Why aren't the anti-choice people against birth control pills.

[sweetie]

...the root of it is, 'who decides?'...the individual woman or some momentary majority of republicrat village idiots?..

...maybe when you stoooopid motherfucking republicrats clean up your own lives you'll have some honest time to stick your noses into other peoples' messes..

..unti then..stfu..

..the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[DiamondDave]

...the root of it is, 'who decides?'...the individual woman or some momentary majority of republicrat village idiots?..

...maybe when you stoooopid motherfucking republicrats clean up your own lives you'll have some honest time to stick your noses into other peoples' messes..

..unti then..stfu..

..the rest of you, have a good day!..

Do you get to decide when others die?? You feel your grandpa is useless and is not really a life considering he must be tube fed etc, so YOU get to decide? No... once a life begins with a pregnancy (and we've gone over the definition of pregnant ad nauseum) that innocent life should not be frivolously terminate for convenience. whether they be 2 weeks of development or 200 years old or anything in between

Your incessant trolling has shown how 'stoooopid' you indeed are, especially in your ignorant rants about 'republicrats'

So take your own advice and go fuck yourself and shut the fuck up

 

[Si modo]

...the root of it is, 'who decides?'...the individual woman or some momentary majority of republicrat village idiots?..

...maybe when you stoooopid motherfucking republicrats clean up your own lives you'll have some honest time to stick your noses into other peoples' messes..

..unti then..stfu..

..the rest of you, have a good day!..

More garbage. And, I'm a Republican, FYI.

Idiot.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Do you get to decide when others die?? You feel your grandpa is useless and is not really a life considering he must be tube fed etc, so YOU get to decide? No... once a life begins with a pregnancy (and we've gone over the definition of pregnant ad nauseum)

two things wrong. I've given you the definition of pregnancy from the most trusted medical dictionary in the field. You claimed some other book said otherwise, but when asked, did not provide a citation or even link to a post that held a citation.

Secondly, you do get to decide when to pull grandpa's life support if he is unable to decide for himself and no specific instructions indicated otherwise. So if an adult is normally able to make medical decisions for relatives who are incapable of making such decisions for themselves, be it children, the elderly, or severely debilitated psych/neuro patients, why do you think all of those decision making abilities somehow disappear for this scenario? Why does a woman in your mind lose the right to decide for things about her own body? Because let's get something straight here: it's not shared. The body belongs to the woman, not the fetus. The fetus is a guest.

 

[Qball]

But see, this is why I disagree with that. It sounds perfectly reasonable, but I think I would question the importance of "teaching" birth control. Birth control isn't a great big secret conservatives want to keep, or could keep, away from adolescents. They show BC pill and condom commercials on TV in the afternoon. You can find out everything you ever wanted to know about condoms and the Pill in a two second Google search.

This isn't the '50s. I'd highly doubt there are a ton of kids these days who have no idea about contraception, where to find it, and what it's used for. My guess is the kids who are totally in the dark probably aren't sexually active ones anyway. I just think teaching contraception in tandem with encouraging kids to be abstinent is kind of like asking them to only take you half-seriously. There need to be clear lines drawn in the same for adolescents on the sex issue.

Never see BC pill and condom commercials on TV in the afternoon or even at night. As someone who is up most of the night, I can say that quite easily.

That's pretty amazing. I see them all the time. I remember not too long ago when I was in high school, and I'd watch MTV after school, I'd see plenty of commercials for both the Pill and condoms. Guess it depends on how much you watch TV, and what you're watching.

I think teaching contraception in tandem with encouraging kids to be abstinent is asking them to take you seriously. To be quite honest, I think you're just using the whole "well they know all about birth control, so they don't need it taught in the classroom" as a excuse to not have it taught at all.

You're right. I don't think we need to waste time and money teaching something teens already know about. That's just meant to psychologically satisfy people who have misdiagnosed the issue. It isn't going to solve anything. As a society, we're more conscientious of sex and contraception than we were twenty years ago, so we need to start expecting people to act like they know better (because the vast majority of them do) and stop making excuses.

If you are going to use that argument, then the whole idea of teaching them to be abstinent is futile since they know all about that too.

So it's either all or nothing.

Hey, you're right. Personally I'm not in favor of sex education beyond what students learn in Health class. I'll admit I'm more partial to A/O sex ed, because I think the main point is teenagers shouldn't be sexually active anyway and that at least targets the behavior that causes pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. Expecting kids to be responsible enough to always use contraception, and use it properly, is a tall order that a lot of "adults" can't seem to manage.

 

[Qball]

Can you support that, please?

sure. i thought this was well known by now

New Study Proves Abstinence Only Education is Failing - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com
The Failure of Abstinence-Only Sex Education | Nick Gier | NewWest.Net
Abstinence-Only a Failure, Latest Research Shows | National Sexuality Resource Center (NSRC)
Abstinence-only increases pregnancy | TimesDaily.com | The Times Daily | Florence, AL
After Years of Decline, Teenage Pregnancy Rate Rises - NYTimes.com

It goes on and on. Most of those articles reference individual studies, if you'd like to look into it more.

I don't buy into those types of studies. They leave way too much to be assumed, and I'm not sure how they determine "success" or "failure" rates of abstinence-only.

First of all, abstinence works when you practice it. I don't think any of the abstinence-only sex counselors who talk to kids are under the impression that all of them will actually practice abstinence. That says nothing about the idea itself. If I never have sex with a woman, there's at least a 0% chance a woman is going to wind up with my baby, right? And also, since I'm sure you didn't read each of those articles before linking them, I wonder how many of them aren't based on the same organization (Guttmacher Institute) or press release or news story.

Second, people don't see to be too interested in testing the methodology behind comprehensive sex ed. Yes, those types of programs exist, but you never see them publicize the results. When any "research organization" decides they want to disprove abstinence-only, those findings show up everywhere.

 

[Founder]

]Birth Control and Contraception Take Life

This is a statement of fact, not an opinion regarding whether taking that life is a good or bad decision in a given situation. It is axiomatic that we can't discuss anything intelligently without understanding and agree with some basic facts.

The simple fact is, every kind of Birth Control interferes with a life trying to develop, whether that interference is government subsidies or penalties, or whether it is the individual, family, church or some other organization encouraging or discouraging the use of pills, late marriage, condoms or the rhythm method, or fertility clinics for that matter, in order to have or not have children.

Now some may come to the conclusion that some life is not desirable and that it should be effectively "aborted" at some stage and that it should not be aided, abetted, or subsidized with taxpayer funds.

While others may reach the conclusion that some life should be encouraged, aided and abetted, and even subsidized with taxpayer money.

Some views may consist of a combination of these views.

But, all decisions we make have consequences, and no more important decisions are ever made by individuals, and nations than decisions about reproduction.

Reproduction decisions are the engine that drives life, and substantially drives it in certain directions, as opposed to other directions.

Our government is already involved, and has been for a long time, in coercing the population into making certain decisions regarding reproduction, so it is a separate subject to argue that government should not be involved coercively in these decisions, as they already are.

But, are they involved in coercing the population, or segments of the population, in the right direction, or the wrong direction?

And are we moving in the right direction or the wrong direction in light of the facts?

 

[SuMar]

One might ask as well, why are liberals against responsible people? The best form of birth control is not having sex until you are ready and mature enough to take care of a baby.

Against responsible people? If by "responsible", you mean people who only teach abstinence sex education, then the reason I personally am against such people is because abstinence only education is proven to increase the rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD transmission.

So tell me, my responsible friend: would you choose the teenagers in your community have higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD transmission? This requires a yes or no response only. You can preach all you want about what SHOULD happen, but here in reality, we react to things that DO happen. Abstinence only education is a proven failure. What would you recommend next?

I don't care if the teenagers in my community have sex or not or what the consequences would be if they choose to use birth control or not. The only FACT I'm stating is if anyone don't want to risk pregnancy or STDs, then the sure way to avoid any of that is NO SEX. If you think that using birth control can stop any STDs or pregnancy, then you should go back and do some more research.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I don't buy into those types of studies. They leave way too much to be assumed, and I'm not sure how they determine "success" or "failure" rates of abstinence-only.

You don't "buy" them because you don't WANT TO. You can't even point to a single major study on the topic and say what you think is wrong. You just believe them to be wrong and I bet you haven't even read a single one! I'm talking controlled scientific studies that have stood up to the harshest of scrutiny, and gained publication in the best medical journals. This has been studied time and time again. To avoid the overwhelming evidence by world class researchers because your layman brain doesn't understand or want to accept cold hard truth is just the definition of ignorance.

So let's just get something straight about our two opinions. I'm coming from the knowledgeable angle of having read the studies and finding them to be credible sources with no sense of bias, conflict of interest, or hazy methods/conclusions. You have probably never read a single primary literature article on the topic, and are basing your misguided opinion off of what a friend of a friend said who read a review of a review in some backwater newspaper. Do I have that about right?

Let me know if you want me to get you primary literature articles so you can actually educate yourself.

I don't care if the teenagers in my community have sex or not or what the consequences would be

yeah I am going to stop you right there. You see people who write laws, review ethics, and create teaching policies do care. That's the point.

No one is claiming abstinence, when practiced, doesn't work. No one. But again, the point is to reduce unwanted teen pregnancy, STD transmission, and abortion rates. I know, the point usually escapes people like you who don't actually care, but for those of us who ARE responsible to their communities, we DO care.

 

[sweetie]

...as one wag put it, 'who can blame a poor woman for terminating her pregnancy rather than bringing a child into a world poisoned by warmongering, debt slavery/monetary fraud, etc. abominations galore?'

...in my experience, the loudest abortion prohibitionists are among the most stoooooopid of republican fucks...

..you folks who mind your business, have a nice day!..

 

[SuMar]

No one is claiming abstinence, when practiced, doesn't work. No one. But again, the point is to reduce unwanted teen pregnancy, STD transmission, and abortion rates. I know, the point usually escapes people like you who don't actually care, but for those of us who ARE responsible to their communities, we DO care.

Oh please, if community really cared it would be more stressed that abstinence is the only true fact of avoiding teen pregnancy and STD transmission. If I show that I really care about community, then liberals accuse me of being "preachy" and in their business, and when I say screw it I don't care, then liberals say shame on you for not caring. It's a catch-22.

So if teens or anyone else choose to be reckless, there's nothing I can do about it, so screw it. Only one I really care about is my kid. And my daughter had told her father and I that she was going to wait until she gets married before having sex.

So as a parent I'm doing a damn good job.

 

[SuMar]

...as one wag put it, 'who can blame a poor woman for terminating her pregnancy rather than bringing a child into a world poisoned by warmongering, debt slavery/monetary fraud, etc. abominations galore?'

!..

Such a moron.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Oh please, if community really cared it would be more stressed that abstinence is the only true fact of avoiding teen pregnancy and STD transmission.

This is stated in every single comprehensive sex-ed class. Every one. Stressed. But again, you seem to live in some fantasy world where saying that alone seems to be enough. Here in the real world, we take practical measures to keep our community's children from unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and abortion. We teach them about abstinence, and we teach them how to be responsible about sex, an activity which is biologically natural for human beings at that age.

You on the other hand don't care. You said it best in your last post. You just don't care about kids. And while you are trying to convince yourself that you are being a good parent, please understand that denying your daughter knowledge about how to be safe means that SHE is at a higher risk of unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and abortion. That's great that she said she would wait for marriage. I'm sure any young teenager placed in her position with the pressure I'm sure she got from you would say the same thing. But when she goes off to college and mommy and daddy aren't there, and she engages in a mature relationship, the question you should be asking yourself is: "Would she know how to be responsible, if she does engage in sex?" My guess is no.

So you keep on trying to make yourself believe that you're really a good parent. Go ahead and overlook all evidence and facts that suggest otherwise. Ignore all the towns full of parents who said things JUST like you and who dealt with the unwanted outcomes. But you're not fooling me into thinking you are practicing good parenting, despite good intentions, and you're not fooling any of the other responsible people in my community. I hope your daughter receives a better education than you had.

 

[Founder]

Sex And Marriage Go Together Like A Horse And Carriage.

In Modern America the argument over how to reduce, or eliminate, unwanted pregnancies, STDs and abortions, there are for the most part these two side. The one side favoring Abstinence Only Education, and the other favoring Sex Education Only.

Both sides get nowhere with their bickering and throat choking because each is wrong in their own way and each is right in their own way. Each one claims they want a moral AND practical outcome, but neither is going to get either, or both, with their plan because each has a vision that mostly consists of opposing the other, and never mind the young people themselves, the needs of the wider community, or the teachings of God.

Fact is, the Sex Education people have an agenda that doesn't care about Children, marriage, family, the nation or God, while the Abstinence Only people care only about their own vision of God's will and nothing else.

Fact is, God wants both marriage and children in that order, but if forced to choose between marriage without children or children without marriage He will always choose children over marriage.

On the other hand, both present day waring sides are opposed to more marriage and more children as a solution. Both want less children and fewer marriages and, sad to say, and both support late marriage and some form of birth control both inside and outside of marriage.

Sex Education is generally a Democrat Heathen vision for creating a modern Sodom and Gommorah. While Abstinence Only is a Republican Religious vision of late marriage and few or none children. The one believes in anything goes, and the other believes in nothing goes.

Let's look at an example of what we should be all about: Our Puritan founding families knew what sex and other things were all about and dealt with all of it nearly perfectly. They knew kids were hot to have sex from an early teen age, as nature and God intended, but they didn't want Abstinence Only, or Sex Education. What they did want was lots of sex, marriage and lots of children in stable marriages for life, and they got it. The result was they created the greatest nation in the history that has been the envy of the world, a nation that is now in decline from that former greatness.

Fact is, these fore-people of ours kept very good records, and when social scientists recently pumped all their marriage and birth dates into a computer they found that something like 50% of the Puritan girls were pregnant on their wedding day. So much for Abstinence Only, and so much for Sex Education.

The Puritans invented a device that accomplished these results. It was called a Bundling Bed. This bed had a big removable board right down the middle used for "separating" the two occupants. Boys interested in dating girls would come calling to her house, and instead of going home late at night they would often stay overnight and sleep in this bundling bed alongside the girl they had come to court (date.)

Well, ofttimes, at times of the young people's choosing, the board in the middle served as more of a highway to love, than a wall against it.

The difference then and now was that the girl that gotten pregnant would always be married by the boy that did it, or the boy would face the father's musket. There were no single moms and no divorces, never mind no STDs, and certainly there were no abortions. There was only SEX, and MARRIAGE for life, and lots of children.

For America to even survive, never mind recover her greatness, we need to return to some version of the Sex Education and Abstinence Only family values of our Pilgrim fathers and mothers.

 

[JScott]

Sex And Marriage Go Together Like A Horse And Carriage.

In Modern America the argument over how to reduce, or eliminate, unwanted pregnancies, STDs and abortions, there are for the most part these two side. The one side favoring Abstinence Only Education, and the other favoring Sex Education Only.

Both sides get nowhere with their bickering and throat choking because each is wrong in their own way and each is right in their own way. Each one claims they want a moral AND practical outcome, but neither is going to get either, or both, with their plan because each has a vision that mostly consists of opposing the other, and never mind the young people themselves, the needs of the wider community, or the teachings of God.

Fact is, the Sex Education people have an agenda that doesn't care about Children, marriage, family, the nation or God, while the Abstinence Only people care only about their own vision of God's will and nothing else.

Fact is, God wants both marriage and children in that order, but if forced to choose between marriage without children or children without marriage He will always choose children over marriage.

On the other hand, both present day waring sides are opposed to more marriage and more children as a solution. Both want less children and fewer marriages and, sad to say, and both support late marriage and some form of birth control both inside and outside of marriage.

Sex Education is generally a Democrat Heathen vision for creating a modern Sodom and Gommorah. While Abstinence Only is a Republican Religious vision of late marriage and few or none children. The one believes in anything goes, and the other believes in nothing goes.

Let's look at an example of what we should be all about: Our Puritan founding families knew what sex and other things were all about and dealt with all of it nearly perfectly. They knew kids were hot to have sex from an early teen age, as nature and God intended, but they didn't want Abstinence Only, or Sex Education. What they did want was lots of sex, marriage and lots of children in stable marriages for life, and they got it. The result was they created the greatest nation in the history that has been the envy of the world, a nation that is now in decline from that former greatness.

Fact is, these fore-people of ours kept very good records, and when social scientists recently pumped all their marriage and birth dates into a computer they found that something like 50% of the Puritan girls were pregnant on their wedding day. So much for Abstinence Only, and so much for Sex Education.

The Puritans invented a device that accomplished these results. It was called a Bundling Bed. This bed had a big removable board right down the middle used for "separating" the two occupants. Boys interested in dating girls would come calling to her house, and instead of going home late at night they would often stay overnight and sleep in this bundling bed alongside the girl they had come to court (date.)

Well, ofttimes, at times of the young people's choosing, the board in the middle served as more of a highway to love, than a wall against it.

The difference then and now was that the girl that gotten pregnant would always be married by the boy that did it, or the boy would face the father's musket. There were no single moms and no divorces, never mind no STDs, and certainly there were no abortions. There was only SEX, and MARRIAGE for life, and lots of children.

For America to even survive, never mind recover her greatness, we need to return to some version of the Sex Education and Abstinence Only family values of our Pilgrim fathers and mothers.

STDs existed then. There were also single moms. Abortion has been around forever as well.

These things you talk about have nothing to do with the survival of our country.

"Fact is, the Sex Education people have an agenda that doesn't care about Children, marriage, family, the nation or God, while the Abstinence Only people care only about their own vision of God's will and nothing else."

This is no fact. This is your opinion. To say people dont care about their children is patronizing.

"Fact is, God wants both marriage and children in that order, but if forced to choose between marriage without children or children without marriage He will always choose children over marriage."

How do you know what God wants?

"Sex Education is generally a Democrat Heathen vision for creating a modern Sodom and Gommorah"

So democrats are heathens? No partisan spin there right?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sex And Marriage Go Together Like A Horse And Carriage.

In Modern America the argument over how to reduce, or eliminate, unwanted pregnancies, STDs and abortions, there are for the most part these two side. The one side favoring Abstinence Only Education, and the other favoring Sex Education Only.

[truncated]

See what you just posted is this thing known as an opinion. Now I would hope you're not so foolish as to believe every opinion you run across as fact, as that would make you incredibly gullible.

You see the two "sides" of the debate are not equal but opposite opinions. One is based on guesses, and stating what is desired, and the other is based on factual evidence from large unbiased studies, and several of them. Some of the studies are prospective (looking forward in time), and many are retrospective, but all draw factual conclusions about the world called "reality".

The fact still remains that by adulthood, 95% of Americans have engaged in premarital sex. This is NOT saying "well everyone is doing it so it should be ok", but it is saying "everyone IS doing it, and you should plan/react/teach accordingly". Studies have also shown that abstinence only education increases unwanted teen pregnancy, STD transmission, and abortion across the board. Again, you seem to be ignoring these facts because of your irrational religion-based opinion. All opinions are not created equal, and in fact yours appears to lose contact with reality. There's a word for that: psychosis.

 

[DiamondDave]

YOU should plan and teach accordingly... as the physical and mental well being of YOUR child is YOUR responsibility... you don't substitute parenting with a 'health class'.... the basics about biology, reproduction, the fact that there are STDs, etc is all well and good... and teaching that there are birth control and disease control methods that exist is all well and fine... but when handing out birth control, telling them birth and disease control is ok, etc is done by a school and not by a parent, it has crossed the line...

My oldest is of an age where her friends have boyfriends and I know sexual activity has happened with some of her friends (hell, 1 is pregnant at 14)... but if I find 1 teacher coaching on what to do with sex/birth control or some condom distribution activity going on in the school, they will have me all over them like stink on a monkey... it is MY job to talk with my kids on sex, relationships, my family standards, etc... just as it is my job to have rules and boundaries on when dating can happen, etc... you may want your children coached and parented by the system, I'll stick to doing my own parental job

 

[Eccgmike]

...as one wag put it, 'who can blame a poor woman for terminating her pregnancy rather than bringing a child into a world poisoned by warmongering, debt slavery/monetary fraud, etc. abominations galore?'

...in my experience, the loudest abortion prohibitionists are among the most stoooooopid of republican fucks...

..you folks who mind your business, have a nice day!..

Well let's see here,.... Warmongering, ie Vietnam?; started by a democrat,.....Debt, ie Obama's unparalleled $2 trillion debt (also a democrat), slavery; thrived under democrats, emancipated by a republican, monetary fraud, ie; the IMF, Freedie Mac, Fannie May, Ben Bernankie, Tax Cheat Gietner, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, etc. (also abominations) I think Sweetie has a point. Liberals should stop procreating until we can rid the world of abominable democrats! Nice shootin' Sweetie!!

 

[Gunny]

In the rare chance an egg is produced while a woman is on birth control, the birth control pill will often cause a fertilized egg - in other words - a HUMAN BEING - to fail to attach to the uterine wall. This results in an abortion.

Why is it OK to kill an embryo right after conception with a birth control pill, but not anything else?

Project red herrings and/or ad hominems much? Oh ... yeah ... only every thread.

You got NOTHING here, bubba.

 

[SuMar]

You just don't care about kids. And while you are trying to convince yourself that you are being a good parent, please understand that denying your daughter knowledge about how to be safe means that SHE is at a higher risk of unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and abortion. That's great that she said she would wait for marriage. I'm sure any young teenager placed in her position with the pressure I'm sure she got from you would say the same thing. But when she goes off to college and mommy and daddy aren't there, and she engages in a mature relationship, the question you should be asking yourself is: "Would she know how to be responsible, if she does engage in sex?" My guess is no.

You are such a moron. I am not denying my daughter of any knowledge you cretin. We have had many conversations on the subject of birth control and STDs. She actually asked me at one point, "doesn't it make sense not to have sex until you are ready.?"

And on another note, parents should be responsible for their own kids, that's why I don't care enough. It angers me that my tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood funding to perform abortions as another birth control alternative.