Continuation on the Reproductive Rights Topic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
To recap:

Comprehensive sex education and acces to birthcontrol result in lower teenage pregnancies and fewer abortions and that leads to fewer taxdollars spent the various programs that support underage mothers.

It’s a win/win situation!

I wonder why this isn’t sinking in with the guys on PWI?[/quote]

I’ve already explain the stupidity of this claim.

If we teach kids how to get away with armed robbery, we could reduce the number of kids going to jail.

So if you are against teaching kids how to commit armed robbery, you obviously want to imprison kids.[/quote]

What illegal act are you comparing armed robbery to?[/quote]

The fact that because something may result in some good, doesn’t mean I should approve of it. There are a lot of things that could make abortion rates go down. Forced sterilization would work too, but I don’t support sterilization of our youth.

The notion that I’m a hypocrite because I’m against abortion and against something that may make abortion rates decline is dumb.

Hitler got trains to run on time, so if you are against Hitler, you are against trains running on time. If you support trains running on time, you must be pro-Hitler.

What he is arguing is poor logic.

This is what his argument is:
A ==> B
B
Therefore A

That is not a rational statement. It is poor logic. Being against abortion does not necessitate me being for every single thing that can result in reduced abortion.

You guys would fail basic math.

282

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
To recap:

Comprehensive sex education and acces to birthcontrol result in lower teenage pregnancies and fewer abortions and that leads to fewer taxdollars spent the various programs that support underage mothers.

It’s a win/win situation!

I wonder why this isn’t sinking in with the guys on PWI?[/quote]

I’ve already explain the stupidity of this claim.

If we teach kids how to get away with armed robbery, we could reduce the number of kids going to jail.

So if you are against teaching kids how to commit armed robbery, you obviously want to imprison kids.[/quote]

What illegal act are you comparing armed robbery to?[/quote]

The fact that because something may result in some good, doesn’t mean I should approve of it. There are a lot of things that could make abortion rates go down. Forced sterilization would work too, but I don’t support sterilization of our youth.

The notion that I’m a hypocrite because I’m against abortion and against something that may make abortion rates decline is dumb.

Hitler got trains to run on time, so if you are against Hitler, you are against trains running on time. If you support trains running on time, you must be pro-Hitler.

What he is arguing is poor logic.

This is what his argument is:
A ==> B
B
Therefore A

That is not a rational statement. It is poor logic. Being against abortion does not necessitate me being for every single thing that can result in reduced abortion.

You guys would fail basic math.[/quote]

Every other scenario you have mentioned, supporting hitler, teaching people to rob a bank, sterilizing children all have demonstrable downsides to society while teaching safe sex does not.

If you want to say “damage is a personal value judgement” fine. But for the bulk of us who actually care about societal health and minimizing its ills, your opinion means little since you can’t demonstrate why we should stop teaching safe sex.

Edit: You don’t have support every single thing that reduces abortion if you’re against abortion, but you ought to support initiatives that lower it when they don’t have any demonstrable downsides. That’s how a rational person acts.

Generally what you said is correct, but you’re still missing the point.

283

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Dov’t you people know who margaret sanger was? planned parenthood is the most evil organization to ever exist. www.abortionno.org [/quote]

“Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights.”[/quote]

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” -margaret sanger

Source: Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

284

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Dov’t you people know who margaret sanger was? planned parenthood is the most evil organization to ever exist. www.abortionno.org [/quote]

“Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights.”[/quote]

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” -margaret sanger

Source: Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon[/quote]

And Christians have never done anything wrong to that population?

285

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Dov’t you people know who margaret sanger was? planned parenthood is the most evil organization to ever exist. www.abortionno.org [/quote]

“Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights.”[/quote]

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” -margaret sanger

Source: Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon[/quote]

And Christians have never done anything wrong to that population?[/quote]

If a Christian did in the past, then what he did was wrong. The question isn’t whether a Christian has ever hurt Africans, but whether it is ok to hurt Africans. Now, NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS EVER ALLOWED THIS. Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as our self. Your problem is instead of admitting she’s a bad woman, your likened to a child doing something bad and when questioned by his father the child says:
“Well, he did it too!”

286

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Dov’t you people know who margaret sanger was? planned parenthood is the most evil organization to ever exist. www.abortionno.org [/quote]

“Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights.”[/quote]

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” -margaret sanger

Source: Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon[/quote]

And Christians have never done anything wrong to that population?[/quote]

If a Christian did in the past, then what he did was wrong. The question isn’t whether a Christian has ever hurt Africans, but whether it is ok to hurt Africans. Now, NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS EVER ALLOWED THIS. Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as our self. Your problem is instead of admitting she’s a bad woman, your likened to a child doing something bad and when questioned by his father the child says:
“Well, he did it too!”
[/quote]

I didn’t say she wasn’t bad, only that she has done good. But anyways, in the past Christians have been known to be wrong even as a majority. So with that credibility nothing you say today can be taken too seriously.

287

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Dov’t you people know who margaret sanger was? planned parenthood is the most evil organization to ever exist. www.abortionno.org [/quote]

“Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights.”[/quote]

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” -margaret sanger

Source: Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon[/quote]

And Christians have never done anything wrong to that population?[/quote]

If a Christian did in the past, then what he did was wrong. The question isn’t whether a Christian has ever hurt Africans, but whether it is ok to hurt Africans. Now, NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS EVER ALLOWED THIS. Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as our self. Your problem is instead of admitting she’s a bad woman, your likened to a child doing something bad and when questioned by his father the child says:
“Well, he did it too!”
[/quote]

I didn’t say she wasn’t bad, only that she has done good. But anyways, in the past Christians have been known to be wrong even as a majority. So with that credibility nothing you say today can be taken too seriously.[/quote]

You don’t know what ur saying. It isn’t christianity that made them do evil acts, it was evil itself that exists in and out of christianity. If most bodybuilders for a time ate foods that were considered “not part of a clean diet”, would you assume that eating unhealthy food has anything to do with bodybuilding?

288

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Dov’t you people know who margaret sanger was? planned parenthood is the most evil organization to ever exist. www.abortionno.org [/quote]

“Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights.”[/quote]

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” -margaret sanger

Source: Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon[/quote]

And Christians have never done anything wrong to that population?[/quote]

If a Christian did in the past, then what he did was wrong. The question isn’t whether a Christian has ever hurt Africans, but whether it is ok to hurt Africans. Now, NO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE HAS EVER ALLOWED THIS. Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as our self. Your problem is instead of admitting she’s a bad woman, your likened to a child doing something bad and when questioned by his father the child says:
“Well, he did it too!”
[/quote]

I didn’t say she wasn’t bad, only that she has done good. But anyways, in the past Christians have been known to be wrong even as a majority. So with that credibility nothing you say today can be taken too seriously.[/quote]

You don’t know what ur saying. It isn’t christianity that made them do evil acts, it was evil itself that exists in and out of christianity. If most bodybuilders for a time ate foods that were considered “not part of a clean diet”, would you assume that eating unhealthy food has anything to do with bodybuilding? [/quote]

I also didn’t say Christianity is what caused the evil acts. I meant being Christian doesn’t imply its a good act, yet they are always preaching they know whats good.

289

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
To recap:

Comprehensive sex education and acces to birthcontrol result in lower teenage pregnancies and fewer abortions and that leads to fewer taxdollars spent the various programs that support underage mothers.

It’s a win/win situation!

I wonder why this isn’t sinking in with the guys on PWI?[/quote]

I’ve already explain the stupidity of this claim.

If we teach kids how to get away with armed robbery, we could reduce the number of kids going to jail.

So if you are against teaching kids how to commit armed robbery, you obviously want to imprison kids.[/quote]

What illegal act are you comparing armed robbery to?[/quote]

The fact that because something may result in some good, doesn’t mean I should approve of it. There are a lot of things that could make abortion rates go down. Forced sterilization would work too, but I don’t support sterilization of our youth.

The notion that I’m a hypocrite because I’m against abortion and against something that may make abortion rates decline is dumb.

Hitler got trains to run on time, so if you are against Hitler, you are against trains running on time. If you support trains running on time, you must be pro-Hitler.

What he is arguing is poor logic.

This is what his argument is:
A ==> B
B
Therefore A

That is not a rational statement. It is poor logic. Being against abortion does not necessitate me being for every single thing that can result in reduced abortion.

You guys would fail basic math.[/quote]

Every other scenario you have mentioned, supporting hitler, teaching people to rob a bank, sterilizing children all have demonstrable downsides to society while teaching safe sex does not.

If you want to say “damage is a personal value judgement” fine. But for the bulk of us who actually care about societal health and minimizing its ills, your opinion means little since you can’t demonstrate why we should stop teaching safe sex.

Edit: You don’t have support every single thing that reduces abortion if you’re against abortion, but you ought to support initiatives that lower it when they don’t have any demonstrable downsides. That’s how a rational person acts.

Generally what you said is correct, but you’re still missing the point.[/quote]

This is getting dumb. I consider young kids learning about sex and having sex bad. Just because the other 2 have something else in common, doesn’t mean that that specific thing is the commonality and further that the first case must have that in common.

I. CONSIDER. THE. EFFECTS. OF. THE. TEACHING. HARMFUL. AS. MEASURABLY. VALIDATED.

The same way you are touting teen pregnancy as bad. It’s bad only because you think it is. Teaching a 10 year old to have anal sex may very well avoid pregnancy, BUT a 10 year old having anal sex is bad too. Get it?

I typed all that really slowly to make it easier to understand. I will not support teaching kids how to avoid the physical consequences of an action I consider bad.

Maybe I am the only person that thinks immature kids having sex is bad. If I am, I think that’s sad though. There is your entirely arbitrary “downside to humanity”. Which is dumb to begin with, because the magical collective known as “society” has no feelings. Eugenics is a societal positive right, so that’s justified? You can only hurt or do good to an individual.

Last, your notion of societal health is sickening. Society has no health. It doesn’t run a temperature, it doesn’t feel sick, it doesn’t break bones. It isn’t a living thing. There is no such thing the health of society. Health is a condition only an individual being can have.

I know you guys aren’t this stupid.

290

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The same way you are touting teen pregnancy as bad. It’s bad only because you think it is. Teaching a 10 year old to have anal sex may very well avoid pregnancy, BUT a 10 year old having anal sex is bad too. Get it?[/quote]

No. Studies show comprehensive sex education does not increase sexual activity

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Maybe I am the only person that thinks immature kids having sex is bad. If I am, I think that’s sad though. There is your entirely arbitrary [/quote]

It doesn’t matter, they will have sex even if you do not teach it to them. That is showed by the places that do not have comprehensive sex education

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Last, your notion of societal health is sickening. Society has no health. It doesn’t run a temperature, it doesn’t feel sick, it doesn’t break bones. It isn’t a living thing. There is no such thing the health of society. Health is a condition only an individual being can have.

I know you guys aren’t this stupid.[/quote]

I’m speaking figuratively.

291

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The same way you are touting teen pregnancy as bad. It’s bad only because you think it is. Teaching a 10 year old to have anal sex may very well avoid pregnancy, BUT a 10 year old having anal sex is bad too. Get it?[/quote]

No. Studies show comprehensive sex education does not increase sexual activity

[/quote]
Missed that. I saw studies that talked about delaying initialization, and decrease in pregnancy. Not a decrease in sex. And if she isn’t going to have anal sex, why teach her how to? Not to mention, once again, a ten year old learning about anal sex is bad in itself.

Like Victorian England? Maybe there are other factors involved? Again, it’s still bad to teach kids how to get away with bad things.

and nonsensically. there is no magic societal justification for things. Impact to the individual is all there is. Speaking of things like health and good or bad on a societal level is nonsense.

292

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Missed that. I saw studies that talked about delaying initialization, and decrease in pregnancy. Not a decrease in sex. And if she isn’t going to have anal sex, why teach her how to? Not to mention, once again, a ten year old learning about anal sex is bad in itself.[/quote]

What you are taught is abstinence, and contraceptive use for those who refuse to wait. Anal sex is discussed. Why are you so focused on anal sex? if they didn’t discuss anal sex and just discussed abstinence and contraceptive use would you change your mind?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Like Victorian England? Maybe there are other factors involved? Again, it’s still bad to teach kids how to get away with bad things.[/quote]

What do you mean by ‘get away with’ exactly? Are you saying every teen that chooses to have sex should be stricken with a pregnancy?

293

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Missed that. I saw studies that talked about delaying initialization, and decrease in pregnancy. Not a decrease in sex. And if she isn’t going to have anal sex, why teach her how to? Not to mention, once again, a ten year old learning about anal sex is bad in itself.[/quote]

What you are taught is abstinence, and contraceptive use for those who refuse to wait. Anal sex is discussed. Why are you so focused on anal sex? if they didn’t discuss anal sex and just discussed abstinence and contraceptive use would you change your mind?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Like Victorian England? Maybe there are other factors involved? Again, it’s still bad to teach kids how to get away with bad things.[/quote]

What do you mean by ‘get away with’ exactly? Are you saying every teen that chooses to have sex should be stricken with a pregnancy?

[/quote]

I don’t think it would have been called a “bad thing” back in the good old days. Society has just caused the age of marriage to move up but sexual activity is the same as its always been. Can’t control human nature but you can control what legal documents say and what age they can be signed.

294

DD, unrelated to this thread. What is in your profile pic?

295

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Missed that. I saw studies that talked about delaying initialization, and decrease in pregnancy. Not a decrease in sex. And if she isn’t going to have anal sex, why teach her how to? Not to mention, once again, a ten year old learning about anal sex is bad in itself.[/quote]

What you are taught is abstinence, and contraceptive use for those who refuse to wait. Anal sex is discussed. Why are you so focused on anal sex? if they didn’t discuss anal sex and just discussed abstinence and contraceptive use would you change your mind?

[/quote]
If it’s not the government doing it maybe. Again, it’s the parent’s job. Not every child is the same, it needs to be on an individual basis. What you are talking about isn’t really education. It’s life advice. You are advocating a position. Actually biological sex education isn’t what I’m opposed to. I’m opposed to the government telling kids, you shouldn’t do this, but this isn’t as bad to do, and you can do this too. That is parenting.

We shouldn’t teach them to avoid the consequences of doing something bad.

Again, bad logic. That doesn’t mean I want them getting pregnant.

Teaching men how to commit adultery without getting caught and hide it from their wives may reduce divorce. BUT I’m against teaching people how to get away with adultery.

Would you mind me teaching your wife how to have sex with other men and hide it from you? If I could statistically show that it lowered your chance of divorce, and is “good for society”.

296

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
DD, unrelated to this thread. What is in your profile pic?[/quote]

Silver-back gorilla I saw at the zoo. He was 495 pounds according to the sign.

297

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
DD, unrelated to this thread. What is in your profile pic?[/quote]

Silver-back gorilla I saw at the zoo. He was 495 pounds according to the sign.[/quote]

Okay I thought it was a person. Which is why I was thinking WTF.

298

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Dov’t you people know who margaret sanger was? planned parenthood is the most evil organization to ever exist. www.abortionno.org [/quote]

“Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights.”[/quote]

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” -margaret sanger

Source: Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon[/quote]

And Christians have never done anything wrong to that population?[/quote]

Wow.

The debate is at Ivy League levels in this thread, isn’t it?

299

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Maybe there are other factors involved? [/quote]

This thread should end right here.

There are no studies that comprehensively measure the long term effects of general exposure to sexually explicit/obscene material, along with the MASSIVE influence our culture has in shoving it down the throat of every member of society who has access to a TV, radio, magazine, or public space.

“Sex education has been shown to reduce pregnancies! Think of the children! Your views are archaic! We just want kids to masturbate and try anal, err, feel comfortable with their bodies! You hate kids and want them to get AIDS!”

For just a second, stop. Please. Particularly rajraj. We GET what you are saying. Sex education reduces pregnancies. We. GET. it. Now, for just a second, try and hear what we are saying: The sex “education” programs, their very existence, is a symptom of a greater ill. One that pervades society today and that did not exist in any form, indeed, has NEVER existed in any such form at any time in history.

Ask yourself WHY we need these programs so desperately when this has NEVER been the case in the past, ever.

The ease with which access to explicit and obscene material is available. The constant, never-ending barrage of the idolization of the human body as a sexual object. The role models our society pushes into our faces like gigantic grimacing caricature heads at a nightmare parade. If you wanted to shield your child from it, you couldn’t.

And now, now that things have gotten out of hand,to the point that we are left with, among many, many other things, the disgusting statistics that ephrem (I think it was) posted above showing teen pregnancy rates with America’s bar shooting off the right side of the chart, you propose this band-aid to cover up the stinking, gangrenous wound that has developed. Worse yet, the band-aid is further infected with the same disease that caused this festering sore to appear in the first place.

Look at this quote again, and try, TRY and understand where our side is coming from:

Yes. Maybe there are. Other factors indeed.

300

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

sexual activity is the same as its always been. [/quote]

This quote gets my nomination for The Pitttbull Award for Highest Ignorance.