy who's not getting the job done gets shown the door. They don't get a raise.

But the question remains. Why then are they all about the birth control? The CMR Investigative Team did a little snooping around. The study was done by a group called Engender Health. What? You don't know them. Well, maybe you might know them by their former name "The Sterilization League of New Jersey" which was a pro-eugenics group. It's purpose, according to Wikipedia was "to aid in the preparation, promotion, enactment and enforcement of legislative measures designed to provide for the improvement of the human stock by the selective sterilization of the mentally defective and of those afflicted with inherited or inheritable physical disease."

They then changed their name to the "Sterilization League For Human Betterment" which advocated eugenics and forced sterilizations. After the Nazis were defeated eugenics wasn't really cool anymore so they changed their name yet again and again.
But it seems that they're still up to their old tricks. They just have better p.r. now.

In 2002, EngenderHealth was awarded the United Nations Population Award for its "contribution to family planning and reproductive health care in resource-poor countries." Because of this, Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared July 1, 2002, as "EngenderHealth Day" in New York City.

Who'd a thunk that a group that was begun by eugenicists would support massive amounts of birth control for people in third world countries? Hmmm...

Your Ad Here

32 comments:

Meg said...

Maybe it should be "endanger" health, not engender????

Robert said...

After reading your post, I read the wikipedia article on EngenderHealth.
I find it ironic as hell that the organization was once funded by the inventor of the Dixie Cup.

Anonymous said...

Why the obsession with condoms and youth? Who are these adults that think of nothing but minors and condoms? A little Michael Jacksonesque, if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

Isn't doing the same thing and expecting a different result one of the signs of madness?

scripturelink said...

Haven't read it all yet- but seems at first glance- another brilliant article by Matthew Archbold;)!!!!!!!!

Heather said...

"The authors believe that meeting the contraceptive needs of young people will only become harder as the global population of adolescents increases."
Where is this increase coming from if we keep aborting the next generation? Rather ironic if you ask me.

William said...

Heather, it might be coming from the Internet and television demanding those of us that remain to get more and more sexually active to make up the difference.

Anonymous said...

Do you know what you call a father whose daughter has only received abstinence education?

Grandpa.

The answer to inconsistent use of birth control by young people is not to ridicule birth control.

Teens have sex, they have always had sex, and they will always have sex. The drive to procreate is as strong as the drive for food and shelter.

I say this as the father of a daughter. The odds are 50/50 that she'll have sex before she's married, and I'm not willing to risk having a grandchild or a daughter with an STD on a coin flip.

I also say this as a resident of a state with one of the highest levels of teenage pregnancy in the nation, a state that is also prominent in the Bible belt. I pass 4 churches on my 5 minute drive to Walmart. Take that as you will.

I might also add, on another note, that my soon-to-be-published letter to the editor of the local statewide paper states that it is hypocritical in the extreme to be both pro-life and anti-public health care.

In both cases we kill children because it's more convenient and less costly than caring for them.

matthew archbold said...

I understand. You don't want to be punished with a baby.

Brian Walden said...

"Teens have sex, they have always had sex, and they will always have sex. The drive to procreate is as strong as the drive for food and shelter."

Odds don't trump free-will. It's not like you accidentally fall into sex while you're walking down the street. To throw up your hands and say teens will have sex nomatter what is to deny free will. Why do we expect adults to have a morally responsible sex life but kids we expect to go fornicate when whenever they have the slightest urge? Maybe you expect our youth to be philanderers and whores - I don't. I hold them to the same standard as anyone else.

Mr. H. said...

The UN should read the interview (linked below) with Edward Green of Harvard who has defended the Pope's position on AIDS and condoms in Africa.

Having researched on the issue, Green argues that the evidence says that only behavioral changes make a significant impact. The interview with Green is found here: http://www.tempi.it/print/7320

His argument makes sense. Our society is awash in condoms, yet STD's are rampant, there has been no major progress made in reducing the number of teen pregnancies, and almost 2 million abortions are procured per year in the US alone.

More Condoms? Does not make sense to me.

What does make sense to me is Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae which upheld the Church's opposition to contraceptives.

More info. on Humanae Vitae can be found here:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2009/07/41st-anniversary-of-humanae-vitae-on.html

Mr. H
http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

Mr. H. said...

The UN should read the interview (linked below) with Edward Green of Harvard who has defended the Pope's position on AIDS and condoms in Africa.

Having researched on the issue, Green argues that the evidence says that only behavioral changes make a significant impact. The interview with Green is found here: http://www.tempi.it/print/7320

His argument makes sense. Our society is awash in condoms, yet STD's are rampant, there has been no major progress made in reducing the number of teen pregnancies, and almost 2 million abortions are procured per year in the US alone.

More Condoms? Does not make sense to me.

What does make sense to me is Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae which upheld the Church's opposition to contraceptives.

More info. on Humanae Vitae can be found here:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2009/07/41st-anniversary-of-humanae-vitae-on.html

Mr. H
http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

Mr. H. said...

OOPS!!

I accidently hit the submit button twice.

Sorry!!

Mr. H

William said...

What do you call a daughter who has a sensible, natural, healthy, progressive sexual education?

A Slutty Porn Star.

What? That's a bit strong of point to make from a dumb punchline? Hum. Weird.

Anonymous said...

I guess it doesn't take a sanctimonious demagogue long to degenerate a discussion with terms like "slutty." I don't recall Jesus or the Pope using such crass terms when discussing morality...or immorality in this case. Name-calling is a great way to change hearts and minds.

William said...

A discussion doesn't start with a lame joke that presents a fore-gone conclusion and makes any rational argument difficult if not impossible. So I made one. You're offended, I'm offended, congratulations: we're two dudes on the internet.

But if it makes you feel any better, I wasn't interested in changing your mind. You want to give your daughter condoms and tell her "Boys will be boys," fine by me. I don't see how that could possibly backfire in any way.

Susan P. said...

William, she's called 'next' at the abortion clinic. And her "anonymous" dad is the one who drove her there.

William said...

Ohh... Susan P., I bow to you. That's much better. In fact, it's an actual joke, not my lame snark. I'm going to remember that for future use.

Frusciante Maria Portman said...

Anon at 3:06, you're missing the point. We want to reduce both abortions and the immorality of sex before marriage. Contraception is just an excuse to live without consequences...consequences we all know exist. Maybe if we're all made to face our consequences a little more...

I find offensive your "kids are gonna do it anyway" attitude. I was in high school not that long ago and never "did it". And I won't until I'm married. It's not that I didn't want to have sex, or that I didn't have anyone to do it with, I chose not to. I made that choice day after day after day...especially with boyfriends. And I didn't have parents who really talked about it with me, and most of my friends were "doing it" or other things close to it, but I did have faith , and that sustained me. I was lucky in that regard.

And yeah, our sexual drives are fierce, but our will rules all of our desires. It's why we can fast for days at a time even though we're really hungry and do other such feats. Maybe what we should be teaching our kids, obviously along with morality, is how to control our desires and urges through reason and how to made solid choices. This watered-down "well, if you're going to do it anyway" attitude gets us nowhere...in fact it leaves us worse off than before.

William said...

I'd like to be clear that Frusciante Maria Portman and MR. H. both completely have my point of view, they just are charitable enough to not be as snarky or jerky as me. If you wish to have an honest conversation with a true Christian spirit, please refer to them, not a pissed off Catholic like myself.

Why do I feel like this will be the first of many disclaimers?

[censored] said...

A limerick for the fixated "Anon":

There once was a troll who said such
That he felt we were all out of touch
Our supposed perversion
Was to him an aversion
But methinks he doth protest too much.

Susan said...

The drive for sex is as strong as that for food and shelter? I admit that the drive for sex is powerful, but I am not a slave to my hormones or desires. One can also fast or diet, not giving into the temptation to eat certain things. Though I would maintain that the desire for food tends to come first, since we actually need food regularly to survive, where a person won't perish if they wait until marriage to have sex.

matthew archbold said...

I went through a bunch of the comments this morning and took out many that I found offensive or inappropriate - especially those by anonymous posters. So, I'm sorry for letting them stay up there as long as I did.

Scott W. said...

This watered-down "well, if you're going to do it anyway" attitude gets us nowhere...in fact it leaves us worse off than before.

Your entire testimony was wonderful and this part reminds me of someone who quipped that people are going to rob banks anyway, so we might as well hand out free body armor so they don't get hurt while doing it.

William said...

Point well taken. I was in a mood, yesterday; I'll try to be more respectful of the line.

Eric the Young Fogey said...

"despite the protestants/eugenicists attempts at promoting sex for pleasure, children continue to be born everywhere" - Monty Python

Joe said...

I'm still waiting for "Anonymous" to read the Harvard study and reply to its findings.

Believing that condoms increase public health and reduce pregnancies - in willful ignorance of scientific findings to the contrary - is simple stubbornness. What's more important to you - the facts, or your politics?

I'd say believing in something in contravention of apparent proof sounds like one definition of faith, but that would surely draw Anonymous' ire.

Anonymous said...

I think we need more of our police resources spent on cracking down on illicit sex. We need to put an end to prostitution once and for all. We need to put an end to people soliciting sex. I don't care how many tax dollars it takes, it needs to be done once and for all.

Anonymous said...

I think we need draconian penalties for illicit sex. We need a police force that is willing to patrol the streets to enforce a strict moral standard. If we can get some kind of draconian system, we wouldn't have to worry about so many people having sex.

MissJean said...

All humans are prone to violence. It's instinctual and as innate as the desire to breed. So instead of these draconian laws against bullying and fighting at school, we should be supplying our students with tazers and showing them how to properly protect themselves from the inevitable shankings near the bike-rack after school.

BTW, does anyone else find it ironic that the US media is full of talk about the "obesity epidemic"? There's talk of taxing high-fat foods and restricting access to candy and soda pop. So far no one is saying, "Kids are going to eat junk food and drink soda pop - we can't stop them so we might as well teach them to purge after they binge." :)

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:09,
Don't you think it would make more sense for parents to monitor their children's computer use rather than the expensive route of turning it over to police to conduct expensive sex sting operations rather than spending that time fighting violent crime? It's just a thougth. Parents being parents could free up some of our law enforcement time and money for other crimes.

Anonymous said...

FYI, the actual research paper is over here:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3506309.html

I didn't see where it says "we need more condoms". But I did see that a lot of the sexually-active adolescents are married.

Post a Comment