All that will do is INCREASE the number of abortions, not decrease it. I believe most abortions are done because the mother does not know what to do with a unwanted pregnancy.How about no contraceptives, no abortions and limited welfare for new single mothers? The first couple of years would be rough, but people might actually start taking responsibility for their actions.
How about no contraceptives, no abortions and limited welfare for new single mothers? The first couple of years would be rough, but people might actually start taking responsibility for their actions.
I'd say the focus truly needs to be on promoting abstinence for these unwed teens. End of story.
Giving them contraceptives isnt going to make their moral behavior any better, nor is it promoting Christian values.
It does happen. I don't have the source directly in front of me, but funding can be withheld from a school for teach a comprehensive sex education program instead of the prescribed abstinence only curriculm. Showing teenagers how to use contraceptives got the curriculm tossed here. No wonder we're having such problems!Promoting chastity 'till marriage is something you can do inside the church and at your home, is not something the governament can do, expecially not in school, and i'm actually really shocked that it happens in America: it's brain-washing, it's propaganda.
Non-biased source of this information is...? Reality being, I do believe that teaching about contraceptives (especially condoms in regards to the HIV epidemic in many third world countries, especially those in Africa) is important. If you have 4 kids and cannot support them and don't want anymore, you should be able to limit the size of your family. Period. It is a good policy in regards to the fact we cannot provide on such a large scale when the population continues to grow. I have not heard of forced abortions, and highly doubt that is true.The World Bank is currently forcing third world countries to administer birth control and abortions in order to receive funds. This is a huge mistake and an overstepping of their authority. They are essentially bribing poor countries to reduce their birth rate before giving them money.
That's right, because abortion is always an easy decisionAdoption is almost always free for the biological mother, and there is never a shortage of potential parents for American babies. I'm not sure about other states, but MD has a free insurance program that is available to women who need it for this purpose. I volunteer in a crisis pregnancy clinic, and we offer preg tests, viability sonos, classes on a variety of relationship and parenting topics, all free of charge.
All these are good things that a lot of young parents are taking advantage of. The ones who decide to abort either haven't looked into these things or have and decided abortion would be easier.
No, roughly 20% of aborted are performed on married women, not by. Big difference.You're absolutely right about the fact that some married couples do in fact have abortions. In fact, about nineteen percent of abortions are done by married women. That is a fact that I forgot to take into account.
But the question is, to what extent is this prosecuted? Rarely. Many of these laws are on the books for many, many years back, and have yet to be repealed. Even the Texas sodomy law that was repealed by the SC within recent years hadn't been enforced in quite some time.Consensual sex is not always legal, not even in the United States. North Carolina still has a law against unmarried adults living together:
In Idaho it's a $300 fine and up to six months in jail for fornication.
The source of your information is...? Don't throw out opinions like that when you aren't putting up facts to back it up (and non-biased facts please, Focus on the Family and the like are not non-biased).Planned Parenthood is egregiously guilty of multiple ethical violations here in the US, so my position is that their position as an unbiased arbitor and dissiminator of sexual education is compromised.
What do you suggest that health organisations do, to counter the myth that is prevalent in many african countries that a man with HIV that has sex with a child can sure himself of HIVIn the real world, this may not be a bad idea. However, there is something very scary about forcing anyone to do this. First, there is the religious element. Some do not believe in contraception at all. Second, there is the political element. The World Bank is currently forcing third world countries to administer birth control and abortions in order to receive funds. This is a huge mistake and an overstepping of their authority. They are essentially bribing poor countries to reduce their birth rate before giving them money.
Lisa
There is some stuff being done, but it is mostly misrepresentation among the governments themselves to the people (i.e, governments telling the people that onions can cure AIDS). The issue is not just condoms, because how do you tell married women to use condoms? It is political, economical and cultural as you said. It is not until people actually start caring, advocating for more trade with Africa, removing economic barriers with the Word Bank (evil) and working with the governments and the African media to promote accurate sex education. In Africa there is only 4 condoms per male. I guess they can only have sex 4 times a year!What do you suggest that health organisations do, to counter the myth that is prevalent in many african countries that a man with HIV that has sex with a child can sure himself of HIV
If course we know that is not true, however how does an outsider from a different culture effectively counter those sorts of cultural myths
That's right, because abortion is always an easy decision! You're overlooking the American legal system, and the limited rights of the adoptive parents. The majority of Americans do not want open adoptions. The reality is, there is a period in which the birth mother can invoke her rights to have the child returned. Even years later after the adoption has been finalized. Domestic adoption is NOT as cut and dry as you make it seem. Who wants to go through that heartbreak, when they can travel to another country for an abandoned orphan whose parents will never want them back (or in some cases, left them to die)?
Are you attempting to speak of the MCHP program? Yes, it is generous as many people can qualify for it (family monthly income ranging from around $2500-4000, which in the majority of this state isn't much to live on), but it isn't free by a long shot. And when it comes to state aid, they're cutting hospital stays and provider payments--lets not even get started on how bad that is for healthcare. There is some free prenatal care in the state, no doubt. But you're definately overlooking the feasibility of such. A single mother who is pregnant but in poverty--she is to choose between a days wages (which if she doesn't get, could mean her child doesn't eat, or she becomes even more behind on rent) or going to some doctor's appointment, for which she has no transportation? And lets not think that free and low cost prenatal care is being given out by the goodness of the state's heart. Please. It is in their financial interest to provide preventative care in hopes to avoid secondary and tertiary care bills. It is cheaper to treat a child's cough with a $3 antibiotic and a $40 doctors visit than the $50k hospital bill when that turns into pnemonia (which because the child is under 18 and covered under the state's program, in addition to federal programs, entitles them to that care).
And if you live in Maryland, you know about Dimensions Healthcare system. It is being shut down because it lacks the funding. Why? It attracts those who are uninsured and cannot pay. Such a system cannot survive if they're not bringing in the money to pay for their services/staff salaries.
It isn't as easy as "there's free care available to everyone!" Not even close.
No, roughly 20% of aborted are performed on married women, not by. Big difference.
In regards to point #1, it is what it is. It is what it is because most people are cows and do whatever the government tells them to do, forgetting that the government should fear its people, not vice versa.
Regarding #2, yes, I consider abortion completely unacceptable, because I consider a person to be human worthy of protection from the moment of conception, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
If pro life advocates truly want to lower the number of abortions, they should invest in providing expectant mothers with other reasonable alternatives. Many abortions are performed on very young mothers with little or no financial resources who cannot see any way that they can raise a child.
Our governments should do more to make adoptions feasible for those mothers and for persons wishing to adopt. If would-be mothers were given such an option, and if the option were affordable, I suspect that more would choose that path.
I say this as a person who was adopted as an infant and given the chance at life.
So, essentially you want to make pregnancy and children a punishment for women who have sex outside of marriage?
Dude, the divine right of King's concept is pretty outdated.That is not Biblical at all.
The people should fear the government- they don't bare the sword in vain. Authority flows down not up. The rulers are appointed by God as ministers of God to punish evildoers.
Thats because those people want cute little babies... they are far less prepared to take in a young person from their own country who already has some issues, but they are usually the ones that need help.People are waiting years and going to other countries to adopt children.
Well, seems to be what some people are advocating by saying that women shouldn't be allowed to use contraception OR abortion, and that it might teach them to keep their legs together.What kind of thinking is that to say that it is punishment for a woman to be pregnant and have a child. WOW that's messed up.
How do you figure hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient?The only contraception that is not an abortifacient is the barrier type so what your advocating would actually increase abortions. It also makes you a child sex advocate by offering the contraception to children.
Well, seems to be what some people are advocating by saying that women shouldn't be allowed to use contraception OR abortion, and that it might teach them to keep their legs together.How do you figure hormonal contraceptives are abortifacient?
Right... but thats exactly what happens during pregnancy isn't it?The pill is considered to be one because it does not allow a fertilized egg (if sperm reaches one) to impant.
I'm not sure what you are asking. People who claim the pill is an hormonal abortifacient claim it kills a life because the pill causes a fertilized egg to not implant. I guess you could call it an artificial miscarriage?Right... but thats exactly what happens during pregnancy isn't it?
But in saying so, you're still saying it is an easy choice. It is NOT, in ANY way, an easy choice. Further, let's not make this into a "X is harder than Y, thus X is a much more noble thing." It isn't right to discount a hard decision just because you don't like the outcome.First of all, I never said abortion was an easy choice. It's just easier than parenting or adoption.
Say I have a child. I don't know what to do, but I decide to keep it. A year later, I decide that it is not possible to keep the child for whatever reason--money, psychiatric issues, healthcare, school--whatever. Yeah, that 1 year old child is going to be so easy to adopt, there are lots of people out there lined up! NOT. Stop idealizing adoption, when it isn't so rosey and idealistic. How many kids are going to grow up in the system, bouncing around from foster home to foster home, or even group homes, only to age out of the system? Quite a few! If there are enough people looking to adopt domestically, why do we have all of these children who are in the system and have no prospect of ever being adopted? Most people want little ones without problems, not older children who may come with a lot of baggage (physical, psychological, emotional). How about the babies born addicted to crack and with fetal alcohol syndrome? Or those with Downs? These children do not have instant homes, and adoption isn't so easy and simple.The issues you raised regarding adoption (birth parents invoking their rights) is more of an issue for those seeking to adopt, not those that are seeking to place their child in an adoptive home. In fact, the fact that birth parents can invoke their rights should be more of an encouragement to those considering adoption. Maybe more parents are looking towards international adoption than domestic, but there are still enough prospective adoptive parents to go around. Very few biological parents even consider the possibility of adoption. For those that do, their child has an almost instant home.
(I'm actually in a public health field) There are NOT enough resources available! A nonprofit doesn't have limitless resources. They're only able to help as many people as their resource (i.e. money) allows. It isn't so easy to tell a woman "well, there's a maternity home where they'll take care of everything!" when the reality is that there are so few open spaces in so few homes that it is not a viable option.About the healthcare, you are probably correct. I'm sure it is much more difficult to get a hold of than I made it seem. Nevertheless, it is available. There are also nonprofit organizations such as maternity homes that are available, if sought after. I'm sure they are rather rare since not many people look into them nowadays. But once again, although it may take some searching, they can be found and they offer a great deal of support to those that want it.
When you're arguing a point, providing invalid information doesn't lend anything to your credibility. Putting out inncorrect information and then saying in essence "so what, you know what I meant" isn't a positive thing.Okay. What's the difference, other than the fact that the women do not physically perform the abortions on themselves?
The only contraception that is not an abortifacient is the barrier type so what your advocating would actually increase abortions. It also makes you a child sex advocate by offering the contraception to children.
Because no one has ever gotten pregnant and carried a successful pregnancy while taking a hormonal contraceptiveThe pill is considered to be one because it does not allow a fertilized egg (if sperm reaches one) to impant.
Well no, I don't think you could... it isn't possible to misscarry before a zygote implants in the uterine wall...I'm not sure what you are asking. People who claim the pill is an hormonal abortifacient claim it kills a life because the pill causes a fertilized egg to not implant. I guess you could call it an artificial miscarriage?
But in saying so, you're still saying it is an easy choice. It is NOT, in ANY way, an easy choice. Further, let's not make this into a "X is harder than Y, thus X is a much more noble thing." It isn't right to discount a hard decision just because you don't like the outcome.Say I have a child. I don't know what to do, but I decide to keep it. A year later, I decide that it is not possible to keep the child for whatever reason--money, psychiatric issues, healthcare, school--whatever. Yeah, that 1 year old child is going to be so easy to adopt, there are lots of people out there lined up! NOT. Stop idealizing adoption, when it isn't so rosey and idealistic. How many kids are going to grow up in the system, bouncing around from foster home to foster home, or even group homes, only to age out of the system? Quite a few! If there are enough people looking to adopt domestically, why do we have all of these children who are in the system and have no prospect of ever being adopted? Most people want little ones without problems, not older children who may come with a lot of baggage (physical, psychological, emotional). How about the babies born addicted to crack and with fetal alcohol syndrome? Or those with Downs? These children do not have instant homes, and adoption isn't so easy and simple..
And why exactly is it a good thing a birth parent can come back 10 years down the road and attempt to invoke their rights? Who the heck does that benefit?!?(I'm actually in a public health field) There are NOT enough resources available! A nonprofit doesn't have limitless resources. They're only able to help as many people as their resource (i.e. money) allows. It isn't so easy to tell a woman "well, there's a maternity home where they'll take care of everything!" when the reality is that there are so few open spaces in so few homes that it is not a viable option.
Further, it doesn't matter if something is available if it is not accessible. As I said, if a woman has to lose a day of pay, get a sitter for their other child, and take the bus to the only place they can get free prenatal care, it really does no good to have such a resource available. .
When you're arguing a point, providing invalid information doesn't lend anything to your credibility. Putting out inncorrect information and then saying in essence "so what, you know what I meant" isn't a positive thing.
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?