Over 1/3 of women have had abortions?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why does location make a difference?

At that point it is a pregnancy. You are making my head hurt. You do not see the difference?

[Jason]

Perhaps your anecdotal evidence represents reality, perhaps not. What are the numbers, compared to the US?

Comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges.

How would we measure who wouldn't have started using drugs if they weren't readily available? Without any clear way to do that I fall back on my personal experience, which showed me people who were buying their society's message of "it's okay" and suffering because of it.

And that is the solution to the abortion problem in a nutshell. If everyone knows about birth control and how it works, and it's easily available to all, there will be fewer abortions. Unfortunately, in our country we have been going in the opposite direction, trying to keep that information away from young people.

It would be one possible answer to abortion, but not to teens having sex. We don't want our teens to have sex before marriage either, and not just because of STDs and the babies that might result.

[krose]

Why...at that point it is a pregnancy. You are making my head hurt. You do not see the difference?

Ow, ow ow!

That's amazing "logic," especially given the claims that killing a fetus in the womb is just the same as killing a baby that's been born.

[ELF1024]

Ow, ow ow!

That's amazing "logic," especially given the claims that killing a fetus in the womb is just the same as killing a baby that's been born.

I guess the difference is that if a fertilized egg doesn't implant itself in the uterus, either by natural or unnatural processes, it doesn't have the chance of becoming a infant/fetus/embryo. I assume it is possible for a fertilized egg to pass out of the uterus without becoming implanted. That being the case, that fertilized egg never had a chance. Techincally the woman would have never become pregnant.

[krose]

Comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges.

How would we measure who wouldn't have started using drugs if they weren't readily available? Without any clear way to do that I fall back on my personal experience, which showed me people who were buying their society's message of "it's okay" and suffering because of it.

No need for that. To compare the results of the drug policies of two countries, all we have to do is measure the percentage of users of a certain drug. Apples to apples.

It would be one possible answer to abortion, but not to teens having sex. We don't want our teens to have sex before marriage either, and not just because of STDs and the babies that might result.

Perhaps there are undesirable consequences to sex (teen or otherwise) that do not involve unwanted pregnancy. But compared to the use of abortion as retroactive birth control, they are too minor to even consider at this point.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ow, ow ow!

That's amazing "logic," especially given the claims that killing a fetus in the womb is just the same as killing a baby that's been born.

I have never made that claim...nor will I.

[Jason]

No need for that. To compare the results of the drug policies of two countries, all we have to do is measure the percentage of users of a certain drug. Apples to apples.

That would assume that the only thing that affects the percentage of users is the drug policy of the respective governments. That is too simplistic a view.

Perhaps there are undesirable consequences to sex (teen or otherwise) that do not involve unwanted pregnancy. But compared to the use of abortion as retroactive birth control, they are too minor to even consider at this point.

I think you are underplaying the consequences of having sex with someone you are not married to. I will grant that abortion is one of the more serious possible consequences, but that doesn't mean we should attempt to solve it without regard to the others. Encouraging the use of birth control is basically the same thing as encouraging sex.

[3DOP]

This is a fascinating subject. I have a few questions for posters who are against abortion.

1. Why is it ever okay to have an abortion?

- if the the reason for not aborting fetus' is that you are killing an innocent living being, why does that change if a person is raped etc? The fetus is still innocent and killed in these instances.

2. Are you against in-vitro fertilization?

- as per the link below, most eggs used in the process are disposed of. Why are these fertilized eggs not a concern of the pro-life movement?

http://www.religious...rg/abo_inco.htm

Hi maupayman. It isn't about killing an innocent living being. I believe in killing chickens and lobsters for food, and sugar ants when they invade my house. It is about killing an innocent human being. That said, I don't think there is any argument against abortion that can permit it because of the way the child was conceived. It is a question that is irresolvable between materialist seculars who cannot identify a fetus as human and the spiritual religionists who cannot identify a fetus as anything but human because of the existence of the soul at conception. I know of a Baptist preacher, who takes this belief to its logical conclusion, but actually approves of abortion. Why? He backs up the time at which the fetus becomes a "living soul". Reading in Genesis that God "breathed into Adam the breath of life and became a living soul", he takes the position that the fetus has no soul until it takes its first breath. Just as I would have to convince this preacher that souls are created at conception, so I would have to convince the materialist of the same because thankfully nobody belives in plain old murder. Or at least they don't openly say so.

Yes. I am also against in-vitro fertilization, and for the primary reason that it identifies human souls as fertilized eggs. But there are other problems for those with traditional beliefs regarding illicit sexual acts associated with so-called "test tube babies". Regarding artificial insemination Catholic Moral Theology urges the following points:

1) Outside of marriage artificial insemination is absolutely immoral. Both the law of nature and the positive divine law decree that procreation may only be the fruit of marriage. 2) In marriage artificial insemination is immoral a) if the semen is derived from a third person (donor), since the procreative rights of married persons are exclusive, non-transferable and inalienable. Thus practised, artificial insemination is a revolting procedure involving the sins of pollution and adultery, b) if the active principle is derived from the husband by acts contrary to nature. Obviously, a marriage rendered invalid by reason of the impediment of impotency, is not rendered valid in this manner. 3) In marriage artificial insemination (in a wide sense) is not forbidden if by it we mean the use of artificial means either to facilitate the natural act or enable the natural act, performed in a normal manner, to effect conception.

---Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, revised and translated accordibng to the 18th German edition, TAN Books and Publishers, 1993, pp. 534 and 535.

Modern forms of artificial insemination fail to protect the participants from committing sexual acts that are impermissible, even if not so serious as murder, according to many religious communities.

In conclusion, I do not pretend to answer the pro-choice lobby as to why they should be against abortion. They do not believe that fetuses are human souls like I do. They do not believe in murder, they are mistaken about babies in the womb. Catholics believe in freedom to dispose of pests, and the pro-choice lobby perceives a fetus as an unwanted result of acts that are perfectly permissible according to secular beliefs. The fetus is to them, a mere pest. Our differences run so deep, that there is no point in trying to resolve our differences by any other means that converting parties at the deepest level. If I were to grant secular presuppositions, I agree that abortion must be permitted, or else I have no argument for wiping out the sugar ants.

I believe this difficulty begs the question of how it is possible to completely separate church and state. We with religious values must be careful to never concede that religious beliefs can be completely set aside in determining the laws of the land. Regarding the abortion question, how can we proceed without making the law of the land based on a judge's need to define when a conceived child becomes human? According to the position of the secularists, this must be accomplished by trying to imagine, apart from the religious beliefs of the populace, what status to assign a human fetus. Why should non-religion have more of a say in the question whether a human soul begins at conception than religion?

3DOP

[ELF1024]

I think you are underplaying the consequences of having sex with someone you are not married to. I will grant that abortion is one of the more serious possible consequences, but that doesn't mean we should attempt to solve it without regard to the others. Encouraging the use of birth control is basically the same thing as encouraging sex.

I disagree with that statement. Encouraging the use of birth control does not encourage young people to have sex. You can teach them about the risks of STD, and Pregnancy, and encourage the use of condoms, and other methods without encouraging youth to sin. It also requires you to take a moral stance that you would prefer them NOT to take the risk at all, and the only 100% proven method to prevent pregnancy is not to have sex in the first place.

That's like saying that teaching kids about the harmful effects of illegal drugs will cause them to smoke pot.

[WalkerW]

Some of the better pro-life articles (or lectures) I've seen, for those interested:

Edward Feser, "Self-Ownership, Abortion, and the Rights of Children: Toward a More Conservative Libertarianism," Journal of Libertarian Studies 18:3 (2004).

Robert P. George, Maureen Condic, Patrick Lee, "The Grail Searchers," National Review Online (July 20, 2009).

Robert P. George, "

," Lecture given at Case Western Reserve University School of Law on Jan. 24, 2007.

William P. Chesire, Jr., "Human Embryo Research After the Genome," The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity (Nov. 14, 2002).

For a book-length treatment, see Robert P. George & Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Doubleday, 2008).

[Jason]

I disagree with that statement. Encouraging the use of birth control does not encourage young people to have sex. You can teach them about the risks of STD, and Pregnancy, and encourage the use of condoms, and other methods without encouraging youth to sin. It also requires you to take a moral stance that you would prefer them NOT to take the risk at all, and the only 100% proven method to prevent pregnancy is not to have sex in the first place.

That's like saying that teaching kids about the harmful effects of illegal drugs will cause them to smoke pot.

I didn't say "teaching", I said "encouraging".

Of course I believe that adolescents should be taught some basic knowledge of how sex works and how to avoid having a baby when you don't want one at that moment. Ideally such things should be taught by parents rather than teachers, however. Certainly I don't want to see condom machines in a school's bathrooms, or worse having them handed out to students.

[ELF1024]

I didn't say "teaching", I said "encouraging".

Of course I believe that adolescents should be taught some basic knowledge of how sex works and how to avoid having a baby when you don't want one at that moment. Ideally such things should be taught by parents rather than teachers, however. Certainly I don't want to see condom machines in a school's bathrooms, or worse having them handed out to students.

I have no problem with them putting in condom machines or having them available for free pickup at the school nurse. There are kids that are going to choose to sin, it's their free agency, I'd rather make sure that they are doing it as safely as possible. The concesquences of sin are bad enough without ending up with something that will kill you (AIDS) or a child.

I have a sixteen year old son, perhaps my viewpoint is skewed because of that. My opinion may be different if he was a daughter instead.

[caudicus]

Jason, I just spent a year in the Netherlands. I think your perceptions about the place are totally off. Do you really think there are more stoners in the Netherlands than there are in, say, Berkeley, CA? Santa Cruz? Humboldt? Sorry, not a chance. Don't take my word for it, though, the official World Drug Report puts the US as twice as many stoners per capita than the Netherlands, so, while some may appreciate your guess, the people who have actually studied it completely disagree with you.

[WalkerW]

For what it is worth, I'm for legalizing drugs. I do so from a conservative libertarian (e.g. Friedman, Sowell, etc.) perspective.

[Jason]

Jason, I just spent a year in the Netherlands. I think your perceptions about the place are totally off. Do you really think there are more stoners in the Netherlands than there are in, say, Berkeley, CA? Santa Cruz? Humboldt?

On a per capita basis, yes I do, depending on what you call a "stoner".

My two years going door to door and talking to everyone on the street I met probably beat your one year, unless you also were trying to meet as many people as you could every day, in all walks of life, in all parts of the country (I lived in Groningen, Winterswijk, Heerlen, Zoetermeer, and Dordrecht - not just in Amsterdam).

Sorry, not a chance. Don't take my word for it, though, the official World Drug Report puts the US as twice as many stoners per capita than the Netherlands, so, while some may appreciate your guess, the people who have actually studied it completely disagree with you.

Got a link?

[Jason]

I have no problem with them putting in condom machines or having them available for free pickup at the school nurse. There are kids that are going to choose to sin, it's their free agency, I'd rather make sure that they are doing it as safely as possible. The concesquences of sin are bad enough without ending up with something that will kill you (AIDS) or a child.

I have a sixteen year old son, perhaps my viewpoint is skewed because of that. My opinion may be different if he was a daughter instead.

There are people who want to kill other people. Will you hand them a gun, so they can do it more quickly and painlessly than with the dull knife they currently have? It is, after all, their free agency to choose to kill.

[WalkerW]

There are people who want to kill other people. Will you hand them a gun, so they can do it more quickly and painlessly than with the dull knife they currently have? It is, after all, their free agency to choose to kill.

This is sheer hyperbole.

[maupayman]

This is sheer hyperbole.

probably the worst comparison I have ever seen. Having sex is just like killing someone?????

[maupayman]

There are people who want to kill other people. Will you hand them a gun, so they can do it more quickly and painlessly than with the dull knife they currently have? It is, after all, their free agency to choose to kill.

You're comparing a gun to a condom? Do you really think this is a meaningful comparison?

[Jason]

You're comparing a gun to a condom? Do you really think this is a meaningful comparison?

Sexual sins are close to murder in their ability to destroy lives. People don't realize that because our society has become so over-sexualized.

I'm basically pointing out that the "they're going to do it anyway, so let's at least try to help them do it safely" argument is not a very sound one. Trying to avoid some of the consequences of an action isn't as effective as putting your efforts into avoiding the action causing all the problems in the first place.

[staccato]

Sexual sins are close to murder in their ability to destroy lives. People don't realize that because our society has become so over-sexualized.

I'm basically pointing out that the "they're going to do it anyway, so let's at least try to help them do it safely" argument is not a very sound one. Trying to avoid some of the consequences of an action isn't as effective as putting your efforts into avoiding the action causing all the problems in the first place.

I agree. Sex is bad and should be avoided at all costs. I think all teenagers should be forced to do 20 hours a week mandatory child-care in a nursery setting. Best birth control I can think of.

[Calm]

In 2008, there were 522 abortion providers in California. This represents a 23% increase from 2005, when there were 424 abortion providers.

What is sad is that it is possible that many of these do not actually want to provide abortion services in every case. My BIL was warned by the CA medical board that he could lose his license for refusing to give an abortion if requested. Since he was also informed later that he should start looking for another job if he refused to provide fertility treatments for same sex couples, he ended up moving out of state.

***it should be noted that he was located in a densely populated area with plenty of providers who were willing to provide the services above and that over the years he had referred patients to them as needed with no interruption or delay of medical service or a lower quality of service.

[caudicus]

On a per capita basis, yes I do, depending on what you call a "stoner".

My two years going door to door and talking to everyone on the street I met probably beat your one year, unless you also were trying to meet as many people as you could every day, in all walks of life, in all parts of the country (I lived in Groningen, Winterswijk, Heerlen, Zoetermeer, and Dordrecht - not just in Amsterdam).

Got a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_lifetime_cannabis_use_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

Notice Belgium who also considers an ounce of less to be legal is also a fraction of the US usage. My argument that legalization does not create more stoners, or even casual users according to these statistics, stands up pretty well under your, obviously skewed, personal experience.

Now, these numbers are country wide. If you were to zero in on a place like Boulder, Colorado, or Santa Cruz California, you could see examples of places where illegality makes no difference whatsoever, as the vast majority of people have used cannabis.

You also responded to my quote:

Despite having an open attitude towards sex, legalized prostitution, and nipples shown on tv every night, they have a fraction of the US's teen pregnancy rate.

Which isn't because their teens are having less sex than teens in the US are.

with

Which isn't because their teens are having less sex than teens in the US are.

How do you know something like that? Do you have a link? Are you suggesting that the legality of prostitution and the more open attitude towards sex causes more sex? I'd like to see how you arrive at that, because I am willing to gamble that the sexually active teens per capita in the US is almost exactly the same.

However, *IF* you are right, that would put the US in an even worse position in sexually active teens per abortion. It means, that your approach of teaching abstinence is even worse off than I thought.

You said:

Except educate them properly to save it for marriage. You might as well say "teenagers are going to become gang members. There is nothing you can do about it." Or "Teenagers are going to abuse drugs. There is nothing you can do about it."

You are woefully ignorant when you make these statements. Yes, in certain circumstances, teenagers are very, very likely to become gang members. A little broken home, mixed with no income, with a dash of dense urban ghetto, and the odds go up tremendously. Are you suggesting that we teach potential gang members to "Just say no"? Do you think that would work? Because it has obviously worked so well for drugs and sex, right?

Completely wrong, Jason. You have to look at the contributing factors. If you like, I can pull more drug use statistics and show you just how miserably "Just Say No" failed. Addressing the contributing factors is the only way to prevent kids from becoming gang members or doing drugs. Is it the same for sex? Kind of. But are you prepared to lock up your kids with no freedom and no trust until they are ready to get married? You might have to, because over half of LDS women have admitted to having premarital sex. In short, you need a new plan.

But Sex isn't the issue, is it? The issue is about protecting women from the horrors that occur in environments where abortion is illegal. Religion has no right to impose its will upon the people. Obeying the rules is voluntary. Abortion is just like sex, gangs, and drugs. It will happen and there is nothing you can do about it. I'll say it again.

If you don't believe in abortion... don't do it. It's a free country. Personally, I think it is very destructive for a number of reasons, but that doesn't make me believe I should be able to impinge upon the rights and free will of other people.

I am not in their shoes, and I never will be. Consider yourself fortunate to be able to say the same.

And what of the rights of the unborn? Do they have none?

No. Can you prove that these are sentient beings that can survive outside of the womb? Until you can, people can believe what they want.

[Jason]

I agree. Sex is bad and should be avoided at all costs. I think all teenagers should be forced to do 20 hours a week mandatory child-care in a nursery setting. Best birth control I can think of.

You're not agreeing with me. I said sexual sin is bad.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Why are a large number of black babies aborted (approx. 50%)? Because it has been orchestrated that way. It was the plan of Margaret Sanger the whole time and abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood are carrying on in the tradition...

http://www.maafa21.com/