It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former Abortion Clinic Owner: We Pushed Sex Ed on Kids to Create a Market for Abortion

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I always say consider the source. The source of the article is dubious at best. Nowhere in the article did it say anything about sex education encouraging abortion. The entire thing is a crock of stinking poo.




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well, at least we're getting somewhere, because if you admit that teen pregnancy and abortion rates are going DOWN, not UP -- that proves the woman in your OP is lying.


Nonsense. That teens are wising up doesn't mean the abortion industry isn't dishonest. Seriously flawed logic there. The simple fact is teens are getting smart enough to see through the BS.

You mean the abstinence BS?


The simple fact is teens are getting smart enough to see through the BS.
But they're having sex at the at the same rate.

Over the past 20 years:
Same number having sex, lower pregancy rate, lower abortion rate, lower birth rate.
Add it all up and you have the same number of teens having sex, but more having safe sex. Guess where they learn how to have safe sex?
 


Your source:

It has been reported that 44 abortion clinics in the U.S. have closed their doors since the beginning of 2013. The clinics have been closed in most cases because of health violations and unsafe practices.

Gosh 44 have closed. Out of how many. But it says most of those were closed, not because of changing attitudes but for health violations.

It should be pointed out that many clinics have been forced to close, not for violations or unsafe practices, but because of changes in laws. Your source is a biased opinion piece.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes


No, I stated that sex ed is, according to this woman, used to drum up abortion business. That's the issue. Stick with it, or PM if you want to discuss something else. the topic isn't "Christians don't like abortion", it's "Former Abortion Clinic Owner: We Pushed Sex Ed on Kids to Create a Market for Abortion". Get it straight.

Now, of you have something to say on that topic, please do. Claiming that her Christian faith means she's not credible is a baseless argument. Unless you have some REAL evidence that she isn't, other than your personal bias, then she's a reliable source, and correct in what she stated.

Now, assuming she's correct, what do you personally think about that? Do you think it's right to trick girls into becoming sexually active, and then to give them birth control that isn't as reliable as other forms, so you can do more abortions? Be honest. Acceptable or not?



1)Are you claiming that the fact that she is christian is irrelevant to the story? Afterall, it was only after she was 'born again' that she decided abortion was bad. Hell, she willingly participated in this "creating of industry", if we are assuming it is true (which i dont for one second).

I say again, it is ALWAYS christians leading the anti-choice charge. AM I WRONG? Are YOU christian?

2)It is a huge assumption to assume this person who feels the need to tell her story to a religious propaganda "source", is telling the whole truth. Why do you automatically assume she is telling the truth?

3)If we are "assuming" (you know what they say about that) that she is telling the truth, no I have no problem with it. But, again, Im going to need more than the word of a zealot to buy the story.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Attitudes about what? Sexual activity? That's not what the statistics show.
Contraception? That is what the statistics show.

Same rate of sexual activity + contraception = reduced rate of pregnancy = reduced rate of abortion

Pretty basic. It should make you happy, shouldn't it?

Attitudes about abortion haven't changed much.
content.gallup.com...



Attitudes about abortion. Duh? More teens believe that it's wrong than before, which is a great improvement.

This isn't about whether birth control is right or wrong; it's about using less reliable methods to make teens believe they are safe from pregnancy, when they aren't capable of using it properly.

More teens being pro-life does indeed make me happy. At the rate it's going, that will become the norm, and the law can be changed.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



This isn't about whether birth control is right or wrong; it's about using less reliable methods to make teens believe they are safe from pregnancy, when they aren't capable of using it properly.

Except we don't believe that is being done. We don't believe the claims of that woman because, among other things, they do not make any sense.

The math is simple. For the past 20 years there has been virtually no change in teen sexual activity. For the past twenty years teen pregnancy rates have been dropping. Is the reduction in pregnancy rates because teens are successfully using contraception or is it just will power?

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Do a simple web search for cases. There are plenty. Parents protesting graphic reading assignments, elementary age kids being told to draw genitals, and more. I read about such things all the time, and I know teachers that have talked about them, too. No, you can't have a list of their names.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



Do a simple web search for cases. There are plenty

Statistics walk.
Anecdotes talk.

Numerous studies show you are wrong. Numerous studies show that sex education does not lead to increased sexual activity. Statistics show that there has been no significant increase in teen sexual activity in the past 20 years.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I always say consider the source. The source of the article is dubious at best. Nowhere in the article did it say anything about sex education encouraging abortion. The entire thing is a crock of stinking poo.



So, if the source isn't pro-abortion, it isn't valid? Sorry, but that doesn't fly. And, yes, the article DID talk about that, in the portion I quoted in the opening post. Better go back and reread it.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
1)Are you claiming that the fact that she is christian is irrelevant to the story? Afterall, it was only after she was 'born again' that she decided abortion was bad. Hell, she willingly participated in this "creating of industry", if we are assuming it is true (which i dont for one second).


Are YOU claiming that her being Christian means she can't be a credible source? It certainly sounds that way.


originally posted by: captaintyinknots
I say again, it is ALWAYS christians leading the anti-choice charge. AM I WRONG? Are YOU christian?


Yes, yes indeed; that is exactly what you are claiming. Careful; your bias is showing. Am I wrong? Are you anti-Christian?


originally posted by: captaintyinknots
2)It is a huge assumption to assume this person who feels the need to tell her story to a religious propaganda "source", is telling the whole truth. Why do you automatically assume she is telling the truth?[/quote]

Ah, but it's safe to assume no bias from pro-abortion people that speak regarding abortion, right? People wanting to keep abortion legal are all totally above reproach, and have no bias at all? Really? Are you that naive? I'd trust the word of a Christian long before the word of a non-Christian, as a matter of rule.

people that speak regarding abortion, right?
3)If we are "assuming" (you know what they say about that) that she is telling the truth, no I have no problem with it. But, again, Im going to need more than the word of a zealot to buy the story.


I don't have a reason to doubt her. The only reason you have is your own personal bigotry against Christians. Calling her a "zealot" makes it clear you do have such a bias. Unless you can come up with some reason to doubt her story other than her religious beliefs, you have nothing valid.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   


The more sex ed in schools, and the more detailed it becomes, the more teen pregnancies we see


That is a bunch of crap- the abstinence program schools are the ones who have the higher teen pregnancy rates. States like Mississippi, Texas and Utah lead the nation because of their religious stupidity.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Reading one side of the issue isn't a good way to do research.

people that speak regarding abortion, right?

New Study Shows Abstinence Education Effective

Increased Abstinence Causes a Large Drop in Teen Pregnancy

Increased Abstinence Causes a Large Drop in Teen Pregnancy

Teen Abstinence Most Likely Explanation for Drop in Teen Birth Rate

Why is Teenage Pregnancy Declining? The Roles of Abstinence, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use

The research shows clearly that abstinence does in fact play a role in decreased teen pregnancies. Pretending it doesn't isn't logical.

Many clinics close because of health violations, and many close because of changing laws, which are passed because more people are becoming pro-life. That this is true doesn't make the source "biased" any more than your sources are biased because they are pro-choice. Claiming the other side is biased simply because they are the other side is rather silly.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Thats quite a neat little box youve set up for yourself there.

So just to be clear:
you can cite a religiously biased source, but wont stand for anyone pointing that out.

You quote a religiously biased person, but wont accept questions about that bias.

You yourself are a christian, but wont admit that christians are the loudest opponentsof choice.

You post an article with an obvipus agenda, but will only take answers from those who assume it to be accurate.


Seems about right.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The research shows clearly that abstinence does in fact play a role in decreased teen pregnancies. Pretending it doesn't isn't logical.
Pretending it does when evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary is ignorant. Guessing about it is not logical when there is evidence like this available:


A study has shown that while the U.S. is currently enjoying a steady decline in the number of teen pregnancies, states with sex ed and health classes that stress “abstinence-only” education rank the highest in the numbers of underage pregnancies

www.rawstory.com...


“Despite overwhelmingly negative sexual health indicators, Mississippi poured millions of federal dollars into failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for nearly a decade. But now we have the chance to work with educators and administrators who want to do more for their students,” Sanford Johnson, the deputy director at Mississippi First, one of the organizations that partnered with SIECUS on its report, said in a statement.

thinkprogress.org...



In many red states, particularly in the South, conservatives have dismantled proper sex ed and have instituted abstinence-only programs that have failed time and time again. Now, a new report in California shows that the liberal state’s own comprehensive sex ed program has reduced teen pregnancy rates to a 20 year low.

www.addictinginfo.org...


Many clinics close because of health violations, and many close because of changing laws, which are passed because more people are becoming pro-life.
Really, you think those statistics have really changed much in Texas? Mississippi? Those states are fertile ground for new schemes to remove choice. They always have been.



That this is true doesn't make the source "biased" any more than your sources are biased because they are pro-choice. Claiming the other side is biased simply because they are the other side is rather silly.
I didn't say it was biased because they are the other side. I said you source is a biased opinion piece because it is. It makes claims about motivation and attitudes with no supporting information.


edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I just read that study you linked:
New Study Shows Abstinence Education Effective

Here's the actual paper on the study:
www.choosingthebest.com...

Here is what it found:

CTB students who were virgins at the pretest were nearly 1.5 times more likely to delay onset of sexual behavior by the end of the 9th grade, a difference, however, that was not sustained by the beginning of the 10th grade.

So, it worked great until summer vacation. The same number of those who had the CTB classes abstained until they were out of school before going for it.


CTB students who had already had sex were more likely than the control group to report an intention to return to abstinence at the posttest, but there was no treatment group impact on time since last sex, and the effect on intentions to return to abstinence was not sustained by the 10th-grade follow-up.
For those who were having sex before the program, they said they "intended" to stop. But they didn't. Same result for those who were having sex before either sex education program as for those who weren't.



Hypotheses related to empowerment and parent communication, however, were not supported, and at the long-term follow-up, only the hypothesis regarding abstinence beliefs was supported, but not those related to other predictors, to intentions, or to sexual behavior. For those that were supported, effect sizes were relatively small, but these are consistent with other studies of abstinence programs (Kirby, 2008).

The CTB program had no advantage in feelings of personal empowerment or parent communication. The only thing retained after summer vacation was a little bit of higher effect on abstinence "belief".

The study you provided doesn't seem to say exactly what you think it says. All the CTB program did was cause kids to wait until school was out.

New Study Shows Abstinence Education Effective
Effective at what, getting more teens pregnant, since contraception was put in second place as a way of preventing it? "Risk avoidance" in lieu of risk reduction doesn't seem to have much of an effect on teens' behavior.

edit on 6/3/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
No, you didn't address the point; you ignored it. At the moment abortion is illegal. And saying that "abortions kill people now" is the basic argument that gets brought up again and again by those who are against abortion. There's just one problem with it - at which point does a foetus become a person? Not a potential person, a real person. This is an ancient argument and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer from the anti-abortion lobby. When two cells merge, that's not a person. When you have a clump of cells, that's not a person. If a foetus has a heart, do they also have a brain? A functioning brain? Where do you draw the line?


I addressed it; you just didn't like the response. If you want a clearer one, then consider this example. Say a woman has a five-year-old child, and decides she can't manage the responsibilities, so she decides to kill the child. She takes the kid, and a gun, out into a field, and shoots the child. The bullet goes through, ricochets off a rock, and comes back, hitting and killing her. Are you going to state that her action should have been legal, so she could have gone to a location that wouldn't have happened? In my eyes, the two are no different. To me, it's clear that life begins at conception. New, unique DNA means a new, unique person. Killing that person, at any stage, is wrong for me. You do bring up an interesting point, there, however. You say you don't have a clear answer on when the fetus becomes a person. If that's true, at what point do you think abortion becomes murder? If you can't be sure, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? If the fetus is a person, then the fetus has rights, like everyone else. Not knowing the time means we should be as careful as possible not to remove the rights of a "potential person", right?


originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Shouting about how much you hate abortion is all very well and good. But you have to face facts. It's legal, people want to keep it legal. Make it illegal and it's still going to happen, only those having the procedure will be in greater danger of dying. There will always be a need for it. You can't ignore that fact. And what about the people who aren't having an abortion for any kind of frivolous reason (like you seem to claim they do) but for other reasons? When the baby is the result of rape? Or incest? Or the baby is malformed, or has a massive birth defect? What about when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother? You want to stop all those people from having an abortion, just because you think that your version what entails a person is the only correct one? Are you really that arrogant?
We live in an imperfect world full of people who make mistakes. I suggest that you try to live with that.


If murdering anyone was legal, would you remain silent and claim it would happen even if illegal? If armed assault was legal, would you not complain about that? People do bad things, but that doesn't mean we make them all legal, simply to keep the people doing them from getting hurt. That isn't a valid argument. I disagree that there is any "need" for it, the same as I disagree that there is a "need" for any number of other things that are illegal.

I know someone who was raped and became pregnant. She was single, and still living at home. She chose to have the baby, stating that punishing the child for the crime of the father was wrong. She has a beautiful, sweet daughter. Cases of a real danger to the mother are VERY rare. If those were the only types legal, I wouldn't complain. Those aren't the reasons for most abortions, however. Birth defects are a different issue. I chose not to have amniocentesis with later pregnancies, because the ONLY reason stated was to look for defects that might mean I would want to end the pregnancy. I simply explained to the doctor that wasn't an option for me. I don't think it's right. If it's too serious, the baby tends to not make it anyway. Not my decision to make. Plus, there are many tests for "defects", that show incorrect results. Parents are told the child will have serious issues, and they should abort. They refuse, and end up having a perfectly healthy baby. So, I don't see that as a reason.

I think it's arrogant to claim ending a life is acceptable, for convenience, or because the person "might not have a good life", or "might have medical issues" (who doesn't???), or whatever. That is arrogance.


What a breathtakingly arrogant answer - you know it all and other people's opinions/facts/statistics are all wrong. Good day to you. Based on this and the answers to other posts from other people your mind is made up and you seem unable to face reality. The only person's answers that seem to be right, for you, is well, you.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Why can't we all just believe anything we read on a Christian conspiracy site?

Hehe lmao



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Why can't we all just believe anything we read on a Christian conspiracy site?

Hehe lmao


I'm waiting for a certain person to cite something from Conservapedia - which likes to claim that abortion leads to cancer.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes



Do a simple web search for cases. There are plenty

Statistics walk.
Anecdotes talk.

Numerous studies show you are wrong. Numerous studies show that sex education does not lead to increased sexual activity. Statistics show that there has been no significant increase in teen sexual activity in the past 20 years.


Numerous studies show I am right. I posted links; try reading them.

Unless, of course, any opposing viewpoint is too much to handle.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Thats quite a neat little box youve set up for yourself there.

So just to be clear:
you can cite a religiously biased source, but wont stand for anyone pointing that out.

You quote a religiously biased person, but wont accept questions about that bias.

You yourself are a christian, but wont admit that christians are the loudest opponentsof choice.

You post an article with an obvipus agenda, but will only take answers from those who assume it to be accurate.


Seems about right.


You are so off track it's ridiculous. A site isn't biased simply because the person has some religious belief.

Every site you can post is biased, because they are all pro-choice. So, nothing therein in valid. See how that sounds?

You post with an obvious agenda, but you won't admit to that, and won't accept anything that isn't from your side.

Nice little box you've set up for yourself there.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Stop trying to compare abstinence ONLY with abstinence at all. They aren't the same. Teaching abstinence DOES work, and the links I provided proved that. Deliberately discussing the most extreme against the rest isn't honest. I would have expected better from you. Guess I have to amend my perceptions.




top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join