i dont get it!!! if these women are so eager to have abortions, or any another case 'not have kids', why don't they just take birth control so they wont HAVE that responsibility? i hope its not because these women havent gotten over their teenage rebellion phase and only says no because the doctor asks them to. and nobody say 'its her body, she can take it if she wants' BS, because thats not exactly a good arguement.
For starters do you actual know any woman who is "eager" to have an abortion. Secondly over 50% of abortions take place with women who have being using contraception .. however, mainly due to the other agenda of pro-lifers, the one to reduce sex education and freely available contraception you have a large number of women (especially the younger ones) whose sex education is lacking to say the least, ie a significant number of young women thought they couldn't get pregnant the first time they had sex or don't realize that they have to take the pill every-day in order for it to work. Thirdly, why should the onus of responsibility be upon the woman, why can't the men not take responsibility and put a condom on it. So in essences the problem stems from the pro-life agenda to reduce sex education and freely available contraception.
Since my goal is to reduce abortions, i am not against sex ed or freely available contraception. So please don't compare me to those pro lifers. But here's my question to you. Why would some pro-lifers be against sex ed and contraception?
Because they (the majority of religious ones) believe that sex before marriage is a sin and that sex is only for procreation .. it is all based on religion.
Yes, I know that they believe that premarital sex is a sin. But why would they want to ban contraception and sex ed? It's kinda hypocritical. If you believe that abortion is murder, then your priority must be to reduce abortions. Which to some pro-lifers, that apparently isn't what's most important to them.
Actually, this has been studied numerous times. There is no single reason why contraception isn't used. Among girls of high school age, a contraceptive is a dead giveaway that they're sexually active, and will face perhaps extreme discipline from their parents. There are some who don't have money to afford contraceptives (the most effective kinds require examinations by physicians, which aren't cheap and which are conspicuous). In many subcultures, among the boys, there is great cachet in impregnating as many girls as possible - and the girls fear they won't be loved if they don't risk pregnancy -- which isn't the boy's problem, generally. And several kinds of contraceptives have a certain hassle factor. Nothing kills a mood deader than having to stop and insert a diaphram (which is slippery, and often needs to be chased around the room) and contraceptive foams and jellies. Condoms have been compared to showering in a raincoat. Even pills must be taken on a strict schedule, easy to forget when you're not currently active. And getting started on the pill takes over a month waiting for the cycle, waiting for a month on the pill, waiting to see if there are side-effects, waiting for doctors' appointments, and so on. Nonetheless, studies have shown that if at-risk women are provided free contraceptives and directions for using them, in such a way that peers and parents don't know about it in the case of younger girls, they are extremely effective. And such a program is FAR less expensive in every way than crossing fingers now and aborting later. Most unwanted pregnancies under such a program occur among women who refused the free contraceptives - many of them for religious reasons!
I think you almost had it there. The "ideal" is for someone to remain pure in body and spirit, not even feeling temptation until after marriage, which of course is for happily ever after. And how can you remain pure in body and spirit if you are exposed to such distractions as contraceptives (opposed by the Catholic church), sex ed, sexy peers, and powerful physical drives? Few can, but that is the IDEAL, and we don't want to surrender without at least shooting for it. And so you circle the wagons. Abortion is murder, can't do that. Sex is sin, shouldn't do that. Sex ed tells kids something we don't want them to know yet, can't do that. Contraception is an admission of sexual activity, can't risk that. And so you get Detroit, where 79% of all children are born to unwed mothers, because abortion is unavailable except at prices beyond their means. After all, SOMETHING has to give when all sensible avenues have been closed off. How about a policy of making contraceptives free, complete with physical exams and pap smears and everything, anonymously and clandestinely to all who wish them -- and then make abortion unavailable to all who turn them down?
so what you mean is peer pressure? and why would these guys WANT to impregnate a girl knowing she might come after him later on? nothing makes sense to me!! its like what happened to common sense! this is what i believe... its okay (but frowned upon) to experiment because we have urges as teens, BUT do what you have to do first!!! yes you can have a boyfriend/girlfriend, and please be safe!! because in my old highschool (i graduated this august YAY!) there was a lot of girls droppin out and missing school because they didnt want to do it while pregnant(i think those where the lazy ones). so long story short try to at least last after highschool! oh and suppresing kids from sex doesnt solve the problem! i had sex ed in 6th grade.... and it was embarrising.
Yes. It's real and it's powerful. Teens have committed suicide because of things they read on the internet! Again, it's a cultural force. Doing so means you are macho, that you are fertile, huevos verdes, you appeal to the women, and you have beaten your peers at a game important to all of you. Doesn't have to. It's real. Preaching has failed. I would go so far as to say that the most at-risk population are those who preaching can't reach.
Because they want 100% compliance with their specific religious dogma, which centers around abstinance. If you're not going to have sex until marriage, you don't need to have contraception and there's no point talking about it in a 'sex ed' (or any other) format. In other words, the people who were most paranoid about Sharia law were just projecting their willingness to impose religious law onto others.
Low dose birth control pills (the type taken routinely) are not an effective way of preventing pregnancy. Many women cannot be bothered by the inconvenience of the alternatives, or possible side effects in some cases. But the truth is, if the woman used THREE types of contraceptive measures simultaneously, and used them properly, the risk of pregnancy would be virtually zero.
I am, when it influences teen children to have more sex outside of a committed relationship, and results in more unwanted babies.
yes, but also suppressing your kids from sex ed wouldnt be smart either. you do that, they'll end up learning about sex the hard way...
i mean i KNOW it wont stop there hormones, but i mean if they dont learn about stuff like diseases or anything they most likely wont take precautions.
It's odd that people used to wait for marriage to have sex, but now liberals tell us its impossible to go back to that.
Most women did, if not all the men. It used to be unheard of to have a baby out-of-wedlock. I am old enough to remember that, maybe you aren't.
When was that? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-19-premarital-sex_x.htm "The reality of the situation is that most people had premarital sex, and it's been that way for several decades," says Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute, a New York City-based non-profit organization that studies reproductive and sexual health. The study, which used statistics from the 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, asked about 40,000 people ages 15-44 about their sexual behavior and traced the trends in premarital sex back to the 1950s. Of those interviewed in 2002, 95% reported they had had premarital sex; 93% said they did so by age 30. Among women born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 did.
I think you were old enough to remember episodes of Leave It to Beaver, but not reality. The fact is, most Americans had premarital sex before marriage, and these were back in the good ol' days too.
LOL, just because you didn't hear of babies out-of-wedlock doesn't mean they didn't happen. Where do you think all those babies available for adoption came from "back then"? Plenty of abortions were happening as well, bet you didn't hear about those either.
