Abortion FOUR TIMES DEADLIER Than Childbirth!

I always present evidence, and have provided loads.

Like this:

"Number of pregnancies was estimated...."

Your charts are completely meaningless.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053654.htm

"Rates were calculated as the number of pregnancies per 1000 females aged 15-17, 18-19, or 15-19 years. Because most pregnancies (98% of live-born infants and 94% of legal induced abortions) among persons aged less than 15 years occur among those aged 13-14 years (CDC, unpublished data, 1995; 7), the number of persons aged 13-14 years was used as the denominator when the rate was calculated for the less than 15-year age group. Legal induced abortions for which mother's age or race was unknown were included in categories based on the distribution of mothers with known age or race. Changes in pregnancy rates for persons aged 15-19 years from 1992 to 1995 were tested for statistical significance at pless than 0.05.

Although abortion totals were available for all states, age-specific data were only available from 43 states for 1992-1995; abortion data stratified by age and race were available from 37 states for 1992-1995. Because adequate age and Hispanic ethnicity data for women who had abortions were available for only 19 states in 1992, 21 states in 1993 and 1995, and 22 states in 1994, pregnancy rates by ethnicity are not included. "

 

Most teens are far more influenced by the rampant sexualisation of TV and Advertising

But let us look at the RESEARCH backing abstinence only education and pregnancy

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X07004260

Seems you have had "abstinence only" as the only federally funded sex education program for over 10 years now http://130.102.44.246/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/social_forces/v089/89.3.hess.pdf so if abstinence is so effective - why, as YOU contend but cannot prove, is teen pregnancy going up?

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you quoting statistics from over 10 years ago?

 

Because we are discussing trends. Complex stats take years to gather and compile, and we're talking about changes over periods of years and decades. Get a clue.

I'm not arguing for abstinence only programs. I'm arguing that PP, the CDC and the Kinsey Institute have done absolutely nothing to reduce the problem. If they were employees, they would be fired, and prosecuted.

 

You keep repeating this opinion that kids are taught "how" to have sex and yet not one single thing you have posted as evidence actually states that.

Even your own evidence -

doesn't say it .. changing words to suit your opinion doesn't really mean very much and just shows dishonesty.

 

I didn't realize I'd been asked to "prove" that children are being taught to have sex.

Formal sex education is, specifically, teaching children exactly how to have sex, and how to deal with the consequences of it.

 

As you are such a person who demands evidence to almost everything, then you should do the same . .so please show your proof that "formal sex education is, specifically, teaching children exactly how to have sex"

Do they show them videos of people having sex, do they give fellatio lessons just before going into culingus .. perhaps "Debbie Does Dallas" is on the official viewing list.

As an self proclaimed English expert I would have thought you would know the difference between being taught how to do something and being taught about something .. apparently not.

I agree that part of sex ed is to teach what to do if there is a pregnancy involved as it should be, alongside contraception (including abstinence).

 

And you are using data that is 10 years old to try and "prove" this point whereas in reality if we include the data from the last 10 years the pregnancy rate for teens has gone down

 

Except it's not related to PP. If it was related to PP and sex ed, it would have started declining decades ago. If you're going to maintain that PP is necessary for the reduction of stds, abortion, teen pregnancy, etc, then you look at the stats since the advent of sex ed and PP.

And they put the lie to the claim. Which is why you're trying to pretend the only stats that matter are the last 10 years.

 

All by the by, if the stats don't say what you want then deem them biased and find some that agree with you.

BTW are you going to answer the following

 

It's a ridiculous question, as the answer is in the term. "Sex education" teaches children how to have sex. It teaches them the anatomy, how it works, what to (physically) do to prevent it...many teachers teach how to put on condoms; they certainly explain the mechanics of sex. Plus they delve into homosexuality, pregnancy, etc.

That is how you teach children to have sex. It's the definition of sex ed, and what all the loons claim when they promote it..."all kids are going to want to have sex, we must make sure they know how to do it right!!!!"

Teaching kids how to have sex:

"• In keeping with the scope and sequence of the sexuality curriculum, at the fifth grade level only, if asked, questions pertaining to homosexuality, oral sex, and/or anal sex will be answered according to the standard district approved glossary definition (found in FLE Rules and regulations)"

"4. Anal Sex: Sexual contact involving the penis to anus
5. Artificial Insemination: A medical procedure that involves the introduction of sperm into the uterus without sexual intercourse
6. Birth Control: An effort to avoid the birth of a child through abstinence, contraception, or sterilization
7. Bisexuality: Of or pertaining to both sexes; sexual feelings or behaviors towards members of both sexes
8. Celibacy: Abstention from sexual intercourse or marriage
9. Circumcision: Surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin of the penis
10. Climax: The peak of excitement in the genitals
11. Clitoris: The organ of sexual stimulation for the female at the anterior part of the vulva"


http://www.farmington.k12.mi.us/curriculum/sex_ed_policy_procedures.pdf

 

Comprehensive sex ed has been shown to raise the average age that young people first have sex and to reduce teen pregnancies. The object of comprehensive sex ed is not to increase the number of orgasms, but to teach young people what they need to know to be safe. Saying "NO" is one of those ways, but kids need to know the others, because sooner or later somebody will fail to say "no."

 

And you have yet to prove it is not

And you cannot do that by posting old data

In truth it is probably a combination of factors but education and availability of EFFECTIVE contraception have always had an impact on pregnancy rates. Now it is up to you to prove that the interventions are not working when clearly SOMETHING is making the pregnancy rate fall

 

Sorry Granny your post evoked a sudden mental image of two teens the the back of a car "making out"

no, no, no, no, no, yes, no, no, yes, yes, no, no, no, yes yes yes! no, no ooooooooooh! Yeeeeesssssss!!!

 

No, honey. That's not the way it works.

I have proved my claim..which is that pregnancy rates/abortion/std rates have increased exponentially since the advent of PP/abortion/and sex ed in schools.

You have provided nothing, except a weird claim that we should only look at stats of the last ten years. That doesn't disprove what I said. And the pregnancy rate isn't falling. I discredited your silly charts by pointing out that the stats are incomplete, using your own link to do it.

 

Not as ridiculous as your assertion . .everything you have put is teaching about sex, not teaching how to have sex.

when coaching/teaching someone to swim you combine the two, you teach about swimming .. the mechanics etc and you also teach how to swim by practical demonstration and practice .. I know of no school that use practice or practical demonstrations when it comes to teaching about sex .. though on second thoughts children are taught how to put a condom on, apart from that nothing else.

Just to be sure you know the difference.

Education -
1. the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university: a course of education
2. the theory and practice of teaching: colleges of education
3. a body of knowledge acquired while being educated: his education is encyclopedic and eclectic
4. information about or training in a particular subject: health education

Sciences, such as Chemistry and Physics are also dual types of teaching, you are taught about them and also how do to them through experiments.

Sex Education is not being taught how to do it.

 

This is the way progressives view kids. It isn't that you think they can't control their urges...it's that you don't want them to.

 

"If Asked" and the answers are LESS than what can be retrieved from the internet even with a child filter

 

Explaining to a ten year old child what anal sex involves is teaching that child how to have anal sex.

I'm sorry this basic concept eludes you.

 

And ever since the 60's there have been movies out there portraying this sort of thing

Kids will be far far more influenced by movies about teens having sex then all the sex ed in the world - why? Because it is all about peer standards

This is one of the reasons why there is a continuing debate about sexualisation of young girls in Advertising

 

Gee is THAT what it says???

So telling the kid about how to make toffee is "teaching them to be a diabetic"??

 

I'm sorry the basic concept of being taught about something is not the same as being taught how to do something escapes you, and the fact that you are so caught up in your own righteousness you cannot accept when shown to be wrong.

Your original comment was "formal sex education is, specifically, teaching children exactly how to have sex" .. so please, yet again, prove that school sex education is "specifically" teaching children "how" to have sex

 

Yes, so if a 10 year old asks "What's anal sex" then they are taught what anal sex is.

If a 10 year old asks "What does climax mean?" Then they are given a description of how climax occurs.

 

From your link

And from YOUR quote

So, it is not actually part of the curriculum but merely sets up the potential to have a question answered IF ASKED and then the answer is extremely proscribed to a mere glossary definition

No further explanation, no pictures, no videos just a glossary definition

and THIS is what you consider "education" detailed enough to influence someone??

Boy, the whole field of Ed Psych just whizzed past some of America didn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

From your link

And from YOUR quote

So, it is not actually part of the curriculum but merely sets up the potential to have a question answered IF ASKED and then the answer is extremely proscribed to a mere glossary definition

No further explanation, no pictures, no videos just a glossary definition

and THIS is what you consider "education" detailed enough to influence someone??

Boy, the whole field of Ed Psych just whizzed past some of America didn't it?

 

I'm sure you view it as coincidental that the entertainment industry is primarily of a progressive bent. Quick, find a way to marginalize that...

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, so teaching doesn't occur without props?

Lol....

 

AS I said - a whole field of Educational psychology and research just flew out the window.................

It is well known that to change attitudes (affective domain) it takes a LOT more than simply answering a question with a single line answer

http://www.thebody.com/content/art2442.html

But I find it interesting that anyone would be so concerned about single line answers by teachers and yet dismissive of the sexualisation of teens and women in particular on the media

And although you categorise the media as "liberal" it is CORPORATIONS that own the media and CORPORATIONS that are involved in selling sex