Russia’s unusual holiday
Aug 17th, 2007 by Amanda
A region in Russia is fighting back against their birth-rate crisis in a creative way. September 12 has been declared the Day of Conception, and is giving couples time off work in order to procreate.
Yes, you read that correctly.
I was reading in one location that Russia was actually holding camps at which they were doing mass marriages in the hopes of raising up a new line of power or something.
It’s amazing that these people actually cherish children and want more of them rather than wanting to abort them.
Actually this crisis has happened because of abortion. That’s why they have had such a low birth rate.
Seems weird to have a national pro-creation day. I wonder if the greeting card companies have jumped on this!? They could be making millions off of Pro-creation Day cards!
sign me up!!
Sounds like a holiday created by men to ensure that they get laid at least once a year.
Charming, I’m sure.
Min and Terri, those are some very interesting assertions you’ve made. Got any proof? Any scientific studies? I’d love to read those.
Feel free to post the link right here. I’ll be waiting with bells on.
I’m still waiting for a study from Min as well. Remember that comment thread, Min?? He’s got lots of work to do!
Don’t forget to specify peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC studies in a reputed journal.
JanieBelle– I’m not quite sure what assertion I made? I did make reference to Russia wanting to have more children in order to gain control. You can find that article at Sex for the motherland. If you read the whole article you will see that they are encouraging procreation for the purposes of defeating democracy much like the Nazis grew in power through having children.
I made a comment to people cherishing children, and perhaps I went too far. Perhaps I should have said “people value children” since they valued the power that comes with having people that you are able to train, but I made no assertions that need to be backed up– or perhaps you can show me?
Now, Terri did make an assertion, but I would differ with her slightly in her observation. I do not think that it is abortion that has caused a problem with the birthrate, I think it’s plain selfishness and looking at children as a burden rather than a blessing. I mean, to some extent people use abortion as just another means of birth control– and they’re using others much more regularly.
He he, I like this idea. Maybe the hubby and I should move to Russia. On second thought… nah.
You can type in the words “abortion rate in Russia and see what you find. Some sites will obviously have a pro-life agenda, but others are neutral soueces such as this or maybe this.
oops….sources
that second link didn’t go through let me try again…link
I’m a terrible typist tonight. It’s been a long day. sorry!
Forgive the delay, life occasionally intervenes.
Min,
Your overt assertion was that Russia was attempting to raise birth rates in order to “raise up a line of power”.
Your implied and insulting assertion was that people who have abortions don’t cherish children.
Please cite some evidence for either of those.
Terri,
Neither of those sites provide evidence that abortion is the cause of the low birth rate. Rather, the low birth rate is being caused by economic factors, and abortion is the only means these women have had for contraception.
The problem is that families in Russia can’t afford to have 50 kids and have no realistic means of preventing pregnancy, not that Russians don’t cherish children or that abortions have caused a population decline.
Min again,
When you make fifty cents a month or whatever the pay scale works out to, children ARE a burden. So is eating. That doesn’t mean these people are selfish, it means they’re poor as dirt and realize they can’t properly raise children.
Forcing these women to have children will only exacerbate the problem. The solution is to improve the economy and at the same time provide affordable contraception. When the life circumstance of the average Russian woman improves, the birth rate problem will take care of itself.
Banning abortions is the worst possible thing they could do.
“abortion is the only means these women have had for contraception.”
They don’t have condoms in Russia?
I never said that Russians don’t cherish children.
Abortion does cause population declines and gender inmbalances. Much of Europe is facing the same population decline as a result of abortion and birth control. (I am not saying that birth control is wrong.) India and China both are facing gender imbalances as baby girls are frequently aborted because fanilies would prefer to have boys. To say that abortion doesn’t have an effect on populations is to ignore the facts.
Did you not read the articles you linked to?
My mistake, that was Min.
No, abortion is not the cause here, but rather the means to an end. The cause is societal custom. To say that abortion is the cause is to ignore the facts.
yes, I read the articles.
The cnn transcript refers to hormonal, prescription pills, their intial lack of availability, the current availability and their cost. It doesn’t really mention condoms…usually a very cost-effective method of contraception.
You wrote earlier:
“the low birth rate is being caused by economic factors”
There are many nations, which have fewer resources than Russia and in which abortion is legal, that have not suffered such a drastic decline in birth rates….it’s not purely economic.
You could say it was societal, but then that leads to a whole other conversation.
Anyway, I doubt Amanda wants her comment thread to drone on and on about abortion when that wasn’t really what the post was about.
Which is exactly what the article that I linked to (which somehow didn’t really link, so here’s the URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471324&in_page_id=1770) said:
Well, what would you say if I went around destroying all but a couple of ming vases and after I had thrown a bunch on the floor I told you I really cherished ming vases? I would be a hypocrite– just like those killing babies cannot say that they cherish babies. They may say that they cherish certain babies, but not babies in general.
I can understand how you got here, but it’s not how I intended. I was attempting to contrast the Russian desire for children with the modern world’s desire to abort children– what I said had nothing to do with whether Russia has abortion or not and what the birth rate there is (of which my comment was exclusively about the camps that I mentioned– the context for the start of my comment).
Who is forcing whom to have children? It’s my understanding that most people know how a child is conceived– they know what they are doing, and if they’re engaging in the activity they should be able to accept the responsibility. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t get help, but the idea that somehow some external force is what caused them to have a child is (excuse the deep theological term) baloney.
Obviously both the Russians, Terri and I (and I believe Amanda as well) disagree.
Furthermore, if they continue to kill children (or otherwise keep the population low) simply because they are poor, they will have no people around to do work, therefore they will have no more money, they will continue in poverty, and the country will become nothing. Children are the future– they are the potential, they are the workers of tomorrow. By limiting the number that you have, you limit your potential prosperity, you limit those that will take care of you, and you take away the one blessing that poor people have.
Thanks for the clarifying link, Min. I’ll give it a read.
Your logical fallacy here is that fetuses are babies. They are not. That is my bald assertion against your bald assertion, and unless you have something better, that’s all it will ever be - you redefining words to support your rhetorical position and me refusing to allow you to do that.
Bull. By denying them the only means of contraception they have available, you are most certainly forcing them to have children or posit the ridiculous position of suggesting they should abstain from sex because of your religious beliefs. This again ties back into Terri’s comment/question about condoms - though resource material specifically looking at condom availability in Russia is rather scarce, it would seem that no, they do not have a great proliferation of reliable condoms available to the general public in Russia.
(If anyone can put their hands on some relevant material, it’s a question I would also like definitively answered.)
Let me correct you on a few points. It is the Russian government, not the Russian people who agree with you. If the Russian people agreed with you, they wouldn’t be having abortions in the first place.
It doesn’t really matter that you disagree. It’s the way it is. Forcing women to have child after child when they are already in a position in which they can’t feed themselves will exacerbate the poverty problem. Reality doesn’t give a flying crap what you think, Terri thinks, Amanda thinks or I think. It’s not open to a vote. Poor women + more babies + same wage = more poverty. More poverty = More sick and dead babies. It’s fairly simple.
While that will in fact temporarily increase the population of Russia, it will not solve the underlying problem that gave rise to the population problem.
But all this is superfluous to the greater idea that women have the full right to do as they choose with their own bodies, whether it offends your mystical sensibilities or not.
You get no say-so over my body. Get over it.
We are not discussing killing children, we are discussing abortion.
How Orwellian of you.
No, having more children will not increase the family income, merely thin it out. Do you somehow believe that jobs will be magically created for these children by virtue of the fact they were born?
It will take twelve years at least before those children will be capable of doing any meaningfully income producing work, even if you are advocating the reprehensible position of putting them to work at your earliest possible convenience. What will they eat in the meantime? Who will provide their education and medical care? Who will pay for all of that? Are you volunteering your vast income?
Your scheme of forcing women to have every child they possibly can has been tried before, there is nothing new under the sun. It failed miserably, just so y’know.
That’s on top of the fact that such a scheme is misogynistic to the core, and cares not a whit for the actual children involved, but only about you being able to sit in an ivory tower far away, passing the judgement of God-as-you-see-him on people who can’t afford a bowl of rice. Very compassionate of you.
If you gave a flying crap about anything more than making sure other people obey your arbitrary whims, you’d be adopting all those children you’re demanding be born into squalor. Are you? By the millions?
It’s funny how the religious right is all about “babies” right up until the moment they are born, at which point they become “bastard children of some welfare mamma on crack just trying to get a check from the taxpayers”.
How disgusting.
Miss Janie, I am in awe. Such salient, well-stated points are difficult to come by, but you keep them coming. Kudos!
There are a few things that I think have been missed in this conversation.
1. Why are abortions free in Russia, but not birth control? Surely abortions are more expensive, requiring surgeons, anesthetic, nurses…etc. Why have they not changed their policy?
2. While societal values(though I hate to use that word)are the cause of India and China’s gender imbalance…which is numbering in the millions…abortion has given a lethal power and domination to those values. It has not given women in these cultures more freedom, but is further undermining the plight of women in those countries. What sort of subconscious self-loathing must exist in a woman for her to abort a child based on its sex? A child who happens to be the same sex as she is? I can’t help but think about the psychological effects of that.
From Dictionary.com:
Baby:
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby
No bald face assertion, Janie, just the dictionary definition. Although I know why you don’t like the word “baby”– it’s because it “humanizes” the, well, human that’s living inside the mother instead of that lifeless blob of tissue you think it is.
Which religious belief would that be? The scientific concept that if you have sex you have the chance to have a baby, and since if the two people (most likely those those that would be responsible for the baby) refrained from having sex, and/or practiced some barrier means of contraception they would not have to have an abortion?
That’s quite the stretch to say that I’m forcing them to have kids because I don’t think abortion is right. If anything, it could be said that you are forcing them to have kids and kill their kids because you would advocate that 1) they are incapable of self restraint and 2) you are encouraging a promiscuous lifestyle.
You’re famous for this: prove that banning abortions is the worst thing they could do for Russia. Show me the statistics. Compare those in Russia in their backgrounds that have had more children and fewer. Show me the scientific studies. Because, like you say, until you do all you have is what you believe would be best vs. what we believe.
Do I really have to keep doing this?
Dictonary.com, again:
Children:
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/children
You can scream from the mountaintops your own definitions if it makes you feel better.
Why do you say that I don’t care about the children involved when it is you that do not care? I get it. Let’s go through all the undeveloped countries and start evaluating their quality of life– in the name of the children. Anyone that’s living in poverty (how shall we define it, have to have some standard for going hungry– a week suffice?) we’ll kill– so they they won’t have to go hungry.
In fact, let’s follow the original modest proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modest_Proposal) and suggest different meals that we can make out of children– to feed those that remain.
Wouldn’t that be “thinking of the children”? Why is it that you say I’m not thinking of the children when your desire would be to continue to have 1000s slaughtered. Brutally broken apart limb from limb, sucked up in vacuum cleaners, decapitated and having their brains sucked out. All while they’re the most vulnerable. How is that thinking of the children!?
Before you get on your high horse talking in defense of a place where you do not live, in a policy that’s murdering thousands of babies and children every day, and then have the audacity to say that you’re thinking of the children– man, how dare you!?
ooooo the dictionary game, my favorite!!! Let’s take a look at the dictionary.com definition for abortion:
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.
3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (def. 3).
4. an immature and nonviable fetus.
5. abortus (def. 2b).
6. any malformed or monstrous person, thing, etc.
7. Biology. the arrested development of an embryo or an organ at a more or less early stage.
8. the stopping of an illness, infection, etc., at a very early stage.
9. Informal. a. shambles; mess.
b. anything that fails to develop, progress, or mature, as a design or project.
Funny— no mention of the word BABY! Again, Min, your entire argument rests on your assumption that a group of cells is a baby. Not everyone believes that. Your assumption is made mostly because of your religious beliefs. Your are certainly entitled to your assumption and beliefs, but so are the many people in this world who strongly disagree with you.
musicguy, I’m not quite sure what you’re attempting to prove with your dictionary search. If you’re trying to figure out what a baby is, you search for baby– not abortion. Janie questioned my use of the term “baby” when it came to a “fetus” in the womb, and my term is correct.
Please read http://www.minthegap.com/2007/04/06/when-does-life-begin/ before you talk about when life begins. I believe that you will find it most instructive (again, this post is not exhaustive, but proves the point) in determining scientifically when life begins.
I’ll give you the teaser: Doctors brought to testify before the U.S. Congress declared that life begins at conception. It’s accepted medical fact. Even though you and those that agree with your position would believe it to be otherwise.
What you believe about the baby inside the mother and what scientists say it is are two different things.
[…] been involved in an abortion debate that started simply because I commented on how Russia prefers to encourage their people to have children instead of how we in the U.S. choose to abort them. I have been told that I’m depriving […]
Just for those religous folks….
where in the bible does it say that life starts at conception?
I’ve never been able to find it. I odnt htink its in there.
The problem with pro-lifers as I see it is that, in general, they refuse to see things from a birds-eye societal point of view (buddhists on the other hand do this quite well). Its not just pro-lifers, but on this subject it is.
The question is: in our actions what will reduce suffering and/or increase happiness. Every law, every action regarding morality should be viewed form this perspective and not what someones random interpretation of some random made up god wants (I wonder how Odin feels on this subject?).
The question is: Does the availablility of abortion increase suffering or increase happiness. The fetus must be left out of this. The fetus does not feel happiness, it does not feel suffering (lets talk 1st trimester here to keep it simple).
Abortion is simply an undesirable solution to a problem. The part that frustrates me here is that BOTH sides want to reduce abortion rates. Most everyone agrees that abortion should be reduced. One side thinks it due to their belief in what god wants (for the most part), the other side wants it reduced becuase it is a painful, procedure (yes, even RU486 is bloody and damn painful, if you think it is like aspirin, then you dont know anyone who has needed it).
so both sides agree that abortion rates should drop. Decreeing it illegal will do nothing to lower the rate. Look at ireland and mexico (well, mexico just got some reason and is allowing it now), people just do it illegally or leave the country. The goal is to drop it over all.
They key is to focus on the REAL problem unwanted pregnancy. Education, sex ed (not this abstinence-only crap that makes sex less safe), and media infiltration. Condom use is one the rise, less due to school education and more due to media influence, look at any study that concerns teenager.
So there is good news on this front: Teenage unwanted pregnancy is way down since 1991. This is specifically not due to abstinence only program because the rate of teenage sex is down, but hardly by an even noticeable amount. Gonorrhea rates are down almost exactly the same as teenage pregnancy rates.
This good news has led to the decline of abortions in the US. Something both sides want.
Now, can we focus on solving the real problem instead of forcing women to bear unwanted children?
We could prevent the increasing suffering in our society through those women who suffer with the unwanted child, the unwanted children themselves, the strain on the foster care system, in increase in abuse of abandoned children (15% of the foster care kids are abuse physically and sexually, this does not include unavailable data from orphanages), the increase unemployment (50% of foster care kids who age out of the system end up unemployed), and increased burden on the jails (24% of the kids who age out of the foster care system end up in jail). THAT is a lot of extra suffering in the world you would add by banning abortion.
I’ll happily provide links to stats if you really doubt me on this (i’ve been looking into this for some time now)
The Bible, in Psalm 139, states that God made the Psalmist in the mother’s womb. Genesis talks about children in the womb as being empires. Jeremiah talks about God knowing him in his mother’s womb. Personhood starts before birth in the Bible.
Contrary to your belief, this country was not founded on providing happiness, but allowing everyone to pursue happiness. Big difference. Therefore, to have as a basis for why to have abortions to be temporary happiness is to misconstrue why government is around.
Next, I disagree in regards to the goal of all people to reduce abortion. If someone derives their livelihood in the lucrative profession of baby killing, they’re not going to want it to diminish.
Your further logic also misses the point. If we know that giving people the illusion of safety in having sex by convincing them that the pill and condom will protect them, they will engage in the practice more. The more that they engage in the activity, the more chance that they will have an unexpected pregnancy. The even greater risk is that they will contract a sexually transmitted disease that is not blocked by either means of birth control.
To use your logic, then they’ll really be unhappy.
If you want to provide me stats, could you provide stats before and after Roe v. Wade for the U.S. for teen pregnancy rate? How has Roe v. Wade effected the rate? How about the statistics about the number involved in sexual activity? Increased or decreased?
Since we all know that the only way to have practically 0% probability of pregnancy (practically because of the virgin birth of Christ!) is to not have sex, how has the increase in availability of the pill, condoms and now abortion effected this risky behavior?
Wow Min, you’re getting like me asking for all the statistics. The big difference is that Tech might actually be able to find stats to back up his claims.
Still waiting for stats on your gay marriage post from way back when…
Personhood starts before birth in the Bible.
OK, but not at conception. I dont see a single place that you mentioned where it says that. I dont think it is disputed that killing a 9 month old fetus is horrific. (although how you can read this and not feel for the mother I will never understand: http://tinyurl.com/35lbw2)
I would suggest that “life” is where the fetus can live outside without the mother (but certainly with plenty of technology). Its arbitrary (no more arbitrary than conception). Of course you think we have some mystical soul thing that you have never seen and that it is inserted at conception, so of course you can’t see that there is a fuzzy nature to choosing where life start.
Contrary to your belief, this country was not founded on providing happiness, but allowing everyone to pursue happiness. Big difference.
Nonsense, on so many levels. First off that is not contrary to my beliefs. I fully understand that it is the pursuit of happiness. Making choices that lead to happiness of those around you is directly in line with the pursuit if personal happiness and for those around you.
Second, you are describing the declaration of independence, not the constitution. That has little relevance on what the country does or doesnt do.
Third, even if it were in the constitution it still wouldn’t matter, we do TONS of things that are not in the constitutions like make interstates, pay for trains, license car drivers, pay for energy, pay farmers, etc etc…none of which are in the constitution. Its why those right wingers who say we cant have a national health care system because its not in the constitution are full of crap.
So, you think that it matters that a tiny minority of the tiny minority of obstetric doctors that perform abortions counts towards the whole when I say Most everyone agrees….? I said MOST for a reason. only 10% of planned parenthoods business is for abortions, you really think that those doctors would truly mind if the market for abortion services dropped?
If we know that giving people the illusion of safety in having sex by convincing them that the pill and condom will protect them, they will engage in the practice more
Nonsense…evidence? The “sex rate” will remain the same. I have statistics on teenage sex rates (not adults, dont even know where to look for that). Those rates have stayed the same (slight drop, in fact) even with media focus on birth control, access to sex on the internet and in movies. Here is one source. If you really need, I’ll get you the year by year..
http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_024FactSheet.pdf
If you want to provide me stats, could you provide stats before and after Roe v. Wade for the U.S. for teen pregnancy rate?
This is a red herring and you know it. Since abortion was illegal back then, there are no statistics. It could have been higher or lower (I dont know where to get stats on D&E procedures or the other names that abortions were called to get around the law) or the various other methods (coat hangers and dumpsters). But there was a nice (sarcasm) program with birthing houses and thousands of women from around the country were forced to go “on vacation” only to give birth in one of these places. Similarly there are no statistics that I can find on religously run orphanages in this country (why can’t I?). So all the numbers about foster care increase since this huge section of data is not tracked.
Since we all know that the only way to have practically 0% probability of pregnancy (practically because of the virgin birth of Christ!) is to not have sex, how has the increase in availability of the pill, condoms and now abortion effected this risky behavior?
Bumper Sticker. You cant possibly have missed the fact the abstinence only programs dont work. They in fact make life more dangerous and spread disease easier because they dont teach the information that the teens should know. Delaying sex does nothing to drop pregnancy rates. The problem with AO programs is that they only work in a vaccuum. They totally ignore the fact that we are human with strong desires and peer and societal pressures.
The other problem with AO is that there is no way to measure its efficacy properly. So your 100% method is only true in theory. If someone says “I am in an AO program” Are they going to tell you they had sex. I dont think so.
There is plenty of evidence that AO Programs makes things worse (because the theory that everyone will do it perfectly is well, kinda dumb)
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/works/pdf/NotYet.pdf
The important part is the AO is of course effective if you practice it. It is not effective as a program that deals with multitudes of people with multitudes of backgrounds and multitudes of behaviors. Thats is why its important to understand and measure. Information is good for teens.
so stop quoting bumper stickers and do some reading. The CDC, guttmacher institute, the administration for children and families and childstats.gov are good places to start.
Again I say it: Forcing women to bear unwanted children is unfair to the women, unfair to the child, and unfair for society. It promotes suffering for women and unwanted children.
Call it flattery, if you want, Musicguy. LOL
I’m actually genuinely curious as to how the stats will bear out. I have my suspicions, and I don’t actually believe that the stats have any impact on the personhood of the baby in the womb, but (like you know so well) if you’re going to use stats to further your argument, better back it up.
If there had been a study one way or the other (in regards to your post) then it would be rather easy to find what I seek. However, most of the stats that I was finding were biased, and even then if I did find something that would have showed what I was talking about, it only showed me that it’s hard to truly calculate the effect. In any case, a post will come when I get back to that topic.
It is true what they say about statistics– you can get them to say whatever you want.
Were they biased or jsut didn’t agree with your point of view?
Hence the need for scientific, peer-reviewed statistics.
ARGH! my long post evaporated!
I should have copied before submitting! now I gotta try to redo this (a day later becuase I am less frustrated now). Here is what I remember.
Bible stuff: Not one of your quotes says that life starts at conception. Why? Becuase the folks who wrote biblical myths didn’t know the biology. They all say the equivalent of “sometime during pregnancy”. I think we can all agree that aborting 9 month baby is wrong. can we say that all late term pregnancies are wrong? Ask this lady:
http://tinyurl.com/35lbw2
If you use the argument that the first cell represents the “potential” of a human being you have to apply that to every cell in your body (Dont comb your hair or wash!), the genetic potential is the same. It just requires technology to make it viable. That is why I think we could safely limit abortion to first trimester without moral woes. At this point there really isnt a human, just the potential of one. Currently a fetus can live outside the womb at around 5 months. I would suggest this is where life really starts, granted this number could be smaller with time.
Contrary to your belief, this country was not founded on providing happiness
Strawman. I never said that, nor imply it. It wrong on 3 levels, the first is that I never said that, the second is that this country has rules and laws formed in the constitution, not the declaration of Independance, and third, even if it was in the constitution there are tons of thing we do and provide for our citizens that are not in the constitution, like roads, energy, health and food for the poor, social security. Its why when republican scream that we can’t do national health becuase its not in the constitution, its a total red herring.
The real point I was making has nothing to do with living in this country (although it would help if we legislated this way) its about being a person. We all have a similar set of morals in us, it doesn’t matter if you have religion or not or which religion (as shown in various moral dillema studies). Religion and nationalism can certainly warp these morals, but in general we all have the same one. Living and legislating in a way that is design in increase happiness and/or decrease suffering is a good forum for data based debate, rather than “what will SkyDaddy think?”
Next, I disagree in regards to the goal of all people to reduce abortion. If someone derives their livelihood in the lucrative profession of baby killing, they’re not going to want it to diminish.
That is exactly why i said “most”. However you are talking about an extreme minority. Only a small minority of OB/GYN doctors (who are a small minority of doctors who are a small minority of Americans) perform abortions. Only around 10% of planned parenthood business is for abortion. Do you really think that this is something that will be sorely missed? (please provide evidence of it being lucrative) and If so… who cares? Happiness will be increased and suffering decreased on the whole if the need for abortions is made obsolete. This is not the case if you just ban it.
If we know that giving people the illusion of safety in having sex by convincing them that the pill and condom will protect them, they will engage in the practice more
Evidence please. The evidence is actually contrary to this statement. contraception and information is more abundant now than ever before. The pregancy rate has dropped dramatically since 1991 and teenagers are having about the same amount of sex (however it too dropped a little bit).
Here:
Less sex
http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/beh4.asp
Lower teenage birth rates
http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc6.asp
fewer abortions
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Drop in rate of gonnorhea (page 14)
http://www.cdc.gov/std/GISP2004/GISP2004All.pdf
This is all pretty good news. We have some programs that are working to reduce teenage preganacy, even though teenage sex rates remain virtually unchanged (and always will). It shows safe sex school and media campaigns are working (abortion and gonorhea rates dropping together).
f you want to provide me stats, could you provide stats before and after Roe v. Wade for the U.S. for teen pregnancy rate?
Red herring and you know it. Abortion was illegal before roe. There are no stats on abortion even though it was routinely performed as D&E and a variety of other “medical procedures” to get around the law. Then there are the back alley folks and finally the coat hanger (or pennyroyal eaters, or drug ODers, etc etc). There is now way to measure it. I dont know if the number was higher than now, lower than now, or the same as now, and neither do you.
I already showed you the stats on teenage sexual activity for teenager (where you are plainly misinformed). I dont think there are stats on adult sex activity.
Since we all know that the only way to have practically 0% probability of pregnancy (practically because of the virgin birth of Christ!) is to not have sex, how has the increase in availability of the pill, condoms and now abortion effected this risky behavior?
oooh a bumbersticker sexual education. The problem with this is that it totally ignores the realities of human beaviors. You can’t possibly have missed the studies that point out that abstinence only education fails miserably at preventing sex or sex related issues. Delaying the onset of sex does nothing to drop abortion or disease rates and may in fact make it worse since the kids are ill equipped to make responsible decisions. Do you really need me to link all the studies that show this.
AO works in theory. Its logical, if I dont skydive, i wont get hurt. If I dont have sex, I wont get pregnant. The reality is that people have strong desires to not only satisfy sexual urges, but to fit into crowds and be like the norm. Its always been this way, bible folks think you can just say something trite and people will stop doing a fundamental biological activity that we have honed for millions of years. Its preposterous.
If someone is in an AO program, and is asked “did you have sex?” What is (s)he going to say? Yes? Gimme a break. In the lost post I have a bunch of links about AO nonsense. In fact texas implemented it under Bush and it now has the fifth worst rate of teenage pregnancy in the country (followed by other bible thumping states, nevada is #1). While other states improved their rates dramatically, texas barely changed at all. Even despite this data, Bush then procedes to spend 250 million more of american taxpayer money to fund more of this nonsense. Good Work!
Pregnancy rate by state
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
Now question for you:
If you are so opposed to abortion, are you doing anything to relieve the number of unwanted children. Don’t you think its hypocritical not to adopt?
Why is orphanage data unavailable? I can get foster care system data, but nothing about orphanages which are generally, religiously run. no data on how many kids over the years. Is this number increasing or decreasing?
foster Care kids
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/12_PDF.pdf
Good news again! the number of foster care kids is dropping, again looks like sex ed practices are working. but what happens when you add that orphanage population? I have no idea.
I also had data in the last post, which I really dont feel like finding again about child abuse in the foster care system. It was at about 15% of sexual and physical abuse. worse, the kids who aged out of the system had some pretty horrifying stats
https://www.cwla.org/advocacy/2007legagenda17.pdf
30% go homeless
25% experience post traumatic stress
50% dont complete high school
30% end up on publix assistance
10-25% endup in jail.
I suggest a peruse though here if you think forcing women to bear unwanted children is a great concept
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can
Im submitting now.. there are tons more resources on the web you should look at. If you do you’ll find that AO is a silly notion with little to support its efficacy. The very best we can do it to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and we will if we can stop yammering about biblical reasons why one thing or another is wrong or right in the eyes of Poseidon…err i mean.. Allah.. dammit..i mean God.
Why dont my posts work?
Argh that one did.. perhaps they are too long? here is 1/2
ARGH! my long post evaporated!
I should have copied before submitting! now I gotta try to redo this (a day later becuase I am less frustrated now). Here is what I remember.
Bible stuff: Not one of your quotes says that life starts at conception. Why? Becuase the folks who wrote biblical myths didn’t know the biology. They all say the equivalent of “sometime during pregnancy”. I think we can all agree that aborting 9 month baby is wrong. can we say that all late term pregnancies are wrong? Ask this lady:
http://tinyurl.com/35lbw2
If you use the argument that the first cell represents the “potential” of a human being you have to apply that to every cell in your body (Dont comb your hair or wash!), the genetic potential is the same. It just requires technology to make it viable. That is why I think we could safely limit abortion to first trimester without moral woes. At this point there really isnt a human, just the potential of one. Currently a fetus can live outside the womb at around 5 months. I would suggest this is where life really starts, granted this number could be smaller with time.
Contrary to your belief, this country was not founded on providing happiness
Strawman. I never said that, nor imply it. It wrong on 3 levels, the first is that I never said that, the second is that this country has rules and laws formed in the constitution, not the declaration of Independance, and third, even if it was in the constitution there are tons of thing we do and provide for our citizens that are not in the constitution, like roads, energy, health and food for the poor, social security. Its why when republican scream that we can’t do national health becuase its not in the constitution, its a total red herring.
The real point I was making has nothing to do with living in this country (although it would help if we legislated this way) its about being a person. We all have a similar set of morals in us, it doesn’t matter if you have religion or not or which religion (as shown in various moral dillema studies). Religion and nationalism can certainly warp these morals, but in general we all have the same one. Living and legislating in a way that is design in increase happiness and/or decrease suffering is a good forum for data based debate, rather than “what will SkyDaddy think?”
Next, I disagree in regards to the goal of all people to reduce abortion. If someone derives their livelihood in the lucrative profession of baby killing, they’re not going to want it to diminish.
That is exactly why i said “most”. However you are talking about an extreme minority. Only a small minority of OB/GYN doctors (who are a small minority of doctors who are a small minority of Americans) perform abortions. Only around 10% of planned parenthood business is for abortion. Do you really think that this is something that will be sorely missed? (please provide evidence of it being lucrative) and If so… who cares? Happiness will be increased and suffering decreased on the whole if the need for abortions is made obsolete. This is not the case if you just ban it.
If we know that giving people the illusion of safety in having sex by convincing them that the pill and condom will protect them, they will engage in the practice more
Evidence please. The evidence is actually contrary to this statement. contraception and information is more abundant now than ever before. The pregancy rate has dropped dramatically since 1991 and teenagers are having about the same amount of sex (however it too dropped a little bit).
Here:
Less sex
http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/beh4.asp
Lower teenage birth rates
http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc6.asp
fewer abortions
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Drop in rate of gonnorhea (page 14)
http://www.cdc.gov/std/GISP2004/GISP2004All.pdf
This is all pretty good news. We have some programs that are working to reduce teenage preganacy, even though teenage sex rates remain virtually unchanged (and always will). It shows safe sex school and media campaigns are working (abortion and gonorhea rates dropping together).
f you want to provide me stats, could you provide stats before and after Roe v. Wade for the U.S. for teen pregnancy rate?
Red herring and you know it. Abortion was illegal before roe. There are no stats on abortion even though it was routinely performed as D&E and a variety of other “medical procedures” to get around the law. Then there are the back alley folks and finally the coat hanger (or pennyroyal eaters, or drug ODers, etc etc). There is now way to measure it. I dont know if the number was higher than now, lower than now, or the same as now, and neither do you.
2nd half
I already showed you the stats on teenage sexual activity for teenager (where you are plainly misinformed). I dont think there are stats on adult sex activity.
Since we all know that the only way to have practically 0% probability of pregnancy (practically because of the virgin birth of Christ!) is to not have sex, how has the increase in availability of the pill, condoms and now abortion effected this risky behavior?
oooh a bumbersticker sexual education. The problem with this is that it totally ignores the realities of human beaviors. You can’t possibly have missed the studies that point out that abstinence only education fails miserably at preventing sex or sex related issues. Delaying the onset of sex does nothing to drop abortion or disease rates and may in fact make it worse since the kids are ill equipped to make responsible decisions. Do you really need me to link all the studies that show this.
AO works in theory. Its logical, if I dont skydive, i wont get hurt. If I dont have sex, I wont get pregnant. The reality is that people have strong desires to not only satisfy sexual urges, but to fit into crowds and be like the norm. Its always been this way, bible folks think you can just say something trite and people will stop doing a fundamental biological activity that we have honed for millions of years. Its preposterous.
If someone is in an AO program, and is asked “did you have sex?” What is (s)he going to say? Yes? Gimme a break. In the lost post I have a bunch of links about AO nonsense. In fact texas implemented it under Bush and it now has the fifth worst rate of teenage pregnancy in the country (followed by other bible thumping states, nevada is #1). While other states improved their rates dramatically, texas barely changed at all. Even despite this data, Bush then procedes to spend 250 million more of american taxpayer money to fund more of this nonsense. Good Work!
Pregnancy rate by state
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
Now question for you:
If you are so opposed to abortion, are you doing anything to relieve the number of unwanted children. Don’t you think its hypocritical not to adopt?
Why is orphanage data unavailable? I can get foster care system data, but nothing about orphanages which are generally, religiously run. no data on how many kids over the years. Is this number increasing or decreasing?
foster Care kids
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/12_PDF.pdf
Good news again! the number of foster care kids is dropping, again looks like sex ed practices are working. but what happens when you add that orphanage population? I have no idea.
I also had data in the last post, which I really dont feel like finding again about child abuse in the foster care system. It was at about 15% of sexual and physical abuse. worse, the kids who aged out of the system had some pretty horrifying stats
https://www.cwla.org/advocacy/2007legagenda17.pdf
30% go homeless
25% experience post traumatic stress
50% dont complete high school
30% end up on publix assistance
10-25% endup in jail.
I suggest a peruse though here if you think forcing women to bear unwanted children is a great concept
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can
Im submitting now.. there are tons more resources on the web you should look at. If you do you’ll find that AO is a silly notion with little to support its efficacy. The very best we can do it to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and we will if we can stop yammering about biblical reasons why one thing or another is wrong or right in the eyes of Poseidon…err i mean.. Allah.. dammit..i mean God.
@nd part
I already showed you the stats on teenage sexual activity for teenager (where you are plainly misinformed). I dont think there are stats on adult sex activity.
Since we all know that the only way to have practically 0% probability of pregnancy (practically because of the virgin birth of Christ!) is to not have sex, how has the increase in availability of the pill, condoms and now abortion effected this risky behavior?
oooh a bumbersticker sexual education. The problem with this is that it totally ignores the realities of human beaviors. You can’t possibly have missed the studies that point out that abstinence only education fails miserably at preventing sex or sex related issues. Delaying the onset of sex does nothing to drop abortion or disease rates and may in fact make it worse since the kids are ill equipped to make responsible decisions. Do you really need me to link all the studies that show this.
AO works in theory. Its logical, if I dont skydive, i wont get hurt. If I dont have sex, I wont get pregnant. The reality is that people have strong desires to not only satisfy sexual urges, but to fit into crowds and be like the norm. Its always been this way, bible folks think you can just say something trite and people will stop doing a fundamental biological activity that we have honed for millions of years. Its preposterous.
If someone is in an AO program, and is asked “did you have sex?” What is (s)he going to say? Yes? Gimme a break. In the lost post I have a bunch of links about AO nonsense. In fact texas implemented it under Bush and it now has the fifth worst rate of teenage pregnancy in the country (followed by other bible thumping states, nevada is #1). While other states improved their rates dramatically, texas barely changed at all. Even despite this data, Bush then procedes to spend 250 million more of american taxpayer money to fund more of this nonsense. Good Work!
Pregnancy rate by state
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf
Now question for you:
If you are so opposed to abortion, are you doing anything to relieve the number of unwanted children. Don’t you think its hypocritical not to adopt?
Why is orphanage data unavailable? I can get foster care system data, but nothing about orphanages which are generally, religiously run. no data on how many kids over the years. Is this number increasing or decreasing?
foster Care kids
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/12_PDF.pdf
Good news again! the number of foster care kids is dropping, again looks like sex ed practices are working. but what happens when you add that orphanage population? I have no idea.
I also had data in the last post, which I really dont feel like finding again about child abuse in the foster care system. It was at about 15% of sexual and physical abuse. worse, the kids who aged out of the system had some pretty horrifying stats
https://www.cwla.org/advocacy/2007legagenda17.pdf
30% go homeless
25% experience post traumatic stress
50% dont complete high school
30% end up on publix assistance
10-25% endup in jail.
I suggest a peruse though here if you think forcing women to bear unwanted children is a great concept
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can
Im submitting now.. there are tons more resources on the web you should look at. If you do you’ll find that AO is a silly notion with little to support its efficacy. The very best we can do it to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and we will if we can stop yammering about biblical reasons why one thing or another is wrong or right in the eyes of Poseidon…err i mean.. Allah.. dammit..i mean God.
Phew… made it
Musicguy– more like I couldn’t find any stats done at all. I started by looking at Denmark– where it’s legal– but found the data perplexing because of some other laws they had in play. It was hard to determine whether the decrease in long term marriages was due to homosexuality or due to a lax definition of marriage– which I believe one leads to the other. Like I said, I’ll post on it eventually.
techskeptic– perhaps you should stick to providing the data I asked for instead of just providing the ones that you want. I asked for data from before birth control/abortion to after. Instead you provided me the effect of abstinence education versus [un]safe-sex education. Amusing, but not what I asked for.
Since you acknowledge my point that the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs is abstinence, and state that the only problem is human behavior, you also have to admit that you’re desire is to treat people like they have no control of their own bodies and to push a solution that spreads infectious disease and increases the need for abortions.
The first is downright despicable– how you can, in good conscience, claim that it’s “bumpersticker” sex ed to know that there are very few STDs that are only transmitted via fluid, and most if not all is skin to skin contact, so that there are many many teens and young adults out there carrying diseases that are highly contagious, are hard to detect that is there, that effects future ability to reproduce, and can kill you is surprising.
Secondly, your whole leap from abortion to adoption to foster care is incredible. First off, you make no link from “this kid was chosen not to be aborted, but was instead placed in the foster care system” is non-existent. There’d have to be a lot of work done connect it.
Then, you’d also have to say that “because 30% of kids that end up in foster care then grow up to be homeless” let’s kill them all. Choose your own statistic, and plug it in the quotes. How sick is that thought?
And then, how about the next logical argument– if we detect that someone is going to end up in these kinds of circumstances or is a financial burden later in life, let’s kill them then too (http://fiction.minthegap.com/2007/09/05/we-cant-have-children-on-welfare/).
I’m telling you, techskeptic, you’ve advanced no reason why the extermination of life should be acceptable to any person. Conversely, you’ve made the opposite point. That the pro-abortion argument is not only a argument for killing babies, but also has a low opinion of life at all stages, and anyone who doesn’t make you happy or is a burdened should be killed.
techskeptic– perhaps you should stick to providing the data I asked for instead of just providing the ones that you want. I asked for data from before birth control/abortion to after. Instead you provided me the effect of abstinence education versus [un]safe-sex education. Amusing, but not what I asked for.
No, I addressed this request specifically. Its a red herring. go back and read the post.
you acknowledge my point that the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs is abstinence, and state that the only problem is human behavior, you also have to admit that you’re desire is to treat people like they have no control of their own bodies
No, that is the opposite of what I was saying. Abstinence only programs are NOT effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs. Information (giving all the information to teenagers) and facilitation (i.e. making contraception available)is the best way. The studies show this pretty clearly.
A program that compiles its entire teaching into a sentence that can be put on a bumper sticker is a “bumpersticker sex ed program”. real life is far more complex. The data shows it pretty clearly.
The link between abortion and adoption is obvious. I didn’t think I needed to spell it out for you. If you are going to force women to have unwanted babies, a large portion of those babies are going to end up in the foster care system, or in orphanages. I can’t imagine why you dont see the link. The rolls will grow if you ban abortion.
Then, you’d also have to say that “because 30% of kids that end up in foster care then grow up to be homeless” let’s kill them all.
Strawman (again). I didnt say or imply that. you are confusing a living person with a fetus. Even the bible, as you quoted yourself, doesnt distinguish that life starts at conception. I didnt say or imply that we should go kill kids in the foster care system. I am saying that preventing kids from ending up in the foster care system (or in orphanages) in the first place is a better solution than increasing the population of those unwanted kids. There is over all less suffering. There are less kids suffering, less women forced to go though 9 months of pregnancy, there are less taxes being paid for the foster care system and for the consequences of the kids who age out of that system. Suffering is lower overall.
and then, how about the next logical argument– if we detect that someone is going to end up in these kinds of circumstances or is a financial burden later in life, let’s kill them then to
Strawman. You know, arguing is much more efficient if you actually argue my points and not ones that you make up. I didnt say or imply that. Again, the idea is to prevent kids from ending up in that system in the first place. Not killing them after they are in the system.
that the pro-abortion argument is not only a argument for killing babies, …..anyone who doesn’t make you happy or is a burdened should be killed
Count the Strawmen. Pro-choice advocates do not want to kill babies. They simply dont want women to be forced to bear unwanted children. They want to lower the number of unwanted children in society (in which case increases suffering of both women and children). The best way to do this is to focus on the problem (unwanted pregnancy) not one of the undesirable solutions (abortion or adoption). Your whole problem, that isn’t even supported by the bible (as you so readily quoted), is that you have been indoctrinated to think that life starts at conception. This is a totally arbitrary demarcation, with its own set of questionable outcomes (why isnt it killing to wash your hands then?).
And since you have this indoctrination you are unable to see past this and can not have a rational conversation about what is good for the society as a whole.
no one in america is forced to end a pregnancy. That is why its a choice.
you didnt answer any of my questions I see. I presume you are, in fact, a hypocrite who has chosen not to adopt any kids to alleviate the burden. Sorry if that sounds harsh or is too presumptuous for you. Am I wrong?
more like I couldn’t find any stats done at all. I started by looking at Denmark– where it’s legal– but found the data perplexing because of some other laws they had in play. It was hard to determine whether the decrease in long term marriages was due to homosexuality or due to a lax definition of marriage– which I believe one leads to the other. Like I said, I’ll post on it eventually.
LOL I just saw this….
So.. what you are saying is that there is no compelling data to show that Gay marriage leads to the destruction of the sanctity of marriage nor to the moral decline of civilization.
I’m glad you and the Gay Rights folks can agree on something.
Whoa! I just noticed my old posts showed up!
What do you believe the correlation is between unwanted pregnancies and children in foster care?
If you believe it’s close to 1-to-1 then let me ask this question. What happens to the others? If 50% go without high school education, 30% homeless, what happens to the other 50% and 70% respectively? Do they become doctors? Lawyers? CEOs? Do they write books, meet needs, help the sick? What do they do?
You see, if it’s 1-to-1 and we applied your standard that these people, these children, these babies are not worth having because a portion of them are going to end up on the public dole, then we must also accept that we would be killing people that are not homeless, that are not without a high school degree, etc.
What if it’s less? What if it’s 1-to-100? 1-to-1000? Then your statistics are less meaningful than you want us to believe. Because, in reality, you can’t match people that didn’t exist with what people in bad homes have become.
I believe the whole “foster kids” = “non-aborted kids” is the red herring here.
As far as if a baby is a life– it most certainly is. Everyone knows the baby in the womb is alive. Pro-abortionists know it, the media knows it, pregnant moms know it, scientists and medical text books know it. I’m surprised you didn’t! I’ll post on all the details shortly.
In that case, none of my arguments are strawmen, because you are advocating the killing of life, and really, that’s all this discussion is about. Is the baby in the womb alive. Science, medicine, nature, everyone except for those that want to excuse the killing for personal purposes says yes.
Well then I guess you dont wash yourself. If you are going to say a cell or group of cells is exactly the same life as an adult, then why don’t you attribute the same value to all the other cells that have the exact same genetic material, exact same ability to grow a new human. Why? becuase this particular cell happens to be placed in a natural incubator (which happens, also to be made up of cells perfectly capable of producing an adult babies).
I’m guessing that you think its because technology is required to those cells into babies makes those cells somehow ‘less alive’. So if a fetus requires technology to become born, then it is less alive? I guess none of those babies born due to C-section are alive. None of those premature babies who require intense incubation and technology to survive outside the womb are alive either? Its a reprehensable position.
You want it both ways. a cell is alive if you say it is in one respect and not alive if you say it isn’t in another respect. So instead of focusing on the real problem (unwanted pregnancy) you cant get your head out of your bible long enough to quit trying to force women to bear unwanted kids.
I dont think it would be a 1:1 ratio of of kids who are forced to be born to women who didnt want them to growth in the foster care system. First off many will end up in orphanages (you still didnt answer my question about why there is no data about the kids in these catholic -mostly- institutions) outside of the foster care system. Some would stay with the parents, some would end up in the foster care system, and some small minority will end up in dumpsters.
Further, abortion will not stop, it will just be unregulated. D&E procedures will rise, “miscarriages” will increase, women will travel to saner countries and come back ‘thinner’, and so forth. you will not have gotten rid of the abortion, you will have just shoved it under the rug. Its obviously a stupid proposition.
Far better to keep it legal and work to reduce its needs (which clearly the data is showing the is happening, albeit slowly). Understand why people feel the need to abort rather than adopt or keep the child. Understand why the rate of unwanted pregnancy is above 0%. Then we can measure and understand how our social programs are working.
and of course, You still didnt answer any of my questions, you have posted not a shred of evidence, not one link, to back up anything that you state as a fact, and still haven’t provided any data to back up your claims that I pointed out in my original post. You still havent justified why you havent adopted any kids.
Instead you keep focusing on this indefensible position that forcing women to have unwanted babies is somehow the right thing to do. Totally ignoring the increased suffering you intend to impart on the people of this country.
Talk about sadistic.
An embryo is used of any living creature at an early stage of development. Fetus is a Latin word variously translated “offspring,” “young one,” or “little child.” You can have a discussion all day long about “a bunch of cells” and whether my hygiene habits have anything to do with cells, but that’s not the topic. The topic is human life.
It is scientifically inaccurate to say an embryo or a fetus is not a human being simply because he is at an early stage of development than a born infant. This is like saying that a toddler is not a human being– or less of a human being– because he is not yet an adolescent. Or that an adolescent is not a human being because he is not yet an adult.
Semantics, like “blob of cells” affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.
Furthermore, prior to the earliest abortions, the unborn already have every body part she will ever have. Hardly a blob of cells, or the equivalent of a skin cell. We’re taking about a functioning individual with every limb, every organ, she will ever have. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates brain waves.
The real problem, my dear skeptic, is not “unwanted pregnancies.” That may be part of the solution, but the problem is the massive killing on a scale greater than the holocaust of innocent victims in the name of selfish choice.
I’m not Catholic, so why would I have any data on orphanages? And why do you assume that most pregnancies that don’t end in abortions end in the foster care system? In fact, I would posit that if you dug hard enough you would find that most “unwanted pregnancies” that go to term end up with single mothers rather than in the foster care system. Either that, or they are adopted at birth– which is very popular with those couples that cannot have children.
That harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for there being no law. It’s like saying that we know that people will rob banks, so let’s not post any protections there. Or, we know that people will kill one another, so let’s not chase them or make it a crime.
I find it ridiculous to trust those that provide abortions and make extreme amounts of money off of them with the task of trying to minimize them. What profit is there in that? It’s telling someone to go out of business!
The pro-life movement is doing more for women now than the pro-choice. Pro-life Pregnancy centers provide women with shelter, food, clothing, support. Pro-abortion centers provide an opportunity to kill their babies, condoms and birth control pills.
Pro-life centers meet needs, and encourage life. They make no profit from people, but are supported through free-fill gifts. Pro-abortion centers make money off the government and by killing babies.
You tell me which is making a positive impact and which has the motives for being a positive influence in society.
Before 5 and 1/2 weeks there ain’t no heartbeat to stop.
I thought about responding more to this topic, but I’m sick of beating my head against the wall. Abortion is legal and will be for a very long time. Even if SCOTUS decides to temporarily reverse Roe V Wade, women will still find a way to end their pregnancies. They always have, and they always will.
You’re right about the date of heartbeat, Musicguy, but your stats don’t reflect when abortion is done.
Abortion clinics state that no abortions occur before six weeks, and most do not occur until the baby’s eighth week of development. Even when pregnancies are detected earlier, operators want to make sure the unborn is large enough to do a proper inventory of his severed body parts. (A hand or leg inadvertently left in the mother will cause a dangerous infection.)
Beating heart at 21 days and brain waves at 40 days– each of these is present in every abortion.
You don’t know that it will be legal for a long time– look how slavery was changed in a short time and that’s nothing compared to this tragedy.
And if SCOTUS did change, it would then go back to the states.
Again, I repeat, it’s a poor argument to say “people are going to do it anyway” to justify condoning– nay, encouraging– infant homicide.
[…] still amused. A post on Russia’s “Day of Conception” just keeps on going. The latest set of arguments has nothing to do about what the […]
Min,
Dont think I have not noticed your style of “debate”. You make a statement and then dont back it up and any data. Then you do it again. Even when I call you out on it.
Then you don’t respond to anything people who are debating with you about.
Please post the passages in the bible that says that life starts at conception, as opposed to ’some time during pregnancy’.
Please post data where you think these doctors are making huge amounts of money on abortions specifically (as opposed to having a practice that makes money that happens to also provide abortions)
Please post data that supports your assertion that AO programs work.
Please post data that supports your assertion that if women who had abortions were not allowed to have them, then they would parent the child happily (as opposed to folks who had unwanted pregnancies but were already against abortion- a very differnt set of people)
Please explain to me how you are not a total hypocrite since you have not adopted a child to help reduce to problem associated with bringing unwanted pregnancies to term.
Please explain to me how you can be want to force women to bear unwanted babies, but are OK with in vitro fertilization (I am assuming that because you didnt gripe about it before).
Please explain how an abortion is any different than the results of in vitro fertilization.
Please show me where you read that Plan B is to be taken 6 weeks after fertilization? Please show me where you read that ru486 is to be taken no less than 6 weeks after fertilization.
When you make a statement in an online debate, support your facts. Otherwise you just look like a foolish child, pontificating from ignorance.
Its truly unbelievable that you don’t see unwanted pregnancy as the problem and that abortions are. I mean talk about digging you head in the sand! If you fix unwanted pregnancy then abortions stop. If you fix abortions then unwanted pregnancies do not stop. As far as I can tell you are just dimwitted if you can’t see that. I’m with Musicguy discussing this with you is truly like yelling at the TV.
I was thinking about your silly assertion that Abstinence only programs work.
The abstinence only version of pregnancy prevention:
“Dont have sex and you wont get pregnant”
The abstinence only version of Obesity control
“Dont eat and you wont get fat”
The Abstinence only version to reduce drug use
“Dont do drugs and you wont OD”
The abstienence only version of reducing smoking
“dont smoke and you wont get tobacco related lung cancer”
Oh man I could go on forever…. do you see what ALL of these ridiculous ‘programs’ have in common? they all completely ignore the reasons why the bad behavior is there in the first place
As long as you are telling kids not to have sex, forming promise keeping groups and other nonsense you are totally ignoring the biological, societal and psychological reasons that the kids are having unsafe sex in the first place. And then when they go ahead and break those promises or think they are in love and it ok to go… they do it in an unsafe manner! Its a totally stupid concept!
[…] He asked: [W]here in the [B]bible does it say that life starts at conception? […]
[…] Techskeptic wants to know: Please post data where you think these doctors are making huge amounts of money on abortions specifically (as opposed to having a practice that makes money that happens to also provide abortions) […]
[…] Techskeptic doesn’t believe that abstinence education works. He wants me to post links proving that it does. […]
[…] Next, Techskeptic takes a swipe at me personally: Please explain to me how you are not a total hypocrite since you have not adopted a child to help reduce to problem associated with bringing unwanted pregnancies to term. […]
[…] Techskeptic likes to ask me questions that I’ve never talked about in this discussion: Please explain to me how you can be want to force women to bear unwanted babies, but are OK with in vitro fertilization (I am assuming that because you didn’t gripe about it before). […]
[…] From here the conversation with Techskeptic degrades into name calling, mischaracterized and crazy logic. […]