R
Rau
Guest
A plethora of contraceptive options have been available for decades.
- Status
A plethora of contraceptive options have been available for decades.
L
lileli
Guest
No it has not been depending on what part of the country you live in. Also, sex education has been lacking for decades. Thanks to the ACA women now are able to get birth control virtually free in many cases and the benefits to society will be immense. Also, you and I both know that their are many Churches that forbid the use of them so w sex what happens…people have sex without them. It is no surprise that the most religious states have the most incidence of porn viewing, teen pregnancy and other immoral issues. Ironic.
L
Loly_Maria
Guest
Or I could seek an abortion.
Other posters have already explained why consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
I value my option to end the pregnancy.
It doesn’t matter how innocent the fetus is, it doesn’t have the right to use my body without my permission. Maybe that fetus should learn to ‘cope with what life throws up’.
A house is not the same as a body and I would still make sure that the child was out of my property as soon as possible.
They are obsessed with what other people are doing in their personal lives. I wasn’t just talking about abortion.Lola, “pro life” persons are not obsessed with controlling other people’s sex lives, but they may well be obsessed with standing up for the rights of their children, unable to defend themselves, not to be murdered.
You, on the other hand, are quite obsessed with protecting what you consider to be your bodily ‘property rights’, to the point of murdering your own child. A child that has - predictably - come to exist as a consequence of actions you yourself took, knowing the potential consequences.
I am obsessed with protecting my own rights. I am not obsessed with telling other people what they can and can’t do with their own bodies in their own homes. I have never told anyone how they should dress or whether they should be using contraception or tried to control anyone else’s sex life, but ‘ultra-conservatives’ seem very obsessed with all of that.
R
Rau
Guest
A plethora of contraceptive measures have been widely available for decades. Throughout most of the world in fact.
R
Rau
Guest
But you have the right to murder a child produced by your actions! Extraordinary.
No doubt you would. And if killing the child expedited the process, I guess that would be morally justified too?
up to and including murdering innocents… Got it!
R
Rau
Guest
I am in my 60s, and for all of my adult life, contraceptive aids have been widely and easily available to all adults, and for many years to just about anyone visiting a Wal mart or an airport bathroom.
May I ask your approximate age?
S
Stephen_says
Guest
I’m not attacking you, I’m on your side, but I want to talk about this one sentence
If you remove God from anything, then anything is valid. Why not murder the poor? They are a drain on society. Why not be a pimp? People want sex, and I’m just providing it.
It is precisely a Christian world-view that had allowed for individual liberty. When you remove God from the culture, people will very quickly be manipulated by the most powerful people in society. The preborn are just canaries in a coal mine. They are the easiest to exploit now, but just watch, this isn’t the end.
That said, if there can be secular arguments against mass murder and prostitution, then I believe a secular argument can be made against abortion. Laws in our nation are pretty arbitrary and amoral, and arguments can be made for and against a lot of things, it just depends on if the people want to listen, and many don’t.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Based on what?
While contraception is usually a grave evil, there will not be much benefit to society. It will just keep the TFR down.
Also, you and I both know that their are many Churches that forbid the use of them so w sex what happens…people have sex without them.
Another generalization about “religious” states? How we know it isn’t secular liberals who live in those states who are the ones doing all of that?
L
lileli
Guest
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No it isn’t. We, unfortunately, have contraception access and women still have abortions.
:dts:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I’ve never know of a census to ask if someone views porn…
L
lileli
Guest
You must not follow much research on porn viewing etc. One can deny reality but unfortunately repressed humans tend to sexually act out much more than sound humans who have a good healthy relationship with sex.
L
lileli
Guest
The Claim: Research shows that abstinence-only education delays sexual initiation and reduces teen pregnancy.
The Facts: Abstinence-only education programs are not effective at delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing teen pregnancy.
A long-awaited, federally-funded evaluation of four carefully selected abstinence-only education programs, published in April 2007, showed that youth enrolled in the programs were no more likely than those not in the programs to delay sexual initiation, to have fewer sexual partners, or to abstain entirely from sex.[6]
Numerous state evaluations of federally-funded programs have yielded similar conclusions. A 2004 review by Advocates for Youth of 11 state-based evaluations found that abstinence-only programs showed little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they showed some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. In only one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in youth’s delaying the initiation of sex. None of the programs showed evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth enrolled in the programs. None of the programs showed any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants.[7] More specifically, a 2003 Pennsylvania evaluation found that the state-sponsored programs were largely ineffective in delaying sexual onset or promoting skills and attitudes consistent with sexual abstinence.[7] Arizona and Kansas had similar findings of no change in behaviors.[7] A 2004 evaluation from Texas found no significant changes in the percentage of students who pledged not to have sex until marriage. As in two other studies, the Texas analysis revealed that the percentage of students who reported having engaged in sexual intercourse increased for nearly all ages.[7]
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation claimed that many studies showed that abstinence programs were effective in reducing youth’s sexual activity. However, in a 2002 review of the ten studies cited by Rector, Douglas Kirby PhD, a widely recognized, highly reputable evaluator of sex education programs for youth, concluded that nine failed to provide credible evidence, consistent with accepted standards of research, that they delayed the initiation of sex or reduced the frequency of sex. One study provided some evidence that the program may have delayed the initiation of sex among youth 15 and younger but not among those 17 and younger.[8]
The Claim: Abstinence-only programs are responsible for the recent dramatic decline in teen pregnancy.
The Facts: A new study showed that improved contraceptive use is responsible for 86 percent of the decline in the U.S. adolescent pregnancy rate between 1995 and 2002. Dramatic improvements in contraceptive use, including increases in the use of single methods, increases in the use of multiple methods, and declines in nonuse are responsible for improved adolescent pregnancy rates. Only 14 percent of the change among 15- to 19-year-olds was attributable to a decrease in the percentage of sexually active young women.[9]
Even though the teen birth rate in 2005 fell to 40.4 births per 1,000 women ages 15 through 19, the lowest rate in 65 years,[10] the United States continues to have the highest teen birth rate of any of the world’s developed nations. Almost 750,000 teenage women become pregnant in the United States each year.[11] Nearly three in ten U.S. teenage women experience pregnancy.[12] The U.S. teen birth rate is one and a half times higher than that in the United Kingdom and more than twice as high that in Canada.[13]
The Claim: Virginity pledges (public promises to remain a virgin until marriage), a common component of abstinence-only programs, delay the onset of sexual activity and protect teens from STIs.
The Facts: Research suggests that, under certain very limited conditions, pledging may help some adolescents to delay sexual intercourse. One study found that the onset of sexual activity was delayed 18 months among pledgers; however, the study also found that those young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely than their non-pledging peers to use contraception when they did become sexually active.[14,15] In addition, although pledgers were consistently less likely to be exposed to risk factors across a wide range of indicators, their rate of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) did not differ from non-pledgers, possibly because they were less likely to use condoms at sexual debut. They were also less likely to seek STI testing and diagnosis.[14,15]
Virginity pledges are particularly problematic for teens that have been sexually assaulted or sexually abused and for teens who are gay and lesbian. In addition, many see virginity pledging as a faith-based message pretending to be a secular, public health message.
The Claim: Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs reflect American values.
The Facts: Objective data confirm that abstinence-until-marriage does not reflect American values. The median age of sexual initiation among Americans is 17 and the average age of marriage is 25.8 for women and 27.4 for men. This age difference clearly indicates a long time between sexual onset and marriage. In a major, nationally representative survey, 95 percent of adult respondents, ages 18 through 44, reported that they had sex before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81 percent reported having had premarital sex.[16]
B
Bspencer
Guest
stephan
regarding your post from 8:46 am today
that is exactly my point.
without god, hedonism rules (pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life)
with that view, i would then be in favor of laws that are to my benefit
ex: speed limit and traffic laws. i dont want chaos on the road because i want to arrive at my destination safely- not because I care about the risks to drivers
i therefore would not care if a woman unknown to me had an abortion. her act would not affect my “pleasure”
regarding your post from 8:46 am today
that is exactly my point.
without god, hedonism rules (pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life)
with that view, i would then be in favor of laws that are to my benefit
ex: speed limit and traffic laws. i dont want chaos on the road because i want to arrive at my destination safely- not because I care about the risks to drivers
i therefore would not care if a woman unknown to me had an abortion. her act would not affect my “pleasure”
L
lileli
Guest
That’s a sad state of affairs for humanity. Even when I had limited belief in God, I still had a lot of empathy got my fellow huma.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Taking this to its ultimate conclusion, it would be better for someone to kill you than for you to have to carry an unwanted child.
Oh what a tangled web.
L
Loly_Maria
Guest
I’m sure that is true for some people but that wasn’t what I meant.Taking this to its ultimate conclusion, it would be better for someone to kill you than for you to have to carry an unwanted child.
Oh what a tangled web.
That’s like saying that the ultimate conclusion of the right to choose not to donate blood is that it’s better to be killed than to have to do so.
R
Rau
Guest
How do you know this? Does your church teach it? Where did you learn that you can murder the child you created through your own freely chosen act - an act designed to produce children!
- Status