I still havent seen anyone comment on this, so i'm going to post it again with a bit less venom:
If baby == fetus == zygote then it follows baby == fertilized egg.
If the destruction of a fertilized egg is wrong, then will they also outlaw fertility clinics unless the clinic can prove that every single fertilized egg is brought to term and will grow into a child?
If thats the case I dont see the law ever passing as much as the fundies might hate abortions, they wont want to lose the ability to have George H. W. T. Y. L. Bush the IXth if a father or mother have fertility troubles.
You'll see very, very few pro-life groups (and very few pro-lifers, for that matter) come out against in vitro fertilization. Which is why they're enormous hypocrites.
Laboratory miscarriages
What is the invitro process anyway? Do they just shotgun a bunch of sperm at eggs or is it more of a delicate implantation process?
They chose to have sex. And as I've been lectured to today, no method of birth control is 100% effective. So you role the dice. I understand that you want to have sex and kill babies becaues its convenient for you, luckily enough the government agrees with you.
No, I want women to be able to make an uncoerced choice about how to responsibly handle the consequences of their pregnancy and for abortion to be a legal and safe option if they choose to use it. The government agrees with me, because our government is founded on the priciples of expanding individual freedom and freedom of choice. Luck has nothing to do with it.
Why do you hate our freedoms spyder? Are you a terr'rist?
Prolly, but thats besides the point. Your point is correct. The Governmant does not recognize the unborn child as a legal entity. Luck has nothing to do with it. The child is naught but a parasite, and as such can be disposed of however necessary.
All I'm saying is I think thats a little sad, because I kinda think its a child and I wish there was some respect for that. But there is not, so no use crying over spilled milk. I was lucky enough to get borned!
It's only treated that way for the first 3 months of pregnancy, because that's pretty much what it is. It's worth noting that nearly 90% of abortions are performed in this first three months, and that a very, very large portion of those would have miscarried, anyhow.
Wait...are miscarriage rates that high?
For all pregnancies, it starts at 15-20%, and goes up from there.
I think it's safe to say that the percentage of pregnancies which end in abortion which would otherwise end in miscarriage is higher than that, probably substantially.
You are right, no. I don't find it responsible to kill an unborn child as a consequence.
I find it extraordinarily irresponsible that you think that religious beliefs should apply in the environment of law and that a cluster of cells that isn't a whole human being has more of a right to have a fruitful life that its mother. While were at it, why don't we take away women's access to an education, ability to control her finances in addition to taking away women's ability to control their body. Let's restrict women to a traditional role and regress socially back to the 17th and 18th century.
That's a horrible argument. You should be ashamed.
American society is about progressively providing people of both genders equal opportunities to have the ability to make choices about important issues. If you feel that my argument is "horrible" feel free to reread the first amendment about the separation of church and state and then post an intelligent response. Banning abortion because of religion takes away a woman's ability to choose. Therefore that decision displays a regression of our society social standards because it originates from a set of archaic standards found in Christianity. You can repeatedly state your religious beliefs, but know that they technically should have no legal influence over situations you as a male will never have to experience the consequences for. You should be ashamed because you think children are a tool to punish women for circumstances that men can completely escape responsibility for.
Look, a death is a death is a death. I think a careful line must be tread to respect both the life of the unborn child and the mother. I am also a firm believer that our government is incapable of generating such a thoughtful piece of legislation because they are too busy pandering for votes and any actualintelligent piece of legislation that does not just define abortion as illegal will probably get shot down by hard-liners on either side as a useless because it won't explicitly allow or prevent abortions. Quite frankly I'd be happy to call it a day if we could just recognize abortions as a death. Its would be a small, and mostly pointless victory, but that seems to be about all our government is able to accomplish these days anyway.
Its not black and white. I tried to be clear about that in my original post. Any piece of legislation is going to have negative as well as positive effects.
Additionally Vlad McRad, if you read more than one of my posts, I don't think abortion is evil. I think it is simply death.
Movin on.
Let's assume a healthy mother, in her 20s, with a healthy zygote. Let's assume zero complications.
There is only an 80-85% chance that that zygote turns into a baby. Objectively, is a fully formed, adult human female, that has a 100% chance of being human, worth an 80-85% chance at a life? I think you have to say "yes, absolutely."
It's only treated that way for the first 3 months of pregnancy, because that's pretty much what it is. It's worth noting that nearly 90% of abortions are performed in this first three months, and that a very, very large portion of those would have miscarried, anyhow.
Wait...are miscarriage rates that high?
For all pregnancies, it starts at 15-20%, and goes up from there.
I think it's safe to say that the percentage of pregnancies which end in abortion which would otherwise end in miscarriage is higher than that, probably substantially.
Bleh, that's annoyingly high.
Yeah, that whole "reality is liberally biased" thing really gets in the way of a strong pro-life stance.
You are right, no. I don't find it responsible to kill an unborn child as a consequence.
Why is a zygote being eliminated any more of a "killing of an unborn child" than me masturbating this morning?
I think this was covered earlier.
I spotted this while going back through the thread, and I don't think it was. At least my thread-search of "sperm" doesn't bring anything of value. Care to point me to the relevant page?
It's only treated that way for the first 3 months of pregnancy, because that's pretty much what it is. It's worth noting that nearly 90% of abortions are performed in this first three months, and that a very, very large portion of those would have miscarried, anyhow.
Wait...are miscarriage rates that high?
For all pregnancies, it starts at 15-20%, and goes up from there.
I think it's safe to say that the percentage of pregnancies which end in abortion which would otherwise end in miscarriage is higher than that, probably substantially.
Bleh, that's annoyingly high.
Yeah, that whole "reality is liberally biased" thing really gets in the way of a strong pro-life stance.
Though, you have to admit it's fun watching people run into that wall.
It's only treated that way for the first 3 months of pregnancy, because that's pretty much what it is. It's worth noting that nearly 90% of abortions are performed in this first three months, and that a very, very large portion of those would have miscarried, anyhow.
Wait...are miscarriage rates that high?
For all pregnancies, it starts at 15-20%, and goes up from there.
I think it's safe to say that the percentage of pregnancies which end in abortion which would otherwise end in miscarriage is higher than that, probably substantially.
Bleh, that's annoyingly high.
Yeah, that whole "reality is liberally biased" thing really gets in the way of a strong pro-life stance.
Though, you have to admit it's fun watching people run into that wall.
Or watch Fox News try to burrow through it like a rabid mole.
Onto Elkamil's point...
When I was with the ASU Women's Coalition (yes, I am a guy), we asked one of the Pro-Life groups if we could put some condoms on their Pro-Life table... because naturally if they wanted to eliminate abortions, they must also be in favor of reducing unwanted pregnancy through contraception...
Turns out that was not the case.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
And when you're done being sarcastic, maybe you could find tons of those pro-contraceptive pro-lifers. They're just out there, I'm sure of it.
i'm pro-contraceptive, pro-life 8-)
Can you explain why it's so hard to find pro-life organizations that promote the use of contraceptives?
motivated people who don't like abortion for reasons other than "culture of life" < motivated people against abortion because of "culture of life" reasons
for a lot of people it's mainly a religious issue, so if you're against abortion and you're religious, and you also happen to be motivated enough by the issue to be in an organization against it, you're probably also going to be against contraceptives.
i dunno, i don't really buy into the culture of life stuff. for me it's a responsibility thing. if abortions weren't as commonplace as they are now, i probably wouldn't care THAT much about them, but the fact that the abortion rate is as high as 33% in some places in insane. that's why i'm for contraception, because it's all about personal responsibility and making good decisions.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Care to back that statement up there Pants? I mean ryu and Spyder are clearly retarded but you so far havent delved that far down. I believe the term is Put up or Shut up.
Facts are facts are facts. If you cannot support the facts then they are not facts.
You know, I'm kind of surprised that we've gotten this far (and with harping on cognitive dissonance) while not mentioning the whole 'The only moral abortion is my abortion' hypocritical bullshit.
Care to back that statement up there Pants? I mean ryu and Spyder are clearly retarded but you so far havent delved that far down. I believe the term is Put up or Shut up.
Facts are facts are facts. If you cannot support the facts then they are not facts.
I don't understand the personal responsibility argument at all. Are you basically saying that if, say, a condom breaks then the woman ought to take the pregnancy to term, otherwise women everywhere will start think of sex as a fun thing to do rather than a grave, life altering decision to be amsde every time her and her partner feel a little frisky?
That sounds like a blatant strawman but i'm having trouble reading it as anything other than you think unwanted babies should be brought into the world as an object lesson for others about the dangers of sex.
Care to back that statement up there Pants? I mean ryu and Spyder are clearly retarded but you so far havent delved that far down. I believe the term is Put up or Shut up.
Facts are facts are facts. If you cannot support the facts then they are not facts.
overall in the US i think it's about 20%, but the state of New York is generally around 32-33% most of the time.
DC is freakin' 40%
That's probably inflated due to people driving in to get an abortion, since they're laxer on the regulations, though. Does it say how much of that is DC residents and how much is Virginian et al?
I don't understand the personal responsibility argument at all. Are you basically saying that if, say, a condom breaks then the woman ought to take the pregnancy to term, otherwise women everywhere will start think of sex as a fun thing to do rather than a grave, life altering decision to be amsde every time her and her partner feel a little frisky?
That sounds like a blatant strawman but i'm having trouble reading it as anything other than you think unwanted babies should be brought into the world as an object lesson for others about the dangers of sex.
yeah, you're right, that's a huge strawman.
obviously if a couple took every precaution to do things right and proper and by some ridiculous chance the woman still got pregnant, that's one thing. but let's be honest with ourselves: how often does that really happen?
i don't know that banning abortion now would be a good idea, but that doesn't mean i have to like it or approve of it.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Care to back that statement up there Pants? I mean ryu and Spyder are clearly retarded but you so far havent delved that far down. I believe the term is Put up or Shut up.
Facts are facts are facts. If you cannot support the facts then they are not facts.
overall in the US i think it's about 20%, but the state of New York is generally around 32-33% most of the time.
DC is freakin' 40%
That's probably inflated due to people driving in to get an abortion, since they're laxer on the regulations, though. Does it say how much of that is DC residents and how much is Virginian et al?
actually DC is probably inflated because of a very high minority population, who are more likely to get an abortion. i just threw that out there, DC isn't big enough to really matter any. it's kind of like saying there aren't any abortions going on because south dakota's stats are so low.
my point is that abortions aren't nearly as rare as they ought to be for me to say that people are taking the kind of responsibility they should be taking when bumping uglies
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
I know 3 people that happened to Pants. She was on the pill, he was using a rubber. Boom 3 pregnancies the first time they fooled around. They were 17-19 years old. Better punish them for trying to do something responsibly eh?
obviously if a couple took every precaution to do things right and proper and by some ridiculous chance the woman still got pregnant, that's one thing. but let's be honest with ourselves: how often does that really happen?
That's a good question, how often does that happen? Are there any statistics anywhere on how many aborted pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure?
my point is that abortions aren't nearly as rare as they ought to be for me to say that people are taking the kind of responsibility they should be taking when bumping uglies
You hardly have to look at abortion stats for that. Look at teen pregnancy rates, whether its taken to term or not, and it's just incredibly sad to see the state of things. Especially in the more red states where anti-choice groups are very influential. There's just no education on contraceptives. Even the schools that don't limit themselves to abstinence only generally aren't all that great with it either, and the abstinent only ones...yeah.
Oh, and minorities may statistically be more likely than whitey to get an abortion but the more controlling factor is income level. DC is essentially the mall, lobbyists and hoighty toighty restaurants/hotels to serve lobbyists, and projects.
I know 3 people that happened to Pants. She was on the pill, he was using a rubber. Boom 3 pregnancies the first time they fooled around. They were 17-19 years old. Better punish them for trying to do something responsibly eh?
three pregnancies in one foolin around session has got to be some kind of record. props to your friends.
but seriously, that's anecdotal so i don't really care, and also if they really did use the pill and condom correctly, there is really no fucking way they'd get pregnant THREE times. but see, they're teenagers and they screw up crap and generally don't know what they're doing.
you'd think after one fuckup they might take the pedal off the gas for a while
You hardly have to look at abortion stats for that. Look at teen pregnancy rates, whether its taken to term or not, and it's just incredibly sad to see the state of things. Especially in the more red states where anti-choice groups are very influential. There's just no education on contraceptives. Even the schools that don't limit themselves to abstinence only generally aren't all that great with it either, and the abstinent only ones...yeah.
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
I know 3 people that happened to Pants. She was on the pill, he was using a rubber. Boom 3 pregnancies the first time they fooled around. They were 17-19 years old. Better punish them for trying to do something responsibly eh?
three pregnancies in one foolin around session has got to be some kind of record. props to your friends.
but seriously, that's anecdotal so i don't really care, and also if they really did use the pill and condom correctly, there is really no fucking way they'd get pregnant THREE times. but see, they're teenagers and they screw up crap and generally don't know what they're doing.
you'd think after one fuckup they might take the pedal off the gas for a while
You hardly have to look at abortion stats for that. Look at teen pregnancy rates, whether its taken to term or not, and it's just incredibly sad to see the state of things. Especially in the more red states where anti-choice groups are very influential. There's just no education on contraceptives. Even the schools that don't limit themselves to abstinence only generally aren't all that great with it either, and the abstinent only ones...yeah.
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
So who better to entrust an 18-year living commitment to?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
obviously if a couple took every precaution to do things right and proper and by some ridiculous chance the woman still got pregnant, that's one thing. but let's be honest with ourselves: how often does that really happen?
That's a good question, how often does that happen? Are there any statistics anywhere on how many aborted pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure?
i dunno. maybe? the problem with that is it'd be really hard to tell if the failure was due to human error or product error.
although i'd bet human error would account for 95% of it.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
My point is a zygote really doesn't deserve consideration simply because it's technically alive and part of a human body.
So a zygote is equivalent to a cyst? What about an embryo? A fetus? A 9-month fetus inside a woman in labor? Are those the equivalent of a cyst, as well?
Well, if you want to play the "when does life begin" game, I'd say it's when the brain is developed enough to discern sensation. Which, according to wikipedia, is after roughly 26 weeks, or about the beginning of the third trimester.
I think we can all agree that being self-aware is one of the defining features of being human, at least mentally.
As illsutrated by Zalbinion's response to this question some pages back, it's not necessary to say "Life begins at point X," and then declare everything before as expendable as a wad of dryer lint, and everything after as a bouncing baby whatever. That's a stupid and simplistic way to look at it, yet it's almost invariably the tack taken by dolts on both sides of the debate. The value of a developing person does not need to be binary. It can, and should, be viewed as something that has a lower value at conception, and a higher value just before birth, and increases at some rate over the course of the pregnancy.
Of course, viewing it as such is inconvenient for the polemicists, as it's harder to declare that your opponent endorses baby murder or hates women's rights when you acknowledge that the world isn't black or white. But if you do so, you can instead begin to argue in a more nuanced fashion that tries to balance the rights of women with the rights of nascient human forms in a manner that acknowledges practical realities. The downside, of course, is that you have to actually bother thinking.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So who better to entrust an 18-year living commitment to?
teenagers really shouldn't be having sex in the first place. obviously they're going to do it, but i think it's smart to impress upon them that sex isn't just something to do on a saturday night. it's got serious implications, and no matter what precautions you take, there's always at least a slim chance of pregnancy.
which is why i'd like to see a combo of abstinence and contraceptive sex ed
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
Almost no one on the pro choice side thinks that. What we're opposed to is abstinence only education. Teaching children about contraceptives is not the same as telling them to go home and start getting it on after the school day is over, it's entirely possible to have a sex education course that recommends abstaining from sex but also says when you do have sex this is the way to avoid pregnancy.
It can, and should, be viewed as something that has a lower value at conception, and a higher value just before birth, and increases at some rate over the course of the pregnancy.
Can we extend that to 0 just before fertilization and 1 at six years of age?
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
Almost no one on the pro choice side thinks that.
maybe not exactly that, but many don't want abstinence to be emphasized any more than an offhanded rundown, and i thnk that attitude is just as harmful as abstinence only education.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
Almost no one on the pro choice side thinks that.
maybe not exactly that, but many don't want abstinence to be emphasized any more than an offhanded rundown, and i thnk that attitude is just as harmful as abstinence only education.
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
Almost no one on the pro choice side thinks that.
maybe not exactly that, but many don't want abstinence to be emphasized any more than an offhanded rundown, and i thnk that attitude is just as harmful as abstinence only education.
That is also mostly incorrect, but whatever.
yeah i agree. whatever
edit: you're fooling yourself if you think most pro-contraceptive sex ed people think that abstinence should be on equal footing with contraception
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
So who better to entrust an 18-year living commitment to?
teenagers really shouldn't be having sex in the first place. obviously they're going to do it, but i think it's smart to impress upon them that sex isn't just something to do on a saturday night. it's got serious implications, and no matter what precautions you take, there's always at least a slim chance of pregnancy.
which is why i'd like to see a combo of abstinence and contraceptive sex ed
I'd rather we teach teenagers about masturbation and sex toys. If they're going to do it anyway, then it'd be best to teach them ways of doing it that have 0% chance of pregnancy.
So who better to entrust an 18-year living commitment to?
teenagers really shouldn't be having sex in the first place.
Biology disagrees.
The realities of modern society trump biology. Given the requirements to become an educated and prosperous member of society, teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
So who better to entrust an 18-year living commitment to?
teenagers really shouldn't be having sex in the first place.
Biology disagrees.
The realities of modern society trump biology. Given the requirements to become an educated and prosperous member of society, teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
Almost no one on the pro choice side thinks that.
maybe not exactly that, but many don't want abstinence to be emphasized any more than an offhanded rundown, and i thnk that attitude is just as harmful as abstinence only education.
That is also mostly incorrect, but whatever.
yeah i agree. whatever
edit: you're fooling yourself if you think most pro-contraceptive sex ed people think that abstinence should be on equal footing with contraception
Unfortunately, they've got the statistics to back up that stance, Pants. They focus on contraception because they know that they're working against some pretty strong forces, like the "Forbidden fruit angle" and "sex drive".
Posts
Laboratory miscarriages
What is the invitro process anyway? Do they just shotgun a bunch of sperm at eggs or is it more of a delicate implantation process?
Bleh, that's annoyingly high.
American society is about progressively providing people of both genders equal opportunities to have the ability to make choices about important issues. If you feel that my argument is "horrible" feel free to reread the first amendment about the separation of church and state and then post an intelligent response. Banning abortion because of religion takes away a woman's ability to choose. Therefore that decision displays a regression of our society social standards because it originates from a set of archaic standards found in Christianity. You can repeatedly state your religious beliefs, but know that they technically should have no legal influence over situations you as a male will never have to experience the consequences for. You should be ashamed because you think children are a tool to punish women for circumstances that men can completely escape responsibility for.
There is only an 80-85% chance that that zygote turns into a baby. Objectively, is a fully formed, adult human female, that has a 100% chance of being human, worth an 80-85% chance at a life? I think you have to say "yes, absolutely."
i'm pro-contraceptive, pro-life 8-)
I spotted this while going back through the thread, and I don't think it was. At least my thread-search of "sperm" doesn't bring anything of value. Care to point me to the relevant page?
Can you explain why it's so hard to find pro-life organizations that promote the use of contraceptives?
Though, you have to admit it's fun watching people run into that wall.
Or watch Fox News try to burrow through it like a rabid mole.
Onto Elkamil's point...
When I was with the ASU Women's Coalition (yes, I am a guy), we asked one of the Pro-Life groups if we could put some condoms on their Pro-Life table... because naturally if they wanted to eliminate abortions, they must also be in favor of reducing unwanted pregnancy through contraception...
Turns out that was not the case.
motivated people who don't like abortion for reasons other than "culture of life" < motivated people against abortion because of "culture of life" reasons
for a lot of people it's mainly a religious issue, so if you're against abortion and you're religious, and you also happen to be motivated enough by the issue to be in an organization against it, you're probably also going to be against contraceptives.
i dunno, i don't really buy into the culture of life stuff. for me it's a responsibility thing. if abortions weren't as commonplace as they are now, i probably wouldn't care THAT much about them, but the fact that the abortion rate is as high as 33% in some places in insane. that's why i'm for contraception, because it's all about personal responsibility and making good decisions.
Facts are facts are facts. If you cannot support the facts then they are not facts.
what, you mean the 33% thing?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/statesabrate.html
overall in the US i think it's about 20%, but the state of New York is generally around 32-33% most of the time.
DC is freakin' 40%
That sounds like a blatant strawman but i'm having trouble reading it as anything other than you think unwanted babies should be brought into the world as an object lesson for others about the dangers of sex.
That's probably inflated due to people driving in to get an abortion, since they're laxer on the regulations, though. Does it say how much of that is DC residents and how much is Virginian et al?
yeah, you're right, that's a huge strawman.
obviously if a couple took every precaution to do things right and proper and by some ridiculous chance the woman still got pregnant, that's one thing. but let's be honest with ourselves: how often does that really happen?
i don't know that banning abortion now would be a good idea, but that doesn't mean i have to like it or approve of it.
actually DC is probably inflated because of a very high minority population, who are more likely to get an abortion. i just threw that out there, DC isn't big enough to really matter any. it's kind of like saying there aren't any abortions going on because south dakota's stats are so low.
my point is that abortions aren't nearly as rare as they ought to be for me to say that people are taking the kind of responsibility they should be taking when bumping uglies
That's a good question, how often does that happen? Are there any statistics anywhere on how many aborted pregnancies are the result of contraceptive failure?
You hardly have to look at abortion stats for that. Look at teen pregnancy rates, whether its taken to term or not, and it's just incredibly sad to see the state of things. Especially in the more red states where anti-choice groups are very influential. There's just no education on contraceptives. Even the schools that don't limit themselves to abstinence only generally aren't all that great with it either, and the abstinent only ones...yeah.
Oh, and minorities may statistically be more likely than whitey to get an abortion but the more controlling factor is income level. DC is essentially the mall, lobbyists and hoighty toighty restaurants/hotels to serve lobbyists, and projects.
three pregnancies in one foolin around session has got to be some kind of record. props to your friends.
but seriously, that's anecdotal so i don't really care, and also if they really did use the pill and condom correctly, there is really no fucking way they'd get pregnant THREE times. but see, they're teenagers and they screw up crap and generally don't know what they're doing.
you'd think after one fuckup they might take the pedal off the gas for a while
edit:
what pisses me off about the abortion debate is that both sides are too stubborn to realize that a contraception and abstinence don't have to be taught in a mutually exclusive manner.
So who better to entrust an 18-year living commitment to?
i dunno. maybe? the problem with that is it'd be really hard to tell if the failure was due to human error or product error.
although i'd bet human error would account for 95% of it.
As illsutrated by Zalbinion's response to this question some pages back, it's not necessary to say "Life begins at point X," and then declare everything before as expendable as a wad of dryer lint, and everything after as a bouncing baby whatever. That's a stupid and simplistic way to look at it, yet it's almost invariably the tack taken by dolts on both sides of the debate. The value of a developing person does not need to be binary. It can, and should, be viewed as something that has a lower value at conception, and a higher value just before birth, and increases at some rate over the course of the pregnancy.
Of course, viewing it as such is inconvenient for the polemicists, as it's harder to declare that your opponent endorses baby murder or hates women's rights when you acknowledge that the world isn't black or white. But if you do so, you can instead begin to argue in a more nuanced fashion that tries to balance the rights of women with the rights of nascient human forms in a manner that acknowledges practical realities. The downside, of course, is that you have to actually bother thinking.
teenagers really shouldn't be having sex in the first place. obviously they're going to do it, but i think it's smart to impress upon them that sex isn't just something to do on a saturday night. it's got serious implications, and no matter what precautions you take, there's always at least a slim chance of pregnancy.
which is why i'd like to see a combo of abstinence and contraceptive sex ed
Almost no one on the pro choice side thinks that. What we're opposed to is abstinence only education. Teaching children about contraceptives is not the same as telling them to go home and start getting it on after the school day is over, it's entirely possible to have a sex education course that recommends abstaining from sex but also says when you do have sex this is the way to avoid pregnancy.
Can we extend that to 0 just before fertilization and 1 at six years of age?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
maybe not exactly that, but many don't want abstinence to be emphasized any more than an offhanded rundown, and i thnk that attitude is just as harmful as abstinence only education.
yeah i agree. whatever
edit: you're fooling yourself if you think most pro-contraceptive sex ed people think that abstinence should be on equal footing with contraception
Biology disagrees.
I'd rather we teach teenagers about masturbation and sex toys. If they're going to do it anyway, then it'd be best to teach them ways of doing it that have 0% chance of pregnancy.
so what? we should all be humping each other's brains out because we can? who cares what biology thinks?
if i saw jessica biel on the street, i'd have a strong biological desire to smack her on that fabulous ass, but that doesn't mean i'd actually do it
The realities of modern society trump biology. Given the requirements to become an educated and prosperous member of society, teenagers shouldn't be having sex.
Unfortunately, biology likes to trump back.
Unfortunately, they've got the statistics to back up that stance, Pants. They focus on contraception because they know that they're working against some pretty strong forces, like the "Forbidden fruit angle" and "sex drive".
Yes.
What does your ability to avoid assaulting strangers have to do with consensual sex between adults?