the pro-life crowd is also morally bankrupt. they don't actually care about preventing abortions, it's just a 'moral issue' for them to wail about, and for politicians it's a valuable way to appeal to a certain group of people. pro-life is not going to overturn roe v. wade unless there's a major political shift in the country.
if the pro-life people actually cared about preventing abortions, they would be pushing hard for comprehensive, mandatory, federally funded sexual education programs in public schools. A lot of abortions happen because people don't use birth control or use it incorrectly. But, the pro-life crowd tends to be the same people who support abstinence only education. sort of a double think there.
the pro-life crowd is also morally bankrupt. they don't actually care about preventing abortions, it's just a 'moral issue' for them to wail about, and for politicians it's a valuable way to appeal to a certain group of people. pro-life is not going to overturn roe v. wade unless there's a major political shift in the country.
if the pro-life people actually cared about preventing abortions, they would be pushing hard for comprehensive, mandatory, federally funded sexual education programs in public schools. A lot of abortions happen because people don't use birth control or use it incorrectly. But, the pro-life crowd tends to be the same people who support abstinence only education. sort of a double think there.
They also tend to oppose abortions right up until they decide they need one. Then go back to opposing them because clearly when they did it it was an entirely morally right thing. Unlike all those other sluts out there.
the pro-life crowd is also morally bankrupt. they don't actually care about preventing abortions, it's just a 'moral issue' for them to wail about, and for politicians it's a valuable way to appeal to a certain group of people. pro-life is not going to overturn roe v. wade unless there's a major political shift in the country.
if the pro-life people actually cared about preventing abortions, they would be pushing hard for comprehensive, mandatory, federally funded sexual education programs in public schools. A lot of abortions happen because people don't use birth control or use it incorrectly. But, the pro-life crowd tends to be the same people who support abstinence only education. sort of a double think there.
They think it's immoral to have sex before marriage, which is why they oppose sex education--the idea is, "you shouldn't be doing it anyway so let's not make it any easier for you or condone it even by implication." From their perspective, abortion is a second serving of wrong on top of the first one.
I mean feel free to disagree strongly with all of this. I certainly do. But let's do try to avoid that groupthink mode where we just generalize and insult entire groups of people without actually understanding their position.
Basically, understand the actual flaws in their thinking and criticize those.
By the way, it's certainly not true that every pro-lifer opposes sex education. I know some who are as strongly in favor of it as they are against legal abortion.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
the pro-life crowd is also morally bankrupt. they don't actually care about preventing abortions, it's just a 'moral issue' for them to wail about, and for politicians it's a valuable way to appeal to a certain group of people. pro-life is not going to overturn roe v. wade unless there's a major political shift in the country.
if the pro-life people actually cared about preventing abortions, they would be pushing hard for comprehensive, mandatory, federally funded sexual education programs in public schools. A lot of abortions happen because people don't use birth control or use it incorrectly. But, the pro-life crowd tends to be the same people who support abstinence only education. sort of a double think there.
They think it's immoral to have sex before marriage, which is why they oppose sex education--the idea is, "you shouldn't be doing it anyway so let's not make it any easier for you or condone it even by implication." From their perspective, abortion is a second serving of wrong on top of the first one.
I mean feel free to disagree strongly with all of this. I certainly do. But let's do try to avoid that groupthink mode where we just generalize and insult entire groups of people without actually understanding their position.
Basically, understand the actual flaws in their thinking and criticize those.
By the way, it's certainly not true that every pro-lifer opposes sex education. I know some who are as strongly in favor of it as they are against legal abortion.
murdering the unborn is surely more awful than sex education. however, sex education is not an sensational enough topic to gather people around, so they don't try.
sure, there's probably a few people who want to make abortions illegal while supporting sex-ed, but there is absolutely no thrust from prominent anti-abortion groups on the topic of sex-ed.
like I said, they don't actually give a shit about preventing abortions.
There is no flaw in either camp's logic. For a flaw to exist there must be a foundation to base your logic on. Since neither shares a foundation, each assumes the other to be flawed.
There is no flaw in either camp's logic. For a flaw to exist there must be a foundation to base your logic on. Since neither shares a foundation, each assumes the other to be flawed.
When one side uses religion as the foundation, I am pretty comfortable saying the other side's reasoning is flawed given the dearth of time using religion as the foundation for anything has been good.
There is no flaw in either camp's logic. For a flaw to exist there must be a foundation to base your logic on. Since neither shares a foundation, each assumes the other to be flawed.
there is a major flaw in the anti-camp's logic
They are attempting to stop what they disagree with through ineffective means - even if they succeeded, abortions would continue illegally and endanger the lives of women as well.
They could do a lot to prevent abortions, instead they photograph women leaving clinics and try to pass laws like that one in ohio.
There is no flaw in either camp's logic. For a flaw to exist there must be a foundation to base your logic on. Since neither shares a foundation, each assumes the other to be flawed.
When one side uses religion as the foundation, I am pretty comfortable saying the other side's reasoning is flawed given the dearth of time using religion as the foundation for anything has been good.
Just making sure people understand logic around here. If you want to discount the foundation, that's fine. Just so long as it is in the open. It wasn't the flaw in the logic that was wrong, it is their foundation. You think by default they are wrong and that's fine. All it means is that there can't be a discussion between the two parties.
There is no flaw in either camp's logic. For a flaw to exist there must be a foundation to base your logic on. Since neither shares a foundation, each assumes the other to be flawed.
there is a major flaw in the anti-camp's logic
They are attempting to stop what they disagree with through ineffective means - even if they succeeded, abortions would continue illegally and endanger the lives of women as well.
They could do a lot to prevent abortions, instead they photograph women leaving clinics and try to pass laws like that one in ohio.
You aren't making any sense. They are acting against two situations which they believe to be fundamentally wrong. They can't accept a lesser evil, it would be against everything they believe (the honest ones).
They could still argue for keeping all unwed men on one side of the Mississippi and all unwed women on the other. That way they can at least pretend that they're more interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies (well, those out of wedlock) than in punishing people for having sex.
And abstinence only education is an utter failure. The cat is out of the bag, for the love of god. It's time for "damage control." They should think of education regarding safe sex as being no different from any other safety education that a person receives.
Of course this whole tangent seems to have an underlying assumption that these people have thought about their position for more than a few seconds, and who the hell are we kidding there?
They think it's immoral to have sex before marriage, which is why they oppose sex education
Because married people don't need to know anything about sex? Or because the instant after you say "I do" they believe God gives you an instant infodump of Everything You Need To Know About Sex Ever? Or is it that they never have sex in their own marriages so they don't connect the two things?
I mean c'mon. When we were kids in school and bitching about having to learn trigonometry or The Political Factions In The Court of Louis XIV or something else that we didn't like and was hideously boring, remember what our parents said? "Someday you'll be glad you learned this."
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
sex ed doesn't encourage pre-marital sex though. several studies show that sex ed does not make teens more likely to have sex. It's not exactly logical to believe something that is directly contradicted by evidence. that seems like a flaw in logic to me.
sex ed doesn't encourage pre-marital sex though. several studies show that sex ed does not make teens more likely to have sex. It's not exactly logical to believe something that is directly contradicted by evidence. that seems like a flaw in logic to me.
sex ed doesn't encourage pre-marital sex though. several studies show that sex ed does not make teens more likely to have sex. It's not exactly logical to believe something that is directly contradicted by evidence. that seems like a flaw in logic to me.
Posts
if the pro-life people actually cared about preventing abortions, they would be pushing hard for comprehensive, mandatory, federally funded sexual education programs in public schools. A lot of abortions happen because people don't use birth control or use it incorrectly. But, the pro-life crowd tends to be the same people who support abstinence only education. sort of a double think there.
They also tend to oppose abortions right up until they decide they need one. Then go back to opposing them because clearly when they did it it was an entirely morally right thing. Unlike all those other sluts out there.
They think it's immoral to have sex before marriage, which is why they oppose sex education--the idea is, "you shouldn't be doing it anyway so let's not make it any easier for you or condone it even by implication." From their perspective, abortion is a second serving of wrong on top of the first one.
I mean feel free to disagree strongly with all of this. I certainly do. But let's do try to avoid that groupthink mode where we just generalize and insult entire groups of people without actually understanding their position.
Basically, understand the actual flaws in their thinking and criticize those.
By the way, it's certainly not true that every pro-lifer opposes sex education. I know some who are as strongly in favor of it as they are against legal abortion.
murdering the unborn is surely more awful than sex education. however, sex education is not an sensational enough topic to gather people around, so they don't try.
sure, there's probably a few people who want to make abortions illegal while supporting sex-ed, but there is absolutely no thrust from prominent anti-abortion groups on the topic of sex-ed.
like I said, they don't actually give a shit about preventing abortions.
there is a major flaw in the anti-camp's logic
They are attempting to stop what they disagree with through ineffective means - even if they succeeded, abortions would continue illegally and endanger the lives of women as well.
They could do a lot to prevent abortions, instead they photograph women leaving clinics and try to pass laws like that one in ohio.
Just making sure people understand logic around here. If you want to discount the foundation, that's fine. Just so long as it is in the open. It wasn't the flaw in the logic that was wrong, it is their foundation. You think by default they are wrong and that's fine. All it means is that there can't be a discussion between the two parties.
You aren't making any sense. They are acting against two situations which they believe to be fundamentally wrong. They can't accept a lesser evil, it would be against everything they believe (the honest ones).
And abstinence only education is an utter failure. The cat is out of the bag, for the love of god. It's time for "damage control." They should think of education regarding safe sex as being no different from any other safety education that a person receives.
Of course this whole tangent seems to have an underlying assumption that these people have thought about their position for more than a few seconds, and who the hell are we kidding there?
Because married people don't need to know anything about sex? Or because the instant after you say "I do" they believe God gives you an instant infodump of Everything You Need To Know About Sex Ever? Or is it that they never have sex in their own marriages so they don't connect the two things?
I mean c'mon. When we were kids in school and bitching about having to learn trigonometry or The Political Factions In The Court of Louis XIV or something else that we didn't like and was hideously boring, remember what our parents said? "Someday you'll be glad you learned this."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
This would be the evidence by the way.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Good call for once, NCAA.