Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #751 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 12:02 PM
budafied's Avatar
budafied budafied is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,185
budafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond reputebudafied has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 6,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
Parents aren't really in a position to control their children's sexuality, the most they can do is educate their children, hope for the best, and be supportive in whatever the children decide to do.
THIS is the problem. Parents need to have more control over their children. If they did, then sexual intercourse would not start at the age of 12, which i hope everyone can agree is detrimental
__________________
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

Pro-Life Libertarian

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." - Mother Teresa
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #752 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 01:40 PM
OKgrannie OKgrannie is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,585
OKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 23,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowwww View Post
Thinking that abstinence only will work is asinine to the nth degree.

This comment perpetuates Planned Parenthood'$ marketing strategy for higher Corporate profit$.
I know of no public school that teaches abstinence only. It's a falsehood PP love$ to spread!
You've not observed very many public schools. Abstinence-only sex ed is the only sex ed funded by the federal government. Millions of tax dollars have been spent on this ineffective program.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc.../sexmain.shtml

Federal Law Mandates 'Abstinence-Only' Sex Ed
Fundamentalists Pushed Stealth Legislation
By Priscilla Pardini

A year and a half after federal legislation allocating $250 million for abstinence-only sexuality education, the vast majority of Americans know little, if anything, about the law. And they know even less about its potentially disastrous effects.

The legislation throws the full weight of the federal government behind programs that teach that abstinence is the "only certain way" to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, that the expected standard of human sexual activity is "a monogamous relationship within the context of marriage," and that sex outside of marriage is likely to be "psychologically and physically harmful." States agreeing to teach abstinence can receive annual allocations of $78,526 to $4.9 million over the next five years.
__________________
Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born. ~Garrett Hardin
Reply With Quote
  #753 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 01:46 PM
OKgrannie OKgrannie is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,585
OKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 23,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowwww View Post
1. Planned Parenthood is an International Corporation that receives 30% of it's revenues from US taxpayers.
2. Non-profit is a tax filing status and nothing more. It has nothing to do with actual profits/surpluses that PP incurs each year. PP's profits were over $300 million in 2008.
3. The W.H.O. says that almost 50% of abortions are unsafe and 68,000 women die each year.

I think it's time Planned Parenthood is either shutdown and/or they are forced to restructure. PP is greed run-a-muck!
1. Federal funds cannot be spent on abortion. Money spent on contraception and education about contraception PREVENTS many abortions.
2. Non-profit means the money taken in goes to pay for services, it means no one is making a profit. Only 3% of PP services are medical and surgical abortion. (See above)
3. Worldwide a large number of abortions are unsafe because they are illegal. Illegal abortions are unsafe because they are performed by unqualified personnel, in unsanitary conditions. Legal abortions are vastly safer than childbirth.

If Planned Parenthood is shut down, there will be many more abortions.
__________________
Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born. ~Garrett Hardin
Reply With Quote
  #754 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 01:49 PM
Inferno Inferno is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,983
Inferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond reputeInferno has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 2,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by budafied View Post
THIS is the problem. Parents need to have more control over their children. If they did, then sexual intercourse would not start at the age of 12, which i hope everyone can agree is detrimental
People used to be married at 12 so why is it wrong? How is it detrimental? It is wrong because it is said to be wrong. That's why most things like that are wrong because of training and a mindset.

What would be wrong with 12 year olds getting married? They live with the parents and maybe they learn how to live as a family and maybe they grow as friemds and the relationships stay together as people want.
Reply With Quote
  #755 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 01:49 PM
Wowwww Wowwww is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,615
us texas
Wowwww has disabled reputation
Credits: 12,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
You've not observed very many public schools. Abstinence-only sex ed is the only sex ed funded by the federal government. Millions of tax dollars have been spent on this ineffective program.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/arc.../sexmain.shtml

Federal Law Mandates 'Abstinence-Only' Sex Ed
Fundamentalists Pushed Stealth Legislation
By Priscilla Pardini

A year and a half after federal legislation allocating $250 million for abstinence-only sexuality education, the vast majority of Americans know little, if anything, about the law. And they know even less about its potentially disastrous effects.

The legislation throws the full weight of the federal government behind programs that teach that abstinence is the "only certain way" to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, that the expected standard of human sexual activity is "a monogamous relationship within the context of marriage," and that sex outside of marriage is likely to be "psychologically and physically harmful." States agreeing to teach abstinence can receive annual allocations of $78,526 to $4.9 million over the next five years.
Ok, let's agree that abstinence only education in public schools is being funded by the taxpayers.
What does that have to do with the fact that abstinence only is NOT being taught in public schools?

If taxpayer funding is a personal hang up for you, consider the fact that Planned Parenthood receives about $400 million each year and they do not teach abstinence only.
Reply With Quote
  #756 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 02:00 PM
OKgrannie OKgrannie is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,585
OKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond reputeOKgrannie has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 23,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowwww View Post
Ok, let's agree that abstinence only education in public schools is being funded by the taxpayers.
What does that have to do with the fact that abstinence only is NOT being taught in public schools?
Abstinence-only IS what is being taught in schools. Some states have no sex ed whatsoever. Several states have begun refusing federal money and paying for comprehensive sex ed themselves since studies show that abstinence-only is ineffective.

Quote:
If taxpayer funding is a personal hang up for you, consider the fact that Planned Parenthood receives about $400 million each year and they do not teach abstinence only.
Thank goodness they are not throwing that money down the toilet as abstinence-only sex ed does.
__________________
Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born. ~Garrett Hardin
Reply With Quote
  #757 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:15 PM
Makedde's Avatar
Makedde Makedde is online now
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vanessaland
Age: 26
Posts: 43,337
australia au victoria
Makedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 1,719,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by budafied View Post
THIS is the problem. Parents need to have more control over their children. If they did, then sexual intercourse would not start at the age of 12, which i hope everyone can agree is detrimental
I don't think kids should be having sex at such a young age, but they do. Parents cannot prevent their kids from having sex - short of locking them in their rooms, there is no way to stop it. All they can do is supply their kids with contraception and advice on safe sex, and encourage them to wait until they are older.

I would much rather my 15 year old daughter be having safe sex than have her go behind my back, have unprotected sex, and end up pregnant. I'd try to meet her in the middle. I wouldn't want her having sex, but if she is going to do it anyway, the least I can do is ensure she is protected.
__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009


Mak's Blog - Updated 22/8/10
Reply With Quote
  #758 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 07:19 PM
Makedde's Avatar
Makedde Makedde is online now
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vanessaland
Age: 26
Posts: 43,337
australia au victoria
Makedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond reputeMakedde has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 1,719,903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by budafied View Post
True. BUT, that is not always the case. Some young women just don't want their parents to know they got pregnant. How many women of age get an abortion without telling anyone? The point here is that parents have the legal right to know what their child is doing until the age of 18. Plain and simple. Government's job is not to hide a child's actions from the parents...
The reason I am against parental notification is because I do not want to see minor children forced to have a baby when they do not want to. Nor do I want to see any child forced to abort because her parents don't want her to have a baby. If the child wants to abort, she should be able to, if she wants to keep her baby, she should have that choice. It is her body, and I do not like the thought of a parent forcing their children to give birth or abort.
__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009


Mak's Blog - Updated 22/8/10
Reply With Quote
  #759 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 09:09 PM
Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
Korimyr the Rat Korimyr the Rat is offline
Correspondent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 264
usa us wyoming
Korimyr the Rat has much to be proud ofKorimyr the Rat has much to be proud ofKorimyr the Rat has much to be proud ofKorimyr the Rat has much to be proud ofKorimyr the Rat has much to be proud ofKorimyr the Rat has much to be proud ofKorimyr the Rat has much to be proud ofKorimyr the Rat has much to be proud of
Credits: 1,887
Send a message via ICQ to Korimyr the Rat Send a message via AIM to Korimyr the Rat Send a message via MSN to Korimyr the Rat Send a message via Yahoo to Korimyr the Rat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
What would be wrong with 12 year olds getting married? They live with the parents and maybe they learn how to live as a family and maybe they grow as friemds and the relationships stay together as people want.
I think twelve is a little too young, but I support this idea in principle. Much better than the direction we're heading currently.
Reply With Quote
  #760 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2009, 04:13 PM
KSigMason's Avatar
KSigMason KSigMason is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Idaho
Age: 25
Posts: 6,683
usa us idaho
KSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond reputeKSigMason has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 99,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
If they are old enough that you think they should have privacy rights concerning their medical decisions, they are old enough that they should no longer be considered children.
Until they are 18 they are still under care and rule of their parents. Parents have the God given right to be the authority over their child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
It would be nice if the parent can be there yes. But mandatory notification is all wrong. If the girl is afraid to tell her parents there must be a reason for that. It needs to be honored.
But the girl is still a child and no one can usurp the parent's authority unless someone can prove parental abuse.

Planned Parenthood concealing crimes?

The Planned Parenthood Child Sex Abuse Cover-up

14yo Told By Planned Parenthood To Lie About Older Man

How many crimes does Planned Parenthood have to commit?

Lila Rose: Exposing Planned Parenthood’s Crimes

Sixth Planned Parenthood Accused of Statutory Rape Cover-Up
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat

Traveling Templar
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden