jmkjag: "...the whole point WAS controlling irresponsible sexual behavior for the prevention of unwanted children...unwanted abortions...the almost certainty of unwanted poverty at least at the individual level...the breakdown of the family, which has always been the strength of any long lasting civilization...for the prevention of the collapse of that civilization itself."
 
Who defines what is responsible and irresponsible? What if an unwanted pregnancy occurs within a family and raising the child will result in hardship that does cause "poverty" and the "breakdown" of the family in question?
 
jmkjag: "One must control these desires, or the desires will control us all."
 
The desires to survive and reproduce do "control us all". Social traditions and counter-cultures directly relate to these "desires". Instead of tackling abortion, you might want to tackle those relatively recent socio-economic developments that have led to declining birthrates e.g. the Double-INCOME-No-Kids couples.
 
jmkjag: "And then we are surprised to see societies breaking down and irresponsible sex is in the locomotive of that train?"
 
Societies are not "breaking down" least of all due to "irresponsible sex". I'm not one to delve into personal bias, but your writings are tinged with bitterness.
 
jmkjag: "Who is telling people NOT to have sex? Not me Kapitein, not me!"
 
One would hope not.
 
jmkjag: "I'm just asking where have all the warning signs gone?"
 
Abortion can and should be limited; however, I would not ban or place a moratorium on it.
 
jmkjag: "It is throwing in the towel by endorsing abortion."
 
Quite frankly, any measures that reduce the demographic expansion of the Third World are welcome.
 
jmkjag: "But hey, better for us to control another person's ability to even exist rather than for me to make responsible sexual decisions."
 
Disproportionate wealth also controls people's ability to exist, I do not see you railing against capitalism.

"You say much with few words.I guess I don't have that skillset".
 
I respectfully disagree :)   Thirteen words got the job done here and I thank you for them.

You must have been responding while I was. You say much with few words. I guess I don't have that skillset :)

"These "societal encouragements" were little more than means through which one's sexuality was controlled by others. Moreover, they only concealed reality; they did not change it."

Well, I'd rather not get into who controlled whom. However, the whole point WAS controlling irresponsible sexual behavior for the prevention of unwanted children ~ for the prevention of unwanted abortions ~ for the prevention of the almost certainty of unwanted poverty at least at the individual level ~ for the prevention of the breakdown of the family, which has always been the strength of any long lasting civilization ~ for the prevention of the collapse of that civilization itself.

Yes, we all have our sexuality. We all also have hunger pains. We all also have the need for human community. We all also have...we all also have...we all also have. You get the point. However, the INDISCRIMINATE feeding of those needs can lead to great difficulties not only to ourselves but to our societies as well.

No, those "societal encouragements" did not conceal reality. In fact, JUST THE OPPOSITE. They stood up and faced those realities straight on.
They said, "We know the reality of sexual desire."
They said, "We know the strength of that desire."
They said, "We know how that desire, if used irresponsibly, can lead to destruction of not only the individual, but the society as a whole."
SO, THEY ALSO said, "One must control these desires, or the desires will control us all."
Of course, that "One" should be the self-controlled individual. That one self-controlled individual chooses responsible sex because it is in his/her best interest overall.

And isn't that just what is no longer happening? "Well, we must kill these babies, because they infringe on my ability to quench my desires." Whether that be the desire to have sex or feed oneself or have the baby boy for the sake of ________ (fill in the blank).

So once again, let's not lie to ourselves. Some things DO control us. Funny, we don't mind societal encouragements controlling indscriminate theft or murder or drug abuse. Heck, we DEMAND them. Why? Primarily because the reality is these behaviors breakdown society. But, by damn, don't tell me to control my "rights" to sleep with whomever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want etc. My goodness, there are societal encouragements to not smoke or overeat. But we don't take offense at those.

And then we are surprised to see societies breaking down and irresponsible sex is in the locomotive of that train?

"This is not solution-oriented thinking. If you wanted to reduce car accident rates, would you tell people not to drive?"

Who is telling people NOT to have sex? Not me Kapitein, not me! Yes, I defended abstinence. You said it doesn't work. Yes, it does. The only full-proof way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is abstinence. But I did not say universal celibacy is the answer to all of life's problems. Come on! One generation of that would demonstrate the ridiculousness of that solution!

No, I did not tell people to not drive. I'm just asking where have all the warning signs gone? Even when we drive along the road, we get signs that inform us "dangerous curve ahead, slow down" or "Bridge ices before road surface" or "Speed Limit".

Those road signs are made by the people who have gone before us, who have travelled that road before us, and who have the nerve to say be careful danger is ahead because we know bad things can happen if you don't handle your car wisely.

See, I don't have the answers. I just want to make sure that when we are facing these very difficult problems. And we are discussing the causes, effects, and solutions, that we don't deny the reality on the ground. Otherwise,
the wisdom of our solutions would fade,
which would lead to the failure of said solutions,
which inevitably would lead to the waning courage of the many successive generations it will take to turn these very large ships around.

And, I believe that takes me full circle to what this article was addressing. So many(?) generations since it's founding, Amnesty International has lost it's courage in the face of unwise solutions. It is throwing in the towel by endorsing abortion.

But hey, better for us to control another person's ability to even exist rather than for me to make responsible sexual decisions.

"If you wanted to reduce car accident rates,would you tell people not to drive?".
 
Sometimes,Yes.I think the better analogy might be,if you want to stop young joy riders stealing cars and driving them recklessly around the streets of your town or city,posing a danger to both themselves and others,would you recommend they should abstain from such thoughtless and selfish behaviour,learn the rules of the highway code,and seek to understand why such rules matter,earn their driving licence etc.,before even contemplating getting behind the wheel of a vehicle,or do you suggest they look to some other "solution-oriented" method which purports to address the issue?

jmkjag: "I'd bet these 'studies' were done in the 'Post-shame-for-premarital-sex' societies...I could go on with a list of societal encouragements that are no longer in place for both men and women."
 
These "societal encouragements" were little more than means through which one's sexuality was controlled by others. Moreover, they only concealed reality; they did not change it.
 
jmkjag: "Abstinence DOES work. No sex = no unwanted pregnancies = no abortions...The personal choice of abstinence ~ grounded on a person's ability to say No to themselves ~ will always eliminate the want of an abortion."
 
This is not solution-oriented thinking. If you wanted to reduce car accident rates, would you tell people not to drive?
 
Atheling: "You know, you sound Christian."
 
No. He sounds old. Madonna's influence is but a shadow of its former self and even at its height was not as "serious" as Britney and Christina's transformation into onscreen sluts.

"I am all for teaching abstinance also but it is not all that effective when you have swine like Madonna marketing sex directly to your kids."

You know, you sound Christian.

"I am all for teaching abstinance also but it is not all that effective when you have swine like Madonna MARKETING sex directly to your kids".
(Emphasis added).
 
Here is a video which touches on this topic and much,much more.In fact,it touches on many of the topics we've been debating here at the BJ just recently.
Regrettably,most people clicking on to this video link won't take the trouble to watch it from beginning to end.Believe me,THEY SHOULD !!!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
 
Title:Evan Sayet:"They Really Do Hate America". 

"Who said anything about teenage mothers? I'm all for teaching young kids chastity and continence. Your response is purely sophomoric."
 
Who do you think gets most of the abortions?  Abortion should be the last resort but also safe a legal.  if your 15 year old daughter gets pregnant what would you do?  I am all for teaching abstinance also but it is not all that effective when you have swine like Madonna marketing sex directly to your kids.

Some pretty sound logic expressed there which isn't going to go down too well in some quarters.Bravo!

"Study after study confirms that abstinence does not work. As one can see, chastity served Catholicism quite well."

I'd bet these "studies" were done in the "Post-shame-for-premarital-sex" societies. The shame that used to come along with premarital pregnancies used to be enough to scare a couple into saying No. Then there was the encouragement of the parents/family that helped them say No. Oh, I could go on with a list of societal encouragements that are no longer in place for both men and women.

And I will assume you mean Abstinence "Programs". Because let's face it:

Abstinence DOES work. No sex = no unwanted pregnancies = no abortions. It's pretty simple math.

The fact that people CANNOT / WILL NOT say No to irresponsible sex, amongst a plethora of other irresponsible choices, is a whole 'nother discussion. Rape is included here as the man's incapacity to say No to himself.

At which point, we are attacking the wrong problems, whether they be in the richest societies or Third World countries or in seminaries. Abortion on demand is only attacking a single symptom of larger societal problems. Those problems ranging, as you stated, from:

famine, disease and war in Africa and elsewhere
OR
cutltural values of
"family planning" to engage in "gendercide"

And the attack is flawed, at best, because is actually takes away the single most effective deterent for pre-marital sex: the responsibility for a child! And in the case of gendercide, it just opens up a more palatable option for carrying out the murder of the baby girl.

These are big problems ~ huge problems that would take wisdom, courage and generations to effect change. Admitted! But let's not lie to ourselves. The personal choice of abstinence ~ grounded on a person's ability to say No to themselves ~ will always eliminate the want of an abortion.

Lawson: "There can be no better illustration of that than the mass sex-selective abortions that have been a feature of Indian life ever since the ante-natal ultrasound machine arrived on the subcontinent. Over the past 20 years it is estimated that up to 10 million Indian female embryos have been aborted, a large proportion at five to six months gestation."
 
Abortion is a double-edge sword with regards to global demographic issues. On the one hand, abortion might allow for a reduction in the number of children who will be born into famine, disease and war in Africa and elsewhere, as these mothers are clearly not reproducing "responsibly" if their children are destined for paramilitary recruitment, starvation, labor or drowning in the Mediterranean. On the other hand, Chinese and Indian families are using "family planning" to engage in "gendercide," which is forcing them to find women among expat communities in the West.
 
Geraldo: "The big problem is that India and China are creating an army of about 100 or 200 million rufians that will unable to find a mate...Where do you think many will go?"
 
To a monastery hopefully. Go Bhuddism!
 
Amsterdamsky: "More teenage single mothers will help this?"
 
Yes. Although the fathers are most likely to be unemployed foreigners these days.
 
Atheling: "I'm all for teaching young kids chastity and continence."
 
Study after study confirms that abstinence does not work. As one can see, chastity served Catholicism quite well.

Who said anything about teenage mothers? I'm all for teaching young kids chastity and continence. Your response is purely sophomoric. Must be all those drugs...

"is why we are seeing the decline and extinction of the indigenous European."
 
More teenage single mothers will help this?

and turned aside from the intent of their founders should be an old story by now.    Harvard, Yale, and the other Ivy's, founded as Christian institutions, the BBC and other public broadcasters, heck, Catholic universities.  Why bother listing, the examples seem to be as many as there are public bodies.Some sociologist should do a timeline of institutions from their founding to the point when they exhibit purposes diametrically opposite from their founding; my guess is 3 generations of leadership. 

Their support of abortion is exactly why I won't give them money.
Anyone with half a brain can see that abortion (and contraception, much of which are abortifacents) is why we are seeing the decline and extinction of the indigenous European.
A culture of death, indeed.

The big problem is that India and China are creating an army of about 100 or 200 million rufians that will unable to find a mate.
Where do you think many will go?

“betraying the vision of its founders by supporting abortion”.

Regardless it is why I still give them money.