Home - List All Discussions

Abstinance IS 100% effective and practical!

Teaching sex control in the classroom!

by: theamericancatholic

What is the purpose of sex education? To teach kids what sex is? how to have sex? ways to prevent pregnancy? Ways to prevent STDs?
Abstinance is the only 100% effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancy and avoiding Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs). Contraception teaches kids how to play dice with life and their health.
If you are only interested in practical matters and not moral ones, than abstinance is the only choice for you. Abstinance prevents pregnancy. Sex, if not for purposes of procreation, serves no practcial purpose. The pro-abortionist should be all for it this idea right?
Or does sex provide something practical? The inflow of money into abortion clinics for one. One report stated that American women spent over 200 million dollars on contraception. Does anyone know the exact figures for men AND women? I bet its a lot of money. How nice of the free enterprise system to make money off from kids having sex.
I have a great idea, instead of teaching birth control, why not teach sex control? Hey kids, if you dont want to have babies, dont have sex!
In drivers education, we teach them to stay in the lines, how to make turns, to read signs, stay in their lanes, obey the speed limits, in short, we tell them how to drive and how not to drive. In sex education all we are doing is giving them the keys to the car and telling them to buckle up.
http://acatholicforamerica.blogspot.com/

reply from: Sigma

Contraception is safer than no protection. Abstinence, while great in concept, is not a practical solution to rely on for even a majority of people.

reply from: prolifejedi

Teach kids self control. Teach them that they have the right to say NO to Sex. Teach them the consequences (physical and emotional). Teach them that if he says "If you love me, you'll have sex with me" doesn't mean he truly loves you. Teach them that there are other ways to show love that aren't physical. Showing love doesn't have to be sexual. It can be nice things, too.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

I mostly agree with the sentiment there jedi ... But are you implying that sex isn't nice???
I think its the most loving and affectionate sign of devotion one can show to another - that's my reasoning for not throwing it around promiscuously.
If anything I thought that'd be one thing we could all agree on haha!

reply from: theamericancatholic

Abstinance is safer than any contraception.
Why is abstinance not practical? You think that a person who cant say no to sex is responsible enough to use contraception? Is a person who cannot control themselves sexually capable of making a life altering decision such as choosing to have an abortion?
What practical purpose does non procreative sex have? None. It is complete indulgence and gratification.

reply from: Alexandra

And there's an example of a self-fulfilling lie.
Why isn't it practical? Because of the MEMEME attitude--I will do what feels good when I want it, without restraint?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Abstinance being safer than contraception, undeniable. However,
Why should one be forced to live a life of austerity? I for one like to indulge myself as long as I am not harming anybody, i'm sure everybody has their vices whether they like to admit it or not.
If I really had to justify non procreative sex to you, which I don't, its simple enough. By making love to somebody, you're showing your love toward them in the most physical way possible. In doing so (and not getting her pregnant etc etc - implications implications) nobody is getting harmed - the exact opposite in fact.
What do you make of other species on this planet having non procreative sex?

reply from: Sigma

theamericancatholic
Agreed. However, the vast majority of people are not willing to be completely abstinent. Therefore, it is not a practical solution, alone anyway, to sexual problems.
This is like saying "If people didn't get angry then there wouldn't be any killing" (this isn't true, but for the sake of the argument assume it is). This is not a practical solution.
I think people can responsibly have sex. I think using contraceptives is responsible sex.
Not always, as Voice of Reason pointed out, but it certainly can be solely for gratification. Is this inherently bad? No, I don't believe so.
Alexandra
Not without restraint, but certainly people will do what feels good. If it feels bad generally people will not want to do it. That is why it is not practical for the vast majority of people.

reply from: AshMarie88

Pro-choicers, do you want less abortions? Yes? Then the answer is less sex.
But of course, I hear the same thing every day "People will have sex anyway".
So do you want less abortions or not?

reply from: Sigma

No, the answer is to address the reasons women have abortions. Less sex may mean fewer pregnancies, but still the same reasons to have an abortion.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Indeed.
I'll admit I feel happy to know I can sexually please my partner. Does that make me selfish?
Do you feel happy when you act on your Christian altruism? Does that make YOU selfish?
That's rhetorical by the way - a proverbial chicken and egg.

reply from: Gina

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Are you that disgusted by a normal bodily function that, if you believe in God, and I assume that you do, was given to us by God, and what's more, it is God who is responsible for the act being so pleasurable? Why then is it so sinful for you if a husband and wife engage in sex just to show their love for one another rather than for babymaking purposes?
Glad I'm not YOUR wife!

reply from: AshMarie88

No, the answer is to address the reasons women have abortions. Less sex may mean fewer pregnancies, but still the same reasons to have an abortion.
Most abortions are because of casual sex.
How can we fix that problem without those same people having sex? Huh?

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Disclaimer: Persona.
Have them neutered. That way, nobody's getting killed, because killing only counts after the sperm has met the egg. Anything goes as long as no killing's involved.
These people with their probabykilling attitudes and casual attitudes toward sex are immoral anyway and as such do not deserve freedom of choice over their own bodies.

reply from: Sigma

Assuming that one could ban casual sex, which would be problematic at best, it would not address the reasons that women have abortions. There would continue to be unwanted pregnancies and there would continue to be abortions.
Think a moment about why women abort. If pregnancy were 1 day of excellent health you would have very very few abortions occuring. Address the problems that pregnant women have and there will be little to no desire for abortion.
Making abortion illegal will not solve the problem of abortion, even ignoring the violation of rights. Reducing the desire for abortion will.

reply from: AshMarie88

Assuming that one could ban casual sex, which would be problematic at best, it would not address the reasons that women have abortions. There would continue to be unwanted pregnancies and there would continue to be abortions.
Think a moment about why women abort. If pregnancy were 1 day of excellent health you would have very very few abortions occuring. Address the problems that pregnant women have and there will be little to no desire for abortion.
Making abortion illegal will not solve the problem of abortion, even ignoring the violation of rights. Reducing the desire for abortion will.
Most women abort because it's convenient for them.
So they don't have to get big, so they don't have to hurt, so they don't have to puke, or feel horrible during a pregnancy...

reply from: Tam

If they really don't want kids, they should have themselves sterilized. That's making a choice about their OWN bodies. Abortion kills the body of SOMEONE ELSE. That's not ok.

reply from: Tam

If pregnancy lasted one day, would you still support abortion on demand? Or is one day of "not wanting the child attached to her" enough reason for you to condone killing babies?

reply from: Tam

That's the key--"as long as I am not harming anybody." One of your vices cannot be killing babies, that's what I'm saying.
There are many ways to show love physically that don't involve the insertion of the penis into the vagina, which is pretty much the only way you can get pregnant unless you find some other way to get sperm to the cervix through extreme carelessness or deliberate intent.
If the other species were committing surgical abortions to kill their unborn babies, you might have a point. But when other species get pregnant, they fricking deal with it, and we're the most intelligent (supposedly...I have my doubts) and most networked species on the planet--we CAN handle extra babies, what we can't handle is the karmic burden of all those killings. I shudder to think of it.

reply from: Sigma

Tam,
Likely none would support this, and likely none would desire this. Abortion would likely never have been an issue.
Infanticide might be, however.
AshMarie88
The statistics I've seen are these:
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
Some of these reasons can be addressed to at least reduce the number of abortions.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Ok Tam, you know what I said about reading around, getting an idea of my views? You should still do so, but I'll save you a bit of time, seeing as you seem to pick at 1 major aspect of my views repeatedly.
I value the life of an unborn baby only as much as I value the life of the next living thing, 'innocence' has nothing to do with it. Innocence is just a value judgement we attatch as we are emotional beings.
If killing an 'innocent' plant or an animal suits the desires and purposes of humankind, nobody bats an eyelid. Why is this? Are other living beings on this planet inferior to us?
I'm not malicous and duely respect other living things, I would not go out of my way to kill anything. However, it is in our 'nature' (gotta love that word - see my definition) to kill other things in a selfish way. I just see the traditional morals as human arrogance.
Something like politics, although still rooted in manufactured truth, I feel is a slightly less abstract concept. Maybe that's due to communication or something ... Maybe I'm incapable of feeling the same empathy for something that cannot object to being abused. Who knows? What I do know, is that morals are not divine and objective. To suggest such a thing would be 'nonsense on stilts' as a great man once said.

reply from: AshMarie88

Likely none would support this, and likely none would desire this. Abortion would likely never have been an issue.
Infanticide might be, however.
AshMarie88
From http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
Some of these reasons can be addressed to at least reduce the number of abortions.
Hence, it's inconvenient for them to be pregnant because of those reasons.
And you can't deny that there are some women who just don't want to deal with pain and getting a big belly. There are.

reply from: Sigma

And if you address those reasons, you will reduce the desire for abortion. Those reasons will still exist were abortion illegal or if there were fewer pregnancies. You stop demand, you stop supply. You stop supply, you get illegal supply.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

How can you aknowledge Sigma's point that something needs to be done at the root cause and then make such a statement?
Surely there are social factors as to why a woman would behave in such a selfish and bizarre way?

reply from: Tam

Likely none would support this, and likely none would desire this.
But would YOU support it? You didn't answer.

reply from: Tam

To be honest, the "innocent" part doesn't factor in for me at all. I oppose killing guilty people, too. It's not about innocence, it's about human rights.
I do.
Not IMO.
I disagree. That is a sickness of our culture, not an inherent part of being human.
Where do you draw the line? Do you support abortion on demand through all 9 months, or do you draw the line somewhere else?

reply from: Sigma

Apologies. Likely I would not. There would be no reason to, because there would be no desire for it, and, perhaps more importantly, no negative impact at all for the woman.
If giving birth were a horrible experience, my answer might change

reply from: AshMarie88

And if you address those reasons, you will reduce the desire for abortion. Those reasons will still exist were abortion illegal or if there were fewer pregnancies. You stop demand, you stop supply. You stop supply, you get illegal supply.
No, it won't reduce the desire for abortion. People still have sex and abort all the time... By addressing those issues, it won't make them stop having sex.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

I'm sorry Tam but I find your views somewhat inconsistent.
If you had a cancer growing in your womb would choose to have it operated on?

reply from: AshMarie88

Killing something that's not supposed to be in your body, that will kill you eventually, is not the same as killing a baby that is meant to be in the womb, that most likely will not kill you (it's rare).
How can you compare cancer to a baby?

reply from: Sigma

You're absolutley right. However, addressing those issues will eliminate the desire for abortion and thus fewer abortions would occur.
A woman could have tons of sex and get pregnant every year. With no desire for abortion, however, she will not abort any of those pregnancies. More sex would only mean more abortions if nothing is done about the reasons abortions occur.

reply from: AshMarie88

You're absolutley right. However, addressing those issues will eliminate the desire for abortion and thus fewer abortions would occur.
A woman could have tons of sex and get pregnant every year. With no desire for abortion, however, she will not abort any of those pregnancies. More sex would only mean more abortions if nothing is done about the reasons abortions occur.
I don't get what you're saying... By bringing up those issues, that doesn't mean a woman wouldn't want an abortion if she got pregnant.
I'm missing something you're saying... I just don't completely understand. :/

reply from: yoda

And just exactly how would anyone address the reasons given? For example, if a woman wants to postpone childbearing, how would you "deal" with that?.
Or, if she cannot afford a baby, would you give her money from your on pocket?
Or, if she has a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child, how would you deal with that?
Or, if she is too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.), how?
Or, if she feels a child will disrupt their education or career, what then?

reply from: AshMarie88

And just exactly how would anyone address the reasons given? For example, if a woman
wants to postpone childbearing, how would you "deal" with that?.
Or, if she cannot afford a baby, would you give her moeny from your on pocket?
Or, if she has a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child, how would you deal with that?
Or, if she is too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.), how?
Or, if she feels a child will disrupt their education or career, what then?
Ah I was trying to ask the same thing, but in a different way... Thanks for bringing that up like that, yoda.

reply from: yoda

No, it isn't. The way we use it, the word means "without guilt".
How does your perception of other people's eyelid batting affect your moral opinion? Do you form your morals based on the latest polls?
Well that must be handy when you're trying to get others to do immoral things.

reply from: yoda

You're welcome, AshMarie.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

How do you determine what is 'supposed to be in your body'?
Cancer won't necesarily kill you, it is possible to coexist.
I compare cancer to a baby as they are both living clusters of cells - growing a multiplying.
What about the rights of the cancer?
You can save yourself this argument by just saying that you're pro-Human-life, not pro-life-in-general.

reply from: yoda

That would mean that YOU are the same thing as a cancer.
Give it up. I've shown you what that phrase means, here it is again:
pro-life adjective against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially by campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736610

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

I have one opinion on morality, you have another. How many times?
Other than the fact I'm a 'babykilling advocate', would me and you honestly disagree on general rules of altruistic morality? Would we treat the walking/talking living in any different way? C'mon yoda, think about it ... Not that I give a*****about political correctness really, would you honestly make the same criticisms of my character had I deduced these morals from a mainstream church such as Christianity / Islam / Buddhism? I think you probably would not. Just because I came to these conclusions without the help on any mainstream-recognised-school-of-moral-thought, does not make them any less valid than yours.
I too am aiming for a better world - I don't see how fighting an inevitable tide will achieve this (other than in a romantic courageous sort of way - which i'm not suggesting is your motive, don't get me wrong).
Abortion is an established practice now. No ammount of social reaction will change that. As sad as that may be, it is the case.

reply from: TheVoiceOfReason

Yes of course I am the same thing as cancer. Why do you always reiterate my philosophies then redirect them at me as insults? Surely your reiteratation is an aknowledgement of their apparent truths? I know that you understand what I'm getting at.
I know how much you love your dictionary, and hate people that disagree with it but the term pro-life is a misleading one.
Pro = Supporting/Favouring. Life = 1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. 2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
These words were put together to create a new meaning by the media out of the general convenience that all political framing achieves. That is the meaning you give there.
In the truest sense of the term 'pro-life', ie. the breaking down of both terms seperately, nobody can possibly claim to be 100% pro-life.

reply from: yoda

I don't get any of my moral opinions from any religion, so why would I expect you to?
Doesn't matter to me, even if you're right. I'll keep on doing what I think is right until my dying day. But I doubt that you are right.

reply from: yoda

No, you're not. I said that to get your attention, but any grade schooler knows that a cancer is only a small part of a living organism, not an organism itself.
That is NOT the way to understand an established term. The separate and individual meanings of the terms often times has little to do with the meaning of the whole phrase together. As an educated person, I would have thought that you'd understand that those terms that are listed in a dictionary have an established meaning.
What is the meaning of the term "hot shot"? Does it mean a heated piece of a bullet? Or a warm hypodermic syringe?

reply from: prolifejedi

I'm saying that teenagers are not mature enough to know the difference between love and infatuation.
If you truly love someone, you can show that in ways that are not physical. Do 15 year olds really know what love is?
Maturity counts for something.
And a lot of women getting abortions are also pressured into it by their partners. So much for Love.
If the man loved the woman, he would take responsibility and be a MAN. A loving man and be willing to be a FATHER.
Now, that does not apply to rapists, but a child conceived by rape does not deserve to die because of who their father was.
Here in my state, a 22 year old man had sex with a 14 year old girl! That's statutory rape even if it ***was*** consensual.
Love and affection do not have to equal sex.

reply from: Tam

Apologies. Likely I would not. There would be no reason to, because there would be no desire for it, and, perhaps more importantly, no negative impact at all for the woman.
If giving birth were a horrible experience, my answer might change
But I thought the reason you support abortion is that no one should be "required" to be "attached" to another human being against his/her will? Why would that no longer matter to you if pregnancy were only one day long? What if it were two days? Where would you draw the line where you start believing that the person should be allowed to kill her child?

reply from: Tam

How is that relevant to the abortion issue? If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that a choice having to do with MY body and NO ONE ELSE'S is relevant to the abortion debate (which involves a choice that affects not only my body, but the body of my child), then I might answer your hypothetical question about my personal medical choices. Since I doubt you can, I doubt I'll be answering that. Just out of curiousity, what "inconsistency" prompted that question?

reply from: Tam

It's not even about human life. Is the cancer not part of a HUMAN body? I think the difference lies in the fact that in abortion, we are talking about ending the life of an individual human being. Ending the life of a person. That is not the same as a personal medical decision about one's own body. Abortion advocates try to pretend abortion is a personal medical decision about one's own body, rather than an act of homicide.
That says it all, really. One is an act of homicide, the other is a personal medical decision.

reply from: Tam

You have evidence of this, of course.............................?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Are you that disgusted by a normal bodily function that, if you believe in God, and I assume that you do, was given to us by God, and what's more, it is God who is responsible for the act being so pleasurable? Why then is it so sinful for you if a husband and wife engage in sex just to show their love for one another rather than for babymaking purposes?
Glad I'm not YOUR wife! I don['t know if Gina is pro-life, but I have to agree with her on this. Sex is a beautiful gift from God. I don't care if a married couple has sex for procreation reasons, or to build their relationship, or both. As long as they're married and ready for the natural consequences of sex.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88
I don't believe I can explain it any clearer. If a woman has no desire for an abortion she will not acquire one. If we address the reasons women have abortions that will reduce the desire for abortions.
If you wish to discuss how to address those reasons, we certainly may.
Tam
If none desired abortion, against whose will would pregnancy be? I would likely not support abortion because even the concept of abortion would likely be foreign.
The reasoning would still hold true, were there a detriment or stress put on the woman's body because of this connection. If there is no detriment to the woman's body associated with pregnancy, nothing being used in the sense it is now, the argument I use that assumes this would not apply.
It involves a choice about the use of the woman's body by the fetus. Cancer is no invader, it is a growth of the woman's own cells which the woman's body accomodates and redirects blood to in order to feed those cells. In a sense, those cells are supposed to be there.

reply from: AshMarie88

I don't believe I can explain it any clearer. If a woman has no desire for an abortion she will not acquire one. If we address the reasons women have abortions that will reduce the desire for abortions.
Why or how would telling people the reasons people have them, reduce the desire for women to have them?

reply from: Sigma

Ah, I believe I perceive the misunderstanding.
I mean address as: To direct one's efforts or to deal with. To address or apply oneself to something, direct one's efforts towards something.
If we address the reasons, we deal with those reasons.

reply from: nsanford

You cannot expect all children to be abstinent. Trust me, I know.
Thank goodnes for sex ed, or me and a lot of teenagers I know would be in trouble.

reply from: Alexandra

That's self-fulfilling. They'll do it anyway, might as well not say anything about it.
And if you'd had abstinence training, there would have been even less.
My high school had a mandatory Health (haha) class for ninth-graders. In our senior year, at least five girls were pregnant.
I waited until marriage--my mother taught me that!

reply from: nsanford

You are obviously in denial about the age we live in.
Aids, herpes, etc.
Oh, I had abstinence training, I just didn't listen to it. I just used effective birth control. I'm not having kids for a loooong time.

reply from: theamericancatholic

The way to have fewer abortions is for people to have less sex. Period.
Underlying cause of every abortion? Woman had sex and did not want a baby.
We cannot adopt a "they are going to do it anyway" attitude when it comes to kids. If we dont teach kids what not to do when they are young, they will enage in those behaviors all their lives.
-NSANFORD
You speak for all children? And I noticed that you said children, not young adults. How young do you think a person should be when they first start having sex. Throughout my teen years I did not feel the need to engage in sexual activity. I didn't have to validate myself to myself or to others in any way with sex.
-NSANFORD
I suppose you advocate handing out safe needles so kids dont get diseases when they do drugs?
Kids do not know the difference between love and sex, or even love and physical attraction. We must teach kids to use their minds and not govern their behavior with their hormones.
Which of these two statements makes more sense?
The teenager wants to have sex, so they should first get some contraception.
or
The teenager wants to have sex, so they should first THINK!

reply from: Sigma

There are programs to do just that. Lesser of two evils. Drug use or diseases. Take your pick.

reply from: prolifejedi

A lot of teens are pressured into sex by peer pressure. Which is really sad.

reply from: Hereforareason

How is that?
Exactly! Which is why it should be shared only between a man and a woman who are married.
Adress the reasons how?
Is a cancerouse tumor a living being that has a beating heart and will be born to live a life?

reply from: ThunderKitten

Oh, boy, a perfect opportunity to start doing surveys!
Hey nsanford, (and anyone else) a question:
How has contraception affected your views on sex, for yourself personally? If contraception stopped existing, what would your views be?

reply from: Sigma

Because they are not willing to be abstinent.
Social programs are all I can currently think of. Battered and homeless women's shelters provide a function that can make the option of carrying the pregnancy much more possible. Financial concerns are one of the top reasons. Emotional fears and concerns could be addressed through education about the options available after birth. Safe-havens are underutilized, and there is the adoption option.
What about you? Any suggestions?
The only difference you've listed between a cancerous growth and a just fertilized egg is what the egg is going to be. Certainly a fetus is not a cancerous growth, but the woman's body accomodates both naturally.

reply from: Sigma

I don't even know if I can imagine this. A lot more oral sex, probably, but the old pull-out method would likely make an appearance.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Adress the reasons how?
For example, if a woman wants to abort because she can't afford the baby, provide her with free baby clothes, help her find a higher paying job, team her up with another mother so they can split the rent, etc.
If a woman wanted to abort because she was raped and doesn't want the rapist/father to share custody, change the law so that if the child was concieved in rape, the raper has no parental rights.
Etc.
An analogy is not an argument. Comparing an unborn baby to a cancerous tumor does not turn him/her into a tumor. That you can't directly address the morality of abortion only proves the weakness of your reasoning. It's like saying we should stay with a politician because you shouldn't "change horses in midstream". It's not a reason, it's a different concept altogether.
Edit: Hey, I just realized I used an analogy to show why analogies are bad... A sign of the apocalypse? Maybe.

reply from: Hereforareason

So, if a person who has cancer is not willing to go through Chemo because they dont' want to loose their hair and they would rather be partying, does that mean that Chemo doesn't work?
hm, well everything else is want it now, get it now. Walk into the store do a little shoplifting, want that guys shoes shoot him and take them, not like that person set their house on fire......No, these guys shouldnt' be made to have self control and disicpline! That would be infringing on their rights!!!!!
If the guy can't excersize self control, do you really want him around your daughter?
If woman really knew what does and could happen to them during an abortion, the abortion rates would drop drastically. By all means start truely educating them.
For those who are pregnant and need help, help them! We are a sorry country if we can't take care of our own people that need help. But we are a sorry country already, because we are also encouraging the very things that bring these young woman to the place of needing desperate help. We are training these kids that they don't have to wait, they don't have to excersize self control. They can do what they want when they want. Can you see how that has effected our nation?
A fertalized egg, if not already will have a soul, a conscience and that child is formed in the image of God.
And the body doesn't try to fight off that cancerouse growth that is killing the woman? I really can't believe that you are comparing the two in the way that you are. It's rediculouse.
That may be your opinion, but it is my Faith based on knowledge that helps me through this difficult life and prepares me for life after death.
What will you do after death? Where will you be?
Amber

reply from: Sigma

No, it means that if the vast majority of people are not willing to go through chemo then we should not use chemo as the primary method of treating cancer. It is not a practical solution to the problem of cancer.
From what I've seen, women are generally informed of the risks.
Absolutely. Any suggestions?
What do you believe "the image of God" means?
No, not really. They are the woman's own cells that are growing. The body recognizes them as part of itself and facilitates their growth.
The quote means that to substitute faith for knowledge is the easy way out, like dying to avoid a difficult life.
I shall certainly see, now won't I?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

From what I've seen, women are generally informed of the risks.
Ha are you freaking serious??? Betcha if I told my friend that abortion could be a factor in breast cancer, sterility, cervical damage, and other things, she'd be like "what?"

reply from: Sigma

Correction, women are generally informed of the risks as determined by reputable organizations

reply from: prolifejedi

There was a young woman who was told that she would die if she didn't abort. Well, she didn't abort and as far as I know she's still alive.
Planned Parenthood feeds on fear. They also lie about development of the unborn child. The heart begins to beat by 3 weeks. Brain waves are present by at least 6 weeks. But PP doesn't tell them this. They tell them its just "tissue".
If these women were really informed of the risks, there wouldn't be 1 million abortions a year, that's for sure.
Oh, and Planned Parenthood was sued in the last few years by a young woman who was told she didn't have breast cancer. Turns out she DID.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Not to mention hiding cases of statuatory rape.

reply from: MaleNurse

Catholic man is correct. Abstinence is 100% effective and practical. However, can this be effectively implimented to achieve the result we are seeking.
Reminds of the movie Anchorman. Scene using the "Black Panther" cologne. When describing its effectiveness on attracting women he says "60% of the time,..... it works EVERY TIME!"
The result I seek is ( 0% )elective abortions.
Education and abstinence programs should accompany a federal/state ban. I feel this is paramount to the success of the legal ban.
Until the federal/state bans are implimented, abstinence programs are a good start. But I won't be satisfied with a 20% reduction in abort rates. I want the whole tomatoe!

reply from: Alexandra

I don't even know if I can imagine this. A lot more oral sex, probably, but the old pull-out method would likely make an appearance.
A bad way to have sex and a good way to get pregnant.

reply from: AshMarie88

I don't even know if I can imagine this. A lot more oral sex, probably, but the old pull-out method would likely make an appearance.
That method never works.

reply from: Sigma

I agree with both of these statements (well, maybe not "never works", but generally speaking). This is why I'm glad contraceptives exist

reply from: Sigma

If it cannot be effectively implimented and enforced then it is not practical.

reply from: MaleNurse

It is practical for say a 20% reduction in aborts.

reply from: nsanford

Children, young adults. Once they turn 15, same difference. But anyway, that is you. Some children do in fact feel no need to engage in sexual activity. But then again, some do. No sex until marrige? For some, not for others. And Catholicman(do you mind if I call you that?), I have no age, when ever the person is mentally and emontionally ready. There is no definitive answer to that question.
Yes, I do advocate handing out safe needles. It's better than the alternative. Would you rather see Hep C or some other horrible disease run rampant instead?
Now that is propaganda. I could just as easily say this:
The teenager wants to have sex, lets prepare him so he won't harm himself or others.
or
The teenager wants to have sex, let's tell him not to and hope for the best.
As I tell Yoda, it goes both ways.

reply from: yoda

ROTFLMAO!!!! "As you tell Yoda"???????????
Are you into braggadocio now???

reply from: Sigma

I don't see how current data can support any reduction in abortions

reply from: Hereforareason

But what if Chemo were the only way to treate Cancer with any hope of survival?
What are the risks they are told of Sigma?
Are they told of possible death from any one of many complications, sterilization, a perferated uterus, internal bleeding, breast cancer and then the minor complications ones?
Or is it just the monor ones?
yeah sure. Donate to a local house that takes care of these girl's. Teach kids that sex isn't just for pleasure and shouldn't be done before marriage.
Just what it says in Genesis.
"God created man in his own image, male and female created he them. "
Of all God's creations, we are the most like God. Is that our form? possibly. But we have souls, we have thinking capability, we discern between right and wrong.
Okay. Be that as it may, is that tumor ever going to be born, have a soul, a conscience and live in the world?
Maybe. But what is insinuated is that all faith is only a lack of knowledge.
Yes you shall, but by then it will be too late to chance anything and go elsewhere. Don't you think you should put some carefull thought to it now while you have the chance to determine where you are going?
Do you mean that you don't believe those risks I listed are possible?
And then there are the woman who commited suicide because of their abortion, just for their families to find out that she was never pregnant! Planned parenthood lied and collected their money.
No actually I would rather all of these STD's would disappear again, because there is no way to transmit them.
hm, did you check out lifedynamics.com? It shows that the prolife movement is winning and the pro aborts are scared.
Amber

reply from: MaleNurse

Agreed there could be no unbiased sources by the nature of the outcome the source would support( I know you love to hear that), I was just picking any number less than 100% reduction in abort rates as being unsatisfactory for me.

reply from: Sigma

That sucks for the majority of people who have no desire to go through chemo. Chemo would continue to be an impractical solution since the majority of people do not wish to go through it. Something would need to change so chemo is practical for the majority of people.
They generally are informed of risks that have been determined by reputable organizations.
Absolutely. With somewhere to go they will have no fear of having nowhere to live with a new baby. Private donations may not create enough of these shelters, however.
What do you think about free health care for pregnant women?
Don't think this will work.
Taken literally, a just fertilized egg is not in the image of God.
A just fertilized egg is none of those things. Their difference is what they will be, yes.
I can see how you would get that, but that is honestly not the intent. It makes a statement about those who use faith as an excuse, not on faith itself.
And perhaps I have given it careful thought and believe what I am doing is the right thing. I believe pro-life people are misguided in what they are doing.
I mean what I said, that women are informed of risks as determined by reputable organizations.
This was not my quote.

reply from: pray4em

Self-control is by far the best birth control, it not only prevents unwanted pregnancy but has the power to control one's life. Still abstinence without good moral values and healthy life style is like a condom with a hole in it.
Abortion is so obviously not the desired outcome and so obviously the result of bad choices. When children come from broken homes and have no positive role models, self-control has already failed. I'll admit that any type of birth control that dosn't include a victim is better than abortion.

reply from: Tam

You know what God looks like?! Wow, that's awesome! Enlighten the rest of us mere mortals!
A tumor is the woman's own cells, as you rightly point out. A child is not. That is what is so different about her egg, and what you call a "fertilized egg." A "fertilized egg" = a human life. Not just "human life" but A human life--at least one, actually, because there might be twins or more. Entirely different, morally, from something having to do only with the woman's body.

reply from: Hereforareason

Sigma, if chemo were the only cure to cancer and it was an absolute cure, you are saying that the procedure needs to be changed, not the minds of the people? Are you kidding?!!!???!!!
I have no desire to go through masive surgery. But if I was mangled in a car wreck, I probably wouldn't have much of a choice if I wanted to live.
Absinence is the ONLY sure way to not get pregnant or get a STD. Agreed?
What risks do you believe exist Sigma?
I think that in the long run the government needs to back off and get it's hands off our communities. It is not their job to provide for these people. That responsability is to the individuals of the community. Churches especially. Should health care be totally removed immediatly? Of course not, that would be disaster.
However Sigma, not only is abortion the problem, these unmarried girl's being pregnant is also the problem.
Why not? Because we have raised such selfish little beasts who don't know the meaning of self control and work but want instant gratification? Well, it might be uphill but it's that or let them continue to sink to rock bottom.
(I am not saying that all young people are like this. I am saying that the majority is being raised to this, can you disagree?)
Sigma, do you know what God looks like?
And, what does it really matter if a baby is not fully formed yet to be what it will in the end? Isn't it still going to be a, BABY??!!!
Not that we know when a baby has a soul, but doesn't the very fact that that baby will have, kind of say, special, different from a tumor!!!???!!
I hope you have Sigma. But I'm not talking specifically about the abortion issue here. That aside, are you a good person? Are you going to Heaven or hell?
No I think that was voice of reason's quote.
Amber

reply from: yoda

You know what God looks like?! Wow, that's awesome! Enlighten the rest of us mere mortals!
Can I have the movie rights? Huh?

reply from: Sigma

Certainly you can try to change people's minds. Until you do, chemo is not a practical solution because the vast majority of people are not willing to go through it. End of story.
Then you will have issues such as abortion, imo. Your choice. I doubt there will ever be enough charity to go around to everyone who needs it.
Yes, I do. It matters only so much how you raise children. Human nature plays a large part in this topic. I don't think what you suggested will work because of this.
I know what the rest of us look like. If we are in the image of God, I believe it is reasonable to say that a zygote is not in the image of God.
I believe I am a good person. I don't know whether I will go to Heaven or Hell, or if there is no afterlife.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Alright, this whole "an unborn baby is the same as a cancerous tumor" thing is stupid. Do any of you pro-choice people fail to see the difference between the two? I doubt it. Either this is an argument for the sake of an argument, or I don't know what.
Does anyone, for thier own edification, need the difference explained? If so, try to tell us how it is that you're not grasping the concept, and maybe some of us here can help you out. Some scienctific concepts can be tricky, afterall.

reply from: Sigma

No, many pro-life people justify disallowing abortion (or include in their reasons) by citing the fact that pregnancy is natural and the woman's body natually accomodates the fetus; that the fetus is not an invader. Involving cancer in the discussion is to show that even something that the woman's body may naturally accomodate and that isn't an invader may be killed. Natural does not equal good and does not equal cannot be changed.

reply from: Tam

No, many pro-life people justify disallowing abortion (or include in their reasons) by citing the fact that pregnancy is natural and the woman's body natually accomodates the fetus; that the fetus is not an invader. Involving cancer in the discussion is to show that even something that the woman's body may naturally accomodate and that isn't an invader may be killed. Natural does not equal good and does not equal cannot be changed.
What should be forbidden IMO is killing children--any children, of any age or stage. Yes, pregnancy is natural. Yes, the child isn't invading the mom's body. Yes, cancer can be accommodated by the body. None of that has to do with the basic issue: is it wrong to kill unborn children? And THAT is a matter of opinion.
I believe it's wrong to kill any children--born or unborn. You disagree. But don't pretend that the reason I think it's wrong to kill children is that "pregnancy is natural" or that "the fetus is not an invader" is the bottom line for any other anti-babykilling folks. We just happen to agree that babykilling is wrong, and we do realize it's a matter of opinion and that some people think babykilling is perfectly fine, provided that (fill in the blank with your specific list of rationalizations).

reply from: Tam

I know what the rest of us look like. If we are in the image of God, I believe it is reasonable to say that a zygote is not in the image of God.
So would it be fair to say that you are someone who takes the Bible to be literal truth? If so, does that apply to every word in the Bible? If not, can you explain why you feel that the "we were made in God's image" bit is literally true IYO but the rest is not?

reply from: yoda

There ya go! It's all about values/opinions/priorities........ no logical reason needed or required. And no "proof" is possible, either way.
We value innocent human life, they don't. Pretty simple, really.

reply from: yoda

OMG! You're holding Siggy to his word?

reply from: Tam

OMG! You're holding Siggy to his word?
LOL I know, I haven't learned my lesson, eh?

reply from: Sigma

No, it would not. If one believes the Bible contains the literal truth then what I said follows. I made no comment on my personal beliefs.

reply from: yoda

So what about the rest of us, Einstein? What are we to make of your claim that "Taken literally, a just fertilized egg is not in the image of God."?
Were you just blowing smoke?

reply from: Tilly

Well. I was about to just skip on merrily past this entire forum, untill I saw some of the posts in this particular topic... Suffice to say that I'm not the happiest little champ on the internet right now, given the level of idealistic ranting taking place. Now, on topic I go.
True, abstinance is the safest form of contraception, this was actually stressed during my highschool sexual education classes. However, I feel like pointing out that, in the entire grade of roughly 200 students, I think about 1 student actually expressed any intent whatsoever in actually taking that advice, and he was devoutly christian to begin with. "Oh Tilly you silly troll" I expect will be the initial kneejerk reaction to this statement (and has been towards similar comments all through this thread) "It's because they're just selfish and can't control themselves!"
Well done. You're quite right, most of us can't control ourselves, we're hormone ridden kids. Does this solve this conundrum though? Not even remotely. 'It's simple, you babyeating monster Tilly, teach them abstinence!' Wow. Just, wow. Allready you've solved a global problem. seriously. No sarcasm.
I think it was said about... 4 times...? in this thread that that doesn't work. Well, they're quite right, kids have been shagging each other stupid without instructions for more than a few generations just fine so far. Myself as an example: My first sexual experience (I'm not going into details) was far, far before any kind of sexual education was introduced to me beyond 'sex is what grownups do when they love each other very much etc etc' ad nauseum. What does this mean though? Simple: Lack of education doesn't mean lack of sex.
'Obviously this means that you're a deviant Tilly, and your parents were evil morons!' I'll assume is the next answer. Could be, might not be, who knows, but it's still actually a point that should be adressed. Are my early forays into the world of sex a result of bad parenting, or my own selfish desires? I would say no. I have an excellent mother; a number of you actually remind me of her in her bleeding-heartedness for everything on the planet. She always made sure to teach me all about consequences and responcibility, and was a loving parent. My father, despite being overly vocal about his dislike of certain groups (certain politicians, rapists, murderers, etc), was somewhat the same. The two made sure that I understood that sex wasn't just for fun, and that it should be left untill you meet someone you love. (That means they tried to teach me abstinence, for those who are just skimming or can't follow where I'm going with this.) The grand total of sexual education I received were from the kid's books "Where did I come from" and "What's happening to me?", coupled with some medical journals I grabbed from the bookcase to try and see pictures of 'teh boobies' in, but ended up learning about STD's.
The result of this loving marriage and a childhood of people teaching me sex isn't for the hell of it? I've allready told you, but the point likley needs to be repeated: Lack of knowledge does not equal lack of sex. Nor does endorsment of Abstinance equal lack of sex.
I think I've made all the points I'm willing to make in a single post, but rest assured I will be hanging around to respond to any comments about it.
Edit: Gah, of course. I spend so long reading the thread I forget the initial post! A simple, short rebuttal should do, otherwise it'll invite people to just pick at that rather than pay any attention to the bulk of the post.
Quite simply, in the educational facility in which I was taught sex-ed, The purpose seemed to be: To teach kids what sex is, ways to prevent pregnancy, Ways to prevent STDs. I don't recall any instructions on how to have sex, or any kind of endorsment of sex, it simply seemed to tell us all about the dangers. I have no idea what kind of sex-ed you must've been through, but I certanly wasn't taught how to shag.

reply from: theamericancatholic

The point here is, is that more sex education does not equal less sex. I am not for abstinance only, but I would certainly say that abstinance needs to be taught in the schools. If all we teach kids is the mechanics of sex, than all we do is make them, perhaps, more efficient at getting pregnant.
Sex must have a moral component or else there wll no respect for sex or child rearing.

reply from: Tilly

Did you just skip over that post? The point of sexual education isn't to give pointers on how to have it well, it isn't even to try and limit sex, that's been tried extensively over the last 60 years (a very conservative number, it's been tried for far, far longer without success, but I don't have the time right now to look for sources to extend that line any further than 60 or so years) and was proven pretty well to be an exercise in futility.
The mechanics of sex are not taught, instead methods of contraception and common sense about STIs are. If sexual education was simply making kids more efficient at getting pregnant, then obviously sexual education is doing the opposite of what it's setting out to do. This isn't the case. The reality is that kids have sex; a vast majority of them before 16. The purpose of sexual education is to teach them that if they can't keep it in their pants, then for god's sake BE CAREFUL. Without that education, I sincerely believe that fully half of my high school grade would have been pregnant before reaching 16 (note: the grade was about 6/10 female. That's one tenth of females I believe were not sexually active, and I'm pretty concrete about that.). Probably almost half of those pregnant girls would have gotten STI's too. That's the purpose of sexual education: caution. I can't stress that enough. If it weren't for sexual education, I guarantee you that abortion rates would currently be through the roof, and I think that's probably the thing you're most concerned about, isn't it?
I understand that you're accepting of the fact that abstinence only schemes wouldn't work, but I should once again point out that abstinence is already being heavily endorsed by the school system (At least here in Australia.), that message though, is almost universally ignored by the student body. That's the reality of the sexual education system. I think that most of the P.E. teachers who're teaching the stuff would be overjoyed if their students listened to them and abstained, and that they didn't have to be worried that their kids might come to school pregnant. The people who were writing it would be even more overjoyed if their calls for lack of sexual promiscuity were heard, but it'll never happen. It's never happened in the past, it'll never happen in the future. Sorry, but idealism won't stop human nature, and that's why the sexual education scheme is in place to limit the damage that human nature can cause.

reply from: galen

hmmm how did Adam and Eve get plugged in anyway? Who taught them? God ?
BTW while you guys rant on about right and wrong, want to come hand out condoms w/ me at a local shelter? that way when you've gotten done teaching everyone about self controll, they won't have STD's as a remant of thier drug filled/ abused by the husband/ drunk out of thier mind phase.
mary
"sex education in our schools is as necessary as biology class"
me

reply from: theamericancatholic

God created man in His image and likeness, man and woman He created them. They were man and wife. God also said that the man and woman should be fruitful and multiply. God did not create abortion any more than God created any other form of murder. The blood that man sheds shall call up from the earth to God and man will be held accountable for it.
I would no sooner hand out condoms than use one. This man is 33 and abstinant. And when you get up off the floor after hearing that you might read that abortion is just self destructive as drug use or domestic violence.
Yes, there is right and wrong. And it is the right and obligation of right thinking people to teach people those principles.
We are our brothers keeper.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Catholic, I like to remind people that in the 80's in Africa, the most common way of getting AIDS was intraveneously. It wasn't until contraception that sex became the most common way. To promote contraception, Westerners actually fought against the teaching of abstinence among tribal peoples. Uganda has lowered its Aids rate the most of any African country -- they use abstinence. The countries that have used contraception have seen their AIDS rates soar. In fact, Uganda has one of the lowest rates of condom usage, while countries with high condom usage also have high AIDS rates. The Phillipines is another example of the power of abstinence (largely b/c of the Catholic faith of the peopl) lowering AIDS rates while other poor contracepted societies die by the condom. It's sad that the UN so hates abstinence they'd rather let people die than support it. In fact, the organization human rights watch is so stupid they consider it a human rights violation that Uganda doesn't teach contraception in the classroom. Isn't that sick?

reply from: faithman

You fail to understand that one may value all life, yet assign a higher value to the lives of his/her own species.
AAHH lets just get it said. Abortion advocates are punk mouth fools full of self hatred. Murder in all forms is an hate crime. Anyone who kills womb children, destroys the image of themselves, as we all were a "blob of tissue" in mommy's tummy once upon a time. Anyone with a lick of since can see these idiots for what they are. We will pitty them, but not until the indiscreminant slaughter of our womb brothers and sisters comes to an end. Justice before mercy.

reply from: yoda

I don't even know who's being quoted here, but I'll assume it was a probabykilling advocate.
I save myself the "argument" by saying I'm antibabykilling.
How's that?

reply from: galen

TAC :
No one said God created abortion... lol!
BUT... he did create sex ed... who do you think told A & E what to do??
Still there is a learning curve before anyone who has the aformentioned problems gets a handle on self controll... I see it every day. BTW want to come down to the shelter and rock a few babies while teaching these girls about abstinance? It might be a great experience for you. i say this in all sincerity.
Mary
' sex education is as necessary as biology class..."
me
ps
in my sex ed class we teach abstinence.

reply from: faithman

I value the life of chickens, when they give me eggs for breakfast, and legs at the KFC for lunch. I thank God for the cow that gave me that angus burger, and the life of the spuds dipped in hot lard on the side. I thank God for the Little womb child that will be at the window tomorrow to take my order.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics