"contraception just encourages more abortion...overall pregnancy rate increases"

I don't believe this, I think your making things up. Please provide peer reviewed data to support this.

"I don't believe this, I think your making things up. Please provide peer reviewed data to support this."

Of course you don't believe it. You would have to change you mind if it were true, and we don't want that, do we?

Why does straightforward logic need a direct reference? It is simple maths!

(Number of people having sex) x (failure rate of contraception) = abortion business.

Increase the former especially and you increase abortion. This is not rocket science.

On the contrary, it is you that needs to explain why those who run abortion businesses would not be motivated to see as many 'unwanted' pregnancies as possible. Because that makes no business sense at all.

But those who used to run the businesses or work there have blown the whistle. Is that not enough? Lookup Abby Johnson, or Carol Everett.

But fwiw you can read this:
"The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual intercourse as though it had little natural connection with babies; it thinks of babies as an "accident" of pregnancy, as an unwelcome intrusion into a sexual relationship, as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness — no room for — the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possible until fairly reliable contraceptives were available. Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage."
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

and this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-links-contraception-hike-with-increased-abortions
...which you will note includes citations from pro-abortion people.

and if you only read one link, read this:
http://www.stgermaines.org/index.php/be-informed/interview-with-former-abortion-clinic-owner

I don't think you have even the tiniest argument.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

Apology? German Christians have admitted Christian guilt.

From the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary website:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel1.htm

…Considering the atrocities committed against the Jews in the name of Christ throughout much of Christianity's 2000-year history, how can we celebrate the millennium without first expressing our deep sorrow over the past in a spirit of repentance? By our unchristian attitude and behaviour we have brought shame upon the name of Jesus, making it offensive to His own people, the Jews … And so today it is our prayer that Christians all over the world will be inspired to commemorate the millennium with a service of repentance in a spirit of unity, acknowledging our common Christian heritage.

Drawn from Christian and Jewish historical sources in English and German, the following is a brief résumé of the horrific history of Christianity's dealings with the Jews -- dealings which paved the way for the Holocaust.

Sister Pista
Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, Darmstadt / Germany
(an international and interdenominational Christian fellowship)

Go to the site and read the history.

From Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

Hitler wrote ‘Lord’s Work.’ I didn’t claim Hitler used the other terms you mentioned.

Most German churches supported Hitler. The Nazis printed Martin Luther’s Jew-hating diatribes in their newspapers. The German churches supplied chaplains for the Nazi armies. The Vatican signed a concordat with Germany after Hitler came to power.

Few Christians opposed the Nazis. Pastor Niemoller and Franz Jaegerstatter of Austria were two who did. The Nazis did not want to condemn Jaegerstatter since he belonged to no organisation except the Catholic church and was an Aryan. However, he refused to cooperate in any way and was beheaded. Most Christians cooperated. Some enthusiastically.

Read George Mosse’s “The Crisis of German Ideology.” Most German Christians followed Hitler because he embodied their feelings at that time.

Dear Stephan,

It’s ethical and moral for a woman in most cases to have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

Dear David,

Then you have no problem with the strong imposing their 'morals' and 'ethics' on the weak, even to the point of killing them. That is a failure to uphold basic human rights without qualification. That is not progress or civilisation, that is barbarism, the law of the jungle.

It is absurd for someone who holds to your backward views on abortion and human rights to think they have any credibility to criticise any other belief system.

>>No-one has the right to take some-one else's life.<<

Bullsh!t. Soldiers have the right to take people's life. Hangmen have the right to take people's life and so does the bloke who gives the lethal injection. I think you and I and David and everybody else has the right to take someone else's life in self-defence but don't take that as legal advice. Police officers have the right to take people's life.

There are many situations where society grants certain people the conditional right to kill. You probably support some of them. I know I do.

Cheers,

Tony

I’d be interested to know how anti-abortionists suggest we police a ban on abortion. No-one likes the idea of abortion but the deprivation of liberty that would be necessary to stop women having abortions would have much more far-reaching consequences than allowing abortion. Or is it just that anti-abortionists don’t want the state sanctioning abortion and don’t really care at all about the dangers women face with backyard abortions?

Minimising abortions (through education) should always be a goal, but making them illegal would be draconian and only result in more misery with unwanted children born to resentful parents.

Stephan wrote: "(Number of people having sex) x (failure rate of contraception) = abortion business."

Erm… no. It’s more like:

[Incidences of coitus] - ([Incidences of coitus] x [success rate of contraception]) < [Incidences of coitus] - ([success rate of contraception] x 0).

Your assumption - that contraception radically increases the amount of sex being had - is unfounded. Children who are taught abstinence alone are less likely to use contraceptives when they have sex, and studies have shown that virginity pledges merely postpone intercourse by an average of 18 months. Meanwhile, these teens are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex.

The teaching of abstinence has proven itself time-and-time again to be a total failure. The United States (where 30% of sex-education programs teach abstinence only) has higher rates of abortion and teen pregnancy than any other developed nation (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf), and the more religious a state is in the US, the more this is so (http://www.explonential.com/the-stats-religion-vs-iq-crime-poverty).

But that shouldn’t be a problem in such a Christian nation where, according to the theology, teen pregnancy and abortion are good things since create they souls and send them straight to heaven, without the possibility of being sent to hell for leading a “sinful” life or exercising their scepticism.