pay these young women not to get pregnant. Say, begin eligibility at age 16. Anyone getting pregnant before 16 is automatically excluded from the program. Give them $50 per month - money goes to the woman. She must remain child free until age 22, at which time she is on her own.

Cheap, simple, and should satisfy the desire of the corporate-owned republican party to commodify every aspect of life.

I grew up in Colorado and worked with Colorado teens for 10 years of my career. More education--whether it's sex education or abstinence education--isn't going to change things. The two things that are going to change things is kids knowing adults outside of their family unit -- so that they can ask questions without having to live with them every day, and access to birth control.

The problem with the anti-abortion forces targeting Planned Parenthood clinics is that they are attacking the one organization that it out to make it easy for a girl to walk from her high school to a health organization office, get information about STDs, check out the lies her boyfriend is telling her, and get birth control without it showing up on her parents' insurance.

I hope they keep him away from myspace.com

- They are too poor to afford birth control which is understandable.

- The preference is for them not to get pregnant as they are poor and only in their teens which sounds about right.

- Something about we wanting them to keep their virginity? OK that's old-school thinking but the point has been made.

Easy solution.

Educate on....*drum roll*....

Hand jobs, Blow Jobs!

That'll take care of it.

You say "both sides" don't want more teen pregnancies.

I'm not sure that's right at all. No pun intended.

I think the crazy right-wing is fine with more teen pregnancies. They just *say* they're not fine with it. What's a little more hypocrisy on the Right? Nothing at all, hardly. And it'd be bad politics to say otherwise, yes?

Nope, those pregnancies are either *punishment* for *bad behavior* (I'm talking now about what these wing-nuts really think, in their secret thoughts), or they're new life, brought to the hapless teen by God, and must be protected.

In short, I really do question the premise that the right-wing wack-jobs who deny teens both birth control and effective sex-education, want fewer teen pregnancies. On the evidence, these idiots want MORE teen pregancies, not fewer.

Are we allowed to pass moral judgement at all. We know that premarital sex is leading to teen pregnancies. We know that abstinance only education doesn't work. We know what some people can't afford birth control or protection. Yet we all know that if they would just keep their genitals to themselves they wouldn't get pregnant. Why can't we pass the obvious moral judgement: 'you're having sex too early, and, while it may have been unintentional, it wouldn't have happened if you were a stronger moral being.' For some reason we're not allowed to say wrong is wrong. Why not?

Why can't we promote responsibility?

Well, cuz Mike, we don't ALL think that behavior is immoral. If kids want to experiment with sex, or have sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends, that's okay with me. I don't look down on them or think that they are morally repugnant.

I taught my kid to wear a seatbelt. I taught my kid to wear a condom. Going without either is a bad idea with the possibility of bad consequences, but I don't think either driving or having sex are immoral.

Don't impose your (rather inane) morality on kids.

Moral: don't do things that will hurt someone (yes, of course sex can, so can driving, or not paying attention when you are walking).

Religious indoctrination: don't have sex yet, God doesn't like it.

that 25% of teen pregnacies are planned.

Teens shouldn't be having babies in the first place (even 19 year olds). Studies have shown that young people having babies results in numerous social problems (child abuse, neglect, poverty) down the line.

These kids should get a job, grow up a bit, and then start having kids.

100% of teen pregnancies should be unintended and the goal should be the end of all teen pregnancies.

Who, with any sense of what the big wide world has to offer, WANTS to have a child before she is twenty?

They don't just need readily available and inexpensive birth control, they need a good reason to use it. College, Peace Corps, internships... SOMETHING must be more inspiring than nipping your freedom in the bud quite so soon.

Mike, some people would argue that making contraception easily available and making sure teens know how to use it correctly is promoting responsibility--responsible sexual behavior, that is.

What you're in favor of is preachy-ness (before they have sex and get pregnant)and scolding (after they have sex and get pregnant). Which doesn't work, doesn't work, doesn't work, doesn't work, doesn't work. Your approach only makes the preacher/scolder feel morally superior--it doesn't significantly affect behavior. So why do it?

I agree with the earlier commenter that the abstinence only folks don't necessarily mind teen pregnancy. A few thoughts on that:

* They oppose unmarried pregnancy-- not teen pregnancy. I think many of them would welcome teens getting pregnant, then being forced to get married. They are also disturbed by declining marriage rates-- so this scenario is quite likely a very positive one for them.

* I suspect that many of them not only welcome unmarried teen pregnancies as punishment for the teens who get pregnant, but warnings for those who don't. They like scaring teenagers with the idea that sex leads to terrible consequences-- pregnancy, STDs, etc. This is why they oppose the new cancer-preventing HPV vaccine-- because it removes the most effective tool in their abstinence-only arsenal, the link between multiple sex partners and cancer. They are the pro-abstinence, pro-cancer crowd. (And why are the pro-cancer crowd allowed to call themselves pro-life, anyway?)

I live in the UK where we have a sex education program that is as nearly deficient as the one in the States. On a recent TV program Tony Blair visited a school recently, in the midst of a discussion one 13 year old girl asked him, 'Mr Blair why don't we have some decent sex education in our schools. Lots of my 13 year old friends are having unwanted babies.' Blair went slightly pink and said, 'Well, there is a lot of opposition to sex education in the schools.' At that a young boy got up and repled, 'Well that didn't stop you going into Iraq, you had plenty of opposition to that.' Hasty retreat of Prime Minister, now very pink in the cheeks.

[Educate on....*drum roll*....

Hand jobs, Blow Jobs!

That'll take care of it.]

A program that I am on the point of trying to get into the schools, uses an oral technique that is quite sufficient unto itself. Very satisfying and no need for penetration. We will probably have to make an animated version before they will even consider it for school sex education.

The only disadvantage is the noise of the Buzz, and the screams. I learnt it in Hawaii and have never seen it anywhere else in 25 years. Go to getorgasmic.com it is a commercial site, not porn but sex education. There is a free buzz teaser for you to try.

If our young adolescents take it up, it will kill two birds with one stone. You either have to be fit to do it for any length of time or you become highly motivated to get fit! Either way it is fun to try it.

Rayner