Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We're only milling 800,000 of our own every year instead of 1,000,000. Celebrate!
Abortion is caused primarily for a hypersexualized cultured which originated with the increased use of contraception.
So thanks for solving a tiny bit part of the problem that was caused for contraception in the first place.
You guys are still operating on the notion that this is about reducing the number of abortions for the pro life camp?It still astounds me how many in the pro-life camp still insist on believing in the fantasy that simply expressing the notion "if you don't want a pregnancy, just don't have sex" is somehow a workable public policy for unplanned pregnancy prevention.
Thinking that way is 100% idealism/0% pragmatism. Abstinence-only ideology has never worked as a public policy and has almost always led to increased pregnancy rates (especially among teens).
If we were to make an analogy to apply that same way of thinking to cardiology, it'd be like saying "we don't need to spend money researching cholesterol drugs, and cardiac surgical procedures...if people don't want heart attacks, they should just eat better" and pretending as if that's somehow a valid or effective public health policy for preventing cardiac related mortality.
Part of me feels like that's simply their way of trying to maintain both an anti-abortion position, while simultaneously voting for fiscally/socially conservative economic policies that have been shown to cause an increase in demand for abortion...and as long as they pretend that it's somehow a valid approach, they don't have to acknowledge the fact that they're voting for things that actually increase the demand for the thing they claim to hate the most.
To put it more succinctly...if a person truly did feel like abortion is murder, paying an extra $2/week in taxes in order to fund programs to provide no-cost access for pregnancy prevention measures for people who need it should be considered a mere drop in the bucket. They fact that they fight those measures so staunchly means that they either A) don't really think abortion is murder and that's all just religious rhetoric, or B) they want to have it both ways and be able to claim they're fighting abortion tooth & nail, while simultaneously refusing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to make that happen.
It astonishes me that some people have a lot of lack of faith in people controlling themselves. We are rational for a lot of stuff but not for sex that we know is for procreation?It still astounds me how many in the pro-life camp still insist on believing in the fantasy that simply expressing the notion "if you don't want a pregnancy, just don't have sex" is somehow a workable public policy for unplanned pregnancy prevention.
Thinking that way is 100% idealism/0% pragmatism. Abstinence-only ideology has never worked as a public policy and has almost always led to increased pregnancy rates (especially among teens).
If we were to make an analogy to apply that same way of thinking to cardiology, it'd be like saying "we don't need to spend money researching cholesterol drugs, and cardiac surgical procedures...if people don't want heart attacks, they should just eat better" and pretending as if that's somehow a valid or effective public health policy for preventing cardiac related mortality.
Part of me feels like that's simply their way of trying to maintain both an anti-abortion position, while simultaneously voting for fiscally/socially conservative economic policies that have been shown to cause an increase in demand for abortion...and as long as they pretend that it's somehow a valid approach, they don't have to acknowledge the fact that they're voting for things that actually increase the demand for the thing they claim to hate the most.
To put it more succinctly...if a person truly did feel like abortion is murder, paying an extra $2/week in taxes in order to fund programs to provide no-cost access for pregnancy prevention measures for people who need it should be considered a mere drop in the bucket. They fact that they fight those measures so staunchly means that they either A) don't really think abortion is murder and that's all just religious rhetoric, or B) they want to have it both ways and be able to claim they're fighting abortion tooth & nail, while simultaneously refusing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to make that happen.
Unplanned pregnancies have always happened but the idea that knowing sex will likely lead to pregnancy is not as abundant since the sexual revolution of the 60 is what made "sex mainly for pleasure" stuff.Do you have any sources/citations/data to support that assertion? Or are you simply trying to pin the blame for something you don't like, onto something else you don't like?
While there's no doubt that increased access to safe abortion procedures have likely led to more women seeking that option to address unplanned pregnancy, the root issue (getting pregnant when not planning on it) certainly didn't increase due to hypersexualized culture.
Unplanned pregnancies have always been a reality.
A simple piece of data that highlights that is the fact that during the great depression, the average children per household was way higher than it is now.
...unless someone is honestly suggesting that a poor family, living in the worst economic time in our history said "Gee honey, you know what we really need right now? A 5th kid" Had there been a legal/safe/socially accepted pregnancy termination method available in the 1900-1930 time period, we likely would've seen it used more than it is today.
There was contraception before the 60s.Unplanned pregnancies have always happened but the idea that knowing sex will likely lead to pregnancy is not as abundant since the sexual revolution of the 60 is what made "sex mainly for pleasure" stuff.
That's true, even in ancient times we have different forms of contraceptions. Maybe I did not present my whole hypothesis but contraception use started to increase by the '20s, the effect might not have been at an instant but the film media and certain parts of capitalism and individualism might also have an influence plus the sexual revolution too.There was contraception before the 60s.
Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.If they want it "safe, legal, and rare" they would not argue that it is a "fundamental right".
Yah. There's no way to be educated, honest and still call the decision process and reasoning in that ruling sound.There used to be court decisions allowing slavery and segregation. Were they Constitutional laws?
Also, it is based on a supposedly "Right to Privacy" that if we acknowledge will make other terrible stuff in private legal.
Good thing that abortion isn't homicide, then? Otherwise people might start building bombs to attack abortion centers.Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.
It astonishes me that some people have a lot of lack of faith in people controlling themselves. We are rational for a lot of stuff but not for sex that we know is for procreation?
Safe homicide? Isn't that sorta like self-defense?Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.
Poisoning the well like this is a personal attack. If you can't convince people that's one thing, but blaming them for not being convinced as if it implies some sort of personal issue is another thing entirely.However, I will probably not continue here since people would not hear but criticize.
Evidence says otherwise. Good luck with this approach, though.Yah. There's no way to be educated, honest and still call the decision process and reasoning in that ruling sound.
You guys are still operating on the notion that this is about reducing the number of abortions for the pro life camp?
It astonishes me that some people have a lot of lack of faith in people controlling themselves. We are rational for a lot of stuff but not for sex that we know is for procreation?
Safe homicide... the only kind, right? I think the derangement is near demonic levels when someone starts talking about safe homicide.
And let's not forget that the population that has the biggest issue with unplanned pregnancies - teens, have seen a constant drop in pregnancy rates since the 90s. We're at something on par with, IIRC, the late 50s.While there's no doubt that increased access to safe abortion procedures have likely led to more women seeking that option to address unplanned pregnancy, the root issue (getting pregnant when not planning on it) certainly didn't increase due to hypersexualized culture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?