Skip to comments.Planned Parenthood Web Site Advises Teens on Porn Use [site tells readers about "Outercourse."....]
Posted on 02/26/2008 3:46:35 AM PST by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
You do know that 40% of the women gtting abortions are regular contraceptive users, right? You know that every state and every country for which we have the statistics, has seen contraceptive use and abortion go up in tandem, right?
Then there's the problem of the intrinsic ("built for failure") flaws in latex condoms. I researched a bit and found these interesting tidbits.
(Go ahead and makd the effort to click and read it, Nomad.)
Pro-choice: Choose before you screws.
And back before 1965 a man could go to work in a factory and make enough to support a family of five, send the kids to college and take a nice vacation.
Those days are long gone and aren’t ever coming back. You can either adapt or die.
So that means 60% of the women getting abortions were too stupid to use contraception in the first place. Now if somebody taught them the advantage of contraception then we wouldn’t have had to worry about the abortion in the first place.
And I wonder how many of that 60% were taught ‘no-sex’ before marriage.
History isn't your strong suit either. The prosperity bubble the US experienced after world war two was hardly endemic of human experience either in this county, or in the world as a whole. Tossing sexual morality benefits economic condition how? The topic your response to beejaa seems entirely disconnected to the substance and topic at hand.
But where there's a high rate of contraception, there's almost always also a high rate of abortion and STD's. Check out mega-contraceptive California's experience.
So you say.
Well the California data is meaningless without comparison to populations without sex ed and access to birth control.
Contraception is constantly being promoted as a way to keep kids "safe" from the effects of sexual behavior. California's disease incidence gives the lie to that argument, unless you want to argue that their epidemic is accepable as an outcome.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, often announces that contraceptives have prevented so many thousands of pregnancies and abortions. But these are projections based on a flawed mathematical model, not genuine findings.
In 2006, when the Institute issued a report card ranking the 50 states by how aggressively they promote contraceptives, the embarrassing fact emerged that New York, California and other states receiving the highest grades also had some of the highest abortion rates in the country; some states ranked near the bottom for contraceptive services have the lowest abortion rates.
Studies from a variety of countries have shown that contraceptive programs do not reduce abortion rates. In fact, says one recent overview, [m]ost studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that programs promoting ECs do not reduce abortions. Yet when leading experts who favor EC programs recently summarized 23 studies gauging the effect of such programs, they had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions.
Conclusion: What reduces abortions?
One clue lies in the Guttmacher data mentioned above. Abortions are lowest in heartland states with a more traditional culture of honoring marriage and discouraging premarital sex. New studies show that an increase in the number of teens nationwide who delay initiating sexual activity is responsible for a large part of the reduced abortion rate in recent years.
Second, these and other states place modest legal restraints on abortion, which have a well-documented and significant effect of reducing abortions.
Third, offering life-affirming services to pregnant women and their children, as proposed in federal bills like the Pregnant Women Support Act (H.R. 6145), could make a substantial impact on the number of abortions.
These strategies can reduce abortions without creating any moral or social problems, and could be the true common ground in the abortion debate. Will Congress seize this opportunity?
The full-length version of this article is posted at
Please take a statistics course, it will do wonders for the both of us.
You can’t say anything about the California “study” because we don’t know how a control group would work. That number is only descriptive of California. For example, lets say a sports team won 10 games. Did that team have a good year? Well we don’t know because we are missing a bunch of other contextual factors. 10 victories is good for a football team, but a disaster for a baseball team.
But if we compare the US to other industrialized countries like France, England, Sweeden and Canada, countries with no shortage of contraception, have a teen pregnancy rate of about 1/3 of the US.
It's like this: if there's some daredevil stunt in your state in which 1/4 to 1/2 of the participants ages 14-25 sustain injuries serious enough to require medical care even when using protective equipment, plus the loss of many lives, would a reasonable conclusion be (a) that's a really inappropriate activity for our 14-25s, or (b)this tells us nothing useful: it may be even worse in Mississippi.
You made no comment on Doerflinger's report in #88. The major findings:
"In 2006, when the [Alan Guttmacher] Institute issued a report card ranking the 50 states by how aggressively they promote contraceptives, the embarrassing fact emerged that New York, California and other states receiving the highest grades also had some of the highest abortion rates in the country; some states ranked near the bottom for contraceptive services have the lowest abortion rates. "
"23 studies gauging the effect of such [contraceptive] programs... had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions. "
To comment on your reference to contraceptive success in various European countries:
Pregnancy data and abortion rates are not collected and reported the same way in European countries as in the US. For instance, the much-heralded Dutch teen pregnancy, abortion and birthrates used are for all females under 20 years of age (that is, the statistics encompass subjects from birth through 20 years) while ours are for adolescents ages 15 to 19. If you factor in a large number of prepubescent girls, naturally you come up with a much smaller rate of contraception and abortion per thousand.
Moreover, in Holland, there is a strong emphasis on delaying sexual activity. Fetal development is taught in schools, and most Dutch educators report they do not use condom demonstrations. There is little tolerance for teenage pregnancy. Unwed mothers are not subsidized the way they are in the U.S.
Also, Europe has tighter abortion laws. Abortions are typically allowed up to 17 weeks 22 weeks is considered an emergency. Counseling, parental notification, and waiting periods are standard.
One of the biggest reasons the Netherlands and other European countries have much lower abortion rates is that early abortions simply are not counted! If a young girl misses her monthly period and goes to a clinic, they don't do a pregnancy test! They do a "menstrual extraction." No pregnancy is reported (no test) and a menstrual extraction is not recorded as an early D&C abortion, although that's exactly what it is.
In some European countries, adolescent girls are routinely put on hormonal-type contraception, that is, a pill, a patch, a vaginal ring (like NuvaRing) or an implant. These effectively prevent pregnancy, but are worse than useless in preventing STI's since almost nobody will consent to use two contraceptives (hormonal plus condom) which would be necessary to effectively stop both pregnancies and STI's.
All of these countries have catastrophically low birthrates overall, which means that while the desired infertility is obtained in the young, a normal reproductive sexuality is rarely recovered thereafter.
Adolescent sterility isn't followed by historically normal patterns of marriage and childbearing, but in lifelong subfertility. Unless you think that imploding fertility rates, persistent non-family-formation, and civilizational suicide are either a reasonable price to pay, or a desired outcome, this is an outcome worse than California.
“And back before 1965 a man could go to work in a factory and make enough to support a family of five, send the kids to college and take a nice vacation.”
It’s true that blue collar jobs were more readily available, even for people without a high school diploma, but people didn’t have nearly as much stuff, especially high tech stuff. Back then there was no cable TV. Cell phones and
ipods didn’t exist. Computers did not exist outside of research facilities.
Mom and Dad today sometimes work in order to be able to afford this stuff, and the average person probably has all of it, but you can cut down in order to raise a family.
It’s hard to generalize. Scientists were probably thinking of a nice typical family when they invented the birth control pill back in, I think, 1957. The point is that our highly relaxed standards now produce a whole range of social problems from illegitimate kids growing up in poverty to HIV/AIDS. We would be better off with a more certain set of standards than just “do it if it feels good.”
OMG yes, Wifey!!! I was an avid reader of any and everything and my parents rarely looked through my book collection. So I was the one who was able to hide my group’s copy, lol. There was also another one that was *really* bad, called ‘Hurricane’. Pure, unadultered porn in written form, lol. We walked around for weeks calling ‘HURRICANE!’ to each other and cracking up. I think my mom caught onto it after overhearing us though because it disappeared from my shelves.