Abortion? Which side do you fall on?

[AUTaxMan]

I do agree with him that most (not all because I am in the minority as well) of pro life people are also pro war, anti sex education, anti contraception and against services for the poor.

This is bs. You are painting with way too broad of a brush.

[mrveggieman]

This is bs. You are painting with way too broad of a brush.

Mr taxman did you read my whole post or just pick and chose one sentence? Since you are also against abortion what would you propose do reduce the instances of unwanted pregnancies? Also for those women who do keep their babies what do you propose that we as a society do to help them?

[habsheaven]

I agree with GBM in one respect. His whole rant about "what is murder and what is not" goes hand-in-hand with my belief that everyone "values" life differently depending on who they are killing and because of that they are willing to accept some types of killing.

[AUTaxMan]

Mr taxman did you read my whole post or just pick and chose one sentence? Since you are also against abortion what would you propose do reduce the instances of unwanted pregnancies? Also for those women who do keep their babies what do you propose that we as a society do to help them?

I read the whole post, but that sentence stands on its own. Do you believe what you wrote or not, because it is nonsense. It may be what you perceive or what to believe, but that doesn't make it so.

To reduce unwanted pregnancies, I would teach abstinence as the only fool-proof way to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If kids are willing to take the risk of having sex, you teach them that there are contraceptives and birth control devices available, but you don't subsidize a purely personal and recreational activity. If you can't afford it, tough toenails. That's your problem. Not mine.

You could also explain to them that only 8% of people who (a) graduate high school, (b) get a job, and (c) marry before they have kids live below the poverty line. If you fail to do one of those things, there is close to an 80% chance that you will be poor.

At this point, they have the knowledge to make an informed decision--have sex and maybe have a baby (even with protection), which increases their likelihood of living in poverty tenfold, or not have sex and definitely don't have a baby.

You also need to teach them that if they have a child and want to keep it, they have the responsibility to take care of it. If they don't, the state will take it from them.

I understand this is a complicated issue, but that's my general view.

[ensbergcollector]

veggie- you keep throwing out this idea that so many people are anti-sex education. In fact, i think half your argument hinges on the idea that so many people are against sex education. guess what, there aren't that many people against sex education. you use that to try and win the argument but at the end of the day, the majority of schools have sex ed so you can't keep blaming abstinence education on teenage pregnancies.


also, if people can't see the difference in killing an unborn child and killing a murder who has been sentenced to the death penalty, then this country has much larger issues than sex ed.

[mrveggieman]

I read the whole post, but that sentence stands on its own. Do you believe what you wrote or not, because it is nonsense. It may be what you perceive or what to believe, but that doesn't make it so.

To reduce unwanted pregnancies, I would teach abstinence as the only fool-proof way to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If kids are willing to take the risk of having sex, you teach them that there are contraceptives and birth control devices available, but you don't subsidize a purely personal and recreational activity. If you can't afford it, tough toenails. That's your problem. Not mine.

You could also explain to them that only 8% of people who (a) graduate high school, (b) get a job, and (c) marry before they have kids live below the poverty line. If you fail to do one of those things, there is close to an 80% chance that you will be poor.

At this point, they have the knowledge to make an informed decision--have sex and maybe have a baby (even with protection), which increases their likelihood of living in poverty tenfold, or not have sex and definitely don't have a baby.

You also need to teach them that if they have a child and want to keep it, they have the responsibility to take care of it. If they don't, the state will take it from them.

I understand this is a complicated issue, but that's my general view.

You are on point however I disagree with you being against "subsidizing a recreactional activity." This is not like anyone is asking for money to buy baseball cards of download music off the internet. This is a public health and safety issue and the gov't has a vested intrested in distributing contraceptives to all their citizens in an gov't bulding that it deems neccessary.

[mrveggieman]

veggie- you keep throwing out this idea that so many people are anti-sex education. In fact, i think half your argument hinges on the idea that so many people are against sex education. guess what, there aren't that many people against sex education. you use that to try and win the argument but at the end of the day, the majority of schools have sex ed so you can't keep blaming abstinence education on teenage pregnancies.


also, if people can't see the difference in killing an unborn child and killing a murder who has been sentenced to the death penalty, then this country has much larger issues than sex ed.

Abstinence only education is not education but the spreading of ignorance. BTW I do agree with the death penalty under certian circumstance but I do have issues with the way some people (mainly the conservatives) want it to be administered but that is for a different discussion.

[ensbergcollector]

Abstinence only education is not education but the spreading of ignorance. BTW I do agree with the death penalty under certian circumstance but I do have issues with the way some people (mainly the conservatives) want it to be administered but that is for a different discussion.

ok, couple of things:

1. people are not advocating abstinence based education so why do you keep talking about it?

2. care to share with me the only 100% fool proof way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease? that would be abstinence. Now, I am on the record as supporting a complete sex ed class but to call abstinence education ignorant is ignorant. I get that kids are not going to stop having sex. That doesn't make encouraging them to be abstinent ignorant.

[mrveggieman]

ok, couple of things:

1. people are not advocating abstinence based education so why do you keep talking about it?

2. care to share with me the only 100% fool proof way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease? that would be abstinence. Now, I am on the record as supporting a complete sex ed class but to call abstinence education ignorant is ignorant. I get that kids are not going to stop having sex. That doesn't make encouraging them to be abstinent ignorant.

1. Some conservative people (not you) do believe in and promote abstinance only education which has been proven to be a failure. Since you say that you are not in favor of that we can move on.

2. Yes abstinence is the only way to avoid pregancy (unless you are the virgin mary). I am not saying teaching kids about abstinance is ignorant but teaching abstinence only is just plain ignorant. Even if kids don't have sex until they turn 18/21/or get married they are still going to need to learn about it eventually. If they graduate from high school never learning about sex where are they going to get their information?