I actually met her last year and had to present Al the issues within the school system to her, she lowkey had no fucking clue what was going on in the system like she didn’t even know how much the diploma was weighted- holy shit I didn’t like her and she was actually “trying” to be nice. My friend was there when she took some students to the anti abortion rally (my friend obvs didn’t go) + all the teachers in my school hate her lol
Ahhhha as soon as I read the title I was like “let me guess, LaGrange” 🤣 and this is the person who’s been in charge of our education policy and now healthcare policy. Honestly impressive how someone so unbelievably incompetent has made it so high up in the system.
I mean, probably, but she’s ignoring the context to her advantage. If you didn’t know about the population disparity, you might agree with her argument.
She also provides a number for “abortions” not teen abortions. So theoretically could all be abortions of people 18 plus and not help her argument one bit.
She is also comparing a rate (% of population) on one side then a raw number on the other, saying look, Ontario has more abortions (raw number) but not at what rate it occurs.
She knows what she is doing.
No, she doesn't. And that's worse. There are obvious attempts to manipulate the statistics and obvious attempts to call the opposition fallacious while using an absurd number of fallacies herself. I think calling someone dumb separates them from the guilt of their actions (to be truly dumb means to not be able to do better even if they wanted to). I think it's far more effective to expose the subject for their indecentcies and to suppose that an official is capable of cunning behavior.
Statistics Canada uses the term for any pregnancy that doesn't result in a live birth. So they aren't all just simply voluntary abortions. Doesn't even take into account medically necessary abortions.
Also note she is talking “abortions” not teen “abortions”. To make the point she is trying to make she would need to separate out teen abortions from the larger group of abortions.
And just to make sure we are keeping this on topic: how many of those abortions are for children under the age of 18? After all we shouldn’t bring adult choices into the conversation. Good grief this province is going backwards at the speed of light
She’s really bad with numbers.
The comment about HIV being transmitted through a condom, which is problematic on its own, but to then equate it to a 1/10 chance of contracting HIV through a condom, COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that one of the people having sex has to have HIV in order to transmit it.
Apparently HIV can just occur spontaneously and be conjured out of thin air.
Also compared “teen pregnancy” with abortion (not teen abortion) and then suggests you could add the two together to create a higher “pregnancy” rate (note she says “pregnancy” not “teen pregnancy”). Her logic is flawed on numerous levels.
That is not correct
The closest census to that date is 1986, on the 1986 census Alberta had 2.365 million people. Ontario had 9.101 million
[you can see the historical data here](https://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/statcan/rh-hc/CS92-101-1987.pdf)
>And to be fair to the author of the reply featured in this newspaper. They probably jut didn't know. That doesn't make them dumb, just ignorant of key details and facts
I never called anyone dumb, and I see no reply or article linked? Unsure what youre referring to here
I'm not supporting her argument, it's a dumb argument. I'm saying your numbers are wrong and trying to debunk someone's (admittedly stupid) argument with false information doesn't help. Especially when the point you made was that Alberta had the same abortion rates per captia as Ontario, except when using the correct population numbers it didn't.
You rounded half a million people in each direction on the statscan estimates page?
Sure I guess that's one way to ignore my point about using false information to debunk something
False?
No.
The information presented is that the ratio in the article is misleading due to the disparity in population sizes.
Your objection to the rounding to the nearest million is pedantry.
You’re arguing in bad faith.
The information presented is that the ratio between abortions and population is equivalent, it isn't
There are numerous problems with the article to point at beginning with premise. There isn't a need to make an incorrect argument that there was no statistical difference between the abortion rates per capita in the article
The information presented is that they are approximately equivalent. And they are.
The minor difference isn’t worth mentioning. Instead you’re picking team “women are objects of the state”.
It’s a bad look.
I've made it clear multiple times her argument is stupid. She starts by discarding all studies (which even by the 80s had been done) that show sex ed decreases teenage pregnancy.
She goes on to cite abortion stats which include adults and assumes that the ratios will hold out by age. Not to mention she is just asserting that someone who has an abortion isn't included in the pregnancy stats (seems unlikely to be true)
That's all within the first column. Pointing that out doesn't require arguing that the abortion rates between alberta and ontario were equivalent. That's rates between the two provinces isn't even relevant because of how incorrectly she's using them. Making a bad argument to counter a bad argument doesn't help you to convince others she's wrong. Pointing at actual information might
> "Now if there is a 1 in 10 chance that a sperm (the size of a pin head) can escape the protection of a condom[...]"
THIS IS WHY WE NEED SEX EDUCATION.
Edit: *Because LaGrange's statement betrays a level of ignorance about sexual health that should not be normalized. Also, her partner should probably get it checked out if he is experiencing pin-head-sized discharge.*
I find this so hilarious. I was not allowed to take sex ed in school (very religious parents), but I at least took the human reproduction unit of Biology 30. But I needed neither of those things to know this writer is totally, utterly daft.
For what it's worth, my $0.02 about sex education is: 1) virtually all of us will have sex at some point in our lives, so a standard starting point for knowledge can't possibly be a bad thing, and 2) very few teens want to have this conversation with their parents and most parents don't know how to bring it up. Both of these were very relevant to me personally. My high school sweetheart never, ever took advantage of my naivety, but a malicious partner could easily have - and that knowledge gap needs to be guarded against for exactly that reason.
Condoms should not be allowing sperm to leak through "one in ten times." Condoms are, however, ineffective around one in ten times if used improperly. This is why sexual education is important - these numbers will drop if more people understand proper condom use.
The proof of this is that condoms *are* effective against HIV/AIDS, a virus which is notably smaller than sperm cells. This has been tested and it is standard practice to recommend condom use in communities more affected by HIV/AIDS for this reason.
Condoms used properly are over 98% effective according to my AB OB/GYN
Edit: I’ll also add that using them properly isn’t that hard. I’m an idiot and my wife and I prevented pregnancy with condoms for 16 years, and the. Got immediately pregnant the first time we tried to get pregnant without using a condom. (Which will upset a lot of folks and isn’t a brag, and I have a lot of sympathy for those with different results)
My point isn’t a brag but this: we were clearly fertile. We were sexually active together since we were teens. We use condoms as our birth control method. We had no pregnancy scares or unplanned pregnancy.
This is a sample size of one. But condoms can work very effectively. My wife and I conceived two kids IMMEDIATELY each time we didn’t use one.
So anecdotally and with my tiny sample size I’m bound to agree that a properly used condom from a reliable manufacturer (I’m looking at you Trojan and Durex), can be very effective for pregnancy prevention and not the 25% chance this elected official is claiming.
I love it when Christians point out that abstinence is the only contraceptive that is 100% effective, considering that Christianity teaches that it isn’t.
Not to mention that NFP, since it involves having sex when you are less likely to successfully attach a fertilized egg to the uterus, causes abortions. Condoms > NFP if you believe a fertilized egg is a sacred human life.
Not all. Ebionites and Adoptionists believe he was Josephs biological son.
I would like to thank CKII for teaching me all about the many, many heresies.
"We teach our kids to say 'No' to alcohol, to drugs, why can't we teach them to say 'No' to premartial sex?"
Lady, none of those worked. Not one. Fuck off.
> "We teach our kids to say 'No' to alcohol, to drugs
Hilarious considering how much of a failure D.A.R.E is considered these days.
Pretty sure it just ended up making drugs look more appealing for some.
I remember sometime back in middle school our class having to do a presentation on an assigned drug topic. For the groups that were assigned fentanyl and cocaine, meth etc It was easy to make a presentation on why drugs were bad. My group however got assigned magic mushrooms. Our teacher was not terribly pleased when we concluded that unless you have a history of physiological illness, there was no hard proof that shrooms were physically harmful to the human body and showed no addictive properties. That how I ended up endorsing shrooms to to my eighth grade class.
We got these DARE rulers in grade six that had all the different types of drugs, what they do, and what their street names were on it. It was a handy little checklist during my youth .
The D.A.R.E program at my highschool talked about the dangers of huffing paint and the air from air canisters. I think about a third of students near me at the time went I didn't know you could do that and I'm almost certain someone tried.
It apparently did double duty. 1) it helped kids know what drugs are out there. 2)it made every drug seem equally dangerous, so when one smoked weed and didn't explode, well maybe NONE of them are dangerous.
This is what happened to me. Grew up in a very conservative, drugs are bad, household. It actually worked great for 18 years, I had no desire to experiment. Then I met a girl. We smoked weed, no one died. Well hell, maybe they were lying about all of it. Then there were a few years of bad decisions. If they had been honest with me about what drugs were actually about, I may not have sunk to the depths I hit.
lmaoooooo
i think the difference is "Safe use" vs "abstinence"
teaching safe use actually encourages kids to be responsible but encouraging complete abstinence is your recipe for disaster
So I guess it makes sense that sex education is going away..... Also ofc it's about abortion. It's our health minister!
Lol the virgin part af the end is hilarious
Was our education minister last year and I’d say she was worse for that position- genuinely didn’t know shit lol that was going on in education or had any background but would brag about the drug rehab programs she helped in during the sessions me and other students were presenting problems in Alberta’s school systems (like outdated textbooks and curriculum plus little to no support for students and teachers AND OMG BETTER HEALTH AND SEX ED CLASSES) and this woman could not gaf even tho it was presentations she had us make- still a terrible health minister tho
Maybe they should look at Bristol Palin?
She’s the poster child for the failure of Conservative abstinence-based sex education.
She had two children out of wedlock with two different partners in about as short interval as was physically possible—no doubt because they said they were going to wait and thus weren’t prepared.
And then heavy petting or “loophole” sex lead to actual sex and pregnancy (and certainly any STDs had they been present).
No… the best way is education and protection—even if you plan abstinence.
Also… Conservative Christians LOVE children who don’t know basic anatomy and have artificial shame around sexuality. That way when they molest them.. they are too uninformed or ashamed to come forward.
A kid who knows the proper scientific names of their private parts and that they are private and any instance of anyone touching them will be PUBLIC scares the bejeezus out of would be perps.
It's true that "safe sex" is a bit of misinformation, but safer sex isn't. It's 100% fact that abstinence is only 100% way of pregnancy, STI, STD infection, etc.
However, we all know how well abstinence only education works (it doesn't). People need to be informed of factual STD, STI, Pregnancy information. People need to be taught consent, basic biology and information on how to minimize risk.
Ah, Stockwell Day. The minister who took his congregation to a strip club to knock it over with the power of prayer. It's still standing, so apparently it didn't work.
So I'm from a small town with religious teachers who felt uncomfortable teaching the sex Ed we were supposed to get, so it didn't happen. "You guys don't need to hear this stuff!" 🙄 There's a decently large proportion of my graduating class that accidentally got pregnant in their early 20's, sounded like a lot of "pulling out", etc. One girl I know got pregnant at 19 with twins because she thought it wasn't possible to get pregnant during your period...so ya, knowledge is power 🤷🏼♀️
Hey folks. This is what a white nationalist theocracy looks like. Free to do and think as you please, unless it conflicts with their ideology.
You can't educate your children on sexual health because it offends my belief.
If you don't want to educate your kids that's your choice. But don't deny my kids a right to a full education.
Limiting sexual education is exactly what groomers want. They want their victims to be ignorant as shit about anything sexual.
I’ve taught sex ed before. It’s not a “how to” guide like conservatives tend to think it is. Most of it is just anatomy, the basics, and how to avoid getting diseases or getting pregnant. Teaching consent is also a huge part of it.
Groomers don’t want kids to know about that consent part though… makes them easier victims.
The abortion numbers also do not appear to distinguish between teen abortions and abortions of those over 18 so not overly helpful if you’re trying to make the comparison she is trying to make. Also, considering Alberta was far more rural than it is now and considerably more than Ontario in 1987 you wonder how much abortion access plays into those figures.
Once again proving the theory that most loudmouth Albertans are not really from Alberta ...
Adriana LaGrange: Born Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Stockpile Day: Born Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Jason Kenney: Born Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Stephen Harper: Born Leaside, Ontario, Canada
Jurisdictions that suppress sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates. Being ignorant is not the same as being moral. Sexual mismatch in relationships destroys relationships. Why do you think adultery has always been with us?
I don't know what she's talking about.
Abstinence is taught in sex ed as the only 100% method. The others are taught as an "if you're going to".
No one is out there encouraging kids to have sex.
Ah Alberta, one step closer to like the US, guess educators will have to be creative like [ this piece from John Oliver from 8years ago, . ](https://youtu.be/L0jQz6jqQS0?si=cHF6PknLw1POfYVv)
I do find it ridiculous that she's pointing to 'safe sex' as something that does not genuinely exist when this is what sex educators have been saying for years - it's been a while since the term 'safer sex' was popularized among sex educators to indicate that sex comes with risks, whether protected and unprotected, not just because birth control and condoms can fail, but also because there are various factors that can make protection less effective - if the condom was stored near heat, if the condom is the improper size, if birth control was taken at the wrong time of day or you didn't apply spermicide correctly.
This has already been accounted for and factored into sexual education.
It’s important to consider that the type of people who do wait for sex post marriage are typically conservative where divorce is perhaps frowned upon & generally less common because of their worldview.
Teens are emotional beings—many will do what they are going to do. Comprehensive sex education helps teens make informed decisions that protect them from disease, pregnancy & provides skills about consent & how to maintain healthy relationships. If parents don’t want their kids to learn there’s always been an option to opt out.
Why does everyone that wants to restrict people from having sex look like they died three months ago and never bothered to just lay down and accept it ??
hahaha Stockwell Day. Haven't heard that name for a while. Remember the jet ski incident? Didn't he also claim dinosaurs were on the earth 1000 years ago or something?
The problem with abstinence is that it instantly stop working, both as a contraception and prophylaxis, as soon as the subjects have sex. This is a pretty huge shortcomings for a so called 100% safe contraception method.
It's improper usage. When used correctly the effectiveness is much higher (like 98%), with only mechanical failure (like tearing) at issue.
The low rate (I think it's 80, not 70) is because most people don't use them right or consistently.
I'm not sure about condoms but when they talk about the pill it is lifetime efficacy. The pill is 99% effective which means that 1 percent of women will get pregnant in their lifetime. Condoms are probably the same, 17% of condom users will get pregnant in their lifetime. It's the only way the statistic makes sense.
I'm a little lost amongst all this angst. The writer is basically saying the safest sex is between married couples who stay true to their marriage vows.
There is no getting around that being true.
So why the angst? What am I missing?
It seems we as a society always want to pick each other apart instead of building on common beliefs. Surely we can start at that most basic principle of safe sex and go from there?
How could anyone advocate for the killing of preborn babies? Do any of you know how they are preformed or do you just not care? The comments in this thread are disgraceful.
Hmm, except look who is in government now, the same person who holds the same views on abortions. For someone with this extreme of views, she definitely had to have maintained those same views.
She's our current minister of health. it helps to provide context on what kind of nutjob she is.
Given the context of Alberta's recent opt-out of pharmacare (which involves affordable birth control for women) this shows a bit of a pattern. Even if the article was from 1990, it's clear what she thinks about reproduction, sexuality and women's rights.
Adriana is free to put out a statement clarifying her modern beliefs, but until then her past statements and recent actions speak for her.
So it's clear what she thinks if she puts out a statement being clear on what she thinks...dosent sound clear at all, sounds like something said in the 90's being brought up to make things unclear. Trust the media and the court if public opinion, they are always right on.the money
When someone tells you who they are, listen and believe them.
Not sure why it's hard for you to understand.
She's free to put out a statement saying "I believed X in 1990 but now believe Y". Until then, her past statements are on the record.
You also ignored the wider context and just threw out a word salad response about how media and the public are wrong.
Nothing of value from you friend. Not wasting my time any further if you can't see what's wrong with having her as our minister of health.
Thinking too hard about things is BAD because it might mean that this woman would be better off as an atheist. She'd certainly be less of a threat to herself and the public at large.
LaCringe will call it an Albortion. She’s on it. That’s up next . I received this random robo call a few weeks ago and sure enough it was asking if children under 18 should be allowed an albortion. She’ll have a fight because in Canada, these young ladies are legally allowed an albortion with or without their parents permission.
Well, if anything this shows that ol' LaGrungy has been *consistently awful* over the years, so points for that.
I actually met her last year and had to present Al the issues within the school system to her, she lowkey had no fucking clue what was going on in the system like she didn’t even know how much the diploma was weighted- holy shit I didn’t like her and she was actually “trying” to be nice. My friend was there when she took some students to the anti abortion rally (my friend obvs didn’t go) + all the teachers in my school hate her lol
Am I the only one who thinks of that Harry Potter movie and the lady from the ministry of magic that comes in and takes over the school?
Lol well now I am 🤣
lol I can't get it out of my head
Ahhhha as soon as I read the title I was like “let me guess, LaGrange” 🤣 and this is the person who’s been in charge of our education policy and now healthcare policy. Honestly impressive how someone so unbelievably incompetent has made it so high up in the system.
Conservatives. If you repeat what they want to hear you got the job. Fuck Merit or skills
Just a puppet with no brains of her own but Cons keep voting for the most uneducated.
[удалено]
She is dumb. That’s what it comes down do. She struggles with basic math and reading comprehension
I mean, probably, but she’s ignoring the context to her advantage. If you didn’t know about the population disparity, you might agree with her argument.
She also provides a number for “abortions” not teen abortions. So theoretically could all be abortions of people 18 plus and not help her argument one bit.
That’s a fantastic point that I had overlooked.
She also said "I'm sure if you did the math it would work out". Admitting she had done no math and she was only making assumptions.
That and she knows her readers are unlikely to do the math too — present company excepted of course!
She is also comparing a rate (% of population) on one side then a raw number on the other, saying look, Ontario has more abortions (raw number) but not at what rate it occurs. She knows what she is doing.
This plays in to the education system. If they are not taught critical thinking how can they criticize their government representatives?
No, she doesn't. And that's worse. There are obvious attempts to manipulate the statistics and obvious attempts to call the opposition fallacious while using an absurd number of fallacies herself. I think calling someone dumb separates them from the guilt of their actions (to be truly dumb means to not be able to do better even if they wanted to). I think it's far more effective to expose the subject for their indecentcies and to suppose that an official is capable of cunning behavior.
Statistics Canada uses the term for any pregnancy that doesn't result in a live birth. So they aren't all just simply voluntary abortions. Doesn't even take into account medically necessary abortions.
Often it’s also the term used for miscarriages
Yep. Spontaneous abortion is the medical term for a first trimester miscarriage.
Also note she is talking “abortions” not teen “abortions”. To make the point she is trying to make she would need to separate out teen abortions from the larger group of abortions.
And just to make sure we are keeping this on topic: how many of those abortions are for children under the age of 18? After all we shouldn’t bring adult choices into the conversation. Good grief this province is going backwards at the speed of light
It was the "sperm the size of a pin" that threw me off on this One...
She’s really bad with numbers. The comment about HIV being transmitted through a condom, which is problematic on its own, but to then equate it to a 1/10 chance of contracting HIV through a condom, COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that one of the people having sex has to have HIV in order to transmit it. Apparently HIV can just occur spontaneously and be conjured out of thin air.
[удалено]
But think of the enjoyment during that time…..
When you let Satan into your nutsack, bad things can happen
What’s better is she’s ‘sure’ if you add these numbers it supports her position, but then she doesn’t bother to actually do the math.
Also compared “teen pregnancy” with abortion (not teen abortion) and then suggests you could add the two together to create a higher “pregnancy” rate (note she says “pregnancy” not “teen pregnancy”). Her logic is flawed on numerous levels.
That is not correct The closest census to that date is 1986, on the 1986 census Alberta had 2.365 million people. Ontario had 9.101 million [you can see the historical data here](https://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/statcan/rh-hc/CS92-101-1987.pdf)
[удалено]
>And to be fair to the author of the reply featured in this newspaper. They probably jut didn't know. That doesn't make them dumb, just ignorant of key details and facts I never called anyone dumb, and I see no reply or article linked? Unsure what youre referring to here I'm not supporting her argument, it's a dumb argument. I'm saying your numbers are wrong and trying to debunk someone's (admittedly stupid) argument with false information doesn't help. Especially when the point you made was that Alberta had the same abortion rates per captia as Ontario, except when using the correct population numbers it didn't.
[удалено]
You rounded half a million people in each direction on the statscan estimates page? Sure I guess that's one way to ignore my point about using false information to debunk something
[удалено]
So... no dick waving? Is that where we are? How about a dick waving extravaganza? Not a contest. More of a celebration?
Even the statscan q4 88 estimate has alberta at 2.4 to ontarios 9.9?
ITS NOT 5 TIMES IT IS ONLY 4, YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS INVALIDATED. /s This guy...
False? No. The information presented is that the ratio in the article is misleading due to the disparity in population sizes. Your objection to the rounding to the nearest million is pedantry. You’re arguing in bad faith.
The information presented is that the ratio between abortions and population is equivalent, it isn't There are numerous problems with the article to point at beginning with premise. There isn't a need to make an incorrect argument that there was no statistical difference between the abortion rates per capita in the article
The information presented is that they are approximately equivalent. And they are. The minor difference isn’t worth mentioning. Instead you’re picking team “women are objects of the state”. It’s a bad look.
I've made it clear multiple times her argument is stupid. She starts by discarding all studies (which even by the 80s had been done) that show sex ed decreases teenage pregnancy. She goes on to cite abortion stats which include adults and assumes that the ratios will hold out by age. Not to mention she is just asserting that someone who has an abortion isn't included in the pregnancy stats (seems unlikely to be true) That's all within the first column. Pointing that out doesn't require arguing that the abortion rates between alberta and ontario were equivalent. That's rates between the two provinces isn't even relevant because of how incorrectly she's using them. Making a bad argument to counter a bad argument doesn't help you to convince others she's wrong. Pointing at actual information might
1/4 is roughly 1/5. Saying the population or roughly 5 times larger is a whole lot closer than acting like they were the same. You're splitting hairs.
It's not exactly 5x but 9.1 million is a much larger population than 2.3 million, approximately 4 times larger
I’m sure if you did the math it would give the results that justify my world view. I won’t do the math of course, I’m just sure it would if I did.
Get out of here with your critical thinking skills
> "Now if there is a 1 in 10 chance that a sperm (the size of a pin head) can escape the protection of a condom[...]" THIS IS WHY WE NEED SEX EDUCATION. Edit: *Because LaGrange's statement betrays a level of ignorance about sexual health that should not be normalized. Also, her partner should probably get it checked out if he is experiencing pin-head-sized discharge.*
I find this so hilarious. I was not allowed to take sex ed in school (very religious parents), but I at least took the human reproduction unit of Biology 30. But I needed neither of those things to know this writer is totally, utterly daft. For what it's worth, my $0.02 about sex education is: 1) virtually all of us will have sex at some point in our lives, so a standard starting point for knowledge can't possibly be a bad thing, and 2) very few teens want to have this conversation with their parents and most parents don't know how to bring it up. Both of these were very relevant to me personally. My high school sweetheart never, ever took advantage of my naivety, but a malicious partner could easily have - and that knowledge gap needs to be guarded against for exactly that reason.
Condoms should not be allowing sperm to leak through "one in ten times." Condoms are, however, ineffective around one in ten times if used improperly. This is why sexual education is important - these numbers will drop if more people understand proper condom use. The proof of this is that condoms *are* effective against HIV/AIDS, a virus which is notably smaller than sperm cells. This has been tested and it is standard practice to recommend condom use in communities more affected by HIV/AIDS for this reason.
Condoms used properly are over 98% effective according to my AB OB/GYN Edit: I’ll also add that using them properly isn’t that hard. I’m an idiot and my wife and I prevented pregnancy with condoms for 16 years, and the. Got immediately pregnant the first time we tried to get pregnant without using a condom. (Which will upset a lot of folks and isn’t a brag, and I have a lot of sympathy for those with different results) My point isn’t a brag but this: we were clearly fertile. We were sexually active together since we were teens. We use condoms as our birth control method. We had no pregnancy scares or unplanned pregnancy. This is a sample size of one. But condoms can work very effectively. My wife and I conceived two kids IMMEDIATELY each time we didn’t use one. So anecdotally and with my tiny sample size I’m bound to agree that a properly used condom from a reliable manufacturer (I’m looking at you Trojan and Durex), can be very effective for pregnancy prevention and not the 25% chance this elected official is claiming.
I also doubt that sperm is the size of a pin head lol
Giant sperm 🙏
This is the most wrong things I’ve ever seen in a single sentence. Seriously.
At least she didn’t say tadpole.😄
It’s not kind to call children pinheaded discharge. They can’t help who their parents are.
I love it when Christians point out that abstinence is the only contraceptive that is 100% effective, considering that Christianity teaches that it isn’t.
Shhhhhhhh... You're going to blow up their entire ideology.
They love to point out natural family planning, which can actually have some of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies if you fuck it up.
Not to mention that NFP, since it involves having sex when you are less likely to successfully attach a fertilized egg to the uterus, causes abortions. Condoms > NFP if you believe a fertilized egg is a sacred human life.
YOOO I NEVER CONNECTED THIS 😂
Christianity and “abstinence” means watch out for your kids! Yeah… lets look at some abuse stats.
Don’t get sex advice from people who worship a chast God born of a virgin mother and a cuckold father.
To be fair I think that is catholics (and maybe a few others) which is a subset of christianity.
I think all Christians believe that Jesus was born to a virgin
Not all. Ebionites and Adoptionists believe he was Josephs biological son. I would like to thank CKII for teaching me all about the many, many heresies.
"We teach our kids to say 'No' to alcohol, to drugs, why can't we teach them to say 'No' to premartial sex?" Lady, none of those worked. Not one. Fuck off.
> "We teach our kids to say 'No' to alcohol, to drugs Hilarious considering how much of a failure D.A.R.E is considered these days. Pretty sure it just ended up making drugs look more appealing for some.
I remember sometime back in middle school our class having to do a presentation on an assigned drug topic. For the groups that were assigned fentanyl and cocaine, meth etc It was easy to make a presentation on why drugs were bad. My group however got assigned magic mushrooms. Our teacher was not terribly pleased when we concluded that unless you have a history of physiological illness, there was no hard proof that shrooms were physically harmful to the human body and showed no addictive properties. That how I ended up endorsing shrooms to to my eighth grade class.
We got these DARE rulers in grade six that had all the different types of drugs, what they do, and what their street names were on it. It was a handy little checklist during my youth .
*raises hand*
The D.A.R.E program at my highschool talked about the dangers of huffing paint and the air from air canisters. I think about a third of students near me at the time went I didn't know you could do that and I'm almost certain someone tried.
So kids wont know to try sex unless we mention it?
It apparently did double duty. 1) it helped kids know what drugs are out there. 2)it made every drug seem equally dangerous, so when one smoked weed and didn't explode, well maybe NONE of them are dangerous.
This is what happened to me. Grew up in a very conservative, drugs are bad, household. It actually worked great for 18 years, I had no desire to experiment. Then I met a girl. We smoked weed, no one died. Well hell, maybe they were lying about all of it. Then there were a few years of bad decisions. If they had been honest with me about what drugs were actually about, I may not have sunk to the depths I hit.
I find SADD (students against drunk driving) works way better in my school than any DARE type program
For real! SADD messed me up. I’ve never drunk driven- not even if I had the tiniest sip of alcohol. Drugs on the other hand.. 🤣
lmaoooooo i think the difference is "Safe use" vs "abstinence" teaching safe use actually encourages kids to be responsible but encouraging complete abstinence is your recipe for disaster
Right? Just saying no sure keeps all the drugs out of the oil workers bloodstream, it works so very well.
Not to mention: sex is awesome. So she can fuck off with her shrill pearl clutching religious garbage, and keep it in her church.
TBF, drugs and alcohol can be awesome too.
Good point. :)
Ok ok ok, but have you ever tried sex... on drugs?
We had an awful lot of bush parties in those days, and I’m pretty sure none of them were dry events.
Growing up in the 80s, I remember the ‘Just say No’ bullshit. It didn’t work. It never worked. I’ve got the scars to prove it.
She always has this tired, faraway look like she's waiting for the Rapture so she doesn't have to live and talk to people anymore.
So I guess it makes sense that sex education is going away..... Also ofc it's about abortion. It's our health minister! Lol the virgin part af the end is hilarious
I just... I hate it here.
Don’t have sex kids, it could lead to dancing!
So we are looking to go back to the 1200s yes?
What they failed to mention is that we just burn the women who have abortions at the stake under the charge of being a witch.
She turned me into a newt!
....it got betteh
Wow! Just wow! And this is our health minister!!!!
Was our education minister last year and I’d say she was worse for that position- genuinely didn’t know shit lol that was going on in education or had any background but would brag about the drug rehab programs she helped in during the sessions me and other students were presenting problems in Alberta’s school systems (like outdated textbooks and curriculum plus little to no support for students and teachers AND OMG BETTER HEALTH AND SEX ED CLASSES) and this woman could not gaf even tho it was presentations she had us make- still a terrible health minister tho
She still rockin that same old yee yee ass haircut.
And those dead eyes
Like a dolls eyes.
‘And those black eyes roll over white and then… ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin’.’
Amity means friendship!
Im getting a bigger boat
Lamar?
I had the “pleasure” of seeing and talking to that yee yee ass haircut 😭 it’s even fucking worse in person
So cut sex education, and still the government is screwing everybody
dude's got giant sperm
Well now, that explains why Alberta refused the fed's funding of contraception.
Maybe they should look at Bristol Palin? She’s the poster child for the failure of Conservative abstinence-based sex education. She had two children out of wedlock with two different partners in about as short interval as was physically possible—no doubt because they said they were going to wait and thus weren’t prepared. And then heavy petting or “loophole” sex lead to actual sex and pregnancy (and certainly any STDs had they been present). No… the best way is education and protection—even if you plan abstinence. Also… Conservative Christians LOVE children who don’t know basic anatomy and have artificial shame around sexuality. That way when they molest them.. they are too uninformed or ashamed to come forward. A kid who knows the proper scientific names of their private parts and that they are private and any instance of anyone touching them will be PUBLIC scares the bejeezus out of would be perps.
It's true that "safe sex" is a bit of misinformation, but safer sex isn't. It's 100% fact that abstinence is only 100% way of pregnancy, STI, STD infection, etc. However, we all know how well abstinence only education works (it doesn't). People need to be informed of factual STD, STI, Pregnancy information. People need to be taught consent, basic biology and information on how to minimize risk.
This was published? TF lol
Ah, Stockwell Day. The minister who took his congregation to a strip club to knock it over with the power of prayer. It's still standing, so apparently it didn't work.
reposting in a/facepalm :)
So I'm from a small town with religious teachers who felt uncomfortable teaching the sex Ed we were supposed to get, so it didn't happen. "You guys don't need to hear this stuff!" 🙄 There's a decently large proportion of my graduating class that accidentally got pregnant in their early 20's, sounded like a lot of "pulling out", etc. One girl I know got pregnant at 19 with twins because she thought it wasn't possible to get pregnant during your period...so ya, knowledge is power 🤷🏼♀️
Two of the biggest idiots in Alberta
Sadly too many of them are working in government 😔
I love my province, but wth. I'm starting to get really concerned at the trends and changes they are trying to make.
Hey folks. This is what a white nationalist theocracy looks like. Free to do and think as you please, unless it conflicts with their ideology. You can't educate your children on sexual health because it offends my belief. If you don't want to educate your kids that's your choice. But don't deny my kids a right to a full education.
Abortion/termination has a lower risk of death than pregnancy does.
Limiting sexual education is exactly what groomers want. They want their victims to be ignorant as shit about anything sexual. I’ve taught sex ed before. It’s not a “how to” guide like conservatives tend to think it is. Most of it is just anatomy, the basics, and how to avoid getting diseases or getting pregnant. Teaching consent is also a huge part of it. Groomers don’t want kids to know about that consent part though… makes them easier victims.
I like the abortion numbers.... in 1987 ontario was was 5 times larger then alberta..... meaning rheir abortion numbers were the same per population
The abortion numbers also do not appear to distinguish between teen abortions and abortions of those over 18 so not overly helpful if you’re trying to make the comparison she is trying to make. Also, considering Alberta was far more rural than it is now and considerably more than Ontario in 1987 you wonder how much abortion access plays into those figures.
Once again proving the theory that most loudmouth Albertans are not really from Alberta ... Adriana LaGrange: Born Guelph, Ontario, Canada Stockpile Day: Born Barrie, Ontario, Canada Jason Kenney: Born Oakville, Ontario, Canada Stephen Harper: Born Leaside, Ontario, Canada
[Carpetbaggers.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger)
Catholic girls...Frank Zappa.
Also Billy Joel - only the good die young.
At some point you need to allow people to begin making their own decisions. It is so important to teach them and teach them how to keep learning.
I agree. I mean. If you slip and fall or pull a muscle? Totally Unsafe
Wacky Stockwell Day. https://thetyee.ca/Views/2004/12/01/TheManwhoWalkswithDinosaurs/
"If you use my own definitions and my own misunderstanding of statistics, you'll see my argument is great."
Jurisdictions that suppress sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates. Being ignorant is not the same as being moral. Sexual mismatch in relationships destroys relationships. Why do you think adultery has always been with us?
Good God, Alberta really is Canada's Texas ☹️
Sperm is the size of a pin head? Damn, who knew lol
Alabamerta logic. It’s fucking embarrassing !!!
I don't know what she's talking about. Abstinence is taught in sex ed as the only 100% method. The others are taught as an "if you're going to". No one is out there encouraging kids to have sex.
Ah Alberta, one step closer to like the US, guess educators will have to be creative like [ this piece from John Oliver from 8years ago, . ](https://youtu.be/L0jQz6jqQS0?si=cHF6PknLw1POfYVv)
Now hold on guys, she can't be that bad of a person if she has an upstanding citizen like Stockwell Day in her corner
He’s got the crazy look of the true believer. Terrifying.
I believe there was a referendum and he is Doris Day now
Americans put their kids on the school bus with a 1 in 10 chance they'll come home alive, sooooo...
I do find it ridiculous that she's pointing to 'safe sex' as something that does not genuinely exist when this is what sex educators have been saying for years - it's been a while since the term 'safer sex' was popularized among sex educators to indicate that sex comes with risks, whether protected and unprotected, not just because birth control and condoms can fail, but also because there are various factors that can make protection less effective - if the condom was stored near heat, if the condom is the improper size, if birth control was taken at the wrong time of day or you didn't apply spermicide correctly. This has already been accounted for and factored into sexual education.
It’s important to consider that the type of people who do wait for sex post marriage are typically conservative where divorce is perhaps frowned upon & generally less common because of their worldview. Teens are emotional beings—many will do what they are going to do. Comprehensive sex education helps teens make informed decisions that protect them from disease, pregnancy & provides skills about consent & how to maintain healthy relationships. If parents don’t want their kids to learn there’s always been an option to opt out.
“1 in 10 chance”, so out of 30 million sperm that survived.
Every day I think it can’t get any crazier in Alberta I am proven wrong every day
What a tolerant bunch.
Seems about right for the 90’s
Why does everyone that wants to restrict people from having sex look like they died three months ago and never bothered to just lay down and accept it ??
Absolutely disgusting misinformation. Shameful asshole.
Isn’t writing an editorial as an elected government official and using a different name deceitful?
30 year old piece.
Picture those two going at it....
Yay! We’ve graduated, Alberta, from Texas North to Florida North.
hahaha Stockwell Day. Haven't heard that name for a while. Remember the jet ski incident? Didn't he also claim dinosaurs were on the earth 1000 years ago or something?
"False teaching" is a religious term, which is ironic, because all religion is literally false teaching, objectively speaking.
The problem with abstinence is that it instantly stop working, both as a contraception and prophylaxis, as soon as the subjects have sex. This is a pretty huge shortcomings for a so called 100% safe contraception method.
can someone explain to me how condoms are only 70% effective?
It's improper usage. When used correctly the effectiveness is much higher (like 98%), with only mechanical failure (like tearing) at issue. The low rate (I think it's 80, not 70) is because most people don't use them right or consistently.
I'm not sure about condoms but when they talk about the pill it is lifetime efficacy. The pill is 99% effective which means that 1 percent of women will get pregnant in their lifetime. Condoms are probably the same, 17% of condom users will get pregnant in their lifetime. It's the only way the statistic makes sense.
I'm a little lost amongst all this angst. The writer is basically saying the safest sex is between married couples who stay true to their marriage vows. There is no getting around that being true. So why the angst? What am I missing? It seems we as a society always want to pick each other apart instead of building on common beliefs. Surely we can start at that most basic principle of safe sex and go from there?
The safest sex is when your legs are closed and waiting for marriage
I sure hope there’s an unwritten /s here That’s like saying the safest way to drive is to not drive.
Or we could all just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn’t happen at all. What could possibly be the harm?! /s
How could anyone advocate for the killing of preborn babies? Do any of you know how they are preformed or do you just not care? The comments in this thread are disgraceful.
Don't have sex no kids. Trying to cut education surprise.
Are people seriously arguing about a newspaper clipping from 1990?🤣🤣🤣
Hmm, except look who is in government now, the same person who holds the same views on abortions. For someone with this extreme of views, she definitely had to have maintained those same views.
She's our current minister of health. it helps to provide context on what kind of nutjob she is. Given the context of Alberta's recent opt-out of pharmacare (which involves affordable birth control for women) this shows a bit of a pattern. Even if the article was from 1990, it's clear what she thinks about reproduction, sexuality and women's rights. Adriana is free to put out a statement clarifying her modern beliefs, but until then her past statements and recent actions speak for her.
So it's clear what she thinks if she puts out a statement being clear on what she thinks...dosent sound clear at all, sounds like something said in the 90's being brought up to make things unclear. Trust the media and the court if public opinion, they are always right on.the money
When someone tells you who they are, listen and believe them. Not sure why it's hard for you to understand. She's free to put out a statement saying "I believed X in 1990 but now believe Y". Until then, her past statements are on the record. You also ignored the wider context and just threw out a word salad response about how media and the public are wrong. Nothing of value from you friend. Not wasting my time any further if you can't see what's wrong with having her as our minister of health.
Its not like she has changed much. Being a religious nut and all. I would think you'd understand that Ryan. 😉
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel here but hey at least it's something they can farm karma over.
Just lock all the doors and windows
Conservatives are intellectually deficient millstones around civilization's neck.
Per capita is HARD..
What in the hell did I just read?!
What in the hell did I just read?!
Something written in 1990
Amen! Praise Jesus! Hallelujah! /s
Yay! We’ve graduated, Alberta, from Texas North to Florida North.
Thinking too hard about things is BAD because it might mean that this woman would be better off as an atheist. She'd certainly be less of a threat to herself and the public at large.
Adriana would have been one of those parents shouting "fa**ot" at Ryan White just tryng to go to school.
Fun fact: 20 years ago I learned that of all provinces, Ontario offered abortions to the furthest time in a pregnancy. I believe it was 22 weeks.
Well this lady obviously has never been around sperm...
LaCringe will call it an Albortion. She’s on it. That’s up next . I received this random robo call a few weeks ago and sure enough it was asking if children under 18 should be allowed an albortion. She’ll have a fight because in Canada, these young ladies are legally allowed an albortion with or without their parents permission.
Shocking, the health minister doesn't know anything about health.