A follow-up to the letter from this post, published in the Augusta Chronicle today:
In Sarabeth Levine’s recent letter (”Banning abortion is not the answer,” July 15), she states one should work with the facts when trying to find a solution to an “unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.” True, abortion is the murder of an unborn child because life begins at conception; that’s a biological fact. Even John Kerry, that great proponent of abortion on demand, has admitted this.Ms. Levine states that teaching abstinence doesn’t work. Well, it worked quite well for generations until the advent of the birth control pill in the 1960s, followed by the “sexual revolution.” Then in 1973, the Roe vs. Wade travesty by the U.S. Supreme Court allowed abortion.Add the rampant, shameless and sexual environment created by the media and the influence of groups such as Planned Parenthood, and it is no wonder young people are so caught up in the web of sexuality.Sex education does little to prevent pregnancy. I challenge Ms. Levine to present proof that it does. Indeed, the subliminal message to young people is that it’s OK to have sex, just not to get pregnant. That’s why Ms. Levine writes, “The organization (Planned Parenthood) can help teach sexually active people how to protect themselves so they don’t get to the point where an abortion is needed.”Abstinence is the only way to protect our children from unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. It also helps preserve their innocence and upholds the moral integrity of our nation. When an unplanned pregnancy does occur, the answer is to put the child up for adoption. Many loving couples are waiting to adopt. Abortion is violent and destructive. It teaches our youth they were potentially expendable, and that violence is an acceptable means to solve problems. This is why abortion should be banned.
I love simplistic rationale, don’t you? To quote Sarabeth in the email she sent me, “Ever feel like people have missed the point?” If this writer is so wise and all-knowing, where is her “proof”, facts and sources? I challenge her to show them to me! I challenge her to prove to me that no one had sex out of wedlock (digression: does anyone else think that “wedlock” is a horrible-sounding word?) before the birth control pill existed. I’ve been on the pill since I was in 9th grade… so clearly I started having sex when I was 15. Right? Right??
READ ME: Disclaimer
39 Responses to "A black and white world (for some)"
Just for the record, I never said we should stop teaching abstinence..in fact here is part of what i said:
“We can continue to teach abstinence while offering forms of protection, such as condoms and birth control.”
Ms. Levine states that teaching abstinence doesn’t work. Well, it worked quite well for generations until the advent of the birth control pill in the 1960s
That’s hilarious. Yeah, people never had sex outside wedlock before the pill gave them the license to rut like weasels. Maybe she should study the teen pregnancy rates, orphanage populations and infanticide rates preceeding the advent of the Pill.
Indeed, the subliminal message to young people is that it’s OK to have sex, just not to get pregnant.
And here we get to the heart of the issue: this woman is essentially against sex for young people. Yeah, like young people are going to stop having sex because you tell them not to. I hear Nancy Reagan said something like that in the 80s about drugs. How’s that going? Harm reduction, not prohibition because without a totalitarian state to back it up, it’s just not going to work.
Abortion is violent and destructive. It teaches our youth they were potentially expendable, and that violence is an acceptable means to solve problems.
I wonder what her feelings are about sending our young people over to invade an oil-rich desert nation in the mid-east?
Yup. You were definately having sex at 15, Amber. I mean, why else would you be on birth control pills?!
It’s not like they help regulate menstrual cycles or contribute to the reduction in risk of ovarian cancer, Endometrial (uterine) cancer, Pelvic inflammatory disease, benign ovarian cysts, and anemia. No, no, no. You were definatly boinking because you could and then Planned Parenthood made it all ok because they showed you how to put a condom on a banana and then TV made you fornicate!
Sorry, lost if for a second. I need to cut down on my caffeine intake, I do believe.
~D~
Well, I purposefully stayed out of the last tirade about abortion. But this woman’s response just shows me what a ridiculously idealistic world she’s created for herself.
Yeah, abstinence is best. I don’t think anyone would really argue aganst that.
Also, not doing drugs would be best.
If people followed all laws, that would be best too.
World peace would be definitely be best. (And, of course, with this world peace, everyone would fall into one religion so we wouldn’t squabble as much.) So everyone needs to get along from now on. Got it?
Everyone conforming to what this woman thinks is “best” would obviously be best, because no other opinions or ways of living in or seeing this world is acceptable.
And maybe if children learned about sex and vaginas and penises and orgasms earlier on, and learned to respect all those things entail, we wouldn’t be inundated by morons telling us how to raise our children. I speak collectively, of course, since I have no children. But when I do, I plan on telling them all about sex and vaginas and penises and orgasms and all the other benefits and risks of being sexually active. And I will hope they will be smart enough to abstain, and when they do become sexually active, that they will be smart about it, fully equipped to deal with all the consequences therein.
I could write a thesis on this topic, but it is too emotionally charged for a lot of people (myself included). I respect pro-lifers for their love of life, but do not think for one mintue that I do not respect a woman’s choice less. And for me, that’s how it’s has to be.
Niki:
Well said.
But isn’t this the best of all possible worlds?
Niki, what are you talking about? Telling children about penises and vaginas and — gasp! — orgasms?? You’re obviously not thinking clearly… you must’ve gotten caught up in the web of sexuality.
I don’t know, gang, seems like six kettles are making fun of the pot.
As Charles pointed out back when someone complained about how short letters-to-the-editor are always required to be, newspapers want there to be no shortage of people writing in with their opinions. It’s one of the more interesting pages of the paper, for a lot of people. By requiring the letters to be shorter, you virtually guarantee that not all bases will be covered, and that the letter-writer’s argument will leave some stones unturned. Others can then latch onto this perceived “lack” in the original letter, and write letters of their own arguing the contrary to the original.
If you simply read almost any letter to the editor at its face value, without picturing how the author probably intends to fill in the blanks if only they had enough space to do so, then you will easily find much wrong with it. And if you actually try to picture the author filling in those blanks in a way that makes their argument look silly, then you will find even more wrong with it.
In other words, be careful of calling someone’s argument “simplistic” when it is given in this format (of a letter-to-the-editor). Or don’t be careful of it if you don’t want (I don’t want to be perceived as an arrogant know-it-all who’s telling other people what to do). But understand that letters from your own camp will likely look just as ’simplistic’ when they show up in the paper.
Just my cent and a half.
i agree that given more space she may have been able to ‘defend’ her point more, however-she misread mine. thats annoying.
By requiring the letters to be shorter, you virtually guarantee that not all bases will be covered, and that the letter-writer’s argument will leave some stones unturned.
That is true. Newspaper letters to the editor can be problematic in that way, and I agree that too much conclusion shouldn’t be drawn from them because of this fact. But my (and Sarabeth’s) main point of contention with this letter is exactly what Sarabeth just said — the writer seems to have completely missed (or chosen to ignore) Sarabeth’s original point. Also, as letters to the editor go, this one is actually pretty lengthy; so given its length, I would expect it to be better. Instead it sounds like it was written for the middle school debate club.
But it could be argued that y’all are missing the respondent’s point as well. Afterall, where does the respondent say anything like the following?
“Yeah, people never had sex outside wedlock before the pill gave them the license to rut like weasels.”
“You were definately having sex at 15, Amber. I mean, why else would you be on birth control pills?!”
“Everyone conforming to what this woman thinks is “best” would obviously be best, because no other opinions or ways of living in or seeing this world is acceptable.”
Not knowing this person, I don’t really know whether or not she would hold to these sorts of positions (or to some less outrageous version of them, since these were the excited utterances of the opposition). Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t. But, it certainly seems possible to me that she has her own blog somewhere, and that if the reactions to her letter that have been expressed here were published she could just as easily give them all a sarcastic rebuttal. “Yeah, we need to just let people do whatever they want, since they’ll do it anyway. Including people who are going to throw razor blades at babies. Yeah, that makes sense.”
That isn’t your position, you say? You never said any such thing? I agree, but she never said most of the things for which she is being rebuffed, either.
Ah, but, Xon, she does say:
“Abstinence is the only way to protect our children from unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. It also helps preserve their innocence and upholds the moral integrity of our nation.”
This shows that she thinks abstinence is best to “[uphold] the moral integrity of our nation.” Well, I could make the argument that I don’t think abstinence is what is best to uphold the moral integrity of our nation, because I might define ‘moral integrity’ different from her, or how best to uphold it different as well. And since I disagree with her, my way of thinking would obviously be wrong from her perspective.
“Abstinence is the only way to protect our children from unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.” Actually,it’s not. Abortion helps with unplanned pregnancy (even if you don’t agree with it), and some STDs can be medically treated (such as syphilis).
Since I am just the “excited utterances of the opposition” though, I obviously don’t know what I’m talking about and can’t possibly read into the implied intent behind her message.
My “sarcastic rebuttal” for the day.
“Abstinence is the only way to protect our children from unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.” Actually,it’s not. Abortion helps with unplanned pregnancy (even if you don’t agree with it), and some STDs can be medically treated (such as syphilis).
Before Xon or somebody else stops by to poke holes in your statement, I will do it for them:
But, Niki, abstinence prevents pregnancy and STDs from ever happening! Whereas abortion and medical treatments for STDs are things that take place after the fact. If only Susie hadn’t spread her legs, she never would’ve had to get an abortion or start a Valtrex regimen in the first place.
My sarcastic rebuttal for the day.
Ah, but as Xon stated, the writer of the piece didn’t say “prevent pregnancy and STDs;” she said “protect.”
Naturally, I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I’d love teenagers to think more with their brains than their libidos, and not have to ever consider abortions and/or STD treatment, but I don’t see that happening any time soon for some, no matter how much people want it to happen.
I think something that i mentioned in my original ‘opinion’ is that we have to look at facts:
people-all kinds in all types of siotuations-regarless of age or marital status are having sex.
so my only thing is then we should let them have all the information and resources so they can make educated decisions and ones that they can live with.
You know I agree with you, Sarabeth. People are always going to have sex, no matter what anybody might try to tell them about waiting until the supposed “sanctity” of marriage. It’s wishful thinking at best and ignorance at worst to think that people — including young people — won’t have sex. Better to equip them with all the relevant facts so they can make educated decisions, or at least know beforehand all the possible consequences if they get carried away by their libido.
So basically I just repeated everything you said. ;-) So much for originality!
hey-i woudnt complain-its just nice to have someone agree with me for a change!! :)
Why this emphasis on ‘educated’?
What is an ‘educated decision’ when it comes to sex?
Educated as in you know all the risks and if you decide to you know how to protect yourself from STD’s and pregnancy.
Just playing devil’s advocate….
Does a 16-year-old boy with hormones raging through him make an ‘educated decision’ when he’s pressuring his 14-year-old girlfriend to ‘do it?’ Does she?
Does a 16-year-old boy with hormones raging through him make an ‘educated decision’ when he’s pressuring his 14-year-old girlfriend to ‘do it?’ Does she?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the individuals and the situation. But at least if they are knowledgeable about methods of birth control, and the possible consequences of sex (especially unprotected sex) such as STDs, pregnancy, etc., regardless of what they decide and whether or not it was motivated by hormones (and what else would it be motivated by, honestly?) they will have had the necessary facts beforehand. Any social worker will tell you, there are plenty of teenagers out there who don’t know the basics of the birds and bees… and then are shocked when they end up pregnant (or getting someone pregnant).
Furthermore, if the girl has been instilled with self-respect and encouraged to voice her wants and needs, she won’t just quietly submit to her horny boyfriend’s pressuring if she doesn’t really want to do it… she’ll tell him she’s not ready.
JMAC-are you willing to not give them the education on the assumtion that it wouldnt matter? (i know you were just playing devils advocate, but…)
Just a side question…what does everyone think of Planned Parenthood’s “I had an abortion” Tshirts?
To the women…would you wear one if the statement were true?
They have those t-shirts?
Personally, I don’t think I would wear one, because I don’t think it’s anybody else’s business. If I wanted someone to know, I would tell them. (That’s how I am with most things in my life — I operate on a “need to know” basis.)
I do, however, appreciate the spirit and intent behind the shirts: “The shirt is not a cavalier statement, but a way to challenge the silence and shame around an experience many women have shared, however difficult that decision may have been” (from full article here.)
It is true that abortion is one of our remaining societal taboos, and I like that they are trying to do away with this stigma.
That being said, I’m not sure if such a shirt is the wisest way to go about fighting the stigma at this point in time. I’m afraid that women who wear the shirt will take too much flak and abuse from anyone who feels free to open their mouth upon seeing it. And that’s not what should happen… women should not suffer more in the course of trying to put an end to suffering. So I think perhaps the battle should be fought in other ways first, and then a shirt may be more effective.
If I’d had an abortion, I would be dealing with so much other stuff mentally, physically, and emotionally, that the last thing I would need is some asshole coming up to me and telling me I’m going to hell when he sees my Planned Parenthood shirt. Therefore, I would most likely choose not to wear one. To the brave women who do choose to wear one now, I commend them.
So, an educated decision does not change anything with respect to the desire to have sex, only with how one “protects” one’s self during sex?
Also, the comment that sex is “motivated by hormones” I think puts the lie to the other claim that Christians, particularly those conservatives ones, think sex is “dirty.” It’s not that sex is dirty that people who are not married should not be having it. On the contrary, it’s the fact that sexual unity is such a powerful form of breaking difference through making difference sublime that it should not be so casually engaged it. Solemnity in orgasm is not seeing it as dirty, but rather seeing it as something more than just base chemicals driving neural taxi-cabs to do something they should protect themselves from.
For all that the discussion about “abortion” centers on the question of choice, who really does believe there is such a thing as choice involved here?
So, an educated decision does not change anything with respect to the desire to have sex, only with how one “protects” one’s self during sex?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. But when I talk about “making an educated decision about sex”, that includes the possible decision to not have sex at all. I hope you don’t seriously think that this whole conversation was working on the presumption that “an educated decision about sex” referred only to using protection during sex.
What is the argument against educating the youth about sex. why is this such an awful thing? i would love to know!
“I hope you don’t seriously think that this whole conversation was working on the presumption that “an educated decision about sex” referred only to using protection during sex.”
Wasn’t that the whole argument about educating them on sex? I mean, I am sure I can quote earlier posts saying that kids are going to have sex anyway, so they need to be educated about it?
No no no… the point is that some kids are going to have sex anyway, no matter what you tell them. The point of educating about safe sex is to let them know that abstinence is the only 100% sure method to avoid pregnancy and STDs, but if you do choose to have sex, these are the options available to you in order to keep yourself (and your partner) safe and healthy. Such education should also emphasize that the decision of whether or not to have sex is a personal decision that shouldn’t be influenced by what their peers/friends are doing.
Does anyone have statistics to see if the majority of women getting abortions are “kids”?
Amber, with all due respect, doesn’t it seem like we’re playing with semantics here? ‘Some’ vs. ‘all’ … it seems like a circular argument.
All that said, I really don’t think anyone here is arguing against sex education here. Perhaps some folks may disagree with the venue it should be taught in, but I think we should all be informed about these types of actions. So I think that addresses sarabeth’s first concern with me.
On a different note the T-shirt is horrific. Again, I don’t care whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, you should still feel that abortion is a horrible experience to go through. And to advertise that you had one is pathetic and degrading.
You want to champion women’s rights? I’ll stand right by you and fight all the way - equal pay in the workplace, breaking the glass ceiling in business, fighting discrimination, halting female circumsion in Africa, etc. and etc. But if you feel so insecure about your ‘rights’ that you have to wear a shirt proudly proclaiming you terminated a pregnancy, then I have little respect for what you want or feel you are entitled to.
I’m a Christian, but I would never walk around wearing a T-shirt saying ‘You’re all going to hell’ because that would do little to advance my cause and would more than likely lead to angry confrontations. If I’m supposed to be a witness and converting people to my faith, then pissing ‘em off ain’t the most effective way to do it.
Bravery? Hardly.
Short-sighted belligerance? Perhaps.
mber, with all due respect, doesn’t it seem like we’re playing with semantics here? ‘Some’ vs. ‘all’ … it seems like a circular argument.
And exactly how is that playing with semantics? Some is very different from all.
On a different note the T-shirt is horrific. Again, I don’t care whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, you should still feel that abortion is a horrible experience to go through.
Come on, give me a break. Haven’t you seen me say on a million occassions how absolutely horrible I think abortion is? How I can’t imagine how awful I would feel if I ever had one? Does that make me any less passionate about the importance of a woman’s right to choose? Not for a second. In fact, in a way it makes me more passionate.
But, Johnathan, the point is that you would walk around with a shirt that says ‘God saved me from the wreck of my life.’
Amber I never said you didn’t think it abortion was horrible. Though we disagree over the right to choose, I don’t think you adore abortion or anything.
My comments were directed toward the T-shirt, which I find appalling.
Amber, what is “absolutely horrible” about abortion?
Amber, what is “absolutely horrible” about abortion?
Sigh… so, what kind of answer do you expect to that question? Whatever it is, it’ll just be one more thing that you dissect and deconstruct. Frankly I’m getting tired of all this back-and-forth… nobody here is going to change their well-established views. As to your question, the short answer is, abortion is a traumatic thing to go through, physically and emotionally, and I hope that I will never experience it. I don’t feel that I can say much more than that since I’ve never had an abortion, so I’m not going to pontificate on the various mental and emotional effects. All I can do is reflect that, knowing myself, if it happened to me I would basically be on an emotional rollercoaster and it would take a lot of time to get over. On the one hand I don’t know if I could ever go through with having an abortion… but on the other hand, if I were raped (which again, hopefully will never happen) and became pregnant from it, I really don’t know if I could carry that child.