|
1 2 3
Ahlyssah
Senior Member
Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Here's a little something I just got that you may find interesting:
President Bush and his anti-choice Senate cronies have been working overtime since the election to keep their far-right base happy - but when there's a will, there's a way.
In just a matter of days our anti-choice leaders found two new ways to harm both women and young people:
Congress passed the Federal Refusal Clause, a dangerous new law that will allow health care companies and insurers to deny women access to abortion services and information; increased funding for risky "abstinence-only" programs; and refused to adequately fund family-planning programs both in the U.S. and abroad.
Bush nominated a fellow "abstinence-only" advocate, Margaret Spellings, to lead the Department of Education.
Bush will get to name a new Health and Human Services Secretary, who will control funding for "abstinence-only" programs, to replace outgoing Tommy Thompson. Help us try to stop Bush from naming another staunch "abstinence-only" supporter by sending a message to your senators. Urge them to question Bush's nominee on his or her position about funding levels for abstinence-only programs during the confirmation process - click here.
A recent report from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that most abstinence-only curricula teach inaccurate or misleading information. What could these programs be getting wrong? Some state that condoms "could allow sperm, STI, or HIV to pass through" them at a "microscopic level." One curriculum states that just touching another person's genitals "can result in pregnancy." Other programs reinforce unfounded stereotypes about men and women: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments." We cannot allow these abstinence-only programs to receive any additional funding increases
Is it just me, or has the separation of Church and State just become void?
--- There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.
Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?
'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
|
7/Dec/04, 12:38
|
|
Firlefanz
Senior Member
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
One curriculum states that just touching another person's genitals "can result in pregnancy."
Interesting. Could a male get pregnant for touching another person's genitals? And what about two females?
This kind of "education" is just going to spread senseless myths, on the same level as "you can't get pregnant at the first time" or others.
This simply shows, how narrow-minded, fundamental religious thinking erodes common sense and real education. No to mention how this also undermines the ability to think for oneself and make an informed choice. I think this is a very bad sign showeing how much value this government puts on having educated citicens making educated and well-reasoned decisions.
And no, I'm not just talking about abortions or sexual issues here.
--- - Firlefanz
Reading: Nothing
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book
My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
|
9/Dec/04, 12:31
|
|
Addi
Administrator
Runboard user emeritus
Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
I don't know precisely which programs this is referencing, and I am very strongly against abstinance-only sex education. I find the idea insulting and idiotic. However, I can tell you what MOST sex ed (and disease prevention) programs teach that has now been twisted by the article writer to make it seem even more absurd.
A girl can get pregnant (or infected with some diseases) without actual intercourse, merely by touching genitals as the claim states. Not to get too graphic, but if two opposite gender people are..we'll say playing around...and fluids get onto one persons hands - while neither sperm nor the AIDS virus lives very long out of the body, it nonetheless can live long enough to infect/impregnate someone. So it's not enough for people to protect themselves just by not having sex - people also have to be careful about other sexual activities that don't necessarily include penetration. And frankly, that is something that needs to be taught, in my opinion. I worked as a volunteer with the education team for an AIDS outreach group for a couple years, mainly travelling through talking to kids, and I assure you this is something we made VERY clear. Too many kids think they're "safe" as long as they don't actually have sex - when it reality, it's not about sex at all, it's about the exchange of bodily fluids, and that can take place several different ways.
Ok, just had to get that out. All better now.
|
9/Dec/04, 19:00
|
|
Firlefanz
Senior Member
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Addi,
you are right. What I object to is this kind of information mongering that comes with such abstinence - only programs.
--- - Firlefanz
Reading: Nothing
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book
My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
|
9/Dec/04, 20:12
|
|
Ahlyssah
Senior Member
Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
FLE programs are already being affected. A long, long time ago, when I was but a child (okay, two years ago when I was sixteen, but it seems much longer), my health teacher broke the rules to teach us about the morning-after pill, spermicides, and the not-yet introduced birth control patch. From what I hear, she got into a great deal of trouble for this. Apparently my paranoid, regulation-devising administration thought that talk of the latter two was "too suggestive" for our young ears, and that the foremost gave us scaaaaaaaaaary thoughts. Maybe the Bush administration is just trying to shield us from the shocking. After all, you know how uppity them Christian-folk are when it comes to the areas of generation.
--- There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.
Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?
'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
|
11/Dec/04, 6:21
|
|
Firlefanz
Senior Member
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Well.
When I was a child - and that was more than 25 years ago - I was taught about pregnancy and contraceptives in 6th grade, in biology class. Yes, at the tender age of 12, with the written consent of all parents of the class.
Teenage pregnancies never happened at our school.
--- - Firlefanz
Reading: Nothing
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book
My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
|
11/Dec/04, 12:36
|
|
hypnostar
Member
Registered: 09-2003
Location: United States
Posts: 35
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Years ago before legalized abortions, many women and girls died from illegal abortions. Many of the people performing the illegal abortions were not even trained medical doctors. Education about sex was something not even spoken about.
Around the 1960's, the so called sexual revolution happened and hippies started practicing "free love". The birth control pill became available. Abortions were legalized.
Since then the issues of religion, politics, and morality have clouded the issues of abortion, birth control, and sexual education. It seems to be now more of a political issue brought on by religious lobbists and campaign funders to politians.
Education about sexually transmitted diseases is fundamental. Every year, thousands of people become infected by these diseases. Many of them teenagers who are just starting out in life. Parents do not teach their children about sex or disease control because many times they do not know all the facts themselves. Where are these teens going to learn the facts? The school system is one answer. A qualified doctor might also provide some help.
Religion and learning about biological functions of the human body are simply not compatible. Religion needs to stay out of the classrooms and the politics and allow a true separation of church and state.
Leaders of the world need to decide to allow abortions if mother's lives are in danger. Education needs to be given to young people and even older women on how to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
It is time to stop bombing clinics which provide sometimes the only medical care to pregnant women and girls. The decision to abort a child needs to be a personal decision of the woman, her doctor, her partner, and her circumstances. It should not be something kept from her through political or religious means.
Children as young as 10 years old have become pregnant through rape. I suppose the politians and religious leaders would argue that a child should be forced to birth a child under these circumstances. Where is their sense of morality in these cases? First the child is traumatized by a rape then that child is forced to give birth to the rapist's baby at the risk of her own life.
--- Never give up! Reach for the stars! Success is closer than you know! Always give love and it will return to you someday!
http://com1.runboard.com/bmysticalrealm
|
10/Mar/05, 20:31
|
|
Loud G
Senior Member
Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
ok. I know I'm about to get screamed at by everyone else in the group, but I have to take a stand.
1. ok, this is supposed to be a MORAL/ETHICAL debate, Bush bashing doesn't cover either ground nor does it speak on the subject of abortion.
2. that article is totally biased and slanted (as has been otherwise hinted at earlier)
alright that said.
What the heck is wrong with abstinence?! hmmm? I abstained until I got married. And I'm sure I am better for it. Morally AND Health-wise.
Just because you may not want to follow the path of abstinence does not mean that it is not the easiest and surest and safest way!
Condoms can fail. Spermicide lets AIDS through. The only sure approach if you want to be totally safe is abstinence.
This is taught to children NOT because it is a religious creed (although it is, I know) but BECAUSE it works!
You don't have sex, you'll never get AIDS.
Yeah, so the chances are slim that you will get it. BUT it is easier to not get it than it is to have your life shortened by it.
I'm not talking abstinence for all between the ages of 2 and 200.
Abstinence needs to be taught to the youth. Once they are of age, let them throw away their life if they so choose. The point is to protect youth. Yes they should be taught about birth control. BUT! This is not a substitute for safety.
It is just SMARTER and COMMON SENSE to stay out of that until you are older.
There is nothing wrong with birth control once you have a spouse. (for all you "consenting adults" do what you please, though I do not agree in the least you have your choice, and I won't take that from you).
Abortion is a tool that should ONLY be used if:
1. the patient's life is in danger
2. cases of rape
If you don't want the baby, don't have the sex.
It is ridiculous that people expect that they can have no consequences for their actions nowadays. You can abort away the little inconveniences in your life. AT A WHIM!
There is no respect for human life. I am not a woman, but from those I know personally who have been pregnant, they can FEEL that life inside them. It is alive. Not just some cells that happened to divide, or some blood clot in your stomach. It is a person that COULD be great, or average, or what have you. But if you destroy that opportunity, you destroy that potential person.
So what if religions may agree with what I'm saying. Just because they do does not make abstinence in teens any less of a real solution.
People say, "oh but how do expect kids to control themselves?"
Because they are people and not animals. We have the ability to control ourselves unlike animals. We are able to reason, to think, to judge. We are also able to explain away the obvious, so that that we can feel more comfortable "doing what we want to do."
I learned Sex-Ed in 6th grade as well. But they only regarded abstinence as a last resort. It is the first resort!
I am sorry, but teenager have no business drinking(don't even get be started about drinking) , having sex, or any other possibly harmful activity.
If we protect them until they mature, then I believe we will have gained something.
(And for those who are wondering, yes I think sex outside of marriage is evil, so there) But it is not my religious view I am speaking of. But a societal moral, not religious moral.
Society could not be hurt from practicing what I have talked about. Many lives would be saved.
Abortion, fine, under certain circumstances!
Otherwise, Pro-Choice=Pro-No-responsibilities.
Just because religions agree does not make it wrong.
|
11/Mar/05, 2:22
|
|
Ahlyssah
Senior Member
Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Loud G wrote:
People say, "oh but how do expect kids to control themselves?"
Because they are people and not animals. We have the ability to control ourselves unlike animals. We are able to reason, to think, to judge. We are also able to explain away the obvious, so that that we can feel more comfortable "doing what we want to do."
Number one: Actually, we ARE animals, G; consumation of other lifeforms for energy, uninhibited movement, reproduction through sex, etc. Just trying to get biological on you.
Number two: As a teen, I can say this without accusation of prejudice or bias: the youth of today, in all their forms and colors and social backgrounds, are a gigantic mass of complete idiots too damn stupid to think about about anything else other than stroking their little ids and pushing their already massive egoes above those of their peers in a puerile and redundant display of masculinity and preordained sexuality (*huff puff*).
In short, and this ties in with your protection-of-the-youth solution, as the majority of the procreating population of the "Free World" are the very morons who, in the last generation, were unable to muster up the intelligence to think, "Gee, this may have an averse effect on my life!" and have spread the same irresponsibility onto the offspring that, Oops! they had not planned on having (true very much so in DC and the surrounding area).
And I completely agree with your statement that people need to be more responsible. The problem is, how can parents be good tutors in responsible living when so many of them are inept at making the right decisions?
--- There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.
Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?
'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
|
13/Mar/05, 2:45
|
|
Loud G
Senior Member
Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Ahlyssah wrote:
Number one: Actually, we ARE animals, G; consumation of other lifeforms for energy, uninhibited movement, reproduction through sex, etc. Just trying to get biological on you.
Not saying this is right or wrong...but! :)
This very thought is what stiffles progression and morality and personal resposibility.
Oh, we are just animals, that means whatever I do equates to instinct, which means its not my fault.
This is not good. But it continues to proliferate society.
Human are the only creatures that have the ability to make a moral choice.
The lion does not think...hmmm.....killing off the antelope yields two possibilities. One a full stomach and Two the degradation of society.
We are the only ones there are of us. Comparing us to other organisms is only useful in a biology sense. Sociology and crime and such are all human issues.
The fact is, we are responsible (and should be responsible) for our own actions.
|
15/Mar/05, 23:01
|
|
Addi
Administrator
Runboard user emeritus
Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Loud G, you are going under the assumption that premarital sex is immoral. Not all people accept that idea. I personally do not believe that premarital sex is immoral in any way. The simple truth (and I say "simple" because this is a very generalized statement about a very complex issue) is that no one has the right to impose their morality on another. The implementation of that "simple" truth is far more complex. One man's freedom ends where the next man's begins, so the question becomes where is that line?
To assume that abstinence is the best policy or that people who believe in a more rounded form of sexual education shows, to me, a tendency to assume that all share your view of sex as immoral. I do not believe that someone has the right to deny the public school's ability to fully educate my child based on their own religious beliefs. I do believe that anyone should have the right the deny the school the ability to teach their children certain concepts that they find morally offensive (ie, birth control, evolution, whatever). But deny that knowledge to your own children. Do not attempt to deny it to mine.
On another note, sociology and crime are not, in fact, solely human issues. Crime specifically is something that can be observed in animal populations as a direct result of overcrowding. There have been numerous experiments using rats to study criminal behaviors - and when rats get overcrowded in their living situations, some of the population begins raping and/or assaulting other members of the population - and the statistics are very similar to human cities. Depression experiments, the results of which have been successfully applied to human psychology, have utilized several different species of animals; the most notable used dogs.
However, I would agree our being animals has nothing to do with our ability to reason and behave morally. That is not an "excuse" - it's just a biological fact.
|
16/Mar/05, 18:20
|
|
Loud G
Senior Member
Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Addi wrote:
Loud G, you are going under the assumption that premarital sex is immoral.
To assume that abstinence is the best policy or that people who believe in a more rounded form of sexual education shows, to me, a tendency to assume that all share your view of sex as immoral. I do not believe that someone has the right to deny the public school's ability to fully educate my child based on their own religious beliefs. I do believe that anyone should have the right the deny the school the ability to teach their children certain concepts that they find morally offensive (ie, birth control, evolution, whatever). But deny that knowledge to your own children. Do not attempt to deny it to mine.
Ok, NO. EMphatically NO. I am not assuming that my stance is correct based on my morality. That is a nice crutch to use against me but NO.
The point I made had nothing to do with immorality!
I made a side comment that "by the way, I also think it is immoral".
The truth of the matter is that what I said is fundamentally TRUE!
Stop trying to nullify it by stating that it is a religiously slanted view.
Are you trying to say that if we all practiced abstinence that STD rates would not go down?
Because if you are that is silly.
The only thing I said was that it is the safest way and should be taught to children as the 1st thing to do.
I did not say that we should not teach " birth control, evolution, whatever". I spoke of safety and protecting children, I did not speak of imposing beliefs.
You read my whole post but the only thing you truly read was one line about my personal view.
You missed the entire argument just so you could deny it on the grounds that it was religiously biased.
I don't CARE if you or anyone else has sex outside of marriage. For ME (I repeat ME, in my personal life) it is wrong. I believe it to be wrong morally as well, but I do not impose that on others.
It is only an intelligent thing to do. Forgive me for giving GOOD advice to teens, let them have their orgies and raise the level of STDS and AIDS. I am looking out for the well being of other people. Telling you THE BEST WAY and just because it happens to be taught by a church also, IT MUST BE WRONG.
oh, and sex is not a right. it is a privilege. I never said make it against the law to have sex. I said TEACH the children and then let them decide for themselves. You don't HAVE to do what you are taught, most people don't anyway. Take speed limits for example. But that does not mean we should not be taught to obey them.
(And for your side: the same goes for evolution. I say teach it. but teach it as it is, "a theory", not an ultimate truth. let people decide for themselves)
There is a BIG difference between teaching something and REQUIRING it. :)
However, I would agree our being animals has nothing to do with our ability to reason and behave morally. That is not an "excuse" - it's just a biological fact.
Thank you :) You are beginning to see things, not just excuse human behavior like so many do.
Last edited by: Loud G, 16/Mar/05, 19:25
|
16/Mar/05, 19:00
|
|
Addi
Administrator
Runboard user emeritus
Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
That's quite the group of assumptions you've made. Now, let's correct a few of them.
Now, part of this misunderstanding occurred because I missed a very important sentence in your post. Yes they should be taught about birth control.
Which is what happens when I read serious posts before the caffeine hits. Sorry about that.
However, you've also followed that with quite a few unfounded assumptions about me. I could care less if your viewpoints are based on Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, Science, Philosophy, or the worship of the little old lady who lives in the shoe. And disagreeing with you is not the same thing as trying to "nullify" anything.
Now, there are a few things I'd like to point out. I worked in AIDS education for a number of years and specifically taught sex/disease prevention to children in the 11-17 year old age range during that time. I don't know where you're getting that abstinence is presented as though it's a last resort, but I assure you that has never been the case in any situation that I've seen. Not when I had sex ed, not when I taught it, not when my mother taught it during her 20 year tenure as an educator, and not when my children had it in school.
What most sex ed classes teach is that abstinence is the safest course of action. The second safest course of action is monogamy with a monogamous partner. The third safest course of action is using latex condoms with spermicide. Incidentally, nonoxynol-9 does indeed kill the Virus that leads to AIDS. Also, workers in the healthcare industry who remain celibate are a much higher risk group than any of the three groups described above.
Incidentally, the group least at risk for contracting HIV and for getting pregnant outside of marriage is lesbians. Shall we go ahead and add that to the curriculum?
oh, and sex is not a right. it is a privilege.
I disagree. Sex is a choice. And a very personal one. And making personal choices for oneself IS a right.
|
16/Mar/05, 23:45
|
|
Loud G
Senior Member
Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Addi wrote:
However, you've also followed that with quite a few unfounded assumptions about me. I could care less if your viewpoints are based on Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, Science, Philosophy, or the worship of the little old lady who lives in the shoe. And disagreeing with you is not the same thing as trying to "nullify" anything.
Sorry, that wasn't necessarily pointed at you. But it does happen quite often that a religious person with non religious arguments gets shunted to one side in debates and politics :)
Now, there are a few things I'd like to point out. I worked in AIDS education for a number of years and specifically taught sex/disease prevention to children in the 11-17 year old age range during that time. I don't know where you're getting that abstinence is presented as though it's a last resort, but I assure you that has never been the case in any situation that I've seen. Not when I had sex ed, not when I taught it, not when my mother taught it during her 20 year tenure as an educator, and not when my children had it in school.
I am impressed. Good work there.
I base my observations on what was taught in my schools in the Washington DC area. They taught like, "well, this abstinence stuff is good, now onto what brand of condom to buy." Not a direct quote but the basic thrust of the lesson. :)
I disagree. Sex is a choice. And a very personal one.
That works too :) (though I'd be careful with choice arguments, as you can choose to do a LOT of things that are against the law. yeah you are free to choose, but you are also free to pay the consequences) :D
Last edited by: Loud G, 17/Mar/05, 0:18
|
17/Mar/05, 0:17
|
|
Ahlyssah
Senior Member
Registered: 07-2004
Location: Lost in a dream of mirrors
Posts: 830
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
I'd just like to cut in here on behalf of my stubborn and rather wayward peers whom everybody seems to think lack intelligent processing:
You, Loud G, have an ego. You know it, we all have seen it. I don't mean to imply that your an arrogant jerk, merely that you have your beliefs and stick to them like those disgusting taffy-candies to your teeth on Halloween. You do not like having your accepted beliefs thrown in the dirt and shoved in your face as being wrong or impractical. Same with Addi, same with me, same with all of us. Teens have that same ego, and depending on their background, they may have acquired some philosophies on life that many people don't agree with. However, "enlightening" them to the badness or unconventionality of their ways is likely to do little more than tick them off. My point is, a person can scream in teens' faces all day long about homosexuality or premarital sex, and not a thing they say will make any difference. Teens know what they're getting themselves into; they WANT to do what they do, and there's really not a damn thing you or I or any other being on this planet can do about it once they've made up their minds.
--- There are things which Man can not understand. For everything else, there's a lie.
Let's see if we can't get to the truth of the matter, hmm?
'Lyssa was here . . . and she'll be back
|
19/Mar/05, 1:51
|
|
Addi
Administrator
Runboard user emeritus
Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Loud G wrote:
::goes off to find a planet where there is TRUE intelligence::
...well, I guess we won't be seeing him for a while...
In my honest opinion, the only way abstinence really works is when people commit to it for religious or ethical reasons. Sex is powerful. If an individual doesn't honestly and deeply believe that premarital sex is "wrong" in some manner, I don't believe they will abstain in the long run (unless they get married young). I'm not saying they shouldn't, only tat they don't.
Some teens take those pledges because they truly believe in what they're saying. Those are the ones that never needed to take such a pledge in order to abstain. Others take it because it's trendy, cute, their friends are doing it, it comes with incentives (the t-shirt, the card, the parent's feeling more relaxed, whatever). Those are the ones it won't work for.
That's the biggest issue I've always had with those pledges. They hyped them up with too much marketing, drew in a whole bunch of kids who didn't put any thought into what they were doing - and then gave both their kids and their parents a false sense of security.
|
19/Mar/05, 23:26
|
|
mspatric
Member
Registered: 10-2003
Posts: 16
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
Abstinence: If you can pull it off, good luck with that. My view on abstinence is the same as my view on homosexuality. The more men who subscribe to it, the less competition for the ladies that I have to deal with.
Contraceptives: Aside from preventing STDs, they are a wonderful idea and one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. Thank you Trojan Man! They prevent fertilization from ever occuring in the first place (that's the plan at least), so you aren't killing anyone. An egg will never be anything more than an egg prior to fertilization.
More importantly, pretty much anyone can have sex. Not everyone should have children.
Abortion: Barring severe genetic or other deformity in the child, or equal risk to the mother if she carries to term, then abortion is murder. Period. A child has no say in how it is conceived. You don't get to kill one just because you got drunk and made a mistake. If you don't want the child, go put it up for adoption. Not even rape is an excuse, since the child is still innocent in the matter.
I personally always use protection. However, if a woman got pregnant and then aborted my child, I would probably kill her myself.
At the very least, abortion clinics should always require the written consent of BOTH parents of the child to be terminated. Or in the case of minors, of both sets of grandparents. The idea that is it just the woman's choice is absurd and sexist.
|
23/Mar/05, 5:11
|
|
Firlefanz
Senior Member
Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
|
|
|
Re: "Abortions for All!"
mspatric wrote:
The idea that is it just the woman's choice is absurd and sexist.
I can see where you come from. But as long as a lot of fathers won't own up and help a woman to support their child, I do believe it should ultimately by the woman's choice whether she wants to go through with her pregnacy.
Of course, it would be better if she hadn't become pregnant in the first place. That's without doubt.
--- - Firlefanz
Reading: "Verkaufende auf Risa" by Gundhild Dreher
Writing: "Winter Song" - short story
Schreiberlinge unter sich
|
23/Mar/05, 20:06
|
|
1 2 3
You are not logged in ( LOGIN)
|
|