[Alty]

Speechless, I's rather see a non-viable tissue mass sucked out of their womb than a teenager having a baby she's not ready for and tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom, these things happen everyday, or don't you watch the news? Besides, the issue here isn't about abortion it's about contraception and even though accidents do happen even when you're careful there are definitely tons of options out there that prevent pregnancy and it's not in anyone's best interest not to discuss these options with our kids. You have a right to your opinion as does everyone else in the world. If you don't want your kids using contraception then don't tell them about it, you can deal with a teenage unwed mother when it happens. I'm the mother of two and even though they're both too young to worry about sex and pregnancy I will expose them to contraceptives when the time comes and hope that I've ingrained in them the fact that I am open to hearing anything they have to say and will always listen with an open mind and heart. But there is absolutely no reason that teens should be having children when there are ways to prevent it and short of locking them up in a monastery you are not going to prevent these teens from having sex. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[jillianleab]

Well, yes and no I suppose. Granted, there were things my parents could have taught me but didn't that would have been helpful. On the other hand I believe we've lost so much by not letting kids be kids. Parents need to be the parents and kids shouldn't be exposed to so many things they aren't equipped to handle. I hear people complain of TV, music and video games rotting their little brains - yet we want them to be exposed to all the details of adult sexual relationships? That doesn't make sense to me, 6 year olds should be playing tee-ball, finger painting and sliding down slides, not preparing for sexual relations.

I agree, lots of kids aren't allowed to be just kids. Sometimes we treat them like mini-adults when they should be playing in the dirt and giving each other cootie shots. I'm thinking more about older kids - teens. I have a 15 year old sister in law, and you would not BELIEVE how ill-equipped for the real world she is! This is in part because she's been treated like a "precious little snowflake", and it really, really worries me as she gets older. Should 6-year olds be preparing for sexual relations? No. But they should know about families, and communities and how to treat others. That's all part of comprehensive sex ed; not teaching them how to give BJ's, but teaching them that it takes all kids to make up a world.

[Synnen]

With regards to the argument that abstinence worked in the 50s and 60s, I'd like to point out the following:

1. If you got pregnant then, your choices were to disappear for a few months and give your baby to strangers, never seeing him/her again, or getting married to the schmuck who knocked you up. If you could find him.

2. If you got married, and had kids, YOU raised them. YOU paid for them, maybe with some help from your family. There were no food stamps, government aid, welfare, whatever. I'm ALL for that.

Frankly, it's not teaching abstinence or birth control that's the problem here. It's not teaching kids that in the end, THEY are responsible for their mistakes, and no one else is going to help them "fix" it.

If you HAD to get married or give your baby away, then YEAH, you're going to be a heck of a lot more careful about having sex. That goes for both men AND women. If you could still beat the hell out of the kid that knocked your daughter up, then YEAH, that kid would be more careful. If you had to drop out of school, and give up the rest of your life to work in blue collar factory because you had to feed your wife and kid somehow--well, of COURSE you're not going to have sex until you're ready for that.

It's not protection, or morals, or abstinence, or whatever. It's the fact that every 15 year old out there knows her parents can't make her do anything, and every guy out there knows he won't have to marry the girl if he knocks her up. It's the fact that being a single parent doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS be a single parent anymore--it used to make you a whore to be raising a child without having married.

So, by all means--let's go back to teenage weddings, get rid of welfare, and find babies for all of those "desperate, loving couples who LONG to hold a baby in their arms and call it their own".

[charlotte234s]

I don't seehow that is helping anyone.. but okay..

I'd rather just have a person take responsibility for their own actions AND have choices with how to deal with it.

People say oh, abortion is just the easy way out, well no, it's less inconvenient in the long run, but you don't see women standing in line with lollypops and balloons at the abortion clinic. For some women they made a mistake, which can happen to anyone, and this is how they feel is best for them to deal with it.

I don't think that necessarily waiting until marriage is a great idea either 'cause I'd rather know what I'm getting into sexually, whether I'm going to be compatible or not, and even responsible people who use BC and Condoms can have an accident.

[Synnen]

Sorry... I thought my tongue-in-cheekness was more obvious than it apparently was.

I'm a HUGE advocate of choice. Look at any of my previous arguments in other threads.

I just don't think that any ONE solution is going to work. Personal responsibility will--but how do you teach that when there are virtually no consequences, no unbearable hardships?

[charlotte234s]

Oh, I see, I was like, are you serious? XD

That abortion, having the baby, giving it up for adoption, all of them are forever and they're all hard. The problem is that we need to help people learn to not let it get to that point. Everyone should beable to get protection, that's the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately. Everything in life almost is a responsibility and unfortuntely people are too closed-minded to let people live their lives how they live, or too stupid to deal with their own lives. What we need is a medium.

[inthebox]

Has anyone looked at the potential side effects of oral contraceptives
For example
Ortho-Novum side effects (Norethindrone and Ethinyl Estradiol) and drug interactions - prescription drugs and medications at RxList
Thrombophlebitis
Arterial thromboembolism
Pulmonary embolism
Myocardial infarction
Cerebral hemorrhage
Cerebral thrombosis
Hypertension
Gallbladder disease
Hepatic adenomas, carcinomas or benign liver tumors



This is a medical issue, not a school issue. Therefore it requires parental consent.
--------------------------

Does anyone have children on asthma inhalers, isulin, or adhd medications?

You know the paper work and all the permission slips needed to give these medications.

Why even the thought of a prescription medicine without parental consent? i.e.. "confidential"



I remember it the mid eighties when airbags were mandated. They made intuitive sense.
A couple of years later small people [ women and children primarily ] were being killed or maimed by them. Now we have the warnings.

[charlotte234s]

Why? The kids can go to the health department and get them without parental consent. If a person is old enough to be aving sex they need to be able to take responsibility for it themselves. Their parents may deny them the contraceptives because they don't what then to have sex so they will continue unsafe practices anyway.

I agree. BC isn't for little girls, and maybe not something that should be in the school, but a girl when she's old enough NEEDS to be able to have access to it if she wants.

Condoms on the other hand should be easily available.

[NeedKarma]

This is a medical issue, not a school issue. Therefore it requires parental consent.

It seems we have all agreed on that.

[speechlesstx]

And tell me speechless, are you a man or a woman?

And the relevance of that question is what exactly?

[speechlesstx]

Not me, they'll be broke and miserable for their whole lives, the baby will not be treated the same way as if it is wanted, it may even be abused or have to go without because the parents can't provide because their lives were messed up by an unplanned pregnancy.

I believe that just may be the mother of all assumptions, and I darn sure value human life more than to destroy it on such an assumption.

The mother is also more liable to have complcations or even death during delivery because her body is not ready to give birth. I think that a viable and very much alive girl's life is more precious than a "non-viable tissue mass". Lesser of two evils I supposd.

Wow, talk about fear factor. According to the CDC:

The risk of death from complications of pregnancy has decreased approximately 99% during the twentieth century, from approximately 850 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1900 to 7.5 in 1982.

If the abortion rights crowd is correct in that teens under 16 are "5 times more likely" to die during childbirth, that puts their chances of dying from complications at .0375 percent if my math is correct. The child's odds of dying from an abortion are pretty much 100 percent.

Most (almost all) abortions are performed before 20 weeks, across the board, statistics state that.

The fetus at 20 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:

According to the journal of american medicine, if the fetus can feel pain at all, it doesn't feel pain until at least 28 weeks.

The fetus at 28 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:

The fetus is not typically even able to survive outside the womb (meaning its organs are not present or not functioning) until around 23 weeks.

The fetus at 22 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:


The fetus at 24 weeks, courtesy of the Texas State Dept of Health:

Either way, it's a personal choice...

It seems clear to me from these images from the weeks you mentioned it is a child.

and you have no right to say people shouldn't get an abortion because of your morals and values because they may not share your morals and values. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Simple as that. Don't try to say that people shouldn't have a choice because YOU think it's wrong.

First of all Charlotte I have every right to express my opinion just as you do, so let's dispense with the "you have no right to say" nonsense. It's just a discussion, I'm not imposing my values on anyone. But, this discussion on birth control in schools has been largely about education and facts, and I'm backing my post up with the facts. Whether you buy into the justification for aborting a 20 week old fetus or that it may or may not feel pain until week 28 is your business. I see the fingers and toes of a child.

[speechlesstx]

Speechless, I's rather see a non-viable tissue mass sucked out of their womb than a teenager having a baby she's not ready for and tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom, these things happen everyday, or don't you watch the news?

Alt, I watch the news every day, read the paper every day, get glimpses of the news on the internet every day... I cannot recall the last time I heard or read a story about some teenager "tossing it in a trash can or leaving it on the bathroom floor of a public restroom." Can you point those out for me please?

Besides, the issue here isn't about abortion it's about contraception and even though accidents do happen even when you're careful there are definitely tons of options out there that prevent pregnancy and it's not in anyone's best interest not to discuss these options with our kids.

Just so you'll know, the first mention of abortion on this post was by charlotte234s. I just followed where the discussion went. :D

You have a right to your opinion as does everyone else in the world. If you don't want your kids using contraception then don't tell them about it, you can deal with a teenage unwed mother when it happens.

Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion. That's part of what makes this a great country, the right to object to insane, intrusive and subversive policies. Just so you know, I have no kids at home and but I do speak from experience concerning the kind of "education," "help" and "health care" that PP gives and demands for our children.

I'm the mother of two and even though they're both too young to worry about sex and pregnancy I will expose them to contraceptives when the time comes and hope that I've ingrained in them the fact that I am open to hearing anything they have to say and will always listen with an open mind and heart. But there is absolutely no reason that teens should be having children when there are ways to prevent it and short of locking them up in a monastery you are not going to prevent these teens from having sex. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I speak from my experience as what I see as not only PP failing my daughter but my own failures to my daughter. I know our kids will do what they're going to do and I know we need to do our best to educate them, foster good decision making skills and I know we can't lock them up. But I also know there has to be a better way than surrendering our children to "they're going to do it anyway," subjecting them to the kind of "education" and "health care" that PP has in mind - and ceding the right of parents to make those determinations for the children in their care.

[speechlesstx]

It's not protection, or morals, or abstinence, or whatever. It's the fact that every 15 year old out there knows her parents can't make her do anything, and every guy out there knows he won't have to marry the girl if he knocks her up. It's the fact that being a single parent doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS be a single parent anymore--it used to make you a whore to be raising a child without having married.

It's not even 15 year olds, I think every 10 or 12 year old knows their parents can't make them do anything. That's the result of the "children's rights" movement. You can't even take your child to the pediatrician any more without being under suspicion.

[speechlesstx]

Condoms are readily available, and I agree BC isn't for little girls and should not be in schools but what is "old enough?"

[jillianleab]

Actually, MOST abortions are performed before 12 weeks

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the U.S. fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2006). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.2 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2006).

Not that this thread is about abortion, nor is it likely to make speech or anyone else switch to the pro-choice side, but let's at least be clear on the facts.

Also, women who abort after the first trimester tend to do so because of medical concerns, not because the baby is "inconvenient"

In a recent survey of U.S. women choosing to terminate their pregnancies, significantly more women in their second trimester cited fetal health concerns than women in their first trimester. The fetal health concerns they cited included the risk of fetal anomaly due to advanced maternal age, a history of miscarriage, a lack of prenatal care, and fetal exposure to prescription medications and non-prescription substances (Finer et al., 2005).

Conditions in which the woman's health is threatened or aggravated by continuing her pregnancy include
certain types of infections
heart failure
malignant hypertension, including preeclampsia
out-of-control diabetes
serious renal disease
severe depression
suicidal tendencies

[speechlesstx]

Actually, MOST abortions are performed before 12 weeks

Between 1996 and 2002, the number of abortions in the U.S. fell from 1.36 million to 1.29 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003; Guttmacher Institute, 2006). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88.2 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2006).

Not that this thread is about abortion, nor is it likely to make speech or anyone else switch to the pro-choice side, but let's at least be clear on the facts.

I'm all for the facts, I don't think they're "useless" as someone else said. But no, there are no facts that will convince me that what's inside the womb is not human life. It clearly is. Look, I don't hold the position that "abortion is never necessary," I think the data on that is probably mixed. I'm sure the decision can be excruciatingly difficult, but it would be less difficult if the abortion crowd and the medical community had not devalued human life to the point that a growing fetus is merely a "non-viable tissue mass" and positioned abortion as a "solution" to irresponsible behavior.

To me that just about sums it up, the advocates of BC in schools and comprehensive sex education have for decades encouraged and enabled that irresponsible behavior over encouraging kids to keep their pants on until they are mature enough to handle it. It hasn't worked, and that is a large reason why schools are now considering this radical step of furnishing BC to teens. You don't feed their desires and expect the situation to improve - very few horny 16 year old boys are going to care if they forgot to pack a condom when that cute little thang offers him sex.

[jillianleab]

I'm all for the facts, I don't think they're "useless" as someone else said. But no, there are no facts that will convince me that what's inside the womb is not human life. It clearly is. Look, I don't hold the position that "abortion is never necessary," I think the data on that is probably mixed. I'm sure the decision can be excruciatingly difficult, but it would be less difficult if the abortion crowd and the medical community had not devalued human life to the point that a growing fetus is merely a "non-viable tissue mass" and positioned abortion as a "solution" to irresponsible behavior.

To me that just about sums it up, the advocates of BC in schools and comprehensive sex education have for decades encouraged and enabled that irresponsible behavior over encouraging kids to keep their pants on until they are mature enough to handle it. It hasn't worked, and that is a large reason why schools are now considering this radical step of furnishing BC to teens. You don't feed their desires and expect the situation to improve - very few horny 16 year old boys are going to care if they forgot to pack a condom when that cute little thang offers him sex.

I didn't expect it to change your mind, nor did I expect you to object to using facts. :)

I agree with you to a point that many in the abortion crowd and medical community have a way of passing abortion off as a simple solution with no emotional repercussions. That simply isn't true, and if someone decides to have unprotected sex because "I can just get an abortion if I get pregnant" that's INCREDIBLY dangerous thinking. I would, however, like to point out there is a big difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion (at least I think there is). Pro-abortion people advocate it, think there's nothing wrong with it, and see it as a easy fix. Pro-choice people support a woman's right to choose, but recognize it's NOT an easy fix and that there are emotional and psychological strains that come with making such a decision.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree with regards to comprehensive sex ed. I honestly think if we started exposing kids to learning about relationships, respect for themselves, alternative activities and so on from a young age and later turn that into biological facts and sexual facts there could be a decrease in teen sex. As I said before, I don't think we need to be teaching 6-year olds how to have oral sex, but to me, comprehensive doesn't mean that; it means talking and learning about all aspects of relationships and socialization.

Does anyone know the legal age for medical informed consent in the US? At what age can a person make their own medical decisions without having to tell their parents? I THINK it is 16, but I could be wrong. If it is, it's quite a loophole the clinics at these middle schools have used to administer the pill (get a blanket consent form for everything). I did see an article however, that the school in Maine requires girls have a physical exam from the clinic doctors and receive counseling services prior to being put on the pill. So it's not like the school nurse is handing the pill out like candy, which makes me feel a little better. Only a little. The same article said that of the girls who went to the clinic (about 160) only five admitted to being sexually active, and all were 14 or 15. Again, it makes me feel a little better that this school doesn't have a rash of sexually active 11 year olds. Still, only a little better though.

[inthebox]

"I honestly think if we started exposing kids to learning about relationships, respect for themselves, alternative activities and so on from a young age and later turn that into biological facts and sexual facts there could be a decrease in teen sex."

Absolutely

Teach self respect and respect for the other person in a relationship before...

[speechlesstx]

I didn't expect it to change your mind, nor did I expect you to object to using facts. :)

Nah, I didn't expect that you expected you would expect me to change my mind. How's that for mangled grammar? :D

As to the rest of your last post let me first say I've enjoyed discussing this with you, hope you don't mind some of my sarcasm. But anyway, yes there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion but I think the main "pro-choice" advocacy groups have been less than honest - I would say devious.

In this day nobody wants to appear "pro-abortion," it isn't a winning position to champion what many see as the murder of a child. So what they've done is changed their terminology, it's ever evolving. "Safe sex" is now "safer sex." Pro-abortion is now "pro-choice." "Anti-abortion" is "anti-choice," "pro-lifers" are becoming "forced pregnancy activists," while "pro-choice" has become "reproductive freedom." Well, one has the "reproductive freedom" to abstain from sex thus avoiding "unforced pregnancy" and the need to "choose" "reproductive health care." They make it all sound so liberating...

[jillianleab]

Nah, I didn't expect that you expected you would expect me to change my mind. How's that for mangled grammar? :D

Actually, I think you got it right! :)

As to the rest of your last post let me first say I've enjoyed discussing this with you, hope you don't mind some of my sarcasm. But anyway, yes there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion but I think the main "pro-choice" advocacy groups have been less than honest - I would say devious.

In this day nobody wants to appear "pro-abortion," it isn't a winning position to champion what many see as the murder of a child. So what they've done is changed their terminology, it's ever evolving. "Safe sex" is now "safer sex." Pro-abortion is now "pro-choice." "Anti-abortion" is "anti-choice," "pro-lifers" are becoming "forced pregnancy activists," while "pro-choice" has become "reproductive freedom." Well, one has the "reproductive freedom" to abstain from sex thus avoiding "unforced pregnancy" and the need to "choose" "reproductive health care." They make it all sound so liberating...

Bah! I never mind sarcasm! In fact, it drives me nuts when I try to discuss things with people who don't GET it...

I think we can both agree there are extremists on both sides of the fence (like oh so many other things... ). There are the pro-lifers who assault or murder doctors, or assault women who are going into a clinic. There are pro-choicers who take a cavalier attitude to abortion, and certainly those who lie to women about the developmental phase the fetus is in (though I've seen pro-lifers exaggerate this as well). There's a documentary you should check out; Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion (2007) about the pro-life movement. I thought it was pretty unbiased, but some of the participants felt otherwise after some reviews came out (which you can read if you Google the title). It was insightful for me, and really made me look at abortion in a different way (didn't change me mind, but made me realize more what a really difficult decision it is). Basically it follows some key people in the pro-life movement and documents their activities, thoughts, etc. To some it shows the lunacy in what they do, but to others it shows WHY they use the methods they do.

BOTH sides have instances where they've been less than honest, which is what is such a shame. This goes for BC as well; where can you go to get information that is unbiased and honest? Where someone doesn't have an agenda? Though I agree with the mission of PP, I do question the motives of some individuals who work there, because let's face it, it's a sensitive issue. And that's where you get into trouble - the face people of your organization don't honor your mission, and it gives the whole company a bad name.

As far as the terminology... it's all PR spin, from both sides. I think there are some people on each side who really care about the women involved, and others who are just in it to "win". Again, that applies to so, so many other things as well!