If Conservatives Are ANTI-ABORTION Why Don't They Support Public Sex Education And Free Birth Control ? Hypocrisy or Stupidity ?
Che Guevara - Hero
2012/03/11 20:52:18
|
|
|||||
|
15 votes
|
|
12% | ||
|
15 votes
|
|
12% | ||
|
62 votes
|
|
48% | ||
|
36 votes
|
|
28% | ||
If Conservatives Are ANTI-ABORTION Why Don't They Support Public Sex Education And Free Birth Control ? Hypocrisy or Stupidity ?
Top Opinion
-
Daring Blasphemer BN-0 2012/03/11 21:42:13HYPOCRISY
+15Conservatives may be the biggest part of the pro-life movement. The Republicans may have the public convinced of their moral superiority on this issue. The fact is that until Reagan ran for President, 'conservative' politicians were 'pro-choice' or more precisely, pro-abortion. Reagan himself passed one of the most liberal abortion laws in history in the state of California. His own daughter had an abortion with his blessing. It is because the leaders of the Republican Party saw a way to split the Catholic vote and so in 1980 Reagan won as a pro-life 'conservative' even forcing Bush onto the same page as a condition of his VP slot. It was and is cynical at best. Actual conservatives may be pro-life (I happen to be so and am NOT conservative), but their chosen party will never change the law, because this is one on the greatest wedge issues ever found. The politicians simply need to care about this issue every couple of years then quietly let it rest....
<---Doesn't support public sex education.
They need adversity, that much is clear, once conservatives have nothing to fight, they have nothing to fight for. Check their platforms - everything is anti-something. In informal conversations (and therefore my personal anecdotes) they confess to being "against" this thing or that thing: weed, charity, different breeds of people mixing, sex, public schools... When all you talk about is what somebody else is doing (what you THINK somebody else is doing) then you aren't focused on what you need to be doing.
In countries such as the Netherlands, the rate of teenage pregnancies is way lower than in the USA: 11,5 per 1000 as compared to 85 in the USA numbers are a bit old, but they didn't change that much).
That is what happens when you put your faith before your senses.
Any birth control and sex education should always be supported and unbelievable that it is not. Teaching abstinence instead? I don't know if this matters much to hormone-raging young people, but what contributes to the problem MORE is teaching backward and wrong thinking. The focusing on abortion being such a crime only contributes to negative factors such as:
(1) Causing one to hide a pregnancy and birth, only to leave the infant elsewhere, possibly to die, due to shame and fear.
(2) Alternately, leaving the infant "somewhere safe" adding to the overpopulation / adoption problem and making it other people's responsibility and cost.
(3) Giving up the child to a person designated which would be difficult emotionally for any female, let alone for a teenager.
(4) Encouraging "children having children" who are not in a position to do raise a child.
(5) Forcing an unwanted relationship / marriage of two who are unprepared to do so and who would not have otherwise done so.
(6) Altering the futures of the two, not to mention both of their families and most likely ending up as another divorce statistic, creating child support by one that isn't always followed through with.
(7) Most often, the y...
Any birth control and sex education should always be supported and unbelievable that it is not. Teaching abstinence instead? I don't know if this matters much to hormone-raging young people, but what contributes to the problem MORE is teaching backward and wrong thinking. The focusing on abortion being such a crime only contributes to negative factors such as:
(1) Causing one to hide a pregnancy and birth, only to leave the infant elsewhere, possibly to die, due to shame and fear.
(2) Alternately, leaving the infant "somewhere safe" adding to the overpopulation / adoption problem and making it other people's responsibility and cost.
(3) Giving up the child to a person designated which would be difficult emotionally for any female, let alone for a teenager.
(4) Encouraging "children having children" who are not in a position to do raise a child.
(5) Forcing an unwanted relationship / marriage of two who are unprepared to do so and who would not have otherwise done so.
(6) Altering the futures of the two, not to mention both of their families and most likely ending up as another divorce statistic, creating child support by one that isn't always followed through with.
(7) Most often, the young female is forced to deal with the responsibility, leaving the young man free to live his life, altering her future financially and otherwise.
It's certain that many have lived these scenarios, due to the teachings or insistence of others and have regrets as their lives could have gone much differently. It could and should be avoided and though abortion should not be used as "a method of birth control", it's an alternative in many instances. If only we were able to effectively and properly dissuade and control the possibility of unwanted and unnecessary pregnancy in the first place, what a world we might be.
The problem is deeper than this: it's the result of illogical thinking across a gamut of subjects. People who haven't been taught how to use evidence to form their opinions will use dogma instead.
We will remember in November.
The women that I have dated over the last couple of decades have been one way or the other, beyond their fertile years or have had their tubes tied.
oil subsidies?
pipelines? AIrcraft(FAA) FDA, DOT?
Starting wars over lies abou WMDs??
Truthfully its a smoke an mirror trick
if in doubt use the "constitution" to stop Obama..I ve heard it five hundred times more in the last three years than I did since 1988 -2008
where were your constitution bleatings then??
The atomic bomb and the F-22 Raptor fighter were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but thankfully someone had the sense to know we couldn't defend ourselves forever with black powder muskets. The preamble of the Constitution mentions "promote the general welfare" as one of the reasons for writing the Constitution. That covers a broad area and is vague in meaning so that it can cover a multitude of areas in daily life. The Constitution is not a document of specifics, we have to be smart enough to use it as it was intended.
Forcing people to buy a private insurance product and forcing insurance companies to provide a specific service are not among any powers vested in any branch of our government.
( subsidies ) and pay for Corporate loop holes. I know I don't like paying for fat cat lifestyles of the rich and famous, but the law says I have to. Do you think we have the right to pick and choose where our tax money goes? As far as forcing people to buy insurance, no one is being forced. They can keep their present insurance, buy into the program, or pay a penalty. Just like I could go ahead and pay my taxes to keep up the fat cats, or refuse and pay the penalty. The law is the law, whether we like it or not.
Just out of curiousity, what do you think providing for the general welfare mentioned in the preamble means? You do make legitimate points and don't fly off the handle while doing it. I admire that in a person. I am genuinely interested in you point of view.
Kind of like the sword of Damocles.
Sex-education in school also a good idea.
Other countries have shown that it works, abortionrates are much lower.
But what happens in the U.S.:
Sex-education in school is a so intensive debated issue, promoting abstinence or not, silly comments as an aspirin between the knees etc.
Contraceptive available for woman, or all types of exceptions why a woman can't have a contraceptive.
On abortion the weight being put on lawmaking by people that call themselves religious is so high for the woman, that the result of it all is that they take the freedom of making a personal choice away for the woman
Nobody has the right to do that.
That is a contradiction of what they want.