Great video and if you're interested in speaking about the content... visit the Reproductive Health Reality Check site!
Showing posts with label abstinence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abstinence. Show all posts
8/25/2008
religious nonsense and public policy
Mr. Jasper: What the heck are you taking about? do you think the child is an alien from space who invaded your womb? It's human life that growing inside of you.
Mellankelly: Well, if you don't understand what bodily integrity is and you you cannot comprehend human reproduction, then there is nothing more that I can do. The bottom line is that you simply cannot subordinate a pregnant woman's rights to a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus.
Mr. Jasper: Do mean the so-called "right to privacy" that scummy lawyers and judges invented to fit there agenda and allow baby killing?
Mellankelly: When I speak of defending women's ("so-called"?) civil liberties I assure you that I am speaking of legal arguments which were not invented by "scummy lawyers and judges." I am speaking of things such as: a lack of compelling state interest, procedural due process, equal protection, and also the right to privacy (combination of the first, third, fourth, fifth, ninth amendments and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - further, both federal and state courts have recognized a constitutional right of privacy in medical records and patient/physician relationships.) - privacy also covers bodily integrity and self sovereignty... not to mention discrimination (there is no comparative circumstance where a males bodily integrity is forcibly violated to provide for another "person.")
Mr. Jasper: My story is completely relevent, you must not having paying attention.
Mellankelly: Okay... you like to use fairy tales and tell stories to support your personal belief system, I prefer to use legal precedent, factual information and good ole' common sense to argue for the rights of every person in our country (including pregnant women).
Mr. Jasper: Yes, you take that risk when you sleep with a man.
Mellankelly: Malarkey! I have sex with my husband without even being open to the possibility of becoming pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term. Luckily for me, my husband had a vasectomy in 2001 so my chances of becoming pregnant are slim to none (she says while knocking on wood). And a woman who is raped certainly wouldn't be "taking that risk", right? Your personal opinions about intercourse and pregnancy have absolutely no relevance in any life other than yours. Your personal belief system is not a compelling reason to take rights away from pregnant women.
Mr. Jasper: Not good enough precautions..try abstinance and stop sleeping around. Most women who have abortions are not married. Fornication is a sin.
Mellankelly: Says you. Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other is most certainly not a sin. Your religious notions have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others who do not share your faith (myself included). A higher rate of unplanned pregnancy is linked much more closely to economic status (women below the federal poverty level have abortion rates almost four times those of higher income women.) If your comments are any indication, you appear to be driven by your religious beliefs and not the moral status of a fertilized egg. Your religiousness and your biblegod have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others (aside from those who share your rather limited views). Why on earth should I be forced to adhere to your personal belief system?
Mr. Jasper: It's a metaphor. and yes it does have relevance
Mellankelly: Please enlighten me... how would your "opening the gate" possibly be compared to consensual sex in which the partners used precautions to ensure that they would not become pregnant. You can't.... your comment has absolutely no relevance to that scenario. You just don't like pre-marital sex quite possibly as much as you don't like abortion. Hey, those are your opinions and you're certainly entitled to them... however, your opinion does not a fact make and certainly you have no right to force your personal religious beliefs upon me or anyone else.
Mellankelly: Well, if you don't understand what bodily integrity is and you you cannot comprehend human reproduction, then there is nothing more that I can do. The bottom line is that you simply cannot subordinate a pregnant woman's rights to a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus.
Mr. Jasper: Do mean the so-called "right to privacy" that scummy lawyers and judges invented to fit there agenda and allow baby killing?
Mellankelly: When I speak of defending women's ("so-called"?) civil liberties I assure you that I am speaking of legal arguments which were not invented by "scummy lawyers and judges." I am speaking of things such as: a lack of compelling state interest, procedural due process, equal protection, and also the right to privacy (combination of the first, third, fourth, fifth, ninth amendments and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - further, both federal and state courts have recognized a constitutional right of privacy in medical records and patient/physician relationships.) - privacy also covers bodily integrity and self sovereignty... not to mention discrimination (there is no comparative circumstance where a males bodily integrity is forcibly violated to provide for another "person.")
Mr. Jasper: My story is completely relevent, you must not having paying attention.
Mellankelly: Okay... you like to use fairy tales and tell stories to support your personal belief system, I prefer to use legal precedent, factual information and good ole' common sense to argue for the rights of every person in our country (including pregnant women).
Mr. Jasper: Yes, you take that risk when you sleep with a man.
Mellankelly: Malarkey! I have sex with my husband without even being open to the possibility of becoming pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term. Luckily for me, my husband had a vasectomy in 2001 so my chances of becoming pregnant are slim to none (she says while knocking on wood). And a woman who is raped certainly wouldn't be "taking that risk", right? Your personal opinions about intercourse and pregnancy have absolutely no relevance in any life other than yours. Your personal belief system is not a compelling reason to take rights away from pregnant women.
Mr. Jasper: Not good enough precautions..try abstinance and stop sleeping around. Most women who have abortions are not married. Fornication is a sin.
Mellankelly: Says you. Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other is most certainly not a sin. Your religious notions have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others who do not share your faith (myself included). A higher rate of unplanned pregnancy is linked much more closely to economic status (women below the federal poverty level have abortion rates almost four times those of higher income women.) If your comments are any indication, you appear to be driven by your religious beliefs and not the moral status of a fertilized egg. Your religiousness and your biblegod have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others (aside from those who share your rather limited views). Why on earth should I be forced to adhere to your personal belief system?
Mr. Jasper: It's a metaphor. and yes it does have relevance
Mellankelly: Please enlighten me... how would your "opening the gate" possibly be compared to consensual sex in which the partners used precautions to ensure that they would not become pregnant. You can't.... your comment has absolutely no relevance to that scenario. You just don't like pre-marital sex quite possibly as much as you don't like abortion. Hey, those are your opinions and you're certainly entitled to them... however, your opinion does not a fact make and certainly you have no right to force your personal religious beliefs upon me or anyone else.
7/14/2008
keep clickin' crazy chickens... it actually helps!
I've noticed that the anti-abortion posters on the RH board have been more judgmental as of late (it is more likely that they've always been judgmental and it's just more irritating lately).
Wha? She's a-okay with human sacrifice if it is done in the name of God for something "vaguely good"... what a fruitballoon! Do these people even bother to read the drivel that they write? Here is an eloquent statement
Isn't that lovely? Okay... I have several issues with that statement, first and foremost... what if I crawled on top? That aside, I have every intention of having sex as much as I want to without being open to even the slightest possibility of becoming pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term. Sex is designed (for women as well as men) for pleasure. Granted, that last sentence is merely my opinion (based on a vast knowledge of pleasurable sex that my husband and I have had over the past 14 or so years... mostly PRE-MARITAL... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!) and D had a vasectomy years ago so the chances of an egg being fertilized are slim to none (she said with a prayer). We continue to have sex though... without the possibility of procreation... what sinners we are... wonder why God doesn't just "turn off" our sexuality or orgasms when we're done procreating if She's so keen on the whole "inviting pregnancy" thang. Freakin' crazies...
"The fact that selfish murderous people slaughter millions of young a year is no better than human sacrifice. Except it is even more selfish [emphasis mine] than paganistic practices. At least pagans sacrifice to gods in order to heal crops or something vaguely.
'good'"
Wha? She's a-okay with human sacrifice if it is done in the name of God for something "vaguely good"... what a fruitballoon! Do these people even bother to read the drivel that they write? Here is an eloquent statement
"When you spread your legs and let someone crawl on top of.
you, you are INVITING pregnancy. Sex is designed to procreate"
Isn't that lovely? Okay... I have several issues with that statement, first and foremost... what if I crawled on top? That aside, I have every intention of having sex as much as I want to without being open to even the slightest possibility of becoming pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term. Sex is designed (for women as well as men) for pleasure. Granted, that last sentence is merely my opinion (based on a vast knowledge of pleasurable sex that my husband and I have had over the past 14 or so years... mostly PRE-MARITAL... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!) and D had a vasectomy years ago so the chances of an egg being fertilized are slim to none (she said with a prayer). We continue to have sex though... without the possibility of procreation... what sinners we are... wonder why God doesn't just "turn off" our sexuality or orgasms when we're done procreating if She's so keen on the whole "inviting pregnancy" thang. Freakin' crazies...
4/03/2008
Some should keep their opinions to themselves
The following was in our "opinion" section of the buffalo news today:
Family-planning groups have a product to sell
Updated: 04/03/08 6:32 AM
I wish to thank News writer Fletcher Doyle for his March 23 Viewpoints article, “The case for abstinence.” It stated that when a New York Times reporter asked if abstinence-only programs could be behind the drop in teen pregnancy, “the president of Planned Parenthood assured the Times that it isn’t.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards cannot afford, literally, for abstinence to be effective.
According to its 2005 annual report, the profit from emergency contraception kits alone was $1,245,506. The profit from contraceptives was a cool $2,399,691. What must be understood is that the so-called family-planning outfits like Planned Parenthood are an industry, and they have a product to sell. If teaching kids to abstain works better than showering them with contraceptives, Planned Parenthood has everything to lose.
Helen Westover
Founder, Director, Western New York Stop Planned Parenthood
Members: 1
Anyhoo... does this woman actually believe that married women who do not wish to become pregnant should practice abstinence? She writes as if the whole of Planned Parenthoods being rides soley on the backs of the teens and unmarried harlots who are currently using contraception/EC. I love the "'so-called' family-planning" comment... last I checked the only way to plan your family is to control your reproduction (ie birth control) so why the "so-called", Helen? F.Y.I Helen... Abstinence only eduction has failed miserably... do some research: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
Family-planning groups have a product to sell
Updated: 04/03/08 6:32 AM
I wish to thank News writer Fletcher Doyle for his March 23 Viewpoints article, “The case for abstinence.” It stated that when a New York Times reporter asked if abstinence-only programs could be behind the drop in teen pregnancy, “the president of Planned Parenthood assured the Times that it isn’t.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards cannot afford, literally, for abstinence to be effective.
According to its 2005 annual report, the profit from emergency contraception kits alone was $1,245,506. The profit from contraceptives was a cool $2,399,691. What must be understood is that the so-called family-planning outfits like Planned Parenthood are an industry, and they have a product to sell. If teaching kids to abstain works better than showering them with contraceptives, Planned Parenthood has everything to lose.
Helen Westover
Founder, Director, Western New York Stop Planned Parenthood
Members: 1
Anyhoo... does this woman actually believe that married women who do not wish to become pregnant should practice abstinence? She writes as if the whole of Planned Parenthoods being rides soley on the backs of the teens and unmarried harlots who are currently using contraception/EC. I love the "'so-called' family-planning" comment... last I checked the only way to plan your family is to control your reproduction (ie birth control) so why the "so-called", Helen? F.Y.I Helen... Abstinence only eduction has failed miserably... do some research: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
3/31/2008
Oxymoron: Abstinence-only Education
There are many reasons to LOVE Kate Walsh but this one is my favorite...
A new study in the Journal of Adolescent Health is making headlines this week. A nationally representative sample of adolescents, which looked at young people who had taken comprehensive sex education, those who had taken abstinence only education, and those who had no sex education at all, found:
- Adolescents receiving comprehensive sex education had a substantially lower risk of teenage pregnancy than those receiving abstinence-only or no sex education.
- Abstinence-only education had no impact on reducing teen pregnancy, delaying sexual initiation, or reducing STIs.
- Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of sexual activity or sexually transmitted diseases.
- That disadvantaged youth are less likely to have received formal sex education of any kind.
- In short, as the lead researcher, Patricia Kohler, stated “It is not harmful to teach teens about birth control in addition to abstinence.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
