I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a pro-choice person on this point. I may not agree with this person on anything else concerning abortion, but if we agree that contraception for minors will mean fewer abortions, then cooperation seems to be a sensible thing. I believe this stance provides common ground between pro-life and pro-choice adherents. It is a place where all could meet to actually accomplish a goal everyone agrees on; a serious reduction in the number of abortions. I am assuming that people on either side of this issue want fewer abortions. Am I right regarding that assumption? So, the forum topic is this: Are you in favor of reducing the number of abortions among minors by providing them with contraception without parental consent? Notice that the forum topic is not whether abortion is right or wrong. That is actually irrelevant to the topic since fewer is better than more. We can't afford an all or none mentality on this issue. So, what do you think?
Once again, here is the topic: Are you in favor of reducing the number of abortions among minors by providing them with contraception without parental consent?
I am all for providing birth control to avoid abortions and medical problems in women. I can't under stand those who say they are pro-life but don't want to provide birth control to anyone.
I know why they are opposed to abortion AND opposed to contraception for everyone. They have a higher goal than reducing the number of abortions. Guess what it is. They feel morally obligated to control the sexual behavior of all unmarried folks. Contraception for minors is a license to have sex as far as many pro-lifers are concerned. Therefore, discouraging the unmarried from having sex is more important that reducing the number of abortions. It is that simple.
cam8510, you are one pro-lifer I agree with. I am pro-choice. Let me not digress. I thoroughly applaud your position regarding making contraceptives readily available for teenagers, even without their parents' consent. Your analysis of the situation is on target and intelligent! Kudos to you a multillion times!
I agree with you.
One of the beliefs, as a pro-choice person, that annoys me about the pro-life people, is many of them argue against comprehensive sex education in schools and providing easy access to contraception for high school students.
Your claim, "I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent" is much more consistent with someone who is actually against abortion.
Teenagers are going to have sex. That's not something that can be changed. We don't have to encourage it, but if a teenager is going to have sex, the person should be able to avoid pregnancy.
cam8510 is one of the exceptions to the rule. God bless him. You are right, Sooner28, the average pro-lifer is against abortion and all forms of artificial contraception. The average pro-lifer believes that any act of sex should result in children, pure and simple! This is why I give a resounding applause to cam8510. His suggestion for making contraceptives readily available for teenagers, even without parental consent is so lucidly spot on!
And maybe the other shoe isn't going to drop on this forum. hmm. But there is another thing that I mentioned in my original post. This could be a point of agreement between PL and PC. If we don't agree on anything else, agreement here could have a tremendous effect. The problem is, I think it is up to the PC side to reach across to the PL side. But, there isn't any trust between the sides, so it may never work.
There are so many reasons why this makes so much sense. As a mother, I've got very mixed feelings about putting a teenager on BC without parental consent but I've also never worked out my feelings about abortion either. I hate the idea of anyone having to make that kind of decision but also run the gamut: If someone wants an abortion, then access should be available and safe. Anyway, the birth control question: Credible studies show that better access to birth control DOES reduce abortion: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/0 … abortions/
I am PC, and I think this is a fantastic idea. Most parents would like to believe their children are morally pure, but more than ever, teens are sexually active. I think this would be a great point to see PC's and PL's work together for the greater good I believe PC's are misunderstood, being PC does not mean we promote teen sex or abortion, it does mean we are pro sex and pro death, it means we are pro choice, as in having the right to make our own decisions without government interference...I am one PC, out of may I am sure, that would love to see your idea made into law:)
I am certain that many PC are misunderstood by PL and the opposite is true as well. I know many pro choice people and I know they aren't excited about anybody getting an abortion. It makes them as sad as it makes me or any other PL. On the other hand, it is not that pro lifers want to tell women what they can do with their bodies. We believe we are speaking for the defenseless baby. There is a difference, in our view, of the woman's body and the baby. But I don't want to lose sight of the main point of the forum: contraception and condoms in the hands of minors without parental consent and a cooperative effort between PL and PC to get the contraceptives and condoms out there.
I haven't read all the comments, but I was so happy to see your post. I think the real problem with the abortion debate (and many debates in our country) is the breakdown in discussion. Of course, everyone agrees that abortion should be decreased, eradicated in a utopian world. No one wants abortion. But an approach that suggests that abstinence is the only way (or a realistic way) and that everyone should just stop having sex is just not a reasonable way to start the conversation, so we're at a deadlock. The data out their is clear that education and contraception decreases teen pregnancy and helps teens make healthier decisions about sex (including delaying sex) - isn't that the goal? So, yes, I support teen access to contraception without parental consent, and I believe that it should be coupled with comprehensive sex. ed that educates not only about sex and contraception, but about values, decision-making, and effective, open communication.
Well put LauraGT. And the discussion with PL can begin. There must be many like me who believe in this approach. We just begin talking it up with those who will listen. A new cooperative effort called "Middle Ground" could start. No talking about the morality of abortion, only about how to reduce the number of abortions. No other goals allowed, like abstinence or a woman's rights. Only reducing the abortion rate. Just in this cooperative effort.
I don't think we should be handing out contraception to people, and I don't think we should be paying for their abortions either but I'm just a crazy extremist.
Nope it doesn't make you an extremist it makes you really bad at maths.
The cost of an abortion or contraception ads up to a tiny fraction of the cost of natal and pre-natal healthcare, child support and/or the foster program. Thus basic mathematics (which escape some people) make it pretty obvious which is the better choice from the economic perspective.
Onusonus, I'm glad you shared your thoughts. We have been discussing ways to reduce the number of abortions in this forum. I'd love to have your input. I am pro life. My number one desire concerning this issue is to see fewer abortions. While abstinence certainly is a sure fire way of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy and abortion, it only works if a person abstains from sex. It is my feeling that there are not many people, youth included, who will do that. If the issue is the life of the unborn, wouldn't it make sense to encourage the use of condoms and contraception? Wouldn't that help us achieve the goal in a way that abstinence won't? I am really interested in how you feel about this.
If you want to bring down the number of abortions in America the first thing you need to do is stop the government from funding the industry. You can see through the example of the ACORN scandal what happens when the government ceases to fund them. They disappear, regroup, and reinvent themselves in order to get back on the government dole. But why do they need government aid when there is such a high demand for abortions? The truth is, there isn't. The free market works off of the principle of supply and demand, so the only reason they need government subsidies is because they can not stand on their own and they would otherwise shrivel into a very insignificant entity.
As it now stands however, our youth are being pushed and persuaded by liberal politics and policies to abandon a traditional view of families, virtue, and fidelity under the guise of civil rights issues. Strangely to them a woman has the most freedom when she is afforded the opportunity to be as promiscuous as she wants, to explore her sexuality, and create for her the illusion that there are no consequences for her actions by providing a quick way out. These are the so called freedoms that have caused Americans to experience record breaking divorce rates, abortions, out of wedlock pregnancies, teen pregnancies, dysfunctional families, single parent households, and rampant outbreaks of STD's. All of which decrease the standard of living and inevitably put us on the path to the great welfare society in which we now live. It is a state of dependence rather than independence, and mocks the very principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which this nation was founded on.
Things that make one go completely..............ummmmmmm! I am TOTALLY SPEECHLESS! Totally unbelievable to say the least! Someone please PINCH me, PINCH me please! What?!!
The exploration of one's sexuality, (male or female,) doesn't make one promiscuous or irresponsible as long as they use condoms to prevent STD's and pregnancy. The government does not fund, (well, at least here in the USA,) abortions. Planned Parenthood uses none of the government grant money it receives on providing abortions. Statistically speaking abortions are pretty cheap as far as medical procedures go and woman are required to pay for them, themselves. When a woman is unable to pay for an abortion herself there is recourse in the financial aid which collected from private citizens and women's rights groups. (Not from government funding.) Government funding given to organizations such as Planned Parenthood go %100 to administrative costs, counseling costs, research, education, etc., NOT to fund abortions.
Liberal politics and policies have nothing to do with the "breakdown in society" or number of abortions being performed. Sex, a lack of education regarding sex, a forever persistent and always relevant attitude of "well, that won't happen to me," has to do with young girls getting themselves knocked up by young guys who can't keep it in their pants or put a wrapper on it.
Furthermore, I think you might find that many of our societal ills statistically have just as much to do with overpopulation than a lack of morality destroying the foundation of humankind. More people from which to draw from the pool mean more messed up things happening.
Lastly, I sincerely believe that the ability for women to divorce in the last fifty years (after centuries of varying degrees of awfulness revolving around the issue,) is one of the greatest leaps in civil rights issues to date. No longer do women HAVE to stay in an abusive relationship. Finally women are considered, if not equal to men, than at the very least not their property to be sold off to another man for some heads of cattle then forced to bear children and be beheaded if they don't produce a male heir.
And again wrong, STD's rates, teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are actually all down and have been for decades, the reason as most people in this thread have figured out is education on those issues.
Onusonus, I read your post several times. The forum topic is "The Abortion Debate and Contraception (with an N) for Minors." I didn't see the word "contraception" (with or without the N) used in your post.
I looked for your ideas on how to reduce the number of abortions and found two things. 1. Stop funding abortions with tax payer money and the result will be fewer unwanted pregnancies. 2. Stop using liberal policies to push people into immoral lifestyles such as promiscuity.
I'm going to try something here which may or may not work. A allegorical story. Suppose there was a town where the people one day walked out of their homes to discover that a group had gathered and begun digging a hole right in the middle of town. (Don't worry about why). Everyone met to decide what to do. Two opinions developed. One side recommended stopping the people from digging. The other side suggested filling in the hole. They tried both methods. First, they pushed all the dirt back into the hole. The next day the diggers were back and so was the hole. They tried the second method and restrained the diggers so that digging stopped. The next day the went outside to discover that the hole, while not deeper, was still there. Guess what? Someone suggested that they needed to stop the digging AND fill the hole back in. And it worked.
Onusonus, you and most pro life advocates (remember I am one) are represented in the story by those who want to stop the digging. The problem is that unwanted pregnancies will exist whether or not abortions are legally available. Stop abortions and the primary problem will remain. You see, the primary problem is not abortion, it is unwanted pregnancies. The failure to see that point is one of the weaknesses of the pro life movement.
Pro choice is represented in the story by those who want to fill in the hole. They have attempted to deal with unwanted pregnancies by the use of abortion. I must give credit here to the pro choice people writing in this blog. They do not seem to be suggesting that abortion alone is the solution. In that regard my story does not quite work.
What is the most effective way to proceed? I think that we need to deal with what is causing the demand for abortions which is unwanted pregnancies. That is the primary problem. Abortion deals with this problem in an unacceptable way (to me) after the fact. Abstinence deals with it in an ineffective way before the fact. We must deal directly with the problem with the aggressive use of sex education and birth control. Those two things would be a direct blow at the primary problem.
The pro choice side already practices this and should be commended for their efforts. My side, the pro life side, is so philosophically blinded that they cannot even see what the primary problem is.
I could never participate in encouraging a woman to have an abortion, but I most certainly could join with anyone to help a young woman to never have the need for an abortion.
Onusonus, I don't think the supply and demand suggestion works very well with people. It might work in the market place with products and services, but not with people.
Cam, I fully understand that contraception and education are effective methods to avoid unwanted pregnancies however the statistics remain stagnant. It still averages 1.5 million infant deaths per year since Roe v Wade. And when people bring up issues of violence such as rape those numbers make up a fraction of a percent of the real issue which is simply that millions of babies are being aborted because Johnny didn't wear a condom, and this desire to empower women by creating lax laws that make it even more convenient for teenagers to order an abortion with a side of fries.
It's just like our welfare system. During the depression welfare was available but people were embarrassed to get on it. They actually printed your name in the paper, and everybody in town knew that your family was on welfare. As a result most people fought tooth and nail to stay off of it. Today it's like a badge of honor, and you are a sucker if you don't get the free money you never worked for but "deserve".
Now don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying that abortion's should be printed in the papers, but at the very least their parents should be notified if they are a minor. Instead we're seeing laws on the plate that directly undermine the parents of minors in order to champion the woman's right to avoid the consequences of her mistakes. The mistake might actually be more carefully considered however, if there was less availability, and more parental involvement.
It is a cultural issue, and God forbid we advocate outdated, stone aged concepts like chastity and morality, because we as a society are liberally/progressively moving away from traditional values.
Chastity and morality were stone age values? Gosh - I never knew that. When did the promiscuity start?
I think you are right about that. I'm not so sure the "stoneagers" were into chastity and abstinence. Not sure when it all began. Maybe with the first religion that decided to exert its control over the sexual practices of people.
Chastity and abstinence are religious nonsense that no one ever follows. It "all began," when we struggled out of the primordial slime.
Personally I think abortion is preferable to nature's own population controls. Considering 30% or so of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion.
Hilariously wrong however, not up to date on your classical history I see. The greatest flowering of human culture until the modern age marked precisely by the opposite of sexual repression, sexuality is the inevitable outcome of a successful culture as people experience greater freedom and experiment. Actually the facts are that since the common availability of contraception (made possible by the sexual revolution) the rate of unintended pregnancy has FALLEN significantly, you just never cease to be wrong do you?
First of all we are not moving away from any kind of conservative morality. We've always been where we are now, it was simply hidden in the past. Teen pregnancies were hidden by parents, homosexual tendencies were a carefully guarded secret, marital unfaithfulness another secret.
You say that with contraception and education statistics remain stagnant. Might that not be because the pro life movement reduces their effectiveness by stonewalling any efforts to increase these services.
Let me ask you a question after a set up comment. Education and contraception do work. That is the source of the decline in the abortion rate which we have seen for some time now. SINCE they work, wouldn't you think that anyone opposing these efforts is actually encouraging more abortions? I believe that is good, solid common sense. If you stand in the way of what works, you are contributing to the problem. The pro life movement has lost its way. It doesn't even understand the primary, underlying problem within the larger abortion debate. It is time to rethink the pro life position and use strategies and tactics that actually reduce the number of abortions. Pro life has lost track of that goal. They want to save money and control the sexual practices of people. The goal of reducing the abortion rate has been lost. It is time for more pro lifers to recognize this fact and to stop being led around by a ring in their noses. The leadership of any organization is not always right. Questioning authority is the right thing to do. Try to set the issue of reducing the abortion rate in front of you. Attempt to come up with practical ways to bring down that rate. Abortion need not be one of those ways. Abstinence can be one of them. What would be your findings. If you are left only with pulling the plug on abortions and demanding abstinence, they you are part of the problem. If you discover that aggressive sex ed and contraception along with teaching abstinence works, then you have become part of the solution. Sorry, I don't mean to be getting personal, I just want to wake up as many of my fellow pro lifers as possible.
I got lost in my own verbosity at a couple of points. It may seem that I consider homosexuality to be an immoral practice. Actually, I believe that gay people should be allowed to be fully human and participate in society as equals (and no more than equals) to the rest of us.
Second, I wrote the following: " Try to set the issue of reducing the abortion rate in front of you. Attempt to come up with practical ways to bring down that rate. Abortion need not be one of those ways." That didn't make sense. It should say, Try to set the issue of reducing unwanted pregnancies in front of you........" That should make sense now.
Again I agree with you that education and contraception do work, but with limited results. The idea that you and I are responsible for the actions of promiscuous teenagers is a pathway to having even more government involvement in the lives of women, something the pro abortionists claim to be against. But once our tax dollars are being pumped into the production of contraceptives, and the abortion industry that is exactly what they will get. If people are going to choose to be careless cohabitators then they themselves should make the decision without trying to get a handout from the government like Sandra Fluke (the up and rising star of the DNC) is asking.
If in fact the government should have no say with what goes on with a persons body, then no other insidious practice should go unchecked. In this scenario, all harmful drugs would be legal, as well as prostitution. When this happens it would completely sink the liberal assertions of a need for social programs such as healthcare, unemployment insurance, and welfare to be extended freely to every citizen. Along with this there would be a dramatic rise in death, divorce, and broken homes in general in the country, more fatherless children, and less education.
This is obviously counter to the goals of society which should be to progress in knowledge and understanding, and to allow justice to prevail. The importance of basic human interests on this road will undoubtedly become less desirable as the social elites will seek to slacken the laws which cover abortion.
The justification of such widespread fetal murder isn't enough for progressives, it is already a popular notion that having a large number of kids is much too inconvenient for the average person, and they can not afford it. With this mentality eventually social elites will list to mandate a one child rule in America. So once again the government will be telling you what you can and cannot do with your body.
Can we stick to the term: pro-choice?, without extolling the term pro-abortion? Quite honestly, I've already mentioned that abortions are in no way funded by tax payer money, are you specifically ignoring my statement or did you not see it? Do you disagree with it? If so, can you move forward and use links or quotes to support why you disagree with this position? I'd be happy to consider your point of view even if I still continue to disagree with it.
I've often been an advocate of self-regulating how many children Americans *should* have. (Not through government interference, but through common-sense.) On this we do agree. However:
Your comments about Sandra Fluke confuse me. If the government is implementing a health care program for all Americans, why would birth control not be covered under this new system? It's certainly one of the sticking points for many Americans, but the idea that it's "costing" us is really quite absurd. I can readily tell you that the cost of prescription birth control vastly undercuts the cost of a new life. (Though it doesn't undercut the cost of an abortion if looked at in the long-term.) Again, we move into a point where providing free birth control dramatically decreases the costs of health care and the amount of abortions being performed, which is exactly the goal of both pro-CHOICER's and pro-LIFER's.
Sure thing we can say "pro-choice" if that waters it down for you.
But I definitely have to disagree on where the money goes. Planned parenthood, formerly known as "the Negro project" received $657.1 million in federal grants and contracts over the course of seven years in a 2008 survey. Around 98% of their services go to, I suppose a more flowery term might be, prenatal zygote removal surgery, while the other two percent went to a whopping 2,400 adoptions and 9,400 pap smears. So yes I believe that money goes to fund abortions.
Planned Parenthood has been nothing but transparent in where their money goes and how it's spent. No government funds go to providing abortions. Most women who use Planned Parenthood use it in order to obtain preventive services. Pro-choice is the preferred, term, it's a measure of respect to those of us who wish to allow women the responsibility of what they do with their bodies. Our bodies / our health care / our decisions.
Either way, I don't really understand what any of these point either of us is trying to make have to do with the conversation at hand:
Contraception for minors and how this should be a topic both pro-life & pro-choice advocates can rally around.
And again I agree that people should use contraception, but I shouldn't have to pay for it or abortions. And perhaps the money goes to something indirectly related to the removal of infant craniums and the dismemberment of other limbs, but in the long run those same facilities would go under if the government cut them loose, otherwise they would be perfectly capable of standing on their own.
But... more birth control results in less abortions. Don't you want that?
Still can't do basic math? Paying for contraception and even abortions now means you don't have to pay for foster programs, adoption, child support, food stamps etc. etc. down the line. It works out much cheaper.
The cartoon that was shared by a recent guest to the forum has had me thinking. Even as a pro life person, I can see two important mindsets that are revealed in the cartoon. First, it characterizes Pro Choice people as women who get multiple abortions and want other people to pay for them. Undoubtedly there are people who use abortion as birth control, but that is not the mindset I am encountering in this forum. I am meeting people who are pro choice, but want to see fewer abortions. One person said in an ideal world, there would be no abortions needed. I am assuming that many pro choice individuals would be uncomfortable with the idea of using abortion as a means of birth control so the person could be careless about sex. The cartoon presents a "straw man" type of argument in which the pro choice side is mis-characterized in a way that makes their side easier to refute. This is not a way to promote helpful dialogue. The second problem I see with the cartoon is that the pro life person is opposed to their money going for contraception for other people. This is disturbing to me. This kind of thinking means that saving money is more important than preventing an abortion, which to that pro life person is the same as preventing a murder. Saving money, then, is a higher priority than saving the life of the baby. So now we have uncovered two priorities among my pro life friends which have been placed above reducing the number of abortions and saving the life of the babies. One higher priority is to control the sexual behavior of unmarried people, the other is to save money. Wake up fellow pro lifers, our thinking is very shallow.
On the other hand, we are also paying for welfare, foodstamps and medical care for these babies. I vbelieve cam said it well with the idea of "middle ground"
WE certainly are! It is better to educate teens regarding the tantamount importance of contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence only sex education DOES NOT work! NEWS FLASH: Anyone who believes that abstinence only sex education is the ONLY SOLUTION to curb teen pregnancy is living in FANTASY LAND! My mother, who was a devout Roman Catholic, even stated that teenagers need to know about contraception, they are going to have sex so they should be protected!
Oh cool, a pro-life argument that makes sense and doesn't try to claim eminent domain over my uterus. Yes.
Sex ed in schools shouldn't be sugar-coated, vague and useless, either. Kids should be exposed to as much reality as possible as soon as possible. They all have the Internet, chances are the boys have been wanking to porn since the second or third grade anyway. A raw documentary about what it's like to have an abortion or be a mom at 13 (complete with the excruciating labour and birth) along with some gruesome pus-riddled STD cases should sober them up. Parents who try to shelter their kids from things like that are just asking for all kinds of stupid rebellious behaviour later.
I don't think I ever said how awesome a post this is a kudos on the spirit of cooperation.
I'm pro-choice and I believe your attitude on this matter is the right way to go.
Do you really want to see teenage pregnancy go down and a reduction in abortions? I'm the last guy who wants more laws but try this out, any body over the age of 16 and after attending a sex ed course in high school or any place designated who impregnates or gets pregnant MUST support the child monetarily until the child is 18 or serve 5 years in prison! I bet you would see a reduction in bot pregnancies and abortions.
Wont ever happen, too many liberals want MY money to support somebody elses children.
Isn't that a bit draconic? Why not educate our young people regarding responsible sexual behavior with the use of contraceptives. What America needs is a more comprehensive sex education which includes responsible and mature sexual behavior, discussion of STDs and AIDs and how to prevent/cure the disease, and the use of contraception. Abstinence only sex education is so atavisitic and clearly has no place in modern America.
Yes, Repairguy47, it's the liberals fault! The liberals want your money to care for the babes of unwed mothers!
Would those be the same liberals that want more funding for birth control in the first place?
Would those be the same liberals that advocate *more* than abstinence-only education?
Would those be the same liberals that push legislation like the Lily Ledbetter Act so that young girls feel like the have another option besides getting married and popping out babies?
I mean, really? Conservatives made this mess when they pushed creationism instead of evolution through schools.
They made this mess when they pushed abstinence-only education through schools.
They made this mess when they assert that all a woman needs in order to keep herself from getting pregnant, (and mind you, I'm talking about GROWN women, here, not teenagers,) is to put an aspirin in between her legs.
The conservatives made the bed and teens are now lying in it, praying they won't get pregnant because a pharmacy down the street refused to sell them condoms because of their age and "moral misgivings."
Nicole, I was trying to be civil to the man. You CALLED IT OUT to the multillionth degree! Some people......really, I am just nonplussed by some of the postings here. We as a postmodern society can no longer deny the fact that young people are going to have sex.
So, let us be MATURE and ENLIGHTENED about the topic and propose an intelligent and workable solution to the dilemma of unplanned and unwanted teenage pregnancy. Why are so many people quite apprehensive regarding the discussion of contraceptives for teenagers? They have sex so they should be protected from unwanted pregnancy.
Sadly, the ostrich approach is quite live and well...........Denial is DEFINITELY NOT going to make this issue disappear. Au contraire, this very denial is going to exacerbate the situation to quite epidemic proportions, if it has not already!
There is absolutely no reason to be civil to me, I'm not one of the ones who whine to the moderators!
" We as a postmodern society can no longer deny the fact that young people are going to have sex."
So what, they should pay for their children, I did!
"Why are so many people quite apprehensive regarding the discussion of contraceptives for teenagers? They have sex so they should be protected from unwanted pregnancy."
I dont care if they have sex, teach them to use birth control, hell show em how to put on a condom! I dont care!! Don't make me pay for their mistakes!!
"Sadly, the ostrich approach is quite live and well...........Denial is DEFINITELY NOT going to make this issue disappear. Au contraire, this very denial is going to exacerbate the situation to quite epidemic proportions, if it has not already!"
Where have you been? This discussion has been going on since I was a teenager, that was a loooooong time ago. Liberals have not solved the problems, in fact liberals have made it worse.
Yes, Repairguy47, it's the liberals fault! The liberals want your money to care for the babes of unwed mothers!
A.Yes, they do! Its easier to take mine than to hold others responsible for their actions.
Would those be the same liberals that want more funding for birth control in the first place?
A. Yes, those same liberals who want MY money to go to funding birth control. Why should I fund someone elses bad decisions?
Would those be the same liberals that advocate *more* than abstinence-only education?
A. I'm not sure in what world you live but if you don't have sex you wont get pregnant, weird huh?
Would those be the same liberals that push legislation like the Lily Ledbetter Act so that young girls feel like the have another option besides getting married and popping out babies?
A. If young girls don't know they have a choice already then it doesn't matter when you tell them, can't fix stupid!
I mean, really? Conservatives made this mess when they pushed creationism instead of evolution through schools.
A. So not telling children we evolved made them take their clothes off and have sex? Really?
They made this mess when they pushed abstinence-only education through schools.
A. See answer above
They made this mess when they assert that all a woman needs in order to keep herself from getting pregnant, (and mind you, I'm talking about GROWN women, here, not teenagers,) is to put an aspirin in between her legs.
A. Is that the party platform?
The conservatives made the bed and teens are now lying in it, praying they won't get pregnant because a pharmacy down the street refused to sell them condoms because of their age and "moral misgivings."
A. I don't think you have to be a certain age to buy condoms, did something change?
Like any other store pharmacies can choose whom they service. It's their right, of course, and while all of us have admitted that kids can get condoms, but I personally went through situations during high school from time to time where I was refused service to be sold condoms because of my age.
As for your other points... well, we're obviously not going to agree, the divide is to deep.
I guess funding corporate bailouts, wars on multiple fronts, big oil subsidies, federal aid to big profit, big ticket schools that only allow minorities in if they can run, catch or throw a ball... guess your funds are pretty tied up, in all that.
Oh... and let's not forget the billions of dollars in federal bailouts to those banks which were too big to fail... and then failing to regulate them.
I could see where funding women's health might get lost in the shuffle there... I mean, God forbid, I don't pop out another 7-8 kids who'll grow up so impoverished that turning to military service in order to afford a better life and go to college is one of their few options. Of course, they'll most likely die first or be terribly maimed; never collecting on the debt our country owes them. But we got that oil, so it's all good, right?
Divide is too deep? Yep, We aren't even on the same planet. Nice rant though.
Repairguy47, I am going to try and back up time here since I haven't, myself, heard from you before. I assume you read the Opening Post to this forum. I certainly hope you did not read the title of the forum and rush to judgement.
Nothing whatsoever was said in that post by me about paying for anyone's babies. I'm just not sure where that came from. Second, nothing was said about paying for condoms for anyone. The post has none of that. So why did you come to the forum and begin speaking about things that were not in the Original Post. I actually do not remember much about the subject of financing contraceptives being discussed.
You have spoken against liberals. Am I a liberal? Really, that is a question I want you to answer since this is a forum I started. Am I a liberal?
We are having a civil discussion here with a few exceptions. I will explain more when you answer the above question.
I don't believe that is a very good idea at all.
I don't care if you think its a good idea or not. Telling people that being prolife means we should pay for their birth control and then denying it later is wrong. But, you don't care...do you?
Please read my other post in response to yours.
No thanks, you have shown all I need to know.
You may be misinterpreting something in my original post. When I use the word provide, I am not necessarily saying pay for everything. My basic meaning is that contraceptives should be made available to people of all ages. Financing that measure is another discussion. I introduced this forum with very clear guidelines. You are way outside those boundaries. I invite you to stay and discuss the basic premise that all forms of contraception be made legal for people of all ages without parental consent as a means of reducing the numbers of abortions. I am pro life. I am tired of already being forced to pay for babies that resulted from unintended pregnancies. The best way to avoid single mothers on government assistance is to do something that will prevent the pregnancy. Teaching abstinence is the first point of action, but it cannot be the only action we take because the majority of youth will not abstain. The second point of action is to provide/make available all types of contraception along with vigorous teaching about its use. The results should be fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions and fewer single mothers on government assistance. The poverty rate among teens would drop. More teens would end up going to college and leading productive lives. What is wrong with this approach in your view?
"I introduced this forum with very clear guidelines. You are way outside those boundaries."
Gee, guess I'm not into group thinking. I actually have an opinion although different than yours its still valid regardless of what you think.
Yes, we all have our own opinions about things, but in order to have a productive conversation it is necessary at times to agree on some guidelines. It helps the discussion to move ahead and produce some good ideas. In the course of this forum topic, I have had the pleasure of discussing issues, that are often contentious, in a very friendly manner. Many of us have been taken by surprise by the fact that we, who may have been bitter opponents in the past, have found a small place where we agree. This forum focuses on that little bit of real estate, that small place where we agree. I really do think that this concept is the only way of achieving any measure success in relation to the number of abortions being performed. On one side will be people who will feel they have prevented the death of an unborn person. On the other side will be those who feel they have participated in helping young people move through their teens without being permanently sidetracked in life by a pregnancy the never wanted. And we all will feel good that there are fewer little ones running around with nearly no chance of having a happy childhood and life simply because, from the outset, they were not wanted. I hope I am not putting too many words into the mouths of others here. I am just trying to relate the level of camaraderie some of us have felt. You are certainly free to speak your piece. Just try to understand the truth of what we are talking about and not your possibly preconceived idea of what you think this is about.
Ok, I never agreed to go by your guidelines, sorry bout your luck.
It's a free world, even for unreasonable and rude people.
And for people who say they did something they didn't!
I explained that. But you find it convenient to keep misinterpreting it. But, for the forum record, there could be circumstances in which it would be more cost effective to provide contraceptives at no charge. It would be less expensive than paying for the birth of a baby, the rent, the groceries, the gasoline for the car, the health care etc etc. It would even be less expensive than an abortion. So, yes, maybe it is a good idea to pay for contraceptives in some situations. Now, did you understand what I just said, or has your pride and anger blinded you so you can't read all the words?
The only anger is coming from you, if you want to spend your money on contraceptives feel free, don't volunteer my money. There is no reason to be reasonable, none, my goal is to defeat my enemy. I never said you were my enemy but never think for a second there is some middle ground with me, I have no desire to get along with liberals, I am for freedom not some politically correct society where we all hug.
I never thought for a second that there was any middle ground with you. As for anger, if you look at all I said, it has been very measured and calm. But our time here is wasted and more reasonable folks are waiting to resume the conversation. I'll just leave you here to take up the non middle ground under your feet. Enjoy.
Just a side note: Why do I have two postings of my Forum topic and why is another person's photo at the top of one of the two?
Bravo for a sensible solution that really does address the root of the problem.
Girls don't obtain their parents' consent to have sex. They are engaging in sexual relations at younger and younger ages.
Abstinance only has proven time and again that it is NOT effective with this population.
BTW, sexually transmitted diseases are also on the rise -- rampant, in fact.
So birth control education should also include protection against STDs.
The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.
That is simply common sense.
Birth control should be available to anyone who wants it.
No age requirements.
I love it when people can agree on something like common sense. Thanks for the post.
I totally concur with you, MM. Birth control should be readily available to minors. Teenagers do have sex; however, many people are loathe to acknowledge this and do not teach them the rudiments of birth control with very dire consequences. Of all the developed nations, the United States leads in unplanned teenage pregnancies. This is totally unnecessary in this postmodern era. If birth control was taught more in the schools instead of primarily abstinence-only sex education, there would be a marked increase in teenage pregnancies.
Thank you, thank you. Hold the applause please. I'm blushing. Really, isn't this common sense? Prevent pregnancy=no abortion. I'm sure there is an actual equation for this. A higher goal is afoot. They are more interested in controlling our sex lives. That is precisely why they don't want minors to have rubbers. It might encourage them to have sex. hmmm, they will anyway, won't they?
I totally agree! I'm all for putting condoms in school lockers. That way, the kids don't have to be embarrassed about buying or asking for contraceptives. If the students aren't having sex, they can always use the condoms for water balloons. Condoms are cheap, but abortions and diseases are costly - in more ways than one.
Now that is getting aggressive and that is what it will take to curb the abortion rate. I fully agree with this tactic of putting the condoms in the lockers. Heck, put them in their school shoes while they are in PE class.
Cam, I'm a retired high school teacher, and I'm looking at the situation realistically. Kids are gonna have sex! (most of them, anyway)
It's funny that people think that simply having a condom will lead to increased sex. Don't you think if a condom was the magic key to sex, every 16 year old would move mountains to get one??
As a nurse for all my life, I have to say that a woman's decision to have an abortion is between her and her physician. I do not want to have to obtain very personal information in order to judge if she can have an abortion or not. The situation and circumstances of a women's right to her body is simply no one's business, it is her right. I am against abortion, but that is my conviction and would not impose it on another woman whose situation, health or circumstances are far beyond my understanding or my business. Cam, you are so right, kids will have sex and birth control is a good thing. I just wish the BC didn't have so many side effects. It is a risk in young women.
ehealer, you would know better than I, what the side effects of birth control are in young people. I have a question for you. Is the risk of pregnancy and STDs a greater or lesser risk than the side effects of the birth control? Nice to see you here on my forum topic.
There was a teen who was in care who did all sorts of life endangerment activities. While in care, she requested getting on the pill but added, twas a forbidden subject with her parents. So a argument ensued and eventually this gal, in foster care, was able to get on the pill. She continued following wrong people and endangering her life that led to one night of an attack but she's eternally grateful that she did get permission to get on the pill. Preparing a teen for independent living wasn't/ isn't readily available which includes access to information about such things too. Rather sad, don't you think?
I'm very happy for this girl, but sad that so many others have to go down a very hard road. I believe that reducing the number of abortions would have a tremendous effect on the overall economy and on the financial stability of so many young women. Fewer abortions, higher standard of living. What is the problem?
I am pro choice, but of course the thought of anyone actually having an abortion makes me sad. Just because I am pro choice doesn't mean I love abortion and look forward to women to terminating their pregnancies. Like the other posters here, I would much prefer that unwanted pregnancies never happen in the first place.
When I was a kid, my parents didn't tell me a single thing about sex, positive or negative. They never gave me the "birds and bees" talk or mentioned sex at all. While school programs discouraged me from having sex, my boyfriend encouraged me to go for it. Well, guess who won out. Luckily, this was the early 80s, and the same school program that discouraged sex was also a fairly comprehensive sex ed course, so I knew to get birth control. As a 16-year-old, I was able to get birth control from Planned Parenthood without my parents' consent. My parents would never have consented. If it wasn't for the sex ed I received and confidential birth control for minors, I would have either had an abortion or a baby at 17. Instead, thanks to the education and birth control services I received, I am a high school and college graduate who had the luxury of waiting until I was married and ready for a family to start having babies.
I hope both sides of the debate will continue to agree that birth control is abortion prevention!
What scares me is the return of scared young women, going down dark alleys, to get illegal abortions. Many young readers don't know what I'm referring to! BUT, the older readers here do! Is that what you really prefer to happen again? I hope not!
That's right. Lets fix this thing so they never have to seek a dark alley or a legal abortion. No pregnancy=no abortion.
You're living in a dream world. Abortions will always be out there for medical reasons, incest, rape and even mistakes made by young people.
No, not a dream world. I am talking very specifically about teen pregnancy that could be avoided by the use of contraception without parental consent. The forum topic said nothing about the things you mentioned. Of course there will be the need for abortions for these cases. I don't deny that. When I say No Pregnancy=No Abortion, I mean among teens when contraception without parental consent is allowed. Read the forum topic again please.
Sorry, I don't follow. Are you specifically asking me that question? If so, what did you read in my story that would make you think that is what I want? The point every poster has made so far is that it is beneficial to give teens birth control to prevent abortions.
What a wonderful testimony that this really does work. Your life could have been so different. But it sounds like you have had a good life instead. You have done well.
But you could have spawned your own Honey Boo Boo Child! lol, jk.
LOL! That Honey Boo Boo baby would be all grown up now! She would be about 30, and she might have even blessed me with a Honey Boo Boo grandbaby when she was a teen. I could be touring the pageant circuit with a bottle of go-go juice and a 13-year-old grandkid! Instead, I have 14-year-old and 10-year-old kids. I am one of the "older" moms at my kids' schools. It's depressing sometimes, but then I just remind myself that it's better than being a 30-year-old grandma!
As a Pro-lifer who believes in contraception for everyone who wants it, I have to share one thing that I think the PC side could do to have a stronger position on this particular part of the debate. They need to understand that they are not fighting an opponent that wants fewer abortions. That's right. The PL side is relatively uninterested in that. They are concerned about promiscuity. That is their number one issue. If it wasn't, the abortion rate would be declining because they would be supporting birth control for everyone who wants it. They don't like birth control because it "encourages" promiscuity.
I think this is mostly true.
It's a great explanation for why the PL's don't support measures that can easily reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the United States.
I think promiscuity is a little bit overrated as a major social concern. People have been having sex for a long time, and this country has much more pressing problems. Even so, sex education would very much help with promiscuity, because it teaches about ALL of the side effects of being a little too undiscriminating, such as STDs. Studies also show sex ed. helps reduce teenage pregnancies.
All the evidence lines up for both sides to be very much in favor of free contraception and comprehensive sex education.
And in spite of the evidence, the PL side won't support birth control for minors without parental consent. This proves the existence of a higher priority. The PC side should start publicizing this fact to gain momentum on this particular issue. I truly believe that if PL adherents would budge on this issue, the fight between PC and PL would lose its heat. I truly believe that.
I'd like to point out that 3 in 10 pregnancies among married women are unintended and 4 in 10 of those are aborted. Unintended pregnancy happens when people have one night stands, when they are in long-term relationships, AND when they've been faithfully married for 20 years. And, many "promiscuous" folks take precautions to protect themselves and are just fine.
As a parent of a ten-year-old daughter, this question has been weighing heavily on me for some time now. First, a little background story about my daughter, who I will quote here:
"Mom? How come I don't have a baby brother or sister? Do you and Daddy, (my fiance',) not have sex?"
Me: "Yes, of course we have sex. You know that when you have sex, that is how babies are made, you're very smart."
Her: "Then how come I don't have a baby brother or sister?"
Me: "We use something called birth control. When you have sex with someone and don't want to have a baby you can use it, (insert explanation about condoms and STD's here,) and it will prevent you from having a baby most of the time. It doesn't always work %100 of the time, but if you use condoms you'll greatly reduce your risks of getting an STD or becoming pregnant."
Her: "Mom!?! That's CHEATING!"
Any of you who have known me for some time might realize I'm pretty damn liberal. Heck, I make some of my liberal friends blush with my ideas of how the world (in a perfect world,) should work. I'm pro-choice, pro-birth control, pro-sex, and honestly, as long as enthusiastic consent is involved (between two people of relatively similar age, no adult / children type rankness,) I think everyone should just let their freak-flag fly!
That said, I really appreciate cam8510's honesty and thoughtfulness. Yes, OP, (original poster,) and others who have mentioned it... being pro-choice doesn't equal being pro-abortion. This definitely is a place where the liberal pro-life folks and the liberal pro-choice folks can sit down & break bread together.
One of the greatest evils in our society (well, especially here in America,) has been the legislature of morality. Our founding fathers were quoted time & time again in saying that our country was in no way, shape or form based on the Christian religion. At the time, this was a pretty dang liberal point of view... (mind you, folks still could smell the burning flesh in the air from witch trials at the time,) ... everybody, even those folks up there yelling the loudest about celibacy *wants* to have sex. It's a normal, hard-wired, biological drive, & if you're able to somehow move beyond that, well goody for you, but the rest of us humans, (including teenagers who typically don't have the best impulse control,) are gonna need an outlet of some sort.
To answer your original question of if birth control should be made available to teenagers without parental consent, however, I have one huge caveat in mind, especially since talking to my daughter about this... Condoms. Condoms should be made available in high schools, out of vending machines, slipped into the nurses office, in a freaking fishbowl in your bathroom at home, these teens shouldn't be able to turn a corner on a street without seeing condoms. The STD rate among teenagers is a LOT more concerning to me than unwanted pregnancy is. I'm all for putting the control of a woman (or girl's) body back into her hands, but we have to, HAVE to get the STD rate down in this nation. Unfortunately, for now, that means condoms, not just birth control.
Also, OP, this works both ways too, I'm a regular commenter on Circle of Moms and have read comments from mothers (and GRANDMOTHERS!?!,) who talk about grinding up birth control pills and putting it into their charges food / drink. I laughed, at first, thinking they were joking. They weren't. Do these girls have the right to know that their parents / grandparents, (people who are supposed to be looking out for them,) are secretly drugging them?
I apologize for the lengthiness of this post, but two more things...
First, women's birth control has come a very long way since the fifties, sixties, seventies and even the eighties... however, there are still to this day some things they haven't managed to work out. For example, if your teen daughter is sneaking smokes on the side this greatly increases the risk of blood clots and other dangerous complications from the pill or other hormonal based birth controls. Secondly, birth control needs, NEEDS, needs to be taken at the same time every day to be optimally effective. Even adult women who have been taking the Pill for years fudge this up, I have a hard time thinking that teen girls would be as capable.
Secondly, and this is purely "in a perfect world," wishful thinking, but back in the day, long, long, long ago women had secret knowledges about how to prevent pregnancy naturally. (Think ancient Egyptian times.) These secrets were mostly lost, there's still the possibility of using some of these natural remedies, but without the knowledge our ancestors had on what to take and when to take it, they have become largely ineffective and dangerous. For centuries women were allowed to control their own bodies just simply through a man's ignorance of how they work. (Of course, they were also having their heads chopped off for not bearing male heirs, too, so there you go.)
All that said, I think condoms are readily available to most teenagers, (I picked some up as a teenager, hell, I would go out and buy them for friends who were too embarrassed to do so, the guy at our local 7-11 must have thought I was totally "loose,") without education from school and at home, birth control is only as good as a rubber... preventing pregnancy from all standpoints is admirable, but STD's also last a lifetime.
Great input Nicole. Just for the record, I am the OP. Somehow I got two original posts and another person's picture on one of them. Your emphasis on preventing STDs is so important. Thanks for that. You said something else interesting. "liberal pro-life folks". Now there's a mouthful. Another strategy for the PC side might be to stop dealing with PLs as a homogenous group, but as a conglomerate. Focus could be placed on the more liberal ones and use them to sway the more conservative. I can never see myself becoming pro abortion, but I can SOS....(slide over some) and buddy up to a pro-choice person and pass out condoms. A common goal with a common purpose is what will make a difference in the STD problem and the abortion rate.
btw, your daughter's response, "That's cheating," was hilarious.
You know what? I'm such a dope. I keep saying that there were two original posts, one with another person's picture. No there is not. I'm sure that is not news to you. When I posted, the first commenter came up so quickly, I thought I had made a mistake posting. Anyway, sorry about the confusion.....in my head.
The topic of Abortion, aside, because I refuse to debate this, for one moment, with anyone......"contraception for minors," is an extremely vital matter. As a parent, we are obligated to protect our children, to the best of our ability, in every regard, until they are of such age and position to be able to independently care for their own needs. Hopefully, as mature, intelligent individuals, who use common sense and understand human nature, the subject of minors and contraception should be a no-brainer.
If a parent, for whatever reason, cannot come to terms with providing their children with a solid education in the "birds & the bees," and provide protection for them against disease and unwanted pregnancies....then, absolutely, a minor should be able to use their own good judgement in seeking these things on their own, without parental consent or knowledge. Children do not need to be as ignorant as their parents and thereby, subject themselves to the dangers and pitfalls of being irresponsible in this regard..
Actually, if the two sides could agree on contraceptives w/o parental consent, debating abortion would fade into the background. We would all be focused on reducing the number of abortions by using common sense methods. We are polarized now because of the issue of abstinence. Most PLs are completely obsessed with teens practicing sexual abstinence. That issue is at the heart of why the abortion rate among teens is so high. Pro lifers, and I am one, are philosophically pro abstinence and pragmatically pro abortion because they won't do whatever is necessary to curb the abortion rate.
I'm sorry, cam, I thought I made it obvious that I understood you were the OP, I think I was referring to your quote as well as another's earlier. Can I just add one more thing that tammybarnette kind of sparked in me, I wanted to add it to my original post, but it was already so long:
When did morality start becoming irrevocably intertwined with sexuality? --- Back (again, way back,) in the day... probably closer to cave man/woman times group sex was rampant. This is one of the reasons that scientists have theorized women and men are built the way that they are. Women are capable of multiple orgasms, (and likewise, tend to have more difficulty achieving orgasm,) because of this... apparently when women had multiple sex partners it reduced the chances of men in the tribe killing their offspring because it "might be theirs," and likewise men have "scoop-shaped" penises in order to remove rival semen from their female partners in order to ensure that their sperm were the all-time state champion swimmers.
And I mean, look, I'm not advocating that we go back to the times of knocking women over the head and dragging them back to our caves for group orgies or anything, but how is it, that we went from THERE to here...?
There's no reason why having sex should be considered immoral or unpure anymore. At least not for my kids, or myself, or my sexual partner. If *you* (just a general you all, not pointing out you, personally OP or anyone else in the conversation,) want to remain celibate, or have the utmost privilege of A. being able to marry and B. wanting to only have sex with the person you married, then by golly!, good for you! Otherwise, if you're like the other millions of people out there who are gay, bisexual, or otherwise of "marginalized," sexuality, (and yes, I hate to say that and am sorry to say that,) you're treated often times like an immoral pariah. It's not enough to say: "Hey, let's just keep our bedroom lives in the privacy of our bedrooms," when gays aren't allowed to marry, or when someone ousts you after seeing your ad on Craigslist for whatever weirdness you have going on... Being open about your sexuality and sexual preferences, (or in some cases, just being born with a vagina and wanting to use it, ala Sandra Fluke,) has become shameful in our society. Our supposedly ENLIGHTENED society.
Nicole, Those are very valid and insightful issues. I'll just politely direct us back to the forum topic to avoid splitting the consensus we've developed, over other issues. But I do understand what you have said. Thanks for sharing.
*nods* I did get a bit off topic there, but I think it does boil down to morality not equaling sexuality. If you can take the "moral indignation" out of sexuality the idea of allowing teens to have birth control without parental consent, (health reasons already pointed out aside,) in order to curb abortion statistics we'd be in a much better place as a nation. I love fpherj48's stance. Children do not need to be as ignorant as their parents. And absolutely, as parents, it *is* our job to protect and inform our children.
Birth control, definitely birth control and education and counseling. All critical for pro life and pro choice. We can't tell a woman what to do with her body but we can educate and provide resources to help her make the decision that is right for her.
look who showed up for the party. Yes, you have described the common ground on which pro life and pro choice adherents can meet to work together for a common goal: fewer abortions. My pro life brethren have not yet showed up, but I hope some will and that they will consider the wisdom of this approach.
You might want to go in and edit your title? You left out the "n" in contraception.....
I told my kids not to have sex unless they were married and unless they had a washer and a dryer. I do not have grandkids yet, as neither of my married children has a washer and dryer.
Just tell it straight, set the boundaries. Do not be afraid to give the youth practical realities with which to guide their lives. Permissiveness will lead to karma for the adults who do not contribute to a clear understanding of the consequences of premarital and unsafe sex. Our children learn to guide their lives through our example, words, and deeds. Please, parents, set them on a path of careful proactiveness. Tell them the truth. Pregnancy is a drag if you are not ready.
Kathryn, There is no replacement for strong leadership, active participation and consistent modeling in parenting. I did with my sons what you did with your children. I told them to wait for sex and explained the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. What I discovered later is that they did not wait, but they did use precautions thereby avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. In any case, my primary goal was achieved.
Contraception is already provided to minors without parental consent.
There is no age limit to purchase condoms, and teenagers can get prescriptions for birth control pills at 16 without their parent's consent (at least in my state).
kathleenkat, Thanks for that input. I have been wrestling with this issue for sometime inside my own head. I have come to some conclusions for myself, but I have not researched where the things I am pushing for might already exist. I introduced this forum with a lot of philosophical stuff in my head, but not much in the way of real knowledge about what is actually being done where. I appreciate you bringing that point up.
Cam, I am sure you are a good man, and your dedication to abortion is well taken and appreciated, but I cannot understand how you can possibly understand a woman's approach to the situation. In other words, a woman's situation with dealing with a the birth of a child is simply non of your business, and exceeds all measures of your understanding. You are not in a position to judge any woman's position on abortion. You do not have to deal with the consequences, or the un-surmountable possibilities of your body, your financial, or best interests of a child in very delicate and circumstances beyond you grasp. Leave women alone, we have our own difficulties that you could not possibly understand.
I think Cam has done a phenomenal job in bridging a gap between the two sides of the debate and he's vastly changed my opinion on if it's possible to have a rational conversation with a male pro-lifer. His idea and the way he put it forward, (I thought,) was incredibly insightful & something I've been wrestling with myself, it answered a question for me that I've been wracking my brain trying to understand. If one, male / female is anti-abortion, pro-life, then how is it possible for them to take an anti-contraception stance & to take it seriously.
I think I understand where you're coming from, eHealer. Cam's posts have been incredibly insightful and educational for me, though.
There is no way in this world that a man can understand the position a woman is in when she is pregnant and does not want to be so. If I sounded as though I was judging any woman's position on abortion, I apologize. But, abortion is a social issue. As such, I feel that it is important for me to understand the issue as best I can. I feel that I have presented in this forum a position for pro life adherents to consider. It is something different than what we normally hear. I want to support women and teenage girls with the things they feel they need such as contraception. I don't need to introduce my feelings about abortion here because it is actually irrelevant to the conversation. I am willing to go further than any other pro life person I know to see that fewer abortions occur simply because we found a way to prevent them.
Ok, so abortion is a woman's issue. It is also a social issue. It affects my sons' girlfriends and eventually my granddaughters (if my sons ever get around to providing any). I feel that it is important for me to have a viewpoint on this and to do all I can to promote womens' rights and wellbeing, but also to reduce the number of abortions. I don't feel inclined to back down from this if for no other reason than that I feel I represent a progressive part of the pro life movement and progressive is what that movement desperately needs.
ehealer, I'm still not quite sure where you were coming at with those comments. It has me scratching my head a little bit.
Again, as I mentioned before the stone age man and women were having willy-nilly group sex. Chastity and abstinence came around sometime during the early years of Judaism?
Precisely. Where there is no law, there is no offense.
Fertility figures, wall painting and our knowledge of Sumerian and Mesopotamian writings. What do we find on cave walls very often? Pornography and a massive portion of the reliefs and carvings from the prehistoric era are of fertility figures with giant erect phallus hardly the archetype of a prudish culture.
It's been pretty well documented, scientifically speaking, that is the reason women have multiple orgasms and one of the reasons guy's are shaped the way they are... (Not sure if you read my earlier way off-topic post about it, sorry to repeat myself.)
Google, if you are so inclined, "why is a man's penis shaped like a scoop," ... there was an awesome book that I was summarizing in my previous post, but now I can't find it anywhere, and my SO is starting to give me some really weird looks about "looking up" caveman sex, incessantly while he's trying to watch football.
It was early Chrisitianity that strongly emphasized the tantamount importance of abstinence and chastity. Saint Augustine of Hippo, an early Church father and author, indicated that in his youth, he was quite a profligate man. History books and his biographical data stated that he indulged excessively in all sorts of passions which included sex.
Saint Augustine become quite disturbed regarding his life and wanted a better one. His mother, Monica, was a devout Christian. Upon Monica's death bed, she exhorted Augustine to convert to Christianity. He did convert with a unparalleled zeal and fanaticism.
Upon Saint Augustine's conversion to Christianity, he renounced sex and sexual pleasure as sinful. He stated in his works that the main purpose of sex was procreation. He added that sex simply for pleasure was sinful, incluing so-called legitimate sex.
Early Christianity, particularly the early Church, incorporated Saint Augustine's sexual philosophy. It was during the period of the institutionalization of early Christianity that sex was a necessary evil to be endured only for procreation. Any sexual act that did not result in procreation was prohibited and viewed as evil even among married people.
As a result of this newly institutionalized sexual ethos, sexuality was condemned as evil while abstinence and chastity was elevated as virtues. It was taught that being chaste is one of the pathways of getting to heaven. In other words, abstinence and chastity were something for one to aspire to be. In essence, those who were chaste and practiced abstinence were considered to be more spiritual and closer to God than those who indulged in sex, even if it was solely for procreative purposes. To early Christians and early Church fathers, if one indulged in sex for pleasure and not for procreation, he/she was considered to be hellbound!
But we also have the old testament which is smiting entire cities for their "looseness" ... so these ideas that sex was sinful must have gained momentum from somewhere before early christianity... I have to wonder if the Jewish weren't the first to find sex sinful...
Yes, the Old Testament mentioned the wrongness of sexual intercourse if it was beyond the so-called sanctioned perimeters. However, it was the early Christians and Church fathers who proclaimed and institutionalized the premise of sex being sinful if it not for procreative purposes. The early Christians, particularly the early Church, viewed any type of joyous interaction as unnecessary and evil as well as distracting from what was considered to the most important interaction i.e. between a person and God. Of course, since sex was pleasurable, it was taught to be distracting people from their primary relationship which should be with God, not this world! So anything that was not deemed spiritual, was deemed to be sinful, evil, and abhorrent in its premise.
Wow, not a lot of fun in those days. Thanks for clarifying that for me, gmwilliams, it seems like a lot of fuss over something that has become less and less relevant in modern society. Not the worship itself, but the idea that God would really care what you're doing in your bedroom.
This does again, veer quite off course from the original Debate of contraception for minors, I'd like to add that it was earlier mentioned by a hubber that they told their children not to have sex until they were married and had a washer / dryer... if that poster is still around, I'm curious, is it a level of responsibility, or settled-in-ness that you wanted to see in your children?
I think the idea of waiting for marriage to have sex is directly oppositional to the kind of world we live in these days. The ideal age for marriage is when you're in your late LATE twenties to early - mid - thirties, for a first marriage. Seriously? You expect people to wait that long to have sex?
Back in the day kids were getting married. We don't have to "go" there anymore, (hell, we can't go there anymore, it's illegal,) but kids are still the one's going through puberty. It seems cruel to deny them knowledge that can keep them from unwanted pregnancy.
It certainly is. In earlier decades, people did marry younger. Reasons included stricter cultural prohibitions against premarital sex and birth control methodology was not as advanced as it was now. Well at least in the United States.
Young people wanted to have sex and the only release they got was through petting. If they wanted more than that, they got married. They married for the purpose of legitimizing their desire to indulge in sex. Only a few adventurous couples had regular sex outside of marriage. Remember, the old dictum of the "good" and "bad" girl scenario.
If you were a "good" girl , you were not supposed to indulge in and/or even liked sex. You were inculcated with the premise that sex was a "wifely" duty to be endured for the contentment of your husband and/or the future propogation of children. If you enjoyed sex and/or widely indulged, you were considered a "bad" girl i.e. "harlot", "slut", "loose woman", "fallen woman" and/or other disgustingly atavistic pejoratives. No "decent" woman enjoyed sex. Oh no, heaven forbid(sarcasm here).
Remember the period where girls were repeatedly engaged. They did this as a subterfuge to have varied sex but was under the cover of engagement because they did not want to be considered girls/woman with a "tarnished" reputation. Ask your aunts and/or mothers about this to verify! In the olden days of the 1950s and early 1960s, girls were told by most mothers NEVER, NEVER, NEVER indulge in sex before marriage. We were then told that if we got pregnant, we were to be a disgrace and no one would want us.
If asked about contraception, most girls were told that the best method of contraception was to keep legs tightly closed. It was much worse if girls attended parochial or other types of religious schools. There they were told that they were vessels of God that they were to keep pure until marriage. They were further indoctrinated with the premise that sex was a base, animal act to be endured for the purpose of procreation. Boys were told to contain their "animal" nature, pure and simple.
Nevertheless, teenagers had sex but under a veil of guilt and angst. Those who were fortunate to obtain contraception were free to enjoy unencumbered sex. Those who did not had a "hope and pray" attitude towards sex i.e. hope and pray that one does not get pregnant. If a girl became pregnant, if she had the socioeconomic means, she went away or to a private doctor to have an abortion. If she was poor, she often had the child, raising it alone and curtailing her own dreams and goals.
Sometimes parents pressured pregnant daughters to "boyfriends" in order to legitimize the situation. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, people began questioning old, atavistic sexual mores. Contraception and abortion became more available. Because of the advanced contraceptive methods available, girls and women no longer had to worry about becoming unexpectedly pregnant and they were freer to indulge in sex, including premarital sex. People also realize with advanced contraception and its increasing availability, they no longer had to rush to marry in order to enjoy sex.
Sexual options increased for young people. Young people in their 20s are not getting married. After all, the 20s are WAY TOO YOUNG to be married. The 20s should be a time of sexual experimentation, discovering your sexual compatibility, and who you really are as a sexual person. The premise that one should marry in one's 20s is totally a quite neantherdal concept.
People are now marrying in their very late 20s and/or early 30s after discovering WHO they really are and establishing themselves careerwise. They are having children in their mid-30s, having gained the prerequisite life experience and patience to be parents. In my opinion, young people should wait until their 20s to have sex because they are (hopefully) mature enough to know about their bodies and have contraceptive knowledge. Yes, sex is natural and beautiful and so be indulged in but maturely and responsibly and marriage HAS NOTHING to do with that!
Obviously, we couldn't agree more with one another, gmwilliams.
WE definitely concur. I definitely enjoy discussing this issue with you, Nicole! I thoroughly enjoyed your synopsis of the situation. It is quite intelligent!
*blush* Thanks, gmwilliams. Basically, I pray that my preteen daughter would tell me if she needed birth control, that if she needed condoms, she would know she could talk to me about these things & I've worked hard on educating her about sex, sexuality and protection to hopefully continue to keep those lines of communication open.
I'm not trying to project myself as being some sort of awesome parent, here, but I do think she's lucky that I take this opinion & approach to the subject. I feel it's much more realistic than the approaches taken in the past towards sexuality.
UninvitedWriter: I also moved way off-topic, too, sorry. He posted earlier, too, if you didn't see his post from before, it might illuminate the continuing conversation.
This is just my own opinion, but:
I have to say, I do have more difficulty discussing this with men than I do with women. It might not be right on my part, but it's tough really hearing a man's opinion on abortion without "Well, you're a guy.," being in the forefront of my mind.
No, I am a woman. I am a staunch prochoice feminist who is sick and tired of conservative men who wants us barefoot and pregnant. No girl and/or woman should endure an unwanted pregnancy. How many young women in the past had their dreams curtailed because of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.
Contraception was not readily available and was not advanced as it is now. Abortion is the last option; however, access for abortion was for those who had the monies. Poorer women had to endure their pregnancies, having to give up their dreams to take care of the child.
My two maternal aunts were in this predictament, they had to quit school and work at menial jobs to carry for their children. They became bitter that their young lives and potentials were cut short. NO GIRL AND/OR WOMAN SHOULD BE PENALIZED BECAUSE OF ONE MISTAKE. CONTRACEPTION SHOULD BE MADE READILY AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO SEXUALLY ACTIVE TEENAGERS. THE ISSUE OF CONTRACEPTON SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS!
Well, a guy doesn't have to get fired or fall behind the employment curb because he can't stop vomiting in the morning, or his child is sick and he has to take the day off from work, or he doesn''t have an ultrasound scheduled that finds a complication in pregnancy that causes him to loose work because he can't endanger the fetus, or he that his insurance won't pay for. Do you see how it is a woman's problem and not some misinformed guy who does not have a clue?
So many phenomenally wonderful points that I hadn't considered in those terms, eHealer, but how do you fall in on the topic of if minors should be allowed to gain access to birth control without parental consent?
Do you think this is a middle ground issue that pro-choice advocates should strive towards meeting with their pro-life brethren?
I am staunchly prochoice and strongly advocate the use of contraception and other preventives. I was responding to an argument regarding the history of sexual repression as we know it! I was not making an argument for chastity and abstinence. I was merely stating the history of sexual repression which began with the early Christianity and the early Church. By the way, I am a staunchly liberal pro-choice feminist woman! Thank you very much!
For those who want to talk about the abortion component of the OP, I found this article on the Hippocratic orgins of the topic interesting.
Read carefully and to the end.
It doesn't (at least as I'm reading it) say what it appears to say Hippocrates was saying about it!
http://news.yahoo.com/the-abortion-poli … 44584.html
Too bad, this started off as a nice conversation between those who are pro choice and those who are pro life without anyone lecturing anyone and has denigrated into every single discussion about abortion on this forum. People are going to have sex and providing birth control will lessen the number of abortions...
As the OP said " Notice that the forum topic is not whether abortion is right or wrong. That is actually irrelevant to the topic since fewer is better than more. We can't afford an all or none mentality on this issue. So, what do you think?
And no comment that it was a man who changed the direction...
Supplying contraception and the realistically intelligent sex education of teenagers WILL reduce the occurrence of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. I do not see an issue in this. Responsible use of contraception DOES in fact, reduce the need for abortion which should always be used as a last resort and I am definitely pro-choice!
Ladies, it's time to take a stand! Are you willing to vote for a party that wants to regulate your, your daughters and grand daughters health? Are you wanting "Old Men" in government positions deciding what's best for you, your daughters and grand daughters? If you are Vote for Romney! He stated back in 07 in a secret taping he was 100% against any abortions for any reason! If you value the right to have control over your own body, vote for President Obama! The choice is simple!
You know, I think it is possible to make a difference no matter who is in the Oval Office or who is in control of the House and Senate. I have watched for decades as the pro life people fight against common sense, say they are against abortion, but are content to let things go on unchanged as they wait for that "glorious day" when Roe vs Wade is overturned and abortions disappear forever (don't miss the sarcasm).
Let me say the same thing another way. Pro life people say they are against abortion. There are ways to prevent pregnancy and therefore abortion. But pro lifers are willing to enable further unwanted pregnancies by their inaction. They simply wait for a law which will ban abortions. They should be held accountable for every abortion that happened when they could have been assisting in preventing the pregnancy. There is a new direction for the pro life movement to take, but I'm afraid the Tea Party, which is full of knee jerk reactionists, won't allow an official change.
Ok, enough. I've had my say, been beaten back and still finished on the note I wanted.
And you think that things won't be ten times worse under Obamacare? Abortions are already cheaper than dirt as it stands, but when the government takes complete control of the medical trade you're going to have a much bigger problem than worrying about whose paying for your free condoms and birth control pills. The same crusty old dudes will be deciding which of your sick family members get to live or die. We're talking about the advancement of medical science in the hands of government rather than the free market. Government entities never have been the innovators of new technologies, only the free market makes that happen.
Just look at what happened to scientific research when the government took over the medical trade in Canada. They cut their funding in half. Could you imagine that happening in America which is number one in the world for medical research? It will be the biggest regression in medical history.
Do you get these things wrong on purpose?
Death panels are a myth and if it ever were to happen it wouldn't be "crusty old dudes" it would be trained medial experts who decide that they can't continue to fund the life support for a person in a coma they won't wake from when they could use the equipment to save lives.
Medical science is in no way changing hands it remains firmly in the private sector, furthermore Obama has INCREASED by more than 20% grants to laboratories for medical research so by your own logic he is doing the opposite of harming that industry.
So wrong and wrong.
Uh, are you kidding or are you grossly misinformed? Who is giving you this information?
Why do you keep claiming that abortions are cheap? They're pretty freaking expensive, for being an outpatient procedure.
Bottom line it's a woman's choice, not some old guys running the country. And also a husband and wife choice, not some old guys running the country.
I feel like we've moved off-topic and lost some very valuable ground here. The issue we are discussing is if giving teenagers access to contraception without parental consent could be a middle ground where pro-lifers and pro-choicers could find common ground.
I think the very fact that men & women on both sides of the issue argue over if abortion is going to be made illegal again takes something away from the general spirit of the abortion debate.
Roe vs. Wade is final. What needs to be done now is finding ways to educate today's youth in contraception in order to lower abortion rates.
This is the greatest country in the world, that said, there are certainly social ills which need to be continuously evaluated: abortion however, has become a hot-topic debate with little true substance due to the fact that overturning a supreme court ruling is nigh impossible.
I've appreciated your imput on this, cam8510, and I thank you, sincerely for changing my viewpoints on if I could really find common ground with a person who holds your beliefs, it has been very refreshing to discuss this in a way that doesn't degenerate into uselessness.
Parents have the responsibility to educate their children about sex. It is not the government's responsibility, although it is the responsibility of any school system, private or public, to provide information about how humans are conceived just as it is their responsibility to educate about how any form of life procreates. It's all education. It's about enriching children's lives in ways that make them independent adults.
The abortion debate belongs in individual lives, not in politics. It's none of the government's business. The same goes for any kind of contraception, including contraception for minors.
It's a sad place that we are where we have to look to government to fix something in our personal lives that we should be taking care of ourselves. How irresponsible are we to have let it come to this?
Seems like that pretty much puts you at an impasse, Onusonus.
(I've produced T shirts with the words "Step Away From the Eggs! Any takers? They are pre-contraceptives! They put all the power in the woman's hands! She just has to do one thing: Keep the T shirt on whenever a warm gun is anywhere near! Uh, I think I better print that on women's briefs, as well.)
The truth is that abstinence works every time its tried.
There are serious consequences for sex. This is what should be kept foremost in everyone's minds. Diminishing QUILT is not the issue. Diminishing serious suffering IS!
Here's the truth about sex:
*Sex is a powerful love potion.*
Yep, Love Potion Number 9.
Hearts will break , psyches will suffer. Why?
Because the act of Sex is powerful enough to keep a couple together for the rest of their lives.
Nature knew that the human child would need his parents to stay together for at least 18 years. It is a true blessing in MY life, (and I was born in the 50's!), that my parents have stayed together through thick and thin.
Q Why is sex so bound up with true and lasting love?
A. Because nature designed the sex center and the love center, in the human brain, to be situated right next to each other.
We were not created like barn yard animals. They can have sex willy-nilly because they do not have tender psyches that depend on love, warmth, respect and commitment to be content and peaceful on the farm. (They just need the farmer to take care of them for their sense of well-being.)
We can educate our children about the true purpose and power of sex. They will develop a respect for what nature has designed for the purpose of bringing forth an awesome and beautiful human being.
The union of each and every sperm and egg creates a literal miracle. There is no quilt issues when you explain the reality of Life.
Instead, deep respect.
And careful proactiveness.
We all need to activate the wisdom of our souls...
for the sake of our peace and freedom and for the sake of posterity.
as opposed to the hell of abortion,
There is an Abortion clinic in Texas that gives out contraceptives to teens because they know the rate of slip-ups will insure plenty of business. This particular clinic aims for TWENTY abortions a day. Check out You Tube video "Silent Scream". When you do, you will be informed of the practices and marketing schemes of Abortion clinics. Welcome to Hell.
I don't mean to be rude but Science disagrees with pretty much all of that.
Abstinence doesn't work, plenty of empirical evidence for that, girls from religious families are more likely to have a teenage pregnancy and states that teach abstinence have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the union.
There is no set human relationship level, in different cultures we had everything from children being created by sex for pleasure and being raised by the community, harems of hundreds of wives to what we consider traditional marriages, fidelity to one partner is actually relatively rare outside of the Judeo Christian tradition and in the classical age, for example in ancient Athens men were expected to have affairs, in ancient Sparta men were expected to be bisexual and be lovers with their fellow soldiers on campaign (women were also expected to be bisexual) married couples saw each other no more than a week or two a year until a Spartan warrior retired (at 60 I believe which was very old indeed in that era, few lived that long).
Scientifically speaking most experts are of the opinion that sex is supposed to create a bond between man and woman only for 9 months so that the woman is protected and provided fro during her pregnancy the baby would then be raised collectively as done by our nearest ancestors the Chimps with fathers providing for and protecting all children of the "tribe". Things like the Coolidge effect (named after president Coolidge) that new women are more sexually attractive than women we are in a relationship with suggest that in fact biologically humans are not meant to remain tied to one partner overlong and that especially men have a compulsion to spread their genetic material to as many mates as possible.
Lifelong commitment is not biological and sex does not create it, it's cultural and there is nothing wrong with that, I had a wonderful marriage myself but equally I have known many men and women capable of having a fling with someone without becoming enamored and that should be respected too and is actually healthy so long as done responsibly.
I don't think any sane person likes abortion but there is no ethical way to force women to give birth against their will and without any regard for their wishes if they do not wish to which is why abortion must remain legal.
"Step Away From the Eggs!" I repeat. I am advocating a world for our children with:
L e s s S u f f e r i n g.
End of Story. It is not rocket science.
No it's not that simple at all, often that attitude creates more suffering, it creates persecution for people who do want to experiment sexually, it represses those who are unhappy, it keeps people together who hate each other which often leads to abuse and far more harm to the child etc. etc. plus ultimately it causes MORE teenage pregnancy and MORE STD's the facts of the states that practice it prove that beyond doubt.
Okay, that's great for you, but what about the rest of us who want to have a healthy sex life?
Women have it their power to keep themselves mentally, spiritually and physically safe. I repeat we are not barn yard animals. Make your life a peaceful and beautiful life... OR NOT. It is up to each individual female. Women, You do have it in You power to be proactive... embrace Your freedom, if you want it! Heaven is in Your mind. Do Not let any 'ol warm gun Come and Blow You Away. Josak's post is exceedingly Old School. Don't be fooled. It is a new day for every woman, every day!
Nope old school is ineffectual counterproductive abstinence leading to a slip up or a mistake when natural processes take over statistically leading to disaster. Responsible sex with the freedom to choose it without being judged or vilified is the ever greater present and future and as a result we have fewer accidental pregnancies and lower STD rates, because it's working while the alternative does not.
Not to mention sex is fun and healthy and missing out on it is bad physically and mentally, now we live in a world where more people get to enjoy it but fewer people get hurt than before, that is progress.
I plan on sleeping in, eating and drinking ANYTHING I want, and then sitting in my front yard and waiting for the world to end. If there are any college bowl games, I might watch those also.
Unfortunately none of the imaginary apocalypses will ever compare with Y2K the next morning found I had somehow joined a doomsday cult and was in their armed Y2K shelter, that was an awkward morning
I do know someone who seems to believe in the 2012 thing so maybe I'll spend some time scaring him by delivering signs of the coming apocalypse
I have always wondered, if you are waiting to see the world end do you take a camera?
I haven't read through the entire thread, so please forgive me if what I have to say is redundant.
I have to wonder sometimes whether the average abortion consumer is actually a teen. I have known many adult women who were too lazy, too apathetic, too defiant - whatever - to use any sort of contraception. When they get pregnant, they simply get an abortion. Abortion in the US is a form of birth control, sadly. So, while I agree that minors who engage in sexual activity should be given contraception, I have to wonder - how do we handle the adult women who should know better but still choose to have unprotected sex and just terminate whatever pregnancies may result?
As an option, I'd venture the guess that far more teenagers choose adoption than adult women.
We constantly point to teen mothers when speaking of abortion, but where do we think their examples come from?
Motown2Chitown, you are correct regarding your premise. Although I am prochoice, I strongly advice responsible sexuality. If you INTEND TO HAVE SEX, PLEASE BE MATURE AND RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO USE CONTRACEPTION. Abortion should NEVER be a form of birth control period. It is a LAST RESORT MEASURE.
You are right that there are "ADULT" women who are too lazy to use preventines; only resorting to abortion at the last minute! There are some women who rationalize not using contraceptives when they have sex, believing subconsciously that if they are prepared to have sex, they anticipiated and planned it; therefore, they are not "good" girls. This attitude result in such women getting abortions when they become pregnant! My mother, a registered nurse, told me as a young teen, that she repeatedly counselled an "ADULT" woman who repeatedly got pregnant and had multiple abortion, she asked the woman why she did not use birth control. The woman replied that she was being a 'GOOD GIRL."
How do we get so turned around in our thinking?!? I believe that every adult woman has the right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity at her own discretion - but like you said - be responsible. Children can sometimes be excused for making uninformed decisions - they are children, after all. WE (adults) are the ones who should be informing them - and frankly, shouldering the consequences of their uninformed decisions.
At the risk of sounding crude, how in hell does one consider not using contraceptives being a 'good' girl, and justifies abortion as a result of irresponsible sexual activity?
I think so that rate of abortion should be decrease. As it is increasing more complications in teens and younger as well. A strict action should be taken against it
I would like to add, in regards to the idea that abortion is a form of birth control...
Anyone who has gone through the pain & loss, (yes, loss,) of having to have an abortion will tell you that most women, (more than a strong majority,) do not consider abortion to be a form of birth control. It wreaks havoc on your body, it is *very* expensive, (despite others comments about an abortion being "dirt cheap", this is an uninformed misnomer, it's "dirt cheap" compared to the cost of raising a child, but I digress,) and there is a great deal of external / internal shame that goes along with the procedure, regardless of how compassionate those performing it are.
Are there women who consider it to be a form of birth control? Yes, I am not so naive as to say there aren't. However, psychological studies have shown that there is something mentally wrong with women who hold this attitude. Is it their right? Yes. Does that make them mentally unbalanced? Most definitely yes.
I am not saying that having an abortion makes you irresponsible or mentally unbalanced, but for the few rare women who consider it their primary form of birth control, yes, they are mentally unbalanced and irresponsible. Let's not treat all women who have had an abortion like the fringe group, however, shall we?
contraceptives encourage sex with anybody:
Like sex is part of the dating scene.
Like contraceptives encourage sex outside of love.
Like maybe I will have sex with you, but I certainly do not love you or want much else to do with you.
Like maybe we will get along for a number of years and if you get pregnant because you forgot to take your pill or I forget to bring a condom along on the picnic... well, there is always abortion.
How hurtful! We really need to be kinder and more respectful of each other and the unborn souls whose lives we could care less about.
Like if you get pregnant , we can always give it to the adoption agency.
Those who get pregnant and have multiple abortions have lost their souls. Lost lost lost. We really need to comprehend what sex is for:
It is for true and lasting love... not short term iffy relationships or one night stands that top off a night at the club. Thrills no. Ouch, yes.
That's what sex is nowadays. I don't like it either. But it is what it is, and people will still have it whether we like it or not.
My parents were married before they even thought about having me. They still ended up with a divorce. Having a baby doesn't keep people together. Having a baby because an abortion wasn't an option certainly doesn't keep people together, either.
It does not have to be! We can change it! We must change it for the sake of posterity. I believe, as a society we must become enlightened in our understanding of the true purpose and power of sex and learn to be proactive. We must become a higher evolution by activating our wisdom and our knowledge of how to avoid NEEDLESS suffering. There is so much to gain from life. We MUST help our youth get to a higher place.
Even an atheist can approve of the advice: Do unto Others as you would have Others do unto You. It has to start some where. Why not with me answering this forum's question?
If we as a society would just get on board with the concept of the Golden Rule:
don't hurt others.
Ultimately, don't be selfish and ego oriented to the max. Have a little compassion for others! Girls, don't seduce the guys and then tell them to go away.
For guys, sex is love. They can't help it. Of course playboys are those who gave up on love long ago.
And why? 'Cause the girls they got involved with kept turning out to be insincere. These "playboy" types end up taking their cues from those heartbreakers. It is all a tragedy if you observe how much we hurt each other. My vote is the pre-contraceptive of Wisdom guided Willpower and sincerity. You can continue your debate now. Just wanted to remind you there is a deeper aspect to the issue. The funny thing is, if you talk to young teens in this manner they totally accept it and get it! I have seen it.
Not sure if this was the general "you" or the "you" referring to myself that posted before you...
But to answer your question, I agree.
However, working years in retail has taught me that the average person is dumb as a tack, an doesn't respect themselves or others. I saw it with the way people treated employees; I saw it with the way people treated the bathrooms and other public facilities. I wholeheartedly agree that humanity needs to become more "enlightened," but that isn't going to happen while people still think it's funny to fling shit (literally and metaphorically).
I have been continuing to monitor this thread and am pleased for the most part with how it has been evolving. This is such an emotional topic and it is much, much more than simply a forum topic. Women's lives are being impacted, women of all ages. They carry the bulk of the responsibility regarding the issue at hand. They bear all of the consequences of their own actions as well as the consequences of decisions that society in general makes for them.
I would like to once again reiterate my original intention in introducing this topic. First, as pro life advocate, I did not begin this thread to push a right wing agenda. I began it as a meeting ground of two groups who, for lack of a better term, can't stand each other. Philosophical, political and moral differences drive the two further and further apart. Emotions get stronger with every election, with every tidbit of legislation passed or not passed.
I would never even dream of seeing the two sides somehow iron out all of their differences. That would be like trying to have a friendly pregame party with Ohio State and Michigan football fans. It just won't work.
So, what might work? What I have suggested is a Middle Ground. A place where both sides have a common philosophical belief. It will not necessarily be a common moral or political belief. If all other baggage could be set aside in that middle ground, something exciting could happen.
That middle ground, as far as I have been able to think through the idea, has to do with preventing unintended pregnancies. That is the one goal to which, I believe, both sides could commit. Pro choice and Pro life supporters could also embrace a common motivation for working toward that goal. That motivation would be to see a substantial reduction in the number of abortions. The tough sell is the means by which this goal might be achieved. The way to reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby the number of abortions would be by use of three strategies. In no order of primacy, the first strategy could be sexual abstinence. The second strategy could be contraception and condoms. The third strategy could be comprehensive sex education at an agreed upon early age for our children.
This idea would not work with everyone. There are people on both sides who have such strong feelings that they would not involve themselves in this kind of venture. But there are many on both sides who would. I don't know how or where or when, but I do believe there is no other realistic hope for making a difference on this monumental societal challenge. I chose the word "societal" very carefully. One definition is as follows: "of or having to do with human beings living together as a group in a situation in which their dealings with one another affect their common welfare."
Unintended pregnancies which result in an unacceptably high rate of abortions is truly a societal challenge. The solution, then, must be a societal response.
Thanks Cam, I can agree with you. I would also add, if you do not mind, that parents should not be afraid to step up to the plate with their children. They are allowed to prepare their children realistically to guide their wills for the sake of their own safety and happiness. Thanks again, for your gentle steering on this sensitive issue.
One more piece of advice for parents: Try to keep in touch with your children so they do not have to go looking for love through sex too young... due to loneliness. I think this happens more than we adults even realize.
BTW A cute and touching movie is "Little Manhattan." I was introduced to it while babysitting, by an eight year old!
Thanks Kathryn, your input here has been very valuable. The place of parents in the lives of our children cannot be replaced by the village of society, but society does have a proper role to play. Finding a better balance than we have so far achieved is necessary.
To my HP friends, I released this forum thread on my facebook page today, encouraging everyone there to read and share it. My goal is to let the concept contained in my OP spread. It most certainly won't make matters worse, and it may actually yield something positive down the road. So, be prepared to see new posts on this thread and feel free to return and engage in more discussion. My hope is that we will be able to move past the knee-jerk responses and really begin to think about one thing and one thing only, i.e. how to reduce the number of abortions.
I realize when this forum first ran, many people did not express knee-jerk responses. I certainly didn't feel that way, but if that does surface, I'd like to encourage some deeper, out of the box thinking about the OP.
This is great news. I am glad you are helping to enlighten the world regarding the issue of abortion. In the first place, you have a mission. That mission is to reduce the number of abortions. You propose to do that by way of greater and presumably smarter contraceptive use, even if it means minors using them without consent from parents. This is a great mission. I think. I mean, if I do not think about it.
As you know, I am for pre-contraceptive measures. I am for keeping the egg and sperm far away from each other. I feel I should write a book on the topic with illustrated positions. This might be a great mission too. If you do not think about it too much. However, in the heat of the moment, anything can happen... and the failure of pre-contraceptive or contraceptive measures can occur. This is the reality that no one wants to think about too much. Until, that is, it hits home.
So, I am a little P.O.ed. My friend with a 32 year old daughter who got pregnant just called me asking me to babysit. Background: The daughter was on birth control, forgot to take a pill and got pregnant with a guy who left the state after finding out one of his sperms had been accepted by an egg which became a zygote. The mother, (my new best "friend",) begged her daughter not to get an abortion. She said she would help her raise the child. And that's how it stands: Her daughter is raising the child in the same bedroom she has had since her own childhood.
I asked my friend how much they would pay me. She asked, "Can you do it out of friendship?"
How does that make me feel? In the first place I do not want to take care of her daughter's child. I have things I must do for the sake of my own survival. Why would she ask me to do it out of friendship and without compensating me? Does she think that I should take part in a responsibility which is extremely remote to me? I simply cannot afford to look after this child without compensation. I would in an emergency, but this is not.
Q. Do I wish the daughter had gotten an abortion?
A. No. I wish she did not have sex when she did not have a husband, house , washer and dryer. That is what I wish. Of, course I will probably drive over there and take care of the child, but at this point I am angry at the pending inconvenience.
PS I adore babies and children.
Q. Is my attitude regarding this matter justified?
Cam, How can you think that contraceptive use is the ultimate answer? You know there is a huge failure rate! I wish there was a way we could all indulge in sex without consequences. Actually, providing hysterectomies IS the ultimate answer!!!
I think you just hit on the answer. Hysterectomies for everyone...well, not me. But everybody else. Just kidding. I am totally with you on this. I have no disagreement with you as far as you have gone. Teaching youth to keep sperm and egg separate is front line stuff. I would never suggest not using that valuable tool. But, in my view, it can't be the only tool. It must be combined with aggressive contraceptive use by everyone who chooses to have sex. we cannot control the sexual behavior of the world. It won't work. We can reduce the number of abortions though and we should. No tool left unused. Yes, contraceptives fail. Abstinence fails. The heat of the moment rules. But we can do many times better than we are doing now.
Barring hysterectomies, I absolutely adore my IUD. It was $500. That's a lot of money. Until you do the math, that is. It lasts around six years, (or so, I can't remember, but will certainly ask again & again when I go into the OB/GYN,) and far outweighs the cost of prescription birth control in both volume, pesky side-effects and reliability.
I'm not saying teenagers should get IUD's, (hm, but, honestly, maybe they should!,) condoms are the best form of birth control for preventing both pregnancy and STD's. But if you take a look at combining the two methods, the likelihood of pregnancy drops down to your chances being struck by lightning while getting hit by a bus simultaneously.
In other words... try using more than one form of birth control at a time.
Also, as a quick sideline... not everyone believes or feels the same thing. I find the concept that women use "seduction" or sex as a tool to manipulate men abhorrent. I realize it does happen, but not all women are like that and some women, really truly enjoy sex. Sex does not equal love. I know, (especially when you're young,) that can be very confusing to girls, but it doesn't, and wishing it does, well, I'm sorry, it doesn't make it so.
And while, yes, I apologize Cam8510, this is greatly off-topic, I feel that this attitude of "well, just put an aspirin in between your legs," and love = sex and all that flowery to downright degrading B.S. that is attached to women & their sexuality today is ingrained into a deeply disturbing culture of slut-shaming.
Slut-shaming is pretty much exactly what it sounds like and liberation from slut-shaming is to know that it is OK to be a woman & to enjoy sex.
Sex should be talked about. This is one of the hardest things for me about being here on Hub Pages, the fact that we cannot discuss sex in even the lightest of terms, (but it's perfectly fine to debate the mass-extermination-of-fetuses,) is incredibly, horrifically, difficult for me.
Sex is positive. When there is mutual, enthusiastic consent between two human beings who are fornicating, it really doesn't matter to anyone else except the two who are engaging in this act if:
A. If they're in love.
B. If they're considered gender-correct for one another.
C. If they're using protection.
If you don't want to have a child, you use protection. There are, (as I've stated before,) very few women who use abortion as a form of birth control.
And for the most part, women who need to use birth control, or who don't want to become pregnant, it's pretty much their business.
Regardless of if they're: "of age," or not.
I can certainly sense your emotion about this and you should feel the emotion. You are a woman and you understand so much better than I ever will what it is like to be a woman in the society we have built. As for women using abortion as birth control? Please, I do not believe that is a common occurrence. You are so right about that. And women using sex as tool to manipulate men. Well, what do men do? Pressure. Talk about manipulation. It is much more common for a man, but unfortunately it is practically expected in many places. I do sense that we agree, though, on the bottom line. If you want to have sex, use protection. In the effort I am putting forth, the morality of sex is not a factor. One's view of the morality of abortion is not a factor. preventing an unwanted pregnancy is my only goal. For those who want to control the sexual behavior of the world around them, they have the pro life movement as it now exists. For those who want abortion to be the solution to unwanted pregnancies, the pro choice movement is still there. I am simply suggesting a way to deal with the problem that really is not even a third way. It is different because one's view of abortion is completely irrelevant. The battle must be waged prior to pregnancy and it must be waged on multiple fronts. Forgive me for over using the "war" theme. The multiple fronts are the use of sex ed., every type of birth control known to man......er....woman, and yes, the encouragement to abstain from sex. I can't think of another solution. Those who accept this approach, from both sides of the abortion issue should abandon the historic failures of pro life and pro choice; failures in the sense of actually making a significant reduction in the numbers of abortions. Both have done some important work, but the main problem goes unsolved. And the hatred of each group for the other insures that there will never be progress made until a completely new approach is taken. That approach is to step away from the heated battle over Roe vs Wade and get busy preventing pregnancies. Once the abortion controversy is out of the way, the hatred will disappear and the work can be done. What is the work? Get all the states on board with birth control for all ages without parental consent. This includes all kinds of birth control, not just the foams and condoms some states allow. Get the states that are trying to use abstinence only education to buckle and use comprehensive sex ed.
I think we agree on a great many o'deal'a things, cam8510. While were at it, let's agree that abstinence-only education has no place in public schools.
I think a huge factor in moving forward to limiting the abortion debate is to separate, (truly separate,) church from state.
Only when Abstinence education and pro-sex, sexual positivist views are *both* taught in public schools will teen pregnancy go down.
Teens need to hear adults talk about sex in a positive light.
Teens need to hear that the best form of birth control is abstinence.
Teens need to hear that barring abstinence there are x, y & z forms of birth control; how they work and what their success and failure rates are.
Yes, totally agreed. Religion plays too much a part in abstinence only sex education in addition to the hush hush tone surrounding contraceptive education. Why isn't contraception more openly and freely discussed. Contraceptiion is a part of life for all logically thinking individuals. Contraception is an extremely important component regarding the reduction of unwanted pregnancies, teenage and otherwise.
Let us be the progressive democracy we claim to be. Of all the countries in the industrialized world, the United States is the leader in unwanted teenage pregnancies. This is totally ridiculous in the 21st century.
Contraception should be freely discussed in the home and school. Sex and contraception are not taboo words. Sex and contraception should not be in the closet. Teenagers are protoadults, not children to be infantilized.
Teenagers have been treated like nonthinking entities long enough. If teenagers were treated as responsible protoadults instead of infantilized children without sexual feelings, the situation would be much better. Teenagers are mature enough to be taught a thorough comprehensive sex education which includes AIDS and STD prevention and cures, contraception, responsibile sexual behavior, and the consequences of not using contraception, also abortion education would be apropos to the mix.
Yes, gmwilliams, why isn't abortion discussed in sexual education classes, at a certain age, (high school,) I would find this very appropriate, too.
Thank you, I am now taking a bow. Your post is one of the most enlightened and intelligent posts regarding the subject at hand, there is. Even though you are pro-life, you are astutely and intelligently spot on in your analysis of the subject.
I hardly have to say anything, except ditto. Well, I can't stop there. I fully agree abstinence-only education is out. It is simply the Evangelical pro life effort to do the what they do best which is to attempt to control the sexual behavior of as many singles as possible. What a pathetic goal. And the abortions continue because pro life just can't let this go.
The Beatles were having sex like no tomorrow in Hamburg, Germany back in the 60's before they made the big time. Do you know how many times they all had to be treated with antibiotics for Syphilis? Many. They learned the hard way. Many others have too.
"Slut shaming" is pretty archaic. I don't know anyone who is ashamed to have sex. They are more ashamed to Not be having sex today! Look at the way we dress. Compare yearbook prom dresses of the 70's with what is worn today. Are abortion rates up or down from the 70's. What is the actual failure rate of the IUDS? Are they safe? In the light of being positive about sex, I think we need to be aware that sex is for the beautiful purpose of procreation and respect it in that light. Just sharin'
I don't know how many of the people I invited from my fb page have read these very valuable posts that have been shared here. I do know that most are Evangelical Pro life. This is a big pill for them to swallow. I have had only one Like on my post there. Silence otherwise.
Dear Evangelical Pro Lifers on Cam's fb.
This is what I, for one, have to say to you: Keep up the good fight. The incidence of viral STDs is on the increase. The war against abortion and reproductive destruction (IUDs can cause permanent injuries) can only be won by God-believing people like yourselves. By properly educating the youth as to what God 's Harvest really is for all of mankind, you are contributing to the enlightenment and awareness that will bring about the Kingdom of Heaven for yourselves and posterity. "...On Earth as it is in Heaven" is always a relevant goal! God Speed to You All. God does not expect you to swallow this pill.
If your goal is to reduce abortions, why don't you suggest to our federal legislators that we mandate tubal ligations for all women who have abortions. If this were the law of the land, it would drastically cut down on the amount of abortions over time. Perhaps men should be sentenced to a vasectomy based on a provable instance of impregnating a female...One time and thats it! This too would cut down on abortions.
The facts show that legal abortions provide safe abortions. Illegal abortions are not at all safe. The the Roe vs. Wade ruling was to protect females from back-alley procedures. Perhaps in the light of correcting stupid mistakes, abortions are not really what is Oh So Terrible! Taking sex lightly... IS!
I would say that your pro lifers are only attempting to nip it b e f o r e the bud!
It is a spiritual problem. LET them put up the boundaries which will influence a spiritually proactive mindset. Why not, again?
kathryn L Hill, one of the downsides of communicating via the written word is that one's attitude can often be misunderstood. I really don't know where your true feelings leave off and the sarcasm picks up. I can't tell one from the other any more. Would you mind, in a very dispassionate manner, explaining briefly what your position is. I'd like to keep things civil here. Sarcasm only inflames emotions. If I have somehow misread your attitude, forgive me. The post aimed directly at the people I invited here is an example. If I was one of them and read that I would simply leave because I couldn't tell what you intended.
I am pro choice in Some circumstances, such as rape or survival of the woman, but pro-life in All others. I did not think it was fair to us...er...me... to NOT mention at the outset that you have an agenda aimed at the Pro Lifers! I think they have a legitimate position on the matter based on their interpretation of the word of God. I was not being sarcastic in the least. I just think that sometimes an abortion corrects a terrible mistake and that is O.K. with God. I think he would judge the woman based on the intention behind the abortion. (They may not agree with this and that is their right. Why do YOU fight their position? They are allowed to have it, after all! )
Your campaign aimed at minors allows at least a one percent chance of a mistake and that is Not OK with me. At least Pro Life puts the focus on avoiding conception in the first place.
My final recommendation on the abortion debate is this: One should stay in touch with one's own life goals and steer very clear of anything that would get in the way of them. In other words, one should have a very clear focus of what one's true volition is in this short and very valuable lifetime. Here is something we can all agree on and thank you for the opportunity to share it:
Your Dreams and Goals and Ambitions should not be derailed by an unplanned pregnancy and as Smokey says, "Only You can prevent forest fires!" (As in, life goals and dreams up in smoke.)
Kathryn, I don't think you have a clue what I'm talking about. I have no campaign against pro life. I am pro life. You said at least they (pro life) want to prevent the pregnancy. What do you think I've been saying? You do not understand at all what I am talking about.
Kathryn - I appreciate that you are capable of seeing that abortion *is* an option, in cases of rape / for the survival of the mother. Many die-hard pro-lifers are unwilling to even allow exceptions for incest, rape or a woman's survival, the fact that you do allows me to feel that I'm dealing with a rational human being. Obviously, our opinions differ immensely on sexuality and abortion, Your opinion is your own and while I cannot agree with it, I do have to respect it.
So, Kathryn, I'll argue the point, don't get an abortion. Tell your children, if you have children not to get an abortion.
Why is it that the pro-life campaign finds the need to take camp in my uterus and tell me what I can & cannot do with my body?
At the very least, (and I don't think it's "the least," I think it's incredible!,) cam8510 has taken a stand with his viewpoint that in order to reduce the amount of abortions, (which is something both pro-life and pro-choice constituents can agree on,) contraceptive should be made legal to minors.
I don't understand how you can be so vehemently anti-contraception as to tell teens they have no choice other than abstinence in order to avoid pregnancy.
If you would look at what I wrote before... then USE more than one form of birth control.
This should be drummed into kids heads before they're even old enough to consider sex. (When they still think sex is GROSS! OMG, Mom!)
Someday, your kids (the children of the world,) will change their mind and want to have sex. When that time comes they're a lot more likely to use birth control if it has been something they've been told about for years. It should be / will become second nature.
No amount of hoping and praying will keep your teens from having sex, so educate them.
Kathryn, I support what you say about the choice behind the abortion. Let's be real on the matter of why women do it, some DO use it as a birth control option. There are many that have had a multitude of them. I think sometimes that one abortion may be the right thing for that person but to do it over again? That isn't even a religious view its a common sense and moral one. God judges and we aren't supposed to but we can determine if we think someone is doing it for the WRONG reasons, setting aside the right ones for now. Right ones may vary on your beliefs but the wrong ones are more often the ones we agree on.
We should teach our children why they should wait. We should show them ramifications of if they don't. Realistically they will do it anyway and if they do they should know how to protect themselves. Thing is its about TEACHING them. SHOWING THROUGH ACTIONS that waiting is the best thing for them. That isn't religious either...thats common sense. My son is a teenager and we have talked about sex. He says he isn't doing it and he's waiting. For when that is unknown but I do know he has been told and taught that being with someone you are in love with and not some high school girl that will not be there in a few years, is what he should wait for. The one he is going to be with forever. He is a smart kid and he will make his choice. I have taught him morally what is right and not just once, I am single and have been for two years and have taught through my own actions. He sees me not doing it and not going out with random people or people staying here. If he chooses to have sex he knows that I expect he come talk to me about it and if he still is going to what we do from there. IF he gets a girl pregnant than we have had moral discussions about abortion, about adoption, about keeping a baby. That he is responsible too. And how it will affect his dreams and he has seen me struggle long enough to know first hand what is the right and wrong thing to do.
It isn't a debate really....what Kathryn says has religious backing but can be said taking that out of the equations as well. I don't know what this campaign is as I just wanted to respond to her comment as her and I have had this discussion before and she knows where I started and where I ended up on this issue. But I will look into this campaign and see what she is referring to and respond later.
Let me do it this way:
I believe society should....
1. Teach comprehensive sex ed in schools, emphasizing abstinence as the first pregnancy prevention measure.
2. Support parents with educational materials to share with their children.
3. Provide (not free of charge to everyone) contraceptives to any one of any age without parental consent.
4. Provide counseling to young people who are afraid to talk to parents. The counseling would follow steps one through three in terms of preventing the young woman/girl from becoming pregnant.
5. If someone gets pregnant as a result of rape or incest, abortion would be an option along with keeping the child or adoption.
This is basically planned parenthood without an emphasis on abortion for any reason. I don't mean that as a slam against PP. They do some marvelous work.
These steps have as their primary goal, the prevention of pregnancy and STDs. Abstinence is 100% effective in these regards and therefore abstinence is number one. Other forms of birth control and STD prevention come if the person decides to become sexually active.
There have to be multiple points at which pregnancy and STD prevention are established.
At present, we have people, not everyone, but many who are at two extremes. Pro life has one solution and that is abstinence. On the other extreme are those who solve unwanted pregnancies with abortion. There must be a multiple step approach. As I said, it is similar to Planned Parenthood with an amended approach to abortion.
I know you're not trying to slam PP, cam8510, but at no point do they "promote" abortion when counseling a young woman who is pregnant. It's an option, but they wait for the person who is there to bring that option up.
Nicole, I have often thought that PP was a place I could get involved. I think what I am suggesting here is very close to what they do. I simply would bow out and pass the person along to someone else if they insisted on an abortion other than in cases of rape or incest. The problem is that PP has a very negative reputation, deserved or not, among pro life. I may be the only pro life person who feels this way about PP. I'm sure there are a few, but not many. A new organization would at least have the benefit of being heard by all sides.
Thank you for clarifying about PP's position on abortion.
I'm going to bow out on the other topics of conversation floating around up above, easily said and understood, I'm not a Christian.
I've never thought about an organization that could meet somewhere between Planned Parenthood and the Cradle... what a fascinating concept! (If you don't know what the Cradle is, it's an non-profit company that helps young women find adoptive parents for their little uh-oh's.)
I will say this, to Kathryn and abbykorinnelee, look, guys, I'm happy you're Christian. It must bring you a phenomenal amount of satisfaction and happiness... it must balance out your lives in ways that I don't understand and that *is* great for you. (No, seriously, it is... I'm *not* being sarcastic in the least, to borrow from Kathryn's previous post.)
However, this country, (well, the USA, which is where I am, don't know about ya'all,) was in *no* way founded on Christianity or Christian beliefs. So, while you have your religion and it's a comfort to you, I understand that, it directly opposes and has subjugated my religion, my beliefs and what I consider to be a right, honorable, way of life.
I'm not going to go out and force young women into having abortions, getting their tubes tied or making young men get vasectomies. Would the world be a much better place if %30-40 of its population was struck barren tomorrow? Hell, yes.
Am I going to attempt to legislate that? Uh, no.
So, if what cam8510 is saying, and I think I understand well enough to know exactly what he is saying at this point is:
Would allowing teenagers, (minors,) access to birth control without parental consent be a relevant and important step in preventing abortions? Isn't this a goal that both pro-life and pro-choice constituents can get behind?
And as of yet, abby (sorry your name is just too dang long!,) has been the only person to touch on this, as well as give solid feelings as to why she is against allowing minors to have birth control without parental consent. I can respect that a lot more than having abstinence shoved down my throat.
Speaking of things ... oh, no, I won't *go* there, but I did want to mention... I'm pretty severely allergic to latex myself, and I'm not going to say, "No, it's not that big of a deal for everyone!," but, a little swelling and rash? With proper sexual education most girls would be able to figure out it's an allergic reaction Kind of a no-brainer.
As cam8510 and I have already discussed, I'm very pro-condom, I'm hugely pro-spermicide, and when they two are used together... well, it's the best combination for teenagers since it (mostly,) rules out the possibilities of STD's.
Parents should have knowledge and consent when it comes to putting anything into their body. There are other medications and treatments that would have adverse reactions with birth control medications. There are hormonal side effects and sometimes serious side effects a parent wouldn't know what to look for. Even with condoms, what about a teen that doesn't know they are allergic to latex because its such a small allergy they have minor barely noticeable reactions, do you know what happens if they use a latex condom??? Well I do and a parent should even know about condoms because treatment medically could be necessary for that kind of allergic reaction. Condoms can be purchased by minors anyway, they can go get them from a doctors office or free clinic so I am guessing you are referring to contraceptive that is oral, or surgically implanted or the like and a parent has every reason to know. If they choose to not let them do it, it might be a religious or medical reason and they should have the right until that child is 18. I won't budge on that. It is ridiculous to think that a parent shouldn't have knowledge of anything that goes into that child's body.
I think that minors should have available medical professionals and counselors that are involved in contraception, not regular people giving the contraception and I believe that every parent has a right to make choices about our cihld's body until that child is of age. That is our job as parents and it should remain that way.
Really, we need to take sex out of the media, out of our music, out of our society pop culture and you will probably see the rate of kids having sex go down. Its about why they have sex and what they are exposed to, if you lower the rate of a child's likelihood of having sex, you lower the abortion rate. Their peers and the pop culture has been proved to have more of an impact on a child than a parent does....look up the studies...change the pop culture and you change the attitudes of their friends and you change the kid. Pretty simple idea...in a society that doesn't think any of that impacts the kid. Its not the parent its the crap that surrounds our kids.
abbykorinnelee, Part of me wants very much to agree with you. I mean that. What I have done is to describe a means to deal with one issue only and that is the high number of abortions which are performed in this country. There are other serious issues, I agree. You have outlined some of them very well. What you have described is how I raised my sons and there were no pregnancies. But we have a very large society and it is populated by people with a wide range of values, or none at all. I will stick to my guns. There is a small area of agreement between some pro choice and some pro life. Individuals such as yourself, would not feel free to be involved. That is to be expected and respected. I do believe that what I have put forth here would bring the abortion numbers down, especially if the attention, in terms of dealing with unwanted pregnancies, was taken off abortion and abstinence-only as the cures.
I used Planned Parenthood a few times. they were great with telling me other options aside from abortion and referring me to agencies that I could talk to others. They are why I didn't get one actually when I was raped. I got my pregnancy tests done there, I have gotten birth control done there. I know they do abortions but not every center does them and they are very thorough with the process. YOu get several counseloing and quetion sessions with a medical professional. You can't just go in and get it you have to have two appointments. They do an ultrasound and aske if you want to know the sex and if you want to see the baby because sometimes that will talk you out of it. They provide information and offer you birth control after the abortion so you don't get pregnant. They have many services they provide other than abortions and its not just walk in and get one either. You could get involved with them they have men that work their and its definately an organization you should look into yourself by visiting one and talking to them before you form a view. Without them I would have had no one supporting me when I was raped, I would have not known what to do and was kicked out with no where to go and probably would have gotten one even though I don't belivev in them because I didn't know I had any options at all and was only 19. He is now 13 and I have raised him. Planned Parenthood is why he is alive and 13.
Oh and its not free contrary to beliefs out there...they do have finanical aide options if you qualify and I know even if you are on govt assistance you don't always qualify. It can cost up to 800 dollars to get one that you have to pay out of pocket so this notion that was in the election that its all paid for by the public isn't totally accurate. I paid for all my services out of pocket. They also accept insurance plans too. Just wanted to add that
I should add that I have to agree that giving contraception to teens without parental consent may be necessary in some cases. I would say there would have to be factors involved. Its hard because I am a parent that has open communication with my kids and knows everything they do because they can come and tell me without fear of being punished. I know my son just had a chug of liquor and I had to deal with that in a way that wouldn't keep him coming to me and telling me but discourage it. So I see that kids without parents like me might need people like you. So I am not totally stubborn on the matter. I had to think about it a second with taking my parenting style out of the equation.
Thank you for those words abbykorinnelee. (so happy for cut and paste). This is complicated. I have made it simpler for myself by putting on blinders to many side issues. It requires having no peripheral vision and staying on the one issue at hand, i.e. 1.5 million abortions per year. If something was done to bring that down to 1.4, then 1.3 then 1.2, what a thrill that would be. The benefits?
1. The obvious, fewer terminations of the unborn.
2. Fewer single Moms struggling to raise a child.
3. Decrease in the poverty numbers.
4. Fewer people on Government assistance.
5. Lower taxes or that tax money being reallocated.
6. Declining STD numbers
7. A healthier, happier nation of people.
8. More youth going to college.
Feel free to add to the list.
I'm going outside. It is December in Northern Michigan and the sun is shining.
abbykorinnelee: Exactly! While my child *is* frightened of me, (I'm a hard case,) I am a parent that cares. I am a parent that listens. I am a parents that advises as opposed to lectures. It's one of the reasons why I think this debate, (contraception for minors, as opposed to the original question cam8510 put forth,) is very difficult.
There are just some kids out there who are lost. God/Goddess/Buddha/Cheesus help them, some of them are under the stress of being beaten within an inch of their lives if they find themselves in a position of being pregnant or having gotten a girl pregnant.
Where some of us are reasonable there are just as many others who would harm their children mentally, physically or / and emotionally in this situation.
This is one of the reasons, that given counseling, I am completely with cam8510, I couldn't agree with you more on this point, abby, there has to be factors involved.
Though I still say condoms / spermicide are relatively harmless.
Yes, factors in the family life could most certainly be weighed. If the youth and counselor felt it could be brought up to the parents without creating an unacceptable situation, yes, I could go with that. But the possibility of no parental involvement would have to exist.
I am in Wisconsin and its a beautiful day; about to get my Autstic son from the bus and go to run errands...but I think another one is psychological health ....less depression.
Sorry guys. My point is this. Kids should not be having sex until they are married. Contraceptives encourages premarital sex. I know there are so many arguments against this, but the consequences of unmarried sex is worse than parents demanding... ( but, not to the point of severe punishment or anything...) lets say lovingly encouraging self mastery by explaining why it is imperative to wait to have sex for the proper reason, time, place, and purpose. It is my opinion that contraceptives are a cop out. We adults should expect what is best for our children. This is cut and dry. It is simple and realistic. I wish someone had held me up to this standard. No one did and I fell for the Lie. Each time it ruined my life. I am here to tell you playing with sex is playing with fire. I am trying to spare the youth. It is my hope THEY are reading this OP and are comprehending the benefit of this position. In these wise people lies the hope of the nation which Cam listed above. Thats all.
PS: If you go to "Silent Scream" on You Tube you will run into an abortion clinic sales woman. She had worked for an abortion clinic which had a quota of 20 abortions a day. She exposed their marketing strategy which involved offering free counseling for teens and introduced them to and gave them free contraceptives. The "counselors" knew good and well there would be slip ups and slip offs! Their birth control pills were weak and pregnancies occurred. On top of that, the abortion clinic personnel accidentally killed girls or scarred them permanently. They totally got away with it because no one was willing take them to court due to their shame and guilt.
When I saw this on You Tube I was shocked. It changed me. You can say it wasn't true or that it was scare tactics against abortions. But, the woman who had been their sales person (I should have her name but I do not want to revisit that site!) seemed sincerely distraught at what she had experienced. It finally got to her conscience and she had to expose it. If it was not true she was an excellent actor.
PSS: Boys should watch "Silent Scream" and the many other videos available for viewing today on You Tube. They will view first-hand what girls and babies go through during an abortion procedure. This will scare the pants ON the guys! After seeing these videos, no teen or young adult will need contraceptives.
PSSS Cam, I read that the abortion rate is down in this country compared to the late 70's. Why do you want to take this mission on? If every abortion was in effort to correct a drastic (and I do mean drastic) mistake, oh well. Also, the rate of live births is higher than the rate of abortions. I think this country is doing just fine the way it is. Why compare it to Europe??? We have a lot of problems over here. Abortions are symptoms of our bigger problems. As Abbey mentioned, our out of control media... shows like Two and Half Men, the music..( it is unbelievable what they will rap about,) mothers working and rushing home to microwave dinners for their kids to eat on the couch watching crappy TV... To continue: the reduction of quality public schools, the down playing of Christian values and morals in general. This country WAS founded on Christian values... What were the Puritans and Pilgrims? Muslims?
PSSSS I am so against abortions... I would never get one under any (natural) circumstance... but think about "Octomom" Nadia Seulemon. (SP?) Technology gave her too may babies. Whey couldn't technology have left her with just a couple zygotes. And look what kind of a mother she is turning into out of sheer desperation!??? A porn actor! What is worse, to expose her children to this type of this indecency or send them back to heaven during the zygote stage. Why did she allow nature to continue in all of those zygotes? Plus SHE could have died! And I am not advocating abortion. Just proper use of the available technology for common sense reasons.
anyway I am not God. I am just sharing my common sense reasoning. I do not agree with any one or religion which preaches hell, fire and brimstone. There are bad enough consequences on the practical earth plane of existence.
The following paragraph is a series of quotes.
"The facts show that legal abortions provide safe abortions. Illegal abortions are not at all safe. The the Roe vs. Wade ruling was to protect females from back-alley procedures. Perhaps in the light of correcting stupid mistakes, abortions are not really what is Oh So Terrible....Kids should not be having sex until they are married. Contraceptives encourages premarital sex....When I saw this (film exposing horrors of abortion) on You Tube I was shocked. It changed me. the abortion clinic personnel accidentally killed girls or scarred them permanently....The facts show that legal abortions provide safe abortions....The rate of live births is higher than the rate of abortions. I think this country is doing just fine the way it is....Boys should watch "Silent Scream" They will view first-hand what girls and babies go through during an abortion procedure. This will scare the pants ON the guys! After seeing these videos, no teen or young adult will need contraceptives. The facts show that legal abortions provide safe abortions....Cam, I read that the abortion rate is down in this country compared to the late 70's. Why do you want to take this mission on?"
I guess this explains why I have been having a hard time understanding you. These are statements made by you in your last few posts. Here is what I can gather from your statements:
1. Abstinence-only is the only legitimate way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
2. Abortions are horrible. They maim and kill women.
3. Legal abortions are safe.
4. Abortion numbers are down.
5. Abortion is a legitimate way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
5. Everything is fine in Smallville
In 1976 the abortion rate went way up. Why? Because suddenly they were legal. They were safe. Today the abortion numbers are lower because of one reason or another... one being that the youth is not as sexually active as they were in the 70's.
I n e v e r said #5 at all... e v e r.
You took my statements out of context and that is very destructive to my message. Thanks for nothing.
"The facts show that legal abortions provide safe abortions....Cam, I read that the abortion rate is down in this country compared to the late 70's. Why do you want to take this mission on?" What does all of that mean if not that abortion is a legitimate way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
It means more than just "unwanted pregnancies." it means correcting drastic mistakes that needed desperate correcting! I do not approve of abortions for the sake of simply avoiding unwanted pregnancies. They are legitimate when they save the psychological (for rape victims) or actual physical life of the woman.
Your over-concern with the abortion rate is causing you to invent a cure which may actually cause MORE sexual activity among the Youth. This so called "cure" to the abortion rate, contraception for minors without parental consent, is actually giving them permission to have sex (with whoever without feelings or love... as in ExperimentinG,) could end up working AGAINST your goal of lowering the abortion rate!
Adults should show respect and faith in the intelligence and ultimate goodness of the youth.
But, I do have faith and I do respect the youth. If there were more parents like me things would change in "Smallville." And maybe if people who want to preach "contraceptives for minors" would hold their fingers, the youth could guide their own wills with the wisdom of common sense and common decency (as taught by caring parents) toward their own happiness.
Kathryn, I have to bite my tongue and remind myself to agree to disagree with you, consistently. You've provided your opinions, I've provided mine... perhaps there's an age difference between the two of us that is just insurmountable in terns of our logic and considerations; perhaps it's the religious difference, which is the biggest divider of mankind since the dawn of time.
Contraception is not a cop-out, it's a matter of responsibility. Taking responsibility for your actions, your choices and your body. My attitude towards sex is very liberal, much more liberal than even most women my age, (I'm 35,) and through the grace of mostly being quite careful about who I choose to sleep with and using protection like it was holy water for my lady bits, I've never had to deal with an STD. I understand and realize that I've been incredibly lucky, however, I've also been terribly responsible about my laissez-faire attitude towards sex and sexuality.
The concept of keeping oneself pure until marriage is a religious one. Religion has an awful lot to say about sex, a lot of which is mentally damaging, slut-shaming and pure garbage. Again, I mentioned before, yay!, for you that you're Christian. The rest of the world may perhaps prefer your God to stay out of their bedrooms and out of their uteri, however.
Telling kids / teenagers that they're not to have sex until marriage is unrealistic and quite honestly, damaging to their social development.
Telling kids about birth control and how it is used, telling them about STD's and the damage they can do to their bodies is responsible.
As, cam8510 mentions previously and wholeheartedly, this is a conversation about if giving contraceptives to minors is a viable alternative to abortion, as well as reducing the rates of abortion in general. And YES, a million times yes, young girls who learn from an early age to be responsible for their reproductive health become responsible young women who will not require an abortion in most cases.
Furthermore, the video that you're speaking of? It was produced, (silently in the background,) by the New World organization. How do I know that? My family helped make it.
Yes, my family is part of the evangelical church that helped bring that, and other, monstrosities into the world. I saw the video at our Christian evangelical bible camp that I went to every year, (and watched other older teens sneak off to have sex during prayer time, praying the whole time they wouldn't get pregnant because they were only taught about abstinence-only education and didn't have a lick of common-condom-bearing sense,) and some of that video and other videos (the ones I saw at camp and at my aunt and uncle's home,) are out-right lies. Not all of it, no, that'd be too easy to disprove, just enough to make it insidious.
The New World organization has a two-pronged goal, one of which is to push a highly Christian legislature through the White House... once Christianity is mandated and regulated they wish to hasten the oncoming Apocalypse by eliminating the "Muslim threat."
I realize this is highly "conspiracy theory" crack-potism... but I have family who are and were and still continue to be involved in this movement and with the recent events in politics, (teabaggers for lack of a better term, my apologies!,) it is a concern of non-God-fearing folks like myself.
Can anyone explain to me WHY morality needs to be legislated? What is wrong with sex, what is so dangerous about it, what is it that frightens people so much, that an entire culture has grown around denying it? Or deeming it OK once a certain set of criteria are met, but not before then?
Nicole, once again, right on. I also was raised in the Evangelical community. As an adult I find it interesting to reflect upon our behavior as youth in that religious environment. We studied the Bible together, prayed together, played together and various ones had sex together. Not everyone of course. I was able to go through that time without participating in sexual activity. I'll stop there. I think Mom is following this forum. My point is this. In the Evangelical community, abstinence is taught and relied upon to avoid pregnancies and STDs. Protection is not taught. Everything rides on that young persons ability to follow through with abstinence. They hang by a single thread over a chasm of life changing, negative possibilities. Knowing the brutal strength of the sex drive within a young person and the simple curiosity about sex, why would we leave them with such a tenuous strategy regarding sex?
There are so many border-line neglected kids out there who are left to fend for themselves when it comes to learning basic things, like say please and thank you, wash your hands after you go to the bathroom, don't have twinkies for supper, go to school, do your homework, etc. These kids are getting zero guidance from their parents, even on the most basic life skills.
While making sure their kids absolutely do not have sex until they are married is a cause that many parents are willing to take on, who is going to be the ever-hovering helicopter for these kids who are fending for themselves? Their parents don't care much whether or not they get out of bed and go to school. They have not taught them to chew with their mouths closed. What makes you think we can depend on these parents to teach their kids they should wait for marriage to have sex?
We can't, and that is why people on both sides of the abortion debate need to take a realistic approach and teach these kids not only to abstain from sex, but also how babies are made, how to prevent babies from being conceived, and then GIVE them, in any and every way possible, the means to prevent pregnancy.
In my own personal situation as a teen, I had 'good' parents who put me in a great school, made sure I did well, learned manners, etc., but who told me NOT ONE WORD about sex. You can add those kids the equation, as well.
Abstinence-only is great for those highly responsible parents and their nonrebellious teens who are never swayed by peer pressure, horny boyfriends or their own sexual urges. My guess is those teens make up about 5-10% of the teen population. Unfortunately, they are not the only kids in the world. In a perfect world, all parents would teach their kids not to have sex, and all teens would obey. But as we all know, this world is far from perfect.
If we truly want to prevent abortions, we need to do everything in our power to prevent pregnancy. Teaching abstinence only is not doing everything in our power. I would rather offer kids your "cop out" of contraception than risk more girls having more abortions. Expecting every person to abstain until marriage and withholding information and contraception is, in my opinion, a way to ensure that the abortion industry stays alive and well.
Very well put. I couldn't agree more. You have made several, very important points. Thanks.
"Expecting every person to abstain until marriage and withholding information and contraception is, in my opinion, a way to ensure that the abortion industry stays alive and well."
I couldn't have put it better and Jeebus knows I've tried. Phenomenal point, SmartAndFun!
Well, it worked for my children. They are both married to wonderful people they love. They knew what to look for in a partner and both married after the age of 25. They did not base their decisions and choices on sexual attraction. They did not get trapped by someone they did not love just because they had sex. The psychological ramifications of sex is not always so casual. Ever hear of stalkers? Ever hear of teen suicide due to heartbreak? Sometimes being sexually involved with someone can become exceedingly complicated. Relationships that are based on sex are the most fragile. There is so much to consider when embarking on sexual experiences and sexual relationships. It may even be part of the drug and violence problem. Every parent should get on board with this. Every parent should be brave enough to teach their children that contraceptives will lead to pregnancy and are only useful when married people wish to a t t e m p t to regulate how many children they can afford in their household. Contraceptives are only safe when a slip up can be s u p p o r t e d. (Every single type of contraception has a failure rate... even if that rate is 1%, that 1% could be YOU! )
The night of the honeymoon should be magical. It should be one that cements a relationship based on friendship first, physical attraction second. I know I am shooting for the stars. But, by shooting for the stars we can reach the moon. Eventually society will willingly embrace these precepts. Why not be forerunners of the new age? It has NOTHING to do with religion
w h a t s o e v e r!
It has to with peace on earth. For all people who are embarking on the adventure of life, I have more than HOPE for your happiness, more than WISHES for your happiness. No, what I have is a boundary which will protect you without fail. Wait until you have met the love of your life. Save it for that wonderful soul. In this way, Your WILL power will give you this gift. You will give yourself and your partner lasting love and happiness. And like a drop into a lake, the ripple effect will radiate to family, city, state and country and who knows... the world! In this way world peace starts with the individual. And to the Youth who might happen to read this:
Yes, we can have World Peace and it starts with you, with your own sense of peace and true happiness.
Abstinence is 100% effective when it is used, meaning it is probably less effective than any of the contraceptives or condoms.
Listen, the youth of today are more enlightened than we were in the 70's! Maybe you wish YOU would've had contraceptives back in the day when there was so much to rebel against. But we cleared out a lot of what there was to rebel against... Believe me! We can stop rebelling now. It is time to reestablish what is good for mankind's... or at least America's future. Today the youth are more gentle. See the new (teen oriented) vampire movie, Breaking Dawn 2. My, it ends romantically! Go see it... I dare you!
The middle is violent, but stick it out to the end. Just close your eyes during the fight.
Well, after talking to a 13 yr. old tonight I just found out the whole "Twilight" series is filled with sex and these books are mostly read by teens. She told me that parents do not know what is in these books. Some teens like them... some don't. They are mostly about fantasy, danger, romance (sex too?) and "drama." This 13 yr. old said she did not want to read or see Breaking Dawn 1 or 2 "because of the sex." (Well, I believe her. But this may change when her hormones start to kick in. Nevertheless, when they do... this particular girl will not loose her mind. She will be in control of it... her mind.... because she is very aware. She has been raised with religious values and already knows how to conduct her life.)
There is no sex in the Breaking Dawn 2 BTW. There was some yuccy violence. I do not know how much sex and violence there is in this series written by Stephenie Meyer. (More info whether you want it or not: In Aug. of '08, the first Breaking Dawn (book) sold 1.3 million copies in its first 24 hours. The movie was also released in '08 and debuted at #1 with 70 million. The new one has already made 30.4 million and seems to be in the running. However, many responses show that people are glad this is the last one of the series.) I have been avoiding the whole vampire thing... but suddenly got curious about it at the theater. I still do not know what to make of it and what sort of influence it is having or why. Did the previous movies and books cause teens to experiment with u no what? Are movies and books in general having more influence on teens than parents? Yikes, if so. Actually this newest (and last) movie was quite tame as far as u no what and actually had a worthwhile point of view. I cannot speak for the book or the previous movies. Parents do need to know what they are up against!
I suppose those books are ostentatiously marketed to adults, but I'm sure the publishers know who the main readers are. It is hard enough dealing with raging hormones without help like that. Good for you for having the open door to converse with a young teen about the whole subject. That may get her through for quite a long time.
No, cam8510, they're marketing and produced solely for teens.
Have you found them to have a preoccupation with sex? I have seen the films. I was dating a woman a couple of years ago who made me sit through all of them. I guess I don't remember a lot of sex in the films, but then, maybe I am completely desensitized.
I can't seem to make myself sit through them. The other day there was some random story on one of the internet media outlets about Kristen Stewart and I realized, hey, I know who that is! (I'm woefully, ridiculously out of touch with pop culture,) then I was kind of mad that I have to carry around that knowledge.
Advertising has shown... sex sells. It's been all downhill since.
by Jackie Lynnley 24 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by dashingscorpio 3 years ago
Why do you believe "unintended pregnancies" are on the rise among 20+ year olds?It's always been touted that more sexual education and better birth control methods would reduce unplanned pregnancies. Just recently Bristol Palin announced she is pregnant again from a man who will be a...
by Thinkaboutit77 9 years ago
People who are pro-life are really pro-choice because it is the pro-lifers who wish to give the unborn child a CHOICE rather than have the choice made for them.The pro-choice movement is really a pro-abortion movement because abortion is a big business, there's a LOT of money involved in this side...
by Nickny79 9 years ago
Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those...
by Cassie Smith 6 years ago
Sandra Fluke at a democratic hearing complained that she and her fellow female law school students at Georgetown are burdened by having to pay $3,000 for their own contraceptives, which is why she agrees with including contraceptives as part of medical insurance. Getting a law degree must be...
by myvoternation 6 years ago
Let's debate this issue!
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|