Discussions
Abstinence or Condoms?
Posted by dratiffarid • 11/22/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: abstinence, condom, condoms
Suppose you were in charge of a health program to prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by promoting condom usage or abstinence, which would you choose?
dratiffarid.today.com
User Comments
-
Abstinence may work 100% when it comes to preventing both pregnancy and STD's but the stats indicate that the majority of teens do not abstain from having sex until they are married. Ignorance leads to poor reproductive health, unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
Also after marriage many couples still wish to prevent pregnancy and plan to have a family when they are best prepared to become parents. Others may wish to remain childfree and the reasons for either delaying having a family or for choosing not to have one at all are both varied and valid.
I believe that adults who profess teaching abstinence is irresponsible because these programs have proven to be ineffectual, and I can provide links to the research that demonstrates how ineffectual this single focus programming is.
My position is that all sex education programs aimed at both teens and adults ought to be comprehensive. Comprehensive sex education includes teaching abstinence, as well as, complete contraceptive information (not just condom use), and is aimed at promoting reproductive health by providing information for preventing unwanted pregnancies and prevention from STD's and HIV (AIDs).-
I can't add a thing...agree 100% -
I accidentally omited a word in one sentence in the 3rd paragraph above. Insert the word only this sentence following the word "abstinence"
"I believe that adults who profess teaching abstinence only is irresponsible because these programs have proven to be ineffectual, and I can provide links to the research that demonstrates how ineffectual this single focus programming is." -
I read that into it, TT.
-
That's good to know. I'm passionate about the subjects of reproductive health and women having the right to make their own reproductive and medical decisions. Given the false claims of equality for all under the American constitution the fact that women still lack women having the right to make their own reproductive and medical decisions reveals hypocrisy.
I'm further appalled by another hypocrisy. The intrusion of religion into public health programming in America, where it is proclaimed that church and state are separate is self evident. Exporting that ignorance in the form of "abstinence only programming" sponsored by Christian religious organizations to third world nations like Africa where AIDS is epidemic is utterly shameful and irresponsible. -
....TT, are you a psychologist? =.= -
I'm agree with you, also when you write about religion. Here in Italy we are hostages of catholic church that interfere every day in our lifes. And the politicians don't move nothing if the church doesn't agree. More the church (all men you know) wants to decide about women life. It's absurd.
Sorry for my bad english.
-
-
Condom. Abstinence sex education is just wishful thinking. -
Wow, i agree with you timethief.
It's best to use a mix of both though the usage of condoms should be given more importance.
The approach of giving options to the youth that you mentioned about is called the 'cafeteria approach' and is very important to follow.
We can't force anyone from not having sex.
Each method can contribute in its own small way to prevent spread of STDs.-
Currently the only federal programs that receive taxpayer funding in the USA are "faith based abstinence only programs". The federal programs legal requirements disallow the teaching of contraceptive use with one exception, and that's to mention that condoms sometimes fail.
Given the unwanted teen pregnancy rates and the teen STD rates in America, which are higher than the other westernized countries in the world, and given the fact that religion and state are supposed to be separate in America, I find this to be a shocking, irresponsible and unacceptable use of tax dollars that ought to be rectified.
-
-
I believe in abstinence to the point of chastity belts and the stoning of witches.-
Just because that's what they did when you were growing up...
/runs away... -
Mwahaha! -
That's interesting. The religious aspect can never be forgotten.
-
-
This thread reminds me when Mother Theresa was doing her selfless work for the poor in Calcutta (for which she received the Nobel Prize). This highly respected person called abortion 'murder' and asked how people could kill their children (foetus). Leaving religious convictions aside, knowing that she was working amongst people who lived below the poverty line and very often illiterate, and the national govt was doing its utmost to implement its family planning programme, was amazing. The western press did not react. I know I am inviting a hornet's head around my head for this statement, but for me , young college student at that time, it was rather shocking.
The Third World has a structure which is different. The rhythm method cannot work, however natural it is because the woman who follows her cycles is illiterate and does not know how to count upto 28. The method of abstinence is doomed to people who live below the povery line because they often go to the cities to work, leaving the families in their villages or elsewhere. The actual time spent together as a couple is thus severely reduced. Vasectomies were and are practised, which in the western world is almost unheard of. This inclusion ofmen in the family planning circuit is great. Why should the woman always be responsible for pregancies? Why can't men participate including in the richer countries? It is true the relationship has to be solid for that, and one has to be sure that one has had the children one wants. A condom is not fool-proof alas, but better than nothing.-
You are right about Madre Teresa, I agree with you but I can't say these things !!! People would look at me as I was the devil!
-
-
What is needed is education on about five different levels! -
Condoms feel just so much better. People are driven by the biology of pleasure. It is unavoidable. -
Condoms. Promoting safe sex is smarter than promoting no sex. -
You want to hear something funny? Back in high school, I used to fail like, everything. I even got banned from the computer lab, it was pretty bad. But I was always an A student in sex ed..Again, this is when I wasn't on a hiatus for pulling stunts. One stunt was when we were all talking about the risks of anal sex, I started saying "Butt sex!" out loud and yeah, the teacher threw me out and I had to finish the rest of the course in the principals office or something.
And on that note, I think butt sex is pretty gross, but it's better to teach about butt sex then such a silly concept like abstinence. -
I am with Time thief. I believe in comprehensive sex education. Wishing sex away doesn't work. -
Abstinence-only sex-ed is a ridiculous failure.
Certainly abstinence can be brought up as an option--and the most foolproof option.
Other options, such as condoms also need to be encouraged, however.-
As Richard Dawkins said, "Those who seek a natural method of population control will get exactly that - starvation."
-
-
When I was a teen (early 90's), I was still rather religious. My auntie gave me a book that is probably the one that this current USA education thing is partly based on, "True Love Waits" in a Finnish translation. I read the whole book, and for about two weeks I was sold to the idea of abstinence. Even though I had the set up to be a good Christian girl, all that flew out of the window, not even when I got my first boyfriend, but actually a lot earlier, even though I didn't "do it" as soon as I decided the whole thing was ridiculous, but I could have.
The whole concept makes me want to puke these days. I saw a TV show that showed bits of some educators class, and he pulled out two tooth brushes. The other one was used, and the other one was neatly in the package. He asked which one would the students use. Of course everyone pointed at the packaged one. He then explained that it should be the same case with people who have had sex, along the lines as to they are pretty much as usable as a used tooth brush. That kind of approach just made me want to bust the whole tv, as it directly teaches the kids to give themselves a value as a person by the number of people they have or have not slept with. This leads to people deciding that they will accept the love of anyone at all, (probably an abusive spouse) because they deserve it having had sex and all.
So my point is that not only is it harmful to physical health to teach abstinence only, it is very harmful for the mental health as well, in too many levels than I can really list here. (I should blog about that...)
Also agree with Timethief 100%. -
in a developed country - condoms, in an undeveloped one - abstinance-
I don't agree with the categorization of developed or underdeveloped matter for this topic.
How will it make a difference? -
Underdeveloped nations are the places LEAST likely to employ abstinence due to their lack of education and understanding of the workings of the body and the course of disease.
-
-
what is this Abstinence you speak of?-
Abs-tinence is a new 10-minute abs workout.
-
Abstinence from watching Naruto?
lol -
It was pretty obvious
Abstinence from having sex. -
I thought abstinence was an alcoholic beverage.
-
-
No, Voodoo, that is absinthe!
-
Grah... English vocabularies are killing me!
-
I believe absinthe is French, not English
-
-
-
I would set up a medical division that would present means of preventing the transfer of disease such as condoms.
I would then set up a family division that would work to persuade whoever would listen that their best bet is to abstain from sex until marriage.
Most of all, I would share the message of Jesus with people. Without life, hope, love, healing, and other internal resources, young people will tend to get involved with sex outside of marriage. It will never work to just say "don't do it, it is bad." Young people usually end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deciding that, to God, their sexuality is bad.
I want young people to read Song of Solomon (which is very passionate, romantic, and erotic in nature). It will give them something to look forward to, and help them to "not awaking love until it so desires" (ie - at the right time).
I was persuaded as a young person of the value of "waiting." I had some of the internal resources that I needed but lacked others. I barely made it, but I made it.
Seeing sexuality God's way, knowing who you are, experiencing unconditional love and acceptance - these are the kinds of things that will help a young person be strong and pure and then enjoy their sexuality to it's fullest within marriage.
:-)-
Uh...wake up and smell the coffee. This has been tried all over the US...its primary result was an increase in both STD's and unplanned pregnancies.
How about approaching this from a pragmatic standpoint rather than wishful thinking? -
Oh for goodness sake get a grip! Take a long hard look at the ineffectiveness of teaching abstinence only.
Despite years of evaluation in this area, there is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education delays teen sexual activity. Moreover, recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs. Source PDF www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.pdf
Abstinence only students still having sex
April 16, 2007
American students who participated in sexual abstinence programs faith based programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.
Also, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc. those who attended one of the four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes, and they first had sex at about the same age as their control group counterparts — 14.9 years.
Approximately one in four teens in the United States will contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Experts believe a major contributing factor is the failure of many teens to use condoms consistently and routinely. Now a new study provides some insight into some of the factors that influence condom use among teenagers. Nearly two-thirds of adolescents did not use a condom the last time they had sex.
Participants also reported an average of two partners and about 15 incidents of unprotected sexual activity within the 90-day period. The researchers found that teens who did not use condoms were significantly more likely to believe that condoms reduce sexual pleasure and were also more concerned that their partner would not approve of condom use. These findings held true across racial/ethnic groups, gender and geographic locations. The findings appear in the September/October issue of Public Health Reports.
Source: ScienceDaily (Sep. 12, 2008)
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/ -
Did Jesus ever have sex?
No?
Well, then he's not going to lecture me on sex. -
@flamingpoodle
I thought it but you had the guts to say it. -
Hello flamingpoodle.
The Biblical Christian perspective is that Jesus is the One True Creator God of all the universe and everything is. That means that he INVENTED sex.
That is just like God to command man to do something and then put in man an intense desire to do so.
You are, of course, able to go ahead and choose to disregard God's counsel on sexuality; but you're missing out. :-)
Why not check in with the Designer? -
Sweetviolet, timethief: Your comments seem to be in response to mine. It appears that you didn't actually read my comment. I did not suggest that no one is told the science and biology of disease and how it can be transferred and how to prevent that transfer. I merely suggested that Abstinence Education won't have much effect unless you also give young people the internal (spiritual, emotional, psychological) resources to deal with their sexuality in a healthy way.
God made sex. God is pleased with what he has made. God wants humans to engage in sex.
Their are great benefits in discovering the ways in which God intended sex to work.
There is biology; but there is also intimacy, procreation, emotion, psychology, etc. -
Hi ThirstyJon
I appreciate your concern but the topic is not who designed what or what its purpose may be. The topic is what works and what doesn't.
Abstinence doesn't work. If you agree that no human being is perfect and we all fall short of the glory, it means that you can not expect perfection (ie abstinence) from imperfect human beings.
Coincidentally, abstinence fails the most when it relies only on spiritual, faith based aspects. See this report:
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot
Now, by all means, teach abstinence as part of your approach, but the fact remains that more often than not, the more mystery you cloud something in, the more likely kids are going to want to fool around.
So haul out the pregnancy suits, strap them on girls and guys for a week, let them see what it is like, explain the whole process, what causes it and how to prevent it - and teach abstinence as one way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but don't be foolish and think that children are going to do what you tell them to. -
@thirstyjon
I read your first contribution and I chose to ignore it. I have clearly described that comprehensive sex education includes teaching abstinence along with information on human reproduction and contraception techniques aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD's, including HIV (AIDS).
Unless or until empirical evidence proves a supernatural creator being exists, I give absolutely no credence to the "religious programming" that you put forward.
IMO the myth that a non-existent big guy in the sky created all there is including mankind declared them very good, and later condemned all mankind to the hell fires of damnation (original sin), just so he could appear on earth as his own son born of a (cough) virgin (possibly impregnated by another non-existent supernatural being called an angel) to fulfill the role of savior, and rescue a select few who were chosen before the foundations of time, from the same hell fires of damnation at end times, if and only if they believe in him, is beyond ridiculous. IMO it's delusional. -
Flamingpoodle,
I, my wife, most of my closest friends, and many other young people that I know personally are all testimonies to the fact that waiting for marriage can work. I am not suggesting that parents do not teach their children the biological side of their sexuality. My parents did. I understood abstinence, condoms, contraceptives, where babies come from, the whole idea. That is what I will teach my children as well.
For those who chose abstinence until marriage, the benefits are great. I intend to inform anyone that will listen about those benefits.
:-) -
Timethief,
Ignore away. I don't mind.
I am sorry to hear your feelings towards God. You are missing out.
:-) -
Thirstyjon
You are the exception to the rule. Open your eyes and smell the coffee. Read the stats. Talk to young people. I do not doubt that you are a very nice person, but you can't expect that to be the norm.
People should know what their options are. All of their options, even ones you don't like. -
Flamingpoodle,
I am an exception to a rule that exists only in your head. And when have I suggested that folks not be told what their options are? I have been sharing the benefits of abstinence until marriage. I have not asserted that young people should not be taught other things as well. In fact, I have repeatedly asserted that a good understanding of the biology of sex, disease, prevention, and reproduction is valuable.
I am beginning to wonder if what you REALLY want is "other options only" education. Or perhaps you have just stereotyped me in your head and are not actually reading the content of my comments.
By the way I WORK with young people, and I can tell you that many are able to choose to abstain until marriage and succeed. You testified that you chose not to. That was your choice. You are responsible for your choice. Do not deny others the information they need to make that choice for themselves.
:-) -
ThirstyJon, I have stated that abstinence could form part of a sex education program but that an abstinence only sex education program is not effective. I have no hidden agenda. I did not claim this because of my beliefs, I claim this because that's reality. If you work with young people, you will surely know that abstinence only programs are ineffective, and if you do not realise this then your beliefs are clouding your judgement.
Do you believe that teaching young people about abortion and contraceptives forms part of a sex education program? -
Flamingpoodle,
I work with young people, and I have never witnessed an abstinence only education program, and I have yet to suggest that there be one. Presenting the abstinence option gives young people the information they need to make their decisions.
If I were teaching a "sex education" course I would teach about contraceptives. I would have discussions about the science behind them. I would have discussions about all of the varying moral beliefs about them. Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Conservatives, Liberals. I'd have my students do research on how often contraceptives work and how often they fail. We'd talk about it all.
And I would definitely want to talk about the science and biology and moral questions about abortion. If all young people really knew how varying abortions work there would be far fewer of them.
What I would not tell them is "you are going to do this sex thing outside of marriage anyway, so you might as well use a condom." That kind of statement denies that they have the ability to make an informed moral and practical choice. Human beings are not only animals. There is more to us than hormones. :-)
-
-
abstinence makes the heart grow fonder -
Abstinence is not realistic. Never has been, never will be.
-
It can be done. If a young person believes that sex God's way is better in the end, and if they are equipped with knowledge of who they are and other internal resources they CAN do it an it IS realistic. I have seen young people succeed and win this battle.
-
It can be done, of course. We're talking a remote possibility that a 17 year old kid is going to contain his hormones by threat of hell fire. I doubt it. It certainly is possible, but it isn't the norm and nothing is going to make it the norm.
It didn't stop me, it didn't stop my high school girlfriends and thank goodness I had amazing parents who gave me proper sex education at home because if I were to rely on school education I'd know what goes where and that's about that. -
@ThirstyJon
There is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education already in place in America and costing taxpayers $190 million annually delays teen sexual activity at all.
According to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress, American students who participated in sexual abstinence programs faith based programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. Those teens who attended abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes, and they first had sex at about the same age as their control group counterparts — 14.9 years.
Recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may actually deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs. Source PDF www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.pdf
Given unwanted pregnancy rates, STD's rates and HIV (AIDS) rates among American teens I believe that not providing them with information on contraception is irresponsible. I also believe that exporting ignorance in the form of abstinence only programs, rather than comprehensive sex education) to other countries like Africa, where AIDs is rampant is shameful. -
Flamingpoodle,
I don't recommend using Hellfire to scare young people away from sex. I recommend, amongst other things, the book of Song of Solomon in the Bible. It would encourage a young person to look forward to fulfilling their natural desires in an excellent context. In fact, how good it can be in the context of "'till death do us part" is one of the greatest motives for waiting.
As far as your own choices are concerned, there is still hope even for you. Your hormones may be strong, but they do not control your CHOICES. -
Timethief,
It was asserted that "abstinence" does not work. I assert that it can. I did not say "abstinence only education." I want my children to understand the science and biology of sexuality, disease, and reproduction. I am not too particularly fond of the idea of the public school system being the source of their information, so I intend to teach them myself.
It'll go something like this "Sex is good, God made it, scientifically and biologically it works like this.... You will have hormones that make you want to do it. You live in a culture that will pressure you to do it before it is best for you. God's way is worth waiting for. You don't have to be afraid to feel it, talk about it, etc. Contraceptives work (or in some cases don't work) like this..."
I feel compassion for any child who learns the biology, feels the hormones, sees the images, is affected by the visual, audio pressure all around them, is told that they are going to do it anyway; but never gets told the benefits of waiting. So just mentioning abstinence isn't enough. I wouldn't be surprised if the "abstinence-only" education isn't done well either.
And I know... You aren't into the God thing. That is between you and God. Again, you're missing out!
:-) -
@ThirstyJon
And I know... You aren't into the God thing. That is between you and God. Again, you're missing out!
I am an adult who was home schooled. I come from a Christian evangelical fundamentalist background on both sides of my family. I was raised in the faith and I am a Bible School graduate who chose not to continue, submit a thesis and achieve a Masters degree. The best decision I ever made in my life was to toss the dogma and doctrine in the trashcan, turn my back on the church, and learn how to meditate.
What I experience when I meditate and all the things associated with my "self" like greed, anger, hate, etc. dissolve is that there really is no self; there is no distinct being that is separate from the universal stream of pure consciousness -- quiet joy, peace, love ie. god.
Neither male nor female, neither good nor bad, neither light nor darkness but containing all there is and situate everywhere: the universal stream of pure life giving consciousness flowing through all is god. Hence, god is found in everyone and in everything; god just keeps on is-ing.
Best wishes with your sex education homeschooling plans. -
The Song of Solomon condones polygamy.
-
Abstinence can work, but it doesn't. Can denotes a possibility. Of course it is possible for it to work in the same sense that it is possible for me to grow wings and fly.
-
Flamingpoodle,
You assert that Song of Solomon condones polygamy.
The wonderful thing is, you get to read the book and use your reasoning skills and decide for yourself what it condones.
I suggest you consider this possibility: Song of Solomon may actually be a subtle rebuke of Solomon and his many wives. The whole story is about the love of one man and one woman, perhaps contrasted to Solomon coming along with all of his chariots and yet another wife. In fact, abstinence until marriage, followed by a delightful "diving in" to the sexual experience are the things the book is condoning.
"I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the wild does: do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready!"
"Your lips distill nectar, my bride; honey and milk are under your tongue; the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon."
I invite you to get reconciled to God, learn about His ways, give your sexuality to Him, and wait to see what blessings He will bring you. He is very Good, and He is the Inventor.
Anyone reading this who is married, why not go read the Song of Solomon with your spouse, and then see what happens? Abstinence is until marriage, it is not for after marriage.
:-) -
However, the truth is usually simple. It's not a subtle rebuke, unless you want to have a hellishly complicated interpretation of what is a poetically lustful celebration of Solomon's polygamy.
Again, your belief is damaging your judgement. Your beliefs are not valid and they are not sound because they allow you to deny reality. I'm afraid I can't help you with that, but I hope you can see what your beliefs are doing to other people, both those who share your beliefs who end up marrying people they don't truly love and those who do not share your beliefs who have to raise kids they can't afford. -
Flamingpoodle, I disagree strongly with you that the interpretation I suggested is "hellishly complicated." It is a good and reasonable interpretation based on a contextual and thoughtful study of the text.
I don't have any beliefs that suggest someone should marry someone that they do not love. You are starting to make stuff up, perhaps out of a stereotype of me that you have in your head.
It appears that you are so convinced that my beliefs are clouding my judgment that your beliefs are clouding yours.
And what are you talking about when you refer to "those who do not share your beliefs who have to raise kids they can't afford?" I would suggest that if someone can not afford to raise children then they should not have children. Of course, that does not justify murdering those children if they are conceived!
-
-
I remember a time in the 1980s when doctors and magazines in the US were promoting barrier methods to prevent all fluid transfer for all sexual acts. Basically, if a body part secreted or excreted any type of fluid a barrier had to be applied. In some cases, double barriers were recommended...i.e. double condoms and very creative uses for latex dental dams.-
Interesting.
-
At the time saliva and perspiration were considered high-risk. Docs were trying to limit all contact with bodily fluids. Direct skin-to-skin contact was highly discouraged.
-
Double condoms are stupid as they tend to tear each other.
-
This was 20 years ago...everyone was scared silly. We've learned a lot since then.
-
Herpes was a huge concern at that time as well as virtual ignorance about HIV/AIDS and how it was transmitted. "Double gloving" was the best they had back then...there was even a "female condom" around for a while, which was pretty mood-destroying! (I was single in the mid-to-late 80s).
-
-
@ Timetheif- I completely agree with you! I think that the religious community has so vilified sex that sex education is now a right-wrong battleground giving each side an agenda. Besides... people are going to have sex whether you tell them how or not! so why not give them a fair chance?!-
I'm astonished at the irresponsible position taken by American adults, who cling to their paper pope and profess that all their kids need to know is don't do it until you marry.
Faith based programming isn't working -- DUH. What's needed is comprehensive sex education.
Yet every year $190 MILLION federal tax dollars is being spent on ineffectual faith based abstinence only programming just to appease religious people want their kids to remain ignorant, vulnerable to unwanted pregnancies, and to STD's, including HIV (AIDS).
Where is the love? -
True.
-
-
Both. At the SAME time. Does that blow your mind or what?-
both is a good choice. But I still think Condoms should be given preference anyday.
-
-
Condoms can fall expensive for many, including in the west. People are shy to stand near the distributors, often right on a public street or near the station, orto ask for them at the chemist. (That's the way it works here anyway). Last choice is to buy them with the groceries or drinks at the supermarket! The plus point of condoms is that the man takes some responsibility but, and that's a great but, some boys use one several times to save on cost or effort! Which completely negates the protection against pregnancy and ST diseases.
-
I think it's a disservice to teens if you simply teach abstinence. Although abstinence is the only 100% sure fire way to remain non pregnant and STD free it is not practical. Since we as adults understand that it is not probable for most teens to remain abstinent we would be wrong as adults not to equip youngsters with precautionary items, Condoms and birth control.
At least that is my two cents.-
Yes, definitely. Empower people by giving them more options.
Abstinence is not even 100% sure fire. What if a girl gets raped? What does she do? She could be pregnant, she could have contracted an STD, but without proper sex education she has no idea how to take care of herself in such a horrible situation. It's not like she can tell a rapist: "Nu uh, I practice abstinence!". -
@Flamingpoodle..well that was extreme but of course we would hope in that situation there are still options available for the young girl.
-
@Faith
... of course we would hope in that situation there are still options available for the young girl.
U.S. Abortion Rate continues long-term decline, falling to the lowest level since Roe vs Wade - The abortion rate is now at its lowest level since 1974. The number of abortions declined as well, to a total of 1.2 million in 2005, 25% below the all-time high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990. www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html
However, most Americans are unaware that Bush is attempting to redefine contraception as abortion behind the scenes.
Can you imagine living in an America where birth control is considered be "abortion" and health insurers won't cover it? Where even rape victims are denied emergency contraception?
It seems unbelievable, but the Bush Administration is quietly trying to redefine "abortion" to include birth control. The Houston Chronicle says this could wipe out dozens of state laws that protect women's reproductive freedom and protect rape victims. Access to basic health care for millions of women would be jeopardized. And it's being pushed as a "rule change" meaning, it doesn't need congressional approval. www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/12/moveonorg-urges-opposition-hhs-regul...
The Bush administration's draft regulations on abortion and contraception can be read at: www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf
MoveOn.org asks people to write HHS opposing the proposed regulations and has formulated an online petition available for signature and this is the text:
"Contraception is NOT abortion. The Bush Administration's proposal to change the definition of abortion and reduce women's access to birth control must be stopped." pol.moveon.org/contraception/?rc=rh
Speaker Pelosi released the following statement on the Administration’s draft proposal:
"If the Administration goes through with this draft proposal, it will launch a dangerous assault on women’s health.
The majority of Americans oppose this out of touch position that redefines contraception as abortion and represents a sustained pattern of the Bush Administration to reject medical and sound science in favor of a misguided ideology that has no place in our government.
I urge the President to reject this policy and join with Democrats to focus on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services and access to affordable birth control." www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1441
Bush's behind the scenes actions reveal that the hard line religious right wingers intend to:
(1) redefine contraception as abortion
(2) strip a pregnant woman of her civil rights;
(3) grant civil rights to her fetus; and
(4) compel the pregnant woman to deliver it either at full term or prematurely; and
(5) allow it to be adopted.
We can readily see that pro-life advocates claim to uphold democratic principles such as equality when, in fact, they appear to be part of a committed campaign to establish government control over women's medical and reproductive decisions by way of dirty politics. -
Certainly, but she has to know what these options are.
-
@TT I actually can't imagine a world like that. What I think so many pro-lifers don't understand about the pro-choice stance is that it doesn't mean that anyone is pro abortion, I mean that would be a crazy outlandish thing to say but I do understand in situations it makes the most sense for certain people. And since I understand the difference my right to choose what I want to do with my body has nothing to do with anyone else.
-
@Faith
What I reported above is happening and most Americans are completely unaware of it. -
Hello Timethief,
I took the time to read through the link you referred to (www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf) and I find that it does not at all try to redefine contraception as abortion.
Not only that, but your comment grossly misrepresents what that document is about. It is not about redefining abortion, it is very clearly about protecting the rights of individuals and entities to not participate in abortions if they morally disagree with them. It is a rule proposed to protect that right of conscience!
I recommend that anyone reading this post actually go and read the document. It very clearly does not do what Timethief is claiming it does.
So... Timethief, did you read it yourself? Or did you just get mad about it because Nancy Pelosi and moveon.org are mad about it?
Read it again. Where is the part that defines contraception as abortion? And, even if it did, (which it doesn't) it is a rule only trying to protect conscientious objectors from illegal discrimination.
-
-
Telling a teenager not to do something is like throwing fuel on a fire. That which is forebidden is coveted to a rebellious teen. Some of the wildest girls in school were those that had repressive parents. Abstinence doesn't work and I would be so bold as to say it contributes to making the matter worse. -
This makes me think of a story of a monk who had the responsibility to copy some holy scriptures. When he arrived at the monastery he was offered a copy of the original to work from. However he refused to use the copy saying that he would prefer the original, since the copy might have errors. After not being seen for many days they found him with tears in his eyes. Being very concerned they asked him why he was crying. His reply was simply the word is "celebrate" with the focus on the "r"...
Why not celebrate life and love in a responsible manner? -
I've been single for over 2 years now so right now it's abstinence but what would I give for the chance of using a condom (or asking a bloke to use one of course!).-
If sex education doesn't pick up, that bloke is going to use the condom as a water balloon!
-
-
Condoms. -
Man, I've read stories about how some people use condom alternatives. Everything from motor oil to plastic bags to whiskey. Why not just use the old pull 'n' pray?
-
Guess you and I have heard some real sordid ones!
-
-
And what those whose intentions are good but are just too sozzled, drugged, depressed or sick to handle a rubber? And what if their partner is in the same state? Like after a late party or a hospital ward (you remember Ryan and Ali in Love Story? Ooops she was going to die anyway!) People are not always thinking straight when they should.
-
"They express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation." Richard Dawkins
-
I don't think natural works in this case! Natural methods I mean. Nature and following one's natural inclinations is another matter. Its a bit like the Malthusian theory of population!
-
Yes, natural methods don't work at all.
They're a waste - if i can say.
-
-
The document clearly stipulates that legally, you can not be discriminated against either way. In other words, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life and if you were in the medical profession, you should not be discriminated against either way on grounds of religious practices. The document then claims:
They found that, although many physicians oppose the procedures (52% objected to abortion for failed contraception, for example), 86% felt they were obligated to present all options regardless of their own objections and 71% believed physicians were obligated to assist objectionable procedures by referring the patient to another clinician.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the preceding. The law does not stipulate anything either way about informing a client about the option of having an abortion. The document makes it appear as if it is your right as a health care professional not to inform a patient about her option to have an abortion. It is not, as the law only stipulates you are not to be discriminated against if you decide not to conduct an abortion, if you decide to conduct an abortion, if you decide to make your facility available to someone else who wants to conduct abortions or if you don't want to on religious or moral grounds.
The law does not mean that you as a health care professional have the right not to give abortion as an option. Fortunately, it seems that most health care professionals agree that, despite their moral scruples, they are required to inform a patient of all her options.
A doctor delivers a health service. If you want moral lessons, go to a philosopher.
Then the document claims:
Under a bill recently considered in the Colorado legislature, the attorney general of Colorado would be allowed to consider “reductions in the availability and accessibility of health care services in the communities served by the hospital,” in determining whether he or she will allow such a transaction to continue as the parties originally planned.6 Some have interpreted the provisions of this bill to empower the State attorney general: (1) to prevent hospitals with policies against providing abortions from acquiring hospitals that do provide abortions; or (2) to require those hospitals that do not provide abortions to provide abortions, if the acquisition of the other hospital will result in the loss of abortion services in the hospital being purchased.
In other words, this bill is interpreted as allowing the Fed to decide not to grant state funding to hospitals who previously did abortions, but who were now purchased by a hospital which does not do abortions, and the other way around.
Meaning this Colorado bill clearly contradicts the preceding laws which clearly stipulate that whether or not you allow abortions should not be part of the considerations of funding, because it's clearly discrimination on the grounds of whether or not you allow abortions at your hospital.
Did you read the bill?-
No, but I'm in Europe. Women cross the borders rather easily from certain countries where abortions or other practises are not encouraged, including for medical procreation. I remember when I was pregnant and in my late thirties, an amniocentisis had to be performed to ensure that the baby did not have the chronosome of trisomy 21. The doctor clearly gave me the choice of having this test done (it was a screening), gave me the statistics and gave me the options if the chronosome was found, including abortion. He also stated that some couples for religious or ethical reasons chose not to know. I appreciated this straight talk. By the way, abortion in France is taken in charge by the health system. Some people have used this argument against the fact that only a certain part of medical procreation is taken in charge by the state.
I wonder if the laws are different in different States? Dawkins I need to get to know better, I find memetics fascinating (might include it in my study). -
My bad, that was aimed at ThirstyJon.
That's great! I would love it if a doctor gave me the full drill and let me decide what I want to do with my body.
If you're interested in memes, try the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. -
Flamingpoodle, you state below that this comment was directed to me.
Yes, I read the proposed rule and the arguments and reasoning for it in the article referred to by timethief (www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf). Note that it is not a bill. It is quite long but I read it all. It is overwhelmingly and clearly an effort to defend freedom of conscience by preventing discrimination against workers and institutions based on their moral stances on certain issues involving abortion. The proposed rule protects both pro-choice and pro-life folks. The proposed rule does not require someone to discuss abortion as an option or as a non-option.
You stated that "a doctor delivers a health service. If you want moral lessons, go to a philosopher." Perhaps if you were in charge of a government agency you would discriminate against someone because of their moral choices regarding abortion. The proposed rule is designed to enforce the law to protect those people from you and the way you are thinking. Doctors, Health Care Institutions and other Health Care workers have a right and a responsibility to make moral choices in what they practice, what they participate in, and what they communicate. -
Um, that's incorrect. The law is already in place and adequate, because it protects moral dimwits from spawning more dimwits and it prevents people like me who think you're all dimwits from forcing you to be sterilised and having abortions.
What this proposed bill is about, is enabling the surgeon of health to decide whether a hospital should get funding or not based on his own moral judgement, regardless of the laws in place. It means if someone like me became surgeon of health, there won't be a single state funded hospital that doesn't conduct abortions. Of course the same goes if someone like yourself becomes surgeon of health, in which case no state funded hospital would probably conduct abortions.
See? This proposed bill is a double edged sword and it's not a good idea. -
Flamingpoodle,
You must be talking about something other than the proposed rule brought into the discussion by timethief because you keep calling it a bill (which it is not) and you clearly don't know what it is about. So I offer the link yet again to the passerby who reads this discussion to go to the actual content and decide for themselves (www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf).
The document itself begins its summary like this:
- "The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to promulgate regulations to ensure that, in accordance with the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 300a-7), Public Health Service (PHS) Act §245 (42 U.S.C. § 238n), and the Weldon Amendment (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209), Department funds do not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law."
It is also clear that it is not a bill but a proposed regulation designed to enforce current federal law.
And by the way, your discussion will be more useful minus the name calling.
-
-
Hello all!
My reply to this question: Suppose you were in charge of a health program to prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by promoting condom usage or abstinence, which would you choose?
Human abstinence requires a lot of discipline and control over one's sexual urges and this is a natural flaw that many human beings fail to overcome.
So I suggest that the strategy should employ a combination of condom usage and an extensive campaign against STD. The media and non-media campaign should highlight health concerns and moral issues to help instill the importance of safe sex and to encourage the youth to abstain totally from it. -
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
