NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the other thread is already too long, heres another one, focusing on a different aspect of abortion.

It seems that most of the abortions are due to either not using contraceptives at all or not using them properly.


CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,10]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

So it seems that with more sex education and free access to contraceptives and a bit of more personal responsibility (for males as well, ie: condoms), abortion rate could be more than halved.

Edit:

PS: All this abortion talk may be redundant in future perhaps with a 100% effective 100% safe (no side effects) birth control method (eg: male pill?). By then, maybe there wont be any STD thx to an advanced medical science, so everyone can enjoy naked sex :P

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?

Given that kids are getting pregnant at twelve... ten?

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?

9 to 10...

the Onset of Puberty, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

Doesnt really matter though, Abstinence is the Christian Way, :rolleyes:

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?

Formal sex education can start when formal education starts (age appropriate, obviously).

But, in general, I think a child old enough to ask the question is old enough to know the answer. If your 4-year old asks you where babies come from, tell him.

Stupid bitches getting knocked up. No news there unfortunately.

Stupid bitches getting knocked up. No news there unfortunately.

Yeah and some other stupid bitches fail to wear a condom.

Since the other thread is already too long, heres another one, focusing on a different aspect of abortion.

It seems that most of the abortions are due to either not using contraceptives at all or not using them properly.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

So it seems that with more sex education and free access to contraceptives and a bit of more personal responsibility (for males as well, ie: condoms), abortion rate could be more than halved.

Yep. Perhaps safer, cheaper and more effective long-term contraceptives can be developed, but the effective use of the condom also prevents STDs, making it the contraceptive of choice. Unfortunately, while proper use of a condom renders it more than 99% effective, improper use of it can reduce that effectiveness to about 50-50.

Makes abstinence-only sex education a double whammy.

Yeah and some other stupid bitches fail to wear a condom.

Unfortunately, they cost money and embarrassment. I remember the stink that was raised about 20 years ago when some schools tried to provide students with free condoms.

Did you all hear about the legend about the woman who got pregnant after being stabbed after having oral sex? The knife pierced the stomach and went into the uterus and the contents of the stomach (which should have been killed by stomach acid which is why I think it is bs) fertilized the contents of the uterus. I think this is all just a legend (what makes a legend an urban legend anyway?) but has anyone else heard of this?

My personal opinion is that it should start around 8, at least preliminary lessons,

Funnily enough, looking just to link to the Monty Python sketch, it's blocked unless you sign up to state you're 18.

Since the other thread is already too long, heres another one, focusing on a different aspect of abortion.

It seems that most of the abortions are due to either not using contraceptives at all or not using them properly.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

So it seems that with more sex education and free access to contraceptives and a bit of more personal responsibility (for males as well, ie: condoms), abortion rate could be more than halved.

Um. You are rather twisting that statistic to make it seem sinister, but yes -- almost everyone that is pro-choice is for more sex education, better access to contraceptives, etc.

Unlike bans on abortions which don't work, enslave women, and endanger women, more sex education, family planning, and contraceptives actually reduce abortions!!

Unfortunately, most of the pro-life crowd are also anti-sex education, anti-family planning, and/or anti-contraceptives.

Did you all hear about the legend about the woman who got pregnant after being stabbed after having oral sex? The knife pierced the stomach and went into the uterus and the contents of the stomach (which should have been killed by stomach acid which is why I think it is bs) fertilized the contents of the uterus. I think this is all just a legend (what makes a legend an urban legend anyway?) but has anyone else heard of this?

The one I was always told was a Civil War story where a bullet, or shard of bullet, passed through the testicles of one man and then lodged in the uterus of a female.

It always brought to mind the civil war soldier returning home to a pregnant wife,

'Well, see, what happened was....ammm.... right, see this bullet....'

A better excuse than the one Mary gave Joseph, lead to far less trouble as well.

Unfortunately, most of the pro-life crowd are also anti-sex education, anti-family planning, and/or anti-contraceptives.

Then they should find a new name ;)

Yep. Perhaps safer, cheaper and more effective long-term contraceptives can be developed, but the effective use of the condom also prevents STDs, making it the contraceptive of choice. Unfortunately, while proper use of a condom renders it more than 99% effective, improper use of it can reduce that effectiveness to about 50-50.

Makes abstinence-only sex education a double whammy.

Abstainence only education is so basic even the special ed kids would get it. If no sex then no pregnancy or STDs. That is like saying 1+1 only math education. It is so basic that it does not matter.

These preggos know that sex causes babies and are not ignorant of it. They are just dumb. They also might be too dumb to make money and thus cant afford the contraception.

Unfortunately, they cost money and embarrassment. I remember the stink that was raised about 20 years ago when some schools tried to provide students with free condoms.

This is certainly an issue, for an 11 year old to buy condoms, it raises questions,

Not only that but the expense, seriously,

Should governments at least subsidise condoms?

This is certainly an issue, for an 11 year old to buy condoms, it raises questions,

Not only that but the expense, seriously,

Should governments at least subsidise condoms?

I dont see why not, Birth Control Pills as well...

I think a little marketing would help too, Id make the advertisement that says that the 11 year old was being "responsible" when He bought it...take the social stigma off and all that...

This is certainly an issue, for an 11 year old to buy condoms, it raises questions,

Not only that but the expense, seriously,

Should governments at least subsidise condoms?

It can be free. Economic stimilus. Or at least free until u have a full time job and arent in poverty. And then subsidized. And condom machines in clubs and bars.

Unfortunately, most of the pro-life crowd are also anti-sex education, anti-family planning, and/or anti-contraceptives.

I have worked for two Republican legislators. I also have several pro-life friends. I have only ever met one pro-lifer who admitted that he was anti-contraceptives. Based on my limited observations, I think it is a real stretch to say that most pro-lifers are anti-anything but abortions.

This is certainly an issue, for an 11 year old to buy condoms, it raises questions,

Not only that but the expense, seriously,

Should governments at least subsidise condoms?

Well, I'm not quite socialist enough to entertain that notion without some benefit for myself. ...Like noting that condoms cost a hell of a lot less than abortions, HIV therapies and other medications and procedures already being paid for by my tax and/or healthcare plan dollars. Not to mention single teenaged moms without jobs. We're paying for it anyway, the cheaper solution sounds pretty good to me.

This is certainly an issue, for an 11 year old to buy condoms, it raises questions,

Not only that but the expense, seriously,

Should governments at least subsidise condoms?

As a conservative I have problems with the subsidy of most things. However, public education and contraceptives are so important to the well being of society that they should be definitely available to everyone. I think that any dollar spent on contraceptives is a great investment in our society.

I dont see why not, Birth Control Pills as well...

I think a little marketing would help too, Id make the advertisement that says that the 11 year old was being "responsible" when He bought it...take the social stigma off and all that...

I agree. If an 11 year old (or anyone really who does not want to have children) is going to have vaginal sex they should use contraceptives.

I have worked for two Republican legislators. I also have several pro-life friends. I have only ever met one pro-lifer who admitted that he was anti-contraceptives. Based on my limited observations, I think it is a real stretch to say that most pro-lifers are anti-anything but abortions.

Ever heard of The Pope? Or some guy called John McCain (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/election-pr/06062008_mccainbc.html)?

EDIT: More on John McCain and contraceptives here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13541479&postcount=2213).

Ever heard of The Pope? Or some guy called John McCain (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/election-pr/06062008_mccainbc.html)?

So it seems this is more about traditional religious views on sex (sex is bad until heterosexual marriage and then u can only do missionary) than human life. That would explain why liberal crowd in the US are so suspicious of any anti-abortion arguments.

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?

Shameless hijack on post #2. Classy!

My answer is exactly what Dem says:

Formal sex education can start when formal education starts (age appropriate, obviously).

But, in general, I think a child old enough to ask the question is old enough to know the answer. If your 4-year old asks you where babies come from, tell him.

That is precisely right. Making it some "special" arcane knowledge actually casts its truth into doubt. Like mathematics or manners, it can be put simply with no lower age limit, and developed without ever having to admit that you lied about santa claus.

This is certainly an issue, for an 11 year old to buy condoms, it raises questions,

Not only that but the expense, seriously,

Should governments at least subsidise condoms?

What questions does it raise? That children should not be left alone to devellop at their own pace?

Shameless hijack on post #2. Classy!

Well, despite the utter lack of threads on abortion, I thought it better to discuss sex education, I'm sure someone can start another thread on abortion if need be.

I'd almost ask a Mod to change the title but it's not my thread.

What questions does it raise? That children should not be left alone to devellop at their own pace?

No, it's the problem of an 11 year old asking for condoms, it will raise questions by whoever's selling, which means the 11 year old won't ask and the problem isn't solved, free condoms at school seems a better solution.

So it seems this is more about traditional religious views on sex (sex is bad until heterosexual marriage and then u can only do missionary) than human life. That would explain why liberal crowd in the US are so suspicious of any anti-abortion arguments.

Um, us "liberal crowd in the US are so suspicious of any anti-abortion arguments" for a long list of reasons:

YES. The so-called "pro-life" crowd has an anti-sex, anti-woman agenda
We respect the sovereignty of women over their own bodies
We believe women are in a superior moral position to decide what happens to their own bodies
Most anti-abortion arguments ignore the actual statistics on when abortions occur during the development of the unborn
As you yourself have pointed out, restrictions on abortion are counter-productive in addition to endangering women
Zygotes and embryos aren't persons


Etc, etc, etc.

Formal sex education can start when formal education starts (age appropriate, obviously).

But, in general, I think a child old enough to ask the question is old enough to know the answer. If your 4-year old asks you where babies come from, tell him.



That is precisely right. Making it some "special" arcane knowledge actually casts its truth into doubt. Like mathematics or manners, it can be put simply with no lower age limit, and developed without ever having to admit that you lied about santa claus.

I think that that would be a more personal, parental decision though, from a Public schooling approach, we can scientifically prove that puberty begins at around 9-10 for the average child, and therefore the state would then be able to go in and educate the child if the parent hasnt...

If they havent hit puberty yet, then it would seem to me that it is up to the parent to decide whether they should know about sex or not, considering they havent developed the necessary level of equipment to do said act...

Um, us "liberal crowd in the US are so suspicious of any anti-abortion arguments" for a long list of reasons:
YES. The so-called "pro-life" crowd has an anti-sex, anti-woman agenda


Not all.


We respect the sovereignty of women over their own bodies
We believe women are in a superior moral position to decide what happens to their own bodies
Most anti-abortion arguments ignore the actual statistics on when abortions occur during the development of the unborn
As you yourself have pointed out, restrictions on abortion are counter-productive in addition to endangering women

restrictions =/= total criminalization.


Zygotes and embryos aren't persons


Etc, etc, etc.


Subjective.

Not all.

restrictions =/= total criminalization.

Subjective.

*sigh*

I'm not debating this in another thread, especially given your refusal to yeild to reason and facts in your first thread on this topic.

But, pray tell, what restrictions have been proven to be effective, not infringe on women's rights, and/or not endanger women?

Um, us "liberal crowd in the US are so suspicious of any anti-abortion arguments" for a long list of reasons:

YES. The so-called "pro-life" crowd has an anti-sex, anti-woman agenda
We respect the sovereignty of women over their own bodies
We believe women are in a superior moral position to decide what happens to their own bodies
Most anti-abortion arguments ignore the actual statistics on when abortions occur during the development of the unborn
As you yourself have pointed out, restrictions on abortion are counter-productive in addition to endangering women
Zygotes and embryos aren't persons


Etc, etc, etc.

I can actually understand the idea that abortions are bad because they are murder. I do not agree with it but I understand it. There are conservatives like me who are pro-heterosexual sex, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, religious types. I am Jewish which has a strong pro-choice (centered on the concept that it is shameful to have an unwanted pregnancy and being forced to have an abortion forces someone to be ashamed which is cruel) faith component. I do not go for any of that radical feminism stuff though.

The only reform that we need in abortion policy is the achievement of equal rights to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy to the two sexes. If a man does not want a kid he should be able to let the woman know about it and if she brings the child to term his consent to adoption is automatic and he should have no rights or obligations to the child.

Well, despite the utter lack of threads on abortion, I thought it better to discuss sex education, I'm sure someone can start another thread on abortion if need be.

I'd almost ask a Mod to change the title but it's not my thread.



No, it's the problem of an 11 year old asking for condoms, it will raise questions by whoever's selling, which means the 11 year old won't ask and the problem isn't solved, free condoms at school seems a better solution.

Ok. I see your point.

*snip*

PS: All this abortion talk may be redundant in future perhaps with a 100% effective 100% safe (no side effects) birth control method (eg: male pill?). By then, maybe there wont be any STD thx to an advanced medical science, so everyone can enjoy naked sex :P

I agree that the side-effects of oral contraceptives are becoming less troubling as time goes by and that's good. It makes taking them regardless of your plans to have sex more likely. A really good male pill will help too -- double protection.

However, I don't think men can be trusted to take their pill any more than women can, regardless of the side-effects. Before someone else says it: to avoid palimony suits from partners who choose to carry the child.

But that just isn't good enough. Some men will lie about taking their pill when they didn't, because without the lie they would only get sex with a condom which many don't like. Some would even lie to deliberately impregnate a woman who may carry a child they have no intention of paying support for.

It's the exact same situation. When sex is imminant, wishful thinking sets in. "Oh, I only missed one pill, I'll be fine." Men would do this just as much as women do.

(For the record, I find abortion regrettable. It should be minimized by the prevention of pregnancies which the woman does not explicitly choose. But once she's pregnant: her choice and hers alone.)

What is with the Hispanic women and all their breeding? Is it like the Catholic thing or what? Any hispanics on NSG care to explain this?

I agree that the side-effects of oral contraceptives are becoming less troubling as time goes by and that's good. It makes taking them regardless of your plans to have sex more likely. A really good male pill will help too -- double protection.

However, I don't think men can be trusted to take their pill any more than women can, regardless of the side-effects. Before someone else says it: to avoid palimony suits from partners who choose to carry the child.

But that just isn't good enough. Some men will lie about taking their pill when they didn't, because without the lie they would only get sex with a condom which many don't like. Some would even lie to deliberately impregnate a woman who may carry a child they have no intention of paying support for.

It's the exact same situation. When sex is imminant, wishful thinking sets in. "Oh, I only missed one pill, I'll be fine." Men would do this just as much as women do.

(For the record, I find abortion regrettable. It should be minimized by the prevention of pregnancies which the woman does not explicitly choose. But once she's pregnant: her choice and hers alone.)

Well, there may be 100% effective 100% safe (no side effects) male pill and female pill. If and when this becomes possible, I think future generations will see abortion as primitive barbaric butchering.

Abstainence is the best form of birth control. Plus it is more fun. I hate the kid of sex that causes babies. I much prefer the alternatives. That is probably why I have no kids.

Well, there may be 100% effective 100% safe (no side effects) male pill and female pill. If and when this becomes possible, I think future generations will see abortion as primitive barbaric butchering.

:rolleyes:

As opposed to those of us that see abortion as a joyful sacrament. :eek:

If you eliminate unwanted pregnancies, you will eliminate the vast majority of abortions. You won't eliminate abortion altogether because some abortions are due to medical necessity, severe fetal deformity, etc.

Abstainence is the best form of birth control. Plus it is more fun. I hate the kid of sex that causes babies. I much prefer the alternatives. That is probably why I have no kids.

How old are you btw?

I think that that would be a more personal, parental decision though, from a Public schooling approach, we can scientifically prove that puberty begins at around 9-10 for the average child, and therefore the state would then be able to go in and educate the child if the parent hasnt...

Bugger that. We don't leave the teaching of mathematics to parents, then "step in" when their child is blatantly ignorant of what other children know. The school and the teacher are there in loco parentis of all learning, they should offer the knowledge whether or not the parent has already.

What is it about the workings of reproduction which makes it private family business?

Religion I would leave to families. If parents want to offer certain answers to questions which neither scientists nor philosophers can agree on, then bad luck for their child but we can't stop that. Schools should have none of it.

Unsurprisingly, religion is exactly the problem. Some knowledge is bad and should be hidden. That's the exact opposite of education.

If they havent hit puberty yet, then it would seem to me that it is up to the parent to decide whether they should know about sex or not, considering they havent developed the necessary level of equipment to do said act...

They haven't developed long enough arms and legs to drive a car, either. Should we not teach them how to cross a road safely?

Sex is there, in the adult world we can't hope to hide from them. Why make a big mystery of it?

We have adults who can't talk about sex without giggling like children. We have adults who have sex, and can barely think about what they're doing, because they've been taught from an early age NOT to think about it.

That secrecy just fucks us up.

Bugger that. We don't leave the teaching of mathematics to parents, then "step in" when their child is blatantly ignorant of what other children know. The school and the teacher are there in loco parentis of all learning, they should offer the knowledge whether or not the parent has already.

First, Math =/= Sex...And a child has the capacity for Mathematics pre age five anyway...


They haven't developed long enough arms and legs to drive a car, either. Should we not teach them how to cross a road safely?




Second, this isnt about teaching them to "cross the road"...Its about whether or not they are ready to learn to "Drive the Car"...

EDIT: You can teach a child how to drive when you feel like, but legally, as in from the State's perspective, in the US it is generally in the 14-16 range, coincidentally the age in which Driver's Ed is taught, lol...

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?

First grade.

Abstainence is the best form of birth control. Plus it is more fun. I hate the kid of sex that causes babies. I much prefer the alternatives. That is probably why I have no kids.

Your hand never says no.

Your hand never says no.

Lefty always screws it up though....

Well, there may be 100% effective 100% safe (no side effects) male pill and female pill. If and when this becomes possible, I think future generations will see abortion as primitive barbaric butchering.

"Butchering" ?

I could call surgery "butchering." Future generations who don't have cancers to be cut out, or faulty heart-valves to bypass, will no doubt find it wincingly gruesome to even contemplate.

I would rather be operated on in sterile conditions, by a modern surgeon with modern equipment drugs and knowledge. Does that mean I would look back in time, and say that barbers should not have performed amputations without anaesthesia to save a patient from gangrene? It was primitive, barbaric and it was butchering ... the best they had available. If I couldn't access the modern operating room (say, stranded in the wilderness with a doctor but no equipment or drugs) I would take the butchery to save my own life. I'd force it on a friend, to save their life.

The appeal to the perfect future is worthless in prescribing how we should act now.

"Future generations" you say. Will they have cured their own folly in forgetting to take pills, will they have cured their own selfishness in lying for personal advantage? And will you then come at them with "your fault, you pay" and force women to carry pregnancies to term because of your oh-so-modern qualms about "butchery?"

I like to think the future is better than the present. The question is how to make it so. What have you got?

Your hand never says no.

Unless you are Doctor Strangelove.



Damn, I hate "references." I just made one. :$

First grade.

Nuts to that. The concept was completely lost on me in the fourth grade. Six-year olds aren't going to understand. Complete waste of time and money.

Sex education should start when children start school. They should be taught about the basics. I don't think anyone is saying, "Let's teach a six-year-old to put on a condom." I think most people are suggesting that we take away the secrecy and the fear about sex, start teaching children about the human body and give them the opportunity to develop their own understandings about sex, free of all the hang-ups and restrictions we have.

Nuts to that. The concept was completely lost on me in the fourth grade. Six-year olds aren't going to understand. Complete waste of time and money.

We started sex-ed in second grade, and by that time I'd already asked all the questions they gave answers to.

I'm not saying kids should be taught how to put on a condom or masturbate at 6. Maybe at 11. But they should know WHAT happens and HOW it happens.

Sex education should start when children start school. They should be taught about the basics. I don't think anyone is saying, "Let's teach a six-year-old to put on a condom." I think most people are suggesting that we take away the secrecy and the fear about sex, start teaching children about the human body and give them the opportunity to develop their own understandings about sex, free of all the hang-ups and restrictions we have.

Or I could have just said /\this/\ and saved myself time. :P

First, Math =/= Sex...And a child has the capacity for Mathematics pre age five anyway...

Do they have a use for mathematics?

Second, this isnt about teaching them to "cross the road"...Its about whether or not they are ready to learn to "Drive the Car"...

EDIT: You can teach a child how to drive when you feel like, but legally, as in from the State's perspective, in the US it is generally in the 14-16 range, coincidentally the age in which Driver's Ed is taught, lol...

Oh God, why did I invoke road rules? :headbang:

If the law is an ass, road rules are a legless mule.

But still, you won't make many points using the road rules either. Your "lol" tells me you think you're onto a strong point, but it's not really.

"Crossing the road" is existing safely in an environment where others are driving their cars. If the child has two parents, they're in an environment where two of the most important people in her life are "driving cars."

Yes, we can trust the parents not to "run over" the child (well, we can't always but meh) but there is a major dynamic at work between these two important people in the child's life. To say Mommy and Daddy "love each other very much" when "love" is the exact same word as mommy uses for her feelings for you, and daddy uses for his feelings for you ... it's a wicked lie. It's deliberate concealment of information which would allow the child to better understand what's going on in their own life.

Sure, parents want to and almost can't help building a world of illusion, a simplified and safe world for their children. But why is the very act which created the child part of the big, bad outside? That's nuts. It can't be put outside!

Another thing: even as a child, you own your own body. Leaving it to parents to inform or misinform the child, then try to patch up bad learning later, is worse than letting the parents teach numerology instead of arithmetic. Misconceptions about your own body will almost certainly have worse consequences than not being able to total a bill.

We started sex-ed in second grade, and by that time I'd already asked all the questions they gave answers to.

I'm not saying kids should be taught how to put on a condom or masturbate at 6. Maybe at 11. But they should know WHAT happens and HOW it happens.

If you think they're capable of understanding it, I'll defer to you opinion, since I have no experience with kids other than having been one at one point myself. All I know is that trying to teach me the biology of human reproduction or sexuality at six years old would've been a wasted effort.

The attitude my school took with sex-ed was to say to us "here's what's going to happen to you very soon. Here's why it happens," and so on, so that when those biological changes finally did happen a year or so later, we would understand that it was normal and nothing to be ashamed of. We didn't discuss contraception or STDs until grade 10. That's something I think could be moved back a few years, but the idea that we need young kids to be acutely aware of their future sexuality so that they develop pro-sex attitudes is a bit strange to me.

Do they have a use for mathematics?

Um, yeah, from the moment they need to pay lunch money, they have a use for Mathematics...Honestly, lol...


Oh God, why did I invoke road rules? :headbang:
You got me friend, I thought it was pretty dumb myself....



"Crossing the road" is existing safely in an environment where others are driving their cars. If the child has two parents, they're in an environment where two of the most important people in her life are "driving cars."


True, but why are you sticking children behind the wheel of a car when they dont have the capacity to drive said vehicle?

Not to mention, your never going to have to cross two people having sex, and even if you did, there's no eminent danger of one of the two killing you, its a ludicrous example...

If you think they're capable of understanding it, I'll defer to you opinion, since I have no experience with kids other than having been one at one point myself. All I know is that trying to teach me the biology of human reproduction or sexuality at six years old would've been a wasted effort.

And that's why noone's suggesting that we teach them human biology or reproduction. Whats being suggested is that schools fulfil their obligation to educate by providing honest and real answers to questions like, "Where do babies come from?" and develop in children an understanding of their bodies.

... but the idea that we need young kids to be acutely aware of their future sexuality so that they develop pro-sex attitudes is a bit strange to me.

Again, noone is suggesting that. The amount of misconceptions that kids have about sex, because parents won't talk about it, religious groups push abstinence only, and our society is saturated in it, are a direct result of the lack of sex education out there. A direct result of the lack of understanding about their bodies. I've had 13 year olds ask me if you can turn a condom inside out after its been used, if you just tip the contents into the girl when you and she want to get pregnant. All from 13 year olds who were already having sex. Their parents refused to answer their questions, their religious leaders simply told them not to do it. What were they meant to do?

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?

As soon as they begin to notice they have penises or vulvas you can start talking to them about how babies are made and what parts of their bodies are private...when they start asking how babies get in the uterus you can explain sex and how it's not something to be entered into without precaution.....all of this happens before first grade. You can explain birth control and condoms to them whenever they are ready, usually about eight or nine....by the time a child is ten they should understand what parts they have, what will happen to them during puberty and what to do if someone is sexually abusing them and how to best prevent STIs and pregnancy should they make the choice to engage in sexual activity........all the while explaining to them that you would rather they wait until they are much older.

This thread looks like it could use a genuine Eugenecist's perspective. So, who wants to know the horrible, unyielding politically incorrect truth?

How old are you btw?

I am 31

We started sex-ed in second grade, and by that time I'd already asked all the questions they gave answers to.

Good luck for you. I think it was year 7 for me, some of my classmates were 12 by then.

Thing is, I knew most of it already because some parents taught it, there were books in the library if you were curious. I had it mostly right, but some other kids were certain enough about their wrong theories (sex only happens when you're asleep, you can only get pregnant if its a full moon, only get pregnant if you're married, or go to church or fuck knows what) that I don't think they ever fully believed what was taught in class.

Such a deliberate vacuum of knowledge will be filled by some kind of folk-lore. And it's hard to give up a belief you traded two bungers and a Gumball marble for.

And that's why noone's suggesting that we teach them human biology or reproduction. Whats being suggested is that schools fulfil their obligation to educate by providing honest and real answers to questions like, "Where do babies come from?" and develop in children an understanding of their bodies.

No one's suggesting we teach biology or reproduction, except when we teach biology and reproduction. Got it.


Again, noone is suggesting that. The amount of misconceptions that kids have about sex, because parents won't talk about it, religious groups push abstinence only, and our society is saturated in it, are a direct result of the lack of sex education out there. A direct result of the lack of understanding about their bodies. I've had 13 year olds ask me if you can turn a condom inside out after its been used, if you just tip the contents into the girl when you and she want to get pregnant. All from 13 year olds who were already having sex. Their parents refused to answer their questions, their religious leaders simply told them not to do it. What were they meant to do?

No one's suggesting we use sex-ed to promote specific attitudes toward sex, but we ought to promote specific attitudes about sex. Got it. My objection was that six-year-olds aren't going to understand lessons about biology and reproduction. Your stunted thirteen-year-olds aren't relevant, since they're far beyond the point that you'd ordinarily learn those types of things. If a child is under a false and dangerous delusion like the one you're describing, then they should be corrected regardless of age, but that doesn't mean pro-actively adding sex-ed to first-grade curricula.

As a side note, I did have a friend in Eighth Grade that thought that women used Tampons in case they had an "Accident" lol...



Hey, it was actually pretty funny at the time, fuck you :p , lol...

Unless you are Doctor Strangelove.



Damn, I hate "references." I just made one. :$

I want to kiss you on the mouth for making that reference. Good show.

This thread looks like it could use a genuine Eugenecist's perspective. So, who wants to know the horrible, unyielding politically incorrect truth?

Enlighten us Belkaros.

This thread looks like it could use a genuine Eugenecist's perspective. So, who wants to know the horrible, unyielding politically incorrect truth?

Remove the eggs from the girls at birth. Only give them back (one at a time) when their husband signs his child support statement and pays the egg dowry.

*nod*

I want to kiss you on the mouth for making that reference. Good show.

Unless you are Doctor Strangelove.



Damn, I hate "references." I just made one. :$

Don't try anything preverted.

I want to kiss you on the mouth for making that reference. Good show.

Jolly good.

Just a sec while I take this cigar out of my mouth. I'm doing Winston Churchill on some other thread.

Thank you, Glorious Freedonia, I will. The truth about abortion is that it is a necessary evil if our little blue home is to survive. Not just for the obligatory reason of the predicted max human population being 10 billion, but for societal success as well. In the 1980s, the crimerate by the turn of the century was predicted to be somewhere between a Robocop movie and that anarchist society in Doomsday, but, less than ten years after the doom and gloom predictions of Bush Sr, and the early Clinton administration, youth crime rates cut themselves in half inside of the decade. What changed? Twenty so years before the drop, Roe v. Wade was passed, and abortion was brought out of back allies and into doctors offices. That caused lots of people who were statistically predispositioned to crime not to be born. This is one of the hundreds of cast iron examples of the brutal, cruel necessety of abortion, and one that calls for a more comprehensive eugenics program in the states.

No one's suggesting we use sex-ed to promote specific attitudes toward sex, but we ought to promote specific attitudes about sex. Got it. My objection was that six-year-olds aren't going to understand lessons about biology and reproduction. Your stunted thirteen-year-olds aren't relevant, since they're far beyond the point that you'd ordinarily learn those types of things. If a child is under a false and dangerous delusion like the one you're describing, then they should be corrected regardless of age, but that doesn't mean pro-actively adding sex-ed to first-grade curricula.
How many first graders are you around say on a daily basis?

I'm around quite a few and they can understand that they have parts that are private, that people shouldn't touch them, that boys and girls are different, that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby and that sometimes germs and diseases can be passed from one person to another.

Most of them can understand much more than that and even ask so they can know more.

I have worked for two Republican legislators. I also have several pro-life friends. I have only ever met one pro-lifer who admitted that he was anti-contraceptives. Based on my limited observations, I think it is a real stretch to say that most pro-lifers are anti-anything but abortions.

Go to almost any "pro-life" site or organization and it's not too hard to find anti-sex education or abstinence only support there as well.

In general the anti-abortion crowd only wants to reduce abortions on its own terms. Obviously there are exceptions. It's even possible that the rank and file don't agree with this position and its championed primarilly by the anti-abortion leadership as they tend to be the most radical but clearly anti-abortion organizations also tend to be anti-sex education and/or abstinance only as well.

Why? Because religion plays a part in the anti-abortion position and religion also tends to be anti-sex eductaion and/or abstinence only.

Thank you, Glorious Freedonia, I will. The truth about abortion is that it is a necessary evil if our little blue home is to survive. Not just for the obligatory reason of the predicted max human population being 10 billion, but for societal success as well. In the 1980s, the crimerate by the turn of the century was predicted to be somewhere between a Robocop movie and that anarchist society in Doomsday, but, less than ten years after the doom and gloom predictions of Bush Sr, and the early Clinton administration, youth crime rates cut themselves in half inside of the decade. What changed? Twenty so years before the drop, Roe v. Wade was passed, and abortion was brought out of back allies and into doctors offices. That caused lots of people who were statistically predispositioned to crime not to be born. This is one of the hundreds of cast iron examples of the brutal, cruel necessety of abortion, and one that calls for a more comprehensive eugenics program in the states.

You've found the criminal gene, have you? If a wealthy white woman in the suburbs aborts a fetus, is she stopping the spread of the criminal gene, or is it only when someone living in the ghetto does it that that happens?

Remove the eggs from the girls at birth. Only give them back (one at a time) when their husband signs his child support statement and pays the egg dowry.

*nod*

New, from Capital One and Wells Fargo Bank, egg dowry financing!

With extremely competitive rates, and pending approval of credit and good teeth, Capital One can provide you with an easy and convenient line of credit to get your woman's eggs put back into her body! Stop by a local branch or call 1-800-572-4223 to apply today!

Not available in Southern Utah, Northern Arizona, Central New York, or Africa, ethnicity of the woman must be within one shade of brownishness from white if income is under $60,000 USD annually, Wells Fargo is not responsible if you aren't man enough to get the girl pregnant.

Um, us "liberal crowd in the US are so suspicious of any anti-abortion arguments" for a long list of reasons:

YES. The so-called "pro-life" crowd has an anti-sex, anti-woman agenda
We respect the sovereignty of women over their own bodies
We believe women are in a superior moral position to decide what happens to their own bodies
Most anti-abortion arguments ignore the actual statistics on when abortions occur during the development of the unborn
As you yourself have pointed out, restrictions on abortion are counter-productive in addition to endangering women
Zygotes and embryos aren't persons


Etc, etc, etc.
It depends on your point of view. Saying that embryos are not persons, or that they're not alive, is not a fact, it's an opinion.

Also, yes, women have sovereignty over their bodies... but "pro-choice" is a misnomer. The woman wanting to get an abortion already made the choice to have sex (a decision that leads to pregnancy, if contraceptives are not used properly), except in the rare case of forced sex or rape pregnancies.

Even then, contraceptives are not 100% effective. The best choice would be to not have sex unless you were willing to accept that consequence.

You've found the criminal gene, have you? If a wealthy white woman in the suburbs aborts a fetus, is she stopping the spread of the criminal gene, or is it only when someone living in the ghetto does it that that happens?

Note the word statistically, as in low income, absent father situations. Places where abortions are a viable alternative to bringing an unwanted child into the world. There is nothing genetic about it, just statistic.

It depends on your point of view. Saying that embryos are not persons, or that they're not alive, is not a fact, it's an opinion.
It's a fact.

Also, yes, women have sovereignty over their bodies... but "pro-choice" is a misnomer. The woman wanting to get an abortion already made the choice to have sex (a decision that leads to pregnancy, if contraceptives are not used properly), except in the rare case of forced sex or rape pregnancies.
Well, are rape embryos not persons suddenly?

Even then, contraceptives are not 100% effective. The best choice would be to not have sex unless you were willing to accept that consequence.
She is accepting the consequence.....you know by having to go through an abortive procedure.

It's a fact.


Well, are rape embryos not persons suddenly?


She is accepting the consequence.....you know by having to go through an abortive procedure.

You and your Logic.....

Facts are just Opinions anyway, lol...

You and your Logic.....
It's rather impressive no?

Facts are just Opinions anyway, lol...
Not according to my daughters 4th grade critical thinking book.

It's rather impressive no?


Not according to my daughters 4th grade critical thinking book.

Critical Thinking, sounds like a bunch of Liberal Crap to me, lol...


America is the only Thinking you need sister! :p

Critical Thinking, sounds like a bunch of Liberal Crap to me, lol...
Some liberals engage in it.

America is the only Thinking you need sister! :p
Hmm...interesting.

No one's suggesting we teach biology or reproduction, except when we teach biology and reproduction. Got it.

When I was 4 I asked my mother where I came from. She told me that Mummy and Daddy loved each other and Daddy planted his seed in Mummy and 9 months later, I came out after growing in Mummy's tummy. I don't think anyone would call that biology or reproduction, but it satisfied me at 4 in a way that the stork story or any other craptacular bullshit parents tell their children couldn't have. And it was roughly accurate. What is so wrong with schools engaging in this? Engaging children in education about their bodies?

No one's suggesting we use sex-ed to promote specific attitudes toward sex, but we ought to promote specific attitudes about sex. Got it. My objection was that six-year-olds aren't going to understand lessons about biology and reproduction. Your stunted thirteen-year-olds aren't relevant, since they're far beyond the point that you'd ordinarily learn those types of things.
Point out to me where anyone suggested adding sex-ed to first grade curricula? My 13 year olds weren't stunted, they were victims of parental negligence in my view. Also, point out to me how teaching children about sex in school is promoting specific attitudes toward sex, anymore than teaching them about history is promoting specific attitudes toward history. I don't think anyone is saying we should encourage little children to have sex. What people are suggesting is that we don't leave sex education up to parents who are obviously incapable or unwilling to educate their children.

If a child is under a false and dangerous delusion like the one you're describing, then they should be corrected regardless of age, but that doesn't mean pro-actively adding sex-ed to first-grade curricula.


How do you expect children to be corrected of their delusions if not in a classroom, a (mostly) bias free zone? How do you expect people to become aware of the children's delusions unless we teach them explicitly the facts? Giving children some understanding of their bodies from an early age (we do teach small children about arms and legs and eyes and hands and what they are used for from first grade - why not penises and vaginas?) is not tantamount to advocating sex. It simply demystifies the subject and teaches children that these are body parts, not something horrible and disgusting.

As soon as they begin to notice they have penises or vulvas you can start talking to them about how babies are made and what parts of their bodies are private...when they start asking how babies get in the uterus you can explain sex and how it's not something to be entered into without precaution.....all of this happens before first grade. You can explain birth control and condoms to them whenever they are ready, usually about eight or nine....by the time a child is ten they should understand what parts they have, what will happen to them during puberty and what to do if someone is sexually abusing them and how to best prevent STIs and pregnancy should they make the choice to engage in sexual activity........all the while explaining to them that you would rather they wait until they are much older.

That's exactly the attitude my parents took--answering questions as I asked them, giving me the information I asked for but no more until I asked. There's no need to overwhelm kids with details they don't need (and frankly probably don't want) to know. But those questions certainly do come up long before puberty.

And the mention of sexual abuse is another very good reason to teach kids about sex and their bodies. If these subjects are "taboo" they might not even know that someone touching them is doing something wrong, or why it feels wrong. I told my parents right away when I was molested (apparently; I don't remember it), probably in part because they had frank discussions with me and answered my questions and sex wasn't under some shroud of mystery, so I knew there were parts that no one had a right to touch and I could tell if they did. Some parents seem to think that they'll sexualize their children too early by talking about sex, but I really see the opposite happening if it's dealt with in an appropriate and honest manner.

It's a fact.


Well, are rape embryos not persons suddenly?


She is accepting the consequence.....you know by having to go through an abortive procedure.
Even "facts" are a matter of perspective. "Pluto is a planet" was a "fact" for a long time, and now "Pluto is not a planet" is taken as truth.

I never said that rape embryos were not persons. I said that in the case of rape it was not the woman's choice to have sex and become pregnant.

No, she is trying to avoid the consequences of her actions, because it is inconvenient for her to have a child she didn't want.

Even "facts" are a matter of perspective. "Pluto is a planet" was a "fact" for a long time, and now "Pluto is not a planet" is taken as truth.

I never said that rape embryos were not persons. I said that in the case of rape it was not the woman's choice to have sex and become pregnant.

No, she is trying to avoid the consequences of her actions, because it is inconvenient for her to have a child she didn't want.

How pray tell is she avoiding them? The consequence of her actions was that she became pregnant. She has an abortion and deals with the pregnancy. End of story.

Point out to me where anyone suggested adding sex-ed to first grade curricula?

To be fair, I said that sex-ed should start in first grade, but I meant the type of thing you just said about what your mother and father told you. I can remember when I was six or so having a book about how babies are made... I don't know if it had illustrations of penises in it (I think not) but it did say how it happened, in a very clinical manner, and the neatest part was that it showed a woman in various stages of pregnancy and you could pull back a flap on her tummy and see an illustration of the fetus at that stage. I did think it was weird that fetuses looked like tadpoles for quite awhile, but otherwise it was cool. :P

Even "facts" are a matter of perspective. "Pluto is a planet" was a "fact" for a long time, and now "Pluto is not a planet" is taken as truth.

I never said that rape embryos were not persons. I said that in the case of rape it was not the woman's choice to have sex and become pregnant.

No, she is trying to avoid the consequences of her actions, because it is inconvenient for her to have a child she didn't want.

No, what you're saying is that it's okay for "persons" to be killed if a woman is raped. Their lives are less valued because the woman didn't choose to have sex. Do you also think it's okay to kill toddlers who were the products of rape?

In regard to your last statement--I have to say, I have never understood the argument that a child should be brought into the world and made to pay to teach a woman a lesson about responsibility. It doesn't seem terribly humane to me.

To be fair, I said that sex-ed should start in first grade, but I meant the type of thing you just said about what your mother and father told you. I can remember when I was six or so having a book about how babies are made... I don't know if it had illustrations of penises in it (I think not) but it did say how it happened, in a very clinical manner, and the neatest part was that it showed a woman in various stages of pregnancy and you could pull back a flap on her tummy and see an illustration of the fetus at that stage. I did think it was weird that fetuses looked like tadpoles for quite awhile, but otherwise it was cool. :P

I had a similar book - Human Development. It had photos.

The poster who I was quoting seemed to be labouring under a misapprehension that posters were suggesting full scale sex ed complete with diagrams and practical demonstrations. I don't see the story my mother told me as sex-ed, since I didn't learn anything about sex. I don't see how teaching kids hand, arm, eye, nose, toe, finger, mouth is any different to breast, penis, vagina, anus. To me it's just anatomy.

EDIT: P.S. You're nicer than I would have been.

Even "facts" are a matter of perspective. "Pluto is a planet" was a "fact" for a long time, and now "Pluto is not a planet" is taken as truth.
No, what you are thinking of is "bullshit", not "facts." Bullshit is a matter of perspective. Facts are facts. So, you see, if you just want to play with bullshit, you can argue over whether embryos are persons. But if you want to talk about facts, then embryos are not persons because they have none of the features that qualify a thing to be a "person."

Bullshit lets you designate anything you want as a person.

Factual argument requires you to identify and adhere to reasonable standards that can be observed, demonstrated and/or tested.

I never said that rape embryos were not persons. I said that in the case of rape it was not the woman's choice to have sex and become pregnant.
Ah, so to you a woman's choice only extends to the decision to have voluntary sex. Pregnancy is never a choice, then. So you are saying you would require a rape victim to gestate and bear her attacker's offspring?

How about if the rape victim was too sick to carry a pregnancy safely?

How about if the rape victim was too young to carry a pregnancy safely?

How about if the rape was also incest?

If a woman never has the choice to abort a pregnancy, then I would like an itemized list of all the circumstances under which you would be willing to cripple or kill a woman for the sake of making her stay pregnant.

EDIT: An another list of all the circumstanes under which you would be willing to harm a fetus --cause it to develop significant irremedial birth defects, face an extremely high risk of death by miscarriage or death by maternal death -- all the circumstances under which you would be willing to potentially kill a child in order to prevent a woman from exercising control over her own reproductive life.

No, she is trying to avoid the consequences of her actions, because it is inconvenient for her to have a child she didn't want.
This kind of remark irritates the living shit out of me, because I just love the willingness of some people to paint women as coldblooded murderers who kill for personal convenience without giving it a second thought. It is an insult to all women, and an especially vile insult to women who do have to choose to abort, which is one of the most difficult and unhappy decisions a woman is going to have to make in her life.

By the way, FYI: Poverty. Severe maternal sickness. Fetal death. Extreme fetal malformation. Severe, potentially fatal complications of pregnancy. All of these thing and more can make it necessary for a woman to abort a pregnancy even if she does want it.

Women do not abort pregnancies just out of "convenience."

Women do not abort pregnancies just out of "convenience."

Well, duh.

Women abort pregnancies because the fires of Moloch are hungry.

Abstainence is the best form of birth control. Plus it is more fun. I hate the kid of sex that causes babies. I much prefer the alternatives. That is probably why I have no kids.

Oh please. I don't even need an ability to know that that's a lie.

Well, duh.

Women abort pregnancies because the fires of Moloch are hungry.
No, dear. You're thinking of infanticide. We have to carry to term for that.

No, dear. You're thinking of infanticide. We have to carry to term for that.

Nuh-uh. Wuldani explained in another thread that sacrificing a baby to pagan fires is the "moral equivalent" of abortion.

Remember, abortion stops a beating heart and holds it up in the air while saying "Kalima! Kalimaaaah!" while Indy and Short Round look on in horror.

Nuh-uh. Wuldani explained in another thread that sacrificing a baby to pagan fires is the "moral equivalent" of abortion.

Remember, abortion stops a beating heart and holds it up in the air while saying "Kalima! Kalimaaaah!" while Indy and Short Round look on in horror.
Yeah, I addressed that in that other thread and pointed out that, in fact, to feed the fires of Moloch correctly, you have to be anti-choice, therefore not the moral equivalent of being pro-choice. :D

Yeah, I addressed that in that other thread and pointed out that, in fact, to feed the fires of Moloch correctly, you have to be anti-choice, therefore not the moral equivalent of being pro-choice. :D

Don't fault Moloch for caring about the unborn.

At last week's Steven Baldwin's Extreme Teen Abortion Protest and Faith Based Weight Loss Supplement Wholesale Seminar, Moloch had a booth and through witnessing and Bible based teachings, he convinced three knocked up skanks to not abort their babies!

They even signed the "I Want To Lose Up To 30 lbs, and I Won't Kill My Baby" Pledge.

They just didn't read the 3rd paragraph.

Don't fault Moloch for caring about the unborn.

At last week's Steven Baldwin's Extreme Teen Abortion Protest and Faith Based Weight Loss Supplement Wholesale Seminar, Moloch had a booth and through witnessing and Bible based teachings, he convinced three knocked up skanks to not abort their babies!

They even signed the "I Want To Lose Up To 30 lbs, and I Won't Kill My Baby" Pledge.

They just didn't read the 3rd paragraph.
:D Okay, you got me. :D

And this posting on the same topic in two different threads is giving me motion sickness. I'm going to go lie down and laugh now.

:D Okay, you got me. :D

And this posting on the same topic in two different threads is giving me motion sickness. I'm going to go lie down and laugh now.

Go lie down and have an abortion. Apparently, they're a fun way for women to "avoid" responsibility of their actions.

Note the word statistically, as in low income, absent father situations. Places where abortions are a viable alternative to bringing an unwanted child into the world. There is nothing genetic about it, just statistic.

If there's nothing genetic about it, then why advertise your post as being a "eugenecist's perspective?" The implication is that you're making a judgment about genetics.

When I was 4 I asked my mother where I came from. She told me that Mummy and Daddy loved each other and Daddy planted his seed in Mummy and 9 months later, I came out after growing in Mummy's tummy. I don't think anyone would call that biology or reproduction, but it satisfied me at 4 in a way that the stork story or any other craptacular bullshit parents tell their children couldn't have. And it was roughly accurate. What is so wrong with schools engaging in this? Engaging children in education about their bodies?

A rudimentary biology lesson is still a biology lesson. Teach it at an appropriate age is what I'm saying, not "don't teach it." We weren't told word one about either biology or reproduction until the fourth grade, and even then it was just barely comprehensible to me. That's the basis for my judgment that teaching sex-ed to first graders wouldn't accomplish much, and might even be inappropriate.

Point out to me where anyone suggested adding sex-ed to first grade curricula? My 13 year olds weren't stunted, they were victims of parental negligence in my view. Also, point out to me how teaching children about sex in school is promoting specific attitudes toward sex, anymore than teaching them about history is promoting specific attitudes toward history. I don't think anyone is saying we should encourage little children to have sex. What people are suggesting is that we don't leave sex education up to parents who are obviously incapable or unwilling to educate their children.

I don't feel like pointing anything out, sorry. It's not uncommon to hear people advocate for more pro-sex or "sex-positive" sex education. Abstinence-only is sometimes called a sex-negative approach. Again, I'm not an expert on the topic and I don't much care, but the idea that kids are growing up detesting their bodies because they aren't taught sex-ed at a young enough age seems strange to me.

How do you expect children to be corrected of their delusions if not in a classroom, a (mostly) bias free zone? How do you expect people to become aware of the children's delusions unless we teach them explicitly the facts? Giving children some understanding of their bodies from an early age (we do teach small children about arms and legs and eyes and hands and what they are used for from first grade - why not penises and vaginas?) is not tantamount to advocating sex. It simply demystifies the subject and teaches children that these are body parts, not something horrible and disgusting.

I never said sex-ed meant advocating sex. The idea that kids are going to think their bodies are "horrible and disgusting" if you don't get to them early enough is the bit that I find dubious.

Um, yeah, from the moment they need to pay lunch money, they have a use for Mathematics...Honestly, lol...

Please stop with the "lol." I'm trying to take you seriously but that's hard when you make an apparently serious point and then laugh out loud.

Do we teach children arithmetic in little school so they can pay for lunch? Of course we don't, we teach it to them because the basics are necessary to understand more complicated concepts which come later. We teach them what is within their capacity, because it develops their capacity. And when their capacity is greater by that process, and by the growth of their brains, they can learn more difficult and abstract mathematics.

If we leave it to parents to educate their children on sex matters, up to the age of puberty as you suggest, we put the children who don't get told in the position of sixth-graders who can't count. You're making them the kid who holds up the class, an embarassing role made all the worse by this subject being "special" -- arcane knowledge the adults tried to keep from you. To not know it is to be not one of the cool kids.

They're basically getting special treatment because their education is retarded -- or to be more blunt about it, their parents have retarded them for fuck knows what reason.

"They aren't going to do it yet so they don't need to know" is a really oppressive view of education. Instead of education which is driven by and enhanced by curiosity, you would have education on the basis of a need to know.


You got me friend, I thought it was pretty dumb myself....

It was a tactical mistake. No more. We're barely out of the opening game yet my friend.

True, but why are you sticking children behind the wheel of a car when they dont have the capacity to drive said vehicle?


What? I'm doing the opposite. I'm trying to give them the capacity to drive before getting behind the wheel is an option.

Perhaps we should drop the analogy. I admit it was a bad one.

Not to mention, your never going to have to cross two people having sex, and even if you did, there's no eminent danger of one of the two killing you, its a ludicrous example...

It's a difficult analogy. But yes, sometimes you have to "cross" two people who are having sex. Sexual rivalry being a pretty strong and ill-recognized thing, you could well get hurt or even killed.

When I was 4 I asked my mother where I came from. She told me that Mummy and Daddy loved each other and Daddy planted his seed in Mummy and 9 months later, I came out after growing in Mummy's tummy. I don't think anyone would call that biology or reproduction, but it satisfied me at 4 in a way that the stork story or any other craptacular bullshit parents tell their children couldn't have.

I, on the other hand, would have been terrified by the image of my father using a garden spade to dig a hole in my mothers stomach and plant some mysterious "seed" in her to grow. I also would have been a hell of a lot more worried about swallowed watermelon seeds than I was by the prospect of just watermelons growing in my stomach.

No, what you are thinking of is "bullshit", not "facts." Bullshit is a matter of perspective. Facts are facts. So, you see, if you just want to play with bullshit, you can argue over whether embryos are persons. But if you want to talk about facts, then embryos are not persons because they have none of the features that qualify a thing to be a "person."


Stop making me play devils advocate, I hate having to file down my horns afterwords!

The feature that is being used to qualify someone as a person is the fact that they have human DNA. The argument about drops of blood is usually answered by the fact that left alone the embryo/fetus will develop into a fully functional human whereas a drop of blood will not do so unless drastic measures are taken.

/devils advocate. Time to go file my damn horns down.

Stop making me play devils advocate, I hate having to file down my horns afterwords!

The feature that is being used to qualify someone as a person is the fact that they have human DNA. The argument about drops of blood is usually answered by the fact that left alone the embryo/fetus will develop into a fully functional human whereas a drop of blood will not do so unless drastic measures are taken.

/devils advocate. Time to go file my damn horns down.

"Afterwords" is rather cute. The rest is swill.

"Left alone" the hell. If an embryo or fetus is left alone it rots.

In fact, if a new born baby is left alone it wriggles, cries, pisses itself, wriggles and cries some more ... and rots.

If a full-grown adult like you or I is left alone, it complains loudly, stamps around looking for someone to blame, sits down complaining and looking for someone to blame, decides to write it's memoirs, crawls around looking for a pen ... and rots.


The kind of life which can survive on rocks and sunlight, without reliance on any other life, is so weird and so distant from us on the evolutionary tree, even the Devil wouldn't bring them to his defence.

"Left alone" the hell. If an embryo or fetus is left alone it rots.

This is why embryos and fetuses..fetii...foetal...foe...those things need something.

They need Tony Robbins "The Ultimate Edge", now available on CD's, DVD's, MP3s, and intra-uterine friendly dildisks (applet and lube required).

Watch as Tony Robbins give these (eventual) children the motivation, the triggers, the techniques, and tools that have made him a master motivational speaker and peak performance coach!

Tony Robbins! Put him in your vadge today!

Tony Robbins! Put him in your vadge today!

*snrrk*

*snrrk*

The censorship-bot wouldn't let me say "****".

At what age, out of curiosity, does NSG think sex education should start?

8, teach them before puberty and in conjunction with other measures, make contaception free in schools and hospitals to all, stop immediatley opt outs from sex ed (contraception teaching) in all schools, in state and private sectors

p.s. last one may only be an issue in the UK, i dont know if its an issue in the US or if its done already.

Thank you, Glorious Freedonia, I will. The truth about abortion is that it is a necessary evil if our little blue home is to survive. Not just for the obligatory reason of the predicted max human population being 10 billion, but for societal success as well. In the 1980s, the crimerate by the turn of the century was predicted to be somewhere between a Robocop movie and that anarchist society in Doomsday, but, less than ten years after the doom and gloom predictions of Bush Sr, and the early Clinton administration, youth crime rates cut themselves in half inside of the decade. What changed? Twenty so years before the drop, Roe v. Wade was passed, and abortion was brought out of back allies and into doctors offices. That caused lots of people who were statistically predispositioned to crime not to be born. This is one of the hundreds of cast iron examples of the brutal, cruel necessety of abortion, and one that calls for a more comprehensive eugenics program in the states.

I call bullshit.

Part of what happened in the early 1990s was that various authorities started responding to the crime problem in their own various ways; in New York, for instance, you had Mayor Giuliani and his crack down on minor crime. The broken windows approach became far more popular internationally in that period, and that had an impact on crime; particularly youth crime where it is mostly petty.

Also, remember that the 1980s was a terrible decade economically; you came out of the oil shocks and then governments globally came to the realisation that Keynesian economics just wasn't working, and that caused a massive structural change with masses of unemployment resulting. By the opening years of the Clinton Presidency, things were finally turning around and the unemployment rate was finally decreasing. More people working = less people committing crime.

Wikipedia also comments about the crack cocaine epidemic coming to an end; and that could very well be a further plausible explanation. In New Zealand, we have had a spike in violent crime in the last decade, and that has coincided with the 'P' epidemic.

One of my baby books was the book Where Did I Come From. It has (cartoon) pictures of nude men and women, provides the names for their sex organs and their secondary sex characteristics, explains the basic mechanics of sex (vagina around penis etc), explains orgasm, describes sperm and eggs in a rudimentary manner, and then walks through the entire pregnancy step by step.

I don't remember when I got this book, but I know that by the time I started kindergarten I could recite most of it from memory.

People claim that kids can't understand sex ed at young ages, and, frankly, that's a pile of crap. I understood just fine. I was not a child prodigy. Kids can understand all the important information by the time they're in kindergarten, and there's no reason not to teach them. If only as a SAFETY issue. Teach them about their own bodies, and they'll be a lot better equipped to articulate it if something bad happens. Whether that is somebody touching them inappropriately, or an injury or infection somewhere, or whatever else. Give kids the words to use and let them understand their own bodies. They can handle it.

And to respond to the OP:

One of the most annoying lies I hear repeated all the time is that SEX is to blame for abortion rates. If only we could stop people from fucking somehow! If only kids could be abstinent!

Bullcrap.

You're never, ever going to prevent sex, so stop trying. Seriously, give up. Never, in the history of our species, has there ever been a time when people successfully stopped sex. You won't do it. You're really REALLY not ever going to stop teens from fucking. Not ever. You can absolutely get teens to lie to you and tell you they won't fuck, of course, but that's not going to have anything to do with the reality. Which is that yes, they're fucking, they've been fucking for years.

Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because they cannot remain pregnant without facing serious bodily harm. That is why abortion happens. So if you want to reduce abortion rates, THOSE are the things you need to focus on.

Help ensure that women only become pregnant when they want to become pregnant. Help women who want to be pregnant have healthy, safe pregnancies. That's how you "stop" abortion.

Anything else is just sex-phobia people freaking out and demanding that we all give them attention.

This is why embryos and fetuses..fetii...foetal...foe...those things need something.

They need Tony Robbins "The Ultimate Edge", now available on CD's, DVD's, MP3s, and intra-uterine friendly dildisks (applet and lube required).

Watch as Tony Robbins give these (eventual) children the motivation, the triggers, the techniques, and tools that have made him a master motivational speaker and peak performance coach!

Tony Robbins! Put him in your vadge today!

Tony Robbins HUNGRY!

Thank you, Glorious Freedonia, I will. The truth about abortion is that it is a necessary evil if our little blue home is to survive. Not just for the obligatory reason of the predicted max human population being 10 billion, but for societal success as well. In the 1980s, the crimerate by the turn of the century was predicted to be somewhere between a Robocop movie and that anarchist society in Doomsday, but, less than ten years after the doom and gloom predictions of Bush Sr, and the early Clinton administration, youth crime rates cut themselves in half inside of the decade. What changed? Twenty so years before the drop, Roe v. Wade was passed, and abortion was brought out of back allies and into doctors offices. That caused lots of people who were statistically predispositioned to crime not to be born. This is one of the hundreds of cast iron examples of the brutal, cruel necessety of abortion, and one that calls for a more comprehensive eugenics program in the states.

It does not sound brutal or cruel. It makes sense. However, your reference to cast iron is making me kinda hungry for the hearty breakfasts my dad used to make me in his iron skillets.

Thank you, Glorious Freedonia, I will. The truth about abortion is that it is a necessary evil if our little blue home is to survive. Not just for the obligatory reason of the predicted max human population being 10 billion, but for societal success as well. In the 1980s, the crimerate by the turn of the century was predicted to be somewhere between a Robocop movie and that anarchist society in Doomsday, but, less than ten years after the doom and gloom predictions of Bush Sr, and the early Clinton administration, youth crime rates cut themselves in half inside of the decade. What changed? Twenty so years before the drop, Roe v. Wade was passed, and abortion was brought out of back allies and into doctors offices. That caused lots of people who were statistically predispositioned to crime not to be born. This is one of the hundreds of cast iron examples of the brutal, cruel necessety of abortion, and one that calls for a more comprehensive eugenics program in the states.

It makes me slightly ill to read this, but not for the reason you probably think.

You talk about "societal success" but somehow you manage to completely focus on fetuses, even though in this case you're talking about fetuses who helpfully were not born and thus did not become criminals.

How about, just maybe, the societal impact on (brace yourselves) the 51% of the population who are ever-so-slightly impacted by abortion laws? You know, um, the female half? You know, the people who compose over half of the SOCIETY you're talking about?

What's the societal impact when women get to control their own fertility? When a girl can finish high school and go on to college instead of being a minimum-wage laborer to support the child she was forced to have? When a woman can develop her career and her individual stability FIRST and put off having babies until she's financially and psychologically capable of supporting them? When a woman isn't automatically trapped in a shitty relationship because she was forced to have his baby? Hell, what about just the impact of women not having to take maternity leave as much? There's a really lot of women out there, you know, and this little issue over whether or not they own their own bodily organs does have a teeny tiny bit of impact on how they live their lives and contribute to society.

Seriously, how can you possibly talk about the "societal impact" of this shit without talking first and foremost about women? I mean just from a pragmatic standpoint? The impact on women is, objectively speaking, the biggest impact on society, yet it gets glossed right over so people can talk about the fictional children who might or might not have been born.

That's just bizarre to a degree that leaves me queasy.

Oh please. I don't even need an ability to know that that's a lie.

No it is not a lie. Maybe you are one of the folks that does not differentiate between vaginal sex and other activities of an x rated nature. I just do not like the vagina as much as the other options is really all I am saying. Vaginas are kinda creepy to me. Might have something to do with periods and the potential of them to pop babies out of them.

It makes me slightly ill to read this, but not for the reason you probably think.

You talk about "societal success" but somehow you manage to completely focus on fetuses, even though in this case you're talking about fetuses who helpfully were not born and thus did not become criminals.

How about, just maybe, the societal impact on (brace yourselves) the 51% of the population who are ever-so-slightly impacted by abortion laws? You know, um, the female half? You know, the people who compose over half of the SOCIETY you're talking about?

What's the societal impact when women get to control their own fertility? When a girl can finish high school and go on to college instead of being a minimum-wage laborer to support the child she was forced to have? When a woman can develop her career and her individual stability FIRST and put off having babies until she's financially and psychologically capable of supporting them? When a woman isn't automatically trapped in a shitty relationship because she was forced to have his baby? Hell, what about just the impact of women not having to take maternity leave as much? There's a really lot of women out there, you know, and this little issue over whether or not they own their own bodily organs does have a teeny tiny bit of impact on how they live their lives and contribute to society.

Seriously, how can you possibly talk about the "societal impact" of this shit without talking first and foremost about women? I mean just from a pragmatic standpoint? The impact on women is, objectively speaking, the biggest impact on society, yet it gets glossed right over so people can talk about the fictional children who might or might not have been born.

That's just bizarre to a degree that leaves me queasy.

You might be reading too much into his post. He basically said abortions helped make society better. I did not get the sense that he was talking only about men.

You might be reading too much into his post. He basically said abortions helped make society better. I did not get the sense that he was talking only about men.
I never said he was talking about men.

No it is not a lie. Maybe you are one of the folks that does not differentiate between vaginal sex and other activities of an x rated nature. I just do not like the vagina as much as the other options is really all I am saying. Vaginas are kinda creepy to me. Might have something to do with periods and the potential of them to pop babies out of them.
My cousin came home from grade school one day and announced that she was going to be a lesbian. Seeing as how she hadn't yet hit puberty, we were all somewhat surprised. We asked her what made her conclude she was lesbian.

She replied that she'd had sex ed that day and learned that boys pee out of the same tube that they use for sex. She found this gross and concluded that penises were just not worth her time.

We tried to reassure her and let her know that there was no need for her to decide anything about her sexuality at such a young age, but her mom kept waving at us and mouthing "SHUT UP." I guess it would make life a lot simpler if your young daughter decided to stay away from penises of her own accord...:P

And to respond to the OP:

One of the most annoying lies I hear repeated all the time is that SEX is to blame for abortion rates. If only we could stop people from fucking somehow! If only kids could be abstinent!

Bullcrap.

You're never, ever going to prevent sex, so stop trying. Seriously, give up. Never, in the history of our species, has there ever been a time when people successfully stopped sex. You won't do it. You're really REALLY not ever going to stop teens from fucking. Not ever. You can absolutely get teens to lie to you and tell you they won't fuck, of course, but that's not going to have anything to do with the reality. Which is that yes, they're fucking, they've been fucking for years.

Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because they cannot remain pregnant without facing serious bodily harm. That is why abortion happens. So if you want to reduce abortion rates, THOSE are the things you need to focus on.

Help ensure that women only become pregnant when they want to become pregnant. Help women who want to be pregnant have healthy, safe pregnancies. That's how you "stop" abortion.

Anything else is just sex-phobia people freaking out and demanding that we all give them attention.

Nice post.

I never said he was talking about men.

Ok. Then I am not really sure what got you worked up. He said that abortions were good for society. You seemed to say he was not sensitive to women or something.

There might be some real truth to what Belkaros said. I am 31 and the grade ahead of me was full of morons. My grade was full of bright people (excluding me of course) at the time a friend of mine speculated that roe v. wade might have had something to do with it. Also, a teacher was talking about it and said that there was a movement in the 1970s to not have kids because the future was going to suck because of overpopulation and pollution and stuff.

Ok. Then I am not really sure what got you worked up. He said that abortions were good for society. You seemed to say he was not sensitive to women or something.
No, my post had fuckall to do with being "sensitive to women." Indeed, my entire point was that even if you don't have any personal feelings about women, even if you don't particularly LIKE women, even if you think feminism is a pile of crap, you still should talk about women first and foremost when you talk about the societal impact of abortion, simply because that is what is the most objectively significant.

The fictional children who might or might not be born and might or might not become criminals some day are really only a very tiny part of the societal impact. The relevance of those potential children is absolutely dwarfed by the societal impact of reproductive freedom for women.

If you want to discuss the societal impact of abortion from a purely pragmatic standpoint, then the first thing you should be talking about is how the social structure, political landscape, and national economy will be impacted by women having the power to control their own fertility. Women are the majority of your population. It's a pure numbers game and has buggerall to do with "sensitivity."

My cousin came home from grade school one day and announced that she was going to be a lesbian. Seeing as how she hadn't yet hit puberty, we were all somewhat surprised. We asked her what made her conclude she was lesbian.

She replied that she'd had sex ed that day and learned that boys pee out of the same tube that they use for sex. She found this gross and concluded that penises were just not worth her time.

We tried to reassure her and let her know that there was no need for her to decide anything about her sexuality at such a young age, but her mom kept waving at us and mouthing "SHUT UP." I guess it would make life a lot simpler if your young daughter decided to stay away from penises of her own accord...:P

I am not a parent but I never understood the idea of wanting your children not to engage in x rated activities. Parents should want their children to be happy and I dont know about you but when I was a teenager and a chick made me orgasm I was pretty happy.

No, my post had fuckall to do with being "sensitive to women." Indeed, my entire point was that even if you don't have any personal feelings about women, even if you don't particularly LIKE women, even if you think feminism is a pile of crap, you still should talk about women first and foremost when you talk about the societal impact of abortion, simply because that is what is the most objectively significant.

The fictional children who might or might not be born and might or might not become criminals some day are really only a very tiny part of the societal impact. The relevance of those potential children is absolutely dwarfed by the societal impact of reproductive freedom for women.

If you want to discuss the societal impact of abortion from a purely pragmatic standpoint, then the first thing you should be talking about is how the social structure, political landscape, and national economy will be impacted by women having the power to control their own fertility. Women are the majority of your population. It's a pure numbers game and has buggerall to do with "sensitivity."

It sounds like you are approaching this from a feminist bias. I approach everything from an environmentalist bias so the first thing that I think of is "Is abortion good for the environment?".

Since I am not a feminist, "sensitivity towards women" (I use tha tterm loosely and probably inaccurately to mean "the feminist viewpoint") is not the first thought to come up on the mental radar. If abortion was good for the environment but led to increased crime Iwould still support it.

I bet that it does lead to crime because dumbassed women keep babies that should have been aborted or adopted because the mom is too young, dumb, or whatever. Shitty family structures raise shitty kids and this increases the number of criminals out there. Loving strong families raise good kids. Thisis an added benefit of abortion.

If single women are able to use abortion to not have kids that is another benefit. Single women with no kids make much better wife candidates than some women with a baby and a baby daddy out there in ghettosville. I want a wife who did not come with a kid and who had a good education. I did not want to marry some pro-life skank with twisted family values that worships the idol of pro-life at the expense of the strength of the family. I also wanted a wife who could add economically to my future family and that is tough to do when she has had to devote resources to the kid instead of her own wealth and education and will have to do so in the future.

Boy I have ranted so long I kinda forget the point I was trying to make. In conclusion, abortion is good for society. There are many valid perspectives on why it primarily beneficial. The most important thing is that it is undoubtedly good for society and the pro-lifers can go and piss up a rope.

It sounds like you are approaching this from a feminist bias. I approach everything from an environmentalist bias so the first thing that I think of is "Is abortion good for the environment?".

Since I am not a feminist, "sensitivity towards women" (I use tha tterm loosely and probably inaccurately to mean "the feminist viewpoint") is not the first thought to come up on the mental radar. If abortion was good for the environment but led to increased crime Iwould still support it.

I bet that it does lead to crime because dumbassed women keep babies that should have been aborted or adopted because the mom is too young, dumb, or whatever. Shitty family structures raise shitty kids and this increases the number of criminals out there. Loving strong families raise good kids. Thisis an added benefit of abortion.

If single women are able to use abortion to not have kids that is another benefit. Single women with no kids make much better wife candidates than some women with a baby and a baby daddy out there in ghettosville. I want a wife who did not come with a kid and who had a good education. I did not want to marry some pro-life skank with twisted family values that worships the idol of pro-life at the expense of the strength of the family. I also wanted a wife who could add economically to my future family and that is tough to do when she has had to devote resources to the kid instead of her own wealth and education and will have to do so in the future.

Boy I have ranted so long I kinda forget the point I was trying to make. In conclusion, abortion is good for society. There are many valid perspectives on why it primarily beneficial. The most important thing is that it is undoubtedly good for society and the pro-lifers can go and piss up a rope.

Christ on a stick, 'dumbass women', 'skank', 'wife who could add economically to my family',

One doesn't need to be a feminist, I guess men who sleep around are 'manly', 'studs', 'primary providers',

Oy.

Christ on a stick, 'dumbass women', 'skank', 'wife who could add economically to my family',

One doesn't need to be a feminist, I guess men who sleep around are 'manly', 'studs', 'primary providers',

Oy.

What does this have to do with womanizers? There is nothing wrong with choosing a wife who did not have chidlren out of wedlock or who is intelligent and educated with a decent job. What is your problem?

Go lie down and have an abortion. Apparently, they're a fun way for women to "avoid" responsibility of their actions.
You mean I could get an abortion and that would let me off the hook for my rent and bills? Yay! *runs right out and makes that appointment*

Stop making me play devils advocate, I hate having to file down my horns afterwords!

The feature that is being used to qualify someone as a person is the fact that they have human DNA. The argument about drops of blood is usually answered by the fact that left alone the embryo/fetus will develop into a fully functional human whereas a drop of blood will not do so unless drastic measures are taken.

/devils advocate. Time to go file my damn horns down.
The problem with people who play devil's advocate on NSG is that reasonable, rational people who can see both sides of an issue cannot argue the other side convincingly because they can see what bullshit it is -- and apparently, they just can't get past that. Maybe if we were professionals, like trial lawyers actually in a court or something, but here on NSG, it just doesn't work.

So, therefore, as you know, tumors also have human DNA and consist of live cells, yet we kill them every chance we get and nobody screams "murder" or "person" about that. So much for human DNA being the measure of personhood.

Also, the majority of conceptions -- (from memory, which may be faulty) up to as much as 75% of them -- will auto-abort before the woman even realizes an egg has been fertilized. They fail to implant on the uterine wall, most of the time. Or the woman's body rejects the developing conceptus for some other reason, or no reason. Often the woman won't even miss a period, depending on when she conceived. So much for the "left to its own devices, an embryo will develop into a human being" argument. The odds are actually stacked against that.

Finally, if we are going to claim an embryo is a person NOW because it might become one in the future, then we may as well claim that an embryo is a corpse NOW because it definitely will dead someday in the future. If tomorrow is today, then dead tomorrow is dead today -- abortion here we come. So much for the argument on the grounds of potential.

You mean I could get an abortion and that would let me off the hook for my rent and bills? Yay! *runs right out and makes that appointment*

Yeah I want one too and I am a man!

And to respond to the OP:

One of the most annoying lies I hear repeated all the time is that SEX is to blame for abortion rates. If only we could stop people from fucking somehow! If only kids could be abstinent!

Bullcrap.

You're never, ever going to prevent sex, so stop trying. Seriously, give up. Never, in the history of our species, has there ever been a time when people successfully stopped sex. You won't do it. You're really REALLY not ever going to stop teens from fucking. Not ever. You can absolutely get teens to lie to you and tell you they won't fuck, of course, but that's not going to have anything to do with the reality. Which is that yes, they're fucking, they've been fucking for years.

Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because they cannot remain pregnant without facing serious bodily harm. That is why abortion happens. So if you want to reduce abortion rates, THOSE are the things you need to focus on.

Help ensure that women only become pregnant when they want to become pregnant. Help women who want to be pregnant have healthy, safe pregnancies. That's how you "stop" abortion.

Anything else is just sex-phobia people freaking out and demanding that we all give them attention.
Bristol Palin agrees. And she should know, considering her experience with the matter.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/

<snip>

Seriously, how can you possibly talk about the "societal impact" of this shit without talking first and foremost about women? I mean just from a pragmatic standpoint? The impact on women is, objectively speaking, the biggest impact on society, yet it gets glossed right over so people can talk about the fictional children who might or might not have been born.

That's just bizarre to a degree that leaves me queasy.
Well, duh, Bottle. Women are just "vessels." When you talk about cooking, do you spend much time thinking about the impact of the food on the Tupperware? Seriously. Feminists talk about females as if we were people. How does such a notion even get into our fuzzy little feminine heads? :rolleyes:

I think that that would be a more personal, parental decision though, from a Public schooling approach, we can scientifically prove that puberty begins at around 9-10 for the average child, and therefore the state would then be able to go in and educate the child if the parent hasnt...

If they havent hit puberty yet, then it would seem to me that it is up to the parent to decide whether they should know about sex or not, considering they havent developed the necessary level of equipment to do said act...

If you wait until they actually hit puberty to explain puberty to them, don't you think the changes will come as a bit of a shock? (let's not forget that part of sex education is "this is what happens to your body during puberty")

What does this have to do with womanizers? There is nothing wrong with choosing a wife who did not have chidlren out of wedlock or who is intelligent and educated with a decent job. What is your problem?

Um. Part of the problem could be your use of sexist and demeaning language. :eek:

It sounds like you are approaching this from a feminist bias. I approach everything from an environmentalist bias so the first thing that I think of is "Is abortion good for the environment?".

Basically, your first sentence let me know that not only did you not read anything I posted, but you don't plan to.

So, I'll afford you the same courtesy.

Instead, I'll post about what I assume that you must have said, seeing as how I'm going to decide you've got a racist bias. I didn't read your post, of course, but your first sentence definitely indicates that you're a sexist, and in my experience most sexists are also racist, so I'm comfortable leaping to conclusions and totally ignoring anything you might or might not say on the subject.

As a non-racist, I reject your opinion that abortion is good because it kills black people who would go commit crimes. I also reject your opinion that black people are less fiscally responsible and that encouraging black women to abort their pregnancies will help us balance the budget.

Tra-la!

The only reform that we need in abortion policy is the achievement of equal rights to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy to the two sexes. If a man does not want a kid he should be able to let the woman know about it and if she brings the child to term his consent to adoption is automatic and he should have no rights or obligations to the child.

That isn't "equal rights to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy." The man never even has to endure the pregnancy.

What you're talking about is giving men a right that women don't have - the right to walk away from a child.

So, therefore, as you know, tumors also have human DNA and consist of live cells, yet we kill them every chance we get and nobody screams "murder" or "person" about that. So much for human DNA being the measure of personhood.

You know what else has human DNA?

A human corpse.


Finally, if we are going to claim an embryo is a person NOW because it might become one in the future, then we may as well claim that an embryo is a corpse NOW because it definitely will dead someday in the future. If tomorrow is today, then dead tomorrow is dead today -- abortion here we come. So much for the argument on the grounds of potential.
"Unborn baby"? No, my friends. It's an UN-DEAD baby.

That's actually a compelling argument against abortion, now that I think of it, because there's no fucking way I want to risk pissing off zombie infants. Imagine the teething...O.o

Basically, your first sentence let me know that not only did you not read anything I posted, but you don't plan to.

So, I'll afford you the same courtesy.

Instead, I'll post about what I assume that you must have said, seeing as how I'm going to decide you've got a racist bias. I didn't read your post, of course, but your first sentence definitely indicates that you're a sexist, and in my experience most sexists are also racist, so I'm comfortable leaping to conclusions and totally ignoring anything you might or might not say on the subject.

As a non-racist, I reject your opinion that abortion is good because it kills black people who would go commit crimes. I also reject your opinion that black people are less fiscally responsible and that encouraging black women to abort their pregnancies will help us balance the budget.

Tra-la!

My head is spinning. I read what you posted. Look, the thing is that an analysis of abortion does not need to begin with some kind of feminist self actualization or whatever the vague feel-good psychobabble buzzword of the day is. It could begin, as did Belkaros' discussion, with the importance of abortion for the environment.

I am probably being a little hard on feminism here but please look past it to see the appeal to open mindedness that I am bringing to light here.

That isn't "equal rights to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy." The man never even has to endure the pregnancy.

What you're talking about is giving men a right that women don't have - the right to walk away from a child.

Women do have that right in the form of getting an abortion of a baby that they do not want to have. You are splitting hairs otherwise in a sexist effort to give women more reproductive rights than men have.

Um. Part of the problem could be your use of sexist and demeaning language. :eek:

I am not sexist! It is not demeaning to call someone what they are. Calling someone a dumbass has nothing to do with their gender. And you have to admit that having a child out of wedlock and deciding to raise it on your own espescially at a tender young age is a rather trashy and therefore skanky thing to do.

Women do have that right in the form of getting an abortion of a baby that they do not want to have. You are splitting hairs otherwise in a sexist effort to give women more reproductive rights than men have.

you're still on this shit?

Women do have that right in the form of getting an abortion of a baby that they do not want to have. You are splitting hairs otherwise in a sexist effort to give women more reproductive rights than men have.

No she fucking well is not.

It's this simple. Both men and women have the right to pull out of the reproductive process at any time. If they do not, then they both have an obligation to support the child.

It's just that a woman's part in the reproductive process involves 9 months as a human incubator, and a man's does not.

If you, as a man, do not want to have to support a child, you can refuse to engage in the reproductive process, or use contraception to prevent a pregnancy. Once you have finished your part, the decision is out of your hands - you consent to a child. If that child is then carried to term, you are obligated to help support it.

Women do have that right in the form of getting an abortion of a baby that they do not want to have. You are splitting hairs otherwise in a sexist effort to give women more reproductive rights than men have.

Not really. A man's reproductive rights end post-coitus unless he finds a way to actually carry the pregnancy to term.

No she fucking well is not.

It's this simple. Both men and women have the right to pull out of the reproductive process at any time. If they do not, then they both have an obligation to support the child.

It's just that a woman's part in the reproductive process involves 9 months as a human incubator, and a man's does not.

If you, as a man, do not want to have to support a child, you can refuse to engage in the reproductive process, or use contraception to prevent a pregnancy. Once you have finished your part, the decision is out of your hands - you consent to a child. If that child is then carried to term, you are obligated to help support it.

Sex does not equal consent to have a child! Sex is consent to have sex. Anything more than that is an oppressive inference.

If a man puts a woman on notice that he will not support her baby, that is a decision that should be respected and if she wants to go on and keep it then he should have no obligations towards it. This is simple fairness.

Women do have that right in the form of getting an abortion of a baby that they do not want to have. You are splitting hairs otherwise in a sexist effort to give women more reproductive rights than men have.

"Splitting hairs"?

You, sir, are either not understanding the situation or are being disingenuous.

If a child is born, the child has a right to support from both parents. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of the woman.

If a child is not born, obviously neither parent has any obligation to support it.

Both men and women have the right to control their own bodies -- whether or not they are pregnant.

Where is the inequality?

If a man puts a woman on notice that he will not support her baby, that is a decision that should be respected and if she wants to go on and keep it then he should have no obligations towards it. This is simple fairness.

It is unfair TO THE CHILD!!!!!

Not really. A man's reproductive rights end post-coitus unless he finds a way to actually carry the pregnancy to term.

This is not fair to men. It is oppressive. Some day we will progress beyond this as a society and historians will look at your views as though you were a monster.

My objection was that six-year-olds aren't going to understand lessons about biology and reproduction.

I did. Obviously not to the same extent that I do now, but I had a book about it and everything.

Your stunted thirteen-year-olds aren't relevant, since they're far beyond the point that you'd ordinarily learn those types of things.

Those "stunted" 13 year-olds are all too often the norm.

It is unfair TO THE CHILD!!!!!

Well the child can just take up its problems with its irresponsible pro lifer mom now cant he?

This is not fair to men. It is oppressive. Some day we will progress beyond this as a society and historians will look at your views as though you were a monster.

The obvious absurdity of the last part of your post aside, there's nothing unfair about this.

Women can get pregnant. Men can't.

Women can choose to end a pregnancy. Men can't, because they can't get pregnant.

Neither a woman nor a man can walk away from a child once it has been born.

No inequality.

I never said sex-ed meant advocating sex. The idea that kids are going to think their bodies are "horrible and disgusting" if you don't get to them early enough is the bit that I find dubious.

The first time one of my friends got a yeast infection, she thought she was going to die, and didn't dare tell her parents about it, because it meant she was "dirty." She was utterly terrified to the point of not sleeping until it went away.

Until I was in college, I had no idea that "normal" people masturbated, and thought the impulses I had to do so were a sign that I was some sort of perverted freak.

A girl I knew slightly in elementary school got pregnant when she was twelve. The father of her child was her uncle. He told her that what he was doing couldn't possibly hurt her, but if she told her parents, they'd know she was a bad girl, so she never spoke up. She didn't even realize she was pregnant for months. She dropped out of school shortly thereafter.

Still find it dubious?

Sex does not equal consent to have a child!

You're absolutely right. It does not. Voluntarily, of your own free will, choosing to have your body participate in the reproductive process, however, does.

A man can choose to avoid the consequences of having a child by voluntarily, of his own free will, choosing to have his body stop participating in the reproductive process, up until the point his role in that process is complete.

Once that happens, no amount of pouting will roll back time.


If a man puts a woman on notice that he will not support her baby, that is a decision that should be respected and if she wants to go on and keep it then he should have no obligations towards it. This is simple fairness.

You have a skewed definition of "fairness". It's also worth noting that telling THE MOTHER that he won't support THE CHILD is rather pointless. It's not a debt he owes the mother, and she has no power or rights to discharge it.

Well the child can just take up its problems with its irresponsible pro lifer mom now cant he?

how about the child take it up with the irresponsible father who refused to support it?

I think that's a much better idea.

You're absolutely right. It does not. Voluntarily, of your own free will, choosing to have your body participate in the reproductive process, however, does.

A man can choose to avoid the consequences of having a child by voluntarily, of his own free will, choosing to have his body stop participating in the reproductive process, up until the point his role in that process is complete.

Once that happens, no amount of pouting will roll back time.

You have a skewed definition of "fairness". It's also worth noting that telling THE MOTHER that he won't support THE CHILD is rather pointless. It's not a debt he owes the mother, and she has no power or rights to discharge it.

Why should the father owe anything to the child? He did not want to have a child. He just wanted laid.

Why should the father owe anything to the child?

Because he chose to have his body participate fully in the reproductive process.

Why should the father owe anything to the child? He did not want to have a child. He just wanted laid.

Why should any parent have any obligation to any child?

Why should any parent have any obligation to any child?

Because a large number of wandering orphans is bad for society in general?

...do I win? :D

Why should the father owe anything to the child?

Because he chose to have his body participate fully in the reproductive process.

He just wanted to get laid.

And by doing so, he chose to have his body participate fully in the reproductive process.

Sex does not equal consent to have a child! Sex is consent to have sex. Anything more than that is an oppressive inference.

In which case, I thank you for admitting that abortion is perfectly fine.

Unfortunately, your argument is flawed. Either party who engages in the reproductive process has the right to end their engagement at any time. If they do not, they accept the consequences of their acts - that is, they accept a child may/will result.

For a man, this means that if they do not want a child, they must not engage in the reproductive process. They can do this in several ways - they can refuse to have sex, they can use contraception, etc. However, once they have done their part - fertilised the woman - they have accepted the consequences - having a child.

For a woman, their part in the reproductive process takes an extra nine months, and so they can end it at a later stage than a man. However, if they don't pull out (so to speak) they also accept the responsibility of having a child.

At no stage can either party force the actions of the other. If the man doesn't want a child, it is his responsibility, and his responsibility alone, to make sure that he does not fertilise the woman. If he does, then he has consented to have a child. It's as simple as that.


If a man puts a woman on notice that he will not support her baby, that is a decision that should be respected and if she wants to go on and keep it then he should have no obligations towards it. This is simple fairness.

Now this is just a stupidly bad idea. Both parents bear equal responsibility for bringing the child into the world, and so both parents have the responsibility to support that child. That is fairness.

how about the child take it up with the irresponsible father who refused to support it?

I think that's a much better idea.

No, because Mom knew that Dad would not be there to help her and she sacrificed the child's welfare before the idol of pro-life values. The child can grow up to realize that being a pro-lifer who does not adopt out is cruel and hopefully the cycle will end and we will no longer have insane state legislatures enacting stupid anti-abortion laws.

Because he chose to have his body participate fully in the reproductive process.



And by doing so, he chose to have his body participate fully in the reproductive process.

No. He simply wanted to release his sexual urge. If he wanted to do the reproduction thing he would not have a problem with raising the kid.

In which case, I thank you for admitting that abortion is perfectly fine.

Unfortunately, your argument is flawed. Either party who engages in the reproductive process has the right to end their engagement at any time. If they do not, they accept the consequences of their acts - that is, they accept a child may/will result.

For a man, this means that if they do not want a child, they must not engage in the reproductive process. They can do this in several ways - they can refuse to have sex, they can use contraception, etc. However, once they have done their part - fertilised the woman - they have accepted the consequences - having a child.

For a woman, their part in the reproductive process takes an extra nine months, and so they can end it at a later stage than a man. However, if they don't pull out (so to speak) they also accept the responsibility of having a child.

At no stage can either party force the actions of the other. If the man doesn't want a child, it is his responsibility, and his responsibility alone, to make sure that he does not fertilise the woman. If he does, then he has consented to have a child. It's as simple as that.



Now this is just a stupidly bad idea. Both parents bear equal responsibility for bringing the child into the world, and so both parents have the responsibility to support that child. That is fairness.

These views seem terribly oppressive of a man's reproductive rights.

No. He simply wanted to release his sexual urge. If he wanted to do the reproduction thing he would not have a problem with raising the kid.

it doesn't matter what he wanted to happen. What matters is what he chose to happen. If he wanted to "release his sexual urge" without running the risk that one of his little swimmers would get through, he should have jerked off into a tissue or asked her to blow him.

You rolls your dices, you takes your chances. It was his choice to run the risk.

Why should any parent have any obligation to any child?

If you want to have a particular child you have the duty to take care of it. If you do not want a particular child there should be no requirement for you to do anything other than turn the kid over to some third party such as the government or an orphanage so that the kid can have a chance to have parents that want him.

These views seem terribly oppressive of a man's reproductive rights.

1. "a man's reproductive rights" being a euphamism for being able to walk away from responsibility for a born child -- a "right" neither parent has.

2. Your views seem terribly oppressive and dismissive of the rights of children.

These views seem terribly oppressive of a man's reproductive rights.

the only thing that would be "oppressive to to a man's reproductive rights" is to deny him the right to exercise, or not exercise, his right to choose to engage in the reproductive process.

That's what "reproductive rights" means. The choice whether your body will engage in a reproductive process. Since it doesn't limit it, it's in no way oppressive.

No. He simply wanted to release his sexual urge. If he wanted to do the reproduction thing he would not have a problem with raising the kid.

He has the right to not do the 'reproduction thing' by not fully carrying out his role in it. If he knocks up a woman, he has fully carried out his role, and therefore accepts a possible child as a result.

If he just wants to 'release his sexual urge' he can use a condom, get a blowjob, or masturbate.

Simple, ain't it?

These views seem terribly oppressive of a man's reproductive rights.

On the contrary (as a man) my views exactly reflect a man's reproductive rights. And a woman's, for that matter. In both cases, they can either not engage in the process, or accept the child that may result. The fact that biology has not made their roles identical is not my fault.

The man has the right to engage in the reproductive process or not. If he chooses to engage in it, he must accept the consequences of it. It really is incredibly simple.

Because he chose to have his body participate fully in the reproductive process.



And by doing so, he chose to have his body participate fully in the reproductive process.

I accidentally hit my wife last night in bed because she was lying next to me and I reached past her in the dark to grab a tissue. She consented to lay down next to me. I did not choose to hit her. But sometimes shit happens and when you get a girl pregnant and she does not abort it or agree to adopt it out that is her problem. Just as I did not consent to hit my wife, so to should I not be liable for some baby of some girlfriend that gets knocked up when I dont want her to keep the resulting bastard.

I accidentally hit my wife last night in bed because she was lying next to me and I reached past her in the dark to grab a tissue. She consented to lay down next to me. I did not choose to hit her. But sometimes shit happens and when you get a girl pregnant and she does not abort it or agree to adopt it out that is her problem. Just as I did not consent to hit my wife, so to should I not be liable for some baby of some girlfriend that gets knocked up when I dont want her to keep the resulting bastard.

Um. Are you aware that you are making no sense whatsoever?

EDIT: To clarify, for example, are you claiming men have sex with women on accident?

"I did not consent to hit my wife"

EPIC!!!

I shall be using this defence in court. Her face clearly violated the rights of my fist your honour!

Abstainence only education is so basic even the special ed kids would get it. If no sex then no pregnancy or STDs. That is like saying 1+1 only math education. It is so basic that it does not matter.

These preggos know that sex causes babies and are not ignorant of it. They are just dumb. They also might be too dumb to make money and thus cant afford the contraception.

The problem isn't that some don't know it's just that some don't care. When we had an abstinance lesson at my highschool most of the kids there either ignored the lesson or called it stupid. If we teach peopl about safe sex we have a better chance of reducing std's and abortions.

I accidentally hit my wife last night in bed because she was lying next to me and I reached past her in the dark to grab a tissue. She consented to lay down next to me. I did not choose to hit her. But sometimes shit happens and when you get a girl pregnant and she does not abort it or agree to adopt it out that is her problem. Just as I did not consent to hit my wife, so to should I not be liable for some baby of some girlfriend that gets knocked up when I dont want her to keep the resulting bastard.

you did not...consent...to hit...your wife...

The fuck?

If, in your meandering and pointless "argument" you meant to say that your wife did not consent to be hit by you, then I will point out that it is a well known legal maxim that one consents to all normal and unintended contact one can expect in a situation. Thus by lying next to you, she consented to the fact that you might bump in to her.

Fail

I accidentally hit my wife last night in bed because she was lying next to me and I reached past her in the dark to grab a tissue. She consented to lay down next to me. I did not choose to hit her. But sometimes shit happens and when you get a girl pregnant and she does not abort it or agree to adopt it out that is her problem. Just as I did not consent to hit my wife, so to should I not be liable for some baby of some girlfriend that gets knocked up when I dont want her to keep the resulting bastard.

Wait....your actual analogy is that it's your wife's responsibility, not yours, if you hit her? Seriously? And you think this helps your argument?

Wait....your actual analogy is that it's your wife's responsibility, not yours, if you hit her? Seriously? And you think this helps your argument?

god DAMN it poli, why did your face get in the way of my fist? I did NOT consent to hit you!

Aw, who am I kidding, I'll always consent to hit you...

2 weeks ago I ran out of vanilla ice cream and struck my wife. Then I find out my wife's been dead for six years! Who the hell did i hit?!

* looks to see if anyone gets the reference.

god DAMN it poli, why did your face get in the way of my fist? I did NOT consent to hit you!

Aw, who am I kidding, I'll always consent to hit you...

Awwwwwwwww. :$ :p

you did not...consent...to hit...your wife...

The fuck?

If, in your meandering and pointless "argument" you meant to say that your wife did not consent to be hit by you, then I will point out that it is a well known legal maxim that one consents to all normal and unintended contact one can expect in a situation. Thus by lying next to you, she consented to the fact that you might bump in to her.

Fail

Neither my wife or I wanted her to be hit. All she wanted to do was sleep. All I wanted to do was grab a tissue. This is analogous to a couple having sex. They want fun and orgasms. Then there is a sperm-egg collision and now we have a new situation. This is analogous to when I hit my wife.

At this point the analogy kinda ends. But it somehow goes to show kinda that there is a separation between actiions and decisions. It might not be the best analogy but oh well I am not perfect.

Um. Are you aware that you are making no sense whatsoever?

EDIT: To clarify, for example, are you claiming men have sex with women on accident?

The conception is the accident. Our sperm are not our brains. Once the sperm leaves our body it is the woman's property. What she does with it is up to her. It should be treated like abandonned property.

The conception is the accident. Our sperm are not our brains. Once the sperm leaves our body it is the woman's property. What she does with it is up to her. It should be treated like abandonned property.

No. If you let the sperm leave your body and fertilise a woman, you have consented to becoming a father. If you do not wish to do this, it is your responsibility, and your responsibility only, to use contraception or to not practice vaginal sex.

I'm just going to break off here and move back to an old topic. Sex education: The problem with today's abstinence eductaion is that most teens either don't pay attention to what is going on or just blow off whatever the person is saying. Those who actually do care about what the person is saying have already decided to be abstinent. I say we promote safe sex and let the religious organizations and parents talk to their kids about being abstinent.

No. If you let the sperm leave your body and fertilise a woman, you have consented to becoming a father. If you do not wish to do this, it is your responsibility, and your responsibility only, to use contraception or to not practice vaginal sex.

Nah. Your analysis encourages overpopulation and is therefore bad. Mine encourages less breeding which reduces overpopulation and is therefore good. Whenever you have a moral quandry it is helpful to look at the environmental impact that the approaches have and then go with the one that helps the environment and endangered species the most.

I'm just going to break off here and move back to an old topic. Sex education: The problem with today's abstinence eductaion is that most teens either don't pay attention to what is going on or just blow off whatever the person is saying. Those who actually do care about what the person is saying have already decided to be abstinent. I say we promote safe sex and let the religious organizations and parents talk to their kids about being abstinent.

Abstainence can be like a two minute conversation. No sex = no pregnancy or stds. Safe sex is pretty easy too. I think the emphasis on education should be about relationships. There are a lot of people that do not know how to be in a relationship. My proof for this is a high divorce rate.

Shitty relationship skills are the worst problems in the area of sex. We need to teach people how to be good spouses because they sure aren't learning it from their dysfunctional families.

Nah. Your analysis encourages overpopulation and is therefore bad. Mine encourages less breeding which reduces overpopulation and is therefore good. Whenever you have a moral quandry it is helpful to look at the environmental impact that the approaches have and then go with the one that helps the environment and endangered species the most.

How, exactly, does my analysis encourage overpopulation? If anything, my analysis discourages it, by encouraging men to practice safe sex in order to not end up with children they don't want.

When you have a moral quandary, looking at environmental impact is useful. But looking at equality and rights is a better place to start. My analysis gives both men and women identical rights - they both have the right to reproduce, and they both have the responsibility to support any children. Yours does not - men can shirk their responsibilities to their children. I think it is fairly obvious which is more 'moral'.

2 weeks ago I ran out of vanilla ice cream and struck my wife. Then I find out my wife's been dead for six years! Who the hell did i hit?!

* looks to see if anyone gets the reference.

Hello, I'm Wilford Brimly.

Abstainence can be like a two minute conversation. No sex = no pregnancy or stds. Safe sex is pretty easy too. I think the emphasis on education should be about relationships. There are a lot of people that do not know how to be in a relationship. My proof for this is a high divorce rate.

Shitty relationship skills are the worst problems in the area of sex. We need to teach people how to be good spouses because they sure aren't learning it from their dysfunctional families.

This is also true.

Hello, I'm Wilford Brimly.

Finally someone gets the refrences that I put out. Seriously, been waiting like a year for this.

Finally someone gets the refrences that I put out. Seriously, been waiting like a year for this.

wasnt that from family guy?

How, exactly, does my analysis encourage overpopulation? If anything, my analysis discourages it, by encouraging men to practice safe sex in order to not end up with children they don't want.

When you have a moral quandary, looking at environmental impact is useful. But looking at equality and rights is a better place to start. My analysis gives both men and women identical rights - they both have the right to reproduce, and they both have the responsibility to support any children. Yours does not - men can shirk their responsibilities to their children. I think it is fairly obvious which is more 'moral'.

Because it is easier for a woman to choose abortion when she knows that there will be no financial enabling from the man. This will encourage abortion and also there should be some pin action in the area of contraception.

Finally someone gets the refrences that I put out. Seriously, been waiting like a year for this.

Seriously? you're excited because someone got a Family Guy reference? That's your definition of obscure?

Shit son, that's a warmup.

Seriously? you're excited because someone got a Family Guy reference? That's your definition of obscure?

Shit son, that's a warmup.

Well not here but in other online stuff I made family guy and RedvsBlue references and nobody ever got them.

well not here but in other online stuff i made family guy and redvsblue references and nobody ever got them.

0101001101101111011011010110010101101111011011100110010100100000011011100110010101100101011001000111 0011001000000111010001101111001000000110011101100101011101000010000001100001001000000110001001100101 0111010001110100011001010111001000100000011010000110111101100010011000100111100100101110000011010000 1010000011010000101001000101011101100110010101101110001000000101010001001000010010010101001100100000 0110100101110011011011100010011101110100001000000111010001101000011000010111010000100000011011110110 0010011100110110001101110101011100100110010100101110001000000100000101110011001000000110010101110110 0110100101100100011001010110111001100011011001010110010000100000011000100111100100100000011110010110 1111011101010010000001110010011001010110000101100100011010010110111001100111001000000110100101110100 0010111000100000010011100110111101110111001000000110011101101111001000000110000101101110011001000010 0000011001000110111100100000011100110110111101101101011001010111010001101000011010010110111001100111 0010000001110000011100100110111101100100011101010110001101110100011010010111011001100101001000000110 01100111010101100011011010110110100001100101011000010110010000100001

Because it is easier for a woman to choose abortion when she knows that there will be no financial enabling from the man. This will encourage abortion and also there should be some pin action in the area of contraception.

This is, as TCT very neatly pointed out, about the responsibilities both parents have towards their child. When either a woman or a man carries out their full role in the reproductive process, as is their right, they also have a responsibility to the child that produces. The man cannot, after exercising his right to reproduce, shirk his responsibility to the child.

I never want to encourage abortion. Indeed, I wish that abortion were completely unnecessary - that no pregnancies were unwanted and unplanned. However, this is not possible at the moment, and abortion must therefore be legal to preserve the rights of women. This does not mean that men get to pressure women into having abortions by saying they won't support the child.

This is, as TCT very neatly pointed out, about the responsibilities both parents have towards their child. When either a woman or a man carries out their full role in the reproductive process, as is their right, they also have a responsibility to the child that produces. The man cannot, after exercising his right to reproduce, shirk his responsibility to the child.

I never want to encourage abortion. Indeed, I wish that abortion were completely unnecessary - that no pregnancies were unwanted and unplanned. However, this is not possible at the moment, and abortion must therefore be legal to preserve the rights of women. This does not mean that men get to pressure women into having abortions by saying they won't support the child.

This where we disagree. What more is there to say? I am for empowering men and helping the environment. You (and I am sure you could it nicer) want men to be disempowered at the expense of female domination. My views would lead to less unwanted children as women are financially pressured to be solely obligated for their bad decisions and therefore less population. The environment and equality loses again!

You (and I am sure you could it nicer) want men to be disempowered at the expense of female domination.

Only in the warped mind of the worst kind of mysoginist is equal rights "female domination".

This where we disagree. What more is there to say? I am for empowering men and helping the environment. You (and I am sure you could it nicer) want men to be disempowered at the expense of female domination. My views would lead to less unwanted children as women are financially pressured to be solely obligated for their bad decisions and therefore less population. The environment and equality loses again!

How are my views unequal? This should be amusing to watch you explain. In what way do I want mean disempowered and females dominating?

Edit: NA, can I sig that?

I would like to say that someone stated earlier that if given a say men might pressure a woman into having an abortion on the premesis that they may not support the child.

I however believe that if people could just show a little self control we would not even be talking about this.

How are my views unequal? This should be amusing to watch you explain. In what way do I want mean disempowered and females dominating?

Edit: NA, can I sig that?

For the reasons already discussed. You and your fellow believers use phrases like "participating in reproductive process" and such to split hairs to make it seem that if a man lets a woman give him an orgasm and one of his sperm somehow impregnates her that this is in anyway his problem if he does not want to have a kid with her. Meanwhile, she can choose to get an abortion and if she does not this is somehow his problem?

This is power inequality and it is not cool and it only encourages unwanted babies to be born that might not if the woman would be solely obligated to care for the kid.

Obviously if all unwanted children were adopted out and if there was no overpopulation problem this would be ok, but this is not the world in which we live regardless of what Rush Limbaugh might say on the matter. (RL claimed that the world is not overpopulated)

Edit: NA, can I sig that?

feel free

Only in the warped mind of the worst kind of mysoginist is equal rights "female domination".

Equal rights is not female domination (hmmm that sounds kinda sexy...) the tricky part and the part that we are arguing is how are those rights defined in a manner that makes them equal.

For the reasons already discussed. You and your fellow believers use phrases like "participating in reproductive process" and such to split hairs to make it seem that if a man lets a man give him an orgasm
What two men do in the privacy of their disgusting, deviant, homosexual lives is their own damned business.

Fucking pervs.

Equal rights is not female domination (hmmm that sounds kinda sexy...) the tricky part and the part that we are arguing is how are those rights defined in a manner that makes them equal.

No, we all here understand why the situation is already equal and you are trying to warp the situation in order to give men rights beyond that of women, under the guise of inequality. It's the same song and dance, an attempt to reclassify oneself as the "oppressed", that THEY are the ones being discriminated against.

It's the same argument racists use against affirmative action, and the same argument xenophobes use against immigration. I give you no more credit than I give them

If people would just show some restraint and keep their penis's and vagina's etc. away from each other then we would not even have to talk about abortion.

For the reasons already discussed. You and your fellow believers use phrases like "participating in reproductive process" and such to split hairs to make it seem that if a man lets a man give him an orgasm and one of his sperm somehow impregnates her that this is in anyway his problem if he does not want to have a kid with her. Meanwhile, she can choose to get an abortion and if she does not this is somehow his problem?

If a man impregnates a woman, he assumes certain responsibilities, one of which is the responsibility to help provide for the child. Why should he not be responsible for the provision of his children?

If the woman decides she does not want to have a child, she can refuse to engage in sex, use contraception, or have an abortion. Basically, at any point before birth, she can decide she does not wish to reproduce, because birth is the end of her involvement in the reproductive section. For the man, ejaculation is the end of his involvement, so he needs to decide before then if he does not wish to reproduce.

And yes, it is his problem if he impregnates her. If he doesn't want the child, it is his responsibility to ensure he doesn't impregnate her. Not hers, but his. He cannot force her to carry the child to term against her will, nor can he force her to abort the child against her will. Nor can he duck out of his responsibilities to his child.

This is power inequality and it is not cool and it only encourages unwanted babies to be born that might not if the woman would be solely obligated to care for the kid.

So it is a power inequality because men cannot force women to have abortions?

Obviously if all unwanted children were adopted out and if there was no overpopulation problem this would be ok, but this is not the world in which we live regardless of what Rush Limbaugh might say on the matter. (RL claimed that the world is not overpopulated)

Overpopulation is not something to be solved through encouraging abortion.

On the contrary (as a man) my views exactly reflect a man's reproductive rights. And a woman's, for that matter. In both cases, they can either not engage in the process, or accept the child that may result. The fact that biology has not made their roles identical is not my fault.

The man has the right to engage in the reproductive process or not. If he chooses to engage in it, he must accept the consequences of it. It really is incredibly simple.
Couldn't have said it better.

This is why the debate over "men's rights" is such crap in my eyes. Men have precisely the same rights that women have when it comes to reproduction: the right to decide how THEIR OWN BODY will participate in reproduction.

Yet there's always got to be some guy who bitches that he's being oppressed when he can't control somebody else's body, or that he's being oppressed because if he chooses to participate in reproduction then he's actually going to be expected to deal with the consequences of his choice. Pardon me while I squint as hard as possible trying to squeeze out a solitary tear of sympathy for these poor, poor oppressed men.

Women do have that right in the form of getting an abortion of a baby that they do not want to have.

If a woman gets an abortion, there is never a child to walk away from. As you said before, she is ending her pregnancy, not leaving a child unsupported.

You are splitting hairs otherwise in a sexist effort to give women more reproductive rights than men have.

Not at all. I am recognizing the fact that it is biology that is unfair, not the law.

You want to talk about unfair? Why do I have to deal with cramps and menstruation while my husband does not? When we do have children, why do I have to endure all of the physical changes and risks, while he does not?

Couldn't have said it better. <snip>

Coming from you and on this topic, I consider that the highest form of praise.

If people would just show some restraint and keep their penis's and vagina's etc. away from each other then we would not even have to talk about abortion.

Well, yes, this is fairly obviously true. If no one ever had sex again, within about a hundred years, no one would EVER talk about abortion.

Or, indeed, anything else.

Well, yes, this is fairly obviously true. If no one ever had sex again, within about a hundred years, no one would EVER talk about abortion.

Or, indeed, anything else.

dammit. once again I am outwitted by my own comments. I was of course referring to abstinence but I suppose if no one had sex ever that could work too. In fact all future children should just be clones.

For the reasons already discussed. You and your fellow believers use phrases like "participating in reproductive process" and such to split hairs to make it seem that if a man lets a man give him an orgasm and one of his sperm somehow impregnates her that this is in anyway his problem if he does not want to have a kid with her. Meanwhile, she can choose to get an abortion and if she does not this is somehow his problem?

In short?

Yes.

You get to control what your own body does, sex-wise. You do not get to control what any other person's body does, sex-wise.

You are responsible for YOUR CHOICES, sex-wise. If you choose to engage in sexual activity that could result in pregnancy, then you must take responsibility for that.

If you're worried that you might fertilize a woman who, if she became pregnant, will make a choice you don't like, then there's a very easy way to deal with that.

Don't fuck anybody who you don't trust to make the decision you'd want her to make.



This is power inequality

Only if you're about to argue that you're incapable of controling where you put your doodle.


and it is not cool and it only encourages unwanted babies to be born that might not if the woman would be solely obligated to care for the kid.

Because if a woman finds out that the biological father of her kid is a deadbeat, she won't have the baby?

Really?

What planet are you from, and how much do apartments go for?

You want to talk about unfair? Why do I have to deal with cramps and menstruation while my husband does not? When we do have children, why do I have to endure all of the physical changes and risks, while he does not?
But see, Demi, biology is unfair in that it forces women to bear 100% of the physical costs of pregnancy, and thus the only way for us to make things LEGALLY fair is to ensure that women also bear 100% of the legal and economic responsibilities for pregnancy and childbirth.

The funny thing is, though, I'd be totally okay with giving women 100% of the legal responsibilities...if they also got 100% of the legal rights. Fine, women bear 100% of the physical, emotional, legal, economic, social, and practical responsibilities for pregnancy; then they also get 100% of the legal rights to children, and men have no legal standing whatsoever with their biological children.

Yet if I propose such a thing, men get all freaked out and suddenly feel that it's very important that they have legal rights to "their" children. Sheesh. Can't make anybody happy.

No, we all here understand why the situation is already equal and you are trying to warp the situation in order to give men rights beyond that of women, under the guise of inequality. It's the same song and dance, an attempt to reclassify oneself as the "oppressed", that THEY are the ones being discriminated against.

It's the same argument racists use against affirmative action, and the same argument xenophobes use against immigration. I give you no more credit than I give them

Now you say that being against affirmative action means you are racist!!!! Affirmative action is racism we know this. I call bs on this.

Now you say that being against affirmative action means you are racist!!!! Affirmative action is racism we know this. I call bs on this.

So it's racist to hold tutoring programs in urban areas?

I suppose someone who thinks failure to give men some extra right is sexist probably would think that.

Now you say that being against affirmative action means you are racist!!!! Affirmative action is racism we know this. I call bs on this.

Would the audience please note that GF has completely abandoned the subject and our destruction of his points, to focus on a single example from a single post.

But see, Demi, biology is unfair in that it forces women to bear 100% of the physical costs of pregnancy, and thus the only way for us to make things LEGALLY fair is to ensure that women also bear 100% of the legal and economic responsibilities for pregnancy and childbirth.

The funny thing is, though, I'd be totally okay with giving women 100% of the legal responsibilities...if they also got 100% of the legal rights. Fine, women bear 100% of the physical, emotional, legal, economic, social, and practical responsibilities for pregnancy; then they also get 100% of the legal rights to children, and men have no legal standing whatsoever with their biological children.

Yet if I propose such a thing, men get all freaked out and suddenly feel that it's very important that they have legal rights to "their" children. Sheesh. Can't make anybody happy.

I agree with you except in situations where the couple is married of course.

So it's racist to hold tutoring programs in urban areas?

I suppose someone who thinks failure to give men some extra right is sexist probably would think that.

That is not even affirmative action. Affirmative action was race based preferences in highering of employees and the enrolling of students in universities and it was bad.

That is not even affirmative action. Affirmative action was race based preferences in highering of employees and the enrolling of students in universities and it was bad.

That is also not affirmative action. Affirmative action is saying "We recognise the disadvantages you have faced, and will take them into account when making a decision", be that reflective of disadvantage from race, gender, or socioeconomic status.

This is also a threadjack, and your points are still destroyed.

One of the most annoying lies I hear repeated all the time is that SEX is to blame for abortion rates. If only we could stop people from fucking somehow! If only kids could be abstinent!

How do people become pregnant in the first place? Does the stork make them pregnant?

Of course not - SEX makes them pregnant and therefore SEX is to blame for abortion rates.

You're never, ever going to prevent sex, so stop trying. Seriously, give up. Never, in the history of our species, has there ever been a time when people successfully stopped sex. You won't do it. You're really REALLY not ever going to stop teens from fucking. Not ever. You can absolutely get teens to lie to you and tell you they won't fuck, of course, but that's not going to have anything to do with the reality. Which is that yes, they're fucking, they've been fucking for years.

However, we are engaging in far more sexual activity now than we did in past years; even fifty years ago, it was unusual for people to have sexual intercourse before they were married, and if they did, they had it at a much older age than today - I doubt you would have seen thirteen year olds having sex in the 1950s; yet in this day and age, it is far more common.

I'll agree, you cannot stop sex, but at the very least, stop using abortion as a form of contraception. The statistics of the OP indicate as much; people are using it in lieu of contraception.

Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because they cannot remain pregnant without facing serious bodily harm. That is why abortion happens. So if you want to reduce abortion rates, THOSE are the things you need to focus on.

If you don't want to get pregnant, then I suggest one of two solutions

1) Use contraceptives and use them properly. Use multiple ones if you have to

OR

2) DONT HAVE SEX

Help ensure that women only become pregnant when they want to become pregnant. Help women who want to be pregnant have healthy, safe pregnancies. That's how you "stop" abortion.

Anything else is just sex-phobia people freaking out and demanding that we all give them attention.

I don't have a phobia of sex, I just see a society that has become sex crazed. It has just become sex sex sex sex sex ad infinitum. Of course, just before anyone accuses me of being anti-women, I do suggest that men should keep it in their pants as well.

Well the child can just take up its problems with its irresponsible pro lifer mom now cant he?
Or with the courts, to chase down dead-beat dad.

However, we are engaging in far more sexual activity now than we did in past years; even fifty years ago, it was unusual for people to have sexual intercourse before they were married, and if they did, they had it at a much older age than today - I doubt you would have seen thirteen year olds having sex in the 1950s; yet in this day and age, it is far more common.

Childbearing. The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000 (see chart below). Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s; they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/gr0501/gr050107f1.gif

http://z.about.com/d/parentingteens/1/0/H/brt.gif

That took me, literally, 30 seconds. This great myth that teen pregnancy is going up, is just that, a myth. A version of america that never existed.

In this day and age, with all the information in the world available, literally, at your fingertips, there is no excuse, no excuse to be patently ignorant.

That is not even affirmative action.

Yes, it is. It isn't my fault that you don't know what the term means.


Of course not - SEX makes them pregnant and therefore SEX is to blame for abortion rates.

Plenty of people have SEX and don't end up getting pregnant. It can happen even if you're careful, but you can drastically reduce the chances through EDUCATION.

However, we are engaging in far more sexual activity now than we did in past years; even fifty years ago, it was unusual for people to have sexual intercourse before they were married, and if they did, they had it at a much older age than today - I doubt you would have seen thirteen year olds having sex in the 1950s; yet in this day and age, it is far more common.

No, it really isn't. It's just more open. People aren't having sex out of wedlock any more than they ever did. We just talk about it more. The young women who do get pregnant at a young age are generally no longer sent to "visit family" until they give birth and arrange a stealth adoption and/or forced into early marriage.

I'll agree, you cannot stop sex, but at the very least, stop using abortion as a form of contraception. The statistics of the OP indicate as much; people are using it in lieu of contraception.

Sounds like a job for education - including getting rid of the programs that "educate" children by telling them that contraceptive methods don't work or that they are horribly dangerous.

If people would just show some restraint and keep their penis's and vagina's etc. away from each other then we would not even have to talk about abortion.
Bristol Palin disagrees. She has some experience with abstinence education and values, so I think she should know.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/

Bristol Palin disagrees. She has some experience with abstinence education and values, so I think she should know.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/bristol.palin.interview/

thus verifying my earlier statment that teaching abstinence in school is useless and should be replaced with safe sex teachings.

thus verifying my earlier statment that teaching abstinence in school is useless and should be replaced with safe sex teachings.
True enough and fair enough. I was only remarking on the content of that one post, taken out of the context of the rest of your statements, which I probably should not have done, or at least made clear that I was doing it.

The point I was sort of pointing towards, though, was that the idea of expecting people to exercise "restraint" and keep their penises and vaginas away from each other is not realistic -- not only is it not realistic to expect people to exercise that kind of restraint, it's not even realistic to characterize that as the best kind of restraint. If you were not making that suggestion seriously, I apologize for acting as if you were. But for those who do make that suggestion seriously, I will let it stand.

[QUOTE=Muravyets;14530624]True enough and fair enough. I was only remarking on the content of that one post, taken out of the context of the rest of your statements, which I probably should not have done, or at least made clear that I was doing it.

QUOTE]

Don't worry I do that all the time. In addition that statement was contradictory to the previous one that I made so I am partly to blame.

And to respond to the OP:

One of the most annoying lies I hear repeated all the time is that SEX is to blame for abortion rates. If only we could stop people from fucking somehow! If only kids could be abstinent!

Bullcrap.

You're never, ever going to prevent sex, so stop trying. Seriously, give up. Never, in the history of our species, has there ever been a time when people successfully stopped sex. You won't do it. You're really REALLY not ever going to stop teens from fucking. Not ever. You can absolutely get teens to lie to you and tell you they won't fuck, of course, but that's not going to have anything to do with the reality. Which is that yes, they're fucking, they've been fucking for years.

Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant or because they cannot remain pregnant without facing serious bodily harm. That is why abortion happens. So if you want to reduce abortion rates, THOSE are the things you need to focus on.

Help ensure that women only become pregnant when they want to become pregnant. Help women who want to be pregnant have healthy, safe pregnancies. That's how you "stop" abortion.

Anything else is just sex-phobia people freaking out and demanding that we all give them attention.

ARE YOU INSANE???

Which part of the OP said 'dont have sex' ????

Plenty of people have SEX and don't end up getting pregnant. It can happen even if you're careful, but you can drastically reduce the chances through EDUCATION.

I don't have any problems with education, so long as it is done within reason. What is disturbing me, however, is that we are being forced to teach primary school children about sex before the media gets to them. At the very least, we should be able to wait until someone is 11 or 12 before we even get into that area, and in their early teens before we even get into detail about sex.

No, it really isn't. It's just more open. People aren't having sex out of wedlock any more than they ever did. We just talk about it more. The young women who do get pregnant at a young age are generally no longer sent to "visit family" until they give birth and arrange a stealth adoption and/or forced into early marriage.

I highly doubt that people would have been having sex in their early teens back in that era. Where people did have pre-marital sex, it was typically in their later teens. Like I said, pre-marital sex is now far more common than it used to be, and people are engaging in sex in a much younger age now as well.

Sounds like a job for education - including getting rid of the programs that "educate" children by telling them that contraceptive methods don't work or that they are horribly dangerous.

I don't have a problem with education, but at the very least tell them the whole truth. Teach them about condoms, the pill and so on, but also remind them that none of these methods are 100% fool proof and that there is always a slight risk that you may impregnate the girl.

That took me, literally, 30 seconds. This great myth that teen pregnancy is going up, is just that, a myth. A version of america that never existed.

I said teen sex, not teen pregnancy. Let us not forget that in the 1950s, you didn't have the pill, or condoms. Those contraceptives would have seen the teen pregnancy rate decrease, even though teen sex has increased.

Also, 15-19 is a very broad group. How many of those who got pregnant in the past were 15? How many were 19? I'll bet that you would find more 15 year olds pregnant now than you did in the 1950s.

In this day and age, with all the information in the world available, literally, at your fingertips, there is no excuse, no excuse to be patently ignorant.

Half the problem is that the statistics would be problematic for two reasons

1) There were no or few statistical studies done on teen sex in the 1950s
2) People would have lied even had statistical studies been done

I'll agree, you cannot stop sex, but at the very least, stop using abortion as a form of contraception. The statistics of the OP indicate as much; people are using it in lieu of contraception.

How to misread statistics 101:

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.

I highly doubt that people would have been having sex in their early teens back in that era. Where people did have pre-marital sex, it was typically in their later teens. Like I said, pre-marital sex is now far more common than it used to be, and people are engaging in sex in a much younger age now as well.

I said teen sex, not teen pregnancy. Let us not forget that in the 1950s, you didn't have the pill, or condoms. Those contraceptives would have seen the teen pregnancy rate decrease, even though teen sex has increased.

Also, 15-19 is a very broad group. How many of those who got pregnant in the past were 15? How many were 19? I'll bet that you would find more 15 year olds pregnant now than you did in the 1950s.

Half the problem is that the statistics would be problematic for two reasons

1) There were no or few statistical studies done on teen sex in the 1950s
2) People would have lied even had statistical studies been done

If the facts don't agree with you, stick to your guns and claim reality is wrong. :rolleyes:

Half the problem is that the statistics would be problematic for two reasons

1) There were no or few statistical studies done on teen sex in the 1950s
2) People would have lied even had statistical studies been done

So let me make sure I understand how things work in your special little world. If statistics are submitted that run counter to your unsupported, unsubstantiated, unverified, and uncited statements....the statistics are wrong.

That takes a lot of fucking balls.

Not an ounce of brains, but a lot of balls.

I don't have any problems with education, so long as it is done within reason. What is disturbing me, however, is that we are being forced to teach primary school children about sex before the media gets to them. At the very least, we should be able to wait until someone is 11 or 12 before we even get into that area, and in their early teens before we even get into detail about sex.

Go back a couple of pages and read my post of examples just using people I personally know, please. I think it makes it fairly clear why waiting that long is a bad idea.

If the facts don't agree with you, stick to your guns and claim reality is wrong. :rolleyes:

TCT - let me give you a brief low down of what has gone on

I said "However, we are engaging in far more sexual activity now than we did in past years"

That was responded with "This great myth that teen pregnancy is going up, is just that, a myth"

You see the problem. The statistics were based on teen pregnancy, while I commented that sexual activity has increased. While sex can result in pregnancy, when you have things like contraception, it is less likely to.

So let me make sure I understand how things work in your special little world. If statistics are submitted that run counter to your unsupported, unsubstantiated, unverified, and uncited statements....the statistics are wrong.

That takes a lot of fucking balls.

Not an ounce of brains, but a lot of balls.

Your statistics didn't run counter to my argument though. Your statistics were about teen pregnancy; my argument was about teen sexual activity - not quite the same thing. I pointed out that you wouldn't be able to find out about levels of sexual activity in the 1950s because such statistics were never complied, and would be unlikely to be accurate even if they were.

How to misread statistics 101:

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.

Yes, you have just passed how to misread statistics 101, because the sentence goes on to say

"Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use"

Therefore, we can say that about 6% of people who went to have abortions had used contraceptives correctly and consistently. The other 94% of people who went to have abortions obviously were using it as a contraceptive.

TCT - let me give you a brief low down of what has gone on

I said "However, we are engaging in far more sexual activity now than we did in past years"

That was responded with "This great myth that teen pregnancy is going up, is just that, a myth"

You see the problem. The statistics were based on teen pregnancy, while I commented that sexual activity has increased. While sex can result in pregnancy, when you have things like contraception, it is less likely to.

Your statistics didn't run counter to my argument though. Your statistics were about teen pregnancy; my argument was about teen sexual activity - not quite the same thing. I pointed out that you wouldn't be able to find out about levels of sexual activity in the 1950s because such statistics were never complied, and would be unlikely to be accurate even if they were.

Let. Me. Use. Small. Words.

Do you have any proof that levels of teen sexual activity are higher now?

Admittedly teen pregnancy rate is not the same as sexual activity, but it is an indicator.

Your response that "we can't know what the sexual activity rates were" pretty much admits that you were talking out your ass.

Yes, you have just passed how to misread statistics 101, because the sentence goes on to say

"Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use"

Therefore, we can say that about 6% of people who went to have abortions had used contraceptives correctly and consistently. The other 94% of people who went to have abortions obviously were using it as a contraceptive.

Um. Two little bitty problems:

1. You are now disingenuously treating improper or inconsistent use of contraceptives as a deliberate non-use of contraceptives.

2. Your 94% speculation is bullshit, because some women WANTED TO GET PREGNANT BUT ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS WITH THEIR PREGNANCY.

I just see a society that has become sex crazed. It has just become sex sex sex sex sex ad infinitum.

It has always been that way.

Honestly, I can't help laughing when people argue that somehow, magically, people nowadays like sex and think about sex much more than anyone in the past did. Me, I'm a classical singer, specializing in early choral music. Would you like to know what people were mostly singing about in 1500? Or 1600? Or 1700? Or, in fact, any era of human history? Sex! Lots and lots of sex, with occasional pauses to discuss how much fun it is to get intoxicated (and then have more sex). There are, occasionally, eras when people decide that they shouldn't talk about sex out loud so much, at which point the pornography industry promptly has a huge boom (I mean, do you have any IDEA how much kinky shit those Victorians produced?), because heaven knows people aren't going to stop obsessing about sex in private, no matter how much they turn their nose up in public. People like sex. People like thinking about sex, and talking about sex, and having sex. That hasn't changed in ten thousand years, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

It has always been that way.

Honestly, I can't help laughing when people argue that somehow, magically, people nowadays like sex and think about sex much more than anyone in the past did. Me, I'm a classical singer, specializing in early choral music. Would you like to know what people were mostly singing about in 1500? Or 1600? Or 1700? Or, in fact, any era of human history? Sex! Lots and lots of sex, with occasional pauses to discuss how much fun it is to get intoxicated (and then have more sex). There are, occasionally, eras when people decide that they shouldn't talk about sex out loud so much, at which point the pornography industry promptly has a huge boom (I mean, do you have any IDEA how much kinky shit those Victorians produced?), because heaven knows people aren't going to stop obsessing about sex in private, no matter how much they turn their nose up in public. People like sex. People like thinking about sex, and talking about sex, and having sex. That hasn't changed in ten thousand years, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

how YOU doin?

how YOU doin?

Okay, first off, quit spamming the thread.

Second, for once, respect a serious on-topic post by a respected forum member like Poli.

And (c), she's not staying overnight at your house anymore since she learned that you blow your nose in the shower.

So, try and hit on some other little tart, like Ashmoria or Mr. Fap.

how YOU doin?

Somehow I knew you'd approve of that post. :p

Also, now that I'm thinking of it, I should sing you my favorite Renaissance drinking song at some point. I think you'd like it. It was actually written by Henry Purcell, whom most people know for his Srs Church Music, and it boils down to, quite explicitly, "I totally hit on this girl three separate times, but that bitch wouldn't put out. Fuck her and all you bitches, I'm getting drunk."

Somehow I knew you'd approve of that post. :p

Also, now that I'm thinking of it, I should sing you my favorite Renaissance drinking song at some point. I think you'd like it. It was actually written by Henry Purcell, whom most people know for his Srs Church Music, and it boils down to, quite explicitly, "I totally hit on this girl three separate times, but that bitch wouldn't put out. Fuck her and all you bitches, I'm getting drunk."

wow, that's amazing. I gave that same speech at my brother's wedding.

wow, that's amazing. I gave that same speech at my brother's wedding.

Yeah, but I bet your speech didn't include a lovely arpeggiated run on the line "So kiss my arse, disdainful sow!"

Yeah, but I bet your speech didn't include a lovely arpeggiated run on the line "So kiss my arse, disdainful sow!"

......

I don't talk to my sister in law much these days...

Or her maid of honor...

.....or her mother

...

Or her maid of honor's mother.

It has always been that way.

Honestly, I can't help laughing when people argue that somehow, magically, people nowadays like sex and think about sex much more than anyone in the past did. Me, I'm a classical singer, specializing in early choral music. Would you like to know what people were mostly singing about in 1500? Or 1600? Or 1700? Or, in fact, any era of human history? Sex! Lots and lots of sex, with occasional pauses to discuss how much fun it is to get intoxicated (and then have more sex). There are, occasionally, eras when people decide that they shouldn't talk about sex out loud so much, at which point the pornography industry promptly has a huge boom (I mean, do you have any IDEA how much kinky shit those Victorians produced?), because heaven knows people aren't going to stop obsessing about sex in private, no matter how much they turn their nose up in public. People like sex. People like thinking about sex, and talking about sex, and having sex. That hasn't changed in ten thousand years, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.
I find it very hard to believe that these people really believe the words they put up on the screen. I mean, what the fuck -- seriously? Can these people read some frigging history once in a while, or even just some old novels? If they did, they might even learn what "frigging" means. Geez-gods. Compared to earlier generations, we ARE prudes.

We also abort fewer pregnancies, and the babies we do have fare a shitload better, too.

And those Victorians -- don't even get me started. Fucking perverts. They are the ultimate example of why sexual repression is BAD.

Yeah, but I bet your speech didn't include a lovely arpeggiated run on the line "So kiss my arse, disdainful sow!"
So...you're in this thread claiming that Purcell actually wrote a song that wasn't as prissy as an old lace curtain and as boring as shit? I don't believe you. :p

So...you're in this thread claiming that Purcell actually wrote a song that wasn't as prissy as an old lace curtain and as boring as shit? I don't believe you. :p

He did! Apparently, after a hard day of writing prissy music, Purcell liked to head out to the bar and sing about sex and booze. :tongue:

Couldn't have said it better.

This is why the debate over "men's rights" is such crap in my eyes. Men have precisely the same rights that women have when it comes to reproduction: the right to decide how THEIR OWN BODY will participate in reproduction.

Yet there's always got to be some guy who bitches that he's being oppressed when he can't control somebody else's body, or that he's being oppressed because if he chooses to participate in reproduction then he's actually going to be expected to deal with the consequences of his choice. Pardon me while I squint as hard as possible trying to squeeze out a solitary tear of sympathy for these poor, poor oppressed men.


I don't mean to suggest that men in any way should have control over a woman's body, but to suggest that a woman who has a one night stand with a man and falls pregnant can have the option of aborting that child, but a man cannot sign his parental rights away is a bit of a double standard. Yes I know, biology does not make them equal, but the argument that men and women have equal rights in the reproductive process is not accurate.

We pro-choicers use the argument that consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy or babies and that women should not be punished via being forced to carry a child to term as a result of an indiscretion. However, when that argument is applied to men, pro-choicers assert that men make the choice to potentially have a baby when they choose to have sex. I'm a little confused here as to the reasoning behind why men cannot simply sign away their rights if the child is not wanted by them. Why they are forced to support a child borne out of a moment of indiscretion for the rest of their lives?

And I would say that this opinion comes mostly from seeing more than one of my friends or students tricked into having babies they did not want. Girlfriends who pierced condoms, said they were taking the pill and weren't, that kind of thing. Why should these men be forced to support a child they did not want and that they took appropriate steps to avoid, because some girl tricked them?

And yes, I realise that the above is anecdotal, and also not indicative of 99.9% of circumstances. I am not suggesting that men should be able to force a woman to carry to term, but they should not bear responsibility for something due to someone else's sovereign choices.

I don't mean to suggest that men in any way should have control over a woman's body, but to suggest that a woman who has a one night stand with a man and falls pregnant can have the option of aborting that child, but a man cannot sign his parental rights away is a bit of a double standard. Yes I know, biology does not make them equal, but the argument that men and women have equal rights in the reproductive process is not accurate.

We pro-choicers use the argument that consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy or babies and that women should not be punished via being forced to carry a child to term as a result of an indiscretion. However, when that argument is applied to men, pro-choicers assert that men make the choice to potentially have a baby when they choose to have sex. I'm a little confused here as to the reasoning behind why men cannot simply sign away their rights if the child is not wanted by them. Why they are forced to support a child borne out of a moment of indiscretion for the rest of their lives?

And I would say that this opinion comes mostly from seeing more than one of my friends or students tricked into having babies they did not want. Girlfriends who pierced condoms, said they were taking the pill and weren't, that kind of thing. Why should these men be forced to support a child they did not want and that they took appropriate steps to avoid, because some girl tricked them?

And yes, I realise that the above is anecdotal, and also not indicative of 99.9% of circumstances. I am not suggesting that men should be able to force a woman to carry to term, but they should not bear responsibility for something due to someone else's sovereign choices.

I wasn't aware that men couldn't sign away their parental rights, my father did when I was born. I was adopted by another man when I was eight.

I wasn't aware that men couldn't sign away their parental rights, my father did when I was born. I was adopted by another man when I was eight.

Well that solves my problem then. But the way people go on, I thought there must be some restriction on them simply doing this that I wasn't aware of.

Did you know that 1) It is illegal to lock up condoms in poor neighborhoods?
2) CVS locks up its condoms in poor black locations.

It's so freaking disgusting.

Also, why are flavored condoms so difficult to find in a normal pharmacy?

Let. Me. Use. Small. Words.

Do you have any proof that levels of teen sexual activity are higher now?

Admittedly teen pregnancy rate is not the same as sexual activity, but it is an indicator.

Your response that "we can't know what the sexual activity rates were" pretty much admits that you were talking out your ass.

The closest proof that we have is a closer examination of your pregnancy statistics. We do know that back in the 1950s, the pill was non-existent, and condoms were very difficult to grab. Thus, we can safely say that there wasn't any form of contraception. We also know that the failure rate of most modern contraception (i.e. condoms, the pill et cetera is less than 10%). Therefore, the teen pregnancy rate of today must be 10% what it was in the 1950s, give or take a few percentage points for those who fail to use contraception and/or use it properly. IIRC, your pregnancy statistics indicate a mere 50% decline in teen pregnancy, meaning there must have been a five-fold rise in teen sexual activity.

Your statistics never mentioned age beyond a general 15-19 bracket, or indeed marital status. Fifty years ago, it wasn't at all unusual for women to get married in their late teens or early twenties; my grandmother got married at the age of 19. Once married, those women tended to get pregnant.

Finally, the best proof that we have is anecdotal; all the stories I get from my parents generation indicate to me that sex was uncommon outside of marriage, and even where it happened outside of marriage, it didn't occur at the very young ages we get today. The tricky thing is that you are demanding proof when the proof doesn't exist, except in scant anecdotal form.

Um. Two little bitty problems:

1. You are now disingenuously treating improper or inconsistent use of contraceptives as a deliberate non-use of contraceptives.

2. Your 94% speculation is bullshit, because some women WANTED TO GET PREGNANT BUT ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS WITH THEIR PREGNANCY.

With regards to 1; inconsistent use of contraceptives is essentially the same as non-use of contraceptives, and improper use of contraceptives, while not non-use of contraceptives, nevertheless isn't desirable

With regards to 2; alright, maybe not 94%, however, there wouldn't be that many women that want to get pregnant but encounter pregnancy problems.

If you wait until they actually hit puberty to explain puberty to them, don't you think the changes will come as a bit of a shock? (let's not forget that part of sex education is "this is what happens to your body during puberty")

c.f. Carrie by Stephan King.

it doesn't matter what he wanted to happen. What matters is what he chose to happen. If he wanted to "release his sexual urge" without running the risk that one of his little swimmers would get through, he should have jerked off into a tissue or asked her to blow him.


Or had sex with a man . . .

The closest proof that we have is a closer examination of your pregnancy statistics. We do know that back in the 1950s, the pill was non-existent, and condoms were very difficult to grab. Thus, we can safely say that there wasn't any form of contraception. We also know that the failure rate of most modern contraception (i.e. condoms, the pill et cetera is less than 10%). Therefore, the teen pregnancy rate of today must be 10% what it was in the 1950s, give or take a few percentage points for those who fail to use contraception and/or use it properly. IIRC, your pregnancy statistics indicate a mere 50% decline in teen pregnancy, meaning there must have been a five-fold rise in teen sexual activity.

Your statistics never mentioned age beyond a general 15-19 bracket, or indeed marital status. Fifty years ago, it wasn't at all unusual for women to get married in their late teens or early twenties; my grandmother got married at the age of 19. Once married, those women tended to get pregnant.

Finally, the best proof that we have is anecdotal; all the stories I get from my parents generation indicate to me that sex was uncommon outside of marriage, and even where it happened outside of marriage, it didn't occur at the very young ages we get today. The tricky thing is that you are demanding proof when the proof doesn't exist, except in scant anecdotal form.

First, thank you for making clear that you have no real evidence, just rank speculation and "scant anecdot[es]."

Second, thank you even more for making clear that the issue for you is NOT teenage sex, but sex outside marriage. Married women can have sex, get pregnant, and have abortions. Married sex apparently doesn't count because it fits your moral code, not because of some objective difference.

Third, I assume I am not the only one to recognize the cognitive dissonance between your assertions about women not using contraception below and your dubious calculations about pregnancy rates and contraception above.


With regards to 1; inconsistent use of contraceptives is essentially the same as non-use of contraceptives, and improper use of contraceptives, while not non-use of contraceptives, nevertheless isn't desirable

With regards to 2; alright, maybe not 94%, however, there wouldn't be that many women that want to get pregnant but encounter pregnancy problems.

Not-desirable conduct =/= using abortion as a primary means of contraception.

Your statistics need work. Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

Second, thank you even more for making clear that the issue for you is NOT teenage sex, but sex outside marriage. Married women can have sex, get pregnant, and have abortions. Married sex apparently doesn't count because it fits your moral code, not because of some objective difference.

Stop putting words in my mouth. My issue all along has been that people have used abortion as an easy way out; have all the sex you want and there are no consequences (except for the guys, apparently, the minute that they put their penis inside, they are potentially liable for any kid that results for the next eighteen years). It doesn't matter whether you are married or not; my own view is that there are four circumstances where abortion is acceptable

Rape - woman had no choice
Incest - danger to society
Mother's Life in Danger - well, who wouldn't agree with this one
Serious disease - no point in imposing a cost to society

Your statistics need work. Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

Why are they unintended? Here is a nice logical sequence for you

Guy puts penis into female. Guy ejaculates sperm. Sperm goes to females egg where it fertilises it. Fertilised egg becomes a foetus. You have pregnancy. Obviously, the way you stop that from happening is either NOT HAVING SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE or USE F***ING CONTRACEPTION AND USE IT PROPERLY.

(except for the guys, apparently, the minute that they put their penis inside, they are potentially liable for any kid that results for the next eighteen years).

Not to interrupt the whole randomly ranting bit...But, I do think there is a significant population of Single Mothers out there that might take issue with this sentiment...

Not to interrupt the whole randomly ranting bit...But, I do think there is a significant population of Single Mothers out there that might take issue with this sentiment...

At least though, with the status quo, they have the option to get rid of the problem. Once the guys sperm is inside, the guy has no option to get rid of the problem.

At least though, with the status quo, they have the option to get rid of the problem. Once the guys sperm is inside, the guy has no option to get rid of the problem.

Um, well, you see, the primary method consists of Simply Leaving, and never coming back or making contact in any way...

I don't mean to suggest that men in any way should have control over a woman's body, but to suggest that a woman who has a one night stand with a man and falls pregnant can have the option of aborting that child, but a man cannot sign his parental rights away is a bit of a double standard.

No, it's not.

Women and men have precisely the same rights when it comes to how their own bodies participate in reproduction. Well, actually, women usually have fewer rights, but set that aside for the moment.

Women and men also have precisely the same legal obligations to any biological child they produce.


I'm a little confused here as to the reasoning behind why men cannot simply sign away their rights if the child is not wanted by them. Why they are forced to support a child borne out of a moment of indiscretion for the rest of their lives?

Men have precisely the same legal rights and responsibilities as women in regards to their born children. If you think those rights should be changed for EVERYBODY, then argue for that.


And I would say that this opinion comes mostly from seeing more than one of my friends or students tricked into having babies they did not want. Girlfriends who pierced condoms, said they were taking the pill and weren't, that kind of thing. Why should these men be forced to support a child they did not want and that they took appropriate steps to avoid, because some girl tricked them?

A man who doesn't want to get anybody pregnant should take responsibility for his own contraception. He should not be depending on his partner to take the pill, or to provide the condoms, or to take sole responsibility for whatever contraception they use.

If a man chooses not to take responsibility for these things, then he is GIVING all the power to his partner. He is choosing to let her decide whether or not they'll get pregnant. If he wants to turn around and whine when she makes a decision that he doesn't like then that's his choice, but it doesn't absolve him of his legal obligations to his child.


And yes, I realise that the above is anecdotal, and also not indicative of 99.9% of circumstances. I am not suggesting that men should be able to force a woman to carry to term, but they should not bear responsibility for something due to someone else's sovereign choices.
They should, however, bear responsibility for THEIR sovereign choices. Those hypothetical men chose not to take responsibility for their own bodies. They could have bought their own condoms and used their own birth control, but (as is very typical in our culture) they left those worries up to their female partner. Since they chose to give up every bit of the responsibility, they also give up their right to bitch about the outcome.

See, here's what I JUST DON'T GET. Are people arguing, really, seriously, honestly arguing, that women would rather go through an invasive, costly, and somewhat dangerous medical procedure over, say, using a condom?

Or, hell, putting in a freaking IUD is cheaper, less invasive, quicker, and less risk of complications than an abortion. Are people REALLY arguing that women would rather have an abortion than use birth control?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?