I am all for abstinence education.  But not abstinence only... that's just a blind (aka stupid) belief that the kids are going to listen.

I teach abstinence in my home... I ALSO let my daughter know that, while it is smart to wait because there are things out there that will KILL her, I want her to come to me when she wants birth control, before she has sex.  No judgments, no lectures, just a trip to her doctor who will give her all the information about the birth control in a clinical, straight forward manner. I know she is comfortable with her doctor and will talk to her without embarassment.

I told her that every parent wants their kid to be a virgin forever, the smart parents know that that may not happen.

I've told her that sex can be great... but never good enough to die for.  Because, now, pregnancy is the least of our worries, I want her to know she can come to me without fear of recrimination or punishment or anger.  

May 23, 2009 -- 1:47PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Bei, I'm talking to you. Please provide a citation to a source that supports the figures you are stating. Thank you. I need to look things up for myself, and I'm sure you would want to do the same for any figures I quote, or claims I make (other than my personal opinions, of course). I cite the figures I use. I would appreciate it if you would do the same.

Which one? The 16% decrease in in-state abortions and 6% increase in out of state abortions?.

Also, I never made any statement about unsafe abortion rates going to rates higher than pre-RvW. What I said was that when abortion is illegal, rates of unsafe abortion increase. Here is a study that supports that claim.

I never said you did. And of course the rate of illegal abortions would be higher when abortion is illegal than when it is legal. That's kind of a no-brainer assumption.

Mississippi's strategy of mandatory counseling and waiting periods has the negative consequence of causing more women to delay their abortions to later in pregnancy. One study estimates that there was an increase in 2nd trimester abortions heof 41% after passage of waiting period restrictions. The impact of Missiissippi's abortion restrictions is examined quite thoroughly in this study; that study also provides a citation for the 41% increase in 2nd trimester abortion figure.

First of all, you're a bit confused. That doesn't say that there was a 41% increase in second trimester abortions for Mississippi due to implementing mandatory counseling and waiting periods, but that there there was a 41% increase in the rate of second trimester abortions, a 2.3% increase in the proportion of abortions occurring in the second trimester, between all states examined (Not just Mississippi). The rate increase for Mississippi itself rose from 10% to 15% (See my previous link).

Regardless of when they occur, abortions are safe. It seems rather silly to me to argue that second trimester abortions are statistically more dangerous than first trimester abortions. They're not. An abortion is an abortion, and they're *all* legal under 24'ish weeks.

That study also mentioned another study by Sen that found a relationship between abortion restrictions and child abuse and homicide rates. This is something that needs to be more carefully studied, because if these laws increase rates of child abuse/homicide, that would a serious negative consequencee of abortion restrictions.

Not according to this study, which found that "Abortion history was associated with more frequently maternal slapping, hitting, kicking or biting, beating, and use of physical punishment in general", which kind of plays into the whole Mississippi vs. Connecticut thing (Connecticut has much higher abortion rate and more children who get put into foster care because of abuse).

If abortions are going to occur, I think it is better for them to occur early when they're safer. I increases in later term abortion as a big negative. If the 41% figure, or something like it, turn out to be correct, I would not be in favor of measures that have that kind of result.

*See my previous response to this above*

To comment a bit further on Mississippi, that is state with high rates of poverty. A lot of women can't afford to go a long distance, stay overnight due to a waiting period, and have their abortion. In other more prosperous states, having to go a longer distance to obtain an abortion is not going to be as much of an impediment to so many women. So I think you probably wouldn't see a 10% or so decline in abortion rates.

Those who can be bothered to go out of state will. Those who can't, won't. No one's ever denied this. As I said in a previous post, the point of restrictions isn't to make sure that no one has an an abortion ever, but to discourage them from having one in search of other options.

Bei, yes, you can do things to reduce abortion like put women in jail, put doctors in jail, make women jump through every number of hoops, and on and on. Or you could put your efforts into reducing unintended pregnancy -- which does not have the adverse consequences that abortion restriction does. I consider myself a reasonable person. As such, I think we should advocate methods of abortion reduction that do not have the negative consequences.

I'm sure I pointed this out to before, but the states with the highest abortion rates, and highest teen abortion rates, are the more liberal voting/Democratic states in which the majority of persons would describe themselves as PC (Mostly concentrated in the New England area). And, hell, they're not even the states with the highest pregnancy rates, either. So, on one hand, you talk about the need to reduce pregnancies yet, on the other hand, you also have the highest rates of abortion.

It's pretty ironic when you think about it.

(And "you" is not referencing you in particular.)

May 24, 2009 -- 5:21PM, karbie wrote:

Bei,

A fertilized egg is NOT a human being; it does not even stand a chance of one unless it implants. If it doesn't implant, it will never develop into a fetus or anything else.

Yes, it is. Implantation doesn't mark whether or not it's human or not. You have absolutely NO idea what it is you're talking about. None. Stop crapping on science, please.

A woman can not just walk in off the street and demand an abortion. these still have to be scheduled and there is always a waiting period of several days. On the day of the appointment, there is still questioning and counseling that takes place; advice on how to be sure to never need one again, and a final chance to back out before the procedure takes place. In the case of the one teenager who was there the day I was, she was counseled both with and without her mother to be sure that she wasn't being forced into an abortion she didn't want.

So that is hardly "on demand".

I'm pretty sure you're just being obtuse here. You do realize the term "abortion on demand" means "abortion upon request", not "abortion as soon as she asks for it", correct?

Apparently, you consider an unimplanted fertilized egg is far more important than the person it happens to be inside.

Nope. Each are equally as important. Haven't I said this before?

Yes, all laws tend to constrict some people; that is why we have a legislative process in this country. The laws are made to protect the majority of citizens. They can be challenged, amended, repealed and even overturned by the judiciary branch of government.

...So did you happen to miss the whole "Rights cannot be created by the courts" post or something? Or did you just ignore it? Because, you know, that's pretty important.

You have your OPINION on when the biological beginning of life occurs.

It's about as much of an opinion as the universe being approximately 13.7B years old, the earth is 4.6B years old and that species evolve. Your refusal to accept something which is SCIENTIFIC FACT does not suddenly relegate it to the status of "opinion". It simply means that you would rather believe otherwise, even if it's immensely, totally and completely incorrect. Every argument about a fetus not being a human falls back on philosophical disagreements, not scientific ones. Every single one.

...And Mountain continues to tell me that no PC'er denies that a ZEF is human. Pffft!!! Maybe you ought to speak to him some time.

In your OPINION, any woman who becomes pregnant, whether by force or choice, HAS to carry it to term.So other than as an incubator, a woman's life has no worth. Yes, you never said that in so many words; your implied contempt for any woman who does not chose to try to go to term is extremely clear.

You know what they say about assumptions, dontcha'? And, hell, it's not just assumptions. It's flat out ignoring what you want to ignore.

When and if it becomes and embryo or fetus, it has no independent life.

100% false. Not to mention there's no such thing as "independent life", as everything is dependent on something else for sustenance. Everything. But, I digress. A ZEF at all stages is individual of the female.

The earlier an abortion is performed, the less developed those cells are.

Okay. I'll bite. What, exacltly, constitutes a "less developed cell"? And don't try to BS me, either.

However, I find the idea of giving clumps of cells supremacy over the host to be repugnant.

I'd just like to point out the fact that you are also nothing but a "clump of cells". The attempt to dehumanize a fetus or to treat it as less than you is, as you would put it, not only "repugnant" but a complete insult to biology. And I mean a complete insult.

My own preference is to do everything we can to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occuring in the first place, with the morning after pill offered rape victims and those who don't want to risk being pregnant.  this only works before implantation takes place.

That's great for your own preference and all, but what does this have to do with anything?

If a woman is willing to accept the ramifications of having an abortion in this world and the next, why is it your call ? Can you know with certainty that fetus was meant to come to term? I don't.  Why is it selfish and hypocritical to see the world any way but yours?

Who cares about "the next world"? What, exactly, does that have to do with anything? The answer? Nothing. If we're going to follow that logic then everything should be legal and we should let people come to terms with their decision(s) during the "next world". Of course, this only works assuming there is a "next world" to go to. But since no one knows whether or not it actually exists, then it's rather asinine to argue that something should be legal based on something no one has ever witnessed.

And, to answer a question with a question, why can't I just shoot you? How do you know that you're supposed to live to 20? 40? 60? 80? Why is it selfish and hypocritical to see the world any way but yours?

You see, the same way you scoff at the latter argument, I scoff at yours.

May 24, 2009 -- 8:14PM, Siribi wrote:

HAHAHAHAAA! Arrogant? Self righteous?....well yes, and also too much involved in trying to prove his point, the RCC's talking points right 'bei'?

I'm not Catholic, but thanks for trying, though.

May 25, 2009 -- 12:22AM, Bei1052 wrote:

Did you not read the part of my post which said, "I'm no fan of abstinence only education" or my previous posts where I've said that I have no problem with sex ed?

 

Yes i did read that. So  why did you come back say I'm incorrect, then post a study which had nothing to do with what I said, which I spent my time reading? I mean, do you agree w/me that abs-only ed isn't effective or not? Just want to clarify.

May 25, 2009 -- 12:14AM, Bei1052 wrote:

Which one? The 16% decrease in in-state abortions and 6% increase in out of state abortions?.

Also, I never made any statement about unsafe abortion rates going to rates higher than pre-RvW. What I said was that when abortion is illegal, rates of unsafe abortion increase. Here is a study that supports that claim.

I never said you did. And of course the rate of illegal abortions would be higher when abortion is illegal than when it is legal. That's kind of a no-brainer assumption.

Here is what you said to me in your post dated May, 22, 2009, 1:45pm

Your contention is that we'd return to a situation which wasn't present pre-RvW, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

I never made any such contention. Our discussion would be more focused and easier if we would not say that the other person has made a claim that they didn't make. Do you agree with me there?

And thank you for the link in the first part of the more recent post of yours I quoted here. I will have to go look at that material and get back to you.

Also, I find it very difficult to work with very long posts in this editor. That's why I'm trying to break them into smaller segments.