- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
AKA pro-life.
If we are looking at accurate terminology, which some of you seem to be, NO, anti-choice.
AKA pro-life.
I don't disagree with you except that sex ed has been going on for a long time now, it just doesn't seem to be helping, does it?
On the contrary, that's exactly what it's doing. Why would we want to promote that?
Or immigrants. Personally I'm not sure if having a kid is such a good idea, maybe I'll change my mind when I get older.
.........Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.
In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.
Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.
This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.......
I personally think the whole abortion debate is too focused on symptoms and not on causes. If you want to stop 50 million babies from being killed, you should first of all think about how to stop people from getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place, eliminating poverty, increasing sex education and/or abstinence, etc. People like to focus on the most emotionally-charged issues but nobody feels like addressing the root of the problem. Just like immigration, people like to talk about illegals taking away jobs, building fences, increasing ICE raids, but the root of the problem is that Mexico sucks. Nobody seems to be talking about these things, instead just focusing on the surface.
No, I don't agree. They support the "right", they support the act. Call me whatever you want. If "anti-choice" means "anti-choice to kill your baby" then I'd still rather be that than "pro choice to kill your baby".So, then you agree that the term "pro-abortion" doesn't apply, correct?
If we are looking at accurate terminology, which some of you seem to be, NO, anti-choice.
I don't disagree with you except that sex ed has been going on for a long time now, it just doesn't seem to be helping, does it?
I also think that solutions need to be focused on, like if abortions are far more limited than they are, currently, how will folks deal with the huge amount of potential adoptions, a foster care system that alreadly operates poorly, now receiving many more unwanted chidren, potential abuse issues stemming from children who are unwanted, and financial issues around families with children they cannot afford. People talk too much about "saving lives" but nothing about what to do after that life is saved.
It's actually hard to say. The only evidence that we have either way, is comparing comprehensive sex ed programs to those who use abstinence only programs. Kids in sex ed programs are less likely to contract STD's or have unwanted pregnancies than those in abstinence only programs. Knowledge is a weapon.
I believe Pro-Life is more discriptive and therefore more accurate.
We aren't robbing Mexico of people, they are coming here because Mexico sucks, and if we made abortion illegal tomorrow, it would have no effect on illegal immigration. Your argument makes no sense.
No, I don't agree. They support the "right", they support the act. Call me whatever you want. If "anti-choice" means "anti-choice to kill your baby" then I'd still rather be that than "pro choice to kill your baby".
That's nice. Doesn't alter that you are incorrect. By definition, you are limiting choices... and if you are OK with abortions for those who are raped, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger, you are NOT pro-life. You just have a few more choices.
See what happens when you start screwing with definitions? In the end, you screw yourself, too.
I remember starting the thread on the report on this, and the flurry of comments that arrived. You are correct. Unwanted pregnancies are highest in states without sex ed or with abstinence only sex ed.
Well wait a second, you're being contradictory. Didn't you say earlier that, if you're for restricting abortion at all, then you're anti-choice, but now you're saying if you're for some choices, then you're not pro-life?That's nice. Doesn't alter that you are incorrect. By definition, you are limiting choices... and if you are OK with abortions for those who are raped, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger, you are NOT pro-life. You just have a few more choices.
See what happens when you start screwing with definitions? In the end, you screw yourself, too.
of course because people are GOING to have sex no matter what but not teaching them just lets them play russian roulette with sex and believe silly things like "if you do it in a pool/tub/water you wont get pregnant
and "if the girl is on top its safe"
people make the false claim that if you educate them the amount of kids doing it will go up exponentially but it never does, what it does do, is those kids that were going to do it anyway now at least have a clue how to be safe even though may choose to ignore it
full education is logically better
Not at all, by definition I'm preserving life by being pro-life.
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
Well wait a second, you're being contradictory. Didn't you say earlier that, if you're for restricting abortion at all, then you're anti-choice, but now you're saying if you're for some choices, then you're not pro-life?
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
of course because people are GOING to have sex no matter what but not teaching them just lets them play russian roulette with sex and believe silly things like "if you do it in a pool/tub/water you wont get pregnant
and "if the girl is on top its safe"
people make the false claim that if you educate them the amount of kids doing it will go up exponentially but it never does, what it does do, is those kids that were going to do it anyway now at least have a clue how to be safe even though may choose to ignore it
full education is logically better