Men's irresponsibility toward women... encourages abortions

Keep it your pants and it won't do the "Got you pregnant!" dance. Stupid rhyme I know lol.

miniverchivi said:

I'm not saying that there's a dispute about what's more ideal between condoms and abortions, I think everyone agrees on that...I was making a point about what I feel is hypocrisy amongst certain sects of the liberal crowd on the topics of abortion and dietary regulation.

Click to expand...

So you didn´t want to discuss the issue - you wanted to make a point about the "hypocrisy amongst certain sects of the liberal crowd". Ok.

Examples:
Birth control: Everyone agrees that condoms are better than abortions, abusing elective abortions (if covered by insurance providers) drives up costs for everyone. Yet, on the topic of putting government limitations on it, you get the usual "my body, my choice", "keep your laws off of my body", "this is about individual rights" arguments from them

Click to expand...

Well, in terms of costs for the community (which is your focus) an abortion is much cheaper than paying for the upbringing of a child of parents who can´t afford it themselves.

Food: Everyone agrees that eating grilled chicken and broccoli is better than eating a big mac, 44oz soda, and large fries. Abusing unhealthy foods causes health problems which (if covered by insurance providers) drives up costs for everyone. Yet, on the topic of putting government limitations on what people should be allowed to eat, some of those same liberals have absolutely no problem with the government regulating food sizes

Click to expand...

Which doesn´t mean regulating what people "should be allowed to eat" (they can eat ten of those meals if they wish), it means regulating the size of a meal that may be offered.

Now, if you can tell me how unprotected sex can be regulated by government before the fact, I am all ears. If you can´t, your comparison is apples and oranges.
The actuals comparison then starts after the fact, i.e. when unwise decisions have been made by the individuals.
That is: When persons who can´t afford a child get pregnant.
The financial difference between a condom and an abortion is - no matter how much you or I might wish it were - not in the control of the government, i.e. a moot point in terms of your comparison.

and making the insurance premiums more expensive for people who over-consume these foods...try suggesting that women who use elective abortion should pay more in premiums and they'll put you in the same category as a spousal abuser.

Click to expand...

Well, how about making the insurance premiums more expensive for people who are poor and don´t use condoms? See why the two issues don´t compare?

People who can´t afford children should use protection. We have no means of regulating this. So people who can´t afford children get pregnant.
That´s where the issue of governmental regulation in the interest of keeping the costs for the community low can start. And abortion is the cheaper alternative here. Thus, once we accept your entirely economical approach (which I don´t, anyway), you would make much more sense if you´d postulate forced abortions for those people than rallying against elective abortions.

Chajara said:

Or we could make contraception and education on how to use it more widely available.

Click to expand...

Where I am at it is ridiculously available and you get taught all this stuff relating to contraception in highschool. Which is kinda why I got mad when my sister fell pregnant to a guy she had known for 5 minutes, it wasnt as though she had not been educated.

FreeSpirit74 said:

Then these men who get "caught" because they helped create an unplanned pregnancy have NO RIGHT to complain about being forced to become fathers when they don't want to be.

Click to expand...

And women have NO RIGHT to complain when a guy who doesn't want to be a father refuses to act like one when she decides to give birth to his child.
Maybe this thread should have been named "Womens irresponsibility towards men.....encourages abortions". What do you think?

K

Chajara said:

Or we could make contraception and education on how to use it more widely available.

Click to expand...

I think that's a cop out.

We teach kids sex-ed as early as 3rd grade now (it's been getting younger by the year) and contraception is extremely available.

Any gas station or store you go to has Trojans right there on the shelf next to the Rolaids...

Both condoms or birth control pills will run the consumer about $20-$35/month if they're having sex regularly (3-4 times a week).

miniverchivi said:

I think that's a cop out.

We teach kids sex-ed as early as 3rd grade now (it's been getting younger by the year) and contraception is extremely available.

Any gas station or store you go to has Trojans right there on the shelf next to the Rolaids...

Both condoms or birth control pills will run the consumer about $20-$35/month if they're having sex regularly (3-4 times a week).

Click to expand...

If you think comprehensive sex-ed is taught in every school in every area then I've got a bridge to sell you. The only education I got on the subject is what I taught myself, and if my parents caught me reading anything pertaining to sex I'd get chewed out.

When I asked to go on the pill when I was around 12 because I was having awful periods, my mother accused me of only wanting it because I wanted to have sex and refused. When I was 15 and did start having sex, I got pregnant, and subsequently had an abortion because I was so sick I couldn't function.

Oh, and birth control pills can be waaaaaaay more expensive than that. When I was still taking the last type I took, they were about $80 a month after insurance paid part of the cost. The morning after pill ran about $65, and for people who are living paycheck to paycheck that can completely break their budget, causing them to have to choose between hoping for the best after a condom breaks or go to a payday loan place or something to get the money.

As much as people might comfort themselves with their just world theory nonsense that tells them that bad things only happen to irresponsible people, it just isn't true. For every genuinely irresponsible person there's a bunch who are genuinely trying to be responsible but are either simply misinformed about the proper use of contraception or unable to access it consistently. Improve that, and you'll improve the abortion rate at the same time.

Chajara said:

If you think comprehensive sex-ed is taught in every school in every area then I've got a bridge to sell you. The only education I got on the subject is what I taught myself,

Click to expand...

I can't speak for your school or experience, but most schools do have sex ed and some of the highest pregnancy rates are in the schools that have sex ed. If you think that simply teaching kids sex ed will prevent abortions..... well you've obviously already bought a bridge; but I'll sell you another one.

K

Ken-1122 said:

I can't speak for your school or experience, but most schools do have sex ed and some of the highest pregnancy rates are in the schools that have sex ed. If you think that simply teaching kids sex ed will prevent abortions..... well you've obviously already bought a bridge; but I'll sell you another one.

K

Click to expand...

Ummm I believe that the itnend of sex ed is not to prevent abortions but to prevent teen pregnancies...

dGirl1986 said:

Ummm I believe that the itnend of sex ed is not to prevent abortions but to prevent teen pregnancies...

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree! I was just addressing the point she was making.

K

Ken-1122 said:

And women have NO RIGHT to complain when a guy who doesn't want to be a father refuses to act like one when she decides to give birth to his child.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you! Both sides need to bear responsibility. A friend of mine was in a co-habiting relationship (they're broken up now) with a woman who has a daughter who is now 19. From what he told me the girl's father disappeared at some point during her younger years and they had to "chase him through 5 different states for child support" and he has 2 other children who are in the same boat.

My friend became basically the father this daughter never had, although I don't know the scope of their relationship now that my friend and her mother broke up over a year ago and, thus, they are no longer living together.

Welp... I can't say as I feel too sorry for the mother. Maybe she should have found out just what kind of a man she was making a baby with before making a baby with him. And she wasn't some kid either... she was 33 at the time. This girl has major trust issues where men are concerned from what my friend told me about her, and the fact that her real father went AWOL has got to factor into that.

It matters a great deal what kind of sex education we're talking about. That abstinence-only dreck causes more teen pregnancy.

^^Wow... NY is really down at the bottom of the list! For once that's a good thing.

theres a difference between "must stress abstinence" and "must cover abstinence"... so maybe abstinence-only would give better results

but i have to say that in high school people weren't really paying attention, I don't think what the teacher tells you has anything to do with it, its about a lot of things that so much more impact this.

mandyangel said:

theres a difference between "must stress abstinence" and "must cover abstinence"... so maybe abstinence-only would give better results

Click to expand...

It doesn't.

Abstinence-only education doesn't lead to less teenaged sex. It leads to less protected teenaged sex. So more conceptions. So more abortions. QED.

I don't think abstinence concepts should really be part of sex education. Sex education should educate people about sex...not non-sex.

"This is what happens when you Insert tab A into slot B"...that's what should be covered. Sexuality/abstinence preferences have nothing to do with actual education on the subject.

I view abstinence-only sex education in the same way I'd view a driver's education class (being taught by an anti-car environmentalist) that used half of the allotted time to talk about why you shouldn't be driving because it pollutes.

FreeSpirit74 said:

^^Wow... NY is really down at the bottom of the list! For once that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Well, to be objective about the data...that's teen births, not unplanned pregnancies.

New York also has the highest teen abortion rate in the country which definitely contributes to the low number of teen births.

I'm definitely not condoning abstinence-only (as you see from my prior post)...but I say let's not use partial data to derive conclusions.

revanneosl said:

It matters a great deal what kind of sex education we're talking about. That abstinence-only dreck causes more teen pregnancy.

Click to expand...

The diagram you posted shows a correlation, not a causation.

mandyangel said:

theres a difference between "must stress abstinence" and "must cover abstinence"... so maybe abstinence-only would give better results

but i have to say that in high school people weren't really paying attention, I don't think what the teacher tells you has anything to do with it, its about a lot of things that so much more impact this.

Click to expand...

I still remember clearly what we were taught in sex Ed. We studied not only contraceptives but STDs as well.

Teaching a abstinence only would be irresponsible

Abstinence only sex education is like trying to teach someone to drive a car by saying "don't drive", then wondering later why that person is dead in a head on accident.