I like how people all try to push the "economic benefits" of Roe v Wade. I would like to put forward that instead is costing our country billions. Let me explain my reasoning: What kids are being taught with 'abortion', right to choose, and birth control in general is the lie that it is safe to have per-marital sex. Unfortunately, the consequences of engaging in promiscuous per-marital sex are having a real detrimental economic affect on millions in the US. The first documented fact is that per-marital sex increases divorce rates. Increased divorce rates increase single parents which in turn drastically increase the crime and subsequent incarceration rates for a community. Additionally, being a single parent almost quadruples your chance of living in poverty. The second issue here is with STDs. Currently it is estimated that 50% of children between 15-24 have STD infections. That is an estimated cost of almost 16 billion to treat. This is sure to destroy what is left of health care, and the economy. So I ask you the question? Would you rather have 'Roe v Wade', or would you rather live in a third world country.
Banning abortion will not stop premarital sex or teenage pregnancy. It will simply mean those women will have a higher birth rate since the percentage of them that get abortions would now be forced to give birth. If you want to stop teenage pregnancy, you're going to have to invent the flux capacitor and go back in time to alter the course of human history. And what I mean by that is you're going to have to go back and make sure human being never begin to exist. But more realistically I suppose, you're going to have to change the culture itself. Teenagers aren't going out and having sex because they learned about condoms in health class. They have sex because sex is fun, can be a self-esteem boost, it's popular, because of peer pressure, and just because teenagers are horny little (*)(*)(*)(*)ers(literally). In any case, slapping a sticker on a woman's belly that says "Your uterus does not belong to you" isn't going to have the effect you think it will.
A. People have always had pre-marital sex and won't stop. You can't legislate when people can have sex. B. Any sex is safe if safe, affordable, reliable, accessible birth control is used. Anti-Choicers fight against that. C. Could I see the "documented fact" that premarital sex affects the length of marriages? D. STDs have been around since humans have been around and they will not destroy health care and the economy. E. Third World countries are produced, in part, when people have so many kids they can't afford them. Kids cost lots of money. Being able to NOT have kids increases a person's chances of getting out of poverty.
It was due to the fact that she is good a spreading her legs, simple as that, and an act as old as mankind, where would we be without it.
A generalization of findings. Some studies show a link between having multiple partners and divorce. None of them say specifically that premarital sex increases divorce rate. Again, correlation does not prove causation. Unemployment is also correlated with higher divorce rates as is the education level of the woman.
Merely mocking bclark's "theory".....here's a girl raised with "conservative traditional Christian values".....parents opposed to abortion vehemently..... and what does she do? She engages in pre-marital sex...uses no contraception...and has a child out of wedlock. AND YET.....also disputing bclark's theory.....she gets NO STD and is quite well off, even scoring a gig on a popular dancing reality show and giving speeches for money. (In-between drunken brawls at paries, of course. ) Or how about another Rightwing example.....does bclark ACTUALLY believe that 53 year old ANN COULTER ...is still a "virgin"...despite 30+ years of dating a variety of men (including porn empire heir Bob Guccione, Jr)? Does Ann have an STD? Is she poor and on welfare???
You have that backwards. People between the ages of 15 and 24 account for 50% of all new cases of STD infections. That's 9.1 million out of about 40 million, or only about 20%. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3601104.html [/QUOTE]That is an estimated cost of almost 16 billion to treat. This is sure to destroy what is left of health care, and the economy.[/QUOTE] According to the report above, the annual cost is only about $6.5 billion, and we've been paying it for decades so it's not likely to destroy health care or our economy any time soon.
To start with, there are numerous facts and studies to back up all of these claims. I can cite a few, (so people can try and discredit them) but the interesting thing is that there are essentially no studies that speak to the contrary: Kahn and London - Study on premarital sex and divorce rate http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9vYMBLvhMw4TizA&bvm=bv.80642063,d.eXY&cad=rja STD rate in kids (you can dispute the exact number, but you can't dispute the rise in the infection rate) http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html
This doesn't bother me as long as they get married. And aren't they getting married? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...habitation-boyfriend--reality-TV-cameras.html
That is an estimated cost of almost 16 billion to treat. This is sure to destroy what is left of health care, and the economy.[/QUOTE] According to the report above, the annual cost is only about $6.5 billion, and we've been paying it for decades so it's not likely to destroy health care or our economy any time soon.[/QUOTE] I quoted the highest source I found. Even if I believe your numbers, why do we as a society need to throw away 6.5 billion dollars?
No...not to Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol's baby, she isn't. Your "theory" fails. Plenty of examples of people with "conservative values"...that are single mothers or women who have had numerous sex partners....who are successful rightwing icons. Outside of politics it fails as well, since you are calling for teaching kids "abstinence only"...which study after study (objective ones, not religious conservative based ones) shows is a failure. Plus, it's illogical....you REALLY think that the women having children outside of marriage...will NOT have children out of marriage, if abortion is outlawed? Logically, it would mean MORE women having MORE children outside of marriage.
We shouldn't throw away any money we don't have to, but first you would have to explain how access to abortion leads to more pregnancies. Might be a little hard considering teen pregnancy rates are at a historic low.
How would you explain the FACT that the divorce rate is still on the rise for the baby boomer generation as it closes in on 50%? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...y-on-the-rise-and-its-the-baby-boomers-fault/ According to you it has nothing to do with the 'sexual revolution' in their generation. Isn't that DOUBLE that of their chaste parent's generation? What is your explanation?
Do you REALLY believe that people in the 30s, 40s, 50s....didn't have pre-marital sex? They passed out condoms in the rations to American soldiers in World War-II.
Dude, don't make me defend Palin. I love how this person that I don't even know, or like, or ever contemplated voting for is being held up as an icon for my values and beliefs. Strawman (er ..woman)? So, you should lie to kids and tell them that nothing bad will happen to them? That there will be no consequences to their actions? This is what Roe V Wade is being used to teach in schools. All I want is for kids to be taught the truth in schools so they can make informed decisions.
Wow. Moving on to a new unsubstantiated point, eh? So you're going to COMPLETELY discount the societal pressure that was ubiquitous in the "chaste parent's generation" to stay married. Shall we also completely discount that prostitution was also widespread, that it was common for the man to have a mistress and to visit prostitutes, but considered indecent for the woman to do anything but grin and bear it?
OH FOR PETE"S BLOODY SAKE! There was NO "chaste generation". Get a blanket blank history book and READ it........
""""This is what Roe V Wade is being used to teach in schools. """"" That's a sentence???? Do you mean teaching history is making sex maniacs of children? Really? And you want children taught YOUR truth.......that doesn't cut it.....
So you don't have an answer do you? The FACT that the most promiscuous generation in our nation's history has the highest divorce rate. No correlation there?
PROVE that ANY generation is the "most promiscuous"....... PROVE that ANY generation was the least promiscuous.......... You can't....
I don't think that history is making sex maniacs of children? I believe telling kids that having sex is OK, passing out birth control in school, and pretending there isn't a problem does them a huge disservice though. The facts are out there that if you wait until you get married to have kids, that you will have almost no chance of raising kids in poverty. Isn't teaching kids how to stay out of poverty the purpose of education? http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2003/09/childrenfamilies-haskins http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2010/11/marriage-shows-the-way-out-of-poverty
people will have pre-martial sex regardless if the gov is able to force women to have babies or not so you support same gender marriage, as it encourages monogamous relationships, thus reducing the spread of STD's BTW, what is the cost to support all these unwanted children in the world you want to force people to have? welfare, medical, increased crime? you have not thought this out very well it seems .
It is a documented fact. Watch the video from the history channel. (Can't guarantee it has any good pics though). http://www.history.com/videos/our-generation-sexual-revolution#our-generation-sexual-revolution
