Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Save the earth - have an abortion (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=157400)

  • Nov 30, 2007, 02:44 PM
    jillianleab
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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!
  • Nov 30, 2007, 02:55 PM
    asking
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jillianleab
    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
  • Nov 30, 2007, 03:00 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jillianleab
    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?

    Quote:

    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
  • Nov 30, 2007, 03:02 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asking
    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 :)
  • Nov 30, 2007, 03:25 PM
    jillianleab
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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.

    Quote:

    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
  • Nov 30, 2007, 03:58 PM
    asking
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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?
  • Nov 30, 2007, 06:00 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asking
    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.
  • Nov 30, 2007, 06:14 PM
    asking
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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.:)
  • Nov 30, 2007, 06:25 PM
    Synnen
    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.
  • Dec 1, 2007, 05:38 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen
    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.
  • Dec 1, 2007, 07:04 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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.
  • Dec 1, 2007, 10:40 AM
    jillianleab
    speech, I think synnen was referring to this article:

    "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

    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!
  • Dec 1, 2007, 02:51 PM
    Synnen
    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.
  • Dec 2, 2007, 03:35 PM
    asking
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen
    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
  • Dec 3, 2007, 06:46 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    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
  • Dec 3, 2007, 06:50 AM
    NeedKarma
    They are fanatics everywhere. They are not representative any group.
  • Dec 3, 2007, 07:57 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    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.
  • Dec 3, 2007, 09:04 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen
    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."

    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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 that misrepresent us entirely.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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."
  • Dec 3, 2007, 06:52 PM
    Synnen
    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.
  • Dec 3, 2007, 07:49 PM
    magprob
    Here is the answer:

    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attach...1&d=1196736402
  • Dec 4, 2007, 08:41 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen
    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...

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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 and is still in decline.

    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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, a culture which PP promotes.

    Quote:

    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 ;)
  • Dec 4, 2007, 10:52 AM
    asking
    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

    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

    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
  • Dec 4, 2007, 11:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    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.
  • Dec 4, 2007, 01:16 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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.
  • Dec 4, 2007, 01:32 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    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
  • Dec 4, 2007, 01:40 PM
    NeedKarma
    Nah, I was much for heavy handed preaching.
  • Dec 4, 2007, 02:34 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    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. :)
  • Dec 4, 2007, 07:46 PM
    speechlesstx
    Not only does having kids mess with the environment, so does divorce:

    Quote:

    Divorce adds to strain on environment and resources
    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?
  • Dec 4, 2007, 08:43 PM
    Shorty87
    Save the earth - don't have sex
  • Dec 5, 2007, 09:23 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Shorty87
    save the earth - don't have sex

    Now that's taking it way too far :eek:
  • Dec 5, 2007, 09:56 AM
    asking
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Now that's taking it way too far :eek:

    Yup! :)
  • Dec 6, 2007, 09:31 AM
    speechlesstx
    Update:

    Quote:

    First Rise in U.S. Teen Births Since '91

    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.
  • Dec 6, 2007, 09:39 AM
    NeedKarma
    The ones who are not wearing the condoms are making the babies.
  • Dec 6, 2007, 09:52 AM
    jillianleab
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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

    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.
  • Dec 6, 2007, 09:59 AM
    NeedKarma
    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.
  • Dec 6, 2007, 11:20 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jillianleab
    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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?
  • Dec 6, 2007, 11:22 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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.
  • Dec 6, 2007, 11:38 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    The ones who are not wearing the condoms are making the babies.

    http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...Oh-Posters.jpg

    :D
  • Dec 6, 2007, 11:39 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    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 :)
  • Dec 6, 2007, 12:09 PM
    jillianleab
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    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.

    Quote:

    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... :)

    Quote:

    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.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:12 PM.