Stopping abortion

[rebelEnigma]

1) Help single mothers and make keeping the baby a more attractive choice. Offer moral, financial, practical support. Help end the stigma and provide better opportunities.

This would be a good solution, as would teaching abstinence programs to high schools. It would simply be a whole lot easier if getting pregnant were an issue resolved in marriage.

2) Educate children on the proper ways to keep safe and responsible. Teach condom use, pill use and other methods and THEN also say that abstinence and sensible behaviour are the best methods but if they choose to "play" they should know better than to mess their lives up and the lives of others.

Abstinence should be the only thing they teach them. It is simple: you don't have sex, you don't get STD's, you don't get pregnant. Condoms are only effective for 70% of the people, and even then it doesn't block out the STD's. I believe that one of the basic things about sex in the Bible is that is was kept in marriage, not out of it.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

This would be a good solution, as would teaching abstinence programs to high schools.

Teaching abstince programs in high schools is not a solution; it's part of the problem.

It would simply be a whole lot easier if getting pregnant were an issue resolved in marriage.

It sure would be. But it's not. Given this simple fact, teaching about contraception and making it easily available is the only rational choice.

Abstinence should be the only thing they teach them. It is simple: you don't have sex, you don't get STD's, you don't get pregnant. Condoms are only effective for 70% of the people, and even then it doesn't block out the STD's. I believe that one of the basic things about sex in the Bible is that is was kept in marriage, not out of it.

Except for the fact that abstinence-only programs have been repeatedly found not only not to work, but to actually harm children, this is a great idea.

But hey, if it's more important to you that children get taught YOUR moral values, rather than get taught what might actually save them from getting pregnant or contracting an STD, keep pushing abstinence only. Kids will keep getting pregnant and STDs, but you'll be able to say "I told you so." I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to them.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Abstinence should be the only thing they teach them. It is simple: you don't have sex, you don't get STD's, you don't get pregnant.

The concept is simple; the broad application of the concept is impossible.

Condoms are only effective for 70% of the people,

You do not understand statistics.

...and even then it doesn't block out the STD's.

Sure it does. You should stop getting information from insane sex-phobic propagandists.

I believe that one of the basic things about sex in the Bible is that is was kept in marriage, not out of it.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) the state has a responsibility to all its citizens, not just the ones who give lip-service to some ancient puritanical ethic. If that means condoms and sex ed, then too bad.

 

[Sycophant]

This would be a good solution, as would teaching abstinence programs to high schools. It would simply be a whole lot easier if getting pregnant were an issue resolved in marriage.

They do teach abstinence programs in some schools, and they consistantly prove to be significantly less effective in lowering teen pregnancy and STD rates than comprehensive sex ed programs (they are the ones that say abstinence is the only surefire option, but also realise that many people are not going to not have sex just because you say not to).

Abstinence should be the only thing they teach them. It is simple: you don't have sex, you don't get STD's, you don't get pregnant.

NO ONE, and I mean no one, will dispute that. The problem with this approach is that it completely denies the reality of teen sexuality. And that reality is that PEOPLE WILL HAVE SEX!

Condoms are only effective for 70% of the people, and even then it doesn't block out the STD's.

Only effective at what? Stopping pregnancy? They are close to 100% effective excluding breakage and misuse (things that sex education programs aim to help people avoid).

As for STD, condoms are very effective at block most serious STDs, including HIV (of which no case of infection has EVER been reported with the use of condoms, including in extensive studies of couples with one HIV positive partner).

I believe that one of the basic things about sex in the Bible is that is was kept in marriage, not out of it.

Quite possibly, however the fact is that no matter what the Bible says, PEOPLE WILL HAVE SEX. And as such they should be as informed as possible about the risks and ways to reduce those risks.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

This would be a good solution, as would teaching abstinence programs to high schools. It would simply be a whole lot easier if getting pregnant were an issue resolved in marriage.

Abstinence should be the only thing they teach them. It is simple: you don't have sex, you don't get STD's, you don't get pregnant. Condoms are only effective for 70% of the people, and even then it doesn't block out the STD's. I believe that one of the basic things about sex in the Bible is that is was kept in marriage, not out of it.

This is actually an excellent example of what I was talking about in the OP. Somebody who's not interested in stopping teen pregnancies and STDs unless they do it HIS way. His moral beliefs are far more important than the however many teens will get pregnant or STDs because they didn't know enough about or have access to contraception.

Like I said in the op...it sucks.

 

[holyorders]

I finally understand you atheists now. Since you limit all your conceptions of truth to your own individual ends you block out looking into what we "fable believers" actually believe. You have no idea actually what "we" believe. How can you criticize anything without knowledge. One answer: prejudice.


The truth is that you guys have no idea what is out there. The studies on abortion, contraception, and so on support the pro-life position. But none will listen because it doesn't sound good. We have already won, by nature of truth as opposed to "rational" judgement on what was taught to you. Old fodder of the enlightenment that proposes a rational all-encompassing worldview but in reality is as cynical and blind as a hardened white supremicist. You all know NOTHING.

 

[flicka]

I finally understand you atheists now. Since you limit all your conceptions of truth to your own individual ends you block out looking into what we "fable believers" actually believe. You have no idea actually what "we" believe. How can you criticize anything without knowledge. One answer: prejudice.


The truth is that you guys have no idea what is out there. The studies on abortion, contraception, and so on support the pro-life position. But none will listen because it doesn't sound good. We have already won, by nature of truth as opposed to "rational" judgement on what was taught to you. Old fodder of the enlightenment that proposes a rational all-encompassing worldview but in reality is as cynical and blind as a hardened white supremicist. You all know NOTHING.

You should know that this isn't an athiest/christian issue as there are prolife athiests and prochice christians. You DO know THAT right?

Second I don't believe the studies support a particular position, they just offer statistics on what IS, not on what-could-be-if-only-everyone-followed-our-rules

Finally...prejudice? Explain please.

 

[holyorders]

You should know that this isn't an athiest/christian issue as there are prolife athiests and prochice christians. You DO know THAT right?

Second I don't believe the studies support a particular position, they just offer statistics on what IS, not on what-could-be-if-only-everyone-followed-our-rules

Finally...prejudice? Explain please.

Even though I mentioned a few pro-life things I really wasn't answering the OP. I just think I really understand the way atheists think. They think there is always a spin, a "logical" reason why Christians have thought the way we thought. They don't actually study Christians. They follow "teachings" that are a mere mask to be prejudice against what they don't believe.

Personally I think a true atheist would never mock a Christian. Afterall if there truly was no God why would people mock Christians who have and do support the good of mankind as a whole. Even, most especially, scientifically. Look up a large list of scientists, the ones who made great milestones in terms of historical signifigance. The majority of them are Christian. Science and Christianity are not opposed.

It just goes against reason to go against people who support the good of people on a whole just for a variety of issues that they oppose. Really look at the good Christians have done. You'll find bad as you will with all people as well. But really look at the good compared with the bad. You'll be suprised. But of course no atheist would take the time. They already "know" what Christians believe and practice.

 

[Sycophant]

Personally I think a true atheist would never mock a Christian. Afterall if there truly was no God why would people mock Christians who have and do support the good of mankind as a whole. Even, most especially, scientifically. Look up a large list of scientists, the ones who made great milestones in terms of historical signifigance. The majority of them are Christian. Science and Christianity are not opposed.

I am not entirely sure I understand what youre are saying entirely, but for this part -- yes many scientists are Christian, some are probably Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist, and a good number are also atheist and agnostic. These people all would have one thing in common, and that would be a desire to follow the evidence without presupposition, and without the intent to reach a specific conclusion.

Many other Christian 'scientists' use the faith as a basis on which to seek science to support their existing conclusions.

The point of this OP is that people who claim to want to stop or substantially reduce abortions are only willing to do so by making it illegal, not by looking at rational ways (that will work for the majority) to reduce the demand. Because they also disagree with the methods by which demand is reduced (ie. contraception). The answer is simply - outlaw abortion, and teach only abstinence. Both of which ignore the very real groups of people who a) have an unintentional pregnancy, and b) choose to have sex regardless of what they are told.

It seems that they are not really taking an objective look at the situation. They simply demand that everyone fit into their moral outlook, and anyone who doesn't can be damned (figuratively and theologically).

To those without any serious moral hangups about consenting sex, the thought process goes like this:
1. Too many abortions, why?
2. People are getting pregnant unintentionally, why?
3. They are failing to employ birth control, what to do?
4. Ensure that people that choose to have sex are informed and the methods of birth control are available to them.

At step four, regardless of your personal views of sex, it is important to understand that a significant proportion of people will not see it your way, and no amount of telling them they are wrong will change their mind. You then need to deal with the reality of those people.

 

[Ryal Kane]

I think that ideally we shouldn't be having as many abortions as there are.
But it's a matter of education and also of culture.
I recently saw a 60 Minutes article on abstinence pledges and sex ed in the U.S.A.

I was horrified, not by the pledges as such, because they come from fundimentalists groups, but by the official school sex ed. Teachers were being forced to basically lie to their students. Teaching them how condoms are ineffective and how premarital sex causes mental problems. Even when asked directly, they were NOT allowed to inform kids about proper use and figures of contraception. It's ignorant and frankly disgusting. NO education would be better than lies.

There's also a realy culture problem that hetrosexual intercourse is the only 'real' sex. American Pie really bugged me for that. As a result you've got abstinence pledge teens having unprotected anal and oral sex because you can't get pregnant and they're saving themselves for marriage. It's crazy.

Western culture, in fact most culture, is utterly terrified of sex. Until we get over our fears and dogmas we're going to keep sufferign the same problems.

 

[Sycophant]

I was horrified, not by the pledges as such, because they come from fundimentalists groups, but by the official school sex ed. Teachers were being forced to basically lie to their students. Teaching them how condoms are ineffective and how premarital sex causes mental problems. Even when asked directly, they were NOT allowed to inform kids about proper use and figures of contraception. It's ignorant and frankly disgusting. NO education would be better than lies.

These issues were the subject of a report by US Representative Henry Waxman, (available in whole here as a PDF).

Some choice highlights:

Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent theeffectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and
pregnancy. One curriculum says that “the popular claim that ‘condoms
help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the data”; another
states that “n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV
approximately 31% of the time”; and another teaches that a pregnancy
occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These
erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts.

Under the SPRANS requirements, abstinence-only education programs are not allowed to teach their participants any methods to reduce the risk of pregnancy other than abstaining until marriage. They are allowed to mention contraceptives only to describe their failure rates. Although the curricula purport to provide scientifically accurate information about contraceptive failure rates, many exaggerate these failure rates, providing affirmatively false or misleading information that misstates the effectiveness of various contraceptive methods in preventing disease transmission or pregnancy.

There's also a realy culture problem that hetrosexual intercourse is the only 'real' sex. American Pie really bugged me for that. As a result you've got abstinence pledge teens having unprotected anal and oral sex because you can't get pregnant and they're saving themselves for marriage. It's crazy.

There is/was a sort of parody movement about that, called Technical Virgin - it is a worrying phenomenon I think.

 

[Ave Maria]

Something has struck me recently about the 'pro-life' crowd. We all know they oppose abortion. They don't want it to take place. Fair enough.

But I have to believe that they're not stupid. They must realise that illegalising it will do very little or nothing to actually reduce the number of abortions that happen. After all, abortion has happened, on large scales, always, whether it was legal or not. So they must realise that illegalising it won't stop it. So while illegalising it might make them feel a little better, it won't really help in the battle they are fighting (ie., to stop/limit abortions).

So...what WOULD stop it? I would think the most obvious way to lower the number of abortions would be to increase sex education and availability of cheap contraceptives. Why are those who oppose abortion never for this option?

The only conclusion I can come to is that while they might be against abortion, that's not really the issue. What they oppose is what they see as sexual immorality, and abortion is one consequence of that.

So they don't WANT to make sex safer...because that'll just mean people are more likely to have sex. They want to keep sex 'dangerous' (ie., more likely to have adverse consequences such as disease/unwanted pregnancy) in an effort to persuade people not to have it.

Otherwise, if they really were so concerned about preventing abortions, they'd be handing out free condoms instead of picketing clinics.

And that sucks.

Emphasis mine.

Actually, this is wrong, dead wrong! There were not nearly as many abortions before Roe V. Wade as there are now.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal

Oh and by the way, I personally don't care if making abortion illegal makes it less safe. If people want to murder their children, why should we make it safer for them???

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I finally understand you atheists now. Since you limit all your conceptions of truth to your own individual ends you block out looking into what we "fable believers" actually believe. You have no idea actually what "we" believe. How can you criticize anything without knowledge. One answer: prejudice.


The truth is that you guys have no idea what is out there. The studies on abortion, contraception, and so on support the pro-life position. But none will listen because it doesn't sound good. We have already won, by nature of truth as opposed to "rational" judgement on what was taught to you. Old fodder of the enlightenment that proposes a rational all-encompassing worldview but in reality is as cynical and blind as a hardened white supremicist. You all know NOTHING.

I have no idea what this is supposed to have to do with the OP or, indeed, what it's even supposed to mean. Except that it's bagging atheists. Just why, I can't quite make out.

Even though I mentioned a few pro-life things I really wasn't answering the OP. I just think I really understand the way atheists think. They think there is always a spin, a "logical" reason why Christians have thought the way we thought. They don't actually study Christians. They follow "teachings" that are a mere mask to be prejudice against what they don't believe.

Same as the last couple of paragraphs.

Personally I think a true atheist would never mock a Christian. Afterall if there truly was no God why would people mock Christians who have and do support the good of mankind as a whole.

If christians all supported the good of mankind as a whole, they would be far less mocked. The trouble is, they don't,

Even, most especially, scientifically. Look up a large list of scientists, the ones who made great milestones in terms of historical signifigance. The majority of them are Christian. Science and Christianity are not opposed.

Science and SOME PEOPLE's version of christianity, however, are.

It just goes against reason to go against people who support the good of people on a whole just for a variety of issues that they oppose.

See above.

Really look at the good Christians have done. You'll find bad as you will with all people as well. But really look at the good compared with the bad. You'll be suprised.

We've done it. We weren't surprised.

But of course no atheist would take the time.

Projecting much?

They already "know" what Christians believe and practice.

Yes, we do. It's not exactly a secret.

Overall..still no idea what the point of your posts was.

 

[Archivist]

Emphasis mine.

Actually, this is wrong, dead wrong! There were not nearly as many abortions before Roe V. Wade as there are now.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal

Oh and by the way, I personally don't care if making abortion illegal makes it less safe. If people want to murder their children, why should we make it safer for them???

Your source is biased and, therefore, unreliable. The fact is that we will never know the exact number of abortions pre-Roe.

Abortion is not murder. I really get tired pointing this out. Please consult a dictionary, preferably a legal dictionary, before you start misapplying definitions.

 

[rebelEnigma]

Abortion is not murder. I really get tired pointing this out. Please consult a dictionary, preferably a legal dictionary, before you start misapplying definitions.

What if a legal dictionary denied that thievery was stealing? Would you trust it then?

 

[Archivist]

What if a legal dictionary denied that thievery was stealing? Would you trust it then?

Can you provide an example of thsi?

 

[Madcoil]

Is thievery necessarily stealing?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Actually, this is wrong, dead wrong! There were not nearly as many abortions before Roe V. Wade as there are now.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal

Actually, it's NOT "dead wrong". Even your own link states that nobody knows how many illegal abortions there were prior to Roe vs Wade. Nor did the OP claim that the number of abortions didn't rise after Roe vs Wade, contrary to your implication.

Oh and by the way, I personally don't care if making abortion illegal makes it less safe. If people want to murder their children, why should we make it safer for them???

If we were talking about murdering children, this would be relevant. We're not, despite your attempt at poisoning the well. Nice try, thouigh.

 

[Spherical Time]

Oh and by the way, I personally don't care if making abortion illegal makes it less safe. If people want to murder their children, why should we make it safer for them???

This would seem to be one of the problems: If you don't care about the woman getting the abortion, then you don't have much chance of stopping it from happening, do you? In fact, this seems to be advocating death for women that get abortions . . . which isn't exactly what I would consider a pro-life position.

 

[gladiatrix]

Oh and by the way, I personally don't care if making abortion illegal makes it less safe. If people want to murder their children, why should we make it safer for them???

This would seem to be one of the problems: If you don't care about the woman getting the abortion, then you don't have much chance of stopping it from happening, do you? In fact, this seems to be advocating death for women that get abortions . . . which isn't exactly what I would consider a pro-life position.

Holly's attitude is exactly why calling the anti-choice movement "pro-life" is such a glaring bit of false advertising...the only "pro" in this movement is "pro"-punishment. I am reminded of a real life example of just such a hateful attitude (women who have abortions should suffer and/or die as a result!). One of my older cousins had a high school friend who I will call "Linda" (use a pseudonym here). She was (and still is) a beautiful blond whose ambition was to become a doctor (a neurosurgeon, no less). Being a sensible person, she was also on the Pill (she had a boy friend whom she loved and was engaged). However, she was one of those unfortunate women, who despite taking precautions, became pregnant. Since this happened before abortion was widely available (1971), she went abroad to have a safe, legal abortion (her fiance paid for this and accompanied her).

What repelled my cousin was the attitude of a group of so-called "pro-life" church women who frequented my aunt's (her mother's) house on Sundays after church. Somehow they got wind of the whole affair and were simply outraged that Linda had escaped the "consequences" by going to a country where abortions were safe and legal, not to mention the fact that she was obviously a "wh0re" because she had made "plans" for having sex (was on the Pill). They were gleeful over the fact that in her case the Pill had failed (God's will!). They raved on about how if there were any justice and she would had a botched, illegal abortion here and that she should have died horribly from bleeding to death and/or infection from having indulged in such a "crime"(courtesy of "God's mighty avenging hand!!", according to one of these "pro"-punishment harpies) . One even thought that what should happen is that a woman who had such an abortion should have the agony of her death filmed and shown as a warning of the "consequences" of having sex before marriage/an abortion (what should happen to all such "murdering sl*ts!", to quote her) to put other young women on "the straight and narrow path that leadeth to salvation!"

In my cousin's opinion part of their problem was the fact that to a woman, all of whom couldn't hold a candle to Linda in the looks/brains department and burdened with some really bratty kids(women overheard bemoaning their "lot" in this regard ) were simply envious of Linda to begin with. Her fiance was to "die for" too (handsome, smart, well-to-do financially). Linda, who is still gorgeous, and her husband (she married her supportive fiance) now have a thriving practice (as family physicans---Linda hated surgery after she went through her surgical rotation) and 2 young sons (had children when they were ready, not forced to have them) who apparently plan on following in their parents' profession. Her continued success is still a sore point for this group of self-righteous harpies who bad-mouth her any time the topic of abortion comes up (my cousin gets the "scoop" from her mother/my aunt who still knows most of them).