No.
Every assertion requires proof? I stated evidence. If you have contrary evidence, I’m all ears. I didn’t think my assertion – that education about contraceptives has something to do with increased usage of contraceptives – was that controversial.
Non sequitur, dude. That doesn’t even begin to make sense.
Show me how driving education in schools reduces the obesity rate.
In GD? Yes.
Did you not read puddleglum’s cites?
You claimed
When you said that these things “work”, were you talking about the subject of the thread, or something else?
Regards,
Shodan
You seem to be conflating two different things I said.
Sex education helps a little to reduce the rate of unwanted teenage pregnancy.
Sex education works to educate young adults about the workings of their own bodies.
(The “subject of the thread” is different from both of these; there has been some topic drift.)
Prove it, then. Not just evidence, as I presented, but irrefutable proof.
It’s news to me that GD can’t include controversial topics that haven’t been proven.
No, but they are against any contraception that works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. They think it’s the same as killing a human being,
I don’t think that. I don’t think most pro-lifers think that. I don’t think even most Catholics think that. Would be interested in the data, though.
I think in Britain you can have an abortion if you are not happy with the sex of the baby.
It’s a woman’s right to choose the sex.
A lot of people of course don’t want girls. This is of course especially true in certain cultures.
I alluded to them in my above post, but look up Jacob Appel and Peter Singer both of whom have argued that a consistent pro-choice also supports infanticide and argues in favour of such. This, of course, depends partially on when a given pro-choicer sets a limit on abortion be it start of brain wave activities, viability, or birth. And lots of other moral legislation such as say civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimnation didn’t have societal consensus either.
So what? Infanticide is not part of the abortion debate and never has been. A couple of cranks drawing a parallel between abortion and infanticide doesn’t change that.
But let’s extend that. Since pro-choicers should be in support of abortion and infanticide, they should support any murder then, right? Yeahrite, I call bullshit.
The infanticide issue pops up, now and then, in the context of the most severely defective and deformed babies, such as babies born without a brain, or with their viscera missing, etc. Babies who are going to die in the next few days anyway, sometimes in horrible pain.
It’s a counterpart to the euthanasia debate, for adults suffering from severe pain in untreatable and terminal illnesses.
There really is a serious moral question involved: why should such a baby be kept alive? What possible benefit is there in that?
As with euthanasia, there is a significant correlation with pro-choice views on abortion. A pro-life person generally opposes both euthanasia and infanticide, no matter how extreme the circumstances.
There should be some more specific term, since infanticide also refers to leaving a baby out next to the dumpster. The way you define it gets awfully close to eugenics for my taste. Where do you draw the line with that? How nonviable is nonviable? The infant is inarguably living to begin with, unlike with the abortion debate.
Euthanasia is (generally) a choice made by the patient, who is an adult and theoretically capable of decision-making, and also inarguably living.
Missed the edit window as I waxed lyrical.
I have personal experience with the euthanasia debate. My father was diagnosed with brain cancer and eventually written off as terminal. The result was that doctors would do nothing more than prescribe ever-increasing amounts of morphine. He literally begged my mother to kill him in moments of lucidity (and there were only moments at that point, as the morphine pretty much crushed his personality). Even if it were legal, I doubt she would have done it, but the calculus might have been a bit different if it had been legal. You had to see what his quality of life (or lack of same) was at that point. It took him six months of living on morphine to die.
Eugenics isn’t always bad. I know someone who is a carrier of a genetic disorder, who chose never to have babies, for risk of them expressing the disorder (sex linked) in the form of a horrible and deadly disease. This is an eugenic decision, and morally defensible.
As for drawing the line and defining viable…no possible answer. Lots of things can’t be defined explicitly, and lots of lines can’t be drawn. When, exactly, is a fetus viable? We have to sort of muddle through, in a great many (too many!) cases.
If life begins at conception, then all embryos are alive. And preventing implantation (food and shelter] is murder. And aren’t most Catholics against ANY form of birth control?
No, I do not believe most are. There’s the “official” church stance and then there’s real life. I said before I’d like to see the data, so I went out and found some.
Thank you, Barkis is Willin’! I knew that there was significant popular dissent in the Catholic Church on this topic, but, whoa! I would have never dreamed it was that high.
Can you tell me, though, whether that was a statistic for all Catholics world-wide, or just U.S. Catholics?