Pro- Choice or Pro-Life?

There you are. Enjoy.

 

So glad you simply deny the evidnece in front of you. Means I won.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu So glad you simply deny the evidnece in front of you. Means I won.

Deny the evidence?

What does this evidence show? It merely shows that a certain percentage of teenagers MIGHT be having sex and a Percentage of those MIGHT be having sex without protection - But that it doesn't matter whether you have been educated with abstinence or educated with contraception.

That is what the evidence here shows, nothing more.

Any the point is, you inferred that this was my argument, when that was not what i stated. What I stated was that KIDS SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE. I was not introducting any form of answer to certain nations issues on sex. I mean, that IS the answer - but i don't know how to stop kids having sex, nor even presumed that there is a way of doing it. My point is merely that it is an effective method of stopping abortion.

Anyhow, Contraception is the best method. OR! Children! No Sex before marriage? That works very well - an exeptional method of contraception! You don't need abortions if you abstain from sexual activity.

Here, read what i said again, without READING INTO IT.


Edited by Ovidius - 03-May-2007 at 11:45

@ Ovidus
The problem here is that yoou're having a moral position instead of a political one. The question one must ask is not what would be perfect? but what is the best we can achieve? Here is an example:

You're preaching abstinence before wedding. Imagine the government out of the blue declares any sexual relation banned before wedding. Jails will be crowded, rape rate will skyrocket and illegal abortions will rise. Hence: not an option (I know you knew it already but it is for the sake of the argument).

At another point you're taking the English example. What do we have in England? Free abortion but the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe� Why? Because the government helps financially young mothers. I don't know if you've read the book Freakonomics but there it is said that the drop of the criminality in the US in the late 1990s was directly corrolated with the legalization of abortion. The morale here is that people take the good decision for themselves when the government is not involved in it.

When it comes to teenage birth rate in Europe #1 is the UK (30�) #3 is Portugal (21�) #4 Ireland #5 Poland (both 19�). These countries are creating themselves crime bombes for 2020. Do not mess with demography: free choice!

So we here face a problem: banning abortion is just not an option but making it 100% free comes with problems of its own. When I say 100% free I mean that in most contries you actually don't have to pay to have an abortion.

In countries with strong familly planning policies the abortion rate for teenager is just scary: #3 Sweden 17�, #4 Danemark 15�, #5 France 13�. Abortion must remain a last resort: people have to pay for it! You could potentially die of a infected tooth but to have it removed you have to pay, right? Why abortion any different?

People need to remain responsible for their lives. It is interesting to realise that in places where the rate of married teen mother is superior to 1/3 the rate of teen pregnancy (birth + abortion) is always infirior to 20�.

Here we come back to your point about comitment and wedding. In my opinion we need to make the female responsi ble for her own body (no governmental special aid for teenage mother, pricy abortion) and make the male responsible (with DNA test force the father to help financially the mother).

Sex is fun but not only�

Yes, nice one Maharabal, try reading what i say before you reply. You have totally mistranslated what i said.
Being an idiot's strawman is everybody's fate.

1) I am pro abortion (as a SOCIAL POLICY)
What is a "social policy"? How do you enforce it?

2) I never said abortion should be banned, or that it was a good idea to ban abortion. I actually gave examples to express why it WASN'T a good idea


3) I never said that alternatives should be FORCED, simply that they should be encouraged
How? I've said myself abortion should be expensive.

YOU CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN IF YOU DON'T HAVE SEX!!!!
My wife tells me the contrary, she swears she was faithful eventhough our baby's born four month after my 6 month tour in Siberia�

The UK does NOT have free abortions. That is actually a misintepretation of the situation of Abortions in the NHS. In most cases it is not Free to have an abortion under the NHS.
Yet: "To get an abortion on the NHS, you will need to be referred by a doctor to your local hospital or clinic. Your own GP, or a doctor at a local family planning clinic, or at Brook (if you are under 25) can do this. It is important to go along as soon as possible. If you want to pay to have an abortion privately, you can refer yourself to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) or to Marie Stopes." It does sound free to me.

The High Teenage pregnancy rate is NOT, as you seem to suggest, due to the way in which mothers are taking advantage of the system. This simply is not true in the majority of cases.
Then why? and why the surge since 1998?

Originally posted by Maharbbal 1) I am pro abortion (as a SOCIAL POLICY) What is a "social policy"? How do you enforce it?

As a policy in society, I agree with it being legalised, but personally disagree with people getting abortions - in most cases. Obviously there are alternatives - Parents health, Rape cases etc - I think these are much more open to discussion. But an abortion for material reasons is merely the ultimate outrage to 20th/21st century life.

How? I've said myself abortion should be expensive.

I've no idea, expensive abortions may just lead to similar problems though. Where poorer families/poorer areas are force to set up  abortion clinics that are illegal, or there are self-mutilation for abortions or suicide in some cases. Not to mention that people might actually place themselves in debt to pay for treatment.

My wife tells me the contrary, she swears she was faithful eventhough our baby's born four month after my 6 month tour in Siberia�

Well! heh.

Yet: "To get an abortion on the NHS, you will need to be referred by a doctor to your local hospital or clinic. Your own GP, or a doctor at a local family planning clinic, or at Brook (if you are under 25) can do this. It is important to go along as soon as possible. If you want to pay to have an abortion privately, you can refer yourself to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) or to Marie Stopes." It does sound free to me.

Nope, Its free if there are reasons for it to be free. After that, it depends on where you are for it to be free.

Then why? and why the surge since 1998?

I'm not sure exactly why - but think of it like this - the child support was actually simpler pre-1998, then it was with the Child credit system that was introduced.

The Surge since 1998 and particularly since 2000 or so, I believe is to do with kid culture, which is changing dramatically. Kids are more independent from their parents, are less controlled by their parents and are increasingly more liberal with their lives. Drinking amongst kids is rife, having nothing to do is a problem - this sort of thing.

Ovidius. You first state you are not agains abortion, and then you write a whole list of posts with arguments against abortion, and you blame me for it? Tsktsk. Bad style.

No, I did not write a load of posts supporting abortions. I just said other ways were far better than abortions - simply because abortions are horrific and certainly not a healty way to lead life.

Now, I am not interested in continuing a discussion with one so unsure about what he wants, but I'd like to point out two things: It is not wise to call a research bad based on no more than a newspaper article. The research was good enough to scare the US congress, dismissing it offhand like that is silly.

Fine, don't.

You are right, i should read the research. However, the conclusions of the research are ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why abstinence from Sex should not be encouraged. Obviously, there always has to be the Sex Education Shock therapy - Condoms, Sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy, but the article and the statistics they present from the research show that mutually exclusive forms of education present the same results. Which is fine.

Congress is scared because its a change in congress, i doubt that republican senators are running round now going "oh dear, those poor children that didn't abstain from sex", sure...

Do you even know what borderline is? Clearly not. Perhaps you should look it up before judging. she should never have given her vagina out so willingly This is the singlemost disgustingly sexist remark I have seen in a long time. You arrogant a-hole. How about being a bit less judgemental about things you know nothing about?

apologies, I thought you said a Borderline case, not that she was suffering from Borderline. I don't think that it specifically means you shouldnt have children and is certainly treatable. Though, I agree it is does offer a bigger stepping stone for a potential mother.

Oh, its Sexist? - Just because i don't mention the man in equally in this statement, it makes me Sexist. Wow, how far Feminism has come. The fact is, if she hadn't had Sex, this wouldn't have been a problem. No, ok with this case, there is judgemental issues, but deciding to have sex is the first question one should ask themselves.

Having sex outside of strong relationships is a bad idea, Now marriage is probably a bit extreme, but just because people don't believe in marriage doesn not mean they should have sex with people willingly. Now this is a discussion Forum, I'm being judgemental based on what you presented - otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion.

Anyhow, as I see it. If you are not in a position to have children, Don't have sex. If abortion is your only answer if you were to get pregnant, just don't do it.

Sex is a very good impetus for the strengthening of the immune system. It has been tentatively proved that those people, who have sex on a regular basis, are much more protected against various viral diseases than those, who prefer abstinence: healthy sex saturates blood with antibodies. Therefore, sexually active men and women suffer from widespread infectious diseases such a flu and cold less frequently. As for sexually transmitted diseases, the answer is obvious: a condom makes perfect.

Who needs a vaccine for Bird Flu when you can have sex! The choice between needles or a roll around in the sheets, hard choice...

Originally posted by New User Nobody has brought up the idea of same sex fun to stop any unwanted babies or abortions? � To say we should give up sex is just plain nonsense (and fairly boring) I reckon just play with another women if one doesnt wanna get pregnant. � � � �

That may well be an option for some, New User. But, just like that could be an option to avoid pregnancy, abortion should be an option for women who wish to terminate same.

This is a survey of 2000 people , a very small sample and it does not explain how that sample was taken. It does not even express what sort of questions were asked.

If you contacted the authors of the survey instead of the article reporting the results you could get the exact method they used. I would go with random selection similar to a gallup poll.

So glad you simply deny the evidnece in front of you. Means I won.

I agree with Aelfgifu, abstinence only programs have been shown to be utterly ineffective. Hell, even when I was going to a christian private school they taught us about the methods of contraception and explained them to us.

Adoption is not a substitute. Recently the new christian government here did a research on promoting adoption above abortion. The results of this research on emotional problems whas so shocking they decided to change their policy. Adoption is emotionally very bad, both for mother and child.

Adoption doesn't work because there is too much government interference in it. I don't agree that it is easier (and cheaper) to kill a child then it is to adopt one. Adoption should require one psychological evaluation on the parents, one interview of the parents by a social worker, and an appearance before a civil official where the parents become the child's legal guardians. We don't have to jump through hoops to become natural parents so why do we have to to give children a better life.

Also I will agree it is infeasible to have adoption replace abortion, just by the sheer numbers of abortions performed every year.

In no country, in no situation, in no case ever, is abortion used as a means of population control.

*cough* China *cough*

My whole point is merely that ABORTION SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED AT ALL COSTS and that SEX SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED OUTSIDE OF STRONG RELATIONSHIPS

I agree with this. Casual sex is something only whores and assholes participate in.

The fact is, she should never have given her vagina out so willingly, then there would be a father in sight.

Uh, how about if the man wasn't so willing to spread her legs. It's not the woman's fault that men don't show better judgement, and it's not either of their fault that pregnancy occurs. When accidents happen it's up for the individuals involved to come to a decision on what to do based on their own individual ethical, moral and logical codes. I couldn't tell an atheist that abortion is morally wrong because an atheist has different beliefs than I do. As long as they obey the laws of the land I cannot take the law into my own hands because of their beliefs.

If people thought of that before they allowed men to use them, then they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place?

Women don't "allow men to use them". Women enjoy the company of men and then that can lead to intimate situations. Pregnancy is usually the farthest thing from their minds at the time, because they are living in the moment. People can make mistakes, and not just women. The sexual revolution has finally come to an end. Women are egalitarian in our society now. Contrary to popular belief women don't sit around waiting to have sex with men (unless they are in red-lit buildings....)

But that it doesn't matter whether you have been educated with abstinence or educated with contraception.

Yes but I'm sure the pregnancy rate for those that practiced contraception are much lower. Thus eliminating the need to destroy a human life.

If the woman wishes a termination and the man does not, then he has legal avenues/options he can pursue.

Morticia, I would like to know what legal avenues a man can take. As far as I'm aware a man has no rights regarding a woman's pregnancy in the United States because of the unconstitutional Roe vs. Wade verdict.

Personally I'd change the laws to allow a man to "buy-out" a woman's pregnancy for a set fee, let's say $10,000 dollars. To allow her child to come to term (in case of miscarriage only pay for the months she was pregnant). And in doing so have the woman forfeit all rights (like visitation) to the child. Because I know I wouldn't want someone killing my child.

You are right, i should read the research. However, the conclusions of the research are ridiculous.

Oh come on now that's bad form, saying something is ridiculous when you have no knowledge of it.

There is absolutely no reason why abstinence from Sex should not be encouraged.

Bingo! Here is where I think the miscommunication between both parties is. I think everyone can agree on this statement:

Sexual education should discuss the most current and successful methods of birth control, as well as discussing the options one has if they become pregnant, however abstinence should be the most encouraged method of contraception, but should not be the only method taught.

I reckon just play with another women if one doesnt wanna get pregnant.

But then I'd get two girls pregnant instead of one...............

Casual sex is something only whores and assholes participate in.

Well that hurt. But it wouldn't be the first time I was called a a-hole!