Sierra Club joins Planned Parenthood to Promote Abortion


The Sierra Club crisscrossed California this month for a series of conferences called Sex and the Environment. Planned Parenthood also was represented at most of the stops, the California Catholic Daily reports. The Sierra Club is pushing "global reproductive health" — abortion means fewer kids and, apparently, a healthier environment.

"The Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood are teaming up to promote their radical views on the environment and abortion," said Dawn Vargo, associate bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "The view that humans are to blame for our environmental problems has found perfect partner with the largest abortion provider in the country."

The 115-year-old Sierra Club, founded by California environmentalist John Muir in 1892 to “explore, enjoy and protect the planet,” declares on its Web site: “Sierra Club is a pro-choice organization.”

The tour was part of the Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, which aims “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

"The answer in their minds is clear," Vargo said, "environmental problems can be addressed by aborting the next generation."

Kathleen Parker also addressed this in a column...


Hey, did you hear the one about the woman who aborted her kid so she could save the planet (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2007/11/28/survival_of_the_stupidest)?

That's no joke, but Darwin must be chuckling somewhere.

Toni Vernelli was one of two women recently featured in a London Daily Mail story about environmentalists who take their carbon footprint very, very seriously.

So seriously, in fact, that Vernelli aborted a pregnancy and, by age 27, had herself sterilized. Baby-making, she says, is "selfish" and "all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet."

Because Toni and her husband, Ed, are childless and vegan, they say they can justify one long-haul airplane trip per year and still remain carbon neutral.

Sarah Irving is another like-minded nature-nurturer. She and fiancé Mark Hudson decided on him having a vasectomy to prevent the possibility of an inconvenient life interfering with their carbon-perfect ones.

She's kidding, right?


Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879)...

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

The extremely ironic thing about this, is Tony met her husband Ed at "an animal rights demonstration." I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how incredibly sad that anyone can be so monumentally stupid.

Comments?

I had a big, long answer and deleted it all, just to say this: when the hour comes for all of us and we make an accounting - I would not want to be in their shoes. While it is good to protect the environment and I am not in disagreement with SOME of planned parenthood, to mix the two together has toxic potential.

I had a big, long answer and deleted it all, just to say this: when the hour comes for all of us and we make an accounting - I would not want to be in their shoes. While it is good to protect the environment and I am not in disagreement with SOME of planned parenthood, to mix the two together has toxic potential.

I agree, but can you come up with something even stronger than "toxic?" :D

Oh Yeah! Lol. But it is not printable.

I too believe in pro-choice... But I go a few steps ahead of conception.

I think there is a choice that people have to make regarding conception and, or abstinence. If they cannot make these types of choices, then I don't think they are mature enough to make the other more drastic choices.

Of course there are acceptions, such as rape, and religion (and I won't go further into the latter subject because this post would be to darned long too).

So.. In My Opinion, it comes down to education and logic - but that too can be a long story.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_2_26.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYMXDE) Suggestions to the young.. say NO, use a condom, or get a puppy!

Let's face it... egotistical, political, or financial, it's all the same..

But Mother Earth has a way of correcting some mistakes, and we just might be on that list of 'things to do'. Evolution has not stopped just because we are in the 21st Century, no matter how wonderful and powerful some humans think they are.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_18.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYMXDE)

Speechless in Texas's post is incredibly misleading. The Sierra Club isn't going around promoting abortions. Not "to save the planet" or for any other reason. For that matter even Planned Parenthood would far rather see people use birth control than have people resort to abortions.

The information posted above comes from Focus on the Family Action, which is a political pro life group. They are entitled to say whatever they like, but I would take what they say about Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club with a grain of salt. The Sierra Club supports limiting population growth; that's nothing to do with abortions. And with the world warming up because of excess CO2, eventually we'll have to limit our growth, so it's not unreasonable. Virtually every country in the world is already having fewer children. There's nothing evil about having 3 children instead of 8 and it's better for the planet. You don't have to have an abortion to do that. We just don't have enough resources to support an infinite number of people. Babies are great (I just went to see my new niece), but 6 billion babies is plenty of babies. We don't really need 12 billion or 50 billion of the little tykes to prove that we like 'em.

It's like puppies. We all love puppies. But does every household need 50 puppies? A few are usually enough and limiting how many puppies you have doesn't mean you hate life or want to kill puppies! It just means more love for the two or 6 puppies you keep.

The vegan, childless couple are just one weird couple. They don't represent a vast conspiracy of child hating Americans. It' silly to think that the Sierra Club wants to kill babies. They just want to conserve some wilderness, so everyone's children will have something green to look at in 2075.

Speechless in Texas's post is incredibly misleading. The Sierra Club isn't going around promoting abortions. Not "to save the planet" or for any other reason. For that matter even Planned Parenthood would far rather see people use birth control than have people resort to abortions.

The information posted above comes from Focus on the Family Action, which is a political pro life group. They are entitled to say whatever they like, but I would take what they say about Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club with a grain of salt. The Sierra Club supports limiting population growth; that's nothing to do with abortions. And with the world warming up because of excess CO2, eventually we'll have to limit our growth, so it's not unreasonable. Virtually every country in the world is already having fewer children. There's nothing evil about having 3 children instead of 8 and it's better for the planet. You don't have to have an abortion to do that. We just don't have enough resources to support an infinite number of people. Babies are great (I just went to see my new niece), but 6 billion babies is plenty of babies. We don't really need 12 billion or 50 billion of the little tykes to prove that we like 'em.

First, my apologies for not furnishing the link (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000005993.cfm), I'm usually more careful than that. Second, here's a list of the Sierra Club's "Sex and the Environment (http://www.sierraclub.org/population/tour.asp)" conferences from their website. Is that too misleading?

Seriously folks, is that the best some can do is claim something is "incredibly misleading" because the source is Focus on the Family, or Fox News, or whatever source you don't trust? That's OK though asking, those familiar with me know I don't just throw things out there without backup. :D

Global Population and Environment (http://www.sierraclub.org/population/reports/spring03/family_planning.asp)

Seems the two groups have shared their environmental concerns over having babies for some time.


It's like puppies. We all love puppies. But does every household need 50 puppies? A few are usually enough and limiting how many puppies you have doesn't mean you hate life or want to kill puppies! It just means more love for the two or 6 puppies you keep.

Comparing babies to puppies?? Seriously??


The vegan, childless couple are just one weird couple. They don't represent a vast conspiracy of child hating Americans. It' silly to think that the Sierra Club wants to kill babies. They just want to conserve some wilderness, so everyone's children will have something green to look at in 2075.

At least we agree they're weird, and I'll leave it at that for now

What's really wacky about that couple is they are animal right's activists, but they support abortion. Seems a little inconsistent to me... Also, though I have not been able to confirm this yet, I think it's a safe bet to say current abortion methods were developed through animal research... Again, a little inconsistent if that's the case. Also, cow farts are a HUGE contributor to global warming, so why not kill all the cows to save the earth? And if you're going to kill 'em, might as well eat 'em! And I don't get the "offset your carbon footprint" crap - you recycled your plastic bags so now you get to drive your SUV? Isn't the point to REDUCE your carbon footprint, not "offset" it? That's Al Gore logic (Glogic? Gorgic? Gorogic?) right there! Crazy environmentalists...

As far as the programs being developed to "promote" abortion as a means of saving the earth, I didn't see anything in an unbiased article regarding that. That's a hefty claim to make without backing it up with facts. Just because they are doing "Sex and the Environment" programs doesn't mean they are pushing abortion, just pushing population control. Would that include abortion? Possibly, but there's nothing saying that's the objective of the program. The quote from your link,

"The tour was part of the Sierra Club's Global Population and Environment Program, which aims “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

says nothing about promoting abortion - that was a conclusion drawn by Focus on the Family. I know you have personal issues with PPH, but surely you realize they do more than perform abortions. Granted, I didn't look through the site in it's entirety, and maybe there is an entire hour during the demonstration devoted to "Have an abortion, save the Earth", but I didn't see it. But, if they are discussing "global reproductive health", abortion is bound to come up - mentioning it doesn't mean it's being "promoted" or "encouraged", just discussed.

asking...

I think in the future, the only 'wilderness' in the modern world will be on top of highrises - which finally someone decided was a good idea, and are doing it very tastefully.

If 'vegan' means vegetarian.. then they don't have to work too hard at preventing overpopulation because IMO, protein from meat is a needed building block for development of the human. The body has a way of sending signals when essential nutrition is missing to have a healthy and functioning reproductive system. An example of this is women with eating disorders such as A and B - the body reverts back and does not even ovulate in most cases.

Maybe I'm being 'bass-ackwards' on these issues, but had to put my two-cent's worth in because I too care what is happening worldwide.

Hoping all will have a nice weekend in spite of the unavoidable occurrences.


http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_22_18.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYMXDE)

Will someone please tell me what I did wrong to have the dumb post below show up with all the formatting crap??

This has never happened before.

What's really wacky about that couple is they are animal right's activists, but they support abortion. Seems a little inconsistent to me... Also, though I have not been able to confirm this yet, I think it's a safe bet to say current abortion methods were developed through animal research... Again, a little inconsistent if that's the case. Also, cow farts are a HUGE contributor to global warming, so why not kill all the cows to save the earth? And if you're going to kill 'em, might as well eat 'em! And I don't get the "offset your carbon footprint" crap - you recycled your plastic bags so now you get to drive your SUV? Isn't the point to REDUCE your carbon footprint, not "offset" it? That's Al Gore logic (Glogic? Gorgic? Gorogic?) right there! Crazy environmentalists...

I mentioned the fact that the couple met an an animal rights protest, and I can't believe these people don't get it, lol. I can only assume such people really long to be in the wild picking mites off each other's backs (which by the way are a great source of protein I hear) eating leaves and personally fertilizing the soil, which would require another use for leaves thereby minimizing a tree's capability to reduce atmospheric CO2 (if they care to be sanitary). By all means, let's grant them their heartfelt desire :D

Jillean, Gore and logic don't fare well in the same sentence, although I like the sound of 'glogic.' I don't get the carbon offsets thing either, it's just an excuse to appease their consciences and make them feel good about doing something to "save the earth."


As far as the programs being developed to "promote" abortion as a means of saving the earth, I didn't see anything in an unbiased article regarding that. That's a hefty claim to make without backing it up with facts. Just because they are doing "Sex and the Environment" programs doesn't mean they are pushing abortion, just pushing population control. Would that include abortion? Possibly, but there's nothing saying that's the objective of the program. The quote from your link,

"The tour was part of the Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, which aims “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives.”

Says nothing about promoting abortion - that was a conclusion drawn by Focus on the Family. I know you have personal issues with PPH, but surely you realize they do more than perform abortions. Granted, I didn't look through the site in it's entirety, and maybe there is an entire hour during the demonstration devoted to "Have an abortion, save the Earth", but I didn't see it. But, if they are discussing "global reproductive health", abortion is bound to come up - mentioning it doesn't mean it's being "promoted" or "encouraged", just discussed.

True, it doesn't explicitly say abortion, but what do you think “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives” means? You have to watch what these people do, not just what they say. PP reports 519,958 abortion procedures in their 2005-2006 annual report, a 9.4 percent increase over the 2002-2003 numbers, which were a 6.1 percent increase from the previous period.

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2005-2006
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Annual_report.pdf

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2003-2004
http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/annualreport/report-04.pdf

That's what happens when you "advance global reproductive health," abortions continue to increase. So what happens when the nation's largest abortion provider - by increasing numbers - joins forces with the Sierra Club, which blames "population growth and urban migration....for many "environmental dilemmas?" They won't say abortion unless they have to, it's always "reproductive health," "women's health care" and "comprehensive sex education." (And as a side note, they blame any increase in teen pregnancies and abortions on the failure of abstinence only education, and not the agenda that they've driven for the past 30 years or so.)

I add it all up and yes, they believe abortions help save the environment, even if they don't explicitly say so.

Well that's that . I have to scrape my Sierra Club sticker off my SUV window! The Sierra Club is not alone . The National Audubon Society has a document entitled "Population and Habitat: Making the Connection" .Population and Habitat Homepage (http://www.audubonpopulation.org/)
It exhorts the United States to spend more money on international population control, insisting that "while the U.S. remains the richest nation on earth, we spend very, very little to help stem the tide of human population growth." It makes no mention of the fact that the "tide" is cresting and soon will be receding.

Responsible conservatives are also conservationists . The problem is that in the ranks of the environmental movement there are a significant groups of wackos that think that human existence is a bane ;a blight , a plague on the planet . Paul Watson of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society has called human population the" AIDS of the Earth" . The Clean Water Action Council of Northeastern Wisconsin claims on its web site that "Human population growth is the number one threat to the world's environment" Population Growth: Impacts on the Environment (http://www.cwac.net/population/index.html)

This is not new . They have been clamoring for population control since Malthus' flawed theories;and it really gained momentum with the publication of the 1968, Dr. Paul Ehrlich book Population Bomb with it's chicken little dooms day scenarios. He argued not surprisingly in favor to government imposed decisions regarding family size. Through the years draconian means of population controls have been implemented so it doesn't surprise me in the least that genocide is considered a legitimate form of population control . I'm just surprised that a free people would be so willing to buy that baloney.

A new corollary soon to gain momentum is that births will stabilize but the real problem is that humans are living longer . The solution ?Euthanasia of course. It is already being spoken of and justified in moral terminology.

True, it doesn't explicitly say abortion, but what do you think “to protect the global environment and preserve natural resources for future generations by advancing global reproductive health and sustainable development initiatives” means? You have to watch what these people do, not just what they say. PP reports 519,958 abortion procedures in their 2005-2006 annual report, a 9.4 percent increase over the 2002-2003 numbers, which were a 6.1 percent increase from the previous period.

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2005-2006
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Annual_report.pdf

Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. Annual Report 2003-2004
http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/annualreport/report-04.pdf

That's what happens when you "advance global reproductive health," abortions continue to increase. So what happens when the nation's largest abortion provider - by increasing numbers - joins forces with the Sierra Club, which blames "population growth and urban migration....for many "environmental dilemmas?" They won't say abortion unless they have to, it's always "reproductive health," "women's health care" and "comprehensive sex education." (And as a side note, they blame any increase in teen pregnancies and abortions on the failure of abstinence only education, and not the agenda that they've driven for the past 30 years or so.)

I add it all up and yes, they believe abortions help save the environment, even if they don't explicitly say so.

When I hear "advance global reproductive health..." I think of birth control, education and information, not abortion. We've had the debate about abstinence only education, and if it's being taught with lies and bad information, it rightly CAN be attributed to the increase in teen pregnancy. If teens are never taught you can get pregnant if the girl is on top, or if you are standing up, you get idiots who try those things and get an unwelcome surprise in a few weeks. Lots of things are to blame for the rise in abortions and teen pregnancy like the media, lack of parental involvement, etc.

If global warming is true (boy, that's another thread!) population increases WOULD contribute, and educating people on how to NOT get pregnant so there are less people in the world WOULD help. I think the problem is using the words "population control"; it evokes thoughts of China killing female infants and restricting people to having one child, it evokes thoughts of genocide, thoughts of restricting reproductive rights, thoughts of, well, having abortions to "save the planet". But I don't think that's the intent of the message. Whoever came up with the campaign didn't think out the verbiage very well. I don't think the intended message is "have an abortion save the plant" but rather, "Practice safe sex, prevent accidental pregnancies and save the planet." But like I said, I think whoever came up with the wording for the campaign didn't think things through.

I, like you, would LOVE to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed annually. Well, you probably want it down to zero, but you get what I mean! I think it's tragic there are so many people who are dealing with unwanted pregnancies and wish the education and knowledge was out there to PREVENT these pregnancies. It's not enough to reduce the number of abortions, it's important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies too. I, unlike you, don't blame the rise in abortions to PPH; I blame lack of education and information with regards to prevention.

Does anyone know if condoms are biodegradable? I know the plastic packaging my pill comes in isn't... Hmmmmmmm... :p

I, like you, would LOVE to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed annually. Well, you probably want it down to zero, but you get what I mean! I think it's tragic there are so many people who are dealing with unwanted pregnancies and wish the education and knowledge was out there to PREVENT these pregnancies. It's not enough to reduce the number of abortions, it's important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies too. I, unlike you, don't blame the rise in abortions to PPH; I blame lack of education and information with regards to prevention.

Ah, now that's the great deception. Absolutely education is critical, but PP's campaign to promote "comprehensive sex education" beginning in kindergarten no less, masks the problem. To offer a take on one of Bill Clinton's lines, "it's the culture, stupid." The glorification of sex in Hollywood, on campus, the "hook-up culture" where 13 year old kids no longer wait to date but have oral sex to see if they like each other first is the problem. PP is expecting kids to handle adult situations as adults - they're KIDS for crying out loud. They advocate for "children's rights," which in other words is taking the decision out of the hands of parents, think oral and anal sex can be considered 'abstinence,' and give every child with internet access a how-to on virtually any sexual activity. Have you ever browsed their teenwire site (http://www.teenwire.com/)? Let them be kids again.


Does anyone know if condoms are biodegradable? I know the plastic packaging my pill comes in isn't... Hmmmmmmm... :p

LOL, apparently they can be (http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-02-10/goods_ecoholic.php). You know they are making biodegradable plastic bottles from corn as well, perhaps soon there will be a "cornskin for your...."

Never mind :cool:

They advocate for "children's rights," which in other words is taking the decision out of the hands of parents, think oral and anal sex can be considered 'abstinencePlanned Parenthood considers oral sex and anal sex to be abstinence? Seriously? That's pretty bad. Do they actually mention that publicly?

Planned Parenthood considers oral sex and anal sex to be abstinence? Seriously? That's pretty bad. Do they actually mention that publicly?

NK, I have actually read that on Teenwire, so if I can find the quote again I will certainly link to it.

I'll let you go to teenwire, I'd rather not do that from work. :D

I tried to find info on PP's kindergarten program, but all I saw was reference to "age appropriate information" and I think that's the key. I'll admit if I'm wrong, but my GUESS is sex ed for kids that young consists of body parts and names, which I have to objection to (if a parent does, they should be able to opt their kid out, however). The only thing I saw was this article Is your child at risk of smoking? - FamilyEducation.com (http://life.familyeducation.com/sex/teen/36172.html) which mentions "Growth education is family centered. It begins in kindergarten, with the questions: "What makes a family? What binds people together? How does it feel to be part of a community?" It recognizes the different forms that families take and emphasizes tolerance and respect." And I CERTAINLY have no problem with that. If the lesson plan entails teaching 5 year olds how to have sex, that's quite a different story, but I really, really, don't think that's the case.

So again, it's about education and involved families. If kids are taught in kindergarten and early elem. School about body parts, what a family is, communities, responsibility, then their body functions and how pregnancy occurs (obviously much of this comes for kids in later grades) they will have a basic understanding when they enter middle school. In middle school if sex ed focuses on respect for your body and yourself, alternate things to do instead of sex, and a STRONG emphasis on abstinence with mention of pregnancy prevention, they will be better prepared for high school. High school should again focus on abstinence, but focus more (than in middle school) on safe sex, disease, pregnancy, parenthood, prevention and so on. It's obvious looking at the pregnancy threads on this site kids aren't getting the education they need about safe sex - that needs to change.

As far as teens and the PP website goes, I don't object to it. Kids are curious about their bodies, and I'd rather my teen (if I had one) find information from a reliable source than from some pedo on the web. If my teen isn't sure how to masturbate, I'd rather him/her figure it out on the PP site than receive video instructions or typed directions in a chat room somewhere. Additionally, though I think many people are having sex WAY before they should be, I don't necessarily think waiting until marriage is necessary. I realize your opinion might be different, but that's why parent involvement is so critical. Also, these sites are visited by not just 13-year-olds, but also 19-year-olds, who, if well-informed might be less likely to make bad decisions. There's no reason to think that just because a kid looks at a site about how to have anal sex he/she is going to do it, and there's no reason to hide the information from them either. If we treat sex like it's a bad thing, like it's taboo, it makes it more mysterious and kids are going to gravitate toward it more. I grew up with a girl from a VERY strict religious family, she was opted out of all the sex ed programs at school and lost her virginity in 7th grade. She got pregnant the summer before 9th grade. Another friend (similar situation) got pregnant in our senior year of high school because she didn't know about safe sex and it was not spoken about in her family. I can't help but wonder if all the girls I know who have had accidental pregnancies because of not having information would have been in the same situation if sex had simply been talked about in their lives.

I wonder

If members of Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club will take a pledge to:
- no further children of their own
- abort any children they conceive or "fix" themselves so they cannot reproduce
- euthanize themselves at the age of 65


All in the name of saving the earth.


When they lead by example I'll take them seriously.

NK, I have actually read that on Teenwire, so if I can find the quote again I will certainly link to it.

I can't find the quote I recall, but what's left on the site is all over the map.


Planned Parenthood defines "abstinence" as not having any sex play at all (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2003/if-20030430p177-abstinence.php).

But...


Planned Parenthood defines "outercourse" as any kind of sex play with a partner that isn't intercourse.

And...


However, whether people who practice outercourse would be considered sexually abstinent by other people would depend (http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2000/as-20000107p028.php) entirely on each individual's definition of sexual abstinence.

Or yet...


Most people define "virginity" as not having had vaginal intercourse — but that definition leaves a lot of room (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2004/if-20040511p288-virginity.php) for other activities, like oral and anal sex.

And then...


There are two kinds of abstinence (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2000/if-20001025p087a.php) [periodic and continuous]. Both ways can prevent pregnancy by keeping a man's ejaculate and pre-ejaculate out of the vagina.

And finally...


Foreplay 411: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Not Doing It (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2007/if-20070731p497-foreplay.php)

"Outercuorse" of course is "kissing, massage, masturbation, "frottage" (rubbing bodies together), sharing fantasies — including cybersex and phone sex, anal sex play (exploring one another's anus/rectum with hands, mouths), and oral sex play," but to Planned Parenthood it is "not doing it."

NK, I have actually read that on Teenwire, so if I can find the quote again I will certainly link to it.

I found this:

Before we get into more details about abstinence, let's define our terms. People interpret "sex," "abstinence," and "outercourse" in different ways.

We take it that you mean "vaginal intercourse" when you say your friend is having "sex," even though it could mean something else. Planned Parenthood defines "sex" as any kind of sex play — from masturbation to intercourse.


Planned Parenthood defines "outercourse" as any kind of sex play with a partner that isn't intercourse.


Planned Parenthood defines "abstinence" as not having any sex play at all. Not having any sex play at all is 100 percent effective in preventing sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.
According to our definitions, Emily's friend is having outercourse, and may be at risk for sexually transmitted infection, whether or not she considers herself a virgin.


Which indicates they define abstinece as NO touchy-touchy at all.

In Focus: Abstinence: Who, What, When, Why, and How! — teenwire.com (http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2003/if-20030430p177-abstinence.php)

Speech,
I agree, parts of that site make me uncomfortable if I knew my 12 year old were browsing it. But then again, as Jillean mentions better there then hearing misinformation to promote abstinence.

If 'vegan' means vegetarian.. then they don't have to work too hard at preventing overpopulation because IMO, protein from meat is a needed building block for development of the human. The body has a way of sending signals when essential nutrition is missing to have a healthy and functioning reproductive system. An example of this is women with eating disorders such as A and B - the body reverts back and does not even ovulate in most cases.


Hi Chery, I've been working with a nutritionist on a book about diet recently. He has been teaching nutrition at Rutgers University for 50 years and is not a vegetarian himself (nor am I), but when I asked him if there was any reason not to be a vegetarian, nutritionally, he said no. He said there is nothing in meat that we can't get from plants. In fact, he added that the protein in some plants is of a better quality than what's in most of the meat that most people eat. He said meat from older animals is full of collagen and contains poorly balanced amino acids. But most Americans like meat that has fat in it and that comes from older animals. I'm not promoting vegetarianism, but I just thought that was interesting. I always thought we needed some meat too, but apparently not.
Asking

asking

True enough but it would be difficult to get the combinations of complex proteins that are contained in meat from a single plant source. You would need to consume a carefully planned combinations of legumes and other plants to get your protein requirements. It can be done obviously .

Edit . Soy beans comes the closest.

Sorry, speech, but some of your quotes are pulled out of context to make it look like PP says oral and anal can be done while still being abstinent or that they are inconsistent with their definition.

Firstly, they define abstinent as "no sex play", which you acknowledge in your first quote. Your second quote gives their definition of "outercourse" which they define as "sex play" which means they consider engaging in "outercourse" means you aren't abstinent.

Your third and fourth quotes reference what OTHER people define "abstinent" as, not PP.

Your fifth quote is taken WAY out of context. "Periodic abstinence" is for women who are learning their cycles so they abstain during their fertile times (adults who want to use the rhythm method), and they note it does NOT protect against STDs and they don't recommend teens use it. "Continuous abstinence" is no sex play at all, which they proceed to list the benefits of. In neither case do they say oral/anal "doesn't count"

Your last quote doesn't have anything to do with abstinence, it just defines intercourse and outercourse. Kissing, touching, etc is NOT intercourse, so it's NOT "doing it" but it's also NOT being abstinent. No where does the article say you can do these things and call yourself abstinent.

I add it all up and yes, they believe abortions help save the environment, even if they don't explicitly say so.

So it's your opinion that that's what they mean. That's fine. We are all entitled to an opinion.

Did you lose your dog recently? It's makes me feel sad for you every time I see that line about missing your dog at the end of your posts.
Asking

I say good for the vegans. I didn't want their dumb kids on my planet anyway. :)

I say good for the vegans. I didn't want their dumb kids on my planet anyway. :)

I feel uncomfortable with the amount of hostility in this thread. It's not typical of other threads I've seen at AMHD. I assume you don't literally hate the children of people who don't happen to eat hamburgers... I mean why would anyone even care what someone doesn't eat? (I don't eat avocados; am I in trouble? :) ) Do you assume that all vegans have beliefs you strongly disagree with?
Asking

I feel uncomfortable with the amount of hostility in this thread. It's not typical of other threads I've seen at AMHD. I assume you don't literally hate the children of people who don't happen to eat hamburgers... I mean why would anyone even care what someone doesn't eat?? (I don't eat avocados; am I in trouble?? :) ) Do you assume that all vegans have beliefs you strongly disagree with?
Asking

I could be wrong, but I think he meant the kids of the vegans in the OP. :)

I feel uncomfortable with the amount of hostility in this thread. It's not typical of other threads I've seen at AMHD. I assume you don't literally hate the children of people who don't happen to eat hamburgers... I mean why would anyone even care what someone doesn't eat?? (I don't eat avocados; am I in trouble?? :) ) Do you assume that all vegans have beliefs you strongly disagree with?
Asking


I meant specifically the vegans in the OP. I meant it as a joke though hence the :). It's more of a reference to past posts I've made about wanting an ethical way to get dumb people not to breed and I thought the vegans in the OP kind of fit the dumb part so I said good for them.

And as far as the my planet part well... thats just a matter of time. I want to make sure when I'm in charge it's still worth something. It's like washing the bird poop off a car that your about to buy it's not your car right now but you plan for it to be your car so you don't want the poop stain.:)

And as far as the my planet part well....thats just a matter of time. I want to make sure when I'm in charge it's still worth something. It's like washing the bird poop off a car that your about to buy it's not your car right now but you plan for it to be your car so you don't want the poop stain.:)


I'll take this as a statement of your plans for world domination then. :)
Or do we all get a chance to be in charge of the planet at some point? Did I miss my turn?? Hey, wait!

Anyway, thanks for explaining. :)
Asking

Total world domination, I mean if I'm going to set goals I figured I'd start with a low one and go from there.

I tried to find info on PP's kindergarten program, but all I saw was reference to "age appropriate information" and I think that's the key. I'll admit if I'm wrong, but my GUESS is sex ed for kids that young consists of body parts and names, which I have to objection to (if a parent does, they should be able to opt their kid out, however). The only thing I saw was this article

That's just it Jillean, who knows what PP's sex education programs are because in public they are extremely vague about what that is and they are purposely very cautious in their choice of words when discussing it. However, this is their belief:


Ideally, sexuality education is taught in ways that are age- and experience-appropriate in kindergarten through 12th grade (.pdf) (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/education-REAL-WhatYou.pdf).

What exactly is "age appropriate" and what exactly is "experience appropriate" in kindergarten? And absolutely if they do provide sex ed in school parents should be able to opt out, but PP doesn't seem to believe parents should have any say so.


So again, it's about education and involved families.

The last part is the key.


As far as teens and the PP website goes, I don't object to it. Kids are curious about their bodies, and I'd rather my teen (if I had one) find information from a reliable source than from some pedo on the web.

Of course that's your prerogative, but knowing what I do about PP, I believe they are one of the most destructive, subversive organizations in the world and I would never, under any circumstance knowingly allow a child of mine to get ANYTHING from them. I care more about people than to trust anything of any of any importance to that group. Besides my other objections, here's my number one reason why - had it not been for PP my daughter might be healthy and we might have a grandchild. I can only imagine how many others have been through as much thanks in part to their attitude and their ineptitude.

I feel uncomfortable with the amount of hostility in this thread. It's not typical of other threads I've seen at AMHD. I assume you don't literally hate the children of people who don't happen to eat hamburgers... I mean why would anyone even care what someone doesn't eat?? (I don't eat avocados; am I in trouble?? :) ) Do you assume that all vegans have beliefs you strongly disagree with?
Asking

Sorry asking, I don't feel I've been hostile though I can see what you might consider hostile, but then part of this was meant to make someone uncomfortable. :)

Sorry, speech, but some of your quotes are pulled out of context to make it look like PP says oral and anal can be done while still being abstinent or that they are inconsistent with their definition.

As I said Jillean, I can't find the particular quote I recalled but it was there. You missed the key to the last quote, the title of the article is "Foreplay 411: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Not Doing It."

I thought that was self explanatory, isn't "abstinence" the same as "not doing it?"

Speechlesstx,

I know you personally dislike PP and I understand why you do but I have to say I just don't see the evil in it that you do.

So it's your opinion that that's what they mean. That's fine. We are all entitled to an opinion.

This would be an interesting exercise, ask both groups to work out their goal of population control and a sustainable environment without abortion and see what happens. :D


Did you lose your dog recently? It's makes me feel sad for you every time I see that line about missing your dog at the end of your posts.
Asking

Awww, don't feel sad, but after 5 months I do still miss my dog very much. It's a small tribute to a great dog... but I won't keep it up there forever. :)

Speechlesstx,

I know you personally dislike PP and I understand why you do but I have to say I just don't see the evil in it that you do.

And nobody says you have to either :) Still, if I can convince one person not to go to PP and have an abortion, if just one child gets a chance at life that wouldn't have otherwise, if one teen's life is not wrecked because of PP's influence...

Speech,
I agree, parts of that site make me uncomfortable if I knew my 12 year old were browsing it. But then again, as Jillean mentions better there then hearing misinformation to promote abstinence.

Lo and behold NK, we have finally found at least a little common ground :)

What exactly is "age appropriate" and what exactly is "experience appropriate" in kindergarten? And absolutely if they do provide sex ed in school parents should be able to opt out, but PP doesn't seem to believe parents should have any say so.


I agree, I wish they would publicize their plans for education through the years, it certainly would make it easier to agree/disagree with it. I mean, I see no problem teaching young kids about the human body and so on (as I outlined in my other post) but perhaps other people have a different idea. It's important to know.


Of course that's your prerogative, but knowing what I do about PP, I believe they are one of the most destructive, subversive organizations in the world and I would never, under any circumstance knowingly allow a child of mine to get ANYTHING from them. I care more about people than to trust anything of any of any importance to that group. Besides my other objections, here's my number one reason why - had it not been for PP my daughter might be healthy and we might have a grandchild. I can only imagine how many others have been through as much thanks in part to their attitude and their ineptitude.

I know, I remember your mention of your experience with PP involving your daughter, and it's really a tragedy such a thing happened. Nothing I, or anyone else can say is going to redeem the organization to you, and that's fine. I just happen to look at the organization and their misson in a different way. Are there going to be mistakes? Bad employees? Corrupt branches? As with any large corporation - of course. But I don't think that makes the mission of the over all organization bad. PP deals with people who have already MADE their choices and as a result are in a bad position. Given the nature of their work and the controversy surrounding it (not just abortion, but also handing out condoms, birth control) they are bound to make enemies.


I thought that was self explanatory, isn't "abstinence" the same as "not doing it?"

Well now I have to sound like Bill Clinton... :o It depends on what the definition is "it" is. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Seriously though, "doing it" is commonly thought of as "having sex"; "it" is intercourse. So abstinence is the same as "not doing it" but "not doing it" is not the same as abstinence. If abstinence is abstaining from ALL sex play, that includes "doing it". NOT "doing it" only means NOT having intercourse, which is not, by definition, abstinence. Now maybe this is getting too far into semantics and linguistics and logic than you care to go, but forgive me, I'm taking a logic class so I've been thinking this way for a grade for three months now! :) I could probably go into a long explanation about necessary condition and blah blah blah if you really want, but it's probably not that important!

I know, I remember your mention of your experience with PP involving your daughter, and it's really a tragedy such a thing happened. Nothing I, or anyone else can say is going to redeem the organization to you, and that's fine. I just happen to look at the organization and their misson in a different way. Are there going to be mistakes? Bad employees? Corrupt branches? As with any large corporation - of course. But I don't think that makes the mission of the over all organization bad. PP deals with people who have already MADE their choices and as a result are in a bad position. Given the nature of their work and the controversy surrounding it (not just abortion, but also handing out condoms, birth control) they are bound to make enemies.


I just wanted to agree, but for some reason can't rate your post. AMDH seems to be acting weird today for me. Anyway, I like this. You made some good points throughout this thread.
Asking

I agree, I wish they would publicize their plans for education through the years, it certainly would make it easier to agree/disagree with it. I mean, I see no problem teaching young kids about the human body and so on (as I outlined in my other post) but perhaps other people have a different idea. It's important to know.

Sure, in spite of my experience I would at least have some respect for them if they would be open instead of purposely vague. We have these opinion page wars here several times a year where the local chapter comes out and preaches their virtues while denying any role in abortions, and that's dishonest and despicable. I know better. We all know better, so why deny it?


Well now I have to sound like Bill Clinton... :o

I guess that makes two of us (please don't tell anyone I borrowed from Clinton ) :D

I just wanted to agree, but for some reason can't rate your post. AMDH seems to be acting weird today for me. Anyway, I like this. You made some good points throughout this thread.
Asking

I don't think you get to rate people on the member discussion board, just the question boards :)

Sure, in spite of my experience I would at least have some respect for them if they would be open instead of purposely vague. We have these opinion page wars here several times a year where the local chapter comes out and preaches their virtues while denying any role in abortions, and that's dishonest and despicable. I know better. We all know better, so why deny it?

I'll admit, I have no personal experience with PP, which is why I say I agree with their mission, because I think the IDEA is a great one. The execution? I think that's going to depend on the circumstance and the parties involved. Based on what I've seen on their site, however, they provide factual, clear, honest information about sexual and reproductive health, and I think that's a GREAT thing. There are far too many websites out there with bad information on them, at least you can be assured if a teen (or adult)goes to PP's site and looks up anal sex they'll find out they can still contract STDs. If your local chapter is denying they perform abortions that is dishonest and should certainly be looked into by the higher ups in the organization. PP exists, they do what they do, there's no reason to lie about it. I think most pro-life people would agree it's worse for them to do abortions and LIE than to do them and just be honest.


I guess that makes two of us (please don't tell anyone I borrowed from Clinton ) :D

'scuze me, I have to make a run to the politics board... :D

I don't think you get to rate people on the member discussion board, just the question boards :)

Thanks. So since I'm relatively new, in what other ways is it different?

Thanks. So since I'm relatively new, in what other ways is it different?

This is kind of where we can let it all hang out, the lounge if you will. Post an article, get a little silly - things not specifically for a Q&A format on specific topics.

This is kind of where we can let it all hang out, the lounge if you will. Post an article, get a little silly - things not specifically for a Q&A format on specific topics.

Ah. That explains a lot! I was still in ask-an-actual-question, stick-to-the-facts answer mode. I see now I wandered into a new place.:)

I'd just like to say that PP probably saved my butt as a teen.

My mother would NOT talk to me about sex--her whole stance (and the stance of millions of parents of teens everywhere) was simply "don't have sex. Period."

I wasn't asking her permission.

I knew the risks of having sex, and wanted to reduce those risks. My mother would not take me to the doctor, talk to me about the feelings I was having (sexual and emotional) because she felt that at 16 I was still a little girl (she was a mother at my age, btw) and didn't need to know about it.

Planned Parenthood got me on birth control, explained about my monthly cycle, explained how pregnancy happened, and explained the different forms of birth control, the reasons that birth control fails, and ways to protect myself, not only from pregnancy and STDs, but from being coerced into having sex before I was ready.

My abstinence-focused sex education in the public school, in the middle school and high school levels, was basically--don't have sex. If you have sex, you'll get this disease (show picture), this disease (show another picture) and pregnant.

When I *did* become pregnant as a teen, PP walked me through ALL of my options, giving me contact information for adoption agencies and government agencies that would help me with raising my child if I chose to parent. At NO TIME did they EVER pressure me into an abortion, though they did let me know that was an option.

Unlike my family (who pressured me to parent) and the adoption agency (whose money is made from ADOPTIVE parents--so getting their hands on babies was their JOB) who pressured me to choose adoption, and my boyfriend who pressured me to get an abortion--Planned Parenthood held me while I cried, and was there for me over the phone and in person when everything was too much for me.

When I had no insurance in my 20s, PP made it possible for me to afford birth control.

As far as abortions go--the only person who can decide whether an abortion is bad is the person HAVING it. Far too many Pro-Lifers have had abortions for me to take them seriously. Apparently the only moral abortion is the abortion that a pro-lifer is having, hmm?

Just my pennies on this--but I can't believe that PP would promote abortion. Every experience I've ever had with them has me believing that they CARE about the health of women who can't get affordable care elsewhere, and they heavily promote safe sex/birth control. They PROVIDE abortions--I'm not denying that. But where else can you GET an abortion these days? If you really need one (and please--we all know of situations where getting an abortion is a valid choice), in many states Planned Parenthood is the ONLY provider of abortions.

I'd just like to say that PP probably saved my butt as a teen.

I'll be among the first pro-lifers to say PP does some good things, but I cannot tolerate their agenda.


When I *did* become pregnant as a teen, PP walked me through ALL of my options, giving me contact information for adoption agencies and government agencies that would help me with raising my child if I chose to parent. At NO TIME did they EVER pressure me into an abortion, though they did let me know that was an option.

I'm sure much has to do with the chapter one visits.


As far as abortions go--the only person who can decide whether an abortion is bad is the person HAVING it. Far too many Pro-Lifers have had abortions for me to take them seriously. Apparently the only moral abortion is the abortion that a pro-lifer is having, hmm?

That's a low blow on pro-lifers. How many of them had an abortion and regretted it? My daughter is one, she lives with the self-imposed guilt and regret every day, and I have sat with friends as they mourned what they had done decades earlier.


Just my pennies on this--but I can't believe that PP would promote abortion.

I guess you missed my statistics earlier, "PP reports 519,958 abortion procedures in their 2005-2006 annual report, a 9.4 percent increase over the 2002-2003 numbers, which were a 6.1 percent increase from the previous period."

They claim to want to make abortions "rare" but the numbers keep going up. I find that inconsistent.

I guess you missed my statistics earlier, "PP reports 519,958 abortion procedures in their 2005-2006 annual report, a 9.4 percent increase over the 2002-2003 numbers, which were a 6.1 percent increase from the previous period."

They claim to want to make abortions "rare" but the numbers keep going up. I find that inconsistent.Reporting statistics does not mean they promote it - that's quite a reach there.

speech, I think synnen was referring to this article:

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" (http://www.electric-escape.net/node/1195)

When she said the only moral abortion is a pro-lifers abortion. I posted it on another thread a few months ago. By no means is it representative of ALL pro-lifers, but it does expose a double-standard that some of the most vocal protesters have.

synnen, if that's not what you were referring to, sorry for interjecting!

Yup... that's exactly it, Jillian.

And while millions of women regret abortion---millions ALSO regret choosing adoption. I'm sure there are millions of parents that regret starting to parent as a teenager, too, but who could NEVER admit it because the censure of regretting having a kid is sooooo huge. No parent would EVER admit that having a child was something they regretted, no matter how much they loved the child--because loving a child and regretting the timing of it are 2 different things, you know.

But--you never hear those statistics, because there's not an agenda behind them like there is for the pro-life group regarding the regrets of abortion.

That isn't to say that the emotional pain of ANY of those women with regrets about the way a pregnancy ended up is not valid--because it is. But using personal emotional pain to push someone to make a decision different than your own is not the right answer either. Making people aware of the consequences of their choices is one thing--making people not HAVE your choice is something different entirely.

As far as the number of abortions increasing--do you have the statistics about the number of pregnancies in general increasing? And the age groups involved? How about the statistics about single-parenthood increasing? And the statistics about the number of young mothers on welfare? How about the statistics on adoptions? Foster care? Child abuse by young mothers? Do you have statistics about the number of those women who didn't learn anything about birth control in school, because their school has an abstinence based program (and despite what you say--telling kids about birth control isn't telling them to have sex. That's like saying telling kids about McDonalds makes them fat)? Sure--the number of abortions may have increased--but the number of areas it was available may have increased, or the number of pregnancies in general may have increased. A stand-alone statistic about the number of abortions going up doesn't tell me the whole story. That's just a number that is used to upset and anger people--it's like saying the number of deaths due to some horrible irresponsible use of Q-tips has gone up 400% over last year--well, if there was only ONE last year, then all it takes is 4 more to make up 400%. Do you see what I mean? Statistics are numbers that mean nothing on their own. If 100 women had an abortion last year, then a 9% increase would mean that 9 more women had an abortion this year than last year. Sure, that's an increase... but without the statistics about how many more PREGNANCIES there were, the statistic means nothing.

And while millions of women regret abortion---millions ALSO regret choosing adoption. I'm sure there are millions of parents that regret starting to parent as a teenager, too, but who could NEVER admit it because the censure of regretting having a kid is sooooo huge. No parent would EVER admit that having a child was something they regretted, no matter how much they loved the child--because loving a child and regretting the timing of it are 2 different things, you know.

But--you never hear those statistics, because there's not an agenda behind them like there is for the pro-life group regarding the regrets of abortion.

That isn't to say that the emotional pain of ANY of those women with regrets about the way a pregnancy ended up is not valid--because it is. But using personal emotional pain to push someone to make a decision different than your own is not the right answer either. Making people aware of the consequences of their choices is one thing--making people not HAVE your choice is something different entirely.

Really nice post...
Asking

Aborting children to save the planet
SURVIVAL OF THE STUPIDEST
Kathleen Parker

Washington Post Writer's Group

November 28, 2007

Hey, did you hear the one about the woman who aborted her kid so she could save the planet?

That's no joke, but Darwin must be chuckling somewhere.

Toni Vernelli was one of two women recently featured in a London Daily Mail story about environmentalists who take their carbon footprint very, very seriously.

So seriously, in fact, that Vernelli aborted a pregnancy and, by age 27, had herself sterilized. Baby-making, she says, is "selfish" and "all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet."

Because Toni and her husband, Ed, are childless and vegan, they say they can justify one long-haul airplane trip per year and still remain carbon neutral.

Sarah Irving is another like-minded nature-nurturer. She and fiancé Mark Hudson decided on him having a vasectomy to prevent the possibility of an inconvenient life interfering with their carbon-perfect ones.

Those of us who have managed to see a pregnancy through to birth recognize the irony of these tales.

If we're not saving the planet for our kids, for whom are we saving it? After we're all sterilized and aborted, who's going to appreciate the fact that global warming is, by golly, under control? Who's going to live to tell the tale?

Tell me: When was the last time you read a good book by a polar bear?

Human beings may unconsciously wish to maintain their genetic line, but that's not the reason most people have children. OK, most of us have children because we get pregnant. But otherwise, the planet -- glorious as it is -- is simply not that much fun with no one around.

The authors of the newspaper story seemed to have a sense of something gone awry, but I don't share their nostalgia for "innocent eyes gazing up . . . with unconditional love" and "a little hand slipping into hers -- and a voice calling her Mummy."

Those little pleasures are for all to cherish in their own private moments. Please.

What I'm nostalgic for is sanity.

The couples who choose abortion and sterilization may not save the planet, but they're saving the gene pool a mess o' trouble by purging their own from the mix. The Darwin Awards folks, who honor those who improve the species by accidentally removing themselves from it, will have to create a new category:

People Too Narcissistic To Procreate.

Far be it from me to suggest that people must have children to be content or to contribute to life on Earth. But abortion should never be confused with a selfless act. It is clearly the ultimate and most-vivid expression of the opposite.

Raising children is quantifiably the most persistently unselfish act known to mankind, as millions of veterans of sleepless nights will attest. Parenthood is when "I" takes a backseat to "thou" -- when the infant-self submits to adulthood so that the real infant gets a necessary turn at the well of self-importance.

Although I doubt there are many willing to sterilize themselves in order to reduce the size of their carbon footprint, such extreme materialism is the evolutionary product of our gradual commodification of human life.

Suddenly, the unborn is of no greater importance than the contents of our recycling bin. Like Weight Watchers dieters substituting carbs for sugars, we trade off future members of the human race to neutralize insults to Earth's balance in the present.
Here's how the mental calculation goes: Let's see, if I abort my child, maybe I can travel first-class to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali.

Is this the slippery slope that pro-lifers prophesied? Once such utilitarian concerns edge out our humanity -- and once human life is deemed to have no greater value than any other life form -- how long before we begin tidying up other inconveniences?

Wouldn't it be helpful to eliminate some of the less productive members of society who, like the cows they no doubt eat, are emitting hazardous methane, one of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming?

That seems an absurd projection, but then not long ago, so did the aborting of babies to thwart global warming. The deeply caring, meanwhile, are always the ones to watch. Tenderness, it has been said, leads to the gas chambers.

On a lighter note, we might have avoided all such concerns if only the mothers of Toni, Ed, Sarah and Mark had been as "virtuous" as they are.




Kathleen Parker can be reached at [email protected].

Aborting children to save the planet -- OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker2807nov28,0,2337771.column)

They are fanatics everywhere. They are not representative any group.

Reporting statistics does not mean they promote it - that's quite a reach there.

NK, I searched and nowhere did I say PP promotes abortion, that was the words of the original article. Of course they don't "promote" abortion, they promote "reproductive health care." What I said was it is inconsistent to claim a goal of "making abortions rare" while the numbers of abortions they provide keep increasing. The statistics - directly from PP itself - don't lie.

I also said it would be an interesting exercise to ask PP and the Sierra Club to take abortion off the table as a means of achieving their "global reproductive health" and "sustainable environment" goals and see what happens.

Yup... that's exactly it, Jillian.

Still a low blow to pro-lifers...


"several abortions"
"several cases"
"a woman who had been a regular"
"our share of anti-choice women"
"a woman"
"a patient"
"this born-again Christian"
"sister of a Dutch bishop"
"a patient about ten years ago"
"once had a German client"
"her condom had broken so she had no choice"
"A 21 year old woman and her mother"
"a 37 year old woman"
"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time"

Exactly how many does that account for? There are hypocrites in every walk of life, but "a woman," "a patient," "this born-again Christian" and "several" is hardly representative of the pro-life movement, and I doubt many that do resort to an abortion are happy about it. In fact, it's more like the closing point makes, "On occasion, an abortion turns out to be a momentous, life-affirming experience."


And while millions of women regret abortion---millions ALSO regret choosing adoption.

Regret it how? Of not having had an abortion or regretting the decision not to keep the child?


But--you never hear those statistics, because there's not an agenda behind them like there is for the pro-life group regarding the regrets of abortion.

That isn't to say that the emotional pain of ANY of those women with regrets about the way a pregnancy ended up is not valid--because it is. But using personal emotional pain to push someone to make a decision different than your own is not the right answer either. Making people aware of the consequences of their choices is one thing--making people not HAVE your choice is something different entirely.

I'm sorry but to me this is a no-brainer. How can anyone complain of an "agenda" of saving the life of a child and helping people avoid the guilt and regret of taking the life of their child? I was unaware that the pro-life agenda was "using personal emotional pain to push someone to make a decision." If you're speaking of me specifically all I am doing is relating my experience, which is the pain of sitting in an ICU unit praying for your daughter for weeks at a time and mourning the loss of what may be your only chance at holding a grandson or granddaughter. Darn right that's emotional pain and I care enough about others that I don't want them to go through that pain.

To me that's far more noble than calling people that care about people "dangerous," "extremist" and labeling the taking of innocent life as "health care," or using asinine, fear-mongering articles such as this (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/abortion-access/abortion-wars-6161.htm)that misrepresent us entirely.


As far as the number of abortions increasing--do you have the statistics about the number of pregnancies in general increasing? And the age groups involved? How about the statistics about single-parenthood increasing? And the statistics about the number of young mothers on welfare? How about the statistics on adoptions? Foster care? Child abuse by young mothers?

I'm certain PP would have those statistics, they are masters at using them to their advantage while not only blaming abstinence education and obfuscating their role in the increase in teen pregnancies and such.


Do you have statistics about the number of those women who didn't learn anything about birth control in school, because their school has an abstinence based program (and despite what you say--telling kids about birth control isn't telling them to have sex. That's like saying telling kids about McDonalds makes them fat)?

To be fair, I don't know what the abstinence based education programs contain, but I'd bet BOTH sides have work to do on the education front. Neither side is going to solve anything with education, it's the culture that has to change which I've already said.


Sure--the number of abortions may have increased--but the number of areas it was available may have increased, or the number of pregnancies in general may have increased. A stand-alone statistic about the number of abortions going up doesn't tell me the whole story. That's just a number that is used to upset and anger people--it's like saying the number of deaths due to some horrible irresponsible use of Q-tips has gone up 400% over last year--well, if there was only ONE last year, then all it takes is 4 more to make up 400%. Do you see what I mean? Statistics are numbers that mean nothing on their own. If 100 women had an abortion last year, then a 9% increase would mean that 9 more women had an abortion this year than last year. Sure, that's an increase... but without the statistics about how many more PREGNANCIES there were, the statistic means nothing.

Come on Synnen, I didn't come here to "upset and anger people," although I'm not above a little ridicule for the two idiots in the original post that are excited about helping the environment through their abortion. :D

519,958 abortion procedures, a 9.4 percent increase which were a 6.1 percent increase from the previous period is more than 4 more Q-tips. And as I've said for the third time now is inconsistent with the claim to want to make abortions "rare."

The thing is--the desire to make abortions rare goes along with education.

It's not up to ME to teach anyone's kids but my own morals. It's also not right for me to force my morals on the general populace (although--I think MY radical changes would make more of a change than the average persons; of course I do, they're MY changes!).

While I agree that the original article is ridiculous--the idea of NOT having kids to save the earth isn't a bad one. Too many people have more kids than they can handle, and population just keeps getting huger and huger worldwide. The societal change that would make the greatest impact on stopping abortions is mandatory birth control for everyone age 12 and up--you hit puberty, and you're on birth control until you pass a test that shows you could be a decent parent. But--people scream out against that, saying that it violates their "rights" to have children. Sorry--I don't think having kids is a right. It's a privilege.

As far as regrets with adoption--I've had regrets in both directions with mine, thanks. Sometimes I wish I HAD had an abortion, though the thought is only fleeting, simply because at least THEN I would have closure. Sometimes I wish I'd parented. More than anything, though, I regret that no one could possibly explain to me that being a birth parent would still hurt years later, and that no one NOT a birth parent would ever understand that.

Regardless the reasons that SOME people have abortions, there ARE valid reasons to have one (like, for instance, extreme birth defects that would leave the child dead shortly after being born, or the mental/physical health of the mother was in danger). Not everyone who has had an abortion did it for "birth control". Because SOME people have valid reasons for abortion, it's necessary to leave the option open to ALL people.

If you don't believe in abortion--great! Don't have one. Teach YOUR kids that it's wrong. Teach YOUR grandkids that it's wrong. Impress your morals on YOUR family. I personally don't believe that life begins at conception. Sorry.

What exactly would YOU propose--OTHER than making abortion illegal (because they'd STILL happen)--to "make abortions rare"? Unfortunately, PP is in a position where they are the premier provider of abortions, simply because no one else will do them in most areas. I think their services are invaluable, especially to teen and college age students whose parents would not rationally talk to them about sex, but just freak out and lock them in a closet.

I realize I'm rambling a little... but I did try to address each of your points, just maybe not in order. It's been a very long day for me, and I apologize if I am not clear, or if my tone comes across as insulting. This is an interesting debate from both sides to me, and I believe you to be intelligent enough to continue it with me.

Here is the answer:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5484&stc=1&d=1196736402

The thing is--the desire to make abortions rare goes along with education.

After all these decades of "education" are unwanted pregnancies in decline? I'm just asking...


It's not up to ME to teach anyone's kids but my own morals. It's also not right for me to force my morals on the general populace (although--I think MY radical changes would make more of a change than the average persons; of course I do, they're MY changes!).

Bingo! It is not PP's place to teach their morals to our kids.


While I agree that the original article is ridiculous--the idea of NOT having kids to save the earth isn't a bad one. Too many people have more kids than they can handle, and population just keeps getting huger and huger worldwide.

I don't disagree that people who shouldn't be having kids are having kids, but we are treading on very precarious ground in discussing population control - which by the way, the rate of growth peaked in the 80's (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html) and is still in decline.


The societal change that would make the greatest impact on stopping abortions is mandatory birth control for everyone age 12 and up--you hit puberty, and you're on birth control until you pass a test that shows you could be a decent parent. But--people scream out against that, saying that it violates their "rights" to have children. Sorry--I don't think having kids is a right. It's a privilege.

Wow, mandatory birth control. Talk about taking away rights, and it has nothing to with any "right" to have children. It is the right to raise your children your way, the right of parents to be parents. How can anyone that supports "choice" advocate mandatory birth control? Do you not see a hint of inconsistency in forcing birth control on every child and supporting a woman's right to choose an abortion?


As far as regrets with adoption--I've had regrets in both directions with mine, thanks. Sometimes I wish I HAD had an abortion, though the thought is only fleeting, simply because at least THEN I would have closure. Sometimes I wish I'd parented. More than anything, though, I regret that no one could possibly explain to me that being a birth parent would still hurt years later, and that no one NOT a birth parent would ever understand that.

I applaud you for giving your child up for adoption rather than abortion. I can't offer closure but I can suggest that choice was probably a tremendous blessing to someone else and you gave a child a chance. There has to be some joy in that.


Regardless the reasons that SOME people have abortions, there ARE valid reasons to have one (like, for instance, extreme birth defects that would leave the child dead shortly after being born, or the mental/physical health of the mother was in danger). Not everyone who has had an abortion did it for "birth control". Because SOME people have valid reasons for abortion, it's necessary to leave the option open to ALL people.

I'm under no illusion that abortion will ever be outlawed, I think it's an uncomfortable, often disturbing fact of life now.


If you don't believe in abortion--great! Don't have one. Teach YOUR kids that it's wrong. Teach YOUR grandkids that it's wrong. Impress your morals on YOUR family. I personally don't believe that life begins at conception. Sorry.

That's great, I wouldn't impress my morals on your kids against your will and expect the same in return. I expect that from Planned Parenthood as well, but they are under the impression that they know better than parents what to teach their kids and they intend to do so regardless of the parent's wishes. They fight for their curriculum in schools from kindergarten up, they fight against parental notification for minors seeking their services, and I'm fed up with their agenda to undermine parental authority.

Whether life begins at conception is a topic for another discussion, but if doesn't, just what is growing inside the womb? A rock?


What exactly would YOU propose--OTHER than making abortion illegal (because they'd STILL happen)--to "make abortions rare"? Unfortunately, PP is in a position where they are the premier provider of abortions, simply because no one else will do them in most areas. I think their services are invaluable, especially to teen and college age students whose parents would not rationally talk to them about sex, but just freak out and lock them in a closet.

I don't know that there is a 'solution' but as I've said for I think the third time now it's the culture (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2007/11/16/dying_to_date?page=full&comments=true), a culture which PP promotes.


I realize I'm rambling a little... but I did try to address each of your points, just maybe not in order. It's been a very long day for me, and I apologize if I am not clear, or if my tone comes across as insulting. This is an interesting debate from both sides to me, and I believe you to be intelligent enough to continue it with me.

Hey, I appreciate your passion and enjoy a good discussion. I don't normally address each point of a long post but yours was worth digging into. Hope you got to relax and unwind a little after your long day ;)

Earlier, there was some question as to whether abortions have been increasing or decreasing. So I looked it up. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), both the total number of abortions and the abortion rate have declined pretty much steadily since 1990.

I looked at reports on abortion from the CDC as of 2000, 2003, and 2004.
E.g. Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm)

In 2000, abortion rates had been declining steadily. Half of abortions were for women under 25 years old, 57% white, and 81% unmarried. And 58% are done earlier than 8 weeks, when the embryo has not yet formed all its organs and is approximately half an inch long. 88% were performed earlier than 13 weeks, when the fetus has completed organ formation but most organs do not yet function and it is about two and a half inches. Over time, says the CDC, more and more abortions have been performed at a very early age, before 6 weeks--which is safer for the mother and, for most people, less fraught with ethical questions since early embryos do not feel any pain. For those who feel that ensoulment occurs at fertilization in the fallopian tubes, there is no acceptable abortion.

A small percentage of abortions occur after 15 weeks (when the fetus grows rapidly to about 5 inches and looks more human). Everyone agrees that these cases are upsetting. As of 2000, 4.3% of abortions occurred between 16 and 20 weeks. (21 weeks is the earliest it is sometimes possible to keep a fetus/baby alive outside the womb.) Only 1.3% of abortions were performed at 21 weeks or later.

Roe v. Wade allows states to regulate abortions after the fetus becomes viable--between 21 and 28 weeks, in both the second and third trimesters, as long as an exception is made to save the life of the mother. Roe asks for legal access only to early abortions, although in some states those are difficult to get, too.

A more recent CDC report (2003) states:
"Teen pregnancy rates have reached historic lows dropping 25 percent from 1990 to 1999. The birth rate dropped 19 percent and the abortion rate was down 39 percent in this age group. More recent data indicate the teen birth rate has continued to drop through 2002 -– down 28 percent."
N C H S - 2003 Fact Sheet - Revised Pregnancy Rates, 1990-97, and New Rates for 1998-99 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/pregbirths.htm)

Most people who get late abortions are teenagers. In fact, the younger the woman, the later the abortion--on average. So reducing teen pregnancy through sex education, availability of birth control, abstinence for young girls, and protecting young girls from sexual abuse by males in the extended family can all reduce the number of late-term abortions.

I'm assuming that's something everyone would agree is good?
Asking

Thanks for the legwork, asking. Just a few things here, I have been specifically discussing Planned Parenthood's abortion rates, which are increasing. Secondly, this confirms what I said earlier about birth rates being in decline. Finally, I am all for reducing teen pregnancy, unbiased sex education including rational abstinence education, ending sex abuse. But I am against the PP agenda of interfering in parental decisions and the culture they espouse, promote and helped create.

But I am against the PP agenda of interfering in parental decisions and the culture they espouse, promote and helped create.It was subtle but I think we picked up on that.

It was subtle but I think we picked up on that.

NK, you sure I don't need to smack y'all upside the head with it again? :D

Nah, I was much for heavy handed preaching.

Nah, I was much for heavy handed preaching.

I don't care for heavy handed preaching either, but no sense in holding back on some things. :)

Not only does having kids mess with the environment, so does divorce:


Divorce adds to strain on environment and resources (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NATION/712040304/1020/rss09)
Randolph E. Schmid / Detroit News wire services

WASHINGTON -- "Save water, shower together," young people proclaimed a few years ago. Turns out, they were right.

Americans spend an extra $3.6 billion annually on water as a result of the extra households created when people divorce, estimated Jianguo Liu, an ecologist at Michigan State University.

In countries around the world, divorce rates have been rising, and each time a family dissolves, the result usually is two households, said Liu, whose analysis of the environmental impact of divorce appears in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"A married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household," Liu said. Households with fewer people are not as efficient as those with more people sharing, he added.

The United States had 16.5 million households headed by a divorced person in 2005 and more than 60 million households headed by a married person.

Divorced households spent more per person for electricity than a married household, as multiple people can watch the same television, listen to the same radio, cook on the same stove and/or eat under the same lights.

That means $6.9 billion in extra utility costs per year, Liu calculated, in addition to the extra $3.6 billion for water, plus the other costs such as land use.

Lester Brown, president of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute, said the study's finding made sense, but it is hard to craft public policies to address the problem of the increasing number of households.

"Shifting to more energy-efficient appliances is the answer, not trying to prevent divorce or trying to make divorce more difficult," he said.

Some environmentalists said divorcées might look at their situation as a chance to lessen their environmental impact by moving in with family, getting a roommate or renting an apartment in the city.

Jim Jewell, the chief operating officer of the Evangelical Environmental Network, a Christian conservation group based in Suwanee, Ga. said the study's revelations, while interesting, will have no effect on the way he advises couples.

"When we sit down and counsel somebody not to get divorced, the fact that they would need two refrigerators would be so far down the line that it wouldn't even register," he said.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

Geez, who thinks up these studies? And why does the environment keep taking precedence over people?

Save the earth - don't have sex

save the earth - don't have sex

Now that's taking it way too far :eek:

Now that's taking it way too far :eek:

Yup! :)

Update:


First Rise in U.S. Teen Births Since '91 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNr8EfEubvWa5704kidhUIPhvkiwD8TBJF081)

By MIKE STOBBE – 15 hours ago

ATLANTA (AP) — In a troubling reversal, the nation's teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years, surprising government health officials and reviving the bitter debate about abstinence-only sex education.

The birth rate had been dropping since its peak in 1991, although the decline had slowed in recent years. On Wednesday, government statisticians said it rose 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.

The reason for the increase is not clear, and federal health officials said it might be a one-year statistical blip, not the beginning of a new upward trend.

However, some experts said they have been expecting a jump. They blamed it on increased federal funding for abstinence-only health education that doesn't teach teens how to use condoms and other contraception.

Some key sexually transmitted disease rates have been rising, including syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The rising teen pregnancy rate is part of the same phenomenon, said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.

"It's not rocket science," she said.

At the same time, some research suggests teens are using condoms far more often than they did 15 years ago.

The new teen birth numbers are based on the 15-19 age group of women, which accounted for most of the 440,000 births to teens in 2006. The rate rose to nearly 42 births per 1,000 in that group, up from 40.5 in 2005. That translates to an extra 20,000 births to teen mothers.

In 1991, the peak year for teen births, there were nearly 62 births per 1,000.

The new report is based on a review of more than 99 percent of the birth certificates from last year by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The report, released Wednesday, quickly took on political implications.

Opponents of abstinence-based programs seized on the data as evidence of wrong-headed government policy.

"Congress needs to stop knee-jerk approving abstinence-only funding when it's clear it's not working," said U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. who is pushing for more comprehensive sex education.

The new report offers a state-by-state breakdown of birth rates overall. Many of those with the highest birth rates teach abstinence instead of comprehensive sex education, according to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

And research has concluded that abstinence-only programs do not cause a decrease in teenage sexual activity, Planned Parenthood officials added.

"In the last decade, more than $1 billion has been wasted on abstinence-only programs," said Cecile Richards, the organization's president, in a prepared statement.

Decreased condom use and increased sexual activity are two likely explanations for the higher teen birth rate. But not all data supports those theories, said John Santelli, a professor of population and family health at Columbia University's school of public health.

For example, a biannual government survey of high school students found that the percentage of those who said they used a condom the last time they had sex rose to 63 percent in 2005, up from 46 percent in 1991.

Contraceptive-focused sex education is still common, and the new teen birth numbers reflect it's failing, argued Moira Gaul of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.

The CDC also reported that births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high in 2006, but that is part of a continuing upward trend and was expected.

Health officials cautioned that the rise in teen births is not the chief cause of births to unwed mothers, however. Women in their 20s and 30s represent the largest proportion, with teens accounting for fewer than a quarter, said Stephanie Ventura, head of the CDC's reproductive statistics branch.

About thirty years ago, more than half of unwed mothers were teenagers, she said.

Planned Parenthood and liberal politicians are screaming that abstinence education is a "waste" and "failing" even though condom use by teens has increased from 46 percent to 63 percent. Someone please reconcile that for me.

The ones who are not wearing the condoms are making the babies.

Planned Parenthood and liberal politicians are screaming that abstinence education is a "waste" and "failing" even though condom use by teens has increased from 46 percent to 63 percent. Someone please reconcile that for me.

Abstinence only programs don't teach kids about condom use or other forms of protection, that's their major downfall. They teach kids to wait until marriage and nothing else. If condom use is up, it's not likely it's from abstinence only education, but from outside sources, like PP.

Abstinence Only Sex Education Cirriculum (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinence-only-cirriculum.html)

Beyond that, as abstinence only education is spreading, virginity pledges are spreading. If either was working, why did we see an increase in teen pregnancy? If condom use is up, doesn't that mean the program isn't working?

Also, the statistics on who is using condoms is based on what the students say, and I don't know about you, but I don't trust much of what comes out of a teen's mouth.

Education nationwide is inconsistent, and abstinence only isn't sufficient. Obviously since the numbers are up, neither method is working the way it should be.

Anyway, to be serious for a moment. The problem lies in the failure of parenting in the US. The focus is on materialism, consumerism and the appearance of wealth. How else do you explain interest only mortgages and the need for 52" plasma TVs? The importance of the family unit and parenting has taken a back seat to working long hours and having 2 jobs. Add to that 'keeping up with the Jones's Mcmansion and oversize SUVs and you have a ever-growing list of candidates for those Nanny 911 shows.

If they would stop chasing the almighty dollar and value their time with their children I guarantee you'd see less kids who are bored, unloved and thus feel the need to rebel.

Abstinence only programs don't teach kids about condom use or other forms of protection, that's their major downfall. They teach kids to wait until marriage and nothing else. If condom use is up, it's not likely it's from abstinence only education, but from outside sources, like PP.

As I asked on another post, how many kids today do you suppose don't know about condoms and other forms of birth control? We knew about it in school more than 30 years ago, we knew girls could go to PP and get birth control, so if anything it's a decades long failure of "sex education" and not abstinence education.


Beyond that, as abstinence only education is spreading, virginity pledges are spreading. If either was working, why did we see an increase in teen pregnancy? If condom use is up, doesn't that mean the program isn't working?

You're right on the last sentence, which doesn't seem to go along with the first two.


Also, the statistics on who is using condoms is based on what the students say, and I don't know about you, but I don't trust much of what comes out of a teen's mouth.

Education nationwide is inconsistent, and abstinence only isn't sufficient. Obviously since the numbers are up, neither method is working the way it should be.

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't trust what teens say, or do, which goes to the problem. PP and their ilk want to trust teens - and younger - with adult responsibilities while responsible parents want their kids to be kids. I have to ask, who should be trusted more to protect children, their parents or PP?

I have to ask, who should be trusted more to protect children, their parents or PP?Read my post - the parents ain't doing it.

The ones who are not wearing the condoms are making the babies.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/49/012_421~The-Simpsons-Homer-D-Oh-Posters.jpg

:D

Anyway, to be serious for a moment. The problem lies in the failure of parenting in the US. The focus is on materialism, consumerism and the appearance of wealth. How else do you explain interest only mortgages and the need for 52" plasma TVs? The importance of the family unit and parenting has taken a back seat to working long hours and having 2 jobs. Add to that 'keeping up with the Jones's Mcmansion and oversize SUVs and you have a ever-growing list of candidates for those Nanny 911 shows.

If they would stop chasing the almighty dollar and value their time with their children I guarantee you'd see less kids who are bored, unloved and thus feel the need to rebel.

I can't argue with that as being a huge part of the problem :)

As I asked on another post, how many kids today do you suppose don't know about condoms and other forms of birth control? We knew about it in school more than 30 years ago, we knew girls could go to PP and get birth control, so if anything it's a decades long failure of "sex education" and not abstinence education.

Just because they know about condoms doesn't mean they know how they work, how they are supposed to fit, and how to use them properly. It also doesn't mean they know the importance of using them every time they have sex. What I'm trying to point out is that the current and past education methods don't work. Telling kids to abstain and giving them bad information doesn't help. Telling kids to simply use condoms or don't have sex doesn't work. BOTH of the current programs are broken. We need to educate, not just "tell". We need to promote positive self-image, we need to let kids know that just because everyone on Grey's Anatomy is sleeping together doesn't mean they should be. Teach them to respect themselves, others, their bodies, and so on. But they MUST receive factual information so if they DO decide to do it they at least are better equipped to make that decision and prevent negative consequences.


You're right on the last sentence, which doesn't seem to go along with the first two.

I don't think it was inconsistent at all - abstinence only education is spreading, teen pregnancy is spreading. Abstinence only education doesn't promote the use of condoms, but condom use is up. Therefore, abstinence only education isn't doing it's job. Similarly, the other programs which don't provide comprehensive education apparently aren't doing their job either. Please pardon the overgeneralization of logic... :)


Now we're getting somewhere. I don't trust what teens say, or do, which goes to the problem. PP and their ilk want to trust teens - and younger - with adult responsibilities while responsible parents want their kids to be kids. I have to ask, who should be trusted more to protect children, their parents or PP?

I think if teens are well-informed and provided with effective counseling they are able to make better decisions. The thing is, in the medical community teenagers are given control over their health; it's not just at PP. Teens are given control over their health and can decide on procedures and medications without parental consent at any health facility, so don't blame PP, blame the healthcare system.

I think you might be forgetting that not everyone comes from a family which offers support to their children. Suppose PP required parental consent to perform abortions on anyone under 18. A 17-year old gets pregnant; her sister got pregnant last year and as a result her dad beat the crap out of her and kicked her out of the house. This newly pregnant girl is TERRIFIED to tell her parents because she doesn't want the same fate. Or what about the 16-year old who is raped by her uncle and gets pregnant? She doesn't want to carry the child, but her parents won't consent to an abortion. Should she be FORCED to have a child she doesn't want that is the product of a sexual encounter she didn't want?

So yes, responsible parents want their kids to be kids, but responsible parents will do everything in their power to make sure their child is well-informed, comfortable coming to them with a problem, and will sure as HELL make sure their 12-year old doesn't have the opportunity to get pregnant. But those are RESPONSIBLE parents and let's face it, lots of parents simply aren't.

Anyway, to be serious for a moment. The problem lies in the failure of parenting in the US. The focus is on materialism, consumerism and the appearance of wealth. How else do you explain interest only mortgages and the need for 52" plasma TVs? The importance of the family unit and parenting has taken a back seat to working long hours and having 2 jobs. Add to that 'keeping up with the Jones's Mcmansion and oversize SUVs and you have a ever-growing list of candidates for those Nanny 911 shows.

If they would stop chasing the almighty dollar and value their time with their children I guarantee you'd see less kids who are bored, unloved and thus feel the need to rebel.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_16.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYMXDE)

Was told to 'spread it', but honey, you are right on the money.
This is not just happening in the USA, but in all 'modern and industrialzed' countries. Unfortunately.
The cost of living is not helping the matter either. Those that live off any social system don't care about money, but produce a lot of children who are destined to follow in footsteps or stuggle harder than those that have 'everything'. Parents who feel they have to give their kids 'everything' feel the need for both to work to provide it - therefore paying someone else to raise those 'privileged' children - which can also go wrong..
I know I'm getting off the subject a bit, but it all goes around in this viscious circle and maintains that 'circular connection'.

Is there any wonder why so many are mislead, confused and easily influenced?

If 'vegan' means vegetarian.. then they don't have to work too hard at preventing overpopulation because IMO, protein from meat is a needed building block for development of the human. The body has a way of sending signals when essential nutrition is missing to have a healthy and functioning reproductive system. An example of this is women with eating disorders such as A and B - the body reverts back and does not even ovulate in most cases. Maybe I'm being 'bass-ackwards' on these issues, but had to put my two-cent's worth in because I too care what is happening worldwide.

Hoping all will have a nice weekend inspite of the unavoidable occurences.


Vegan means that you don't eat ANY animal by product. Gelatin, eggs, diary, and other such foods. Well obviously the human body needs protein, such as amino acids. Really, I think you don't know what you're talking about when you're saying if you don't eat meat your body will have a protein deficiency. There are several ways to get protein without eating meat. Lettuce is 18% protein. It's like eating milk and a pb&j to make a complete protein. You don't even have to eat it at the same meal, just within that whole day or two. You should look into nutrition and educate yourself.


To the rest of the thread:
When I was younger and was curious about sex, I didn't want to talk to my mother. That was too embarrassing, I couldn't talk to my teachers because they were there to teach me about math, history, science, and social studies-- not sex. Then one day we finally got the computer and the internet. There is so much knowledge to be found from there, and one thing you CAN find is sex ed. I found out that coke isn't an effect sperm killer, having sex in water doesn't lower your chances of getting pregnant but you will be hurting much later, that certain lubricants make the condom faulty, I found out what exactly happens during a period and so much more just from Teenwire. That was actually the first website that was reliable for anything. I was able to ask them questions and they would answer them. Compare this to my high school education, it was basically "If you have sex before you're married you will be emotionally scared for the rest of your life, you will get numerous of diseases, and you will become pregnant." They didn't introduce it as possibilities, only as "this WILL happen." It was scary, and it did turn me off to sex with anyone until I was educated. Even now my sister doesn't know a thing about sex and what to do to prevent diseases and pregnancy other than to use a condom. She didn't know about timing and keeping up with your period and figure out what days she would be more likely to become pregnant. I'm still giving her information that she isn't sure about that I mostly learned from Teenwire.

As a parent you're suppose to educate your child, weather it be homeschooling, after school activities, or sending them to public/private schools. You're still educating them. Stripping them from sex education is a very dumb decision, in my opinion. Because then what if they do decide to have sex, what will they know? I'm sure they'll know to only use a condom, because even that's told throughout the upper grades in middle school. They won't know that boys/girls will con them into sex for their own enjoyment then later dump them, it happens and it's a fact of life. They won't know about the possibilities of getting a disease even if they did use a condom, yes that percentage is drastically lower than if they didn't use a condom but there is still a chance. They wouldn't know anything. Then you'll have children who are ignorant of the truth and forced to find out on their own. I don't really know which is worse, faulty information or being ignorant.

I understand that there can be religious reasons involved, but still-- educate them. At least if they do choose to start having sex they will be educated and not make wrong decisions. Or maybe it's just because of your morals, even then I would rather see an educated child make the right decisions in ways to prevent themselves or their partner from getting pregnant to a child who is ignorant, taken advantage of, contracting a disease, or being pregnant because they were not educated.

Now, keep in mind some people use the word "abortion" loosely, and can use that to make 'facts' a bit bias. Some people use it as a word to define any pregnancy that does not end in a live birth. It could talk about a miscarriage or a premature birth where the baby does die. Others consider this to be a spontaneous abortion. So, if you're going to have figures of what's going on make sure you know what they're defining "Abortion" as.

Now, keep in mind some people use the word "abortion" loosely, and can use that to make 'facts' a bit bias. Some people use it as a word to define any pregnancy that does not end in a live birth. It could talk about a miscarriage or a premature birth where the baby does die. Others consider this to be a spontaneous abortion. So, if you're going to have figures of what's going on make sure you know what they're defining "Abortion" as.

You forgot 'therapeutic abortion' which are probably not in the statistics either.

We are probably getting way off the original subject, but a lot of threads do that and still hold interest.

As far as nutrition goes, I like my steak rare and my vegatables crispy and not all mushy. It's all in the flavor to me.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_11_2.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYMXDE)

Tell you what--I've got a DRASTIC solution here!

Let's:

1. Cut all funding to Planned Parenthood.
2. Cut all Welfare funding that isn't for the mentally ill, the elderly, or those terminally ill.
3. Make parents financially responsible for their kids until they are 18, and for their grandkids until their kids are 18.
4. EVERY pregnancy where the mother will not name a father will be automatically make that child (and therefore the mother) ineligible for state aid. If she isn't sure, ALL candidates must be named and DNA tested.
5. All fathers WILL pay child support. If the father is under 18, his child support payments will be based on his parents' income, and they will be responsible for payments if he does not make them.
6. Use the money saved when cutting welfare spending to pay for infertile couples to have a chance at IVF. Heck, we were throwing $20k around on teenage parents who couldn't keep it in their pants--why not give an older, more responsible couple the chance to parent for that same money?
7. Pull sex ed out of the schools entirely. Make the information available at the library for parents to teach their own kids. Then no one can complain about how much money is being spent on the wrong kind of sex ed. And since parents will be financially responsible for their failures to teach (in other words, the pregnancies and medical treatment of STDs that will happen if they can't parent their kids), I think that most parents will MAKE the time to teach their kids. If nothing else, they can't complain that the school/government/Planned Parenthood screwed it all up when their kid comes home pregnant/with syphillis/genital warts/AIDS/etc.

Any other radical suggestions?

Tell ya what--I've got a DRASTIC solution here!

. . .
3. Make parents financially responsible for their kids until they are 18, and for their grandkids until their kids are 18. . . .
any other radical suggestions?

I can't think of any reason to limit it to 18, especially since 19 year olds are unlikely to have the resources to pay for a kid. A 19 year old with a kid might end up on the street, so why not make the parents and grandparents pay indefinitely? Or at least until age 25... ;)

I'm not keen on your IVF idea though. Too expensive. Your typical premature IVF baby costs millions of dollars in added health care costs and results in many life long health problems (for the baby). If we are going to be as hard hearted as you are proposing (I take this as a modest proposal), there are much cheaper and healthier ways to make babies...

Asking

The IVF comment was me being cynical.

It frustrates me to no end that I'll have to pay $20k for a CHANCE to have a kid, whether we go with adoption or IVF--and yet these little girls are playing house with taxpayer money, because they have a right to a choice as well. Not that I want to take away their choice--that item was personal frustration, and I just couldn't stop my fingers from typing it. Feel free to ignore it :)

I really do think that if we went back to the lack of funding for people who can't afford kids, though, people would be more careful about getting pregnant in general, and if people HAD to support their grandkids, or people HAD to turn to their parents for money first before going elsewhere, the family unit might be a stronger thing than it is now. Not only do people (in general, not anyone specific) not take responsibility for their own actions (the number of idiotic lawsuits out there supports this statement, imo), but people no longer take responsibility for their families, either. Look at how many posts we have from people who want to know how to get rid of their responsibility for their own kids, whether it's because of money, or because the kid is screwed up and they can't control them anymore!

And I was going to put 25 as the age originally, actually--I'm not sure why I changed it to 18, but probably the technicality of 18 being a legal adult and responsible for yourself thing.

And yes... it's hard-hearted, and it's me being selfish--but having paid my own way since I've been an adult, it frustrates me to see the people who don't educate themselves and learn from their mistakes, and have kid after kid, from guy after guy (or girl after girl), because they KNOW that as long as they try a little bit, no one is going to take their kid away, but they also know that no one is going to let their kid starve, either.

I'm just frustrated tonight about the whole situation. Everyone agrees that the whole system has failed somewhere, but everyone disagrees about where the failure really is, and who should take responsibility for fixing it, and HOW it should be fixed--it's like a snake biting its own tail sometimes.

I'm just frustrated tonight about the whole situation. Everyone agrees that the whole system has failed somewhere, but everyone disagrees about where the failure really is, and who should take responsibility for fixing it, and HOW it should be fixed--it's like a snake biting its own tail sometimes.

Kind of makes a fellow wonder how parents were ever able to raise a child without everyone else's 'help' :D

I still go back to my repeated assertion that it's the culture. You can't expect decreasing unwanted pregnanices, STD's, welfare payments, etc. in a culture that glorifies the 'hookup,' undermines parental rights, throws sex in your face 24/7 in the media, abandons the notion of personal responsibility, plays up victimhood, mocks abstinence and marginalizes marriage and fidelity. Just my opinion.

First rise in U.S. teen births since '91 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_he_me/teen_births)


ATLANTA - In a troubling reversal, the nation's teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years, surprising government health officials and reviving the bitter debate about abstinence-only sex education.
ADVERTISEMENT

The birth rate had been dropping since its peak in 1991, although the decline had slowed in recent years. On Wednesday, government statisticians said it rose 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.

The reason for the increase is not clear, and federal health officials said it might be a one-year statistical blip, not the beginning of a new upward trend.

However, some experts said they have been expecting a jump. They blamed it on increased federal funding for abstinence-only health education that doesn't teach teens how to use condoms and other contraception.

Some key sexually transmitted disease rates have been rising, including syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The rising teen pregnancy rate is part of the same phenomenon, said Dr. Carol Hogue, an Emory University professor of maternal and child health.

"It's not rocket science," she said.

At the same time, some research suggests teens are using condoms far more often than they did 15 years ago.

The new teen birth numbers are based on the 15-19 age group of women, which accounted for most of the 440,000 births to teens in 2006. The rate rose to nearly 42 births per 1,000 in that group, up from 40.5 in 2005. That translates to an extra 20,000 births to teen mothers.

In 1991, the peak year for teen births, there were nearly 62 births per 1,000.

The new report is based on a review of more than 99 percent of the birth certificates from last year by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The report, released Wednesday, quickly took on political implications.

Opponents of abstinence-based programs seized on the data as evidence of wrong-headed government policy.

"Congress needs to stop knee-jerk approving abstinence-only funding when it's clear it's not working," said U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. who is pushing for more comprehensive sex education.

The new report offers a state-by-state breakdown of birth rates overall. Many of those with the highest birth rates teach abstinence instead of comprehensive sex education, according to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

And research has concluded that abstinence-only programs do not cause a decrease in teenage sexual activity, Planned Parenthood officials added.

"In the last decade, more than $1 billion has been wasted on abstinence-only programs," said Cecile Richards, the organization's president, in a prepared statement.

Decreased condom use and increased sexual activity are two likely explanations for the higher teen birth rate. But not all data supports those theories, said John Santelli, a professor of population and family health at Columbia University's school of public health.

For example, a biannual government survey of high school students found that the percentage of those who said they used a condom the last time they had sex rose to 63 percent in 2005, up from 46 percent in 1991.

Contraceptive-focused sex education is still common, and the new teen birth numbers reflect it's failing, argued Moira Gaul of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.

The CDC also reported that births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high in 2006, but that is part of a continuing upward trend and was expected.

Health officials cautioned that the rise in teen births is not the chief cause of births to unwed mothers, however. Women in their 20s and 30s represent the largest proportion, with teens accounting for fewer than a quarter, said Stephanie Ventura, head of the CDC's reproductive statistics branch.

About thirty years ago, more than half of unwed mothers were teenagers, she said.

I'm just frustrated tonight about the whole situation. Everyone agrees that the whole system has failed somewhere, but everyone disagrees about where the failure really is, and who should take responsibility for fixing it, and HOW it should be fixed--it's like a snake biting its own tail sometimes.

You are right, it is a Circle.. and it will not stop. Too many things went wrong during the attempt to fix things, that a lot of organizations are throwing their hands up.

A poor economy, or threatened one, is going to continue to have kids, because out of all the helplessness, copulation seems like the only thing left to do whether it is done safely or not. It's sad, but I don't think we will find an appropriate fix this generation, and the next will have to work really hard.

There are countries out there using a few 'sorts' of birth control, china forbids more than one child, other countries let their girl babies die right out in the steets for ambulances to pick them up, african states place guns in hands of babes to kill other babes,, so what's next.

Unfortunately, there is no happy middle, not yet.

I feel the frustration, I really do. This world is heading toward unknown and scary future - that's why so many people are frustrated just like us.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_9_16.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYMXDE) Who has the right to decide which human has what rights?? I don't know, but I bet the ones with a lot of money and greed decide more than others.

Thanks NK, I already posted that article (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/save-earth-have-abortion-157400-post762888.html#post762888) but it's worth a reprint. Oh, and I added these comments:


Planned Parenthood and liberal politicians are screaming that abstinence education is a "waste" and "failing" even though condom use by teens has increased from 46 percent to 63 percent. Someone please reconcile that for me.

It's my turn:

http://images.easyart.com/i/prints/rw/en_easyart/lg/7/1/The-Simpsons---D-oh--Mini-Posters-71133.jpg

Sorry about that.

Speechless: Condoms fail. Plus, believe it or not, there's a right and wrong way to use a condom. You wouldn't BELIEVE how many people think you can re-use one. So... more condom use, but more incorrect use as well.

Plus--when asked if you were using birth control, when you SHOULD know better--how many are going to out-and-out lie, saying they did when they didn't? After all, the pill can be tracked, and the shot, and most other forms of birth control--but who's going to know if you REALLY used a condom?

Call me cynical if you like, but I think you have greater faith in teens than I do. Most of them are so incredibly dumb about sex that it's not even funny.

I agree that it's the culture--but until you make parents completely responsible for their own kids, and make it pretty impossible to put the failure on the schools, the movie industry, Planned Parenthood, CDs, video games, their peers, whatever--it's not going to change. PARENTS should control what their kids see, who they see, what they do with their free time, investigate what they're being taught, etc. Yes, there are kids that will find ways to get around that stuff, but for crying out loud, we have to stop worrying so much about how kids FEEL and teach them some reality.

No Child Left Behind is a joke--if a kid can't pass, they should be held back. If they don't want that stigma (the parents or the kid), well, then, they can just work a bit harder on learning and less on soccer, piano, play dates, whatever.

I don't CARE if a kid feels worthless for not being picked for Little League. That should motivate a kid to TRY harder, and his parents to encourage him (or her!) to do so. No one is good at everything, but kids grow up now expecting that they can have anything they want, because our society doesn't want kids with self-esteem issues.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

I'm seriously at the point where I think that if parents fail their kids, they should be held accountable, but I realize that that's just my frustration talking, too.

Speechless: Condoms fail. Plus, believe it or not, there's a right and wrong way to use a condom. You wouldn't BELIEVE how many people think you can re-use one. So... more condom use, but more incorrect use as well.

Plus--when asked if you were using birth control, when you SHOULD know better--how many are going to out-and-out lie, saying they did when they didn't? After all, the pill can be tracked, and the shot, and most other forms of birth control--but who's going to know if you REALLY used a condom?

Call me cynical if you like, but I think you have greater faith in teens than I do. Most of them are so incredibly dumb about sex that it's not even funny.

Nope, I DON'T have faith in teen's decision making, I don't even have faith in a lot of parents, and I have no faith in PP or in public schools. It's a difficult situation I admit, but I still believe in the family as the best hope for a solution.


I agree that it's the culture--but until you make parents completely responsible for their own kids, and make it pretty impossible to put the failure on the schools, the movie industry, Planned Parenthood, CDs, video games, their peers, whatever--it's not going to change. PARENTS should control what their kids see, who they see, what they do with their free time, investigate what they're being taught, etc. Yes, there are kids that will find ways to get around that stuff, but for crying out loud, we have to stop worrying so much about how kids FEEL and teach them some reality.

I'm with you here, absolutely.


No Child Left Behind is a joke--if a kid can't pass, they should be held back. If they don't want that stigma (the parents or the kid), well, then, they can just work a bit harder on learning and less on soccer, piano, play dates, whatever.

I don't CARE if a kid feels worthless for not being picked for Little League. That should motivate a kid to TRY harder, and his parents to encourage him (or her!) to do so. No one is good at everything, but kids grow up now expecting that they can have anything they want, because our society doesn't want kids with self-esteem issues.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Again, I feel your frustration. When I read that we have schools teaching kids "math" by asking questions such as "If math were a color it would be _______" my jaw dropped. Banning the use of red pencils when grading because it damaged their little psyches, not furnishing scores to students (http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/grades.html) at all, abandoning score keeping in sports - gimme a break.


I'm seriously at the point where I think that if parents fail their kids, they should be held accountable, but I realize that that's just my frustration talking, too.

Accountability is not very fashionable these days...