#2 Examination question for Womb Police cadets of the future-

You said you opposed contraception.......explain HOW exactly you and your potential future wife would stop her from getting pregnant after you had the number of children you want?

I'm getting pretty sick of your dodging and trying to change the subject when it gets too "difficult" for you, Sam. Your youth, inexperience, or educational level can be forgiven....your inability to honestly debate can not.

 

I am against Fugazi's idea of promoting contraception for these two reasons.

1-Studies show that it increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

2-Promoting contraception promotes sexual immorality.

 

Pure and utter BS .. or can you provide the studies, and no a link to a pro-life site is not acceptable, link to the ACTUAL studies please.

A 2012 study from Washington University in St. Louis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies by Providing No-Cost Contraception,” analyzes the relationship between free access to effective birth control and abortion rates. The researchers, Jeffrey F. Peipert, Tessa Madden, Jenifer E. Allsworth and Gina M. Secura, based their work on data from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. The St. Louis initiative provided no-cost contraception for two to three years to 9,256 women at risk for unintended pregnancy. Using data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, as well as Planned Parenthood, the researchers were able to compare the rate of teen births and the percentage of repeat abortions — proxies for unintended pregnancies — of those in the CHOICE group with rates in the remaining metropolitan area and across the United States.

Key findings from the study include:

Participants in the CHOICE program showed a significant reduction in abortion rates, repeat abortions, and teenage birth rates: The birth rate among participants aged 15 to 19 years was 6.3 per 1,000 compared with the national rate of 34.3. This represents an 82% reduction.
Between 2008 and 2010, abortion rates for study participants ranged from 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 women, compared with regional rates between 13.4 and 17 and the national rate of 19.6.
Intrauterine devices (IUDs) and contraceptive implants — often referred to as long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods — are not as highly used in the United States compared with other developed countries, where unintended pregnancy rates are lower. Related research shows that such long-lasting methods are much more effective than birth-control pills and other options.
If no-cost contraception) were made available to the entire population of the sample region, the researchers estimate one abortion could be avoided for every 79 to 137 women and teenagers. Nationally, they estimate it could prevent as many as 62% to 78% of abortions performed annually.

Source - http://journalistsresource.org/stud...re/unintended-pregnancies-free-contraception#
Full Study - http://journals.lww.com/greenjourna...ng_Unintended_Pregnancies_by_Providing.7.aspx
Data Source - http://choiceproject.wustl.edu/

See unlike you I can actually support my arguments, with case studies .. not biased religious sites.

Again I am still waiting for a study paper to be provided for this erroneous comment.

Here are my peer reviewed studies

http://bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/publications/files/DoesECPromoteSexRiskTaking_2008.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...e_Evidence_from_Sexually_Transmitted_Diseases

There are plenty more.

Now for the final time of asking, where are your studies to add evidence to your assertions

 

Since abortion is legal, we must assume she wanted the baby. It would be cruel to punish her and I doubt whether any DA would bring charges.

 

Not talking "promoting contraception", talking about your view of contraception in general.....do you stand by this statement of yours? Yes or No?

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333480&page=2

Are you against contraception because you beleive it promotes immorality?

 

The over-arching reference to "Womb Police cadets of the future"....is postulating the "Abortion Prohibition" that the "pro-lifers" dream of for the United States....not the current situation.

I'm asking about "luaus" in a hypothetical situation where their fantasy of a nation-wide ban on abortion exists.

I realize this is like asking about "how the sewer system in The Shire would work"....since it's a fantasy. But it's THEIR fantasy, so interested to see if they can realistically defend it.

 

Those fruits only cause miscarriages in the earliest stages of pregnancy, not later on.

Your arguments seemed to be based around the idea that banning abortion wouldn't work. However, quote some non biased studies which prove that banning abortion doesn't reduce abortion rates. I have some statistics to show otherwise.

Read this study.

 

Oh....so you don't care if early stage abortions are done???


BTW, are you recanting this statement, Sam-

Originally Posted by The Amazing Sam's Ego

"The reason I am against contraception is because it promotes immorality."

Are you for or against contraception?

 

Sam you are learning mate - at least you are quoting studies but unfortunately there is more to it than that as I am about to show you.

First off - if you are going to quote give a link. I does not ultimately matter to your opponents who can google the sentences and find out it is from "Christian Answers"http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life003.html#8but you might want to think about the fact that adding the link to the post protects you from being sued for copyright infringement

Second - it is a straw man argument as it puts forth an unsupported claim (that there were a million abortions per year) which it then refutes
Third it is NOT a research paper but a VERY dated text
Fourth He is right in that there is no "reliable statistics" but it is phrased as "weasel words" Words that look like they mean other than what they do. There is no reliable statistics BECAUSE IT WAS FRACKING ILLEGAL!! Not only illegal but a crime that was not going to be reported to police if it could be avoided. Do we know how many people in America smoke pot - NO - BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL!

So they are guessing - and without even doing the most cursory of investigation

 

I wanted to give you a rep for this but apparently I can't (got to spread it around), just to say you beat me to it on the rebuttal.

 

I am against contraception, because it increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. These are quotes from Churchmouse's thread.

 

Then I am going to ask you....AGAIN....and sadly, expect the same dodge...

When (or if) you are married, and you say you DON'T want 15-20 children with your wife.....by what method will you insure that she does not become pregnant?

 

That is totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread. The main reason why I disagree with Fugazi's idea of promoting contraception through sex education, to reduce abortion rates, is because more contraception leads to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions?

 

"and sadly, expect the same dodge..."---GC, 6 minutes earlier.

Sam, TWICE now you have said you oppose contraception...not "promoting contraception"...but that you oppose contraception, period.

So for the THIRD time, I am going to ask you to TRY to back up one of your off-the-cuff (i.e. saying something and not really thinking about it) remarks and tell everybody....

how will you and a potential future wife prevent her from becoming pregnant 15-20 times in the course of your marriage? By what methods?

 

What I meant to say was this-I don't oppose contraception itself, but I disagree with Fugazi's idea of promoting contraception.

You misinterpreted my comments.

 

Why?

[10 characters]

 

Just as you are misrepresenting mine .. please show me where I have ever stated anything to do with promoting contraception?

Are you under the illusion that sex education consists of ONLY contraception.

Alfred Kinsey, 1955: “At the risk of being repetitious, I would remind the group that we have found the highest frequency of induced abortions in the groups which, in general, most frequently uses contraception.”

Sociologist Lionel Tiger, 1999: “With effective contraception controlled by women, there are still more abortions than ever…[C]ontraception causes abortion.”

you use an article produced in 1955 as evidence to support your fallacy

How about something a little more recent like the study produced by the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and published on October 4th 2012 in Obstetrics & Gynecology, to quote an extract ;

The use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to a large cohort of participants in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region. METHODS:: We enrolled 9,256 adolescents and women at risk for unintended pregnancy into the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, a prospective cohort study of adolescents and women desiring reversible contraceptive methods. Participants were recruited from the two abortion facilities in the St. Louis region and through provider referral, advertisements, and word of mouth. Contraceptive counseling included all reversible methods but emphasized the superior effectiveness of LARC methods (IUDs and implants). All participants received the reversible contraceptive method of their choice at no cost. We analyzed abortion rates, the percentage of abortions that were repeat abortions, and teenage births. RESULTS:: We observed a significant reduction in the percentage of abortions that were repeat abortions in the St. Louis region compared with Kansas City and nonmetropolitan Missouri (P<.001). Abortion rates in the CHOICE cohort were less than half the regional and national rates (P<.001). The rate of teenage birth within the CHOICE cohort was 6.3 per 1,000, compared with the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000. CONCLUSION:: We noted a clinically and statistically significant reduction in abortion rates, repeat abortions, and teenage birth rates. Unintended pregnancies may be reduced by providing no-cost contraception and promoting the most effective contraceptive methods

or how about one produced in July 2012 - http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/j.fertnstert.2012.06.027.pdf
or how about since the increased introduction of sex education and contraception becoming better the rate of abortions and teen pregnancies has declined by 40% since the nineties, in fact the overall rate of abortions in the USA is now at it lowest since 1977.

There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of clinical studies from all over the world that directly refute the old items you produce as evidence.

 

It increases the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

 

More quotes from CM's thread.

 

As I have pointed out before one of these "studies" is from 1955!! They are sodding well older than I am!

They pre-date "the pill"

In other words useless and inapplicable to today's world

That leaves the 1999 "study" which is NOT research but opinion

let us compare to some valid academic articles

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/100/10/465.short

and THIS study (which will not cut and paste) was conducted over 12 countries and shows that contraception decreases abortion
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3180995?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103137850237

think on this one

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014067369393074B

 

For a start - a LOT of sources CM used were more than suspect and this is a prime example

Interestingly what is missing from that quote is the last line - which did NOT come to the same conclusion

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21134508

 

Even the authors of the study concluded that they could not conclusively say why abortion rates went up, something you conviently left out of your post;

CONCLUSIONS: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.

Why don't you look up when abortion became legal in Spain and compare that to your increase in abortion rates .. never know you might actually learn something.

Since the introduction of more liberal abortion laws in Spain in 2010, abortions have declined - http://topnews.us/content/241646-abortion-rate-falls-spain

and while you are trying to find other items from other posters (one has to wonder if you have the ability to produce and argument of your own) you can look over the following;



Shock! Horror! ... when the pill was introduced (around 1960) the number of unintended pregnancies in ALL teenagers fell dramatically, but of course that could not have anything to do with contraception .. could it?

 

First off, how so? And can you share your proof of this?

 

No, they are not. If you believe that a fetus is a human life with a right to life, and therefore abortions cannot exist, then a fetus has the same protections as all other human beings. Abortion is murder, according to the pro-life argument, and thus must be prosecuted as such. A woman who feeds her unborn child toxic foods would thus be attacking her fetus. At best she would be committing manslaughter.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about these hypotheticals. If a fetus is a person, a human being, with the same rights as the mother and everyone else, then this is the legal framework that necessarily must follow from that principle. Otherwise, refusing such laws you concede that a fetus is really not of the same worth as other human beings (since punishment for killing a fetus is less) and that opens the way for legal abortion again.

 

I already posted the studies. Also, re-read churchmouse's thread about contraception.