Home - List All Discussions

Can we have ever have a moral non-heated discussion about abortion?

by: NewMom

Is it ever possible in here without offending anyone that we could possibly have a moral, non-heated discussion about abortion without throwing religion into it? Or how about without throwing snide comments out there too? When I say religion I mean all forms. No one in here meant it to be a relgious war, right? Its a moral war.
Let's have a clean factual discussion about abortion and leave out religion, nastiness and name calling. For some of us it may have everything to do with religion on why we believe morally abortion is not right, but for now let's clear the air and start out fresh.
We are all adults.
___________________________________________________________________
I'll start. I support pro-life not as a choice but as a moral, maternal instinct. I am also pro-life because I believe that murder of any living being is wrong.

reply from: faithman

I am a pro-life christian who believes all pro-aborts, with everyone else without Christ, goes to hell. The first amendment of the US constitution assures my right to proclaim that. The very back bone of the pro-life movement are those with a faith in Christ. So if being "adult" means I have to be musseled by a secular humanist socialist from canada, then let me remain a perpetual child. For one must come to Christ as a child. The accusation of childishness is thus the ultimate complement to me, thank you. For I would never want to be an adult like you or CP. You are free to post here as I am, and that is because the forum is owned by a Southern Baptist Christian, who tolerates borthead and secular humanist socialist crap. If you don't like the forum you are free to leave. But you will not dictate to us, and restrict the religious freedom Our American patriots bled out to secure.

reply from: MC3

New Mom,
The short answer to your question is, probably, no. If there was ever at time for righteous anger, or an issue for which it was appropriate, this is it. As I have said many times, this is not some ivory-tower philosophical discussion in which academics in plaid smoking jackets with elbow patches are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is a street fight with knife-wielding moral degenerates who contend that it is permissible to butcher helpless babies for money and political power.
I sympathize with what you are saying, but in a way it is probably unfair for you to expect this battle to ever be anything other than what it is. These people are not our opponents, they are our enemies. To understand that distinction, I ask you to consider that you are Jewish in 1935 and living in Germany. Would you have been able to sit down with members of the SS and have a "moral, non-heated" talk with them about what they were doing? If you were sitting across the table from Adolf Hitler or Heinrich Himmler or Reinhard Heydrich, would you have conducted yourself in a "clean factual" manner with no hint of nastiness or offensive rhetoric?
To be more personal about it, think about this analogy. Your name here is "New Mom" which, I assume, means you have a baby in your life. To be pro-life means that you consider the unborn as morally the same as your child. If someone was contending that they should be allowed to rip the arms off your baby, then rip the legs off and crush the head and skull, would you be willing sit down with them and have a peaceful and rational discussion about it? I would hope not.
Now, you may deceive yourself into thinking the pro-choice mob is not like the Hitlers, Himmlers and Heydrichs of the world. If so, you are terribly wrong. The only difference is in the scale of their crimes and, by that measure, our enemies are worse. One day the world will see that but, in the mean time, our duty is to stop them. I have put in a lot of ring-time with these people and will continue to do so until the killing stops or I am called home. And while you may find this harsh or even un-Christian of me, I have never felt an obligation to treat them with respect they have not earned and to which they have no rightful claim.
There is one thing you are absolutely right about, however. Abortion is not a religious issue. It is a civil rights and a human rights issue. It just so happens that most of those who fight against it are people of faith.

reply from: yoda

Right, on both counts. And I'd even add that most of the religious people who fight abortion are Roman Catholics. Why that is, I can't say.
But to be perfectly "logical", there is no prospect for calm rationality in a debate that is quite frankly based entirely on emotions. Our emotions rule our values, and the central question on the (elective) abortion issue is which we value more: The life of an innocent unborn baby, or the "right" of the baby's mother to kill it if she wishes.
Now, what "non-emotional" arguments can be made about that? None at all, as far as I know. All we can hope for is civility, at least part of the time. And even that is fleeting, at best.

reply from: futureshock

That's pathetic that you can't even have one thread about abortion without emotional rudeness.
The reason for this is, pro-lifer's are scared to have a rational, non-emotive discussion about abortion, because they know they can't win in that arena.

reply from: RedTaintedRose

Happy Naked Pagan Dance to all.. I am a moderate.. I believe abortion will be reduced only by education and contraception usage. I believe contraceptives should be free; I believe sex education needs to be factually based on medical science with input from certified child / adolescent psychologists and behaviorists.
I believe I should stick to debating this topic somewhere that does not ecourage death threats against other people from 'pro-life' posters..

reply from: yoda

But WHY should abortion be "reduced"? What's wrong with it?
Have you no concept of the rightness or wrongness of abortion? Is it just like getting a tooth removed to you? Is it that trivial of a subject?
Prolifers don't make death threats. That's another proabort fantasy. The very rare antiabortionist that does resort to violence doesn't make threats, he just does it.
You, on the other hand, seem to enjoy smearing prolifers without anything to back up your smears.

reply from: nwicoco

Yoda, hate to burst your "Prolifers don't make death threats. That's another proabort fantasy." But I can recall you and fman were "cheering'' or "supporting" that one john guy !!

reply from: AshMarie88

And yet that plan has not worked so far...

reply from: Wrench

If contraceptions and "education" are supposed to reduce abortions, why do the statistics not support that claim? We've been "educating" kids for the last 30 years, we've been throwing pills and rubber at them for years, and it hasn't worked. The largest factor in the recent reduction of teenage abortions has been more teenagers choosing to abstain, not contraceptives or education.
I sympathize with those who object to abortion on a nonreligious basis; I believe that the philosophy which says that abortion is not a religious issue, but an ethical one, is the only thing that will give pro-lifers the edge and the ability to win the war and save children's lives. It angers me to no end when people assert that, if you do not think exactly as they do, your opinions are invalid or that you're wrong no matter what - it's just that mentality that has kept any progress from being made.

reply from: faithman

You were going good there for a while, then you stepped in it. Reguardless what secular humanist socialist would have us believe, it is the christian faith that has made this country great. It is christian nations that have always been the most tolerant of others. It was christians who led woman's suferage, abolishanist movement, civil rights. It was christians who shouted loudest for child labor laws, and a living wage. FDR, and Churchhill both led their nations in prayers to the Lord Jesus Christ to defeats the godless secular humanist axis powers in WW2 . I disagree totally. The major progress that has been acomplished in the pro-life movement is directly connected to people of faith. There are far fewer abortion clinics in this nation primarily due to the efforts of Mark crutcher and LDI, and Troy Newman of Operation rescue west, both very out spoken christians. The very 1st amendment of the constitution secures the right of free speach primarily so the Gospel can be proclaimed. Al other free speach owes its respect to the good news of Christ upon whos blood stained shoulders they biggy back, all the while trying to mussel His mouth. Your opinions are invalid because they are invalid. Stupid is stupid. You can choose to trample the good news under your secular humanist feet if you choose. But make not mistake about it, your right to speak freely against the Savior was given to you by His children. Just as it is on this forum. You are intitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is there would be no progess at all in pro-life without the Lord Jesus Christ, and His children who have surrendered thier lives to his Lordship.

reply from: faithman

You were going good there for a while, then you stepped in it. Reguardless what secular humanist socialist would have us believe, it is the christian faith that has made this country great. It is christian nations that have always been the most tolerant of others. It was christians who led woman's suferage, abolishanist movement, civil rights. It was christians who shouted loudest for child labor laws, and a living wage. FDR, and Churchhill both led their nations in prayers to the Lord Jesus Christ to defeats the godless secular humanist axis powers in WW2 . I disagree totally. The major progress that has been acomplished in the pro-life movement is directly connected to people of faith. There are far fewer abortion clinics in this nation primarily due to the efforts of Mark crutcher and LDI, and Troy Newman of Operation rescue west, both very out spoken christians. The very 1st amendment of the constitution secures the right of free speach primarily so the Gospel can be proclaimed. Al other free speach owes its respect to the good news of Christ upon whos blood stained shoulders they biggy back, all the while trying to mussel His mouth. Your opinions are invalid because they are invalid. Stupid is stupid. You can choose to trample the good news under your secular humanist feet if you choose. But make not mistake about it, your right to speak freely against the Savior was given to you by His children. Just as it is on this forum. You are intitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is there would be no progess at all in pro-life without the Lord Jesus Christ, and His children who have surrendered thier lives to his Lordship.

reply from: Vikinggoddess

When innocent lives are at stake, there can never be any nonheated discussions about it. There ia an unprecedented massacre of innocent children going on! Hello! If this were about killing all the folks in institutions I seriously doubt we would even be having any discussions at all. The bitter truth is almost all,if not all,of these children are being murdered for the sake of convenience. Think about it! How does this differ from the purges of Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler or the Ruwanda mass killings? Whats the difference?

reply from: yoda

What "John guy"?
Where's the posts? In your imaginary mind?

reply from: yoda

What the heck is "emotional rudeness"? Is that worse than "logical rudeness"?
Prolifers always win in a civil debate. The losers are the proaborts who always make personal attacks, and try every other way under the sun to change the subject as quickly as possible.
Like you, right now.

reply from: yoda

Exactly! Anyone who can remain "unemotional" when talking about the slaughter of nearly 4,000 innocent babies a day in this country alone... is made of stone...... or is a proabort.... or both.

reply from: faithman

You go my pagan girl friend. I might just take a trip around the caldron with ya for that one. [Depends on whats in it though]

reply from: RedTaintedRose

But WHY should abortion be "reduced"? What's wrong with it?
Have you no concept of the rightness or wrongness of abortion? Is it just like getting a tooth removed to you? Is it that trivial of a subject?
Prolifers don't make death threats. That's another proabort fantasy. The very rare antiabortionist that does resort to violence doesn't make threats, he just does it.
You, on the other hand, seem to enjoy smearing prolifers without anything to back up your smears.
Faithmann posted death threat against Futureshock; he has also posted that women who abort should die. Perhaps you should pay attention to other posters.
from Faithman " the only thing you deserve is a place by the abortionist against the wall. Blind fold optional." which is a direct threat to murder me execution style. [url=http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=3072&highlight_key=y]link[/url]
I rather take death threats personally. Perhaps if you took the time to get informed rather then replying in blind ignorance people might take you seriously.
As for abortion rates; abortion is obviously much harder on a body then simply preventing the pregnancy. A ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure..surely you can see the sense in prevention.
prevent the pregnancy and the abortion debate closes and you all have to find something constructive to do with your time.

reply from: RedTaintedRose

And yet that plan has not worked so far...
I may be wrong here but I think for a 'plan' to work it needs to be implemented first. Of course you are free to make all the misinformed and underinformed judgements you like.. its a free country.

reply from: RedTaintedRose

You are, of course, welcome to post proof of your statistics; being an empirical type I'd prefer nice non biased sources though.. post away. I shall wait to see these statistics. Try to keep them in the current centuary too please.

reply from: NewMom

Its not a dictatorship much as I feel you are entitled to your opinion, and I understand well that you use faith to support your argument. Congrats. I'd like to ask what a borthead is... that term is new to me! To clarify, what I want to spark from especially you in this discussion is other reasons, true medical reasons even, for example why you believe abortion is wrong.
I read your messages over and over again with great interest looking for something else you use to support your arguments, and they all read the same... "You are immoral for opening your legs," and of course, the ever popular "you secular humanist socialist sk**k you deserve to die for your sins, repent, repent!" That's dandy, and its not me mocking/being arrogant about your religion, believe me! I believe in the same God as you do. But how about a statement every now and then like i've read of others such as "Abortion is wrong in my eyes because: (insert fact)." I anticipate you will go ahead and tell me Christ is a fact and I agree with you. Its not a war you and I are fated to bash out again and again. I am interested in reading some facts and ideas regarding abortion that aren't religion-related, and in no way is that wrong of me to ask. I still think abortion is not a religion-based issue, its a social/ethical-based issue, as it affects everyone in the world regardless of religion. Religion is an argument that can be utilized to support the cause, but I want to hear what else you have.

reply from: NewMom

I thought this was funny. I googled "borthead" and there it was highlighted in a pro-life america post - by faithman actually where he said "Scumb bag borthead maggot punk death skan*s deserve no respect, or any expectation of kindness or consideration."
I kept looking and finally I found "borthead":
Bort

1) A person with a dodgy eye, lop-sided head, bearing a physical resemblence to Gollem, the mythical creature from J.R.R Tolkeins Lord of the Rings Series. 2nd most popular christian name in the Northern hemishphere after John.

There were a couple other definitions quite worse if anyone wants to look.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bort
All I have to say is I hope the nonsense ends.

reply from: Banned Member

As for myself I am able to argue the abortion both from a religious viewpoint and a scientific viewpoint. In fact I think that the scientific argument backs up the religious viewpoint or can stand very well on its own.
As for people not becoming angry? I think that is highly unlikely. I dont think that name calling is good, but that strong pointed arguments are good.
The truth about abortion itself is inflamatory by its very nature.
There is no argument for abortion that does not descend into the embracing of moral relativity by the abortion advocate. Now that so many have accepted that life begins at conception, at least life of some kind regardless of the state of development, the abortion advocate needs to justify the killing of the life.
The taking of life, especially unborn innocent life, is nearly impossible to defend on any grounds. If not for the litany of lies that pro-choice advocates have spread for 34 years I think that the evil of abortion would seem apparent to anyone. Tose lies must be and are being untold and the truth will prevail, and is prevailing.
The closer that abortion comes to being recognized for the evil that it is, the more outlandish the pro-advocates lies will become. Just watch and see.
Non-heated discussions? Probably a wishful thought.

reply from: futureshock

I can understand the emotion. If I truly believed there were places where parents were bringing their 3 year olds in to have their throats slit, or killed in some other gruesome manner, I'd be flipped out, too.

reply from: faithman

Its not a dictatorship much as I feel you are entitled to your opinion, and I understand well that you use faith to support your argument. Congrats. I'd like to ask what a borthead is... that term is new to me! To clarify, what I want to spark from especially you in this discussion is other reasons, true medical reasons even, for example why you believe abortion is wrong.
I read your messages over and over again with great interest looking for something else you use to support your arguments, and they all read the same... "You are immoral for opening your legs," and of course, the ever popular "you secular humanist socialist sk**k you deserve to die for your sins, repent, repent!" That's dandy, and its not me mocking/being arrogant about your religion, believe me! I believe in the same God as you do. But how about a statement every now and then like i've read of others such as "Abortion is wrong in my eyes because: (insert fact)." I anticipate you will go ahead and tell me Christ is a fact and I agree with you. Its not a war you and I are fated to bash out again and again. I am interested in reading some facts and ideas regarding abortion that aren't religion-related, and in no way is that wrong of me to ask. I still think abortion is not a religion-based issue, its a social/ethical-based issue, as it affects everyone in the world regardless of religion. Religion is an argument that can be utilized to support the cause, but I want to hear what else you have.
You have simple cherry pick my posts and miss represent me. Check out the when life begins. I have posted "nonreligious" post on polotics. Fetal develope ment pictures and many other subjects, and you would never heard a peep out of me if you weren't point blank trashing religion, and the make a thread like this trying to cencor it. You are the one trying to play dictator not me. I have never advocated your speach be restricted, and yet that is exactly what you wish to do with this thread. You have the right to bash religion, and those who stay true to it as you freely have on this forum. And I have the right to proclaim freely my religious liberties whether that sets well with you or not. Just take a look around the socialist state of Canada if you are having a hard time recognizing that is what you are. Your posts, which express a desire to restrict free religious speech, tells us you are a secular humanist who would dictate religious cencorship to the rest of us. Don't go down the roads you go and you would not hear a peep out of me.

reply from: nykaren

NewMom, I believe that was ME he was talking to in that post. lol. Isn't he just the sweetest?

reply from: faithman

Borthead, not just bort, is a forum slang started by yoda which means pro-abortion.

reply from: faithman

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as, ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Anybody around here called Jesus names and insulted him? Judged and condemned him? Perhaps called him a "*****" or "borthead?"
You shall know them by their fruits....Newmom, you're wasting your time here, but hey, it's your time.
Thje context is "my brethren" which means a child of God, not a hethen. and christ most assuredly spent time calling many names like brude of vipers, children of the devil, and many more. He braided a whip and chaste out false believing money grubers from the temple. You punk mouthed secular humanist spend most of your time tearing down the church, discrediting the bible, and then twist it's authority out of context to condemn the faithful. This is just further evidence of a hatred of Christ, which hatred would sell the womb child down the garbage desposal drain of planned parenthood, and start children in that direction with school sex ed.

reply from: CornholedNewMom

No. Never. Go to Hell, you vile b i t c h and concubine of the devil!!!!! iilii

reply from: CornholedNewMom

First, I am not FaithMan. Truly.
I have studied FaithMan, however, and find none of his talk to be a "death threat". That is just your typical, Liberal cowardice and paranoia.
That we would love to string you up and gut you if we could....that's not a threat; Just a statement of what we'd gladly do if there was no law or Christianity to restrain us. And how we will flow someday when pushed too far as American Conservatives and Pro-Lifers in general. America is sleeping, but she is not at all heartless and without temper.
As for me, I don't mind the continued Liberal and pro-abortion takeover of the country (other than the loss of babies). One day, it will turn from Cold War to killing and it will be lovely to see. In the meantime, we are obligated as Christians and in the better interests of the Republic to try and keep unity and destroy the enemy by other means. War by other means, first. War by political motions, first. War by dominion of the law again and hunting down outlaw pro-aborts over time. Your cause will never crush the will of the American people to fight; for your vile ways are in the minority where any American sees you for what you are. That's why your side hides in the dark and from the light of truth.
You are nothing but the devil's children. iilii
Burn in Hell and know that we smile.

reply from: futureshock

Exactly! Anyone who can remain "unemotional" when talking about the slaughter of nearly 4,000 innocent babies a day in this country alone... is made of stone...... or is a proabort.... or both.
If babies were actually being killed, it would warrant more than just heated discussions. However, no such thing is happening.
As a matter of fact, 40,000 children due die everyday, from starvation and related illnesses, all preventable. That is a real tragedy.

reply from: NewMom

This completely has nothing to do with the entire point! It has nothing to do with restricting speech, I never once told anyone to shut up or called anyone names. You are the one doing that, calling people numerous nasty things. I posed a question to everyone and the concensus is that no, we can't have a non-heated discussion about abortion, as it is too sensitive a topic. My posts have nothing to do with anything you try to throw at me, it honestly just continues to make me chuckle, as you take this as an attempt to start a war in here.
Have you saved any babies lately?

reply from: NewMom

Exactly! Anyone who can remain "unemotional" when talking about the slaughter of nearly 4,000 innocent babies a day in this country alone... is made of stone...... or is a proabort.... or both.
If babies were actually being killed, it would warrant more than just heated discussions. However, no such thing is happening.
As a matter of fact, 40,000 children due die everyday, from starvation and related illnesses, all preventable. That is a real tragedy.
When talking with the age group I speak to I tend to refrain from making it a war, as it does no good and just pisses the girls off. Its more effective to be a little bit more sensitive when speaking to them regarding abortion and the choices they have. There are girls who don't want to hear it and are stuck on abortion as the right choice, and sometimes those babies cannot be saved and no matter how upset and outraged I get I still feel as if I've failed.
My question has been answered perfectly well in here by faithman who once again called me out and I still shake my head and smile. Its a ridiculous waste of space and a waste of my brain cells to read again and again how I'm some punk mouthed bla bla bla socialist bla bla borthead, etc... I wouldn't say that I judge him based on his faith - its not about that to me. I belong to a Canadian forum as well. But its the way he goes about it that proves how I origionally suspected he's nothing but hot air. We will never get an honest back and forth discussion without name calling - that is apparent to me.
Going out on a limb, and anyone can knock me for it, but for being one in a few of the youngest on here, and trying to be mature about what i say and the manner of how I say it, this forum has given me a terrible impression of how older prolifers choose to fight for what they believe in, and paints a terrible picture for the public. Now I have read many things that were educational and had a lot of nice comments and read well put together arguments. My only wish was that perhaps people could use the insults in moderation. But when speaking about such a delicate topic, I've come to the conclusion perhaps its just not the case.
I do enjoy commenting here however. Its like a little daily soap opera; at times filled with nonsense, but at heart about real life tragedies affecting us all.

reply from: yoda

That's a flat out lie, and I'm totally sure you know it. That's a description of his idea of a legal execution, and your "interpretation" is simply out and out bull hockey.
REALLY? WHY is abortion "obviously much harder on the body"? What does it do that is "hard on the body"??????
I already know it's EXTREMELY hard on the body of the baby, but why don't you tell us what it does to a woman's body that is "obviously much harder on a body"?

reply from: yoda

What nonsense? The use of the word "borthead"? Why?

reply from: yoda

Some bortheads have already suggested something similar to that.
What you seem unwilling to recognize is that abortion is be the moral equivalent of killing a 3 year old.

reply from: yoda

Ah good, another lying, reality-denying, fantasizing borthead "anti-definition".
Here are some real ones, for those who live in the real world:
MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby
Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby
iNFOPLEASE.com ba.by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html
INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: Vikinggoddess

Exactly! Anyone who can remain "unemotional" when talking about the slaughter of nearly 4,000 innocent babies a day in this country alone... is made of stone...... or is a proabort.... or both.
If babies were actually being killed, it would warrant more than just heated discussions. However, no such thing is happening.
Oh really!? Then just what IS happening? Ever seen an ultrasound or visited a NICU? If we can help give babies born at 22 weeks gestation a fighting chance at survival, how can anyone then justify killing a child at the same gestational age? Your statement makes no sense at all to a scientifically minded person. Try again.
As a matter of fact, 40,000 children due die everyday, from starvation and related illnesses, all preventable. That is a real tragedy.
You are right on here and it all comes down to the same old excuses. Money and greed and the one little fact that most societies see children as property and of little or no value. To people like yourself a child is an inconvenience that needs to be delt with in the most expeditious manner.
Bottom line is: All innocent life is sacred. When you justify killing your own offspring for whatever reson then that culture has turned into a death worshipping society and will soon perish. Think about it.

reply from: Vikinggoddess

You go my pagan girl friend. I might just take a trip around the caldron with ya for that one. [Depends on whats in it though]
Thanks,sweetie! Being all Nordic, I promise only good things like mead!

reply from: faithman

You go my pagan girl friend. I might just take a trip around the caldron with ya for that one. [Depends on whats in it though]
Thanks,sweetie! Being all Nordic, I promise only good things like mead!
The mighty Thor went for a ride along the rio grandy. when he came upon a hair lipped cowboy named Andy.
"I am Thor", he cried. To which Andy replied, "You forgot your thaddle thilly."

reply from: Vikinggoddess

You go my pagan girl friend. I might just take a trip around the caldron with ya for that one. [Depends on whats in it though]
Thanks,sweetie! Being all Nordic, I promise only good things like mead!
The mighty Thor went for a ride along the rio grandy. when he came upon a hair lipped cowboy named Andy.
"I am Thor", he cried. To which Andy replied, "You forgot your thaddle thilly."
Very cute! Thats one I can share withmy kids! Thanks.

reply from: whydeath

I am one who usually does not bring up religion within my comments. Mainly for the fact I am a Scientologist. I do not want to distract the subject at hand (abortion) with what my religious beliefs are (as why I have the link in my signature). Personally I feel that murder is wrong regardless of any religion, regardless of what a religious book says exc. However, I do realize that many people have a strong religious belief there for I never question this.
Most of the woman who we (personally) talk to believe in Christianity. Therefore we have to have some knowledge of what the Bible says in order to talk to these woman. We have to talk to them at their religious level. I feel like we should also have a clue about what other religious beliefs are regarding abortion. I do not feel like I need to be out at the abortion clinics converting religious beliefs. I want to focus all of my energy on the unborn.
So I feel like having some dialogue in these forums about religion is very helpful to me.

reply from: whydeath

How do you figure that babies are not being killed? You are an abortion expert you ought to know what abortion is. Take the blinders off.
You are right and all the babies being killed daily by abortion preventable also. Any person dying from something preventable is a real tragedy.

reply from: yoda

Sounds about right to me.

reply from: NewMom

The word Borthead still makes me giggle and gets me angry all at the same time that people (bortheads themselves) are so unknowingly morally slow to realise life begins at conception, and abortion kills. What's even worse is the proclaimed prolife bortheads who sit on the fence. Bah.

reply from: whydeath

Actually NewMom many of these bortheads admit they know when life begins but still do not value life. Some here had admited to it being ok to kill born people. So what do you expect?

reply from: NewMom

And those who think that its ok deserve more of my disgust.

reply from: cali1981

Abortion rates soared in this country at the same time contraceptives came in to wide use.
The availability of contraceptives encourages people to have more sex, since they believe there are fewer consequences for doing so. And the more people have sex, the greater the chances of pregnancy, since contraceptives are not 100% effective.
Contraceptive use only postpones the inevitable and increases the chances of abortions.
I agree. Children need to be fully informed that sex will eventually result in pregnancy and that is the risk they are taking (among others) when they do it, regardless of what "precautions" are in place. They also need to be fully informed that at conception, a new son or daughter has been created.
All of the above are "factually based" on medical science.

reply from: DocQuack

... a dose of the truth.
URL http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/848/26/

Physicians for Life comments and notes regarding stats from:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
Updated 05/2006
CONTRACEPTIVE USE
Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[13]
Family planning clinics funded under Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act have helped women prevent 20 million unintended pregnancies over the last 20 years. An estimated nine million of these pregnancies would have been expected to end in abortion.[36]
(The above Guttmacher Institute propaganda -- Guttmacher being a research arm of Planned Barrenhood -- paints a very rosy picture there as PP being pro-life heroes, but ignores the many more tens of millions they have helped murder.).
re: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Another report placed great emphasis on the fact that 48 percent of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. Of those unplanned pregnancies, 47 percent end in abortion, 40 percent are carried to full term and 13 percent end in miscarriage.
Advocates of abortion often argue that to decrease abortions,
unintended pregnancies must be reduced through increased access to
contraceptives. But the Guttmacher Institute's research clearly indicates in this and other reports that over 53 percent of women who have unintended pregnancies used a contraceptive method during the month they got pregnant.
The data also indicates that marriage plays a unique role as a
protector of the unborn. According to the report, "Married women account for a lower proportion of abortions (17%), in part because they have low rates of unintended pregnancy," but even in cases of unintended pregnancies, married women "are more likely than unmarried women to continue the pregnancy."
And cohabitation is not an adequate substitute for marriage.
"About 25% of abortions occur among women living with a male partner to whom they are not married, although such women make up only about 10% of all women aged 15-44."
The report also reveals that women choose abortion overwhelmingly for
reasons other than health, or for extreme reasons.
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-four percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
In 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place, down from 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred.[3]
Each year, two out of every 100 women aged 15 - 44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion.[4]
WHO HAS ABORTIONS
Black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.[7]
Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[8]
-------------------------------
...I find this last statistic particularly interesting and sad. It would certainly be interesting to see that statistics, per capita, for abortions in Scientology and the various Pagan religions. Gut feeling suspects their abortion rates probably even considerably lower!
...If you go by a fair counting of percentages of abortions per group, that doesn't allow for differences in population numbers among the various religions. It provides a fair assessment of abortion by religious group. At first, the Guttmacher Institute stats, if true, seem to tell us that Catholic women are more serious on pro-life than Protestant women, overall. But, there are also more Protestants in America than Catholics. One has to question the means of their stats considering the evil source. All the same they are disturbing.
WhyDeath and Pagan Woden Goddess, do you have any stats on Scientology and Viking women keeping their babies versus aborting? That would be very interesting to rub in Christian noses and perhaps motivate them away from abortion. Clearly, there is a bad Protestant and bad Catholic factor going on with the majority of Abortions -- either hypocrisy or complete apostacy; Usually both if they're still going to church.
ConcernedParent and all you sex educational fans:
Let's do some math here. Family Planning claims to have saved 20 million babies from abortion over the last 20 years by passing out birth control. They estimate 9 million of those pregnancies over 20 years would have ended in abortion. Fine. Let's say we accept that. So, that's maybe 450,000 babies "saved" per year by Family Planning devils AT BEST if true.
I personally believe in Abstinence education, though I know it also somewhat futile with horny teens and twenty somethings. Greater than any fear or immorality or Hell is the fear of STD's. That works well in checking societal promiscuity. "Relationships" become more common with less rampant debauchery. All the same, this leads to more sex, sex, sex and unintended pregnancy outside of wedlock stability. They don't need more sex education because most having sex are already well educated on the subject.
So, maybe we can credit 450,000 babies saved to birth control propaganda. Fine.
But, that very same push also has people trusting in birth control so that some 54% of 3000 to 5000 infants slain per day come from trust in birth control. That's 54% of 1,095,000 to 1,825,000 abortions we can credit to birth control failure.
Or, you could say that's about 591,300 to 985,500 abortions per year we can credit to birth control versus their Planned Barrenhood claim to have also saved 450,000.
...Basically, the birth control push and sex ed agenda seems to increase and even near double the abortion rates than if you didn't do it at all.
Ms. Coco, you'd be the sex expert on this. Surely, as with all learning, the vast majority of sex has been taught to you by yourself and friends anyhow far more so than institutions, teachers, these goofy birth control programs!

reply from: cali1981

First of all, I didn't say that rising abortion rates didn't coincide with any other factors besides rising contraceptive use. Second of all, "coinciding" (or "correlation") doesn't necessarily imply causation. Third of all, how is it "fallacious" to suggest that something is one possible contributing factor to something else? Social scientists do that all the time; it doesn't mean that there aren't possibly other things contributing that aren't well understood yet or haven't been studied. It just means that we think we're on our way to understanding a phenomenon, not that it is completely figured out.
Maybe, maybe not. That's an interesting question. I would hypothesize that people would be less likely to have sex PERIOD (or at least "casual" sex) without the safety net of legal abortion to fall back on. Again, that's another possible piece to the puzzle that you didn't necessarily consider. That doesn't mean your hypothesis is wrong, just that there are other possible contributing factors.
Good - that's all I was saying.

reply from: faithman

The thing is, one can not historically seperate these two issues, nor can you in the present. A poster tried to disparage the IAAP campaign by saying those who are involved were of questionable charator [totally false and unfounded by the way] . They used the example of hitler, saying that the good the Riech did did not excuse the evil. This is the same here. Margret Sanger was the main figure in the early birth control movement which includded advocacy of abortion. Contraception, and sex ed are the stepping stones on the path to abortion. The "good" of birth control can not be seperated from the historical fact that it is tied to abortion, and that it is the gateway to it's legalization, and the breaking down of moral objection to killing womb children by abortion on demand. Only a useful idiot, or fifth collum subversive would even pretend other wise.

reply from: NewMom

This is the problem I have involving contraceptives. Its two fold. I'll first state that I've used them myself and conceived while I was taking them, and thought nothing of it until I discovered an ugly non-mentioned truth from reading posts in here that they do cause abortions of zygotes (still an unborn life, people!) So my hypothesis is that even if abortion was legal, contraceptives would still be legal, thus still resulting in abortions so by law if a doctor was no longer allowed to perform an abortion, a woman is still allowed to take a pill and unknowingly cause herself to "spontaneously abort" (I use that term lightly!) I think before abortion is legally criminalized, this has to be taken into account as well. We can try to sway people to do the "right" thing, but there will still be fifteen year olds going to "birth control centres" (that's what they're called around here) requesting birth control pills, instead of condoms. All you need is seven bucks and a health card and a cell phone so they don't call your house and upset your parents.
I remember I did a project in high school on a sexuality topic, and I picked abstinence. There was one measly pamphlet in the birth control centre in my city mixed with all the other ones about STD's and contraceptive meathods. It makes me wonder what places like that are really promoting.
Do we want kids having sex? No. If they are, would we rather they are doing it safely? Yes. But where did we stop promoting abstinence? The only way to stop this is to promote abstinence and take away places like these as it only causes sex (not safe sex) to continue.

reply from: yoda

That's a problem I've discussed here before. I think it's true that there is a minority of kids who are so lacking in self-discipline and parental discipline that they inevitably will engage in sex, one way or the other. For them, some type of sex-ed might help them to prevent pregnancy, depending upon how much self-discipline they could muster to use contraceptives properly.
On the other hand, there are some kids who can benefit greatly from abstinence education, and be influenced to avoid sex altogether. These kids will not be helped by being exposed to sex-ed, in fact in may push them in the direction of experimenting with sex.
So how do you design a program that can get the education to the ones who need it, but keep it away from the ones who might actually be negatively influenced by it? How do you separate the two groups?
That's the 64 million dollar question that I haven't found the answer to yet. Maybe there's some way to involve the parents that would help, I don't know.

reply from: MC3

To understand the fallacy in the argument that teaching abstinence is unrealistic on the basis that "teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do," imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her. The question is, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent? Should they advise her to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls?
Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter. They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable. That exposes the "kids-are-going-to-have-sex-no-matter-what-we-do" argument as a lie. After all, if it is realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn't want to have sex, then it is equally realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do.
Today, many liberal social engineers recognize that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck. These moms and dads are starting to pick up on the fact that, after public schools began introducing contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, America's relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, children are now having sex at much younger ages. Forty years ago, for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant would have been front-page news. Today, it is not even unusual.
In this environment, the pill-pushers are now calling for what they call "Abstinence Plus" or "Comprehensive Sex Education." Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs. Some even grudgingly agree to let abstinence be primary.
This is a scam. These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message. It's no different than parents telling their teenagers, "Don't drink and drive, but if you do, don't spill anything on the seats" or "Don't smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes" or "Don't take a gun to school, but if you do, don't point it at anyone" or "Don't use heroin, but if you do, don't leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them" or "Don't drive my new Corvette while I'm out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use."
The fact is, America's epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted disease was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around. The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children and mixed messages will never do that.
Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don't remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion. To some degree, that is a valid argument. However, that doesn't mean abstinence-only programs shouldn't be adopted.
When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats. For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can't get them out of their car seats. Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat. In some crashes, children who might have been thrown from cars and survived, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.
The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks. But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, "We're willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat." Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take. In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don't live in such a world so they chose a direction that they believed would save the most lives possible.
That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education. No reasonable person could believe that it will save every child or that some children might not actually be harmed by it. Although the pill-pushers' argument that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie, we cannot deny that some kids will have sex no matter what we do. But we have to also accept that no solution to the destruction caused by Planned Parenthood's brand of contraception-based sex education is going to be perfect. Given that reality, we must look for the approach that will save the most children possible and that is abstinence.
One thing is for certain. It is pure insanity to believe that contraception-based sex education is a solution to the massive social problems that were created by contraception-based sex education.

reply from: yoda

That's a reasonable approach. I've yet to see a practical way to reach the two groups separately, and as you say trying to use a "one size fits all" approach is a very bad idea.

reply from: yoda

Oh, MY!
There's that horrible word "implying" AGAIN!!
How can we protect ourselves from your perception of our "implications"????

reply from: MC3

Some people question whether the availability of contraception increases unplanned pregnancies and sneer at the suggestion that birth control leads to increased sexual activity.
Interestingly, Planned Parenthood itself issued a report in 1958 concluding that these conclusions are wrong on both counts. In effect, they discovered that promoting birth control increased sexual activity at a greater rate than it increased the use of the birth control. The difference in those two rates translates into unwanted pregnancies.
I would also point out that the introduction of contraception-based sex-ed was in response to a teen pregnancy rate that was far smaller than it is today. The moment we took this path, the rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases immediately began to rise and have now reached epidemic levels. I will also point out that the overwhelming majority of the victims of contraception-based sex-ed have been females while the most enthusiastic support for these programs has come from, so-called, women's groups. Does that smell like a hidden agenda?
In any event, a good analogy to contraception-based sex-ed is motorcycle helmets. I began riding and/or racing motorcycles in 1960 at the age of twelve. Since then, I have owned more than 70 and have built or restored many more. I can assure you that it is simply undeniable that someone is better off wearing a helmet than not. However, helmets do not make motorcycles safe and I have never heard one helmet or motorcycle manufacturer contend otherwise.
I can also tell you another truth about motorcycle helmets. Let's say we were to make them available to every teenager in the country, for free if necessary and without their parent's knowledge. Let's also say that we told these kids that wearing helmets made them seem mature and responsible because it meant that they were practicing "safe motorcycle." If we did those things, it would be pure idiocy not to think that the number of children willing to risk riding motorcycles is going to increase or that the number killed on motorcycles is not going to skyrocket.
So, if the question is whether helmets offer some degree of protection to people who ride motorcycles, the answer is yes. If the question is whether they should be pushed to children as part of a "motorcycle abstinence" or "safe motorcycle" message, the answer is absolutely not. In fact, it would be criminal to do so. But that is precisely how the condom/contraception message has been packaged to address teen sexuality, and the results have been as horrifying as they were predictable.

reply from: yoda

I'm sure you can't, paranoidparent, you're the problem, not the solution.

reply from: MC3

If you need someone to define "contraception-based sex-ed" for you, and if it is true that you never heard this term before, then you do not have the background in this field to rationally discuss it. I suggest you go away, educate yourself, do some research, and come back when you are a little better informed. In the mean time, it is simply not possible to have a legitimate discussion about contraception and sex-ed with someone who does not even know what the term "contraception-based sex-ed" means.
To help you get started on your education, "contraception-based sex-ed" is the style of sex-ed that Planned Parenthood and their ilk have been bringing into public school systems since the 1960s.
And by the way, why is it that you are the one who constantly brings up religious convictions? Yodavator has made it clear that he is agnostic, and I have never introduced my religious beliefs into this discussion at all.

reply from: yoda

Quite true. Unfortunately, I already know that your paranoia and nasty habit of attacking other prolifers CAN HARM this forum, and the prolife movement in general.

reply from: NewMom

I have a problem with teaching "children" sex ed. As a future parent I would think that would make me feel like I failed in teaching abstience in the first place. Children shouldn't be having sex, in my eyes. Yes, there are some that do it, but throwing diagrams and telling 9 year olds about the importance of using condoms and birth control pills when the rest of them are not sexually active is a red flag in my mind. I remember the first time we had "sex ed" in public school. I was in grade 4, so that would put me at 9 years old. Way too young, I think. I was embarassed as hell.
Some people think of it just as lightly as reminding someone to put their seat belt on before getting into a vehicle, but its much more than that. When you tell kids not to do something, but at the same time tell them "Well, just in case this talk got you curious enough and you decide to do it, here's how to do it safely, don't worry I won't tell your parents!" That sort of defeats the purpose in the first place, don't ya think? It has nothing to do with religion but age apppropriateness. I agree with yoda that there needs to be a change to the whole sex-ed educational system. I don't know if involving parents more would work - when anyone talks about sexuality people tend to get uptight. I think its a parents job to ensure their kids aren't having sex however many parents do not enforce it. Its a tough question... parents (in general to me) rely on the educational system too much anymore to inform youth about sex... when have we let protecting our kids slip from our hands?

reply from: yoda

Well stated, NewMom, better than I could've said it.
Thanks!

reply from: MC3

Yodavator,
If you've got the patience and perseverance to continue dealing with this CP person, you are a much better man than I am. Given the sometimes bizarre and irrational nature of his posts, I am concerned that there may be issues in play here that you and I don't know about.
In any case, I'm done.

reply from: PGAJAMIE411

Hey life lovers,
Please go to Ronpaul2008.com right now and donate to Dr. Ron Paul for his bid for president of our nation. He has delivered over 4000 babies and knows that abortion is evil! We are trying to rasise $10,000,000.00 in one day! Follow your heart!
Peace,
Jamie

reply from: yoda

Quite understandable. I'd love to see an end to this seemingly endless bickering, but I will not stand idly by and let good people who have dedicated their lives to protect unborn babies be smeared. They have given too much of themselves and their families to be raked over the coals by people who know nothing more than what gossip they read on the internet.

reply from: NewMom

What level of instruction is appropriate at what specific age is a separate issue, isn't it? The overwhelming majority of children will eventually have some form of sexual contact, and some will begin even before puberty. Some people seem to be pretending this is something new, but the truth is that we, as a society, are simply changing our standards. Look at the way the legal age for marriage has changed...The fact is that children need a thorough education on sex related matters before puberty. Hopefully they won't need this knowledge until after they choose a mate, but it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. "Abstinence only" simply doesn't work, and many parents are either unwilling or unable to teach their children what they need to know. Just teaching them what you want them to know is not always going to be enough. Obviously society must step in...
____________________________________________________________________
"Abstinence only" does work but I'm assuming your argument insists it doesn't work on everyone. However, it does work depending on the individual and how it is taught - if it doesn't prevent any "children" from having sex then why would it ever be in the system at all?! Obviously it doesn't work when you tell kids, "Oh, don't have sex! Abstain!" and then look the other way but come on! What's wrong with abstinence first in education, and then the actual sex education? I'm not stating that sex-ed isn't necessary... there never will be a day where youth stop getting pregnant and contracting STD's - my concern is that you are speaking about children here. Neither myself or many of my friends were ready at nine to hear about sex in school... I would have rather gone down to the library and read a nice book or done math work than sit through all of that. It was undoubtly informational, but we had very little talk of abstinence and the emphasis was on education - and that's the flaw I see. I question the age and the meathods in which we lay it on the kids! As for parents needing to step in - congrats, you just repeated in length, my argument fully.
And what would you change?
____________________________________________________________________
- An emphasis throughout the lesson of abstinence first.
- In high schools, better promotion of self image and worth that its ok to abstain.
- Better counselling with the individuals who have already begun to have sex - even then abstinence is an option instead of birth control.
- More background information before dispensing birth control - this is a large problem in my city. I discovered from talking to a girl in my advocacy group that at the birth control centre in my city, before birth control is administered to youth a sheet is filled out, and they make you watch a movie from the 1990's about birth control. Then you speak with the nurse, you inform the nurse whether or not they can call your house, you give them your heath card and seven bucks and boom! You have birth control pills! If we continue to let organizations dispense birth control pills without even taking full family history (what kid knows their full family history at 15!) how can we say its ok to let these organizations run!
It is a parent's job to teach his/her children values. Parents can not "ensure" that their kids do not become sexually active, we can only teach them right from wrong, maintain discipline, and hope for the best. If by "enforce" you mean "prevent," trust me, it is not within your power to do so...
____________________________________________________________________
The bottom line is that abstinence prevents sex. Abstinence isn't just an educational tool its a way of life. Teach youth abstinence before you tell them all about "how to have sex safely" and there's your key. Abstinence means self worth, self respect, morally and spiritually. You are right on one point - you can't enforce it if its already happening but prevention is key before it happens! How can you not see that?! PP has invaded your mind!

reply from: yoda

And Planned Barrenhood is a terrible thing to have in your mind.....

reply from: MC3

Let me clarify, Yodavator. I did not mean I would never again respond to anything CP might say, I meant that I was through discussing this particular subject with him.
As you correctly stated, there will be times when he will say something so outrageous or so idiotic that it must be challenged.

reply from: yoda

Yep....... especially when it sullies the name of someone who has devoted their life, career, and security of their family to defend the unborn, based on nothing more than internet rumors....

reply from: NewMom

What part of this was supposed to be an argument against sex ed? There is no "how to have sex safely." You must be referring to the proper use of contraception, which is merely a means of reducing risk. PP has not invaded my mind. I'm not even discussing PP here. Is there a reason you do not answer any of my questions?
I did answer your questions. Did you forget how to read? Abstinence is neccessary in sex ed! ABSTINENCE IS NECESSARY IN SEX ED! IT HAS TO BE MORE THAN JUST EDUCATION ON SAFE SEX!! If we want to help reduce teen pregnancies and STD's ABSTINENCE is the only 100% foolproof meathod we can teach! I'm not going to answer every one of one of your questions they have simple enough answers I'd be here for weeks.
Contraceptives reduce the risk of pregnancy, but while they reduce the risk, they ALSO cause pregnancies from continuing. Maybe you should take a plane trip out here to sit in on some discussions with my group and take from young people about ages 15-26 how they feel that not ony the educational system failed them but also their parents. Or if you're really curious on what youth think stop a few on the street. You'd be suprised what they say these days. You might even get laughed at bringing that approach.

reply from: yoda

I thought you answered quite eloquently, but Paranoidparent has appointed himself sole judge of whether someone has answered "his questions" or not. And he's very "strict".

reply from: NewMom

I do have quite an advantage and experience over you because I am 21, and come from the younger generation and can speak first hand about the situations that I bear more witness to than you. I speak from personal experience and from knowledge of experience of other people in my age group. I'd be personally be shocked if I knew my neighbour goes out into the street with the youth neighbours and talks about sexuality with them, honestly. I'm glad you have a great relationship with your family. But my question is this: do you teach abstinence first or just sex ed? I feel just teaching them sex ed is like saying here's some free condoms, be safe! And if you need, here are some pills if you answer just a few questions.... come on now. Abstinence is key. Do you teach your kids abstinence or just give them a book on sex-ed or do you rely on the educational system to do it for you?
Now on the flipside - if you found out your girls were having sex would you rather they go to the birth control centre or be able to come to you? Chances are, even despite how strong your relationship is, because you are a single father, that second option that's available its less intimidating because your girls would receive less stress from you if they went elsewhere. That may hurt hearing that, but such is the truth not only in a hypothetical situation in your home, but in many homes across the nation. My only point is that in most cases how the image of the safety of contraceptives (that stems from sex-ed in schools) is portrayed to youth is too much of a safety net where abstinence should be primarily the safety net to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's.
What I find laughable is that you seem to argue that abstinence is not a necessary part of sex-ed, when indeed it is. Do me a favour and ask your kids if they think that their peers and themselves would benefit from an abstinence based sex-ed program over a contraceptive-based program.
Furthermore, if "abstinence only" didn't work (excuse me for the sarcasm) but then the world would have to answer the question of how people who abstain from sex just keep getting pregnant out of nowhere!

reply from: NewMom

The purpose of sex ed is to give kids the facts, not counsel them, impose morality, or provide contraceptives. All these things are properly addressed in other venues. The first would be relevant, but while I agree that the facts pertaining to the risks of sexual activity should certainly be a part of any curriculum, issues of morality should not. When you say, "an emphasis throughout the lesson of abstinence first," what exactly do you mean? No instruction on proper contraceptive use? I do not remember you mentioning that, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify...
Yes, the purpose is informational, but somehow educators forget this when they are teaching the lesson and I myself have sat in a class where the whole thing consisted of cracking jokes and euphamisms.
I would LOVE to clarify. "An emphasis throughout the lesson of abstinence first" means exactly what I stated... don't just start of with naming off contraceptives and their use to youth; "This is a condom, it goes on a penis to prevent ejaculation from entering the vagina and a possible pregnency occuring...these are birth control pills..this is a diaphragm..." why can't educators start off talking about abstinence as a lead in? Abstinence as part of sex ed is just as informational and reminds the percentage of youth who are NOT ready to have sex yet that they do have a choice in the matter and should be respected just as much.
Furthermore, I never stated that actual sex-ed is NOT necessary in the educational system when indeed it is just as important as abstinence. I only merely stated there is not enough emphasis on abstinence IN sexual education in the educational system. Clear enough? Where you got that out of my argument, I am unsure. Its a shame that the school systems do not think abstinence is much a moral decision as the decision to have sex is. You can pull any study off the internet and cut and paste all you want, but out in my neck of the woods that study is useless as its flaw is that it only outlines an ABSTINENCE-BASED sex-education, not an education based on both.
In grand conclusion, neither abstinence-based education or sex-education (the raw facts) will stop youth from engaging in sex no matter how hard we stamp our feet and shout at each other. However in my eyes, no youth can ever turn around and say "But I didn't know I'd get pregnant if I had sex! I thought the birth control would prevent it!" if we don't teach what it means to abstain from sex and practice sex safely in the first place. Abstinence is always a stronger argument than contraceptives regardless if you look at the issue upside down or inside out.

reply from: yoda

MAYBE you should, like down in front of the local abortion mill? Or is that "beneath you"?

reply from: NewMom

LOL! I thought the same way when I was 21! I knew everything, and old people were just lame. When I was 21, I came from "the younger generation." Wait until you pass 50 and are beginning to understand how little you understand, then young kids might tell you how much more experienced they are than you! OK, so you can "bear more witness" than me, since you've benn there and done that...I guess there's not much more for me to say then, right?
First off, I don't think old people are lame, you made that assumption all on your own. But there is truth to the matter of age difference. How you view us is a misrepresentation if you view that we can all be coupled into the same category. I hate to sound just like all the rest, but if you're past 50 the way my generation and generations younger than mine have been plugged with information has been very different than your generation. I don't assume you fit a said category per se, however we all fit an age category of things based on our age. For example, my generation has grown up in a world much different with media influences and the introduction of the internet as a way of conducting research in schools... barely anybody I know these days acutally picks up a book before googling or wikpedia-ing. You, most likely had book research first then acquired the skill of the internet secondary. Just an example of age differences... but they expand abroad. I'm sure one day I will get to the point I get told "But ma, you know nothing!" and instead of laughing and being sarcastic I'd say "Tell me, tell me what I don't know!"
My kids had sex ed in school, but they already knew more than the class covered. I don't think it hurt them any. We also did "baby think it over." I'm sure you know what that is, being so knowledgable and experienced...
That just proves that sex-ed in their case was not even that informational if they already knew and potentially were engaged in conversations about sex if they already knew more than the class covered.
Yeah, I don't think so. I see things realistically, and I'm not uptight about sex related matters. I'm sure they're more comfy talking to me than some stranger. Like I said, we regularly discuss such things. They have a pretty healthy attitude toward sex.
Great, but when the time comes, (and it will!) do you think they'd be upfront enough to go, "Hey Dad, I fooled around with Todd. Just wanted you to know I'm thinking about going on the pill now."
Umm, I have stated many times that every aspect should be included in sex ed...That includes the benefits of abstinence, and the risks involved with sex....I'm not sure how you decided I reject the idea of a complete education...
Provide me with a quote please!
I'll assume you posted this before reading the topic I posted on the subject. "Abstinence only sex ed" has proven time and again to have little effect on the decisions kids make. Like I said, abstinence only works while you're abstinent. Surely you did not think I meant a girl could become pregnant while abstinent? I was referring to teaching "abstinence only" as sex ed. Just telling them "don't do it" doesn't work. You might save the sarcasm for times when it might be more appropriate. I am not stupid, you simply seem to have misunderstood...
Surely then, you'd take the suggestion that you should be more clear in your arguments and cut them down in size so I don't lose your argument in all the words then.
Well, a curriculum must be approved, and a teacher must cover the required material... Was this in a public school? Generally the kids react oddly at first. Some think it's funny that an adult is talking about sex. Some are embarrassed. This is a reflection of unhealthy attitudes developed early on. Lot's of people treat sex like it's a taboo, and simply do not discuss it. Of course the kids do, and often from an early age, but some of them are accustomed to adults being more inhibited. Did the jokes offend you? I would need more details to understand your point.
No need for details other than the fact that sex-ed is meaningless when the whole thing is taught as a joke. It wouldn't depend on public or privatized schools either.
So, abstinence instruction is not "actual sex ed?"
Where did you pull that from, please quote. Wait, you can't quote things that come out of your ass....
It is not the responsibility of school administrators to impose moral convictions on children, yours or anyone else's. The schools have no business teaching kids what decisions are "moral." The responsibility of schools is to provide the facts, objective reality. Would you want them teaching kids that abortion is morally acceptable? I'm sure you wouldn't, and they shouldn't...Nor should they teach that it isn't. That's not their job.
Its not their job to teach abstinence in sex-ed as a way to prevent unplanned/unwanted pregnancies??
OK, your conclusion was really not all that "grand." I believe that:
1. Comprehensive sex ed should be taught in schools. (including all aspects, even the benefits of abstinence and proper use of contraceptives)
2. Religious convictions, issues of morality, or any other subjective issue has no place in public schools as part of a sex ed curriculum.
If you agree on these points, we are in accord.
You got me in accordance on #1, however on #2, I'm against it. I cannot agree that teaching the use of contraceptives in sex ed somehow in your mind does not reflect the moral/personal decision to have sex, nor will I ever state abstinence is not a moral decision either. Both need to be recognized as moral decisions by professionals. Both are acceptable moral choices for the RIGHT reasons.

reply from: yoda

I don't need to know anything more than the fact that you never discuss any other type of "prolife activity" than spewing your venom here online.
That proves to me that you aren't doing ANY actual prolife activism... those who do it love to talk about it, and encourage others to do it. Go ahead, prove me wrong......???


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