God's grace on display for the seemingly "unforgivable"

PrintSmith wrote: The problem you are running into here SC is that what you are attempting to do is educate young people about safer sexual conduct because, in reality, any form of birth control, regardless of the difficulty or ease in obtaining it, that involves reducing the risk of pregnancy can, and does, still result in an unintended pregnancy from time to time. In fact, it results in many unintended pregnancies because either the child doesn't follow the directions that come with it or they stop using it altogether. The only way to prevent pregnancy 100% of the time is to not engage in activity that can result in pregnancy. The propagation of the myth that sexual behavior that could result in pregnancy can be made "safe" through the use of contraception other than abstinence contributes to, rather than reduces, the problem of teenage pregnancy that this society faces. IMNTBHO, it is a purposeful deception to ensure the ongoing need for elective post-conception surgical procedures that destroy human life at the rate of over a million lives destroyed every year in this nation, twice that number if you include the destruction to the life of the woman who was formerly with child.

Yes, birth control is not 100% effective, but the pill at 92% for common use and if you add a condom as well to prevent STD transmission then the risk should be less than 1 in 100 makes those rates much more effective than nothing at all (which is ~85%). That's where the improved education comes in, in relating the actual facts and emphasizing that it must be used every time. The fact is that attitudes toward pre-marital sex have continued to loosen over the last 60 years and that's not likely to change at all so we can either accept it and modify our attempts to lessen unintended consequences realistically, or we can continue to lament how things have gotten worse in this country, decry a loss of morals, and continue to push education like abstinence only that isn't effective, and watch abortion rates not change. Yes, the only way to prevent pregnancy and STD transmission 100% is to abstain, and absolutely include that in all materials on birth control, but telling people to just not have sex isn't realistic anymore. I'm for effective policies that reduce abortion rates, not ones that make just them feel bad, because that hasn't been working at all. The majority of abortions performed are for unintended pregnancies - and the birth control usage rate can be vastly improved.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]
• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

The question is, why do 33% think that they are at low-risk for becoming pregnant (misinformation?), why do 32% have concerns about contraceptive methods (inadequate or wrong information), and why do 8% not even try to use birth control (lack of access or lack of understanding of the risks of "natural methods"?). If we put a big dent in all those categories, unintended pregnancy rates would decrease, hence abortion rates would decrease. Nothing in life is safe, but with proper education and adopting safer behaviors, one can reduce one's risk of bad things happening - like walking down a dark alley alone at night.

I found this informative website for teens and notice that it lists abstinence right at the top: http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_healt ... hart.html#

The most effective way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. However, within the first year of committing to abstinence, many couples become pregnant because they have sex anyway but don't use protection. So it's a good idea even for people who don't plan to have sex to be informed about birth control.

This succinctly states what I advocate.

PrintSmith wrote: That woman will, for the rest of her life, remember that she had an abortion, it becomes an irrevocable part of her psyche. Most will later come to regret that decision, and it will haunt them for the rest of their lives that they destroyed an innocent human life. They will look at the children they have later on and wonder about the one they destroyed. Some may still think the proper decision was made, but they will always wonder what that child could have become, the lives it could have touched, the joy of parenting that it was denied and that was denied to them by its destruction.

I don't disagree; it's why I advocate for reducing unintended pregnancies so those women don't have to experience this in their lives. Statistics indicate that by age 45, 43% of women will have had an abortion. I find that incredibly sad, and unnecessarily high given the family planning options available, that it got to that point for that many women and I would like to see it drastically reduced.

PrintSmith wrote: This is the education that is not given because it isn't palatable, so that others can feel good about themselves and that by teaching them to use unsafe and unreliable methods they are doing the right thing.

I disagree. No amount of "education" about the fetus being a potential human being is going to change the women's minds who get abortions. They are selfish and no amount of finger shaking is going to change their attitudes. What is needed is teaching them how to further their own interests by doing a better job of preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place. It may not be palatable to those opposed to abortion on moral grounds, but if you truly want to reduce the abortion rates, then you need to use what will appeal to these women - not to you. And no, birth control methods are not unsafe or unreliable - they are not perfect but they are leaps and bounds better than nothing at all, even when used inconsistently. Yes, abstinence will always be best, but it's unrealistic to expect people to go that route, like it or not. I put no moral "right or wrong" on having unwed sex - I want to put the clinical data out there so people can make informed decisions that will benefit them and their lifestyles the best, because that's what people respond to.

PrintSmith wrote: They are not told that regardless of how properly those unsafe forms of birth control are used that they are still able to become pregnant and that the chances are even greater than the published failure rate because the majority of them won't use it properly as they indulge their hormonal driven desires.

Those who become educated are absolutely told those facts. It was in the spiel I got when I went to PP almost 20 years ago.

PrintSmith wrote: Those chemical forms of birth control have lifelong consequences for those young girls. Serious potential medical consequences - and yet we advocate their distribution absent the knowledge or consent of their parents, whose main mission in life is the protection of their progeny. There is a reason that chemical birth control still requires a prescription and isn't available as over the counter medication, isn't there. The reason is that it is not safe in all instances, and yet here you are advocating it become more accessible in the interests of "safe" sex. Chemical contraception is more dangerous than aspirin, or acetaminophen, which is why it is a prescription medicine, and we all know that use of these over the counter pain remedies carries with them a risk when used.

You are making assumptions about what I am advocating. No, I have never said that chemical birth control forms should be available over the counter, nor without a parent's consent for a minor. Condoms are a whole different story, and regardless of chemical birth control use, their use should be advocated strongly in addition in order to reduce STD transmission, as chemical birth control methods do NOT prevent that.

You are wrong that chemical birth control is more dangerous than aspirin. Aspirin can cause liver toxicity and failure with just one overdose. No chemical form of birth control can cause an acute event like that, the risks of blood clots and other serious adverse reactions is very rare, and the long-term risks differ depending upon tissue type.
Hormonal Birth control risks
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... raceptives
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 007460.htm
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfd ... 000lbl.pdf

The risk of venous thromboembolism in women using COCs is 3 to 9 per 10,000 woman-years.

Aspirin Risks
http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/PoisoningPreve ... nters.aspx

In 2007, 2.5 million people were exposed to poisons -- almost 1.3 million of these exposures occurred in children 5 years or younger. In the same year, almost 860,000 adults (20 years and older) called poison centers.
What are the leading causes of poisoning for children and adults?
Children
• Cosmetics such as perfume or nail polish, and personal care products such as deodorant and soap.
• Cleaning products such as laundry detergent and floor cleaners.
• Pain killers such as acetaminophen and similar medications.

Adults
• Pain killers
• Sedatives (drugs used to reduce anxiety), hypnotics (sleeping pills) and antipsychotics (drugs used to treat mental illness)
• Household cleaning products.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cvJuLq ... &q&f=false
Page 551 Epidemiology

Since 2000, analgesics has consistently ranked first among both the substances most frequently involved in human exposures and and the substances responsible for the largest number of deaths. Of the analgesic-related deaths reported, acetaminophen, alone or in combination, accounts for slightly more than 50%, and aspirin, alone or in combination, accounts for 12.6%.

PrintSmith wrote: There is a reason in this society that we don't allow children to enter into contracts. There is a reason that we don't allow them to have full exercise of their rights. The reason is that they are not yet mature enough to make reasoned and informed decisions that have lifelong implications all by themselves. And yet, here you are, advocating that these same children, whom we acknowledge are incapable of making reasoned and informed decisions with lifelong implications, have their access to unsafe contraception made easier under the pretense of arguing it will inadvertently help them become more moral.

Again, assumptions. I've never said anything about minors having unrestricted access to prescription birth control. But those same minors are, and will continue, to make the decision to have sex; I would certainly rather see them use condoms than nothing at all as condoms are safer than nothing at all and prevent more pregnancies than no method. If I'm understanding you right, the difference between us is that I'd rather see them be safer, regardless of the moral implications, and you'd rather see them be more moral, regardless of the risks that they are taking. Is this correct? I ask you to consider: which viewpoint is going to reduce unintended consequences more effectively?
Edit to add: I firmly believe that, if there is a God, that those standing in judgement before Him will not be denied access to Heaven just because they had sex before they got married. So long as they respected God's fellow creations and acted with consideration, did not commit rape or murder, but lived holding Goodness in their hearts and minds, that they are good people worthy of entrance. Once they make that choice to end a life, all bets are off; so I would rather see that choice not having to be made because they were responsible and safe.

PrintSmith wrote: No, SC, that isn't win-win. It's sole purpose it to ensure the need for abortion on demand and continue the destruction of human life within the womb unabated. The adults lack the morals to properly educate the children about the dangers of their sexual activity, so they ply them with fantasies of using contraceptives and "safe" sex when they are used to avoid their moral duty to properly educate them that it is naught but a fairy tale they are telling.

PS, do you believe it's right to blame the parents of the 20-40 year olds for getting abortions? Shouldn't they know better by those ages and be responsible for their own decisions? No, the sole purpose isn't to ensure the need for abortion on demand, it's purpose is to reduce the need for abortion on demand. As long as there are unintended pregnancies, there will be lots of abortions, as the incidence for abortions due to rapes, incest, and danger to the mother's health are less than 15% total.

But there's a big difference between them and me Nmysys: I don't believe that they should have abortions whenever they want to. They are crossing a line (BTW, I just added an edit in my post that you might want to go back and read - it's just below the purple text). My mind can be changed, if I see a better, more effective argument for a way to reduce abortion rates. Just pushing the emotional issue, and moral issue, hasn't gotten it done in the last 30 years and I'm a results kind of girl.

Nmysys, I've always felt this way, there's not really a "coming to my senses" part about it (you're just learning more about me!). But one doesn't have to have faith that there is a God in order to live a good and just life. I figure I'll find out the answer when I die and until then try to do my best by my fellow brothers and sisters living here on earth with me now. I will try to spread knowledge and learn from others, and leave the planet better than when I arrived.

Yes, I too, am appalled, not only at the numbers of lost lives, but at the senseless and unnecessary suffering of those already alive. In this day and age, there should be no children dying of starvation and easily preventable disease, domestic and child abuse should not exist, nations and religions should not be warring over petty, insignificant differences and killing other's fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters.

Funny you should mention my mother and choices. Honestly, if it had been up to her I wouldn't be here now (and that thought doesn't bother me at all - I wouldn't have existed to know or care if that was the case). My mother's doctor decided for her that she had been married long enough (2 years and 4 months at the time and she was only 23 and my dad 21 years old) and it was time for her to get pregnant - he refused to prescribe her birth control pills any longer! My mom, being the non-confrontational, never stand up for herself, or think it was perfectly reasonable to have her own opinion and disagree just went along with that high-handed decision made for her. I am still indignant on her behalf to this day because he had no right to make that huge personal decision for her. Funny, huh?