legislating morality

[mackbrislawn]

Folks, you are having a great discussion here - I very much enjoy reading this thread.

I have had a special interest in bioethics for almost 20 years now (I happen to be a pharmacist and bio-medical scientist), and here are some developments I continue to be very preoccupied with.

There have been some decades-old conscience protection laws in place for healthcare professionals, but progress in this field is fast and furious. Thus, President Bush passed some regulations in late 2008, before he left office, to bring conscience protection up to date. E.g. there have been conscience protection for doctors and nurses who refuse to perform surgical abortions, for a long time. But there are new developments: drugs that cause a chemical abortion, drugs for euthanasia and assisted suicide - should a pharmacist ever be forced to fill a prescription for those? Should a doctor, or nurse, ever be forced to kill a patient through euthanasia/assisted suicide, or kill a baby by giving an abortive drug or so-called “contraceptive drug” with abortive activity, to the mother? Should a doctor, a scientist ever be forced to perform in vitro fertilization, embryo destruction, and embryonic stem cell research?

All these things are relatively recent developments, and the decades-old laws did not protect the conscience of healthcare providers. Thus, Bush passed a regulation in late 2008, before leaving office. And President Obama, predictably, rescinded everything that Pres. Bush passed, with the single exception of doctors and nurses still being able to refuse surgical abortions. If you work at a university hospital, and your boss thinks my way or the highway, you either dispense that abortive drug RU486/mifeprest/mifepristone or lose your job, well, you will lose your job and there’s nobody and nothing to protect you.

But this is not enough when it comes to one group imposing its morality on everybody else, because certain states like Washington and Illinois went further than that, imposing state laws meant to drive pro-life healthcare providers out of business.

With a supposed private university hospital, you could argue, well, that’s how the bosses want to run their hospital, and you either accept that or find another job.

But here comes in Washington state Governor Christine Gregoire. She pushed for laws forcing every single pharmacy and every single pharmacist in the state of WA, to either carry and dispense the morning-after pill “Plan B” which is abortifacient (causes abortions), or close their pharmacies and stop practicing their jobs as pharmacists in the state of WA. When Washington state’s Board of Pharmacy didn’t want to go along with the proposed law, Gov. Gregoire threatened to fire the members of the Board of Pharmacy, and also to have them sued for “gender discrimination” as if refusing to give abortive drugs to women was a gender discrimination issue. Gov. Gregoire was finally able to break the opposition, and only one single member of the Board of Pharmacy voted against the law - the rest voted for it, or abstained. As it stands today, if you are a pharmacist in the state of Washington, you are forced by law to carry Plan B, and dispense Plan B to the patient, or else you lose your license. If you have your own private business, your own private pharmacy, it still doesn’t matter a bit, because the state of WA will tell you what to do in your own business - stock and dispense the abortive drug Plan B, or lose your license as a pharmacist, and close down your pharmacy.

How’s that for one group legislating their morality and forcing their abortive agenda on everybody else?

The same thing was the case in Illinois - Gov. Rod Blagojevich passed a similar law, but now he is out of office, and a judge threw out his law when some pharmacists sued against this state-imposed mandate to carry and dispense Plan B.

Also, I’ve met my fair share of doctors in my life, and worked with them and developed friendships. One top practitioner was telling me that doctors should be forced to perform surgical abortions whether they want to or not, because women in rural areas don’t have easy access to abortions. Thus, the way to increase access, is to pass laws that would force all doctors and nurses to perform surgical abortions. Thanks God this doctor happened to be an oncologist, not an ob-gyn.

But I have known a pediatrician doctor who was outraged with parents who loved their hydrocephalic children and wanted them to receive the standard medical care that all babies receive, instead of “letting them go”. And what did she mean by “letting go”? Don’t give antibiotics to a hydrocephalic baby, don’t cure his/her pneumonia or common cold, let the baby die of a trivial disease that’s always treated, and cured with practically 100% success rate, in those other babies who are not hydrocephalic and thus deserve to live, in this pediatrician’s opinion.

Folks, all it takes is some doctor like the two I mentioned above, getting in a position of power, and I assure you they won’t hesitate to team up with politicians/legislators like Barack Obama, Rod Blagojevich, Christine Gregoire, and impose and force their own version of morality down the throats of everybody else.

Wow!

 

[z0wb13]

[me, “why should the unborn have any rights?”]

you: So they can be born, grow up, and learn to ask, “why should the unborn have any rights?”

post hoc prompter ergo hoc. this is almost the logical fallacy that you have committed. i’m not going to look at your grizzly pictures either, because that wouldn’t prove anything. it would be as if i sent you a gruesome picture of a car accident and said, “see, that’s why cars are evil.”

i think it’s laughable that i’m accused of being naive, but i’m not going to sink to that level and start making personal attacks. because whatever i believe, or do not, does not make an argument any better. that is an ad hominem fallacy.

@joseph l varga: for all your interest in bioethics and training in pharmacology, i find it disturbing that you would refer to plan B as an abortifacient. it says right on the box that it is an “emergency contraceptive.” it does not cause an abortion anymore than taking birth control, or using condoms, or practicing the “rhythm method” causes an abortion.

but why is it that just because you don’t believe in xyz, you can expect to have a job? it’s not called a fun, or a reaffirmation of what i believe in, it’s called work. and when you get to work, all of your individuality goes out the window, and it’s your job to be a good little worker bee. if you can’t handle that, get another job. but it is wrong, scientifically and medically wrong, that plan B causes abortions, and as a pharmacist you should know better. if you want to draw a line in the sand about what doctors should or shouldn’t prescribe their patients, then go back to school (and into debt up to your eyeballs) and become a doctor yourself, i guess. otherwise, suck it up and do your job.

@sedonaman: look at all of the federal holidays. there is one christian holiday, and none from any other religion. then look at federal observances; you won’t find any atheist days, unless you inexplicably want to count flag day. i guess you could count halloween as a pagan day, but then i want you to explain to me clearly what the easter bunny has to do with the death/resurrection of jesus, and what santa (a magical elf) has to do with his birth. my point is that if halloween is somehow anti-christian instead of just good clean fun, then what on earth is a xmas tree doing in your living room;p

your premise that the separation of church and state has somehow become a weapon to beat up on the church is false, and sounds like it stems from a siege mentality that wants to divide people into us and them (the us being smaller, though morally superior, to them). but the courts stepping in and saying, “you can’t post the 10 commandments in a public building” does not affect the free practice of your religion one iota. you can still have religious schools, and your own churches, and do whatever you want in your own homes.

christians aren’t under attack in this country. i think people would do better as a society if we tried to bridge the gaps between ourselves, instead of holing up and pretending that we are under siege from the MSM, or the “gay rights activists,” or whatever other convenient bogeyman you can find. there real problems are poverty and lack of access to education. if you could solve these two problems, all of the moral issues that christians tend to fixate on, like abortion, unwed mothers, and divorce, would be nearly eliminated.

 

[Mumbles140]

**1.**it would be as if i sent you a gruesome picture of a car accident and said, “see, that’s why cars are evil.”

2.@joseph l varga: for all your interest in bioethics and training in pharmacology, i find it disturbing that you would refer to plan B as an abortifacient. it says right on the box that it is an “emergency contraceptive.” it does not cause an abortion anymore than taking birth control, or using condoms, or practicing the “rhythm method” causes an abortion.

3.@sedonaman: look at all of the federal holidays. there is one christian holiday, and none from any other religion. then look at federal observances…**4.**what santa (a magical elf) has to do with his birth.

**5.**but the courts stepping in and saying, “you can’t post the 10 commandments in a public building” does not affect the free practice of your religion one iota. you can still have religious schools, and your own churches, and do whatever you want in your own homes.

**6.**there real problems are poverty and lack of access to education. if you could solve these two problems, all of the moral issues that christians tend to fixate on, like abortion, unwed mothers, and divorce, would be nearly eliminated.

1. No, it would show you that even disfigured and no longer functioning, you can still look at it and plainly see it is a car, albeit one that has been in a wreck. The pictures were a direct rebuttal to your claim that ‘they don’t even look like humans’. And if you aren’t willing to deal with the consequences of abortions, why would you support them? If you find the pictures ‘too horrific’, shouldn’t you ask yourself why you find them as such?
2. According to the actual definition of conception, which is when the sperm meets the egg, then it is an abortifacient. It prevents the fertilized egg (thus after the 2 cells have joined) from being implanted. Modern medical dictionaries recognize conception as the moment of implantation to allow for these types of ABC not to be considered abortifacient.
3. Because this land was colonized as Christian land, and this nation was founded by Christian men. And on one of the two most important holy days for all Christians, you would expect people not to work. And if Easter were to happen on a Friday every year, I believe Easter would be a federal holiday as well.
4. Santa Claus is Saint Nicholas - a faithful servant to Christ who celebrated the birth of Our Savior with total charity. The true life of Saint Nicholas inspired the ‘myth’ of Santa Claus. When you don’t try to secularize religious events, they tend to make sense, rather than existing as commercial opportunities.
5. You are right, I can still believe in Christ without those being posted on the court room walls, but considering that set of laws is found in almost all legal systems in western civilization (most often as the basis of such laws), why should it be so offensive? Does not our currency use the term God? Does Congress not have a chaplain? Does using money prevent one from being an atheist? No - it is something to raise a stink about, though, and draw attention to ‘the cause’, so full speed ahead with the ACLU.
6. I see, it is being uneducated and poor that causes abortions and children out of wedlock. That’s funny, because professional sports players make a lot of money. But in all seriousness, if you want to talk about education, how about the lies perpetrated by PP, NARAL, and other organizations that survive off blood money? And what about the studies that show teaching abstinence alone truly is more effective in preventing underage sex (and thus lower STDs and pregnancy rates) than ‘responsible sex’ programs that liberals love to support? Our education is the truth, and while it may be inconvenient for the lives of some, it still remains the truth.

 

[sedonaman]

post hoc prompter ergo hoc. this is almost the logical fallacy that you have committed.

If advocating something that if your mother had opted for you wouldn’t be here to advocate it is not a fallacy, it should be. We could call it sui-destructio circularum.

i’m not going to look at your grizzly pictures either, because that wouldn’t prove anything. …

I thought you wanted to use pictures as some sort of proof. Guess I won that one. I don’t know anything about Taoism, but I conclude by your position that it has no Golden Rule equivalent.

@sedonaman: look at all of the federal holidays. there is one christian holiday, and none from any other religion. then look at federal observances; you won’t find any atheist days, unless you inexplicably want to count flag day. i guess you could count halloween as a pagan day, but then i want you to explain to me clearly what the easter bunny has to do with the death/resurrection of jesus, and what santa (a magical elf) has to do with his birth. my point is that if halloween is somehow anti-christian instead of just good clean fun, then what on earth is a xmas tree doing in your living room;p

I fail to see what all this has to do with legislating morality.

your premise that the separation of church and state has somehow become a weapon to beat up on the church is false,…

I don’t think you ever heard of the ACLU.

and sounds like it stems from a siege mentality that wants to divide people into us and them (the us being smaller, though morally superior, to them).

Typical liberal Leftist line: create conflict, try to force your will on others, then claim they are being “divisive” when they resist. The self-righteous claim to moral superiority makes it complete, although I can’t imagine how your morality can be superior if morality is only relative anyway.

… but the courts stepping in and saying, “you can’t post the 10 commandments in a public building” does not affect the free practice of your religion one iota. you can still have religious schools, and your own churches, and do whatever you want in your own homes.

Certainly does affect my free speech rights if the government has opened a public forum.

christians aren’t under attack in this country. i think people would do better as a society if we tried to bridge the gaps between ourselves, instead of holing up and pretending that we are under siege from the MSM, or the “gay rights activists,” or whatever other convenient bogeyman you can find. there real problems are poverty and lack of access to education. if you could solve these two problems, all of the moral issues that christians tend to fixate on, like abortion, unwed mothers, and divorce, would be nearly eliminated.

Now I know you never heard of the ACLU.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

1. According to the actual definition of conception, which is when the sperm meets the egg, then it is an abortifacient. It prevents the fertilized egg (thus after the 2 cells have joined) from being implanted. Modern medical dictionaries recognize conception as the moment of implantation to allow for these types of ABC not to be considered abortifacient.

Yeah, Mumbles, you and I know the truth, and the manufacturers of Plan B won’t be able to mislead us. But they surely try to mislead the average person regarding the simple truth that Plan B (and also other contraceptive drugs) do cause abortions. After all, admitting the truth would be bad for business.

There’s a simple definition for conception: sperm meets egg, and they form a new cell, a new human person made up of a single cell. And killing that human person is abortion. Even when conception takes place in a test tube, as with the in vitro fertilization methods, the same logic applies - those who kill the human person conceived in a test tube or Petri dish, are performing an abortion. It doesn’t matter one iotta whether the human person is in the mother’s body, implanted or not, whether he/she is in a test tube or Petri dish - we are talking about a human person, and killing him/her is abortion. This is exactly how the Dignitas Personae document by the Vatican defines abortion, and the logic behind this definition is impeccable.

Of course, don’t expect the abortion lobby to admit the obvious, anytime soon.

1. I see, it is being uneducated and poor that causes abortions and children out of wedlock. That’s funny, because professional sports players make a lot of money. But in all seriousness, if you want to talk about education, how about the lies perpetrated by PP, NARAL, and other organizations that survive off blood money? And what about the studies that show teaching abstinence alone truly is more effective in preventing underage sex (and thus lower STDs and pregnancy rates) than ‘responsible sex’ programs that liberals love to support? Our education is the truth, and while it may be inconvenient for the lives of some, it still remains the truth.

I was having similar thoughts, remembering how Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) got his girlfriend to abort their baby, and looking at the divorces and out-of-wedlock babies of wealthy pop stars like Madonna, Britney Spears, and others.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

@joseph l varga: for all your interest in bioethics and training in pharmacology, i find it disturbing that you would refer to plan B as an abortifacient. it says right on the box that it is an “emergency contraceptive.” it does not cause an abortion anymore than taking birth control, or using condoms, or practicing the “rhythm method” causes an abortion.

You need to educate yourself, z0wb13. Of course the manufacturer won’t admit that they are killing human persons with Plan B, any more than Hitler was going to admit that the Jewish people sent to gas chambers were human persons. And I bet those who killed Native Americans also redefined humanity so as not to regard them as human. I can’t believe you are falling for this old trick.

but why is it that just because you don’t believe in xyz, you can expect to have a job? it’s not called a fun, or a reaffirmation of what i believe in, it’s called work. and when you get to work, all of your individuality goes out the window, and it’s your job to be a good little worker bee. if you can’t handle that, get another job. but it is wrong, scientifically and medically wrong, that plan B causes abortions, and as a pharmacist you should know better. if you want to draw a line in the sand about what doctors should or shouldn’t prescribe their patients, then go back to school (and into debt up to your eyeballs) and become a doctor yourself, i guess. otherwise, suck it up and do your job.

Actually I see this differently. I’m not planning to suck it up; I’m planning to work in my small way so that people like Barack Obama, Rod Blagojevich, and Christine Gregoire get exposed as incompetent legislators and lose their jobs. In other words, I’m not planning at all to compromise my professional ethical standards, and I’m planning to fight those who would try to force people like me to act unethically.

 

[sedonaman]

… I’m planning to fight those who would try to force people like me to act unethically.

The same people BTW who championed the “right to choose” .

 

[z0wb13]

1. No, it would show you that even disfigured and no longer functioning, you can still look at it and plainly see it is a car, albeit one that has been in a wreck. The pictures were a direct rebuttal to your claim that ‘they don’t even look like humans’. And if you aren’t willing to deal with the consequences of abortions, why would you support them? If you find the pictures ‘too horrific’, shouldn’t you ask yourself why you find them as such.

i never said “too horrific” so quit putting words in my mouth. i also think that the birthing process is gross, and if i posted pictures of a woman crowning i would probably be banned from the forum. so don’t send me links to something you know is gross.

if you want to debate, you have to either contest what i claim or back up your own, because just ascribing absurd positions (like any nazi comparison) to me is a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[sedonaman]

i never said “too horrific” so quit putting words in my mouth. i also think that the birthing process is gross, and if i posted pictures of a woman crowning i would probably be banned from the forum. so don’t send me links to something you know is gross.

if you want to debate, you have to either contest what i claim or back up your own, because just ascribing absurd positions (like any nazi comparison) to me is a waste of everyone’s time.

You are the one who came up with the suggestion that we look at pictures.

 

[narrowgatequest]

i also think that the birthing process is gross, and if i posted pictures of a woman crowning i would probably be banned from the forum…

You wouldn’t get in trouble because giving birth is “gross,” if you were to get in trouble, it would be because that is a woman’s private part, lol.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

i never said “too horrific” so quit putting words in my mouth. i also think that the birthing process is gross, and if i posted pictures of a woman crowning i would probably be banned from the forum. so don’t send me links to something you know is gross.
…

Just pointing out what you actually wrote

post hoc prompter ergo hoc. this is almost the logical fallacy that you have committed. i’m not going to look at your grizzly pictures either, because that wouldn’t prove anything. it would be as if i sent you a gruesome picture of a car accident and said, “see, that’s why cars are evil.”

By context, you mean grisly (not grizzly). Grisly means horrible or gruesome.

So, sedoman did not put words in your mouth. You did say a word synonymous to horrific.

Btw, I don’t think crowning or the birthing process is gruesome or gross. True, to watch childbirth is not for the squeamish, but you came into this world exactly this way, unless your mother delivered you by C-section, which is no less remarkable of an event. Every successful childbirth brings about smiles and joy in people. I think many women would take exception to your description. What is gruesome is the chopping up of a fetus, which is exactly what happens with abortion. Is the reason you don’t wish to look at the pictures linked by sedonaman because you don’t want to find out you have been on the wrong side of the pro-life/choice debate all along?
,

 

[sedonaman]

… What is gruesome is the chopping up of a fetus, which is exactly what happens with abortion. Is the reason you don’t wish to look at the pictures linked by sedonaman because you don’t want to find out you have been on the wrong side of the pro-life/choice debate all along?
,

“been on the wrong side” is putting it politely. I think a more accurate description of z0wb13’s position is that he doesn’t want to admit that he supports said “chopping up of a fetus”. Not to mention he was the one who suggested that we look at pictures in the first place, ostensibly to convince ourselves that fetuses are not persons [or words to that effect]. If they are not persons, why would z0wb13 object so violently to looking at pictures of abortions any more than a normal person would object to looking at, say, a building that had been demolished?

“America will not end abortion until America sees abortion.”

 

[mackbrislawn]

“been on the wrong side” is putting it politely. I think a more accurate description of z0wb13’s position is that he doesn’t want to admit that he supports said “chopping up of a fetus”. Not to mention he was the one who suggested that we look at pictures in the first place, ostensibly to convince ourselves that fetuses are not persons [or words to that effect]. If they are not persons, why would z0wb13 object so violently to looking at pictures of abortions any more than a normal person would object to looking at, say, a building that had been demolished?

“America will not end abortion until America sees abortion.”

Yes, if a fetus is not a human person, why bother to chop it up? Precisely because it IS a human person is why they want to chop it up, or suck its brains out.

 

[z0wb13]

By context, you mean grisly (not grizzly). Grisly means horrible or gruesome.

i actually appreciate this correction, because i learned something. but the fact is that the vast majority of abortions don’t look like what sedonaman is describing. most abortions are performed during the first trimester, so the pictures are gross and inaccurate. any third trimester pregnancy that is terminated is only done under the most extreme circumstances, like when the baby is still-born and already dead, or it has some awful genetic disorder and wouldn’t have lived for more than a few days either way.

but since the thread is about legislating morality: would outlawing abortions actually stop the practice? think about it. there were abortions while it was still criminalized, the only difference being that back then, abortions were really dangerous. think about how rich people could still afford to fly to europe to have the procedure done, while poor people would just have no choice in the matter.

if you actually wanted to reduce the number of abortions, the one sure fire solution would be to promote the use of condoms and birth control. and a second avenue would be to start teaching kids about sex, instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. by this, i mean comprehensive sex education around the 6th or 7th grade, like just before puberty.

Precisely because it IS a human person is why they want to chop it up, or suck its brains out.

this is not a reasonable position, it’s just throwing bombs.

 

[sedonaman]

…
if you actually wanted to reduce the number of abortions, the one sure fire solution would be to promote the use of condoms and birth control. and a second avenue would be to start teaching kids about sex, instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. by this, i mean comprehensive sex education around the 6th or 7th grade, like just before puberty.
…

This is the lie that got us where we are today: over 1 million abortions a year.

Back to the op question: I am unconvinced that [the rhetorical] you can legislate something other than morality.

 

[Mumbles140]

if you actually wanted to reduce the number of abortions, the one sure fire solution would be to promote the use of condoms and birth control. and a second avenue would be to start teaching kids about sex, instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. by this, i mean comprehensive sex education around the 6th or 7th grade, like just before puberty.

Wrong, actually. Studies were released last year that showed teaching abstinence only is more effective in reducing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. If you tell kids it is okay to have sex, and give them the tools (ABC) to do so, you are saying “Have free reign with it. By the way, these things aren’t always effective, and for certain methods, you have to be extremely responsible and consistent with using them or else you could be pregnant.” Condoms can still cause pregnancy - abstinence doesn’t.

 

[z0wb13]

Studies were released last year that showed teaching abstinence only is more effective in reducing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

i would like to see that study. there is evidence that shows comprehensive sex education that promotes abstinence is effective, but there is no scientific evidence show that “abstinence only” education has any impact on sexual behavior. and it doesn’t matter how much you wish it to be so, see here:

IMPACTS ON BEHAVIOR

Findings indicate that youth in the program [abstinence only] group were no more likely than control [comprehensive sex ed.] group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex, they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age. Contrary to concerns raised by some critics of the Title V, Section 510 abstinence funding, however, program group youth were no more likely to have engaged in unprotected sex than control group youth.

that’s from a 2007 study by mathmatica. the alternative to comprehensive sex education is to tell kids nothing at all, and then they get all sorts of bad ideas from their friends. i would rather have teenagers learning about sex from an adult that knows what they are talking about than from another teenager.

i don’t understand how information can by itself be bad. teaching kids about their bodies and how they work is just biology. by making the study of biology more personal, and thereby more meaningful, i think that it would promote science generally.

but i realize that some people here might dismiss the study i cite as more “typical Leftist” propaganda, or something like that. but what they are doing is engaging in magical thinking. just wishing that abstinence only education works doesn’t make it so, and there is no scientific basis (that i can find, so correct me if i’m wrong) to support this claim.

if you want to actually reduce abortions, you have to take a pragmatic approach, meaning you have to look at what works and go from there. birth control works at reducing unwanted pregnancies, which would in turn reduce the number of abortions. if there was some sliver of evidence that abstinence education had any effect on teenagers sexual behavior, then you could make an argument to promote it. but it doesn’t, so you can’t. it isn’t a choice between right and wrong, but rather what works and what doesn’t.

 

[z0wb13]

This is the lie that got us where we are today: over 1 million abortions a year.

take a look at who actually gets abortions before calling me a liar.

WORLDWIDE

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000

Where abortions occur:
83% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 17% occur in developed countries.

…

Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

for more fun facts, see here. it’s on a biased website, so take it with a grain of salt;p

 

[Mumbles140]

i would like to see that study. there is evidence that shows comprehensive sex education that promotes abstinence is effective, but there is no scientific evidence show that “abstinence only” education has any impact on sexual behavior. and it doesn’t matter how much you wish it to be so, see here:

that’s from a 2007 study by mathmatica. the alternative to comprehensive sex education is to tell kids nothing at all, and then they get all sorts of bad ideas from their friends. i would rather have teenagers learning about sex from an adult that knows what they are talking about than from another teenager.

i don’t understand how information can by itself be bad. teaching kids about their bodies and how they work is just biology. by making the study of biology more personal, and thereby more meaningful, i think that it would promote science generally.

but i realize that some people here might dismiss the study i cite as more “typical Leftist” propaganda, or something like that. but what they are doing is engaging in magical thinking. just wishing that abstinence only education works doesn’t make it so, and there is no scientific basis (that i can find, so correct me if i’m wrong) to support this claim.

if you want to actually reduce abortions, you have to take a pragmatic approach, meaning you have to look at what works and go from there. birth control works at reducing unwanted pregnancies, which would in turn reduce the number of abortions. if there was some sliver of evidence that abstinence education had any effect on teenagers sexual behavior, then you could make an argument to promote it. but it doesn’t, so you can’t. it isn’t a choice between right and wrong, but rather what works and what doesn’t.

lifenews.com/2010/02/01/nat-5950/ - this study is from 2010. Also, the schools should have a firm line on what they are willing to teach. Being that a student can be suspended for taking an aspirin on their own, why is it okay for them to hand out condoms and show teens how to use them? That’s like giving people guns and bullets and saying “if you want to know how dangerous guns can be, read this pamphlet, but let’s focus on the fun aspects of the shooting range.” Let the schools teach abstinence, and let the parents step in and talk about any topics the kids may be curious about. I’m not sure when the public education system became the answer for any uncomfortable topic, but if children are afraid to talk to their parents about sex, are they really mature enough to be making decisions about it?

 

[sedonaman]

take a look at who actually gets abortions before calling me a liar.
…

I don’t know what these statistics have to do with abortions in the U.S.

The OP subject is legislating morality, and it gravitated [as questions on legislating morality always do] to the morality of abortion. I assumed, perhaps naively, that this meant abortion in the U.S., the seemly only country in which most posters here can influence legislation.

So the statistics on abortions around the world have nothing to do with your claim that we in the U.S. need more of what we’ve been force-fed the last 50 years to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S.

First, we in the U.S. were told artificial birth control was the answer to reducing unwanted pregnancies and hence abortions in the U.S. That didn’t work because in the U.S. the number of unwanted pregnancies increased. The answer, we were told in the U.S., was to make abortion “safe and legal,” and later “rare” was added. We in the U.S. were even going to save poor women from rusty coat hangers and back-alley butchers in the U.S.

Although we might have saved a few from dying from rusty coat hangers and in the back alley in the U.S., the number of abortions increased in the U.S., so that apparently didn’t work either, in the U.S., and we in the U.S. were told that we needed sex education in the U.S. So, in the U.S., we got K-12 sex education shoved down our throats, and unwanted pregnancies, and consequently, abortions in the U.S. still increased. We in the U.S. then got debauchery indoctrination in higher-ed, and unwanted pregnancies, and consequently, abortions in the U.S. still increased.

Looks to me like your idea is not only not original but is not working in the U.S. In the U.S., the numbers justifying more of the same are just not there no matter how you spin them, and you are spreading the mis-information.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” – Unknown [at least to me]

“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in numerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” – Paul Johnson, *The Quotable Paul Johnson
*