deny families the right to plan and be aware of their choices
If they could plan and be aware of their choices, why would they need the 'option' of abortion to be available?
Courtney
· 5 years ago
What about the woman who is just diagnosed with an aggresive cancer and if she decides to have the baby, her three other children will be left without a mother? Or the woman who is on her way home and is taken by knife and brutally raped? It is very easy to stand in judgment of others when not in their shoes. And it is over simplistic to assume that birth control never fails (it does) and that people will not have sex (they will). Not that I agree with abortion as a form of birth control, because I don't. I'm just not willing to make that decision for every other woman in this country.
Michael
· 5 years ago
The statement above wasn't anti-abortion or even pro-abortion. It was just pointing out that Kerry's straddling the line and trying to take *both* positions.
I agree that in some cases it can be a tough judgement call to make - but *if* one believes that life begins at conception and then concludes that abortion is akin to murder, under what circumstances is murder justifiable? If you choose not to make that decision on behalf of the mother, are you not in fact making that decision on behalf of the fetus? In the rape example, should the baby be put to death for the sins of the rapist?
Only by concluding the fetus is not a life, a soul, can one justify abortion. Kerry trying to a) declare it *is* a life and b) then vote for abortion anyway is a horrific conflicted viewpoint.
A.M.M.
· 5 years ago
This has always been a touchy subject. You mention politics, religion, and/or abortion and you will always have controversy. My personal beliefs on this matter are that life begins at conception and that muder is wrong. I'm fully aware that abortion may be necessary if the life of the mother is at (great) risk, but I can't see it being so in any other situation. Courtney, your argument about the rapist is, simply put, wrong. If somebody rapes another (regardless of later pregnancy), they should be punished. If a child is born, the rapist must be considered the parent and therefor must be expected to pay child-support in addition to any other punishments. Also, if a couple (implying marriage) does not want to have a child, then they should not reply upon any type of birth control except abstinence. As for your contention about people destined to have intercourse, I can point out several examples of people taking a vow of abstinence and following it their whole life: Monks and Nuns. Although I do not expect people to live up to their high standards of living in all areas of their lives, is does show that it is humanly possible to not have sex by impulse. I believe in logic and morals; I believe in Bush.
A.M.M.
· 5 years ago
I noticed a typo in my own writing. Please excuse the spelling of "murder" as "muder" in the above passage. I thought I had checked for such errors, but it seems I was mistaken.
Courtney
· 5 years ago
A.M.M., following the logic you just presented, it is okay to murder the fetus if the mother's life is in peril? And I also believe in morals and logic, but do not believe in Bush. There's not necessarily a direct correlation between the two.
And Mike, I was responding to Vox's comment about needing the option of abortion. And I agree; Kerry's a dufus.
A.M.M.
· 5 years ago
Well Courtney, I'm glad you pointed that out since I now believe I should have clarified that a bit better earlier. It appears this argument is centered around logic and morality, so I'll keep in within that context. Logic and morality mandate (amongst other things) that the need of the many outweigh the need of the few and that we must save as many lives as possible per situation. Assuming the mother is at (great) risk should the child be born, I believe that abortion should be an available option. This is only because there is often a direct correlation between the safety of the mother's life and the safety of the unborn child's life. Should there be a decent, if not hopeful, chance the child will live, then I believe that abortion is wrong. Putting a small spin on the situation, let's assume that the child will be completely safe, yet the mother will die should the birth continue. I still believe in salvaging the situation as best the situation will allow. The mother has already lived a portion of her possible life while the child has not. Therefor, the most good attainable (in this situation) is that the option of abortion should not be available. My belief in this is compounded should the mother be carrying multiple children. Afterall, why should one live only so more can die? The good of the many outweigh the need of the few. On a slightly different beat, I do agree with you that believing in logic and morality does not force you to vote for a particular person for president. It does, however, prevent you from voting for others. At least we can agree that Kerry, in your words, is a "dufus".
Courtney
· 5 years ago
A.M.M., the basic differences in our beliefs is that you believe life begins at conception. I believe life begins when the fetus is viable, i.e. can survive outside the womb. I also do not take my position lightly, being a mother myself. I strongly believe that unwanted pregnancies should be avoided and if it does occur, adoption is a wonderful option.
However, both of my children were planned and very much wanted. I was not the desperate, drug addicted 15 year old runaway turning to prostitution to feed herself. I was not the 35 year old woman who so desperately wanted children only to find out her baby's brain was developing outside it's body and would not survive more than a few hours after birth.
It is very easy to stand in judgement of others from a warm, safe environment. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. This applies not only to the issue of abortion, but to every social issue.
Data is not provided for the number of "convenience" abortions versus saving the mother's life, but I suspect it's a rather large percentage. I suspect most unborn lives are ended to "protect the woman's mental well-being" as opposed to actually saving her life or aborting a malformed fetus.
Courtney
· 5 years ago
I agree that the majority of the abortions performed were not to save the mother's life or aborting a malformed fetus. However, can you name every situation where it would be acceptable? And who drafts this law? Who gets to decide where the line is drawn in the sand? It's likely not the same person who would be needing it.
A.M.M.
· 5 years ago
There is an exception to every rule, regardless of what that rule may be. I said, and believe, that abortion is wrong. However, I did not say it must be completely banned. I will agree, for various reasons, that "mercy killing" is morally acceptable. This phrase is not intended for every use one might think of. It is merely to point out that if an individual is in extreme pain and/or imminent death is assured, it may (as per the situation) be acceptable to end that individual's life. Where this gets complicated is that most euthanasia situations are geared around that person's consent. An unborn child cannot make that assertation.
I would like to point out one thing my father taught me. If you take a life, and know it's a life, then it's murder. If you take a life, and don't know it's life, then it's manslaughter. The only way to kill/destroy something and have a clear conscience about it is to know without a shadow of a doubt that the subject is not a life. I'd rather abide in caution and keep my conscience clean as possible.
There's one more thing I'd like to point out. You asked who was meant to draw the line in the sand. I can say with certainty that I would not want that responsibility, and that no human should. I believe no line should need to be drawn upfront. Determine the result on a case-by-case basis.
Now let's examine your examples:
1) A 15 year old girl should not get addicted to drugs, run-away, or turn to prostitution. All those could be prevented by herself.
2) The same can be said about the 35 year old woman, although to a lesser degree. There are many stories warning of greed, and they refer to more than just money.
3) You assume you know what position I am in when you mentioned the "warm, safe environment". My belief in what I said is not dependant upon where I may or may not be. I would hold the same opinion regardless.
Courtney
· 5 years ago
And who is the person who determines whether each and every abortion is okay? If it's not legislated, then how do you control it?
And this is why I know that you are in a warm, safe environment. You can not see a reason for a 15 year old girl to run away, turn to drugs or prostitution. Many runaways and a large percentage of people in the sex industries were abused growing up. It may have been safer on the streets than it was in her own home. And yet you stand in judgment. Easy to do never having faced those atrocities.
I'm not sure I understand your statement about greed involving the 35 year old woman. I don't see wanting children as greedy.
Sharyn
· 5 years ago
Let's say, you're an employer, and you have a job opening. The title of the job is "life", and before too long, two pre-born babies come to you. One of them is in the late second trimester, the other is full-term. Would you say to the first one, "Well, everything looks good. You've got ten fingers, ten toes, a fully functioning brain. You can open your eyes, suck your thumb, your little heart has a great beat and you seem full of energy. All of your organs are present, but unfortunately, because they're not yet fully formed, I can't consider you for this job"? That's a mighty thin line to toe. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "If you're not sure whether a fetus is a person or not, err to the belief that it's a person. If you weren't sure whether or not a person was dead, you wouldn't burry him."
Courtney
· 5 years ago
The employer analogy is a bit of a stretch, at best. I do not agree with late term abortions. If the fetus is viable, in my mind, it is a life. A life to me means something that can sustain itself in the outside world. Where should that break point be? I'm not a doctor. However, I would assume any fetus less than 20 weeks is unable to sustain itself. It is wholly dependent on it's host, the pregnant woman.
Where would this legislation end? Do we begin to prosecute pregnant women for having a drink while pregnant? For getting intoxicated before knowing about the pregnancy? For falling and injuring the baby while skiing or riding a bike? While I am in now way in favor of smoking, drinking, etc. during pregnancy is it okay to treat the woman as merely the incubator with no rights of her own? Is that really how women are seen in this country? Maybe it is. I am just a walking womb.
Michael
· 5 years ago
Actually, something like that has already occurred:
The woman failed to accept a c-section, and as a result her baby was stillborn. Now she's been charged with murder.
Courtney
· 5 years ago
I remember hearing about the story and as tragic as the results, I do not think she should be charged with murder. Her reason for not wanting the c-section are horrendous, but her body, her choice. I have a friend who's wife was trying to have a natural delivery. Her doctor was concerned by the length of time it was taking and proceeded to mandate a c-section. She continued pushing while in the operating room against doctor's orders while the doctor was prepping for surgery and successfully delivered her daughter. If something had gone wrong, should she be criminally charged?
Where does this end? Will the FBI come knocking on my door if my daughter suffers from learning disabilities in the future because I drank a beer before I knew I was pregnant? Maybe women should just relinquish any rights we've achieved and go back to being men's property. That should make the pro-life movement happy.
Michael
· 5 years ago
It was a good argument till you threw in that "men's property" line. You can't dismiss the fact that half of all women are pro-life. It's not a sexist decision; the opinion on abortion is not split along gender lines.
Anonymous
· 5 years ago
There is a large population in South America, a Catholic culture, who do not believe that life begins until 2 or 3 years after birth. Because of the harsh system of severe poverty it is unfortunate that many young children are left to die, yet it is still an accepted practice in that society. Is this wrong? They are Catholics, but they don't believe that what they are doing is a sin. If we can't come to a consensus on when life begins, maybe we should just leave it up to the mother and father (who may be of any religion or culture) to decide whats best for their family.
Maybe America spends too much time arguing about this issue and not enough time trying to identify better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is a symptom of a sickness in our society. The root of the problem can be found in our education system and in the current family structure. When kids are told in high school not to have sex, to abstain, then naturally they are going to want to have sex. Abstinence education has been proven time and time again to be ineffective. For kids to really understand the importance of healthy relationships we need to help foster a true appreciation and respect for human life. This is a responsibility of parents. Unfortunately, many parents will not speak to children about these issues and think that schools will take care of it. When kids see sex symbols and images literally everywhere, you can't blame them for wanting to have sex. Therefore it is also a responsibility of adults, particularly those involved in the movie-tv-media-internet business, to be extremely careful to promote healthy lifestyles and not simply exploit human emotions for personal gains and profit. Why do we have shows like Baywatch (just one example out of thousands)? It certainly isn't supposed to teach young people about water safety. Rather some network executive believed that young men would prefer to watch women with large breasts in bathing suits. It is no wonder that women are treated like objects and not like human beings. These stereotypes are deeply ingrained into the minds of young people (and into the minds of adults who were also subjected to the same exploitation)
It was mentioned that a 15 year old girl should not run away and become a prostitute, that she should know better. This is ridiculous and it is thinking like this that continues the belief that its a woman's fault if she becomes pregnant. A happy child who is raised in a loving, caring, open family does not run away from home. The responsibility of parents can not be stressed enough. Why are the problems of rape and broken families so prevalent among the poor? Is it because they are just physically and mentally unable as human beings to act in a decent manner? Are they not capable of living respectful lives? Or are they unfairly subjected to harsh conditions that inhibit them from ever having the chance to build successful and healthy relationships and families? Does a poor education (the responsibility of the state) lead to any of this? How about a minimum wage, well below the living wage, that requires some parents to work upwards of 60 or 70 hours a week just to pay the bills? Its hard to raise children in a caring environment when you can only be home for a few waking hours each week. What will these children do if they have no parent supervision? Probably watch tv, and be unknowningly brainwashed into thinking that women are just objects for men's sexual pleasure. Don't believe me? Watch half an hour of BET. Or MTV, E, or any other channel for that matter. How can you expect a child who is never given a chance to mature to grow up into a responsible adult? Should we just point at the symptoms and ask for a quick remedy, like we do for everything else in this society? Just throw blacks in jail, they're dirty and stupid (Although African Americans only constitute about 15% of our population, about 40% of our prisons are filled with blacks) Why don't we make abortions illegal? That'll stop those blacks and white trash from breeding. We know these laws aren't introduced to keep middle class white kids in line. And you can't argue that its for moral reasons and that murder is wrong without also arguing that corporations are committing murder when they kill millions every year from lung cancer (but cigarette and oil companies pay for most of our politicians' campaigns, so I guess they're exempt) or from alcoholism (but the women on the beer commercials are hot, so I guess they're exempt too)
And in the European countries where safe sex (condom AND pill usage) is advocated, the number of abortions is virtually nil. Why don't we at least promote safe sex rather than abstinence in our country? This is a country based on religious freedom, and not everyone believes that it is wrong to have premarital sex. So the least we could do is teach safer sex in school instead of saying that abstinence is the only answer.
But hey, whatever, we can argue for years and years about where to draw the line in the abortion issue, or we can attend to the real reason why there is such a disregard for life and health. Its a matter of striking a genuine balance between personal and social responsibility, and state responsibility.
Stephen
· 5 years ago
hey! I like Baywatch! :)
Michael
· 5 years ago
There is a large population in South America, a Catholic culture, who do not believe that life begins until 2 or 3 years after birth.
I throw the red penalty flag. Provide name of said Catholic culture, or admit your fabrication.
When kids are told in high school not to have sex, to abstain, then naturally they are going to want to have sex.
Fabrication #2. Kids don't want to have sex because somebody told them not to. They have sex because of raging hormones. They want to, or a friend wants to. "Let's have sex 'cuz Principle Bob said not to!" "Yes, that'll make him mad!"
Abstinence education has been proven time and time again to be ineffective.
The Catholic Church and a study at Princeton University highlights your fabrication #3. Here's a link. Teaching abstinence reduces the amount of teen pregnancies.
And in the European countries where safe sex (condom AND pill usage) is advocated, the number of abortions is virtually nil.
Fabrication #4. Abortion rates in England are 1 in 4 pregnancies, hardly "nil". (Source). And while abortion rates in the US are higher, they're no longer significantly higher and are also about 1 in 4 and declining (Source) And this study from the BBC says that the more access girls have to abortion clinics, the more abortions they have.
I welcome open, polite discussion, but don't attempt to get away with posting fabrications to bolster your point of view.
Stephen
· 5 years ago
:)
Michael
· 5 years ago
Oh. P.S. I've never seen Baywatch. :P
Anonymous
· 5 years ago
If you want sources, then here you go.
The culture in South America is that of the Catholic population in the impoverished North-East region (This region is twice the size of Texas and contains over 40% of Brazil's total population). If you like you can read the article describing their culture and their opinions on abortion. The Catholic Church there accepts the fact that with such harsh conditions and high infant mortality rates, they can only determine a child as being an actual human being after it has proven itself to be a "survivor," which is usually only after 2 or 3 years.
Sheper-Hughes, Nancy. "Mother's Love: Death Without Weeping" in Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology. Ed. James Spradley and David McCurdy. Longman: New York. 1997. pp 195-204.
Neeru Gupta; Iuri da Costa Leite "Adolescent Fertility Behavior: Trends and Determinants in Northeastern Brazil." International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Sep., 1999), pp. 125-130.
Your second argument is not very strong. You are right that hormones are involved, and peer pressure. These are both major factors. But you can't tell me that my opinion is a fabrication by offering your opinions and not facts. Of course this (being told not to do something) is not the only reason why people engage in sexual activity. But I think we can both agree that in this society (and in many others) there is a natural tendency for youth to reject authority. We tell kids not to do drugs but they still do drugs. We tell them not to drink but they still drink. Again the urge to be a resistant reactionary isn't the sole cause; kids won't do these things just as a negative reaction to make adults angry, but it is a factor. I just feel there are better ways to teach in addition to just bluntly stating "Just Say No!" and leaving the discussion at that. And you must agree that if peer pressure is a factor, then there is a great responsibility among parents, teachers, and other adults who influence children, to make serious commitments to the children's lives. We both know peer pressure is a major factor in drug and alcohol use, and sex. So I think we can agree that parents must actively seek to educate their children and teach them how to act responsibly. Is it going to solve the problem completely and immediately? No, of course not. But it is a good place to start, to try and alleviate the problem. And many studies show that a large percentage of abortions are had by young women who lack sufficient education or a strong family structure. I am assuming that you also know this but just in case here a just a few:
Lisa C. Remez. "Confronting the Reality of Abortion in Latin America" International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Mar., 1995), pp. 32-36.
Malcolm Potts. "Sex and the Birth Rate: Human Biology, Demographic Change, and Access to Fertility-Regulation Methods" Population and Development Review, Vol. 23, No. 1. (Mar., 1997), pp. 1-39.
As to your third argument, I agree that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to prevent pregnancy (and the spread of STDs). I was referring to the teaching of abstinence as the only guide in sexual education. The article you refer to only backs up my argument. Lets go through it, shall we? The author says that students who were taught only abstinence education increased their sexual activity over time, until they were having sex more than children who were taught about condom use. He attributes this increase to a lack of self-control and also to a failure on the part of parents and teachers, the people who are responsible for instilling virtues to make correct choices. Is this not what I have been arguing? The author also points out that education about condoms had no effect on the number of kids having sex and that it is a second-rate method. I agree. If you only teach kids about condoms and not the importance of abstinence, then they will think that there is nothing wrong with having sex. Now where I differ from this author is that I believe that sex education should work to incorporate a number of teaching methods. First and foremost, abstinence is the only 100% proven prevention. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. Period. However, in addition to this, it must be stressed that if one were to engage in sexual activity, then they should be properly educated about the risks and consequences involved, so that if they make that decision then they will be doing it while being well-informed about their actions and subsequent responsibilities. This is why I feel it is incredibly important to teach about contraceptives (ie condoms, the pill). It is also important to discuss the risk of pregnancy and disease thoroughly. So if you are going to have sex (and it shouldn't necessarily be promoted) then at least be safe. It is perfectly fine to believe that premarital sex is a sin, but it is not right to assume that everyone holds the same belief and must therefore be subjected to something that goes against their own belief system. I admit, this is a point that can be argued either way, but I think that progress will only be made when people decide to respect each other's opinions and work together. So basically, the article you cite only verifies my statement, which is that abstinence education (without additional resources on safe sex and without strong moral support from parents) is ineffective. Thank you for helping with that. If you have analyzed the information in your article some other way, please let us discuss.
Now as far as your fourth argument is concerned, I wasn't talking about England. England is one country where abstinence education is strongly advocated. In fact, you prove that your own statement is a fabrication by saying that the abortion rate is 1 in 4 (25%) when the very source you are quoting says that it is 1 in 5 (20%). The article again strongly supports my opinion and argument. Maybe everyone should read it together: "One in five pregnancies in England results in a termination, giving a mean lifetime abortion rate of 0.44 per woman, which is higher than a decade ago.1 Most women having abortions are young (under 30), single, and childless.2 More women (26.9%) are having repeat abortions.2 3 Not practising safe sexual intercourse is associated with abortion, testing for HIV, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.4 Contraceptive use is associated with social class, and abortion rates rise with deprivation.4 These factors indicate the need and potential for targeted, preventive interventions. High fertility and abortion rates in developing countries can be readily explained, but high abortion rates in affluent populations of low fertility with ready access to contraception are less easy to rationalise. Women in all societies need access to safe, legal abortion services. With the Abortion Act 1967, the United Kingdom led other European countries in reforming abortion legislation. As in the Netherlands, there is a need to target the causes of unwanted pregnancy through more effective education and contraceptive services. This will also reduce the costs of abortion and improve sexual health." Thanks again for the source.
And I didn't mention anything about having access to abortion clinics, so I don't know why you brought up that point. Like I said, abortion is the symptom, we should work together to recognize the root causes. I think you will find a lot of good information in these articles about sexual education systems that are more effective than the approach that the United States takes:
Henry P. David; Janine M. Morgall; Mogens Osler; Niels K. Rasmussen; Birgitte Jensen. "United States and Denmark: Different Approaches to Health Care and Family Planning" Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Jan. - Feb., 1990), pp. 1-19.
This is an extraordinary article on the topic and since I don't believe you will bother to actually look it up, I will provide the first paragraph: "The findings of this study suggest that, compared to the United States, Danish health care policies and family planning services delivery systems are, in the aggregate, more conducive to the promotion of effective contraceptive practice, more instrumental in conveying information to high-risk groups, and more successful in reducing the incidence of unintended pregnancies and induced abortions. One of the major reasons for this difference may stem from the positive and nonambivalent climate of public opinion about sexuality in Denmark and the manner in which health care and family planning services are delivered to all segments of the population regardless of age, income, or location of residence."
Another great article that highlights a successful education system (that of Sweden) can be found here:
Gigi Santow; Michael Bracher. "Explaining Trends in Teenage Childbearing in Sweden" Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3. (Sep., 1999), pp. 169-182.
Here are some that explain the importance of education for both children and adults, and its impact on sexual health and abortion rates.
John Cleland; German Rodriguez. "The Effect of Parental Education on Marital Fertility in Developing Countries" Population Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Nov., 1988), pp. 419-442.
Pat Burdell. "Teen Mothers in High School: Tracking their Curriculum" Review of Research in Education, Vol. 21. (1995 - 1996), pp. 163-208.
You may be interested in another article where you will see some interesting patterns. It is about abortion in Greece, and why there is such a high rate.
Now, to sum up: Fabrication #1 - Not a fabrication. Look it up. Fabrication #2 - I admit its only part of the problem. Unfortunately you take my opinion as fact and try to contradict it with another opinion, therefore proving nothing. Fabrication #3 - Your own source proves my argument more than it does yours, and I'm not quite sure what your argument is since it is basically the same as mine. You also say "Teaching abstinence reduces the amount of teen pregnancies." This is also a misleading statement because the actual study you reference showed that teaching abstinence (and only abstinence) led to an increase in teen sex, not to a decrease in teen pregnancy. Fabrication #4 - This is only a fabrication if one can believe that England and Europe are synonyms. Again you misquote your own source and the source actually defends my argument.
I do appreciate greatly the interest you show in this topic and if you think about it, our opinions on the matter are very similar. I appreciate the open debate and the research. What do you think about the rest of the information about the root causes in society? I'm sure there's more that could be contributing to the abortion issue and would love to discuss other factors involved. Thanks.
Anonymous
· 5 years ago
And I assume that you take the rest of my argument as fact. If not, I will gladly provide numerous sources for all of it.
Michael
· 5 years ago
1 - You implied that that issue had something to do with abortion which it does not. It has to do with bereavement over death of an infant. Nobody in that culture would kill a 1-year old and claim they didn't take a life.
2&3 - You implied that teaching abstinence was the root of teenage unwanted pregnancy. I stated teenage prenancy is curbed by teaching abstinence, not increased. Your conclusions after reading the Catholic article are different than mine; I only concluded that abstinence was a deterrent to teenage pregnancy after you stated it was "ineffective."
4 - Math error on my part. 20% for Europe, 25% for American. Neither number is very close to "nil".
5 - No, I don't take the rest of your agument as fact. I agree with some of your points, but skipped over your contentions about minimum wage, the reason large numbers of blacks are in jail, or that corporations are committing murder. They had little to do with the topic, your anonymous verbosity is overly prolific for a comments section of my blog.
6 - None of this has anything to do with my original point, that Kerry is trying to pretend he believes one thing and vote a completely different way.
7 - You need to go get your own blog. I've mentioned that to you before. :P
Anonymous
· 5 years ago
1) The issue does have to do with abortion. The question was asked, where does one draw the line when it comes to considering when life begins? I merely brought up the example of a Catholic culture that does not draw the line until at least 2 or 3 years of age. Have you read the article? You assume that it is considered taking a life when, in fact, it is clearly stated that they do not consider the infants to be human beings and that women do not believe they are murdering their children. This process is considered to be an abortion and it is not prohibited by their clergy. It was mentioned only to offer a different perspective on where the line can be drawn. It is not something that I necessarily agree with, but I think that it is important for people to recognize that their value system may not be universal and that it is better if we respect one another's cultures.
2+3) I am arguing that abstinence education IS effective AND necessary, but that it MUST be combined with other methods to be MORE effective. Teaching abstinence is great and should be the first priority always, but it doesn't work for everyone and this is a proven fact. Your own source states this so you must agree. There is a need for greater parental involvement and responsibility on the part of adults. The article states that abstinence education alone and without further support is ineffective, which is what I said when I clarified my statement.
4)You're right, neither of those numbers is close to nil. I agree. However, I was talking about European countries with effective sexual education systems, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark. Those numbers are close to nil. So I don't see any argument there. We are in agreement.
5)Yes most of those rants have little to do with abortion. But you must agree that there are other factors in society contributing to the high rate of abortion other than a lack of abstinence education.
6)A politician is supposed to represent the interests of the people. If Kerry feels that abortion is wrong personally, but the majority of the people he represents feels that a woman should have a choice, then he should respond to the interests of the people, not his own. We don't elect officials to represent us so that they can push their own private agendas, we elect them so that they can serve our needs. Again I am not trying to defend Kerry at all. I think he is a horrible candidate. But I think it is a little childish to blame a politician for changing stances on an issue without first looking to see whether the majority of the people that he represents are also changing their stances on the issue.
7) You allow comments to be made so you must expect people to make them. You don't have to respond if you don't want. I'm only trying to help you.
Michael
· 5 years ago
Comments, yes. 1000 word essays, no.
I don't agree with this:
If Kerry feels that abortion is wrong personally, but the majority of the people he represents feels that a woman should have a choice, then he should respond to the interests of the people, not his own. We don’t elect officials to represent us so that they can push their own private agendas, we elect them so that they can serve our needs.
I want them to a) say what they believe, b) do what they say. I have far more respect for somebody that says unabashedly that he's pro-abortion than somebody like Kerry that straddles the fence and doesn't seem to believe anything.
If his beliefs are not the same as his constituents, then they should elect somebody else.
Anonymous
· 5 years ago
"If his beliefs are not the same as his constituents, then they should elect somebody else."
I agree that Kerry will often say one thing to one group and one thing to another to gain a populist appeal. I agree that politicians should say what they believe and do what they say. The problem with this is that hardly any politician does it. How many promises are made by candidates during a campaign that are never fulfilled? Can anyone actually name one politician who is completely honest, fulfills all his promises, and responds 100% to the needs of the majority of those people that he represents? I don't think it is even possible for a politician to do that. Rather than bash a politician for trying to appeal to his voters by making empty promises (because this can be said of any politician), why don't we examine the record of what they actually have done to help or hurt the interests of the public.
Anonymous
· 5 years ago
Comments don't have to be ignorant remarks and bad jokes or empty compliments. Maybe some actual conversation with real substance and factual debate will lively things up a bit and possibly increase the capacity for civil, logical, and reasonable conversation. If you've worked hard all your life to form your opinions and you want to share your wisdom, then at least welcome criticism and be prepared to defend yourself. I see that you have a lot of good things to say, yet you reject the idea that anyone with a different perspective from yours may actually have a valid argument. True compassion entails accepting difference, respecting other beliefs, and working to eliminate ignorance in one's life. A disregard for the truth and an unwillingness to accept that one may be flawed in their ways are signs of ignorance. Choosing to wash your hands of the responsibility to the rest of humanity is not compassionate. We have to work together to find some common ground from which to begin.
Michael
· 5 years ago
yet you reject the idea that anyone with a different perspective from yours may actually have a valid argument.
That is untrue.
why don’t we examine the record of what they actually have done to help or hurt the interests of the public.
I do that. After substantial reading of current events since 1980, I've decided Bush is the candidate for me in 2004. I've chosen to focus on Kerry's waffles as I think he's a poor candidate, and a trial lawyer didn't help his selection.
For someone who has half of their posts removed from this blog for insulting me, you are certainly full of advice about "working together" "for civil, logical, and reasonable conversation."
You're under some sort of belief this is a debate forum, which it is not.
Since apparently you're going to stick around, I suggest choosing a name to keep from confusing you with other "Anonymous" people that pop in here from time to time.
Anonymous
· 5 years ago
No I'm all done. I tried to help, but it was in vain. I will leave you and you won't ever have to worry about being challenged again. You have made statements that are untrue, and when asked to verify, you pretend that you know what you are talking about. There was not one specific lie mentioned in Michael Moore's movie (which you have not seen and therefore makes any commentary on its content invalid). You did not prove a single one of my statements incorrect and instead misquoted sources that actually helped prove my argument and discredited your own. I tried to work with you. Unfortunately you have not wanted to open up yourself to criticism and defend your positions. Its fine to have beliefs and ideas and try to expose others to your wisdom, I encourage everyone to do so. But if you can't defend your beliefs and show respect for others than something might be lacking. I'm sorry this didn't work out. I wish you the best with your blog.
Courtney
· 5 years ago
I am thoroughly enjoying the discussions, you're welcome on my blog anytime anon. In fact, suggest some topics for discussion if you'd like.
Michael
· 5 years ago
I never said Anon wasn't welcome. Just pointing out that I delete 1/2 his posts, and the other half don't sway me. :P
I recommend Courtney's site to you, Anon. She's not some sort of right wing religious whacko like me, though I suspect members of her family are. :)
Erin
· 5 years ago
I really don't see the confusion about when a life begins. If there is a heartbeat there is life. Abortion of any kind is MURDER....There is no exuse for murdering an unborn child. Some women get abortions due to deformity or any other condition not considered "normal", does it really matter what YOUR child is going to look like or what he or she can't do due to something like downsyndrome, it is still your child, a human life that you created with the help of God, which who by the way is the One that draws that line in the sand. Im sorry, but I don't think lack of knowledge about safe sex, or a 15 year old girl who has had a rough life is any kind of exuse for abortion. Everyone knows how to get pregnant, having sex, if you do not want a child don't lay down and have sex without protection, which is also common sense, or else face the consequences. I believe the problem with abortion is people saying it's ok, it's not a human life, which leads to women or girls having unprotected sex and then killing the poor innocent life so it does'nt inconvenience their life in any way. Why should any human life, inside OR outside the womb die for another's lack of responsibility. Every child is a beautiful gift from God (regardless of any kind of deformity) and should be cherished no matter what the situation is, everything happens for a reason. We need to stop torturing our unborn children (which thats what aborion is, torture) and start taking responsibility for OUR actions. Our unborn children need to stop being murdered.
A.M.M.
· 5 years ago
Wow, and I thought this particular topic has been run into the ground. I certainly didn't expect a new post, at least. I think everything that could/should have been said has been by now. Nothing new can be added at this point.
The topic may not be done, but I'm going to hate making the same responses all over again.
Courtney
· 5 years ago
Following your logic Erin, a woman who was raped should not have laid down and accepted it? Or a 13 year old girl who was molested by her grandfather? How nice of you to be so judgemental. And btw, not everyone believes in god, so really your justification carries no weight. Can a 10 week old fetus sustain itself outside the mother's womb? Not currently and until it can, I'm not willing to choose how every woman in this country lives their life. I'll choose how I live mine and mine only. Would I have an abortion for any reason? No, but my life circumstances are much different than others might be and I choose not to live in judgment of how others life their life. You might want to try it sometime, it might make you a better person.
Michael
· 5 years ago
Tough questions, to be sure, but if the unborn *is* a life (and you have no proof that it isn't), why should the baby be killed regardless of what the biological parents did? Is it somehow the baby's fault?
God believes in you, by the way. :)
A.M.M.
· 5 years ago
I will admit that, that although I believe in God, I understand that Erin's arguements won't pursuade someone who doesn't (or refuses to) believe in God.
Perhaps we should also rephrase what was said about the rapist. She shouldn't accept it (unless her life is forfeit if she does), but that still doesn't validate an abortion.
Erin
· 5 years ago
This is a very touchy subject for me. I volunteer at the Crisis Pregnancy Center and I read all the information and statistics and saw pictures of what they do to an unborn child and it just makes me sick how any human can say that it is ok to do that to an innocent child. I am not in any way trying argue with anyone or judge anyone. It is just plain wrong. And about the woman who was raped or the 13 year old, I understand how that could affect someone but there is adoption. There are plenty of couples out there who would love to have children and can't, but here there are others killing them. It just makes no sense to me. And I wasn't saying they should lay down and take it,I guess I should have made myself clear on that, the statistics I read there was a very very low percentage of raped woman who had abortions. It's mostly irresponsible women who did'nt protect themselves and made the child pay for it. I don't understand how you can say, Courtney, that an unborn fetus is not a life until it can survive outside the womb. It has every organ a human has that takes time to mature, but until then it's just what a piece of meat we can just throw into a trash can (which is pretty much what they do, and sometimes it is still alive to lay in there and suffer). I don't mean to sound angry or so graffic but that part of it needs to be heard. I'm not trying to pursuade anyone to believe in God by saying God says it's wrong, it's morally wrong, I don't care if they believe in God or not, there is no exuse for killing a child. I appreciate your comments Michael.:wink:
All Comments
If they could plan and be aware of their choices, why would they need the 'option' of abortion to be available?
I agree that in some cases it can be a tough judgement call to make - but *if* one believes that life begins at conception and then concludes that abortion is akin to murder, under what circumstances is murder justifiable? If you choose not to make that decision on behalf of the mother, are you not in fact making that decision on behalf of the fetus? In the rape example, should the baby be put to death for the sins of the rapist?
Only by concluding the fetus is not a life, a soul, can one justify abortion. Kerry trying to a) declare it *is* a life and b) then vote for abortion anyway is a horrific conflicted viewpoint.
Courtney, your argument about the rapist is, simply put, wrong. If somebody rapes another (regardless of later pregnancy), they should be punished. If a child is born, the rapist must be considered the parent and therefor must be expected to pay child-support in addition to any other punishments.
Also, if a couple (implying marriage) does not want to have a child, then they should not reply upon any type of birth control except abstinence.
As for your contention about people destined to have intercourse, I can point out several examples of people taking a vow of abstinence and following it their whole life: Monks and Nuns. Although I do not expect people to live up to their high standards of living in all areas of their lives, is does show that it is humanly possible to not have sex by impulse.
I believe in logic and morals; I believe in Bush.
And Mike, I was responding to Vox's comment about needing the option of abortion. And I agree; Kerry's a dufus.
Putting a small spin on the situation, let's assume that the child will be completely safe, yet the mother will die should the birth continue. I still believe in salvaging the situation as best the situation will allow. The mother has already lived a portion of her possible life while the child has not. Therefor, the most good attainable (in this situation) is that the option of abortion should not be available.
My belief in this is compounded should the mother be carrying multiple children. Afterall, why should one live only so more can die? The good of the many outweigh the need of the few.
On a slightly different beat, I do agree with you that believing in logic and morality does not force you to vote for a particular person for president. It does, however, prevent you from voting for others. At least we can agree that Kerry, in your words, is a "dufus".
However, both of my children were planned and very much wanted. I was not the desperate, drug addicted 15 year old runaway turning to prostitution to feed herself. I was not the 35 year old woman who so desperately wanted children only to find out her baby's brain was developing outside it's body and would not survive more than a few hours after birth.
It is very easy to stand in judgement of others from a warm, safe environment. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. This applies not only to the issue of abortion, but to every social issue.
Data is not provided for the number of "convenience" abortions versus saving the mother's life, but I suspect it's a rather large percentage. I suspect most unborn lives are ended to "protect the woman's mental well-being" as opposed to actually saving her life or aborting a malformed fetus.
I would like to point out one thing my father taught me. If you take a life, and know it's a life, then it's murder. If you take a life, and don't know it's life, then it's manslaughter. The only way to kill/destroy something and have a clear conscience about it is to know without a shadow of a doubt that the subject is not a life. I'd rather abide in caution and keep my conscience clean as possible.
There's one more thing I'd like to point out. You asked who was meant to draw the line in the sand. I can say with certainty that I would not want that responsibility, and that no human should. I believe no line should need to be drawn upfront. Determine the result on a case-by-case basis.
Now let's examine your examples:
1) A 15 year old girl should not get addicted to drugs, run-away, or turn to prostitution. All those could be prevented by herself.
2) The same can be said about the 35 year old woman, although to a lesser degree. There are many stories warning of greed, and they refer to more than just money.
3) You assume you know what position I am in when you mentioned the "warm, safe environment". My belief in what I said is not dependant upon where I may or may not be. I would hold the same opinion regardless.
And this is why I know that you are in a warm, safe environment. You can not see a reason for a 15 year old girl to run away, turn to drugs or prostitution. Many runaways and a large percentage of people in the sex industries were abused growing up. It may have been safer on the streets than it was in her own home. And yet you stand in judgment. Easy to do never having faced those atrocities.
I'm not sure I understand your statement about greed involving the 35 year old woman. I don't see wanting children as greedy.
Where would this legislation end? Do we begin to prosecute pregnant women for having a drink while pregnant? For getting intoxicated before knowing about the pregnancy? For falling and injuring the baby while skiing or riding a bike? While I am in now way in favor of smoking, drinking, etc. during pregnancy is it okay to treat the woman as merely the incubator with no rights of her own? Is that really how women are seen in this country? Maybe it is. I am just a walking womb.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114016,00.html
The woman failed to accept a c-section, and as a result her baby was stillborn. Now she's been charged with murder.
Where does this end? Will the FBI come knocking on my door if my daughter suffers from learning disabilities in the future because I drank a beer before I knew I was pregnant? Maybe women should just relinquish any rights we've achieved and go back to being men's property. That should make the pro-life movement happy.
Maybe America spends too much time arguing about this issue and not enough time trying to identify better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is a symptom of a sickness in our society. The root of the problem can be found in our education system and in the current family structure. When kids are told in high school not to have sex, to abstain, then naturally they are going to want to have sex. Abstinence education has been proven time and time again to be ineffective. For kids to really understand the importance of healthy relationships we need to help foster a true appreciation and respect for human life. This is a responsibility of parents. Unfortunately, many parents will not speak to children about these issues and think that schools will take care of it. When kids see sex symbols and images literally everywhere, you can't blame them for wanting to have sex. Therefore it is also a responsibility of adults, particularly those involved in the movie-tv-media-internet business, to be extremely careful to promote healthy lifestyles and not simply exploit human emotions for personal gains and profit. Why do we have shows like Baywatch (just one example out of thousands)? It certainly isn't supposed to teach young people about water safety. Rather some network executive believed that young men would prefer to watch women with large breasts in bathing suits. It is no wonder that women are treated like objects and not like human beings. These stereotypes are deeply ingrained into the minds of young people (and into the minds of adults who were also subjected to the same exploitation)
It was mentioned that a 15 year old girl should not run away and become a prostitute, that she should know better. This is ridiculous and it is thinking like this that continues the belief that its a woman's fault if she becomes pregnant. A happy child who is raised in a loving, caring, open family does not run away from home. The responsibility of parents can not be stressed enough. Why are the problems of rape and broken families so prevalent among the poor? Is it because they are just physically and mentally unable as human beings to act in a decent manner? Are they not capable of living respectful lives? Or are they unfairly subjected to harsh conditions that inhibit them from ever having the chance to build successful and healthy relationships and families? Does a poor education (the responsibility of the state) lead to any of this? How about a minimum wage, well below the living wage, that requires some parents to work upwards of 60 or 70 hours a week just to pay the bills? Its hard to raise children in a caring environment when you can only be home for a few waking hours each week. What will these children do if they have no parent supervision? Probably watch tv, and be unknowningly brainwashed into thinking that women are just objects for men's sexual pleasure. Don't believe me? Watch half an hour of BET. Or MTV, E, or any other channel for that matter. How can you expect a child who is never given a chance to mature to grow up into a responsible adult? Should we just point at the symptoms and ask for a quick remedy, like we do for everything else in this society? Just throw blacks in jail, they're dirty and stupid (Although African Americans only constitute about 15% of our population, about 40% of our prisons are filled with blacks) Why don't we make abortions illegal? That'll stop those blacks and white trash from breeding. We know these laws aren't introduced to keep middle class white kids in line. And you can't argue that its for moral reasons and that murder is wrong without also arguing that corporations are committing murder when they kill millions every year from lung cancer (but cigarette and oil companies pay for most of our politicians' campaigns, so I guess they're exempt) or from alcoholism (but the women on the beer commercials are hot, so I guess they're exempt too)
And in the European countries where safe sex (condom AND pill usage) is advocated, the number of abortions is virtually nil. Why don't we at least promote safe sex rather than abstinence in our country? This is a country based on religious freedom, and not everyone believes that it is wrong to have premarital sex. So the least we could do is teach safer sex in school instead of saying that abstinence is the only answer.
But hey, whatever, we can argue for years and years about where to draw the line in the abortion issue, or we can attend to the real reason why there is such a disregard for life and health. Its a matter of striking a genuine balance between personal and social responsibility, and state responsibility.
I like Baywatch! :)
The Catholic Church and a study at Princeton University highlights your fabrication #3. Here's a link. Teaching abstinence reduces the amount of teen pregnancies.
Fabrication #4. Abortion rates in England are 1 in 4 pregnancies, hardly "nil". (Source). And while abortion rates in the US are higher, they're no longer significantly higher and are also about 1 in 4 and declining (Source) And this study from the BBC says that the more access girls have to abortion clinics, the more abortions they have.
I welcome open, polite discussion, but don't attempt to get away with posting fabrications to bolster your point of view.
The culture in South America is that of the Catholic population in the impoverished North-East region (This region is twice the size of Texas and contains over 40% of Brazil's total population). If you like you can read the article describing their culture and their opinions on abortion. The Catholic Church there accepts the fact that with such harsh conditions and high infant mortality rates, they can only determine a child as being an actual human being after it has proven itself to be a "survivor," which is usually only after 2 or 3 years.
Sheper-Hughes, Nancy. "Mother's Love: Death Without Weeping" in Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology. Ed. James Spradley and David McCurdy. Longman: New York. 1997. pp 195-204.
Neeru Gupta; Iuri da Costa Leite "Adolescent Fertility Behavior: Trends and Determinants in Northeastern Brazil." International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Sep., 1999), pp. 125-130.
Your second argument is not very strong. You are right that hormones are involved, and peer pressure. These are both major factors. But you can't tell me that my opinion is a fabrication by offering your opinions and not facts. Of course this (being told not to do something) is not the only reason why people engage in sexual activity. But I think we can both agree that in this society (and in many others) there is a natural tendency for youth to reject authority. We tell kids not to do drugs but they still do drugs. We tell them not to drink but they still drink. Again the urge to be a resistant reactionary isn't the sole cause; kids won't do these things just as a negative reaction to make adults angry, but it is a factor. I just feel there are better ways to teach in addition to just bluntly stating "Just Say No!" and leaving the discussion at that. And you must agree that if peer pressure is a factor, then there is a great responsibility among parents, teachers, and other adults who influence children, to make serious commitments to the children's lives. We both know peer pressure is a major factor in drug and alcohol use, and sex. So I think we can agree that parents must actively seek to educate their children and teach them how to act responsibly. Is it going to solve the problem completely and immediately? No, of course not. But it is a good place to start, to try and alleviate the problem. And many studies show that a large percentage of abortions are had by young women who lack sufficient education or a strong family structure. I am assuming that you also know this but just in case here a just a few:
Lisa C. Remez. "Confronting the Reality of Abortion in Latin America" International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Mar., 1995), pp. 32-36.
Malcolm Potts. "Sex and the Birth Rate: Human Biology, Demographic Change, and Access to Fertility-Regulation Methods" Population and Development Review, Vol. 23, No. 1. (Mar., 1997), pp. 1-39.
As to your third argument, I agree that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to prevent pregnancy (and the spread of STDs). I was referring to the teaching of abstinence as the only guide in sexual education. The article you refer to only backs up my argument. Lets go through it, shall we?
The author says that students who were taught only abstinence education increased their sexual activity over time, until they were having sex more than children who were taught about condom use. He attributes this increase to a lack of self-control and also to a failure on the part of parents and teachers, the people who are responsible for instilling virtues to make correct choices. Is this not what I have been arguing? The author also points out that education about condoms had no effect on the number of kids having sex and that it is a second-rate method. I agree. If you only teach kids about condoms and not the importance of abstinence, then they will think that there is nothing wrong with having sex. Now where I differ from this author is that I believe that sex education should work to incorporate a number of teaching methods. First and foremost, abstinence is the only 100% proven prevention. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. Period. However, in addition to this, it must be stressed that if one were to engage in sexual activity, then they should be properly educated about the risks and consequences involved, so that if they make that decision then they will be doing it while being well-informed about their actions and subsequent responsibilities. This is why I feel it is incredibly important to teach about contraceptives (ie condoms, the pill). It is also important to discuss the risk of pregnancy and disease thoroughly. So if you are going to have sex (and it shouldn't necessarily be promoted) then at least be safe. It is perfectly fine to believe that premarital sex is a sin, but it is not right to assume that everyone holds the same belief and must therefore be subjected to something that goes against their own belief system. I admit, this is a point that can be argued either way, but I think that progress will only be made when people decide to respect each other's opinions and work together. So basically, the article you cite only verifies my statement, which is that abstinence education (without additional resources on safe sex and without strong moral support from parents) is ineffective. Thank you for helping with that. If you have analyzed the information in your article some other way, please let us discuss.
Now as far as your fourth argument is concerned, I wasn't talking about England. England is one country where abstinence education is strongly advocated. In fact, you prove that your own statement is a fabrication by saying that the abortion rate is 1 in 4 (25%) when the very source you are quoting says that it is 1 in 5 (20%). The article again strongly supports my opinion and argument. Maybe everyone should read it together:
"One in five pregnancies in England results in a termination, giving a mean lifetime abortion rate of 0.44 per woman, which is higher than a decade ago.1 Most women having abortions are young (under 30), single, and childless.2 More women (26.9%) are having repeat abortions.2 3 Not practising safe sexual intercourse is associated with abortion, testing for HIV, and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.4 Contraceptive use is associated with social class, and abortion rates rise with deprivation.4 These factors indicate the need and potential for targeted, preventive interventions.
High fertility and abortion rates in developing countries can be readily explained, but high abortion rates in affluent populations of low fertility with ready access to contraception are less easy to rationalise. Women in all societies need access to safe, legal abortion services. With the Abortion Act 1967, the United Kingdom led other European countries in reforming abortion legislation. As in the Netherlands, there is a need to target the causes of unwanted pregnancy through more effective education and contraceptive services. This will also reduce the costs of abortion and improve sexual health."
Thanks again for the source.
And I didn't mention anything about having access to abortion clinics, so I don't know why you brought up that point. Like I said, abortion is the symptom, we should work together to recognize the root causes. I think you will find a lot of good information in these articles about sexual education systems that are more effective than the approach that the United States takes:
Henry P. David; Janine M. Morgall; Mogens Osler; Niels K. Rasmussen; Birgitte Jensen.
"United States and Denmark: Different Approaches to Health Care and Family Planning" Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Jan. - Feb., 1990), pp. 1-19.
This is an extraordinary article on the topic and since I don't believe you will bother to actually look it up, I will provide the first paragraph:
"The findings of this study suggest that, compared to the United States, Danish health care policies and family planning services delivery systems are, in the aggregate, more conducive to the promotion of effective contraceptive practice, more instrumental in conveying information to high-risk groups, and more successful in reducing the incidence of unintended pregnancies and induced abortions. One of the major reasons for this difference may stem from the positive and nonambivalent climate of public opinion about sexuality in Denmark and the manner in which health care and family planning services are delivered to all segments of the population regardless of age, income, or location of residence."
Another great article that highlights a successful education system (that of Sweden) can be found here:
Gigi Santow; Michael Bracher. "Explaining Trends in Teenage Childbearing in Sweden"
Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3. (Sep., 1999), pp. 169-182.
Here are some that explain the importance of education for both children and adults, and its impact on sexual health and abortion rates.
John Cleland; German Rodriguez. "The Effect of Parental Education on Marital Fertility in Developing Countries" Population Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Nov., 1988), pp. 419-442.
Pat Burdell. "Teen Mothers in High School: Tracking their Curriculum" Review of Research in Education, Vol. 21. (1995 - 1996), pp. 163-208.
You may be interested in another article where you will see some interesting patterns. It is about abortion in Greece, and why there is such a high rate.
http://www.greece.gr/LIFE/Lifestyle/safesex.stm
Fabrication #1 - Not a fabrication. Look it up.
Fabrication #2 - I admit its only part of the problem. Unfortunately you take my opinion as fact and try to contradict it with another opinion, therefore proving nothing.
Fabrication #3 - Your own source proves my argument more than it does yours, and I'm not quite sure what your argument is since it is basically the same as mine. You also say "Teaching abstinence reduces the amount of teen pregnancies." This is also a misleading statement because the actual study you reference showed that teaching abstinence (and only abstinence) led to an increase in teen sex, not to a decrease in teen pregnancy.
Fabrication #4 - This is only a fabrication if one can believe that England and Europe are synonyms. Again you misquote your own source and the source actually defends my argument.
I do appreciate greatly the interest you show in this topic and if you think about it, our opinions on the matter are very similar. I appreciate the open debate and the research. What do you think about the rest of the information about the root causes in society? I'm sure there's more that could be contributing to the abortion issue and would love to discuss other factors involved. Thanks.
2&3 - You implied that teaching abstinence was the root of teenage unwanted pregnancy. I stated teenage prenancy is curbed by teaching abstinence, not increased. Your conclusions after reading the Catholic article are different than mine; I only concluded that abstinence was a deterrent to teenage pregnancy after you stated it was "ineffective."
4 - Math error on my part. 20% for Europe, 25% for American. Neither number is very close to "nil".
5 - No, I don't take the rest of your agument as fact. I agree with some of your points, but skipped over your contentions about minimum wage, the reason large numbers of blacks are in jail, or that corporations are committing murder. They had little to do with the topic, your anonymous verbosity is overly prolific for a comments section of my blog.
6 - None of this has anything to do with my original point, that Kerry is trying to pretend he believes one thing and vote a completely different way.
7 - You need to go get your own blog. I've mentioned that to you before. :P
2+3) I am arguing that abstinence education IS effective AND necessary, but that it MUST be combined with other methods to be MORE effective. Teaching abstinence is great and should be the first priority always, but it doesn't work for everyone and this is a proven fact. Your own source states this so you must agree. There is a need for greater parental involvement and responsibility on the part of adults. The article states that abstinence education alone and without further support is ineffective, which is what I said when I clarified my statement.
4)You're right, neither of those numbers is close to nil. I agree. However, I was talking about European countries with effective sexual education systems, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark. Those numbers are close to nil. So I don't see any argument there. We are in agreement.
5)Yes most of those rants have little to do with abortion. But you must agree that there are other factors in society contributing to the high rate of abortion other than a lack of abstinence education.
6)A politician is supposed to represent the interests of the people. If Kerry feels that abortion is wrong personally, but the majority of the people he represents feels that a woman should have a choice, then he should respond to the interests of the people, not his own. We don't elect officials to represent us so that they can push their own private agendas, we elect them so that they can serve our needs. Again I am not trying to defend Kerry at all. I think he is a horrible candidate. But I think it is a little childish to blame a politician for changing stances on an issue without first looking to see whether the majority of the people that he represents are also changing their stances on the issue.
7) You allow comments to be made so you must expect people to make them. You don't have to respond if you don't want. I'm only trying to help you.
I don't agree with this:
I want them to a) say what they believe, b) do what they say. I have far more respect for somebody that says unabashedly that he's pro-abortion than somebody like Kerry that straddles the fence and doesn't seem to believe anything.
If his beliefs are not the same as his constituents, then they should elect somebody else.
I agree that Kerry will often say one thing to one group and one thing to another to gain a populist appeal. I agree that politicians should say what they believe and do what they say. The problem with this is that hardly any politician does it. How many promises are made by candidates during a campaign that are never fulfilled? Can anyone actually name one politician who is completely honest, fulfills all his promises, and responds 100% to the needs of the majority of those people that he represents? I don't think it is even possible for a politician to do that. Rather than bash a politician for trying to appeal to his voters by making empty promises (because this can be said of any politician), why don't we examine the record of what they actually have done to help or hurt the interests of the public.
That is untrue.
I do that. After substantial reading of current events since 1980, I've decided Bush is the candidate for me in 2004. I've chosen to focus on Kerry's waffles as I think he's a poor candidate, and a trial lawyer didn't help his selection.
For someone who has half of their posts removed from this blog for insulting me, you are certainly full of advice about "working together" "for civil, logical, and reasonable conversation."
You're under some sort of belief this is a debate forum, which it is not.
Since apparently you're going to stick around, I suggest choosing a name to keep from confusing you with other "Anonymous" people that pop in here from time to time.
I recommend Courtney's site to you, Anon. She's not some sort of right wing religious whacko like me, though I suspect members of her family are. :)
The topic may not be done, but I'm going to hate making the same responses all over again.
God believes in you, by the way. :)
Perhaps we should also rephrase what was said about the rapist. She shouldn't accept it (unless her life is forfeit if she does), but that still doesn't validate an abortion.