The War on Abstinence Continues
— Posted by John (July 20, 2006 at 3:55 pm)
Via Project Reality:
NEW SIECUS REPORT ATTACKING ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS GIVES INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT CURRICULA CONTENT
July 19, 2006 (Glenview, IL) – A report released today from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), accuses abstinence programs, including Project Reality’s Game Plan program of relying on inaccurate and misleading information and fear and shame-based messages. SIECUS is an anti-abstinence education organization that fights against federal funding for abstinence programs, and advocates for more federal funding for condom-based sex education.
In fact, the quote that SIECUS uses in accusing Game Plan of being fear and shame based and inaccurate, is, in itself, inaccurate.
Oh, the irony!
The SIECUS report quotes Game Plan as stating to students, “Even if you’ve been sexually active, it’s never too late to say no. You can’t go back but you can go forward. You might feel guilty or unworthy, but you can start over again.” In fact, the quote, from page 45 of Game Plan states, “You can’t go back in life, but you can always go forward. Even if you’ve been sexually active, it’s never too late to start over again.”
SIECUS has proven once again that its stock-in-trade is equal parts moral bankruptcy and incompetence — an extraordinarily dangerous combination.
Project Reality director Libby Macke commented:
SIECUS clearly did not research our programs thoroughly and accurately. It is likely that other inaccuracies exist in their report focusing on 50 states using abstinence education programs.
Quite so.
This entry is filed under Contraception, Culture Wars, Health Issues, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pansy Moss says:
Project Reality’s Game Plan program of relying on inaccurate and misleading information and fear and shame-based messages.
Argh! I get so tired of rhetoric! Who has ever heard of an abstinence program that just said “don’t have sex because if you do, you’re a horrible sinner and no one will be your friend!” I do not mind the disagreement based on a valid argument, but the rhetoric and lies drive me up the wall!
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Lucy says:
I’m curious, what ever makes you believe that you have not only the right to impose a system of values on people who openly reject them, but to add insult to injury and insist that they pay for them?
Do you by chance not understand, (regardless of how many times I have said it), that traditional sex ed programs teach that the only one hundred percent effective method is abstinance. That these are individuals that are going to have to make real life decisions for themselves, they are going to be asked to analyze information and decide what they believe for themselves based on their understanding of all information available. Which means, they must have access to all available information. Education is kind of supposed to be about learning to think independantly and make wise decisions. It is not actually supposed to be about being spoon fed someones idea and asked to do as you are told, no questions asked.
I know, I know they can ask questions. Can they ask how a condom works? What a condom is? Will you tell them all of the information available? All the information…not just the information that you believe? Will you provide it in a manner that encourages them to think for themselves?
If this is just about your kids then why don’t you tell your kids to abstain. Why don’t you promote alternate programs for parents opposed to their children learning critical thinking skills? Why do you perpetually insist upon imposing your ideas on others. Then to insist that they pay to have it imposed…its an outrage.
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
joe says:
“…that traditional sex ed programs teach that the only one hundred percent effective method is abstinence.”
In my sex ed class they mentioned abstinence one time. And when the teacher said it she sounded almost embarrassed. The rest of the entire semester was spent talking about erections, condoms, IUDs and everything that normal people would be embarrassed to talk about.
From an abstinence perspective my sex ed class was a joke. I am sure other schools, especially tax funded public schools, spend a LOT more time teaching strategies to stay abstinent than the less effective contraceptive methods to avoid pregnancies and STDs.
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I’m curious, what ever makes you believe that you have not only the right to impose a system of values on people who openly reject them, but to add insult to injury and insist that they pay for them?
Well, what ever makes you believe that you have a right to impose a system of values on people who openly reject them? Hmmm?
We send our children to these schools and pay a s$%*tload of taxes. When they choose to push their morals on my kids, then I cannot take advantage of the school system. We still pay taxes for, plus the cost of our own schooling.
From an abstinence perspective my sex ed class was a joke.
Same here. What I learned in the home was abstinence. What I learned in school (literally) was that parents who teach abstinence are old fashioned and unrealistic (yes, they said that), and sex is quite fine if you use a condom.
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 2:52 am
John says:
Lucy said: “Do you by chance not understand, (regardless of how many times I have said it), that traditional sex ed programs teach that the only one hundred percent effective method is abstinance.”
Lucy,
Considering that “comprehensive” sex-ed programs acknowledge that abstinence is 100% effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy — coupled with the alarmingly high failure rate of condoms and other forms of birth control — one would expect that the lion’s share of their focus would be dedicated to instilling in students a proper appreciation and respect for sex, which necessarily includes the belief that abstinence before marriage is essential.
But this is not the case.
For this reason, it is daft to believe that any mention of abstinence in “comprehensive” sex-ed programs is anything but lip service.
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 9:25 am
Mike says:
Here’s the best talk I have ever heard on this subject and he has a talk for both the Catholic and Public schools…
http://www.pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Lucy says:
John,
First, yes, scientific, freedom minded people do ‘acknowledge’ that abstinence is the only 100% percent effective method.
Freedom, and I’m beginning to feel a bit like a broken record here I’ve gotta tell you, but it would seem that nobody is listening, and so a deep breathe and I’m going to say it again. Please pay attention.
It is the freedom for each of us to think for ourselves and examine all of the information presented us, and draw our own conclusions, therefore acting in the manner that follows closest to our understanding of how the world works. This does not mean that people are going to do as you wish them too.
For instance, as I’ve stated, it would make me very happy to see all of the people with signs covered with nonsense outside of abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood Expresses go away. I would love it if everyone in the world would understand how things work in my opinion therefore would have to stop. But, it does not work that way. So, if you wish to carry signs then you get to carry signs, if I wish to carry signs then I get too. You just aren’t allowed to shoot people. Sorry. I do not know of a single anti-abortionist losing their life to a Pro-Choicer. Now, attempting to pass legislation that dictates to us what we must think, and how we must understand things, therefore removing from us our individual rights, because the Constitution only extends to those of us on the outside of the womb and above the ground. Then we have an issue. If you guys weren’t so determined to take away our rights to think differently than you I wouldn’t have bothered to come on this site to attempt to communicate with any of you. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this or not but I am very busy and nobody is trying to take your rights away.
The right to be a bully does not exist.
When you try to pass legislation against people who see the world differently then we have a problem.
How in the world can birth control items vary in effectiveness based on marital status? You speak of logical conclusions, yet forget to check for them in your information. This is about the same as someone who believes you can’t get pregnant the first time. Please check your information with greater care John. If it doesn’t make any sense please don’t use it to back up arguments that didn’t make sense in the first place.
No, it is not the job of a school to install anything in students but facts. Facts, as in condoms and the such are available and do have effectiveness levels that are higher than 0 and lower than 100. By the way, your little ‘NFP’ since that’s what you guys are calling it these days, have you taken a head count on how many children on here have resulted from ‘NFP’? Making them both unwanted children, and evidence against effectiveness? Head hurts.
School, as I already stated, but here goes again, is supposed to teach kids to think, not what to think. You can install all the ‘values’ you want at home and at church, but in school all I want to see are the abc’s. In fact, I am in full favor of pulling sex ed out of schools all together, abstinence training and all. This is time that could be utilized improving math skills, or understanding science skills. Have a biology class. However, if there is going to be sex ed at all, there is going to be comprehensive sex ed, and the only alternative will be alternate classes.
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Lucy,
You sound like a broken record because you keep thinking because you repeatedly state your opinion as fact, we have to accept it. And we don’t because it is your opinion. We have our own.
Lucy,
I am being totally serious and one on one here. I would love to hear your arguments and be accepting, but politely disagreeing with your opinions if you would just cut out the straw men and the rhetoric. It makes some of us, well me, for example, see bright red (which I think is your intention because then you can say “see how ridiculous and emotional and mean they are because after I called them “Nazis” they had the nerve to get offended!”). Not the fact that you think differently, but you have to load every opinion you state. Others it simply makes them roll their eyes. For example, you had a valid question about the efficacy of NFP which you could have put forth without it being littered with “oh, btw, your little “NFP” you so talk about…”
RE: NFP. Like Another Annie mentioned with condoms, there is a rate of success with “perfect use”, the same goes with NFP. NFP in “perfect use” is 99% effective. Fact is, you cannot get pregnant while not-fertile, or if you do not have sex while you are fertile. There are people with cycles easy to read, who have no desire to conceive who will use NFP for years successfully. There are some who use it month to month and one month decide, “what were we abstaining for again?” People who are on the Pill do not tend to do that because you just simply do not pay attention to your fertility so closely.
The part you do not understand (not because of an intellectual deficit, but a lack of understanding of faith and a desire to keep with a certain moral code) is the ultimate goal with NFP is not totally the prevention of conception. Someone said to me recently “I don’t understand, wouldn’t the Pill be easier?” Yes, it would be, but it would be wrong. Stealing a million dollars is a lot easier than saving up and working for it too. The idea with NFP is to work with God in deciding family size, not to override Him. So even though you may feel it is not the right time for a child, an “accidental” pregnancy (I use that in quotes for lack of a better term) is not really an accident, but still a blessing. Just not one we thought would be practical at the moment, but one God saw fit to send.
It is not something for teenagers though. Like sex itself, it is intended for two committed, married adults to work together as they will work together when raising a child.
I also agree that schools should not teach any sex ed in school. The home is the place for moral discussions of that sensitivity and caliber. I have no problem with biology class teaching human biology to a point. It has to be done again, with care and sensitivity. I have seen chemistry professors go one half hour long rants on evolution. I have had geometry teachers spend the whole class talking about their antics with nurses in the Vietnam war. I would hate for this to turn into an opportunity to teach an agenda.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 4:57 am
Michael-2 says:
Lucy rants “By the way, your little ‘NFP’ since that’s what you guys are calling it these days, have you taken a head count on how many children on here have resulted from ‘NFP’? Making them both unwanted children, and evidence against effectiveness? Head hurts.”
I find it strange that this comment is thrown into the discussion about teen abstinance programs. Perhaps in its pure form NFP, or periodic abstinance, is something of a program of abstinance itself. Maybe if more people were using NFP there would be more credibility in talking to teens and older children about sex and abstinance.
Is that what you were thinking when you threw that comment about NFP in Lucy?
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:48 am
mary kay says:
Lucy,
The difference between NFP and contraception is that we are working with the bodies natural intentions. We are not introducing anything foriegn and if we become pregnant those are not unwanted children. At that point we realize that it is not our will but His, and we accept that He is wiser than we are.
With NFP we are working “with” our bodies, and in no way are we controlling them. That is why they call it birth “control”. It gives you the illusion that you are “controlling” nature.
Woman who contracept and become pregnant then consider the concieved child as an accident and something to be gotten rid of.
Woman who use NFP and become pregnant then consider the concieved child as a gift from a wise and benevolent God. The attitude difference is across the board because women who use NFP are almost always christian and working with God and nature anyway. Women who contracept are women who have no real relationship with God and are working against nature.
And you need to show me some statistics on how many women use NFP, get pregnant, and then don’t want their children. Compare that to how many women who contracept, become pregnant, and then don’t want their children. Honestly, show me one woman who has used NFP with the correct intentions, who then became pregnant, and then had an abortion. I doubt there is one. If there is, then I would question her reasons for using NFP. However, I can show you the statistic of 44,000,000 (yes, that’s million) women who contracepted, became pregnant and then had an abortion. Go figure…
MK
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 11:34 am
Michael-2 says:
Mary K says “The difference between NFP and contraception is that we are working with the bodies natural intentions.”
That is one difference. Another is that NFP simply does not work for or against the good of fertility whereas contraception works against the good of fertility. And in our time fertility is often understood to mean either the capability of pregnancy or pregnancy itself.
For what it is worth, one of the main factors, if not the biggest factor driving the current growing renewed interest in NFP is the notion (rightly or wrongly) that it is something of a marriage insurance, a way to more or less divorce-proof one’s marriage.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Mike says:
Here is a good website on NFP (The Couple to Couple League)
http://ccli.org
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Mike says:
Here is the difference between Responsible Parenthood & Contraception…
Natural Family Planning is the knowledge of a couple’s fertility. It is a knowledge base about a couple’s ability to conceive a child.
The application of this knowledge in a particular marriage is called responsible parenthood. The couple either decides to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid by timing their use of the privileges of marriage according to the knowledge of their mutual fertility. (The man, if healthy, is fertile all the time. The woman, if healthy, is fertile about three or four days a month.)
Responsible parenthood differs from contraception in two ways: 1. There is no alteration of the bodies of either the husband or wife and this is a huge difference. 2. When the couple uses the privileges of marriage, they are not holding back at all or refusing to give everything they are, physically and spiritually. If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them. They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT. No one could require more.
Further, God never asked couples to use the privileges of marriage at any particular time. That decision is completely theirs. So, in the marital act during an infertile period, husband and wife who are applying the knowledge of their fertility (NFP) responsibly (responsible parenthood) are giving everything they are at that moment to one another.
The intention is also different. The NFP couple realizes that in every marital union there is a chance (perhaps remote) of conceiving a child and they accept this possibility. The contracepting couple (even if only with condoms) has a positive intention against conception.
An example might help: I want some money from a bank. It makes a huge difference whether I go to the bank and draw the money out from a checking account or whether I approach a teller with a gun and “withdraw” $100. Either way, I get the $100, but one act is radically different from the other.
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441428
Mike
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
Lucy: Marital status does not affect the “success” rate of contraceptives, but abstinence until marriage unquestionably helps to curtail the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. If no one had sex before marriage, these diseases would be gone in a generation or two. I have actually heard that the failure rates of NFP are quite low when one follows up on the “unplanned” births in question; most of these can be attributed to couples who intentionally and knowingly broke the rules. (My source is secular; Toni Weschler’s Taking Charge of Your Fertility.)
There is, as I have mentioned before, no such thing as an unwanted child. His or her parents might not want him or her; society might not; but someone does. You find an “unwanted” child, send him or her my way, because I do want him or her. Unwanted pregnancies often yield wanted children once the mother has reconciled herself to the facts. Not every unplanned child is unwanted, either. Consider the case of a woman who wants many children. When her firstborn is eighteen months old, she realizes she is pregnant with her second child, although she had assumed she would not get pregnant again so quickly. Is that child unwanted? If a couple simply leaves themselves open to God’s will, are all of their children unwanted because none were specifically planned? If a woman wants a baby, and conceives twins, were both planned? How do you tell which one wasn’t? If a rapist rapes a woman with the intent of impregnating her, and a child is conceived, is that a planned and wanted child–at least to his or her father? Does whether a five-year-old resulted from a planned pregnancy reduce or increase his or her worth? What about whether he or she is wanted now? What if the baby was wanted by parents at conception, but not wanted after birth? Wantedness is a poor way to judge the value of a human being, and plannedness is a just plain silly way.
Let’s say that there is a group of people who do not respect the rights and personhood of women. They think it is okay to beat or even kill their wives, and they turn to a religious text to support this practice. Some people try to stop it, but they respond:
Why don’t you mind your own business?
What we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms is not your issue.
This is a men’s issue; women should butt out.
That’s just your own religious belief; don’t try to impose your religion on us.
Don’t like spousal abuse? Don’t beat your wife.
The real problem is marriage; can’t we work toward ending marriage together? Here’s some material we produce on why women are evil and you should not tie yourself down to a wife.
Should the government tell you what to do with your wife?
This is a very personal decision.
We don’t really want to beat our wives, but sometimes they just don’t get the housework done quick enough.
It’s better for our wives this way.
Scientifically, you can’t prove women are equal to men. They aren’t as good at math, and aren’t nearly as strong or as big.
Your belief that women are people is irrational.
What argument do you have against this? Their arguments are the same as those who think abortion is a right. The only recourse you have is to argue that women are people with value and worth, which, of course, cannot be proven. They might have some points about the physical superiority of men, certainly, and when it comes down to it, aren’t your reasons just based on your own conceptions and prejudices and experience? On what authority could your claims that woman deserve legal protection draw? Would you have any right to, as these men would put it, legislate your morality and invade their privacy?
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
I don’t believe in your god. If I want to put chemicals in my body why should you stop me, anymore than I should be able to force anything into yours?
If I think it is appropriate for my daughter to take birth control as of the age 14, why should you be permitted to stop me?
No, what I mean is that if you are trying not to become pregnant you more than likely didn’t want to become pregnant.
You talk about illusions. Illusions like what, your computer, electricity, running water, the ability to not drink the same water you just used in the bathroom, or for laundry? The ability to not have to hunt down dinner tonight? Which of these are illusions.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
That’s funny, I had just started to believe you were trying to tick me off. Maybe I’m onto something.
Stop saying you are willing to listen to reason. Stop saying that I am offering straw men without offering what you believe them to be. Or at very least demonstrate that you know what a straw man is.
You wish to legislate you opinion into law. I don’t care if you accept my opinion, I feel like a broken record too. I want you to stop trying to force yours down my throat at the polls. I don’t really care what you want to do. I don’t really care what you believe. I just don’t want you telling me what to think and what to believe.
This is obviously the point of contention. Do you think that you have some right to tell me what to do Pansy?
I don’t have a question about your NFP.
Do you have any idea how offensive I find you to be? I simply haven’t chosen to routinely tell you, but to instead try to reason with you, which seems about the same as communicating with a brick wall. If you don’t like something I say, you say I’m what being mean. Or you pretend you don’t know why I am saying something that is a response to something you said, that you apparently don’t like.
You correct me, telling me what OTHER PEOPLE THINK. That I have somehow responded incorrectly to things that you didn’t say or think. Everytime I say that I want you people to leave me alone and let me think for myself, you tell me that bothers you.
Somehow the right to think for myself is an inconvience for you.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Why would you want to put chemicals in your body which medical references list at least 750 risks/complications/side effects instead of using Natural Family Planning (NFP) which has no side effects?
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10117
Mike
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Also I believe the divorce rate in America is at 50%. Did you know the divorce rate for those using NFP is significantly lower. It ranges from less than 1% to 4.2%. What a huge difference!
Don’t these statistics show God must favor NFP over putting chemicals into your body? With NFP the act is natural (the way God meant it to be) and with NFP you are keeping God in the decision making process. By putting chemicals into your body you create a barrier which kicks God out of the decision making process. Therefore you are avoiding God’s Ultimate Plan.
http://ccli.org/nfp/marriage/maritalduration.php
http://ccli.org/nfp/marriage/index.php
Mike
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Sorry on post #17 I listed the risks of abortion and not birth control/contraception by mistake. There is however a connection between contraception and abortion. Still whenever you put chemicals into your body there are side effects so my question still remains…
Why would you want to put chemicals in your body which has side effects instead of using Natural Family Planning (NFP) which has no side effects?
Also, since you are a feminist does it make you angry when a man asks you to take chemicals (rather than him taking the chemicals) before having sex? Just curious about your opinion on this.
Mike
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 10:22 pm
mary kay says:
Mary Kay,
I don’t believe in your god. If I want to put chemicals in my body why should you stop me, anymore than I should be able to force anything into yours?
Bu the problem Lucy comes from the fact that you believing or not believing in my God has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not He exists.
As to why I would want to stop you from putting chemicals in your body that I believe will harm you both spiritually and physically? For the same reason that I would try to stop you from jumping off a cliff. Because I have come to care about you. And like you. And I hate to see you hurt yourself, even if that’s what you want to do.
But I don’t think (in this country, at least, because this country is based on people being able to make poor choices, as well as good ones) that contraception should be illegal. I do think that it should be more honestly exposed for what it is. And I try to explain it to you, because I have grown fond of you.
I also don’t think that homosexuality should be illegal. But if I loved a gay person (and I do) I would try to show them another path (and I have) and hope that they would take it (and they did) because it was better for their soul. I didn’t force this person to make this decision. But he was open to the idea that maybe just maybe, another path would be better for him in the eternal scheme of things.
Abortion however, ends a human life. An innocent human life. Not a murderers on death row. Not in self-defense. But a completely helpless, innocent, beautiful, uncorrupted little soul loses it life. And it can’t speak for itself. So I, and the others on this site will speak for it. Time will tell if the babies we have saved will one day thank us or tell us that they wished we had let them die. Even you, who at times thought that death would be a better option for you, have grown in spirit to the point that you realized that being alive means you can change your destiny. Being dead just means being dead. And so I now hear pride and joy in your voice when you desccribe your life to me…so until the time that the babies grow up and come back and tell me that I should have butted out and let them die, I will continue to assume that they would have wanted to live.
You see Lucy, you keep saying that they don’t have a brain. Plants don’t have brains either. Animals have brains. They are purely physical. BUT…
they do not have souls. Human beings on the other hand are a part of two worlds. The physical and the spiritual. We have one foot in each…And at conception, the spiritual being is fully formed even if the physical is not. There is a whole other group of beings who are pure spirit. They have no physical bodies whatsoever. But I would certainly say that they are alive. They are the angels, and the demons. Again you believing in them has no effect whatsoever on whether or not they exist. They do.
So when you take the life of a child in the womb, you are taking much more than just it’s cells, and unformed brain…you are taking it’s soul’s chance to travel on it’s own personal journey. You are stealing it’s chance to discover it’s purpose and fulfill it’s destiny just like you are fulfilling yours. When we die, we lose our bodies. But we don’t stop existing. Our bodies are not us. They are only a part of us. Abortion takes away that part, but the soul lives on, and has no opportunity to become the piano string that it was intended to be. No body, no song…This is why it should be illegal. Not to force you to carry it. But to allow it to grow wings and fly…just like you were given a chance…just like I was given a chance. In essence, you didn’t steal it’s life, you stole it’s chance…
MK
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Mike says:
Here is a medical website which shows as of 2003, 18 out of 21 retrospective studies show that women who take oral contraceptives prior to their first-term birth incur an increased risk in developing breast cancer as noted in the bar graph below…
http://polycarp.org/overviewbreastcanceroralcontraceptives.htm
Mike
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
It does to me. I say your god doesn’t exist. I say if he does then it is a tragedy. I don’t believe in things quite so monstrous. The god that is painted in your bible is not a pretty picture.
If your god does exist, I certianly may choose to pay no heed, which I do choose, to pay absolutely no attention. Of course, if it doesn’t exist, then my choice is silly isn’t it.
I do not believe that a fetus and a baby are the same thing. I am trying to explain to you on the other post what it is I mean. I will figure out how to explain it.
What if you find out that all that you have really done is destroyed the lives of countless women. You will tell me that you’ve done no such thing. You don’t know what they will count as having their lives ruined however. Why do you stand as a better judge of how they should live their lives than they? I can’t determine how they should live their lives.
There are some days I am doing well to figure out how to live my own, never mind the lives of others.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Pansy Moss says:
What if you find out that all that you have really done is destroyed the lives of countless women.
OK, let’s say there is an unknown whether of not a preborn child is a human. I have not proven to you it is a human, you have not proven she is not. The common ground is a question mark. There is no science that can prove for a fact that a person is not a person from conception. There are opinions, POVs, maybe even some scientific theory out there that I don’t know of, but there is no scientfic law that states when life begins.
On one side you have women who for the most part choose to create this life, whose lives will be difficult if they have a child, but may not be as horrible as they think (as adoption is an option as well), or yes their lives may be difficult. Motherhood is sacrifice, but it is love as well. Life is sacrifices and for some reason we elevate certain sacrifices as acceptable hard work such as being ambitious in the career world, and going to school (I guess things that mean more money in the end). People pat women on the back when they mention they are sleepy for pulling 36 hour shifts during medical residencies. People pity or think mothers are stupid when they do this for their children, or label parenthood as horrible. Sacrificing yourself for another, even your own, is not a virtue in our culture.
On the other side in this unknown you are taking a chance that either you are terminating a possible difficult situation through a simple surgical procedure, or you are causing your own child, a baby who was created to you by your own actions, to endure going through a procedure to be bloodily and painfully ripped up to shreds.
Again, what I am trying to convince you is not to change you stance on abortion, but simply to illustrate why the “woman’s right” argument seems trivial to us. When you weigh the even “possible” violent murder on a scale against a woman’s inconvenience, one holds much, much more gravity. It has nothing to do with wanting to make slaves of women, imprison them, dictate to them, it has everything to do with genocide to us.
Let’s say someone gave you a detonation device. It was up to you to use. When you let the detonator go off you are told that it will cause people in some far away land to die. Not just simply die, but be mangled to death. The detonator could go off in the middle of an unpopulated place and no one will be harmed, or it could go off in the middle of Hong Kong for all you know. Why take that chance?
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 3:54 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
Actually Quinn, within all of his nonsense, gave a beautiful observation for why life does not begin at conception. He said that it is scientific that life begins at fertilization and ends at death, when the brain dies. This, as I keep pointing out, is not science.
Science requires consistancy. If the death is the end of life, it is neccessary for their to be life before it can end. If a brain must die in order for death to occur a brain must live in order for life to occur. Therfefore, as no brain is formed at conception you cannot argue that anything without a brain can either live or die. Therefore, life does not begin at conception. Which means that in sheer physical terms the earliest that you can begin your conversation is at about 5 weeks.
http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml
There are other sites that suggest that it may be around the 6th week that the brain begins to form, however, which means that consideration for the potential of the 4th week as a jumping off point can be granted. However, without arguing that one can live without a brain, and redefining death, I’m afraid conception is not a viable starting point.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
No, we don’t honor self sacrifice in this country. There is strong evidence to suggest that people calling for self sacrifice are up to any good. No system that has required self sacrifice has yeilded anything but mass human suffering. Of course, there is generally the guy who tried to make it seem like a good idea living off the sacrifices.
An arrangement where you voluntarily take care of your child should not count as sacrifice, but a willful exchange. While the child benefits from the fact that you provide it the things that it needs to flourish, you benefit from watching the child grow. You marvel at all of the firsts, and hold high hopes for their future. Everyone is getting something out of the deal. You will recieve joy, and they will recieve joy.
There is a lot more thought involved in becoming a doctor than there is in becoming a mother. There should be thought involved in when to become a mother, and how to be a good mother, but there is no real thought involved in getting pregnant. In fact, a lack of thought seems to be the best method. Comparing the accomplishment of becoming a Doctor and getting pregnant is therefore not terribly realistic.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Lucy says:
Pansy,
Due to the base of this country, which is by no means Christianity, there is a value placed upon individualism. The fact that none of us are born knowing anything more than anyone else. This is where that whole Equal thing comes in. It doesn’t mean that we stay that way. John Adams spoke of the idea of equality in terms of materials that one is born with. I like Adams, but he kind of missed the point.
As Ayn Rand identifies the fact that it doesn’t matter what financial means you start with if you know how to create wealth. Those who don’t know how to create wealth won’t be able to keep it, and those who learn how to create it won’t be without it for long. This is of course in a just system
That leads into Aristotle and others who were busy learning how the world around us and how to manipulate it and examining all of the possilbe combinations. The end result of these guys, who followed their own beliefs instead of doing as told, are things that exist in the modern world.
Had they sacrificed themselves to the wills of others, we wouldn’t know how to use fire.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 10:40 am
mary kay says:
Lucy,
I say your god doesn’t exist. I say if he does then it is a tragedy. I don’t believe in things quite so monstrous. The god that is painted in your bible is not a pretty picture.
Ahhhh…and therein lies the rub. God does not exist to please you. He doesn’t need your approval or permission. He is what He is. And I am so sorry that instead of seeing the choices that human beings made as being monstrous you choose to see God as such.
The real tragedy is that you don’t understand and have no desire to understand this God. If you did, you would realize that He is all love and all merciful. He doesn’t need you Lucy, but He desires you. He is the one who allows you not to accept Him. Your “rights” do not come from the constitution. They come from God. Your free will does not come from Kant, Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Beethoven of Deputy Dawg. It comes from God. If He did not choose you to have free will, you wouldn’t have it no matter how many philosphers said that you do. Freedom comes from above and exists within. No law can touch true freedom. It can take away comfort, or food, or priveleges, but if you have God you are free forever…God does not need you Lucy, but you need Him…and want and need are two different things.
MK
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
mary kay says:
If the death is the end of life, it is neccessary for their to be life before it can end. If a brain must die in order for death to occur a brain must live in order for life to occur.
I said this weeks ago…
#
Lucy,
Lucy says: ” There is no murder being committed in an abortion. There is the removal of a fetus which cannot survive on its own, and so therefore, subsequently dies.”
How can it die if it wasn’t alive?
MK
Comment posted July 10th, 2006 at 7:01 am
Lucy,
Again I ask you…how can something die if it isn’t alive. If it is alive and you are the cause of it’s death, how is that not taking it’s life. If it did nothing to deserve it’s life being taken, how is that not murder? If it is not human what is it?
But this argument that something needs a brain to be alive is ridiculous. Moss is alive. Sponges are alive. If the life force exists then something is alive. We only consider something dead when the brain shuts down and the heart stops because we have no way of knowing when the the soul leaves the body. We are very careful before we pronounce somebody dead because we have been wrong in the past…people that appeared dead were actually still alive. This is because until the soul leaves the body death to the physical self has not occured. By the same token, once a soul enters a body (with or without a brain) it becomes alive. Thus an embryo/blastocyst, by virtue of having a soul albeit know brain activity is still alive. The same way a plant is alive once cell division begins to occur. Plants don’t have souls so ending their life is not the grave error that ending human life is, but nonetheless pulling a plant out of the ground (brainless though it is) means that a once living thing will now be a dead thing.
I cannot emphasize enough that we do not believe life is measured by the physical alone. You once asked for a definition of life. Try this: Human life begins the minute the soul enters the body, and the soul enters the body at the moment of conception.
You do not have to believe this to make it so. It’s reality exists regardless of your accepting it’s truth. Taking a babies life at anytime, destroys the souls chance to discover who it is and to follow it’s own path back to God. This is a God given right. Not a constitutional one. I know you don’t believe in God, but it still remains the truth. And I above all else, liberty, life, love, hope, all of it…I worship Truth. And God is Truth. I seek truth in all things and don’t let my beliefs get in the way. If something is true I want to know it, even if it goes against everything that I have held to be true up to that point. Don’t you want the same? Are you really so rebellious of God that you won’t believe in Him even if it means shortchanging yourself and keeping you from knowing the truth? I could understand if you let down all, and I do mean ALL of your defenses, gave God a shot, (the real God, not the garbage you have been fed up til now) andTHEN found Him wanting, but to just dismiss Him out of hand because of a few bad experiences with lousy examples of christians…well that just seems counter productive…
MK
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
#
Lucy says:
Pansy,
No, we don’t honor self sacrifice in this country.
Tell that to the veterans of world war I and world war II. Tell that to the people who stood up against slavery even though they themselves weren’t slaves.
You seem to think that self-sacrifice is cancelled out if the sacrificer benefits from the sacrifice. This is not so. Self sacrifice means putting someone elses needs before your own. Every time I clean the toilets in my house (even though I don’t pee in them) I am self-sacrificing. Everytime I take the dogs for a walk I am self-sacrificing. Every time I eat at my husbands favorite restaurant I am self sacrificing (I hate thai food). Everytime he eats at mine, he is self sacrificing (He hates steak). This doesn’t mean that I don’t benefit from a clean bathroom, enjoy a sunny day in the park or get to eat at a restaurant. It just means that I put others before myself.
I think this country was built on self-sacrifice. Men who left their native homelands, families, comforts, to brave a new world that was hostile and unknown. These men sacrificed a great deal so that their children, and their childrens children and you and I and bob down the street could all have the life we have now. If you are forced to self sacrifice it is oppression. But if given freely, it is and expression of love.
MK
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Mike says:
Did anyone see these incredible statistics come out the other day on a study done on “Cohabitation”?
Cohabitation Ends in Separation 90% of the Time
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06072106.html
So much for those who feel cohabitation is practicing marriage before the actual wedding. Although I believe most of us on this website already knew this!
Mike
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Pansy Moss says:
I think this country was built on self-sacrifice. Men who left their native homelands, families, comforts, to brave a new world that was hostile and unknown. These men sacrificed a great deal so that their children, and their childrens children and you and I and bob down the street could all have the life we have now. If you are forced to self sacrifice it is oppression. But if given freely, it is and expression of love.
Yep.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
lauren says:
Horray for cohabitation.. boyfriend and I are buying a house together in a month.. Would you like to come protest out my door? I’d love if you did lmao
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 11:34 am
mary kay says:
Lauren,
Yeah well, houses of sand and all that…
If you read what I wrote to Lucy, you’d know that we couldn’t care less who you sleep with. That’s something you’ll have to explain to Someone else at a later date. The only thing we stand outside and protest against is abortion. You’re personal lack of morals are none of our concern…Now on the other hand, if that was a left handed way of inviting us all over for cold beer, hot dogs and conversation, you might have some takers…
by the way, you must have a very small derrierre…you are always laughing it off…must look kind of funny…
MK
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Mike says:
Lauren,
With the lastest study on co-habitation only 10% of those who are living together will have marriages which last for a lifetime. When you choose the man of your dreams to marry don’t you intend to want it to last for a lifetime? By co-habitating your chances of separating/divorce just sky-rocket! Why put yourself against odds which are so hard to defeat?
Mike
Comment posted July 25th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
lauren says:
“Lauren,
With the lastest study on co-habitation only 10% of those who are living together will have marriages which last for a lifetime. When you choose the man of your dreams to marry don’t you intend to want it to last for a lifetime? By co-habitating your chances of separating/divorce just sky-rocket! Why put yourself against odds which are so hard to defeat?
Mike ”
Why does my goal have to be marriage? We’re happy, we’ve been dating for 3 1/2 years and we want to live together. Oh i’m sorry I have a lack of morals because they aren’t yours! God you people really are busybodies
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 10:23 am
mary kay says:
Lauren,
If we had been spying on you and discovered that you were going to move in with your boyfriend, you might have a case in calling us busybodies. But since you volunteered the information on a sight that has made no secret of the fact that we believe living together without the benefit of marriage is morally unacceptable, it would seem that you made it our business…and by the way, they aren’t “OUR” morals…they’re God’s…but good try.
MK
By the way, I take it this means we won’t be coming over for those hot dogs and beer?
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Do you honestly believe that the veterans of wars, volunteer soldiers of course, not draftees, couldn’t possibly have been doing what was in their best interest. Once again, do you believe that the veterans of the revolutionary war were attempting to free themselves from the grasp of their oppressors for the benefit of someone besides themselves?
Please remember that the U.S. was the last to enter both of those wars. We were the last to enter because we refused to do so until it was an inescapable reality that it would effect us. It took the very self centered America to take the monsters in question to their knees. Because only the self centered America was composed of men and women focussed on their own best interests, therefore, attempting to develop new ideas that would improve their own lives. That these things help others is purely by default.
Those who were not slaves worked for what was right. They worked to remove the ability of others to strip others of the right to decide how to live their lives. You’ll also note that the issue at hand was not whether or not the masters were allowing slaves to keep a pulse. The slaves were worth more with their bodies in tact than not. It was something else that was being fought for.
That you feel that you are sacrificing yourself when you clean the toilet is…gross. I mean, if you were the only one there would it not be in your best interest to have a clean toilet? Wait, you don’t pee in the toilets? I’m going to assume that I’ve misunderstood.
If you think it is self sacrifice to take the dogs out to pee…I mean they are going to pee somewhere.
But I’m hoping you love your husband. I’m expecting that you find pleasure in seeing him happy. The same in reverse for the steaks.
No, that wasn’t what this country was founded on, it is what they were seeking to escape. It is what it is slowly being altered into. The closer we get to an altruistic society in which you think of others first and yourself last if ever, the worse off things get.
If you make me carry a child to term that I do not want, it will not be a loving experience. It will be oppression. You will force me to sacrifice myself to something I do not want. That is the point. Thank you for making it. As has been argued in Free Inquiry’s last issue, A car ride is very enjoyable, kidnapping is not. Sex is enjoyable, rape is not.
I know you view sex as an agreement to carry something around inside of me while it grows into something that I will then have to care for forever whether I like it or not, but certainly you can understand how I don’t send out that invite at all. I don’t sign that agreement, and as you have just acknowledged that there is a problem in making me allow it use my body against my will, I really don’t see what the issue is.
Comment posted July 30th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Once again, your arguments all presuppose a god. Yet you offer no proof that your god exists. Even if like the Deists you point to nature and say there is your proof of God, you offer no proof that this god has anything to do with your opinions. You offer no proof that it is your god and not you that believes a fetus to be equal to a baby. If it is your god this would require unquestionable proof that your god is real. I still contend that the possibility is very real that there is no god, and yet, I am not able to prove a negative, and therefore, I must also contend that it is feasible. I’m not agnostic. Agnostics care. I don’t care.
If your god is real this is not proof that the thoughts you offer as belonging to he/she, are actually an extract of. Even by citing documents of your church, or higher authorities of the church, you only establish that at some point in time these ideas have been positioned on paper. You only confirm that there are other humans willing to echo your claims, or you are echoing theirs, you can have it either way, It matters not. Therefore, all of the halls that you can fill with papers are empty, and all of the men are mute by the fact that they cannot produce their alleged source.
I can pretend to recieve word from some higher power that some rule be imposed upon humanity. All evidence indicates that I could acquire a substantial mob to echo my assertians. I could certainly write these ideas down, though it is probable that some members of my mob of followers will jot down my thoughts for me. Over time the mob will grow bigger, and if the name of the game is whoever can convince the most people of their claims must be closer to the truth than any, then I certainly could become a contender. What would stop me, my gender? Certainly I could find a man to pretend that he is I, and that should seal the deal.
Yet, all of my claims to direct communication with this alleged higher power should not persuade you to believe me. If I tell you that terrible things will happen to you if you question me, this should raise an extreme degree of suspicion. If I have the truth then why in the world do I need to mask it with untellable horrors? If I threaten to chase you even into death, a threat that you cannot prove or disprove as being sincere while alive, would you take me more or less seriously? That I should play on your emotions at every turn, and tell you that you must obey me because a higher authority I offer no evidence of, save perhaps a tree, should you pay me more or less regard?
If you cannot produce evidence of your god that does no better than the evidence that I could offer to support my alleged higher power, than why should I respond differently? If you have communicated with your god and they have given you orders then perhaps it would be wise for you to assume that your god was speaking to you personally for a reason. Perhaps it would be counted as feasible that the same god that finds the time and energy to communicate with you might also make time to inform me. Perhaps if they have no message to deliver to me personally, as surely if they are all that you say, they would wish me to listen, and understand that I will not take the word from you or any other, therefore, they would take the time to contact me directly. As this has not happened, I have no choice but to believe that they are either non existant or have no concerns regarding my life.
I would also assume that for all of the concern you seem to believe that this god of yours has with abortion, than I would surely have had contact. Afterall, I have first had one. I do think that had your god come to directly intervene that might have stopped me. They would more than likely, being the all powerful god as you claim, have been in possession of a very persuasive arguments. Of course, if I found anything in the religions in the world that do not cause me to feel outright disdain for their entire form, it was approval of my actions. And, no the reason that I despise Christianity is not because it would tell me that I’m wrong. Crack a bible, if you call abortion murder, the bible is actually quite the fan of murder. In fact, the bible betrays most of your assertions as belonging to something besides it. There is of course agreement in the degradation of women and the pursuit of power.
Certainly a woman who does not regret her abortion, or feel guilt in regards to it, and understands no need to have experienced either, would have been contacted by your god if this had been the case. Yet I have not heard or seen from this god of yours in either case. Therefore leaving me with reason to believe that either they do not exist, or are not concerned.
I have stood up in a gay marriage. I was the maid of honor actually. Certainly, I would have heard something about that, and yet, nothing. Not a thing.
Therefore, if this god of yours does not wish to offer evidence of their existance to me, or criticism for my actions, I certainly don’t understand why I should take your word for it that they view these as wrong. Or for that matter that they are.
I am interested, please provide proof that your god exists. The bible is not reliable evidence, nor is the church. Deism acknowledges the universe as a whole as part of evidence of God, but does not ascribe to the idea of a god that performs tricks, or gives orders. But instead, believe that we have been endowed with what we will need to survive, our minds. That it is our responsibility to determine how and when to utilize these things. Thus we have learned what to and not to eat. How to grow our food. How to ensure clean water. How to make medication out of basic plant life. How to eat higher quality so that we can be healthier. Sometimes the cost in the quality can be offset by the fact that the increased nutrients can make up for quantity, allowing us to maintain at lower levels. It stands to reason that we are also to determine whether or not it is wise for us to have children at that point, and that we should use the brain that we were given to prevent a pregnancy from continuing.
There is no consistant rational for denying the production of mans mind in one area because it defies gods will, and accepting the product in another area under the claim that it is gods will. I certainly don’t think that you would like to claim that your bible makes direct references to life support, or anestesia, or heart transplants, or operations that enable people to walk, or see, or speak, yet these come from the same place that allows us to decide whether or not it is appropriate for us to carry children at that time.
To arbitrarily decide that one is bad and the other is good, when lives are at risk in all of them, is bizarre at best. Though I hardly think that the motivation is that pure.
Bottom line. You say that you are getting your marching orders from this god of yours. Prove that this god is there, and prove that these orders belong to them. Until then, you follow the orders. I didn’t get the memo.
Comment posted July 30th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Ah, I see you have nothing to offer as evidence either.
Comment posted August 5th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Lauren, lauren, lauren says:
Mary Kay,
I dont like beer. I love hot dogs. Satan will be DJing at our house of sin naturally lol. You’re more than welcome to come by.
Comment posted August 7th, 2006 at 10:37 pm