Disturbing news on so many levels

[Ozone]

That's exactly my point. You need to take responsibility for your own actions, no matter what the reason is. You're ultimately the one that made the decision(s) and so it's your fault if there are negative consequences.

EXACTLY! Thank you for getting it.

I take a bit of offense to that quote you've got there Sonic, I don't know who said it, but, in my experience, the most bigotry has come from the religious side. Before I get flogged, I'm not saying that every religious person is a bigot, in fact, I know a lot of people from a lot of different faiths from Hinduism to Judaism and everything in between, and a lot of them are really wonderful people. However, it's when you can't accept that someone sees life differently than you do that you become a bigot, at least in my eyes, and I've never seen more of it than I have from people who preach to me regarding how having ear piercings in my upper ear is a sin against God, or how my shirt is offensive (when it's just the letters NIN), or the fact that I'm not a virgin is a sin. I think I've just about heard it all from all over. Now, say what you will about me, but I am a spiritual person, I don't believe in a religion per se, but I will say that I think there is something that makes the world go 'round. It's not because I'm against religion, in fact, I think that anything that teaches people to be good people is a good thing, but I don't feel like I need to have a pastor or priest translate for me, I can do it on my own. I've always felt that religion should be a personal thing, it should be your own experience, and, by all means, feel free to share it with people who want to hear about it, but not with people who don't, no means no. I have other little bits and pieces that I'd love to share concerning the way I see religion, but I already have the feeling that there's going to be some kind of negative response, so I'll cut it short.

In short, just because something is against your belief doesn't mean that it's against everyone else's, live with it, it's a fact of life. If you have a problem handing out birth control, you're in the wrong profession, and frankly, who are you to deny this person of something when they may not (pretty likely in this case) share the same beliefs as you? See? The door swings both ways. Just take responsibility for your actions and your beliefs, don't blame bigotry for forcing you out of your chosen profession, if you believe in and want to do something enough, you won't let anything get in your way, including idiots.

[JWL]

I don't think that the concern they have is a bigoted one. For one, not everyone lives in a city, or close to one large enough to have a drug store on every corner.

The problem with that is that I disagree with the basic premise that the medical profession should even be involved in dispensing medication to people who are not sick. Let Planned Parenthood or some other misanthropic organization open a center in the town if they are in such dire need, with only one pharmacist who happens to be Catholic (an example which I have never heard of existing). Another solution? Planned Parenthood can send their activist followers to Pharmacy school and they can work in the pharmacies.

I have also come up with an idea for a new profession - a death merchant. The death merchant could wear a black lab coat and give medication to everyone who is not sick in order to make them sick.

We live in a society where birth control and family management are getting increasingly important, and when access to them is denied, and there isn't another convenient place, that's when there's a concern. And I'm not suggesting that forcing pharmacists to comply is the solution at all. I don't know the answer. I only see valid concerns on both sides.

There are a number of solutions, as I explained. There are also mail-order pharmacies. Considering that the misanthropes at Planned Parenthood are largely responsible for getting society addicted to birth control as you describe, I would think that they would be more interested in solving the mess which they have created.

Anti-religious discrimination... yes, it's there. So is pro-religious discrimination. (Oh, and yes, it exists.) There are bigots on every side, and I'm sorry that they made you change your profession.

You should feel more sorry for the thousands of people who are not being helped because the anti-religious bigots are quite good as stopping people of faith from helping anyone, but quite poor at actually providing help.

I wish to ask, because I don't understand it at all, and it's one reason why I might be going in circles. Why do you consider birth control immoral? Or, what are reasons for considering it immoral?

I will gladly explain.

It is based upon Catholic theology, which consists of 2,000 years of Tradition based on the Holy Scriptures and passed down by the Holy See (Vatican). In order to get a theological answer to a question, Catholics can consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a book which explains why Catholics believe what they believe.

Catholic theology on chastity is that sex is a sacred act which should be confined to marriage. It is the ultimate giving of husband and wife to each other. Thus under this philosophy, any sex outside of marriage would be immoral. Thus 90% of all use for contraceptives is eliminated. This is what the Church teaches, and I rationally agree with it.

As for the other 10%, the use of contraception within a marriage, that is also objectionable. Why? Because it is a denial of the ultimate giving of a husband and wife to each other. It is a physical or chemical barrier which divides the two who are supposed to be as one flesh. It is also cutting off the act from the possibility of procreation. That is what the Church teaches, and I rationally agree with it.

Now I can hardly expect non-Catholics (or even fellow Catholics, since most of them ignore the Church when it comes to contraception) to follow Catholic teaching, but I also refuse to be a cog in the machine of the secularist, cynical, selfish, permissive culture which pretends that sin doesn't exist. In addition I refuse to help others commit sins.

This Catholic theology is always misrepresented by the media. You have probably heard that Catholics worship sperm, or lament every sperm that dies. That is ridiculous and completely untrue. You may have also heard that because of their theology, Catholics must expect women to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" all the time. That is also ridiculous and untrue.

This isn't directly related to Catholic teaching, but it's also important. I have heard Viagra spoken of as being analogous to birth control. What? Viagra, when used correctly, treats a medical condition. Birth control, when used correctly, causes a medical condition. It essentially poisons a woman's body with hormones in order to prevent it from working properly. Speaking purely rationally, I fail to see how that is pro-woman.

So what solution does the Catholic Church provide to married couples who can't deal with having gigantic families? It's called Natural Family Planning, and Planned Parenthood doesn't want you to know about it because it's basically free to do it, so they won't make any money from it. All you really need to do it is a thermometer and a pencil and paper.

The main method of Natural Family Planning is called the Sympto-Thermal Method, which uses body temperatures and a few other factors to determine the height of a woman's fertility. This information can then be used either to encourage pregnancy or to delay pregnancy. A recent Scientific American article stated that the Sympto-Thermal Method, when done correctly (of course), is as effective as other forms of birth control when used for the purpose of delaying a pregnancy.

Even if you have heard of Natural Family Planning, you have probably heard it called "the rhythm method", which is a crude and rather ineffective technique based on a 28 day cycle. The media delights in getting the two mixed up in order to denounce the effectiveness of Natural Family Planning in general.

[Sonic#]

Okay. Our beliefs are very different, but you are certainly free to not help what you see as sin. Thank you for that.

This isn't directly related to Catholic teaching, but it's also important. I have heard Viagra spoken of as being analogous to birth control. What? Viagra, when used correctly, treats a medical condition. Birth control, when used correctly, causes a medical condition. It essentially poisons a woman's body with hormones in order to prevent it from working properly. Speaking purely rationally, I fail to see how that is pro-woman.

It is anti-woman to force her to birth against her will, as I respect the wishes and mind of a woman, and not simply her body. (I'm not automatically putting you in the other end, but you would have the mind subordinated to the body.)

A woman should be able to choose how her own body works. If she wants to have sex, let her when she knows the risks. If she wishes to have it whenever she chooses, there is no reason why she shouldn't. And if she wishes to do this free of the responsibility and burden of childbirth, that's her perogative. Speaking purely rationally, I fail to see how allowing a choice is anti-woman. It acknowledges woman as a gendered being, and allows her to determine her proper sexual functioning for herself. But then, for me sin is no concern (though I still consider myself quite ethical and even moral).

Related to that, you have earlier referred to sex as being cheapened. I at first concurred, but now I don't. In this case, it is not cheapened, but revalued. It fulfills a different purpose, a different function, and the problem in this post's case is an issue of parenting and guidance, as well as the media's hypersexualizing the news, celebrities, everything. It is not the post-sexual revolution ideal role of sex, but the popular role of it, and the values derived from there.

Then you talk of woman being poisoned, assuming a natural way for the body to work that's also the right way for the body to work. Poisoning implies harm to the body. How is the body harmed by being less able to reproduce for the duration of the medicine? The body itself doesn't need to reproduce in order to exist in a healthy state. The species as a whole doesn't, as there's no shortage of births.

Am I poisoned when I take anesthesia? It induces a non-natural state, and it doesn't treat a condition, but a symptom.

[Werefrog]

JWL, I really take offense to the fact that you blame "bigots" for not being able to help people in the medical field. There are so many other ways to help people in the medical field. If you are not able to help people, that is your own fault for being inflexible in what you do for a living.

Also, could you please turn the attitude down a bit? I've been holding my tongue about your posts all day. No one here is persecuting you. Calling Planned Parenthood "misanthropic" certainly does your argument little good in my opinion. Furthermore, as Ilove myguitar has already pointed out you are making absurd comparisons such as suicide with premarital sex. Your "death merchant" further weakens your argument. You come off as somebody who is just shaking his fist at the world.

[Imperial Knight]

Right; it's as I said. Some of us have the philosophy that human beings are supposed to help each other, and others have the philosophy of "Every man for himself" or "Just leave me alone". I get it.

You know, I don't plan on having sex before marriage, and I still find this (and a few of the other things you've posted, but this especially) to be incredibly self-righteous. There's nothing wrong with having (and stating) strong opinions, but when you get to the point where you're essentially assigning nefarious motives to people who disagree with you, it just doesn't do one bit of good. It's quite insulting, it creates needless tension, and makes rational discussion that much more difficult.

[JWL]

It is anti-woman to force her to birth against her will,

I don't know exactly what angle you're coming from there, but I wonder if it is then anti-woman to "force" a woman to take care of her children.

as I respect the wishes and mind of a woman, and not simply her body. (I'm not automatically putting you in the other end, but you would have the mind subordinated to the body.)

Whereas you would poison and/or mutilate the body for the sake of pleasure. It is also Catholic theology that the body is important and shouldn't be mutilated. But you might disagree; that's fine.

A woman should be able to choose how her own body works.

At least when it comes to her fertility cycle, which is pretty much the only thing which can be micromanaged through the use of hormones. Well, other organs and tissues could be managed in this way, but nobody takes pills in order to make their other organs not work right.

If she wants to have sex, let her when she knows the risks. If she wishes to have it whenever she chooses, there is no reason why she shouldn't. And if she wishes to do this free of the responsibility and burden of childbirth, that's her perogative. Speaking purely rationally, I fail to see how allowing a choice is anti-woman. It acknowledges woman as a gendered being, and allows her to determine her proper sexual functioning for herself. But then, for me sin is no concern (though I still consider myself quite ethical and even moral).

Where did I say she couldn't do those things? All I said was, don't force me to help her destroy herself. Similarly I don't know of anyone who wants to ban contraceptives, they simply object to being forced to pay for them or sell them, which seems to be what you advocate. If a person wants to arbitrarily make up his or her own "morality" and then declare him or herself to be a moral and ethical person for following his or her own rules (which again seems to be your strategy), who am I to object, as long as I am not "affected"?

Related to that, you have earlier referred to sex as being cheapened. I at first concurred, but now I don't. In this case, it is not cheapened, but revalued. It fulfills a different purpose, a different function, and the problem in this post's case is an issue of parenting and guidance, as well as the media's hypersexualizing the news, celebrities, everything. It is not the post-sexual revolution ideal role of sex, but the popular role of it, and the values derived from there.

Absolutely; morality is all relative. Casual sex doesn't cheapen a sacred act; it just changes it. It's a new concept. It's not wrong. Gee, morals are easy when you can just make them up as you go along.

Then you talk of woman being poisoned, assuming a natural way for the body to work that's also the right way for the body to work.

So now your argument is that fertility is a disease? Wow. A lot of feminists went to a lot of trouble to fight that characterization.

Poisoning implies harm to the body. How is the body harmed by being less able to reproduce for the duration of the medicine? The body itself doesn't need to reproduce in order to exist in a healthy state. The species as a whole doesn't, as there's no shortage of births.

I don't believe I can think of a single other "medication" for which you go to the doctor when you are 100% healthy and take in order to make your body work improperly.

Am I poisoned when I take anesthesia? It induces a non-natural state, and it doesn't treat a condition, but a symptom.

You don't take it when you're healthy, either.

As I said before, we cannot possibly agree here. Judeo-Christian traditionalism is not compatible with secular permissiveness.

[Werefrog]

Gee, morals are easy when you can just make them up as you go along.

That's what we've been doing all along. The Bible is not set in stone. Since its creation, it's been subject to interpretation and reinterpretation.

Also... there's the fact that your view is extremely Eurocentric. Things that you feel are wrong were accepeted as right in other societies. Why are your morals more "right" than the morals of other cultures?

[DragonmasterAndy]

In this case, right and wrong is subjective. End of story.

[ilovemyguitar]

I don't know exactly what angle you're coming from there, but I wonder if it is then anti-woman to "force" a woman to take care of her children.

In a world where adoption agencies exist, yeah, it sorta is.

Where did I say she couldn't do those things? All I said was, don't force me to help her destroy herself. Similarly I don't know of anyone who wants to ban contraceptives, they simply object to being forced to pay for them or sell them, which seems to be what you advocate.

Well, I have heard people say (outside of this thread) that they think contraceptives should not be distributed to young people because they think it sends a mixed message about sex. I've heard it likened to telling people not to do drugs, but offering them clean needles in case they decide to do it anyway. I don't actually agree with this line of thinking, but I can understand how someone could come to this conclusion if they believe premarital sex is inherently wrong, aside from any sort of relgious beliefs. And yes, I do agree with you that a Catholic hospital shouldn't be forced to give out contraceptives when it's available elsewhere. I don't think anyone here is actually debating that point.

Absolutely; morality is all relative. Casual sex doesn't cheapen a sacred act; it just changes it. It's a new concept. It's not wrong. Gee, morals are easy when you can just make them up as you go along.

Nobody's making morals up as they go along. The advent of contraceptives changed the consequences of sex, and peoples' judgments of what was and wasn't acceptable behavior changed with it.

I don't believe I can think of a single other "medication" for which you go to the doctor when you are 100% healthy and take in order to make your body work improperly.

What about receiving cosmetic surgery? Or hormones for a transgendered person?


One big point I want to make is that I have a huge problem with saying that Planned Parenthood is "misanthropic." They're a not-for-profit organization that offers people a huge array of education and services that they would most likely not have available to them otherwise. I'm talking about sex education. Testing and treatment for STDs. Screening for breast, cervical, and testicular cancers. Vasectomies. And, yes, contraceptives, pregnacy options counseling, and abortion services. Some of these services may not jive with your religious beliefs, but to say that they're somehow deviant because of that is incredibly narrow-minded. You simply can't expect the rest of the world to adhere to your church's rules. You're speaking ill of an organization that exists purely to help people, and with no profit in it for themselves. Think about that.

[Sonic#]

It is anti-woman to force her to birth against her will,

I don't know exactly what angle you're coming from there, but I wonder if it is then anti-woman to "force" a woman to take care of her children.

That question is irrelevant. If she had had the access to birth control and abortion in the first place, she would only have the child if she wanted it. And having a child requires that you take care of it.

as I respect the wishes and mind of a woman, and not simply her body. (I'm not automatically putting you in the other end, but you would have the mind subordinated to the body.)

Whereas you would poison and/or mutilate the body for the sake of pleasure. It is also Catholic theology that the body is important and shouldn't be mutilated. But you might disagree; that's fine.

Now you're working mutilation into this too? I don't see where poison or mutilation enter!

But if you want to treat it that way, doesn't birth mutilate the female body as well? Have you seen some of those women who have 10, 12, 15 births? In that sense, birth control preserves the body from mutilation.

And yes, I would have sex because it feels good. And I would have it with a partner because that feels better for me. There's nothing wrong with feeling good.

A woman should be able to choose how her own body works.

At least when it comes to her fertility cycle, which is pretty much the only thing which can be micromanaged through the use of hormones. Well, other organs and tissues could be managed in this way, but nobody takes pills in order to make their other organs not work right.

Weight-loss pills?

And you know other organs can't be treated that way. Do any other body organs produce something that we might prefer to prevent for social, economic, or other reasons, and that can readily be prevented without harm to the body?

If she wants to have sex, let her when she knows the risks. If she wishes to have it whenever she chooses, there is no reason why she shouldn't. And if she wishes to do this free of the responsibility and burden of childbirth, that's her perogative. Speaking purely rationally, I fail to see how allowing a choice is anti-woman. It acknowledges woman as a gendered being, and allows her to determine her proper sexual functioning for herself. But then, for me sin is no concern (though I still consider myself quite ethical and even moral).

Where did I say she couldn't do those things? All I said was, don't force me to help her destroy herself. Similarly I don't know of anyone who wants to ban contraceptives, they simply object to being forced to pay for them or sell them, which seems to be what you advocate.

I object to the view that she's destroying herself. How is she destroying herself? You don't answer that. You just refer to unnatural states and mutilation and poisoning.

If we could distribute birth control and such without your help, then I'd be cool with that. But that's not how it works.

If a person wants to arbitrarily make up his or her own "morality" and then declare him or herself to be a moral and ethical person for following his or her own rules (which again seems to be your strategy), who am I to object, as long as I am not "affected"?

As the others have pointed out, what is a religion? What is a church doctrine? A history that goes back further does not a more solid position make. How do you know that God exists? Faith. Which I'm not attacking. But you seem to have this predilection to attack everything that is not based in God or faith, and cannot imagine that someone might just not have any faith in the God you espouse, but instead have a faith in a more generalized God, where I cannot presume what he could possibly mean for us.

Yes, it's arbitrary. Just. Like. You. All I can seek is to root it in as few arbitrary principles as possible, which Catholicism does somewhat well, what little I know of it. And I'm trying, oh I am, to found myself as well. But Catholicism is no less arbitrary, it's just had longer to work it out.

Related to that, you have earlier referred to sex as being cheapened. I at first concurred, but now I don't. In this case, it is not cheapened, but revalued. It fulfills a different purpose, a different function, and the problem in this post's case is an issue of parenting and guidance, as well as the media's hypersexualizing the news, celebrities, everything. It is not the post-sexual revolution ideal role of sex, but the popular role of it, and the values derived from there.

Absolutely; morality is all relative. Casual sex doesn't cheapen a sacred act; it just changes it. It's a new concept. It's not wrong. Gee, morals are easy when you can just make them up as you go along.

Have you ever worked in a mathematical system? Then you know how dangerous it is to introduce contradictions.

The same thing goes with morality. I'm trying to go without contradictions here. (And like I said, I'm working on it, which doesn't invalidate what I say, just makes it fluid, changing, trying to find the right shape.) That's what suddenly makes morality a little more easy to explain or work through. That, and I'm spending a lot of time thinking about how to reply to you, and it's quite helpful to me.

Casual sex isn't a new concept. It's just newly widely accepted. That's right. It shouldn't change the idea of marital sex that you hold. And it isn't wrong, when accompanied by a new set of ideas that view them as such. Does it hurt others? What defines a moral hurt?

Then you talk of woman being poisoned, assuming a natural way for the body to work that's also the right way for the body to work.

So now your argument is that fertility is a disease? Wow. A lot of feminists went to a lot of trouble to fight that characterization.

Where did I say that? Stop misinterpreting me. Fertility is fine, but as long as it can be a choice, it should be a choice.

What is so hard to understand about a drug or treatment that does something besides directly heal someone? Stop reducing things directly to binaries.

Poisoning implies harm to the body. How is the body harmed by being less able to reproduce for the duration of the medicine? The body itself doesn't need to reproduce in order to exist in a healthy state. The species as a whole doesn't, as there's no shortage of births.

I don't believe I can think of a single other "medication" for which you go to the doctor when you are 100% healthy and take in order to make your body work improperly.

What if a woman doesn't want to be your kind of healthy? What if they don't want children?

Am I poisoned when I take anesthesia? It induces a non-natural state, and it doesn't treat a condition, but a symptom.

You don't take it when you're healthy, either.

As I said before, we cannot possibly agree here. Judeo-Christian traditionalism is not compatible with secular permissiveness.

You can take birth control when you're nonhealthy. Let's say you can't give birth, because of the damage it'll do to your body. But that's a side argument, because I argue that you should be able to take it when healthy. Or that you'd prefer not to give birth because of the damage it'll do to your body.

I think we can agree, and that too much of what goes on today happens because people believe that different ideas are irreconcilable... paying attention to the differences rather than the commonalities. We both love people, but we see different ways for their conduct of behavior. I am making double and triple-sure that your views are never forced or impressed on me, and you're making double and triple-sure of the same.

And I have to do this, because I see civil liberties being curtailed already. I see discrimination written into state constitutions. And you say that no one wants to ban contraceptives, but there are a few that do. And I've got to make sure that they don't come into an atmosphere that lets them try.

[GhaleonOne]

One big point I want to make is that I have a huge problem with saying that Planned Parenthood is "misanthropic." They're a not-for-profit organization that offers people a huge array of education and services that they would most likely not have available to them otherwise. I'm talking about sex education. Testing and treatment for STDs. Screening for breast, cervical, and testicular cancers. Vasectomies. And, yes, contraceptives, pregnancy options counseling, and abortion services. Some of these services may not jive with your religious beliefs, but to say that they're somehow deviant because of that is incredibly narrow-minded. You simply can't expect the rest of the world to adhere to your church's rules. You're speaking ill of an organization that exists purely to help people, and with no profit in it for themselves. Think about that.

I don't have much to say in this thread (and seriously don't even want to jump into it, mainly because I never have time to continue going back and forth in them), but I do want to disagree with one thing here. And keep in mind, I likely won't have time to continue any ongoing debate very far. But I really had to raise a red flag on this one and jump in for a second.

Admittedly, I had to go look up the word misanthropic in a dictionary, and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to imply that the organization is "Characterized by a hatred or mistrustful scorn for humankind". Now, don't get me wrong, some services do help. Cancer screening, treatment for STDs, etc. Nothing wrong with that. But the issue comes up with abortion. It's about the only political issue I'll argue over, and with damn good reason. I completely understand the need for it if they mother is going to die from the pregnancy. There are always exceptions to almost any rule. But I do view abortion as pretty much the equivalent of murder. This whole -Dung Beetle- about the women's rights is garbage when the woman (and man) made the child together. And I'm not talking rape cases. I'm not talking health reasons for having to go through with an abortion. I'm talking about the majority of abortions, which come down to an absolute lack of responsibility. Killing what will (or would) grow up to be a human that should deserve the same chances that man and woman had to life in this world. Admittedly, I don't know a lot about Planned Parenthood, but if it supports that, you're damn right I'd call them "misanthropic". It doesn't matter a bit if they're not for profit. I could start up a not for profit giving away suicidal counseling, but also give away some kind of death pills to whoever wants to commit suicide, just so they have the option. Just because it's non-profit and that I do offer some good services doesn't get me out of the water that it's still wrong.

And that's another problem with the entire political system in this country for me. Republicans, for the most part, seem to swing pro-life. Democrats generally swing pro-choice. Why the hell does it have to be split down a party line? There's lots of times where I disagree with Republicans, and agree with Democrats, but because so many of those Democrats support pro-choice over pro-life, I can't support them.

[Werefrog]

I don't think that's reason enough to call them "misanthropic." They feel that what they're doing is helpful to mankind. Therefore, there is no scorn.

That's like if I said that people who teach abstinence-only sex education are misanthropic. In my opinion, it's a bad thing and will only end in higer sex/abortion rates (and my opinion is based on empirical evidence); however, they are not doing it out of scorn.

Also, there's the fact that misanthropic has an extremely negative connotation. My complaint with his diction is that, whether he meant to or not, it expressed hatred towards a group of people (I wouldn't, however, classify him as a misanthrope because his hate isn't directed at all of man kind).

Also, let me say now that moving all birth control to Planned Parenthood (I know that was just a hypothetical), is a horrible idea due to the stigma attached. This would raise abortion rates quite a bit (people won't come for birth control but will for abortions as they will be desperate enough and the stigma of being a pregnant teen is far greater than going to Planned Parenthood).

[ilovemyguitar]

One thing to keep in mind is that people will have abortions. It's a horrible sad fact. If someone is pregnant, and wishes to terminate that pregnancy, she'll find a way to do so. However, with organizations like Planned Parenthood in existence, someone may go there with the intention of having an abortion, and receive counseling that will help them realize the full ramifications of such an act, and hopefully be talked out of it. If she still wants to go ahead with it, it's better that they do it in a relatively clean and safe environment than in some dude's house for a few bucks.

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It's a different (and in my opinion, more realistic) way of reducing the number of lives lost, including those of unborn babies and their would-be mothers.

[CatsWithMatches]

First of all, everyone on this board gets a gold star for going 5 pages on this and not getting this thread locked. It's a touchy subject on these here internets. 8)

No one is pro-abortion. I have differing views personally and politically. I personally believe that abortion is a terrible end to gross irresponsibility. I do not, however, seek to ban it, because it is simply not my choice to make. Obviously, I'll never have one (I'm a guy) and neither will my wife. But I can't choose for others.

An analogy (you'll find I use these a lot): like ilovemyguitar, I do not eat meat. I feel for every animal that goes through... well... I won't go there. But, do you see me trying to ban the production and consumption of meat, even though I believe it's a form of murder? Of course not, I can't choose for anyone beyond myself (and my future children).

I would very much like to see a world were abortion doesn't happen. Most pro-life people I've talked to don't realize this, but this is actually the ultimate goal of my pro-choice mindset. When, through the use of birth control, pregnancy becomes a choice EVERY TIME, no one will choose to have abortions, because unwanted pregnancies just wouldn't happen.

Abortion is not a response to choice, it's a response to a lack of making a choice. Again, I'm not supporting it, I'm supporting making the choice from the start.

I'm also not trying to win an argument. I just felt I'd come to some views and conclusions that hadn't been shared here yet. Keep it peaceful. 8)

[GhaleonOne]

Hopefully I can give a proper response later, but just wanted to comment on a side note:

First of all, everyone on this board gets a gold star for going 5 pages on this and not getting this thread locked. It's a touchy subject on these here internets.

I've really seen no need to lock this one. While the debate may be heated at points, it's not like anyone is cussing each other out. I agree, it's nice to see a debate of this kind (which can insight flamewars on many boards) make it to 5 pages without any problems.

Also, did someone delete any posts over the night? I could have sworn this thread went on to page 6 last night, but it's still on page 5. Maybe I was dreaming things again.

[ilovemyguitar]

Also, did someone delete any posts over the night? I could have sworn this thread went on to page 6 last night, but it's still on page 5. Maybe I was dreaming things again.

I went to bed right after I posted my last message, and nothing that was posted before it is gone. If it went to six pages after that, then maybe something was deleted, but otherwise you're just dreaming.

[Dark_Fairy]

Well...I might as well state my opinion.

First, I find it ridiculous that 5th graders were having sex. Now, it really doesn't surprise me at all that something like this happened, but it's rather ridiculous children that young are having sex. I remember when I was that age I knew what sex was. That was only because my half-sister was a bit...into things she shouldn't be doing and so she told me about everything. My mom is the over-protective type, so she has told me well about these issues when I was older. I never told her what my half-sister said at the fear I wouldn't see her again (Later on my mom found out she was Wiccan and wouldn't let her come over anymore, anyway. I thought it was rather discrimitory towards her because she should be able to believe in what she wants to, but that's besides the point).

Second, my middle school years SUCKED. My 5th grade year was HORRIBLE (but it was partially ok considering that was around the time I picked up Lunar EBC, lol) So coming from that I really didn't care much about my 6th grade year. I made mainly C's that year (I normally make A's and B's). It also didn't help the fact that I became VERY shy and VERY quiet because of my 5th grade year. It wasn't really until last year as a Freshmen that I actually starting talking more again. This year I'm quite talkitive, except that I'm still pretty shy around people I don't know well. I guess the best thing that happened during my middle school years was meeting my current best friends (minus my friend that I've known since kindergarden) and gaining more confidience again, slowly but surely.

Third, sex should wait until marrage. Even though its very tempting to try beforehand, its not worth it. If your a girl you could get pregent and have to deal with a baby while trying to juggle school and possibly any jobs you might have. The guy would have to pay child support causing him hassle and problems as well. Having sex could also lead to getting STDs, AIDs, etc. and nobody wants that. If you do happen to have sex before finding your "significant other" and you get pregent, you shouldn't abort the baby. It's a living creature like everything else on this planet and deserves a chance to live. If you can't take care of it at least put it up for adoption so it can have a chance in the world.

Fourth, I really don't know about Plan Parenthood. It's good they help with things but, the only thing I can think of when I hear that name is the protesters I saw holding up VERY DISTRUBING signs of mutalated babies when I was about in the 5th grade (Gee, I think WAY too much stuff happened that year). I still shudder thinking about those signs...(Yeah, I'm kinda sensitive when it comes to living things, humans or animals. Moreso animals, but I hate to see mutalated/dead/injured creatures.)

[ilovemyguitar]

Fourth, I really don't know about Plan Parenthood. It's good they help with things but, the only thing I can think of when I hear that name is the protesters I saw holding up VERY DISTRUBING signs of mutalated babies when I was about in the 5th grade (Gee, I think WAY too much stuff happened that year). I still shudder thinking about those signs...(Yeah, I'm kinda sensitive when it comes to living things, humans or animals. Moreso animals, but I hate to see mutalated/dead/injured creatures.)

While I'm totally in favor of people being politically active and making a statement that they feel is necessary, I've never been a fan of this sort of protesting, using graphic imagery and "shock" tactics. It drives more people away from whatever cause you're fighting for than you gain.

The problem is that extreme protests like this get news coverage. And while those haunting images will leave a lasting impression on the people who are at the protest, no news carrier is going to reproduce those images. But they will report the story about the extremist activists showing graphic images to innocent people walking by. So while they might win a few hundred or so over to their cause, many more will see the news article/story and think, "Wow, pro-lifers are nuts. I'd have to be crazy to take their side."

And I'm not just saying this because I'm pro-choice. I'm constantly frustrated by over-zealous animal rights activists giving PETA a bad name.

[GhaleonOne]

I gotta agree on that. I'm all for peaceful protests. But when it's actually hindering your cause, it doesn't really make much sense. At least from a tactical and logical standpoint.

[Agawa]

And I'm not just saying this because I'm pro-choice. I'm constantly frustrated by over-zealous animal rights activists giving PETA a bad name.

I'm constantly frustrated with PETA giving animal rights activists a bad name. My friend joined up with them awhile back, and the things they asked her to do for the organization (mainly vandalism) were unbelivable.

Fourth, I really don't know about Plan Parenthood. It's good they help with things but, the only thing I can think of when I hear that name is the protesters I saw holding up VERY DISTRUBING signs of mutalated babies when I was about in the 5th grade (Gee, I think WAY too much stuff happened that year). I still shudder thinking about those signs...(Yeah, I'm kinda sensitive when it comes to living things, humans or animals. Moreso animals, but I hate to see mutalated/dead/injured creatures.)

I have a few problems with this kind of activism, mainly that, as previous members have stated, they rely on shock tactics rather than actual facts to gain support. Not only that, but I really don't want to see graphic imagery like that shoved in my face. It seems almost like they're disrespecting the very cause they're championion, and it honestly makes me sick to my stomach.
Finally, I know the last big group that toured through here had pictures up of abortions that were past the legal time. Using shock tactics and graphic imagery is bad enough, if you can't even champion your cause without outright lying I have lost all respect for you. I'm rather curious now how common this is.

As for Planned Parenthood, I don't know much about it, so there's not a lot I can say, other than I do think it's important to have someplace for people to get the services that have been described previously in the thread - and not just abortion. Abortion? Well. I don't like the idea of it, and I think that I would never have one except perhaps under extraordinary circumstances, but that decision should still be with the woman carrying the child,
not the state or anyone else. It's a moral issue, yes; but at least in the early stages it's vague enough that I think it's entirely unfair to not leave that up to the woman. I will never have to worry about conceiving a child in my relationships, but I can still imagine that if the situation came up, even if I didn't believe in the abortion, I would want to be the one making the decision to keep my child.

And, by the by? On premarital sex - yes. Sex is an important part of marriage and relationships, and I honestly can't say I think it's a good idea to get married without working through it. Actually, I think it's a very, very bad idea. Marriage is a sacred institution that I respect with all my heart, however, I honestly see no reason for sex to be morally wrong outside of it. That's not to say I don't believe people should be careful, or thoughtful about it, but I see no reason to wait until after marriage and several reasons to not. This is a personal opinion, that's all. I wanted to put it out there.

I also find the amount of sexuality among young children, especially girls, to be incredibly creepy. I went to get a piercing at the mall over the weekend, and in the store were these absolute mobs of bratty little tweens. I overheard one adoring mother preening to her child about how some t-shirt said "Pussycat" on it - wouldn't that be nice, now? Honestly, I wish some parents would put a lid on it and either keep up with the culture so they aren't so utterly clueless to the sexual imagery and phrases their children are being exposed to, or stop encouraging them to behave like little tramps. I know it's a not everyone - thankfully! - but it seems like everytime I'm around a school there's more and more swearing and sexual language coming out of the mouths of babes. Heck if I even knew cusswords in elementary, let alone anything sexual! Not that it's always a bad thing, but I find it rather deplorable that many of these children are influenced about sexuality by the media prior to the school or parents taking hold. It honestly does creep me right now.
My apologies if that was unintelligable, by the way - I'm dead tired right now, but I really wanted to jump into the conversation while I (sort of) had the time.