New York City’s Class I carcinogenic mayor
Guest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.
We could all go along happily with his anti-smoking crusade. After all, everybody knows cigarette smoking – and maybe even second-hand smoke – causes cancer.
Then there was the elimination of trans-fat. Well, okay, there’s some evidence that’s bad for you, and no one could taste the difference if a food has any in it or not.
Then we started getting a bit more troubled: We don’t get to choose how much salt content or the volume of a soft drink we can buy? But we still managed to chuckle a bit at the new restrictions on bottle-feeding infants in hospitals. At least we all know it is better for babies to be breast fed. So we could still be amused at our “Nanny Bloomberg,” for we could be sure of at least one thing: All those things he has mandated are beneficial to human health.
But now our nanny mayor wants to give our school children – orally and by injection, without parental knowledge or consent – cancer-causing steroid drugs.
Say what!? You read that right: cancer-causing steroid drugs. You thought “the pill” was harmless, right? Just a little bit of harmless hormones, to stem the tide of costly, unhealthy teen pregnancy. Sorry, “hormonal contraceptives” are indeed cancer-causing steroid drugs. Who says so? Why, the World Health Organization says so, but why pay any attention to them? They’re only class 1 carcinogens for breast cancer, cervical cancer and liver cancer, according to the WHO.
And the reason I put “hormonal contraceptives” in quotes is that it is not true. The pill contains no hormones – artificial or otherwise. They are steroid drugs that act like hormones (hormone agonists, to be professionally precise). In fact, hormones would not work as a pill, so they have to be synthetic drugs. In fact, they are really the same type of steroid drugs that professional athletes can go to jail for taking. They are just the female version (which makes the breasts grow), rather than the male version (which makes muscles grow).
If you read the small print on the package insert for “the pill,” you will find increased risk of stroke, because these steroids can cause blood clots. But cancer? How long have researchers known that? Not too long. The first high-profile, peer-reviewed paper that documented the increased risk of breast cancer was just published in 1987, only a quarter-century ago. Of course there have been scores of papers since then.
But what about the more modern injectable form, the “depo” that is also included in the Mayor’s plan for NYC schoolgirls? Isn’t that safer, since it contains no estrogenic drugs?
Yeah, they are newer, and it takes years for stuff to cause cancer. So the first good study in the peer-reviewed medical literature just came out a few months back. A prominent, National Cancer Institute-funded group just published their findings: Yes indeed, “depo” significantly increases the risk of breast cancer…
I think Mayor Bloomberg should certainly have known about all this. But even if all his politically correct wizards of smart conveniently ignored the cancer risks of contraceptive steroids, he could have just called me. After all, I’ve been a full-time professor on the faculty of Hizzoner’s own City University of New York, teaching human biology and endocrinology for almost 27 years now (and researching steroid hormones and drugs for more than 30 years).
Seriously Mr. Mayor, if you really want our city’s citizens to be healthier – not sicker – please, call me!
Readers are encouraged to forward this post to the mayor’s office. Just maybe it will wake him up. Here’s the link to his contact page.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Great! Go off the Pill — and get abortions instead!
Yuck!
Prevention any day of the week is best with me.
@DeniseNoe
There are more abortions because of the Pill–not fewer.
From LifeNews:
“The deception is not surprising given that Guttmacher reports 54% of women having abortions used birth control at the time of their abortion — making it clear that birth control and contraception are not effective in reducing the number of abortions or preventing them, as Planned Parenthood claims.
The Guttmacher report shows “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.” These figures are similar to those of a report in Spain showing abortions doubling despite increased family planning promotion. And, of the women who say they did not intend to become pregnant, the report said “most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.”
It’s called abstinence and Natural Family Planning, both of which are free to use and won’t give you cancer.
Hi Joe,
The folowing my be a bit ‘tricky’ to follow:
A few decades ago I formulated a theory linking mood-swings in pregnant women (Dunn NZ) with zinc deficiencies. [For example, he found @80% of ALL abortions happen at the 10th week in pregnancy. It is also the time of the first major depression. For years I wondered if abortion was simply the response to a depression rather than the CAUSE of depression.
Then I read ‘Zinc and Copper in Medicine’ eds. Karcioglu & Sarper 1981, and found a high correlation between zinc use for development of human-fetuses and the three periods of depression for pregnant women. I also note a very strong zinc-neoplastic disorder(cancer) link and wonder if the fluctuating zinc status has anything to do with the breast-cancer link.
Breast milk (especially colostrum) is noted for its very high zinc levels. Does the timing of an abortion somehow interfere with the breasts’ uptake of zinc (and its protective effects)?
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
Thomas Sowell
DeniseNoe says September 28, 2012 at 3:47 pm “Great! Go off the Pill — and get abortions instead!”
Silly us.
Who would have suspected the only way to prevent conception is to take a ‘pill’ and if a woman does conceive the only alternative to a live birth is to murder her pre-natal child.
I could have sworn I read about a few other methods of ‘contraception’, some of which only involve behavior modification and self discipline and I am sure I know some women who have experienced an unintended conception and when they had given birth welcomed him/her into their lives or placed the child for adoption.
@kenthebirther: Are you aware that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers?
Are you aware that adoptees are 15 times more likely than other people to kill one or both parents?
It is not “pro-life” to push a practice that correlates with the most heinous murders.
John,
Have any long-term studies been done on women who abort and their prenatal vitamin use vs. women who don’t abort and their prenatal vitamin use? It stands to reason troubled women who are feeling ambivalent towards their pregnancies would be less likely to be taking prenatal vitamins, but perhaps if we encouraged use of such supplements even in women who were considering abortion for their own health reasons rather than the health of their gestating children, such women in crisis would be less likely to actually end up going through with an abortion in the first place? It certainly is an interesting theory, and I can definitely understand the correlation after having been in a terrible situation myself. It’s frightening to think that if I hadn’t been constantly ravenously hungry with easy access to nourishment during my first pregnancy, I might’ve succumbed to depressive self-injurious ideations or even possibly the daunting external pressures to abort my child. Sucks to say it, but I was much closer to the first than the second.
DeniseNoe says: It is not “pro-life” to push a practice that correlates with the most heinous murders.
It is when the alternative is death (abortion).
Lrning says:
September 28, 2012 at 5:34 pm
DeniseNoe says: It is not “pro-life” to push a practice that correlates with the most heinous murders.
It is when the alternative is death (abortion).
(Denise) Shouldn’t alternative be WANTED pregnancies?
Of course, women will die from childbirth and other reasons so adoptions will occur. However, those who want to have babies are unlikely to either abort OR place for adoption.
The connection between adoption and serial murder is strong as is that between parricide and adoption. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t adopt. Were the parents of Marlene Olive better off for adopting her — even though she murdered them? They did enjoy many parental joys that they wouldn’t have otherwise had had. However, I’d really rather see fewer parricides and fewer serial murders.
I would bet that the architects of this policy send their kids to private and parochial schools, where such it wouldn’t even be suggested.
Sorry X,
Hqve some very-bad news re. ‘studies’ … on ‘natural’ products: there are none/zip because these cannot be patented/owned … no profit. [And this goes for ALL research, even at universities.] Feel screwed yet again …. women’s health? …. massive stupidity by some of our brightest minds, and there is MUCH MORE….
Denise, your question “Shouldn’t the alternative be WANTED pregnancies?” made me think of this quote:
“Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.” ~ Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
So while we cannot force anyone to “want” a pregnancy, a law has the potential to “restrain the heartless” from killing her own preborn child.
We don’t live in a perfect world, and there are no perfect solutions. But protecting life is absolutely paramount.
@Kel: Doesn’t ensuring that those who want to have babies are the ones who get pregnant AUTOMATICALLY “protect life”? If she wants a baby, she is very unlikely to abort. She is also unlikely to place her baby for adoption, meaning that baby is much less likely to kill a parent or to become a serial murderer.
I didn’t suggest we can force women to want pregnancies. What we can do is ensure that the women who don’t want pregnancies are protected from getting pregnant.
“What we can do is ensure that the women who don’t want pregnancies are protected from getting pregnant.”
No, we can’t. If a couple chooses not to take precautions to prevent pregnancy, how will you ensure that the woman is protected from getting pregnant? I hope you’re not going down the path of hiding contraceptives in the water again.
One thing I’d like to mention about the strong statistical links between adoption and both serial murder and parricide is that 2 people I know who are strong social conservatives — 1 of whom opposes legal abortion — wrote, “Those statistics are very alarming.” One commented that neither serial murder nor parricide is common enough to make adoption “extremely dangerous” but the fact that the statistical connections are so strong is troubling and also tends to indicate that adoptees may suffer other, less dramatic problems. Neither person thought the horrors connected to adoption were good reasons for legal abortion but both believed they were extremely good reasons for doing more to ensure that babies are born with happy and stable marriages and to mothers who want to raise them.
Do.Not.Feed.The.Troll.
Lrning says:
September 28, 2012 at 7:06 pm
“What we can do is ensure that the women who don’t want pregnancies are protected from getting pregnant.”
No, we can’t. If a couple chooses not to take precautions to prevent pregnancy, how willyou ensure that the woman is protected from getting pregnant? I hope you’re not going down the path of hiding contraceptives in the water again.
(Denise) No, I wasn’t going to suggest putting contraceptives in the water supply.
I was saying that much can be done to ensure that the women who become pregnant are those who want to have babies.
A woman who wants to have a baby is very unlikely to seek abortion.
She is also unlikely to place for adoption.
Denise, statistics show that as a percentage women on the pill are more likely to commit abortion and give their babies up for adoption. That means that your support of the pill is support for more serial killers.
I must admit Denise….I thought you were coming around with rational posts there for a while. I am truly sorry to see you have slipped back into delusion.
And Denise….you can’t ignore the fact that women on the pill are statistically WAY WAY WAY more likely to become serial killers themselves. Statistically they kill children in hugely greater numbers ever day.
I wonder if Bloomberg would be against 20 ounce birth control cocktails…
There was a popular myth about “back alley abortions” — with inflated notions of how many abortions were performed and how many women died. The solution to the non-problem was to legalize abortion.
There is popular myth about contraception — that it works reliably and well, that it is safe, and that it protects young people from pregnancy. The solution to epidemic abortion is more contraception.
Fact is: Contraception does not work. Planned Parenthood knows this — they hand out contraception (paid for by our tax dollars) knowing that this will lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies… and abortions.
Everybody knows someone whose birth control “failed.” Yet the faith persists that birth control “works.” Real world: about half of sexually active women get pregnant while using contraception. (Abby Johnson got pregnant three times while using birth control — twice while she was still a director of PP and teaching other women how to use it!)
Not to mention the STD’s, strokes & clots, early-onset cancers, and emotional illnesses that come with the contraceptive lifestyle. Women deserve better education about this before they decide if the risk is worth it.
Can we persuade girls and women not to engage in intimate relations with males?
DeniseNoe says: September 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
“Are you aware that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers?
Are you aware that adoptees are 15 times more likely than other people to kill one or both parents?”
DoesntKnow,
Are you unaware that more than 99% of pre-natal children who are murdered en utero are just as dead as the all the victims of serial killers and the victims of fratricide and matricide?
Are you aware that every person who had sex in the 19th century is dead?
Therefore,by your non-logic, sex is always deadly.
Have you stopped having sex yet?
Did you have a degree in womens studies or did you get this stupid all on your own?
People need to lose the practice of applying the term “contraceptive” to hormonal birth control. Since those drugs work by multiple mechanisms, some of which operate AFTER FERTILIZATION, it’s deceptive and inaccurate to call them contraceptives.
They are properly called (hormonal) “birth control”.
Please stop helping the pro-aborts and planned unparenthood with their marketing.
@ kenthebirther: I just think it is important that people be aware that adoption is a practice with some strongly “anti-life” links.
If you are against contraception as well as abortion, you have to find ways to persuade girls and women that they should reject intimate relations with males. You will find allies among radical feminists in this. However, neither they nor the more traditional sorts have been very effective at leading females to forgo relations with males.
What could be effective at this goal?
Question on Depo Provera.
The package information indicates that it causes osteoporosis. Now the teen years are when bones are built. Wouldn’t use of such a drug put young women at greatly increased risk of reduced bone density?
Does anyone know?
”Are you aware that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers?”
Serial killers.
n= ?
Here is the problem. Statistics with very few data points are really hard to draw generalizations from.
Basically, it is a question of whether we wish to target people for destruction who are at risk for x behavior. Clearly some pro aborts do agree with this kind of preemptive strike plan. I think the rest of us aren’t going to want to go down that road.
Are you aware that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers?
Serial killers.
n= ?
Here is the problem. Statistics with very few data points are really hard to draw generalizations from.
Basically, it is a question of whether we wish to target people for destruction who are at risk for x behavior. Clearly some pro aborts do agree with this kind of preemptive strike plan. I think the rest of us aren’t going to want to go down that road.
What percent of all adoptees are serial killers?
Like 0.002% as opposed to the general population that is much lower at only 0.001%.
See how it is straining at gnats? So we should kill millions to be sure we get the 3 or 4 serial killers among them?
What ever happened to the idea that it is better for ten guilty to go free than for one innocent be executed?
“However, neither they nor the more traditional sorts have been very effective at leading females to forgo relations with males.”
You know, some countries are better at it than others:
China, average age at first intercourse is 22. So, they seem to know how to do it.
http://chartsbin.com/view/xxj
Sorry, that link didn’t work. Here is a similar article:
The average age for all respondents, who were aged between 14 and 60, to have sex was 22.9. The younger the respondents, the earlier they claimed they first had sex.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/06/content_457563.htm
hippie says:
September 29, 2012 at 7:10 am
”Are you aware that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers?”
Serial killers.
n= ?
Here is the problem. Statistics with very few data points are really hard to draw generalizations from.
Basically, it is a question of whether we wish to target people for destruction who are at risk for x behavior. Clearly some pro aborts do agree with this kind of preemptive strike plan. I think the rest of us aren’t going to want to go down that road.
(Denise) As I’ve said before many times, this is not an argument for abortion but for ensuring that women who get pregnant are those who want to have and raise babies. The fact is that a powerful bond is formed between mother and child through the biological process of carrying for 9 months and giving birth. Sever the link at birth and both parties are automatically terribly traumatized. Adoptees have a feeling of being “strangers.” Something has to go wrong — very wrong — if a woman carries to term and gives birth and either can’t raise the baby or doesn’t want to.
And YES, we need to take a close look at so-called “surrogate motherhood” which could have similar pitfalls.
@ hippie: You’ve completely missed the point. Both abortion and adoption will decrease after we conquer the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
Denise you absolutely repulse me on all fronts, but I still hope you get the help you need for your psychological health issues. I don’t buy your stats for a second. But even assuming it were true (an assumption that definitely puts the emphasis on A$$), a lot of adoptions happen after children have been removed from their parent’s custody due to abuse or who have suffered severe neglect in orphanages prior to adoption. But you stick with your version that that trauma of infant adoption is to blame and keep urging everyone to be asexual lesbians who take the pill from age 10. I don’t think many people are going to hop on the train to crazytown with you, but you enjoy the ride.
David Kirschner wrote the book “Uncharted Waters” about the connections between adoption and serial murder and parricide. Most of the cases studied in the book were of people adopted shortly after they were born.
Most people recognize that a girl or woman who places for adoption may suffer a trauma. Why is it so hard to recognize that the baby severed from the female in whom it grew and out of whom it came also suffers a trauma?
Why is it so hard to understand that adoptees, who have a kind of splintered identity, are at higher risk for certain horrors?
Why is it hard to comprehend that the lack of a biological connection between parent and child might make it easier to commit a homicide?
It does not sound that odd that adoptees are more likely to kill their parents with whom they have no biological connection than other people are.
Let me turn the question back to you. The fact is that very few females place for adoption. Everyone is aware of adoption. Yet is is extremely unpopular. Why aren’t thundering multitudes having babies and placing babies for adoption?
I do believe in the old sayings, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” and “better safe than sorry.” These old sayings aren’t “crazy” but common sense.
“Why aren’t thundering multitudes having babies and placing babies for adoption?”
Because, sadly, many feel ownership over their children. They cannot fathom that they would give up what is theirs. Virtually all of the women in a crisis pregnancy that visit my local PRC react with HORROR at the idea of adoption. Seriously. They would rather KILL their child than live with the knowledge that their child is out there somewhere living a life without them. Better dead than with someone else. It’s sick.
Lrning says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:05 am
“Why aren’t thundering multitudes having babies and placing babies for adoption?”
Because, sadly, many feel ownership over their children. They cannot fathom that they would give up what is theirs. Virtually all of the women in a crisis pregnancy that visit my local PRC react with HORROR at the idea of adoption. Seriously. They would rather KILL their child than live with the knowledge that their child is out there somewhere living a life without them. Better dead than with someone else. It’s sick.
(Denise) These women probably don’t even know that adoptees are vastly over-represented as serial murderers and as parent-murderers. Adoption horrifies even without knowledge of its strong connection to statistical horrors.
That reinforces the case for prevention of problem pregnancies.
@ hippie: You’ve completely missed the point. Both abortion and adoption will decrease after we conquer the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
After we conquer the problem of unwanted pregnancy?
Are you high? We are more likely to conquer mortality.
Lrning, you’re exactly right. I’ve encountered that view on adoption and abortion many times from women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.
Unwanted pregnancy.
Unwanted by whom?
How unwanted is it when people know about contraception?
Look, most of these women are basically rejected by the fathers of the babies. Most of these women would keep the baby if he would straighten up and get a job, or marry her etc. or whatever else it is in the relationship.
Bottom line, the women have sex with men who don’t value them and by extension don’t value their children. This is the idyllic culture that pro aborts promote.
hippie says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:32 am
@ hippie: You’ve completely missed the point. Both abortion and adoption will decrease after we conquer the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
After we conquer the problem of unwanted pregnancy?
Are you high? We are more likely to conquer mortality.
(Denise) I’m talking about pregnancies that are unwanted by she who is pregnant. If she wants the pregnancy, she is likely to take good care of herself during it, carry to term, and deliver a healthy baby that she will raise.
Yes, eventually almost all pregnancies will be planned and wanted by the pregnant woman. Abortion will pretty much be consigned to the dustbin of history when that happens. Adoption will still exist (death in pregnancy, etc.) but will be even rarer than it currently is.
Lrning says:
September 29, 2012 at 9:05 am
“Why aren’t thundering multitudes having babies and placing babies for adoption?”
Because, sadly, many feel ownership over their children. They cannot fathom that they would give up what is theirs. Virtually all of the women in a crisis pregnancy that visit my local PRC react with HORROR at the idea of adoption. Seriously. They would rather KILL their child than live with the knowledge that their child is out there somewhere living a life without them. Better dead than with someone else. It’s sick.
(Denise) Mothers, even of newborns, aren’t necessarily with their babies 24/7. Historically babies have been left with a variety of family members. Among upper-class women, they were often left with wet nurses, nannies and governesses. Today they are often left in day care centers. However, it has never been common for a mother to SEVER her connection with her baby. She may be in a kind of supervisory role in raising the child or she may be very “hands-on” but she has throughout history up to and including the present time tend to have a strong relationship with her child.
It might be more common to place for adoption if it could be done pre-natally with the embryo or fetus transplanted from one womb to another. As it is now, the 9 months of pregnancy forms a 2-way bond that very few mothers willingly sever. There are groups devoted to warning women AGAINST severing the mother-child bond such as “keepyourbaby.com.” Of course, nothing is ever 100%. SOME mothers just don’t bond with the baby even though they complete a pregnancy. This is one reason there will always be adoption. Another is that some mothers will die when a child is very young.
“eventually almost all pregnancies will be planned and wanted by the pregnant woman.”
You are high.
Since contraception was introduced, the birth rate has fallen and the conception rate has risen with the abortion rate.
DenseNode says: September 29, 2012 at 5:56 am
“@ kenthebirther: I just think it is important that people be aware that adoption is a practice with some strongly “anti-life” links.”
DenseNode,
Have you stoped having sex?
It could save YOUR life and it will protect the human gene pool from irrevocable contamination.
But if your off spring are as clueless as you then, between your incompetence and theirs, they probably will not live long enough to reproduce.
That Darwinian survival of the fittest thing sure is beneficial to all the species.
That reminds me:
Dense,
When your mamma was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her womb?
Because, sadly, many feel ownership over their children. They cannot fathom that they would give up what is theirs. Virtually all of the women in a crisis pregnancy that visit my local PRC react with HORROR at the idea of adoption. Seriously. They would rather KILL their child than live with the knowledge that their child is out there somewhere living a life without them. Better dead than with someone else. It’s sick.
This reminds me of the story of Solomon and the two mothers. Solomon knew which was the true mother because she was willing to give up her child in order for him to live. She loved him, but it was more important to her that he live, than that she have him. The other woman would rather have had the baby be killed.
DenseNode,
Evidently you can read. Suggest you consult a dictionary and look up the definitions of ‘truth’.
You are either ignorant of the concept or you just love the ‘lie’.
Dense,
Your entertainment value here was exhausted about 5:19pm, yesterday.
Suggest you take a stab at vaudeville.
It may be a venue that is better suited to your talents.
That is if you can sing or dance or juggle.
If ‘jiggling’ or ‘jostling’ is your forté then you may have a future in dancing at a ‘gentlemans’ club.
‘Thinking’ is not something with which you do well, unsupervised.
Ken, at the risk of looking crazy, I have I step in and defend Denise here.
She is not pro-abortion. She is also pretty clear about her sexual activity differing from the norm. So to label her has as something like a pro-abortion nymphomaniac is really far off the mark.
She has very unorthodox ideas about pregnancy prevention as well as adoption and also birth control. But one thing she ISN’T is a pro-abort.
Sorry for typos… On my phone again, and I’m all thumbs.
Denise,
Why didn’t you respond to my post? If you are trying to lower the number of serial killers then it doesn’t make any sense to support women taking birth control. Statistically women on the pill are more 100’s of times more likely to be serial killers then women who are not on the pill.
truthseeker says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Denise,Why didn’t you respond to my post? If you are trying to lower the number of serial killers then it doesn’t make any sense to support women taking birth control. Statistically women on the pill are more 100?s of times more likely to be serial killers then women who are not on the pill.
(Denise) This simply makes no sense at all. A girl or woman who is NOT PREGNANT doesn’t seek an abortion. A girl or woman who is HAPPILY PREGNANT doesn’t seek an abortion. Any contraception that is relatively effective will lower the number of unwanted pregnancies and by lowering those pregnancies, it will lower both abortions and babies placed for adoptions.
Of course there is contraceptive failure and many people don’t use contraceptives as they should. This could result in unplanned pregnancies.
There also might be a statistical problem because celibate and lesbian women might be less likely to get pregnant and also less likely to need contraception. But I can’t see effective contraception as doing anything other than helping decrease abortion.
It is just statistical fact. Women on contraception are far more likely to commit serial abortion then women who do not use birth control. Too many women, like you are not comprehending this because they look at contraception as being ‘effective’ and think it is license to inconsequential sex. That lack of comprehension leads them to think promiscuous behavior has no consequences and they become serial killers of unborn children. And people like Bloomberg project this misconception onto children and lead them to become serial killers also.
@truthseeker: I don’t believe there is such a thing as “inconsequential sex.” Not all sex leads to pregnancy but that doesn’t mean it lacks consequences. If women are going to have intimate heterosexual relations but don’t want to get pregnant, they had better use effective contraception.
Do you consider the pills they are pushing on these school girls to be ‘effective’ contraception? That is the lie that leads these girls to think they can have sex as many times as they want and not have to worry about getting pregnant. The school nurses that hand out the birth control to these young girls probably tell them that it is “effective” too. And it leads them to become serial killers.
truthseeker says:
September 29, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Do you consider the pills they are pushing on these school girls to be ‘effective’ contraception? That is the lie that leads these girls to think they can have sex as many times as they want and not have to worry about getting pregnant. The school nurses that hand out the birth control to these young girls probably tell them that it is “effective” too. And it leads them to become serial killers.
(Denise) With teen girls, I believe you must take the adolescent personality into account. I’ve heard that they are often given low-dosage versions of the Pill which are especially likely to be ineffective if not taken as regularly as they should be. With teen girls, I believe something like Norplant or Depo-Provera to be more appropriate. I also believe strongly that we must revive the custom of chaperoned dating to decrease partnered heterosexual activity.
What do mean when you say you should take their adolescent personality into account. And why are you saying that teen-girls should be put on higher doses hormones? Would you tell a teen girl that as long as she takes Depo-Provera she is effectively protected from getting pregnant even if she engages sex? I think telling a girl that is a lie and when breakaway ovulation occurs and she gets pregnant anyway you are actually doing her a disservice. You are actually leading her towards becoming a serial killer.
Denise, do you think girls who take contraception are more likely to engage in intercourse because they are lead to believe that they ‘effectively’ protected from getting pregnant?
@truthseeker: Adolescent personalities have a tendency to be flighty and impulsive. They are also even more likely than other people to be forgetful. Thus, they can simply forget to take the Pill when they are supposed to take it which means it will be less effective. It is best to rely on something such as Norplant or Depo-Provera that doesn’t depend on the teen girl taking it regularly. I would give her whatever the accurate statistics are regarding the protection from pregnancy that she is on.
I would also tell her that she must weigh other factors in deciding to have partnered sex. Females are emotionally vulnerable (more so than males regarding the area of partnered sex). Both sexes can still get STDs. I would impress upon her that there are dangers besides pregnancy. I would also want her to be aware that this is a relatively poor means of pleasure for the female even though it is extremely efficient for the male. A healthy selfishness would lead her to say “no” to this form of sex.
We need to do more to promote abstinence. Reviving chaperoned dating is a necessary first step toward decreasing destructive sexual activity.
Denise, let me ask you again.
Do you think girls who take contraception are more likely to engage in intercourse because they are lead to believe that they are ‘effectively’ protected from getting pregnant?
DenseGnome says: September 29, 2012 at 8:50 am
“David Kirschner wrote the book “Uncharted Waters” about the connections between adoption and serial murder and parricide.”
Several books have been written about the obamateur and I am sure you believe all of them, especially the un-authorized auto-biography.
Moderators!
Has CC changed her ‘handle’….. again?
or is DenseGnome her soul sister from a different mother?
ruthseeker says:
September 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Denise, let me ask you again.Do you think girls who take contraception are more likely to engage in intercourse because they are lead to believe that they are ‘effectively’ protected from getting pregnant?
(Denise) This is possible.
I think it is important to emphasize to young women that:
1) There are dangers to partnered sex in addition to pregnancy;
2) Females are subject to special psychological dangers from partnered sex;
3) Intercourse is often very inefficient and ineffective in providing pleasure to the female. Thus, assertive young women will often say “no” to it.
Even if a teen girl is on effective contraception, she should be encouraged to engage in chaperoned dating and not be alone with a boy.
“Has CC changed her ‘handle’….. again?
or is DenseGnome her soul sister from a different mother?”
Oh come on Ken, that one was a little cruel. We may not all agree with Denise on everything, but she’s no CC.
“She is not pro-abortion. She is also pretty clear about her sexual activity differing from the norm. So to label her has as something like a pro-abortion nymphomaniac is really far off the mark. She has very unorthodox ideas about pregnancy prevention as well as adoption and also birth control. But one thing she ISN’T is a pro-abort.”
I’ll grant that she’s not pro-abortion. But beyond that, you win the award for most charitable spin I have ever heard to call her ideas just unorthodox. They completely utterly ignore the human nature, health, and happiness of nearly all humans who exist on a moderate plane of sanity. I’m sorry it is beyond unorthodox. Her ideas amount to saying: imagine if human beings were some other kind of creature (and could be happy being completely other than what they are just to avoid pregnancy). Now how can we get human beings to act more like these imaginary creatures and be happy about it. That is the sum total of her arguments. Period full stop. Which is delusional but relatively harmless. But her adoption hatred (oh she denies this too but all the websites she cites are anti adoption looney toons) and her obsession with adoptees being serial killers is spiteful, harmful, and as delusional as the rest of her ideas. She does real harm to mothers facing a difficult decision by coming here to spout this nonsense. Implying that there is something wrong with mothers who can “sever the bond” and place for adoption. Implying that adoptees are doomed to live as splintered individuals. Relying on old data, half truths, anecdotes from people I am convinced have mental health issues (if they exist at all), a complete lack of understanding of how the adoption system currently works, and absolutely no demand for intellectual rigor in the “statistics” and faulty conclusions she takes as gospel.
I’ve avoided saying anything for a long time b/c she has admitted to some mental illnesses and a personal horror of being pregnant that surpasses anything I have ever seen. Yet she persists in believing that this horror of pregnancy is shared by a vast majority of people (trust me she has an asexual or lesbian anecdote to “prove” it) and then insists that this horror is not only relevant but PREDOMINANT in fighting abortion. As if a true phobia rising to the level of mental illness is driving more than a handful of abortions (IF THAT – since most people with such a crippling phobia would probably avoid “kinds of sex that can get you pregnant” like the plague – as she has done). She is either a troll who just wants to aggravate people or a truly delusional woman. Either way, it’s not good and not something to be taken seriously (with the exception of some VERY rare thoughtful posts). I’m very glad she wouldn’t kill unborn children. But the rest is unadulterated garbage.
I’ll grant that she’s not pro-abortion. But beyond that, you win the award for most charitable spin I have ever heard to call her ideas just unorthodox.
Yeah, I was trying to be tactful. But believe me, I’ve called her out many times on her Crazytown Monologues.
I notice that several commenters are talking about nutrition/supplements and the causes of cancer. Most medical authorities now agree that inflammation is the root cause of cancer as well as cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases.
I agree. But I also discovered that chronic inflammation is generally caused by a deficiency of the simple amino acid, glycine. Check out my website proglyta.com to read what I have concluded and what I am selling to correct this deficiency.
Denise, let me ask you again.Do you think girls who take contraception are more likely to engage in intercourse because they are lead to believe that they are ‘effectively’ protected from getting pregnant?
(Denise) This is possible
Denise, this is not just possible it highly probable. Statistically 10’s if not 100’s of times more likely to engage in intercourse on an annual basis. Before I go to my next point I want to make sure of something. Are we in agreement that being on birth control makes girls more likely to engage in intercourse?
truthseeker says:
September 30, 2012 at 10:59 am
Denise, let me ask you again.Do you think girls who take contraception are more likely to engage in intercourse because they are lead to believe that they are ‘effectively’ protected from getting pregnant?(Denise) This is possibleDenise, this is not just possible it highly probable. Statistically 10?s if not 100?s of times more likely to engage in intercourse on an annual basis. Before I go to my next point I want to make sure of something. Are we in agreement that being on birth control makes girls more likely to engage in intercourse?
(Denise) Actually this would be hard to tease out because MOST go on contraception (NOT “birth control” because this term could cover abortion rather than attempts to prevent conception) because they either are already having this type of sex or they plan to have this type of sex. I myself was on the Pill for about 2 years. I took it for a different reason and never had that type of sex.
As I said previously, it is important to inform girls that contraception does not protect and STDs or emotional damage.
It is also vitally important that they know that this type of sex can be viewed as “male-centric.” That is, it is almost perfect in its ability to give pleasure to the male but frequently inefficient and ineffective in pleasuring the female. Thus, it makes sense for girls to abstain from this sort of sex — they often don’t enjoy it anyway but take enormous risks from it.
Do teen girls who plan to abstain but go on contraception for other reasons become more likely to engage in intercourse? Again, that is possible. I am concerned about that which is a reason I’ve been so strongly in favor of chaperoned dating.
“Do teen girls who plan to abstain but go on contraception for other reasons become more likely to engage in intercourse?”
Denise, you are nit-picking about what percentage go on ‘contraception’ for reasons other than contraception. Methinks you are trying to avoid the overwhelming factual evidence and move forward to the unmistakable conclusions that would come about from admitting that. On an annual basis girls on contraception engage in sex 100’s of times more often than girls who are not on contraception. So I ‘ll ask again with a slight twist to avoid your misdirected resoponse;
Do you think girls who take contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy are more likely to engage in intercourse because they are lead to believe that they are ‘effectively’ protected from getting pregnant?
truthseeker says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:53 pm
“Do teen girls who plan to abstain but go on contraception for other reasons become more likely to engage in intercourse?”Denise, you are nit-picking about what percentage go on ‘contraception’ for reasons other than contraception. Methinks you are trying to avoid the overwhelming factual evidence and move forward to the unmistakable conclusions that would come about from admitting that. On an annual basis girls on contraception engage in sex 100?s of times more often than girls who are not on contraception. So I ‘ll ask again with a slight twist to avoid your misdirected resoponse; Do you think girls who take contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy are more likely to engage in intercourse because they are lead to believe that they are ‘effectively’ protected from getting pregnant?
(Denise) I really do think you’d have to consider girls who take it for OTHER reasons while intending to abstain. The way you’re phrasing it now is basically: Are girls who are having intercourse or plan to have intercourse more likely to be having intercourse than those who are not or who do not plan to have intercourse? This is almost a tautology.
I have supported various means to persuade girls and women away from this type of partnered sex.
No, I am not phrasing it that way. You are phrasing it that way. I said that women who are on contraception are more likely to engage in sex. You say, of course they are because women who on birth control are the ones who plan on having sex. And I am glad to see you admit that. And they are also the ones who tend to buy into the lie that they can have sex as often as they want without needing to worry about getting pregnant because they are being lied and to lead to believe that their contraceptives will effectively prevent pregnancy regardless of how often they engage in sex. Then these same girls not only are likely to become serial killers but they are also likely to suffer from all of those other unhealthy illnesses that you like to bring up as a consequence of sex. Then why would support women using contraceptives when you admit it causes them to more likely and more actively engage in these destructive behaviors?
truthseeker says:
September 30, 2012 at 2:39 pm
No, I am not phrasing it that way. You are phrasing it that way. I said that women who are on contraception are more likely to engage in sex. You say, of course they are because women who on birth control are the ones who plan on having sex. And I am glad to see you admit that. And they are also the ones who tend to buy into the lie that they can have sex as often as they want without needing to worry about getting pregnant because they are being lied and to lead to believe that their contraceptives will effectively prevent pregnancy regardless of how often they engage in sex. Then these same girls not only are likely to become serial killers but they are also likely to suffer from all of those other unhealthy illnesses that you like to bring up as a consequence of sex. Then why would support women using contraceptives when you admit it causes them to more likely and more actively engage in these destructive behaviors?
(Denise) Because it makes them less likely to get pregnant IF they do engage in intercourse and, thus, less likely to have abortions or place babies for adoption or raise babies that are likely to be neglected. Much intercourse is impulsive. Some is forced. They should be protected from pregnancy. Many contraceptives are in fact effective in protecting from pregnancy.
But they also need to be told the truth about intercourse and to be encouraged to have chaperoned dating and other means that will decrease intercourse.
Let’s put another question: Are teen girls who engage in intercourse likely to enjoy more sexual pleasure than those who do not?
My answer would be “No.”
ts, good luck trying to reason with someone that has an extreme fear of sex, pregnancy, abortion, and adoption.
Denise, the ‘effectiveness’ has been shown to be less then effective. Over 50% of the women committing abortion use contraceptives. Combine that with all those other negative effects and the FACT that it makes girls more likely to subject themselves to all those other destructive behaviors including becoming serial killers and you have a huge net loss in encouraging girls to use contraceptives. And these liberal buffoons like Bloomberg want it done without any parental guidance at all.
@CT: aren’t people entitled to know what they are getting into when they do something?
One reason I support “Forced Information” is that I believe forcing girls and women to SEE what is destroyed in an abortion makes them less likely to abort. I’ve read that about 80% of females considering abortion decided against it upon seeing a sonogram.
Similarly, aren’t people contemplating some sort of relationship with adoption entitled to know the full truth about this practice? It is not opinion, it is fact that adoptees are 2-3% of the population and 16% of serial murderers. Adoption is by no means the only factor that goes into the creation of serial murderers. But it is an important factor.
If you’re going to adopt, shouldn’t you know that the baby you hold in your arms if 15 times more likely to someday act as your executioner than a baby that was not adopted? This will not prevent people from adopting but it is something they are entitled to know.
I have read that about 70% of imprisoned rapists are the sons of single mothers. Do you think this means I “hate” single mothers? Of course not. It does mean that it a boy is less likely to become a rapist if he is raised in a 2-parent family.
Denise,
Why are you so willing to disregard the fact that so many more women who use contraceptives are the ones who go on to become serial killers? You are guilty of encouraging serial killers in our society when you support the “effective’ contraception lie that leads to women becoming serial killers of unborn children.
84% of those adopted do not become serial killers. It’s a good bet, if you are considering adoption, that your child will not grow up to kill you or anyone else.
Lrning, Contraceptive women are likely a higher risk for killing their children then the children are a risk for killing somebody else if they were carried to term and put up for adoption. After all, don’t women of the contraceptive mentality end up killing millions of people every year; and many become repeat offenders.
@truthseeker: If contraception is effective, it prevents pregnancy. Therefore, it PREVENTS abortion.
Many women who get abortions did not use contraceptives conscientiously or they may have been using less effective contraceptives. Overall, contraception works to prevent abortion.
@Lrning: I didn’t say adoptees are usually murderers. They are not. However, the link between adoption and both serial murder and parricide is strong and people are entitled to know about it. Of course adoptees, only 2-3% of the population, are not 100% of serial murderers. Don’t you find the fact that they are 16% of serial murderers rather alarming?
Perhaps fewer girls and women would engage in intercourse if we make it clear that those who do are unlikely to enjoy more sexual pleasure than those who say “no” to it. It is dangerous in many ways and — for the female — inefficient and ineffective at leading to enjoyment.
@truthseeker: If contraception is effective, it prevents pregnancy.
Denise, notice the emphasis on the word IF
The facts are that women on contraception commit abortion in greater numbers then women who are not on contraception. And they are an even higher percentage of repeat offenders. So you are supporting a lie and leading women to believe contraception is effective at preventing abortion. You are leading women not just to unwanted pregnancy but all sorts of other negative behaviors that they would otherwise not so casually engage in.
@ truthseeker: Eleanor Cooney got pregnant at 17. She wasn’t using contraception. She had an abortion at the start of her 4th month of pregnancy. Once she realized she was pregnant, she was absolutely determined to eject the fetus from her body.
Isn’t it possible that this abortion would not have happened if she had been on Depo-Provera or Norplant?
I saw an interview with a young lady who wasn’t on contraceptives apparently because she wasn’t sexually active. She was raped and aborted.
Would Depo-Provera or Norplant have avoided this abortion as well?
I’m not saying all women should be on contraceptives. I have a close friend who is both asexual and sterile. She has her problems — loneliness and feelings of alienation — but I see no reason for contraception.
truthseeker says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:38 pm
@truthseeker: If contraception is effective, it prevents pregnancy. Denise, notice the emphasis on the word IFThe facts are that women on contraception commit abortion in greater numbers then women who are not on contraception. >>
(Denise) The fact is that girls and women who are heterosexually active are more apt to use contraceptives than those not planning to be active in this way. This by no means indicates that contraceptives CAUSE abortion. That is utterly ridiculous. They were often using methods that are not effective or they were using them improperly. It is vital to encourage the use of the most effective means if we are to make a dent in the number of abortions in this country.
The fact that close to half of the girls and women getting abortions used NO contraceptives proves the point that intercourse is often engaged in IMPULSIVELY.
<<And they are an even higher percentage of repeat offenders. So you are supporting a lie and leading women to believe contraception is effective at preventing abortion. You are leading women not just to unwanted pregnancy but all sorts of other negative behaviors that they would otherwise not so casually engage in.>>
(Denise) How would you suggest we decrease intercourse?
Is it important to emphasize the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of this means for the female’s pleasure?
It is very effective for the male but much less so for the female.
Lrning says:
September 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm
84% of those adopted do not become serial killers. It’s a good bet, if you are considering adoption, that your child will not grow up to kill you or anyone else.
(Denise) It’s a good bet that if someone is a serial murderer or parent-murderer, he or she was much more likely to have been placed for adoption than the average person.
Denise, I will go back to ignoring you. You are irrational.
Many years ago I read an article by someone who worked in an abortion clinic. She was interviewing a middle-aged woman with what the writer described as “an accent I couldn’t place.” The writer asked, “How many previous abortions have you had?”
The woman replied, “Thirty-two.”
The writer elaborated, “I almost dropped my pen.”
It turned out the woman was from an Iron Curtain country. Contraceptives were hard to obtain. Abortion was pretty much the accepted means of “birth control.”
Take away contraception and abortion will become far, far more common than it is.
@ truthseeker: Eleanor Cooney got pregnant at 17. She wasn’t using contraception. She had an abortion at the start of her 4th month of pregnancy. Once she realized she was pregnant, she was absolutely determined to eject the fetus from her body.
Isn’t it possible that this abortion would not have happened if she had been on Depo-Provera or Norplant?
Denise, it is also possible that she could have been on contraceptives and still got pregnant. It is also likely that if she didn’t get pregnant she would have continued have sex and eventually got pregnant anyway.
The contraceptive mentality carries so make negative effects in ADDITION to the lie that it is effective at preventing pregnancy. She would be better off knowing her natural cycle and timing sex to last day of her period and using a condom then relying on Depo-Provera and playing russian roulette with breakaway ovulation.
@Truthseeker: Eleanor Cooney got pregnant through an impulsive act. “Timing sex” doesn’t apply.
I’m for trying to ensure that teen boys and girls are not alone together.
This is from a website about Norplan effectiveness:
For every 100 women who use implants for a year, fewer than 1 will become pregnant. That is a lower failure rate than for the oral contraceptive pill and is comparable to voluntary sterilization.
(Denise) It’s a good bet that if someone is a serial murderer or parent-murderer, he or she was much more likely to have been placed for adoption than the average person.
What??? Wow, Denise…
@Truthseeker: Eleanor Cooney got pregnant through an impulsive act. “Timing sex” doesn’t apply. I’m for trying to ensure that teen boys and girls are not alone together.
@Denise, I am for protecting unemancipated minors from freakish liberal Planned Parenthood supporters who would dispense teenage girls contraception without even notifying their parents. And on top of that they would goad them into dangerous behavior by telling them that the drugs they are to dispensing them are harmless and effective. If you truly believe in chaperoning then you would have to be against Bloomberg’s policy. Either that or you are just not being rational.
“@CT: aren’t people entitled to know what they are getting into when they do something? Similarly, aren’t people contemplating some sort of relationship with adoption entitled to know the full truth about this practice?”
Truth is what you’re missing here. Also reality.
“If you’re going to adopt, shouldn’t you know that the baby you hold in your arms if 15 times more likely to someday act as your executioner than a baby that was not adopted?”
And that even at 15x (I’ll stipulate to your misunderstanding of data b/c it’s still irrelevant) they have a right to know that their chance is basically ZERO.
“I have read that about 70% of imprisoned rapists are the sons of single mothers. Do you think this means I “hate” single mothers? Of course not.”
No it means you don’t understand statistics and how to draw conclusions from them (or what conclusions and statements can even be supported). And that because you are limited in this way, you say things that are misleading at best and incorrect in fact.
@truthseeker: There’s nothing “irrational” about taking a multi-pronged approach to pregnancy prevention. Teen boys and girls shouldn’t be alone together because that situation leads to temptations that are destructive. Reviving chaperoned dating would go a long way to addressing many of our current ills.
Contraception is another form of protection. Multiple protections are good.
We can decrease the amount of intercourse. We can also protect girls who engage in intercourse or are raped from pregnancy.
@CT: If 70% of imprisoned rapists were raised by single mothers, wouldn’t that suggest that a 2-parent home tends to reduce the chances of a boy growing up to become a rapist?
Believing 2-parent homes are generally better for children shouldn’t imply “hating” single moms or “hating” their children. It just implies that society as a whole would do well to encourage marriage.
Are teen girls who engage in intercourse getting more sexual pleasure than those who are not?
I believe the answer to this is “no.” This is a good reason to decrease intercourse.
@ CT: The information I have is that adoptees are 2-3% of the population and 16% of serial murderers.
Do you have other information? If adoptees are 2-3% of the population and 2-3% of serial murderers, then adoption should not be considered a factor in serial murder.
Or perhaps adoptees are actually 16% of the population. That would also mean it is not a factor in serial murder.
So are only 2-3% of serial murderers adopted?
Or are adoptees in fact 16% of the population?
16% of what? What percentage of the population are serial murderers. Oh…..so few that it’s almost immeasurable. Less than 1% by far?? Even assuming the accuracy of your completely bogus statistics, you are pouring all your energy into NOTHING. NOTHING. According to your own nonsense, 16% of less than 1% of the population will become serial murderers solely because of adoption. It’s false, but even if it were true, WHO THE F&$* CARES. If such a MINISCULE amount of adoptees go horribly wrong, then the overall picture is nothing like what you are painting. The vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of adoptees will have nothing whatsoever to do with serial murders ever in their lives. Adoptive parents have NOTHING to be afraid of. They’re more likely to be killed by lightning. Much more likely. Seriously, you live in lala land. And I have said all I care to say to you. I only said something b/c your ridiculousness my actually impact some poor person who doesn’t realize you are wrong and out of your mind.
Here is an article about more prosaic problems faced by the adopted:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1737667,00.html
If a woman has had a baby and does not feel she can meet the responsibilities of raising that baby, or if she does not experience the usual feeling of having bonded with that baby as a result of pregnancy and birth, I doubt that she will scrap her plan to place the baby for adoption just because of what I write here. Those who have had babies and cannot or do not want to raise them will continue placing them for adoption in the future as they have in the past. I write “have had babies” because there is no pre-natal adoption at the present time. Perhaps someday it will be possible to transplant a human embryo or fetus from one womb to another.
Many who plan to place for adoption during pregnancy change their minds after giving birth.
Similarly, people will continue to adopt even with knowledge of its dangers. The knowledge may make them more careful in some respects. Knowledge is usually a positive thing.
For example, adoptee Jeremy Strohmeyer had been treated with Ritalin for Attention Deficit Disorder. If those treating him had known that his biological mother had schizophrenia, he would not have received this medication which is contra-indicated for people with that condition or people who have a family history of that condition. Jeremy Strohmeyer brutally murdered a little girl in a casino restroom. It is possible that receiving a medicine he wouldn’t have received had his biological mother’s history been known may have contributed to the crime.
One thing I should point out is that it is possible that part of the reason adoptees are over-represented as serial murderers and parricides is NOT adoption itself but things that correlate with adoption. For one thing, females with certain genetic problems might be more likely to place babies for adoption than those without those problems. Females impregnated by males with certain genetic problems might be more apt to place for adoption. Thus, adoptive parents receive a disproportionate number of “bad seeds” to raise.
There are also biological problems that aren’t genetic but are created in the womb. A girl or woman who has taken poor care of herself during her pregnancy or abuses alcohol or drugs might be more likely to place for adoption than others. Adoptees may be disproportionately affected by inadequate pre-natal care and/or substance before they were born.
@truthseeker: There’s nothing “irrational” about taking a multi-pronged approach to pregnancy prevention. Teen boys and girls shouldn’t be alone together because that situation leads to temptations that are destructive. Reviving chaperoned dating would go a long way to addressing many of our current ills.
Denise, what would be irrational is to say you think chaperoning is a great idea and at the same time saying you support Bloomberg’s idea of passing out contraceptives to unemancipated minors without parental notification. Wouldn’t you agree?
@truthseeker: I believe that many minor girls are uncomfortable discussing sexuality with their parents. Some who are having partnered sex or are at high-risk for partnered sex are just not able to discuss it with their parents. We had a so-called sex education thing at Sunday School and I remember a girl saying, “I was so embarrassed.”
Many times such girls get pregnant.
It seems completely reasonable to protect them from pregnancy as best as can be done at the present time. As I wrote about, a female on Norplant is EXTREMELY unlikely to get pregnant.
Ideally, parents and daughters should discuss her vulnerability to pregnancy as soon as she hits puberty. She should always be given the option of taking effective contraceptives to protect against pregnancy in the case of rape if not impulsive partnered sex.
The basic problem is that if parental notification is demanded, many of them won’t be able to talk about it with Mom and Dad, won’t go on contraception — and will get pregnant as a result.
Ideally, parents and teenagers should be able to discuss these issues comfortably. In the world we live in, Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal will prevent problem pregnancies.
The truth that intercourse remains “sex” in most people’s minds shows that females have not “emancipated” themselves from a male-centric model of human sexuality. Girls and women need to know that this may not be the best means of pleasure for them as females. They should be taught that they can say “no” and have just as much or more enjoyment of sexuality as the ones who say “yes.”
Only by embracing a disordered sexuality. No thanks.
Lrning says:
October 2, 2012 at 8:41 am
Only by embracing a disordered sexuality. No thanks.
(Denise) You prefer 3 million unplanned pregnancies per year, half of which are aborted?
Denise, would you vote for a law that prevents teenage heterosexual dates without a chaperone?
DeniseNoe says: You prefer 3 million unplanned pregnancies per year, half of which are aborted?
I don’t buy into your false dichotomy. We don’t have to embrace disordered sexuality in order to eliminate abortion.
truthseeker says:
October 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Denise, would you vote for a law that prevents teenage heterosexual dates without a chaperone?
(Denise) This isn’t something that can or should be handled through the law. A campaign should be waged to change our culture so that chaperoned dates for teenagers becomes the norm. Chaperoning in the past was never a matter of law but was an expected custom.
I am for enforcing the statutory rape laws that have long been on the books but are widely ignored. I have read that the MAJORITY of unwed minor girls are pregnant by adult men. Thus, the majority of these pregnancies would be prevented simply by obeying laws currently on the books!
And YES, workers and volunteers for Planned Parenthood and any other group that knows of a minor girl pregnant by an adult man is legally obligated to report it and should be he held legally accountable if they fail to do so.
@Lrning: Perhaps the “disordered sexuality” is that which makes “sex” synonymous with an that is perfect for providing the male with pleasure but poor at performing that service for the female.
You could possibly make a case for that position if you don’t believe in God, ignore biology, and continue to reject the fact that many (most?) women do find sex pleasurable.
I have read that the MAJORITY of unwed minor girls are pregnant by adult men.
Denise, your position just doesn’t make sense logically. You say that you think parents should chaperone their children (keep oversight on them) but you also support Mayor Bloomberg’s law usurping parental oversight that allows the government to mandate schools dispensing high doses of hormones to teenage girls so they can ingest them the morning after sex…WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION. And you admit knowing that the MAJORITY of minor girls are pregnant by adult men. You really don’t see the hypocrisy?
Come on!! Mayor Mike has said in the past that Americans are stupid and lazy and that illegal aliens are needed to take care of the golf courses. Toxic!!?? that’s an understatement.