The Real Pro-abortion Agenda

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by Biggles@10 January 2004 - 16:08
Magicnakor

Who on earth still uses sheepskin condems? These were an 18th century invention. They did have the merit of being so thick and tough that they simply required washing after use (although given 18th century hygiene standards that was optional) :x

I don't think the WHO has ever issued such things. We do all support the WHO issuing modern condoms to those who require them now don't we? 

I don't know what the WHO issues, although I doubt sheepskins would be their #1 choice. I do know you can still buy sheepskins if you want, and I'd be willing to bet you can in other countries. They're generally considered an alternative for people allergic to latex and polyurethane, albeit more expensive. This price is probably relative to the abundance of rubber, so maybe a country with less access to the raw materials for rubber and plastic may have cheaper sheepskin condoms rather than the other way around.

Edit: I did know a woman who prefered her partners to use sheepskin condoms. She was one of those "natural" people, though.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@10 January 2004 - 22:48


Edit: I did know a woman who prefered her partners to use sheepskin condoms. She was one of those "natural" people, though.

Had nothing to do with adding 1/2" to the girth?

[j2k4]

QUOTE
In both cases, the pregnant female is likely to be told that having an abortion is the easiest, best solution for all involved (All consisting of the mother candidate, and, presumably, the friend-who won't have to surrender her/his friend to an unwanted pregnancy, and the family-planning professional, whose raison d'etre is therefore vindicated.



Assumption with no basis in fact, and just displays your hostility to FPA's. Anyone from an FPA would tell you that the girl not becoming pregnant at all would be a vindication of their job. If that girl had been given access to good sex education and condoms, the whole situation could have been avoided.


Who exactly is qualified to dispense "good" sex education?

Is "good" sex education the same as "complete" sex education?

Should a child ever be counciled to refrain from sexual activity?

In your opinion, at what age would a female child be independently capable of making the decision to have sex?

Are you an "FPP"?

As re: your presumption of "no basis in fact": Where would a pregnant, underaged female be likely to seek advice initially-from a friend or an FPP?



QUOTE
In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial-birth abortions were performed on babies declarded "viable" by the attending physician, and in each case the reason cited was the mental, not physical health of the mother



You seem to labour under the illusion that women enjoy being pregnant for 8 or more months then aborting the child.

I believe some, oddly enough, have little regard whatsoever for any part of the entire event.

Some are, undoubtedly, chagrined at the prospect; I don't know that I addressed this point at all, and am at a loss as to the ease with which you assign me such an uncaring attitude.

You would do well to remind yourself that you do not know me, and to jump to some of the conclusions you have with regard to my beliefs casts you as a bit of a zealot.

Why didn't that woman have an abortion earlier? Perhaps due to pressure from people with your views?

Is this the only rationale that could possibly exist, or the only one you could imagine which fits your scenario?

Perhaps due to the rabid christians hounding any woman that approaches an abortion clinic?

Perhaps not!

Maybe they fear being shot by the religious lunatics that share your views?

I must take exception; I am not a lunatic, and if I happened upon anyone with a gun lurking outside any building, I would ensure his apprehension somehow.

Who knows. It is no easy thing to undergo an abortion (esp at that stage) and there are usually strong reasons why - and mental reasons are as valid as any other if they are compelling enough.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but under your definition of beneficient FPA's, couldn't councilling be offered at this juncture?

If the mother-to-be wanted to carry the baby full-term, but then decided not to, one (certainly not me, though) could reasonably assume there are circumstances afoot which would bear on the woman's life which are causing strife apart from the pregnancy.

What if the situation were salvagable, except for the lack of a few simple questions?

You have no idea what happened in any of those 182 cases (or any other abortion case) so you have zero right to judge.


I know that healthy mothers and nascent children were involved, and, even if I have no right to judge, as you say (which, in and of itself, is utter horseshit-everyone judges, every day), I retain the right to inquire.


QUOTE
I beg you, quantify and enumerate MOST



Signatories to the various UN declarations on Human rights and specific woman's rights.

I prefaced my post by noting I would restrict my remarks to the situation in the U.S.; perhaps in your haste to dash me you missed this.


QUOTE
I find this a BIT extreme, rhetorically



Why? They both oppose abortion so why should I not mention them? Embarrassed by the company your views are held by?

Then why not, for example, "George Bush and Mother Theresa? You hate her and the rest of the Catholic faith, anyway.


QUOTE
Statistics show approximately 75% of Catholic women do not abide the official dictates of the Catholic Church as regards contraception and abortion.



Source? I guarantee that survey is from Europe, North America or similar. In the developing world (where catholicism is most active) those numbers are not even close.

I did say I was talking U.S.A., didn't I?


QUOTE
I have heard many tales of intact, yet porous, condoms.



I have heard tales of elves and dwarves, does that make them true?

I don't know, does it?

Are you compelled to deny this could be so due to some actual working knowledge of the quality of the condoms in question, or an urge to vouch for the good will of all FPA's?


QUOTE
My guess would be the pro-abortion lobby's impulse to buy in quantity, at the best prices available, would somehow have compromised the manufacturing process, and, in turn, the structural integrity of the condoms, to the point of porosity



You are flailing around desperatly. The condoms supplied by WHO etc are of the exact same quality as western condoms - as they are western condoms. No one is saying a split/damaged condom is safe, but latex is latex the world over and it is not permeable to AIDS or anything else of note.

I do not flail.

You are sure then, that the condom manufacturer of "western condoms" (which would, of course, be a capitalist venture, and thus oriented toward economy as re: the manufacturing process) wouldn't "cut corners" (sorry) while manufacturing huge, single-lot quantities of condoms for export?

You have special knowledge this is not the case?

QUOTE
I am not all too familiar with Mother Theresa; I am not Catholic, either, but I'd be willing to be there is a contextual misunderstanding here-not saying I know, for sure, but I'd bet on it, just the same.



This shows your debating qualities rather well (also the things Leftism noted too). I give a piece of information that I can back up (the quote is available in several places as it caused an outcry and was included in numerous documentaries when she died) and you just say "not true not true!!!" while holding your hands over your ears.

I didn't say, "not true not true!" I merely said I was sure there was context which you choose to ignore.

If you wish to settle the point between us, provide the context-that should be easy for one of your capability.

You offer no counter argument just blanket denials based on what you want to believe, not what actually is.

I have offered counter-arguments, but you choose to ignore them, as you have quite a supply of "blankets" yourself.


QUOTE
Someone? Who dat?



MagicNakor, and others in passing.

I would disagree as to the other comments posted here; they constitute a difference of opinion, nothing more.

We do that all the time-this, however, is something more than that, wouldn't you agree?


QUOTE
What right have YOU to presume anything with regard to my relationship with my daughter?



I personally don't - the legistlature of your country does.

Gee, sorry! You sounded like you considered yourself to be the arbitter of my daughter's rights.

Here, though, is something for you to chew on: If the government tried to interfere in the proper relationship between this father and his daughter, you would shortly afterward see new case-law. I suggest you forego any further commentary on that subject, as you sound to presumptuous for words, and that's saying something, because I am not lacking in powers of description.


QUOTE
Where do you come off presuming a stance of "interference" on my part? Whence does this "zero" right come?



See above, the law tells you to butt out unless your daughter wants you to provide care and assistance.

As you say: "See above"


QUOTE
How does your pronouncement weigh on matters financial? Am I duty-bound to support the young crumb-cruncher (I assume you speak to the case of an under-aged pregnancy)? Would I have a right to pursue the father of the child in order to secure his cooperation on matters regarding support?



In my country all fathers are required to support their children once the father has an income. Till then the state provides an income for every child. Any questions?

I will apologize for taking us OT here; the subject is abortion.


QUOTE
What is it that is likely to happen to Catholic daughters?



They are more likley to get pregnant due to lack of parental and school sex education. Instead they have to rely on their peer group for information, and that is extrememly dangerous. Example - some catholic girls thought that having sex standing up meant they could not get pregnant, other didn't even know that what they were doing was even sex! Survey after survey has proven the link between poor sex education and teenage pregnancies.

Only in developing countries, though, right?

I have it on good authority you can't fool an American Catholic girl.


QUOTE
n the case I (as a parent) would be legally or otherwise estopped from involving myself in my daughter's pregnancy, what are my obligations? If this condition of "zero rights" is allowed to give myself and my daughter the status of strangers, am I reduced to paying the bill?



You are not stopped from involving yourself in the pregnancy automatically, you are stopped

The word is "estopped", if you please; ordinarily I'm not so picky, but I will be, in this case.

if your daughter does not want you to be involved. In that case, I would say the blame lies with you for having such a poor father/daughter relationship (in this hypothetical case).

My daughter, as an insulin-dependent diabetic, would probably be unable to keep the fact from me even if we didn't have a good relationship.


QUOTE
What if I decide I don't want to help with the diaper-changing?



Then don't, entirely up to you and utterly unrelated to the issue of consultation over abortion.


QUOTE
What if my daughter decides SHE doesn't want to change the diaper? Or heat the bottle or feed the baby?



Then she is not a fit mother and the baby should be removed from her care. Or maybe she should have had an abortion in the first place?

The first happens all the time-they want it, then they don't want it-but they won't give it up, either. Surely you have witnessed this phenomenon?

Could be a case for post-birth abortion, eh?

Would you defend that practice so vociferously, too?

QUOTE
Remember, now: Your concept makes strangers of us-I am not normally inclined to perform such services for strangers


My concept does not make you strangers. Your prior behaviour, that led to your daughter not wanting to share her pregnancy with you, led to your exclusion. You made the bed, you lie in it.

Another premature conclusion.


QUOTE
Who said I am against sex-education?



I said good sex education. That means covering everything available - including abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Your insinuation that all FPA's push abortion as a free and easy first choice is so far wide of the mark to be laughable.

How do you know what I know about sex education?

Also: If my opinion is that, FPAs, as a rule, push too hard in the direction of abortion as a first/best option, who are YOU to disagree?

Are you now presuming to relieve me of my right to free speech, also?


QUOTE
Rights STILL exist, and you are touting pro-CHOICE, yes?

Yep. You, however, are not pro choice. You want to restrict womens rights, even though this issue is something you will never have to deal with. You will notice that many of the prominent law makers (and religious zealots) who want to restrict choice are men.

I want no such thing.

I want the decision to be contemplated properly, with all points of view, and a complete sex education, not merely a "good" one.

Why are you so averse to a point of view such as mine being fairly represented?

You seem awfully intolerant of my opinions.


QUOTE
I have already told my daughter my thoughts about this subject; I did not, however, wait until she was pregnant to do so-do you feel, therefore, that I have been unfairly intrusive?


Nope, you should talk to your children about sex education before it's too late. However, if you were as equally (and illogically) forceful in your condemnation of a womans right to choose - do you expect her to tell you if she has an unplanned pregnancy? Somehow I doubt she will, but that's just my opinion.

What you should have done was laid out all the various options and not use it as a vehicle for your own prejudices.

You know what? You should have been there, too.

You might have learned something.

[bjford]

Try and bear in mind that people are dying because of what the Catholic Church are telling them.

No, people are dying because what leftist STD organizations are telling these people. You can still have sex- but “safe sex”. Sex with contraceptive use is not 100% effective. The Bishops of Kenya and Cardinal Trujillo are not telling people to have sex without contraceptives, but not to have sex AT ALL if STDs are risked. This is saving people, not killing people. If people know the dangers of condoms, then they wont have sex. They know that condoms offer some protection, but the bishops aren’t saying to not use them (and neither are the people saying that), but to not have sex at all.

no, hospice is not medical care. yes, hospice is death. yes, somebody has to do that work and it does seem ghoulish for nuns to be doing it since they are really just there to harvest souls (not quite as thrilling as conning rich old men on their deathbeds into donating their estates to the church, but the church does place a nominal value on the souls of the poor nonetheless). if you were a hindu, muslim, etc you'd prolly not be too happy at all that some nuns had taken advantage of one of your relatives' misfortune as a chance to convert him/her to another religion. honestly i'd prefer to see that work done by people without ulterior motives, like increasing a nun's chances of sainthood just for changing some bedpans and sprinkling a bit of holy water... but then again, you're simply not going to find many people who are willing to make a profession of attending to the dying (especially dying people with no money), when there are so many other worthwhile (and profitable) endeavors that need attention.

This is why the Missionaries are so honorable- they do it not for pay. Further, they give these people who are not cared for love, which is extremely important.

1234's arguments may contain fallacies and his links may be biased. However neither of these are immediately apparent. Whilst he may be wrong in his position he has been consistent and I see no syllogisms or sophistry in what he says.

The point isn’t that he is incorrect; the point is that his arguments are senseless and illogical. Logic is vital for a debate. In fact, Logic is what a debate is based on. We see evidence that leads to a logical conclusion. If your debate is based on logical fallacies, it is an ad hominum, and an argumentum ad ignoratum. But according to 1234, these Latin terms are “grade school” debate skills.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by bjford@10 January 2004 - 16:03
This is why the Missionaries are so honorable- they do it not for pay. Further, they give these people who are not cared for love, which is extremely important.

i agree, there is some honor and there is some honest charity in a hospice being run by missionaries. however, there is a conflict of interest that bothers me a little bit. the interests of the dying patient and the interests of the catholic deity are not necessarily the same.

in a wealthy society, the solution is easy-- move to a different hospice and pay them to respect the wishes, culture and religion of the patient and his/her family. but for a poor person in calcutta, that is prolly just not an option.

[leftism]

No, people are dying because what leftist STD organizations are telling these people. You can still have sex- but “safe sex”. Sex with contraceptive use is not 100% effective. The Bishops of Kenya and Cardinal Trujillo are not telling people to have sex without contraceptives, but not to have sex AT ALL if STDs are risked. This is saving people, not killing people. If people know the dangers of condoms, then they wont have sex. They know that condoms offer some protection, but the bishops aren’t saying to not use them (and neither are the people saying that), but to not have sex at all.

I'm amazed and depressed by that response

In a perfect world people would be able to control themselves and never ever have sex. But that isnt the case. People cant abstain from sex its human nature.

Telling people not to have sex wont work. Ever.

And arguing that "leftist STD organizations " telling people to use condoms is furthering the spread of Aids is just lunacy. I've honestly never heard such a ridiculous argument in my life.

The Bishops ARE telling people not to use condoms. And people are STILL having sex anyway, and they're dying because of it. This is undeniable fact. People arent getting AIDS from having sex whilst using condoms they're getting AIDs through unprotected sex.

The Bishops arent saying "Abstain from sex if you can but if you cant abstain from sex then use a condom". They are spreading lies about condoms not working at all, they're not saying they're only 99% effective.

Please think about this carefully. You cannot get millions of people to stop having sex. The safest, most realistic way of dealing with this problem is through the use of condoms and more sex education. NOT telling people fairy tales such as "STD's can get through latex."

[bjford]

i agree, there is some honor and there is some honest charity in a hospice being run by missionaries. however, there is a conflict of interest that bothers me a little bit. the interests of the dying patient and the interests of the catholic deity are not necessarily the same.

What conflicts? Do you think the Missionaries give the poor a choice of Catholicism or death? I think not. There are no conflicts. They may disagree, but the Missionaries certainly are not going to the Hindus and saying "ACCEPT JESUS!"

Telling people not to have sex wont work. Ever.

It has worked, it's been working. People can have sex, but they've got to understand the risks that come with it, even when using a condom.

The Bishops ARE telling people not to use condoms. And people are STILL having sex anyway, and they're dying because of it. This is undeniable fact. People arent getting AIDS from having sex whilst using condoms they're getting AIDs through unprotected sex.

No, that is a lie. THe Bishops are telling the poor to practice ABSTINENCE instead of condom use. Sex is just as much of a sin in the Catholic Church as sex with condoms.

The Bishops arent saying "Abstain from sex if you can but if you cant abstain from sex then use a condom". They are spreading lies about condoms not working at all, they're not saying they're only 99% effective.

Prove to me they are lies. You havn't.

Please think about this carefully. You cannot get millions of people to stop having sex. The safest, most realistic way of dealing with this problem is through the use of condoms and more sex education. NOT telling people fairy tales such as "STD's can get through latex."

STDs can get through latex!! Dr. DC Roland, an editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, states that when used properly, sperm cannot get through. However, AIDS is 50 times smaller than the sperm, and it can get through. If you get a dish glove, and do some dishes, when you take them off you'll notice your hands are a little moist. That is an example of how AIDS gets through.

The only 100% effective way to not get STDs is to abstain from sex.

[leftism]

Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It has worked, it&#39;s been working[/b]

Then why is Africa suffering a massive AID&#39;s epidemic? The Catholic church is very strong in many parts of Africa but this continent is easily the worst affected in the world.

Abstinence would work if people could do it but they obviously cant.

Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, that is a lie. THe Bishops are telling the poor to practice ABSTINENCE instead of condom use.[/b]

No&#33; They are actively telling people NOT TO USE THEM, some priests are even telling people in Africa that condoms are laced with Aids&#33; I can give you quote after quote after quote showing you that this is a fact.

Originally posted by bjford
STDs can get through latex&#33;&#33; Dr. DC Roland, an editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, states that when used properly, sperm cannot get through. However, AIDS is 50 times smaller than the sperm, and it can get through. If you get a dish glove, and do some dishes, when you take them off you&#39;ll notice your hands are a little moist. That is an example of how AIDS gets through.

He is an expert in rubber not a medical expert. Read this from a WHO funded report on condom usage.

<!--QuoteBegin-WHO report@

Intact condoms (i.e., pass the water leak test) are
essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens (including the
smallest sexually transmitted virus, hepatitis B[/quote]

WHO report

I will take a well funded study from a group of medical experts over an expert in rubber anyday. He hasnt carried out any studies into this, he doesnt know the first thing about STD&#39;s.

Telling people that condoms, when used properly, dont work is dangerous, irresponsible and flies in the face of all good science. You may as well start arguing that the Earth is flat.

<!--QuoteBegin-bjford
The only 100% effective way to not get STDs is to abstain from sex. [/quote]

This is true, but if your solution to AIDs is to get the population of Africa to abstain from sex your living in a dream world.

[hobbes]

Anybody pretending that condoms don&#39;t work is actively practicing the work of the devil.

[bjford]

Without getting too much indepth:

1) I&#39;m not going to trust WHO, they are extremely biased.
2) The Bishops never said to have sex without condoms.
3) Abstinense works. I could just as easily say condoms don&#39;t work because you&#39;re never going to get the population to know how to use them properly.