Excellent point!
Abortions for some, premarital gay sex for others!
Obviously marital gay sex would be even safer.
Well, our anxious OP is all worried about the premarital stuff, so this is a brilliant compromise!
This is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on the Dope.
Guess what - nature, in the form of evolution, wants us to screw like rabbits. Clearly the genes that encourage this behavior are going to win out over those that discourage it. Meet any Shakers lately? Plus, arousal makes us irrational. Dan Ariely in Predictably Irrational describes an experiment where students are given a questionnaire on sexual practices which is filled out in an office and then again while the subject is watching erotic material. The answers vary greatly, as the subject says he is willing to do all sorts of stuff he wouldn’t touch when not aroused.
As someone who went through the sexual revolution (back in the ranks, and I only got off a few shots) I can tell you that sex did not begin with it. Playboy started in the mid-50s, and there has been porn for as long as there has been art. What did change was that you could find out about contraception in the open, and could buy condoms off the shelf, and not have to ask a druggist. (Not my fondest moment.)
Whatever the number of unplanned pregnancies there are today, there is a lot more information and a lot less fear, and that is a good thing.
Excellent suggestion. IUDs should be offered to whoever wants them free or nearly free. Removing the possibility of user error is a very good thing. We never had a problem with them.
Our second child was born when IUDs were effectively banned in the US. We were about to go to Denmark for my wife to get one, when I decided to have a vasectomy again - and we took a cruise to a much warmer place instead. 
The Vatican? (cue priest joke)
Therefore, abortion must remain legal. “Dilemma” solved.
[BC hijack]
Not sure this is the solution for the unmarried heathens who might be having sex. Lots of doctors are reluctant to insert in women who have never given birth (because of cervix size and because it’s not recommended for women might want to have children within five years), the cost is prohibitive for many working paycheck-to-paycheck and catching an STD can be a lot more serious if it travels up the IUD’s strings and into a woman’s uterus.
Also, although it’s a bit creepy that doctors can’t say for certain how it actually works, copper is no better or worse than the plastic hormonal kind – it is actually better for women who don’t want synthetic hormones in their body but can bear the possibility of heavier periods and more cramping.
Disclaimer: IANAD and I know women, including Dopers, who swear by their IUDs.
[/BC hijack]
I think we need to do something about the reluctance of doctors to let young men and women choose permanent and semi-permanent forms of birth control. There are a lot of hoops to jump through if you know you don’t want any children at a fairly young age and decide to get sterilized (or so I’ve heard). I don’t know if tort reform is the solution here (make it harder for someone to sue if they consented to be sterilized and later changed their mind), or what, but this situation should change.
I believe the key information from the start of the OP was, “Sex is bad”.
Except for married couples and the express purpose of procreation and the rest of the whole steaming pile of pro-life fundamentalist agitprop.
To be fair, I can sympathise with the goal. Less unwanted pregnancies can be a fine goal. Some means towards are fine - as others have said, good and thorough education is important, and abortions are acceptable if not fantastic options. It’s just that, when you come to attitude, there really isn’t much of a good backing for trying to change things when the result is personal too other than to “save people from themselves” - which is a bit of a tricky ground to negotiate, since, likely enough, they’re going to disagree, and the basis of a debate being “I know better than you” isn’t going to go down well (especially in terms of changing attitudes towards something, which is a kettle of fish in itself).
Sex education should focus more on how to give really good blow jobs, how to give your partner multiple orgasms through cunnilingus, and the best way to stimulate each other with your hands and fingers. In fact, such classes should be practical in nature.
You don’t watch tv at 3am. GGW commercials do come on those channels, and I’m telling you that I don’t want to FLIP THROUGH the channel that is showing the commercial. The problem isn’t that I see the commercial. Are you telling me that I shouldn’t change the channel at all when I am watching TV between the hours of 2am and 6am? or are you going to tell me not to watch TV at all between those hours. Maybe I should live in a bubble. That would solve all of our problems wouldn’t it? I should just lock myself up in my house with veggie tales DVDs and after school specials to watch all day long, huh?
But that wouldn’t solve the problem. The problem is that our society has become one where a commercial like that are acceptable.
It’s not their affect on me that I care about. It’s the affect on the world that I care about. That doesn’t just affect me, it affects everyone. It turns the majority of people (or should I say sheeple) into an antagonist.
And they’re going wild and aborting fetuses all over your lawn!
Well, learn to deal with it. Free speech means that on occasion you will see or hear things you don’t like.
The “sheeple” in this case aren’t hurting anyone. You are the one trying to hurt people by pushing for the re-imposition of an extremely unpleasant view of sex and reproduction.
And calling people “sheeple” for breaking away from a prudish, conformist, authoritarian view of sexuality is rather ironic. Your real objection is that when it comes to sex and reproduction, people aren’t “sheeple” as much anymore.
I want the world to be a place where pregnant women and the fathers of those children who had sex would say, “I made my bed. Now I have to sleep in it.”. Again, the problem is the attitude towards sex.
How about instead of trying to get everyone else to change their attitudes, you change yours?
Free speech is not protected when it hurts other people, nor should it be.
Yes they are. You are ignoring problems that occur as a result of a girl who is unprepared to raise a child getting pregnant. Problems such as poverty, poor education, lack of positive role models, abstentee fathers, even issues such as crime can occur as a side effect. Abortion is not a solution. Many women who have abortions suffer from deep psychological conditions from their abortions. That’s suffering, right?
Whatever I am doing, I am not actually ACTIVELY hurting people. The casual attitude towards sex IS. DO people suffer as a result of unintended pregnancy? Surely you aren’t going to argue that dealing with unintended pregnancy is pleasant. Abortion might be a stop gap solution to the population problem of accidental pregnancy due to “safe sex,” but you can hardly say it alleviates suffering.
If our culture wasn’t one that worshiped sex, people wouldn’t suffer (so much) because of sex. I’m not advocating forcing us to deny our urges. I’m advocating getting rid of things that encourage us to indulge in thoughts that give us unnaturally strong urges in the first place.
Many who go without sex suffer. Ask me how I know!
Y’know, if you’re going to admit that a Girls Gone Wild ad “hurts” you, why not just skip to the final step and put on a diaper right now?