Pro-Awareness and Education
April 14th, 2007
This, right here, is your biggest problem. If you want to stop abortions then make students aware of how NOT to get pregnant. Sure some students will wait until they are married. Sure it may be a good idea and one worth teaching. But if that’s all you give people then some of them are going to have unprotected sex and they are going to get pregnant. …and social conservatives, unwanted pregnancies cause situations you really don’t like.
A $166 million US INCREASE in money used to teach abstinance to students. Brilliant.
I am not pro-choice in the sense that I think abortion is a woman’s right. But women and men should be educated about making smart choices. And “unwanted children” is a phrase I would love to see irradicated from our terminology altogether. Just teach, people. That will solve your problem.
I have been taking classes over at the Catholic College, St. Michael’s, this year. The anti-abortion propoganda there has been blowing my mind. One sign says “Countries which allow abortion are not promoting love, but the idea that you can get what you want through violence. That is why abortion is the single greatest destroyer of love and peace.” Like I said I am not fundamentally pro-choice. The idea of abortion makes me queasy in a lot of ways. But THE GREATEST DESTROYER OF LOVE AND PEACE? …you have GOT to be kidding me. Try world hunger? no. War Children? nah. Lack of international literacy? nope. The AIDS epidemic? No silly. …abortion.
Ridiculous people. Get some perpsective.
Entry Filed under: Thoughts on other things..., Politics
1 Comment Add your own
1. | April 16th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Wow, that is truly terrifying. I have a big problem with abstinence-only education. Even if you are on the most conservative edge of the spectrum, it makes no sense. Are these now-children supposed to magically figure out sex once they are married? (You may have been the one to introduce me to this argument. It’s a good one.)
My understanding of the term “pro-choice” (or at least how I have defined it to use in reference to myself) is that being pro-choice means believing that abortion is not necessarily a right in a human sense (as opposed to something being a right in a legal sense), but that it’s a complicated issue tied up with–among other things–religion/spirituality. Given that, before certain thresholds (e.g., at 8.5 months when the fetus is quite evidently a viable human being), the choice has to be left with the mother and father (in my opinion, the ultimate decision probably must be left with the mother, being the host body, but the father is important).
Finally, read this article a couple of days ago. Logically speaking, I don’t think it’s especially well argued, but it was certainly thought-provoking:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article1645946.ece
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed