[speechlesstx]

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 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, 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 ;)

[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

[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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

[NeedKarma]

Nah, I was much for heavy handed preaching.

[speechlesstx]

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. :)

[speechlesstx]

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

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?

[Shorty87]

Save the earth - don't have sex

[speechlesstx]

save the earth - don't have sex

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

[asking]

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

Yup! :)

[speechlesstx]

Update:

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.

[NeedKarma]

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

[jillianleab]

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.

[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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[NeedKarma]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

:D

[speechlesstx]

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 :)

[jillianleab]

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.