A ULCA student journalist writing for the paper, The Advocate.

First, posing as a 15 year old who was raped by her 23 year old boyfriend, she went into a Los Angeles Planned Parenthood Clinic where she was advised that they did not have to report …..

I have a problem with that though. People who are so irresponsible that they cannot be counted on to buy their own condoms are not the people who can be counted on to use the condoms properly.

Esthier on February 17, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Some will and some won’t. You only need a few to recover your investment.

How many here practiced abstinance as a teenager?

AprilOrit on February 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM

I did. Though there’s not much “practice” involved in the decision to wait. I didn’t wait until I got married, but I wasn’t a teen and we married a couple years later. It’s not that hard, and I really don’t regret it.

I never had to worry that he was in it for the sex. I’ve never had an STD or even a pregnancy scare.

People find value in sexual intimacy outside of its reproductive component. Sure, some feel that each act of sexual intercourse must include a procreative potential, but most people don’t live their lives that way.

dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM

And they should find value in it. Sex serves a purpose greater than simply repopulating the world.

However, society seems to have forgotten what it’s ultimately for. It’s like telling an obese person to keep eating because it makes them feel good and trying to find ways to get them to lose wait without eating less or working out.

From a cost/benefit standpoint, making birth control available can benefit the community by spending a few cents on a condom rather than dealing with the social costs of an unwanted birth.

dedalus on February 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM

I have a problem with that though. People who are so irresponsible that they cannot be counted on to buy their own condoms are not the people who can be counted on to use the condoms properly.

So we’re basically giving those people a false hope in condom use, which ultimately leads to more unwanted pregnancies not less.

In the post legal abortion age, we’ve actually had more young single mothers, not less. Despite all the contraceptives and abortion options, the problem is only worse.

Actually, I don’t see a blastocyst as a human being. So the whole argument you are making is specious. Just because given a favorable pregnancy and birth that tissue would eventually become a human doesn’t somehow give it rights and uniqueness. If you want to take the pro-life argument to its logical conclusion you will come to the conclusion the Catholic Church has – condoms are a sin. After all, isn’t preventing insemination the same effect as an abortion? One is done to prevent a fetus from forming, the other is to remove the formed fetus. Both result in no pregnancy. Therefore both prevent a precious baby from being born.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM

No, the whole premise is off. It isn’t humanly possible for a man to make all of his sperm into a human being. Even when trying to have a baby, thousands of sperm must give up their lives. It’s how our bodies function.

It’s absolutely absurd to compare sperm to a sperm that has united with an egg.

A sperm united with an egg will always become a baby unless it is prevented from doing so.

A sperm has a one in a million chance of becoming a baby, and that’s only if it has an egg to fertilize.

The thing that has turned me off from the “evangelicals” in a mighty way is their insistance on not *less* government intervention but rather *more* in the form of controlling what women can do about an unwanted pregnancy.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Government already intervenes when it comes to the unborn. Sometimes killing it is murder. Sometimes it’s just a woman’s choice.

A woman’s choice is able to trump the definition of life.

“Evangelical” tend to believe it’s life in all instances, not just the instances where the woman chooses to make it valuable. And if it is life, then these weird people just want it protected the same way everyone else is protected.

But eventually, science is going to win the argument for us. Did anyone see that article in the NYT? A leading doctor is declaring that babies do feel pain at 20 weeks. But even with the new sonogram technology people are starting to see that yep, that’s a PERSON in there.

And if you really want an argument against PP, google the name “Gianna Jessen.”

Sounds gross, I know, but perhaps it would show all sides of the issue when it comes to abortion. There is nothing magic about that bullet.

When I was in school, I remember girls saying “oh, if I get pregnant I’ll just get an abortion” like it was some simple experience like having your teeth polished at the dentist. Planned Parenthood really gives the entire thing an artificial sweetness, don’t they?

I won’t claim to be knowledgeable on the subject, so I’m really asking a question and not being snarky when I ask if items like the ‘abstinence program’ are run on taxpayer dollars?

Not only does abstinence work against unwanted pregnancies, it’s 100% against ALL STDs! Condoms might increase your odds, but they are not 100%. Kids are being taught sex ed in school and taxpayer money is paying for it. Doesn’t it make sense to teach what is most effective and safe?

I’ll ask again, just in case someone would like to answer the question

Are items like the ‘abstinence program’ run on taxpayer dollars?

US ‘sex ed’ must be a lot different than what I experienced growing up. They just showed us how it all worked, and that was it. I’m sure some people decided to choose ‘abstinence’ right off that bat because of that, I can’t quite see any girl or guy getting turned on by the biology of it, though. so.. hmm.

If the condom only fails one time out of ten, but you have sex five times, then there’s a 50-50 chance that your condom failed one of those times

Sorry to interject, but your math is wrong.

The condom working every time:
90% * 5 chances = .9^5 = 59.049%…

So about a 41% chance, not a 50% chance. Which doesn’t change your point.

And as to “those who practiced abstinence” my first serious girlfriend (I was 15, she was 14) broke up with me over my not having sex with her. She was pregnant less than 3 months later; because she wanted a kid (yes, that young, and wanted a kid).

So yeah, that was a deterrent, and an effective one too. Until you’re in a serious committed relationship, you don’t really know what the other person’s goals are.

Actually, I don’t see a blastocyst as a human being. So the whole argument you are making is specious. Just because given a favorable pregnancy and birth that tissue would eventually become a human doesn’t somehow give it rights and uniqueness.

At what point are you willing to concede it is human life? Does human life begin at birth? Scientifically, that’s nonsense. Babies are alive before they’re born. Babies can be aborted legally the day before they’re born, but have been delivered and lived way before that point.

Does human life begin when it becomes “viable?” Then human life begins much sooner now than it did before, since better medical care makes babies viable much earlier than they used to be. But that means that a baby at the exact same stage of development that is viable now, and therefore human, was not human at that stage 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.

Or does “human life” arrive mysteriously at some point in between? Maybe we can pick some totally arbitrary deadline and say that babies in the first trimester of development are not human, babies in the third trimester are human, and babies in the second trimester may be human.

So which of these beginnings of human life is reflected in the practice of abortion in this country? None! Abortion is permitted regardless of any question about when life begins, or when that life becomes “human.”

And yes, I’m aware of the objection that I should be using the term “fetus” rather than “baby.” But since “fetus” can mean a chicken fetus or a pig fetus as much as it can a human fetus, “baby” is the more accurate term.

If you want to take the pro-life argument to its logical conclusion you will come to the conclusion the Catholic Church has – condoms are a sin. After all, isn’t preventing insemination the same effect as an abortion? One is done to prevent a fetus from forming, the other is to remove the formed fetus. Both result in no pregnancy. Therefore both prevent a precious baby from being born.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Let’s try taking your argument to the logical conclusion. By your argument, deciding not to have sex is the same as an abortion, since both prevent a precious baby being born.

I also am oppossed to the silly government abstenance programs. It doesn’t work, waste of money.

How many here practiced abstinance as a teenager?

AprilOrit on February 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Everybody practiced abstinence.

You must mean, how many practiced complete abstinence throughout their teenage years. Granted, that’s a much smaller number. But there are probably a lot more than you realize who did just exactly that.

But overall, the answer to your question is that the question is irrelevant. The promotion of abstinence doesn’t have to be a perfect success to be successful. If abstinence promotion programs lead to 30% less sex among teenagers, that’s a big difference.

On the other hand, promoting the use of condoms may well be detrimental to birth control and prevention of STD’s. Why? Because they provide a false sense of security. All birth control methods have a significant failure rate. If the condom only fails one time out of ten, but you have sex five times, then there’s a 50-50 chance that your condom failed one of those times. But I have known young men who didn’t care who they were having sex with, or how many, because they wore condoms. Again, if they have a lot of sex because they think the condom protects them, they may well expose themselves enough to increase their exposure, rather than decrease it.

Bottom line: condoms only help in those cases where people have decided not to practice abstinence. Those who practice abstinence, on the other hand, can be sure they will not produce a pregnancy.

I won’t claim to be knowledgeable on the subject, so I’m really asking a question and not being snarky when I ask if items like the ‘abstinence program’ are run on taxpayer dollars?

Not only does abstinence work against unwanted pregnancies, it’s 100% against ALL STDs! Condoms might increase your odds, but they are not 100%. Kids are being taught sex ed in school and taxpayer money is paying for it. Doesn’t it make sense to teach what is most effective and safe?

I think PP shouldn’t get tax dollars, but gov’t subsidized condoms are a great idea. They help reduce the population of dependents on gov’t funds as well as reduce the chances of transmitting disease. Good thing all-around.

Heck, why not go ahead and do the whole eugenics thing? It’s why Planned Parenthood was founded in the first place.

Actually, I don’t see a blastocyst as a human being. So the whole argument you are making is specious.

Science disagrees with you. There is no doubt that, scientifically, it is a human being.

The real question is whether or not it is a person, deserving of the basic human rights we afford other people. You may of course say that you don’t believe that human being is worthy of having such rights but don’t kid yourself about what it is that you’re saying.

I don’t mind the whole encouraging use of contraceptives angle of the ad that ALL appears to be referring to, but overall I’d agree that taxpayer dollars probably shouldn’t be used in such a fashion

If the homosexual lobby really thought it could get its agenda rammed through society through the legislature…

BKennedy on February 16, 2008 at 10:29 PM

…which brought an immature snigger from Tzetzes…

(I just signed the petition.)

That’s a canard. The only way this issue can be legislated one way or another is at the Federal level. Example: I want to have an abortion. I live in Texas which has made it unconstitutional. I then decide to take a drive to New Mexico and have my abortion. Would that satisfy you?

Hey, if your “only option” is to ignore all the resources available to you in the form of countless Christian support groups and the adoption system in order to make sure your baby is good and dead and not inconveniencing you, that is your business. Why should we pay to support your decision to terminate another’s life?

This exact same situation could apply to gay marriage and I’d be just as happy. But of course those who want abortion made illegal usually also want a total federal ban on gay marriage.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on February 16, 2008 at 10:11 PM

If the homosexual lobby really thought it could gets its agenda rammed through society through the legislature, it would do so. As it stands, it does it through the courts. Whenever an Amendment to a state constitution legalizing Gay Marriage was tried, it failed. I welcome them to try. Their sucess rate is abyssmal. That is why their tactics are to get children and indoctrinate them early.

But if you are truly concerned with the issue of choice, then you might be willing to obliterate Roe and send the issue of abortion back to the states. Then you can move to a state that “respects a woman’s right” to kill her child.

That’s a canard. The only way this issue can be legislated one way or another is at the Federal level. Example: I want to have an abortion. I live in Texas which has made it unconstitutional. I then decide to take a drive to New Mexico and have my abortion. Would that satisfy you?

This exact same situation could apply to gay marriage and I’d be just as happy. But of course those who want abortion made illegal usually also want a total federal ban on gay marriage.

It’s quite a double standard you have there. We have faith based groups feeding at the federal teat and promote values I find deeply disgusting, yet someway it’s bad for Planned Parenthood to promote sets of values other people may object to. And like it or not, abortion saves the government, so cutting funding for Planned Parenthood would just bloat the government’s budget.

thuja on February 16, 2008 at 2:33 PM

thuja,

Would you please elaborate on that statement you made, which I quoted above?

How are “faith based groups” feeding at the federal teat?

Are you talking about federal funds for charitable organizations?

You also said that they “promote values I find deeply disgusting.”

In which way are faith based organizations promoting values you find deeply disgusting? Which values do you find deeply disgusting?

$300 million is a drop in the bucket

300 million here, 300 million there, & pretty soon you’re talking real money.

many of us rightly believe that abortion = killing of an innocent child. Even if some disagree, I hope they understand why we are so passionate about it and why we can’t give up on the issue. Over a million lives a year are snuffed out through abortion. Over a million! That’s incredibly sad. Think about it.

Ordinary1 on February 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Silly you. Infanticide should be left up to the convenience of enlightened adult(ish)s. What’s to be sad? It’s so incredibly…fashionable.