So are you ever going to answer my question, have you adopted an orphan?
No I haven't. I take care of own children, thank you very much. I contribute to local charities. How many things haven't you done? No one has the resources to do everything.
I usually stay away from this debate, it's a hard issue to get people to debate reasonably on, both sides are passionate and I appreciate talking and /debating with you as you are able to do so without getting nasty. I only hopped in because some were getting out of hand. But I'm glad I saw you here. Think I'll pop over to WOT later on.
I'm not passionate about this issue. I'm a naturalist.
Abortion is as natural as birth.
There are apes that can terminate a pregnancy if the resources are not enough to support the baby until adulthood. There are also apes that can prevent pregnancy whenever they want to and have sex simply for fun and experience.
In all the natural world, non viable fetuses are aborted every day.
One thing T3, we aren't apes. If you know of a natural way for a human to abort their fetus let me know. That is to say if there's a way to do so without any outside aids, drugs, etc.
When an abortion is performed before the 12th week, the fetus liiks like a long peanut, no arms, legs, head, etc. and therefore cannot be "dismembered". It is vacummed out in one piece.
I think you have your facts wrong. Look at this: http://www.pregnancyguideonline.com/Please take particular notice of Week 12. Notice the heart begins to beat in week 6.
You are therefore conceding that immorality – and hence morality – is relative. You can no longer use morality to object to my stance on abortion.
However, don't see the relationship between killing unborn children and killing cows.
that artist guy (Maplethorpe??) who displayed a crucifix in a pot of urine also did not see why Christians were outraged.
Why is the killing of born and living children and adults of less consequence?
An unborn fetus may be life – but it has not been impacted by the experience of life. It is oblivious of the joys and pain of living - it is an unfinished project that in most cases may also be unwanted.
A human being out in the world but allowed to die due to neglect and starvation should cause more anguish than an aborted fetus.
says there are between 36 and 56 million abortions worldwide in a year.
Info from "World Christian Trends" William Carey Library - David Barrett & Todd Johnson (book avail at 1-800-MISSION) - this diagram list: "22 million starvation related per annum"
If the passion against abortions is directed towards saving some of the starving, morality would be better served.
Just because you feel strongly about something doesn't make it right. Look at the gays for example. They feel strongly about their lifestyle. That don't make it right but that doesn't stop them from espousing their beliefs.The same goes for condemning certain acts or behaviors. The bottom line is butchering unborn children is wrong. Whether it is doen out of ignorance or malice it is wrong.
Look at the gays for example. They feel strongly about their lifestyle. That don't make it right
as long as it is consensual and devoid of excess, what is wrong with it? Statistically it will be impossible for gays to outnumber the heterosexual - so procreation will not cease. Mankind will continue with blinkers on to the gory excesses allowed to flourish in the name of morality.
The bottom line is butchering unborn children is wrong.
the silence of conspiracy in allowing born, living but underprivileged children to slaughtered by starvation is even more heinous
Whether it is doen out of ignorance or malice it is wrong. done with full knowledge of the proselyters of morality, starvation deaths are not only wrong but also abhorrent.
as long as it is consensual and devoid of excess, what is wrong with it? That is your opinion and you are entiled to it. You are also entiled to be wrong.Statistically it will be impossible for gays to outnumber the heterosexual - so procreation will not cease. Mankind will continue with blinkers on to the gory excesses allowed to flourish in the name of morality. I have no idea what "excesses" you are referring to.
the silence of conspiracy in allowing born, living but underprivileged children to slaughtered by starvation is even more heinous I don't believe there is silence or a conspiracy to to cause such things.
Jethro still believes that HIS morality takes precendence over the morality of the majority of persons in this country. Meaning, of course that he is more moral than most Americans. Ah me. The arrogance of it all, as if people were hauling women off to clinics wholesale against their will.
Whether the heart beats or not is hardly the issue. Humans are more than a beating heart and no one can keep a 6 week old alive ex-utero for the full term therefore tis not viable. You can say that the free abortion period should move along, getting shorter, as medical technology advances. But that is not addressing the issue.
Abortions permitted in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of mother's life - is a mealy mouth position really - all you have said that its ok if she didn't choose to have sex or presumably didn't enjoy it or if she's not physically capable of sustaining a pregnancy. One would assume she had no prior knowledge of this disability. One also assumes that she wouldn't have chosen to have this disability. So abortion becomes OK if she had no choice?
The real issue seems more to do with sex and the role of women in our society than anything else.
Abortions permitted in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of mother's life - is a mealy mouth position really - all you have said that its ok if she didn't choose to have sex or presumably didn't enjoy it or if she's not physically capable of sustaining a pregnancy. One would assume she had no prior knowledge of this disability. One also assumes that she wouldn't have chosen to have this disability. So abortion becomes OK if she had no choice? Â Â
I don't think that it's a mealy mouthed posisition at all. It has nothing to do with wether she enjoyed it or not. The point is that sex if it's consensual can lead to having a child or creating a life. So can nonconsensual sex but the woman had no choice in that matter. It's a chance you take if you have sex then it's a simple matter of accountability and living with the decision to willingly enter into that act. If her life is in danger then her life would take precedence but if it was consensual and her life is not in danger then the life they created takes precedence.
The real issue seems more to do with sex and the role of women in our society than anything else.
O.K fine, lets say that it's 100% up to the woman. Which it is right now, the man has no say wether or not to abort. So would you be comfortable not having men pay or be responsible for children they create ?
and a plea for reason from the lady with the bewitching smile -
The real issue seems more to do with sex and the role of women in our society than anything else.
Not really – the issues you speak of have all been settled.
role of women – as sex objects and targets of mega corporations with aging remedies and panaceas for eternal youth. You ignorant femmes will fork out millions for the elixir of youth – and an equal amount to shrinks who will tell you that youth prefers its own.
Jethro still believes that HIS morality takes precendence over the morality of the majority of persons in this country. On abortion my morality is the morality of the majority. The majority in this country think abortion on a whim is wrong. They have been a little cowed by militants such as you that demand moral relativism.Meaning, of course that he is more moral than most Americans. Ah me. The arrogance of it all, as if people were hauling women off to clinics wholesale against their will. You and your ilk are the arrogant ones.You think that you can on a whim decide between life and death.
Whether the heart beats or not is hardly the issue. Humans are more than a beating heart and no one can keep a 6 week old alive ex-utero for the full term therefore tis not viable. You can say that the free abortion period should move along, getting shorter, as medical technology advances. But that is not addressing the issue. The issue is right and wrong. Apparently you are incapable of making such distinctions. Life begins at conception because it is an essential part of the human expeirence. You don't get to the status of adult or even to birth without it. The real issue is whether human beings should have the right to make the decision to end that life on a whim.
Abortions permitted in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of mother's life - is a mealy mouth position really - all you have said that its ok if she didn't choose to have sex or presumably didn't enjoy it or if she's not physically capable of sustaining a pregnancy. One would assume she had no prior knowledge of this disability. One also assumes that she wouldn't have chosen to have this disability. So abortion becomes OK if she had no choice? No it is not okay. It still is the taking of a human life. Some people seem to think it is okay to allow such abortions since it is a compromise. Morally there is no distinction between abortion because of rape or incest or whether it is on a whim.
The real issue seems more to do with sex and the role of women in our society than anything else. The real issue is life and death.
When it comes to right and wrong specifically the death of innocents people should be involved in other people's lives. The road we are on may one day takes us to the point that people won't be concerned that their neigbor was murdered by her husband or wife since they don't want to get their hands in other people's lives.
And your statistics that show otherwise are where, fold? All the statistics everywhere you look indicate that people personally oppose abortion. That has not equated, yet, into a majority that wants to legally ban abortion on a whim. That is probably due to the moral relativism propagated by the extreme left.
This is debate? It looks like Andy [along with his aliASSes jethro and billfold] has gottten everyone to think that there's actually an issue here when in fact the only issues are his own. Ignore the COM-CON punk --- please.
September 08. 2002 6:30AM Abortion politics holding up health center bill
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Community health centers do not perform abortions, but abortion politics are holding up legislation renewing federal support for their work.
Then Armey stepped in. He wanted to attach a measure, long sought by anti-abortion groups, that would bar federal, state or local government from forcing hospitals, doctors, insurance companies or other health care providers to perform, make referrals or pay for abortion. Tangled up in abortion politics, the legislation was pulled from the House schedule and has yet to be brought up for a vote.
Armey later agreed to separate the abortion provision from the health center bill. But he will not allow a vote on health centers until he gets a vote on the abortion bill, said his spokesman, Greg Crist.
Each year, about 1,000 centers provide health care for about 12 million people, half of whom have no insurance. Bush has said he wants to double the number of people served at these centers, adding or expanding centers at 1,200 sites over five years.
FYI: Anti-abortion legislation Anti-abortion legislation in the House would bar the government from forcing health care providers to perform, make referrals or pay for abortion.
People on both sides of the debate believe the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act has enough votes to pass the House.
The bill would expand a 1996 law that barred the government from forcing medical residents to perform abortions. The expansion would add hospitals, insurance companies and "any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan" to the law.
The arguments on each side:
Anti-abortion activists say the existing law has a loophole because it only includes medical students. In Alaska, for instance, a hospital that did not want to perform second-trimester abortions was forced to under a state court ruling.
Abortion rights supporters say the 1996 law was purposely narrow. This bill, they say, could further restrict access to abortion and abortion information for poor women in Medicaid. They worry anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers will apply for family planning money, under which counselors are supposed to tell clients about all options. Under this law, they say, clinics could get the money but refuse to discuss abortion as an option.
*How morbid! To force a doctor and/or hospital to perform abortions.
Did anybody see the article from The Associated Press titled "Study links virginity in girls to mom's role".
the article begins......"WASHINGTON - Mothers worried their daughters are having sex have more influence than they might imagine. Teenage girls who are close to their moms are more likely to stay virgins, researchers reported Wednesday."
and ends with.... "Other factors made no difference in teen sex, including how religious the mothers were, how often they talked about sex or how uncomfortable they were talking about sex."
The Add Health findings identified a number of factors that are associated with postponement of early sex:
For younger teens and older teenage boys, a strong sense of connectedness with their mothers - in which the teen feels close to mom and percieves that she is warm and caring - makes a difference. This effect was not seen among older teenager girls.
Girls whose mothers have higher levels of education are less likely to become sexually active. On the other hand, teens whose mothers are highly religious are no less likely than other teens to start having sex.
Mothers who report that they frequently talk with the parents of their daughters' friends had daughters who were less likely to have initiated sex over the one-year study period. These findings did not hold true for boys.
"The researchers also explored the impact of discussing birth control with teens on subsequent sexual activity. Mothers are nearly twice as likely to say that they recommend a specific form of birth control to their 14-15 year-old sons as they are to their daughters."
... " To date, research is mixed on whether speaking to teens about birth control encourages them to become sexually active or not," Blum said. "Either way, speaking about birth control does not appear to have a mojor impact on kids' initiation of sexual intercourse. But research does show that when parents talk about contraception with their kids and their kids are having sex, they are more likely to use birth control."
The thing that catches my attention the most in this article is the part about the perception of the teen that the mother is warm and caring. To me this means the mother has to be empathetic and approachable rather that stern, strict, and unwilling to get into the teens world.
I am sorry that you were irresponsible, fold. However, it doesn't surprise me at all. Just becuase you couldn't control yourself doesn't mean others cannot.
And just because you can doesn't mean everyone else is going to be able to as well. That is true. But why shouldn't it be expected as a standard of behavior?But then isn't that really the heart of this debate? I think it is, to some degree.
I don't even have a problem with it being expected as a standard behavior. I think the question is to what degree do you write people off when they fail to live up to that standard? Do you admit that people sometimes fail and that such a thing is normal and they deserve some help when they do, or do you just say, "You know what you were doing, it's your own fault, now deal with it!" That to me seems to be pretty much the dividing line between liberal and conservative. Liberals think of society as a team effort and conservatives espouse "personal responsibility."
Of course they do. It would be silly to talk about it and not live it. But one can be responsible for themselves, and still feel a sense of responsibility towards taking care of those who have failed to take care of themselves.
I am sorry that you only had a Blow-Up doll and K-Y, Jethro, Uncalled personal attack noted, fold. Was that necessary? Couldn't control your hatred of jethro once again I see. Get a grip man! You'll feel much better.
Mr. bodine - in the abortion wars, I thought all semblance or reality of decorum and taste or sensibility was discarded. And the sanction for excessive abuse comes from god himself. Gory pictures of aborted fetuses are acceptable and even murder most foul has divine sanction. Whats in a few words?
So are you ever going to answer my question, have you adopted an orphan?
No I haven't. I take care of own children, thank you very much. I contribute to local charities. How many things haven't you done? No one has the resources to do everything.
You have shown me the light!
I am done with this pointless arguement!
Thank you!
T3,
I usually stay away from this debate, it's a hard issue to get people to debate reasonably on, both sides are passionate and I appreciate talking and /debating with you as you are able to do so without getting nasty. I only hopped in because some were getting out of hand. But I'm glad I saw you here. Think I'll pop over to WOT later on.
Yes it is hard to stay rational when one side advoactes the dismemberment of unborn children.
I'm not passionate about this issue.
I'm a naturalist.
Abortion is as natural as birth.
There are apes that can terminate a pregnancy if the resources are not enough to support the baby until adulthood.
There are also apes that can prevent pregnancy whenever they want to and have sex simply for fun and experience.
In all the natural world, non viable fetuses are aborted every day.
No big deal.
I am passioante too. T3 :)
One thing T3, we aren't apes. If you know of a natural way for a human to abort their fetus let me know. That is to say if there's a way to do so without any outside aids, drugs, etc.
And a miscarriage is not an abortion.
Also, an unwanted human pregnancy can be terminated by the mother simply wanting it gone bad enough.
The same way a woman can stop her period whenever she wants.
I fail to see how with any intellectual honesty can compare a natural or spontaneous abortion with human action that dismembers a child.
That's called an accident. If she does it intentionally then it's not natural is it.
What ? :) Please tell me more about that. I'd love to e-mail that one to Mrs. Luv 2 Fly.
So I guess we can get rid of clinics etc. Then if it's such a natural thing women can do it on their own.
O.K I am leaving again. I can't take it. I've had enough for the day. I'll be back Everyone please behave and stay away from the personal attacks O.K
When an abortion is performed before the 12th week, the fetus liiks like a long peanut, no arms, legs, head, etc. and therefore cannot be "dismembered".
It is vacummed out in one piece.
I think you have your facts wrong. Look at this: http://www.pregnancyguideonline.com/Please take particular notice of Week 12. Notice the heart begins to beat in week 6.
It has been over two hours since my last post. Funny how liberals run away when presented with facts.
jethro bodine 9/4/02 10:08am
Go right ahead if you feel strongly about it.
You are therefore conceding that immorality – and hence morality – is relative. You can no longer use morality to object to my stance on abortion.
However, don't see the relationship between killing unborn children and killing cows.
that artist guy (Maplethorpe??) who displayed a crucifix in a pot of urine also did not see why Christians were outraged.
Why is the killing of born and living children and adults of less consequence?
An unborn fetus may be life – but it has not been impacted by the experience of life. It is oblivious of the joys and pain of living - it is an unfinished project that in most cases may also be unwanted.
A human being out in the world but allowed to die due to neglect and starvation should cause more anguish than an aborted fetus.
This source - http://www.nutrition.uio.no/ARHNe/new/Reports/repSolo.PDF
says there are between 36 and 56 million abortions worldwide in a year.
Info from "World Christian Trends" William Carey Library - David Barrett & Todd Johnson (book avail at 1-800-MISSION) - this diagram list: "22 million starvation related per annum"
If the passion against abortions is directed towards saving some of the starving, morality would be better served.
Just because you feel strongly about something doesn't make it right. Look at the gays for example. They feel strongly about their lifestyle. That don't make it right but that doesn't stop them from espousing their beliefs.The same goes for condemning certain acts or behaviors. The bottom line is butchering unborn children is wrong. Whether it is doen out of ignorance or malice it is wrong.
Did anyone say it was of less consequence?
Look at the gays for example. They feel strongly about their lifestyle. That don't make it right
as long as it is consensual and devoid of excess, what is wrong with it? Statistically it will be impossible for gays to outnumber the heterosexual - so procreation will not cease. Mankind will continue with blinkers on to the gory excesses allowed to flourish in the name of morality.
The bottom line is butchering unborn children is wrong.
the silence of conspiracy in allowing born, living but underprivileged children to slaughtered by starvation is even more heinous
Whether it is doen out of ignorance or malice it is wrong. done with full knowledge of the proselyters of morality, starvation deaths are not only wrong but also abhorrent.
and I say join me and direct some of that outrage at aborted fetuses into saving and breathing life into born, living human beings.
as long as it is consensual and devoid of excess, what is wrong with it? That is your opinion and you are entiled to it. You are also entiled to be wrong.Statistically it will be impossible for gays to outnumber the heterosexual - so procreation will not cease. Mankind will continue with blinkers on to the gory excesses allowed to flourish in the name of morality. I have no idea what "excesses" you are referring to.
the silence of conspiracy in allowing born, living but underprivileged children to slaughtered by starvation is even more heinous I don't believe there is silence or a conspiracy to to cause such things.
I wrote: I say get off the computer and go save the starving millions
you wrote: and I say join me and direct some of that outrage at aborted fetuses into saving and breathing life into born, living human beings.
I see you are still at your computer.
I await you joining me in saving lives - and not the unborn unwanted ones.
Maybe the born ones are the unwanted ones.
Jethro still believes that HIS morality takes precendence over the morality of the majority of persons in this country. Meaning, of course that he is more moral than most Americans. Ah me. The arrogance of it all, as if people were hauling women off to clinics wholesale against their will.
Whether the heart beats or not is hardly the issue. Humans are more than a beating heart and no one can keep a 6 week old alive ex-utero for the full term therefore tis not viable. You can say that the free abortion period should move along, getting shorter, as medical technology advances. But that is not addressing the issue.
Abortions permitted in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of mother's life - is a mealy mouth position really - all you have said that its ok if she didn't choose to have sex or presumably didn't enjoy it or if she's not physically capable of sustaining a pregnancy.
One would assume she had no prior knowledge of this disability. One also assumes that she wouldn't have chosen to have this disability. So abortion becomes OK if she had no choice?
The real issue seems more to do with sex and the role of women in our society than anything else.
Kit,
I don't think that it's a mealy mouthed posisition at all. It has nothing to do with wether she enjoyed it or not. The point is that sex if it's consensual can lead to having a child or creating a life. So can nonconsensual sex but the woman had no choice in that matter. It's a chance you take if you have sex then it's a simple matter of accountability and living with the decision to willingly enter into that act. If her life is in danger then her life would take precedence but if it was consensual and her life is not in danger then the life they created takes precedence.
O.K fine, lets say that it's 100% up to the woman. Which it is right now, the man has no say wether or not to abort. So would you be comfortable not having men pay or be responsible for children they create ?
and a plea for reason from the lady with the bewitching smile -
The real issue seems more to do with sex and the role of women in our society than anything else.
Not really – the issues you speak of have all been settled.
role of women – as sex objects and targets of mega corporations with aging remedies and panaceas for eternal youth. You ignorant femmes will fork out millions for the elixir of youth – and an equal amount to shrinks who will tell you that youth prefers its own.
Jethro still believes that HIS morality takes precendence over the morality of the majority of persons in this country. On abortion my morality is the morality of the majority. The majority in this country think abortion on a whim is wrong. They have been a little cowed by militants such as you that demand moral relativism.Meaning, of course that he is more moral than most Americans. Ah me. The arrogance of it all, as if people were hauling women off to clinics wholesale against their will. You and your ilk are the arrogant ones.You think that you can on a whim decide between life and death.
Whether the heart beats or not is hardly the issue. Humans are more than a beating heart and no one can keep a 6 week old alive ex-utero for the full term therefore tis not viable. You can say that the free abortion period should move along, getting shorter, as medical technology advances. But that is not addressing the issue. The issue is right and wrong. Apparently you are incapable of making such distinctions. Life begins at conception because it is an essential part of the human expeirence. You don't get to the status of adult or even to birth without it. The real issue is whether human beings should have the right to make the decision to end that life on a whim.
The majority in this country think abortion on a whim is wrong.
so the natural conclusion to draw from this it that the majority also think it should be illegal?
Abortions permitted in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of mother's life - is a mealy mouth position really - all you have said that its ok if she didn't choose to have sex or presumably didn't enjoy it or if she's not physically capable of sustaining a pregnancy.
One would assume she had no prior knowledge of this disability. One also assumes that she wouldn't have chosen to have this disability. So abortion becomes OK if she had no choice? No it is not okay. It still is the taking of a human life. Some people seem to think it is okay to allow such abortions since it is a compromise. Morally there is no distinction between abortion because of rape or incest or whether it is on a whim.
The real issue seems more to do with sex and the role of women in our society than anything else. The real issue is life and death.
so the natural conclusion to draw from this it that the majority also think it should be illegal?
Some people are unwilling to take a stand here. They don't want to be accused of being an extremist by the pro abortion extremists.
is it that they're afraid of being accused of being an extremist, or that they want to keep their hands out of other peoples' lives?
When it comes to right and wrong specifically the death of innocents people should be involved in other people's lives. The road we are on may one day takes us to the point that people won't be concerned that their neigbor was murdered by her husband or wife since they don't want to get their hands in other people's lives.
And your statistics that show otherwise are where, fold? All the statistics everywhere you look indicate that people personally oppose abortion. That has not equated, yet, into a majority that wants to legally ban abortion on a whim. That is probably due to the moral relativism propagated by the extreme left.
I believe there's info at gallup.com that would back up Jethro's statement.
However, there's also info there that would support the other side of abortion as well.
People are fickle and flip flop on this issue.
I think it's a matter to what extent and that's why I don't think Jethro's position is that far off.
People probably are against abortion in general but are willing to allow it.
Just my two cents.
I think this is it: http://www.gallup.com/poll/specialReports/pollSummaries/sr020122.asp
This is debate? It looks like Andy [along with his aliASSes jethro and billfold] has gottten everyone to think that there's actually an issue here when in fact the only issues are his own. Ignore the COM-CON punk --- please.
This is DuaneBarry --- over and out.
That Duane guy cracks me up.
September 08. 2002 6:30AM
Abortion politics holding up health center bill
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Community health centers do not perform abortions, but abortion politics are holding up legislation renewing federal support for their work.
Then Armey stepped in. He wanted to attach a measure, long sought by anti-abortion groups, that would bar federal, state or local government from forcing hospitals, doctors, insurance companies or other health care providers to perform, make referrals or pay for abortion. Tangled up in abortion politics, the legislation was pulled from the House schedule and has yet to be brought up for a vote.
http://www.gainesvillesun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GS&Date=20020908&Category=NEWS02&ArtNo=209080331&Ref=AR&Profile=1001
Armey later agreed to separate the abortion provision from the health center bill. But he will not allow a vote on health centers until he gets a vote on the abortion bill, said his spokesman, Greg Crist.
Each year, about 1,000 centers provide health care for about 12 million people, half of whom have no insurance. Bush has said he wants to double the number of people served at these centers, adding or expanding centers at 1,200 sites over five years.
FYI: Anti-abortion legislation
Anti-abortion legislation in the House would bar the government from forcing health care providers to perform, make referrals or pay for abortion.
People on both sides of the debate believe the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act has enough votes to pass the House.
The bill would expand a 1996 law that barred the government from forcing medical residents to perform abortions. The expansion would add hospitals, insurance companies and "any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan" to the law.
The arguments on each side:
Anti-abortion activists say the existing law has a loophole because it only includes medical students. In Alaska, for instance, a hospital that did not want to perform second-trimester abortions was forced to under a state court ruling.
Abortion rights supporters say the 1996 law was purposely narrow. This bill, they say, could further restrict access to abortion and abortion information for poor women in Medicaid. They worry anti-abortion pregnancy counseling centers will apply for family planning money, under which counselors are supposed to tell clients about all options. Under this law, they say, clinics could get the money but refuse to discuss abortion as an option.
Did anybody see the article from The Associated Press titled "Study links virginity in girls to mom's role".
the article begins......"WASHINGTON - Mothers worried their daughters are having sex have more influence than they might imagine. Teenage girls who are close to their moms are more likely to stay virgins, researchers reported Wednesday."
and ends with.... "Other factors made no difference in teen sex, including how religious the mothers were, how often they talked about sex or how uncomfortable they were talking about sex."
I'll see if I can find the link.
http://www.allaboutkids.umn.edu/presskit/PressRelease2.pdf
Delaying Teen Sex: What Works?
The Add Health findings identified a number of factors that are associated with postponement of early sex:
"The researchers also explored the impact of discussing birth control with teens on subsequent sexual activity. Mothers are nearly twice as likely to say that they recommend a specific form of birth control to their 14-15 year-old sons as they are to their daughters."
... " To date, research is mixed on whether speaking to teens about birth control encourages them to become sexually active or not," Blum said. "Either way, speaking about birth control does not appear to have a mojor impact on kids' initiation of sexual intercourse. But research does show that when parents talk about contraception with their kids and their kids are having sex, they are more likely to use birth control."
The thing that catches my attention the most in this article is the part about the perception of the teen that the mother is warm and caring. To me this means the mother has to be empathetic and approachable rather that stern, strict, and unwilling to get into the teens world.
What did you all think of the article??
I am sorry that you were irresponsible, fold. However, it doesn't surprise me at all. Just becuase you couldn't control yourself doesn't mean others cannot.
And just because you can doesn't mean everyone else is going to be able to as well. But then isn't that really the heart of this debate?
And just because you can doesn't mean everyone else is going to be able to as well. That is true. But why shouldn't it be expected as a standard of behavior?But then isn't that really the heart of this debate? I think it is, to some degree.
I don't even have a problem with it being expected as a standard behavior. I think the question is to what degree do you write people off when they fail to live up to that standard? Do you admit that people sometimes fail and that such a thing is normal and they deserve some help when they do, or do you just say, "You know what you were doing, it's your own fault, now deal with it!" That to me seems to be pretty much the dividing line between liberal and conservative. Liberals think of society as a team effort and conservatives espouse "personal responsibility."
Most conservatives live "personal responsibility."
Of course they do. It would be silly to talk about it and not live it. But one can be responsible for themselves, and still feel a sense of responsibility towards taking care of those who have failed to take care of themselves.
I am sorry that you only had a Blow-Up doll and K-Y, Jethro, Uncalled personal attack noted, fold. Was that necessary? Couldn't control your hatred of jethro once again I see. Get a grip man! You'll feel much better.
Mr. bodine - in the abortion wars, I thought all semblance or reality of decorum and taste or sensibility was discarded. And the sanction for excessive abuse comes from god himself. Gory pictures of aborted fetuses are acceptable and even murder most foul has divine sanction. Whats in a few words?