Donate Now
We've Moved! Check out our new boards.
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » www.abortionfacts.com

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: www.abortionfacts.com
coolestdesignz
Activist
Member # 18028

Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolestdesignz     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I almost collapsed (ok... not really... but you get the idea) when I stumbled across it. There is just so much misinformation, I wondered if they made things up as they went.

I've sent them an open letter. Feel free to read and comment at http://www.holyhell.net/blog/?p=18

I told them that the letter was open, and I gave them a link... so there you have it.

If you'd like to give them a piece of your mind: http://www.hh76.com/Contact.asp

------------------
--------------------------------------------
The Blog That Tries Really Hard Not to be a Blog

DanielTeichman@Internet #

[This message has been edited by coolestdesignz (edited 12-22-2005).]


Posts: 203 | From: Laguna Niguel, CA, USA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkChild717
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 139

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DarkChild717     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We've got not problems here, with civially discussing abortion and other controversial issues. But I do need to warn everyone--please keep this discussion civil, or it will be locked.

For the record, Scarleteen is pro-choice--meaning we support a person's right to choose for themselves what is best for their sexual and reproductive health.

With that said, enjoy the discussion!


Posts: 2789 | From: The Evergreen State | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolestdesignz
Activist
Member # 18028

Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolestdesignz     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
REPLY:

Brandon Monahan
-- edited --

(I edited this out because legally, emails are private communications, as is someone's email address, neither of which can lawfully be publicly posted without that person's permission. I've got enough battles to fight in the world with what we do here: I don't need cease and desist letters from pro-life organizations added to my headaches. You can feel free to paraphrase the reply you got though, if you like.)

[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 12-24-2005).]


Posts: 203 | From: Laguna Niguel, CA, USA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
emochickie7
Activist
Member # 24171

Icon 1 posted      Profile for emochickie7     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wow. I looked over some of the different pages from that website and I can't believe how biased they are and how they manage to skew a lot of facts.

And their response to you? Wow. If they really do have 15,000 unique visitors a day, I'm afraid to know how many people believe everything that the site says.


Posts: 43 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkChild717
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 139

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DarkChild717     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Of course, how many of those visitors are like us, looking, and being disgusted with their presentation of the facts?

It is unfortunate, though, that anyone, regardless of what side of the fence you're on, would twist facts to suite one's own agenda.


Posts: 2789 | From: The Evergreen State | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
coolestdesignz
Activist
Member # 18028

Icon 1 posted      Profile for coolestdesignz     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My apologies on the e-mail thing. Here's the e-mail he sent me, paraphrased:

He essentially told me that he was not going to take the time to respond to my "non-sequitur arguments" because his site was viewed by 15,000 "unique visitors per day" and is one of the "formost abortion related sites on the internet."

------------------
--------------------------------------------
The Blog That Tries Really Hard Not to be a Blog

DanielTeichman@Internet #


Posts: 203 | From: Laguna Niguel, CA, USA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ghosty
Activist
Member # 17968

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ghosty     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, one can get really suprised what some people can come up with.

Honestly believing in something is one thing, and telling people what you believe in and why.

But putting false info and info in order to scare, trick and lie to people is something completely diffrent.
I mean, young people who don't have much information end up on this site just to get more confused.
It's a shame they could get a domain like that.
I'm schocked knowing that not only do they deny facts, proven. But also encourage to more "accidents" and more spreading of STDs.

That should be illegal.

Believe and do what you feel is right, but misleading people is really really wrong.


Posts: 79 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Emmajen
Activist
Member # 19913

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Emmajen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, I just went to the site and I can't believe how biased and misleading it is while saying that this is a site of objective information. It definitely does not do justice to both sides of this issue.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikeren
Activist
Member # 26880

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ikeren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"The problem with having an open mind is people fill it with all kinds of garbage..."

I find it interesting that people jump on the site for its bias also accuse it of mis-information. And sure, I can pick out one or two errors. Maybe I am just poorly educated...could somebody point out a few of the most glaring to this poor ignorant soul?

But I am not seeing too much mis-information. What I am seeing is somebody trying to pass off opinion as information. But that happens all the time? Why is it such an atrocity in this circumstance? I mean, people twist "information" to their side everywhere...politics is founded on the very idea it seems...why is this website such a big deal?

------------------
I am a 17 year old male practitioner of BDSMLNOPQRSTUV...
LeVay Satanism composes approximately 60% of my religious beliefs. I agree with approximately 60% of LeVay Satanism.
I am a sadist (60%) I am a masochist (40%)
I am bisexual, or bipermissive. (75% heterosexual, 25% homosexual).

I seek no conflict outside my bedroom walls.


Posts: 157 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh man ... I avoided this thing b/c it gets me so mad, but after seeing your post, i had to go take a look ...

Here are a few things i found wrong w/ it;

- The AIDS virus can be transmitted through condoms - http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/condoms.asp (Bzzzzzz! The AIDS virus itself is not even transmitable ... the HIV virus is, and this leads to AIDS, but even still ... HIV can be prevented by condom use)
- Giving teens info about and access to contraceptives increases the chances they will be sexually active http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9339cs.asp
- There has to be "more" to sex, Re: feelings and such (http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9333si.asp) [And look at the pros and cons of having sex ... Lopsided much?]
- Girls don't like/want sex. They're not supposed to ... They REALLY just want intimacy (http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9332sf.asp)
- Age of viability is 20 wks (http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9332sf.asp) (I believe it's 24wks)
- The whole freaking site makes adoption sound like the perfect solution ... As if putting your child up for adoption guarantees it goes to a good home (when really, it's lucky if it goes to ANY home)

... This is all just from a very brief look at the site. So, really, i think there is LOTS wrong w/ this site.


Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikeren
Activist
Member # 26880

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ikeren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You didn't explain why those facts are not true. I mean, I've read that condoms prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, and now I've also read that condoms don't. Who do I believe? Don't have time to go over the rest of that, sorry...tommorow.
Posts: 157 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I thought it was pretty clear ... Condoms DO prevent the spread of HIV, research has shown that giving teens info and access to contraception does not increase permiscuity, there does not have to be "more" to sex for it to be safe and enjoyable, etc. ...

As to who to believe ... I understand how this can be a problem, w/ so many different sources citing different 'facts'. For one, it is generally unwise to take everything one source says, no matter what the source, without backing it up with other sources. Also, as you said earlier, this website has an obvious agenda, and it appears they're twisting facts to suit their agenda. How can you trust information from sources such as these? You can't, and so you have to look for unbiased information ...

Your countries health agency is often a good place to start, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO).
http://www.who.int/3by5/en/Condom_statement.pdf

[This message has been edited by LilBlueSmurf (edited 01-07-2006).]


Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lady_ahriman
Neophyte
Member # 24830

Icon 1 posted      Profile for lady_ahriman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One of the things I found most disturbing on that site was the misleading "information" they had. Such as, "And, a female can only get pregnant 3-5 days out of the month." (http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_917pp.asp) What?! WHAT?! All studies done show that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy at any time. It doesn't matter what time of the month it is. The fact that they are using shady and outdated "details" masquerated as facts leaves me with a feeling of disgust. Obviously this site was created using someones opinions rather than actual proven current facts.
Posts: 2 | From: Hell (Saskatoon), Canada | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LilBlueSmurf
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 1207

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LilBlueSmurf     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, that's where it's tricky ...

A woman can generally (though some research has shown that some women can ovulate twice in the same cycle) only get pregnant three to five days per month ... The thing is, unless your menstural cycles are regular and you have been charting long enough to know when you ovulate, you never know when these three to five days are ... And so yes, this is why protection at all points in your cycle are a must.

[This message has been edited by LilBlueSmurf (edited 01-07-2006).]


Posts: 7168 | From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You didn't explain why those facts are not true. I mean, I've read that condoms prevent HIV/AIDS transmission, and now I've also read that condoms don't. Who do I believe?

Well, national and international public health agencies have no agenda to lie when they state (and show research to support, which pro-life propagandists generally do not, as they're not going to find any to support that thesis) that condoms do p[revent the spread of the HIV virus. Since their interest is clearly in ceasing that spread, it's pretty easy to figure out who to listen to.

Another good gimme to someone talking out their butt? There is no "AIDS virus." AIDS is not viral. AIDS also is not infectious: HIV is.

I haven't looked at this site to detail what's all in it per misinformation: I've had to look at enough of this stuff in my work that I avoid it when I can, because all it does it make me angry: it doesn't furnish me with any bonafide information. I get that from sound journals, research sources, recognized-as-reliable public and sexual health references.


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikeren
Activist
Member # 26880

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Ikeren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, but do you see where I am going? Some of you dismiss this site out of hand because its facts differ from ones you were already told. You question what you disagree with rather then everything, assuming the things you've been told at one point are already true.

I see lots of bandwagoning and "oh that is horrifying false information." But unless people point out what is false, and give reasons why it is false, how does that help anyone?

For LilBlueSmurf; Okay, so the first link is statistically wrong.

In article two; Causual sex is indeed overpromoted on TV. It puts forth that there is a risk of STDS, and that is dangerous.

quote:
"The doctor explains that condoms fail to protect against the HIV virus about 1/3 of the time. Why hadn’t he been told that?"

Okay, that looks wrong. But what is the point? This is a standard "Pro-Abstinance, Pro-Adoption site". You'll find lots of sites on either sides willing to mangle information to be "Right".

In article three I see a very slanted list, but some people do worry about those things, and this site gives reasons for one option to not having to worry about those things: If you never have sex, you never have to worry about STDs, pregnancy, or anything emotional to do with sex. I don't intend to have sex for a long, long, time, if ever. I consider sex an entirely procreative act, one that I am not really interested in (which may be helped by my sexual orientation...sexual acts are more fun then sex)

The fourth doesn't have any statistics. However, it promotes abstinance. It makes generalizations. But you can't deny, some of the stuff it says is true; Guys come and go. Only you control your body. Figure out what makes you feel good, and do that.

I don't think unbiased information exists. I think the best way to find out an answer is to do your own experimentation and research. Obviously, not options in some cases.

I've got a bone to pick with the WHO. Th ICD took sadism and masochism off the lists of diseases but the WHO, which generally uses the ICD, didn't. I am still unhealthy and in need of a cure as far as the WHO is concerned, unless I've missed something. On the other hand, that isn't a very good reason to not use their unrelated information, is it? I'll read it, I won't promise to believe it though...

They won't vouch for condoms in relation to anal sex. Or homosexuality. I wonder why?

quote:
I haven't looked at this site to detail what's all in it per misinformation: I've had to look at enough of this stuff in my work that I avoid it when I can, because all it does it make me angry: it doesn't furnish me with any bonafide information. I get that from sound journals, research sources, recognized-as-reliable public and sexual health references.

You mean like the WHO, right? And you can see immediately where I am going with that. As sound as the journals are, as firm as the research is, and as well recognized any reference is, that doesn't mean they are flawless.

I am not saying I agree with the site. I am saying that dismissing its entirity on nothing but the fact that it has bias, and a mistake or two (or a dozen?) is probably not the best of ideas. Reacting with such rage seems, well, a bit of an overreaction persay?

------------------
I am a 17 year old male practitioner of BDSMLNOPQRSTUV...
LeVay Satanism composes approximately 60% of my religious beliefs. I agree with approximately 60% of LeVay Satanism.
I am a sadist (60%) I am a masochist (40%)
I am bisexual, or bipermissive. (75% heterosexual, 25% homosexual).

I seek no conflict outside my bedroom walls.

[This message has been edited by Ikeren (edited 01-08-2006).]


Posts: 157 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Karybu
Scarleteen Volunteer
Member # 20094

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Karybu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't say it's an overreaction at all. False information, on a topic like this, can be dangerous. Stuff like what's found on that website is being taught as sex ed in schools, for goodness sake, and look at all the problems that's caused. Anything like this that provides misinformation gets me really upset, and honestly, I don't feel I'm overreacting.

Just a note on bias in research - the information gained from real scientific research is about as unbiased as you can get. Sound research is done with the aim of being as unbiased as possible, otherwise it's useless.


Posts: 5799 | From: Canada/Australia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think what you're not hearing here is that someone like myself, for instance, looks at a LOT of different references, incessantly, and has years under her belt of doing so. (Heck, in my case, I've been keeping up with HIV/AIDS issues for 20 years now, since my mother worked in one of the first wards for AIDS for children at its advent.). Not just one, not just five, but in a given year, piles and reams of books, journals, bulletins, what have you.

So, for instance, when a medical/statistcal fact like condom use being a highly successful preventative measure against HIV is common, let's say, among the CDC, the WHO, Planned Parenthood, The Kaiser Foundation, Alan Guttmacher, every major hospital known to man, and all your basic, longstandingly-recognized as reliable sexual health and gynecologicial health references, no, one is NOT going to question it too profoundly, because that's a lot of varying resources in agreement. And one is certainly not going to questions those based on differing information given by a site or source which references none of those things, or any real data to back up what they're saying AND when their agenda clearly REQUIRES that what they posit supports that agenda.

When, too, other data about their agenda is NOT posted, is omitted -- like, say, a handful of reliable studies done which have shown that ab-only approaches have done nada when it comes to STI prevention, or the studies done which have shown abstinence-pledgers have the exact same rate of STIs as those who do not -- it's yet one more discredit.

No, completely unbiased information is not likely to exist. But information with greater and lesser bias is, and WHAT someone's agenda is is also not a moot point. Those health organizations, for instance, do not have a religious investment in whether or not a given person has sex. Those health organizations, as a collective don't have a religious agenda for women. Those health organizations, if they err, are not doing so INTENTIONALLY, and are -- and this is often safeguarded by laws and policies -- making a point to be thorough and without bias. Sites like this are i no way trying to work without bias, or look at all the facts, put them together, and see where that leads. They begin with their goal, their truth, their agenda, and gather all they can to support that. That difference in process and aim is no small thing.

(And I'm personally not about to discount public health information from one of the oldest, largest and most reliable sources of that information because they have a BDSM bias, or, more likely, updating that information isn't their highest priority right now. Hell, even if they had orientation bias, I'd likely still not discount them, however upsetting it might be to me personally. They're the WHO, not the APA. Nearly every institution that exists has gender bias to some degree about women, and however much that troubles me, I'm not about to dismiss sound data gleaned when that bias was clearly either not a factor, or was acknowledged in some way.)

I am curious where you're finding this: "They won't vouch for condoms in relation to anal sex. Or homosexuality. I wonder why?" Plenty of WHO bulletins over the years have included both.

I don't see anyone here expressing rage. Frustration? Sure. Some anger? yeah, and I think that's founded: purposefully posting misinfmoration or misleading information, or omitting factual information purposefully to push a personal agenda is maddening, especially when doing so endangers the health of others.

Again, I haven't personally looked at this site: I've no desire to, I have to put up with too much propaganda already. But sites like this tend to differ very, very little.


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikeren
Activist
Member # 26880

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ikeren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Karybu, I agree. False information is very dangerous, on any topic. Okay, perhaps this topic especially. I am not arguing that false information is bad. I am arguing that you can not discount the entire site because of its bias, in conjunction with an error or two. I'd say that Miz Scarlet and possibly LilBlueSmurf can discount it because they have enough prior knowledge and counter-statistics to prove every point wrong. I'd also say that Miz Scarlet can straight up tell us that it is wrong. However, with that exception, I would disagree with anyone elses capabilities, including my own, to diseminate truth from fiction on such a topic; especially when such (okay, rage is the wrong word? You'll give me anger?) when such anger is shown towards the bias. Not the information, but the bias. And because we are angry with the bias, we seek to disprove the information.

Equally, I won't discount public health information from the WHO either because they, likely, haven't updated their information in a while (but even that scares me. Maybe they haven't updated their information in other places too?). I read that article. You tell me it is right. I'd say you probably have enough exeprience to know such.

quote:
"They won't vouch for condoms in relation to anal sex. Or homosexuality. I wonder why?"

That was in specific reference to the article you linked from the WHO regarding condoms. I wondered why the article was extremely careful to say vaginal sex between heterosexual couples several times.

Okay, I'll use the word anger instead of rage. No need to argue semantics.

quote:
purposefully posting misinfmoration or misleading information, or omitting factual information purposefully to push a personal agenda is maddening, especially when doing so endangers the health of others.

So, in that case, you are equally...maddened...at the media coverage of the Iraq war?

My question is; are people angry because it is mis-information, or are they angry because it 1) Is a bias they disagree with strongly and 2) It is a subject they feel strongly about?

------------------
I am a 17 year old male practitioner of BDSMLNOPQRSTUV...
LeVay Satanism composes approximately 60% of my religious beliefs. I agree with approximately 60% of LeVay Satanism.
I am a sadist (60%) I am a masochist (40%)
I am bisexual, or bipermissive. (75% heterosexual, 25% homosexual).

I seek no conflict outside my bedroom walls.


Posts: 157 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
(That was Smurf's link, not mine. We're not actually interchangeable, though sometimes, it'd sure come in handy if we were!)

quote:
So, in that case, you are equally...maddened...at the media coverage of the Iraq war?

Umm, I have literally been marhcing against war since I was in utero in 1969. I've never stopped since. I drove to D.C. every weekend for months from Chicago to protest the FIRST Gulf War. (I also do not financially support mainstream media, nor do I support it: I don't even own a television.) So, that's a pretty silly question to ask me, particularly. Remember, any of the work any of us do here is but one aspect of our lives: I'm a very proactive and longstanding activist for many, many issues. Sexuality is but one.

quote:
My question is; are people angry because it is mis-information, or are they angry because it 1) Is a bias they disagree with strongly and 2) It is a subject they feel strongly about?

In a pro-choice community like this one, your most common answer is likely to be d) all of the above.

And some of why some of us will get angry is because some of us have been the target of some of this stuff, quite directly, or experienced some really horrific crap because of it, or have had people close to us who have. Over the years, I have privately counseled a score of women through traumas based on this kind of misinformation: Hepatitis B or Herpes via a spouse, when marriage was said to make sex safe. Choosing adoption, which ended up being insanely traumatic, and only choosing that because of misinformation they were given on abortion. Perhaps being the target of anti-choice violence and harassment, having a friend who was, or working security at a clinic and witnessing where this all tends to lead. Watching young women supported by these kinds of groups, being promised gobloads of support, so long as they stay pregnant, and then watching them dangle with no support when the net is dropped out from under them and they're teen parents, which the pro-life groups generally don't want to support or be seen supporting (and dig that irony, if you will). Feeling far more traumatized by abortion because of being inundated with this crudola spouted by people who often aren't even of the gender to know what it feels like to be pregnant in the first place. Having an aunt in your family you never got to meet because she died from a backalley abortion. The whole system of guilting women into making a choice that's about them, based on someone else's agenda: the whole system that keeps trying to claim ownership over an individual woman's body in the first place. And hey: if you're a sex educator, guess how much time you spend correcting this information? There's a pisser, especially when I pay my taxes, they go to abstinence-only initiatives, which I then have to correct the work of, through my orghanization which can't get any public funding because of the ab-only policies enacted since '96 in this country. Et cetera, et cetera. In a word, there's wuite a lot of ways and reasons to be pissed off about this stuff.

FYI? I would not discount anyone else's capabilites to distinguish fact from fiction with things like this as you would. Like I said earlier, with most of these sites, there are very easy giveaways to really HOW either uneducted or purposefully misleading these folks are. Calling AIDS a virus, and saying it can be transmitted at ALL, let alone through condoms. Talking about women's sexuality as if it were 1965, and no research had been done in the past forty years since. Dismissing the very real and very well-documented challenges with adoption, etc. Even someone entirely uneducated on these issues could spend but a few hours with a handful of reliable sources and separate fact from fiction and fact from opinion.

[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 01-08-2006).]


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikeren
Activist
Member # 26880

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Ikeren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I guess I just don't feel so strongly about this issue. I consider all misinformation equally bad.

And all right, I'll just discount my own ability. But I still think I see bandwagon and sheep mentality, and that scares me. Mayhap my eyes decieve me. That is most likely. I am just paranoid...

------------------
I am a 17 year old male practitioner of BDSMLNOPQRSTUV...
LeVay Satanism composes approximately 60% of my religious beliefs. I agree with approximately 60% of LeVay Satanism.
I am a sadist (60%) I am a masochist (40%)
I am bisexual, or bipermissive. (75% heterosexual, 25% homosexual).

I seek no conflict outside my bedroom walls.


Posts: 157 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
[quote[I guess I just don't feel so strongly about this issue. I consider all misinformation equally bad.[/quote]

...and yet, when one given piece of misinformation, or arena of it is brought to your attention, you may get specifically frustrated about it as the original poster and others in this thread did. I don't expect that every time you encounter misinformation on a given issue, the issue itself is totally irrelevant.

You just, as you've said, don't happen to feel as strongly on this one: people are different, have different priorities and different life experiences. You know the drill.

I also don't think there's too much to be scared of if a "following" mentality happens to be about following the urge to truly have accurate information disseminated, especially if that means no matter WHAT actually is accurate, even if it doesn't suit a given person's agenda. I didn't read anyone in this thread arguing about someone's right to an opinion, or even a stance for their own reproductive choices: rather, what was being objected to by the original poster and others was opinion being misrepresented as fact, and worse still, flights of fancy and outright ignorance being represented as fact for the sole purpose of trying to coerce another person into choices to fit one's own desires.

You're making assumptions about people: these posters too may also find all misinformation equally frustrating (and looking at who has posted here, I can say from being familiar with them that I know some of them do). They simply decided to discuss it this day as it occurred with a given instance. I also imagine that there ARE -- and you've, in fact made it clear that there are -- some issues closer to your heart and mind than others: same for the people posting here.


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle Ravel
Activist
Member # 21100

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Michelle Ravel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
<i>... you can not discount the entire site because of its bias, in conjunction with an error or two. </i>

Um, dude? That's exactly what we can do. If blatant errors and bias are not a good reason to write off a site, I don't know what is.


Posts: 51 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikeren
Activist
Member # 26880

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ikeren     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know. It seems that I am clearly wrong. But I am just questioning what is really bothering people; the misinformation or the sites bias? Because my guess is the misinformation but there are mixed in complaints about the opinion expressed in the site.

quote:
Um, dude? That's exactly what we can do. If blatant errors and bias are not a good reason to write off a site, I don't know what is.

Counter proofs of a better source such as the ones previous offered in this thread? And you say blatant errors and bias; I say an error or two and opinionated. Depending on how you slant your language, anything can appear true...which seems to be the idea behind this site, perhaps (besides a number of other common practices)? I am just, upon seeing lots of slant one way, trying to offer a different point of view, a different frame of thought, a different reference point.

I suppose I just didn't recognize how unwanted such a point of view is; I apologize.

------------------
I am a 17 year old male practitioner of BDSMLNOPQRSTUV...
LeVay Satanism composes approximately 60% of my religious beliefs. I agree with approximately 60% of LeVay Satanism.
I am a sadist (60%) I am a masochist (40%)
I am bisexual, or bipermissive. (75% heterosexual, 25% homosexual).

I seek no conflict outside my bedroom walls.


Posts: 157 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just for the record, I finally did look at the site.

There is NOT "an error or two." Every single page of that site is candy-coated with both covert and overt misinformation. (And no, I am not going to go through each and every line of it for anyone; I have actual work to do, and that would hold no benefit for anyone, especially myself. If you want to, all you gotta do is start cracking the books.)

Here's the thing, Ikeren: this is a thread the original poster started to talk about his frustration with the site, which is valid for him to have, and would be for anything full of misinformation. It's on a topic that involves human sexuality, so it's topical to talk about here. others are talking about their same frustration, and I'm not sure I see any reason to continue to question the validity of them having those feelings or this discussion.

if you don't want to engage in it yourself, you don't have to. But it's disruptive to a community discussion to basically keep cutting conversation off at the pass with repeated statements about why YOU aren't interested in participating, or why you don't think the discussion they're engaging in is valid. That'd be a big part of why you're meeting such resistance, and seeing people start to get frustrated: you're essentially disallowing them from discussing the initial topic.

I'd suggest at this point that if you want to have a discussion on why sexuality misinformation troubles people, you start a new thread on that topic. That'd be a fine topic for discussion, just not here: I don't really want to see discussions disrupted and people having to defend why they're having them in the first place here.


Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
daria319
Activist
Member # 19692

Icon 10 posted      Profile for daria319     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This site seems to imply that abortion legality is linked to abused children, in that legal abortions cause more child abuse. That's kind of crazy, and likely taken from some screwed statistics.

They're also taking a stab at Planned Parenthood -- last I checked, Planned Parenthood offered family planning services to ANYONE who walked in.

"It dispenses medically hazardous drugs (the pill) and devices (the I.U.D.), and Norplant without parental knowledge or consent. It is the largest provider of abortions in America, again, to teenagers without parental knowledge or consent. It aggressively promotes sex education that, rather than reducing promiscuity, premarital sex, illegitimate pregnancies, abortion, and venereal disease, has almost certainly had just the opposite effect. "

And they attack Margaret Sanger? What the heck is going on here?
"
But Margaret Sanger, its founder, opposed abortion.

Not so! Not only did she favor abortion, but she proposed forced sterilization for those whom she considered unfit to reproduce. She worked hard for a "race of thoroughbreds" until Hitler’s similar "Master Race" made that goal unpopular. She was a true eugenicist. For example, her April 1933 Birth Control Review, devoted an entire edition to eugenic sterilization.

Who did she consider unfit?

Black people, Jews, Southern European immigrants (especially Italians), but also others of "low I.Q." These "feebleminded" people were a "menace to the race." E. Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, CUL Publishers, 1980, Section 1, p. 18-24

This is hard to believe!

Margaret Sanger, the famous founder of Planned Parenthood, was supportive. She wanted "more children from the fit, less from the unfit." Birth Control Review, vol. 3, no. 5, May 1919, p. 2 "

And once again, they've got that load of bull about Partial Birth Abortion. I've spoken to several pathologists at hospitals in my state, and none have ever seen such a thing.(I was also told that it is policy at many GA hospitals that the products of abortion be submitted to the hospital's pathology lab for examination before it is destroyed.)
This site is acting like all abortions occur when the woman could just give birth and put the kid up for adoption, and she just suddenly decides "I don't feel like being pregnant anymore."


And the "survivors of abortion" thing -- her mother was well-past the cutoff date(7.5 months) -- it was not LEGAL for that procedure to happen. She mentions another "abortion survivor" -- a 2 year old. The statement is dated 1996. It is impossible -- if the law was followed(and I doubt such a glaring ignorance of the law would be so casually made public), the fetus would not be viable at the point of a legal abortion.

"The truth only came to this girl when she was eighteen years old, married, and approximately five months pregnant with her first child. This girl needed and soon obtained her mother's medical records from the hospital that had treated her. Imagine her utter shock as she read about how her mother tried to terminate her unborn child three times. As the young girl read the medical documents, the new life inside of her was stirring and kicking as if to say "Mommy please don't get any ideas.""


Oh, yeah, a fetus can read...

And can someone please tell me what is up with all this stuff on saline abortions?

[This message has been edited by daria319 (edited 01-09-2006).]


Posts: 407 | From: Georgia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HumanTornado
Activist
Member # 23519

Icon 10 posted      Profile for HumanTornado     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by daria319:

And they attack Margaret Sanger? What the heck is going on here?
"
But Margaret Sanger, its founder, opposed abortion.

Not so! Not only did she favor abortion, but she proposed forced sterilization for those whom she considered unfit to reproduce. She worked hard for a "race of thoroughbreds" until Hitler’s similar "Master Race" made that goal unpopular. She was a true eugenicist. For example, her April 1933 Birth Control Review, devoted an entire edition to eugenic sterilization.

Who did she consider unfit?

Black people, Jews, Southern European immigrants (especially Italians), but also others of "low I.Q." These "feebleminded" people were a "menace to the race." E. Drogin, Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, CUL Publishers, 1980, Section 1, p. 18-24

This is hard to believe!


This is actually true, though. We talked about her when we covered the Women's Movement in one of my Lit classes last semester and as it turns out, Sanger was, sadly, a very avid supporter of eugenics.


Posts: 51 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
daria319
Activist
Member # 19692

Icon 10 posted      Profile for daria319     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by HumanTornado:
This is actually true, though. We talked about her when we covered the Women's Movement in one of my Lit classes last semester and as it turns out, Sanger was, sadly, a very avid supporter of eugenics.


The validity of the statement doesn't bother me too much. The way they used the information is what I'm now getting hung up on. Just because Sanger had some off-the-wall ideas, the creator of the site thinks that is enough of a basis to completely discredit everything Planned Parenthood does.


Posts: 407 | From: Georgia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ghosty
Activist
Member # 17968

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Ghosty     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ikeren:

You are correct when you say that valuing information can be hard.

But take condoms for an example. It is very easy to test. You can take 1000 couples or more or less, and test the theory.
Also logic does tell us much.
Why do doctors use latex gloves ? What's the diffrence making an operation coming in contact with other people's blood and having sex with a condom on?

When it comes to abortion, fine by me, if you don't believe in it fine, just fine, and once again that's completely fine by me.

But when someone comes running around telling my friend that she is a killer, murderer, and wants to ban abortion, that's when I run out of patience.
If my friend want's to do an abortion, I'll support her, in every decision. However if she used it as a "protection method" frankly I would be very mad.
But people can choose. What's wrong with options?

I react when I see that other people's opionions, (transformed into action) directly hurt others!

Then again returning back to the facts about girls.
Why shouldn't they have sex ?
Where are we going to get the babies from ?

I have like a million of questions like those. What's wrong with a girl being sexually active ?
What's wrong with that a girl has more than one partners into her life ?
What's wrong with girls having sex a lot ?
Do they get hurt by it ?

I really really doubt so, because people rarely do things that hurt them. Heck people refuse to study after failing the exams, so why would they still wanna have sex if they are hurt ?

What bothers me is that they put up goals like "no sex until marriage", when children are 15-16. They can't even decide wether they should wear yellow socks today or tommorow. Howcome they can take such an decision ?
Even more, how can they know that they don't want to have sex until marriage ?
They can't, they have to feel for themselves, they have to change in opinion several times, and even changing opinion doesn't mean that they'll have sex the next day.

I know people can argue with this forever, wether it's right or wrong. And honestly I don't know what's right and what's wrong.
But I do know that wrong is, when you impose your believes on others and affecting them in such a way so that they suit you, and if they don't, you condem them. That's wrong!

Wrong is also, telling people that there is no other alternative that can be good, or even just as right!

Here is my defention about what can be true and what can't.

If it's too good to be true, it isn't true.
If there is only one choce, and only one fact that's true, well it isn't.
Someone who knows he has good facts, won't be so obsessed about putting them into your head. He will offer you it, and you choose wether you reject it or not.
Someone who tells the truth, can also explain what he bases the truth on, or how he got to those facts.

site abortionfacts.com is run by people who want to control others. They want to preach a moral not something that's true. (moral is subjective).
In order to achieve this, they have to lie, put wrong facts, lie, and trick.

The WHO doesn't get more or less money depending on how many people used or missused condoms.
However abortionfacts do, perhaps not income, but power. abortionfacts.com can't give me the source about any of the info. WHO can.
If I ask WHO I get an answer about the issue.
when I ask abortionfacts, they'll answer "this is the way it is" live with it.

That's the diffrence between sources and people who want to set the facts straight and people who want to set other people up.


Posts: 79 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
daria319
Activist
Member # 19692

Icon 10 posted      Profile for daria319     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ikeren:

The misinformation we speak of includes things we personally consider common knowledge. Therefore, counter-proofs are completely unncessary. Medical FACTS are not something to be debated. That's like debating whether or not the human heart pumps blood, or whether a goldfish swims. We've got the facts, we've SEEN them in action, and we know the difference between misinformation and opinion. abortionfacts.com is clearly a sludge of blatant misinformation, as well as opinion passed off as fact.

The "counter proofs" that you demand are contained within scarleteen.com -- just read a few articles. These are not globs of opinion. They are facts put into a real-life context. What more proof do you need?

[This message has been edited by daria319 (edited 01-12-2006).]


Posts: 407 | From: Georgia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
atheistvet
Neophyte
Member # 27176

Icon 10 posted      Profile for atheistvet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Margaret Sanger is no more responsible for the actions of ethical gynecologists & staff today ANY MORE SO than George Washington is repsonsible for George Bush clones.
Chopping down the apple tree is just a story just like stories of Margaret Sanger.
The principle of a woman's right to choose when & if she shall remain pregnant is no different than the illegality of "owning" a human for slaving in cotton fields as a beast of burden.
The love of a parent for a child is voluntary. Force negates such love. The duty lies in being competent in the care of children.
We should teach such competence just like we teach safer sex, the equality of free lovers to choose a partner & the primacy of a woman's body belonging to her.
If there is any truth to religion, it is for an alleged afterlife and not about forcing beliefs with government intrusions during this, the only life we do know.
Hell threats & heaven bribes do not make controlling women's bodies or crashing kamikazee style into buildings with aircraft.
Fertilizing human ova is not a perfect science. We evolve with some beneficial mutations & some very malignant.
Politicians who claim otherwise are promoting "intelligent design" as code words for preachers keep you dumb so we can rule for evil profits to the wealthy.
What ever happened to a sweet 16 kiss?
I love Walt Disney science films.
He was an American Atheist in life then, like me now. And MR Hemo was all about the metaphor of seawater to human blood.
Preachers & theocrats are not always scientists. Make love, not war.

------------------
Theocracy is Treason, keep laws off our bodies, make love, not war. Alleged deities are concepts of brainwashing for profits & crimes.


Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

  New Poll   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3