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.

 

The hypocrisy of the pro-life argument

page: 12
42
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
No...a dude who writes for Psychology Today says that.


I'd say he's at LEAST more qualified to speak on the subject than you are though. So I'm going to believe his opinion before believing yours. Especially since yours is without any backing evidence outside of your preconceived notions about sex.


This isn't difficult. If people *mishandle* sexual education, as I specifically said, it's not surprising that it's going to give people wrong ideas.


Mishandle sexual education? How about proving to me there is a widespread problem of people "mishandling" sexual education in states that already DO have proper sex ed. If you are unsure of any states that do that, let's start with Maryland, because my high school gave me some decent sex education and I went to public school.


Your link didn't address the downsides of having sex in one's teenage years. You're avoiding the point.


Teenagers eventually become adults. If you want to teach that sex during teenage years may have some negative consequences, fine, but that doesn't mean that abstinence is the safest solution either. By the way, I've gone ahead and read your link now. Here are the negative consequences that PP explains about sex for teenagers.


Special Advantages for Teens
Sexual relationships present risks. Abstinence is a very good way to postpone taking those risks until you are better able to handle them.
Women who abstain until their 20s — and who have fewer partners in their lifetimes — may have certain health advantages over women who do not. They are less likely to get STDs. Because they are less likely to get an STD, they are also less likely to become infertile or develop cervical cancer.


Wow... That is SOOO helpful. Basically its advise boils down to, "if you don't have sex, you won't get STD's. STD's may cause a woman to become infertile or get cancer." I'm pretty DAMN sure the health benefits of sex outweigh the negatives (provided that proper contraception is being used). ESPECIALLY if the person is being monogamous with their partners or keeps maintains a low sex partner count. So I'm going to have to disagree with you here that abstinence should be the SUPREME choice offered to children about sex.

It is only the most effective choice, but its downside is no sex. Not every teenager (there happy now? I didn't use all) wants to abstain from sex and those teenagers deserve the right to know how to go about having sex safely.


Well, it *is* the only method that's 100% accurate.


For now.


How...civic minded of you


That's the Libertarian way. Worry about you and yours and let the other person worry about them and theirs as long as they aren't hurting me and mine in someway.


Yes. Someone has to do it.


Yea not 1.06 million someones though, and that is a number that will add to itself every year.


You were speaking of the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the world as a whole. And you're throwing out a few more freedoms gained for a few, not addressee the massive freedoms lost for many. And I forgot to mention the growing repression of freedom in Russia.


Actually I said the 1st world, not the entire world. I KNOW I clearly made that distinction. See:

I know we aren't perfect, but I'd like to say that our time offers more freedoms to more people than any other time in the history of the world. That goes for the entire 1st world, not just the US.



This is USA-centric, whereas before you were talking about the world....


1st world, but even that statement was just an off-hand remark. The rest of the conversation has been US centric so that is why I focused on US things.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
No...a dude who writes for Psychology Today says that.


I'd say he's at LEAST more qualified to speak on the subject than you are though. So I'm going to believe his opinion before believing yours. Especially since yours is without any backing evidence outside of your preconceived notions about sex.


This isn't difficult. If people *mishandle* sexual education, as I specifically said, it's not surprising that it's going to give people wrong ideas.


Mishandle sexual education? How about proving to me there is a widespread problem of people "mishandling" sexual education in states that already DO have proper sex ed. If you are unsure of any states that do that, let's start with Maryland, because my high school gave me some decent sex education and I went to public school.


Your link didn't address the downsides of having sex in one's teenage years. You're avoiding the point.


Teenagers eventually become adults. If you want to teach that sex during teenage years may have some negative consequences, fine, but that doesn't mean that abstinence is the safest solution either. By the way, I've gone ahead and read your link now. Here are the negative consequences that PP explains about sex for teenagers.


Special Advantages for Teens
Sexual relationships present risks. Abstinence is a very good way to postpone taking those risks until you are better able to handle them.
Women who abstain until their 20s — and who have fewer partners in their lifetimes — may have certain health advantages over women who do not. They are less likely to get STDs. Because they are less likely to get an STD, they are also less likely to become infertile or develop cervical cancer.


Wow... That is SOOO helpful. Basically its advise boils down to, "if you don't have sex, you won't get STD's. STD's may cause a woman to become infertile or get cancer." I'm pretty DAMN sure the health benefits of sex outweigh the negatives (provided that proper contraception is being used). ESPECIALLY if the person is being monogamous with their partners or keeps maintains a low sex partner count. So I'm going to have to disagree with you here that abstinence should be the SUPREME choice offered to children about sex.

It is only the most effective choice, but its downside is no sex. Not every teenager (there happy now? I didn't use all) wants to abstain from sex and those teenagers deserve the right to know how to go about having sex safely.


Well, it *is* the only method that's 100% accurate.


For now.


How...civic minded of you


That's the Libertarian way. Worry about you and yours and let the other person worry about them and theirs as long as they aren't hurting me and mine in someway.


Yes. Someone has to do it.


Yea not 1.06 million someones though, and that is a number that will add to itself every year.


You were speaking of the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the world as a whole. And you're throwing out a few more freedoms gained for a few, not addressee the massive freedoms lost for many. And I forgot to mention the growing repression of freedom in Russia.


Actually I said the 1st world, not the entire world. I KNOW I clearly made that distinction. See:

I know we aren't perfect, but I'd like to say that our time offers more freedoms to more people than any other time in the history of the world. That goes for the entire 1st world, not just the US.



This is USA-centric, whereas before you were talking about the world....


1st world, but even that statement was just an off-hand remark. The rest of the conversation has been US centric so that is why I focused on US things.


Just to throw an olive branch out again I agree with you here. The darwinian traits of survival have created hormonal changes in young people during preteen puberty. It is a survival trait. Same reason young people are given the brain chemistry to make hasty decisions. There is a lot of nature to be figbting with reason alone(which in teenagers has been chemically proven to be far lower in).

Its just another idealistic non real world argument.

Source: m.learningenglish.voanews.com...

edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: source



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t



I'd say he's at LEAST more qualified to speak on the subject than you are though. So I'm going to believe his opinion before believing yours. Especially since yours is without any backing evidence outside of your preconceived notions about sex.


That seems reasonable, though I'd be more impressed if it wasn't just a guy with a PhD pontificating. Regardless, though, I'm not arguing for unhealthy sexual repression, so I don't think your source really was on-topic. But if I found two PhD's who agreed with me (that sexual libertinism can feed the rape culture, which is what I was essentially arguing, and that sexual education, if done incorrectly, can contribute to this) you wouldn't change your view. You already made up your mind. (And if you don't believe me, do a little Googling; I can almost guarantee you'll be able to find psychologists with PhDs who think sexual libertinism is bad. You can find at least one PhD to support almost anything
)

To be absolutely clear, I don't think that sexually libertine = rapist, or that abstinent = sexually repressed. I can just see how a culture where easy and ready sex is the norm can lead to problems. (Perhaps I've been reading too much about the problems on our college campuses.)

I *will* say that rape, like most violent crime, is decreasing in America, which is a good thing. (But so is the libertine sexual culture, from what I understand.)



Mishandle sexual education? How about proving to me there is a widespread problem of people "mishandling" sexual education in states that already DO have proper sex ed.


I didn't claim that. I said that sexual education could be mishandled. It's a hypothetical. But most sorts of education are mishandled somewhere, wouldn't you agree?



If you are unsure of any states that do that, let's start with Maryland, because my high school gave me some decent sex education and I went to public school.


And what did you learn?



Teenagers eventually become adults. If you want to teach that sex during teenage years may have some negative consequences, fine, but that doesn't mean that abstinence is the safest solution either. By the way, I've gone ahead and read your link now. Here are the negative consequences that PP explains about sex for teenagers.


How is it not the safest?



Wow... That is SOOO helpful. Basically its advise boils down to, "if you don't have sex, you won't get STD's. STD's may cause a woman to become infertile or get cancer." I'm pretty DAMN sure the health benefits of sex outweigh the negatives (provided that proper contraception is being used). ESPECIALLY if the person is being monogamous with their partners or keeps maintains a low sex partner count. So I'm going to have to disagree with you here that abstinence should be the SUPREME choice offered to children about sex.


And if you'd done your research, you'd have found that the CDC has determined that lots of teenagers have sex without "proper contraception." (And of course you know that proper contraception fails from time to time.)



It is only the most effective choice, but its downside is no sex. Not every teenager (there happy now? I didn't use all) wants to abstain from sex and those teenagers deserve the right to know how to go about having sex safely.


Why?



For now.


Yup.



That's the Libertarian way. Worry about you and yours and let the other person worry about them and theirs as long as they aren't hurting me and mine in someway.


No, it's not. The libertarian cares about the freedom of all people. The way you're advocating is the American hyper-individualist way. As long as I'm [Fill in the blank] the rest of the world can go to hell. De Tocqueville wrote about this particular tendency of Americans long before either of us were born.



Yea not 1.06 million someones though, and that is a number that will add to itself every year.


Perfect! A million man army in twenty years!
But in real life, if we weren't aborting those children, we could put them in the workforce to create new wealth.



Actually I said the 1st world, not the entire world. I KNOW I clearly made that distinction.


Fair enough. (You said whole world and then first world, so I guess I focused on the first half of what you said; my bad.) But you've failed to respond to my points about Europe and Canada attacking the freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion. Do a little Googling, and you'll see what I'm talking about.



1st world, but even that statement was just an off-hand remark. The rest of the conversation has been US centric so that is why I focused on US things.

See above



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent



But this is also true of lots of people *after* they are born.


But it's different: the embryo/fetus is dependent upon its host to survive, it gets the oxygen and nutrients from the mother. It is a parasitic relationship really, which is why a fetus cannot survive without its mother and why many pregnancies end in miscarriage, as the mother rejects the embryo as an alien object inside of her.

Scientifically speaking embryos are foreign bodies and the only reason they are not destroyed by the mother's immune system is because a specific protein keeps the immune cells from attacking it.



I mean, we don't encourage people to drive cars or fly planes or drink alcohol unless they are mature enough to be understand the consequences.


And we go back to education which I also believe is essential. Sex Ed and free contraception. And legal abortion with a fetal age limit because no woman should be forced to become a mother if they don't want to.

I think society needs to be more supportive of pregnant women and less judgmental. Consent to sex doesn't necessarily mean consent to pregnancy, sometimes women get pregnant whilst using contraception. Women are not 'live incubators' and they should be left alone to make their own decisions.



edit on 17-7-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
*double post*
edit on 17-7-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
The Darwinian traits of survival have created hormonal changes in young people during preteen puberty. It is a survival trait. Same reason young people are given the brain chemistry to make hasty decisions. There is a lot of nature to be fighting with reason alone (which in teenagers has been chemically proven to be far lower in).



I agree with this. This is what should be taught in Sex Ed.

This is what I taught my 14 year old granddaughter. Our sole biological being is to reproduce. Chemicals in our body make us want to have sex. Not for "love" but, for survival of our species.

It's 100% natural but, unnecessary. Your intelligence can choose not to 'answer' the Chemicals raging through your body. When you do choose to have sex, do it with intelligence. Get yourself to a doctor first for a checkup, then a prescription for birth control pills.

My fight is for a Thinking World, not irresponsible breeding.

Not only do I support Right of Choice to an abortion, I support FREE government abortions, condoms, birth control, etc.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I *will* say that rape, like most violent crime, is decreasing in America, which is a good thing. (But so is the libertine sexual culture, from what I understand.)


Rape IS decreasing, but I don't know why you think that the libertine sexual culture is decreasing. Sex is as prevalent as ever. Have you ever heard of Rule 34? If anything sex is crazier and more fluid than ever.


I didn't claim that. I said that sexual education could be mishandled. It's a hypothetical. But most sorts of education are mishandled somewhere, wouldn't you agree?


But that isn't a valid reason to withhold the education itself. You are just making a "Punish the majority for the sins of the minority" argument and haven't even produced any proof that the sins of the minority have even happened. Your entire argument is based around how people MAY teach the education. But like I said, there are already states teaching proper sexual education. So if you want to demonstrate that this is a problem, then it should already be possible to produce a trend of schools not teaching sex ed right and causing its students to go on to have unsafe sex.

Though I have already produced that trend when I showed that abstinence only sex ed classes are failures. In fact, that is a PRIME example of what you are talking about, but that is the type of class that you seem to be more interested in. Funny that.


And what did you learn?


It taught that abstinence is 100% fail safe, but it also taught how to properly use contraception. We went over some of the popular myths of condoms, contraceptive fail rates (and why they are what they are). A lot of good stuff, but what stuck in my head the most were all the myths they debunked about condoms. I never realized that putting on a condom could be so difficult or that people could screw it up so easily, but I have since seen from talking to other people that those myths DO exist and more people should be aware that they are myths.

Example of what I'm talking about: Don't use two condoms at once, makes them more likely to tear.


And if you'd done your research, you'd have found that the CDC has determined that lots of teenagers have sex without "proper contraception." (And of course you know that proper contraception fails from time to time.)


How much of that results from improper education on contraceptives? I mean we can't account for EVERY teenager acting like an idiot. After all they ARE teenagers, acting like idiots is what they do best, but I'm sure that better education will go a long way to reducing these instances.


Why?


Because if they get someone pregnant it may result in an abortion which you are against.


No, it's not. The libertarian cares about the freedom of all people. The way you're advocating is the American hyper-individualist way. As long as I'm [Fill in the blank] the rest of the world can go to hell. De Tocqueville wrote about this particular tendency of Americans long before either of us were born.


Um... That's why I'm pro-choice. More freedom for everyone.


Perfect! A million man army in twenty years!
But in real life, if we weren't aborting those children, we could put them in the workforce to create new wealth.


Then in 21 years, a 2 million man army, in 22 years, a 3 million man army, and so on and so forth. That's going to get PRETTY expensive to maintain, and that isn't even considering the expense to train the 20 million recruits waiting to graduate.

Actually, what has been shown by study after study is that when the mother doesn't abort the child, it ends up growing up in a #ty childhood and likely turns to drugs and/or crime. This is because the majority of abortions happen in low income households.


Fair enough. (You said whole world and then first world, so I guess I focused on the first half of what you said; my bad.) But you've failed to respond to my points about Europe and Canada attacking the freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion. Do a little Googling, and you'll see what I'm talking about.


Freedom is something that you need to work to maintain. There will ALWAYS be assaults on freedom, that doesn't mean they are getting a lot of headway. I'm aware of the various things going on in Europe and Canada. I know about what happened to Spain. I'm not defending anti-freedom measures, but at the same time you can't just look at those measures by themselves and say, "whelp society is finished, the world is moving to totalitarianism." Be at least a LITTLE honest here. Remember, the news only shows the worst things happening around the world. Because those things get the most ratings, but there are TONS more good things going on that aren't reported on.

Sometimes, when the world starts to look especially bleak, you should take a step back from the news. It makes the world seem like a much worse place than it actually is.
edit on 17-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

But it's different: the embryo/fetus is dependent upon its host to survive, it gets the oxygen and nutrients from the mother. It is a parasitic relationship really, which is why a fetus cannot survive without its mother and why many pregnancies end in miscarriage, as the mother rejects the embryo as an alien object inside of her.

Scientifically speaking embryos are foreign bodies and the only reason they are not destroyed by the mother's immune system is because a specific protein keeps the immune cells from attacking it.


A potential human is not a person.

Spontaneous abortions happen all the time. A chosen one is no different.


edit on 17-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

" 'women should not be sexually active if they are not ready for motherhood'. That is trying to control and regulate women's sexual lives. "

OR maybe it is being realistic. there is NO "safe sex" and no one should be allowed to MURDER someone and sell their organs just because they were accidentally conceived.

if a pregnant woman is killed, the crime is for TWO murders.

Add to this the occult aspect of blood sacrifices and the admission of some feminists that it is their religious right to have repeated abortions…and seems like the situation was FAR worse than before abortions and killing/selling babies was legal.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

spontaneous murders happen all the time too… and we still call it death if someone is killed accidentally.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Annee

spontaneous murders happen all the time too… and we still call it death if someone is killed accidentally.


Accidental murder?

A fetus is a parasite to the host body. Sometimes the host rejects it on its own, sometimes it is rejected.

A potential human is not a person. No matter how many times you claim it is.


edit on 17-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Here's a thought: the DESIGN of this reality is for each person to find love with the opposite sex and procreate. we all started with this basic paradigm, our human flaws not-with-standing.

Now scientists know that studies done show that male semen can potentially pass down information that can effect other off-spring, even ones with other men.

In other words, it looks a lot like women were designed to be with only one man. Even the nature of a woman's sex ( dark, warm, moist) can be seen to be a great place for life but also for disease, to form. It is not something that should ideally be passed around to a bunch of different men, as women seem to think…



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

no loving couple would ever refer to their developing baby as a "parasite".

this is delusional thinking… you choose to believe this fallacy at your own peril, imo.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
We should be handing out Merina IUD's like Halloween candy for free.

They last 5 years and you never have to remember to take a pill. It takes 20 minutes of time in a Dr.'s office, and you're back to yourself a day or two later (at most).

I know, I had to sit and be the moral support during the seemingly (but not) "big" procedure. In all from signing in, getting into gown, having it done, getting dressed again -- about 20 minutes...and you're pregnancy-free for 5 years. At any time you want kids, it takes another 20 minute visit to have it removed.

It's 2015. We have the money, the medical understanding and the infrastructure so that no person has to have an unexpected pregnancy.
edit on 17-7-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Annee

no loving couple would ever refer to their developing baby as a "parasite".

this is delusional thinking… you choose to believe this fallacy at your own peril, imo.



What is love?

Procreation is a biological function.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

It's 2015. We have the money, the medical understanding and the infrastructure so that no person has to have an unexpected pregnancy.


YES!

It should be FREE. All methods of contraception should be FREE.

As well as abortions for those times when needed.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

THANK you!

And I also 110% believe that male birth control should be available and free/cheap as well! Men need to have more say and take more responsibility for their reproductive rights. I know a TON of guys that would get a yearly shot or something so they didn't have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Annee

THANK you!

And I also 110% believe that male birth control should be available and free/cheap as well! Men need to have more say and take more responsibility for their reproductive rights. I know a TON of guys that would get a yearly shot or something so they didn't have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy.


I have my doubts about males taking responsibility for pregnancy, but I would love to see it.

www.newmalecontraception.org...

www.malecontraceptives.org...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

For me, it is very, very simple. There are no further points than one.

1. Abortion is murder.


We are talking (disgustedly casually) about the callous and grotesque practice of dismembering and/or dissolving a living being alive and throwing it in the trash. (or if the practitioner is into making a extra buck and good at their late-term abortion techniques so as not to crush the 'samples', then the 'specimen' is sold). Your examples (or reasons to support abortion) are ridiculous.


Too many 'unwanted' orphans in the states? So THAT is your justification? Well, then...

We don't have good enough mental health programs for the mentally ill. Certainly, no one wants those mumbling crazies on the street corner. Simple! We'll just kill them all.

We don't have enough properly managed nursing homes for our senior citizens and they are a 'burden' on society. I know! It's so simple....we'll just kill them!

All of those darn, disabled veterans pulling their tax free disability paychecks! They are a HUGE burden on our system. Have you seen them in the overcrowded and unfunded VA hospitals? Nobody WANTS them! I know! We'll just kill them.

Simple! Right?

That's your philosophy?

And before you jump in to answer me; REALLY think about your reply, what was in the OP and what I just said. Unfortunately, it really IS the same thing.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Annee

spontaneous murders happen all the time too… and we still call it death if someone is killed accidentally.


Accidental murder?

A fetus is a parasite to the host body. Sometimes the host rejects it on its own, sometimes it is rejected.

A potential human is not a person. No matter how many times you claim it is.




OMG.....did I just read this right? Are you being sarcastic? I really hope so....

So people are actually calling these precious babies parasites in order to make them feel better about it?

After thinking more about this (I have a hard time letting it go)....I am editing this post a bit.

Annee....I have been reading posts from you for years. I just want to say that I am SO sorry, for whatever it is that has given you this stoic outlook on life and the amazing miracle of babies and life. I really am.

I have two children. I know other women that have lost babies, and that have also had abortions. I have found that the women who made that life-altering choice at a young age have been traumatized by it ever since. It is NOT so simple as everyone would like to make it sound. The women who have suffered miscarriages would simply cry to hear someone call those precious life's 'parasites', as they wept for them and buried them....honoring them for the individual people that they were.
edit on 17-7-2015 by westcoast because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join