Obama, the disgusting pig.

Not to turn this into a contraception debate, but since the pill became so widespread, we have seen in the 1960's 6% of babies born out of wedlock, and in 1992, the rate was 22%. For black babies born out of wedlock, the numbers in 1960 were 22%, and in 1992 they were 68%. I think now the national average has climbed to 38%. http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2001/2001-0717-wm.htm

Obvious reasons are someone is on birth control, forgets to take it, etc. Divorce rate also mirrors the spike, as more and more adultery is committed.

Our culture is encouraging this path. I don't think just pumping more contraceptives into schools and society is really going to stop the trend.

 

Thank you for the updated information. So, according to your data and this...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

...it appears that rates haven't increased, just stagnated.

That still does not change my contention that with a concerted effort by everyone on both sides of the issue, along with increased access to contraception, particularly the "morning after" pill on an OTC basis, we could have real, measurable impacts on abortion rates in this country.

 

Born out of wedlock <> unwanted pregnancy

Your analysis also leaves out the fact that as these numbers have increased over the course of several decades, abortion rates have been declining since 1980 (according to the table in the link in my last post).

We are talking about two different things.

 

twhy, you go out of your way to blame "the Pill" for unintended pregnancies, and infer, the way I read it, that contraception, like the Pill, is responsible for divorce, adultery, "black babies" (babies in general as well, I assume) born out of wedlock, and I get the sense that while you say "Our culture is encouraging this path," what you really mean is that contraception is encouraging "our culture down this path." The topper is your statement that, "I don't think just pumping more contraceptives into schools and society is really going to stop the trend."

I simply don't understand your line of reasoning, twhy. It has been proven, time and again, that simply encouraging young people, heck any people, to not have sex "out of wedlock," doesn't have an appreciable affect on the number of those pregnancies you are concerned about. Heck, we had many years of GOP rule the last couple of decades (actually, close to 3 decades) that made a huge deal out of your point of view being what we should be doing, to the point that funds were withdrawn from UN agencies and other international agencies trying to reduce all the population explosions in underdeveloped countries that have helped mightily to KEEP them underdeveloped, by introducing contraception AND education.

Do you seriously believe, still, after all these years (well, a hell of a lot of years to me, being an adult in the 1960's, when this was, believe it or not, a hot topic, and my friends and I, along with my little, but influential, "sub-culture," were busy rewriting the "rules" on sexual behavior, thank you very much) that "sex education" promoting "abstinence" is the panacea for the "ills" of having sex, in or out of "wedlock?" Seriously? Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to be twisting your words. That's what I'm getting from you, if you understand me.

What you and everyone concerned about making abortions legal and rare (my position), and simply illegal (yours), should be improved and widespread use of birth control, and far better sex education in schools, including plain English about how to use that birth control as well as encouraging delaying sex until adulthood. See, I'm not against encouraging waiting to have sex... I just happen to be a realist about the subject. Teenagers have been having sex since time out of mind. They will continue having sex, as will poor, undereducated people of any race, well into adulthood, as will educated people of any age. The "cure" to the "problem," in my opinion, and as I said a moment ago, is more birth control, easier access to it, better birth control, and better education about how to use it.

Anything else, in my opinion, is a bandaid on a gaping wound. While worthy of the effort, doing what you see as the "answer" simply doesn't work on the general population. It never has. Yes, worthy of the effort. I certainly want my kids to delay having sex until they are out of high school, but most importantly, I want them to have safe sex when they get around to it. Education and easy access to birth control that works (and again, it could be improved. Science can be our friend here!) will reduce "unwanted pregnancies." Not draconian, unrealistic imposing of someone's culture on the general population. Your own statistics point that out.

Many, many years ago, a friend of mine became sterile from a "back alley" abortion. We shouldn't attempt to turn back the clock. Regardless of your high aspirations and, I'm sure, goodwill, that's what will happen if abortion is outlawed again in this country. Keep abortions legal and attempt to make them rare. That is the best course, in my opinion.

 

I still don't see the argument for increased access to contraception (with the exception of the morning after pill) for the vast majority of women that abortions are performed on. When over 80% of the abortions are performed on 20+ year olds, what contraceptions do they NOT have access to? It's pretty easy for folks to walk into the local Circle K and grab a pack of condoms.

Also, the vast majority of women who have abortions know about sex and the risks involved. What will more billboards, TV ads, etc. accomplish?

In most cases it boils down to "risky" behavior between two consenting adults and the solution is to get an abortion.

 

I am pro-choice, but anti-FOCA.

Interesting, isn't it?

 

I am pro choice, but don't know enough about Foca one way or the other to support or oppose it.


DD

 

What data do you have that Foca will do this, or are you just guessing based upon your obvious bias?

DD

 

*cracks open a Shiner* Ok, where to start.

First stat was supposed to be for white babies. Forgot to type that. Not important though, main thrust of the argument was that since the sexual revolution, which was due in part to the advent of contraceptives becoming very widespread, there has been a significant rise in every single "negative" sexual category: divorce rate, teenage pregnancies, babies out of wedlock, STD's, etc. You can find the numbers pretty much anywhere. I'm just drawing conclusions from the data. I don't know what other conclusions you can draw from the data. You increase the number of people having sex, you increase the chances these things are going to happen. You increase the amount of contraceptives in a school, you increase the amount of kids having sex. It would be naive to think anything else. You increase the number of kids having sex and you increase chances of pregnancy etc. will go up, no matter how good the instruction is on contraception. This article really explains the Catholic perspective towards contraception and gives it a much more fleshed out and articulate face than I can. I've posted it several times, and I'm sure no one has ever read it, but if you're interested it's written by an old professor at my alma mater-- http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

I'm not blaming it all on contraceptives, goodness no. But the numbers are astonishing. I think we might be talking about different things in that you are focusing on what they teach in schools while my main focus is on what culture has done to sexual identity, and yes I mean the sexual revolution. As it stands the sexual revolution has led to a ridiculous objectification of both sexes, but mainly the females are getting objectified to a point that they are all just pinups. What's the flip side of that? Girls getting depressed and eating theirselves into different zip codes because they aren't hot enough. Once again, for me, its all about a loss of our basic dignity as humans.

And I'm not trying to say this is something that should be legislated. To me, culture starts with education. In my opinion we have a culture that has abandoned the fine arts in search of what is convenient, purely vocational, and vapid. In many ways our culture is quickly turning into fads and is quite boring. I'm a big advocate of the liberal education. Anyway I'm rambling.

Contraception doesn't turn a nation into a industrialized country.

Not the point I was making. Sex Education is an interesting topic. I wouldn't want a) my girls to learn it in school (which is easily opted out of) or b) to receive contraception from their schools. I hope you can see why. But I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about abstinence and sex education.

Maybe the survey size isn't large enough to really understand the effects just yet, but the increase in numbers of every major category since contraception became widespread is crazy.

I specifically said contraception was not something I thought could be legislated, even though I'm very strongly opposed to it. At the same time, I'd hope my girls wouldn't be inundated with contraception or sex education without my approval.

When there is another person involved, I tend to try and speak up for them if they can't speak for themselves. Once again, we're just going in circles on the personhood/non-personhood discussion.

 

Off topic question for the sex education arguments:

If they just teach the facts of how conception occurs, and nothing else, would any "abstinance only" people have aproblem with that?

For instance if they say went over what needs to happen to get pregnant and what can prevent being pregnant is that really teaching any viewpoint? Isn't it just biology at that point?

 

I'm pretty sure that's what they teach. In high school we had what could be considered an abstinence only teaching, and they went over fail rates for contraceptives, how they don't stop STD's, etc. Went over all the basics of biology etc. I didn't learn a thing but then again I didn't have plans on becoming sexually active until marriage so who knows how it works with other kids.

 

Okay, I still didn't read it, but it's very cool that you went to Sacred Heart! Woot!

 

So what teachings are "abstinance only people" against exactly?

 

She used to teach at the University of Dallas...

 

I don't really know the arguments, like I said, I'm staying out of that one. I think the objection is to handing out of condoms to kids, and teaching them to put it on bananas, etc.

 

Do you mean the mother or he baby girl inside?

 

I think this is the big disconnect, I don't think it is a baby until it is viable for it to live outside the mother.

Until then, it is a fetus...

DD

 

So even though the baby has a beating heart around 3 weeks after conception, it is still a fetus to you?