Here's another article I cited earlier (ignored or overlooked by Balbus) that indicates otherwise: http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=627
This is the conclusion to a study of 10 states over the last 5 years that use abstinence until marriage. It was published just a few days ago.... "Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants." http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/news/press/092704.htm
One moment it's a sperm cell and an egg cell, the next it's human? What difference should a few seconds make? The truth of the matter is, there is no clear cut-off point when the entity becomes human. In my opinion, it isn't a human until it has the ability for rational thought (about 18-24 months AFTER it is born). Since there needs to be some kind of legal cut-off for being considered a human, the moment of birth seems to make more sense than the moment of conception.
This group is even more overtly ideological than Planned Parenthood: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/about/index.htm I refer you back to post #280: [post]318661[/post] Here we see how the ghastly implications of "pro-choice" logic provide no basis for opposing infanticide.
The analysis of CDC data refutes the statistics that the abstinance-until-marriage programs claim. Worse, it clearly shows that when these kids get out of school and enter "the real world", they become sexually active and don't use protection. On top of that, the 11% decrease that the abstinance-until-marriage refer to was from 1991-1997... the 4 years before the program was instituted! From 1997-2001 the statistics increased. I'll quote the overtly ideological ceo of that group: “It’s time for the federal government to invest in programs based on science and public health research, rather than politics and ideology.”
Here we see how the emotional appeals of "pro-life" logic fail to use reason in their arguments, instead focusing on straw-man attacks. As I said, there needs to be a legal definition of what a human is. The fact is that birth is a lot closer to the beginning of rational thought processes than conception is. Do you honestly believe that two cells in a womb are the moral equivalent of a human being? If not, what do YOU consider the defining characteristic of a human being? Rational thought processes seem to me to be the best definition.
Fair enough. My view is that there is no instant where a fetus/baby suddenly becomes a "human." There are lots of shades of gray, and it may not be the same for every single baby. I think that the most basic thing that makes us human (in the sense that we're "superior" to all other life on the planet) is our capacity for rational thought and self-awareness. Neither of these traits generally exhibit themselves before a baby is about 18 months old. Am I suggesting that it should be legal to kill a 17-month-old baby? No, because as I said, it might not be the same for every child. One thing I do agree with the anti-abortionists on is that the law should err on the side of protecting life. What we disagree on is how MUCH the law should err on that side. Since I don't believe a baby is really a "human" in the moral sense until well after birth, I think that the moment of birth is a better legal cutoff point than the moment of conception. You're falsely assuming that I agree with you that preventing the existence of a human being is the same thing as killing them. I do not. By that logic, a woman kills a potential baby every time she menstruates. Every time a man ejaculates, he's killing hundreds of millions of potential babies. Do you believe we should jail people for these offenses?
I posted that excerpt to demonstrate that your pomposity is evident not only to me, but also to outside observers of this exchange. I find it amusing that you dismiss this guy as a "right-winger" even though he plainly stated that he doesn't share my view that most abortions should be banned. I suppose the main criterion for the "right-wing" label is simply to disagree with you. I quote from your anonymous ‘friend’ – "The George Will piece you posted was especially good...Will is my favorite right winger and I often find him quite persuasive." - I think anyone that would find the right wing rantings of someone like George Will persuasive is a right winger, even if, like you they think they are not. And if you do not then it show a very marked lack of insight on your part or that personal prejudice has irrevocably eroded your judgement. ** As I've already said, I believe that public policies should seek to address conditions that foster crime, but I that doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting violent criminals. You, however, still haven't answered the question. Should we scrap all laws against murder, rape, etc. and strive only to prevent such violent acts through various social welfare programs? Did I say we should scrap the prosecution of murders or rapists as defined by the laws in place? My call was for the understanding of the reason for the people committing such crimes. What public policies should be sought to address conditions that foster crime?
Quote: As to you supposed environmental beliefs and your ability to ignore them because of your conflicting support for the right wing. I fear this might be due to some ability to have a stance on a subject while not seeming to understand that subject. It is simply a matter of priorities. The astronomical death toll of abortion on demand outweighs my environmental concerns when it comes to voting. This doesn't mean I don't understand environmental issues or act upon them. You don't have a clue about the extent of my environmental knowledge or activism. You really should think twice before making such presumptuous declarations. Page 31 post 309 I said “But religions haven’t a very good history in the field of family planning with religious groups often trying to prevent access to sex education or contraception. The thing is that for some religions it is about getting more souls not how those souls are to live or be sustained, so some churches want more children to be born even into harsh miserable conditions where they are likely to have brutal lives then die, as long as they die "in the church".(Monty Python were making this point in their own satirically humorous way). For other religions population control as a means of having a sustaining environment isn’t important since this world is just some half way house to another place and after rapture and dooms day they will not care.” You said at that time “Yes, there are Christians who oppose all contraception and care nothing about overpopulation or the environment. I am not one of them.” Now you say that you want astronomically more people in the world even when you say you know what kind of environmental problems it would create? I think anyone reading your views is unsure of the extent of your environmental knowledge and commitment.
Quote: This often seems to fit in with the way you view abortion, you have your position but as seems to becoming clear you don’t seem to wish to truly understand the issues involved or truly become involved in trying to help people. Do you think that repeatedly making such broad assertions somehow bolsters your case? What evidence do you have that the right recipe of social engineering will eliminate the tenfold increase in abortion that resulted from its legalization? What exactly would your solution(s) look like? Tenfold increase, how do you know? I ask you about your view on the uptake of abortion on page 32 post 317 "I would also ask what the figures are based on, since if the procedure was illegal or very much limited (legally) we would need to look at many other possibly related statistics (child abandonment, suicide) not all of them available, such as how many self aborted or had successful illegal operations?" Your reply was a link (AGAIN) someone elses words one Dr Frank Beckwith, (the Doctor is for Philiosophy not medicine) at http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. This man has written defences of religion who in the book "David Hume's Argument Against Miracles" claimed miracles were real. The argument was that since "there is no absolute certainty that there may have been some violation of scientific laws, then David Hume's objection to miracles as events that transgress an otherwise orderly universe is not a valid one". In other words if you want to believe something happened that has no scientific basis then that’s ok, which leads me to his paper that you cited in defence of your claim about the huge increase in abortions when they became legal. Which seems to argue that since we have no figures to show that the number of illegal abortion was large or widespread the number must have been low. Also he is a committed ‘anti’ and so to paraphrase Huck’s very words "You seriously believe that Dr Frank Beckwith is an "unbiased" source? As I said in my reply to your Dr Beckwith’s piece - Post 324 I gave you a logical argument for the increase in abortions after it was made more widely available, you haven’t refuted my premise only disputed it and as the abortion ‘expert’ on this thread it makes me think that you may not have looked at the ‘evidence’ dispassionately. Is it possible that you may be moulding ‘facts’ to fit in with personal prejudices unrelated to the subject? **
You seriously believe that Planned Parenthood is an "unbiased" source? To use your own words “you discarded my references as "biased" without even attempting to deal with their content” Huck Finn Page 5, Post 247
Quote: The Netherlands has one of the most comprehensive sex education programmes going from pre-teens right into adulthood. I believe that that country has one of the lowest levels of teenage pregnancy and abortion in Europe and way down on the US levels? In fact I’ve been told that figures for teenage birth in the US is some 13 times higher than in the Netherlands and that the teenage abortion rate in the US 6 times higher than the Netherlands. Can you provide some documentation? Are you saying that the US’s teenage birth rate and abortion figures are lower than those of the Netherlands? Is the Netherlands sex education abstinence based? unlike you, I can't discard the moral, social, and emotional ramifications of teenage sexual activity. Oh Huck you’re a laugh.
I'm much more inclined to support financial assistance that empowers people to become productive through further education, job training, public works projects, etc. The work and marriage incentives in the welfare reform bill signed by Clinton were long overdue. I also support programs like Medicaid and legal services. I think housing assistance should encourage home ownership rather than subsidizing slumlords. I like the idea of encouraging small business entreprenuership in economically depressed cities I support Bush's "Charitable Choice" initiative to partner with local community and faith-based organizations in combating poverty. Faceless bureaucrats blindly mailing out checks is no more effective than handing out spare change to panhandlers on the street. ** This is the most interesting part of the post since it actually starts to get at what you think and how you see the world around you rather than just reacting to what I say. Education From what I’ve read and what many people have said here education is under threat in the US. I’ve also herad that many poor people have to join the army to get a decent education or training? As to ‘public works projects’ what do you mean? Is it like Roosevelt’s New Deal or getting the unemployed pick up garbage? The former sounds interesting the latter not only takes away a real paid job it also doesn’t seem to have anything to do with training or education? I’m a great believer in education and training, but although the right wing in the US talk about it from what I’ve heard they’re not doing much to push it? Medicaid and legal services From what I’ve read and what many people have said here, heath care in the US is not that great, "45 million people have no health insurance, up by 5.2 million from 2000. Families lucky enough to have health insurance face annual premiums that have nearly doubled to $7,500." (Joseph Stiglitz) Housing Are you going to build cheap housing? How do you tackle landowners and landlords? Encouraging small business entreprenuership What about the Wal-mart effect? Who guarantees the loans? Do you think all Americans can be supported by small business? I support Bush's "Charitable Choice" initiative to partner with local community and faith-based organizations in combating poverty. Why? That is why do you support it and why do you think it is better than secular organisations? Is this politicising religion, if so is that a good thing? I mean if religious groups will get money of out of right wing politicians will they not then be encouraged to try and tell their congregation to vote for those same right wing politicians. Even go as far as to say it is their gods will? Faceless bureaucrats blindly mailing out How do you know that is how it works?
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/about/index.htm (Huck) This group is even more overtly ideological than Planned Parenthood Huck Finn post 417 I don’t know Huck, “How convienient: attack the messenger and ignore the message” (Huck Finn post 245) I mean it couldn’t Fulmah say that “you discarded my references as "biased" without even attempting to deal with their content” Huck Finn Post 247
I made no “straw-man attack.” By your own admission, you don’t believe that newborns qualify as human. You therefore have no rational basis for opposing infanticide; your selection of birth as a starting point is entirely arbitrary. A human embryo has far more than two cells by the time of implantation, but that’s beside the point. If embryos aren’t human, what form of life are they? I would say that human beings are defined by the potential for rationality, moral agency, creativity, relational bonding, etc. This potential capacity is present in every unborn human from the moment of conception. I think that only an arrogant buffoon could so smugly denigrate the intelligence of someone as articulate as George Will. Like many people I’ve met, I often disagree with Will, but I have great respect for him. Your knee-jerk, condescending dismissal of anyone who strays from your leftist dogma is the epitome of ideological blindness. In other words, you don’t believe that outlawing murder and striving to prevent it are mutually exclusive? That’s exactly what I’ve been saying about abortion policy. I don’t really want to go down this rabbit trail. This thread is already scattered enough. I reject the notion that killing is an acceptable means of population control. Why, because I don’t believe that murdering the unborn is sound environmental policy? You’ve said before that you would like to see the (real or perceived) “need” for abortion reduced? Why? What’s wrong with abortion? You seem to believe it’s a great thing for the environment. His article cites the testimony of leading abortionists prior to Roe v. Wade such as Bernard Nathanson, who explains how he and others deliberately fabricated the number of illegal abortions in order to advance their agenda of legalizing abortion. I’ve never seen any credible evidence to the contrary. If you have some, please share it. So you agree that there was likely a dramatic increase in abortion after it was made legal? You previously suggested that there was an unmet “demand” for abortion before it was legalized. I don’t doubt that there were people who wanted abortions but didn’t get them. They didn’t end up dead in back alleys. They found other ways to deal with their unwanted pregnancies, and as a result, their children’s lives were spared. You never engaged the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils article; you merely latched onto an obviously slanted Planned Parenthood article that glibly dismissed it as flawed. Here’s an excerpt from your PP article: “Presently, an unrealistic emphasis is placed on preventing adolescent sexual behavior, which overlooks the fact that sexual expression is an essential component of healthy human development for individuals of all ages” How is it a “fact” that teen sexual experimentation is healthy? This is a bald ideological assertion. There is no truly “objective” (value-neutral) approach to sex education; it inevitably involves a moral dimension. The real debate is over the proper moral framework, and the amoral Planned Parenthood paradigm is clearly at odds with the beliefs of most parents.
Ah, come on.... I do believe Balbus was referring to the advocate for youth study and not the PP study when taking his entire post into context.... http://hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=456135&postcount=429
Should she hold a funeral for the potential baby every time she menstruates? How about a guy who masturbates? He kills a hundred million potential babies! Should he be imprisoned? You have not yet explained to me why a two-cell zygote is the moral equivalent of a human being, but a one-cell egg is not.
As other people have said, we NEED an "arbitrary" starting point LEGALLY. The MORAL issue is different, and yes, I don't believe that newborns are fully human. That doesn't mean it should be legal to kill them. I might add, you have offered no defining characteristic of a human being that would disagree with my position. Certainly not humans. Would you outlaw abortion because a word does not exist to describe this state of life? A first-trimester human fetus and a first-trimester pig fetus are almost indistinguishable. This "potential" exists BEFORE the moment of conception too. A sperm cell has the potential to fertilize an egg, become a zygote, become a fetus, and become a human child. Which brings me back to one of my questions: Should a man be imprisoned for hundreds of millions of mass murders every time he ejaculates? Ah! Glad you brought this point up. Let's suspend my previous arguments for a moment, and assume that I agree with you that a zygote is the moral equivalent of a human being: No, I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. But when large segments of the population don't believe that abortion is "murder," you are NOT going to stop it from happening no matter how many FBI agents you send snooping through people's garbage to find fetuses and clothes-hangers. Murder, as it is currently defined, is a different matter entirely because almost everyone (including most murderers) agrees that it is wrong. By outlawing it, you will not stop abortion from happening, or even reduce the number of abortions. I would compare the illegalization of abortion to the illegalization of most recreational drugs: It doesn't stop it from happening, it makes the situation worse, it increases poverty, and it opens up a very dangerous new black market.
Because smart guy, if you actually leraned anything in basic biology, a zygote is a human life...a sperm or egg is not.
So you're definition of human life is anything that has 46 chromosomes and human DNA? If I cut my fingernails or hair, I'm killing human cells. Should I be charged with murder? After you figure out what you mean by "human," come on back and debate with the adults.
