Abortion, underlying myths, and a skewed idea about mercy

[JimG]

“I was involved in an online discussion last week on Facebook. The points raised in the discussion illustrate many erroneous ideas people, including some Catholics, have about abortion. I pray some of the counterarguments in the debate may be of help to you if you become engaged in an argument with people who make the same false claims.”

Roseanne Sullivan summarizes an online discussion.

catholicstand.com/abortion-underlying-myths-skewed-idea-mercy/

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Abstinence actually does work. After decades of high rates of premarital sex, the percentages are declining, and more young people are abstaining. If abstinence works for a certain subset of young people, it can work every one of us.

She provides no citation for this claim, mind backing it up?

In fact, with a quick search, I found facts opposite to her claim.

advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/409-the-truth-about-abstinence-only-programs
siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1195

Any method of birth control has a certain percentage of failure. Many people who trust birth control to avoid an unwanted pregnancy are often faced with a stern dash of reality and they often make the decision to abort when faced with a pregnancy they never thought could happen.

She continues to insinuate that birth control often fails, resulting in an intense fear of pregnancy and such. But birth control is, in actuality, extremely effective. Here’s a chart showing all the forms of birth control.

optionsforsexualhealth.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-options/effectiveness
cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf
ashasexualhealth.org/pdfs/ContraceptiveOptions.pdf
webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/effectiveness-rate-of-birth-control-methods-topic-overview

Some of those are up to 99.7% effective. Then there is “chance” with an effectiveness of 15%. So when you teach abstinence education, when you restrict access to forms of birth control, you are giving couples either the choice of abstinence or the choice of 15% effective chance.

The entire point of her Fallacy #2 is that contraception is not reliable. But all statistics indicate otherwise, especially the pill that so many wish did not exist. Again, we are all aware that the effectiveness is not 100%, but it is extremely effective compared to unprotected sex. Abstinence education is not 100% effective, yet you still wish to restrict access to the couple’s next best chance for not getting pregnant? Because sex is about procreation? That isn’t practical in the slightest. That’s an ultimatum move that this author is refusing to acknowledge.

Abstinence is effective in preventing sex, but not everyone educated in abstinence will be abstinent in case you were unaware. She gives no proof that *abstinence education *is always effective in preventing sex. If she’s so concerned with birth control not being 100% effective, then why is she not addressing the teen pregnancies in abstinence-education-only schools? That’s the true fallacy here.

The other goal of most safe sex education is to teach young people how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases but the only way to avoid STDs is either to be chaste or to have marital relations with one faithful spouse.

Actually, there are these things called “latex condoms”. Again, not 100% effective but still extremely effective compared to chance. You can also get tested for STDs.

 

[jilly4ski]

She provides no citation for this claim, mind backing it up?

Sure, from the CDC- cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/cdc-16-more-teenage-virgins-now-two-decades-ago

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Sure, from the CDC- cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/cdc-16-more-teenage-virgins-now-two-decades-ago

The thing about this is that it does not prove that this decline is the result of abstinence education, which was her main insinuation. It could be due to a wide variety of other factors, and the links I added in my above post indicate that abstinence education does not decrease the rate of sexual activity in teens.

 

[MJDorry]

She provides no citation for this claim, mind backing it up?

In fact, with a quick search, I found facts opposite to her claim.

advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/409-the-truth-about-abstinence-only-programs
siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1195

She continues to insinuate that birth control often fails, resulting in an intense fear of pregnancy and such. But birth control is, in actuality, extremely effective. Here’s a chart showing all the forms of birth control.

optionsforsexualhealth.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-options/effectiveness
cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf
ashasexualhealth.org/pdfs/ContraceptiveOptions.pdf
webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/effectiveness-rate-of-birth-control-methods-topic-overview

Some of those are up to 99.7% effective. Then there is “chance” with an effectiveness of 15%. So when you teach abstinence education, when you restrict access to forms of birth control, you are giving couples either the choice of abstinence or the choice of 15% effective chance.

The entire point of her Fallacy #2 is that contraception is not reliable. But all statistics indicate otherwise, especially the pill that so many wish did not exist. Again, we are all aware that the effectiveness is not 100%, but it is extremely effective compared to unprotected sex. Abstinence education is not 100% effective, yet you still wish to restrict access to the couple’s next best chance for not getting pregnant? Because sex is about procreation? That isn’t practical in the slightest. That’s an ultimatum move that this author is refusing to acknowledge.

Abstinence is effective in preventing sex, but not everyone educated in abstinence will be abstinent in case you were unaware. She gives no proof that *abstinence education *is always effective in preventing sex. If she’s so concerned with birth control not being 100% effective, then why is she not addressing the teen pregnancies in abstinence-education-only schools? That’s the true fallacy here.

Actually, there are these things called “latex condoms”. Again, not 100% effective but still extremely effective compared to chance. You can also get tested for STDs.

It’s all quite beside the point, especially if you’re Christian of any variety, church, or creed. God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. There is no implied postscript in which God says, “Unless you really don’t feel like multiplying, but still want to have sex, use latex”.

We shouldn’t be basing educational standards on whether they’re effective in preventing a social mistake. As the articles succinctly points out, we don’t raise our kids how to commit any other disapproved act with safety “because they’re going to do it again.” If you don’t want your student smoking pot, you don’t teach them how to use a vaporizer “because they’ll do it any way”. If you don’t want your student shoplifting, you don’t teach them techniques for avoiding getting caught “because they’ll do it any way”. You wouldn’t walk a kid through the process of how to commit a “clean” murder.

Education exists for one purpose—to inform you of the consequences. The consequence of 2 + 2 is 4. The consequence of 2H + O is water. The consequence of having sex is pregnancy. The consequence of having wanton sex with multiple partners increasingly becomes STDs. The consequence of abstaining is waking up knowing you won’t have to worry about pregnancy scares. The consequence of using contraception is the bastardization of the sexual act and a disconnect with its intended purpose.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

It’s all quite beside the point, especially if you’re Christian of any variety, church, or creed. God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. There is no implied postscript in which God says, “Unless you really don’t feel like multiplying, but still want to have sex, use latex”.

We shouldn’t be basing educational standards on whether they’re effective in preventing a social mistake. As the articles succinctly points out, we don’t raise our kids how to commit any other disapproved act with safety “because they’re going to do it again.” If you don’t want your student smoking pot, you don’t teach them how to use a vaporizer “because they’ll do it any way”. If you don’t want your student shoplifting, you don’t teach them techniques for avoiding getting caught “because they’ll do it any way”. You wouldn’t walk a kid through the process of how to commit a “clean” murder.

Education exists for one purpose—to inform you of the consequences. The consequence of 2 + 2 is 4. The consequence of 2H + O is water. The consequence of having sex is pregnancy. The consequence of having wanton sex with multiple partners increasingly becomes STDs. The consequence of abstaining is waking up knowing you won’t have to worry about pregnancy scares. The consequence of using contraception is the bastardization of the sexual act and a disconnect with its intended purpose.

God commands us to be fruitful and multiply, but to care about that command requires a belief in God. Which, as you know, is becoming a more uncommon belief in teenagers. Overall, I don’t see your point here. I am arguing that this author is unable to prove that abstinence education is actually effective and that contraception should not be legal because of this.

Students smoking pot don’t get pregnant, students shoplifting don’t get pregnant. Time and time again, people try to act like I advocate for contraception, abortion, etc. because “people are going to do it.” If you would actually listen to my argument rather than just jumping at the chance to compare teen pregnancies to this or that, then maybe you would understand this.

The consequence of unprotected sex = pregnancy. Correct? Pregnancy is not a silly mistake, not a screw up, as you all continuously point out. It does, in fact, result in a new life or a death. Teenage unprotected sex results in a fifteen year old either giving birth or having an abortion. Both very tremendous events, wouldn’t you say.

Consequence of contraception = bastardization of the sexual act and a disconnect with its intended purpose. Correct? And this, somehow, is a larger consequence than either giving birth or getting an abortion? This religiously motivated consequence is supposed to be relevant in a secular nation? Again, not practical, not at all.

 

[JimG]

In matters of sexuality, we seem to treat young people as totally lacking in character or self-control. Parents expect them to be able to follow rules and exercise character and judgment in other areas of life, but not sex.

Using an example from the article, can one imagine saying this to a high school class: “We, your parents and your community don’t want you to text while driving. But it’s perfectly natural to do so, and we know that you’re going to do it anyway. So let us show you the safest way to text while driving.”

And be sure to buckle up.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

In matters of sexuality, we seem to treat young people as totally lacking in character or self-control. Parents expect them to be able to follow rules and exercise character and judgment in other areas of life, but not sex.

Using an example from the article, can one imagine saying this to a high school class: “We, your parents and your community don’t want you to text while driving. But it’s perfectly natural to do so, and we know that you’re going to do it anyway. So let us show you the safest way to text while driving.”

And be sure to buckle up.

Incorrect. Many teens have self-control. But 100% of teens? Nope. Not even close. 99.7% of teens definitely do not have that self-control. But, if you look at my cited sources, the pill is anywhere from 92 to 99.7% effective in preventing pregnancy. So, to put all teenagers under the abstinence education method, shown to be either ineffective or not effective enough, then you are letting the teens without the self-control or the desire to self-control be at a very high risk of pregnancy.

Listen, many parents do not see any lack of morality in pre-marital sex, so your point on exercising character and judgment is not logical. The common view today is that good judgment is the use of a condom or the pill, rather than refraining from it entirely. That’s just how it is, so don’t go complaining about parents treating sex differently than texting and driving. Not everyone holds your religious beliefs, and I’m sorry about that, but there’s nothing you can do.

To put every family under your religious expectation of being fruitful and multiplying the earth (once married only) is, again, impractical and ineffective.

 

[JimG]

99.7% of teens do not have self control? I am amazed. Could it be that they have been taught and had it pounded into their heads that self control is impossible to them? They seem to be able to follow instructions in other areas of life. I will be interested in hearing from teens who advise that they are incapable of self control.

 

[JimG]

“The widespread availability of contraception ushered in an age of sexual intercourse without consequence. Unconditional love was taken out of the equation and replaced with immediate, self-serving gratification. Love became inconsequential to sexual relations. With the possibility of procreation and the need for commitment gone, sex went from being a wonderful gift from God and an active participation in his work of creation to a sterile act, devoid of meaning and transcendence.”

The above is a quote from the article, “The death of unconditional love.”

As long as contraception is accepted, sex–and sex partners–will be commodified, and abortion will continue to be demanded as a backup for contraceptive failure. Contraception leads inevitably to abortion.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

99.7% of teens do not have self control? I am amazed. Could it be that they have been taught and had it pounded into their heads that self control is impossible to them? They seem to be able to follow instructions in other areas of life. I will be interested in hearing from teens who advise that they are incapable of self control.

That isn’t what I said, reread. Many teens have self-control, but not 99.7% of teens. Maybe I’m not phrasing this correctly, I’m not sure how else to say it so tell me if you’re still confused.

 

[Usige]

The consequence of unprotected sex = pregnancy. Correct?

No… it *might *result in pregnancy, but then again contraceptive acts might result in pregnancy. According to planned parenthood’s research arm, around 51% of abortions are to people who used contraceptives (i.e. “protection”). This included condoms (27%) and hormonal contraception (17%).

It leaves out that it is 100% of people risk their souls by using contraceptives or killing their children. But since huge numbers of Christians don’t even believe in sin any more it is irrelevant to them. I mean sex (in which we participate with God in creation) is just about fun right? How could bastardizing the act that links us so closely with Him be wrong?

 

[Hope_Philomena]

“The widespread availability of contraception ushered in an age of sexual intercourse without consequence. Unconditional love was taken out of the equation and replaced with immediate, self-serving gratification. Love became inconsequential to sexual relations. With the possibility of procreation and the need for commitment gone, sex went from being a wonderful gift from God and an active participation in his work of creation to a sterile act, devoid of meaning and transcendence.”

The above is a quote from the article, “The death of unconditional love.”

As long as contraception is accepted, sex–and sex partners–will be commodified, and abortion will continue to be demanded as a backup for contraceptive failure. Contraception leads inevitably to abortion.

Again, religion does not matter in this argument, much to your chagrin. I need actual studies and citations from you, as this is a matter of what we are meant to educate teenagers with, teenagers in secular public schools.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

No… it *might *result in pregnancy, but then again contraceptive acts might result in pregnancy. According to planned parenthood’s research arm, around 51% of abortions are to people who used contraceptives (i.e. “protection”). This included condoms (27%) and hormonal contraception (17%).

It leaves out that it is 100% of people risk their souls by using contraceptives or killing their children. But since huge numbers of Christians don’t even believe in sin any more it is irrelevant to them. I mean sex (in which we participate with God in creation) is just about fun right? How could bastardizing the act that links us so closely with Him be wrong?

See my post:

optionsforsexualhealth.o…/effectiveness
cdc.gov/reproductiveheal…ethods_508.pdf
ashasexualhealth.org/pdfs…iveOptions.pdf
webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/t…topic-overview

Some of those are up to 99.7% effective. Then there is “chance” with an effectiveness of 15%. So when you teach abstinence education, when you restrict access to forms of birth control, you are giving couples either the choice of abstinence or the choice of 15% effective chance.

The entire point of her Fallacy #2 is that contraception is not reliable. But all statistics indicate otherwise, especially the pill that so many wish did not exist. Again, we are all aware that the effectiveness is not 100%, but it is extremely effective compared to unprotected sex. Abstinence education is not 100% effective, yet you still wish to restrict access to the couple’s next best chance for not getting pregnant? Because sex is about procreation? That isn’t practical in the slightest. That’s an ultimatum move that this author is refusing to acknowledge.

Abstinence is effective in preventing sex, but not everyone educated in abstinence will be abstinent in case you were unaware. She gives no proof that abstinence education is always effective in preventing sex. If she’s so concerned with birth control not being 100% effective, then why is she not addressing the teen pregnancies in abstinence-education-only schools? That’s the true fallacy here.

I don’t know how many times I will have to say this: Public schools do not care about the souls of teenagers, they care about the physical consequences of pregnancy. Religion is irrelevant in public education, so please stop trying to use this as an arguing point.

 

[JimG]

Again, religion does not matter in this argument, much to your chagrin. I need actual studies and citations from you, as this is a matter of what we are meant to educate teenagers with, teenagers in secular public schools.

I really don’t think that it is required for secular schools to turn out amoral students. But if that is the case, studies will not help us. When civilization begins to unravel, contraception will not stop the unraveling.

 

[MJDorry]

God commands us to be fruitful and multiply, but to care about that command requires a belief in God. Which, as you know, is becoming a more uncommon belief in teenagers. Overall, I don’t see your point here. I am arguing that this author is unable to prove that abstinence education is actually effective and that contraception should not be legal because of this.

Yes, I recognized that you are arguing that she has failed to provide enough statistical evidence for arguing that abstinence education is effective in preventing kids from engaging in intercourse. My point is that it’s an irrelevant argument to have in the first place, both you and her included, because the matter of educating children on anything in school (which should be the arts and the sciences, period) should have nothing to do with the social choices they’re going to make outside of school. And I’m addressing your with God’s commandment because you, as a Christian, have no business arguing Caesar’s case in light of your own faith. I’ll touch on this more after the next quote.

Students smoking pot don’t get pregnant, students shoplifting don’t get pregnant. Time and time again, people try to act like I advocate for contraception, abortion, etc. because “people are going to do it.” If you would actually listen to my argument rather than just jumping at the chance to compare teen pregnancies to this or that, then maybe you would understand this.

I’m certainly not trying to act like you advocate for contraception, and abortion wasn’t anywhere in there, though I get this is probably referring to other conversations because you say “people”. I did actually read your post word for word, so in that sense, I did “listen”. And this is what you said:

“Abstinence education is not 100% effective, yet you still wish to restrict access to the couple’s next best chance for not getting pregnant? Because sex is about procreation? That isn’t practical in the slightest.”

There is no addendum or preface, implied or otherwise, making it clear that you don’t advocate for contraception. And the tone of the above quote from your first post would seem to indicate that, well, you are* advocating. You’re clearly prioritizing their desire to have sex without pregnancy, as if the goal of abstinence education is ultimately to avoid pregnancy. You know it’s more involved than that. The goal of abstinence education is teaching kids the output of intercourse and the value of both self-respect and respecting the sex act.

The consequence of unprotected sex = pregnancy. Correct? Pregnancy is not a silly mistake, not a screw up, as you all continuously point out. It does, in fact, result in a new life or a death. Teenage unprotected sex results in a fifteen year old either giving birth or having an abortion. Both very tremendous events, wouldn’t you say.

Pregnancy is a tremendous event for anybody at any age. It should never lead to a surprised mother committing abortion, so I don’t know why we’re including it here. Yes, statistically, it happens, but that’s not a consequence of teen pregnancy. That’s a consequence of another wrong decision made after being faced with the consequences of the first.

Consequence of contraception = bastardization of the sexual act and a disconnect with its intended purpose. Correct? And this, somehow, is a larger consequence than either giving birth or getting an abortion? This religiously motivated consequence is supposed to be relevant in a secular nation? Again, not practical, not at all.

And here we have the crux. The banner of abstinence education may ultimately be held by religion, but abstinence is not inherently religiously motivated. This should be taught and understood regardless of religion. This is sociologically-motivated. It continues to baffle me that the secular community isn’t more zealous about abstinence than even the religious communities.

We all have the pre-religious minds to see and comprehend the biological end toward which intercourse is oriented. We all have the minds to see and comprehend that our sexually dimporhic species thrives when sex is used for reproducing and creating families, and that those families are best served by monogamy. We all have the minds to see and understand that in the weakness of instinct, all of our human urges need the guidance and exercise of higher reasoning in right use. And that’s all before God is even mentioned.

But speaking of God, it’s not your business to support how a “secular nation” conducts itself. You are still called to stand in counterpoint to the secular world when it is wrong. Never mind practical. It doesn’t seem practical to let someone slap us on the cheek, but we are still called to offer the other. And slowly, we find out the practicality in it is that people lead happier lives when they live selflessly instead of selfishly. Now tell me how different you really think the secular and religious worlds ought to be.

Render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Procreation is God’s and God’s alone, so either start rendering it unto him, or risk your judgment.*

 

[Hope_Philomena]

I really don’t think that it is required for secular schools to turn out amoral students. But if that is the case, studies will not help us. When civilization begins to unravel, contraception will not stop the unraveling.

Your religious perspective may perceive it to be amoral, but you need to remember that these people see nothing wrong with it. Try to empathize with people ignorant to your religion, rather than going on about a narrative of the world unraveling into a pit of despair. Have some understanding for these people, have open conversations. They do not know they are immoral in the eyes of your God.

 

[Usige]

See my post:

I don’t know how many times I will have to say this: Public schools do not care about the souls of teenagers, they care about the physical consequences of pregnancy. Religion is irrelevant in public education, so please stop trying to use this as an arguing point.

I am well aware of the numbers and that the high number is rarely the number in actual use. I was simply pointing out that “protection” does not protect people nearly as well as some like to pontificate. When half of the abortions in the US are the result of “protection” failures it says that someone is selling a ton of BS as sweet cream.

To be honest I don’t give a rip if schools care about the souls of teens. I do… but hey lets save secular sensibilities if it only cost millions their souls. Sounds like a great trade off.

What happened to the days when people would willingly die for the faith they professed rather than just hide it away? Most Christians today would have never spread the faith beyond the upper room just to not offend pagans with their silly arguments. The whole reason we have this type of BS going on is Christians that fail in their duty, yes DUTY, to be a witness to the faith. So no, I will not stop using religious arguments. When we battle the forces of Satan we cannot win by joining his troops.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

Yes, I recognized that you are arguing that she has failed to provide enough statistical evidence for arguing that abstinence education is effective in preventing kids from engaging in intercourse. My point is that it’s an irrelevant argument to have in the first place, both you and her included, because the matter of educating children on anything in school (which should be the arts and the sciences, period) should have nothing to do with the social choices they’re going to make outside of school. And I’m addressing your with God’s commandment because you, as a Christian, have no business arguing Caesar’s case in light of your own faith. I’ll touch on this more after the next quote.

Then are you advocating for no education on abstinence or safe sex? Rather, none at all? This is what I perceive from your statement, correct me if I am wrong.

I’m certainly not trying to act like you advocate for contraception, and abortion wasn’t anywhere in there, though I get this is probably referring to other conversations because you say “people”. I did actually read your post word for word, so in that sense, I did “listen”. And this is what you said:

“Abstinence education is not 100% effective, yet you still wish to restrict access to the couple’s next best chance for not getting pregnant? Because sex is about procreation? That isn’t practical in the slightest.”

There is no addendum or preface, implied or otherwise, making it clear that you don’t advocate for contraception. And the tone of the above quote from your first post would seem to indicate that, well, you are** advocating. You’re clearly prioritizing their desire to have sex without pregnancy, as if the goal of abstinence education is ultimately to avoid pregnancy. You know it’s more involved than that. The goal of abstinence education is teaching kids the output of intercourse and the value of both self-respect and respecting the sex act.

I am advocating for practicality, and practicality cannot co-mingle with religious beliefs in this situation.

My experience with abstinence education is not as you described, so no, I don’t think it’s “more involved than that.” We barely spent two days in Health class on the topic, because there is so much curriculum that we simply do not have time. Public education doesn’t have the time to go into those inner workings.
MJDorry;14477032:

Pregnancy is a tremendous event for anybody at any age. It should never lead to a surprised mother committing abortion, so I don’t know why we’re including it here. Yes, statistically, it happens, but that’s not a consequence of teen pregnancy. That’s a consequence of another wrong decision made after being faced with the consequences of the first.

I’m saying that there are going to be both more abortions and more births if contraception access is restricted. Pregnancy can have an incredibly massive effect on the life of a teenager. Teenagers will not, statistically, have to face this terrible decision as often if contraception were not restricted.

And here we have the crux. The banner of abstinence education may ultimately be held by religion, but abstinence is not inherently religiously motivated. This should be taught and understood regardless of religion. This is sociologically-motivated. It continues to baffle me that the secular community isn’t more zealous about abstinence than even the religious communities.

We all have the pre-religious minds to see and comprehend the biological end toward which intercourse is oriented. We all have the minds to see and comprehend that our sexually dimporhic species thrives when sex is used for reproducing and creating families, and that those families are best served by monogamy. We all have the minds to see and understand that in the weakness of instinct, all of our human urges need the guidance and exercise of higher reasoning in right use. And that’s all before God is even mentioned.

But speaking of God, it’s not your business to support how a “secular nation” conducts itself. You are still called to stand in counterpoint to the secular world when it is wrong. Never mind practical. It doesn’t seem practical to let someone slap us on the cheek, but we are still called to offer the other. And slowly, we find out the practicality in it is that people lead happier lives when they live selflessly instead of selfishly. Now tell me how different you really think the secular and religious worlds ought to be.

Render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Procreation is God’s and God’s alone, so either start rendering it unto him, or risk your judgment.

The secular community sees the effectiveness of birth control, and the religious community refuses to associate with the stuff. It all goes down to that religious motivation on contraception. That is why, okay? Secular people understand that we are now capable of enjoying sex without the consequence of pregnancy, and religious people argue that this is against God’s design.

It’s not my business to advocate for secular law? Pardon me? I’ll risk my judgment for the sake of all those kids out there who don’t want to have religion shoved down their throats and ruin their perception of it forever.

 

[Hope_Philomena]

I am well aware of the numbers and that the high number is rarely the number in actual use. I was simply pointing out that “protection” does not protect people nearly as well as some like to pontificate. When half of the abortions in the US are the result of “protection” failures it says that someone is selling a ton of BS as sweet cream.

To be honest I don’t give a rip if schools care about the souls of teens. I do… but hey lets save secular sensibilities if it only cost millions their souls. Sounds like a great trade off.

What happened to the days when people would willingly die for the faith they professed rather than just hide it away? Most Christians today would have never spread the faith beyond the upper room just to not offend pagans with their silly arguments. The whole reason we have this type of BS going on is Christians that fail in their duty, yes DUTY, to be a witness to the faith. So no, I will not stop using religious arguments. When we battle the forces of Satan we cannot win by joining his troops.

Did it ever occur to you that half of the abortions are the result of protection failures because nobody is educating them on how to properly using a condom, for instance?

I’m sorry that you are endlessly frustrated with the truth that public school is secular.

Okay, go on your tirade. I’ll be over here facing the real world.