They are not in favor of these things, yet have the nerve to call themselves "profamily." I started a thread a while ago about HOW they could be "profamily" yet do basically nothing to help families, and I got NO answers from the Right Wingers on this site. Sigh.
You might be very impressed with your own grandstanding, derision, and ridicule, but others are not. Here's an excerpt from a private message I received recently, which I'm reprinting here with permission from the sender: Wanted to drop you a note in appreciation of your efforts on the abortion thread. As you know I'm not on your side, at least not totally, but I really think you've won this debate. I don't have enough total posts to be considered a member and so can no longer post in the politics topic but I've been a regular reader. Balbus hasn't brought any great credit to himself with either the tone or the content of his arguments. The whole impresson of the give and take between you two has been that of an adolescent (him) arguing with a grown up (you). The George Will piece you posted was especially good...Will is my favorite right winger and I often find him quite persuasive. You may be gratified to know that the weight of your arguments along with his piece has shifted me a few notches towards a more pro-life view. In particular I am struck by how many in the pro-choice side seem to want abortion not only to be legas but to be, as much as possible, no big deal. I was referring to the Feminists for Life and Catholic Charities programs that I cited. I have said much more than this, but I don't see what's wrong with these ideas. They are the only certain ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Killing by abortion is not a justifiable method of backup birth control. That's right; I don't believe she should be allowed to have her unwanted baby killed. Rather, I believe she should be offered tangible assistance in keeping her child or offering him for adoption. Pro-life organizations offer such programs in every major city. I discussed this in detail with others for nearly 10 pages, earlier in this thread. Are you now defending abortion as a "cover" for sexual indiscretion? Refer back to the earlier sex education discussion for examples of abstinence programs. I realize that some people will always reject this idea, but I don't believe that they should have the right to kill unborn babies in order to avoid taking responsibility for their lifestyle choices. Should we approach rape and murder in the same manner that you propose to deal with abortion? In other words, should we merely ponder why people commit these violent acts, rather than forcibly restraining them?
those of you saying the poor should be the only ones allowed to have abortions are no better than when Reagan approved coverages for steralization of those with low income but not bc pills. People can change and they should be able to make their own decisions whether it is abortion or to raise a child. There is nothing wrong with being poor or raising a child when you are poor it builds charecter and makes you appreciatte what you have.
I had an abortion when I was 16 and will never do it again. I don't think it should be illegal. The laws aren't what needs to be changed. It's the people's way of thinking, dealing with things, like pregnancy, that has to change. But no one can do it for you. It has to be your choice to change. Free will, baby.
As I explicitly said before, these factors influence but do not determine individual choices. My point is that certain behaviors might be more common to certain socio-economic groups, but there is never 100% correlation. To my knowledge, abortion is proportionally less common among poor blacks than other demographic groups in the US. By your logic, expanding inner city poverty will decrease abortion! I have no use for such labels. What you call someone who simultaneously supports organizations such as Oregon Right to Life, OSPIRG, Greenpeace, Witness for Peace, and Bread for the World? I don't know how I could have been any clearer in stating that Vietnam was an unjust and murderous war. Our main disagreement on that thread concerned your attempt to draw parallels with Iraq. As I've said elsewhere, if the Democrats would ever nominate a pro-life presidential candidate, I'd most likely support him over a Republican. My contention is that contraception is already easily available. It is no panacea. It's quite a stretch to lump all of these reasons together in some amorphous "economic" category. I've acknowledged that economic issues are relevant to the abortion problem, but they are by no means the only or even the primary factor. By contrast, you seem to believe that everything boils down to economics. Who's really being simplistic here? Well, Medicaid covered all the maternity and delivery expenses for the birth mother of our second adopted child, but I don't know how the program differs in other states. However, by your reasoning, the abortion rate in Western Europe should be minimal. To my knowledge, this is not the case. It might be slightly lower than the US, but it is nowhere near the comparatively low abortion rate prior to Roe v. Wade. This tells me that the legality and availability of abortion are the dominant factors influencing the abortion rate.
SO are you trying to post something ont he topic, or just do some name-calling? Because to me it sounds like name-calling, which in that case, I would call everyone else here teenyboppers. You sound like a child to me as well. Anyway, back on topic. I don't see how making abortion illegal will do any good. We don't need an increase of unwanted babies. What we need to do is figure out how to reduce these unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I mean, lets fix the actual problem here, not just the side-effect of the problem.
What do you care? It's not like you have said anything insightful, and it's quite obvious you have a pattern of contributing nothing to any of the threads except nonsense. We all may disagree, but we respect each other enough to be able to have intelligent conversations. If this is a, "teenybopper" forum, what the hell are you doing on here as a 37 year old? Get a life.
That's it? Are you seriously trying to make fun of the nation I emmigrated from? Like I said, if this is a "teeny bopper" forum as you said it is, as a 37 year old, get a life, get a job, and stop annoying the rest of us who are trying to have a debate here. You don't even deserve to be speaking right now, I've seen 11 year old's with better scentance structure and arguements than you.
How stupid are you? Have you even read ONE page of this debate? I'M AGAINST ABORTION!!!!! Please, quit while you are behind.
Oh Huck please I cannot believe you are now reduced to posting a fellow right wingers fan letter as part of your argument, what next are you going to tell me your Dad’s bigger than my Dad? ** Should we approach rape and murder in the same manner that you propose to deal with abortion? In other words, should we merely ponder why people commit these violent acts, rather than forcibly restraining them? Well this is a silly statement if you think about it? Are you saying people shouldn’t try and find out why people are committing crime and see if there are any links? That just seems like common sense to me, if you truly wish to tackle the problem of crime? ** I don't know how I could have been any clearer in stating that Vietnam was an unjust and murderous war. Our main disagreement on that thread concerned your attempt to draw parallels with Iraq. I can see you didn’t understand my argument, please return to the thread and I will try and explain, you see I was not trying to draw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, I was talking about US attitudes, using Iraq and Vietnam as examples (I did bring in other examples as well such as Chile). ** As to you supposed environmental beliefs and your ability to ignore them because of your conflicting support for the right wing. I fear this might be due to some ability to have a stance on a subject while not seeming to understand that subject. This often seems to fit in with the way you view abortion, you have your position but as seems to becoming clear you don’t seem to wish to truly understand the issues involved or truly become involved in trying to help people.
Sex Education I would like to repeat that I do not see ‘sex education’ as being separate from a good general education. To me it should be integral not separate. I would also argue that everyone children and adults need to be educated. ** Huck you argue that you have covered this subject, (it is in posts from page 20) however when I looked I realised you had done your usually thing of giving us other peoples words and opinions and then pointing to them and claiming ‘you’ had produced the ‘evidence’ to prove ‘your’ viewpoint. But if someone take the time to look at these links it is clear that they do nothing of the sort. The ‘Culture of Life Foundation’ article http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=750http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=750 This is a Christian organisation http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID4211|CHID116414|CIID238502,00.html Whose ‘ministery of the week’ is - "Do you wonder what the future holds? The Bible's record of proven correctness, extending over many centuries, validates its claim to predict the future with authority and accuracy." And whose ‘prayers’ link urges - Since Pope John Paul II has entrusted our Lady of Guadalupe with the cause of life and placed under her motherly care the innocent lives of children, especially those who are in danger of not being born, we pray to Our Lady to protect all life and ask you to pledge to say one or more of the prayers below Please consider saying a Rosary and/or other prayers for the President of the United States as well, that the Holy Spirit may guide him in his work. The Foundations remit, they make clear, is to promote an anti abortionist stance and they will interpret evidence in the light of that viewpoint. ** The report was based on the ‘research’ of one Dr David Hager. Is this the same Dr David Hager who was described by Time Magazine as "a scantily credentialed doctor, whose writings include a book titled As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now…who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment."? ** The advocacy group sponsoring the conference was ‘Project Reality’ "a national leader in the field of adolescent health education, specializing in abstinence education" http://www.projectreality.org/ ** Huck tells us that we should ignore the bias, but really that is a heck of a lot of bias to ignore? ** But looking at the article it becomes clear that it is little better than an opinion piece, full of unsubstantuated assertions. "studies on sexual activity during adolescence also show increased percentages of depression, suicide, as well as an assortment of emotional problems including loss of self-respect, esteem, and trust among sexually active teens compared." The ‘studies’ are not cited and you have to ask what came first did the emotional problems grow out of having the sex or make the person more likely to have sex? "The most effective messages promoting the delay of sexual activity came from parents and moral beliefs, which "accounted for 53% of the influences affecting teen decisions about sex." Says who? The piece contends that STDS are caused by the safe sex message but that is its contention nothing in it makes that case proved.
The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=28 This is a long and complicated paper, but a careful reading makes it clear that it is not as decisive as it first looks. It makes it very clear that its views can only be proviso as the data isn’t clear and is very much open to interpretation. They have their interpretation which is that abstinence has lead to a drop in teenage pregnancy, while others such as the Centers for Disease Control, and the United States of Health and Human Services, think it is more likely to be down to better education in the use of contraception. Basically it is up to trusting the impartiality of the Physicians Consortium a group solely dedicated to abstinence based education or these other organisations? What struck me in the piece was the fact that the authors have had to manipulate already complicated statistics, adding new definitions, therefore making them more complicated just to strengthen their own case. That made me suspicious. As any accountant will tell you if a company is making complicated accountings more complicated just so that it can make the claim that the books balance it just might be time to sell your shares. And so it didn’t surprise me to find the paper has been described as flawed - A flawed report commissioned by the so-called Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, an anti-choice organization, concluded that the recent decline in adolescent pregnancy and childbearing is a result of higher levels of sexual abstinence among American teens. The authors attribute this increase in abstinence in part to abstinence-only education (Jones et al., 1999). However, this study draws its conclusions from incomplete and non-comparable data, rendering the findings invalid (AGI, 1999b). The Alan Guttmacher Institute investigated the decline in teenage pregnancy using data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), the major source of government data on population and reproductive health. The NSFG data show that the decline in teenage pregnancy rates has occurred primarily among sexually experienced teens. The fact is that sexually active teenagers are learning to use contraception more frequently and more effectively, and they account for 80 percent of the decline in teenage pregnancy rates (Saul, 1999). http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/TEEN-PREGNANCY/Reducing.html ** The "Safe Sex Education: When Sex Ed Becomes Porn 101 http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=414 Is a simple opinion piece, but it did get me thinking. Huck is presumably putting this forward to support his views, but it is by the Heritage Foundation, which doesn’t support other things he says he supports. Which make me think he is confused about this subject? Huck says he thinks people need financial assistance preferential housing and child care to encourage them to choose having an unwanted child rather than abort out of economic fears. But the HF are not exactly pushing that agenda. The author of the piece is Robert Rector who also wrote another piece http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1084.cfm In it he pushes the right wing view that such assistance only encourages women to have children and so such things should be very limited to discourage people that cannot afford to have children, to squeeze those that do in an attempt to discourage others. As Huck seems to acknowledge such economic pressures are likely only to encourage those that get pregnant to wish for an abortion.
Huck can you tell us what are your views on welfare? Are you in favour of financial assistance preferential housing and child care for the time a child might need it, or just for short periods? Or like the Heritage Foundation that you seem to support or the Republican Party which you vote for do you wish to squeeze such people to discourage them from wanting to give birth? ** The Netherlands has one of the most comprehensive sex education programmes going from pre-teens right into adulthood. I believe that that country has one of the lowest levels of teenage pregnancy and abortion in Europe and way down on the US levels? In fact I’ve been told that figures for teenage birth in the US is some 13 times higher than in the Netherlands and that the teenage abortion rate in the US 6 times higher than the Netherlands. You have to ask if their sex education programme is purely abstinence based?
i ccan't believe this thread is still alive! i haven't been on here in a good three weeks, what's up guys? can't we just agree to disagree?
The thing is if someone is to agree to disagree don’t they need to actually understand what the views are they are agreeing or disagreeing with? I will repeat that – I’m shocked I was always lead to believe that this subject was a big issue in the US and was strongly debated. I have been told that for many Americans this is the ONLY reason they vote for the Republicans?? So I thought that the ‘anti’s’ case must be very good. But when given the chance to put forth their views they end up bringing very little of worth to the table. Oh they wish to stop abortion I get that and as I said at the beginning I’d like a world where it wasn’t wanted, but for them stopping it seems to be the be all and end all of their idea. They seem unclear as to why abortion is wanted besides some belief that people that want one must be hedonistic immoral sinners. Asked why they think this and they seem not to know, asked how they can be helped and they again don’t seem to have any positive or realistic ideas. They have some vague idea that there could be a cultural, social and economics dimension to the problem but pushed about it and they mumble about ‘wickedness’ or cite the lyrics of rap singers. But even then they don’t have any realistic ideas of what to do and if pushed just become silent or abusive. I said earlier that I would have more respect for the ‘anti’s’ if they actually seemed to want to deal with the problem, actually seemed to be seeking some understanding. But this is not the impression I get here these people are not fighting for a better future or to help people, it seems more like a craving for power, the power to control, that kind of power is not about understanding or helping it is about dictating. It is the kind of attitude that is most commonly associated with dogmatic religious and political ideologies. Those kinds of people hate debate or questions. They thrive in ignorance and the simplistic. So it is not surprising they don’t wish to discuss their views. What is surprising, and shocking, is that so many Americans seem to allow them to get away with it. ** I do not understand their views beyond their totally negative wish to stop something which means they seem not to have an argument only a command.
I posted that excerpt to demonstrate that your pomposity is evident not only to me, but also to outside observers of this exchange. I find it amusing that you dismiss this guy as a "right-winger" even though he plainly stated that he doesn't share my view that most abortions should be banned. I suppose the main criterion for the "right-wing" label is simply to disagree with you. As I've already said, I believe that public policies should seek to address conditions that foster crime, but I that doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting violent criminals. You, however, still haven't answered the question. Should we scrap all laws against murder, rape, etc. and strive only to prevent such violent acts through various social welfare programs? It is simply a matter of priorities. The astronomical death toll of abortion on demand outweighs my environmental concerns when it comes to voting. This doesn't mean I don't understand environmental issues or act upon them. You don't have a clue about the extent of my environmental knowledge or activism. You really should think twice before making such presumptuous declarations. Do you think that repeatedly making such broad assertions somehow bolsters your case? What evidence do you have that the right recipe of social engineering will eliminate the tenfold increase in abortion that resulted from its legalization? What exactly would your solution(s) look like? You seriously believe that Planned Parenthood is an "unbiased" source? I think the HF article pretty well shows that long-term dependence on welfare does not help children. I'm much more inclined to support financial assistance that empowers people to become productive through further education, job training, public works projects, etc. The work and marriage incentives in the welfare reform bill signed by Clinton were long overdue. I also support programs like Medicaid and legal services. I think housing assistance should encourage home ownership rather than subsidizing slumlords. I like the idea of encouraging small business entreprenuership in economically depressed cities, and I support Bush's "Charitable Choice" initiative to partner with local community and faith-based organizations in combating poverty. Faceless bureaucrats blindly mailing out checks is no more effective than handing out spare change to panhandlers on the street. Can you provide some documentation? As I said almost 20 pages ago, I don't oppose mentioning condoms, but I don't think they should be promoted in a way that undermines the abstinence message. Again, abstinence is the only certain method of preventing unwanted pregancies and STDs. Also, unlike you, I can't discard the moral, social, and emotional ramifications of teenage sexual activity.
You are out of your mind if you actually expect people to stay abstinent. Or even abstain until marriage. Those are religious ideologies and not the reality of the situation. Give them everything there is to know, not just what YOU think they should know.
