because condoms are not 100% nor is a pill. Although if you used both it is close to 99%. My health teacher in HS told us that she was a failed condom and her sister a failed diaphram. The reason people get abortions is because they do not think they can support a child at this time in their life. Do you (everyone not just Sebastian at this point) really think a fetus has more self-awareness than a dog? The reason people are upset, is because the superbowl decided an ad for a church that accepts gays was too controversial three years ago(don't remember number exactly). The right to choose life is fine. It's when it because not a choice. When it's mandatory to not have an abortion. When you don't have a choice.
I'm not necessarily against Planned Parenthood education so long as they're not "assisting" adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions. As I understand, these kids can even get all of this stuff without their parents' knowledge. To me, that's inherently wrong..........and potentially dangerous, to boot.
haha really? you think that was a success? You think the people who are likely to actually use "drugs" (ie not alcohol and cigarettes) are going to change their mind because a first lady says it's bad?
http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/
I think it worked for awhile. However, there needs to be solid and consistent education for it to maintain its effectiveness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines I'm failing to see what Alred's issue is. There was no abortion performed, and clearly doctors are performing and suggesting abortions to women there.
those statistics you relayed point to people other then doctors performing the abortions probably in less then sanitary conditions. Thats what happens when you make it illegal. STOMP
who should be assisting adolescents/minors in receiving birth control and/or abortions? Their parents? 15ish is the average age of losing virginity so obviously thats problematic. we've established that kids are going to have sex whether they have access to birth control or not and that abstinence only doesn't work. So kids are the constant here, they're going to fuck. Adults setting policy are the one's responsible for dealing with the knowledge of this constant. For policy I'm for whatever brings about the lowest rate of unwanted pregnancies and spread of STDs/AIDS. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21606.php STOMP
how do you feel about being warned about erections lasting longer then 4 hours every single break? STOMP
No joke, some of the bigger supporters of abstinence only and turn to christ, were the ones smoking pot and having sex in high school from the stories of my aunts and uncles and hearsay of co-workers.
another interesting find on my dig. The organization thats funding the ad (Family First) is against abortion "under all circumstances, except in the rare instance when the mother's life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy" according to their website. Isn't that what is supposed to have been the case here? http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/19/news/companies/focus_on_family_super_bowl/ STOMP
I agree. It shouldn't be illegal. At issue is what cause Alred thinks she can sue. None, unless there's slander or libel.
okay, I don't really care about that aspect too much. If the Tebows want to do politics during the Super Bowl and they tell a story that doesn't ring true, I'd expect that there would be some scrutiny/attention. apparently this Family First group has made some enemies STOMP
The only thing that is 100% is simply not having sex, or you know people being completely sterile. If you don't want to risk getting pregnant then simply do not engage in sex. Why should life be snuffed out because someone cannot support a child at that time in their life? There are many people unable to have babies that would love to adopt one. . No, but do you really think that a fetus doesn't deserve the chance to grow into something that can become a wonderful human being? Why should that chance at life be taken away because someone else was irresponsible and careless? Three years ago is not now, and I'd have to see the ad to see if it was declined for legitimate purposes. There is a reason the recent ManCrunch ad was declined, and it was legitimate. Your choice should be to engage in sex or not when you know there are consequences involved. Someone can't drink and drive then kill someone and be like "sorry! didn't know the consequences of drinking and driving." And that analogy is sure to anger some people.
You think the solution is to put more children into foster care? More babies probably get adopted from outside the US than inside. Why should the likelihood of an awful life be forced? You really think the country has changed much in 3 years on that aspect of culture? There is a BIG difference between drinking and driving and having sex. One can still drink, and simply not drive, just like having sex with protection. You do realize that the average american has sex on the third date now, right?
