• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Pro-Life movement have any realistic solutions to abortion.

Blue Donkey said:
I never said anything about religion. You made that up.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to my post? If so, then quote it.

If not, never mind.

But anyway, I saw no objections to sex ed in this thread except by people basing their objections on religion.
 
Dayton3 said:
Doesn't mean that abstinence only sex education is the problem though. I've explained where I think the problem lies.

Also while lots of parents might well claim they want "abstinence only" taught, their own actions (or inactions) do not support abstinence only sex education or anything similar.
Click to expand...

The problem most certainly does lie in abstinence only sex-ed. Statistics show that teens with intelligent, medically true, honest and helpful knowledge about sex, relationships, respect and responsibility no matter what their cultural, religious, financial background have fewer teen pregnancies, fewer abortion and fewer live births than teens who have had abstinence only education; again no matter what their background is. Comprehensive, honest sex-ed works. Abstinence only is not comprehensive, not honest, not medically true and not effective.
 
weaver2 said:
The problem most certainly does lie in abstinence only sex-ed. Statistics show that teens with intelligent, medically true, honest and helpful knowledge about sex, relationships, respect and responsibility no matter what their cultural, religious, financial background have fewer teen pregnancies, fewer abortion and fewer live births than teens who have had abstinence only education; again no matter what their background is. Comprehensive, honest sex-ed works. Abstinence only is not comprehensive, not honest, not medically true and not effective.
Click to expand...

So why is anyone opposed to comprehensive sex education, assuming abstinence only is the best way to teach it?

What really bothers me is people assume just because abstinence only is a failure, kids should not be taught sex education at all. Using that logic, I never should have taken math because I still can't divide without a calculator.
 
weaver2 said:
Pro-life advocates say they are profoundly disturbed by the 50M fetuses aborted in the US since Roe v.Wade was decided in 1973. Again and again they describe their horror about the messiness of abortion, their sorrow over lost "babies", their disgust with the callous women who abort. But do they have any solutions for reducing the number of abortions other than banning and criminalizing it and if so what are they?
Click to expand...

What has proven to reduce abortions.
-----------------------------
1.Voluntary contraceptive implantation.
2.Honest, medically sound, useful sex-ed that includes responsibility, respect, and abstinence
3.Easy access to women's reproductive clinics that provide cheap contraceptives over which women have control.
4.Morning after medication
5.Insurance that covers birth control and the accompanying medical appointments
6.Support for poor and working poor families and marriage so they can afford additional children

Barriers to institution these measures
-----------------------------------------
1. Opposed by conservative religious legislators and legislatures
2. Opposed by conservative religious parents
3. Religious conservatives have cut funding to clinics
4. Religious conservatives say it is an abortifacient.
5. Religious conservatives object to covering birth control
6. Conservatives object to support


Pro-life solutions for reducing abortion:
-----------------------------------------
1.abstinence only sex-ed
2.abstinence +birth control sex-ed
3.reinstating the morals of the 19th century
4.teaching Catholic morality in public schools
5.criminalizing and/or banning abortion

Problems with pro-life solutions:
----------------------------------
1. doesn't work
2. only slightly better than 1.
3. impossible
4. illegal
5. possible but won't stop abortion

Come on pro-life people are you going to let pro-choice people come up with the only workable suggestions.
 
Two points.

First, somewhat snarky one: teaching morality and abstinence and expecting children to obey is a losing proposition when the priests with vows of celibacy, preachers who preach against pre-marital sex, political leaders, even parents...fail at practicing abstinence when they needed to.

Second, the pro-life crowd would do much better with their argument if they were more than pro-birth and were willing to help raise the children if needed in a variety of ways. If a community demands the child to be born, then the community must bear the obligation of helping to raise it instead of walking away while slut-shaming the mother.
 
Dayton3 said:
Doesn't mean that abstinence only sex education is the problem though. I've explained where I think the problem lies.
Click to expand...

You don't seem very data-driven.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Two points.

First, somewhat snarky one: teaching morality and abstinence and expecting children to obey is a losing proposition when the priests with vows of celibacy, preachers who preach against premarital sex, political leaders, even parents...fail at practicing abstinence when they needed to.
Click to expand...

So just because people make mistakes children should not be taught to do the right thing? Health teachers might as well tell kids to eat hamburgers every day.

Second, the pro-life crowd would do much better with their argument if they were more than pro-birth and were willing to help raise the children if needed in a variety of ways. If a community demands the child to be born, then the community must bear the obligation of helping to raise it instead of walking away while slut-shaming the mother.
Click to expand...

Pro-life and pro-birth are exactly the same thing.

What communities need to do is help pregnant women who are at a high risk of getting abortions because they financially, mentally and physically can't take care of babies or have no time to do it. I keep saying the government is responsible for helping these women and teenagers because I know all pro-lifers want to do is say abortion is murder, not actually prevent the abortions from happening.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Two points.

First, somewhat snarky one: teaching morality and abstinence and expecting children to obey is a losing proposition when the priests with vows of celibacy, preachers who preach against pre-marital sex, political leaders, even parents...fail at practicing abstinence when they needed to.

Second, the pro-life crowd would do much better with their argument if they were more than pro-birth and were willing to help raise the children if needed in a variety of ways. If a community demands the child to be born, then the community must bear the obligation of helping to raise it instead of walking away while slut-shaming the mother.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with expecting their parents to raise them? That is what parents are supposed to do.
 
Dayton3 said:
What's wrong with expecting their parents to raise them? That is what parents are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Parents do raise their children, but the family isn't an isolated unit. Every family relies on support from friends, neighbors, village, relatives and sometimes public assistance in order to raise kids. You demand that parents be forced to raise a child they didn't want by denying the abortion option and punishing them further by denying support from public assistance. You seem to also yearn for the power to isolate them from any other help also. No family raises secure, loving, adjusted and contributing children with your recipe for punishment.

A nation, society culture based on punishment to control the population has never succeeded for long. That's a truth that conservatives refuse to acknowledge
 
Dayton3 said:
weaver2 said:
and punishing them further by denying support from public assistance
Click to expand...
when have I advocated that?
Click to expand...

You don't have to say it. The official position of the party that anti-abortion people belong to is that aid to people in need of aid is a waste of their tax money. Those people just need to get a job and go to work. The fact that a women has just had a baby that she was forced to deliver because the abortion option has been banned isn't a good reason to ask for aid in raising that child.

You may be kind and giving, but, the party you belong to is officially against public assistance to the working poor, single women with children, the jobless, the handicapped, minorities, immigrants and many others.
 
Dayton3 said:
What's wrong with expecting their parents to raise them? That is what parents are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

That's easy: not all kids are raised by both parents because of marital separation, divorce, the military, death, or having a mother who never got married. How can you expect every kid to learn sex education without the states mandating it in middle schools?
 
Dayton3 said:
When have I advocated that?
Click to expand...

Every time you said pregnant women should be punished just for lacking the ability to take care of themselves and a baby when they get pregnant against their will.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Every time you said pregnant women should be punished just for lacking the ability to take care of themselves and a baby when they get pregnant against their will.
Click to expand...

When did I post that? Post a link please.
 
Dayton3 said:
When did I post that? Post a link please.
Click to expand...

You denied most women who get elective abortions do it for the reasons I listed in post #135:.

Don't know what country you are from but in the United States very few people are so poor they have trouble feeding themselves.
Click to expand...

Go back to Lursa's response with a link.
 
Blue Donkey said:
You denied most women who get elective abortions do it for the reasons I listed in post #135:.



Go back to Lursa's response with a link.
Click to expand...

Either way, that in no way verifies what you claimed I posted.
 
Dayton3 said:
Either way, that in no way verifies what you claimed I posted.
Click to expand...

Anyway, what do you believe should be done to prevent elective abortions for poor single women who get pregnant?
 
Blue Donkey said:
Anyway, what do you believe should be done to prevent elective abortions for poor single women who get pregnant?
Click to expand...

How about a government program that pays for their prenatal expenses and delivery of their child if they agree to give up their child for adoption? Plus a stipend to compensate for any lost wages due to the pregnancy.
 
Dayton3 said:
How about a government program that pays for their prenatal expenses and delivery of their child if they agree to give up their child for adoption? Plus a stipend to compensate for any lost wages due to the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

And add more unwanted kids to a US adoption pool of over 100,000 kids already?

So the govt would be taking MORE taxpayer $$ for paying to produce MORE unwanted, unhomed kids?

And conservatives are supposed to be the party of 'small govt?' Jeebus, Mary, and Joe Cocker.
 
Lursa said:
And add more unwanted kids to a US adoption pool of over 100,000 kids already?

So the govt would be taking MORE taxpayer $$ for paying to produce MORE unwanted, unhomed kids?

And conservatives are supposed to be the party of 'small govt?' Jeebus, Mary, and Joe Cocker.
Click to expand...

"small government" is only a generalized principle. Lots of things are more important. And I thought that there were only 17,000 adoptions in the U.S. every year? I know there are lots more people wanting to adopt babies than there are babies available. I know this from first hand experience.
 
Dayton3 said:
"small government" is only a generalized principle. Lots of things are more important. And I thought that there were only 17,000 adoptions in the U.S. every year? I know there are lots more people wanting to adopt babies than there are babies available. I know this from first hand experience.
Click to expand...

Your first hand experience then, is wrong and meaningless. Here are the facts:

"Waiting for a family is the longest wait of all."

Adopt America Network | Children for Adoption

Adoption Statistics | Adoption Network

Waiting Children | Kids Available for Adoption | The Adoption Exchange | The Adoption Exchange
 
Dayton3 said:
Every one of those links are about foster kids. Not infants. Which is what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Nope, they are about adoptable kids. Kids in foster care = 400,000.

The # of adoptable kids in the US, as explicitly stated in those links, is over 100,000.
 
Lursa said:
Nope, they are about adoptable kids. Kids in foster care = 400,000.

The # of adoptable kids in the US, as explicitly stated in those links, is over 100,000.
Click to expand...

I don't consider kids in foster care to be as adoptable as infants. An infant is what I and my wife were interested in adopting. We didn't care whether it was a boy or a girl or what race it was. Still were told we were very unlikely to be granted an adoption due to us already having a child and our age.
 
Dayton3 said:
Every one of those links are about foster kids. Not infants. Which is what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Wrong...but where do you think that kids waiting to be adopted live? In orphanages? :doh

There are way more kids in foster care...those are kids that are not available for adoption. That's 400,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom