NationStates Jolt Archive

I just finished reading this fabulous article from the NY Times Sunday magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html) that deals with how anti-abortion activists are really against unregulated fucking. Now, a lot of us have been saying the same thing for months, and I'll admit that there weren't a lot of new connections in this article for me, but I keep up with this stuff because I'm a dork who spends too much time on his computer.

I thought it dovetailed nicely with Jocabia's thread on doctor ethics (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481274), but this article is too long to excerpt in another person's thread, and I think the subject deserves a discussion of its own. The article is 9 pages long, so I'm only going to excerpt a short part of it here, but by all means read the whole thing. The people who claim to be pro-life are only telling the truth if you believe that being told that allowing someone else to control your sexual behavior is living.

Ellipsis (...)indicate where I have snipped text.
The wheels of history have a tendency to roll back over the same ground. For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."...

Edward R. Martin Jr., a lawyer for the public-interest law firm Americans United for Life, whose work includes seeking to restrict abortion at the state level and representing pharmacists who have refused to prescribe emergency contraception, told me: "We see contraception and abortion as part of a mind-set that's worrisome in terms of respecting life. If you're trying to build a culture of life, then you have to start from the very beginning of life, from conception, and you have to include how we think and act with regard to sexuality and contraception." Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, who was appointed by President Bush in 2002 to the F.D.A.'s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee despite (or perhaps because of) his opposition to contraception, sounded not a little like Daniel Defoe in a 1999 essay he wrote: "Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."...

It may be news to many people that contraception as a matter of right and public health is no longer a given, but politicians and those in the public health profession know it well. "The linking of abortion and contraception is indicative of a larger agenda, which is putting sex back into the box, as something that happens only within marriage," says William Smith, vice president for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Siecus has been around since 1964, and as a group that supports abortion rights, it is natural enemies with many organizations on the right, but its mission has changed in recent years, from doing things like promoting condoms as a way to combat AIDS to, now, fighting to maintain the very idea of birth control as a social good. "Whether it's emergency contraception, sex education or abortion, anything that might be seen as facilitating sex outside a marital context is what they'd like to see obliterated," Smith says....

At a White House press briefing in May of last year, three months before the F.D.A.'s nonruling on Plan B, Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked four times by a WorldNetDaily correspondent, Les Kinsolving, if the president supported contraception. "I think the president's views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life," McClellan replied. Kinsolving said, "If they were clear, I wouldn't have asked." McClellan replied: "And if you want to ask those questions, that's fine. I'm just not going to dignify them with a response." This exchange caught the attention of bloggers and others. In July, a group of Democrats in Congress, led by Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, sent the first of four letters to the president asking outright: "Mr. President, do you support the right to use contraception?" According to Representative Maloney's office, the White House has still not responded.
Now I know there are a number of anti-abortion people on this forum who say "but I support contraception." Bully for you. It's a small mark of sanity on your part. But you need to know that the people who are funding and driving your anti-abortion stance are on the hunt for far more than outlawing abortion. They're quoted extensively in this article. Read it.

And take the poll.

im pretty sure they dont like abortion. its just that they sell the rest of the country a bill of goods where they are trying to save the lives of viable babies being killed with partial birth abortions when they are really wanting to control every aspect of people's reproductive lives.

id feel better about it if it were an honest discussion where people's true goals are spelled out. then we can all know where everyone stands.

As someone who has only this "small mark of sanity" I must say that these groups are truly nuts if they actually want to take this kind of position. Contraception is entirely needed. No one is going to stop people from having sex so using contraception is needed to prevent abortions from happening to begin with.

As someone who has only this "small mark of sanity" I must say that these groups are truly nuts if they actually want to take this kind of position. Contraception is entirely needed. No one is going to stop people from having sex so using contraception is needed to prevent abortions from happening to begin with.

I agree.

The way most pro-life religious fundamentalist see this is that contraception is just as bad as abortion. They believe that preventing conception is denying life, thus, contraception should not be practiced. :rolleyes: This, coupled with the fear that contraception will lead to sex before marriage, another immoral act under their belief system, are the main resons for their arguments.

Contraception should be taught, discussed, and encouraged across the board, not just to prevent people from having abortions in the first place, but to prevent STDs and encourage responsible sexual practices as well.

how many times have you see a poster on NS say something like "i support abortion rights but not for sluts"? or "if you spread your legs you should be prepared to have a baby"?

stuff like that sure makes it seem like there is a strong underlying desire to regulate other peoples sexual behavior. instead of "free condoms for all!" they seem to want to make babies be the punishment for having sex when they would tell you not to.

Welcome to the wonderful world of American puritanism. The only thing more discouraging is how blind the majority of people are to the existence of this agenda. I've known about it ever since I researched a report about Margaret Sanger -- when I was in 7th grade. This has actually been going on for over 100 years, since the first big wave of Catholic immigration, and I think it took definite form when women got the vote. The 1900s saw all kinds of "moral" laws, they slipped in the 20s, the Depression put it all on a back burner, WW2 gave a boost to women's freedom, the backlash hit in the 1950s, then we got the ball back in the 60s-80s, and now they've got another big push on since the 90s.

I agree.

The way most pro-life religious fundamentalist see this is that contraception is just as bad as abortion. They believe that preventing conception is denying life, thus, contraception should not be practiced. :rolleyes: This, coupled with the fear that contraception will lead to sex before marriage, another immoral act under their belief system, are the main resons for their arguments.

Contraception should be taught, discussed, and encouraged across the board, not just to prevent people from having abortions in the first place, but to prevent STDs and encourage responsible sexual practices as well.

And as a fourteen-year-old victim of an extremely retarded abstinence class, I couldn't agree more either. Not allowing contraception would be the cause for more abortions. And after all, God didn't create sex JUST for babies, it's for love too.

And if there's one thing about the abstinence class that I hate, it is that you don't learn anything except that 25% of all sexually active teens has an STD. I was out sick this year (8th grade, I had it in 7th too) but my friends told me that the astinence teacher said that all middle school boys are ready so they pressure girls, and as far as I know, no mentions of birth control were made. Birth control was mentioned last year, but they said it was "ineffective" and that it would just promote more teen sex. :rolleyes: Idiots... I know mor e about sex than they did in March 2005, and I was 13 at the time...

I've also heard about pharmacists not giving condoms/birht control pills to teens due to their fear of "teen sex cults" and other "unholiness". Teen pregnancy is caused by ignorance (and premarital sex), not by contraception. Even I know that.

It seems that the USA needs more smart people... shame I'm only 14...

<snip>
id feel better about it if it were an honest discussion where people's true goals are spelled out. then we can all know where everyone stands.
Agreed. Of course, they can't be honest because they know perfectly well that if they were to say "You shouldn't have sex unless we say it's OK," nobody will listen to them. So they lie like rugs and try to sneak their agenda in piecemeal when nobody's looking.

Only now that they've got a bunch of their folks in the state and federal governments (and the Whitehouse), they seem to think it's safe to stop pretending. We can only hope it backfires on them soon.

<snip>
It seems that the USA needs more smart people... shame I'm only 14...
You give me hope. :)

And as a fourteen-year-old victim of an extremely retarded abstinence class, I couldn't agree more either. Not allowing contraception would be the cause for more abortions. And after all, God didn't create sex JUST for babies, it's for love too.

And if there's one thing about the abstinence class that I hate, it is that you don't learn anything except that 25% of all sexually active teens has an STD. I was out sick this year (8th grade, I had it in 7th too) but my friends told me that the astinence teacher said that all middle school boys are ready so they pressure girls, and as far as I know, no mentions of birth control were made. Birth control was mentioned last year, but they said it was "ineffective" and that it would just promote more teen sex. :rolleyes: Idiots... I know mor e about sex than they did in March 2005, and I was 13 at the time...

I've also heard about pharmacists not giving condoms/birht control pills to teens due to their fear of "teen sex cults" and other "unholiness". Teen pregnancy is caused by ignorance (and premarital sex), not by contraception. Even I know that.

It seems that the USA needs more smart people... shame I'm only 14...
as the teen birth rate drops and the teen virginity rate rises adults invent more and more of these stories about teen promiscuity. oprah would have us believe that all 14 year old girls are spending the lunch hour at school giving out free blow jobs to whatever boys might be interested.

this horror of teens knowing about sex and contraception is so crazy. how the hell is anyone supposed to make a decision without good information?

how many times have you see a poster on NS say something like "i support abortion rights but not for sluts"? or "if you spread your legs you should be prepared to have a baby"?

stuff like that sure makes it seem like there is a strong underlying desire to regulate other peoples sexual behavior. instead of "free condoms for all!" they seem to want to make babies be the punishment for having sex when they would tell you not to.

For me it shouldn't be seen as punishment. The simple fact is that since contraception isn't 100% effective people should be prepared to accept that there is a chance that pregnancy could still happen so they should not have sex if they are not prepared for the possibility.

For me it shouldn't be seen as punishment. The simple fact is that since contraception isn't 100% effective people should be prepared to accept that there is a chance that pregnancy could still happen so they should not have sex if they are not prepared for the possibility.
You're perfectly within your rights to have any opinion you like about it. I happen to disagree on this detail, but that disagreement doesn't matter to me -- unless, of course, you (rhetorical "you") are trying to make me conform to your opinion by outlawing abortion. The point of the OP is to make those who oppose abortion but approve of birth control realize that the movement that is trying to outlaw abortion also wants to outlaw contraception. He is asking you to take a more critical look at who you are associating yourself with if you advocate banning abortion.

For me it shouldn't be seen as punishment. The simple fact is that since contraception isn't 100% effective people should be prepared to accept that there is a chance that pregnancy could still happen so they should not have sex if they are not prepared for the possibility.
very true

there are physical and psychological ramifications of sex that need to be considered even if pregnancy never happens. its not a step to ever be taken lightly.

a friend of mine actually got pregnant AFTER having her tubes tied. sex just has that way of leading to pregnancy no matter how hard we try to prevent it. only a fool doesnt take the possibility into consideration.

and its good to remember that a safe early abortion IS a responsible way of dealing with unintended pregnancy. its not for everyone but it is still taking responsibility.

And as a fourteen-year-old victim of an extremely retarded abstinence class, I couldn't agree more either. Not allowing contraception would be the cause for more abortions. And after all, God didn't create sex JUST for babies, it's for love too.

Don't tell anybody, but it's also for fun, and that's what gets these people so twisted. To them, sex is dirty unless it's being done in a very proscribed manner, and outside that, it's sinful and wrong. Well that's bullshit, and these people are trying to make that the law.

You're perfectly within your rights to have any opinion you like about it. I happen to disagree on this detail, but that disagreement doesn't matter to me -- unless, of course, you (rhetorical "you") are trying to make me conform to your opinion by outlawing abortion. The point of the OP is to make those who oppose abortion but approve of birth control realize that the movement that is trying to outlaw abortion also wants to outlaw contraception. He is asking you to take a more critical look at who you are associating yourself with if you advocate banning abortion.
Precisely. I readily admit that not all (and I suspect most) people who want to end or at least restrict abortion don't want to get rid of contraception, but it's important to know who's working behind the scenes and what their agendas are.

I just finished reading this fabulous article from the NY Times Sunday magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html) that deals with how anti-abortion activists are really against unregulated fucking. Now, a lot of us have been saying the same thing for months, and I'll admit that there weren't a lot of new connections in this article for me, but I keep up with this stuff because I'm a dork who spends too much time on his computer.

I thought it dovetailed nicely with Jocabia's thread on doctor ethics (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481274), but this article is too long to excerpt in another person's thread, and I think the subject deserves a discussion of its own. The article is 9 pages long, so I'm only going to excerpt a short part of it here, but by all means read the whole thing. The people who claim to be pro-life are only telling the truth if you believe that being told that allowing someone else to control your sexual behavior is living.

Ellipsis (...)indicate where I have snipped text.

Now I know there are a number of anti-abortion people on this forum who say "but I support contraception." Bully for you. It's a small mark of sanity on your part. But you need to know that the people who are funding and driving your anti-abortion stance are on the hunt for far more than outlawing abortion. They're quoted extensively in this article. Read it.

And take the poll.
I followed you here from my thread, and I'm glad you brought it up. I think it's unbelievable that people are willing to punish people for disagreeing with them. As an aside to this, if anyone in an official capacity denies a person service based on moral judgement and that person ends up in danger because of it, I believe they should have the ability to sue the pants off such a person.

I followed you here from my thread, and I'm glad you brought it up. I think it's unbelievable that people are willing to punish people for disagreeing with them. As an aside to this, if anyone in an official capacity denies a person service based on moral judgement and that person ends up in danger because of it, I believe they should have the ability to sue the pants off such a person.
I'll go a step farther and say that criminal charges ought to be filed against a person who, in an official capacity as a caregiver, denies a person treatment for a medical condition based on their moral judgment.

fuck it all. fuck as mutch as you want with whoever you want. if you get pregnant get an aborotion if you dont want it. fuck morals.:upyours:

But if you cheat on someone you deserve to die.

Welcome to the wonderful world of American puritanism. The only thing more discouraging is how blind the majority of people are to the existence of this agenda. I've known about it ever since I researched a report about Margaret Sanger -- when I was in 7th grade. This has actually been going on for over 100 years, since the first big wave of Catholic immigration, and I think it took definite form when women got the vote. The 1900s saw all kinds of "moral" laws, they slipped in the 20s, the Depression put it all on a back burner, WW2 gave a boost to women's freedom, the backlash hit in the 1950s, then we got the ball back in the 60s-80s, and now they've got another big push on since the 90s.


Anyone who has done any kind of reading on the sexual rights debate can see straight through to thier agenda. Thier only arguement is "Because our god says so", that or some emotional drivel. Pretty much it's another group that wishes to push thier morals on others, regardless of the effect.

But if you cheat on someone you deserve to die.

The...hell? Failure to keep it in your pants is worthy of a death sentence?

fuck it all. fuck as mutch as you want with whoever you want. if you get pregnant get an aborotion if you dont want it. fuck morals.:upyours:

Fuck spelling. Fuck it, fuck punctuation, fuck contributing to this thread!

Am I as cool as you now?

Fuck spelling. Fuck it, fuck punctuation, fuck contributing to this thread!

Am I as cool as you now?

Just saying fuck does not make one cool. It is all in the delivery...

Just saying fuck does not make one cool. It is all in the delivery...

Fuck yeah..

Fuck yeah..

Now you are getting the idea! :D

as the teen birth rate drops and the teen virginity rate rises adults invent more and more of these stories about teen promiscuity. oprah would have us believe that all 14 year old girls are spending the lunch hour at school giving out free blow jobs to whatever boys might be interested.

this horror of teens knowing about sex and contraception is so crazy. how the hell is anyone supposed to make a decision without good information?

They're not. My dad went to a Jesuit school. He became an anti-cleric when he was 13 and a teacher (also a Jesuit) said to him "Let your priest do your thinking for you". He was eventually expelled for disobedience and irreligious thought.

They're not. My dad went to a Jesuit school. He became an anti-cleric when he was 13 and a teacher (also a Jesuit) said to him "Let your priest do your thinking for you". He was eventually expelled for disobedience and irreligious thought.

Crimethink?

Yup. They never even discovered the stuff he could actually have been kicked out for. Thought that goes outside doctrine is a sin, plain and simple.

And, Barbaric Tribes, WHAT?

No Morality, but cheating deserves the death penalty? HUH? Is this a personal resentment?

Also, my favourite US politician is the guy I heard about who is "pro-death". Pro-abortion for any reason, up till about the last month, pro-death penalty, pro-war...

And, Barbaric Tribes, WHAT?

No Morality, but cheating deserves the death penalty? HUH? Is this a personal resentment?

Also, my favourite US politician is the guy I heard about who is "pro-death". Pro-abortion for any reason, up till about the last month, pro-death penalty, pro-war...

Wouldn't pro-death be compulsory abortions, death penalty administered after aged past usefulness, violent imperialism...

I don't think he went that far... It'd be kinda cool if he did. Just one person like that. To be "THAT guy"...

Yeah, but then he wouldn't be a politician so much as a crackpot.

Another quote from the article:
"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion,” says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. “The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set,” she told me. “So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception.”

Shorter version--not having all the kids you possibly can equals kicking kindergarteners for no reason. Sorry, but when my ex and I had our daughter, I had a vasectomy because we were worried about being able to raise her and her half-brother, much less any other little buggers who might pop up later. In other words, we were responsible.

Of course, now it's 15 years later and my girlfriend and I have been talking about having kids, so it's going to mean a lot of money and effort to get my wigglers out, and no guarantees. But even then, we'll be having as many kids as we can support, and no more.

Another quote from the article:


Shorter version--not having all the kids you possibly can equals kicking kindergarteners for no reason. Sorry, but when my ex and I had our daughter, I had a vasectomy because we were worried about being able to raise her and her half-brother, much less any other little buggers who might pop up later. In other words, we were responsible.

Of course, now it's 15 years later and my girlfriend and I have been talking about having kids, so it's going to mean a lot of money and effort to get my wigglers out, and no guarantees. But even then, we'll be having as many kids as we can support, and no more.
You're looking at it backwards. Kids pop out at a rate beyond your control and you compensate for this by acquiring better paying jobs as your family becomes more and more unwieldly. Jesus, you'd think you'd have realized this by now.

On a side note: Do all these anti-abortionist and anti-contraceptive people have spayed and neutered pets? Just wondering...

Jesus loves puppies.

Yeah, but then he wouldn't be a politician so much as a crackpot.

As opposed to pro-life politicians?

As opposed to pro-life politicians?

*shrug* Politician implies crackpot.

I felt that might be going a bit far... but yeah...

"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion,” says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. “The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set,” she told me. “So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception.”

this doesnt make any sense. if you use contraception, shouldnt the occurance of abortion go down? the way they phrase it, people who use contraceptives are more likely to have abortions. it should be an indirect relationship, but i dunno. confused, is all.

i wonder where they went to school. logic must not have been part of it. because, isnt it obvious that all users of contraceptives are antichild? :rolleyes:

(sorry its a little incoherent, but i am truly thoroughly confused. :) )

this doesnt make any sense. if you use contraception, shouldnt the occurance of abortion go down? the way they phrase it, people who use contraceptives are more likely to have abortions. it should be an indirect relationship, but i dunno. confused, is all.

i wonder where they went to school. logic must not have been part of it. because, isnt it obvious that all users of contraceptives are antichild? :rolleyes:

(sorry its a little incoherent, but i am truly thoroughly confused. :) )
You have to be incoherent to understand what passes for logic with these people. The idea, as I understand it, is that if you're using contraception, then you're automatically anti-child because you're interfering with God's will that there be children as a result of fucking. So think of contraception as a gateway to abortion, like marijuana is supposedly a gateway to heroin. If you use contraception, then you're more likely to have an abortion, because contraception somehow equals a lack of respect for life.

My head hurts now.

how many times have you see a poster on NS say something like "i support abortion rights but not for sluts"? or "if you spread your legs you should be prepared to have a baby"?

stuff like that sure makes it seem like there is a strong underlying desire to regulate other peoples sexual behavior. instead of "free condoms for all!" they seem to want to make babies be the punishment for having sex when they would tell you not to.
Agreed ... you see that shit all the time

Its about controll not the life of a fetus

too... much... catholic... baiting....

seriously, the main reason I am against abortion, other than the fact that I think God doesn't like it too much, is that it is the ending of an innocent life. There are always options, but sexually active America is fascinated by the idea that it can have all the sex it wants, and, if something actually happens from that, they can just vaccume it all away. Others see something inherintly wrong that almost a third of all pregnancies are terminated via abortion in this country. Still others see a problem in the declining populations of Western Countries.

Contraception has its perks and drawbacks. The pill has many unintended side effects. Other diseases, particularly HPV, can be transmitted regardless of condom usage. And, since contraception, to a degree, encourages sex outside of a stable relationship, the amount of times it fails has lead to an increase in abortion. This is one of the reasons why many women have multiple abortions. In a sense, its not necessarily the barrier of plastic that christians are attacking, its the mindset behind it. Afterall, God is a pretty powerful fella. If he wants a child to be conceived, he's not going to let a milimeter of rubber and some KY stop him. Though if that child is born ends up being a matter of free will, or, in some cases, not.

Just some food for thought.

And not all catholics are ignorant fucks.

Still others see a problem in the declining populations of Western Countries.
I wish people would stop saying this. It isn't true.

UK - population growth of about .4%
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6

Canada - .9%
http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm

US - Population INCREASES by one person every 11 seconds. .91%
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Spain - .13%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html

France - .35%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html

Italy - .04%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html

European Union - .15%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ee.html

So which western countries are we talking about? I wish people would quit making claims that are not true.

Actually it goes further, Anti-Abortion means Anti-Sex.

I wish people would stop saying this. It isn't true.

How much of that growth is due to immigration rather than birth? And is the birthrate going in a downward trend (meaning that, if positive, is it going down over the last 10 years?)

How much of that growth is due to immigration rather than birth? And is the birthrate going in a downward trend (meaning that, if positive, is it going down over the last 10 years?)
More than 100% in most cases. But so what, it is growth, and the immigration does not cause a decrease elsewhere. And then the kids of the immigrants get native kids, so in the long term immigration causes increased native population.

im pretty sure they dont like abortion. its just that they sell the rest of the country a bill of goods where they are trying to save the lives of viable babies being killed with partial birth abortions when they are really wanting to control every aspect of people's reproductive lives.

id feel better about it if it were an honest discussion where people's true goals are spelled out. then we can all know where everyone stands.
I thought that dilation and extraction procedures were only preformed in the states when there was a health risk to the woman in the first place.

Besides, 50% of the procedures are preformed on dead fetuses anyways.

i wonder where they went to school. logic must not have been part of it. because, isnt it obvious that all users of contraceptives are antichild? :rolleyes:


Come to think of it, there really isn't a course offered in any school that I know of called logic 101. Or common sense 101. I figure most people think it's not needed. The sad part is that both of them are growing rarer due to the "We don't need lessons in that" mentality.

Afterall, God is a pretty powerful fella. If he wants a child to be conceived, he's not going to let a milimeter of rubber and some KY stop him. Though if that child is born ends up being a matter of free will, or, in some cases, not.

Oh do make up your mind. Either god is an all powerful, all seeing entity who's will dictates all that happens, thus negating free will, or he just doesn't care and isn't bothered to go about thundering "THOU SHALT NOT USE CONTRACEPTION"

In the case of the former, if it's aborted, then it's because he wanted it that way. If its the case of the latter, what's the point of opposing it on religious grounds then?

In either case, it's not the job of Catholics to go about moralizing to other people with legislation then. Unless we want to go back to that whole convert them by the sword thing.

How much of that growth is due to immigration rather than birth? And is the birthrate going in a downward trend (meaning that, if positive, is it going down over the last 10 years?)

Who cares what causes it? Populations are growing. You said their populations are declining? Do you mean the 'white' population in western countries? In that case there is a thread where it shown to be untrue and feel free to visit it. The claim you made is untrue. Even without immigration the point is generally untrue.

And overall birthrates decrease if the life expectancy increases (I showed mathematically why this is in another thread). The effective birthrate (births to women of childbearing age) has been steady or increasing in most countries in the last decade.

Come to think of it, there really isn't a course offered in any school that I know of called logic 101. Or common sense 101. I figure most people think it's not needed. The sad part is that both of them are growing rarer due to the "We don't need lessons in that" mentality.

a philosophy prof/friend of mine and i have been talking for years about the need for critical thinking classes starting in grade school. sadly, i suspect a good number of teachers would need a refresher or two on the topic first.

Oh do make up your mind. Either god is an all powerful, all seeing entity who's will dictates all that happens, thus negating free will, or he just doesn't care and isn't bothered to go about thundering "THOU SHALT NOT USE CONTRACEPTION"

In the case of the former, if it's aborted, then it's because he wanted it that way. If its the case of the latter, what's the point of opposing it on religious grounds then?

In either case, it's not the job of Catholics to go about moralizing to other people with legislation then. Unless we want to go back to that whole convert them by the sword thing.
Yep--that's the conundrum. It never fails to amaze me how for some christians, God can be simultaneously all-powerful and a bumbling idiot, and they never seem to notice.

too... much... catholic... baiting....

seriously, the main reason I am against abortion, other than the fact that I think God doesn't like it too much, is that it is the ending of an innocent life. There are always options, but sexually active America is fascinated by the idea that it can have all the sex it wants, and, if something actually happens from that, they can just vaccume it all away.

Not all sexually active people feel this way.

Others see something inherintly wrong that almost a third of all pregnancies are terminated via abortion in this country. Still others see a problem in the declining populations of Western Countries.

Contraception has its perks and drawbacks. The pill has many unintended side effects. Other diseases, particularly HPV, can be transmitted regardless of condom usage.

Including lowering probability of various cancers.

And, since contraception, to a degree, encourages sex outside of a stable relationship, the amount of times it fails has lead to an increase in abortion. This is one of the reasons why many women have multiple abortions.

Oh dear. You sound just like the loons in that article! Ok, contraception may lead certain people to justify a varied sex life, but chances are those people would have that anyway, at least using contraception reduces the risks. Why shouldn't people have sex outside a stable relationship? Honestly, leaving religion at the door because no matter how hard you try you will never make everyone believe the same things you do. From a secular viewpoint, if people take the available precautions, what's the harm? And I'll have you know that there are a whole lot of people out there using contraception who are in stable relationships but who don't want kids atm. That's a heck of a lot more responsible than people like you want us to be.

In a sense, its not necessarily the barrier of plastic that christians are attacking, its the mindset behind it. Afterall, God is a pretty powerful fella. If he wants a child to be conceived, he's not going to let a milimeter of rubber and some KY stop him. Though if that child is born ends up being a matter of free will, or, in some cases, not.

Just some food for thought.

And not all catholics are ignorant fucks.

You're assuming that all people who use contraceptives are immoral, by your own standards. What right do you have to impose those standards onto others? And I hate to tell you this, but fertility is largely down to genetics and various other factors. Many people do not agree that there's a bearded fella in the sky controlling every move we make.

As for ending an innocent life, sometimes that's the most responsible thing a couple or woman alone can do.

too... much... catholic... baiting....

seriously, the main reason I am against abortion, other than the fact that I think God doesn't like it too much, is that it is the ending of an innocent life. There are always options, but sexually active America is fascinated by the idea that it can have all the sex it wants, and, if something actually happens from that, they can just vaccume it all away. Others see something inherintly wrong that almost a third of all pregnancies are terminated via abortion in this country. Still others see a problem in the declining populations of Western Countries.

Contraception has its perks and drawbacks. The pill has many unintended side effects. Other diseases, particularly HPV, can be transmitted regardless of condom usage. And, since contraception, to a degree, encourages sex outside of a stable relationship, the amount of times it fails has lead to an increase in abortion. This is one of the reasons why many women have multiple abortions. In a sense, its not necessarily the barrier of plastic that christians are attacking, its the mindset behind it. Afterall, God is a pretty powerful fella. If he wants a child to be conceived, he's not going to let a milimeter of rubber and some KY stop him. Though if that child is born ends up being a matter of free will, or, in some cases, not.

Just some food for thought.

And not all catholics are ignorant fucks.

For the record, a large portion of abortions are performed on married women who already have children. You complain about people being ignorant, but you make several points that rely on your assumptions rather than the facts. The facts do no support your claims.

And I'll have you know that there are a whole lot of people out there using contraception who are in stable relationships but who don't want kids atm.Or at all, in many cases. Of course, it would appear that those on the religious-right cannot understand - indeed, (some) are seemingly horrified by - those of us that wish to be childfree. If we must be so obtuse, you know, we should be completely celibate and shun having any type of normal, loving relationship - clearly there's no point to it if not to procreate!

:rolleyes:

For the record, a large portion of abortions are performed on married women who already have children. You complain about people being ignorant, but you make several points that rely on your assumptions rather than the facts. The facts do no support your claims.
That's because facts are kryptonite to fundamentalists.

I thought that dilation and extraction procedures were only preformed in the states when there was a health risk to the woman in the first place.

Besides, 50% of the procedures are preformed on dead fetuses anyways.
the procedure is extremely rare. only a handful are performed in any given year. the banning of it will not save any "babies" since its only done from extreme necessity so the abortion will be done by some other method.

but its SOLD as if its common as dirt for a 9 months pregnant woman to wake up one morning and decide to kill her perfectly healthy unborn child. as if there arent already safeguards in place to prevent unnecessary late term abortions and as if its easy to find a doctor who would agree to do such a thing.

the 6-week abortion just doesnt have the same emotional impact so they pretend that abortions are being done on fully formed healthy fetuses.

the procedure is extremely rare. only a handful are performed in any given year. the banning of it will not save any "babies" since its only done from extreme necessity so the abortion will be done by some other method.

but its SOLD as if its common as dirt for a 9 months pregnant woman to wake up one morning and decide to kill her perfectly healthy unborn child. as if there arent already safeguards in place to prevent unnecessary late term abortions and as if its easy to find a doctor who would agree to do such a thing.

the 6-week abortion just doesnt have the same emotional impact so they pretend that abortions are being done on fully formed healthy fetuses.
They have to because their position is fundamentally dishonest. Some of the people in the movement are true believers and undoubtedly don't realize this stuff, but the people leading the charge have to know that they're full of shit.

That's because facts are kryptonite to fundamentalists.

but they have a better defense mechanism than superman - facts can't hurt them when they refuse to acknowledge them as facts.

They have to because their position is fundamentally dishonest. Some of the people in the movement are true believers and undoubtedly don't realize this stuff, but the people leading the charge have to know that they're full of shit.

Yes, exactly. They show these aborted fetii and they make claims about how horrific it is, but these procedures are being done by living breathing people. They see them and recognize how horrific they are. They absolutely do not want to do them unless there is no other choice. The religious right would have you believe all people getting abortions are sociopaths with sociopathic doctors.

Virtually no doctors or women are willing to engage in such a traumatic procedure, particularly when the women has nearly completed carrying the child to term, unless the fetus will never live outside the womb or will suffer greatly or unless the woman will likely die during the birth.

There are always options, but sexually active America is fascinated by the idea that it can have all the sex it wants, and, if something actually happens from that, they can just vaccume it all away.

"Sexually active America" is not a coherent group you can accurately stereotype like that, my friend.

Others see something inherintly wrong that almost a third of all pregnancies are terminated via abortion in this country. Still others see a problem in the declining populations of Western Countries.

A third? I've not seen the numbers that add up to that. Care to bring them up?

And while there may be declining birthrates in Western countries, there is not a decling population in most. And what is so bad about declining birthrates? Do you really think everyone needs to have 10 children, as used to be rather common?

Contraception has its perks and drawbacks. The pill has many unintended side effects.

Rarely bad ones, however - and some of its "side effects" are actually good. I've been on the pill for years, and not always because of being sexually active. In fact, I was on it for well over a year before I even considered sexual activity.

And, since contraception, to a degree, encourages sex outside of a stable relationship,

How so?

This is like the people who say, "OMFG! If we teach kids that condoms exist and how to use them, they're going to run out and have lots and lots of sex!" The argument makes no sense. Those who want to be promiscuous will do so, whether they have contraception or not. Those who want to be celibate will do so, with or without contraception. Those who want to have a loving, monogamous sexual relationship will do so, with or without access to contraception. What contraception can do is make those choices safer for those who end up making them.

I don't think people should start fires. In fact, I think they should avoid doing so, but I don't think that teaching them how to use a fire extinguisher is going to make anyone go out and play with matches that wasn't already going to do it.


I thought that dilation and extraction procedures were only preformed in the states when there was a health risk to the woman in the first place.

Besides, 50% of the procedures are preformed on dead fetuses anyways.

Some are also performed because of health problems with the fetus. I agree with some of the reasons allowed (gross chromosomal defects other than sex chromosome differences/Downs, extreme hydrocephalus) and disagree with some of those that are allowed (Downs, cleft pallete).

How much of that growth is due to immigration rather than birth? And is the birthrate going in a downward trend (meaning that, if positive, is it going down over the last 10 years?)
Please, please, please, do us all a favor and take this over to the "Population decline in the west" thread. You'll find all the evidence debunking this myth that you need there, and many of us participating in it as well if you really feel like arguing about it.

Beign anti-abortion and anti-contraception is theoretically consistent but pragmatically inconsistent.

Beign anti-abortion and anti-contraception is theoretically consistent but pragmatically inconsistent.
It's only theoretically consistent if you believe life begins at conception, but since anywhere from 50-70% of fertilized eggs fail to implant and are washed away in the female's menstrual cycle, the whole idea that life begins at conception is ludicrous, even from a religious point of view.

I would characterize myself as pro-choice. It is true that many people who are anti-abortion are also anti-contraception (the Catholic Church, for example). However, I fail to see the point. A pro-life person would be just as justified in arguing that your characterization of them says more about you and you're a)a fanatic, wishing to discredit them with superfluous arguments, or b) trying to convince yourself of something you don't believe in your heart. Believe me, I've heard both.

The whole thing is an ad hominem, anyway. And by the way, my mother used condoms regularly during her childbearing years, and she's the most anti-abortion person I know. (Edit: well, she didn't, but her husband did.)

It's only theoretically consistent if you believe life begins at conception, but since anywhere from 50-70% of fertilized eggs fail to implant and are washed away in the female's menstrual cycle, the whole idea that life begins at conception is ludicrous, even from a religious point of view.

No, because I don't believe they allow condoms. So it's only consistent if you don't believe in sex for any other reason than the creation of babies. Odd that so many Christians believe this when Jesus was alive when sexuality was much more open and he had nothing to say suggesting that recreational sex was wrong. At best he said it should done in a married relationship and at worst he only had a problem with cheating on a marriage or prostitution, but he never addressed recreational sex at all (reverse best and worst if that makes more sense to you). Paul actually suggested recreational sex to keep people satisfied so they could focus on God. He basically said if you can't be abstinent to get married and then to give yourself to your spouse whenever s/he desires sex. The idea that recreational sex is wrong DID NOT come from the Bible.

I would characterize myself as pro-choice. It is true that many people who are anti-abortion are also anti-contraception (the Catholic Church, for example). However, I fail to see the point. A pro-life person would be just as justified in arguing that your characterization of them says more about you and you're a)a fanatic, wishing to discredit them with superfluous arguments, or b) trying to convince yourself of something you don't believe in your heart. Believe me, I've heard both.

The whole thing is an ad hominem, anyway. And by the way, my mother used condoms regularly during her childbearing years, and she's the most anti-abortion person I know. (Edit: well, she didn't, but her husband did.)

Nazz specifically said that some people don't agree with the article who are 'pro-life'. He is talking about the fact that major advocacy groups are making the arguments he demonstrated. It's not ad hominem. It's an argument they made.

NOTE: I'm assuming you're replying to the first post.