Home - List All Discussions

wonderful site for teen sex information

non religious

by: scopia1982

I saw the PSA tonight for this site at the end of the show Privalaged on the CW network. THe get informed section offers information on both Contraception and Abstinence. I suggest all look at both, but pay extra attention to the part on Abstinence.
http://www.stayteen.org/get-informed/default.aspx

reply from: IHeartProlifers

Heh... abstinence.
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?image=awesomeabstinencecartooeq2.gif

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Interesting site. What REALLY caught my eye was this gem:
"Teaching teens about contraception does not make them have sex. Research is clear on this point: sex education does not increase sexual activity. In fact, in some cases, teaching teens about contraception seems to delay their sexual activity."
Goes completely against what many pro-lifers here are saying.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's something we need to take to heart for sure: Birth control works. It's a GOOD thing.

reply from: yoda

Some interesting details on the owners of this website:
Chariman: The Hononorable Thomas H. Kean, who is pro-choice and supports embryonic stem cell research.
Board member:
Vanessa Cullins, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Vice President for Medical Affairs
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
Board Emeriti:
Whoopi Goldberg
Actress
In looking over the lists, I see many names that can be easily identified as proabort, but very few if any I can identify as prolife.
It's pretty obviously biased towards the proabort viewpoint.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

What a pleasant change from the repetitive misinformation found on pro-life websites!

reply from: yoda

I'm sure it would be "pleasant" to you to see someone screaming "kill babies" at the top of their lungs....

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And where have you heard anyone screaming, "Kill babies" ANYWHERE, ANY TIME, EVER in your pitiful life, Yoda?

reply from: xnavy

yoda's life is NOT pitiful, BUT I WOULD SAY PROBORT'S ARE

reply from: Cecilia

The parent site is the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy was founded in 1996 to work exclusively on decreasing teen pregnancy in America, and at the outset challenged the nation to reduce the teen pregnancy rate by one third over the next decade. Current demographic projections suggest that the nation has reached this goal.
As The National Campaign begins its second decade, there are two notable demographic factors that capture the attention.
First, despite the nation's progress in reducing teen pregnancy, about one third of teens get pregnant by age 20, the rates in the United States are still the highest among fully industrialized nations, and there is some evidence that progress is slowing. In fact, the overall teen birth rate increased in 13 states between 2003 and 2004 and remained stable in three others. Moreover, among some groups, especially the large and growing Latino population, rates of teen pregnancy and birth are well above the national average and are declining far more slowly than the overall rates. Clearly, we all still have a lot of work to do.
Second, it is now evident that although teens have been making remarkable progress in recent years, adults have not. This is especially apparent in the nation's rate of unplanned pregnancy. At present, about half of pregnancies are unplanned and the rate of the progress made in reducing unplanned pregnancy in the 1980s and into the 1990s seems to have almost completely halted.
Unplanned pregnancy is at the root of a number of important public health and social challenges. For example, it explains the vast majority of teen pregnancies (less than one fifth of teens say that they planned to become pregnant when they did), and the negative consequences of teen pregnancy have been well described by The National Campaign over the last decade. Unplanned pregnancy also bears a number of unfortunate and costly health consequences.
Another major consequence of high rates of unplanned pregnancy is, of course, high levels of abortion. Although there are many deeply felt and strongly held opinions nationwide about the proper place of abortion in American life, all would prefer that fewer women be faced with difficult decisions brought on by unplanned pregnancy.
It is against this backdrop that The National Campaign has expanded its mission - to continue our work on preventing teen pregnancy and also focus on reducing the high level of unplanned pregnancy in the United States among adults, especially those under 30 where the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies occur.
Here is a link to the pdf. file of the brochure on them: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/about-us/PDF/AboutUs.pdf

"Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, everyone ought to agree that preventing unintended pregnancies is a good thing to do," said Isabel Sawhill. She is the President of the Board of Directors.
Abortion isn't illegal now, prolifers, so why fight against what makes them happen?
Yodavater, could you please provide your source for Republican Thomas H. Kean's views on abortion? I could not findanything.

reply from: scopia1982

Some interesting details on the owners of this website:
Chariman: The Hononorable Thomas H. Kean, who is pro-choice and supports embryonic stem cell research.
Board member:
Vanessa Cullins, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Vice President for Medical Affairs
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
Board Emeriti:
Whoopi Goldberg
Actress
In looking over the lists, I see many names that can be easily identified as proabort, but very few if any I can identify as prolife.
It's pretty obviously biased towards the proabort viewpoint.
Oh Yoda, I was hoping to point them more toward the abstinance information. It shows that alot of teenagers are opting to wait......I didnt look at all of it.

reply from: scopia1982

Did anybody look at the abstainence information. ? I was trying to point to some of our younger posters to it. Maybe if they saw it from a "nonbiased" nonreligious site, they would take it seriously and maybe rethink either waiting or not doing it anymore until they were more older and mature. So here the abstainence factss:
This page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
* NO, NOT everybody is doing it. Less than half of teens reported having ever had sex as of 2005.
* Teens do not think it is embarrassing to say they are virgins. Almost three-quarters of teens don't think it's embarrassing to admit their virginity.
* Most teens who have had sex wish they had waited. Almost 70% of teens regret having had sex as early as they did.
* Teens are eager for a strong abstinence message. Ninety-four percent of teens say they want a strong message to abstain until at least after high school.
* Teen males' approval of premarital sex is declining. Guys are less and less accepting of casual sex - the proportion of adolescent males aged 17-19 who approve of premarital sex when a couple does not plan to marry decreased from 80% in 1988 to 71% in 1995.
* College freshmen are less likely to approve of casual sex. 60% of college freshmen disagree that hooking up with a casual acquaintance is okay.

reply from: scopia1982

It's something we need to take to heart for sure: Birth control works. It's a GOOD thing.
It seems to be if you read both sections, that abstainence comes out as a better choice for teens. That is certainly what I advocate. But as far as protection goes, I would advocate condom use above all else. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.Disease and pregnancy prevention. But they are not full proof and the only 100% not to get either is abstainence. Many people are conceived when either the condom breaks or the pills fails to work. My mom has reminded me on many occassions that I am here because the condom broke.

reply from: IHeartProlifers

oh yes that would be pleasant that is exactly what pro-choicers actually believe

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You don't have any more proof of that than she does of Yoda's being pitiful.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's something we need to take to heart for sure: Birth control works. It's a GOOD thing.
It seems to be if you read both sections, that abstainence comes out as a better choice for teens. That is certainly what I advocate. But as far as protection goes, I would advocate condom use above all else. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.Disease and pregnancy prevention. But they are not full proof and the only 100% not to get either is abstainence. Many people are conceived when either the condom breaks or the pills fails to work. My mom has reminded me on many occassions that I am here because the condom broke.
I agree that abstinence is better for teens but I DON'T think it should be the ONLY thing taught to them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree; I understood where babies came from by age 6. By age 12 I knew people had sex just for fun, but I had no desire to have sex at all, and in fact when I was in k-12 school I wanted to be abstinent until marriage. It didn't happen, but I did wait for LOVE.

reply from: scopia1982

I think it should be emphasized as the ideal for teens, as it is 100% effective, you cant say that for any other form of BC. Nothing else, not even condoms will protect you from STDS 100%. I dont think there is no such thing as safe sex, unless your in a monogamous relationship with an uninfected person. The best ideal way to accomplish this is within the confines of marriage. We can certainly teach teens about "safer" sex, but even with prevention you still take a big risk. I wish more funding was given for school so they would have enough of those "Baby Think it Over " Dolls for every student. I think that would be a great way to teach them the importance of waiting or using protection.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Some of the statistics given on that website are misleading (a nice way of say, "Not accurate.")
"Teenagers seem to be waiting longer to have intercourse. For example, the percentage of 12th-grade U.S. students who reported having had intercourse declined from 66.7% in 1991 to 60.5% in 2001.
Teens may be replacing intercourse with more alternatives they perceive as safer. For example more than 50% of U.S. teens ages 15 to 19 have engaged in oral sex. This number increases to almost 70% for those who are 18 and 19."
from: http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexinformation/a/teen_sex_stats.htm

60.5% is significantly higher than "less than half" and 70% is even higher.
"By age 15, only 13% of teens have ever had sex. However, by the time they reach age 19, seven in 10 teens have engaged in sexual intercourse."
from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

"The likelihood of teenagers' having intercourse increases steadily with age; however, about 1 in 5 young people do not have intercourse while teenagers.
Most young people begin having sex in their mid-to-late teens, about 8 years before they marry; more than half of 17-year-olds have had intercourse."
from: http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/teensex/index.php

Hmmmmm - they're not only having sex, they are having premarital sex and lots of it. At least they are being more careful than ever.

reply from: yoda

Did you miss the part of my sentence that said "would be"?
Do you need an explanation of what that means?

reply from: yoda

I googled his name and it came up as a description of what his platform was when he ran for office the last time. It's no secret, that's the platform he runs on.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that part is interesting...... but the subtitle of this thread is "Unbiased", and that just is NOT so.

reply from: yoda

How in the world do you "prove" a subjective assessment like that anyway?
The words "proof" and "pitiful" don't belong in the same paragraph.

reply from: scopia1982

Forgive me for not looking over it more throughly it seemed unbiased with out religion etc.

reply from: yoda

Sure. But you can remove that "unbiased" subtitle, you know?

reply from: scopia1982

Yoda, How do i do that. If it will please you I will issue a retraction.
This site is not "unbiased" as some people involved with abortion are affialated with the site. But it is a non religious, non secterian site.

reply from: yoda

Just edit the first post, and you will see the thread title and subtitle in little boxes above the post. Change them however you wish.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How in the world do you "prove" a subjective assessment like that anyway?
The words "proof" and "pitiful" don't belong in the same paragraph.
I'm defending you, [edit].

reply from: ChristianLott2

The first thing I checked was the information on bc. It's wrong. It doesn't say anything about abortifacients. It doesn't explain that using the pill or iud could cause abortion.
Second, I think most pro life people will agree - appropriate sex education at the appropriate age from the appropriate person (ie parent) helps teens make the right decisions. Passing out free condoms and bc sends the wrong message and promotes promiscuity.
Another problem I see with this site, it's goal to 'prevent teen pregnancy' - is way off the mark. It's not the prevention of pregnancy that's important, it's the prevention of manipulation and murder.
Not telling these children the truth about bc by omitting information (the abortive effect of bc) IS manipulation and murder.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I highly doubt any sane woman could consume enough oranges to miscarry, or that oranges are even abortifacient.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yet abstinence fails far more often than any other form of BC.
If you get pregnant, you're not using abstinence.

reply from: 4given

Really? Is that what you call it? I mean I know bumbs are important- was that a Freudian slip?
They are?! I am sure you have some experience with voluntary abstinence, or at least something to back your statement up with.

reply from: 4given

Yes, I have. Noxious and noisome, I have yet to be accused of. Points for creativity though.

reply from: Cecilia

I googled his name and it came up as a description of what his platform was when he ran for office the last time. It's no secret, that's the platform he runs on.
Please post the site, I was unable to find it. He has a son, Thomas H. Kean JR who is prochoice. Maybe you have them mixed up?

reply from: IHeartProlifers

Prove that making BC available "promotes promiscuity." I've asked before, but you simply continue to repeat the claim without any substantiation... Whether or not "the message" is "wrong" is a matter of opinion. I think that telling kids they should not be sexually active, and why they shouldn't, but accepting and addressing the fact that some will do it anyway is the right message.
Since you're the only pro-lifer I've ever encountered that has a non-insane opinion regarding birth control, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if this sanity and sensibility extends to emergency contraception? You're not one of those nuts that sheds tears for zygotes, right?

reply from: cracrat

I googled his name and it came up as a description of what his platform was when he ran for office the last time. It's no secret, that's the platform he runs on.
Naughty Yoda. Google is part of the mass anti-child conspiracy. How dare you support their maniacal pro-abort agenda by partaking of their services. You're a bad bad man.

reply from: cracrat

How does a certificate and/or ceremony make sex any "safer?"
Because marriage is one aspect of the paradigm society that existed at some point when old people were young and before the modern world asserted itself. Just like there wasn't any crime in the community, people looked out for each other, peadophiles didn't exist etc. The piece of paper doesn't actually make the blindest bit of difference to anything if the two people aren't committed and if they are then it's unnecessary, but it's cute the way so many people (usually those with one foot in the grave) seem to think that if only we could turn the clock back 50 years, all would be right in the world again.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

From Cracat:
"Because marriage is one aspect of the paradigm society that existed at some point when old people were young and before the modern world asserted itself. Just like there wasn't any crime in the community, people looked out for each other, peadophiles didn't exist etc. The piece of paper doesn't actually make the blindest bit of difference to anything if the two people aren't committed and if they are then it's unnecessary, but it's cute the way so many people (usually those with one foot in the grave) seem to think that if only we could turn the clock back 50 years, all would be right in the world again."
Agreed. People seem to forget that when we had prayer in public schools, mothers staying at home with their children and all the other "wonderful" aspects of the 1950s, there were some astonishingly awful events - two world wars, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, serial killers, lack of civil rights for blacks, segregation, child abuse, spousal abuse, plenty of crime (have they all forgotten Prohibition and the gangsters that controlled illegal alcohol?) and just about everything that happens now.
Sorry, but we cannot blame abortion, sex or "these times" for anything that didn't already happen in the past. I defy any one to name something "bad" that is "new." (Sorry, abortion doesn't count - it's been around for thousands of years and has been legal in the past.)

reply from: yoda

Hey smart ass....... "Google" is now a colloquial term that means to use a search engine.... and I use Yahoo.
But thanks for playing, and pointing that out.

reply from: yoda

Don't do me any favors, okay?

reply from: yoda

A long-time colleague pens a biography of former Gov. Kean
"When Kean was asked to be the keynote speaker at the 1988 Republican convention "there was flack from many directions," most notably because of his pro-choice views, said the biographer.
"The right-to-life movement objected that he was picked, but he actually did not talk about abortion in his speech," said Felzenberg. Others close to presidential candidate George H.W. Bush "thought he was not hard enough on the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis. But others, in what there was of the Republican moderate wing, "thought he had gone too far to the Right."
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/070606/njALongTimeColleague.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How does a certificate and/or ceremony make sex any "safer?"
I personally don't say marriage, I say a monogamous relationship with someone who has no disease. It's commonly known that only having 1 partner is a lot safer than sleeping around. The actual certificate doesn't make you safer, but it would be interesting to have research done on people who cheat in a "committed" relationship vs a true marriage.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Prove that making BC available "promotes promiscuity." I've asked before, but you simply continue to repeat the claim without any substantiation... Whether or not "the message" is "wrong" is a matter of opinion. I think that telling kids they should not be sexually active, and why they shouldn't, but accepting and addressing the fact that some will do it anyway is the right message.
Since you're the only pro-lifer I've ever encountered that has a non-insane opinion regarding birth control, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if this sanity and sensibility extends to emergency contraception? You're not one of those nuts that sheds tears for zygotes, right?
You've met me, and I approve of ALL kinds of contraceptives. Secondly, EC does NOT ABORT anything. It prevents ovulation. If that has already happened, EC should technically be completely ineffective. It's similar to a high dose of bc pills.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Prove that making BC available "promotes promiscuity." I've asked before, but you simply continue to repeat the claim without any substantiation... Whether or not "the message" is "wrong" is a matter of opinion. I think that telling kids they should not be sexually active, and why they shouldn't, but accepting and addressing the fact that some will do it anyway is the right message.
It's my opinion - a logical one based on psychology.
I think it's wrong to have sex using birth control period, condoms included.
In the case of bc, it could kill a child. In the case of condoms, sex is a useless act - potentially leading to an 'unwanted' and thus - a dead baby.
Handing out free gum promotes gum chewing. Handing out free bc promotes using bc.
So we're left with a lightened attitude toward bc and thus sex - it's as cheap and free as chewing gum.
I don't think that analogy is far fetched.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hey smart ass....... "Google" is now a colloquial term that means to use a search engine.... and I use Yahoo.
Not it isn't.
Google is a colloquial term for...GOOGLE.
"I looked it up on the internet" is the common phrase.
Actually, I hear people say "google it" and just mean use any search engine.

reply from: scopia1982

What about Natural Family Planning ? It is simply keeping track of a womans cycle and abstaining on her fertile days. Although some use a barrier method on those days. I personally am opposed to all forms of artifiical BC for myself because of my faith. But I have to take the Pill because of medical problems, which is permitted now by the Catholic Church for that reason, but not to prevent pregnancy.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"I think it's wrong to have sex using birth control period, condoms included. "
Well, Christian, that will surely do NOTHING to prevent abortions OR sexually transmitted diseases!
It would be a good thing if you simply don't have sex, EVER.

reply from: ChristianLott2

What about Natural Family Planning ? It is simply keeping track of a womans cycle and abstaining on her fertile days. Although some use a barrier method on those days.
If you get pregnant, you've still got to want the baby. The remark about condoms are because if a condom fails, usually the 'unwanted baby' is killed. That's the idea anyway.
If you take the pill and have sex you may kill a baby.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Why do you post this garbage?
Abortions and STDs will stop when people realize the worth of human life and stop playing games with it. BC is gambling with a babies life. You are the one who needs to stop having sex. You value nothing except your own petty insecurities.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So which search engine did they use?
Can you confirm it wasn't google?
Yahoo normally. Some of my friends are weirdly anti-Google, I'll never know why.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What about Natural Family Planning ? It is simply keeping track of a womans cycle and abstaining on her fertile days. Although some use a barrier method on those days. I personally am opposed to all forms of artifiical BC for myself because of my faith. But I have to take the Pill because of medical problems, which is permitted now by the Catholic Church for that reason, but not to prevent pregnancy.
Nope, that's still "controlling birth" so it's bad.

reply from: scopia1982

I am a married woman so I am expected to remain celibate? I dont think so. I have a medical condition which if I dont take this Pill I bleed out so much all I can do is sit on the toilet all day. I agree that life begins at conception, but at this point I am infertile etiher way, chances are I am no longer even ovulating. I have talked and prayed over this matter with my priests and because I CANNOT function when I have these bleeding episodes the Church will permit use of the Pill. The view on this is intent. If I was using it to just prevent pregnancy it would be a sin, but not to treat a medical problem. So I can either sit on the toilet all day or take the Pill and be a wife and mother to my family.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Why do you post this garbage?
Abortions and STDs will stop when people realize the worth of human life and stop playing games with it. BC is gambling with a babies life. You are the one who needs to stop having sex. You value nothing except your own petty insecurities.
Honey, I can't get pregnant anymore because I'm in my 50s, so if I want to keep on having sex, I'm going to go ahead and do it. I doubt that my husband would be happy if I stopped. I was referring to YOU because you don't believe in birth control OR condoms, so you are at danger of contracting an STD or causing a pregnancy.

reply from: CharlesD

You know one way to drastically decrease the odds of getting an STD? Having one partner for life. Now that's a novel idea.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

They must be behind the times.
I've heard people say "I yahoo'd" it rather than "I googled it".
That sounds stupid and I've never heard it. I'm pretty sure a college club of nerds and geeks is as ahead of the times as it gets in the tech world and the internet.

reply from: scopia1982

If you engage in casual sex, than what you say applies. But if you have a monogamous relationship with another uninfected person, and you only have sex with each other, there should be no risk of disease. Pregnancy is always possible, even with the best birth control.

reply from: scopia1982

If it wasnt for my bleesing problem, I would not be on the Pill. I do think it is wrong to use for birth control only, applying that standard to myself and my fellow Catholics. I would not try and impose it on anyone else, except to tell them that the side effects of heart attack , stroke and blood clots may want them to question the safety. If one has a medical condition and it is used in a medicinal manner I have no problem with it.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"If you engage in casual sex, than what you say applies. But if you have a monogamous relationship with another uninfected person, and you only have sex with each other, there should be no risk of disease. Pregnancy is always possible, even with the best birth control."
I do not engage in "casual" sex. I'm married and we are both monogamous, so we don't have to worry about disease. And, happily, women don't need birth control after menopause - though they should be extremely careful during the transitional period when the menstrual cycle is irregular. Hormone tests are available to determine when the woman is actually fully in menopause.
I believe that monogamy is the best way to prevent STDs and that birth control is the best way for fertile couples to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and therefore avoid abortion.

reply from: yoda

Google, besides their inclination to support abortion "rights", has moved into the same "establishment" category that Microsoft has occupied for some time.
They are now so large and inclined to throw their weight around that many people distrust and avoid them.

reply from: CharlesD

Google, besides their inclination to support abortion "rights", has moved into the same "establishment" category that Microsoft has occupied for some time.
They are now so large and inclined to throw their weight around that many people distrust and avoid them.
I'm just a grammar stickler and it bothers me anytime one company or brand that is one of many different companies or brands within a certain product line, becomes the default word for that product. That's why I refuse to say google unless I'm talking about the actual search engine and I say "tissue" instead of "kleenex." I don't google things. I look them up on the internet. Sometimes I use google, but to me it's the name of one company on the internet, not a verb meaning to look something up on the internet. Just call me the language nazi I guess.

reply from: ChristianLott2

I agree that life begins at conception, but at this point I am infertile etiher way, chances are I am no longer even ovulating.
'nuff said.

reply from: ChristianLott2

If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. That is the best of intentions.
You're just making excuses.

reply from: ChristianLott2

There's no danger in getting STDs if you don't have sex with a slut - and pregnancy is not a danger, it's a blessing.

reply from: ChristianLott2

I won't live with it and I certainly wouldn't encourage others to.

reply from: ChristianLott2

You're not a very good logician. I know you try.
Would you put your children at risk for no reason whatsoever?
Of course not. BC is worthless and unnecessary, therefore it is a worthless and unnecessary risk.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Here's another. Would you encourage a pro life male to have sex with a pro abort female?
It's a stupid and unnecessary risk.

reply from: sheri

CP, if a sexually active girl starts on the pill at 15 and stays on it for up to 5 years, how often do you think she may be chemically aborting? Would it matter to you if it happened once or would it have to be more then 10? We all agree it can happen, so my question is, how often untill you would be against it?.
And to beat you to it I am much more biased against the pill because of my realigion, i admit it.
Also the reason i am asking is because i can produce studies that show it may happen up to such and so many times in a year, but i dont want to waist time with all that if you will only admit the pill is bad if it kills twice a month, somehow.

reply from: carolemarie

Sherri
I really object to this nonsense saying that if your on the pill you are aborting any child! I have been on the pill for decades and I have not aborted any children while on it. There is only supposition that this actually works this way!
The pill works by preventing ovulation, and when it fails, you get pregnant as myself and other women can testify too.
Why do you want to believe these lies and why do you believe speculation as the truth?

reply from: KaylieBee

Some people believe the pill can prevent implantation, and consider that an 'abortion'.

reply from: carolemarie

Believing with no proof is simply guessing..
I know what they believe but it is based on speculation not fact

reply from: nancyu

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/896/27/

reply from: nancyu

Never mind that there are sharks in there! Here, this life jacket will keep you safe.

reply from: nancyu

I think it is because you have self respect.

reply from: ChristianLott2

You haven't answered the question. Would you marry or have sex with a pro abort?
That's an honest comparison, not like yours. Yes or no?
You are the one quoting scripture around here all the time. When's the last time you've seen me do the same?
I pretend? No, there is scientific evidence it can and will cause an abortion. There's simply no reason to take that risk.

reply from: KaylieBee

You haven't answered the question. Would you marry or have sex with a pro abort?
He's already done both, hasn't he?
You know his story.

reply from: ChristianLott2

So since a person can be a hypocrite gives you the right to throw discernment and any attempt at good judgment out the window?
If you had sex with someone you knew was a pro abort you would be endangering a child's life. The percentage chance she will abort is variable, yet the chance still exists. For the person who doesn't want a dead baby, it would be a foolish risk to trust a pro abort with a pregnancy - no matter how much she claims she wants it.
You say the percentage abortion in bc is low and static no matter what you do - but car accidents and swimming accidents depend on many factors, they're not all just freak accidents. You want us to be victims of statistics, as if we're all forsaken no matter what we do or how much we plan.
That is why your logic is screwed. You want people to think you know more than you do by changing the rules. Dissimilar statistics cannot be compared.
Now then, you are familiar with this I assume:
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

EXACTLY. You win, CP :3

reply from: yoda

Okay, but did you get the part about google being very biased in favor of abortion?

reply from: yoda

Why do you call them "lies" when they are supported by honest people with solid documentation? What do they have to gain by deceiving anyone?
What do you have to gain by calling them liars?
And why do you attack the idea of giving unborn babies the benefit of the doubt when there is a possibility that "the pill" may kill them? What's wrong with erring on the side of caution, instead of calling it "all lies"?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Okay, but did you get the part about google being very biased in favor of abortion?
My Google results:
7,280,000 for pro-life
1,820,000 for anti-abortion
TOTAL = 9,100,000
5,670,000 for pro-choice
106,000 for pro-abortion
TOTAL = 5,776,000
Biased???????? Only in Yodaworld, I guess.

reply from: ChristianLott2

I gave you proof cp and you've ignored it. I'm through dealing with your hypocrisy and self righteous bs.

reply from: carolemarie

It is speculation! Not fact.
The pill prevents abortion, it doesnt cause them.

reply from: yoda

What on earth are you talking about?
Is that some kind of secret code?

reply from: yoda

No, I assert that the risk of human beings dying as a result of the choice to use hormonal BC are unnecessary. BC is not something that is necessary to the safety of born human beings.
Any other risks are a whole different, and unrelated subject.
I'm not talking about prohibiting anyone from doing anything.... I'm saying that a truly prolife person would give the benefit of the doubt (about BC) to the babies.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What on earth are you talking about?
Is that some kind of secret code?
She's proving that the words pro-life are mentioned MORE on the web than pro-choice. I think. It may also show there are more pro-life sites than pro-choice ones. So you nonsense idea that Google is biased against pro-lifers is... nonsense.

reply from: yoda

Ummm...... that's not a very good way to go about proving your point...
Contributions to PP are one way, and censoring certain prolife videos are another one.....
You get the point, right?

reply from: yoda

Obviously not. But they do not involve a risk to an innocent unborn baby.
No, risks to your OWN life are related to the subject of risking SOMEONE ELSE'S life, no.
No, not at all. If a woman considers any other activity a significant risk to her baby, then she ought to try to avoid it as well.

reply from: scopia1982

It depends on how you look at it. I am on LoOvral for menstral problems and I have a copy of the PDR and according to it, one of the mechanisms used to prevent pregnancy is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg by making the lining of the uterus hostile to an egg implanting. For those who firmly believe that life begins at conception, like I do I can see where they would see that as a chemical abortion.

reply from: yoda

ONLY the mother can asses the risk, what you or I consider the risk to be is irrelevant.
Sure, if she honestly thinks BC is not a risk, and isn't just rationalizing the risk away for her convenience, then she isn't doing anything immoral. In my opinion, however, a true prolifer will not just make a rash judgment on that issue, but will read up on all the research they can.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, actually I think that a true prolife would be concerned enough about that issue (when she became aware of it) to do the research.
Do you disagree?

reply from: yoda

I really don't see any conflict between ending abortion on demand, and saying what I think someone who is truly prolife would do. They are both a part of the same "emotion", IMO.
I don't need to convince anyone here of anything, but I will express my opinion about anything I choose to, anytime I want to. And I honestly think that anyone who feels empathy for the victims of abortion would be concerned enough to look up the documentation on BC.
Anyone who doesn't care to read what I think can put me on iggy, or just not read my posts.

reply from: yoda

Me neither.
But I will continue to express my opinion about the heart of a prolifer, in general.

reply from: yoda

No, in this case that doesn't apply because I made a general, not a specific statement, about my opinion of what a true prolife would do when confronted with the possibility that BC could cause an abortion.

reply from: yoda

Well, in this case, you are saying that my expression of my opinion is analogous to being a "policeman".
Okay, I'm a policeman.

reply from: carolemarie

It depends on how you look at it. I am on LoOvral for menstral problems and I have a copy of the PDR and according to it, one of the mechanisms used to prevent pregnancy is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg by making the lining of the uterus hostile to an egg implanting. For those who firmly believe that life begins at conception, like I do I can see where they would see that as a chemical abortion.
If it is so bad, why are you taking it?

reply from: scopia1982

It depends on how you look at it. I am on LoOvral for menstral problems and I have a copy of the PDR and according to it, one of the mechanisms used to prevent pregnancy is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg by making the lining of the uterus hostile to an egg implanting. For those who firmly believe that life begins at conception, like I do I can see where they would see that as a chemical abortion.
If it is so bad, why are you taking it?
Because if I dont take it I literally hemmorrage, all I can do is spend most of the day on toilet. If I didnt have a medical condition, I would not take it at all. There are those who would see that as a chemical abortion. I am morally opposed to the pill for contraception, but can understand the use of treating female problems with it. I am concearned about the risk of blood, stroke and heart attacks for those who use it, but that is between a woman and a doctor. I do not believe that the morning after pill should be available to the general public, but I have no problem giving it to a rape victim in the ER. My main focus is on established pregnancies.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't agree that the pill is wrong for any use. I certainly prefer women to use the pill than to seek abortions....like you my main focus is on people who are pregnant and know it.

reply from: scopia1982

"I don't agree that the pill is wrong for any use. I certainly prefer women to use the pill than to seek abortions....like you my main focus is on people who are pregnant and know it.'
I am opposed to the Pill because my church teaches that all artificial BC is wrong. If a fellow Catholic came to and asked me if I thought it was ok for her to use it, I would tell her no, unless its to treat a medical condition. But that is a moral argument, not a legal one. That should be left between a woman and her doctor, as I see BC as the lesser of 2 evils. I would not advocate that BC be made illegal, although I think some methods like the IUD and the Ortho Evra Patch should be taken off the market, because of safety concerns. The Pill has too many risk IMO assocaited with it, but I think if a woman is given all of the information on risks and side effects and evaluates with her doctor than it is her choice to make. I dont really like the idea of the morning after pill being readily available as I think it encourages people to not take precautions, and will not protect themselves against either pregnancy or STDs. But if a woman shows up in a secular hosptial, for a rape kit, it should be offered. But a religious affialted hospital should not be obligated to have to violate beliefs by offering it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Are YOU opposed to the pill or just your church? I'd rather see a woman on the pill than aborting too.

reply from: scopia1982

I am opposed to the Pill and all artificial forms of BC because the Church teaches that its wrong. However, I will not legislate that morality on anybody else. A non Catholic is not bound by those teachings.

reply from: yoda

And you are fully entitled to that opinion. You are also entitled to keep it to yourself, or share it with everyone, as I have on occasion done with my opinion about what a "true prolife" would or would not do (and will continue to do).

reply from: yoda

Ah yes, but you must remember that posting on this forum makes us all more informed, more scientifically knowledgeable, and more authoritative than the Physicians Desk Reference. Right? </sarcasm>


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