who supports right to choose

[BJean 16]

You have to use logic and common sense when you read and quote stats. You can't just float stuff out there and claim that because one may be able to assume certain things from those stats, that an assumption is fact the truth.

Snuffy has presented a good example of why this is true, and unless you are willing to give a complete background of your sources (who they are and what their background is), tell us exactly under what conditions those statistics were taken and reveal other full and complete defining information, citing statistics here is not very believable or conclusive. Hang around on the internet for a while and you will soon learn that people can and do claim just about anything you can think of on every topic under the sun and even about notable persons as well.

It may be worthwhile to give links or cite stats here if people choose to believe whatever part and parcel you've decided to tell us or give us a link to. But we really should all take the time to reveal every factor of a study before we give links or cite them in a public forum. And personally I think that few readers are willing to wade through an especially lengthy post qualifying some study. Furthermore, many biased organizations who have done a particular research project to reveal percentages, have a vested interest and can sway the numbers by the way the study is structured.

It's no different than how the media controls us on a daily basis. They tell us what they want us to hear and many of us buy it hook, line and sinker. And often, not only are they wrong, but sometimes they are a full 180 degrees off the real truth. But by the time they're willing to clarify it, we're off listening to and discussing some other talking point. :thumbs_down:

[snuffy65 1]

Asking people what religion they are in this country is like asking them if they're Americans. When you dig deeper into the questions, you generally find that most people who define themselves as Christians don't hold to the traditional tenants of the Christian faith. A large number are also not church-goers. So they're really not getting "preached at" about sex and abstinence.

However, there is stigma about being pregnant and not married regardless of religion which we do know (unlike your assumption of what people actually do with their religous beliefs) is true. Yes, alot of people who consider themselves Christian have been taught their faith and even if they stop going to church they already been taught what they "should" do with their lives and also they are still surrounded with fellow christians. And when most people think about decisions in life they consider others reactions as well. I know it shouldn't, but thats the way it is.

My point is lets not pass laws just to "lower" the abortion rate. There are plenty of other ways of doing. The reason I brought up the religion issue is that alot of people Pro-choice and pro-life are all trying to lower the rate but are always blocked by the "no sex, no abortion" people who can't understand statisically they're way isn't working.

[BJean 16]

Saying that a certain number of women have not used birth control and have become impregnated and subsequently opt for an abortion does not mean that those women are using abortion as birth control. Very specifically it is not the same if the woman is not a person who gets serial abortions.

A woman who uses abortion as birth control is not a person who could be considered as someone who made a mistake or just had unprotected sex (we don't even know the reason why they had unprotected sex). A person who uses abortion as birth control is a person who knows she can get pregnant when she has sex and has every intention of having an abortion when she does.

This part of the discussion is why citing stats is an exercise in futility. Unless of course you like the way the stats look and you can bend them to mean something that you feel supports your argument, and very importantly, that you can convince people to believe you. :thumbs_down:

[gadgetlady 4]

The speed limit is a great example of how laws don't have much affect, do you see many people speeding as you drive to Vegas.

What I am saying is that laws may not stop everyone from unlawful behavior, but they do curtail some -- and I would say most -- people from that behavior. Yes, people do speed on the way to Vegas. But they would go faster if there were no speed limit law.

To debate statistcs often is a fools game, figures can lie and liers can figure, as my Father used to say. So the increase in abortions can be based on any number of things. I might argue that abortions are up because of global warming because over that time period the planet got warmer. There may or may not be a coralation but I could trot out all kinds of statistics that might prove my point. It would be silly but I could do it and I bet I could convince a few people that global warming affects the rate of abortions. The only true statement I can make is that abortions are up because more abortions are being performed. It's kinda like the flood thing, I can find statistics and science that supports almost anything if I wanted. I would be wrong but I could.

You are absolutely right. And the statistics take us away from the issue at hand, which is not who is having abortions or why they are having them, but whether abortion is the taking of a human life. If it is, then it doesn't really matter who is having them or why.

[gadgetlady 4]

However, there is stigma about being pregnant and not married regardless of religion which we do know (unlike your assumption of what people actually do with their religous beliefs) is true. Yes, alot of people who consider themselves Christian have been taught their faith and even if they stop going to church they already been taught what they "should" do with their lives and also they are still surrounded with fellow christians. And when most people think about decisions in life they consider others reactions as well. I know it shouldn't, but thats the way it is.

I think the stigma of being pregnant and unmarried is pretty much gone in today's society. Be that as it may, I agree with you -- we are entirely too judgmental and drive some mothers who might not otherwise abort directly to the clinic because of what others might say. It's very sad. It's equally sad that we often punish the mothers with our judgment, but not the fathers.

I have raised my daughters to know that no matter what their circumstance they can always come to me for support. They not only hear the words from me, but also see it backed up in my actions of supporting unwed pregnant mothers unconditionally.

[gadgetlady 4]

Saying that a certain number of women have not used birth control and have become impregnated and subsequently opt for an abortion does not mean that those women are using abortion as birth control. Very specifically it is not the same if the woman is not a person who gets serial abortions.

Why must one have serial abortions to have used abortion as birth control? If the use of abortion prevents live birth, which has precisely the same effect as birth control, then it is a form of birth control -- most especially when no other form was used.

At the times in my life when I haven't wanted to be pregnant (like now), I'm awfully darn serious about birth control because abortion is not an option. There are a lot of women who aren't terribly serious about it because abortion IS an option.

[BJean 16]

Great point snuffy about the way religion enters the picture when people teach their children that abstinence is the only option, before marriage. That's one reason why some religious people are unhappy and uncomfortable with sex education in our schools. And that is sometimes a factor for many parents opting for home schooling.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if they had their way, not only would they make abortion illegal, they would not want condoms passed out to their teenagers. There is a religious segment of the population who dislike Planned Parenthood because they believe that that organization condones and promotes sex before marriage. They also tend to classify some Christians as being more Christian than others. I find that classification to be very self-serving and narrow minded and I figure they must be very angry people with the state of our society these days.

In stead of wanting all our laws and our country to be structured to conform to their particular religious comfort zone, we need to understand that people are imperfect and that people should have compassion for other people, no matter how imperfect they are. We need to not point fingers and insist that everyone conform to our own idea of morality. We just need to help others when they find themselves overwhelmed with a problem that they can not handle alone.

[snuffy65 1]

I think the stigma of being pregnant and unmarried is pretty much gone in today's society. Be that as it may, I agree with you -- we are entirely too judgmental and drive some mothers who might not otherwise abort directly to the clinic because of what others might say. It's very sad. It's equally sad that we often punish the mothers with our judgment, but not the fathers.

I have raised my daughters to know that no matter what their circumstance they can always come to me for support. They not only hear the words from me, but also see it backed up in my actions of supporting unwed pregnant mothers unconditionally.

I agree totally except for the stigma part. I didn't even include the pressure from the fathers. After reading some posts of yours you seem to have a good handle on how you raise your children. However, teenage pregnancy is not the total issue I was bringing up.

I just wish we could work more on preventing unintentional pregnancies and the ones that do happen help them to make the right decision.

But either way, like every other abortion thread, this one has gotten off track. The only issue in the long run is viability of the fetus. "When", is the big part and there will be no disuading someone on this issue IF they made up their mind "when" viability is.

I think it is futile to go on with the discussion until some new information rises.

Edited April 24, 2008 by snuffy65

[gadgetlady 4]

Great point snuffy about the way religion enters the picture when people teach their children that abstinence is the only option, before marriage. That's one reason why some religious people are unhappy and uncomfortable with sex education in our schools. And that is sometimes a factor for many parents opting for home schooling.

Wow! That's quite a statement.

Sex education is a part of our homeschooling and our kids are very well educated at age-appropriate levels. To paint homeschoolers and "religious people" as people who avoid talking about sex to their kids is wholly inappropriate.

There is a religious segment of the population who dislike Planned Parenthood because they believe that that organization condones and promotes sex before marriage.

Doesn't passing out condoms and teaching kids about sex techniques at very early ages condone and promote sex before marriage? If not, what does it promote? What would handing out bongs promote?

[gadgetlady 4]

They also tend to classify some Christians as being more Christian than others. I find that classification to be very self-serving and narrow minded and I figure they must be very angry people with the state of our society these days.

BJean, you are one of the most passive-aggressive people I know.

[snuffy65 1]

Wow! That's quite a statement.

Sex education is a part of our homeschooling and our kids are very well educated at age-appropriate levels. To paint homeschoolers and "religious people" as people who avoid talking about sex to their kids is wholly inappropriate.

In BJean's defense, she said "some" for both religious and homeschooling parents. Which is both true. I've seen alot of people say they took their kids out not only for homeschooling but just out of public to private, just on the "sex education" classes. So the word some is appropriate since BJean doesn't have statistics.

There has been statistics on abstenence only teachings and there is a higher rate of unintentional pregnancies then others.

Doesn't passing out condoms and teaching kids about sex techniques at very early ages condone and promote sex before marriage? If not, what does it promote? What would handing out bongs promote?

The fact is children have sex whether we want them to or not. Some parents get lucky and have the ability, situation, and family make up, to keep their children from having sex till post teens. Unfortuantly, more often then not the teens will have sex so personally I would want them to have at least the knowledge of what to do.

[BJean 16]

gadget you are one of the worst people I know about putting words in other people's mouths. I never said and did not even insinuate that home schoolers do not provide sex education for their children. No wonder you use all those crazy links and are so easily influenced by some of it. Maybe you are just in a big hurry and don't read as thoroughly as you could. I know you're smart, so it isn't a lack of intellect on your part.

You want me less passive agressive? Now, when I have vowed to be as civil and peace keeping as possible? :crying:

I'm doing the very best that I can and I try very, very hard not to become personal especially when I disagree wholeheartedly with someone. Seems you enjoy the personal interaction and changing things up so you can be in control. So have at it, punch away. I can take it. I know where you're coming from by now. In spite of everything, I'm vowing to stay sensible and reasonable and I will contribute as much as I can to keeping the peace. If you call that "passive aggressive" fine. The books are calling that a very antiquated term.

[BJean 16]

snuffy you are a true gem.

[gadgetlady 4]

You want me less passive agressive? Now, when I have vowed to be as civil and peace keeping as possible? :crying:

BJean, the reason I called you passive-aggressive is because you wait a few posts after something I say and then you make a snide comment that you attempt to pass off as unrealted -- about the very same thing I just addressed.

For example, I made a comment about how asking someone if they're a Christian in America is like asking them if they're American. You know as well as I do that people identify themselves as Christian who are not Christ-followers and don't even try to be. There are some pretty standard core beliefs that define Christianity and a lot of people who call themselves Christians don't believe these things. Look, I can call myself Hispanic but if I have no Hispanic blood in my ancestry, you would call "foul".

So anyway, I make a comment about people who call themselves Christians and aren't, and you come back a few posts later with

They also tend to classify some Christians as being more Christian than others. I find that classification to be very self-serving and narrow minded and I figure they must be very angry people with the state of our society these days.

Now you can try to pretend that what you said wasn't directed at what I said, but I don't think you're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. If you have a problem with something I'm saying, then say it! Don't pretend like you're making an unrelated comment or had an inspiration about something that wasn't addressed in the past.

I'm not saying we should attack each other, but if you have a problem with my saying that not all people who classify themselves as Christians are really Christians, discuss the issue! Don't come back a few posts later with something you try to make sound like an unrelated post in which you really attack ME -- "I find that classification to be very self-serving and narrow minded and I figure they must be very angry people . . ." -- in other words calling me self-serving, narrow minded, and angry. In doing so, you are attempting to veil your personal attack with generalizations. Ergo, I called you on it.

In spite of everything, I'm vowing to stay sensible and reasonable and I will contribute as much as I can to keeping the peace.

Really? This is sensible and reasonable -- and trying to keep the peace?:

Seems you enjoy the personal interaction and changing things up so you can be in control.

[anonemouse 1]

BJean, you are one of the most passive-aggressive people I know.

Gadget, now you are the one making uncalled-for, personal remarks. People are not necessarily referring to you when they make remarks about religion, religious people, etc., etc., etc. Now, last time I stood up for you because I thought it was necessary, but this time you ARE putting words in people's mouths and reading things into their statements that aren't actually there.