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…
July 29, 2009 at 6:54 am
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.
July 29, 2009 at 9:44 am
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.
July 29, 2009 at 12:50 pm
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.
July 29, 2009 at 2:10 pm
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.
July 29, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Point well taken. I was in a mood, yesterday; I'll try to be more respectful of the line.
July 30, 2009 at 6:40 am
"despite the protestants/eugenicists attempts at promoting sex for pleasure, children continue to be born everywhere" – Monty Python
July 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm
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.
July 30, 2009 at 4:51 pm
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.
July 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm
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.
July 30, 2009 at 7:07 pm
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." 🙂
July 31, 2009 at 4:14 am
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.
August 4, 2009 at 5:33 pm
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.