Continuation on the Reproductive Rights Topic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look at the crap you folks are peddling to 10 year olds, now. Just to get them through school in your secular-progressive culture. Drug them mentally and hormonally, throw copious amounts of latex at them, and teach them anal sex.[/quote]

For some reason you think avoiding teaching contraception use will prevent kids from having sex or experimenting with their bodies. Sexuality is innate in us, it is not learned.

By taking away sex education, you are only creating more teen moms and increasing STD rates among teenagers.[/quote]

Sexual parameters are learned. Skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rates taking off from the sexual revolution of the '60s make that crystal clear.[/quote]

That doesn’t mean you can form a causal link to sex education[/quote]

I can tell you that rather than finally growing up themselves, learning to be prudent and responsible adults and parents again, demanding a family friendly public/media atmosphere, they’d medicate their daughters, while teaching them to offer anal sex. Gee, why are broken homes so prevalent? I’m not looking to reinforce your culture, or to band aid it up. I’m looking to tear it down bit by rotten bit.

162

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look at the crap you folks are peddling to 10 year olds, now. Just to get them through school in your secular-progressive culture. Drug them mentally and hormonally, throw copious amounts of latex at them, and teach them anal sex.[/quote]

For some reason you think avoiding teaching contraception use will prevent kids from having sex or experimenting with their bodies. Sexuality is innate in us, it is not learned.

By taking away sex education, you are only creating more teen moms and increasing STD rates among teenagers.[/quote]

Sexual parameters are learned. Skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rates taking off from the sexual revolution of the '60s make that crystal clear.[/quote]

That doesn’t mean you can form a causal link to sex education[/quote]

I can tell you that rather than finally growing up themselves, learning to be prudent and responsible adults and parents again, demanding a family friendly public/media atmosphere, they’d medicate their daughters, while teaching them to offer anal sex. Gee, why are broken homes so prevalent? I’m not looking to reinforce your culture, or to band aid it up. I’m looking to tear it down bit by rotten bit.
[/quote]

All you keep doing is spouting opinion after opinion without any actually supporting evidence.

At the very base of this discussion we obviously disagree. I don’t see human sexuality as an evil that needs to be greatly controlled as you do. I consider being in a committed healthy adult sexual relationship (in or out of marriage) part of the human experience.

Although, I do not think 12-17 year olds should be having sex, I am not foolish enough to believe they won’t if I don’t teach them about it. For that reason along with the demonstrable benefits to society, I see it as imperative we give them this knowledge.

Anyways I think I’m done here.

163

http://online.wsj.com/...3817181646.html

http://www.nytimes.com/...amp;_r=2&hp

The culture I’m talking about. So you have a dwindling fertility (and the upcoming demographic crises). And what children are born, are born increasingly into out-of-wedlock/broken homes (with the demonstrated socioeconomic negatives that follow). Instead of reversing course culturally, we plaster over it just to get kids in and out of school. Medicate. Anal/oral sex. 10 year old looking at sexually explicit material. Because we don’t want to grow up, make judgments, and clean the filth out of the public square and influential entertainment.

164

[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/...3817181646.html

http://www.nytimes.com/...amp;_r=2&hp

The culture I’m talking about. So you have a dwindling fertility (and the upcoming demographic crises). And what children are born, are born increasingly into out-of-wedlock/broken homes (with the demonstrated socioeconomic negatives that follow). Instead of reversing course culturally, we plaster over it just to get kids in and out of school. Medicate. Anal/oral sex. 10 year old looking at sexually explicit material. Because we don’t want to grow up, make judgments, and clean the filth out of the public square and influential entertainment.[/quote]

There are other solutions to some of the problems you mentioned above. The problem is you only care about solving it YOUR way which comes back to the problem of moral relativism.

165

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

There are other solutions to some of the problems you mentioned above. The problem is you only care about solving it YOUR way which comes back to the problem of moral relativism.[/quote]

Of course there must be other solutions. There just has to be solutions that fit our hyper-sexualized, aborto-contraceptive culture, that doesn’t actually get in the way of our hyper-sexualized, aborto-contraceptive culture.

166

Wow, lots of not listening and circular arguments and plain silly in here…

First, I am not a Catholic. Never have been, never will be. So I am not taking the religious slant on these issues.

I did use contraception before my wife and I started trying to conceive. I lost my virginity at 15, got married at 31. That is quite a few years of doing everything in my power not to get a girl pregnant. I used preventative contraceptives. Condoms ALWAYS. Other forms were icing on the cake, not a reason to not use a condom. My PARENTS taught me proper behavior. Not the idiots at school getting confused when kids would ask them if you can get pregnant if you do it in a pool. Jackasses.

All that being said, I have 4 main points.

  1. It is the PARENTS duty to teach their children about these things, not the fucking government or some jackass from PP.

  2. The PP stuff is indeed pornography. Quick little google would show you that, rajraj. “Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity.” Tell me how what is being presented is NOT pornography, raj raj.
    Visual material- Check. Explicit description or display of sexual organs - Check. Explicit description or display of sexual activity - Check. Yep, its porn. And evidently it is fucking sick, too. children masturbating? Anal? WHAT THE FUCK. Or if you prefer a different definition, dictionary.com -“obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit.” This one is much more debatable, but still leans toward the crap being pornographic, because it is obscene (“offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved”).

  3. 10 is absolutely too young. I was 13 when I got the talk, and that seems a reasonable age to me. You actually have the natural urges and changes going on, you arent considering something completely foreign AND FUCKING TWISTED and being told by some jackass that it is ok. to hell with that. Do i think telling kids they are going to hell if they touch themselves is good? Nope. Do I think telling kids to do whatever they want or their friends tell them is cool no matter how depraved or twisted it is? Fuck no. PARENTS should tell their kids that what they are feeling is natural, but dealing with it in an intelligent manor is WHAT MAKES US HIGHER ORDER BEINGS. We have these things called brains and higher order thought that allows us to make choices on whether following our most base urges is a good thing or not. Not every urge is good and should be acted upon.

  4. Telling them sex is ok no matter how young they are is complete and utter bullshit, as well. I was 15 when I lost my virginity and I was too young. I was not emotionally mature enough to handle the hormonal surges and extreme emotional fallout. It is documented that situations at around 12-14 or so are so magnified because of the hormonal changes going on. If you want to argue that, bite me, show me studies to prove otherwise. So how is it ok for someone going through some of the most extreme ups and downs in hormones and emotions to go ahead with one of the most life changing events they will experience? The inevitable fallout is ALWAYS extreme. Sexual activity before that is also documented to cause issues - again, STUDIES if you want to disagree. so pre 12 or so is bad and 12-14 or so is risky at best. What the fuck is PP doing telling 10 year olds it is ok? and with that perverse shit?

Here is an idea, how about SOME FUCKING COMMON SENSE?

My apologies if this post seems overly confrontational or angry, but some of the shit being spewed is just too much.

167

Great. Someone posted a ridiculous video and everyone continued with their uninformed debate about Planned Parenthood, completely ignoring the 9 page article I posted.

Here are some facts: Nixon signed Title X into law. George W Bush used to be all about Planned Parenthood. Nixon decided to go “pro-choice” in order to gain the favor of the Catholic Church.

Before then, a Gallup survey showed that 56% of Catholics and over 60% of Republicans believed that “The decision to for a woman to have an abortion should be made between her and her doctor”.

Nixon made the abortion issue a partisan issue. Before him, it was not divided according to party. It was a political strategy on his part and it worked.

Planned Parenthood’s mistake was that they clung to the abortion issue after it was made a partisan decision. IMO, they should have let it go and kept themselves out of the political hot seat. Had they done this, they wouldn’t have to worry about who was in office.

Let there be no mistake- the Republican party’s lack of support for Planned Parenthood is a recent political strategy and you all are eating it up.

168

Why Planned Parenthood took on the abortion issue in the first place:

Planned Parenthood began to wrestle with the subject of abortion in 1955, at the urging of Mary Steichen Calderone, a public-health physician who served as its medical director. (It was during Calderone?s tenure that Planned Parenthood clinics began to administer Pap smears.) Abortion had been legal until 1821, when Connecticut became the first state to make abortion after quickening?at about four months?a crime. By the middle of the twentieth century, with limited exceptions, abortion had become illegal in most states. It was, nevertheless, widely practiced. ?If there was even a communicable disease that affected that many people in this country, we would do something about it,? Calderone said. She organized a conference and conducted a study. In an article published in 1960, she remarked on the difference between a legal abortion and an illegal one: three hundred dollars and knowing the right person.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_lepore#ixzz1msqpn0Af

169

In the late nineteen-seventies, the Republican strategists Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich, both of whom were Catholic, recruited Jerry Falwell into a coalition designed to bring together economic and social conservatives around a ?pro-family? agenda, one that targeted gay rights, sexual freedom, women?s liberation, the E.R.A., child care, and sex education. Weyrich said that abortion ought to be ?the keystone of their organizing strategy, since this was the issue that could divide the Democratic Party.? Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979; Paul Brown, the founder of the American Life League, scoffed in 1982, ?Jerry Falwell couldn?t spell ?abortion? five years ago.?

Read more Birthright | The New Yorker

170

Nothing even remotely resembling party discipline on the issue of abortion can be identified on Capitol Hill before 1979, as the political scientist Greg Adams demonstrated in a study of congressional voting patterns. And a partisan divide over this issue only split the country a decade after it showed up in Congress. Adams reported that, among voters, ?Republicans were more pro-choice than Democrats up until the late 1980s.?

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_lepore#ixzz1msrieJOS

171

Abortion wasn?t a partisan issue until Republicans made it one. In June of 1972, a Gallup poll reported that sixty-eight per cent of Republicans and fifty-nine per cent of Democrats agreed that ?the decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.? Fifty-six per cent of Catholics thought so, too. Blackmun clipped the Washington Post story reporting this survey and put it in his Roe case file.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_lepore#ixzz1mssNwgdL

172

Maybe they didn’t want to give up abortion because other facilities that offered it were caving to pressure from protestors. They might have just wanted to make a stand by being one of the only ones left it made them that much more important. Also they don’t need to give it up because so far it has not caused them to lose all funding and shut down. If it really came to shutting down for whatever reason, they could just drop abortion and everything would be fine.

173

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Maybe they didn’t want to give up abortion because other facilities that offered it were caving to pressure from protestors. They might have just wanted to make a stand by being one of the only ones left it made them that much more important. Also they don’t need to give it up because so far it has not caused them to lose all funding and shut down. If it really came to shutting down for whatever reason, they could just drop abortion and everything would be fine.[/quote]

Once again, PLEASE read the article. Several Planned Parenthood facilities HAVE been shut down due the abortion issue in several states.

Planned Parenthood’s mistake throughout its history has been it’s lack of discretion when it comes to its political associations.

174

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Maybe they didn’t want to give up abortion because other facilities that offered it were caving to pressure from protestors. They might have just wanted to make a stand by being one of the only ones left it made them that much more important. Also they don’t need to give it up because so far it has not caused them to lose all funding and shut down. If it really came to shutting down for whatever reason, they could just drop abortion and everything would be fine.[/quote]

Once again, PLEASE read the article. Several Planned Parenthood facilities HAVE been shut down due the abortion issue in several states.

Planned Parenthood’s mistake throughout its history has been it’s lack of discretion when it comes to its political associations.[/quote]

Obviously the people higher up in the organization are fighting for reproductive rights. Part of that fight includes losing some battles which might result in closing of facilities. When 1 of over 800 facilities is in danger of closing you don’t just say “okay we give up no more abortions”. Repeat a few more times and you lose more locations but overall they are not in a position to concede yet.

175

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Maybe they didn’t want to give up abortion because other facilities that offered it were caving to pressure from protestors. They might have just wanted to make a stand by being one of the only ones left it made them that much more important. Also they don’t need to give it up because so far it has not caused them to lose all funding and shut down. If it really came to shutting down for whatever reason, they could just drop abortion and everything would be fine.[/quote]

Once again, PLEASE read the article. Several Planned Parenthood facilities HAVE been shut down due the abortion issue in several states.

Planned Parenthood’s mistake throughout its history has been it’s lack of discretion when it comes to its political associations.[/quote]

Obviously the people higher up in the organization are fighting for reproductive rights. Part of that fight includes losing some battles which might result in closing of facilities. When 1 of over 800 facilities is in danger of closing you don’t just say “okay we give up no more abortions”. Repeat a few more times and you lose more locations but overall they are not in a position to concede yet.[/quote]

My take on the issue is that they shouldn’t sacrifice many women’s health just to prove a point. To do so would be hypocritical.

176

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Show me a study that says sexual health material has negative neural repercussions on children.

[/quote]

You are one of the most intellectually dishonest posters I have come across. As you well know, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful study on this and if you don’t know why you’re an idiot.

‘German Government Publication Promotes Incestuous Pedophilia as Healthy Sex Ed’

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=19041

177

'Two 40-page booklets entitled “Love, Body and Playing Doctor” by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale fur gesundheitliche Aufklarung BZgA) are aimed at parents the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age. “Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex,” reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, “The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same.”

Think that might cause some ‘negative neural repercussions?’

178

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Oh nooooo they’re making children comfortable with their own bodies, how dare they![/quote]

See above for what you’re doing.

40 percent of American children ar now born out of wedlock. A majority of Hispanic babies are born to unmarried mothers. As are 70 percent of black children. Entire new categories of crime have arisen in the wake of the familial collapse, like the legions of daughters abused by their mom’s latest live-in boyfriend…millions of millions of American children ar raised in transient households and moral vacuums that make not just social mobility but even elemental character formation all but impossible.’ - Mark Steyn

'High school students and college-age adults have been complaining to District officials that the free condoms the city has been offering and not of good enough quality and are too small and that getting them from school nurses is “just like asking grandma or auntie.”

So DC officials have decided to stock up on Trojan condoms, including the company’s super-size Magnum variety, and have begun to authorize teachers or counselors, preferably male, to distribute condoms to students if the teachers complete a 30-minute online training course called ‘WrapMC’ - for Master of Condoms.

“If people get what they don’t want, they are just going to trash them,” said T. Squalls, 30 who attends the University of the District of Columbia. “So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want”’ - Washington Post

Who wants to pay for a 30-year-old’s prophylactic needs and his college courses? Who wants some government trained ‘sex ed’ teacher touching up their 3-year-old as per curriculum guidelines? Who wants a teacher demonstrating to your kid with a banana how they should put a condom on with their mouth? This is depravity. Anyone who doesn’t understand that needs their head examined.

179

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You are one of the most intellectually dishonest posters I have come across. As you well know, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful study on this and if you don’t know why you’re an idiot.[/quote]

And it’s okay to equate sexual health material to pornography? Why? Because you say so?

LOL - yet I’m the one who is being intellectually dishonest.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

‘German Government Publication Promotes Incestuous Pedophilia as Healthy Sex Ed’

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=19041[/quote]

Really?

So inappropriate sex ed material used in Germany has what to do with Planned Parenthood? I’ve looked through their material and seen NOTHING that promotes incest or pedophilia.

180

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

40 percent of American children ar now born out of wedlock. A majority of Hispanic babies are born to unmarried mothers. As are 70 percent of black children. Entire new categories of crime have arisen in the wake of the familial collapse, like the legions of daughters abused by their mom’s latest live-in boyfriend…millions of millions of American children ar raised in transient households and moral vacuums that make not just social mobility but even elemental character formation all but impossible.’ - Mark Steyn [/quote]

And places where comprehensive sex education is not taught and abstinence-only is instead, teen pregnancy rates are much higher than the national average.

So Why are you blaming comprehensive sex education for this?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

'High school students and college-age adults have been complaining to District officials that the free condoms the city has been offering and not of good enough quality and are too small and that getting them from school nurses is “just like asking grandma or auntie.”

So DC officials have decided to stock up on Trojan condoms, including the company’s super-size Magnum variety, and have begun to authorize teachers or counselors, preferably male, to distribute condoms to students if the teachers complete a 30-minute online training course called ‘WrapMC’ - for Master of Condoms.

“If people get what they don’t want, they are just going to trash them,” said T. Squalls, 30 who attends the University of the District of Columbia. “So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want”’ - Washington Post

[/quote]

http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf

Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent
sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of
pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education. �??�?�© 2008 Society for
Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.