If not Stem Cell Funding, why not fund Anti-Abortion?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:08 pm

No Muff, I disagree with you. The raped woman should carry the fetus full term to remind her every single day what happened to her. I mean, SHE should suffer, not the child right?

This goes back to what we all talked about months ago when I brought up the compromise on abortion. IF you want an abortion, you should have it before the third trimester. The only exception being the health of the mother.

You see, the root of this debate runs much deeper. This country as a whole, is afraid of sex. Look at Bush's sex education mantra \"abstinence only\". I'm sorry, but kids are kids and they are going to have sex no matter what you tell them. If kids had better access to contraceptive means then maybe we wouldn't have so many abortions BUT the church keeps those things at bay and out of schools. How many kids actually know the full spectrum of what's out there for them in case of pregnancy?

Be better parents, talk to your kids, quit relying on television to teach your kids reality because reality is, kids are going to have sex. They are simply going to do it, while the husband and wife are working full time jobs to support the American dream, the kids are downstairs on the couch learning new positions. Maybe just a quick blowjob in the car...there is a very, very small portion of this country that still believes in abstinence till marriage. And a large portion of that small, small group believes that oral / anal sex is not sex. Hell, you could probably ask a 15 year old about new positions and they'd be better at it than you.

Get off the old school mentality, teach kids the right way, this issue is never going to go away, abortion is here to stay.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:16 pm

Zuruch wrote:Look at Bush's sex education mantra "abstinence only". I'm sorry, but kids are kids and they are going to have sex no matter what you tell them. If kids had better access to contraceptive means then maybe we wouldn't have so many abortions

You CAN have the best of both worlds. My son has been taught that abstinence is the right choice before marriage. He also has a rudimentary knowledge of contraceptives. We'll give him more details when he's interested, but he's only seven and his last comment on the entire sex issue was that "It doesn't really affect me much yet".

Zuruch wrote:Be better parents, talk to your kids, quit relying on television to teach your kids reality because reality is, kids are going to have sex.

Actually, it IS possible to remain a virgin until you get married. The idea that all kids are simply guaranteed to have sex before marriage is as ridiculous as the idea that no kids ever will.

BUT, we are in complete agreement that parents need to teach their kids about sex. In todays world, our children need to be well educated about sexuality by their parents, because what they get elsewhere is incomplete, innaccurate, and dangerous. My son gets accurate answers to his questions from my wife and I so that he won't have to rely on "friends at school" and "what he sees on TV" for information. I certainly intend to pass on my own views to him. But he will also have enough information to make his own decisions when he gets old enough to do so.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:36 pm

Well, 7 years old is a little out of the scale I was talking about but it's never too early. Abstinence is great, whatever, but preaching it as the ONLY form of sex ed, coupled with NO talk on contraceptives and this is what you have, young women dashing across state lines, lying to their parents, and doing something that is wretched.

You pro-life people...do you think girls that have abortions think it's fun? A good friend of mine had to have an abortion and she wasn't dancing in the streets afterwards. It's not the kind of decision that people like to make, but sometimes it's necessary. I'm not quite sure what you people don't get about that.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:16 pm

Zuruck wrote:You pro-life people...do you think girls that have abortions think it's fun? A good friend of mine had to have an abortion and she wasn't dancing in the streets afterwards. It's not the kind of decision that people like to make, but sometimes it's necessary. I'm not quite sure what you people don't get about that.

That's the point of abstinence, isn't it? I think everyone knows that when someone is considering an abortion, it's pretty much a lose-lose situation. I really think that the best option available is adoption- because it minimizes the pain on all levels- the woman does through no more trauma than if she where to have an abortion. (as demonstrated by our discussion about PAS) The baby lives, and is most likely brough up in a better environment than if the mother had chosen to keep the baby. A couple that wants a child gets one. The only loss (above and beyond an abortion) I see is extra physical pain for the woman in giving birth.

I agree with Kilarin here, abstinence isn't a completely dead idea, and it's the only 100% effective means of birth control. That being said, kids need to know that abstinence is a matter of personal conviction, while birth control is a matter of personal and public health. If we could find success on the birth control end- teaching kids that it's just plain stupid to have sex without a condom- abortion wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Contraceptives are good for committed partners, but I see them as necessary for casual sex and one night stands. Like they say, you never know where it's been before. (Likewise, I feel that contraceptives like the pill are good for committed partners, but condoms should be used for more casual encounters.)

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:10 pm

Zuruch wrote:Well, 7 years old is a little out of the scale I was talking about but it's never too early

Yep. They sell thongs and G-Strings for pre-teen girls at the department stores now. And the amount of sex on prime time TV is shocking. And Abercrombie and Fitch clothing catalogs for kids are practically softcore porn.

If you don't start to explain things early, you will be too late. Because the worlds starts teaching them IT'S version from the day they are born.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:28 pm

Kilarin, the amount of sex on tv is far less than Europe or anywhere else. What we get to see is incredible amounts of violence...hell...you see a nipple at the Super Bowl next thing you know there are Congressional hearings and million dollar fines. BUT, CSI can show semen stains, blown off heads, chewed on flesh and it's ok.

snoopy, would you make a raped woman carry the fetus full term for adoption? what about incest? I understand the argument regarding personal responsiblity, but it's not like you got arrested for stealing a pack of smokes. If adoption was that accpeted, then we wouldn't have young girls leaving babies in garbage cans because they were too afraid to do anything else. All pro-life options are great to think about in fantasy land but in reality, they just don't work.

Kilarin, if you teach them right and don't rely on television like so many parents do, they will be fine.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:30 pm

Kilarin, your son has had a personal decision made for himself by you, which I believe is wrong. I am thankful, though, that you're more than willing to explain exactly what's going on. Few things are more detrimental than a parent telling their child not to do something and not offering any reasons to back it up.

Reminds me of one time last year when my mom was visiting. My dad was talking about someone at work attempting, and failing, to fool a drug test with \"detox\" and getting caught. He couldn't remember the name of the drug that this woman was taking that forced her to do this, but he knew it was for back pain.

\"Marinol,\" I offered immediately. My mom, a doctor and a firm believer in \"what the kinder don't know can't hurt them\", glared over at me and half-screamed, \"How the f*** do you know about Marinol?\" \"Because,\" I retorted, \"I decided I don't like to stay stupid.\"

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:02 pm

Zuruch wrote:Kilarin, the amount of sex on tv is far less than Europe or anywhere else.

Oh, certainly. But that doesn't mean it's not too much here.

And please note, it's not so much the sex I object to, as the KIND of sex. We aren't generally seeing loving married couples getting cozy. The message about what sex IS, is what I object to. Which is one of the reasons I don't watch nearly as much TV anymore. (No, I don't want to censor TV, I have a built in censor called the OFF switch)

Zuruch wrote:What we get to see is incredible amounts of violence.

I think this is less true now then it was 20 years ago, but it's still true. I once asked a woman which she would be more upset about, her very young children stumbling upon a horror movie or a porn flick. She answered immediately, "oh the porn! That might mess them up for life! But they watch horror movies all the time"
While I don't approve of porn, I would generally take the opposite stance. I think a young child would be much less disturbed stumbling upon a sex scene in a movie than in watching screaming people torn apart by some guy with a chain saw.

DCrazy wrote:Kilarin, your son has had a personal decision made for himself by you, which I believe is wrong.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean here. Surely you aren't implying that parents should not attempt to transmit their values to their children? Or that children do not have to follow their parents rules while they still live in their house? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here.

Yes, I fully intend to enforce certain rules while my son is underage and living with me. For example, beyond not having premarital sex, he won't be drinking alcoholic beverages or smoking. No stealing, no lying, oh, and he has to clean his room. All kind of rules.

When he reaches maturity and goes out on his own, he will have to decide whether what we've taught him makes sense or not. Actually, it will start before that as he gains more freedom with age. But, once he's on his own, his mother and I will be completely out of the picture from an authority perspective. It will be completely his decision then. If we've just enforced rules without reasons, he will probably drop them like hot potatoes. But if we've convinced him of the reasons behind the rules, he may adopt them as his own (I hope). That is the goal of EVERY parent. Or at least I would hope it is.

Zuruch wrote:snoopy, would you make a raped woman carry the fetus full term for adoption? what about incest? I understand the argument regarding personal responsibility,

It doesn't have anything to do with personal responsibility. Or it shouldn't anyway. We wouldn't kill the kid after birth because his father was a rapist.

If the embryo is a person, then whether it's father was a rapist or not should not determine whether we can kill that person or not.

If the embryo is just a clump of cells, then the woman should be able to have it removed from her body whether the father was a rapist or not.

The entire rape/incest issue, while it is very emotional and tears us apart inside, really should have nothing to do with the ethics of abortion. The question is, when does it become a person with rights protected under the constitution?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:04 pm

Your wording is what I found indicative of a tendency I do not like. \"My son has been taught that abstinence is the right choice before marriage\" and \"My son has been taught that his parents believe that abstience is the right choice before marriage\" are two completely different things. If you enforce a rule about \"no premarital sex\" -- which I think is crossing the line in terms of personal behavior, as someone who has been educated in the use of contraceptives and safe sex and does not believe that it's necessary to hook up with a new partner every night poses little to no risk to anyone including himself, whereas a kid who drinks causes harm to many including himself -- then so be it. But to blur the line between what is right and what you and your wife believe is right for your family is dangerous. Choose the former often enough and you send the message real fast that you don't think your son is capable of thinking for himself and all his actions and moral decisions need to be decided for him. Better, IMO, to set up a framework that you think he should live by for the rest of his life (and within which he will live until he moves out).

I'm coming from the other side of the argument of course. I'm on my way out of the household, and commenting on what I have gotten from my mother's similar behavior, and how my father's treatment of morals and values has done far better for me than the blanket \"Mommy Always Knows Best\" attitude.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:26 pm

remember that police-guy who \"taught his children to never touch drugs\"... only to find his son dead in his room from inhalant abuse.

You can't teach your kids to do all of these things at once:

a) keep you happy (be you),
b) keep themselves happy (be themselves),
c) not lie to you.

It doesn't compute, because you are an individual entity to your kids. Only 2 outof the 3 a/b/c can be true at any one time.

Kids desperately want to keep their parents happy, so they are going to either (c) lie to you, or (b) surrender their sense of individuality to you and be miserable. E-Psychiatry ftw!

(oh god, we're unstoppable topic-changing monsters)

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:32 am

Just curious, all they teach us in school is the parts of the body, how it happens, and 80% about the risks of premarital sex.

Now, my question: What is with all this premarital stuff. Does it really matter that their married? If you have known someone for 20 years, and love them, what is the deal of it not being in marriage? I have a cousin who got married after a month after the people met, and seperated a year later, with a born baby. So I guess the married part makes it okay?

I have known/loved/with my girlfriend for a year, in three years, we can get married. Since we would still be under the sex age, but married, could we do it, even if it is technically illegal.

Also, what about gay couples, they cant get married, so technically lesbians and gays are screwed?
Last thing, lets say that I am 30 and I have no girlfriend, to have sex with a stripper, would I have to marry her?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:18 am

I think this is how it works. The no-pre-marital-sex group is essentially one large club such that if we simplify the problem and say that you can only obtain an STD from sex and that nobody ever has sex outside of the club, you'll never get an STD if you are in the club. Of course, different qualifiers could also work to the same effect. I could start my own club where I indiscriminantly assigned an \"enlightenment\" flag to random newborn children (or even all newborn children). With the same (iffy) assumptions, that you can only obtain an STD from sex and that nobody has sex outside of the club, my \"enlightenment\" club would be STD-free too. So there's really nothing special about marriage in itself, but since it's an institution already in play, it makes sense to emphasize it instead of my offbeat enlightenment club to try to hamper STD's.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:54 am

DCrazy wrote:Your wording is what I found indicative of a tendency I do not like. "My son has been taught that abstinence is the right choice before marriage" and "My son has been taught that his parents believe that abstience is the right choice before marriage" are two completely different things.

Kilarin wrote:But, once he's on his own, his mother and I will be completely out of the picture from an authority perspective. It will be completely his decision then. If we've just enforced rules without reasons, he will probably drop them like hot potatoes. But if we've convinced him of the reasons behind the rules, he may adopt them as his own (I hope).

I think both of you are in agreement to some extent, only differing on the level of enforcement involved. I plan to bring up my children in the following way:

1) They will be expected to respect and follow my rules, despite what they might feel about them.

2) They will be more than welcome to question and/or disagree with them, but while they are still living in my house, 1 will still apply.

3) I will encourage my kids to understand why I have set up the rules, as they become capable of processing them.

4) Obviously, rules will be set up and discontinued as situations and ages change.

This sets up a good system, from what I can tell. It teaches them that there are consequences to breaking the rules- if rules don't exist or arn't enforced in the home, how will they grow up to respect and uphold the law? It teaches them to think critically- by encouraging them to understand why I have set up whatever rule I set up, I help to teach them to think about the why and the implication of things, something I surely hope they will carry with them into their adult lives. By teaching them that it's fine to question and even disagree with rules I teach them not to blindly follow things, but still to respect those who are in authority over them.

I think Kilarin is trying to do the same thing- what you don't like is people refusing to let their kids question their rules, and I honestly don't like that either. Finally, the biggest factor is that the rules need to be established for the kids own good.

Zuruck wrote:snoopy, would you make a raped woman carry the fetus full term for adoption? what about incest? I understand the argument regarding personal responsiblity, but it's not like you got arrested for stealing a pack of smokes. If adoption was that accpeted, then we wouldn't have young girls leaving babies in garbage cans because they were too afraid to do anything else. All pro-life options are great to think about in fantasy land but in reality, they just don't work.

I wouldn't make a woman who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest do anything, I'd try my best to get her to a place where she can be cared for. I agree that that's a tough emotional issue. I also think that women can find the same, if not better, support in their pain at pro-life preganancy centers as they can at abortion clinics. Healing from rape and incest isn't as simple as just getting rid of the evidence, in fact I would say that getting rid of the evidence hurts the woman, because it allows her to ignore the crime, and avoid getting psycological help. I don't know a ton about the psycology involved, but I do know that many women are haunted by it for the rest of their lives because they try to get rid of the evidence and forget about it, instead of facing it and getting help. The difficulty is getting the women to go get help in the first place- and that's what's best for the woman.

As Kilarin said, what happens to the embyro/fetus is a separate issue.

Dakatsu,
(Note I'm answering all these starting with the assumption that premarital sex is wrong, and explaining how other issues follow- pretty much within a christian worldview. I understand that lots of you will disagree with lots of this, I'm just trying to address Dak's questions- you are all welcome to disagree- I understand that if you don't agree that premarital sex is wrong, you won't agree on really any of this.)

You hit on a point of hypocracy in the church. Many people hold up this rule about no sex before marriage, but don't really educate about what marrieage is really supposed to look like.

1. Note that earlier I used the term "committed partners" I terms of public health issues, (e.g. STD's) what's important is that people know each other well enough, and care of each other enough, that they won't risk passing STD's to each other by lying to each other.

2. For those who are proponents of abstinence, marriage is meant to be a permanent thing. Really, what they are claiming to be for is a system where one finds and commits to a single sexual partner for their whole lives. Obviously, sex is almost a minor issue as compared to personality compatibility, so furthermore, people should get married because they love each other (A committed decision to love, not just a nice feeling), not because they want to have sex with the person. Many chrstians become so obsessed with sex that they get married to have sex, and then realize that they arn't compatible with their spouse. In those cases, their perspective has been quite skewed.

3. Marriage is (in theory) a contractual commitment to stay with and only with that one person for the rest of your lives. So, that's really what's required to have sex with someone- you have to commit, before an audience, to stay committed to that person for good. So, yes, being married (in the true sense of the word) does matter, though few of the people who have marriage contracts these days are truely married (because they don't mean the words they say up in front of the judge).

4. Gays and Lesbians are pretty much just screwed. Gay sex is strictly wrong.

5. Yes, to have sex with a stripper, you would have to commit to be with her and true to her for the rest of your lives. There's actually a story about a guy marrying a prostitute in the Bible- she leaves him and they name their kids wierd names. (Like they mean all these dark and gloomy things.) It's pretty much the whole book of Hosea. (Hosea represents God and the prostitute represents Israel.)

Hope that explains things. Now back to politics instead of philosophy/doctrine.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:13 am

Oh, so commited partners is more like it.

I am still going with \"Abstinence until she says screw me or I will kick you in the nuts\" policy. Works well too!

4. Gays and Lesbians are pretty much just screwed. Gay sex is strictly wrong.

The bible is filled with so much acceptance of peoples differences!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:28 pm

DCrazy wrote:"My son has been taught that abstinence is the right choice before marriage" and "My son has been taught that his parents believe that abstinence is the right choice before marriage" are two completely different things.

I don't teach him that its just a matter of opinion, I teach him that this is whats TRUE, but I also teach him WHY it is true.

DCrazy wrote:But to blur the line between what is right and what you and your wife believe is right for your family is dangerous.

Who decides what is really "right", and what is only what we BELIEVE is right? I have no intention of legislating my view of sexual morality upon the world, but I WILL teach my son that this is what is RIGHT. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be following it.

DCrazy wrote:as someone who has been educated in the use of contraceptives and safe sex and does not believe that it's necessary to hook up with a new partner every night poses little to no risk to anyone including himself

People who use condoms can still get STD's, but my reasoning behind abstinence and monogamy goes way beyond the risk of STD's and we've gone over that territory extensively in this thread.

Roid wrote:You can't teach your kids to do all of these things at once:
a) keep you happy (be you), b) keep themselves happy (be themselves), c) not lie to you.
It doesn't compute, because you are an individual entity to your kids. Only 2 outof the 3 a/b/c can be true at any one time.

Sometimes true, but not always true.

Dakatsu wrote:What is with all this premarital stuff. Does it really matter that their married? If you have known someone for 20 years, and love them, what is the deal of it not being in marriage?

Snoopy laid it out pretty well. Marriage (from the Christian perspective) is meant to be a permanent thing. The marriage ceremony is just a way of indicating that permanence. But no, "committed partners" is not really adequate. Not unless that commitment is honestly intended to be "till death do we part", in which case, why not go ahead and get the license?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:59 am

I wonder to what extent the pro-life movement is responsible for post-abortion PTSD. I mean, when a significant part of your campaign is parading around graphic images that are intended to invoke a strong emotional response in a viewer, would it really be any surprise to discover that these same images have caused a person who has undergone an abortion to lapse into PTSD?

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:24 pm

Well, if you don't get PTSD/PAS from aborting the foetus, you'll probably get Postpartum Depression from birthing it. It's lose-lose: if you get knocked up, your fracked. Spin it how you like.