Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[Lorizael]

Yeah I wasn't sure whether the chart did as Loin's did and laid out abortions, births, and pregnancies. Thanks again loin. Had to read through it first, so please don't jump on me until I've had a chance to look over Loin's source!

The interesting thing is that despite sex education the abortion rate is still 9 points higher in 2000 than it was in '72. If sex education worked, shouldn't it result in fewer abortions, not more?

No no no, BK, you can't just move on to the next point like that. You attempted to make a claim, and that claim turned out to be false.

You claimed that (a) there are fewer teenagers today, (b) the rate of teen pregnancies has not gone down, (c) that teen pregnancy is measured as a percentage of total pregnancies, and (d) that teenage abortions are not included in the number of teenage pregnancies. All four of these points turned out to be wrong, and these were the points you were using to assert your claim that sex education isn't working.

Admit you are wrong and that sex education has, in fact, helped reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.

As far as the rate of abortions goes, you have to look at the intended purpose of sex education. Until the 80s, sex education focused mostly on abstinence-only education. Then the AIDS outbreak swept through, and educators started teaching safe sex in sex ed classes. And then the rate of teen pregnancies went down.

[loinburger]

Yeah, he crossed the -1000 threshold several posts back.

[Ben Kenobi]

No no no, BK, you can't just move on to the next point like that.

Sure I can. I admitted I was wrong.

You claimed that (a) there are fewer teenagers today,

I claimed that teenagers as a percentage of the population went down, and I wasn't clear enough about that in the post I made.

(b) the rate of teen pregnancies has not gone down,

This I was wrong about.

(c) that teen pregnancy is measured as a percentage of total pregnancies

The chart you posted had the correct breakdown I was looking for to answer the question. Not all charts have the same breakdown.

(d) that teenage abortions are not included in the number of teenage pregnancies.

In this chart. Again, not all charts explicitly spell out the same breakdown.

All four of these points turned out to be wrong, and these were the points you were using to assert your claim that sex education isn't working.

I made two points.

1. Teenagers were less of a proportion of the population, and so the proportion of pregnancies that were of teenagers would automatically go down.

2. Statistics concerning the drop in pregnancies did not include abortions. I was wrong about this. I expected to see that the rate of abortion would be about the same from 1990 to 2000.

Admit you are wrong and that sex education has, in fact, helped reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.

Why on earth should I admit I was wrong about sex education? All you've shown is that the rates have gone down from 1990 onwards, which is a cherry picked date. Your own data shows that abortions have gone up dramatically and then plunged, despite no change in sex education. Clearly something else must be going on rather than sex education changing.

As far as the rate of abortions goes, you have to look at the intended purpose of sex education. Until the 80s, sex education focused mostly on abstinence-only education. Then the AIDS outbreak swept through, and educators started teaching safe sex in sex ed classes. And then the rate of teen pregnancies went down.

Not true. Your own data shows that while teenage births have been going down constantly since 1972, abortion rates have risen and then fallen. Obviously the two are not correlated with one another.

From what I can see, is that the pregnancy rates rose until 1980, but the birth rate dropped consistantly, and abortions doubled. Then everything stays about the same until 1987. In 1987, the birth rate and the pregnancy rates rise, but the abortions drop. By 1991, the birthrate is the same as in 1972, but abortions are still falling, and the pregnancy rate is higher.

Then the pregnancy rates dropped off dramatically starting in 1992, and have fallen ever since. Abortions and births fall in lockstep.

1988,89,90 and 91 all show an increase in the birthrate, but every other year has been a decline or held steady since 1972. Abortions rise constantly until their peak in 1988, and pregnancies do the same with their peak a few years later.

[Lorizael]

You made no point with that post.

My claim is this: The AIDS scare of the 1980s prompted sex education classes to introduce safe sex into the curriculum. Since the introduction of safe sex in sex education, there has been a steady decline in teenage pregnancy.

Do you dispute this claim?

You have made the claim that sex education is not effective because the teenage abortion rate has risen since 1972. State why you believe effective sex education would lower the teenage abortion rate, and state why you believe sex education has failed to lower the teenage abortion.

[BlackCat]

Google him, and you'll understand.

Did that, but can't find anything that makes sense - if you have a point, then be specific.

[Ben Kenobi]

My claim is this: The AIDS scare of the 1980s prompted sex education classes to introduce safe sex into the curriculum. Since the introduction of safe sex in sex education, there has been a steady decline in teenage pregnancy.

I dispute it. The evidence doesn't support your claim. They had a jump, and remained essentially flat until the early 90s.

You have made the claim that sex education is not effective because the teenage abortion rate has risen since 1972. State why you believe effective sex education would lower the teenage abortion rate, and state why you believe sex education has failed to lower the teenage abortion.

I believe that if 'sex education' were truly effective, abortions would be unheard of, as people would not get pregnant unless they wanted to. Since abortions are going up, I can conclude that even with sex education, people are still having children they do not want, and at a greater rate then before.

Why I believe that the abortion rates have gone up, is that contraception is ineffective in preventing pregnancy. People are more apt to engage in risky behaviour when they are taught they are bulletproof so long as they wear a condom every time.

[Lorizael]

I dispute it. The evidence doesn't support your claim. They had a jump, and remained essentially flat until the early 90s.

The AIDS epidemic began in the 80s. Safe sex education didn't begin until the late 80s. And then in the early 90s, the rates began to decline. It's pretty simple.

I believe that if 'sex education' were truly effective, abortions would be unheard of, as people would not get pregnant unless they wanted to.

I didn't say it was truly effective, only that it had an effect. Given that one of the aims of sex education is to reduce teen pregnancy, and teen pregnancy is declining, this is true.

...people are still having children they do not want, and at a greater rate then before.

No. A lower rate. Jesus. We just went over this. The rate of teen pregnancy is down. Christ. We just demonstrated this. And you have already forgotten it. wtf!

...contraception is ineffective in preventing pregnancy.

My girlfriend is not currently pregnant; you are wrong; QED.

People are more apt to engage in risky behaviour when they are taught they are bulletproof so long as they wear a condom every time.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did that, but can't find anything that makes sense - if you have a point, then be specific.

Point being that the justices uphold the rule of law is a principle of Burkean Conservativism. Most socialists reject the concept altogether.

[Ben Kenobi]

The AIDS epidemic began in the 80s. Safe sex education didn't begin until the late 80s. And then in the early 90s, the rates began to decline. It's pretty simple.

It would make sense, but I don't understand the jump in the late 80's, after being flat for the first half of the decade. I don't think that sex education has much at all to do with the decline.

I didn't say it was truly effective, only that it had an effect. Given that one of the aims of sex education is to reduce teen pregnancy, and teen pregnancy is declining, this is true.

My thought, is that sex education has been counterproductive, in telling folks that it's ok because abortion is always there for you and just another form of birth control. This is why even as the births and pregnancies have declined, those who do get pregnant are far more likely to have an abortion.

No. A lower rate. Jesus. We just went over this. The rate of teen pregnancy is down. Christ. We just demonstrated this. And you have already forgotten it. wtf!

Those who get pregnant are more likely to choose abortion. This is a problem.

My girlfriend is not currently pregnant; you are wrong; QED.

Either of you could be infertile.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Increases in STD transmission.

[rah]

My thought, is that sex education has been counterproductive, in telling folks that it's ok because abortion is always there for you and just another form of birth control. This is why even as the births and pregnancies have declined, those who do get pregnant are far more likely to have an abortion.

[typical sex education class]
Don't worry about birth control, you can always have an abortion


You're delusional. But then we all knew that.

The typical dishonesty in arguing that you've shown in this thread is just more proof that it's futile to argue with you and the time is better spent just making fun of you.

[Lorizael]

It would make sense, but I don't understand the jump in the late 80's, after being flat for the first half of the decade. I don't think that sex education has much at all to do with the decline.

Statistical anomaly? Factors affecting teen pregnancy other than safe sex education? Do you have another explanation for the numbers? And what about the fact that states with a greater emphasis on safe sex education (Vermont, Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Massachusetts) have a lower teen pregnancy rate than states with little sex education or only abstinence-only programs (Nevada, Airzona, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas)? (Sex Ed information found here.)

My thought, is that sex education has been counterproductive, in telling folks that it's ok because abortion is always there for you and just another form of birth control. This is why even as the births and pregnancies have declined, those who do get pregnant are far more likely to have an abortion.

This paragraph fails to refute my claim. My claim was: reducing teen pregnancies is a goal of sex education; teen pregnancies have been reduced; therefore sex education has been effective. In order to refute this claim, you can either contend that (a) reducing teen pregnancies is not a goal of sex education or (b) the reduction in teen pregnancy is not a result of sex education. Rambling on about abortion as birth control does not address the point.

Those who get pregnant are more likely to choose abortion. This is a problem.

I agree, BUT STOP CLAIMING THAT THE RATE OF TEEN PREGNANCY HAS NOT DROPPED.

Either of you could be infertile.

My girlfriend has had multiple male sexual partners before me, has always used protection, and has never gotten pregnant. If contraception is ineffective, this would suggest that either she is infertile or all the male partners she's been with (including me) have been infertile. I also engaged in protected sex before my current girlfriend and it never resulted in pregnancy. This suggests that either I am infertile or my first girlfriend was infertile. My first girlfriend has had multiple sexual partners since me with protection, and has never once gotten pregnant, which suggests that either she is infertile or that all her male partners have been infertile. I have half a dozen friends that regularly engage in sexual activity with protection and more that have regularly engaged in sexual activity in the past with protection, and none of them have ever gotten pregnant. Again, this would suggest that every sexually active friend I have - or their partner - is infertile.

I personally know only a couple people who have become pregnant during sexual intercourse while I've known them. There's my girlfriend's bestfriend, who suddenly decided not to wear protection while having sex with her boyfriend, and then got pregnant. If protection is ineffective, this suggests that either she or he were infertile while wearing protection, but suddenly became fertile when they removed the protection. And then there's my cousin and his girlfriend, who are young, Catholic, and don't use protection.

So what's more likely - that every person I've ever known who has used protection has also coincidentally been infertile and that every person I've ever known who doesn't use protection was only fertile while not wearing protection, or that protection is an effective contraceptive?

Increases in STD transmission.

Really? Then how come the rates of reported cases of Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Herpes, and HIV/AIDS have been decreasing since the 90s (according to the CDC)?

[Asher]

Lori, are you engaging him in debate to see if he's capable of having one? We all know he's not. Is this his audition for a permaban?

[Straybow]

[Q=loinburger;5676000]Scientifically, an embryo/fetus is a distinct human organism. So is somebody who is brain dead and kept alive by a respirator etc. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is a Person, then abortion is wrong as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is not a Person, then abortion is a-ok (at least until the third-ish trimester) as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you use some other definition of personhood then the abortion may or may not be okay and unplugging the brain dead guy may or may not be okay. In other words, science isn't a whole lot of help here.[/Q] Except that isn't the test to be applied. We have to make the "end of life decisions" because those in long-term comas without brain activity are unlikely to recover spontaneously and medicine has no treatment or cure.

Contrast this with the "unthinking" fetus, which will grow into consciousness in a matter of weeks unless somebody kills it or something else goes horribly wrong.

The other criteria is financial. The brain-dead patient is being kept alive at considerable expense for an indefinitely long period of time. This ever-growing expense, combined with the hopeless prognosis, is when we may pull the plug.

The baby is nurtured in the womb, the place designed for it's gestation. As long as momma doesn't abuse herself or have unusual medical problems the expense is low and has a definite duration.

[loinburger]

So you use the definition that something that may at one point have conscious/sentient/sapient/whatever thought is a person. I don't use this definition for reasons already given.

[rah]

Agreed, for me, if the entity has not attained consciousness yet, I don't consider it a person yet. When or if it does in the womb is debatable. I'll concede third trimester and even a little earlier for the sake of argument, but not first trimester.