Solving Unwanted Pregnancy

tall73 said:

Agreed. But that was not what I asked about. You said the church does not have the role of judging or intervening with the individual regarding sex.

I asked if you meant inside or outside the church.

Click to expand...

That is not what I said. I don't understand why you would restate it the way you did when you can just go back and quote it precisely.

The individual is accountable regardless of whether or not they are in the church.

carp614 said:

That is not what I said. I don't understand why you would restate it the way you did when you can just go back and quote it precisely.

The individual is accountable regardless of whether or not they are in the church.

Click to expand...

I agree the individual is accountable regardless of whether they are in the church or not.

I quoted it precisely the first time. But I will try again:

carp614 said:

I see no evidence in the Bible the the Body of Christ is supposed to regulate the sexual activities of individuals.

Click to expand...

The church is supposed to regulate believers in the church in regards to sexual activity. See I Corinthians 5-6.

And per Galatians 6 they are also to restore gently those who have sinned.

We cant even speak for the people around us, then even our selfs..... so " the majority will have sex"? Na We shouldnt be shocked at how many times the Father makes a way out.

If its truth we want.. there is no "protection" any believer should be ever use. No I do not believe in birth control. Made that clear with my wife from the start. But I am not her.. I am not her God so she did what she wanted.. I never looked back Again.. as in another thread.. its not what OTHERS do....its what YOU do that matters to your God..your Father

So if KIDS are having sex even earlier...then SOMEONE is not doing there job on teaching them.. hmm who could that be? US

tall73 said:

I am not arguing the larger point you made, but the 86 percent receiving medicaid raises the question of whether these were primarily from families in poverty, which correlates with earlier promiscuity.

Click to expand...

Yes, as Texas has a huge poverty problem I agree that poverty plays a role.

tall73 said:

A quote:

Traditionally, the two variables most commonly associated with high teen birth rates are education and poverty, but a new study co-authored by Dr. Julie DeCesare, of the University of Florida's OB-GYN residency program in Pensacola, shows that there's more at play.


"We controlled for poverty as a variable, and we found these 10 centers where their teen birth rates were much higher than would be predicted," she says.

The example given in the article was of a young woman who became pregnant as a teen, as did her mother, and her grandmother before her. Why do you think these generational trends continue, especially in areas of poverty?

Click to expand...

And if you continue reading, you see that they correlate the higher numbers with “policy, not promiscuity.”
“
DeCesare, whose research appears in the June issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, says several of those clusters were in Texas. The Dallas and San Antonio areas, for example, had teen pregnancy rates 50 percent and 40 percent above the national average.

Research shows teens everywhere are having sex, with about half of high school students saying they've had sexual intercourse. Gwen Daverth, CEO of the Texas Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, says the high numbers in Texas reflect policy, not promiscuity.

"What we see is there are not supports in place," Daverth says. "We're not connecting high-risk youth with contraception services. And we're not supporting youth in making decisions to be abstinent." The state needs to emulate more progressive policies found in other states, she says.”

tall73 said:

So far all I did was post statistics. You already know from the other conversation I am not advocating only abstinence education. However, I do think they deserve to know that contraception has failure rates, delaying sex is associated with good outcomes, etc.

Yes, teach contraception as well. I think if anyone is going to have sex when they are not wanting children then obviously contraception is better than not. And the failure rate is even higher if they don't know what they are doing.

But that will not solve the abortion problem. The statistics I provided earlier indicate that the majority getting abortions use contraception.

Which is why you are better off not having sex if you do not want children. Or at the least go with the most effective, or multiple methods.

Click to expand...

I’m all for educating teens on the benefits of abstinence, as long as they get easy access to contraception and thorough education. Most pregnancies that occur while contraception was being used are due to human error. I have never understood what the rhythm method is not taught. I used the rhythm method and condoms as double protection successfully for many years.

Sex is healthy and important for mental health, and therefore abstinence is a horrible birth control method in a marriage. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who used abstinence as birth control, only people who chose abstinence for moral reasons.

Sparagmos said:

I’m all for educating teens on the benefits of abstinence, as long as they get easy access to contraception and thorough education.

Click to expand...

It sounds like that is what most of Texas is now settling upon, "abstinence plus", where they still emphasize abstinence but also discuss contraception etc.

Most pregnancies that occur while contraception was being used are due to human error.

Click to expand...

Error certainly plays a role, but even if used properly they have a failure rate. If half of the people who get abortions were using contraception, then contraception is not a solution to the problem.

I have never understood what the rhythm method is not taught. I used the rhythm method and condoms as double protection successfully for many years.

Click to expand...

We actually used it as well successfully for some time, and they make devices that help with tracking and temp readings, etc. But there is still a possibility.

Sex is healthy and important for mental health, and therefore abstinence is a horrible birth control method in a marriage. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who used abstinence as birth control, only people who chose abstinence for moral reasons.

Click to expand...

Now you seem to have switched emphasis. I thought we were discussing students in school, and most of them are not married.

But in any case, if you are not open to children then abstinence is quite effective. If you are married and not open to children, then you need a long lasting or permanent birth control option.

So why is poverty so highly correlated with early pregnancy?

carp614 said:

Since when is it the churches responsibility? I see no evidence in the Bible the the Body of Christ is supposed to regulate the sexual activities of individuals. No, what is offered instead is a Godly model for sex, marriage, family, etc. that we can follow. Can...not must...free will is in full play here. So we can know what we should do and still choose to do something else. The church can't take that away and God will not take that away.

Click to expand...

Well, teachers are held to a higher standard... so yes, the church as being a teacher is responsible.

We are also told not to cause another to stumble... so the church in how they treat pregnant single moms and effectively forcing them into abortion is responsible. The church in giving males a pass is responsible. I've seen too many pregnant single moms fired from churches, all the while the boyfriend is not even reprimanded, much less loose his job. Pragmatically, a woman can get pregnant once a year, an errant male could bring about tens, or even hundreds of pregnancies a year... but she is the one left hung out to dry whether she has an abortion or not.

Christianity as called out in the scriptures, history, and tradition is more communal than individualistic. Hyper-individualism which is so prominent in the US spun out of the modernist/fundamentalist controversy 150 years ago and has just gotten worse.

Sadly, knowing one thing and acting 180 is a problem. I was aghast to read that over 50% of evangelical pastors have a inappropriate content and/or sex obsession problem. One would think they would be the least likely, but all one has to do is open the news and there goes another pastor having an affair, or caught with child inappropriate content etc. And if the pastors are doing this, the members likely are, and then the kids aren't going to take the teachings very seriously either.

So what is the answer? I don't know. Unfortunately I have to rather shamelessly arm chair quarterback (sorry!) and settle for understanding why one idea or another is either the wrong answer or an incomplete answer.

Click to expand...

I'm in the same spot, but hey at least we are talking.

I admit the only answers I find palatable involve the church.

Click to expand...

Agreed

But they also involve changing modern human community, and secular familial norms (like divorce, single parenthood, etc.).

Click to expand...

I'm probably far too optimistic... but if the church can show a visible, concrete, better way, it seems entirely reasonable that others even outside it will follow. Whether the church could do this is a pretty big question.

I don't know the right combination, but I do know that addressing one aspect of the problem without even acknowledging the more fundamental root causes, up to and including man's sin nature, make any effort to improve this problem a losing proposition.

Click to expand...

I sort of agree... but I think if the church gets their act together, the root causes would become more visible, and maybe solutions will come to light. Plus, just from a numbers standpoint, church fixes would reduce abortion rates by close to half.

And lets say, we concede to churches fear of scandal who refuse to do anything with respect to pregnant single moms and/or birth control... what if the church supported married couples who feel abortion is their only option? That alone could reduce the abortion rate by up to 14%

mnphysicist said:

Sadly, knowing one thing and acting 180 is a problem. I was aghast to read that over 50% of evangelical pastors have a inappropriate content and/or sex obsession problem. One would think they would be the least likely, but all one has to do is open the news and there goes another pastor having an affair, or caught with child inappropriate content etc. And if the pastors are doing this, the members likely are, and then the kids aren't going to take the teachings very seriously either.

Click to expand...

Please forgive me for cherry picking here, I admit this might look like sidestepping. Possibly off topic too, but I think it's important and related.

Why were you shocked to find out pastors have a problem with inappropriate content? Why would you think that pastors would be less affected by sin than anyone else? Sin nature is a universal part of the human existence.
Let's say a pastor has a problem with sexual sin and he preaches against sexual sin. Does that make him a hypocrite? Oh yes, definitely it does. It might even diminish the message were his sin to be discovered.

But does it then follow that the truth he is preaching regarding sexual sin (Let's assume for argument's sake that his preaching is biblical) is not truth? No. Truth is truth. This is why good pastors base their preaching on specific passages of scripture, because not one pastor or priest would keep his job if all of his thoughts became public. This fact does not make the message of the Gospel false.

This is where this entire argument about abortion becomes pointless. We (in this discussion) cannot agree on the even the most foundational truths underpinning the issue. If for example we cannot agree on whether or not life is life or whether or not a person is a person, how could we ever come to agreement on the solution to this problem? And this is among Christians with a nominally similar worldview.

carp614 said:

P
Why were you shocked to find out pastors have a problem with inappropriate content? Why would you think that pastors would be less affected by sin than anyone else? Sin nature is a universal part of the human existence.
Let's say a pastor has a problem with sexual sin and he preaches against sexual sin. Does that make him a hypocrite? Oh yes, definitely it does. It might even diminish the message were his sin to be discovered.

Click to expand...

Pastors are supposed to be leaders, and ideally should have lives free from scandal. This doesn't mean they will be sinless... but where this goes sideways, is when most leaders can't live up to what they are preaching, is there any chance anyone else could? And if you are a teen with raging hormones, would you even try?

And yet many teens do, at least for a while, despite their leaders actions, even if they know the leader is having affairs etc. The Holy Spirit works wonders this way.

Lets say it was 5%, rather than I think 52%... that I could understand and would not be all that shocked by it. But when its 1 in 2, yikes.

But does it then follow that the truth he is preaching regarding sexual sin (Let's assume for argument's sake that his preaching is biblical) is not truth? No. Truth is truth.

Click to expand...

Truth is truth, but when ones need to protect a reputation (avoiding the scandal of moral hazard ie subtlely advocating sex outside marriage) all the while (engaging in sexual immorality, despite trying to hide it and even preaching against it), and using such as a reason to deny another truth (supporting the single mom and reducing abortion) this is a huge problem. And please note I started with agreeing that "truth is truth"

This is where this entire argument about abortion becomes pointless. We (in this discussion) cannot agree on the even the most foundational truths underpinning the issue. If for example we cannot agree on whether or not life is life or whether or not a person is a person, how could we ever come to agreement on the solution to this problem?

Click to expand...

I can sort of see where you are coming from. I don't believe a fertilized egg is a person, or that it should be considered human life. I'm not sure where the dividing line on life or personhood should be, as being a sola scriptura guy, I find evidence for such is severely lacking prior to first breath. As such, I have no issues whatsoever when it comes for abortion to protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest, as contrasted with those who very strongly believe that a fertilized egg is fully human and should be considered a person and whether mom, or the baby, or both live or die should be left totally in God's hands.

I respect the writings of St Augustine on this, albeit despite prohibiting abortion, he denies personhood for the early stages of development. I concede the Didache explicitly condemns abortion, and as one of the earliest Christian writings, even if its not canonical, I don't think it wise to cast it aside.

That being said, can we both not agree that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing, even though how we arrive at that position is different? The only thing solution wise where we might differ is that maybe you see 100% prohibition in all circumstances as being the only solution... and if that is the case, then no, we would not agree. My gut feel says otherwise.

carp614 said:

This is where this entire argument about abortion becomes pointless. We (in this discussion) cannot agree on the even the most foundational truths underpinning the issue. If for example we cannot agree on whether or not life is life or whether or not a person is a person, how could we ever come to agreement on the solution to this problem? And this is among Christians with a nominally similar worldview.

Click to expand...

I think this is a great observation, and is the underlying issue for the entire discussion over the morality of abortion.

In fact, I would say the the moral discussion over abortion stands or falls on our belief over the nature of the human life growing inside the womb.

mnphysicist said:

Pastors are supposed to be leaders, and ideally should have lives free from scandal. This doesn't mean they will be sinless... but where this goes sideways, is when most leaders can't live up to what they are preaching, is there any chance anyone else could? And if you are a teen with raging hormones, would you even try?

Click to expand...

Right here you've lost me. If you really believe what you are saying here, either you have misunderstood the universal nature of sin, you have erroneously placed your faith in people or institutions instead of the Lord. I may be misunderstanding you here, so take what I'm saying with the appropriate leavening.

I'm sorry but the way I read it your argument boils down to using hypocrisy in the church as an excuse to ignore the clear teachings of the Gospel and condone people acting without consequence.

In point of fact, "Truth is truth, but..." is not agreement. It is disagreement. The equivalent of saying there is more than one truth. That is where our discussion becomes fruitless. There is only one truth. We don't get to redefine truth as fits out needs, whims, or circumstances, perspective, or screw ups. To me, that is one of the most important differentiators between Christians and the world. And that I think is where we come to the end of the discussion. See, to me, the rest of the argument is nonsense.