Wow, that would result is some really uptight people...you need release somewhere.

~Zoo

Actually, that had nothing to do with your claim. I read it. Do you have another?

If you really think the link has "nothing" to do with my claim, you might want to try reading it again...

For example it states: "Significantly, the abortion rate for 2003 was roughly equal in developed and developing regions—26 and 29, respectively—despite abortion being largely illegal in developing regions."

Also: "Africa, Asia and Latin America had the highest regional abortion rates, even though abortion is generally legally restricted and often unsafe in those regions."

In case you missed it, that says that abortion rates are higher where it is ILLEGAL. More than 20 million abortions each year happen in places where it is not legal to do so. Thus, making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of women having an abortion.

I also provided the example of Nicaragua for you. You can disagree with the stats that I'm providing, but please stop acting like I'm not providing them.

Lula posts:

ShadesofGrey posts:



Sources? How about from the horse's mouth? My evidence starts with Maine State Law. In 2002, Maine enacted its sex-education law which they call, "Comprehensive Family Life Education." The first part of the law defines "sex education in Kindergarten through 12th grade that medically accurate...that includes education on family planning and STDs,...that promotes responsible sexual behavior and addresses abstinence and the use of contraception.

The 2nd part states the Education Commissioner shall provide effective sex education to all Maine students by "contracting with local family planning programs, including the Family Planning Association of Maine. Three years ago, the Education Commissioner, fulfilled her mandate by providing SIECUS**2004 Sexuality Education. SIECUS is a spawn of Planned Parenthood.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the SIECUS curriculum educates for sex and not if, but when the students beome sexually active, it's designed to prepare them for sexual activity by using contraceptive drugs and condoms.

Note that the Maine education law reads sex education that promotes responsible sexual education and the use of contraception. Fast forward to October, 2007 and the King Middle School and see if sex education isn't doing just what it is expected to do...sexualize our youth and move from promoting responsible use of contraception to actually doling contraception to 11, 12 and 13 year olds.

In 2006, even though there was a clamour from some parents, the school officials from the town of Westbrook, Maine voted to teach the eighth graders about using birth control. I am somewhat familiar with the story as a friend emailed me the info along with some newspaper clippings. The schools officials justified it claiming it was in response to a rising teen pregnancy rate. Sure enough, they produced a chart from the Maine Dept. of Health and Human Services, Maine center for disease control Office of Data, Research and Vital Statistics that showed in the towns of Westbrook and South Portland, pregnancy was up 14% and 5% respectively.

I'll give you that teen pregnancy on the whole has gone down, but ever since schools gave kids the red light to go by educating for sex and doling out contraception and condoms, fornication in Maine is way up, in fact, chlamydia which in some cases causes cervical cancer and sterilization, is the highest.





I've done plenty of research on Planned Parenthood. What has said about Planned Parenthood is not vile, but the truth. It's Planned Parenthood deeds that are vile and wrong. Very vile and very wrong.

does the vatican keep records of conceptions, zygotehood, etc. or only live/still deliveries? does any government do differently? when wills are probated in favor of all living descendants are zygotes, blastulae, etc. issued an equal share of the estate? are pregnant women who travel internationally required to present visas and passports for themselves and their unborn children? does any insurer issue policies covering zygotes, morulae or any other prenatal entity?

Lula posts:

KINGBEE POSTS:

We are hearing more and more news stories of people killing pregnant women and taking their baby taken from the womb. You bet when these go to trial, the baby is going to be acknowledged as a baby. Laci Peterson and baby Conner come to mind...it was double murder was it not?

Even young children know a pregnant women is carrying a baby.



I have every reason to believe that---if I am dying and writing my will and my daughter is pregnant, then I can designate a portion of my estate to the babe in the womb-----and that would be honored in law.



No, but pregnant women are sure treated specially when it comes to X-rays, etc. aren't they? Why is that, Kingbee?



Look in your medicine cabinet and read the back of just about everything in there for the directions of use. Warning: If pregnant or breast feeding, ask a health professional before use.
Gee, seems like everyone involved in producing the tylenol or cold medicine, etc. take great notice of the baby in the womb, whether he's at his zygote, morulae, or prenatal stage....and rightly so, he's a precious gift of Almighty God.

The sooner we all get back to our senses and stop ignoring what every little child knows and recognize the life and humanity of the child in the womb, the better off we'll be.

In the US alone, there have been over 50 million abortions since 1973. World wide it's estimated there are over 50 million abortions annually.


In the case of abortion, the issue in question is life, the most sacred of our unalienable rights. The risk of erring on the wrong side of life is on the line is the most horrific gamble a government can understake, becasue it means risking the death of the very people it is empowered to protect.

Abortion is exactly the same as giving the death penalty to a person who has not been proven guilty. The unborn, becasue they are unseen and unheard, have been wrongfully denied the 'equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Even for those who insist that proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to when life does or does not begin doesn't exist should 'err of the safe side' with no spurious definitions of "person" standing in the way.

The principle here is to avoid killing even one innocent human life. By maintaining the policy of abortion on demand, we 'err on the side of extreme risk'. Is this the description of civil society? Any reasonable person would have to say no.

Policies protecting human life in the womb, would be to 'err of the safe side', and would be completely in sync with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and its core principle of defending the inalienable right to life.

when did the church jump into bed with freud? is it an in for a penny, in for a pound thing or do yall cherrypick (heh) stuff when it supports your pov. i don't know how coked up he was when he proposed his latency theory but i'm guessin somewhere between to the gills and borderline delusional.

it's only during the last 4-5 years that my memory has eased down from painfully acute and become easier to live with. thus stipulated, i still remember a great deal more of my childhood than i'd prefer. i wouldn't presume to dispute your personal experience, but i can't recall an age or phase when most of the kids around me--friends, enemies and everyone else sharing the orbit--and by most i mean at least 7 outta 10, could have been described as being closer than a 4-day drive to that state of 'physically mentally and emotionally' sexually unaware or uninterested you're tryin to sell us.

i attended catholic schools in the umc suburbs in which all those kids and i were raised during some of those norman rockwell golden years reagan misremembered so fondly. as 5-yr-olds, we played doctor & house. later on it was show n tell. followed by a seemingly endless litany of dirty jokes (if sufficiently motivated i could very easily rattle off the top 20 punchlines for each grade from 3 to 8--punchlines only to spare listeners outrageously ridiculous premises on which they pivoted) and hours upon hours of speculation about all things sexual.

the only sex education we received was in 8th grade on the day when our female clssmates were ushered off to some undisclosed location for a special showing of film provided by the feminine products industry ('you're a young lady now' was the title--or so i was informed later that day). our home room nun, a raging psychotic known as sister irene, produced a small booklet from her locked desk drawer, put on her game face, insisted everyone take seats at the front of the room and admonished us in advance that what she was about to impart was a very serious matter of great importance and no silliness would be tolerated. just before she began to read she looked up and saw me sitting directly in front of her as always cuz i was not permitted to choose a desk.

for several days prior to this one she'd been reading the entire class a few chapters per day from a fascinating volume entitled 'st maria gorretti--virgin & martyr'. according to this account the future saint had an uncle named luigi, i couldnt resist the impulse to sketch out my vision of uncle luigi as a learning aid for my classmates who were duly impressed. spurred on by success, i brought the character closer to life while we had lunch by giving him a voice and a amusing italian accent.

somehow this whole thing got outta hand and, unbidden not to mention without prior approval or authorization, the next day 'uncle luigi' began providing quips and asides as his niece's tale progressed. shortly thereafter sister irene suspended the narrative and demanded a meeting with me during which we agreed uncle luigi was a disruptive influence and would never-a darken-a da doorway to da class-a-room ever again.

all of which explains why the good sister felt it necessary to inform me personally and by name even that this was some serious stuff and it would be best for both of us if i made a real effort to remain silent from that second forward. it became moot a moment later when, appropo of nothing, i was summarily ordered to remove myself to the cloakroom which was separated from the main classroom by a wall.

thus it was i was the only member of that class free to roll around on the floor with tears in my eyes as sister irene solemnly informed us we had a sac between our legs the contents of which were similar to two large beans. i wasn't able to catch the rest after i buried my entire head into someone's heavy coat

the next year i entered 9th grade at another catholic school which also had its own elementary school in an adjacent building. over the next three years i saw for myself a phenomenon to which i was made privy the very first day of class--at least 4 but no more than 6 of the 20-25 8th grade girls were knocked up each year by the beginning of may.

it occurs to me that freud's latency theory may be complete nonsense but a devastatingly effective tool when utilized by molestor priests.



public schools had no connection whatsoever with the two girls from my elementary school who didn't graduate from high school because they killed themselves after they realized they were pregant.

Nothing in the link or your response in #100 addresses your claim. The link compares different societies (which do not have a common starting point or basis) to say what? A lot perhaps, but nothing to prove or even validate your claim.

Now, if you want to take a society where abortion WAS illegal, and then was legal and show me those stats, then we can begin a discussion. However, saying that Africa is comparable to Europe (when the dynamics as well as the reasons are more varied than similar), then we can debate that point if you would like. I dont think, outside of Margaret Sanger, you are going to find many to support that hypothesis.

So again I ask, where are the facts to back up your claim?

Sorry I missed the last few days. I pretty ill.

Quick comment about PP:

PP is not the problem. Blowing up Planned Parenthood will not fix any of these issues. Even though I am against abortion I see Planned Parenthood fulfilling a need (a capitalist venture). They are dealing with again the 'result' just as with giving middle schoolers birth control. I get very irritated at the anti-abortionist protesters at PP because they want to address the result not the cause.

Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit organization that lobbies for the right to kill babies. I think that's a problem, even if it's not THE problem.

I'm not goign to blow up PP, though. I saw one once, I didn't blow it up.

LW,

I know that this is a subject that is very personal and painful to you. My heart continues to reach out to you. I do appreciate your perspective and your added insight. So, thank you for your participation in this discussion.

Sadly, I think I am in agreement with you about giving the MS kids BC right now because as you said they do not have self control and want to 'do it like they do on the discovery channel' (quote from a late 90's song). I hate to call them a lost cause but I think the only thing to do is encourage those who have refrained and protect those who have not (from hurting themselves in this case). I agree from the fact that you cannot help those who do not want to help themselves in this case 'self control.'

As for teaching a child about self control I think the current resolutions have proven themselves unsuccessful. To me I strongly disagree with current psychologists who suggest that we are a product of our society. I also strongly disagree with the 'sheltered' ideology that seems to be the other well known non-resolution. Sex should not be discussed as being a shameful act. In fact I would hold more similarly to what TW mentioned. Deceit will most likely not yield a desired result. To me I think the last place a child should receive sex education would be from the school. The first place it should be is in the home with a foundation in self control.

Self control is not just about withholding from sex here this is about not allowing your hormones do your thinking for you. This also extends to other areas (such as anger management). The younger a child begins to learn and appreciate (for themselves not because someone told them they should) I think the better off they'll be.

I do not see Self Control being the one part solution. I see potentially several others but haven’t fully thought them through. Dealing with hormonal awareness and methods of management is another area I think needs to be better addressed.

My thoughts for now as I gotta get back to work .

agreed. Freud in my mind revolved everything around sex. In my dream I was writing a letter to my aunt. Hmmmm, the pencil I was using to write with in my dream represents the male phallus. Yeah, other than his argument for the shape I fail to see the connection Siggy.

Seriously, LW, I didn't know I was embracing Freud's theories on this. What is the connection between Freud's theories and little children's natural innocence and modesty during their latency period when they are experiencing a period of tranquility and serenity as far as their physical sexual development.

Youngsters touching themselves or sitting immodestly are normal and natural stages of development where children are naturally at ease with their bodies...nothing sexual per se about it. This where the importance of parenting comes in. When lessons are taught in formative fashion (vs. informative), young children willingly accept the need for being guided in modesty in dress and behavior. In other words, there is no interest whatsoever in sexual genital functions unless it is shown or taught by someone.

LW,

As AD, I too wish you peace in your personal life journey.

Hey we may but heads from time to time but I do have respect for what you write.