[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Look, they just have compassion for women. [/quote]
Could a rebuttal to that be a story about a protestor murdering a doctor?
I mean, two wrongs make a right, and only one side can act irrational right?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Have babies. [/quote]
And how do you think they continue to have vaginal interourse without constantly have abortions or having babies?
Do you think married couples only have sex for children?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Look, they just have compassion for women. [/quote]
None of that excusable but there is wrong on both sides.
You see pro-life picketers hooting and hollering at some people having the WORST day of their lives. Couples who’ve been trying to have a child but end up getting an abortion because something catastrophic has occurred to the fetus. It’s despicable and people who do that should be ashamed of themselves.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Ok… Please explain.[/quote]
Pretty much every couple in a committed relationship that has sex on a regular basis use some form of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Please quote what conclusion you’re referring to stating contraception only lowers unwanted pregnancies short term?
[/quote]
This is the conclusion that I’m using, “The number of nonmarital births has increased dramatically, from 89,500 in 1940 to 1,240,172 in 1993”
“The nonmarital birth rate, which measures the proportion of unmarried women who have a birth each
year, has also increased. The rate rose from 7.1 births per 1,000 unmarried women in 1940 to 45.3 in
1993.”
And, this.
“The nonmarital birth ratio describes the proportion of all births that occur outside of marriage. Between
1940 and 1993, the ratio rose from 38 to 310 per 1,000 births. Expressed as a percent, this means
nonmarital births have risen from 4 percent to 31 percent of all births.”
But, I’m not sure why you think just because I use the CDC’s data that I would assume their conclusions. Not really unheard of.
Anyway…
Well, just want to point out one thing first. Condoms ruin sex. So does the National Institute of Health say so: Why Are Condoms Disliked by So Many Men? - ABC News
Not only do contraceptives and in particular condoms ruin sex by changing the nature of sex by putting a physical barrier between husband and wife, it removes the natural bonding quality of sex, in part by women absorbing semen: http://www.springerlink.com/content/wrkl9lc5ueu43rh8/?MUD=MP
The fact is that those most likely to have out-of-wedlock children are also the ones who use contraceptives, at least the same as adult women and men, according to Advocates for Youth: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/storage/advfy/documents/outcomes.pdf though those in poverty are less likely to use contraceptives.
The fact is that even with the large use of contraceptives, the U.S. has not made progress in lowering unintended pregnancies: DEFINE_ME
Of course you can make the claim that we need to provide greater access to contraceptions and greater education regarding use (if that’s not true, then I have misread you).
However, I disagree. Again, not really astonishing that I use CDC data, but disagree with their conclusion (though they agree with you somewhat). But, I can’t ignore this, “among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.”
Yet…unintended pregnancy is higher than ever. These pregnancies happen mostly with women who use contraception: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/5/994.short
This is where I grew cynical. More contraceptives? Sounds like it went really well the past 50 years or so.
Looking across the pond, in Spain, while contraception increased by 60% among 2000 women ages 15 to 49 over a 10 year period…over the same period, Spain’s abortion rate doubled from 5.2 per 1000 women to 11.49 per 1000: Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Spanish population during 1997-2007 - PubMed
Go up out of the Mediterranean to the Isles and we see the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy of England…spent $454 million promoting AC…teenage pregnancies went up, not down. So, did abortions increase and not go down: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_127202.pdf
We could of course be trying the same thing over and over and over, and expect different results…but you know.
What I don’t understand is the strange reaction to my contrarian belief that maybe there is another way to go about this sex thing…you know respect a woman’s body (by not pumping full of chemicals so I can get some strange whenever I wish) and avoid unintended pregnancies (by again respecting women’s bodies by working with the fertility of their body – as if it is a gift?, not a curse – instead of trying to man handle it with chemicals like my name is the Big Show).
The fact that BC pills increase the risk of things like breast cancer, that I don’t care for big pharm companies who make millions off of life endangering pills, by using entirely unethical advertising of their drugs. I also don’t like the fact that sex sucks when you use contraceptives.
I’d much rather understand my woman’s fertility and work with it instead of relying on big pharma. That is why I support NFP.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is the conclusion that I’m using, “The number of nonmarital births has increased dramatically, from 89,500 in 1940 to 1,240,172 in 1993”
“The nonmarital birth rate, which measures the proportion of unmarried women who have a birth each
year, has also increased. The rate rose from 7.1 births per 1,000 unmarried women in 1940 to 45.3 in
1993.”
[/quote]
Did you read what I quoted above? Here it is again:
“Most nonmarital births are unintended, as parents are unable to obtain, do not choose, or fail to use effective contraception on a regular basis.”
“Married couples who do not use any method of contraception contribute disproportionately to the incidence of unintended pregnancy”
It has NOTHING to do with the ineffectiveness of contraception, rather the lack of access or misuse.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And, this.
“The nonmarital birth ratio describes the proportion of all births that occur outside of marriage. Between
1940 and 1993, the ratio rose from 38 to 310 per 1,000 births. Expressed as a percent, this means
nonmarital births have risen from 4 percent to 31 percent of all births.”
[/quote]
The increase in non-marital births is largely a result of the decrease in “shotgun” marriages.
“From the 1960s to the 1980s, the proportion of nonmarital conceptions carried to a live birth in which the parents married before their child was born plummeted from 31 to 8 percent among blacks, from 33 to 23 percent among Hispanics, and from 61 to 34 percent among whites.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
But, I’m not sure why you think just because I use the CDC’s data that I would assume their conclusions. Not really unheard of.[/quote]
And your qualifications are…?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well, just want to point out one thing first. Condoms ruin sex. So does the National Institute of Health say so: Why Are Condoms Disliked by So Many Men? - ABC News
[/quote]
It doesn’t ruin sex, it just doesn’t feel as good.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Not only do contraceptives and in particular condoms ruin sex by changing the nature of sex by putting a physical barrier between husband and wife, it removes the natural bonding quality of sex, in part by women absorbing semen: http://www.springerlink.com/content/wrkl9lc5ueu43rh8/?MUD=MP
[/quote]
And how ‘natural’ is human monogamy? LOL
Here’s something else: A lot of sex that occurs is with people who have intention of ‘coupling’
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The fact is that those most likely to have out-of-wedlock children are also the ones who use contraceptives, at least the same as adult women and men, according to Advocates for Youth: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/storage/advfy/documents/outcomes.pdf though those in poverty are less likely to use contraceptives.
[/quote]
Do you even read what you’re posting?
“Half of all unintended pregnancies occur among contraceptive users; 90 percent result from inconsistent or incorrect method use.”
This is due to a lack of proper education on HOW to use contraception. Remember that 42% stat I keep throwing at you?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The fact is that even with the large use of contraceptives, the U.S. has not made progress in lowering unintended pregnancies: DEFINE_ME
[/quote]
Again your conclusion is completely different than the people who carried out the study.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Of course you can make the claim that we need to provide greater access to contraceptions and greater education regarding use (if that’s not true, then I have misread you).
[/quote]
I did.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
However, I disagree. Again, not really astonishing that I use CDC data, but disagree with their conclusion (though they agree with you somewhat). But, I can’t ignore this, “among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.”
[/quote]
And again, most of them do not know how to adequately use contraception due to a lack of education on the matter. It’s not the contraceptives fault if you put the condom over your head instead of your penis.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yet…unintended pregnancy is higher than ever. These pregnancies happen mostly with women who use contraception: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/5/994.short
[/quote]
I’ve addresssed this above
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is where I grew cynical. More contraceptives? Sounds like it went really well the past 50 years or so.
[/quote]
More education of contraceptives and access, yes. In Canada where we have comprehensive sex education across the country, teen pregnancy rates have been on a steady decline. I do not consider nonmarital births a good measuring stick for contraceptive use because as I mentioned earlier less people are getting married due to pregnancy than before.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/kits-trousses/preg-gross/preg-gross-eng.htm
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Looking across the pond, in Spain, while contraception increased by 60% among 2000 women ages 15 to 49 over a 10 year period…over the same period, Spain’s abortion rate doubled from 5.2 per 1000 women to 11.49 per 1000: Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Spanish population during 1997-2007 - PubMed
[/quote]
Spain has no mandatory sex education policy and they are heavily influenced by the Catholic Church (a bad thing within the context of our discussion). And abortion rates of Western European countries on average are much lower than the US’s.
"The Spanish Government has no explicit sexual and reproductive health policy.
Spain is a Catholic country, and statements from the Roman Catholic Church have an effect on issues such as families, pregnancy, contraception, abortion and sexuality education. Nevertheless, in general, there is some degree of public acceptance of sexuality education in Spain.
Sexuality education in Spain is said to be inadequate and almost non-existent, particularly in rural areas, and its provision needs to be better evaluated. Attitudes of young people are conditioned by stereotypes, myths and erroneous beliefs about sexuality, although recently some observers have noted an increase in the official commitment to sexuality education.
There have been recent interventions to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections in Spain, including the ‘Talk to your Partner’ campaign carried out by the Spanish Youth Council, and large-scale communications campaigns carried out by the Health and Consumers Minister."
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/SexEd/SexEd.html#3.24
“The lowest abortion rate in the world is in Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15â??44). The rate is 17 in Northern Europe and 21 in Northern America (Canada and the United States of America).”
“However, many European countries tend to have a much lower adolescent pregnancy, live birth, and abortion rates than does the United States. If the cause(s) of this difference can be isolated and applied in the U.S., then adolescent abortion rates could be drastically reduced.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Go up out of the Mediterranean to the Isles and we see the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy of England…spent $454 million promoting AC…teenage pregnancies went up, not down. So, did abortions increase and not go down: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_127202.pdf
[/quote]
That’s because sex education in England is terrible and parents can have their children opt out of it. Seeing how most parents in England are against sex education (59%) it’s not surprise they’re doing so poorly
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
We could of course be trying the same thing over and over and over, and expect different results…but you know.
What I don’t understand is the strange reaction to my contrarian belief that maybe there is another way to go about this sex thing…you know respect a woman’s body (by not pumping full of chemicals so I can get some strange whenever I wish) and avoid unintended pregnancies (by again respecting women’s bodies by working with the fertility of their body – as if it is a gift?, not a curse – instead of trying to man handle it with chemicals like my name is the Big Show).
[/quote]
I’m sorry Chris, but people want to have sex (both men and women) often and not have to commit to marriage just to do so.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The fact that BC pills increase the risk of things like breast cancer, that I don’t care for big pharm companies who make millions off of life endangering pills, by using entirely unethical advertising of their drugs. I also don’t like the fact that sex sucks when you use contraceptives.
[/quote]
First of all the benefits of BC pills highly outweigh the cons. Secondly, you’ve waaaaay overstated the negatives of BC pills.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’d much rather understand my woman’s fertility and work with it instead of relying on big pharma. That is why I support NFP.
[/quote]
Good for you, do what you want. The rest of us who enjoy regular sex, will happily using contraceptives.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Good for you, do what you want. The rest of us who enjoy regular sex, will happily using contraceptives.[/quote]
If you were completely rational, which no one is, and your above statement was your honest opinion…you’d get married and use natural family planning, because in a married/nfp couple, you have way more sex than any other category of sexually active adults:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193
Plus, here are some other benefits:
[quote]From Matt:
1 Have a dramatically low (0.2%) divorce rate.
2 Experience happier marriages.
3 Are happier and more satisfied in their everyday lives.
4 Have considerably more marital relations.
5 Share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept.
6 Realize a deeper level of communication with spouse.
7 Are appreciably more religious and attend church more often.
8 Incorporate prayer more in their daily lives.
9 Rely strongly on the teachings of the Church, the Bible and Almighty God.
10 Have strong traditional, social, and moral views.
11 Preserve the family unit more responsibly than the other groups.
12 Are unlikely to have ever had an abortion.
13 Are unlikely to have ever cohabitated.
14 Are unlikely to both work full time.
15 Are unlikely to be supportive of and to engage in sex outside of marriage.
[/quote]
I understand, probably more than half of those don’t interest you, but I’m assuming 1-6 & 11 would interest you.
Anyway, good day.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Good for you, do what you want. The rest of us who enjoy regular sex, will happily using contraceptives.[/quote]
If you were completely rational, which no one is, and your above statement was your honest opinion…you’d get married and use natural family planning, because in a married/nfp couple, you have way more sex than any other category of sexually active adults:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193
Plus, here are some other benefits:
[quote]From Matt:
1 Have a dramatically low (0.2%) divorce rate.
2 Experience happier marriages.
3 Are happier and more satisfied in their everyday lives.
4 Have considerably more marital relations.
5 Share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept.
6 Realize a deeper level of communication with spouse.
7 Are appreciably more religious and attend church more often.
8 Incorporate prayer more in their daily lives.
9 Rely strongly on the teachings of the Church, the Bible and Almighty God.
10 Have strong traditional, social, and moral views.
11 Preserve the family unit more responsibly than the other groups.
12 Are unlikely to have ever had an abortion.
13 Are unlikely to have ever cohabitated.
14 Are unlikely to both work full time.
15 Are unlikely to be supportive of and to engage in sex outside of marriage.
[/quote]
I understand, probably more than half of those don’t interest you, but I’m assuming 1-6 & 11 would interest you.
Anyway, good day.
[/quote]
So by dropping birth control you get all those benefits? Are you sure its not the other way around in that people who meet more items on that list are less likely to use BC?
Also can you explain to me how not having sex for part of the month implies more overall sex? Is this something you have personal experience with?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So by dropping birth control you get all those benefits?[/quote]
Not just merely dropping BC.
I don’t believe the survey mentioned it, I could give speculation as to why though.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Good for you, do what you want. The rest of us who enjoy regular sex, will happily using contraceptives.[/quote]
If you were completely rational, which no one is, and your above statement was your honest opinion…you’d get married and use natural family planning, because in a married/nfp couple, you have way more sex than any other category of sexually active adults:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193
Plus, here are some other benefits:
[quote]From Matt:
1 Have a dramatically low (0.2%) divorce rate.
2 Experience happier marriages.
3 Are happier and more satisfied in their everyday lives.
4 Have considerably more marital relations.
5 Share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept.
6 Realize a deeper level of communication with spouse.
7 Are appreciably more religious and attend church more often.
8 Incorporate prayer more in their daily lives.
9 Rely strongly on the teachings of the Church, the Bible and Almighty God.
10 Have strong traditional, social, and moral views.
11 Preserve the family unit more responsibly than the other groups.
12 Are unlikely to have ever had an abortion.
13 Are unlikely to have ever cohabitated.
14 Are unlikely to both work full time.
15 Are unlikely to be supportive of and to engage in sex outside of marriage.
[/quote]
I understand, probably more than half of those don’t interest you, but I’m assuming 1-6 & 11 would interest you.
Anyway, good day.
[/quote]
You’re either incredibly naive or just trolling at this point.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re either incredibly naive or just trolling at this point.[/quote]
You must be really smart.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re either incredibly naive or just trolling at this point.[/quote]
You must be really smart.[/quote]
Not in the slightest, I just know what people are actually like. If you stepped out once in a while, you might know as well.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re either incredibly naive or just trolling at this point.[/quote]
You must be really smart.[/quote]
Not in the slightest, I just know what people are actually like. If you stepped out once in a while, you might know as well.[/quote]
Kthxbai.
[quote]Brother Chris says: You must be really smart.[/quote][quote]Mak answers: Not in the slightest,[/quote]I just wanted to momentarily highlight this rare and commendable flash of personal honesty on Mak’s part.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Look, they just have compassion for women. [/quote]
None of that excusable but there is wrong on both sides.
You see pro-life picketers hooting and hollering at some people having the WORST day of their lives. Couples who’ve been trying to have a child but end up getting an abortion because something catastrophic has occurred to the fetus. It’s despicable and people who do that should be ashamed of themselves.
[/quote]
So, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, how would it then be the worst day of their lives? Wouldn’t it just be another thing, like removing an abscess?
And I thought you said abortion is not a traumatic event?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Beans,
I never said we “should” be breeding things out of the gene pool, not once, I said it is a persons individual choice, there is a huge fucking difference. As far as it being a good or bad thing I think that sort of moral relativism is best left to the woman faced with the choice, I don’t see me as having much say (or interest) in her decision.
As far as breeding poor out of the gene pool, your answer “sure you could” makes me wonder what you’re talking about. You can breed stupid out (maybe) but there are plenty of stupid rich people, and plenty of poor smart people, rich and poor is a combination of things (luck, work ethic, starting point, goals etc.) you can only remove some factors, you can’t assure wealth. Additionally the way I understand it, in capitalism there will always be an underclass, wealth is not infinite is it?
[/quote]
There is always an underclass in any society. It just ranges in size based on how oppressive the government is. The more oppressive the government, the larger the poor class.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Look, they just have compassion for women. [/quote]
None of that excusable but there is wrong on both sides.
You see pro-life picketers hooting and hollering at some people having the WORST day of their lives. Couples who’ve been trying to have a child but end up getting an abortion because something catastrophic has occurred to the fetus. It’s despicable and people who do that should be ashamed of themselves.
[/quote]
So, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, how would it then be the worst day of their lives? Wouldn’t it just be another thing, like removing an abscess?
And I thought you said abortion is not a traumatic event?[/quote]
You didn’t read what I wrote.
The only people who experience depression after an abortion (generally) are those trying to have children.
But the actual abortion procedure itself is not shown to be traumatic.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Still waiting for you to acknowledge the effectiveness of contraception in fighting abortion.
[/quote]
By contraception, do you mean abortificants, like the morning after pills? Because shifting the where and the method of abortion does not mean it’s reducing the rate. It may simply be a shift in methodology.
There is no proper correlation. Many factors have to be considered. For instance, has the rate in a particular region, changed significantly as contraception has been made more available? Are there socio-economic factors that may contribute to the rise or fall?
It’s not so simple to say, where their is contraception there is lower abortion. There could be other factors with in the demographic. There is no way to say that contraception is the only factor when there are some many potential affects on the number. It may or may not help.
The single quickest way to reduce the abortion rate is to make it illegal based on the fact that it’s murder. That won’t stop all of them, but it will reduce it tremendously.
I’ve already posted studies, out of principal I’m not doing it for a 3rd time. But I’ll restate what they show. Places where contraception Use are taught in schools have the low teen pregnancy rates. Places where it’s not taught (Lubbock,tx for example) have sky high rates.
Contraception education and access to contraception help lower unwanted pregnancies.
Also making abortions illegal does very little to curb abortions. You already said you’re unwilling to lock up women or investigate them deeply, so your solution is bunk
I think celibacy is a traumatic event.
Plus, it prevents the birth of tens of children. In both cases, you’re preventing a natural biological process from completing its course.