DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Planned Parenthood and the Sale of Fetal Body Parts

what? where did you get making it illegal?

I'm saying that other parts of the world pushes getting an higher education for women specifically.

it's actually crazy with Iran, cause the measure worked so well, they're trying(key word: trying) to pass legislation that bans getting voluntarily sterilized, and restrict abortions simply because the birth rate drop so much. they need more babies, basically.

but anyway, people who are more educated and earn more income typically have less kids.

you're not gonna tell a teenager "don"t have sex"

good luck with that.

but you go with: if you're gonna have sex, these are the things you need to be aware of, and take preventive measures.

so for example: my first two years in public high school, the teachers were literally "don't have sex cause aids and other STD's" not much about using protection.

Then i go to the private school. they're passing out free condoms, and not once we're they preaching abstinence, cause they knew it was pointless. they just preached getting a higher education and protecting ourselves from std's and unwanted pregnancies.

in the 10th grade i seen atleast 10 chicks get knocked up...15 years old in public school.

i saw a total of one my last 2 years in private school.

just my experience.

Sex education in Iran before marriage is pretty much non-existent because pre-marital sex is totally unacceptable, especially for women... I'm trying to figure out what it is that they learned that we should be modeling..


The bold part is exactly what we learned in about 8th grade in 1978.. and here all along I thought I was from back in the woods, we must have been more progressive than I thought.

But are you telling me that there are 14 and 15 year old kids out there who don't that:
A. Pregnancy comes from having sex and
B. There are birth controls that can greatly reduce the odds

Are there kids out there that don't know that?


I think this has a tremendous amount to do with it. The thing that had the biggest impact on me was my father telling me.. if you get a girl pregnant, those sports you play, gone. that college you want to go to, gone. all that fun you want to have in your teen years, gone. that future career you want to have, gone.


Two girls from my HS class got pregnant in school and one of them is still married to the father of the baby over 30 years later.

I got a proper sex education when I grew up as well. I think it's a combination of proper knowledge and social culture. I started having sex around the tail end of 15, but my social group, while sexually active, had been frightened by the risk of pregnancy and STD's. I could've easily seen a different outcome had my collective peer group not been as vigilant or wary.

jc

You must educate your child to be prepared for life. When I went to baptist school we had no sex education. It simply did not exist. It was up to the parents to teach that. Most parents did not. Why? Because they felt their kids "didn't need to know." That is like putting a loaded gun next to them and not telling them why you shouldn't play with it.

Putting your head in the sand leads to stories like these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morni...ce-only-sex-ed/

Additionally, studies done show that abstinence only education does not stop or even slow down sexual behavior in teens. Also, it is not a religious failing. 80% of Christians admit to having sex before marriage.

I had the sex talk with my son. I was, apparently, very blunt. He still likes to bring that up when I'm around him and his friends. The old "Oh my gosh, let me tell you about when my dad told me about sex" thing. And then there's a bunch of laughter - from him, and them.

A 10-year study points to something disturbing that happens to a lot of kids who are cool in high school
Business Insider By Jessica Orwig
July 30, 2015 3:59 PM

Teenagers are notoriously rebellious by nature, but most of us eventually grow out of that naive adolescent phase. Some, however, appear to completely miss the boat. Many of them — at least according to a study published this month in the journal Child Development — end up abusing alcohol and drugs, have trouble maintaining a steady, healthy relationship, and often have problems with the law.

Ironically, the kids who seemed to have it all at age 13 — popularity, invites to parties, older friends, and love lives — are the ones who "didn't turn out O.K." psychologist Joseph P. Allen told Jan Hoffman for The New York Times, where we first learned about Allen's study.

The reason these "cool" kids are lost at sea as adults isn't karma working its magic — it's more scientific than that.

Allen — together with three other researchers at the University of Virginia — conducted one of the first studies of its kind to explore how a certain type of behavior exhibited in some teens, which he calls "adolescent pseudomature behavior," may be having a negative impact on future development.

As the name implies, adolescent pseudomature behavior describes young teens who want to look and feel mature before they actually are — they haven't reached the emotional and behavioral maturity that comes with adulthood. To look and feel mature, these teens often behave in ways they consider mature, like drinking alcohol, smoking, partying late, and having sex.

Although past studies have suggested that this type of behavior can be beneficial in the short-term, gaining you higher social status in school, far less was known about the "long-term implications of this early adolescent behavior," Allen states in the paper.

Until now, that is. Allen and his team found evidence to suggest that this behavior might actually hurt social status in school.

To find out the long-term repercussions of this early behavior, the team spent 10 years following the behavioral habits of 184 subjects (86 males and 98 females). When the study began, all the subjects were 13 years old and in either seventh or eighth grade. When it ended, they were 23.

All of the subjects were recruited from a single middle school that, according to the researchers, represented "suburban and urban populations in the Southeastern United States." The average family range of annual income was $40,000 to $59,999 and about 58% of the subjects described themselves as Caucasian, 29% as African-American, 8% as mixed race and ethnicity, and 5% as being from other minority groups.

These numbers are not an exact match to the general American population, but they're not far off either. According to the US Census Bureau, in 2013 about 77% of the population identified as Caucasian, 13% as African-American, 2.4% as "two or more races," and the rest included other categories like "Asian," "Native Hawaiian," "Hispanic," etc. Similarly, the average family range of annual income was just under $52,000 in 2013.

The researchers interviewed the subjects over the years in order to document their social status throughout middle school, high school, and afterward. They also spoke with other students who said they knew these people best.

At the onset of the study, about 20% of the subjects were considered "cool." In other words, their peers were more likely to say that they saw them as "mature" with "high social status" and therefore a "desirable companion" to spend time with.

But over the course of the next two years, from the time they were age 13 to when they turned 15, these "cool" kids' social status drastically declined, as shown in the graph below:

By the time these "cool" kids turned 23, many of them were having problems with criminal behavior and alcohol and marijuana use — significantly more than the other subjects in the study, who were not ranked in the "cool" category at the study's onset.
The reason for this, the researchers hypothesize, is that the "cool" kids valued being popular more than the other subjects and therefore looked for ways to continue feeling cool. Since their behavior of drinking and doing drugs is what got them "cool" status in the first place, they dive into deeper, more extreme ways to try and stay cool, even though their efforts may be backfiring.

The researchers conclude with this scary notion:

"The findings support the proposition that early adolescent attempts to gain status via pseudomature behavior are not simply passing annoyances of this developmental stage, but rather may signal movement down a problematic pathway and away from progress toward real psychosocial competence."

In other words, if you're acting extreme to look cool, chances are good that you might be the only one who thinks so.

Link to the world wide interweb

This didn't fit into any of the current threads great but I thought here was best since, well since having sex as a teenager makes you cool.

that's pretty broad assumptions in these articles.

literally any little thing can make somebody "cool". i was "cool" within the circle of my friends. the overall school? i was nobody.

having sex as a teen is less to do with cool and more to do with "omg boobs and booty".

I get that there is no hard and fast parameters for "cool".. the best gauge is what other kids in the school say about you, that's really about all that matters...

This one study doesn't prove anything conclusively.. it does provide evidence that those who try to grow up too fast and place too much emphasis on peer acceptance might pay for it later..

I just thought it was interesting.

I think everyone should have the sex talk my dad had with me. I went to him when I was 13 or 14 and said, "aren't we supposed to be having some kind of talk?", he simply replied, "Why, you already know more than I do." Somehow we both left that brief conversation happy. It worked out too. I never got anyone pregnant and today, all the toys are mine!

I think this could've been better in its own thread, but DC's article raises great points. Over seven years ago I graduated from high school, and a lot of this plays true.

A lot of the "popular crowd" such as the most flamboyant athletes who stuck to the jock stereotype, the girls who flaunted themselves but wanted a protector, and the bros who didn't play athletics but acted like a jock haven't gone that far in seven years. They've got kids out of wedlock, minimum wage jobs, and not much going for them. I hear all of this from secondhand reports.

Those who stayed under the radar, went about their daily business, and those who focused on the future are off doing some wonderful things.

I truly think what matters is your long term plan. What is it that you want, and how will you get there? What steps must someone take, including distractions to avoid, to find the success that you so choose to have.

How any of this relates to slanted videos? I have no idea, but I liked the article that DC posted.

The emotional and social ramifications of sex aren't well explored in schools. Education is primarily about STDs and pregnancy. The debate on the effects of casual sex on mental health and maturation is culturally contentious right now. I'm not particularly certain on the science behind it either unfortunately.

My general hunch is that sex naturally leads to pregnancy. So monkeying around with the system via condoms/birth control won't likely fix the hormonal / emotional attachment issues that sex naturally encourages. There is a weird double edged sword where I don't think most people are mature enough to make sexual decisions by the time they are physically spurred to do so. Birth control prevents a lot of catastrophes but also limits the risks of dabbling in casual sex, which can delay marriage / maturity.

Definitely hard to pin down parameters of "cool", but I think the article speaks to the different outcomes between those who figure out who they are and are OK with it, and those who let that constrict be defined by outside influences.

i have a lot to say about that.

but it's the wrong thread for it.

cool, willing to go martial law over this huh?

Mike Huckabee Won't Rule Out Using Federal Troops To Stop Abortions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-huckabee-troops-abortion_55bbc20ee4b06363d5a22323?

GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is open to the idea of using federal troops and the FBI to stop women from having abortions.

"I will not pretend there is nothing we can do to stop this," Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and an outspoken social conservative, said Thursday at a campaign stop in Jefferson, Iowa.

Huckabee addressed abortion again at his next stop in Rockwell City, Iowa, where a reporter asked him whether stopping abortion would mean using federal troops or the FBI.

"We'll see if I get to be president," Huckabee said, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

"All American citizens should be protected," he added.

On Twitter, journalist Matt Taibbi said he had asked Huckabee the abortion question.



The Huckabee campaign did not immediately return a request for more comment on what deploying troops or using the FBI to stop women from having abortions would look like.

Huckabee has long spoken out against abortion, and last year, he suggested that the issue was worse than the Holocaust.

"If you felt something incredibly powerful at Auschwitz and Birkenau over the 11 million killed worldwide and the 1.5 million killed on those grounds, cannot we feel something extraordinary about 55 million murdered in our own country in the wombs of their mothers?" he asked.

This piece was updated with Taibbi's tweets.

Mike Huckabee is in the race for the same reason he was last time. To get his name out there and make some money off it. And there's nothing wrong with that, per say. But he used to be congenial and reasonable. Now he's just trying to be the Donald Trump of the evangelicals.

Actually, I don't personally support abortions but thanks for trying to stereotype me. I do support PP as they allow access to women for health services which constitutes 97% of their services. As the former president of Planned Parenthood noted in the article I posted, every abortion is a societal and medical failure. Thanks to organizations like PP and sex education courses that don't preach abstinence, the abortion rate continues to fall and unwanted pregnancies are avoided. Conversely, conservatives decry abortions and push for abstinence only sex education when they should be getting behind things like comprehensive sex ed, contraceptives, etc., and other free/low cost medical services that PP provides. Instead, we get gotcha videos to distort facts and appeal to emotion when in reality, the videos show no wrongdoing by PP.

It's funny. Conservatives always yell about the need for personal responsibility. It's hard to be personally responsible when you've never been taught how to be responsible or the services you need to acquire for you to take personal responsibility are not available. It's no surprise that conservative states that don't teach personal responsibility in health and sexual education and push abstinence only sex ed lead the nation in teen birth rates. Many of these same states also try to limit organizations like PP from being able to provide medical services. PP allows for a person to be personally responsible for themselves and acquire the medical services that they need. Oh, and I'm not talking about abortions. For example, AIDS rates are increasing in Indiana at an alarming rate. PP in Indiana was one of the few if not the only organization providing screenings and other services for AIDS. Then the PP centers had to close due to funding cuts at the state level from republican controlled legislatures and governorships. A similar story is occurring in Texas as well - http://www.forwardprogressives.com/hiv-is-making-a-comeback-thanks-to-conservatives/

I "blame the people that exposed this" because they are trying to create a scandal where no wrongdoing exists. The videos have done nothing to demonstrate PP doing anything illegal. When you resort to emotional appeal tactics through heavily edited videos that take conversations out of context and you misrepresent yourself to try to get someone to say something "scandalous" or do something illegal, you do nothing but to help your cause and demonstrate that you are an untrustworthy source.

Of course, I always thought lying was morally wrong yet the filmmakers misrepresented themselves as buyers of fetuses and fetal tissue. To me, that's a pretty big lie. Why haven't conservatives called out the film makers for lying and distorting? Since you try to be one of the moral authorities around here, why haven't you condemned the filmmakers for their lying? After all, sin is sin, right?

Conservatives really need to reevaluate themselves and their stances on PP. That was the point of the article I posted. Not surprisingly, you disregarded it.



They are not selling for profit. What they did was legal under current law. Do you know if women are not told that their "donation" will go to science? My guess is that when they consult with the female getting an abortion, they obtain her consent for that sort of thing after explaining that the fetus or its cells will be used for research. I do know that they can clone stem cells. What's your point?

Planned Parenthood AKA planned baby killers preformed 327,000 abortions last year in America

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/1/planned-parenthood-327k-abortions-fiscal-2014/

Are you trying to say that abortions are increasing? If not, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make (and I'm not sure you know either). 2011 is the most recent year that abortion stats are available. Your own resources acknowledge this (look at the information on your "abortion clock"). Here are more links for you to peruse:

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042

http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/

http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Abortions are decreasing and have been for some time. This is in part a credit to organizations like and including PP.

This statement is like saying Northrop Grumman is responsible for fewer weapons being produced for the US military. If Planned Parenthood provides medical services for women, let them operate like ever other medical provider under the ACA. When the government subsidizes Planned Parenthood, it eliminates any other competition that may arise. In essence, Planned Parenthood is BAD for women's health.

Abortions by planned parenthood were UP last year even though abortions in this country were down. That was my point

Judge Stops Anti-Abortion Group's Videos

A federal judge in San Francisco has blocked the release of more undercover videos made by the anti-abortion activists who released secret videos of a Planned Parenthood employee. The temporary restraining order was taken out against the Center for Medical Progress by the National Abortion Federation, which claimed the anti-abortion group had infiltrated its meetings and could endanger providers. On Tuesday, a Los Angeles court stopped the Center from releasing videos of a bioservice firm that transfers fetal issue from Planned Parenthood to medical researchers.

SMH

SILENCE!
Truth in America is frowned upon!

Statistics are nice, but if you're only using one data point, it opens itself to tons of assumptions and false interpretation. For instance, I could interpret that statistic to mean that conservatives that rail against PP actually give free marketing to abortion services and as such, women seeking abortions only know about PP and abortions and not other service providers that provide them. Do we know that for sure? Of course not, but who is to say it's false. Your data point gives no context considering PP isn't the only provider that performs abortions. Why conservatives rally against this one organization so much is baffling considering the number of other organizations that provide similar services as well as receive federal funding. Of course, for conservatives, there always seems to be a need for a boogeyman in their concrete world view. I guess PP is it in this case. Regardless, abortions overall are down because women have access to proper services to avoid unwanted pregnancies. That is a fact and a positive one no matter which way you spin it.



Do you think that organizations like PP and the like have been able to stop any unwanted pregnancies through their services? If so, then they are most certainly part of the reason why abortions have decreased. If not, you are being willfully ignorant of the facts.

As far as the government subsidizing women's healthcare, please tell me why conservative states that cut funds to organizations like PP seem to have more unwanted pregnancies and a higher teen birth rate. Not surprisingly, these states frequently also push abstinence only sex education curriculums and seek to restrict access to organizations like PP. Additionally, in a link I provided earlier, AIDS cases are also on the rise in states that have cut subsidies to PP and other similar organizations. Again, you are either disregarding facts for personal bias or being willfully ignorant. I'll let you decide which you are being. PP and similar organizations are good for women's health.

We all know what causes pregnancy and we all know how to prevent it. The willfully ignorant ones are the ones getting pregnant when they don't want to have a kid.

I have no pity for those too stupid to keep their pants on. Even less pity for those that take their pants off and don't use birth control AND condoms.

Don't worry though because the big nations with high populations will find some reason to go to war, have a draft, and eradicate huge amounts of the poor. At least that is what history teaches us happens when the poor populations get too high.

One fact is clear PP preformed more abortions last year than they did the year before even though the total number of abortions were lower last year. Case closed unless you can provide proof that they didn't.

Those of us who are against abortions rally against any organizations who preform them, and any DR who preforms them.



You would have to ask a conservative about the boogeyman then bro, because I am not a conservative.



and they are bad for childrens health unless you call being murdered healthy.

j/c

I believe everyone who believes abortion should be made illegal has one of two choices.

1. Stand in line to adopt an unwanted child.

2. Quit complaining about welfare.

My personal and moral belief is that abortion is wrong. I have no question in my mind about my belief.

But what often amazes me is that people have to know that the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are by people who didn't even have the common sense to use protection. Many of whom are on welfare, that will have children raised on welfare and the cycle will continue.

So if the results are that many unwanted pregnancies are to be forced into becoming births, which otherwise would end in abortions, are those who promote this willing to adopt these children so that they may lead a productive life in a well functioning family?

Are they willing to quit complaining about their tax dollars going towards social programs to raise all of these children?

Or is the answer to say that it's the fault of their parents and simply advocate cutting back social programs to insure you force births to people who won't even be able to feed and house their children?

You see, there are always consequences for every action. Do people advocate we treat them like our military? We only care about them for a little while? Once our wants are achieved, we're done with them?

Let's face it, our government loves our military until they are no longer in the military. Then they fight them tooth and nail over benefits and their healthcare is often sub standard. Is that the same mentality that will be used after these unwanted children are born?

To me it sounds like the pro life crowd isn't really pro life at all, they're pro birth. If you're really pro life, you promote the life of the child, not simply the birth of the child.

jmho

How about we expect people to be responsible with their actions and sex lives?

Why is it that this part of the equation is constantly and consistently being forgotten?

I do think that we should do as much as possible to help children who are living in poverty, but unfortunately the parents of such children often undo any help the kids get.

Maybe if we started teaching kids that sex creates children, and that birth control methods are not always 100% foolproof. (in fact, many fools screw them up all the time, by not putting them on) Abstaining from sex ensures no pregnancies, and no STDs. (at least those spread by sexual/genital contact)

I have no problem with teaching kids birth control, and even maybe making it available .... but I think that the whole picture should be taught.

Personal responsibility should also be taught. I wonder hos many women would be out having sex with everyone if there was no abortion, and there was no welfare? I bet that the word "No!" would be heard a lot more frequently when some guy with no job, and/or no birth control, asks a girl home for the night.

Sooner or later people have to start taking responsibility for their actions. I think that everyone knows that unprotected sex can lead to children. People make the decision to have unprotected sex anyway .... safe in the knowledge that they will never bear the responsibility for the child they create.

I'm not discounting anything you are saying. I'm simply pointing out the truth of how things are no matter what we expect or hope for.

And a part of my point is that people often times don't really bear the responsibility of having a child once they're born either.

They will use their laws and their money, they will point fingers at everyone else, they will say evil is good and they will support the lie. They will shut out the light as they continue to kill the innocent.

They will stand for Rights over Right at every turn.

Why?
Evil is why. This is a Culture of Death.

i see pitdawg's message fell on death ears.

You really need to rethink this in light of your abstinence comment.

I have 6 sisters, five married before 18, 4 with children before 17, a fifth gave one up for adoption. Needless to say, I knew first hand what poverty was.

If you want to give a child a ticket to a very limited chance of making a decent life, give them a child when they are under 18.

If you want a child to start off behind in life, give them a parent under 18.

It is tough to say this, but sometimes a child is a ticket to another chapter in life, a way out, another option when you have nothing. More often than not, it is going from bad to worse.

Too often we seek to promote birth, rather than the consequences of life on earth.

Hell, we can't even give weekend or summertime lunches
to many of these kids because they will be beaten if they don't take it home for drug addicted mommy and daddy.

Killing those children is not the answer. No way, No how.

I've never heard anything like that before but I won't argue the point.



And that's the point I'm addressing. Then what is the answer? Forcing them to a life of drug dealers, drug addicts and criminals as parents in a life of poverty?

Shouting about the cost of social programs and trying to defund welfare, the only thing that keeps them alive?

I'm not saying there isn't an answer, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

So it gets back to the question, are people really "pro life" or are they "pro birth"?

I don't have an answer to the problems of people who make poor decisions. I can't fix it when people's only focus is on themselves. Our Society is Narcissistic, sick and evil.

But there is one thing I do know, Infanticide is not the answer!
No way, No how.

Even the severely mentally handicapped who only live a few years from time to time look up at the sun on a nice day and smile. Me, I'm for Life.

Rights still do not trump Right!

I'm not sure if you actually read my responses or not. I actually am against abortion. My personal and moral beliefs are that it's wrong and I say that without any degree of doubt.

My point is, we have to come up with answers as to how address these children after they're born. I don't believe in excusing the poor decisions made by their parents, yet we can't ignore these children after their birth and pretend we've solved anything.

I believe most of us realize that society has gone downhill with a lager portion of it refusing to take responsibility over time. To correct that, we must take action to help further the generation of these unwanted children if we are to insist upon them being born. At that juncture, we too are responsible to some extent.

in a sort of related note, i just got back from the pool with my two girls.

this woman said "oh, you're daughters are soo pretty, you must have custody of them on the weekends huh?"

WTF? has it gotten that bad here?

Is it the child's fault for being born to parents in poverty, or addicted to drugs.

Lack or compassion and empathy makes a PERSON Narcissistic, sick and evil. Not society, well the part of society that values compassion and empathy.

All you care about is the birth... the second after birth occurs... You could care less, except to say it wasn't your fault that a child was born into terrible circumstance. That is why we are so messed up. You have no ownership of a the issue. That is "Society's" fault, but yours... nah... nope, nothing to see here, move along.

When you figure out that you may need to take some time to figure out why people make poor decisions and then maybe, you will gain a better understanding of what is going on and why poor decisions are made.